WW1 debate: Schlieffen plan or not?

[Archduke Sven]

Hello guys, i wanted to hear your opinions on a matter that could have changed world history, if the German Empire should have used the Schlieffen plan or used alternative plans, such as concentrating on Russia first.

Now, personally i'm an advocate of focusing on Russia first, an unstable and poor country who's only real advantage is size and man power reserves.

I've been trying it out on Hearts of Iron III and Darkest Hour and been getting good results, not to say that those games are 100% accurate or anything, but they are after all, War games.

results in Darkest Hour

The scenario starts June 27th 1914, the day of the assasination. So what i've generally been doing is keeping a portion of my army in the heavily fortified Alsace-Lorraine region with my more outdated divisions. Then i re-deployed my units in the east and move my Bavarian corps down to Serbia to help the Austrians conquer that region. During this time i take military control of the Austria-Hungary so i can coordinate operations with them. first thing i do is focus on taking out Serbia and bringing Bulgaria and the Ottomans on my side of the war, if you rapidly advance into Serbia they will easily join your alliance which = more manpower. I take control of the Ottoman Army and reposition the majority in the Caucasus, since i wont need to worry about any landings in Gallipoli or attacks from Egypt since Britain will not enter the war because they have no real Casus Belli due to me not attacking Belgium, additionally the world sees France and Russia as the main aggressors, so the US stays neutral. With the Ottomans i quickly seize the Caucasus region up to the Azov sea, thats about as far as you can make it before the Russians move considerable forces to the area. This is good since it removes pressure on the East front and large scale offensives in the Caucasus are very difficult, so the Ottoman armies in the region can easily hold ground.

Main offensives:
With Germany in 1914 i seized Poland and started to wrok my way up the Baltic provinces towards St. Petersburg, encircling 2 Russian armies on the way, amounting to 19 divisions. I redeploy my armies in Serbia to the East or to Italy, where the Italians have declared war and are aided by the French who are attempting to out flank me, since they figured out their frontal assaults on my borders weren't working. It is quite easy to hold out in a defensive posture in Italy due to the mountain terrain. Meanwhile launching a main assault in Russia you're able to capture St. Petersburg by late 1915 and Moscow by mid 1916, at which point, after the Tsar has been toppled by the Provisional government, and then the Provisionals fall to the Bolsheviks, they sign an armistice, at which point you know have the armies of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire to attack wherever you like.

[close]

Now that is a war game, but i genuinly think a plan like that would be much better than the Schlieffen plan, since you don't have to fight the Commonwealth and defeating Russia is relativly easy due to them being militarily incapable and their government is unstable.

Now, what are you opinions? Please be nice to eachother, keep it relevant and please don't post anything stupid like "America would save the world! fur freedumbz!". Feel free to support your arguements with evidence, and please let national pride stay out of the matter.

[Allasaphore]

The fact that Russia was so backward if probably one of the reasons why the Schlieffen plan seemed to be, and probably was, the most effectual. Had the German advance not been stopped at the First Battle of the Marne, it is likely that the war would have ended swiftly against the French (a far greater threat than Russia).

Attacking the Russians in full would have risked leaving the Western Front weak and the Italian Front not as well manned as it should be. In all honesty, the Schlieffen plan was the best option they had, and it was stopped by the fortunes of war.

In addition, your description from Darkest Hour fails to mention where the Russians/French declare war on you and why, and appears to lack an Italian front, but does mention that the British didn't get involved due to your remaining outside of Belgium. Historically, the Germans declared war on both the Russians and the French (out of fear that the latter would mobilize and surround Germany), so I'm genuinely curious as to why they declared war on you in that game as the aggressors. Especially considering the matter that in reality, Austria-Hungary initiated the war.

[Archduke Sven]

The fact that Russia was so backward if probably one of the reasons why the Schlieffen plan seemed to be, and probably was, the most effectual. Had the German advance not been stopped at the First Battle of the Marne, it is likely that the war would have ended swiftly against the French (a far greater threat than Russia).

Attacking the Russians in full would have risked leaving the Western Front weak and the Italian Front not as well manned as it should be. In all honesty, the Schlieffen plan was the best option they had, and it was stopped by the fortunes of war.

In addition, your description from Darkest Hour fails to mention where the Russians/French declare war on you and why, and appears to lack an Italian front, but does mention that the British didn't get involved due to your remaining outside of Belgium. Historically, the Germans declared war on both the Russians and the French (out of fear that the latter would mobilize and surround Germany), so I'm genuinely curious as to why they declared war on you in that game as the aggressors. Especially considering the matter that in reality, Austria-Hungary initiated the war.

It's difficult to describe the beginning diplomacy, but on second thought i'm pretty sure i declared war on France after they refused to stay neutral. My bad.

But, as you said yourself, France was infact the stronger opponent, so wouldn't it make more sense to defeat the weaker one before facing the stronger one? Furthermore, remember that the borders between Germany and France were very well defended with trench networks and fortresses that had been in preparation for 40 years, infantry assaults would always fail, as that war showed us. I did mention the Italian front, the Italians declared war in mid 1915 and did some attacks on Trento along with a couple French corps, but after battles where they kept losing 150 000 men, they eventually stopped doing it. Remember that my plan was based around defeating Serbia very quickly, because i knew that Serbia was actually a though nut to crack, and how it turned out for the Austrians in the actual war. So unlike in WW1, i was able to redeploy the Serbian front to the Italian one, since the latter ended once the former begun.

