Ludendorf as Fuhrer

Blair152

Banned
Hitler was never a good choice for Fuhrer of Germany. There are two reasons why I think this. Feel free to disagree. 1: Hitler never rose above the rank of
greiffeiter, (corporal), and 2: He wasn't the military genius he pretended to be. So who would have been a better choice? How about Germany's co-
commander of its army in the East during World War I? Erich Ludendorf.
Ludendorf was the only German general to defeat the Russians in the early
days of World War I. He defeated them in the Battle of Tannenberg. He also
almost defeated the Allies during the 1918 Michael Offensive. So how would
Germany under Erich Ludendorf differ from Germany under the Mad Corporal?
 

Blair152

Banned
Very funny, Mike. Maybe in a year your mommy and daddy will potty train you. Now grow up! I gave you two reasons, plausible reasons, why I think
Hitler wasn't the right man, in my opinion, to be Fuhrer. Give me two reasons why you think I'm wrong. Now why do you think Ludendorf couldn't
be Fuhrer of Germany?
 

Blair152

Banned
He dies in 1937
Assuming he doesn't die in 1937, Typo, how would Ludendorf as Fuhrer, vs.
Hitler as Fuhrer, differ in his approach. Hitler, as I said before, wasn't a military genius. Ludendorf defeated the Russians at the Battle of Tannenberg
in 1914. What would Ludendorf do differently from Hitler?
 
Very funny, Mike. Maybe in a year your mommy and daddy will potty train you. Now grow up! I gave you two reasons, plausible reasons, why I think
Hitler wasn't the right man, in my opinion, to be Fuhrer. Give me two reasons why you think I'm wrong. Now why do you think Ludendorf couldn't
be Fuhrer of Germany?

If I'm supposed to give you reasons why Hitler would be a good leader, you'ce given me an impossible task.

As for why Ludendorf couldn't be Fuhrer... because he was dead? Which is why I proposed the POD addendum that he not be dead. That'll teach me to try to be supportive.
 
More seriously, I think Ludendorf's cred was low because a.) he fled to Sweden after the war, b.) he was a bit of an indecisive oaf during the Munich putsch, and c.) by the end I think he was a bit of a joke, or at best a celebrity supporter, in the Nazi movement. So he might need a bit more than a longer lease on life to be chosen as party leader.
 

Typo

Banned
If I'm supposed to give you reasons why Hitler would be a good leader, you'ce given me an impossible task.

As for why Ludendorf couldn't be Fuhrer... because he was dead? Which is why I proposed the POD addendum that he not be dead. That'll teach me to try to be supportive.

Hitler was a good leader all the way to 1941. Every one of his decisions before 1939 were pretty good. All his decisions up to 1941 were good.
 
Hitler was never a good choice for Fuhrer of Germany. There are two reasons why I think this. Feel free to disagree. 1: Hitler never rose above the rank of

greiffeiter, (corporal), and 2: He wasn't the military genius he pretended to be. So who would have been a better choice? How about Germany's co-
commander of its army in the East during World War I? Erich Ludendorf.
Ludendorf was the only German general to defeat the Russians in the early
days of World War I. He defeated them in the Battle of Tannenberg. He also
almost defeated the Allies during the 1918 Michael Offensive. So how would
Germany under Erich Ludendorf differ from Germany under the Mad Corporal?​

Ludendorf could be dictator, but I don't see him as a 'fuhrer.' He has traditional bases for authority, so he's unlikely to look to inspire the kinds of quasi-millennial, archetypal, apocalyptic passions that Hitler did. This means that in some respects his hands won't be as free as Hitlers--he'll have to take into account traditional power blocs more. This might not be altogether a bad thing, however.
 

Blair152

Banned
More seriously, I think Ludendorf's cred was low because a.) he fled to Sweden after the war, b.) he was a bit of an indecisive oaf during the Munich putsch, and c.) by the end I think he was a bit of a joke, or at best a celebrity supporter, in the Nazi movement. So he might need a bit more than a longer lease on life to be chosen as party leader.
Good reasons why he wouldn't be Fuhrer. However, Hermann Goering also
went to Sweden. He was an air taxi pilot. Would that make Hermann Goering
a bad leader? As for being indecisive during the Munich putsch, I can't argue
that point with you. During World War I, it was Hindenburg, not Ludendorf,
who was indecisive.
 

Blair152

Banned
Hitler was a good leader all the way to 1941. Every one of his decisions before 1939 were pretty good. All his decisions up to 1941 were good.
That's right. It was in 1941 that he followed in Napoleon's footsteps and invaded the Soviet Union. He thought it would be a six-week campaign and
it turned into a four-year blunder. If Hitler had finished off Britain, there wouldn't have been a two-front war.
 
