Hitler 's Wehrmacht or Kaiser 's Imperial army better ?

[PeterOT]

Not an expert on either, but a few musings (by all means shoot me down if I'm wrong).

It strikes me that if we are looking at the army top to bottom the Kaiser's army might come out ahead. It faced opponents far better matched to its level of ability than the WW2 version & held them off for almost as long from a far weaker position. Granted, Russia was less able, but the strength of France & to a lesser extent Britain prevented true advantage being taken of this until too late. Having said that, there is an argument that its senior leadership was, overall, poorer than in WW2 & that this was very costly at times (Verdun an example). Fortunately for Germany poor leadership was a near universal trait in the early years of WW1.

There is a good argument that the WW2 version had better senior leaders. While the adulation of fanbois can sometime obscure this by overstating it, there were rather a lot of pretty good Generals in the WW2 German Army. It took the Allies a long time to catch up. This probably helped to cover for the patchy quality in the lower ranks. I would furhter argue that the greater success of the WW2 version was partly based on the relative weaknesses of the enemy & a good deal of manufactured luck. In 1940 Britain & France fielded equally patchy forces which were not as well matched to their opponent as their forefathers had been. In 1941 The Red Army was still recovering & reorganizing after the purges. This allowed germany a greater measure of success, which in turn allowed the war to run for longer. Had there been a serious failure in France it is unlikely that the war would have lasted until 1944. That the WW1 German Army managed to fight on for so long having effectively fallen at the first hurdle probably gives it the edge here.

Just some thoughts.

[James A Pratt III]

The Kaisers army was better than the wehrmacht in other respects one the had no SS ect to carry out genocide against jews ect. The kaisers army also commited fewer atrocities. the kaiser's knocked Russia out of WW I with a campaign of internal rebellion by aidding V.I. Lenin to seize power. The kaiser's army was loyal to the Kaiser in away that the WH was not towards Hitler.

[Kelvin]

The Kaisers army was better than the wehrmacht in other respects one the had no SS ect to carry out genocide against jews ect. The kaisers army also commited fewer atrocities. the kaiser's knocked Russia out of WW I with a campaign of internal rebellion by aidding V.I. Lenin to seize power. The kaiser's army was loyal to the Kaiser in away that the WH was not towards Hitler.

Don't forget Kiel Mutiny of 1918.

And I would like to say some generals was disloyal to Hitler but not ordinary officers. Hitler were quite popular in middle and lower grade officers either in Wehrmacht or Waffen SS, especially after Hitler 's so many diplomatic and military victories.

Some generals were quite loyal to Hitler like competent Model and incompetent Butsch. In some way, Rundstadt and Guderian were loyal too.

[James A Pratt III]

Oops! i forgot about the misnammed HSF they had an earier muteny in 1917. However it should be pointed out that the Kaisers military on had 48 of its men executed during WW I for desertion, muteny ect the WH ect had over 11,000 of its men executed during WW II for desertion ect!. This does not include the thousands that were executed by SS ect in the last months of the war. One also needs to point out very few of the Kaisers Generals commited suicide while in the WH it seems to be almost an epidemic! Finally, I think there were a few small scale mutenies in the KM during the last days of the war.

[Kelvin]

Hi, James, desertion was more serious in the Third Reich than the Imperial Germany.

But in some good part, Third Reich created more famous generals than in that of Kaiser.

In Kaiser 's Germany, the famous one is Luderndorff and Hindenburg : the winner of Tannenburg in August 1914, Lodz campaign in late 1914, Gorlice-Tarnow offensive of 1915, later Luderndorff 's Carpetto campaign of 1917.

I would not think Falkankayn was a good general. His strategy bled enemy white in Verdun is blunder, though he played an important in Romanian campaign of 1916. Also Mackensen also played a vital role in Romanian battle.

Hitler 's list of able generals were many : Bock, Rundstedt and Leeb were competent Army Group commander and those people played a vital role in initial German victories.

Guderian, pioneer of armored warfare. He had done well in initial German victories. He also played a good part in reorganizing depleted German panzer troops during 1943-45. The contribution of latter was much more remarkable and significant.

Manstein, planner for greatest victory for Hitler : conquest of France in 1940. He was the conqueror of Crimea in 1941, wonderful battle of annhilation in Kerch in May 1942 and conqueror of Sevastopol in July 1942and the commander of famous Kharkov counteroffensive in March 1943. He also defeated the Russian thrust in Zhitomir in Nov/Dec 1943.

