I have a question for all you WWI experts out there. Been reading a lot about the Great War after playing Battlefield I, visiting the National WWI Museum in Kansas City, and listening to Dan Carlin’s Blueprint for Armageddon. My question is:
What was Von Moltke and later Ludendorff’s rationale on sticking to the Schlieffen plan and that “the war could be won in France” with a decisive punch, specially after Great Britain’s entry into the war and the fiasco of the race to the sea and trench warfare? Why didn’t they set up minimal defenses in the West and knock Russia out earlier? Or did they try and I’m missing something? Did they not know GB was allied with Belgium and how that would turn out? I would have taken out Russia’s vastly underprepared and less technologically advanced army first and then dealt with the French. Thoughts?
TL/DR: Why Schlieffen plan even after bogged down in the West?
Both Germany and Britain were signatories to the pact which ensured Belgian neutrality (treaty of London 1839) which Germany later revoked so Germany was aware of the mutual defense agreement.
It is important to remember that Russia had the largest standing army and also the largest airforce going into the conflict, although it was rotten to the core, Russia is also huge so naturally it would've been hard to knock them out easily. As for the Western Front the whole 'minimal defense' idea you talk about was utilised later with the construction of the Hindenburg Line but it is also important to remember that France and Britain were able to bring huge amounts of forces to bear (in 1914, France more so) so the whole idea of a 'minimal defense' is practically unfeasible due to the sheer size of the French and British armies. If you need me to clarify just tell me, I'll also provide sources.
In more than a few parts it was the perception of Russian weakness that created the plan. After the Russo-Japanese war and the revolution of 1905, some planners had a feeling that Russia was not a threat for the immediate future, and that - therefore - it would be possible to concentrate on France, and perhaps knock it out in one blow.
Whatever one might say about different plans, it seems to be right, that Russia was not an immediate threat. Germany deployed the bulk of its army on the western front and still managed to defend in the east.
For a deeper discussion - things that play into the thinking of planners are, perceived situation for the nation, and general culture for the armed forces in question.
As to whether they knew about what the UK would do, or not, it is not so easy to answer. On the surface, and objectively, it is possible that they did, and that they thought the plan would lead to victory anyhow. It is also possible that - social beings that we are - they went ahead with something that some felt was very stupid. Compare here with Japan and WWII. Were Japan had been successful earlier in the 20th century, against a far greater economy, Russia, but were more than a few understood that the western world could not be defeated, if it decided to fight the war to the end.
For an even deeper understanding, one has to read the different memoirs, which I have not done. It should be mentioned that translated memoirs might skip interesting parts and show a false picture of what a person really did. The writer in question might of course also write a story that is actually not true to how it was when it happened.