Started By
Message

re: The First World War began on this day 110 years ago...

Posted on 8/1/24 at 4:31 pm to
Posted by YouKnowImRight
Member since Oct 2023
1562 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 4:31 pm to
quote:

Yeah, that might have worked that one time, Germany, but you can bet that France will never let that happen again!


*Morgan Freeman Voice*: But it did, in fact, happen again.
Posted by YouKnowImRight
Member since Oct 2023
1562 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 4:32 pm to
quote:

Germany is 0-2 in World Wars


Look up what Norm McDonald said about the Germans lol

The only country that worries me is the country of Germany
This post was edited on 8/1/24 at 4:34 pm
Posted by Darth_Vader
A galaxy far, far away
Member since Dec 2011
66425 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 4:32 pm to
quote:

Yeah, that might have worked that one time, Germany, but you can bet that France will never let that happen again!


France was, or better yet though they were, ready for round two. As soon as the Germans made their move, both the French and British immediately went into Belgium to hold them there. Little did they know what they were really doing was sticking their neck in the noose because the German were pushing an entire Panzer Group through the Ardennes to their south. By the time they figured out what was going on, it was too late. The entire BEF and an a French Army Group were now in the bag.
Posted by bad93ex
Walnut Cove
Member since Sep 2018
28787 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 4:37 pm to
Only a few months after the USS Texas was commissioned.

WWI battleships were and are still fricking awesome.
This post was edited on 8/1/24 at 4:42 pm
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
91220 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 4:51 pm to
quote:

Well, all I can say is - read the article when you get the chance.


I've read 40+ books and hundreds of articles on WWI. I've taught it at a graduate level.

The starting point was "The Schlieffen Plan". Armies develop all kinds of plans for all kinds of contingencies. There is a plan for the U.S. to fight Canada. Jokingly, we could call it "The Schwarzkopf Plan" (assuming he could have worked on it in the 80s).

Clearly, they were committed to at least starting the war with his mature plan as a starting point/planning basis. There was this romantic notion of Schlieffen on his deathbed gasping, "Keep the right wing strong!", that has something to do with this.

I simply do not understand this effort to excuse Schlieffen (who was dead 8 years when the Germans foolishly kicked off that disastrous war) and heap all of the sins of Imperial Germany onto Wilhelm II (who really deserves a good bit of blame), Moltke (who was, fair to say, too passive and timid relative to his predecessors) and Falkynhayn.

Hindenburg and Ludendorff ultimately fared no better against the Entente (although this war was not really over until the last year, unlike WWII which was over, in Europe, after Stalingrad, with all that was left to pay was the butcher's bill).

So. It makes no difference if we call it "The Schlieffen Plan" or not. It makes no difference if they followed the plan or not. They started with that plan and then modified it. That's good.

"It is a poor plan that is not subject to modification." - Publilius Syrus

But, once modified, they convinced themselves the modified plan was not subject to further modification. Bringing Britain into the war on the side of France and Russia doomed imperial Germany. Had they found another way. Played defense in the West and fought Russia first and foremost? That wouldn't have been "The Schlieffen Plan", either, and had a better chance of strategic victory, particularly if they had kept Britain neutral.

Following The Schlieffen Plan, to the letter, likely would have resulted in similar results to the actual war.

The cause of that war is very complicated, far more than most folks appreciate in our modern, "black-and-white" world. But the reasons for Germany's defeat (largely self-inflicted) are not complicated. And it has nothing to do with Schlieffen, who died in 1906.
This post was edited on 8/1/24 at 4:53 pm
Posted by Defiler
Member since Jul 2024
422 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 6:28 pm to
Norm was a beast
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
49853 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 8:25 pm to
Did you read Zuber's essay?


