翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Schloss Neidstein
・ Schloss Neuwaldegg
・ Schloss Niederstotzingen
・ Schloss Nordkirchen
・ Schloss Nörvenich
・ Schloss Oberstotzingen
・ Schloss Oldenburg
・ Schloss Ort
・ Schloss Porcia
・ Schloss Rabenstein
・ Schlicker Seespitze
・ Schlieben
・ Schlieben (Amt)
・ Schlieferspitze
・ Schlieffen
Schlieffen Plan
・ Schlieffen's bat
・ Schliemann (crater)
・ Schliemann (disambiguation)
・ Schliengen
・ Schlieper
・ Schlieper Bay
・ Schlier
・ Schlierach
・ Schlierbach
・ Schlierbach (Göppingen)
・ Schlierbach Abbey
・ Schlierbach, Austria
・ Schlierbach, Haut-Rhin
・ Schlierbach, Switzerland


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Schlieffen Plan : ウィキペディア英語版
Schlieffen Plan

The Schlieffen Plan ((ドイツ語:Schlieffen-Plan), ) was the name given after World War I to the thinking behind the German invasion of France and Belgium in August 1914. Field Marshal Alfred von Schlieffen was the Chief of the Imperial German General Staff from 1891–1906 and in 1905/06 devised a deployment plan for a war winning offensive, in a one-front war against the French Third Republic. After the war, German official historians of the ''Reichsarchiv'' and other writers, described the plan as a blueprint for victory, that was fatally flawed in its implementation by the successor of Schlieffen, ''Generaloberst'' (Colonel-General) Helmuth von Moltke the Younger, the German army Commander in Chief from 1906 – September 1914.
Post-war writing by senior German officers like Hermann von Kuhl, Gerhard Tappen, Wilhelm Groener and the ''Reichsarchiv'' historians led by the former Oberst (Lieutenant-Colonel) Wolfgang Förster, managed to establish a commonly-accepted narrative that it was Moltke (the Younger)'s failure to follow the blueprint, rather than German strategic miscalculation that condemned the belligerents to four years of attrition warfare, instead of the quick, decisive conflict it ''should'' have been. In 1956, Gerhard Ritter published ''Der Schlieffenplan: Kritik eines Mythos'' (The Schlieffen Plan: Critique of a Myth), which began a period of revision, when the details of the supposed Schlieffen Plan were subjected to scrutiny and contextualisation, that in general rejected the view that the plan had been a blueprint, because this was contrary to the tradition of Prussian war planning established by Helmuth von Moltke the Elder, who held that military operations were inherently unpredictable. Mobilisation and deployment plans could be drawn up but campaign plans were pointless; rather than attempting to dictate to subordinate commanders, the intent of the operation was given and then they were delegated discretion in achieving it by ''Auftragstaktik'' (mission-type tactics).
In writing from the 1970s, Martin van Creveld, John Keegan, Hew Strachan and others studied the practical aspects of implementing an invasion of France through Belgium and Luxembourg and judged that the physical constraints of German, Belgian and French railways and the Belgian and northern French road networks, made it impossible to move enough troops far enough and fast enough, for them to fight a decisive battle if the French retreated from the frontier. Most of the pre-1914 planning of the General Staff was secret and the documents were destroyed, when the deployment plans were superseded every April and the bombing of Potsdam in April 1945 destroyed the Prussian army archive. Incomplete records and other documents survived the bombing and became available after the fall of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), making an outline of German war-planning possible for the first time, proving much of the post-1918 writing wrong.
In the 2000s, ''RH61/v.96'' was discovered in the trove inherited from the GDR, a document that was used in a 1930s study of pre-war German General Staff war planning. Inferences that Schlieffen's war-planning was solely offensive had been made by extrapolating his writings and speeches on tactics into grand strategy. From a 1999 article in War in History and in ''Inventing the Schlieffen Plan'' (2002) to ''The Real German War Plan, 1906–1914'' (2011) Terence Zuber has engaged in a debate with Terence Holmes, Annika Mombauer, Robert Foley, Gerhard Gross, Holger Herwig and others with his proposition that the Schlieffen Plan was a myth concocted in the 1920s, by partial writers intent on exculpating themselves and proving that German war planning did not cause the First World War, a view supported by Hew Strachan.
==Background==


抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Schlieffen Plan」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.