- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Schlieffen Plan: what if it had worked?
Posted on 12/13/21 at 9:50 pm
Posted on 12/13/21 at 9:50 pm
The Schlieffen Plan was the German war plan, first laid out not long after the Prussian victory in the Franco-Prussian war for the eventuality of a war against France & Russia. The plan was simple, an invasion of France through the Low Countries to knock France out of the war quickly then turn on Russia and defeat their armies in detail before full Russian mobilization could be completed. Everything hinged on in defeating France quickly then transferring forces east to defeat Russia before the Russian mobilization was complete. As events turned out, the plan failed, thanks to the Battle of the Marne. The result of the failure of the Schlieffen Plan was stalemate on both the Western and Eastern Front. That stalemate would last three years on the Eastern Front and would result in the collapse of the Russian Empire. The stalemate on the Western Front would last four years. When it was finally broken the result would be the collapse of the German Empire and in turn the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires.
When the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919, the world was transformed. The age of European Empires was over. In its place came the rise of the US as both an economic and military world power, Japan also emerged as a major power. The Middle East emerged from the war as a fractured entity that still reverberates to today. And Europe was thrown into the chaos of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. Simply put, the world as it was known in 1914, had ceased to exist by 1919.
But, what if things had transpired differently? What if instead of the Schlieffen Plan ending in defeat on the Marne; it instead lead to the victory the German General Staff envisioned? What if instead of a four year war of attrition that claimed the lives of 40 million people and relegated multiple empires and the social order of centuries to the dustbin of history, the war that began in the summer of 1914 was over by the fall of 1914 after only a fraction of that number of casualties? What would have Europe and the world looked like in that war’s aftermath? And what would the look like today over a century later?
When the Treaty of Versailles was signed in 1919, the world was transformed. The age of European Empires was over. In its place came the rise of the US as both an economic and military world power, Japan also emerged as a major power. The Middle East emerged from the war as a fractured entity that still reverberates to today. And Europe was thrown into the chaos of Communism, Fascism, and Nazism. Simply put, the world as it was known in 1914, had ceased to exist by 1919.
But, what if things had transpired differently? What if instead of the Schlieffen Plan ending in defeat on the Marne; it instead lead to the victory the German General Staff envisioned? What if instead of a four year war of attrition that claimed the lives of 40 million people and relegated multiple empires and the social order of centuries to the dustbin of history, the war that began in the summer of 1914 was over by the fall of 1914 after only a fraction of that number of casualties? What would have Europe and the world looked like in that war’s aftermath? And what would the look like today over a century later?
13
Posted on 12/13/21 at 9:52 pm to Darth_Vader
Probably because the German Army was spread in the East, just like WWII.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 9:55 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Schlieffen Plan: what if it had worked?
Well for one they would have never had to bomb Pearl Harbor
Posted on 12/13/21 at 9:55 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
But, what if things had transpired differently? What if instead of the Schlieffen Plan ending in defeat on the Marne; it instead lead to the victory the German General Staff envisioned? What if instead of a four year war of attrition that claimed the lives of 40 million people and relegated multiple empires and the social order of centuries to the dustbin of history, the war that began in the summer of 1914 was over by the fall of 1914 after only a fraction of that number of casualties? What would have Europe and the world looked like in that war’s aftermath? And what would the look like today over a century later?
The Holocaust wouldn’t have happened, the soviets may not have taken over Russia, and America may not be the financial capital of the world as WWI and WWII shifted that title from London the NYC
Posted on 12/13/21 at 9:57 pm to Darth_Vader
"The Plan" lost them the war. Being so married to that set of operational objective, timelines, mobilization schedules and that path - through Belgium- is precisely what lost them the war. Russia mobilized early and the German armies in the East handled them easily. If they could have kept Britain out - and frankly, making an agreement to not attack Russia first and not attack Belgium at all would have been all it would have taken to keep Britain out, Germany wins this one fairly easily, although it would still have been bloody in Eastern and Central France through late 1915.
No army beat the German Imperial Army. The Royal Navy beat them. Starved them nearly to death.
No army beat the German Imperial Army. The Royal Navy beat them. Starved them nearly to death.
This post was edited on 12/13/21 at 9:59 pm
Posted on 12/13/21 at 9:58 pm to Darth_Vader
It could have worked, if von Moltke had stuck to it more than he did. He did not. The German High Command never actually implemented the Schlieffen Plan - von Moltke modified it by weakening the Right Wing.
The German Plan to settle things with France, had France sued for peace in 1914, was a very harsh plan indeed. The Germans planned to keep the Channel Ports near Calais occupied with German forces. They planned to annex some French coal mines that were near the border.
The fact is that the Schlieffen Plan was the best chance for the war to end in 1914, and, had it been implemented as intended, it probably would have worked.
What would the 20th Century look like had World War One ended in 1914? It is a fascinating question that I have pondered for many years.
