Jump to content

Talk:Erich Ludendorff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

"Hitler's attempt, in co-operation with General Ludendorff, to unseat the German government in November, l923, through an open rebellion in Munich, was foiled through the efforsts of the local Reichswehr under the command of Von Lossow, and the refusal of Von Kahr, Bavarian Prime minister, to accommodate the Fuhrer. (Von Kahr and Von Lossow were murdered in the Reichsmordwoche, the "Blood Purge", June 30, l934.). From that time on Hitler's hatred for the Junkers, the Reichwehr and all clerical politicians was boundless: his paladins in the army were in the end all non-Junkers such as Jodl, Guderian and "die Keitel". P. F. Drucker was quite right when he said of Hitler's relation to the German army that the Fuhrer "hated it just as much as any German Liberal did." The Church, ably led by Cardinal von Faulhaber, also opposed Hitler on principle." Liberty or Equality pg 260.

Furthermore, Ludendorff was not a Junker.

Junkers are Right wingers. Ludendorff though militaristic was not a right winger, So the right wing from the article might stay or I might add conservative. It was the extremists right-wingers Von Lossow and Von Kahr that put a stop to Hitler.WHEELER 16:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not all Junkers were right-wingers. What a sweeping statement. A lot were conservatives, though, and a minority were Roman Catholic liberals. David Lauder 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was a nationalist but not a rightist. Rightist is monarchist.WHEELER 16:43, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another sweeping statement, of no merit. David Lauder 16:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Ludendorff was associated to the Junker class through his mother's name, but his mother's family was not wealthy either. (Parkinson, Roger Tortured Warrior: Ludendorff and the Supreme Command, also Asprey's The German High Command at War) These are just two. Every book I have read notes that he is of humble beginnings; they lived in Posen on a farm, the von Tempelhoffs did not have money, the family cheered his decision to pursue the military because they could not afford to support the rest of the family, including the other 5 children. --68.45.21.204 02:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

von

[edit]

What authority gave Ludendorff the "honorary" title of von? Are we sure it wouldn't be more accurate to say "sometimes incorrectly referred to as Erich von Ludendorff"? Binabik80 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and it used to say that. I missed it being changed. He was never a noble, although that hasn't stopped idiot Anglo-Saxon historians from ennobling him (*glares*). Mackensen (talk) 02:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
he signed his autobiography Erich von Ludendorff title page That name is used in over 300 scholarly books published by university presses. Who exactly states that it is not his correct name???? Rjensen (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's the English-language edition of Meine Kriegserinnerungen. It's not present in the original German: https://archive.org/details/Ludendorff-Erich-Meine-Kriegserinnerungen. Mackensen (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grim

[edit]

Not a good article at all, lacking really good citations and adequate sources. Seems to have a certain slant to it. I will try and improve it at some point. David Lauder 16:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strategical thinking/politics

[edit]

This article would say more about the man if it included some of his ideas re: warfare and strategy, and went into his political ideas in more depth. I know that he wrote at length on these subjects, and they are relevant to his military career and his dabbling in post-war politics. I can't get a grip of the man based on this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.39 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Wasn't he a true militarist? A book I have read made references to a book he wrote called "On Totalitarian Warfare". From what I graps he believed war was the highest of all human activities. If this is true then it should be included. 75.161.227.86 (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes. he is known as a militarist. it would be nice to go more into depth on his breadth of opinions about militarism.14.200.2.15 (talk) 11:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

26 Oct

[edit]

Article previously implied he left his wartimeposition in September - the portal:war anniversary list (based on October 26) stated today was his resignation date. Based on discussion with User talk:Kirill Lokshin amended text with material from Ludendorff(1920). Bridesmill 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added

[edit]

On his WW1 goals which he tried to push through in the Empire.--Molobo (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of citations

[edit]

I share the concerns expressed by another user on the need of sources for this article, almost two years ago. Thus I have posted the proper banner at the top of the page.--Darius (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page sums up why Wikipedia is seen as a joke site by some. Not everything needs a citation and to put those tags in EVERYWHERE makes the page look extremely ugly and cluttered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.105.26 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

INCORRECT-everything DOES need references in Wikipedia, and yes, it is considered a joke in academia because so much of it is uncited, and often those cites are 'massaged' to the editor's POV. Those tags are not only needed, but required per the rules here.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The reason why wikipedia is an unreliable, joke of a website, is precisely because of a lack of credible citations. You get left-wing nutjobs writing nonsense unopposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.196.222 (talk) 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prophetic "Telegram"

[edit]

This article includes a "prophetic telegram" alleged to have been sent by Ludendorff to Hindenburg with a reference link to The History Place.

It was actually included by the British historian Ian Kershaw in his work, Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris, (London, 1998) ISBN 0-393-32035-9. After determining that the telegram was never sent and was a forgery, Kershaw has removed it from subsequent publications of the book. This article claims "Although the original copy of the telegram has yet to be found...yada, yada,", it's hardly encyclopedic information and should therefore be removed. Pure propaganda. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that a brief search on the issue seems to confirm what Dan wrote. I would remove it as well, but would feel more secure if I had something more sourced.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see this is in the article despite someone questioning it years ago. I might buy Ian Kershaws book to confirm, because this is all very interesting to me anyway, and will report back. This is an interesting article, this guy was too crazy even for Hitler? But it has poor sources. Popish Plot (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hitler Named Chancellor

Allegiance

[edit]

Given Ludendorff's antipathy to Hitler throughout the time Hitler was in power and Ludendorff was still living, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that he had any allegiance to Nazi Germany. He was long retired from the military by then, and offered no support to the Nazi regime politically, either. Jsc1973 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would change the allegiance section of the info box to just "German Empire" and drop the other two. The same applies to the info on where he served - he only served in the army of the Empire and resigned/was fired in October 1918. He never held a position in the Weimar or Nazi armed forces.Drow69 (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's Erster Generalquartiermeister not Erste Generalquartiermeister

[edit]

due to german reflexion of words, there has to be an "r" in the end. Trust me, I'm a native speaker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.251.85.104 (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kapp Putsch

[edit]

His involvement in the Kapp Putsch of 1920 is mentioned in the lede, but not in the article itself. Valetude (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Erich Ludendorff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Ludendorff" redirect here?

