French Strategy Culminating in the Conflict of Germany and France of 1870-1871 - Book Report/Review Example

Analyze the French strategy culminating in the conflict of Germany and France of 1870-1871. Why was it successful/ unsuccessful? Summary of analysis and strategy: A weak coherent structure within, lack of communication along, and military might aiding the strategic edge in the form of offensively attacking the defending French forces made up for the overall summary and strategy analysis of the 1870-1871 war. The French Prussian war of 1870-1871 was significant on number of accounts. The very first importance was the fact that of the German unification coming into action. Apart from the final outcome, the war was important on account of the French military strengths and the overall strategy that was adopted. This paper looks into the domains and dimensions of the strategy adopted, both from the military view point, strategic importance, the counter policies undertaken, the political dimensions of it. The short term and long term damages incurred by the French from the overall expeience of 1870-1871 affair. French Strategy: The French strategy was an amalgamation of political, diplomatic and military plans. To break the siege and thwart the offensive of Prussian forces. Prussian Strategy: To divide the French troops into two and put them back on defensive. To bring them on to table after having humbled them in the battle field. Key judgment related to the strategy: The strategy was flawed on account of manpower, military arsenal, technology and strategic flows. Political goal: The political goal of the war from French side was to establish and restore a say in the affairs of Europe. France had lost the trust of Great Britain, it came in conflict with Russia, and Italy was for nationalistic movement itself. All these because the French had a lack of political wisdom and the rivalries and disengagement that the French suffered on the account of the policies of Napoleon the Third. Was it realistic? At that time the goal so desired was not realistic. Based on the military strength, the moral of military, the military capabilities, the rivals’ strength, the geographical divide at that time and the manner in which the enemy came up dominating, all these stood against the objectives of French army. The ways: The different ways which could have possibly been adopted included diplomatic solution, possible strengthening of the military before engaging into the war, or potential counteracting of the Prussians policies which had virtually left the army split into two. Winning the loyalties of Great Britain, Italy and Russia could have been other set of options. Resources used: The resources used in the form of military personnel were relatively short as compared to Prussia. The major difference came about in the form of technology attained by Prussia. This made up for the major difference between the French and Prussian armies. Strategy against four tests: The initial strategy adopted by French army was aimed at coming out of the circle and siege of Metz. This took large amount of ammunition and energy leading to initial failure and frustration in the war. The strategic difference was the fact that one of the forces was in frame of mind to defend rather than thwart the offensive, while the latter were in the frame of mind to offensively block the French army leading to maximum gains by the end of the war. Sustainability: Top military Leadership view point difference: Mac-Mohon versus Von Moltke: The former was the commanding head of French army and the latter was the Prussian army general. The strategies adopted by each of them had a relative say in the final outcome of the war. Mac Mohon was straight away put on defensive aiming to minimize the damage, Von Moltke on the other hand had aggressive designs aiming to break the line of communication, isolating the French troops in sections and later on pounding their safe targets and inflicting maximum damages. Each of these generals were supported by their rulers at that time, with Napoleon the Third formally participating and devising strategies towards the French army actions during the war (Howard 2013). Feasibility: Division into two: Previously in the other battles, the French army went all dimensional and equally equipped. In this particular recourse, the French were obstructed and restricted owing to the split caused due to the preemptive strategies initiated by the Prussians. The siege on one side and the attack from other by French led them half effective and half powerful. This in turn resulted in half the impact upon the enemy and perhaps this was the sole reason which led to the failure of the French army by the end of the war. The half army and division in two led to desperate actions and circumstantial retreats. Men power Factor: The men power was on the lower side for France as well. For example in the case of battle of Sedan, the total number of Prussian troops were two hundred thousand soldiers. The French in contrast were only around 132,000 in number. This was due to the fact that they were engaged on various other fronts. By the end of this particular battle, the causalities at each end had a sparkling difference between them with Prussia suffering limited number of casualties. The Battle of Sedan: This battle along with couple of more marked the importance of the overall outlook of the war and might possessed by the Prussian army. The very fact that the top military command of France was targeted and forced to surrender nearly decided the fate and future of the war, leading to a nearly complete and unconditional surrender by the French paving way for the unification of Germany. As a result of this, the Germans got their independence and claim over the parts of land that they had long stayed deprived of it. Furthermore, it brought the Germans into a more dominating position with regard to the future perspective of European politics and overall global affair of events that would break out in the form of a World War in time span of over three decades after the Franco- Prusso war had taken place. At Sedan the French were pushed back so far that they had to retreat only to the forts and other safe