Good reasons why he wouldn't be Fuhrer. However, Hermann Goering also
went to Sweden. He was an air taxi pilot. Would that make Hermann Goering
a bad leader? As for being indecisive during the Munich putsch, I can't argue
that point with you. During World War I, it was Hindenburg, not Ludendorf,
who was indecisive.

Sure, I'm no real expert on Dorfie's character, I'm just not sure how easy post-putsch it would be for the Nazis to make him their leader.

Not saying it's impossible though, it's definitely not. If all the real power players - Hitler, Strasser, Roehm - were somehow out of the picture, the remaining apparatchiks might well see Dorfie as the sort of guy who could rally support and keep the party together as a figurehead. Plus, he works well with the President. Bringing the Dynamic Duo back together, how sweet!

Which reminds me... when Hindenburg dies, Chancellor Ludendorf may well ascend to the presidency but abandon the Chancellory. You may get your Chancellor Goering this way after all.

So... a moderate Nazi government that probably continues to work with people like Hugenberg and von Papen. Interesting.
 
That's right. It was in 1941 that he followed in Napoleon's footsteps and invaded the Soviet Union. He thought it would be a six-week campaign and
it turned into a four-year blunder. If Hitler had finished off Britain, there wouldn't have been a two-front war.

Easier said than done. How do you mean, via the Mediterranean strategy? I agree that's the best shot and the biggest missed chance, but a.) that's with 70 years of hindsight and b.) there's no guarantee that even Panzers in Basra will end things. The British can be awfully stubborn, bless 'em.
 

Typo

Banned
That's right. It was in 1941 that he followed in Napoleon's footsteps and invaded the Soviet Union. He thought it would be a six-week campaign and
it turned into a four-year blunder. If Hitler had finished off Britain, there wouldn't have been a two-front war.

Germany wasn't capable of finishing off Britain, and the window where Germany can win against Russia was closing.
 

Blair152

Banned
Sure, I'm no real expert on Dorfie's character, I'm just not sure how easy post-putsch it would be for the Nazis to make him their leader.

Not saying it's impossible though, it's definitely not. If all the real power players - Hitler, Strasser, Roehm - were somehow out of the picture, the remaining apparatchiks might well see Dorfie as the sort of guy who could rally support and keep the party together as a figurehead. Plus, he works well with the President. Bringing the Dynamic Duo back together, how sweet!

Which reminds me... when Hindenburg dies, Chancellor Ludendorf may well ascend to the presidency but abandon the Chancellory. You may get your Chancellor Goering this way after all.

So... a moderate Nazi government that probably continues to work with people like Hugenberg and von Papen. Interesting.
Neither am I. I'm not an expert on Addie's character either. Except for what I've read about him. Von Papen was responsible for bringing Hitler to
power. He was also responsible for sabotaging the Allied war effort in World War I. Some people think he was responsible for an explosion at a
munitions depot in 1916. Hindenburg had been called out of retirement to
take joint command of the German army.
 

Ian the Admin

Administrator
Donor
Very funny, Mike. Maybe in a year your mommy and daddy will potty train you. Now grow up! I gave you two reasons, plausible reasons, why I think
Hitler wasn't the right man, in my opinion, to be Fuhrer. Give me two reasons why you think I'm wrong. Now why do you think Ludendorf couldn't
be Fuhrer of Germany?

Kicked for a week.
 
The main problem Ludendorf has is that he isn't nearly as charismatic as Hitler was, he would have a harder time establishing the cult of personality needed to have a fanatical Nazi war machine to do his bidding. I once played around with the idea of a TL where Hitler and Ludendorf are both arrested during the munich beer hall putsch and then jailed together as cellmates. I intended to have Hitler act as the public face of the Nazi's and Ludendorf would be the puppetmaster in the shadows. This could have lead to a more well run Reich, however Ludendorf dying in '37 could have unpredictable results.
 

Cook

Banned
Very funny, Mike. Maybe in a year your mommy and daddy will potty train you. Now grow up! I gave you two reasons, plausible reasons, why I think
Hitler wasn't the right man, in my opinion, to be Fuhrer. Give me two reasons why you think I'm wrong. Now why do you think Ludendorf couldn't
be Fuhrer of Germany?

I’m rather staggered that of all the possible reasons to rule Adolf Hitler out for high political office you choose (a) the fact he was a junior NCO in World War One and (b) his military judgement wasn’t as good as he thought it was.

Regardless we’ll look at Ludendorff for Fuhrer soberly.

The first problem that arises is that the position of Fuhrer was created by Hitler so that he could get around the Constitutional limitations of the positions of Chancellor and President of the Weimar Republic following the death of President Hindenburg. Without someone as ambitious, ruthlessly disregarding of constitutional law, or of any law for that matter as Hitler on the scene, you are unlikely to have the position of Fuhrer created.

In 1925 Ludendorff was defeated by Hindenburg in the Presidential elections, he received little more than a quarter of a million votes so can’t be considered politicly serious in anyone’s books.
 
Top