West German
Warlord
I think Hindenurg was the best. Tannenburg was pure genius.
Who was the Greatest WW1 strategist?
- Thread starter West German
- Start date
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
I'm not that big on WWI history, but I think they were all very bad. None knew how to use the technology at the time, and they obviously didn't know how to deal with trench warfare.
A war in a stalemate has bad strategists, usually.
A war in a stalemate has bad strategists, usually.
I'd have to say Hindenburg, though the Austrian Conrad von Hotzendorf did a good job considered the meager abilities he was given. Caporetto, I would say, was a greater victory than Tannenburg, and both generals were there unless I'm mistaken.
De Lorimier
North American Scum
Lunderdoff. I think he decided the strategy of two fronts in the early days. Not so sure thought...
MajorGeneral2
Just happy to be here
Not really. The Germans were actually quite skilled on the battlefield. It was the French, and British even more so, who didn't have a clue. In fact, Germany would have won, if they had been a bit luckier. Consider these points:
1. Fighting Britain/France on one end, Russia on the other, and helping Austria-Hungary in Italy and the Balkans took its toll. They just couldn't find the manpower to launch a focused attack against one foe.
2. British propaganda was brutally effective. It played a large part in getting the Americans in, largely because Britain's naval supremacy kept the German's own propaganda from getting out.
3. The Germans had been winning the war up to that point, defeating a major enemy every year. '14: Belgium, '15: Serbia, '16: Rumania, '17: Italy and Russia. By mid-1918, France and Britain were barely able to hold off Germany. This German ownership of the battlefield ended only with the arrival of American forces.
Therefore, I'd say either Pershing, whose AEF kept Germany from winning, or one of the Germans. It's hard to say who, because Wilhelm II seemed to consider high-ranking officials "expendable."
napoleon526
Emperor
Von Schlieffen (sp?). If the Germans had adheered more stringently to his plan in the first few months of the war, France might have been knocked out of the war.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
Drivel.
TELL us how you deal with trench warfare with the technologies known at the time the first trenchs were dug at the end of 1914 and gaining in depth and strength with increases in the number of machine guns, artillery and bunkers.
De Lorimier
North American Scum
That's the guy I was thinking about! The Schlieffen plan is something I learned in high school and is one of the first thing that got me interested in history.
Shady
Why are you reading this?
The Schlieffen plan is nothin more than creative arrows thrown on a map with detailed train schedules. It's absolutely stupid of the brilliant german army staff to not incorporate time for inefficient occurences such as the brief belgian uprising.
Anyway, Hindenburg was the best. period (again) Foch and Joffre and all them are just pure idiots. The German strategy was a great one. Just let the french and brits come to the trenches and mow them down. Why go TO the enemy and kill them when they are killing themselves by coming to you? Of course this then dematerialized when the americans just supplied everything in excessive bulk and germany simply couldn't hold out against half the rest of the world's resources mobilized.
I really hope that british, french, and american propaganda slips out of mainstream minds to unrecognize the extreme incompetency and idiocy that the french and british put out there. Victories such as Verdun were really more like draws with usually the advantage being greatly with the germans afterwards.
Also, this is the time that "blitzkrieg" tactics were developed (another pure propaganda term-from the germans) and used to great effect in the last offensive. I can't believe people still believe blitzkrieg is all full of charging tanks and all when it was really modern, squad-based infantry tactics that used the machine gun to maximum efficiency.
Anyway, Hindenburg remains my answer.
Anyway, Hindenburg was the best. period (again) Foch and Joffre and all them are just pure idiots. The German strategy was a great one. Just let the french and brits come to the trenches and mow them down. Why go TO the enemy and kill them when they are killing themselves by coming to you? Of course this then dematerialized when the americans just supplied everything in excessive bulk and germany simply couldn't hold out against half the rest of the world's resources mobilized.
I really hope that british, french, and american propaganda slips out of mainstream minds to unrecognize the extreme incompetency and idiocy that the french and british put out there. Victories such as Verdun were really more like draws with usually the advantage being greatly with the germans afterwards.
Also, this is the time that "blitzkrieg" tactics were developed (another pure propaganda term-from the germans) and used to great effect in the last offensive. I can't believe people still believe blitzkrieg is all full of charging tanks and all when it was really modern, squad-based infantry tactics that used the machine gun to maximum efficiency.
Anyway, Hindenburg remains my answer.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
VERY Good question, good thread, the sort that keeps me coming back to CFC.
I'd vote Allenby myself, with Ludendorff a close second. It's a little unfair for Allenby, in that he had better terrain to work with.
Frankly, I agree with Shady completely on the stupidity of the Schlieffen plan, and when I have some more time later in the day I will articulate why. The best paper I ever wrote in university was called "Three Times Lucky? Planning the Three German Invasions of France, 1870-1940" and was written for the sole purpose of demonstrating why it was bad history for teachers to ape Barbara Tuchman and worship the Schlieffen Plan.