hideouts. This resulted in the Prussian army further extending their reach and virtually standing on the outside of forts leaving the French with no other option than surrendering unconditionally to the Prussian forces. Owing to the overall unpreparedness, the French were caught off guard on many fronts, or even at places where they had little information shared, the resources, the preparedness and the overall strategy needed towards countering the attacking actions of the enemy were a miss and subsequently leading to the defeat in the form of ultimate surrender. One similar event and affair came forth in the form of Siege of Metz. These major defeats were followed by number of other setbacks in the form of retreat and defeat in the other battles such as Weissenburg, Worth,Gravelotte and Spichern. Each of these fronts resulting into the heavy damages inflicting upon the French army. Siege of Metz: The battle of Metz which was in fact was a siege of the helpless and resource less army that could do little to protect against the aggressive offensive of the Prussian army. The Prussian army had come in numbers and amounted to over one hundred thousand plus. The helpless French soldiers aimed at sneaking through and breaking the circle created to reach out to the other parts of the country and assist their friends and military partners. The might of Prussian army was so strong on account of the strategy, the military arsenal, the leadership, and the counter strategies of how to ensure the enactment of the circle drawn. The French army moved about it aiming to break it number of times, yet each of the attempt was a failure leading to only further frustration and humiliation in the form of such a large army being unable to liberate itself, least to say the common people in France in those days. Men power at Metz: Just like the Siege of Sedan, the French army were short on numbers in Metz as well leading to further escalation of pressure on them. Nearly all of them were captured leading to an unconditional surrender and agreement over the terms of the Prussian army . Under the terms agreed towards the end of the war, the French had to surrender considerable amount of land to the Germans on account of the inroads that were made by the Prussian troops during the war. Was the strategy successful? The overall strategy, standing of the French army and the policies adopted were a straight forward failure. This can be gauged on the account of the outcome that the war delivered. The very first face that came about by the end of the war was the liberation and unification of Germany. Were it for the defeat of Germany, Prussia, the French would have won it. The fact that the Prussians, Germans got their goals attained that they had long been aspiring for, spoke of the direct failure induced upon the French. There were number of reasons to the failure of French army. The following are few of the reasons which culminated the failure of France. Concluding remarks: Was there an overall balance towards the end of the war? There was no balance in the helm of affairs of France in any of the major domain of the war or collective representation. The political spectrum was as dysfunctional as was the army’s performance. There was no balance between the means, the ends and the ways and each were contrasting owning to the failure and overall outcome of the war. There was a total tilt towards the Prussians in terms of the lands occupied, the military humbled and the objectives gained from the war. It was a totally one dimensional win versus loss outlook to the end of the war. Political aspect of the defeat: The French were isolated on account of its existence in the European affairs in that era. Political disharmony in terms of the monarchy that was ruling in those days, this accompanied by the rivalry of the Tsar of Russia and the actions of Napoleon the Third and many more similar activities and policies undertaken by France at that time amounted to the political dimension of the war and its impact on the outcome that came about in the form of failure of French army and its strategic failure. Diplomatic success and effective policies on the behalf of Prussia: Prussia had earned the loyalty of number of nations before going into the war. For example its account of affairs with the Russia sums it up. Prussia had earned its loyalty, its support and assistance through the case of Poles. Prussia had provided Russia support towards the long claimed demand of Russia over its rights to protection and ownership of the Polish lands and region. Prussia did not object to it, agreed to its stance and support of being the guardian and supportive of their interests, the Russians in return ensured remaining either neutral or in favor of the Prussians against the French. The Prussians also exploited the weakness on account of the personal rivalry between the Tsar and Napoleon the Third. Italy’s favors earned: Italy had its interested locked in the French Prussian war of 1870. It would take side with one of the forces. Since Prussia could not afford Italy siding with the French forces and political ideas, it therefore engaged active and successful political and diplomatic maneuvering and earned their loyalties and siding by giving them incentives and offering them parts that were either of no interest to Prussia or were simply held by France. The Italian support allowed for protecting one of the borders and fighting freely against France all hearted and all dimensional. The rivals strength: The rivals in the form of Prussia had an edge over the French army. This strength was derived in the form of technology adopted. Since Prussia and the German confederation had been paced along the lines of technological and industrial developments in those days, it led to the direct impact on army. The army and the military and defense domain of the country and the states were strengthened which led to a more comprehensive outlook and attack against the rivals. This came in the form of the defeat of French army in 1870-1871 war. The military motivational level: The Prussian army was much more spirited. The fact that it had recently gained victories against number of rivals and opponents provided them with an edge over