The Schlieffen Plan (Part 1 of 2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- This is a short film which explores the famous battle plan of 1914, and also considers what the outcome might have been if it had worked. This is an excellent overview of the topic and it will be very useful for students of the period. Uploaded for educational purposes only. Any advertising is unbidden and the film is not 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!
Thank you for a great documentary Dr! I am currently studying the Schlieffen plan in school, and this documentary gave me all the info I needed. So thanks!
Another great video for the History fans on UA-cam. Thank you for uploading and sharing. I am a great fan of your efforts. Keep up the great work.
Thank you for another great upload Dr! Hope all is well, take care.
Billo1281 Thanks, Billo! I'm looking forward to another summer consisting of sun, sea and books (sounds dull, huh?). Regards - Alan.
Thanks for uploading this Alan.
hilliard55 You're welcome. Glad you enjoyed it.
I am trying to place everything about Germany in historical context. I am trying to understand their ethos as they are deeply involved with Greece. Thank you for posting this film.
hollyh1969 Thank you, Holly, and I agree that it is a tangled story indeed.
The Schlieffen Plan that is discussed in this documentary was also called Aufmarsch Plan I (deployment plan I) and was the option pursued by the German military in 1914. However, as early as 1894 von Schlieffen had also developed Aufmarsch Plan II, a plan whereby Germany would stay on the defensive in both east and west. Both versions were further developed by von Schlieffen in 1902/03. Kaiser Wilhelm II knew of these plans. That was why
he personally stopped the invasion of Belgium in early August 1914 because he knew that would lead to war with Britain. Wilhelm asked his chief-of-staff von Moltke (the younger) to redirect the German armies eastward. Von Moltke then came close to suffering a nervous break-down and insisted that such a change in plan would cause absolute chaos. The Kaiser relented, and the offensive version of the Schlieffen Plan was once again put
into motion. Had the defensive version of the plan been adopted Belgium would not have been invaded and Great Britain would not have entered the war. The conflict would not have become a World War and the Germans probably would have won. Ironically, had the Germans adopted the defensive version it would still be called the Schlieffen Plan.
You write "early August 1914".
In that context, this exchange between German and British diplomats might be of interest to you.
It explains the sudden attempt to saddle up the horse a different way halfway through, sparing Belgium and the world millions of deaths.
firstworldwarhiddenhistory.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/sir-edward-grey-3-the-invention-of-neutrality/
Further more, the Australian historian Clarke has stated he would look into (archives I assume) the allegation that King George V of GB had giving his foreign minister Grey the order to "Find me a reason for war".
www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-28602021
I am of the view that if Germany had left Belgium alone, Britain would have eventually entered the war, but not as soon, and the delay may have allowed Germany to score some early victories against France and Russia. At the same time, if the Germans did not go through Belgium, then there would be no chance of a quick knockout victory. This would have ensured that WW1 would be a war of attrition, and when Britain eventually did get involved, there would be little hope of a German victory. Germany would have been screwed either way.
A third possibility is that Britain could have played a mediating role. After a few months of fighting, Britain could have come up with a peace deal and said to Germany "sign this or we will declare war on you" and said to France and Russia "sign this or we won't declare war on Germany". Who knows.
@@unadin4583 Hello Unadin
The first thing one must accept about the historical analyses about the causes of WW1, is that it was war of choice.
Each country which joined WW1 did so voluntarily, with the exception of Belgium.
There were no binding defense treaties (like NATO is today). The leaders of each country therefore implemented what is known as "war of choice".
Each nation only has its own historical leaders to blame.
Blaming Germany is a fallacious form of argumentation known as "outcome bias". That means that historical decisions once taken are judged by the outcome, rather than judged by what the original intention of the decision was.
The biggest of the big pictures, is that no power could really afford to stay out.
A series of "what ifs" to explain the balance of power in Europe in 1914:
1) In case of a limited "3rd Balkan War", Austria-Hungary would have mopped the floor with Serbia. Russia could not afford to stay out.
2) In case of an expansion of the war to include Russia (Germany/Austria-Hungary vs. Serbia/Russia), the Central Powers would have won. France could not afford to stay out.
