The Schlieffen Plan and August 1st, 1914

[Moose1871]

No need to be rude! God forbid I want to discuss WW1 on a forum about WW1. If it irritates you, don't read the thread. I enjoy discussing it and don't expect concrete answers from anyone.

[Ружичасти Слон]

No need to be rude! God forbid I want to discuss WW1 on a forum about WW1. If it irritates you, don't read the thread. I enjoy discussing it and don't expect concrete answers from anyone.

I was not be rude. I was propose on you for to write more coherent then peoples can to have coherent discuss. Now topic have 3 pages and i still not understand what must to be problem you was want to discuss.

First you was ask on problem was germany strategically bound by the Schlieffen Plan?
Peoples was give answer but it was not be answer and discuss what you was want.

Then you was ask on problem on mombauer words and claim.
Peoples was give answer but it was not be answer and discuss what you was want.

Then you was ask on many what ifs.

I was propose on you can to write exact and clear what you was want on discuss.

[Moose1871]

Maybe my original comment was unclear - the use of the words 'strategically bound' was a poor one. I was specifically interested in Mombauer's words that because Germany had one plan, it would be forced to attack France, even if France was neutral. It seems the consensus is that this is not true, which was my original feeling. That was the discussion I wanted, and I got the answers I wanted - anything after was just me speculating and having fun.

[john2]

Unfortunately this discussion seems to be going downhill. I was hoping for more answers on why the Germans had no backup plan. Maybe I will start a discussion on that.

[Moose1871]

Unfortunately this discussion seems to be going downhill. I was hoping for more answers on why the Germans had no backup plan. Maybe I will start a discussion on that.

Mombauer actually gives a really good discussion about this, despite my issue with that one sentence I cited. In short, she says that the German General Staff chose to scrap the Eastern Deployment Plan because they considered war with France to be inevitable if there was war with Russia. Here's a quote:

Moltke doubted [the Eastern Deployment] plan's chances of success... The biggest worry was that the Russians would retreat... making a quick decision impossible. The other concern was that French neutrality, if declared, would be unreliable. With the German armies deployed deep in Russian territory, the French would be free to attack Germany and meet very little resistance.

She also cites a quote from a member of the General Staff, who said that it would be impractical and unwieldy to plan two incredibly complex deployment plans. She says about this,

It is unlikely that this was the real reason for abandoning the second deployment plan. Dropping the plan only made sense if its viability was seriously in question. As it was becoming increasingly unlikely that a deployment in the East only would provide Germany with a chance to defeat her enemies, the preparation of two deployment plans would indeed have appeared too costly and work-intensive.

In short, it seems that Moltke believed that in any war with Russia, France would eventually join in, and the best chance of beating both was with the Schlieffen Plan through Belgium.
Hope that helps!

[john2]

But what if France and Russia have a falling out? Yes in 1914 this wasn't going to happen but if there is no war who knows? It just seems foolish to me to have only one plan but this is getting off topic. I will have to do more research.

[Moose1871]

But what if France and Russia have a falling out? Yes in 1914 this wasn't going to happen but if there is no war who knows? It just seems foolish to me to have only one plan but this is getting off topic. I will have to do more research.

I completely agree with you - I think this kind of shows a sort of fatalism among the German General Staff, or at least tunnel vision. It seems like the German military decided that was the best plan and clung to it. Certainly it shows they were ignorant or didn't care about any political circumstances which could arise.

[Ружичасти Слон]

Maybe my original comment was unclear - the use of the words 'strategically bound' was a poor one. I was specifically interested in Mombauer's words that because Germany had one plan, it would be forced to attack France, even if France was neutral. It seems the consensus is that this is not true, which was my original feeling. That was the discussion I wanted, and I got the answers I wanted - anything after was just me speculating and having fun.

Thanks you.

On real history we can to understand answer on your question. On 1.august 1914.year germany was mobilize on war plan what be war on russia and france. Then kaiser was order must to be on war only on russia. Real history was be proof that germany can to have war on russia only and mombauer statement must to be wrong.

But real history was proove that decision must to be make mostest quick after mobilization was start because germany war plan was have attack on neutral countrys on day one on mobilization and when not be war declare. Just attack.

What that means is when germany was decide on war there was be only very small chance for to change decisions.

[Ружичасти Слон]

I was hoping for more answers on why the Germans had no backup plan.

They was decide they was need only one plan what was be update.

It was be correct decide.

And must not for to forget they can to make new plan any time they was want.

[Ружичасти Слон]

In short, it seems that Moltke believed that in any war with Russia, France would eventually join in, and the best chance of beating both was with the Schlieffen Plan through Belgium.

Moltke was have correct analysis.

On real history germany was declare on war on russia on 1.august 1914.year and was start on mobilization. When france was hear information they was start on mobilization to.

[Ружичасти Слон]

But what if France and Russia have a falling out?

Simple . Germany army was can make new plans .

[Ружичасти Слон]

I completely agree with you - I think this kind of shows a sort of fatalism among the German General Staff, or at least tunnel vision. It seems like the German military decided that was the best plan and clung to it. Certainly it shows they were ignorant or didn't care about any political circumstances which could arise.

No. It was be correct analysis on situation on 1914.year.

Fatalism or determination for to have big war on all europe ?

[john2]

Fatalism or determination for to have big war on all europe ?

This is nonsense. Assuming Germany wanted to conquer Europe they would want to fight their enemies one at a time. They did not "prefer" a two front war and any historian making this argument is simply wrong. The Schlieffen plan is not proof of aggression.

[ljadw]

Fatalism or determination for to have big war on all europe ?

Neither of both .

[Ружичасти Слон]

Fatalism or determination for to have big war on all europe ?

This is nonsense. Assuming Germany wanted to conquer Europe they would want to fight their enemies one at a time. They did not "prefer" a two front war and any historian making this argument is simply wrong. The Schlieffen plan is not proof of aggression.

War plan aufmarsch 1914/15 was prove germany army was prepare on big war on all europe
War plan aufmarsch 1914/15 was prove germany was plan on be on big war on all europe on same day germany was start mobilization.
War plan aufmarsch 1914/15 was prove germany was decide on big war on 5 countrys belgium britain france luxembourg and russia = all europe


Much peoples was say and was write when germany army was have only one war plan it was because they was want make germany have big war on all europe and was want for to make germany leaders understand must to be big war on all europe or no war.


Everything what germany was say and was do on july 1914.year can to be prove germany was decide on big war on all europe and was not decide on small war and was not decide on peace. Remember at all times germany can to start on make plans on small war or can to decide for to discuss peace. But no. It was big war and only big war on all europe.


Also must to remember big war on europe also mean war on all britain france and germany colonys to so mean big war on world.