What if the Germans never activated the scheifflen plan?

The scheifflen plan was one of the biggest screw ups in the central German command during WW1, so no matter what this would make the outcome of the war very different.

Battlefield-wise, not much would change. Machine guns would still be used, trenches will be built, except now its in the Alsace Lorraine Region, without anything near the french-Belgian border. Eastern Front wouldn't change much either, as a two front war will still occur (it wasn't supposed to with the scheifflen plan but as we all know it was wrong).

It might actually change the outcome of the war though. The only reason Britain joined the war was because of their promise to protect Belgium in 1839. If Belgium is not invaded, Britain would not have an excuse to go to war. Granted, many of the people in charge were fearful of Germany (Why else would they go to war over a treaty from 70 years ago), but it might mean their entry is delayed similar to the USA or maybe they don't want to get involved at all, which would mean Germany would win.

Gnat_Bacon wrote:The scheifflen plan was one of the biggest screw ups in the central German command during WW1, so no matter what this would make the outcome of the war very different.

It was also pretty successful in wedging the Germans into France. No matter how you look at it, there was going to be a massive conflict once Austria-Hungary and Serbia started trading blows, so I don't think the Schlieffen Plan would change much except the front line in the West.

The reason the Germans formulated the Schlieffen Plan in the first place is that they knew they had no way to win a two-front war. Most likely, if the Germans had been smart enough not to attempt to execute such a plan, they would also have been smart enough not to enter the war in the first place, or at least to wait until diplomatic conditions were more favorable. After all, the only reason Germany declared war on Russia so hastily was because they knew that they had to act quickly (i.e. before Russia had time to mobilize) because any hesitation with the expectation of prior provocation by Russia would defeat the purpose of their surprise attack strategy. Therefore, the smartest thing the Germans could do is to recognize that a hair-trigger stance wasn't going to help them and that the only way to survive WWI was to let Austria and Russia battle it out in the Balkans and let the conflict remain a regional one.

The outcome of all this is that Russia would crush Austria (just as they did in our timeline), a strong Yugoslav state would be erected, and the diplomatic rift between Germany and Austria would deepen. The war would be over quickly and the wave of revolutions which swept across Europe from 1917 to 1919 would never have started; the old imperial order of Europe would remain in place. Germany, Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire would retain their autocratic monarchies. Great Britain and France wouldn't have gotten the colonial boost in the Middle East and North Africa that they got in our timeline, and the United Sates would never have become a global superpower.

The world would probably move toward decolonization, self-determination, and democracy as they did in our timeline, but it would be a much more prolonged process without the catalyst provided by the World Wars. Overall, the world would be in a much less developed state, culturally, technologically, and politically, than we see in our timeline. By 2017, we'd probably be at around a 1950's state of development.

If Germany didn't have the Schlieffen Plan, then Britain never would have entered World War I. This means no blockade and Germany does not have a food problem. France would be doomed.