What do you think?
Rate this book
The First Nazi, the Life and Times of General Erich Ludendorff of Germany
General Erich Luddendorf was one of the most important military individuals of the last century, yet today, one of the least known. One of the top two German generals of WWI, Luddendorf dominated not only his superior. Gen. Paul von Hindenburg, but also Germany’s head of state, Kaiser Wilhelm II. For years, Luddendorf was the military dictator of Germany. Ludendorff not only dictated all aspects of WWI, he refused all opportunities to make peace; he antagonized the Americans until they declared war; he sent Lenin into Russia to forge a revolution in order to shut down the Russian front; then he pushed for total military victory in 1918, in a rabid slaughter known as “The Ludendorff Offensive.” Luddendorf lost the War in 1918. Shortly thereafter, he created the murderous legend that Germany had lost this war only because Jews had conspired on the home front, in what he called a “stab in the back.” He soon forged an alliance with Hitler, endorsed the Nazis, and wrote maniacally about how Germans needed a new world war, to redeem the Fatherland. This savage man had staggering designs to build a gigantic state that would dwarf the British Empire, sweep across all of Africa, then the Middle East, Central Europe, Persia, even India. Simply stated, he wanted the world. His plans, person & ambitions were the prototype for his good younger friend, Adolf Hitler. All in all, Luddendorf was the key German, instrumental in both world wars & the Russian Revolution. He changed the 20th century beyond recognition.
356 pages, Hardcover
First published March 1, 2016
13 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
March 16, 2018
A powerful argument that Erich Ludendorff should be seen as one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century.
Brownell argues convincingly that Ludendorff’s World War 1 actions possibly added 2 years to that conflict and he was also directly responsible for the rise of Soviet Communism and Hitler.
Ludendorff believed that by sending Lenin is a sealed train to St Petersburg he would undermine Russia’s provisional post-tsar government and force a peace treaty. He was correct in that theory, but inadvertently fostered Stalin and the resulting 70 odd years of the Soviet Union.
Following the end of World War 1 Ludendorff propagated the “stab in the back” legend that became accepted as fact, in addition to a noxious cocktail of blame being placed on the Jews. Brownlee states that these two fictions directly created a climate that allowed the Nazis use these “stories” to seize power.
Where Brownell does struggle is with the paucity of information on Ludendorff’s family and home life. One wife ended up in an asylum and the other divulged very little in her lifetime. Much of his section on World War 1 appears to list the key moments of the war without any major insight into Ludendorff himself who remains somewhat of an enigma throughout the book.
Overall interesting and believable arguments as to why Ludendorff should be up there with Hitler and Stalin and questions what Europe might have been like without his influence.
I received this book for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.
Brownell argues convincingly that Ludendorff’s World War 1 actions possibly added 2 years to that conflict and he was also directly responsible for the rise of Soviet Communism and Hitler.
Ludendorff believed that by sending Lenin is a sealed train to St Petersburg he would undermine Russia’s provisional post-tsar government and force a peace treaty. He was correct in that theory, but inadvertently fostered Stalin and the resulting 70 odd years of the Soviet Union.
Following the end of World War 1 Ludendorff propagated the “stab in the back” legend that became accepted as fact, in addition to a noxious cocktail of blame being placed on the Jews. Brownlee states that these two fictions directly created a climate that allowed the Nazis use these “stories” to seize power.
Where Brownell does struggle is with the paucity of information on Ludendorff’s family and home life. One wife ended up in an asylum and the other divulged very little in her lifetime. Much of his section on World War 1 appears to list the key moments of the war without any major insight into Ludendorff himself who remains somewhat of an enigma throughout the book.
Overall interesting and believable arguments as to why Ludendorff should be up there with Hitler and Stalin and questions what Europe might have been like without his influence.
I received this book for free from the publisher in exchange for an honest review. This does not affect my opinion of the book or the content of my review.
October 22, 2016
I read the advanced review edition of this book, a paperback not in the database. Perhaps the very many typographical errors were corrected in the published editions so I won't dwell on them. There's enough to complain about otherwise.
With three authors, all with advanced degrees, one would expect better. On the whole there seems to have been extensive plaigarism from Adam Hochschild's book on the war--something I noticed because I recently finished it. Others, more acquainted with books about the first world war, may notice additional stealing.
If that weren't bad enough, there are incredible misstatements of fact. Sarajevo, for instance, is referred to as the capital of Serbia. It wasn't. It was the major city of Bosnia, a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Similarly, the assassin responsible for the deaths of the Archduke and his wife, Gavril Princip, is identified as a Serb and as having died in Serbia. While it's true that he was ethnically Serbian, he was born and raised in Bosnia, in the empire. He also died in the empire, imprisoned in what today is part of the Czech Republic.
Futhermore, the prose of this book is poor, something one might expect from a high school student. Past tenses are employed when the past perfect would be appropriate, tense changes between past and present occur abruptly, many points are repeated, sometimes more than once.
Fortunately, it's a very quick read. That helped me get through it, that and my interest in knowing more about General Ludendorff and his relationship to Hitler and the Nazi Party. While there was very little information about that, most of the book being about the first world war and Ludendorff's actions then, the book did serve as a refresher and did include some points of interest. However, it can't be called a serious biography or even a serious attempt at scholarship. There is no proper bibliography, no index and there are no footnotes.
With three authors, all with advanced degrees, one would expect better. On the whole there seems to have been extensive plaigarism from Adam Hochschild's book on the war--something I noticed because I recently finished it. Others, more acquainted with books about the first world war, may notice additional stealing.
If that weren't bad enough, there are incredible misstatements of fact. Sarajevo, for instance, is referred to as the capital of Serbia. It wasn't. It was the major city of Bosnia, a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Similarly, the assassin responsible for the deaths of the Archduke and his wife, Gavril Princip, is identified as a Serb and as having died in Serbia. While it's true that he was ethnically Serbian, he was born and raised in Bosnia, in the empire. He also died in the empire, imprisoned in what today is part of the Czech Republic.
Futhermore, the prose of this book is poor, something one might expect from a high school student. Past tenses are employed when the past perfect would be appropriate, tense changes between past and present occur abruptly, many points are repeated, sometimes more than once.
Fortunately, it's a very quick read. That helped me get through it, that and my interest in knowing more about General Ludendorff and his relationship to Hitler and the Nazi Party. While there was very little information about that, most of the book being about the first world war and Ludendorff's actions then, the book did serve as a refresher and did include some points of interest. However, it can't be called a serious biography or even a serious attempt at scholarship. There is no proper bibliography, no index and there are no footnotes.
August 3, 2016
If anyone finds my review helpful, please give me a helpful vote at
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2DV289J...