The German Plan to settle things with France, had France sued for peace in 1914, was a very harsh plan indeed. The Germans planned to keep the Channel Ports near Calais occupied with German forces. They planned to annex some French coal mines that were near the border.
The fact is that the Schlieffen Plan was the best chance for the war to end in 1914, and, had it been implemented as intended, it probably would have worked.
What would the 20th Century look like had World War One ended in 1914? It is a fascinating question that I have pondered for many years.
This post was edited on 12/13/21 at 10:02 pm
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:00 pm to Kcrad
quote:
Probably because the German Army was spread in the East, just like WWII.
WWI was far different than WWII. The Schlieffen Palm called for a skeletal force to hold the Russians for six weeks while France was knocked out of the war in the West. The Germans were never too spread thin on the Eastern Front in WWI. I’m fact by 1917 they forced the Russians to sue for peace in the east. And when this happened the Germans were able to transfer something like 50 divisions to the West. Unliked WWII, WWI was decided very much on the Western Front.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:04 pm to Darth_Vader
Even with the chaos that was happening in Russia- the one thing that would galvanize them would be that massive east push attack.
I don’t think Germany could move fast enough back then to really decimate Russia.
In the end the steppes still swallow the German armies.
Russia is a logistical nightmare supply wise.
Russia in WWI was terrible but they would have gotten their act together defensively for a long enough period.
I don’t think Germany could move fast enough back then to really decimate Russia.
In the end the steppes still swallow the German armies.
Russia is a logistical nightmare supply wise.
Russia in WWI was terrible but they would have gotten their act together defensively for a long enough period.
This post was edited on 12/13/21 at 10:08 pm
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:04 pm to Darth_Vader
Would have been better for the world overall. Much less death, not the same WW2
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:04 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
No army beat the German Imperial Army. The Royal Navy beat them. Starved them nearly to death.
This very well sums matters up. But what, in your option would be that result had none of this happened because the war ended in a matter of weeks, or months in 1914? What, in your option would be the long term reverberations from an early German victory?
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:07 pm to Jobu93
quote:
Even with the chaos that was happening in Russia- the one thing that would galvanize them would be that massive east push attack.
I don’t think Germany could move fast enough back then to really decimate Russia. In the end the steppes still swallow the German armies.
Russia is a logistical nightmare supply wise.
Germany in WWI never envisioned an invasion into the heart of Imperial Russia. Their plan was to destroy the Russian Armies then force Russia to sue for a settled peace.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:14 pm to Ace Midnight
Great Britain's financial situation could not afford to allow Imperial Germany win the war, so, many historians believe that Britain would have joined the war against Germany, regardless of whether Germany had invaded Belgium.
But, who knows for sure? Perhaps Britain would indeed have remained neutral.
von Moltke modified the Schlieffen Plan's strong Right Wing by about ten divisions. Early in the campaign, von Moltke took four divisions from the Right Wing and sent them to the Russian front. Before the war even started, von Moltke took about six divisions from the Right Wing and sent them to the middle part of the Western Front, and they fought the 1914 campaign in that sector.
It's a very, very fascinating campaign, and, if those ten divisions stayed on the Right Wing like Schlieffen had intended, I'm not sure that the French and British could have avoided a significant defeat in 1914.
But, who knows for sure? Perhaps Britain would indeed have remained neutral.
von Moltke modified the Schlieffen Plan's strong Right Wing by about ten divisions. Early in the campaign, von Moltke took four divisions from the Right Wing and sent them to the Russian front. Before the war even started, von Moltke took about six divisions from the Right Wing and sent them to the middle part of the Western Front, and they fought the 1914 campaign in that sector.
It's a very, very fascinating campaign, and, if those ten divisions stayed on the Right Wing like Schlieffen had intended, I'm not sure that the French and British could have avoided a significant defeat in 1914.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:14 pm to Darth_Vader
I think that the problem that the Germans had started even before this. The Germans' problem was that the French fortifications forced Germany to go around through Belgium. This caused a couple of problems - The Belgians put up a lot stiffer opposition than anticipated, thus slowing the Germans, and Germany's invasion of Belgium pissed off Great Britain who had originally considered sitting out the war. On top of that, Russia mobilized faster than had been anticipated, undermining one of the major pillars of the "quick victory in France and then turn on Russia" nature of the plan.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:16 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
But what, in your option would be that result had none of this happened because the war ended in a matter of weeks, or months in 1914? What, in your option would be the long term reverberations from an early German victory?
The global map was redrawn after WWI (and again after WWII - The Sequel). A rapid German victory would have had none of that. There would have been a loss of some colonies by France. The German navy would likely have gained somewhat more equal footing with Britain and France. The Russian monarchy lasts, perhaps, another decade or more and slouches into a corrupt Democracy somewhat gradually, rather than the 3/4 of a Century dabbling with a hybrid Totalitarian "Utopia".
