Seeckt Instead of Ludendorff

Mikestone8

Suppose Ludendorff is wounded at Liege and out of action for a couple of weeks. This means that someone else would need to be sent to East Prussia. Suppose it was Von Seeckt. After all, not long after he was made Chief of Staff to Von Mackensen, so there's no obvious reason why he couldn't play the same role with Hindenburg. The only drawback might be that he was only a Lieutenant-Colonel, but OTL he was promoted in early 1915, which could probably have been done a few months earlier if need be.

So we have a Hindenburg-Seeckt combination instead of Hindenburg-Ludendorff. Is this likely to make a major difference? Thoughts?
 

rast

Seeckt was III. AK Ia and his fame originated from the Soissons battle in January 1915. I think in August 1914 he would have been overlooked and someone else - Schmidt von Knobelsdorf? - been sent. That would have meant a real big change from OTL's course of events.

If Seeckt is sent, the changes will be subtle at first. He was for Mackensen what L. was for Hindenburg. The big difference will come when H. is made head of OHL, as Seeckt is less susceptible to listen to insinuations of people like Max Bauer. Hence, no Hindenburg Programme might damage German economy. Unrestricted submarine warfare, however, might happen nevertheless; how else could one counter the British hunger blockade? I don't think S. had any better understanding what a belligerent US meant than L. had. Alberich might also happen. Treatment of Russia might follow civilian ideas, which were 'Let's get out of there'. The 1918 western front offensive was inevitable with the US in the war, but might be better executed as S. was colder and more calculating than L.
 

Deleted member 1487

rast said:
Seeckt was III. AK Ia and his fame originated from the Soissons battle in January 1915. I think in August 1914 he would have been overlooked and someone else - Schmidt von Knobelsdorf? - been sent. That would have meant a real big change from OTL's course of events.

If Seeckt is sent, the changes will be subtle at first. He was for Mackensen what L. was for Hindenburg. The big difference will come when H. is made head of OHL, as Seeckt is less susceptible to listen to insinuations of people like Max Bauer. Hence, no Hindenburg Programme might damage German economy. Unrestricted submarine warfare, however, might happen nevertheless; how else could one counter the British hunger blockade? I don't think S. had any better understanding what a belligerent US meant than L. had. Alberich might also happen. Treatment of Russia might follow civilian ideas, which were 'Let's get out of there'. The 1918 western front offensive was inevitable with the US in the war, but might be better executed as S. was colder and more calculating than L.
Click to expand...
How about Max Hoffmann being promoted?
 

Deleted member 94680

rast said:
If Seeckt is sent, the changes will be subtle at first. He was for Mackensen what L. was for Hindenburg. The big difference will come when H. is made head of OHL, as Seeckt is less susceptible to listen to insinuations of people like Max Bauer. Hence, no Hindenburg Programme might damage German economy.
Click to expand...

I take it you mean no Hindenburg Programme that damages the German economy? OTL the Hindenburg Programme was an eventual disaster, harming Germany far more than it helped it.

rast said:
Unrestricted submarine warfare, however, might happen nevertheless; how else could one counter the British hunger blockade? I don't think S. had any better understanding what a belligerent US meant than L. had.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't think many people in the higher levels of the OHL understood America's potential. Or the impact that USW would have in the long run.

rast said:
Alberich might also happen. Treatment of Russia might follow civilian ideas, which were 'Let's get out of there'. The 1918 western front offensive was inevitable with the US in the war, but might be better executed as S. was colder and more calculating than L.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure here, given Seeckt's tacit approval of the Armenian Genocide. Also, civilian ideas were in short supply in Ober Ost and there's no reason to suggest Seekt might work to remove control of the East from the Army's grip.
 

rast

Hoffmann was Lieutenant-Colonel like Seeckt. His fame originated from the Tannenberg battle - and the subsequent operations. Nobody would have chosen him prior to these events, too junior. Army chiefs of staff were seasoned generals, even L. was rather junior for his job, only success at Liege made him eligible.
 

Mikestone8

rast said:
Hoffmann was Lieutenant-Colonel like Seeckt. His fame originated from the Tannenberg battle - and the subsequent operations. Nobody would have chosen him prior to these events, too junior. Army chiefs of staff were seasoned generals, even L. was rather junior for his job, only success at Liege made him eligible.
Click to expand...

I suppose his best chance would be if the telegraph line had broken down so that Prittwitz couldn't send that panicky message about retiring behind the Vistula. Then he isn't removed, and it's Prittwitz and Hoffman who (probably still) win Tannenberg. Might be a bigger difference than a Seeckt appointment.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Stenz said:
Agreed, I don't think many people in the higher levels of the OHL understood America's potential. Or the impact that USW would have in the long run.
Click to expand...
Not that I disagree with you, but Britain's construction of a large army between 1914 and 1917 should have caused smart Germans to conclude that the U.S. could do the same thing if it was brought into the war.
 
Last edited:

TRH

CaliGuy said:
Not that I disagree with you, but Britain's construction of a large army between 1814 and 1917 should have caused smart Germans to conclude that the U.S. could do the same thing if it was brought into the war.
Click to expand...

Hey, if it takes a hundred years, it can't be that threatening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top