PS I'm not the one who downvoted you.
This post was edited on 8/1/24 at 8:45 pm
Posted by Lawyered
The Sip
Member since Oct 2016
32274 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 8:27 pm to
quote:

Germany is 0-2 in World Wars


And America swooped in and saved France’s sorry arses twice to save the day
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
91220 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 8:52 pm to
Yes. And I'm familiar with his scholarship on the issue.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
49853 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 9:04 pm to
quote:

Yes. And I'm familiar with his scholarship on the issue.


Excellent!

You have a military background, right? I think I recall that being so.

Zuber's says there was no Schlieffen "Plan", and what everyone interested in the history of WW I have done over the years turns on the precise meaning of that word "Plan" and what a real "Plan" was in the German Imperial Army between 1870 and 1914.

First, Schlieffen himself called his own document a "Denkschrift" which is most closely translated as a "Study". We can't call it a Staff Study because he wrote it himself without the aid of a staff. Zuber's point is that a Study or Staff Study is not a Plan. A Plan is something more formal.

We also know that in this Denkschrift, Schlieffen outlined some military movements that would involve many German Infantry Corps that did not exist at the time he wrote this document in 1905. The German Imperial Army had far fewer Infantry Corps than what Schlieffen's scenario called for when he wrote it AND even in 1914, the German Imperial Army had far fewer Infantry Corps than called for in Schlieffen's scenario.

A true "Plan", as I understand it from my military experience could not be called a "Plan" if the scenario involved military units that did not exist, because the current size of the Army was too small for them to exist. We might call it a Study or Staff Study, but not a Plan, because a Plan is in the form of a packet of documents that would include Orders to be signed that would put the Plan in motion once war is declared. You can't order a Corps to assemble at Point A on D-Day at 0600 hrs if that Corps does not actually exist. This is the crux of why Schlieffen's Denkschrift was not a Plan.

Do you agree or disagree with me so far?
This post was edited on 8/1/24 at 9:06 pm
Posted by doubleb
Baton Rouge
Member since Aug 2006
37881 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 9:24 pm to
quote:

a Plan. Do you agree or disagree with me so far?


It is semantics.

But if the plan calls for assets that do not exist then the plan can’t be used. Not THE plan.
Posted by cbree88
South Louisiana
Member since Feb 2010
6822 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 9:29 pm to
Almost every region of the world would be vastly different if the Great War had gone differently. WWI is a very good example of domino effect and butterfly effect and how quickly and drastically they can change things.
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
22776 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 9:39 pm to
Of all the major wars in history, WWI still intrigues me the most.

Prior alliances and causes, the war itself, and the short term and long term fallout.
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
91220 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 9:47 pm to
quote:

A true "Plan", as I understand it from my military experience could not be called a "Plan" if the scenario involved military units that did not exist, because the current size of the Army was too small for them to exist.


All plans (and operations orders for that matter) involve some degree of assumption. You don't make them unless you have to, but insofar as you can make assumptions and projections into the future, you can incorporate those assets into a plan as long as you have contingencies if they do not materialize or are diverted/neutralized in some way.

I have tried to understand Zuber's point, but it sounds too lawyerly:

1. There was no "Schlieffen Plan" (although he concedes that Schlieffen existed and may have conducted a study, but not a staff study, because even though he was the Chief of the German General Staff, he worked alone)

2. This "Schlieffen Plan" (which didn't exist) couldn't have been executed by Moltke the Younger, because he didn't have the resources called for by the "Schlieffen Plan" (which didn't exist)

3. Even Schlieffen himself, who wrote the plan (which didn't exist), couldn't have executed it, because he didn't have the resources in his time

4. Ergo, Moltke got the plan from his uncle Moltke.


Look, these people didn't exist in a vacuum. Moltke the Elder was much older, but he knew and mentored all these subsequent Chiefs all the way through Hindenburg, except Falkenhayn and Ludendorff who were too young. They were all Prussian. They were all distant relatives of each other and the Kaiser. There is overwhelming evidence of some framework that can be rightly called "The Schlieffen Plan". And without question, Younger Moltke modified it before execution in July/August 1914.

