"The development of the Prussian General Staff during the Wars of German Unification was
the most important turning point in the conduct of war." How far do you agree with this view
of warfare in the period 1792-1945?
Although there is evidence to suggest that the Prussian General Staff was a significant
turning point in the conduct of war, that is the tactics and strategy used by commanders,
technological developments throughout the period had a far more profound impact on the evolving
conduct of war, indeed facilitating the revolutionary tactics and strategy employed by the Prussian
General Staff.
Prussian general staff - tactics and strategy turning point
● General staff developed group of intelligent and cooperative officers into an elite of highly
trained generals → flexible and reliable
● Precipitated complex tactic of Kesselschlacht 'caldron battle'- lured enemy into central
position and encircled eg. Königgrätz 1866
■ A frontal attack would immobilize the enemy while forces on the flanks would
execute a double envelopment, forming a pocket called a Kessel
○ Lasting impact seen in WWII - Same tactic seen in Blitzkrieg strategy but on a greater
scale
■ Eg. initial advance into Russia in 1941 saw 100,000s of Russian troops
enveloped over vast swathes of territory
○ By contrast previously the limited abilities of officers meant that tactics were limited to
full frontal assaults as seen in both FRWs eg Valmy and American Civil War eg.
Malvern Hill
● Similarly mission tactics - Skilled officers would be given autonomy in carrying out broad
orders dependent on their specific situation
○ eg. Froeschwiller 1870
■ Whilst in Napoleonic era defenders would meet cavalry charges with defensive
squares, Skirmishing regiment at Froeschwiller moulded to walls and hedges,
allowing them to shoot down 9 cavalry units whilst incurring minimal casualties
○ Lasting impact - Pacific theatre island hopping WW2
● Arguably General Staff was a turning point in the development of rapid decisive war using
minutely detailed planning and coordination
○ While in Franco-Austrian 1859 the fact that both sides lacked a coherent General Staff
system led to chaotic and indecisive campaigns
■ eg. the two nations met by mistake at Solferino and battle didn't commence for 3 days
○ In Austro-Prussian 1866, development of Prussian General Staff meant that 250,000 troops
were rapidly mobilized via 4 strategic railways, which facilitated the strategy of a short,
decisive war lasting just 7 weeks.
○ This culminated in WWII with the German Blitzkrieg strategy, using an armoured motorized
force to rapidly penetrate enemy defenses before continuing far into enemy territory, led to
defeat of France in just 6 weeks in May-June 1940.
Therefore strong evidence to suggest dev. of Prussian General Staff was a notable turning point in the
conduct of war, with lasting impact of both Kesselschlacht and mission tactics and strategy of a short,
decisive war.
the most important turning point in the conduct of war." How far do you agree with this view
of warfare in the period 1792-1945?
Although there is evidence to suggest that the Prussian General Staff was a significant
turning point in the conduct of war, that is the tactics and strategy used by commanders,
technological developments throughout the period had a far more profound impact on the evolving
conduct of war, indeed facilitating the revolutionary tactics and strategy employed by the Prussian
General Staff.
Prussian general staff - tactics and strategy turning point
● General staff developed group of intelligent and cooperative officers into an elite of highly
trained generals → flexible and reliable
● Precipitated complex tactic of Kesselschlacht 'caldron battle'- lured enemy into central
position and encircled eg. Königgrätz 1866
■ A frontal attack would immobilize the enemy while forces on the flanks would
execute a double envelopment, forming a pocket called a Kessel
○ Lasting impact seen in WWII - Same tactic seen in Blitzkrieg strategy but on a greater
scale
■ Eg. initial advance into Russia in 1941 saw 100,000s of Russian troops
enveloped over vast swathes of territory
○ By contrast previously the limited abilities of officers meant that tactics were limited to
full frontal assaults as seen in both FRWs eg Valmy and American Civil War eg.
Malvern Hill
● Similarly mission tactics - Skilled officers would be given autonomy in carrying out broad
orders dependent on their specific situation
○ eg. Froeschwiller 1870
■ Whilst in Napoleonic era defenders would meet cavalry charges with defensive
squares, Skirmishing regiment at Froeschwiller moulded to walls and hedges,
allowing them to shoot down 9 cavalry units whilst incurring minimal casualties
○ Lasting impact - Pacific theatre island hopping WW2
● Arguably General Staff was a turning point in the development of rapid decisive war using
minutely detailed planning and coordination
○ While in Franco-Austrian 1859 the fact that both sides lacked a coherent General Staff
system led to chaotic and indecisive campaigns
■ eg. the two nations met by mistake at Solferino and battle didn't commence for 3 days
○ In Austro-Prussian 1866, development of Prussian General Staff meant that 250,000 troops
were rapidly mobilized via 4 strategic railways, which facilitated the strategy of a short,
decisive war lasting just 7 weeks.
○ This culminated in WWII with the German Blitzkrieg strategy, using an armoured motorized
force to rapidly penetrate enemy defenses before continuing far into enemy territory, led to
defeat of France in just 6 weeks in May-June 1940.
Therefore strong evidence to suggest dev. of Prussian General Staff was a notable turning point in the
conduct of war, with lasting impact of both Kesselschlacht and mission tactics and strategy of a short,
decisive war.
