If the Schlieffen plan had succeeded, would Germany been in Battle of Britian situation?

[Bleipriester]

Ships like the Lusitania have many chambers. If a torpedo hits one or two of them, the ship is not threatened (given there is no ammo stored in them).
Battleships are more endangered because they usually carry a lot of ammunitions and are way smaller.

The British Blockade During World War I: The Weapon of Deprivation

And if the Germans killed 10.000 Belgian and French civilians in WWI it is still far less then the Coalition killed only in the Libya war in 2011.

Warships have those same Chambers. In fact, they have many more chambers. Yet two Battleships were sunk with a single torpedo each. Pfui. Propaganda might work on the uninformed but not on anyone with a modicum of knowledge.

Your final argument is even dumber. What anyone else has done does not relieve me of the responsibility of my own actions. If someone else robs five banks it does not mean I am not a bank robber for only holding one up.

It is good to see you have stopped with the insane argument that it was legal, a contention now thoroughly discredited.

There were many “great” plans in military history. The ones that work are lauded. The ones that didn’t are the subject of endless bickering. National pride means that Germans want to believe they were close to victory. Just a little bad luck stopped them. Nonsense.

It is in a way like the lie that five minutes was what doomed the Japanese Carriers at Midway. Carriers of the era could launch, or recover aircraft. They could not do both. We are told that there were fully armed and fueled aircraft on the deck waiting to take off. Or that some were being rearmed and bombs were stacked on the deck.

It never happened. The four Japanese Carriers were landing fighters to rearm them and refuel them. They were shooting down squadrons of torpedo bombers and aircraft from Midway. They needed ammunition. They could not land if planes were parked on the flight deck awaiting takeoff. Also, the weapons elevators did not go to the flight decks, but only up to the hanger deck. The aircraft were armed and fueled on the hanger deck.

Fuchida wrote the five minute lie, as a sop to National Pride. It was easier to believe a little bad luck doomed the Japanese than they were just beaten by a smaller force.

Your arguments are no less a sop to national pride. The Germans believed you could plan for every contingency. They did, except for one. They had no plan for the British and French retreating and refusing to obligingly die.

Your posts are infested with anti-German hatred and propaganda. This crosses the border of irrationality.

My posts are based upon established historical fact. If you want my objections to American actions, I’ll be happy to give them. Not just the obvious racism. I could wax eloquently for a while on the immoral insanity that had thousands of sailors exposed to radiation at Bikini Atol to study the effects of exposure. One among many subjects where I would and always will object to Americans.

If you want my opinion on Britain, then the failure to live up to the Balfor declaration would be pretty high up on the list. In fact you can trace today’s extremist jihadi crap the Britain promising everything to everyone during War One.

You only learn from history when you deal in truth. Try it sometime.

You have proven to be ignorant to the thread´s topic.

I’ve spoken truth. Knowledge is an inoculation against ignorance.

You have denounced my arguments, even when backed up by links proving the point, as propaganda or anti German bias. To date, you have not offered anything other than disproven conspiracy theory that the Lusitania was carrying munitions. A CT that I was able to disprove with evidence of other, better manufactured ships suffering the same fate off of a single torpedo. The Kaiser had a new idea every minute, and each one was supposedly brilliant. But we are still talking about a man who was so full of himself that he had his daily news printed in gold. He only wanted gold plated news, and only good news.

Germany could never win the war. So long as Britain with the largest navy in the world controlled the seas around Europe, and they did, then vital materials that Germany needed for survival, not just victory, were denied.

The Naval Balance of Power in 1914

The Germans had the second largest, and the Americans came in third. Germany tried to get the message across to Britain that if the war went, then the Americans would be left in undisputed control of the sea after Britain and Germany destroyed themselves in useless battle. Britain responded by increasing the rate of building of the warships. Shying away from battle was worse than losing control of the seas, because the Navy existed to fight.

Britain made a lot of really stupid mistakes in the war. So did France, Russia, Italy, as did Germany and especially the Austria-Hungary empire. Read The Guns of August. It is a great book, and shows the folly of both the French/British/Russian war plans, as well as the folly of the German plans. Nobody was studying Sun Tzu at this point, and they should have been. Nobody was thinking. The French marched off to war wearing Blue Jackets and Red Pants as their field uniforms. They had rejected the Howeitzer Cannon of large caliber, claiming that the French 75MM was superior in every way, and best of all could be moved fast enough to keep up with the advancing armies. The French Soldiers were not issued entrenching tools. The officers were afraid it would make the men “sticky” on attack.

What saved France was the fact that Sir John French of the British did not want to fight a pitched battle and risk his army. When he pulled back, it exposed the flank of the French, and they had to pull back, and it began a series of movements that ended with the stand at the Marne. When the Army of Paris marched out in direct violation of the German order of Battle. Armed Camps, like fortified cities, did not have their armies march out to fight beyond the ramparts.

But in the Schlieffen Plan, the Army was supposed to be eliminated before they got to Paris. The Germans believed the French would not leave Paris exposed, they would stand and fight because losing the city was unthinkable.

The French on the other hands were willing to lose a city, to save the nation.

The French learned, the survivors of the first few days learned to dig in. They got shovels, and pickax’s, and they dug in when they had to fight. The British already knew this trick to survival. They had learned it during the Boer Wars.

The German plan did not account for everything. For example they never had any problems with communications during war games. But the French put the Eiffel Tower to use jamming German signals, and with disruptions to the phone lines, messages which did get through, were usually late, often too late to prevent a mistake.

I honestly doubt if Schlieffen himself could have saved the war and won it on his own timetable. Not if the Government of France had evacuated to Algeria, home of the Foreign Legion, and refused to capitulate. Germany did not have enough troops to occupy France and face the Russians. It is a truth in warfare, if the enemy won’t surrender, you have to destroy them to the last. See Defense of Bastogne by the 101st Airborne for proof of that. By any logic, the Americans should have surrendered, but they did not.

Get off the conspircy theory websites, and start to read, and watch documentaries. It will serve you well in the long run. Later, I’ll explain why the 1903 Springfield Rifle was chambered in a cartridge that wasn’t invented when the rifle was starting production, the 30-06 Springfield.

I am not talking about conspiracies. The Lusitania was a war ship, officially.

"The Royal Navy had blockaded Germany at the start of World War I. When RMS Lusitania left New York for Britain on 1 May 1915, German submarine warfare was intensifying in the Atlantic. Germany had declared the seas around the United Kingdom a war zone, and the German embassy in the United States had placed a newspaper advertisement warning people of the dangers of sailing on Lusitania.

It had become more dangerous for submarines to give warning with the British introduction of Q-ships in 1915 with concealed deck guns. (Lusitania had been fitted with 6-inch gun mounts in 1913, although she was unarmed at the time of her sinking.)

The Germans justified treating Lusitania as a naval vessel because she was carrying hundreds of tons of war munitions, therefore making her a legitimate military target, and argued that British merchant ships had violated the Cruiser Rules from the very beginning of the war.

Lusitania was indeed officially listed as an auxiliary war ship,[73] and her cargo had included an estimated 4,200,000 rounds of rifle cartridges, 1,250 empty shell cases, and 18 cases of non-explosive fuses, which was openly listed as such in her cargo manifest.[74][75] The day after the sinking, The New York Times published full details of the ship's military cargo.[76] Assistant Manager of the Cunard Line, Herman Winter, denied the charge that she carried munitions, but admitted that she was carrying small-arms ammunition, and that she had been carrying such ammunition for years.[74] The fact that Lusitania had been carrying shells and cartridges was not made known to the British public at the time.[77]

In the 27-page additional manifest, delivered to U.S. customs 4–5 days after Lusitania sailed from New York, and in the Bethlehem Steels papers, it is stated that the "empty shells" were in fact 1,248 boxes of filled 3" shell, 4 shells to the box, totaling 103,000 pounds or 50 tonnes.

On the afternoon of 7 May, a German U-boat torpedoed Lusitania, 11 mi (18 km) off the southern coast of Ireland and inside the declared war zone. A second, unexplained, internal explosion, likely munitions she was carrying, sent her to the seabed in 18 minutes, with the deaths of 1,198 passengers and crew."

RMS Lusitania - Wikipedia

Your sources are biased and anti-German.

 

[RandomPoster]

So, the consensus is that if everyone else dropped out of the war and all that was left was Germany and Austria-Hungary against Great Britain saying f*** it all, digging in their heels, flipping them off, and tenacioysly hunkering down on their island saying "make us surrender", the war would be over fairly quickly? Specifically, how does it compare to Germany and Italy throwing rocks at England 25 years later?

 

[whitehall]

The Schlieffen plan succeeded just fine but it was just part of an overall failed German strategy in WW1. It could be argued that the.Schlieffen strategy paved the way for the "Blitzkrieg" tactic in WW2 but it ran out of steam once more after superior Allied forces reduced the 3rd Reich to ashes.

 

[Picaro]

If Moltke had stayed with the original Plan it could well have worked. He was too cautious and instead of sending in all the divisions required by the original he shorted the assault and shifted some to the center as a hedge against a French counter-assault, leaving the German offensive with an open right flank, which defeated the whole point of the Plan in the first place. Moltke was too much of a 'Yes man' for a spoiled rotten little punk of a Kaiser.

 

[SavannahMann]

If Moltke had stayed with the original Plan it could well have worked. He was too cautious and instead of sending in all the divisions required by the original he shorted the assault and shifted some to the center as a hedge against a French counter-assault, leaving the German offensive with an open right flank, which defeated the whole point of the Plan in the first place. Moltke was too much of a 'Yes man' for a spoiled rotten little punk of a Kaiser.

Everyone had learned the lesson of Sedan. Battle of Sedan - Wikipedia

Do not allow your army to be encircled. The British and French recognized the danger and ran. They realized they could not win the war, but they could lose it if they allowed three flanks to be turned. Even with the original Schlieffen Plan, the French and British could have withdrawn and denied the encircling maneuver.

In that case the war would have gone on for years, as it did anyway.

It is rare that the enemy obligingly goes along with your plan to destroy them. It happens, but not very often. It is far better to assume the enemy is smart and tenacious. German Arrogance would never allow that to even be considered. Then again, neither would the French Arrogance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The problem, or should I say one of the many problems, was that the Schlieffen Plan was always going to fail. It counted on the one thing you can’t guarantee. That is the enemy doing exactly what you want. If they do anything that is not to your advantage, then the plan will fail. France was prepared to remove the Government from Paris, and fight the war from the empire.

Second, England would have continued fighting, moving troops to the fortified city of Antwerp. Germany would have still faced the problem that eventually doomed them, strangulation by the blockade enforced by the Royal Navy.

Third, England would have been in an even more powerful position to continue fighting during the First World War than the Second. The Empire was stronger in 1914 than it was in 1940. They still had access to millions of troops from the many regions of the world. Remember, this was the era where the sun never set on the Empire.

Even if France had been occupied, then the British Military would have been able to assist/join Russia, which would have given Russia the one thing they needed most of all, and that is access to competent Military Leadership. Or at least far more competent than they had at that time. Coupled with the war materials that England was already getting from around the world including the United States, which could have shipped the materials from the west coast to be carried by rail across Russia to the front without any hope of Germany interfering with the passage and the situation would be similar.

Germany was doomed the minute the war began. By invading Belgium and flaunting the wrath of the world they became the bad guys in a war that even if they had captured France would simply demonstrate how barbaric they were.

I do not use barbaric lightly. The fire that destroyed the University of Louvain was shown to the world as an example that Germany was attacking civilization, and history, not just Europe.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/germans-burn-belgian-town-of-louvain

Under no circumstances was there a scenario where Germany emerged as anything but resented and hated after slaughtering civilians and calling it Military necessary to execute women and children. There was no real victory possible after that.

Britain would not surrender, and France would fight on from Algeria and the empire. Germany would still face shortages of food. Starvation was as much of a factor as military reality in the surrender.

Mike Tyson nailed it, "everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face"

 

[Picaro]

If Moltke had stayed with the original Plan it could well have worked. He was too cautious and instead of sending in all the divisions required by the original he shorted the assault and shifted some to the center as a hedge against a French counter-assault, leaving the German offensive with an open right flank, which defeated the whole point of the Plan in the first place. Moltke was too much of a 'Yes man' for a spoiled rotten little punk of a Kaiser.

Everyone had learned the lesson of Sedan. Battle of Sedan - Wikipedia

Do not allow your army to be encircled. The British and French recognized the danger and ran. They realized they could not win the war, but they could lose it if they allowed three flanks to be turned. Even with the original Schlieffen Plan, the French and British could have withdrawn and denied the encircling maneuver.

In that case the war would have gone on for years, as it did anyway.

It is rare that the enemy obligingly goes along with your plan to destroy them. It happens, but not very often. It is far better to assume the enemy is smart and tenacious. German Arrogance would never allow that to even be considered. Then again, neither would the French Arrogance.

the original Schlieffen Plan called for a far stronger German right offensive, calling for a 7 to 1 majority in German forces over the French, and also called for invading the Netherlands and thus having the German flank reaching the sea. The intent being to encircle Paris and take a key French rail hub. Moltke reduced the 7 to 1 majority to 3 to 1, sending the other forces to defend the German center and left flank, unnecessarily, and dispensed with the invasion of the Netherlands, which caused a stretch of forces that would be pretty thin on the German right flank. He also diverted two or three Corps from the attack reserves to Russia to meet some emergency, there, but only one actually got there, and it turned out to be unnecessary, and none of them made it back to the French front in time to do much but dig in. Even at that the Germans nearly achieved their goals re Paris, but Moltke got cold feet and called off the offensive within range of victory in the suburbs. Overall it was just bad generalling by Moltke, or poor intelligence, whichever makes one feel best.

Cataclysm by David Stevenson, is the best book on WW I out there, imo, and those who want to update their WW I libraries can find it fairly cheap.