The Schlieffen Plan (Part 2 of 2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 лип 2015
- This second part of the film also considers the impact on Europe that might have occurred if the Plan had worked. Be sure to catch the first part, also on my channel. Uploaded for educational purposes only. Any advertising is unbidden and none of my films are monetised.
Please visit our new site for the serious history enthusiast: www.historyroom.org We have recent history, old history, ancient history, debates, reviews, quizzes and much more. You might even consider contributing something of your own! See you there!
Speculating the "what if's" always one of my favorite topics in college and the Schlieffen Plan was always brought up over a pitcher of beer. Thank you for the post Alan.
Interesting theory, but academic nonetheless. What is missing from the narrative is von Kluck's diversion of his 1st Army to the east of Paris, instead of encircling the city to the west, as the Schliefen plan had foreseen. This changed everything - the new 6th French army under Gallieni threatened the right flank of the whole German army and the BEF marched into the gap between the 1st and 2nd German armies, causing havoc in the German rear and forcing Moltke to withdraw the whole army back north, thus to the line that became the Western Front in Belgium and north- east France. Therefore it was not just what happened in Alsace- Lorraine what unravelled the Schliefen plan, but also von Kluck's change of direction towards Paris.
Very interesting video. Thanks for sharing.
J A Jones-Ford Thank you for watching! It's short but sweet and delivered with calm authority.
Another great video, thanks for uploading.
AshtonArcher Thanks Ashton.
if only had the opportunity to watch this documentary when i was studying history! salutations from singapore!
You might also be interested in a new paper I recently published, available direct from Amazon. Simply search *'How socialist was National Socialism'* in the Amazon search box.
+Dr Alan Brown i am the person who made the Somme then and now films,, just to let you know i will be going back out to the Somme in April(2016) to remake my films in hd ,i have also found many more locations,,,i will contact you again when i have edited it and put it on youtube if you wish.. thanks Marc ,,,
I’m so glad I watched this. If I read it I would never forget it as quick as this...
I agree with the thoughtful and measured comments by Mr Ben Johnson below but as a historian myself, I am always by nature suspicious of alternative 'histories' because there are always myriads of unmeasurable factors and some unexpected surprises that will change even the most clearly logical and rational conclusions.
Just as the generals say.' No war plan survives the meeting with an enemy', useful and necessary as plans are for logisitical purposes, talented officers are those who can adapt the plan to the changing circumstances of unexpected incidents such as early winters, epidemics, other nations getting involved that were reckoned with (see Italy who switched sides against Germany in both wars)etc.
None of us will know of course if things would have been better or worse. My own feeling is that Without the WW I defeat Hitler would not have had a career as Chancellor but as to the future of the Russian state, 1905 had already shown the increasing resistance to medieval Tsarist cruelty (See Chekov plays and other literature). I am less sure that there would not have been a Communist revolution. Socialism was getting merely stronger all the time with labor and trade Unions and anti imperial sentiment. Indeed WWI broke that, as war fever usually does break international movements but peace would have returned Europe to the same growing class and social Struggles it had since the post Napoleonic era. And it is certain that global power struggles would have continued (see Japan vs USA, and India, China vs UK).
Excellent documentary. Great final statement.
Ralph Bernhard Thanks, Ralph.
These 2 videos (incl. the 1st one) form a really interesting analysis of the German war plan. How it could have worked, and why it failed (i.e. it wasn't implemented properly). But what is also fascinating is the overall conclusion these videos reach. That a swift German victory in 1914 would have been better for the future of Europe, than the long drawn-out allied victory which was the reality, and finally arrived in 1918.
Of course we'll never know for sure what would've been better for Europe, as this then puts us in the realm of 'alternative history'. An interesting statement made in the video is that a swift German victory would have meant war would continue to be widely regarded as a "viable policy option", which could have meant future wars would be more likely. But it is difficult to avoid the question raised by the videos' overall conclusion, that whatever alternative future a rapid German victory may have brought to Europe, could it really have been any worse than the future Europe actually got? Not only was the reality of what happened four years of horrific war, but 20 years later six years of an even more horrific war (WW2) which included the Holocaust.
Not to mention the fact that the actual course WW1 took led to communism and eventually Stalin taking hold in Russia. Eastern Europe suffered 45 years of communist dictatorship. And don't forget all the 'proxy' wars fought against communism e.g. the Korean war, the Vietnam war, the Cambodian killing fields etc.
There's also the partition of the Ottoman Empire by the Allies, after WW1 which led to the creation of unstable states with artificial or contentious borders e.g. Iraq, Syria, and don't forget Israel. How many wars, how many deaths in the Middle East have been a consequence of the aftermath of WW1?
The 20th century was appalling in many ways. Would a quick German victory in 1914 have meant all those horrors would have been avoided? There may of course have been alternative horrors we will never know about. But on the face of it the videos give pause for thought as to what would have been best for Europe in 1914, and if what actually happened was best in the long-run. How would the world look today if von Moltke had done his job properly, and the Germans had won in 1914?
