Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
War in History
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Holmes, T. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

All Present and Correct: The Verifiable Army of the Schlieffen Plan

Terence M. Holmes

Despite the recent wave of attacks on his view that `there never was a "Schlieffen plan"', Terence Zuber stands by his `central thesis', which is that the Schlieffen plan called for 96 divisions at a time when the German army could deploy only 72. This article will disprove Zuber's calculations. The Schlieffen plan called for 90 divisions, not 96. The official deployment plans of 1906 involved 78 divisions, including two of the ersatz corps that Zuber says were `non-existent'. From the official discussion about those two ersatz corps we can prove that it would have been perfectly feasible to raise eight of them altogether, as required by the Schlieffen plan.

War in History, Vol. 16, No. 1, 98-115 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0968344508097619


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?