"Best WWI German General?" Topic

Who was the best general in the German imperial army?

* Erich von Falkenhayn
* Paul Ludwig Hans Anton von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg
* Graf Helmuth Johannes Ludwig von Moltke (Moltke the Younger)

etc.

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck
Erich Ludendorff

I second Von Vorbeck.

Another vote for Lettow-Vorbeck.

Ludendorff lost his mind in the second half of 1918.

von Sanders didn't do too bad. Neither did von Below and von Hutier.

4th for Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck

My favorite was General Count von Klugermann

When the poll comes around, I won't be voting for von Lettow-Vorbeck.
Not when I consider the astronomical body count of civilians who starved due to his confiscations of food and the general chaos he caused by "not losing".

Even if you appreciate what he told Hitler.

Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck

Otto Liman von Sanders

+1 von Klugermann. After all, he liked to play "vahrgames"!

OFM, can we then assume you equally condemn the British? I don't think they were any more innocent regarding all the starving civilians – and they were a lot less accommodating of the local people than the Germans in so many ways. Not saying we shouldn't condemn what happened to the civilians, just saying there is plenty of blame to go around.

And, I, too, would pick Lettow-Vorbeck. His askaris were astonishingly loyal to him – even knowing they had a good chance of being ripped to shreds by machine gun fire. That says a lot about the man as a soldier – and we are measuring the soldier, not the man.

Of course, that raises the question as to whether the two can be separated to any benefit to the conversation.

My favorite story about him is how he was unknown to a junior officer who more or less cussed out the new commander who happened to be the man he was talking to, Vorbeck, who, upon the junior's clear mortification, told him not to worry, it was a comment to a comrade. That is a sign of a good officer – I knew a few like that in the navy, too few, but some.

Oh, don't give me that "Tu quoque", nonsense. Or the "what about" logical fallacy.
I don't have to defend X to say I don't like Y. Your argument does not hold water.
It's like saying that Churchill starved 3 million Bengalis in WW2 to excuse Hitler. He did, by the way.

Von Lettow-Vorbeck was responsible for millions of African deaths. Do you deny that?
And he was tactically and strategically brilliant, which I do not deny. That doesn't mean I have to like him.

The "What about" argument is just plain… unsound. It means that you know I am right, but are trying to deflect.

I also consider any of the Hun generals on the Western Front morally reprehensible. And ditto the Limeys and Frogs.
The whole "attrition" strategy is appalling, and they all practiced it. Happy?

I'm with John on this in general. No prize for any of these guys. Nobody who is part of a team that incurred such horrific casualties for so little gain gets to be called a the best general.

John, your numbers for Africa as a whole of millions is correct but German East Africa only accounted for a fraction of that total – and the estimates are about a third of a million civilian deaths outside the carrier corps, mostly from illness and starvation. That number is still horrific to the people involved.

Britain employed perhaps twenty times as many civilian laborers than the Germans in East Africa and a very large amount of the 'combatant' deaths on both sides were in the carrier corps of all sides. So, we can expect the British bear responsibility for proportionately more deaths.

And, of course, many of the civilian death numbers get conflated with the 1918 flu pandemic numbers.

Like all war, especially before modern 'limits' on warfare, the casualties are always horrific – "modern limits" is quite the oxymoron when applied to WWII's civilian butcher's bill.

Some will argue that in the age of enlightenment armies were so much smaller and had less impact on the civilians. I think the impacted civilians might disagree – so many of those armies lived off the land despite the best attempts at establishing supply depots.

And armies that live off the land, as Vorbeck's and the British often did, devastate the civilians.

Nothing quite holds a candle to eastern Europe during the Thirty Years War , not in whole numbers but in local devastation, where areas were so depopulated that it took three or more decades to reestablish a population in some areas. There are other, too many, examples through history.

War is just plain horrible in its reality. Always has been, always will be.

And – oh, my, agreeing with the OFM! – the attrition strategy in WWI was a new level of horror for the world. Where were the Nuremberg trials for those responsible for those crimes against humanity? Never happened.

Paul von. Lettow Vorbeck.As far as millions dying..yes that;s true .A stat that can be applied to any General ,civilian population always suffer the most and the Carriers on both sides were horribly treated and forcibly employed,Disease being the main by product of war kills the most.But from a pure military standpoint..he was brilliant as was Von Der Goltz in Mesopatamia.

Ludendorff. And he didn't loose his mind in the second half of 1918, he only saw the consequences of a lost war (and denied it later). But he had lost his mind in the first half of 1918, when he put all his eggs in one basket with the Michael offensive.

I would grudgingly say Ludendorff overall although von Lettow and von der Goltz were both tactically brilliant

von Mackensen. He had the coolest headgear. He did command competently in the East.

The deaths of millions can be classified either as a crime or a statistic, depending upon one's point of view.

Isn't history fun?

- – -

Apart from that little "bon mot", allow me to suggest Bruchmueller for honorable mention in the specialist category.

B

And he didn't loose his mind in the second half of 1918,

The man thought that the Armistice would be just a "time out," during which the German army could fall back to Germany, re-group, and then continue the war with the Allies attacking Germany. Regardless of the food situation in Germany. This was wishful thinking at best.

Ernst von Hoeppner

Did a superb job with the resources available to the Fliegertruppe, the air arm of the Imperial German Army.

@msefarin.
"The man thought that the Armistice would be just a "time out," during which the German army could fall back to Germany, re-group, and then continue the war with the Allies attacking Germany. Regardless of the food situation in Germany. This was wishful thinking at best."

Yeah, that was the position in WW2. So nobody "lost his mind" and the war dragged until 1945. Did it Germany any good?

In Septembre 1918 Hindenburg and Ludendorff did, what every General in history before had done. Declare to the political leader, that the war is lost and that he has to make peace. That they later tried to ignore there own analysis to smeare the republic is a whole other story.

I'm also not all that excited about any of these. If we could take off the qualifier "general," then I'd vote for Rommel as "the most tactically brilliant."

Consider the terrain in Mesopotamia and German East Africa. Small armies with open flanks.
It's much easier to be "tactically brilliant" in that situation. If you're mobile and are not up against the "A Team" of commanders, so much the better.

Article regarding losses in World War I in Africa – informative and honest about how inaccurate the numbers are and likely always will be:

link

Falkenhayn is unfairly underrated, as both a strategist and a commander.