h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Schlieffen Plan - A3463003
Author: mightyluke - U1225542

I recently wrote a Coursework Paper on the Schlieffen Plan from World War 1. I noticed there was no World War 1 section, so here is a contribution.

Hello mightyluke,

This is a very well explained entry and you are right - it will be a good addition to the guide.

One thing which strikes me however is that it needs more to be written on it. You have done a good job of explaining the logic and reasons behind the plan, but you don't discuss how the plan failed abysmally, and I think this would need to be discussed in more detail. What were the effects of its failure? Were there any long-term effects, or remnants that continue to today?

A good start!

Woodpigeon

okay ill do that.

I agree with Woodpigeon.

I also think it could do with a bit of GuideML to break it up into sections with headers.

The Political Background. That kind of thing.

On a style point, although the timing question is important it really only needs to be mentioned once.

But there's the basis of a good entry here.

Noggin

Let me see....

"Schlieffen and his team..." - Should be 'von Schlieffen' as that was the bloke's name.

"After all, it’s not that easy to conquer a country in just 8 weeks." - Unless you're the Wehrmacht in WW2, France was conquered in less than 8 weeks using a plan based on the Schlieffen plan. Always good to have historical comparison.

"previous military record (losing to tribal warriors armed with spears in the Boer War a few decades earlier)" - I'd do a little more reading on the Boer War before making a statement such as that.

"in late 1914. With the Allies winning this, it became evident that now there was going to be a stale mate" - It's a myth that really irritates me that stalemate and trench war was 'inevitable' in 1914. It wasn't inevitable, simply an easy option designed as a stop-gap whils the German forces re-organised.

My suggestions:
1) A little more background reading (may I suggest looking up anything on WW1 by Liddell Hart?)
2) A whole lot of SPG checking.

You might also want to add (in regards to von Moltke's moving of units) that von Schlieffen's dying words were (supposedly) "Make the right wing (ie the one attacking through Belgium) strong!"

Other than that, this has the makings of a brilliant entry.

Psyc (SubEd)

The German conquest of France was based on a plan developed to take advantage of the fact that the Allies were *expecting* a rerun of the Schlieffen Plan.

Although it may not have been obvious at the time, in retrospect it is clear that after the Battle of the Marne stalemate was inevitable, neither side having the superiority of numbers or weapons to break through a determined defence by frontal assault.

The Schlieffen Plan in its original form may well have worked, but Moltke lacked the strength of will to ignore the ambitions of the army commanders on his left flank in Alsace-Lorraine, and in operation the plan was diluted.

Noggin

I presume mightyluke is thinking of either the Zulu War or the Sudan campaigns with his reference to Britain losing to tribal warriors. In both cases Britain lost battles but was able to bring overwhelming force to bear eventually to win the wars. Much the same happened in the Boer War but the Boers were descended from Dutch colonists and well-equipped with modern rifles and artillery.

"...by that time the German Army in Belgium were locked..."
>>>>>
"...by that time the German Army in Belgium was locked..."


Also you have put a Header, then a Subheader at the top. You don't need either of those. You can see in the article that the title is at the top. After that you don't need a new title, or the subheader. You can just launch into the piece.

The things mentioned by the others do need to be changed.

Kathryn (now scouting for you)

It's not quite true to say that "the guy's name was VON Schlieffen". "VON" is a titular word in German, indicating nobility, so sometimes it forms part of the name and sometimes it doesn't.

It was the way we were told to do it at GCSE and A-Level...

Here in Germany you would also say 'von Schlieffen' and not 'Schlieffen'. It would sound as if you were saying 'Cartney' instead of 'McCartney'. Even though the von is a nobility title it is considered to be a part of the name and should be used. What was the guy's first name, BTW. Date of birth and death? His army rank?

Further down in the Entry, you introduce the BEF and BFC and RAF but don't explain what these acronyms stand for. (I guess BEF it's the British Expeditionary Force, or something like that, but it would be better for non-British readers like me to see these TLCs written out the first time.)

This is a nice Entry, BTW.

HELL

>> losing to tribal warriors armed with spears in the Boer War a few decades earlier <<

Although it has already been mentioned, are you not referring to the battle of Isandlwana (1879) which was part of the Zulu War. Nothing to do with the Boar War (1899-1902) which came some time later.

Donald

Hi mightyluke,

Are you going to come back and address the points raised in this thread so far?

Everyone is very positive about this Entry so it will be worth polishing up to hopefully get it picked for the EG.

I see you've already had a go with the headers etc.

Jules

Luke's not been around in three weeks

Nope, but we need to give them chance to return - can't move this as an Elvised for two months, is that right?

Too true too true. No changes seem to have taken place though...not even the ones I made right at the start...hohum.

They did put a few headers in.

But it does look like they've moved on to pastures new...


...ah well, I will just have to remember not to look at this for a while, as I'm searching high and low for recommendable Entries.

Hi Mightyluke,

Are you planning on finishing this entry?

*sigh*

Anyone got a list? Back to entry me thinks...

No, off to the Flea Market I'd say.