3) In case of the scenario of a "Continental European War" (the above, but including France), there was a very real chance that the Central Powers would have won. GB could not afford to stay out.
Your analyses of the value of "Belgium" as a "geostrategic barrier" for the British Empire, is correct.
In the scenario of a "Continental European War", as long as Belgium remained intact, Russia/France/Serbia had a fighting chance.
As far as London was concerned, they could then have simply sat it out, waiting to see who'd gain the upper hand.
They would then have supported the *losing* side, to uphold the European Balance of Power.
@@ralphbernhard1757 It sounds like we are generally in agreement. My argument was that if Germany had not gone through Belgium, Britain could have used the threat of entering or not entering as a way to mediate the dispute. Perhaps I am being naive.
Ahhhh...The Schlieffen Plan...what could possibly go wrong?
mjpanicali The Law of War, what can go wrong will go wrong.
mjpanicali Von Moltke did not follow the Schlieffen Plan, he weakened the right flank in order to strengthen the front facing the French border. Then, he foolishly sent several divisions to the east to counter the Russians. This is what went wrong.
Not sure if it would have worked even if the plan was not altered by Von Moltke.
I have a cunning plan my Lord...Baldrick 1914
mjpanicali does it involve walking slowly into German machine gun fire armed with a swagger stick?
orley104 SHUSH-it's a secret!
Dr Brown, do you have a documentary entitled- Winston Churchills Path to Power? If you do, please upload it.
lombe Ng'andu No, sorry Iombe, I don't have that one.
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 you seem smart. You have some good documentaries here. Please do tell me you are a not a neo con who for political reasons tries to rewrite history (like Niall Fergusan for ex) . Everyone who was there understood why Stalin had hoped that 'the two capitalist blocks fight each other' so that Soviet Socialism could take over after the West had fought each other to weakness and a stand off.
Hitler certainly did not see himself as a socialist nor did the many of the Royalty in Europe and Henry Fordand other industrialists who saw Hitler not as a another form of socialism but as a bulwark against it. This was also the idea that made the German Nationalists think they could 'use' Hitler to crush Communism.
Yes the Nazis were called 'National Socialism' for demographic political reason to get more votes which being propaganda from a liar ('we here in Germany wish for nothing but world peace'). Just as the German Democratic Republic was non of those things. Please no politics just history. Those with political motivations are always, by nature the worst historians as they do not intend to tell truth but push an agenda. Thank you for your downloads
+MegaRaven100 Hello! I am not a "neo" anything, just a professional historian who has studied, taught and written history for more than 30 years. I don't quite know why you have introduced Stalin and Hitler into comments thread about the Schlieffen Plan, but I can address some of your points nonetheless. First, Hitler certainly regarded himself as a socialist and said so on several occasions. However, his socialism was not based on Marx but ancestry. In the end, the Soviet communists and the National Socialists had the same goal - a unified society - but whereas one wanted harmony through absence of social class and state control of the economy, the German version left the economy alone and fought for a _Blutgemeinschaft_, a society based on ancestral heritage and race. Second, it must be stated that *all* human history is the result of political thought, so I'm afraid the two concepts sleep in the same bed. Thanks for your comment. Regards - Alan.
MegaRaven100 Interesting, thank you. Just to clarify my point about history being political, I understand that some events are beyond human control, but the _reactions_ to them are politically motivated in every case, even if that response is morally driven at a superficial level. We shall agree to disagree about Hitler's socialism, though as I maintain in my recent paper, most people who reach your conclusion are enchained by the _Marxist_ concept of the ideology. But there is a much more powerful convergence of socialist ideas _before_ Marx developed his theories in the mid-19th century, and it is within this earlier paradigm of theories that Hitler's socialism belongs.
A most interesting debate indeed. However I would like you to know that any 'socialistic' thoughts you percieve are certainly not 'enchained by the Marxist concept'. I very much am not interested in being part of any particular tradition and reject the idea of limiting history (or music or much else) to any one theory as theories to me are always at best incomplete and limiting, no matter what their insights.or brilliance.
