The Role of Russia's Mobilization in the Failure of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914
TITLE
How important to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan was Russia’s mobilisation in 1914?
ESSAY
The failure of the Schlieffen Plan in 1914 was influenced by several factors, and while Russia's mobilization played a significant role, it was not the sole reason for the plan's failure.
YES – Russia's rapid mobilization in just 10 days caught the German leadership off guard and disrupted the carefully timed execution of the Schlieffen Plan, which had assumed Russia would take six weeks to mobilize. The sheer size of the Russian army, with over 3 million soldiers, forced Germany to divert troops from the Western Front to the Eastern Front, leaving only a small fraction of the German army to face the advancing Allies in the West. This led to a war on two fronts for Germany, stretching its resources thin and making it difficult to achieve decisive victories. Additionally, early successes against Austria-Hungary forced Germany to reinforce its weaker ally, further straining its military capabilities.
NO – While Russia's mobilization was significant, other factors played a more important role in the failure of the Schlieffen Plan. Von Moltke's decision to alter the route of the plan and march directly through Belgium instead of partially through Holland led to Belgian resistance, notably at Liege, which delayed the German advance and disrupted their timetable. Furthermore, von Moltke underestimated logistical challenges, such as stretched supply lines, and the impact of using conscripts rather than professional soldiers. The entry of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) into the war, mandated by the London Treaty of 1839, added substantial manpower to the Allied cause. The professional soldiers of the BEF, notably at Mons and the Marne, slowed the German advance and forced them to dig in defensively. The stalemate at the Race to the Sea and the First Battle of Ypres demonstrated the inability of either side to outflank the other, highlighting the defensive nature of warfare in World War I. Additionally, the introduction of new defensive weapons, such as machine guns and barbed wire, favored defensive strategies over offensive ones.
In conclusion, while Russia's rapid mobilization contributed to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan, other factors such as strategic miscalculations, logistical challenges, the entry of the BEF, and the nature of trench warfare played equally if not more important roles in shaping the outcome of the plan.
SUBJECT
HISTORY
PAPER
O LEVEL
NOTES
How important to the failure of the Schlieffen Plan was Russia’s mobilisation in 1914? Explain your answer.
YES – Russia mobilised in 10 days as opposed to the 6 weeks believed by the Schlieffen Plan; Russian army was the largest in Europe with over 3 million soldiers; meant von Moltke had to divert troops on the Western Front to the Eastern Front – only 10% of the German Army was in the East; led to a war on two fronts for Germany and splitting of resources; some early successes against Austria forced Germany to reinforce its weaker ally, etc.
NO – More important – von Moltke changed the route of the Schlieffen Plan and marched directly through Belgium instead of partially through Holland; led to Belgian resistance, e.g. Liege which held up German advance; von Moltke did not take into account supply lines being stretched and the use of conscripts as opposed to professional soldiers; BEF entered war due to London Treaty (1839); BEF 120 000 professional soldiers held up German advance at Mons; BEF also took part with French at Marne and forced Germans to dig in; race to the sea and First Battle of Ypres saw neither side able to outflank each other; new weapons were defensive rather than offensive, etc.