I do agree that, in the German's point of view and why they chose the Schlieffen plan, did look like a sound plan with not many flaws. It's biggest flaw however was it's time table, if something went wrong there, many things would completely screw up. However the advance, of course, was halted literally by a miracle, the battle of the Marne.

I still think though, that keeping the British + Commonwealth out of the war outweights most of the advantages of the Schlieffen plan. Of course this is all in hindsight, and the German Chiefs of Staff  probably knew a whole lot more than me, i still think defeating Russia first is a more solid plan.

[Allasaphore]

But, as you said yourself, France was infact the stronger opponent, so wouldn't it make more sense to defeat the weaker one before facing the stronger one?

I agree with much of what you said. However, the above quote is the one thing I disagree with. Getting France out of the war early would essentially make it a cake walk, which is historically why such an approach was taken. The First Battle of the Marne (1914) arguably could have gone both ways...had the Germans won, Paris would have fallen and the war ended, at least on the Western Front.

[König]

One thing worth mentioning about the plan; is that it's very existence relied on the fact that, in the event of a two front war with France and Russia, Russia would take significantly longer to mobilize it's forces than France would. Making it imperative that France be the first, main, and only target initially. If Germany was able to destroy France quickly and supremely (which they came very close to doing), all that would need to be done was transfer the troops on the French front to the Russian one. Another reason for this, is that Russia is far larger than France and would thus take far longer to defeat, simply due to it's sheer size.

[Archduke Sven]

Yes, but remember, even if Paris was taken are you sure France would fall? Or would they keep fighting, along with the support of the Commonwealth?

I guess we will never know.

[Schmidtche]

Schlieffen was the best option they had.

They rightfully assumed that they couldn't beat Russia quickly, due to its sheer size.
They also knew that Germany couldn't afford a long war, due to lack of ressources within Germany. (especially Iron)

So the only option was to attack the smaller (in size) country with full force and taking it out as soon as possible.
They miscalculated regarding Britain, which was the blunder that in the end lost them the war, though the British didn't have that much impact in August 14.

Biggest additional mistake was to weaken the plan, by weakening the right wing in favor of the left before the war and by pulling out 2 Korps and sending them to the east in August 14. (They were desperatly missed in the west and were too late to fight at Tannenberg in the East)

Depending whether a victory at the Marne would have changed thing: Yes. Paris is the heart of France in every way, it would have been to huge a blow to moral to lose it. Not to mention economical and logistical problems it would have caused.

[Archduke Sven]

Schlieffen was the best option they had.

They rightfully assumed that they couldn't beat Russia quickly, due to its sheer size.
They also knew that Germany couldn't afford a long war, due to lack of ressources within Germany. (especially Iron)

So the only option was to attack the smaller (in size) country with full force and taking it out as soon as possible.
They miscalculated regarding Britain, which was the blunder that in the end lost them the war, though the British didn't have that much impact in August 14.

Biggest additional mistake was to weaken the plan, by weakening the right wing in favor of the left before the war and by pulling out 2 Korps and sending them to the east in August 14. (They were desperatly missed in the west and were too late to fight at Tannenberg in the East)

Depending whether a victory at the Marne would have changed thing: Yes. Paris is the heart of France in every way, it would have been to huge a blow to moral to lose it. Not to mention economical and logistical problems it would have caused.

Yes, i know they wanted to defeat France as quickly as possible and then turn on Russia, but they would still have the UK and commonwealth able to strike them in the back, and if they would try to strangle the UK into submission with submarines they would just bring the USA into the war. Thus basically a replay of WW2, not sure if that would be great.

[Allasaphore]

If Paris fell, the capital would have to be moved and the line would have to be established somewhere, at large concessions to ensure the stability of the line. If the government was unable to escape Paris, though, the war would have ended there. At least the Western Front would have.

[Olafson]

If Paris fell, the capital would have to be moved and the line would have to be established somewhere, at large concessions to ensure the stability of the line. If the government was unable to escape Paris, though, the war would have ended there. At least the Western Front would have.

Well. We all know the solution to that problem!

Spoiler

[close]

Put Paris on wheels, put some sails on the tower and move that damn thing around!

[Hawke]

Of course! How could they not think of that?

[Archduke Sven]

I hate it when Olafson brings my shit off topic 

[Prince_Eugen]

In some case, Germany was ready only for war in the West, as long as treaties with Russian Empire gave them more oportunities on the West and throw most reinforsment there. But the war began in another way. Russian invasion in East-Prussian was complicated too. The main point of that attack was to turn Germany back from Paris, enforcing them to move their forces on Eastern Front. But saving Paris in that way cost Russia too much. Both corps werent ready for that assault:
1) Logistics in places of dislocation of russian troops werent ready, that why on first stages troops suffered lack of ammo and food.
2) The personnel of both corps werent ready for action, they needed to be trained (whilst the most prepared were turned against Austro-Hungarians)
Anyways, Russian armies were defeated, but their actions turned the wheel of history, and after that Germany lost the chance to capture Paris and was forced to fight in long-term war on two fronts. Here the tactical victory turned into very big strategical defeat.

[Archduke Sven]

Just finished my Darkest Hour game, doing the Russian invasion first method, and the war ended November 12th 1918 with an armistice and later with the peace treaty of Versailles with me taking France's colonies and the rest of Alsace. Weird how it ended almost exactly the same time as the real war but under much different circumstances.

[Hawke]

It ended exactly a day after the First World War really ended.