History: Actual, Fictional and Legendary discussion

The military events after August 1914 set the stage for the prolonged fighting into November 1918. Why did the War of Movement fail?

What's War of Movement?

Silvana wrote: "What's War of Movement?"

A War of movement is one in which neither side "digs in" so to speak. WW II was a war of movement. "Blitzkrieg" versus trench warfare.

Would anyone care to comment on the failure of the Schlieffen Plan or the French invasion of Alsace?

The War of Movement is the early months of the war, up through the Race to the Channel Ports. I would argue they ran out of land relative to the technology they had on hand.

On the Schlieffen Plan - I agree with Tuchman in The Guns of August that the German timetable for advance was so rigid that they ran the risk of failure if something delayed part of it severely. And I'd say in actuality that something was the resistance of Belgium to being invaded.

I think the French invasion of Alsace was inevitable; the Germans certainly expected it.

Susanna, I agree that the Sclieffen plan assumed Belgium would surrender immediately but they didn't and held out for ten days and actually continued fighting attached to the British throughout the War.

Ironically, in WW II, Belgium did surrender immediately.

I think you could call Albert of the Belgians the hero of The Guns of August.

And, ironically, the Belgian military had faith in their forts in 1914 (though Albert didn't), just as the French military had faith in the Maginot Line in 1940.

Susanna wrote: "I think you could call Albert of the Belgians the hero of The Guns of August.

And, ironically, the Belgian military had faith in their forts in 1914 (though Albert didn't), just as the French mili..."

There is nothing more illusory than the minds on military leaders with some exceptions.

How did the early war in the East lead directly to the Russian Revolution?

Follow-up Question: Why did the Moderate government that first took over in 1917, continue the war?

I'd say the Russian rush to mobilize in 1914, and the subsequent disastrous attempted invasion of East Prussia, crippled their entire effort. After that, if the war was going to last more than a year or two, the Russians were going to be in a world of trouble. And they were.

Susanna wrote: "I'd say the Russian rush to mobilize in 1914, and the subsequent disastrous attempted invasion of East Prussia, crippled their entire effort. After that, if the war was going to last more than a y..."

Once again, as said in many postings here, the arrogance of the leaders of the combatants led to 70 years of conflict and many millions of deaths to say nothing of despair and heartache.

Scary stuff.

As for why the Kerensky Government had a big offensive in the summer of 1917, I have no idea. Except that it seems to have been a historian's idea! (He was serving as Foreign Minister. I believe the Britannica describes him as "too inflexible to succeed in practical politics." A relative of Woodrow Wilson?) My other general impression of the Provisional Government is that it wasn't as willing to play political hardball as were the Bolsheviks.

Not read up on the morass that is Revolutionary Russia much recently.