I believe that the more different perspectives the better. Just as I find merit and great pleasure in many forms of very different music but generally find less than 5% of any one type or style (bar classical) to be worthy of more than one listen while I seek out those individual pieces that really shine and reward repeated listenings. The same with philosophy though of course our own individual natures will tend to inform our choices.
The more insight the better, while refusing to be ever limited to pedantry and orthodoxy. With greater consciousness comes the greater capacity for conscious choice. Marx had his insights and limitations. Even the Wall Street Journal admit to finding some merit and even importance in understanding his ideas. Just like Freud. But neither 'encapsulate' truth and are mere tools, one amongst many including those opposed like Edmund Burke and others.
Pa m
! Aw we s fu m ml I'm off lunch hy himself
liked the actual perspectives form the actual sites.
The German armies in Alsace Lorraine were supposed to withdraw East to draw the French left wing away from the German right wing advancing through Belgium.
Except that in 1914 the Schlieffen plan had been modified from the original, as the Germans decided to not march through the parts of the Netherlands that von Schlieffen had originally envisioned.
Belgium, 1914.
From a British point of view, was the Treaty of London of 1839 a 'legal obligation', or a 'moral duty'?
Concerning the first concept, it was not a 'defense pact', like with Poland in 1939, or today's NATO. The treaty was formulated sufficiently vague, to give future British politicians enough latitude to react to it as they saw fit.
If one considers the ignorance many people have of international affairs today, it won't surprise me if most people didn't even know the treaty existed....
That leaves moral duty.
Certainly, British citizens felt they had a moral duty to come to the aid of the poor people in small nation, overrun by a nasty neighbor.
But then again, British civilians also had a moral duty to come to the aid of 'poor people' in Finland (1939), Rwanda, or Cambodia, where Pol Pot's terror brigades were slaughtering millions.
Hmmmm...awfully complicated...
I guess it's really a question of national interests, and the 'poor people' argument is simply a tool to manipulate the masses.
While I think they make some good points about the counter-attack by the Germans in Alsace in mid-August, the main problem was the ambitious nature of the Schlieffen Plan itself. Of course the Belgians will fight... Of course the British will fight - somewhere! This all threw the timetable off.
MOST IMPORTANTLY - the German 1st Army and their whole right was never able to even swing north of Paris, let alone behind it as planned! This was not well conceived. After 5 weeks of almost constant fighting, the Germans were tired and 200 miles from their main supply bases. Then the Entente counter-attacked at the Marne. Game over - 2 front war for Germany.
We will never know, because the German officer in the South flank lost their nerves.
It’s reckless arrogance to think sending 750k men with the greatest artillery force of all time will definitely end quickly with minimal pain to solidify the place of the new German state. The logical mind could make a sound strategic argument for Germany starting a preemptive war given the potential military pressure they could be subsumed with from empires surrounding them but that’s why you can’t just trust the stratagem and cold logic of generals who think in terms of war while in safe comfortable barracks instead of in terms of humanity. Men who fail to trust in God and fear other men are the source of pain in the world.
When he says decimate does he mean 10% casualties?
orley104 Quite right, orley. That is a much-misused word, now far removed from its original meaning.
Dr Alan Brown Ah.....you too eh? Thanks.
thx for the GERMAN SCHIEFFEN PLAN(Germany)
I thought you were dead-or was the report exaggerated?
David Worsley I've been hobbled for a while, David. Go to my new website and the 'Blog' link tells all - www.alanbrown.info
The Russian mobilization which was quicker than schlieffen had predicted helped wreck the plan..
Purple Sword 5 plus the entry of britain to the war belgians detroying the railways making the movement off Troops,suplies slower and Belgium slowing the germans down in general.The plan was doomed too fail from the start.(maybe If Belgium let the germans pass England woudnt If joined the war and Belgium woudnt slow the germans down it could If worked.)
I had heard that Germany had wanted AH to station its troops along its northeast border and to slow down any Russian invasion, but that AH ignored the plan and launched a poorly planned invasion of Serbia instead.