Too many books; too little time.
I did something with this book that I almost never do: I gave up at 20%.
I did dip into the latter part of the book to see if things had changed. I was surprised to find that 80% of the book involves Ludendorff’s World War I years and only minor attention was given to the sizzle of the book, namely the Ludendorff-Hitler connection.
I have done a lot of reading on National Socialism from the perspective of the Nazi war on the Catholic and Protestant churches. Ludendorff figures into this history as an interesting, albeit strange, element. Ludendorff was famous for working in tandem with Hindenburg in winning the decisive Battle of the Tannenberg Forest, and then going on to become virtual military dictators of World War I Germany. After the war, under the influence of his wife, Ludendorff “went strange” and began indulging in “volkisch” politics and anti-Christian religion. Ludendorff was as much of an anti-Catholic as he was an anti-Semite. Ludendorff allied with Hitler in the Beer Hall Putsch, and, by doing so, lent credibility and a spotlight to Hitler’s nascent Nazis. Hitler maintained some kind of relationship with Ludendorff thereafter, but marginalized Ludendorff, largely, as I understand it, because of Ludendorff’s off the charts wackiness.
So, when I saw this book, I was very interested. I mentally congratulated the authors for writing a book on such an important but now obscure figure.
What I got was as close to disaster as I’ve seen. I found, unfortunately, that I could not trust the authors to be accurate in the details. For example, the opening paragraph of Chapter 1 begins:
“WORLD WAR I began in a fit of absentmindedness. A mere archduke of Austria and his wife were visiting a minor city called Sarajevo, the capital of Serbia, on June 28, 1914. A patriotic student named Gavrilo Princip, who wanted the Austrian province to secede and join with Russia, shot the archduke in the chest and, accidently, shot his wife too.”
I had a moment of cognitive dissonance on reading that. First, I thought, “was Sarajevo the capital of Serbia?” Of course, it isn’t, but my trust that authors of historical work are trustworthy is such that I questioned my memory and had to re-read that line several times in confusion.
Also, Franz Ferdinand was no “mere archduke.” He was the heir to the throne of Austro-Hungary.
And “accidentally, shot his wife too.” Apart from the offhand way of phrasing, is that even right? Princip was a terrorist. Bagging royals was his game.
Here is another example, minor though it may seem:
“The changes that came with the war crept into language. Civilians talked of men being “over the top,” a phrase that originated with soldiers climbing out of trenches. If a man were evil, civilians called him “lousy,” a term that first described soldiers afflicted with lice.”
I don’t know what set me off about that observation, but something about it – maybe the fact that louses were a problem before World War I – sent me to the trusty online etymological dictionary, where I learned that “lousy” has been used since the 15th century. (“mid-14c., lousi, "infested with lice," from louse + -y (2). Figurative use as a generic adjective of abuse dates from late 14c.; sense of "swarming with" (money, etc.) is American English slang from 1843. Related: Lousiness.”) and “over the top” to describe excessive anger was first evidenced in 1968 (“To go over the top is World War I slang for "start an attack," in reference to the top of the trenches; as "beyond reasonable limits, too far" it is recorded from 1968.”) I am glad I was set off or I might be quoting this as fact, and I don’t read books to spread pseudoknowledge.” I am grateful that I learned that interesting bit of trivia – 1968!!! – but I learned it despite this book, not because of it.
Also, notice what I just did there? I fact-checked and footnoted…in this review! There are no footnotes in this book. Instead, for each chapter, we get a list of some books that presumably relate to the material in the chapter. Where it might be found relies on our trusting the authors, but we lose that trust with basic errors. Also, as an attorney – and one of the authors is an attorney – I have discovered that having a habit of providing support for statements keeps one honest. It forces one to look up claims, a process which might result in learning that “lousy” was used before World War I.
The analysis of the book remains very superficial. The book appears to have been written for 6th graders who need to be hit over the head with the notion that World War I was just an awful experience. We learn about the horses that were killed and how awful trench warfare was and the rest. We also learn that Ludendorff was a dunderhead, although brilliant at a tactical level, that the victory at the Battle of Tannenberg Forest has been overstated, that he marginalized Hindenberg – who actually became Chancellor in the late 1920s, and that he had all kinds of crack-brain schemes to end the stalemate.
The book traffics in the worst features of modern history. It is polemical and it projects the authors thoughts into the minds of historical figures. We learn, therefore, that Ludendorff had no sympathy for anyone, which could be true, but the description of Ludendorff is no different than the Chateau Generals of the French. It might be nice to understand how these people rationalized for themselves their approach without being hit over the head with the notion that they were merely selfish. As for crack-brain schemes, everyone was looking for an answer; Churchill was responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign for the same reason. Perhaps, Ludendorff, one might think, wasn’t individually responsible for all the trench warfare and immobility of World War 1?
I was also offended as a mature reader at the level of writing in this book. Again, I felt like it was meant for 6th graders being introduced to World War I. I made a game of highlighting egregious writing examples. Here are a few:
“He passed edicts to ban contraceptives. He could not accept the idea that a German woman had the right to refuse to bring a child into this miserable world, a world that he was destroying.”
Preach, much? Also, didn’t most countries ban contraception?
“The women were miserable and were losing their families. The workers were wretched, torn away from their families too. So they had everything in common, and often they drew close. Alarmed, Ludendorff passed laws forbidding women from having sex with foreign workers. People wondered how Ludendorff’s police were to enforce this. Would they hide under people’s beds and listen for moans?
Did people really? Evidence, please? A footnote to a source? None are provided.
“Indeed the word robot was coined right after this war, in 1920, by a Czech dramatist, Karel Capek, in the play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word described the new trend of the time: the mass production of willing victims, the thinking slaves who were dying by the millions.”
Actually, “robot” is a Czek word for “work” or “worker.” Interestingly, it appears to be cognate with the Spanish word “trabajo” which also means work.
“Soon he wrote several inspired works that were anthems for the nation’s doomed men, men who were not grateful to be called “the grateful dead”— which was what nations wrote on their war memorials.
That just reads like it was written for an elementary school child. So did this:
“The British even trained birds to help them!”
Gosh! Birds?!?!?!
Also this seems be directed at young readers with its “a medal known as….” Most writers would have enough confidence in their readers to write “the Blue Max medal.”
“The Germans celebrated their tardy victory even though the delay upset their invasion plan. Ludendorff, previously unknown, became the hero of the hour. They gave him a medal known as the Blue Max, the highest honor his army could confer. It seemed as if Germany were winning the world.”
Speaking of which, I have never seen “ace” used so often to describe someone who wasn’t a fighter pilot with five or more “kills,” but here we are:
“In France, two ace officers….”