Model, Hitler 's fireman : He always could stabilitze the critical situation in the battlefield : like after Bagration and stabilized the battlefront and stopped Russian thrust and succeeded in retreating the large of German troop from Falaise in Aug 1944. then stablilize the Western front after August 1944 like annhiliation of British 1st airborne divsion in Arnhem and made the quick allied victory impossible and he also took part in Ardennes offensive.

Rommel, as a commander of 7. Pz division, thrust into the interior of France without delay and conbributed greatly to Hitler 's victory in France. In western Desert, despite the fact that Rommel 's Afrika korps was outnumbered, he always routed the British force. In spite of tremendous British effort , they rarely defeated Rommel and in May 1942, Rommel dealt a big blow to British Eighth Army and finally captured fortress of Tobruk with 33,000 British solders and a large quantity of supplies.

Kesselring, one of commander of German air fleet and contributed to German victoriy in initial victories. Then he rushed to command German Army Group C in Italy to resist the allied advance in Italy. His brilant tactical skill stripped of allied hope of decisive victory in Italy.

Just my 2 cents

[Terry Duncan]

But in some good part, Third Reich created more famous generals than in that of Kaiser.

More famous by todays standards but not at the time or for years after.

Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, Below, Hutier, Marwitz, Bruchmuller, Mackensen, Hoffmann, Francois, Bauer, Einem, Gallwitz, Groener, Tappen, and Seeckt were all very well during the war, some achieved a degree of notoriety even, but all of these officers can be added to the list of Hindenburg and Ludendorff, as indeed should Falkenhayn if the list of gifted officers is to be objective.

To blame for Falkenhayn alone over Verdun is to miss that others altered his concept, and that it was partly this alteration that led to the German army suffering so many losses, and he took the blame because he was not a court favourite. His campaigns in Romania and Palestine showed more what he was capable of and on limited resources.

[stg 44]

Falkenhayn was the Kaiser's pick for a number of high offices, so in effect he WAS the court favorite. Verdun and its aftermath put to much political pressure on the Kaiser to stop protecting him and cut him loose.

[Terry Duncan]

The fact that Falkenhayn held top appointments does not make him a court favourite, it simply shows he had the ability to be there. He was not liked by Schlieffen, apparently due to his preferrence for a central breakthrough in place of a flank attack to achive the decisive result, and not by the Kaiser or Crown Prince either. From what I have seen he may have simply not been good at relating to people like so many other generals of his day, or had what is called 'an unfortunate manner' about him. During the war he was noted as being cold and aloof, which may explain his lack of popularity.

The other general who favoured a central breakthrough was Tappen, who seems to have been somewhat ignored by most historians after the war, so maybe he was something of an outsider too?

[Ahnenerbe1]

IMO this is a hands down question, the Heer of 1939-1945 is better. The Heer thought they were writing the wrongs of WW1 and were motivated at a higher level. They were a fast mobile force, with young officers who had freedom of command. True, morale was low at first compared to 1914, but by 1942 they were filled with victory and felt unstoppable.

[antfreire]

The generals of the Kaiser's army were good prussian junkers, but did not have" a new idea" of fighting war as the generals of 1939 had. That is why the Nazis surprised the theorists of the schools of war in 1939, 40 and the first moths of 1941 while the Kaiser's generals fought war the same way as their enemies with no bold ideas of their own. But the army of 1939 was definitely more defficient in front of its enemies than the Kaiser's. The vulnerability of Hitler's army started to show less than a year and a half of the breakingt of hostilities while the army of 1918 even a few months before the capitulation was close to overrun the Allies. Another handicap of Hitlers armed forces was precisely Hitler. A corporal leading all the battles.

[Peter H]

Liddell Hart's The German Generals Talk 255-257pp provides some interesting insights from his interview participants on comparasions between the army of 1914-1918 and the army of 1939-1945.A must read.

Generally the consensus was that the German soldier of 1914-1918 was better disciplined,the result of a long standing NCO corps then still in existence.The 1939 army lacked a greater depth of talent in the NCO field.Even Hitler in Tabletalk maintains that the WW1 soldier could be more stoic than his 1941 counterpart,especially with his comments on the local retreats resulting from the Soviet Moscow offensive in December 1941.

The tooth to tail ratio of WW2 as compared to WW1 was also poorer.This is partly explained by gutted divisions etc not being rebuilt,new novice formations being raised instead.

