The Schlieffen Plan

YNCS

Ex-bubblehead
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
3,098
Location
-4 GMT
For almost three generations, historians have accepted a version of the opening of WWI in August 1914 which has taken the following form: Germany placed all her hopes on the famous Schlieffen Plan, a massive hook by five German armies that were to pass through Belgium, Artois, Picardy and then to the west of Paris before crushing the French against two remaining German armies in Lorraine. However, by violating Belgian neutrality the Germans brought Britain into the war alongside France and Russia, and ironically it was the tiny British Expeditionary Force (BEF) that was to administer the coup de grâce to German hopes on the Marne in September 1914.

The Schlieffen Plan had supposedly been a brilliant concept, aimed at winning the war in the West in six weeks, before moving German forces east to deal with Russia, who, it was thought, would be slow to mobilize. Thus the Germans would avoid the strategic nightmare of a two front war. However, in reality the plan contained fatal flaws. Simple geometry shows that Kluck's 1st Army, on the extreme right of the hook, would have to travel much further and much faster than the Crown Prince's 5th Army at the pivot of the wheel. Any delays encountered by von Kluck from unexpected Belgian or BEF resistance would be disastrous. Meanwhile, a thousand miles away in East Prussia, an invasion by two Russian armies prompted von Moltke to send two corps from his right wing in Belgium to reinforce the beleaguered 8th Army. This, according to the accepted view, was a catastrophic error. Moltke had apparently made the cardinal mistake against which the dying Schlieffen warned, he had not kept his right wing strong. Ironically, the troops sent east did not reach Prussia in time to fight against the Russians in Tannenburg and were in training crossing Germany when the Battle of the Marne was lost.

The Plan was doomed from the outset. The German military historian, Holger Herwig, writes:
The plan sought through a General Staff brain centre to dictate not only the opening moves of the campaign but also all subsequent operations of millions of men in a foreign land. Not only would this deny army commanders initiative, but the slightest disruption of communications threatened to unravel the overall timing of the advance.​
In addition, so entrenched had the fear of a two front war become that the military planners were willing to gamble on a plan that would violate Belgian neutrality and probably bring Britain into the war against them. In addition, the plan was so inflexible that nothing could be allowed to interfere with its smooth operation. The Schlieffen Plan was the albatross around the neck of the German Army in 1914 and Moltke was condemned to put the plan in operation, for which he received the blame that should really belong to the staff planners. The plan was more fantasy than fact. As the British historian Niall Ferguson explains:
When Schlieffen devised his famous, notorious plan in 1905, he imagined an army which…had twenty more divisions than the Germany Army actually had in 1914, so there was a fictional quality to the planning. These…imaginary divisions being deployed and the whole notion of being able to sidestep the French by going through Belgium was in many ways a fantasy designed to make a point "We have a problem here; we need twenty more divisions."​
Germany did not have those 20 divisions either in 1905 or in 1914, and yet the General Staff acted as though they did. The plan, though Schlieffen himself knew it was impossible, became Germany's only reality.

