"Schlieffen plan" sources

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

"Schlieffen plan" sources

#1

Post by Attrition » 01 Jul 2014, 20:28

I don't suppose anyone has the book versions of the sources used here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlieffen_Plan and can look up the page references could they? It would be much appreciated even unto half my kingdom, well, half a pint anyway. ;O)

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#2

Post by Attrition » 19 Jul 2014, 13:06

Sorted courtesy of a kind reader.


woneil
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Jun 2006, 04:40
Location: Near Washington, DC

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#3

Post by woneil » 20 Jul 2014, 04:42

Be very careful; the Wikipedia entry on the Schlieffen Plan is very far from their best. I recommend comparing with my page on the plan at http://williamdoneil.com/Schlieffen-Plan/.
William D. O'Neil
The Plan That Broke the World
http://whatweretheythinking.williamdone ... /Index.htm

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#4

Post by Attrition » 20 Jul 2014, 10:20

Have you seen the recent amendments?

woneil
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 07 Jun 2006, 04:40
Location: Near Washington, DC

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#5

Post by woneil » 20 Jul 2014, 20:21

You're right; it's a very big improvement that I hadn't seen. Still goes well beyond the evidence regarding intentions and motivations, however — but that's really the doing of Holmes and Zuber rather than the Wikipedia editor.

I'm wondering how long it will take for the forces of darkness to scramble it all back up.
William D. O'Neil
The Plan That Broke the World
http://whatweretheythinking.williamdone ... /Index.htm

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#6

Post by Terry Duncan » 20 Jul 2014, 22:11

I dont think the present article is too bad really considering where it is, I have seen a few far worse descriptions in the past. As you say, it is likely to see unfortunate editing as is so common to the topics that have many 'experts' just waiting to display their knowledge (or lack of).

Given the tone of the last section of the article, what do people think of the offering from Zuber in 'The Real German War Plan' where he suggests the intention was to advance a certain distance, hold land and inflict severe losses if possible, then swap troops east in time to face the slightly later Russian offensives, and once that is defeated, return troops west for a second attack in France? What German actions in 1914 arose from opportunism stemming from better than expected results in the initial engagements?

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#7

Post by Attrition » 20 Jul 2014, 22:55

The recent amendments fit my gut feelings far better than the earlier incarnations and reflect some primary sources.

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#8

Post by ljadw » 21 Jul 2014, 05:46

Terry Duncan wrote:
Given the tone of the last section of the article, what do people think of the offering from Zuber in 'The Real German War Plan' where he suggests the intention was to advance a certain distance, hold land and inflict severe losses if possible, then swap troops east in time to face the slightly later Russian offensives, and once that is defeated, return troops west for a second attack in France? What German actions in 1914 arose from opportunism stemming from better than expected results in the initial engagements?
This suggestion by Zuber (going west,than going east and finally returning west) is suspicious nonsense.

User avatar
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4006
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#9

Post by Attrition » 21 Jul 2014, 08:00

Is that why Falkenhayn established the 11th Army for an offensive along the Somme in 1915?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#10

Post by ljadw » 21 Jul 2014, 09:37

And your point is ?

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#11

Post by Terry Duncan » 21 Jul 2014, 15:55

ljadw wrote:
Terry Duncan wrote:
Given the tone of the last section of the article, what do people think of the offering from Zuber in 'The Real German War Plan' where he suggests the intention was to advance a certain distance, hold land and inflict severe losses if possible, then swap troops east in time to face the slightly later Russian offensives, and once that is defeated, return troops west for a second attack in France? What German actions in 1914 arose from opportunism stemming from better than expected results in the initial engagements?
This suggestion by Zuber (going west,than going east and finally returning west) is suspicious nonsense.
Why? It makes at least as much sense as launching a major attack with only 70% of the men you think you need to make it work with any degree of certainty. Zuber may well not be right, but he is not the only one to reach the conclusion that the idea of the Schlieffen Plan as accepted for decades is wrong.

What evidence do you have that his ideas are wrong, and what do you think was being attempted?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#12

Post by ljadw » 21 Jul 2014, 16:30

1)It is totally irrelevant what Schlieffen was planning,the only thing relevant is what Moltke was doing in 1914.

2) What Moltke was doing was the only thing that had an( infinitisimal )chance to succeed :going west with 69 ID and 10 CD,defeat the French and than going east,hoping that meanwhile the Russians would give up .


3) What Zuber is suggesting that Schlieffen was planning is nonsense and suicidal: only a stupid one would do such thing,and,as Schlieffen was not stupid,Zuber is wrong :

What Zuber is suggesting (meaning that he has no facts,thus no proofs) is that the Germans would go west with 1.5 million men,inflict heavy losses to the French (which means : they would NOT defeat the French),go to the east (with how many men ?) ,defeat the Russians (how? ) and then return to the west to finish the job . :P


a)It would be more than stupid not to eliminate the French

b) it would be logistically impossible :the German railways could not in a few months transport 1.5 million men to the west,than transport them to the east,and finally go back to the west: there would be no jojo effect


c) when the Westheer would arrive at the east,it would be impossible to eliminate the Russians in a short campaign: it would take years

d)when the Westheer would return in France in november,it would be faced by a much stronger French army,reinforced by the BEF

e) who would meanwhile (october) stop the French ?


Conclusion : the defensive proposal from SChlieffen (well,what Zuber is saying) =a sortie from a besieged fortress,followed by the return to a save harbour,is suicidal,because it would mean a war on 2 fronts,something Germany never could win .

