- 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
re: Schlieffen Plan: what if it had worked?
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:35 pm to Darth_Vader
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:35 pm to Darth_Vader
If Von Kluck had stayed in his lane, I don't think "the gap" would had mattered as much. After a sluggish start (and Belgium, of course), the Germans were really rolling in late August. Having a French division slip in the gap would likely have gotten it crushed at that point.
No, Von Kluck offering his flank(almost on a dare) was the real opportunity for the Blue and thin sliver of Tan to turn and fight after what must have seemed like a lifetime of retreat.
Of course he turned because of "the gap", so it may be a chicken/egg situation. The whole discussion is.
The plan was based on poor (and really old) assumptions, rigid planning criteria and offered little to no flexibility. Despite this, Von Moltke tinkered with it so much, not even really fair to call it the Schlieffen Plan.
What was it the old guy said on his deathbed, "Keep the right strong."? Well, they absolutely didn't do that.
Even with that, they were a hair away from pulling it off.
No, Von Kluck offering his flank(almost on a dare) was the real opportunity for the Blue and thin sliver of Tan to turn and fight after what must have seemed like a lifetime of retreat.
Of course he turned because of "the gap", so it may be a chicken/egg situation. The whole discussion is.
The plan was based on poor (and really old) assumptions, rigid planning criteria and offered little to no flexibility. Despite this, Von Moltke tinkered with it so much, not even really fair to call it the Schlieffen Plan.
What was it the old guy said on his deathbed, "Keep the right strong."? Well, they absolutely didn't do that.
Even with that, they were a hair away from pulling it off.
This post was edited on 12/13/21 at 10:37 pm
0
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:43 pm to Darth_Vader
Germany becomes the big swinging dick in Europe for a while. Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire continue to be unstable and fall apart at some point anyway. Revolution breaks out in defeated France and/or England and you have Bolsheviks In control of modern developed industrial states. No Nazi Germany but likely something equally ominous. In short, a different chaotic, but still chaotic.
Posted on 12/13/21 at 10:56 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:Nah, never would have happened.
"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
One of the biggest aggressors for the war was Britain- they wanted to hit Germany and slap them back into line. The Brits were stagnant and the Germans were rising fast, and if nothing happened the Germans would have passed them by the mid-20's, 30's at latest. This was their chance to stay on top.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 8:45 am to Scoob
What I don't understand is if Germany was itching to expand their footprint in Europe and take a seat at the world power table, why didn't they just annex Austria-Hungary? Austria was a weakening world power at the time, ripe for the picking if they wanted to do so with force but more than likely it could have been taken diplomatically. Austria is made up of Germanic peoples anyway so there wouldn't be a huge culture clash. They would have gained ports on the Adriatic. I just don't see what Germany's ultimate goal was in going east, sure regain all of Prussia but after that, do you really want the rest of Poland and western Russia? I suppose I just don't know enough about prewar mindset, maybe someone can help shed some light.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 8:57 am to Oilfieldbiology
quote:
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
No Nazis, no communists...if only.
WWI is the most fascinating turn of events in modern world history, IMO. The history books tend to blame it all on alliances and posturing, but one account I read summed it up in an interesting way.
Something to the effect of "prior to WWI, kingdoms went to war. That's just what they did. WWI introduced new weaponry and tactics that made war VERY costly and VERY brutal. The European leaders started a skirmish and it turned into a slaughter. At that point, no one knew anyway out but to see it through till the end."
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:07 am to Dawgwithnoname
The absolute slaughter of men at rates never before seen over yards of territory in some cases was a huge reason the socialists were abele to oust Tsar Nicolas.
They way Russia was trending, with their embarrassment in the Sino-Russian war, the antiquated economy and social system, there was probably going to be revolution soon anyway. But the seemingly absolute disregard for human life displayed in WWI by the traditional imperial powers, gross mismanagement by the old guard, and their in absolute to adapt to new/necessary battle strategy lead to acceleration of revolutionary zeal in the Russian empire.
Add to that the continued promise of land reform and you could see why socialism would be looked upon favorably. However, if Germany won before russia could mobilize, they may have never gotten in the war and that could have seen the Tsar holding on to power long enough for the bolsheviks to simply fade into history.
Also, if Germany wins, there is no Treat of Versailles, therefore there is no reason that the Nazis would take power by preaching against the communist and social agitators.