[case white]

hitlers army was better not only for better weapons
but was olso in most cases led by men of forward thinking and modern tactics for that period

kind regards

[The IronDuke]

I think you need to break it down further.

The Reichsheer of the interwar years was as good a fighting force as germany ever possessed, since only the very best got to be members. Almost all were capable operational minds, excellent Staff Officers, or distinguished combat veterans from WWI.

However, the expansion of the late thirties diluted that force.

The Army that invaded poland performed reasonably, but had a number of issues that the German Army tried to resolve during the winter of 1939/41 with a training program based on the analysis of the Polish campaign and the Heer's failings.

An improved force took on the West as a result, and a force at the height of it's powers took on Barbarossa.

I think the Germany Army of WWI was no better than anyone else in 1914. Where they start to take a lead is in the evolving defensive and offensive tactics of the 1915-17 period. Where the Allies were turning to massed guns and tanks, the Germans were solving trench deadlock with improved tactics and that gave them a qualitative edge (IMHO) until the end of the 1918 offensives when the best they had was gone.

It therefore depends on when you want to compare.

Regards,
Ironduke

[stg 44]

The fact that Falkenhayn held top appointments does not make him a court favourite, it simply shows he had the ability to be there. He was not liked by Schlieffen, apparently due to his preferrence for a central breakthrough in place of a flank attack to achive the decisive result, and not by the Kaiser or Crown Prince either. From what I have seen he may have simply not been good at relating to people like so many other generals of his day, or had what is called 'an unfortunate manner' about him. During the war he was noted as being cold and aloof, which may explain his lack of popularity.

According to Holger Herwig Falkenhayn was the protege of the head of the Kaiser's military cabinet.
Herwig and Foley (http://www.amazon.com/German-Strategy-V ... t_ep_dpt_1)
both show the Kaiser interceding on the behalf of Falkenhayn in 1915 to stop all political and military requests to remove Falkenhayn, up to and including reassigning officers from the GGS to desk jobs in minor forts (Haeften).

The other general who favoured a central breakthrough was Tappen, who seems to have been somewhat ignored by most historians after the war, so maybe he was something of an outsider too?

Tappen was hated by Goerner and Bauer on the GGS. They remained in the military after 1916 when Tappen was retired by the rise of Ludendorff. It was the result of postwar histories written by his rivals that he was either slandered or ignored potwar, which is somewhat fitting, as Falkenhayn often ignored him will he was his main confident on the GGS.
Foley wrote that Goerner had lots of nasty things to say about Tappen, which IMHO resulted from jealousy because Tappen was part of Moltke's inner circle and later Falkenhayn's.

I think the Germany Army of WWI was no better than anyone else in 1914. Where they start to take a lead is in the evolving defensive and offensive tactics of the 1915-17 period. Where the Allies were turning to massed guns and tanks, the Germans were solving trench deadlock with improved tactics and that gave them a qualitative edge (IMHO) until the end of the 1918 offensives when the best they had was gone.

Beg pardon, but the German army of 1914 was most certainly, as a whole, much better than everyone else n the world at that time. By 1918 The British were probably the best, but that's because they were the most experienced, intact force remaining. It wasn't that the German soldiers were better, man for man the Russians were tougher and wilier, but rather the whole system was the best. The general staff, the officers, the NCOs (more per man than any other army), high education standards, lavishly equipped, well trained; in just about every category the Germans functioned better than other armies, which is what allowed them to adapt to trench warfare so well. Now their government was shit, which is a whole other story...

[The IronDuke]

I think the Germany Army of WWI was no better than anyone else in 1914. Where they start to take a lead is in the evolving defensive and offensive tactics of the 1915-17 period. Where the Allies were turning to massed guns and tanks, the Germans were solving trench deadlock with improved tactics and that gave them a qualitative edge (IMHO) until the end of the 1918 offensives when the best they had was gone.

Beg pardon, but the German army of 1914 was most certainly, as a whole, much better than everyone else n the world at that time. By 1918 The British were probably the best, but that's because they were the most experienced, intact force remaining. It wasn't that the German soldiers were better, man for man the Russians were tougher and wilier, but rather the whole system was the best. The general staff, the officers, the NCOs (more per man than any other army), high education standards, lavishly equipped, well trained; in just about every category the Germans functioned better than other armies, which is what allowed them to adapt to trench warfare so well. Now their government was shit, which is a whole other story...

I would disagree.

Large numbers of reservists shovelled into uniform, inconsistent tactical doctrine, issues with the battle plan. The key planks of what would become German combat superiority were still in the future.