The German Empire likely survives and evolves into a more UK-style Constitutional Republic by the 1950s. No Balfour Declaration and no real efforts to unify the Arabs into large states. The Ottomans also survive into the 1950s or thereabouts and perhaps forever if they leverage the oil boom to their favor. The Balkans don't disintegrate. China doesn't go Red.
Japan probably does cause a scuffle in the 40s or 50s, but it is likely regional and limited. The United States is likely a superpower, but mainly an economic one. The Germans retain the strongest military force on Earth until well into the 1960s or beyond. The atom isn't harnessed until the mid-1950s and probably by the Germans. There was no Space Race. No Vietnam.
Except in a few very isolated places, involving less than 100 million people at most, everything that happened after World War I happened largely because of it.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:18 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
What, in your option would be the long term reverberations from an early German victory?
In the East this hypothetical actually happened briefly with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Bolshevik gov’t of Russia ceded massive amounts of Western lands to the German Empire. They were returned later after the Armistice.
I’ve also wondered the same thing about Germany’s war aims in the West. It is amazing that these countries were sending millions of men into a meat grinder for goals they could hardly define.
I know Germany had interest in expanding its colonial and naval power. So probably overtaking Britain as the dominant European colonial power and securing more resources overseas. Iirc correctly from my high school history class, many German nationalists, both pre and post war were Malthusians who believed Germany’s population couldn’t be supported without securing more natural resources. Ironically kind of came true with the blockade.
Good topic
This post was edited on 12/13/21 at 10:19 pm
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:22 pm to Champagne
quote:
Great Britain's financial situation could not afford to allow Imperial Germany win the war, so, many historians believe that Britain would have joined the war against Germany, regardless of whether Germany had invaded Belgium.
This, more than a “scrap of paper” promising Belgian sovereignty, is what drove Britain to war in 1914.
quote:
von Moltke modified the Schlieffen Plan's strong Right Wing by about ten divisions. Early in the campaign, von Moltke took four divisions from the Right Wing and sent them to the Russian front. Before the war even started, von Moltke took about six divisions from the Right Wing and sent them to the middle part of the Western Front, and they fought the 1914 campaign in that sector.
It's a very, very fascinating campaign, and, if those ten divisions stayed on the Right Wing like Schlieffen had intended, I'm not sure that the French and British could have avoided a significant defeat in 1914.
The significance of the transfer of forces from the Right Wing by Moltke cannot be overstated. Those divisions would have most likely prevented the gap from developing between 1st and 2nd Armies. Without that gap to be exploited, there is little to no chance the German would have been stopped at the Marne. History as we know it today would be far different.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:26 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
WWI was far different than WWII. The Schlieffen Palm called for a skeletal force to hold the Russians for six weeks while France was knocked out of the war in the West. The Germans were never too spread thin on the Eastern Front in WWI. I’m fact by 1917 they forced the Russians to sue for peace in the east. And when this happened the Germans were able to transfer something like 50 divisions to the West. Unliked WWII, WWI was decided very much on the Western Front.
By about 1915, the Germans were fighting huge battles in the East. In WWI and WWII, same, but different.
Of course, sending Lenin to Russia was the worst mistake of the 20th century.
This post was edited on 12/13/21 at 10:27 pm
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:27 pm to Methuselah
quote:
The Belgians put up a lot stiffer opposition than anticipated, thus slowing the Germans, and Germany's invasion of Belgium pissed off Great Britain who had originally considered sitting out the war
Exactly, everything relied on a specific time table and Belgium messed that up
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:33 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Ace Midnight
Your logic is both reasonable sound and I can find no faults in your contentions.
In short, and I think you’d agree, had the Germans won in the summer or fall of 1914, the world would be be a far better place today. In fact I contend it could be argued the end of Western Civilization began when the war of 1914 didn’t end in a few months as most at the time envisioned would happen but instead evolved into the industrial scale slaughter we now know as World War I.
It’s late so I’m calling it a night. Great discussion everyone.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:35 pm to Darth_Vader
It was never a workable plan. It was a classroom plan (vs one that looked at real life situations) and was really outdated anyway. Von Moultke (sp) shouldve scrapped it altogether, given real world considerations.
That said, in the fantasy land where it wouldve worked? The British Empire would have continued longer, the US never would have united and converged as a greater geopolitical power... at least not yet. Germany would have dominated the continent, which would be terrible considering that it was an overtly authoritarian system of government. I mean, France is garbage but at least they have the tradition of representative govt as spotty as it was (is).
That said, in the fantasy land where it wouldve worked? The British Empire would have continued longer, the US never would have united and converged as a greater geopolitical power... at least not yet. Germany would have dominated the continent, which would be terrible considering that it was an overtly authoritarian system of government. I mean, France is garbage but at least they have the tradition of representative govt as spotty as it was (is).
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News