>>18325923
France was equally dumb for neglecting to fortify the north desu

>>18325944
Belgium wouldn't let them.

>>18325923
It almost worked though.

>>18325944
Germany hit them just as they launched disastrous offensives into Alsace Lorraine. If Germany had focused on more realistic goals of seizing the entirety of France’s North Eastern Industrial Zone via the race to the sea instead of trying at Marne, their position in the Western Front would have been much stronger.

a big problem everyone ran into in the 1914 offensives was ammo shortages since nobody was prepared for the amount of ammo that machine guns and breech-loading artillery would consume

>>18325923
Ironically, it failed because the left wing of the German attack (Bavarians) advanced too fast through France, as it had to cover less ground than the other 2 armies. So when the counteroffensive at the Marne happened, they all were discordinated.

>>18326308
Same deal happened right now in Ukraine back in 2022.
The Wehrmacht also almost ran out of ammo in the Poland campaign '39.

>>18325944
why would belgium cooperate with france if France's plan was to let germany conquer the entire thing and run into french fortifications on the border

>>18326308
Horse and musket armies generally carried all their ammo with them in wagon trains but automatic weapons and breech loading artillery were a whole new challenge as far as logistics.

>>18325923
It looks retarded in hindsight but if you were alive for Sedan and Koniggratz you wouldn’t think twice.

>>18326461
the Franco-Prussian War was a near-run thing and ultimately bad because it gave Germans considerable delusions about their martial prowess

>>18326476
The danish, austrian, and french wars definitely implanted a long-lived myth in the prussian military establishment that most wars would be quick and decided even quicker, an impression that led them to disaster in both world wars.

>>18325946
how the **** could belgium prevent them from fortifying french territory near belgium border.

File: german_advance-may-1940.jpg (29.4 KB)

29.4 KB JPG

>>18325923
totally possible, you just need METH

>>18326526
Diplomatically. It would be seen as France using Belgium as the battlefield, therefore in case of war the Belgians would just let the Germans through to prevent the destruction of their country , possibly even ally with the Germans.

Belgian neutrality, established by the
1839 Treaty of London, was a, guaranteed status designed to act as a buffer between European powers.
After the Great War, Belgium formed an alliance with France. But in 1936, France did nothing to enforce the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles to keep the Rhineland demilitarized,so Belgium stepped out of the alliance and once again declared strict neutrality.

To no avail of course

>>18326543
but same argument was used later when france DIDN'T build/finish maginot line around belgium.
>not building defenses le bad
>building defenses le bad
maybe belgians are just retarded.
how perfidous of the eternal anglo.

>>18326476
>>18326486
>>18326461
>coping over Prussian victory
What this got do with 1905 schlieffen plan?

>>18326551
>Belgian neutrality, established by the
1839 Treaty of London
What about Greece neutrality in 1915-1917?

>>18326625
Greece is a little bit out of the way when it comes to Franco-German conflicts. Belgian neutrality was the cornerstone of post-napoleon peace which is why Britain was contractually obliged to declare war on Germany,leading to the war being extended, and Germanys surrender

>>18325923
it literally almost worked

Moltke sabotaged the offensive wing
British forces are comically overstated in the narrative, they were at most 5% of the defending force

File: Mons-2.jpg (47 KB)

47 KB JPG

>>18326664
Yes, the 5% that wasnt in full retreat

>>18326650
>Belgian neutrality was the cornerstone of post-napoleon peace
Which is why Belgium was created in 1814 and there never was a Franco-German war until 1914, oh wait