“But Ludendorff wondered, were these 600,000 men ace troops or militia?”
“The ace German general Wilhelm Groener…”
“…an ace writer, Michael Pearson…”
“Prime Minister David Lloyd George was the ace politician of the United Kingdom….”
And worst of all…
“Years later, Dr. Roger Chickering, an ace professor of German history at Georgetown University….”
The virtue of the book may be that it is an easy book for younger readers to read. The problem, though, is that the reader can’t trust the material. When I find myself fact-checking information, and finding it wrong, I feel that I must stop reading. I have too many books to read to want to risk the chance that I am going to be screwed up by some untrustworthy bit of information. Now, admittedly, this book did cause me to learn some things. For example, I was fascinated to discover the history of the Tannenberg Memorial based on going to the internet after reading an offhand description of the memorial in this book, but, again, that was despite this book, not because of it.
Accordingly, I reluctantly have to recommend against anyone reading this book. The amount of pseudoknowledge that a reader will walk away with just is not worth the time, money and effort.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R2DV289J...
Too many books; too little time.
I did something with this book that I almost never do: I gave up at 20%.
I did dip into the latter part of the book to see if things had changed. I was surprised to find that 80% of the book involves Ludendorff’s World War I years and only minor attention was given to the sizzle of the book, namely the Ludendorff-Hitler connection.
I have done a lot of reading on National Socialism from the perspective of the Nazi war on the Catholic and Protestant churches. Ludendorff figures into this history as an interesting, albeit strange, element. Ludendorff was famous for working in tandem with Hindenburg in winning the decisive Battle of the Tannenberg Forest, and then going on to become virtual military dictators of World War I Germany. After the war, under the influence of his wife, Ludendorff “went strange” and began indulging in “volkisch” politics and anti-Christian religion. Ludendorff was as much of an anti-Catholic as he was an anti-Semite. Ludendorff allied with Hitler in the Beer Hall Putsch, and, by doing so, lent credibility and a spotlight to Hitler’s nascent Nazis. Hitler maintained some kind of relationship with Ludendorff thereafter, but marginalized Ludendorff, largely, as I understand it, because of Ludendorff’s off the charts wackiness.
So, when I saw this book, I was very interested. I mentally congratulated the authors for writing a book on such an important but now obscure figure.
What I got was as close to disaster as I’ve seen. I found, unfortunately, that I could not trust the authors to be accurate in the details. For example, the opening paragraph of Chapter 1 begins:
“WORLD WAR I began in a fit of absentmindedness. A mere archduke of Austria and his wife were visiting a minor city called Sarajevo, the capital of Serbia, on June 28, 1914. A patriotic student named Gavrilo Princip, who wanted the Austrian province to secede and join with Russia, shot the archduke in the chest and, accidently, shot his wife too.”
I had a moment of cognitive dissonance on reading that. First, I thought, “was Sarajevo the capital of Serbia?” Of course, it isn’t, but my trust that authors of historical work are trustworthy is such that I questioned my memory and had to re-read that line several times in confusion.
Also, Franz Ferdinand was no “mere archduke.” He was the heir to the throne of Austro-Hungary.
And “accidentally, shot his wife too.” Apart from the offhand way of phrasing, is that even right? Princip was a terrorist. Bagging royals was his game.
Here is another example, minor though it may seem:
“The changes that came with the war crept into language. Civilians talked of men being “over the top,” a phrase that originated with soldiers climbing out of trenches. If a man were evil, civilians called him “lousy,” a term that first described soldiers afflicted with lice.”
I don’t know what set me off about that observation, but something about it – maybe the fact that louses were a problem before World War I – sent me to the trusty online etymological dictionary, where I learned that “lousy” has been used since the 15th century. (“mid-14c., lousi, "infested with lice," from louse + -y (2). Figurative use as a generic adjective of abuse dates from late 14c.; sense of "swarming with" (money, etc.) is American English slang from 1843. Related: Lousiness.”) and “over the top” to describe excessive anger was first evidenced in 1968 (“To go over the top is World War I slang for "start an attack," in reference to the top of the trenches; as "beyond reasonable limits, too far" it is recorded from 1968.”) I am glad I was set off or I might be quoting this as fact, and I don’t read books to spread pseudoknowledge.” I am grateful that I learned that interesting bit of trivia – 1968!!! – but I learned it despite this book, not because of it.
Also, notice what I just did there? I fact-checked and footnoted…in this review! There are no footnotes in this book. Instead, for each chapter, we get a list of some books that presumably relate to the material in the chapter. Where it might be found relies on our trusting the authors, but we lose that trust with basic errors. Also, as an attorney – and one of the authors is an attorney – I have discovered that having a habit of providing support for statements keeps one honest. It forces one to look up claims, a process which might result in learning that “lousy” was used before World War I.
The analysis of the book remains very superficial. The book appears to have been written for 6th graders who need to be hit over the head with the notion that World War I was just an awful experience. We learn about the horses that were killed and how awful trench warfare was and the rest. We also learn that Ludendorff was a dunderhead, although brilliant at a tactical level, that the victory at the Battle of Tannenberg Forest has been overstated, that he marginalized Hindenberg – who actually became Chancellor in the late 1920s, and that he had all kinds of crack-brain schemes to end the stalemate.
The book traffics in the worst features of modern history. It is polemical and it projects the authors thoughts into the minds of historical figures. We learn, therefore, that Ludendorff had no sympathy for anyone, which could be true, but the description of Ludendorff is no different than the Chateau Generals of the French. It might be nice to understand how these people rationalized for themselves their approach without being hit over the head with the notion that they were merely selfish. As for crack-brain schemes, everyone was looking for an answer; Churchill was responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli campaign for the same reason. Perhaps, Ludendorff, one might think, wasn’t individually responsible for all the trench warfare and immobility of World War 1?
I was also offended as a mature reader at the level of writing in this book. Again, I felt like it was meant for 6th graders being introduced to World War I. I made a game of highlighting egregious writing examples. Here are a few:
“He passed edicts to ban contraceptives. He could not accept the idea that a German woman had the right to refuse to bring a child into this miserable world, a world that he was destroying.”
Preach, much? Also, didn’t most countries ban contraception?
“The women were miserable and were losing their families. The workers were wretched, torn away from their families too. So they had everything in common, and often they drew close. Alarmed, Ludendorff passed laws forbidding women from having sex with foreign workers. People wondered how Ludendorff’s police were to enforce this. Would they hide under people’s beds and listen for moans?
Did people really? Evidence, please? A footnote to a source? None are provided.
