Changes

:::::::Ritter was writing for German military academies concerned with teaching officers "inner leadership" and moral responsibility; Craig was writing for tbe Anglo-American alliance eager to incorporate Prussisn military theories into NATO as it was learning more about the traditions of their new German partners staff planning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 10:40, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

:::::::Ritter was writing for German military academies concerned with teaching officers "inner leadership" and moral responsibility; Craig was writing for tbe Anglo-American alliance eager to incorporate Prussisn military theories into NATO as it was learning more about the traditions of their new German partners staff planning. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 10:40, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The strategy Germany followed in 1914 has only a passing resemblance to anything Schlieffen proposed. Schlieffen never proposed transporting the army west to east. IMO, Moltke's planners were inspired by the cult of the offensive (''offensive à outrance'') that the French army adopted in 1911. After Delbrück criticized the plan in 1919, the need to claim a patriotic lineage arose. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:37, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

::::::::The strategy Germany followed in 1914 has only a passing resemblance to anything Schlieffen proposed. Schlieffen never proposed transporting the army west to east. IMO, Moltke's planners were inspired by the cult of the offensive (''offensive à outrance'') that the French army adopted in 1911. After Delbrück criticized the plan in 1919, the need to claim a patriotic lineage arose. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 19:37, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::Again, my point: What's the point of bringing it up? Then. Schlieffen wanted to concentrate virtually all forces in the West, and leave the East wide open.

:::::::::Again, my point: What's the point of bringing it up, then? Schlieffen wanted to concentrate virtually all forces in the West, and leave the East wide open.

:::::::::See, this is what happens. The article appears to blame Schlieffen for the disaster in the West, whereas you & I seem to agree he had nothing to do with it. And maybe, if his idea were implemented, the Marne could have been avoided. That should be the only context his name is mentioned. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 23:48, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

:::::::::See, this is what happens. The article appears to blame Schlieffen for the disaster in the West, whereas you & I seem to agree he had nothing to do with it. And maybe, if his idea were implemented, the Marne could have been avoided. That should be the only context his name is mentioned.

 

:::::::::So the fallback position becomes, "Schlieffen was immoral because he didn't respect sovereign rights and international borders." If that's the case, Schlieffen was 100 years ahead of his time cause thid is exactly what EU leaders are doing right now - tearing down sovereign rights and eliminating international borders. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]]} 23:48, 29 March 2017 (EDT)