R.III
I'd vote Allenby myself, with Ludendorff a close second. It's a little unfair for Allenby, in that he had better terrain to work with.
Frankly, I agree with Shady completely on the stupidity of the Schlieffen plan, and when I have some more time later in the day I will articulate why. The best paper I ever wrote in university was called "Three Times Lucky? Planning the Three German Invasions of France, 1870-1940" and was written for the sole purpose of demonstrating why it was bad history for teachers to ape Barbara Tuchman and worship the Schlieffen Plan.
R.III
MajorGeneral2
Just happy to be here
The Schlieffen plan was quite an excercise in wishful thinking. It was von Schlieffen's attempt at making numbers work in case Germany had to fight both Russia and France. Obviously, Germany didn't have near the manpower required to successfully win such an operation. His successor, von Moltke the Younger, inherited the same problems, so his solutions weren't much better. The amazing thing is, it almost worked thanks to the imcompetence of the French.
The reason for the train schedules was that the Germans realized that their best shot at winning was a lightning-fast assault upon France, capture Paris, then focus their full strength torward Russia, who was always slow to mobilize anyway (in Schlieffen's time, anyway).
I'd say Ludendorf, since he was the one who almost won the war before the US came. Between this and keeping Russia at bay (with Hindenburg), he's a good bet.
The reason for the train schedules was that the Germans realized that their best shot at winning was a lightning-fast assault upon France, capture Paris, then focus their full strength torward Russia, who was always slow to mobilize anyway (in Schlieffen's time, anyway).
I'd say Ludendorf, since he was the one who almost won the war before the US came. Between this and keeping Russia at bay (with Hindenburg), he's a good bet.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Well, I'm sick and tired so I don't want to have a long post unless I have to.
Short version:
1. The Schleiffen Plan was a classic error of tactics over logistics. EVEN IF THE GERMANS HAD ANOTHER 200,000 MEN, it wouldn't have made any difference, since the road/rail net couldn't support them properly.
2. The troops were forced ahead at such a speed that they were exhausted and short on supplies at the point of decisive battle - and would have been just as exhausted had the French stopped them west of Paris, north of Paris or in the city itself.
3. The Plan threw away Germany's biggest advantages - logistics, defensive capability and terrain in a blind rush forward, and brought the Brits and the Belgians (and, eventually, the Americans) in against them to do it. Despite Tuchman's b*tchy whining about how "uppity" Rupprecht was, his army managed to kill more frenchman more quickly than anybody had killed anybody ever in the opening month of the campaign. Even his relatively costly counterattacks bled the French brutally. In short, if the Germans had concentrated a smaller western army along the border and waited for the embarrassment that was French "revanche," they could have cut France to peices for what would be seen as a foriegn war while beating the Russians with a force twice the size of the Tannenburg victors.
Schlieffen was a very amateur turn away from decades of Prussian professionalism.
R.III
Short version:
1. The Schleiffen Plan was a classic error of tactics over logistics. EVEN IF THE GERMANS HAD ANOTHER 200,000 MEN, it wouldn't have made any difference, since the road/rail net couldn't support them properly.
2. The troops were forced ahead at such a speed that they were exhausted and short on supplies at the point of decisive battle - and would have been just as exhausted had the French stopped them west of Paris, north of Paris or in the city itself.
3. The Plan threw away Germany's biggest advantages - logistics, defensive capability and terrain in a blind rush forward, and brought the Brits and the Belgians (and, eventually, the Americans) in against them to do it. Despite Tuchman's b*tchy whining about how "uppity" Rupprecht was, his army managed to kill more frenchman more quickly than anybody had killed anybody ever in the opening month of the campaign. Even his relatively costly counterattacks bled the French brutally. In short, if the Germans had concentrated a smaller western army along the border and waited for the embarrassment that was French "revanche," they could have cut France to peices for what would be seen as a foriegn war while beating the Russians with a force twice the size of the Tannenburg victors.
Schlieffen was a very amateur turn away from decades of Prussian professionalism.
R.III
Magnus
Diplocat
1. German General Oskar von Hutier who developed the Stosstruppen, or 'stormtrooper' tactics that almost won the war in the 1918 offensive. This tactic was to heavily bombard/gas the enemy at a several narrow points in their lines, and then send lines of infantry thru the holes and surround the defender's trenches, with larger groups of infantry following later to 'mop up' this tactic would eventually evolve into the blitzkrieg of WW2, once armour became effective.
2. Russian general Alexei Alekseevich Brusilov who devastated the Austrains in several major offensives.
3. German Colonol Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeek, who took a ragtag group of German-Africans (along with guns from a sunken german cruiser) and thoroughly flummoxed the Anglo-French forces, who outnumbered him 10:1. He never lost an engagement and was still fighting up until Armistice Day.
And I do agree, the Schlieffen plan was a travesty, the Germans should have held defensively in the West and sent the bulk of their forces East Russia wouldn't have held out even a year to the onslaught. And if Germany did not invade Belgium, England may have wavered on their decision to enter the fray.
