"Schlieffen plan" sources

[Terry Duncan]

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 .

The military in that case were not pressing the government to put their (very underworked on compared to the other plans of the time) plan into action 'the sooner the better' or 'whilst we still have a chance of winning'. Maybe you would like to cite British, French, Russia, or even Austrian war plans where they allowed for an army 50% larger than existed or had a chance of existing? Picking up on this as a problem when studying the German plans is not restricted to Zuber.

What happened is that the German public refused to make the sacrifices which were needed to transform its dreams (domination of Europe) into reality

As the German people, and in this case even the government, were not asked for increases until 1912/13 when they approved them, it would be interesting to see where this refusal you cite took place?

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 .

I doubt you will find many people today who agree with this line of thought.

[ljadw]

The fact remains that in 1914,Germany started enthusiastically a war of aggression,while in the period before the war,it was only calling up some 70 % of its available manpower (following a lot of historians ,it called up much less than 70 %).The reason was that the taxpayer agreed to the slogan " take up the German burden",but refused to draw the consequences :the elections of 1912 were a catastrophe for the ruling classes.An additional reason was that to increase the military budget would require an adaptation of the constitution.

Whatever, on 3 august,the Westheer had no substantial numerical majority,and if the war would last, Germany would be faced by an allied numerical majority.

[ljadw]

[quote="Terry Duncan"

The military in that case were not pressing the government to put their (very underworked on compared to the other plans of the time) plan into action 'the sooner the better' or 'whilst we still have a chance of winning'. Maybe you would like to cite British, French, Russia, or even Austrian war plans where they allowed for an army 50% larger than existed or had a chance of existing? Picking up on this as a problem when studying the German plans is not restricted to Zuber.

[/quote]

You are falling in the trap of Zuber who tries to innocent Germany by claiming that it had no offensive warplans (an obvious tric of the fanbois): every one had defensive and offensive warplans before the war,as such,the existence of the Schlieffen plan does not prove that Germany had evil intentions .These evil intentions are proved by the German foreign policy which consisted into trying to provoke a war .

Zuber is claiming

a)that in 1905 Germany had no offensive plan

b) that in 1914 Germany was using a defensive plan

c) that Germany was thus not responsible for the outbreak of WWI(on P 302 of "inventing the Schlieffen plan:German War Planning 1871-1914" he writes that his conclusions require a reevaluation of Germany's guilt for the war .

He is wrong on all points .

The Schlieffen plan was not determining the German foreign policy,the Schlieffen plan was constructed in function of Germany's foreign policy .

[Tanzania]

ljadw wrote:
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 .

Terry Duncan wrote:
I doubt you will find many people today who agree with this line of thought.

I take a slightly different VIEW and just posing the provocative question:
What would be the `reality´ (situation) if the Central Powers would have won the First World War?
The history could prove, the Entente cordiale would be only guilty for that catastrophe of the century!
And: - ". . . I doubt I will find many people today who agree with this line of thought!"

”Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. . . All History was a palimpsest,
scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. . .” GEORG ORWELL 1984

[Terry Duncan]

ljadw wrote:
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 .

Terry Duncan wrote:
I doubt you will find many people today who agree with this line of thought.

I take a slightly different VIEW and just posing the provocative question:
What would be the `reality´ (situation) if the Central Powers would have won the First World War?
The history could prove, the Entente cordiale would be only guilty for that catastrophe of the century!
And: - ". . . I doubt I will find many people today who agree with this line of thought!"

”Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. . . All History was a palimpsest,
scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary. . .” GEORG ORWELL 1984

The problem is that we can only judge and record history by evaluating the evidence surrounding the events under consideration, and only then arrive at a conclusion. Absence of evidence is not evidence that something is missing. As an example, if people want to claim an E-100 tank saw service at the end of WWII, then they have to offer some form of evidence to suggest it did as they claim. If they were to claim 'there was a hull found, and a turret from a Maus would fit, therefore it is probable one did get completed secretly and serve until it was destroyed in the last week of the war' it would be almost impossible to show it had not happened, as anything would be countered with 'it is not in the history books because it was secret'. In reality, none were built, parts to finish the tanks were not available, so there would be a complete absence of evidence with regards to combat performance records. It is almost impossible to counter the 'it was done in secret' as the same evidence would exist if it had never been built - IE: None.

We could make up all manner of strange ideas as to who did what, and why, that would be almost impossible to disprove or prove, expecting the 'it was secret' or 'the victors edited it out of the history books' to silence all opposition to this new idea. We need something better than 'I think this is what happened' or 'I want to believe this is the truth' if we are to set aside the well documented events and actions of individuals that comprise the sum of knowledge on a subject. Certainly you will find people wanting to believe something else, Nazi's at the South Pole, there was no Holocaust, and so on, most of which have more to do with flights of fantasy than reality. That some people choose to believe these things does not make them and more than flights of fantasy, and certainly not correct.

Tell me, how do you decide what really happened if you feel you cannot rely on the evidence we have? What criterion do you use for discarding or accepting evidence as valid or fake?

[Tanzania]

Hello Terry,

Thanks for your response, and sorry for late reply.

Tell me, how do you decide what really happened if you feel you cannot rely on the evidence we have?

If I read the first fifteen posts in this thread, I come to the conclusion, that ljadw and you have to explain,
why you decided what really happened and what was false (. . . and not me)

What criterion do you use for discarding or accepting evidence as valid or fake?

I am sure; everybody agrees that History was made everytime only by the winners! Furthermore a fact is,
that, among other nations, Belgium and Great Britain have been the winners. Maybe I am not wrong with
the assumption that you both are citizens from these winner nations. In this thread I find efforts to prove
that only the loser of this war been guilty. I haven’t mentioned that the sources are wrong, but I would say:
If you want to find evidence for your view; - you will find enough!
These circumstances could have influence in the objectivity. (I am honestly enough; in my too; as German)

But, sorry; I didn’t want to start a new discussion, because there are enough long and interesting threads
in this Forum with different view-points and exactly the same background. My comments are directed only
against all one unbalanced perspectives and national motivated narrow-mindedness.

Cheers, Holger Kotthaus

[ljadw]

It is not so that history is written by the victors : the history of the war in the east (41-45) was written by the Germans .

Besides, in Belgium,there is no such thing as history of WWI : nobody knows/cares about WWI .(neither about WWII) .It is all a question of commerce .Visit Belgium: Brussels (Manneken Pis), Ghent, Antwerp, Bastogne (for those living in the colonies) and Ypres (the Menin Gate) .

Ypres is as Lourdes : nobody cares about what happened,but everyone cares about the arrival of the tourists.

[Terry Duncan]

It is not so that history is written by the victors : the history of the war in the east (41-45) was written by the Germans .

Besides, in Belgium,there is no such thing as history of WWI : nobody knows/cares about WWI .(neither about WWII) .It is all a question of commerce .Visit Belgium: Brussels (Manneken Pis), Ghent, Antwerp, Bastogne (for those living in the colonies) and Ypres (the Menin Gate) .

Ypres is as Lourdes : nobody cares about what happened,but everyone cares about the arrival of the tourists.

It is lucky there is still a Belgium, where people are free to hold such views.

[Attrition]

Should there be though, perhaps the people of Congo could decide?

[MLW]

It seems to me that this thread is losing its focus.

Regards,
Marc

[JAG13]

Should there be though, perhaps the people of Congo could decide?

Just split it between France and the Netherlands already, it is a convenience device that has outlived its usefulness. Let the Dutch be Dutch and the French be French.