“Indeed the word robot was coined right after this war, in 1920, by a Czech dramatist, Karel Capek, in the play Rossum’s Universal Robots. The word described the new trend of the time: the mass production of willing victims, the thinking slaves who were dying by the millions.”
Actually, “robot” is a Czek word for “work” or “worker.” Interestingly, it appears to be cognate with the Spanish word “trabajo” which also means work.
“Soon he wrote several inspired works that were anthems for the nation’s doomed men, men who were not grateful to be called “the grateful dead”— which was what nations wrote on their war memorials.
That just reads like it was written for an elementary school child. So did this:
“The British even trained birds to help them!”
Gosh! Birds?!?!?!
Also this seems be directed at young readers with its “a medal known as….” Most writers would have enough confidence in their readers to write “the Blue Max medal.”
“The Germans celebrated their tardy victory even though the delay upset their invasion plan. Ludendorff, previously unknown, became the hero of the hour. They gave him a medal known as the Blue Max, the highest honor his army could confer. It seemed as if Germany were winning the world.”
Speaking of which, I have never seen “ace” used so often to describe someone who wasn’t a fighter pilot with five or more “kills,” but here we are:
“In France, two ace officers….”
“But Ludendorff wondered, were these 600,000 men ace troops or militia?”
“The ace German general Wilhelm Groener…”
“…an ace writer, Michael Pearson…”
“Prime Minister David Lloyd George was the ace politician of the United Kingdom….”
And worst of all…
“Years later, Dr. Roger Chickering, an ace professor of German history at Georgetown University….”
The virtue of the book may be that it is an easy book for younger readers to read. The problem, though, is that the reader can’t trust the material. When I find myself fact-checking information, and finding it wrong, I feel that I must stop reading. I have too many books to read to want to risk the chance that I am going to be screwed up by some untrustworthy bit of information. Now, admittedly, this book did cause me to learn some things. For example, I was fascinated to discover the history of the Tannenberg Memorial based on going to the internet after reading an offhand description of the memorial in this book, but, again, that was despite this book, not because of it.
Accordingly, I reluctantly have to recommend against anyone reading this book. The amount of pseudoknowledge that a reader will walk away with just is not worth the time, money and effort.
October 24, 2016
I couldn't finish this one, I had to spend too much time correcting simple errors. It read like a high-schooler's collection of facts, dumped onto the page and called a book.
"Introduction: the death of an assassin" the authors set up the case for Ludendorff being a mass murderer, but I fail to see how that qualifies as "assassin".
p. 5 "A mere archduke of Austria and his wife were visiting a minor city called Sarajevo, the capital of Serbia, on June 28, 1914." Not Archduke Franz Ferdinand, of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, heir to the throne of a major power? Sarajevo is in Bosnia.
"... Gavrilo Princip, who wanted the Austrian province to secede and join with Russia..." Not Serbia, but Russia?
On page 6, we are led to believe that Schlieffen's famous plan "assumed that one could take a battle plan form the third century before Christ, ... and apply it in the twentieth century" as if it were merely a copy & paste from a Roman scroll.
Throughout the next two chapters, I find that dates and chronology are unimportant. Judgements are repeatedly made, and then repeated, though examples are few and far between. The writer's adage, "show, don't tell" kept popping into my head as I continued to read conclusions with scant evidence, if any.
The horrors of the First World War were well-covered, both in the trenches and on all of the homefronts. The sufferings of people from several countries and backgrounds were well-explained.
Very little was said about what Ludendorff actually did or said or wrote, or what positions he held, or how he came to have power, other than that faceless propaganda had made him a hero.
I finally quit on page 66.
"Introduction: the death of an assassin" the authors set up the case for Ludendorff being a mass murderer, but I fail to see how that qualifies as "assassin".
p. 5 "A mere archduke of Austria and his wife were visiting a minor city called Sarajevo, the capital of Serbia, on June 28, 1914." Not Archduke Franz Ferdinand, of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, heir to the throne of a major power? Sarajevo is in Bosnia.
"... Gavrilo Princip, who wanted the Austrian province to secede and join with Russia..." Not Serbia, but Russia?
On page 6, we are led to believe that Schlieffen's famous plan "assumed that one could take a battle plan form the third century before Christ, ... and apply it in the twentieth century" as if it were merely a copy & paste from a Roman scroll.
Throughout the next two chapters, I find that dates and chronology are unimportant. Judgements are repeatedly made, and then repeated, though examples are few and far between. The writer's adage, "show, don't tell" kept popping into my head as I continued to read conclusions with scant evidence, if any.
The horrors of the First World War were well-covered, both in the trenches and on all of the homefronts. The sufferings of people from several countries and backgrounds were well-explained.
Very little was said about what Ludendorff actually did or said or wrote, or what positions he held, or how he came to have power, other than that faceless propaganda had made him a hero.
I finally quit on page 66.
October 4, 2016
I was excited to see this book at the library as I really didn't have a lot of information on Ludendorff's life after WWI in my memory banks! I was soon to be disappointed........the content concentrated on WWI even though the title seemed to indicate that the reader would learn more about how Ludendorff and Hitler came together to form what would become the Nazi party and lead Germany into another world war. To make matters worse, it appears that the author does not know what a compound sentence is, so I felt like I was reading a book that was written for young readers. It was very distracting. Add the fact that there was a lot of repetition and you have a less than satisfying read.
I have to say, however, that I stuck with it and did find out some things that added to my knowledge of Ludendorff. Plus, it was the fastest read of a history book I have ever had. When you have short sentences, one sentence paragraphs, and other writer no-no's, it doesn't take long to finish a book.
I have to say, however, that I stuck with it and did find out some things that added to my knowledge of Ludendorff. Plus, it was the fastest read of a history book I have ever had. When you have short sentences, one sentence paragraphs, and other writer no-no's, it doesn't take long to finish a book.
February 26, 2017
Well written, in the "history for non-historians" style.
I don't know enough detail about the offensives and characters discussed to determine how accurate vs how simplified this is, but it definitely works in some very broad strokes to illuminate a key player of WW1 that I had never before heard of.
I did get annoyed at some of the "if this had happened, then that might have", which I felt irrelevant in a history book (far more dystopian / hopeful dreams), although I do wonder if WW2 would have happened had the Allies taken Berlin in WW1.
Surprised it took me so long to get through, I think I was just busy, as once I had a chunk of time to sit down and read, I finished more than half of it in under 48 hours.
This all said, glad I picked it up at the library rather than buying it at the bookstore.
I don't know enough detail about the offensives and characters discussed to determine how accurate vs how simplified this is, but it definitely works in some very broad strokes to illuminate a key player of WW1 that I had never before heard of.