The General Staff was so smug that they never gave adequate attention to what the other side was planning and made unwarranted assumptions. Denis Showalter points out:
The failure of the Oberstab [German General Staff] is a lack of empathy, they are…like surgeons. They think everyone else is a surgeon, that every officer, every reserve lieutenant and sergeant, every recently mobilized civilian in the Heer [German Army] will be not merely willing but able to do what these professionals can do, and do so under conditions of extreme physical and psychological stress. They do not pay enough attention to the fog and friction of the human elements of the Heer. The Oberstab officers also fail to understand the mindsets, the attitudes of their opponents because they despise them. Increasingly, as the Schlieffen Plan becomes as much a set of mantras as a military plan, the enemy is expected to conform to German intentions. Therefore it is not particularly necessary to know much about his psychology, his military structure, how generals in Russia or France will act and react; they will react the way the Plan makes them react.​
The Schlieffen Plan was a nightmare of logistics. For example, Kluck's 1st Army needed 1 million kilograms of fodder daily for its 84,000 horses. Food for men and horses had to vie for road space with ammunition being brought forward from miles behind the front line, which was constantly moving away from the railheads at a rate of 20 miles (32 km) per day. Showalter asks:
How are these men going to be fed, going to be kept moving, how is their everyday health going to be maintained, because four-fifths of them are not professional soldiers or serving draftees? They are officers and men called back from civilian life who have very often forgotten much of their military training. They are not particularly physically fit, they are not emotionally geared for marching twenty miles a day under the stress of potentially having to fight a battle along the way.​
Relentless schedules prepared by military hierarchies, based on calculations applicable only to fit, regular soldiers and assuming ideal conditions, make the Schlieffen Plan as much a regimen of torture for the Germans as for their opponents. Showalter continues:
[A] platoon commander in the Heer is supposed to check his men's feet at the end of a day's march for blisters. That is regulation in every army, the British, Russian, French. But a reserve officer at the end of a fatiguing march might very well neglect to inspect his men's feet. When he does, the blisters become worse, feet become infected, men start dropping out of the ranks, and stragglers will feed themselves by stealing or looting from the country…As rations fail to come forward, the officers and NCOs, again mostly reservists, will requisition food locally. But to see that the men cook it properly is quite another problem. The Schlieffen Plan takes no account of these things. The Plan assumes that every officer, every soldier, every horse in the Heer will do his duty as the plan provides. Perhaps the horse never heard.​
Schlieffen was planning a war within a vacuum, which did not take account of technology, transport or communications. It was estimated that each of Germany's thirty corps consumed 130 tonnes of food and fodder, requiring 20 miles of road and a whole day to resupply them, and this while they were standing still. The attempt to follow a fast-marching army advancing through battle zones with everyone's meals was not usually successful.

The 320,000 strong 1st Army on the outside of the wheel was the biggest problem. Continually in action against Belgian, French and British forces, it was also required to maintain a killing pace of 20 miles per day for weeks on end.

To the German military bureaucrats the Plan was a vast war game, and it was unfair of the enemy to cause them to miss their deadlines. Moreover, what were the British doing in Belgium? The German planners did not believe Britain would go to war just to protect Belgian neutrality. As Ferguson explains:
You had to attach far more significance to British intervention than Moltke did, and so when he and Bethman-Hollweg [the German chancellor] dismissed the Treaty of 1839 as "just a piece of paper," they showed a basic misunderstanding of traditional British foreign policy with its concerns about defense of the Channel coast. This misunderstanding gave Britain a pretext for getting involved in the war, something that the Schlieffen Plan did not account for.​
The first thing to go wrong with the Schlieffen Plan was that it assumed everything would go right at all levels. It assumed that from Supreme Headquarters down to the rifle companies, officers and men would understand what they had to do and implement this against an enemy who would make all the right mistakes.

Secondly, the Plan overlooked the practical problems of effectively supporting, logistically and administratively, a massive sweep through the Low Countries by men marching on their feet and horses that ate their own weight of fodder each week. The logistical elements of the army were expected to keep up with the fighting troops, something that did not happen.

Thirdly, the Plan assumed not merely an obliging enemy but an enemy who would accept defeat, an enemy unable or unwilling to rally from the kinds of defeats the Germans expected to impose.

The German General Staff contained the best and brightest military minds of the day. The problem was they had less common sense than the average German householder because they tied themselves into knots of their own creation. They made an impossible plan and, when faults were found with it, simply continued to make the impossible plan better. By 1914 they had an almost impeccable plan that would work only in the never-never land of their own minds.
 
I'm not really sure why such a pile of crock was ever formulated, tbh.

Why did the Germans need to try to beat France through such a bizzarely complicated and impractical method?

They could surely have just sat in Alsace-Lorraine, defensively, for the whole war while they beat the crap out of Russia: Russia is eventually finished off, total stalemate in the west, Germany wins by default.

I'm not an expert here, but the only answer can be a ridiculously high level of hubris on the part of the planners. Which perhaps, considering 1870-71 was not to be altogether unexpected.
 
I thought Britain would've jumped into the war regardless of Belgian neutraility being broken?
 
If Germany had behaved as I outlined above, (And stated their intentions in the west: i.e, no annexations, Belgian neutrality protected.) British intervention would have been in serious doubt.

Of course, this was realistically beyond them.
 
