Has anyone read Terrence Zuber's latest book about the "Schlieffen Plan," or perhaps the lack there of - "The Real German War Plan 1904-1914"? If you have, I am interested in your opinion.
No, sounds interesting, I have been reading about the opening manuevers and trench warfare one of the Osprey books and it stated somewhere that Schlieffen didn't really have a contingency plan in case things went wrong, which usually happens after the opening salvo---
Jim
-- Edited by Potatopanzer on Tuesday 10th of May 2011 05:02:19 AM
Well, if I recall correctly from hearing Terrence Zuber talk last year, his thesis is that the Schlieffen Plan was a post-war revisionist attempt to explain the defeat of the German invasion of Belgium and France. Zuber went on to say that the German First and Second Army commanders were incompetent, as well as (I am getting on shaky ground here) the Chief Intelligence Officer of the General Staff.
This is interesting. I'd not heard of Mr. Zuber, but he seems to have been propounding his theories for over a decade and in a number of works on the same theme. I can't help but feel that if he had genuinely hit on something it would have entered the mainstream rather more than it seems to have. Mr. Zuber appears to be highly qualified, but we know that being so does not preclude questionable reasoning. The style in which his website is written is rather insistent and he makes some fairly startling claims. For example: "Indeed, if, as (Gerhard) Ritter contended, an aggressive war plan is proof of war guilt, then it is the French and Russians who are guilty, for they attacked first: all of the initial battles were fought on German territory." But I could well be doing him a disservice.
John Mosier assets that the Plan wouldn't have worked even if had been implemented, which it wasn't. I've also glimpsed uncomplimentary references to some of Paddy Griffiths's work but haven't read a great deal of him.
__________________
"Sometimes things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.
At the great risk of starting a banter or two, it is my opinion objective research in this period of history is diffucult, and extremely so here in America.
Firstly, the primary source of information has always been from English publications. This was by design of course; after the trans-atlantic cable was cut in 1914, information about the war as consumed by Americans was carefully screened and fed by Brit enteligence. This established a pre-determined mind set passed on from generation to generation.
( I have always marveled at the superb work of Brit entelligence, while the German efforts proved child-like and feeble. )
Only in recent decades have alternate views come to light via previously unexplored information. Now we see the RFC/RAF actually destroyed more Albatros aircraft than were produced and the 60K German causualties at Liege actually exceeded the assault force employed there.
There are several problems with Zuber. He gives other sources than the traditional English sources which is a good thing. He is however totally uncritical of his German sources (his blind faith in German regimental histories is a prime example). His statements on the Belgian army are very badly researched. His justification of the massacre of Belgian civilians is extremely reactionary.
I have heard it said by what I consider to be informed individuals, that much of what we, the English-speaking world, know of WWI is the result of British wartime propaganda. Of course, that is a broad statement, there appears to be some truth in it and there is certainly ample room for new research and views of the conflict. I have heard Terrence Zuber talk about the Schleiffen Plan and in person, he makes lots of sense. He has the academic qualifications and has used many primary sources, although one may wonder if he has become blindly pro-Imperial Germany. I wouldn't though, put much stock in John Mosier's work.
In 2008 I had the pleasure to visit a lecture of Dr. Groß, MGFA Potsdam, with the title "Der Schlieffenplan". I was heavily impressed by this lecture. I thought to know something about the "Schlieffen-Plan" but had to throw away a lot of my "common knowledge". Many other listeners made the same experience. Dr. Groß did not only deal with the argument between T. Zuber and other (especially British) historians, he also provided information about his own interesting research in this matter.
After 3 years I am not able to recall the lecture in detail. However, I remember G. disagreed with many of Zuber´s assumptions or claims. I remember one problem mentioned by Dr. Groß was the inability of the U.S. researcher to read the handwritten German remarks (made in Deutscher Schrift before introduction of Latin letters) of Schlieffen and others on these documents. So, valuable remarks escaped the attention of Zuber. Also his "cultural awareness" of the way of acting of the German military was lacking. Nevertheless, Zuber has started a new discussion which resulted in a number of interesting findings in spite of the fact that most of his major points will probably not survive scientific discussion.
Zuber's reliance on German regimental histories is understandable; as the bulk of the Prussian army files became cinder courtsey the RAF, they're the next best thing available if you want to establish what the major part of the German forces was doing 1914 - 1918.
I've also worked with them and find them very reliable in what they state; the problem is much more with what they don't mention. Also, the quality is quite mixed: Some are pure battle calendars, others give detailed insights into training and procedures; some list casualties, some don't.
Part of the contend of 'The Real German War Plan' has already been published in German in the MGFA's 'Der Schlieffenplan' book, however, Zuber complements the already published deployment plans with the tactical exercises held in these years, which is quite interesting.
Although some of Zuber's claims are questionable, 'The Real G. War Plan' is a fascinating read - not only because he argues contradicting to the 'established knowledge' school and provides his appreciations of Herwig, Groß, Mommbauer and other 'established scholars'.
I just finished reading Zuber's "The Real German War Plan" after hearing him talk at the recent Western Front Association seminar in Baltimore. It is quite clear that Zuber has conducted extensive research with primary sources. It also appears that the weight of primary sources support his argument rather than supporting the "conventional wisdom" that there was a Schlieffen Plan. Unfortunately, Zuber's style can make him appear biased towards the Germans. It is very understandable that the German Army would make up a story to save the reputation of the post-war Army. After all, Ludendorff was the primary proponent of the "stab in the back" concept. There is merit to what Zuber writes, and I'll bet that there are other such revisions to our common knowledge of the war still waiting to be uncovered.