I did get annoyed at some of the "if this had happened, then that might have", which I felt irrelevant in a history book (far more dystopian / hopeful dreams), although I do wonder if WW2 would have happened had the Allies taken Berlin in WW1.
Surprised it took me so long to get through, I think I was just busy, as once I had a chunk of time to sit down and read, I finished more than half of it in under 48 hours.
This all said, glad I picked it up at the library rather than buying it at the bookstore.
September 24, 2017
The devastation of World War I was thoroughly covered in this book including the suffering of the military horses along with the millions of lives lost. The situation of the state of Germany after WWI led to the atrocities in the next world war. It makes me wonder why we often don't learn anything from history. The author places much of the blame on Erich Ludendorff the German general who influenced Hitler and many others who used the Jewish people as scapegoats.
April 1, 2016
Incredible, fascinating book. Opened my eyes about how things developed in the past. It made me realize that the overbearing, self worship of one or several men can result in the deaths and misery of millions of people.
May 23, 2016
I was looking forward to diving into this book with high expectations, only to be horribly disappointed. I was astounded to read the authors' educational accomplishments, because this book was horribly organized and appeared to follow almost no logical progression. There are abundant factual errors, and the writers consistently go on tangents that make no sense or have little or no relevance to the argument they are making. It almost reads like it was written by an angry former spouse who is seeking to discredit their ex, with constant name-calling and sprinkled with anecdotes that are not fully developed or presented in a cohesive manner. It is more the unorganized and babbling essay of a high school student with an ideological vendetta than a serious historical study. Ludendorff was no doubt an egomaniac and an atrocious opportunist who thought nothing of laying waste to millions of lives and destroying his country's economy, it's people, and it's soul. But do not look to this work to properly, and maturely, explain how and why. Spend your money elsewhere and let this one recede into abyss of the countless forgotten books of yesteryear.
January 2, 2018
The First Nazi was a title which suited General Erich Ludendorff. Although he was no Nazi Party member, he was the one deemed most responsible for sowing the seed of National Socialism in Germany. Deluded by dreams of invading British India, Ludendorff authored many ludicrous plans, created military plans without objectives, and spending Germany’s scarce resources into useless projects like the Paris Gun. By perpetrating the stab-in-the-back myth, he shifted Germany’s loss in World War I from his incompetent leadership to the Jews, who were put into some sort of conspiracy theory by this Egocentric maniac who put German Empire into a military dictatorship. However, fraught with some sort of mental illness, after the war Ludendorff turned into some sort of raving loon, obsessed with Germanic Paganism and anti-Christianity, egged on by his second wife. His final years saw him being sidelined by Hitler and the Nazis whom he helped to power, dying as a largely forgotten man, even until today. The author of the book seemed unable to find any trace of good thing to say about Ludendorff, except that he was a disciplined man, which indeed, a common stereotype of a German man.
June 6, 2016
A serviceable history with a serviceable thesis. Better written than some popular histories I've read lately, though the author has a few annoying tics (everyone is an ace--ace pilot, ace general, ace historian, etc.), and repeats himself frequently. I also found that, as interested as I was by the notion that Erich Ludendorff's excesses and mania gave direct rise to Hitler and Nazism, and as likely as I find it to be true, I for some reason found myself just distrusting the author's expertise a little bit. Not sure why. Feel free to read this book and decide for yourself. Either way, Ludendorff was definitely a nutcase whose ignominy deserves wider recognition.
March 14, 2018
This is an excellent book. Prominent review below which I recommend:
http://www.mhhv.org.au/?p=6472
http://www.mhhv.org.au/?p=6472
March 14, 2018
The Brownells have written an important book. www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/wi... provides a good professional review.
March 14, 2018
This book has important new viewpoints regarding the importance of General Ludendorff and the events leading to WWII.
April 8, 2016
Erich Ludendorff, the First Quartermaster of the Imperial German Army, inventor of the “stab in the back” theory and front man for Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch is overdue for a good book which accurately outlines his role in the First World War and the postwar chaos which ensued.
Unfortunately, after the publication of The First Nazi he is still waiting for such a study.
The book reads as if it was written BY teenagers FOR teenagers. There is an error in fact on the first page of Chapter One: “Sarejevo, the capital of Serbia.” Throughout Serbia’s history Sarajevo has never been the capital of Serbia. Why is this? Because Sarejevo is actually in Bosnia. Also, the assassin of Archduke Ferdinand was terrorist and was describes as such at the time, NOT a “patriotic student.” Nor, at the age of nineteen, was he a “boy” as described later in the book. AND I don’t believe there was ever any interest in Russia annexing Bosnia (the 1908 “occupation crisis” involving Austria, Turkey and Russia was a dead letter by 1914).
And this is just the start of the book.
The December 1914 landscape is described as “gutted by bombs” when no aircraft was yet flying to drop bombs… the landscape was actually gutted by ARTILLERY. On page 25 the book describes the unleashing of a “mechanized German Army” in 1914 when no such mechanized force yet existed (in fact, the German army which invaded Poland in 1939 could, at best, be described as “motorized” if you didn’t count horse-drawn artillery).
The authors do NOT discuss the German general staff, nor the privileged place that the Army had in Germany. This would have helped to explain significance of Falkenhayn’s replacement as Chief of the General Staff… by Hindenberg. This body had tremendous power as the war went on, with war industries subordinated to the needs of the military and propaganda overruling the public’s “need know,” but the Reichstag still sat in Berlin and the idea that Ludendorff, effectively Hindenburg’s executive officer, “passed laws” (page 51) is patently absurd. There is no explanation as to the mechanism which made Ludendorff “dictator of Germany”, ignoring the Kaiser, ignoring the Reichstag, even ignoring his first-line supervisor Hindenburg, whose decisions he was to execute.
The authors do not understand what the role of a chief of staff is (or, if they do, they are making no attempt to explain it to the reader) and this is a bad flaw if you are trying to put Ludendorff in perspective. The authors also write about the Battle of Verdun and how almost 1,000,000 men died "for nothing." Actually, the 400,000 German soldiers died for nothing because they lost the battle; 500,000 French soldiers died saving France. This is assuming that 900,000 men died… more likely the authors used the number of CASUALTIES, which includes the wounded, missing, captured and dead. A very sloppy mistake.
Speaking of sloppy mistakes, the authors on page 123 discuss how the King Baudouin I of Belgium seized the Congo as his personal property. It was actually King Leopold II. King Baudouin actually reigned in the middle of the 20th Century and there was no OTHER Baudouin. On Page 120 the authors discuss the reign of Duke Wilhelm Karl of Enrich who served as King of Lithuania from October 9th to December 14th 1918… “a total of thirty six days.” Now I can understand getting geography wrong, and I know that not everyone knows the kings and queens of Belgium by heart but I do at least expect simple math skills. Oh, and the dates given? They’re wrong.