They way Russia was trending, with their embarrassment in the Sino-Russian war, the antiquated economy and social system, there was probably going to be revolution soon anyway. But the seemingly absolute disregard for human life displayed in WWI by the traditional imperial powers, gross mismanagement by the old guard, and their in absolute to adapt to new/necessary battle strategy lead to acceleration of revolutionary zeal in the Russian empire.
Add to that the continued promise of land reform and you could see why socialism would be looked upon favorably. However, if Germany won before russia could mobilize, they may have never gotten in the war and that could have seen the Tsar holding on to power long enough for the bolsheviks to simply fade into history.
Also, if Germany wins, there is no Treat of Versailles, therefore there is no reason that the Nazis would take power by preaching against the communist and social agitators.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:08 am to Darth_Vader
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.
I agree.
quote:
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.
I agree.
And I like to ponder how events would have transpired in the wake of France suing for peace in late 1914. An important French military/civil Official wanted Paris's bridges and other infrastructure, such as the Eifel Tower, destroyed before the French Army retreated from that city. Would his order have been over-ruled?
Germany planned severe penalties for France in the event of France's suing for peace in 1914. These penalties were intended to crush France's future war-making capability. They would have caused severe economic depression in France. Could Germany somehow be convinced to moderate those severe terms?
We don't know.
Here is the best history of the campaign, IMHO. It was written in the 1930s, which is when historical interest in writing a comprehensive analysis of the campaign was highest.
Campaign of the Marne
Here's a computer war game that I have on the topic. It's huge - down to battery and battalion level.
France 14
This game company is having a sale on all of their games starting tomorrow.
This post was edited on 12/14/21 at 9:16 am
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:09 am to Darth_Vader
If it had worked then Volkswagen would make better cars cause if they didn't the leader would kill the lead engineer. That's all I got.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:10 am to Emteein
quote:
What I don't understand is if Germany was itching to expand their footprint in Europe and take a seat at the world power table, why didn't they just annex Austria-Hungary? Austria was a weakening world power at the time, ripe for the picking if they wanted to do so with force but more than likely it could have been taken diplomatically. Austria is made up of Germanic peoples anyway so there wouldn't be a huge culture clash. They would have gained ports on the Adriatic. I just don't see what Germany's ultimate goal was in going east, sure regain all of Prussia but after that, do you really want the rest of Poland and western Russia? I suppose I just don't know enough about prewar mindset, maybe someone can help shed some light.
Germany at the onset of the war had no plans for a conquest of Russia. Their plan was simply to knock Russia out before it could fully mobilize. That’s not to say though Germany did not expect any territorial concessions. But those would have been limited to some portion of Poland and perhaps the Baltic countries.
Austria had their own designs though and wanted most or all of Southern Poland.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:20 am to Champagne
quote:
Germany planned severe penalties for France in the event of France's suing for peace in 1914. These penalties were intended to crush France's future war-making capability. They would have caused severe economic depression in France. Could Germany somehow be convinced to moderate those severe terms?
It’s not in our nature here in 21st century America to consider the perspective of early 20th century Imperial Germany. But consider this, From the German perspective they viewed France as a country that dragged them into war on a reoccurring basis going back centuries and as recently as 1870. They wanted to remove France’s ability to ever threaten them again.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:26 am to Scoob
quote:
Nah, never would have happened.
One of the biggest aggressors for the war was Britain- they wanted to hit Germany and slap them back into line. The Brits were stagnant and the Germans were rising fast, and if nothing happened the Germans would have passed them by the mid-20's, 30's at latest. This was their chance to stay on top.
I agree that Great Britain's reasons for joining France in the war against Germany may have been more complex than a simple and totally altruistic motivation to help innocent poor little Belgium.
Great Britain had always made war against the European continental hegemon. Britain had always made war against any threat to British Seapower. Imperial Germany would have been undisputed European hegemon and her Imperial High Seas Fleet would have eventually challenged the Royal Navy for mastery of the high seas, had Germany won in 1914. Kaiser Wilhelm made it very clear before the war that he intended to build Germany into a great military and economic Maritime Power. Britain took this as a direct and personal threat.
This post was edited on 12/14/21 at 9:27 am
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:28 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
They wanted to remove France’s ability to ever threaten them again.
Your conclusion is quite accurate.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 9:29 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Schlieffen Plan: what if it had worked?