+Ben Johnson Interesting comment. Thanks, Ben.
+Kit Ingoldby
Nowhere do I say a German victory would have been a panacea. In fact I underline what is stated in the video i.e. that a swift German victory "could have meant future wars would be more likely". I also point out that it could have led to "alternative horrors we will never know about".
I'm merely speculating, because that is all any of us can do! You'll have to admit though, that the 20th century we actually got was pretty horrific! Would some "German militarism" have been worse that the Nazis & Hitler, plus Soviet communism & Stalin? Worse that WW2? Worse than the Holocaust? And on top of all of that, the Korean war? Vietnam war? Arab-Israeli wars? Iraq wars? Syrian civil war? In fact would certain completely artificial countries like Iraq, Kuwait, & Syria even exist?
We are still living with the consequences of the course and outcome of WW1. I certainly don't think a swift German victory in WW1 would have been a panacea, but I do think (and I'm choosing my words carefully) it's entirely possible that it would have been a less worse option than the outcome we actually got!
+Kit Ingoldby
I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that "a victorious Germany would have set the scene for further wars". But would there have been anything on the scale of WW2? The Holocaust? Or a regime as evil as Nazi Germany? Or Stalin?
The death toll of the horrors of the 20th century was truly enormous. The suffering was colossal! An alternative to what actually happened would have to be so appalling, almost unimaginably horrific, to be worse than what we actually got! Is it possible? Of course it is! Anything is possible! But how probable is it?
None of us knows the answer to what would have been better or worse! But I think the question is worth asking, and thinking about! And I don't think we can take anything for granted! That's all I'm saying!
+Kit Ingoldby
You describe Imperial Germany as "highly aggressive". Yet in the years following its creation in 1871, up to 1914, it was notable that the Kaiserreich (unlike other Powers) avoided involvement in significant wars. Time and again in Europe when war threatened to break out, Imperial Germany drew back. For example In 1904 at the time of the 1st Moroccan crisis, Czarist Russia had its hands full by being at war with Japan, and this could have been a much more favourable opportunity for Germany to strike out at its enemies. But it did nothing!
One gets the feeling imperial Germany's actions were motivated more by fear and insecurity, caused by their perceived 'encirclement', and the growing power of Russia, than by aggression for its own sake! Were German fears of the Franco-Russian alliance completely groundless? German diplomacy under the Kaiser was clumsy and incompetent, partly because of his own deficient personality, but a high degree of aggression is not evident from Imperial Germany's pre-war actions. They certainly had strong armed forces, an imperialist outlook, and a desire for empire, but they were not the only ones! But if this is a measure of potential aggression, then everyone was potentially aggressive!
When war broke out in 1914 it took everyone by surprise. Its circumstances don't seem to point to a war of planned aggression! My feeling is (and you are free to disagree with me, and you probably will) that the core motivation of the Germans in that situation was that they simply had to stand by their only reliable ally, albeit the decaying Danube monarchy, because if Austria-Hungary did nothing about the assassination of its crown-prince, it would lose credibility, and so be increasingly seen as the new 'sick man of Europe', thereby weakening Germany's own already precarious position! Did the Germans miscalculate how firm the Russians would be in support of Serbia? I think quite probably!
Anyway, if Imperial Germany had obtained a swift victory in 1914, what would it have done? It would probably have annexed very little in the west, though it might have forced France to hand over some of its colonies! it would also likely have made moves to ensure France was (from Germany's point of view) kept in check! In the East, the treaty of Brest-Litovsk probably points the way to what the Germans would have done. A whole belt of new states would probably have been created out of the non-Russian western parts of the Czarist empire, with leaders acceptable to Germany put on their thrones. But is this any worse than having all these states under Russian control? One tends to forget that there was no independent Poland, or Finland, or Ukraine, or Baltic states prior to 1914. They were all under direct Russian control. Is this acceptable? If so, why?
So if Germany had achieved all these gains, and removed what had been the permanent threat to itself of 'encirclement', would it still be dissatisfied? Maybe, maybe not? If you think not, well what would it then do? Pursue a war with Britain? The indications are that the Kaiser never wanted war with Britain in the first place! But even if he did, what could he do? Britain is an island and the German navy was smaller than the British! The technology was not there for a serious air war either! So whether the Germans & the British liked it or not, there wasn't that much serious harm they could have done to each other! I suspect the video is right when it states that conflict might have gone on for a while but would have fizzled out, and the the British & Germans would have had to come to terms! The alternative would have been a perpetual semi-hot, semi-cold war, and that would have been in the interests of neither party!
So under such a scenario I don't see where the utterly terrible war that would occur before 1939 and be worse than a combination of most of WW1, WW2, the Holocaust, the Nazis, & Stalin, would have come from!
+Kit Ingoldby
You describe the 20th century after a German victory early in WW1 as "this terrible century of bloody conflict that has killed tens of millions and devastated Europe".
Isn't that exactly what we got anyway?