On page 169 the prerequisites for an Armistice were given as the withdrawal by German forces of all occupied territory, including Alsace and Lorraine. Except that Alsace-Lorraine had been German since the Franco-Prussian War and was NOT occupied territory. In a section about the German negotiations with the Bolsheviks the authors talk about an incident in which the Germans shelled one of their own camps because the soldiers had become disaffected by Communist propaganda. The only source of this story seems to be a previously unpublished article written by John Reed, a contemporary Bolshevik propagandist.
There is almost nothing about when or how Hitler met Ludendorff. Hitler is described as being in Berlin in the aftermath of the war, destitute, having sold his overcoat and selling handmade postcards to make a few pfennigs. In fact Hitler was in a military hospital at the end of the war and was sent to Munich to demobilize (and was still, in fact, in the pay of the German Army for a time). The description sounds very much like Hitler PRIOR to the war… in Vienna.
This book has so many mistakes that it distracts from the supposition that Ludendorff’s anti-Semitic beliefs somehow rubbed off on Hitler. And the authors spend only a bare two pages on the putsch which saw Hitler and Ludendorff actually operate together. While there is all sorts of trivia about German authors of western novels and Prinzip’s medical condition almost no time can be devoted to Ludendorff and what he hoped to accomplish in Munich by allying himself with Hitler.
This book is so badly composed that I would double-check the supposed titles of Ludendorff’s published works after the war to make sure they didn’t list things written by Goebbels.
Unfortunately, after the publication of The First Nazi he is still waiting for such a study.
The book reads as if it was written BY teenagers FOR teenagers. There is an error in fact on the first page of Chapter One: “Sarejevo, the capital of Serbia.” Throughout Serbia’s history Sarajevo has never been the capital of Serbia. Why is this? Because Sarejevo is actually in Bosnia. Also, the assassin of Archduke Ferdinand was terrorist and was describes as such at the time, NOT a “patriotic student.” Nor, at the age of nineteen, was he a “boy” as described later in the book. AND I don’t believe there was ever any interest in Russia annexing Bosnia (the 1908 “occupation crisis” involving Austria, Turkey and Russia was a dead letter by 1914).
And this is just the start of the book.
The December 1914 landscape is described as “gutted by bombs” when no aircraft was yet flying to drop bombs… the landscape was actually gutted by ARTILLERY. On page 25 the book describes the unleashing of a “mechanized German Army” in 1914 when no such mechanized force yet existed (in fact, the German army which invaded Poland in 1939 could, at best, be described as “motorized” if you didn’t count horse-drawn artillery).
The authors do NOT discuss the German general staff, nor the privileged place that the Army had in Germany. This would have helped to explain significance of Falkenhayn’s replacement as Chief of the General Staff… by Hindenberg. This body had tremendous power as the war went on, with war industries subordinated to the needs of the military and propaganda overruling the public’s “need know,” but the Reichstag still sat in Berlin and the idea that Ludendorff, effectively Hindenburg’s executive officer, “passed laws” (page 51) is patently absurd. There is no explanation as to the mechanism which made Ludendorff “dictator of Germany”, ignoring the Kaiser, ignoring the Reichstag, even ignoring his first-line supervisor Hindenburg, whose decisions he was to execute.
The authors do not understand what the role of a chief of staff is (or, if they do, they are making no attempt to explain it to the reader) and this is a bad flaw if you are trying to put Ludendorff in perspective. The authors also write about the Battle of Verdun and how almost 1,000,000 men died "for nothing." Actually, the 400,000 German soldiers died for nothing because they lost the battle; 500,000 French soldiers died saving France. This is assuming that 900,000 men died… more likely the authors used the number of CASUALTIES, which includes the wounded, missing, captured and dead. A very sloppy mistake.
Speaking of sloppy mistakes, the authors on page 123 discuss how the King Baudouin I of Belgium seized the Congo as his personal property. It was actually King Leopold II. King Baudouin actually reigned in the middle of the 20th Century and there was no OTHER Baudouin. On Page 120 the authors discuss the reign of Duke Wilhelm Karl of Enrich who served as King of Lithuania from October 9th to December 14th 1918… “a total of thirty six days.” Now I can understand getting geography wrong, and I know that not everyone knows the kings and queens of Belgium by heart but I do at least expect simple math skills. Oh, and the dates given? They’re wrong.
On page 169 the prerequisites for an Armistice were given as the withdrawal by German forces of all occupied territory, including Alsace and Lorraine. Except that Alsace-Lorraine had been German since the Franco-Prussian War and was NOT occupied territory. In a section about the German negotiations with the Bolsheviks the authors talk about an incident in which the Germans shelled one of their own camps because the soldiers had become disaffected by Communist propaganda. The only source of this story seems to be a previously unpublished article written by John Reed, a contemporary Bolshevik propagandist.
There is almost nothing about when or how Hitler met Ludendorff. Hitler is described as being in Berlin in the aftermath of the war, destitute, having sold his overcoat and selling handmade postcards to make a few pfennigs. In fact Hitler was in a military hospital at the end of the war and was sent to Munich to demobilize (and was still, in fact, in the pay of the German Army for a time). The description sounds very much like Hitler PRIOR to the war… in Vienna.
This book has so many mistakes that it distracts from the supposition that Ludendorff’s anti-Semitic beliefs somehow rubbed off on Hitler. And the authors spend only a bare two pages on the putsch which saw Hitler and Ludendorff actually operate together. While there is all sorts of trivia about German authors of western novels and Prinzip’s medical condition almost no time can be devoted to Ludendorff and what he hoped to accomplish in Munich by allying himself with Hitler.
This book is so badly composed that I would double-check the supposed titles of Ludendorff’s published works after the war to make sure they didn’t list things written by Goebbels.
March 16, 2018
This is a well-researched and highly informative book regarding one of the key players of the last century.
April 17, 2016
What started out to be very interesting ended up being terribly boring. This book is not well-written at all and unless you're really into reading about military history, war, and battles, it's worth skipping. Ludendorff was a total narcissist and quite nasty. Definitely not a pleasant character. I didn't finish the book only getting to page one hundred thirty three before I decided to call it quits. It's quite deadly which fits since wherever Ludendorff went there was a tremendous amount of death and destruction. Perhaps someday there will be something else written on Ludendorff in much better hands.
November 5, 2018
This book addresses many unsolved issues regarding rise of Nazism. Important lessons even for today.
April 28, 2022
The first factual error appears on line three. Sarajevo was not, and never has been, the capital of Serbia. Brownell's literary maxim is: if a phrase is worth using, it is worth using twice. But for all that, it is an excellent book and very readable. Lots of good anecdotes, insights and details.