User avatar
Terry Duncan
Forum Staff
Posts: 6270
Joined: 13 Jun 2008, 23:54
Location: Kent

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#13

Post by Terry Duncan » 22 Jul 2014, 04:25

ljadw wrote:1)It is totally irrelevant what Schlieffen was planning,the only thing relevant is what Moltke was doing in 1914.

2) What Moltke was doing was the only thing that had an( infinitisimal )chance to succeed :going west with 69 ID and 10 CD,defeat the French and than going east,hoping that meanwhile the Russians would give up .
Moltke seems to have been following the strategic plan the Germans had preferred since the 1890's, the name Schlieffen is most often associated with it, though it could have any number of names they would just serve to confuse the issue really. Waldersee was the man responsible for the decision to move over to an offensive war plan (possibly directed at France but he was in office so little time it is hard to see what he would have opted for overall, Schlieffen brought in the invasion of the Low Countries with a weighted right wing but lacked the troops to fight even a one front war to a successful conclusion if his own final memo is to be accepted, Moltke actually brought the army up to strength and came up with a way to avoid invading The Netherlands but still followed the outline of the plans Schlieffen had begun as far as we know. Modern scholars seem to prefer the Schlieffen/Moltke Plan. What would you prefer we used?

Given your claim that Germany alone started the war, and much of that rests on the role played by the army, you are suggesting that the entire GGS decided upon war where they had only 70% of the men they needed to make it work? That would be a really poor call for an organisation looking for war, sooner rather than later, especially as Germany did have the ability to call up more men to enlarge the army.
ljadw wrote:3) What Zuber is suggesting that Schlieffen was planning is nonsense and suicidal: only a stupid one would do such thing,and,as Schlieffen was not stupid,Zuber is wrong :

What Zuber is suggesting (meaning that he has no facts,thus no proofs) is that the Germans would go west with 1.5 million men,inflict heavy losses to the French (which means : they would NOT defeat the French),go to the east (with how many men ?) ,defeat the Russians (how? ) and then return to the west to finish the job . :P
Then you are effectively saying Schlieffen was both lazy and stupid, as he was in charge of the GGS for over 15 years and only managed to produce a plan he never attempted to get the troops to implement, and enshrined a doctrine into the German army that ensured they entered any war under the worst possible circumstances. Germany has only about 52% of the troops it needs to stand a chance of winning a single front war against France (remember Schlieffen's plan did not work too well in about 50% of the wargaming the staff tried, and that with the enlarged army he did not have) so presumably far less of a chance in the two front war most likely. Those are plans of effective insanity, not of an infinitesimal chance of winning, nations tend not to keep officers who fail to plan for the army they command and expect to enter war with 'ghost' divisions, preferring the officers who plan for the army they command realistically. Anyone can be a good general, if they can simply inflate the size of their army instantly at will.
ljadw wrote:Conclusion : the defensive proposal from SChlieffen (well,what Zuber is saying) =a sortie from a besieged fortress,followed by the return to a save harbour,is suicidal,because it would mean a war on 2 fronts,something Germany never could win .
Zuber seems to have hit upon the problem others have seen, that Germany did not have the men to make the planning work, but as he is very fond of Schlieffen he has looked for possible ways this could be solved. Germany does not have the men or position to win a long two front war, and lacks the manpower to win a short war too, something fairly obvious if you try to game out the opening phase of the war, as unless the French act like complete idiots and refuse to notice the right wing trying to surround them, then they will transfer troops to their left flank and the long war is ensured. He may well be clutching at straws with how he envisions Schlieffen conducting a war, but if as you say, Schlieffen was not stupid, then what was he planning? Sixteen years of planning presumably arrived at some conclusion as to how to conduct a war with something at least viable?

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#14

Post by ljadw » 22 Jul 2014, 08:01

Zuber is dishonest : he claims that the Schlieffenplan never was the German war plan ,somehing which is irrelevant,because the German war plan was the plan which was used in 1914 and it is also irrelevant to discuss if this plan should be given the name Schlieffen-or Moltkeplan .

Why is he dishonest ? He is picking up a plan of Schlieffen for a defensive war (sortie from a besieged fortress) IF Russia and France attacked Germany and concludes that as Germany had no plan for an offensive war,it was not guilty of an aggressive war .But,this hypothesis(attack by France and Russia) never occurred . :roll:

I agree with the majority of the historians that when Schlieffen was chief of staff, Germany had already a plan for an offensive war,which later was corrected,improved and completed by his successor Moltke .That Schlieffen had also plans for other eventualities is irrelevant,so had Moltke,so had Britain,France,etc;after 1919,US had also plans for war with Britain..

There was continuity between Schlieffen and Moltke,because there was continuity in the German foreign policy ,there was no breaking point.

If we would follow Zuber,than Germany was peace loving at the time of Schlieffen and warlike when Moltke was chief of staff . :P

ljadw
Member
Posts: 15589
Joined: 13 Jul 2009, 18:50

Re: "Schlieffen plan" sources

#15

Post by ljadw » 22 Jul 2014, 08:14

About the question that Germany had not the men to make the planning work (dixit Zuber): this is a faux problème:when the US military made plans for a war with Britain,US also had not the men to make the planning work :the military are making plans,it is on the politicians to give the military the means to execute the plans .

What happened is that the German public refused to make the sacrifices which were needed to transform its dreams (domination of Europe) into reality ,something which is not unusual ,and that notwithstanding,the German ruling classes still decided to start a war to make the dreams reality,although in their hearts,they knew that the means necessary for victory were lacking,something which also is not unusual .

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”