But I doubt that the Brits would have accepted Russia's desctruction. A new hegemon on the continent wasn't exactly what they were longing for.

Also, the goal from the German point of view was rather to finally finish France's role as a great power (and the French wanted the same for Germany). France has been the #1 enemy throughout the whole German history, not Russia.

I also doubt that the Germans would've stopped after beating Russia on the base of a peace that wouldn't have given them anything (i.e. not weakening the French).
 
Reno said:
I read in a book that if the Germans would have not violated the Belgian neutrality the French and Brits would have done it.
This is rather doubtful, at least on the British side. The British didn't declare war until after their ultimatum to the Germans to withdraw from Belgium had expired. So there's even doubt as to whether the British would have entered the war if Belgian neutrality hadn't been violated by the Germans. I suspect that the British would have ignored French entry into Belgium, but I don't know.

Anyway, arguing "what if" is always a fruitless task.
 
kronic said:
But I doubt that the Brits would have accepted Russia's desctruction. A new hegemon on the continent wasn't exactly what they were longing for.

The point here is, though, that by the time Russia made peace on terms favourable with Germany, the war would essentially be over. After two/three years of the French hitting the fortifications in AL, and (Presumably.) having no impact, and with Russia beat, what were the British going to do by that stage?

kronic said:
Also, the goal from the German point of view was rather to finally finish France's role as a great power (and the French wanted the same for Germany). France has been the #1 enemy throughout the whole German history, not Russia.

This is why the original plan was so ridiculous. It was blinded by a desire to simply 'beat' France, and reduce it.

And why do you say that peace with Russia and stalemate with France would have given Germany "nothing"? It would have given Germany massive resources and would, as you say, created German hegemony in the economic sense, and to a large extent, militarily, on the continent.
 
First there were many mistakes made on the German side, many pointed out.
1. Germany declaring war on France. This would have been a perfect situation to wait for the French declaring war on Germany. Would they really go for war for Russia´s stubbornity? Entrenching would be a perfect situation and if the British were out because there was nothing happening they could fear, well the German Hochseeflotte would have isolated France froom imports. Although they would not have been so dependent on that like Britian over short or long they would have surrendered either.
2. Belgium. But this was not the Germans "fault". It is indeed not very known that the Belgish government gave the French the RoP but not the Germans. IMO they were no longer neutral and had to live with the consequences. But this gave the Brits the casus belli...
3. Both happened, but there were some other chances to win. Even if the Schlieffen plan was a nightmare, IT NEARLY WORKED!!! Germany was at the subburbs of Paris and with the 3 corps which were sent to Hindenburg Germany would have taken Paris. Even if Königsberg was sieged by the Russians, I strongly doubt they wwere able to take the city, and East Prussia nearly occupied, the German troops from the west could have used in the east to make a very fast peace with Russia. The tragedy is the corps sent to Hindenburg never arrived in time...

Adler
 
Adler17 said:
Belgium. But this was not the Germans "fault". It is indeed not very known that the Belgish government gave the French the RoP but not the Germans. IMO they were no longer neutral and had to live with the consequences. But this gave the Brits the casus belli...
This is not correct. There was no ROP between the French and Belgians until after the Germans invaded Belgium. In 1910, the French government invited the Belgians to hold low level staff discussions between the French and Belgian general staffs on joint war planning in case of a German attack. The Belgians refused, saying that such talks would jeopardize Belgium's strict neutrality. The Belgians were supposed to be neutral according to the Treaty of 1839 and stayed neutral until Germany invaded.
 
Adler17 said:
3. Both happened, but there were some other chances to win. Even if the Schlieffen plan was a nightmare, IT NEARLY WORKED!!! Germany was at the subburbs of Paris and with the 3 corps which were sent to Hindenburg Germany would have taken Paris.

Not really - the Germans were stopped well outside of Paris (and certainly not in its suburbs!), and the scale of the defeat they were handed in the Battle of the Marne sugests that 3 Corps at the end of such a long supply line wouldn't have made any useful difference. This was certainly Barbara Truchman's view in her classic book 'The Guns of August'.

The tragedy is the corps sent to Hindenburg never arrived in time...