The Brit’s should have stayed the frick out and the world would be a better place with a swift German victory in 1914-15
Posted on 12/14/21 at 10:03 am to Champagne
quote:
I agree that Great Britain's reasons for joining France in the war against Germany may have been more complex than a simple and totally altruistic motivation to help innocent poor little Belgium.
Great Britain had always made war against the European continental hegemon. Britain had always made war against any threat to British Seapower. Imperial Germany would have been undisputed European hegemon and her Imperial High Seas Fleet would have eventually challenged the Royal Navy for mastery of the high seas, had Germany won in 1914. Kaiser Wilhelm made it very clear before the war that he intended to build Germany into a great military and economic Maritime Power. Britain took this as a direct and personal threat.
Very good analysis. Great Britain still remembered what happened a century before when a major power was allowed to grow too powerful on the continent. They did not want a repeat of the Napoleonic Wars. What they didn’t realize though in 1914, was they were creating a far worse war.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 10:06 am to beerJeep
quote:
The Brit’s should have stayed the frick out
Britian at the time viewed Imperial Germany's rise as a maritime, military and economic power as a direct and personal threat to Great Britain's national interests.
BUT, seems to me that, at the time, Great Britain's most important national interest was to maintain its dominance within the International Finance arena. What if the short war with German victory over France could have resulted in a peace deal that Britain, France and Russia could live with? That would have been the best result, but, back then, nations' leaders were not prone to be selfless and generous!
Posted on 12/14/21 at 10:17 am to fr33manator
quote:
Would have been better for the world overall. Much less death, not the same WW2
Its impossible to know that for sure though right? The way the events played out has allowed the human race to survive the dawn of the nuclear age and have relative peace for 70 years. Any deviation from the current time line of events could've resulted in possible nuclear annihilation of us all.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 10:31 am to ThuperThumpin
quote:
Its impossible to know that for sure though right? The way the events played out has allowed the human race to survive the dawn of the nuclear age and have relative peace for 70 years. Any deviation from the current time line of events could've resulted in possible nuclear annihilation of us all.
You bring up a good point. It is impossible to know what the world would look like following a quick German victory in 1914. I believe the Empires of Europe would have remained intact for at least another 20 years, perhaps more.
But what of France? The peace Germany would have imposed would have been harsh, crippling France militarily and economically. Would we see France take a similar course to the one Germany took following the harsh peace placed upon it by the Treaty of Versailles? Would an obscure French corporal rise to power with promises of returning France to her rightful place among the nations?
And what of Japan? She was already a growing naval power. Had WWI only lasted a few months it’s doubtful the Washington Naval Treaty would have ever happened if Germany won. Japan would be free to continue its naval buildup in the Pacific. This would have fueled a naval arms race with both America and Great Britain. And Germany would still be pumping out Dreadnoughts as well. A four way naval arms race between America, Great Britain, Japan, and Germany could have lead to a Cold War in the 20s & 30s that perhaps would still lead to a Global war a generation later. Who’s to say who would ally with who I’m this eventuality? Imagine a naval war on a global scale with America and Germany fighting against Japan and Great Britain. Sounds crazy, but it’s not impossible in this scenario.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 10:37 am to Darth_Vader
quote:Well, geez, when you say it like that.
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.
I thought it was "Von Schlieffen Plan" btw.
Posted on 12/14/21 at 11:19 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
You bring up a good point. It is impossible to know what the world would look like following a quick German victory in 1914. I believe the Empires of Europe would have remained intact for at least another 20 years, perhaps more.
Well, if the war is quick, we may never have the rise of the communist block. Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov would never have been delivered to Petrograd. That didn't happen until 1917. Russian revolution probably still happens but at a much later date and may not take up communism. Lenin dies in 1924, so potentially if the war doesn't drag on and push the people to the brink and lenin isn't delivered to further push the revolution, the revolution might not happen for several more years so if he dies before it happens there is a completely different russia.
I think the biggest change though is what might the middle east look like today if the war doesn't drag on and the ottoman empire doesn't collapse, it was going to happen eventually, but there is not partitioning of the ottoman empire and if England and france don't get control of the region, then they never hand it over to the jews and we don't have the current state of israel. There might never be violent outbreaks in the middle east if it remains in muslim control. Sure the lust for oil, probably leads to some conflict but it isn't what we are in now.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News