Ludendorff was a brilliant tactician, but a lousy strategist. He believed:
1. If we win enough battles, we must win the war.
2. If we kill enough of the enemy, our own losses won't matter
And at the time, most Germans would have agreed with him. But the first point is unsound, and the second point only works if you really are fundamentally stronger than the enemy. Both Grant and Zhukov subscribed to the doctrine of maximum slaughter, but they had the resources to make it work. Ludendorff didn't.
Furthermore, as a tactician, Ludendorff was a "one punch" general. In 1918, he repeatedly managed to punch a hole in the Allied line, but then what? He was never strong enough or fast enough to roll up the Allied lines before their reserves arrived. The salient always collapsed, leaving him no further forward and the losses equal. Grant used a one-two strategy: he had enough reserves to pursue the defeated Confederate armies after the initial breakthrough. After Kursk, Zhukov followed up with six separate attacks at different points along the line, and the German reserves were always one step behind.
Ludendorff was a brilliant tactician, but a lousy strategist. He believed:
1. If we win enough battles, we must win the war.
2. If we kill enough of the enemy, our own losses won't matter
And at the time, most Germans would have agreed with him. But the first point is unsound, and the second point only works if you really are fundamentally stronger than the enemy. Both Grant and Zhukov subscribed to the doctrine of maximum slaughter, but they had the resources to make it work. Ludendorff didn't.
Furthermore, as a tactician, Ludendorff was a "one punch" general. In 1918, he repeatedly managed to punch a hole in the Allied line, but then what? He was never strong enough or fast enough to roll up the Allied lines before their reserves arrived. The salient always collapsed, leaving him no further forward and the losses equal. Grant used a one-two strategy: he had enough reserves to pursue the defeated Confederate armies after the initial breakthrough. After Kursk, Zhukov followed up with six separate attacks at different points along the line, and the German reserves were always one step behind.
March 11, 2018
An interesting book and concept although there appears to be a lack of evidence that Erich Ludendorff was the only German to point to Jews as the reason Germany lost WW I. He appears to blame lots of groups but the Jews were the only ones blamed by the wider German audience. Was he really responsible or did he take advantage of historical prejudice and persecutions of the Jewish people? There was not a convincing argument presented to me that WW II and the persecution of the Jewish people would not have occurred without him.
June 25, 2016
Simple, declarative sentences were used throughout this book to try to explain a complicated man and his story. I thought the book to simplistic in how it tries to explain how Eric Ludendorff set the stage for the rise of Adolf Hitler. It was too much of a stretch for me to buy into the idea that Ludendorff was responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin. Even if true, battlefield deaths do not equate to mass murders such as those brought about by these other two known killers. Some of the other arguments also stretch a little too far for me. He might have been a very bad person, but he wasn't the only one. The story has to be more complex than this book relates. However, it doesn give you a quick background on how important Ludendorff was and how he did have some ideas that were later parts of Nazi ideology.
August 19, 2018
This is a thorough and compelling study, I feel the title though snappy is a little misleading. The book does not focus on Ludendorffs relationship to the Nazi party, that is more of a side note really. The book is also strangely repetitive and decidedly emotive in its tone, to the point where it could almost have been used as evidence when they were drawing up the treaty of Versailles in 1919. However, some very interesting perspectives within and some good information on a figure who might just require greater public scrutiny
July 30, 2018
Because I am an artist, and a busy one at that, I do not have too much time for long-winded books. I was therefore all the more grateful to have The First Nazi because it was extraordinarily useful on three counts. It explained to me a vast array of the underlying causes of World War I. It told me how and why the conservative German generals sent Lenin “like a plague germ” into the body of Russia, to make a revolution. And it told me even more about how all these people and events led to World War II.
And all this in a book so short that one could read it over the w weekend!
And all this in a book so short that one could read it over the w weekend!
November 9, 2018
I am convinced that WW II and the Holocaust would never have taken place, had this megalomaniac Ludendorff died in an accident as a teenager.
I'm not a history buff, but this book kept me turning pages. He truly was the "first nazi".
If you are interested in WWII and the Holocaust, you need to read this.
I'm not a history buff, but this book kept me turning pages. He truly was the "first nazi".
If you are interested in WWII and the Holocaust, you need to read this.
November 28, 2022
ÎN DECEMBRIE 1937, CU PUŢIN TIMP ÎNAINTEA ÎNCEPERII celui de-al Doilea Război
Mondial, în Germania aveau loc fastuoasele funeralii ale generalului Erich Ludendorff. Pe
ultimul său drum era însoţit şi de Hitler, într-un gest de celebrare a optimismului nazist.
Onorurile au fost nenumărate. Revista Life afirma că Ludendorff fusese magnific, iar pe
frontispiciul ei se putea citi: «Germania îl înmormântează pe cel mai mare general al Marelui
Război»… Revista îl mai numea pe Ludendorff «cel mai capabil general apărut în cursul
războiului mondial» şi «egal, din punct de vedere militar, al lui Robert E. Lee».
Articolul arăta că Ludendorff fusese creierul armatei germane, mâna dreaptă a lui
Hindenburg, comandantul armatei, şi strategul suprem al Germaniei acelei vremi. Snopise în
bătaie armate întregi din Rusia, România, Franţa, Marea Britanie şi Italia. Atât de mare era
prestigiul lui Ludendorff şi al prietenului său Hindenburg, se observa în articol, „încât până şi
kaiserul le îndeplinea ordinele“.
Revista îi aducea totuşi şi unele critici. Susţinea că Ludendorff îşi pierduse cumpătul după
destrămarea armatei sale în 1918 şi adăuga că, atunci când Germania a pierdut războiul,
Ludendorff fugise înfricoşat în Suedia neutră, deghizându-se cu perucă şi ochelari albaştri. În
sfârşit, în articol se mai spunea că Ludendorff era considerat niţel paranoic şi că vedea
conspiraţii peste tot, de-ale masonilor şi iezuiţilor, catolicilor şi evreilor, învinuindu-i pe toţi
aceştia de nenorocirile Germaniei. Mai observa că, după Primul Război Mondial, Ludendorff
„mărşăluise alături de Hitler“.
Dar acestea erau toate observaţiile negative. Articolul era în general pozitiv, ridicându-l pe
Ludendorff în slăvi drept „cel mai mare general al războiului“ şi pentru că i se organizase
„înmormântarea demnă de locul său în istorie“. Organizatorii funeraliilor au expus cele 60 de
medalii ale lui Ludendorff şi au adus o imensă fanfară militară, care a interpretat „Bunul
camarad“, un cântec german de război. Funeraliile au fost impresionante.