Why do you consider a militarisitic quasi-dictatorship's failure to defeat a relatively peacefull democracy to be a 'tragedy'? I'd call it a good outcome.
 
In 1914 Hindenburg was not the quasi dictator. That was later. Germany was in that times a Constitutional monarchy with very strong tendences to be a parlamentarian one, if it wasn´t already de facto.
Also I know it wasn´t the suburbs but outside. It was only a metapher that the Germans were already watching the Eiffel tower... Nevertheless the 3 corps would have made the difference. I know about the trouble of German supply but I also know if these three corps were available Germany would have won the battle and the war would have been over. Millions of humans would still live and ww2 would have never happened. But this is another thread about the consequences.

Adler
 
Adler17 said:
In 1914 Hindenburg was not the quasi dictator. That was later. Germany was in that times a Constitutional monarchy with very strong tendences to be a parlamentarian one, if it wasn´t already de facto.
Show me these tendencies. :p
 
Hamlet said:
Why did the Germans need to try to beat France through such a bizzarely complicated and impractical method?

They could surely have just sat in Alsace-Lorraine, defensively, for the whole war while they beat the crap out of Russia: Russia is eventually finished off, total stalemate in the west, Germany wins by default.

In hindsight its easy to say its was impractical but the problem was that it wasn't impractical on paper. Anyway, the plan did almost work.

You miss the whole point and urgency of Germany's plight from the outset. Just sat in Alsace Lorraine? Giving the French and potentially the British plenty of time to build up their forces and then take the fight into Germany itself? France had to be knocked out straight away if Germany wanted to win.
 
Kronic, after Bismarck the Kaiser only appointed chancellors who had the majority in the Reichstag. Also the Reichstag could have stopped the whole war by denying the needed money but in contrary they gave their support, even the SPD! So it was only a question of time until the nearly de facto parlamentarian monarchy became also formal a parlamentarian one. Also you have to consider that the German constitutional monarchy was in some areas way ahead of many parlamentarian monarchies in that times, like the election law.
No Germany would have evolved IMO anyway to a parlamentarian monrachy until 1925.

Adler
 
Hi!

OT: My personal favorite what-could-have-been is : what would have happened if Germany hadnt promised Austria to stand by their side, no matter what happened (The so-called Nibelungentreue) ?
But on the Schlieffen-Plan: why was it that the 3 corps Adler mentioned did not arrive ? Where they beaten before they could get to the front ?
 
The three corps Moltke sent to Hindenburg did not arrive on point to beat the Russians. They were still on the way when Hindenburg was beating the Russians at Tannenberg. So it was invain to send these corps to East Prussia.
If Germany didn´t make the "Nibelungentreue" to Austria, which was indeed retaken but too late, Austria wouldn´t have attacked Serbia, but Germany would have had trouble with the Austrians. However I don´t think this would last very long because both had no other allies. So no war would have evolved.
With no war Germany and Britain would have made an agreement about the quarrels fleet policy and colonies. Such an agreement was very likely before Sarajevo. This would have massively decouraged France to go for war. And Russia had still huge inner problems.

Adler
 
Reno said:
I read in a book that if the Germans would have not violated the Belgian neutrality the French and Brits would have done it. But the German whent ahead and did it giving the Brits with a just cause to enter the war.

Would this be Nial Ferguson's Pity of War (Julma Sota or another book?

Nevertheless, I agree with you that in 1914 England was just waiting for an excuse to go to war with Germany. Both the naval race and growing German industry that had overtaken British industry were far more pressing matters for the English to go to war.
 
Panda said:
Would this be Nial Ferguson's Pity of War (Julma Sota or another book?

Nevertheless, I agree with you that in 1914 England was just waiting for an excuse to go to war with Germany. Both the naval race and growing German industry that had overtaken British industry were far more pressing matters for the English to go to war.

That's exactly the same book. ;)
 
kronic said:
Show me these tendencies. :p
Would you accept the presence of the largest, best organised social democratic party in Europe, clamoring for democratic reform and alongside a ****load of liberals?;)

The authoritarian and militaristic superstructure of Wilhelmine Germany was pretty much out of sync with what was going on in society anyway.
 
Top Bottom