I wonder if there's a simpler explanation the failure of Schlieffen's plan than his under-emphasis on the German's right flank. It seems to me that wherever determined resistance to offensive thrusts was mounted (e.g. in Alsace Lorraine, and then on the Marne) it was successful. The superiority of defense (e.g. exploding shells, machine guns, barbed wire, unreliable radios etc.) was responsible for the four-year war of attrition lamented in the documentary, and was also perhaps responsible for the failure of the Schlieffen plan to begin with.
I can't say I'm a fan of "What if" programmes-and it should be borne in mind that the France of 1914 was very different to the France of 1939.No mention of Le Cateau,the vital importance of railways to the German plans not to mention Elan or taxies! Ooops-I think I may have inadvertently mentioned them!
you can not predict everything, French resistance would of started and not to mention the flu epidemic etc, etc
I think of all the lives that would have been saved. Like my English grandfather who was KIA in 1918 in Ypres. I'm sure everyone has a story of someone they lost. War is good for nothing.
What if? -> Idle speculation.
This is a bit silly. Many assumptions based on the destruction of one French army in Alsace. Plus the idea of just taking Paris like it's an afterthought I think is also a huge presumption. What if a new frontline was simply formed, with Paris right there on it, contributing THREE THOUSAND GUNS to the front?
Strange that a republic,(France in 1914), would so revere the place where all the Kings of France were crowned.
Hello,
History room
Дирижабль ага
Hi Alan
Really good documentaries.
My only complaint is the last few minutes - the comments on the Versailles treaty don't have any context e.g. it was NOT a harsh treaty by the standards of those inflicted by Prussia on France in 1871 and on Russia in 1917, or what Germany WOULD have inflicted on France & Belgium had it won WW1.
Is there a decent documentary / book that you know of on Plan 17, and the previous French plans? Some historians (e.g. Christoper Clark) see Plan 17 as proof of the aggressive intentions of France (esp/ Poincarre / Joffre), therefore deflecting some of the blame for the outbreak of WW1 from Germany. Clark asserts that Plan 17 was far more aggressive than Plan 16, and paints a picture of Poincarre as a dogmatic Germanophobe, but I 'm not convinced about the latter - David Fromkin, in "Europe's Last Summer", offers a more balanced view that I find persuasive.)
Harsh is a relative term, dummy. ..
If Britain had stayed out of it like it had told the Germans it would do the war would have been over fast but the Brits had lie... were just kidding of course, did the Germans really think we were serious? Ahhhh, poor them.
You continue to say "the Schlieffen Plan" and how it failed in 1914, but that was not the case was it. Von Schlieffen's last words before he died were "keep the right wing strong", which went to show the importance of the army sticking to schedules and large movement of troops. I would say that from the moment the German High Command started bleeding the right wing, the plan became a "General Plan", in that some elements of the Schlieffen Plan were adhered to but elswhere towards the centre and right in Alsace, Lorraine the plan was ignored. Pinning the failure to the Schlieffen plan is doing injustice to the General.
@array s even today most armies cannot do this ,i calculate that 5-6 armies (the most) can move quickly 100k of troops ,if that is necessary against a capable opponent/enemy !!!
@@Chris_Intel us China Russia north and south Korea UK France turkey Iran Indonesia Canada India Pakistan mayanmar Egypt Columbia Brazil Mexico ... I'd say alot more than 5 or 6 can move 100k troops
@@AsG_4_ Αgainst a capable opponent ?? Are you sure about your guess ? I disagree because 100k troops have their equipment and nowdays the equipment is much heavier and sometimes sensitive . 100k troops ,means about 2k trucks and jeeps at least ,200 spgs at least , 300-500 tanks , 500 brandley type vehicles at least, about 100 A/A vehicles , about 100 light canons of 105mm, at least 300-400 20mm A/A guns, radars of any type (artillery, airplane etc etc) ,TOW missiles of antitank infantry units ,transfer airplanes for paratroopers , their fighter airplanes about 2-3 wings at least and at least 50-70 helicopters of any type and add to all these the ammunition and the spares for all these guns and vehicles !!
I am speaking about a full and capable army of about 12 divisions and i still believe that only 5-6 nations are capable of such mobilisation (i will not say the names ,because i do not want to answer to any other person with a different guess).
Anyway , you can have your opinion of course ,as i can have mine !! But keep in mind that to mobilise 100k men ,you need at least another 100k for the transfers and keep in mind that i said against a capable opponent ,that means that this opponent can cripple your transfers and your logistics depositories ! Please ,try to think the hole image of this operation and then answer to me and answer to me with numbers and your estimates ,please !!
@@Chris_Intel let's use Iran Iraq war 6 divisions invaded September 20th by November Iran had 200k fresh troops to the front ... There 2 who could get at least 100k in 1980 we know the US can we know south and north Korea can China Russia obviously and France and Germany have proven to do it... Ww1 ww2... It's not hard to get support when under attack
@@Chris_Intel then look at Finland in the winter war they mobilized over 6 divisions....
Forget
Mehh