The Schlieffen Plan itself was high likely to have been influenced by Elder and Waldersee, the 2 most important military leaders in Schlieffen's life, coincidentally the 2 most important in Younger's life.

Arguing over what to call it "now", as some sort of gotcha or new revelation, is, IMHO, pendantry. It isn't exactly revolutionary to think that Younger, who almost without question used a framework of what Schlieffen intended to do if ordered by the Kaiser to fight a Russian/French alliance, modified it with what he learned from Elder, Waldersee and, yes, Schlieffen.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
49853 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 10:25 pm to
Good. Yes, I'm glad that we can agree that there was no formal "Plan" in the military sense of the word that Schlieffen wrote by himself, without any staff assistance.

Do you agree that this scenario that Schlieffen wrote was never the subject of an official Imperial German General Staff Wargame? Other Plans and scenarios were officially wargamed but not this famous Schlieffen scenario.

Are we in agreement on this point?

Also, did you read the part of the essay that explained how Moltke the Younger himself wrote that he rarely agreed with Schlieffen on anything?

Also, did you read the part of the essay that details all of Moltke's military assignments, which demonstrates that he spent almost all of his military career as the Military Personal Assistant of the Kaiser and Moltke's own uncle Moltke the Elder?

And when Moltke did command actual military units, they were the Ceremonial units in Berlin, not field fighting units?

In other words, Moltke the Younger was never a Corps or Army Commander who led troops in the field.

This is not a game of "gotcha". But, these are historical facts which have been distorted by the common popular history in the books we've all read that told us "Moltke used the Schlieffen Plan but modified it". We are trying not to play "gotcha" but to reach a deeper and more thorough understanding of what happened in 1914.

Do you agree that this is a worthwhile endeavor?








This post was edited on 8/1/24 at 10:28 pm
Posted by BuckyCheese
Member since Jan 2015
52902 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 10:32 pm to
quote:

WWI battleships were and are still fricking awesome.


I prefer BB-64
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
91220 posts
Posted on 8/1/24 at 11:00 pm to
quote:

Good. Yes, I'm glad that we can agree that there was no formal "Plan" in the military sense of the word that Schlieffen wrote by himself, without any staff assistance.


I don't agree. I agree that's Zuber's somewhat contorted point. You claim he's not a revisionist, but he clearly is.

The points about Moltke being a REMF aren't new, either. The nepotism points aren't new. The Kaiser of all people ribbed Younger about it.

And the war ruined his reputation, forever.

But -- his successors did no better and lost the war, anyway.
This post was edited on 8/1/24 at 11:01 pm
Posted by Asharad
Tiamat
Member since Dec 2010
5852 posts
Posted on 8/2/24 at 5:34 am to
The wrong side won this war. If the central powers had won we would not have:
- WW2, Nazis
- Communist Russia, rise and fall of the Soviet Union, Cold War
- Korean War
- Vietnam War
- the middle east as it exists today
Posted by upgrade
Member since Jul 2011
13497 posts
Posted on 8/2/24 at 6:45 am to
quote:

French and British immediately went into Belgium to hold them there. Little did they know what they were really doing was sticking their neck in the noose because the German were pushing an entire Panzer Group through the Ardennes to their south. By the time they figured out what was going on, it was too late. The entire BEF and an a French Army Group were now in the bag.


I saw a documentary that suggests The Duke of Windsor was collaborating with the Nazis and possibly giving them vital intelligence of the Allies. They made a good argument for why Germany rolled through so quickly.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
66506 posts
Posted on 8/2/24 at 6:45 am to
quote:

Zuber is the scholar who found the document in the archives because nobody before him dug it up.



Incorrect.

Michael Epkenhans, Hans Ehlert and Gerhard P. Groß of Germany's Military History Research Office re-discovered this document that had been misfiled in the archives.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram