What Did The Schlieffen Plan Call For Germany To Do

What Did the Schlieffen Plan Call For Germany To Do? A Detailed Analysis

The Schlieffen Plan, a controversial and ultimately disastrous strategic masterpiece, remains one of the most studied military plans in history. Developed in the early 20th century by Alfred von Schlieffen, Chief of the German General Staff, it aimed to ensure German victory in a potential two-front war against France and Russia. While seemingly straightforward on the surface, the plan's intricate details, inherent flaws, and consequential impact on the course of World War I deserve a thorough examination. This article will delve deep into the specifics of the Schlieffen Plan, exploring its objectives, its operational phases, and the reasons behind its ultimate failure.

The Genesis of the Schlieffen Plan: A Two-Front War

Germany's geopolitical situation at the turn of the 20th century was precarious. Surrounded by potential enemies, the nation faced the daunting prospect of a war on two fronts: a powerful France to the west and the rapidly expanding Russian Empire to the east. The French, smarting from their defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, harbored strong desires for revenge. Meanwhile, Russia's vast armies posed a significant long-term threat. Traditional military doctrine suggested a defensive posture on both fronts, but Schlieffen believed this was insufficient to guarantee German victory.

The Core Tenet: The Schlieffen Plan's core premise rested on the assumption that Russia, due to its less developed infrastructure and mobilization capabilities, would be slower to fully deploy its armies than France. This time difference, however small, was crucial. The plan called for a swift, decisive offensive against France, aimed at achieving a knockout blow before the Russian forces could effectively intervene. Only then would Germany shift its focus to the Eastern Front.

The Operational Plan: A Race Against Time

The plan was audacious in its scope and ambition. It envisioned a massive flanking maneuver, utilizing the majority of the German army to sweep through neutral Belgium and northern France, bypassing the heavily fortified French border defenses along the Maginot Line (which, ironically, wouldn't be built until much later). This encirclement maneuver aimed to trap and destroy the bulk of the French army in a decisive battle, ideally somewhere near Paris.

Phase 1: The Belgian Invasion

The initial phase involved a powerful offensive through Belgium, a violation of Belgian neutrality that was intended to be swift and decisive. This action was considered a necessary evil, a calculated risk to achieve strategic advantage. The speed and efficiency of this invasion were critical to the plan's success. This element was calculated to cause significant delays for the French army, enabling the German forces to encircle and outmaneuver their counterparts.

Phase 2: Encirclement and Annihilation

Once German forces had secured a foothold in Belgium and broken through the initial French defenses, the plan called for a rapid advance towards Paris. The goal was to envelop and destroy the French armies, achieving a decisive victory that would cripple French resistance. This phase relied heavily on superior German mobility, coordination, and the element of surprise. This element was perhaps the most crucial aspect of the plan, designed to deliver a crushing blow before the French had a chance to regroup or receive reinforcement.

Phase 3: The Eastern Front

After securing victory in the West, the plan envisioned the redeployment of a significant portion of the German army to the Eastern Front to deal with the advancing Russian forces. While the Western Front was considered the primary theater of operations, the Eastern Front was still viewed as a potential threat that required a response, albeit a delayed one. This phased approach hinged on the critical assumption of the speed and efficiency of operations on the Western Front.

The Flaws in the Schlieffen Plan: Miscalculations and Unforeseen Circumstances

Despite its ambitious goals and seemingly meticulous planning, the Schlieffen Plan contained several inherent flaws that contributed significantly to its failure:

1. Underestimation of French Resistance: The plan significantly underestimated the resilience and fighting spirit of the French army. While the initial German advance made substantial inroads, the French forces, bolstered by British Expeditionary Force, put up a far sturdier defense than anticipated. This led to prolonged fighting and significant losses for the Germans, hindering their progress and ultimately jeopardizing the timetable of the plan.

2. Overestimation of German Speed and Mobility: The plan relied heavily on the speed and efficiency of the German army's advance. The vast distances, poor road conditions, logistical challenges, and the unexpected resistance encountered in Belgium led to delays that disrupted the meticulously planned timeline. The army failed to maintain the necessary speed for an encirclement before the French forces could reorganize and receive support.

3. The Belgian Factor: The invasion of Belgium, while deemed strategically necessary, proved to be a double-edged sword. It provoked strong international condemnation, leading to Britain's declaration of war and the commitment of British Expeditionary Forces to bolster French resistance, adding to the challenges faced by Germany. This factor greatly shifted the dynamics on the Western Front and proved to be a major turning point in the war.

4. The Eastern Front Threat: The slower than expected Russian mobilization did provide some respite, but it was not as significant as Schlieffen had hoped. The Russian armies, though initially disorganized, still posed a substantial threat, requiring German forces to be diverted to the East, thus weakening the offensive on the Western Front. This shift of forces ultimately contributed to the failure of the plan to achieve a swift decisive victory.

5. Rigid adherence to the plan: Perhaps the most significant flaw was the rigid adherence to the plan, even as circumstances changed on the ground. The plan lacked flexibility and the ability to adapt to unforeseen challenges. Changes in military strategy and decision-making were slow and insufficient to address the evolving situation on the battlefield.

The Legacy of the Schlieffen Plan: A Turning Point in World War I

Despite its failure, the Schlieffen Plan had a profound and lasting impact on the course of World War I. It profoundly shaped the early battles of the war, directly influencing the strategies and tactics employed by all combatants. The initial German offensives, although ultimately unsuccessful in achieving their overarching goals, resulted in significant casualties and contributed to the stalemate that would characterize the Western Front for much of the war.

The plan's failure also highlights the dangers of overly ambitious and rigid military strategies, particularly in the face of unexpected developments. The rigid adherence to a pre-defined plan, without adapting to unforeseen circumstances, proved to be disastrous. The failure forced Germany into a protracted war, stretching its resources and ultimately leading to its defeat.

The Schlieffen Plan is a testament to the complexities and uncertainties of warfare. While it represents a significant attempt to achieve swift decisive victory in a large-scale conflict, its inherent limitations, strategic errors, and the unpredictable nature of the battlefield resulted in its ultimate failure. However, its study continues to offer valuable insights into military planning, strategy, and the importance of flexibility and adaptability in the face of unpredictable circumstances. It serves as a reminder that even the most meticulously crafted plans can fall short when faced with unforeseen challenges and the unpredictable nature of human conflict. The legacy of the Schlieffen Plan remains a pivotal point of discussion and analysis within military history, highlighting the critical importance of adaptability and considering all potential factors in strategic planning. Its legacy continues to serve as a cautionary tale in strategic planning, illustrating the catastrophic consequences that can arise from rigid adherence to a plan, especially when the reality on the ground deviates significantly from its predictions.