I'm operating from the belief that Germany's attack on France in WWI was motivated by a desire to prempt an expected French attack due to French military buildup. What if instead Germany had entrenched the frontier and preparred for protracted trench warefare?

My understanding is that at this point France had perhaps the most technologically advanced military in the world--especially the French artillery. On top of that they had a longstanding hatred of Germany due to the humiliating defeat during the Franco Prussian war.

1) Would France have attacked?

2) Whether or not they would have attacked, if they had, what would have been the outcome?

1.) i wouldn't think so but i'm likely wrong

2.) it's too hard to say. if germany only positioned themselves on the frontier, the french would have the time to get things right and organise their forces to the best of their ability. after all, if your enemy's waiting for you, why attack in haste? let your enemy wait while you ensure your confidence and utility to do battle.

 

also... france may have had the technical advantage, but germany was obviously no pushover. and britains role would be undetermined [but that's besides the question].

I'm operating from the belief that Germany's attack on France in WWI was motivated by a desire to preempt an expected French attack due to French military buildup. What if instead Germany had entrenched the frontier and prepared for protracted trench warefare?

1. That requires a prescience that NOBODY at the time had.
2.  That requires the Germans to surrender the initiative which went against their experience and their doctrine.
3. The terrain doesn't favor it as a logistics exercise as the Rhine splits the defense as well as splits the raol lines serving the armies into two unequal vulnerable and incapableof supporting each other halves. This is a chief reason why the Germans failed in the West twice.
4.  It leaves the Germans vulnerable to a Belgian or Dutch flank exploit in reverse.

My understanding is that at this point France had perhaps the most technologically advanced military in the world--especially the French artillery. On top of that they had a longstanding hatred of Germany due to the humiliating defeat during the Franco Prussian war.

1. The German artillery was better for the conditions they actually expected; they supplied heavy howitzers which was to attack some but not many forts. Their mistake was not notr railroad mounting same and building enough of it initially.
2. French rifles and machine guns were awful.
3. Parity in mortars and grenades.

1) Would France have attacked? With idiots like Mangun and Neville in charge? yes they would attack.

2) Whether or not they would have attacked, if they had, what would have been the outcome? French defeat, guaranteed.

Some theories hold that invasion of Belgium was necessitated by German mobilization. Once the Germans mobilized, moving into position against France meant taking up positions inside Belgium (see the famous "Railroad Theory"). Howver, if they were not to advance into France but take the Low Countries and sit on a heavily defended border, I agree with the others that France would attack and would suffer bloody repulse after bloody repulse as superior German infantry tactics would win the day.

 

It would be a difficult bet whether or not the politics would change significantly. Would the UK commit as much to the war since France was not being attacked? Would the US throw in its lot with the allies? These questions are very hard to answer.... and they are the determining factors.

What is interesting to me is that under Bismark the strategy was always to wait and let the enemy attack, thus allowing Germany to maintain the moral high ground in international politics and making it less likely that a politically unified alliance would form against them.