The Role of the BEF in the Failure of the Schlieffen Plan
Introduction:
The Role of the British Expeditionary Force (the B.E.F.) was an in
important contributing factor to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan,
but not the only one. The French's Plan XIV, the out of date
Schlieffen plan itself, and the role of the Belgian army all were
contributing factors that together resulted in the failure of
Germany's Schlieffen Plan.
The Background:
Germany had anticipated war for a long time, and in 1905 the German
Chief of Staff, Alfred von Schlieffen devised a short, decisive plan
to win it. The biggest problem with Germany's location was that it was
in between France and Germany. In a European war, the Germans knew
they could not, and so would have to avoid, dividing their forces and
fighting a war on two fronts.
Consequently, von Schlieffen's plan counted on Russia's inability to
mobilise - he estimated it would take them 6 weeks to do so. Thus, to
avoid a war on two fronts, the Schlieffen Plan meant 90% of the German
army would cross rapidly through neutral Belgium, and like a scythe
advance through northern France past the French army and
fortifications on the French/German border, and take Paris and the
French army from behind.
After France's defeat, the German army could march back through
Germany to fight Russia. With France gone, von Schlieffen thought the
Russians would be both terrified and their morale would be down, and
that Russia would be easily crushed.
Unfortunately for the Germans, what actually happened was quite
different. Many factors von Schlieffen had counted on did not go as he
had planned, for ...
... middle of paper ...
...he
causes were linked together.
The role of the BEF was a very important factor in the failure of the
Schlieffen plan for two main reasons. Firstly, the Schlieffen plan had
not counted on meeting the BEF at all, and their morale decreased
after facing such well trained troops, and the fact that the BEF gave
the French army time to stop the German army at Marne. If the BEF
weren't there, the Germans, regardless of whether they marched around
to the west or straight to the east of Paris, could have taken both it
and the French army from behind resulting in the overall success of
the Schlieffen plan.
In the end, the Schlieffen plan really did fail. It ended up with
exactly the opposite it had intended. It ended up with a stalemate and
leaving Germany fighting a war on both sides which it would eventually
lose.
It takes many generations for any single country to evolve from its earliest state into what would be considered a "developed" nation. The changes that take place within the country are generally attributed to a small number of visionary individuals. Many people can be accredited for contributing to the progression of Canada. John G. Diefenbaker, conceivably the single most influential person in the history of Canada, played a crucial role in the development of the country, to what it is today. Diefenbaker's work resulted in the redefining of Canada's cultural identity, the creation of major bills and policies within government legislation as well as developing a stance on foreign affairs and many policies dealing with global issues.
Several factors contributed to the instability of Germany’s Weimar Republic, such as the new political ideals brought forward and the government’s hunger for war. To begin, one of the factors that contributed to the instability of the Weimar republic was the presence of new political ideals. Marie Juchacz unintentionally highlighted that reason in her speech to the National Assembly.
and the plan had failed, also as the French had no back up plan they
The Development of a Stalemate on the Western Front The main reason trenches developed on the western front is due to the failure of the Schlieffen plan, if it had not been for this elaborate quick way to win the war by Germany, trench warfare may never have developed in WWI. As the Germans were being pushed back from Marne they had to dig trenches to protect themselves from the advancing allies, and the allies mirrored them and did the same. The conventional explanation offered by historians for the stalemate on the western front (an area stretching from Belgium all the way down to the Alps) is that by 1914 technology and industrialism had overtaken military strategy and tactics, making them obsolete. Supposedly machine guns and rapid-fire artillery had made the traditional tactics worthless; linear tactics and cavalry charges were things of the past by 1914, and also bad choices were made by inexperienced commanders.
relieve their sorely-pressed armies in the East. The Dieppe raid also served as a risky opportunity for
This plan worked on the assumption that the Russian army would take six weeks to mobilize. This would be because if the large size of the country, the poor rail transport system and also the poor communication network. It was decided that whilst France was being attacked, the Russian army would take six weeks to mobilize, which would be enough time for the German army to conquer France. France was very bitter towards Germany since the France-Prussian war of 1870-71 in which Alsace Lorraine was taken by Germany.
The Development of a Stalemate on the Western Front When the war began in 1914, it was greeted largely with enthusiasm and excitement. General public opinion was that it would be a quick war; it was common to hear people saying it would be 'over by Christmas'. However, when Christmas 1914 arrived, the war was far from over. In fact, both sides had 'dug in' for winter, and there were no signs of the quick and easy victory that each party had expected.
discussion is set in the times of the World War 1. During World War 1,
Richard Bessel’s article stresses the political structure of Weimar Germany as the cause of its failure. Its structure was flawed in numerous ways, all of which contributed to its inevitable failure. First of all, the problems within Germany due to the First World War were massive. This caused economic, political and social problems which first had to be dealt with by the new Weimar government. The loss of the war had left Germany with huge reparations to pay, and massive destruction to repair. In order to gain the capital needed to finance efforts to rebuild, and repay the Allies, the economy had to be brought back to its prewar levels. This was not an easy task.
Germany's Responsibility for World War One Holger H. Herwig, in his quest to answer this question has concluded; "... The greatest measure of responsibility, however, remains with Germany. Planners, both civilian and military, were all too eager to resolve their perceived diplomatic encirclement by use of force -- "now or never," as Kaiser Wilhelm II put it. " The outbreak of World War One was reliant on a number of factors.
The defeat of Germany in World War Two was due to many factors. All of these factors were influenced by the leadership and judgment of Adolf Hitler. Factors such as the stand fast policy, Hitler’s unnecessary and risky decision making in military situations, for example when attacking the USSR, and the declaration of war on the US. Plus other factors, like Hitler’s alliance with Italy, despite its obvious weaknesses, and the pursuit of the final solution, can all be attributed to the poor leadership and judgement of the Fuhrer, which would eventually lead to the downfall of the Third Reich.
Wars are good business. They create an immediate demand for a wide variety of materials needed by the government in order to fight the war. They create work opportunities for people that might not ordinarily be considered part of the normal work force. And, while not necessarily good for the soldiers engaged in the fighting, wars are always good for the businesses that provide the materials used in a war. The Second World War was very good for business.
...policy made the people despair over the inefficiency of the government, and article 48 caused the people to lose their faith in a democratic system wholly. These two deciding factors propelled the people to submit themselves to more radical ideologies, all of which finally brought an end to the floundering democratic constitution in the 1930s. Even though external threats such as anti-Weimar sentiments spread by opposing parties also played a prominent role in the eventual distrust of the WG, they were not the root cause of the failure of the WG, their prosperity was only made possible by building on the already-existing profound internal failures of the government.
The Schlieffen Plan is one of the first military plans people learn about when studying World War I. Despite, the plan being common knowledge to individuals who have studied Western military, there is much controversy over why the plan failed for the Germans. In recent decades the main question over Schlieffen’s war plan, whether the plan was meant to be used as a military strategy or not. Since, the reunification of Germany in 1989, document that were once lost are now resurfacing, and with more information, there are more arguments about the reason the Schlieffen Plan failed. The recent argument on why the Schlieffen Plan failed was because Schlieffen was not creating a military plan to follow for war and destroy the French military in one blow, instead he was sketching out the possible ways Germany could defend themselves
On the 29th august, Von Cluck (German general) changed the plan, so that they didn't attack Paris as planned, instead they went east and sent more troops to attack the forts.