Editing Schlieffen Plan (section)

===Moltke the Younger===
[[File:Generalleutnant von Moltke, der neue Chef des Generalstabs, 1906 (cropped).jpg|thumb|{{center|{{lang|de|Generalleutnant}} Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, Chief of the General Staff, 1906–1914}}]]
[[Helmuth von Moltke the Younger]] took over from Schlieffen as Chief of the German General Staff on 1 January 1906, beset with doubts about the possibility of a German victory in a great European war. French knowledge about German intentions might prompt them to retreat to evade an envelopment that could lead to {{lang|de|Ermattungskrieg}}, a war of exhaustion and leave Germany exhausted, even if it did eventually win. A report on hypothetical French [[riposte]]s against an invasion, concluded that since the French army was six times larger than in 1870, the survivors from a defeat on the frontier could make counter-outflanking moves from [[Paris]] and [[Lyon]] against a pursuit by the German armies. Despite his doubts, Moltke retained the concept of a big enveloping manoeuvre, because of changes in the international balance of power. The Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese War (1904–1905) weakened the Russian army and the Tsarist state and made an offensive strategy against France more realistic for a time.{{sfn|Foley|2007|pp=72–76}}

By 1910, Russian rearmament, army reforms and reorganisation, including the creation of a strategic reserve, made the army more formidable than before 1905. Railway building in [[Congress Poland]] reduced the time needed for mobilisation and a "war preparation period" was introduced by the Russians, to provide for mobilisation to begin with a secret order, reducing mobilisation time further.{{sfn|Foley|2007|pp=72–76}} The Russian reforms cut mobilisation time by half compared with 1906 and French loans were spent on railway building; German military intelligence thought that a programme due to begin in 1912 would lead to {{cvt|10000|km|order=flip}} of new track by 1922. Modern, mobile artillery, a [[purge]] of older, inefficient officers and a revision of the army regulations, had improved the tactical capability of the Russian army and railway building would make it more strategically flexible, by keeping back troops from border districts, to make the army less vulnerable to a surprise-attack, moving men faster and with reinforcements available from the strategic reserve. The new possibilities enabled the Russians to increase the number of deployment plans, further adding to the difficulty of Germany achieving a swift victory in an eastern campaign. The likelihood of a long and indecisive war against Russia, made a quick success against France more important, so as to have the troops available for an eastern deployment.{{sfn|Foley|2007|pp=72–76}}

Moltke the Younger made substantial changes to the offensive concept sketched by Schlieffen in the memorandum ''War against France'' of 1905–06. The [[6th Army (German Empire)|6th]] and [[7th Army (German Empire)|7th Armies]] with [[VIII Corps (German Empire)|VIII Corps]] were to assemble along the common border, to defend against a French invasion of Alsace-Lorraine. Moltke also altered the course of an advance by the armies on the right (northern) wing, to avoid the Netherlands, retaining the country as a useful route for imports and exports and denying it to the British as a base of operations. Advancing only through Belgium, meant that the German armies would lose the railway lines around [[Maastricht]] and have to squeeze the {{nowrap|600,000 men}} of the [[1st Army (German Empire)|1st]] and [[2nd Army (German Empire)|2nd Armies]] through a gap {{cvt|12|mi}} wide, which made it vital that the Belgian railways were captured quickly and intact. In 1908, the General Staff devised a plan to take the [[Fortified Position of Liège]] and its railway junction by [[coup de main]] on the 11th day of mobilisation. Later changes reduced the time allowed to the fifth day, which meant that the attacking forces would need to get moving only hours after the mobilisation order had been given.{{sfn|Foley|2007|pp=77–78}}