2. Russian general Alexei Alekseevich Brusilov who devastated the Austrains in several major offensives.
3. German Colonol Paul Von Lettow-Vorbeek, who took a ragtag group of German-Africans (along with guns from a sunken german cruiser) and thoroughly flummoxed the Anglo-French forces, who outnumbered him 10:1. He never lost an engagement and was still fighting up until Armistice Day.
And I do agree, the Schlieffen plan was a travesty, the Germans should have held defensively in the West and sent the bulk of their forces East Russia wouldn't have held out even a year to the onslaught. And if Germany did not invade Belgium, England may have wavered on their decision to enter the fray.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Brusilov should have been on my list; I will make it a top three with Luderndorff, Allenby and him.
R.III
R.III
TheStinger
Warlord
The British regular army was the best in the filed howvere it only lasted for a few months as it was so small, the Germasn thought every man had a machine gun as they were so well drilled.
The Germans didn't really have much of a clue how to fight on the western fron either. The eastern front needed different tactics and the germans were very good there.
Verdun was the Germans idea, extreme attrition is hardly a great tactic.
The US arrival hastened the end of the Germans it did not cause it. The Royal Naval blockade and 4 years of trench warfare did that.
MajorGeneral2
Just happy to be here
I'll take your points in turn.
A. Britain's contribution was obviously with the navy, not on land. They used outdated tactics for the most part, never really understood how to use artillery, and were the worst lead army in the field.
B. Early on, you'd be correct. Consider, however, that the two ways of breaking through a heavy line of trenches (tanks and aerial bombers) weren't available until late in the war, and even then would be too primitive for such use until WW2. The Germans mastered the artillery barrage, and were the best lead army by a mile. So they, unlike France and Britain, had at least some idea how the war should be fought.
C. Keep in mind that the French didn't do so great there, either. Also, for the early part of the assault, the sector was commanded by Petain, one of France's few officers with any talent whatsoever.
D. The US ended it. It's true that the Naval blockade was necessary, but the Germans very nearly captured Paris in 1918. They were on a huge win streak up until the American entry. The US was the only reason Germany surrendered, and that was why France and Britain were eager for a treaty, because they knew if Wilson pulled the AEF out, the war would drag on even longer, and probably in the Germans' favor. One American captain put it this way after one of the first US victories:
"Oh, we showed them sonsab***es! ... We showed the sonsab***es how to do it! "
He wasn't referring to the defeated German enemy.
Hunter
Civ Addict
Perhaps this is motivated by mostly patriotism however I believe that Sir Arthur Currie is at least worthy of mention here. From what I have read his men liked him and using the tools given him he distinguished himself as well as brought honor to Canada.
TheStinger
Warlord
Ther Germans achieved their sucess in 1918 on sheer weight of numbers and newish tactics already tried by the British. They transferred the troops form the eastern front and drafted a year early. The only tanks they had were captured allied ones. they used creeping artillery barrage which had been used before.
QUOTE]Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
C. Keep in mind that the French didn't do so great there, either. Also, for the early part of the assault, the sector was commanded by Petain, one of France's few officers with any talent whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
The Germans chose Verdun and the tactics used it didn't work.
QUOTE]Originally posted by MajorGeneral2
D. The US ended it. It's true that the Naval blockade was necessary, but the Germans very nearly captured Paris in 1918. They were on a huge win streak up until the American entry. The US was the only reason Germany surrendered, and that was why France and Britain were eager for a treaty, because they knew if Wilson pulled the AEF out, the war would drag on even longer, and probably in the Germans' favor. One American captain put it this way after one of the first US victories:
"Oh, we showed them sonsab***es! ... We showed the sonsab***es how to do it! "
He wasn't referring to the defeated German enemy. [/QUOTE]
I'm sure he did say that, it doesn't make him correct. The US entry was important, however to say that it stopped the Germasn from winning is frankly ridiculous.
Zcylen
Moonlight Rambler
not the british generals, at least at the beggining of the war. I just read an article which said :Lions lead by donkeys.
MajorGeneral2
Just happy to be here
Unfortunately true. This is why Germany almost won, the leadership. If there had been similar skill on both sides, Germany wouldn't have lasted more than a couple years.
Stinger, if you're right, how was it that Germany had defeated every opposing force except Britain/France? Why did this massive streak end with American involvement? Why do you think the Germans reduced the size in manpower of their forces but increased firepower if they didn't understand that this (firepower) was how they'd win? What should they have done instead? The Germans almost never had more men on the battlefield, but they almost always had more artillery. Why? Because they knew they couldn't outman Britain, France, Russia, Serbia, Rumania, and others, especially Britain/France with all their possesions. Like it or not, they were far more intelligent than their opposition, and almost won.
You make it very obvious you're British, and you should read some American sources. You may be surprised (I was).
Similar threads
- Locked
