I asked historical researcher Jim Macgregor, the co-author of Hidden History, which is about the true causes of World War 1, an interesting question:
Germany was stuck in a situation where both France and Russia were mobilized on her east and west borders. What if they attacked simultaneously? It could have been too much to deal with. Germany could have been overwhelmed and quickly crushed. So, Germany decided that if she quickly moved on France, that she could take Paris within short weeks and then be able to withstand whatever the Russians had to deliver. But what if instead, the Kaiser had just mobilized on both sides of the country and waited for one side or the other to make the first move? What if he simply refused to take the first shot, even though militarily that seemed disastrous? That's the question I posed to Jim, and here is his response:
What if, indeed. Counter-factuals can be quite fascinating, Ralph. If the German army hadn't gone through Belgium, what excuse would Britain have had? As you say, they would surely have invented one. Germany long knew that she was extremely vulnerable East and West hence the Schlieffen
Plan to concentrate most of her forces in the West, attempt to take Paris within 8 weeks then double-back East to tackle the Russian army. What if Bismarck hadn't let the Russo-German treaty lapse? What, as you ask, would have happened if the Kaiser had just waited? What would the
world be like today if those mad bankers and their puppets had been rounded up and shot. 50 or 60 bullets might have spared us WW1, the Bolshevik Revolution, WW2 and all the madness that followed.