[edit]

I think of the three Ludendorffs linked on the current disambiguation page Erich is by far the most notable. "Churchill", for example, redirects to Winston Churchill even though there are other not-particularly-obscure Churchills (I'm sure the vast majority of Canadians have heard of the town in Manitoba). Granted, Erich Ludendorff isn't as universally known as Winston Churchill, but he's certainly more historically important than George S. Patton, and "Patton" redirects to him despite Patton being a much more common name than Ludendorff. If no one objects I'm going to make the change myself in a few days since it seems like a no-brainer to me. Note that I also posted this on the disambiguation's talk page. ❃Adelaide❃ (talk) 18:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The Total War" book

[edit]

General Ludendorff supposedly wrote a book whose title translates to "The Total War", and either it or a translation drew favorable attention from the Imperial Japanese general staff during their buildup pre-Sino Japanese War. I did see this mentioned in a longish YouTube documentary last night and I'll post a link here once I find it. - knoodelhed (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. "Kraut" (October 19, 2018), Imperial Japan: The Fall of Democracy, seen January 22, 2021. knoodelhed (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How does this relate to the following item in the lede, that is not referenced in the article?
His most famous work in this field was Der totale Krieg (The Total War), where he argued that a nation's entire physical and moral resources should remain forever poised for mobilization because peace was merely an interval in a never-ending chain of wars. Valetude (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write, rewrite, reiwrte, riweret, trewier...

[edit]

How many rewrites have been done to this article, to the point where mentions of people make no sense because text has been snipped to death and repasted to pasta? This happens to many of these military articles. Everybody's got an edit...

Ludendorff was acquitted, but Heinz was convicted of chauffeuring him, ...

Heinz who? Shenme (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My guess would be his step-son Heinz Pernet, but that article says he got a 15 month sentence, not a one year suspended sentence. So your guess is as good as mine. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ludendorffs Verlag?

[edit]

Many of Erich's books are cited as being printed at "Ludendorffs Verlag", did he own or operate this publishing house or was it operated by a family member? From the calendar years given it appears that they operated for some time into the Third Reich period despite him being a controversial figure. - knoodelhed (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott Sanchez: It also published works by his wife, Mathilde Ludendorff, as well as by other anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, more-or-less generally racist, authors. Haven't been able to run down anything about its ownership yet, I think I'll try asking at the Ref Desks. DuncanHill (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ludendorff’s birthday

[edit]

The introduction says Ludendorff’s birthday was 9 April 1865 (which, incidentally, was the day Lee surrendered at Appomattox). However, further down, the article refers to a battle on 20 November 1917 and says, “it was Ludendorff’s 52nd birthday…” Which is correct? 198.57.89.138 (talk) 02:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. 9 April is correct and the 52 birthday was ruined by the Battle_of_Arras_(1917)#Second_phase. Several sources here, though none of them mention a dinner specifically. Furius (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Lunderdoff was certainly sympathetic with the new-born Nazi party in the 1920s but is pretty obvious that he was in open disagreement with them, to say the least, by the time of Hitler's ascension to power and that he never was a Nazi himself. Adding templates relating Lundendorff with Nazism is somehow misleading. Feel free to express your opinion her. Darius (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a forum for opinion. I will agree on one thing: the involvement of Ludendorff with Hitler in the building of the Nazi movement in the first half of the 1920s is not sufficiently documented in the article. That the ties were apparently "in the process of" being broken off (were they eventually broken off? we don't seem to know) by February 1926 entails that the ties had existed beforehand - so you would have to claim that there was no Nazi movement before 1926 for Ludendorff not to have been part of it. One can apply more stringent criteria, i.e. party allegiance. You claim it is "pretty obvious" that Ludendorff "never was a Nazi himself", but it is enough to check the article on the National Socialist Freedom Movement to find the following statements: The remaining Nazis formed the NSFB as a legal means of carrying on the party and its ideology and NSFP leaders Albrecht von Graefe and Erich Ludendorff both quit the NSFP in February 1925, only a little more than a year after it was founded. I see no way to accept those statements and deny that Ludendorff was a Nazi. Perhaps you have sources which show otherwise. VampaVampa (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. First of all, I meant "opinion" in the sense of the best way to deal with the article based on cited sources, talk pages are intended for this: nothing to do with original research or PoV as you seem to suggest. I have some sources regarding Ludendorff links to the Nazis, yes, but in any case, I wouldn't cite Wikipedia, lest to say an underreferenced article like National Socialist Freedom Movement, as per WP:CIRCULAR. I want make clear, however, that I am not denying his involvement with the Nazis in the wee years of the NSDAP; nevertheless, I still hold the view that, despite initial rapprochement, there were always irreconcilable differences between Ludendorff's stance and that of the Nazi party (See [1] and [2]). My only concern is the inclusion of an out-of-context template that could put undue weight on Ludendorff's connections to the Nazis, a secondary and murky aspect of his bio per most authors, which could erroneously suggest to the reader that Ludendorff held a high-ranking position within the Nazi hierarchy, akin to that of Himmler, Bormann, Goebbels, or Hess. Darius (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Erich_Ludendorff&oldid=1265641670"