the French. Having defeat, the Danish forces in 1863-1864 and then having humbled Austria too, gave the direct and understandable edge to the Prussians over the French. The Prussians went into the war with the momentum on their side. The Danish expansion as a test: The Prussian army had recently won their war against the Danish forces. This was important on number of accounts. The first and foremost was the testing of waters as put up by the Prussian think tank and Prussian military mindset. Since Denmark served as the relatively smaller and weaker opposition, it enabled understanding the capabilities of the Prussian army as a whole and further enabled understanding the might of the French and in return also enabled them overcoming them through a concrete strategy. While all the positives and strengths of the enemy make up for the potential threat towards the challenges faced by a given nation or army, therefore anything that was the strength of Prussian army added to the reasons that resulted in the failure of French army. The direct weaknesses of French army make up for the cause of potential defeats in a given war. The following are few of the reasons and weaknesses directly on behalf of French army that culminated into their defeat. Disintegrated Army: Unlike the Prussian army, the French army was a disintegrated one and was little prepared towards the war. The impact of the political divide and the political isolation faced by the country as a whole in the sphere of Europe and affairs outside led to the direct fallout on the army, its moral, its physical strength and its capability as a whole. Weaker technology: France had not laid as much importance on technology as had their rivals. This in turn backfired and they were found wanting towards the technology and the size and weapons used by the Prussian army and as a direct impact, had to surrender places to them and were easily dictated upon by the Prussian forces. Deployment issues: The French army were deployed far and wide prior to the war. Since France has had no good relations as such with the major sates of the Europe at that time, it therefore had to protect its borders and engage the army along different borders. This resulted in a weaker force and protection against the Prussians on a unified front when the war broke out with the Prussians in the same year. As a result of this, the impact was weak and established the fact that the Prussians were more active, more equipped and more advanced, this all led to the failure and final outcome of the war in the form of France going down humbled by the Prussian forces. Diplomatic failure: The three prong war, with one actively entailing the use of force by Prussia and the other two entailing the hatred, ill will and lack of political and diplomatic harmony and insight led to the possible reasons based on which the war resulted in the failure of French army. The fact that Italy had been wooed into supporting the Prussians came along as a failure and aiding cause towards the overall outlook of the war by the end of 1871. Similarly the element of hatred, mistrust and personal vendetta prevailing between the Tsar of Russia and the French ruler amounted to non professionalism and lack of insight, leading to the direct downfall of France in the war when it simply lost the support of the neighboring regions and the relatively powerful forces at that time. Alternative strategy: The political goal of the war from French side was to establish and restore a say in the affairs of Europe. France had lost the trust of Great Britain, it came in conflict with Russia, and Italy was for nationalistic movement itself. All these because the French had a lack of political wisdom and the rivalries and disengagement that the French suffered Leadership role? Leadership through their skills, astuteness and professional experience make the adverse situation likely. The French political leadership failed to live up to the expectations. It led to the dismemberment of the French govt. in the post war scenario. Concluding Analysis: German parade in Paris: The final nail in the coffin came about in the form of parade in Paris where the civilians had gathered and the French army had virtually surrendered before them. The French top leadership of military and political sphere had surrendered before them and agreed to all the terms of German army including the control over the long claimed strategically important places such as Alsace and Lorain. By the end of the war, there was a virtual collapse of the French Army, the French civilian set up and the vacuum was created on the account of fact that prior to the war military was ruling over the civilian setup, since the military was totally humbled, it led to the vacuum creation in the political corridors as well. Short Term Crisis: The rise of Paris Commune: The vacuum so present gave rise to the revolutionary forces to rise up and take control. Though this was short lived but it reflected the overall absence of infrastructure and civilian structure in France leading to the rise of such a revolutionary outfit. The French society was socially and mentally unsettled by the overall war and could not resort to the large amount of territorial and military losses inflicted upon them. Long term crisis: The first and foremost crisis that came about was in the form of the strategically important areas captured by the Germans. All these areas gave the Germans an edge in the First World War that would be fought in the course of three decades onwards. The compromise over Alsace and Loren and the non clear settlement of it with mutual sharing by both the parties left the question unsolved and led to the future failure and future deadlock persistence which would show up in the longer run in the form of German offensive intentions and invasions in the First World War. The war of 1870 between the two sides set the footings and precedence for a more brutal war in the form of intrigues and internal unrest within the European sphere that would last till the 1914 and eventually leading on to the outbreak of the First World War. References: Howard, Michael. The Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France 1870–1871. Routledge, 2013 Read More