Pentru oricine a văzut fotografiile ce însoţeau articolul din revista Life, singurul aspect
surprinzător se poate să fi fost faptul că sicriul lui Ludendorff era drapat cu steagul de luptă al
kaiserului, şi nu cu svastica noii Germanii a lui Hitler. Unii ar fi putut concluziona din acest
fapt că relaţiile dintre cei doi se răciseră, dar cei care au observat diferenţa au fost probabil
puţini. Într-adevăr, la momentul respectiv nu părea un lucru semnificativ.
Mondial, în Germania aveau loc fastuoasele funeralii ale generalului Erich Ludendorff. Pe
ultimul său drum era însoţit şi de Hitler, într-un gest de celebrare a optimismului nazist.
Onorurile au fost nenumărate. Revista Life afirma că Ludendorff fusese magnific, iar pe
frontispiciul ei se putea citi: «Germania îl înmormântează pe cel mai mare general al Marelui
Război»… Revista îl mai numea pe Ludendorff «cel mai capabil general apărut în cursul
războiului mondial» şi «egal, din punct de vedere militar, al lui Robert E. Lee».
Articolul arăta că Ludendorff fusese creierul armatei germane, mâna dreaptă a lui
Hindenburg, comandantul armatei, şi strategul suprem al Germaniei acelei vremi. Snopise în
bătaie armate întregi din Rusia, România, Franţa, Marea Britanie şi Italia. Atât de mare era
prestigiul lui Ludendorff şi al prietenului său Hindenburg, se observa în articol, „încât până şi
kaiserul le îndeplinea ordinele“.
Revista îi aducea totuşi şi unele critici. Susţinea că Ludendorff îşi pierduse cumpătul după
destrămarea armatei sale în 1918 şi adăuga că, atunci când Germania a pierdut războiul,
Ludendorff fugise înfricoşat în Suedia neutră, deghizându-se cu perucă şi ochelari albaştri. În
sfârşit, în articol se mai spunea că Ludendorff era considerat niţel paranoic şi că vedea
conspiraţii peste tot, de-ale masonilor şi iezuiţilor, catolicilor şi evreilor, învinuindu-i pe toţi
aceştia de nenorocirile Germaniei. Mai observa că, după Primul Război Mondial, Ludendorff
„mărşăluise alături de Hitler“.
Dar acestea erau toate observaţiile negative. Articolul era în general pozitiv, ridicându-l pe
Ludendorff în slăvi drept „cel mai mare general al războiului“ şi pentru că i se organizase
„înmormântarea demnă de locul său în istorie“. Organizatorii funeraliilor au expus cele 60 de
medalii ale lui Ludendorff şi au adus o imensă fanfară militară, care a interpretat „Bunul
camarad“, un cântec german de război. Funeraliile au fost impresionante.
Pentru oricine a văzut fotografiile ce însoţeau articolul din revista Life, singurul aspect
surprinzător se poate să fi fost faptul că sicriul lui Ludendorff era drapat cu steagul de luptă al
kaiserului, şi nu cu svastica noii Germanii a lui Hitler. Unii ar fi putut concluziona din acest
fapt că relaţiile dintre cei doi se răciseră, dar cei care au observat diferenţa au fost probabil
puţini. Într-adevăr, la momentul respectiv nu părea un lucru semnificativ.
April 22, 2019
This is a really amateurish book and honestly, overall a complete mess. The writing is sloppy, simplistic, full of generalisations and errors. It is not written in a professional manner and there are many mistakes that are at least misleading, if not flat out wrong. It is incredibly unfocused, full of anecdotes and tangents that are completely off-topic and do nothing other than fill space. For example, there is an entire chapter on Lenin that has basically nothing to do with Ludendorff.
The author has a bizarrely super-patriotic approach to Americans, even though he mocked Ludendorff for having the same attitude towards his soldiers. Thus we get propaganda level descriptions of American war heroes and how amazing Teddy Roosevelt was, none of which belongs in a book supposedly about Ludendorffs and the Nazis.
I felt deceived because the book has almost nothing to do with Ludendorff's connection to the Nazis, there's no mention of them until the final chapter. Almost all of the book is about the First World War, but for some reason there is a huge amount of material that has nothing to do with Ludendorff. In fact, there's surprisingly little about Ludendorff in a book he is supposed to be the centre of, the author seemed eager to talk about literally anything else. Ignore the subtitle, this book tells you nothing about how Ludendorff contributed to the rise of Hitler.
The only positive thing I can say is that the book was a short and easy read. It's written in such a simple manner that I read it in a day.
The author has a bizarrely super-patriotic approach to Americans, even though he mocked Ludendorff for having the same attitude towards his soldiers. Thus we get propaganda level descriptions of American war heroes and how amazing Teddy Roosevelt was, none of which belongs in a book supposedly about Ludendorffs and the Nazis.
I felt deceived because the book has almost nothing to do with Ludendorff's connection to the Nazis, there's no mention of them until the final chapter. Almost all of the book is about the First World War, but for some reason there is a huge amount of material that has nothing to do with Ludendorff. In fact, there's surprisingly little about Ludendorff in a book he is supposed to be the centre of, the author seemed eager to talk about literally anything else. Ignore the subtitle, this book tells you nothing about how Ludendorff contributed to the rise of Hitler.
The only positive thing I can say is that the book was a short and easy read. It's written in such a simple manner that I read it in a day.
May 22, 2020
What started as a hugely promising "biography" of Ludendorff very quickly descended into sensationalistic snippets that would not look out of place in the Sun or the Daily Mirror (both UK tabloids). The tone of the chapters definitely varied and made me wonder whether the three authors wrote separate chapters to varying degrees of success and the finished product was never edited to reflect that all chapters need to come together as a whole.
As other reviewers have said, three quarters of the book is focused on Ludendorff's actions during World War I. Only very cryptically do the authors allude to why they believe that he was the "man who made Hitler possible" (as stated on the book cover) - the authors seem to have left the reader to conclude for themselves that because Ludendorff's WWI tactical mistakes made Germany's defeat much more painful for the masses than otherwise, this discontent was what eventually led to the country's acceptance of Nazism.
Without the authors arguing how Ludendorff "enabled" Hitler or his thinkings, he definitely could not have been labelled "The First Nazi", as Ludendorff was not the founder of the Nationalist Socialist Party. Historically, it is generally accepted that Ludendorff has already begun to part ways with Hitler way before Hitler came to power.
5 stars for the early chapters and 1 star for the later ones, so I've given a more generous three stars than most other reviews on Goodreads.
As other reviewers have said, three quarters of the book is focused on Ludendorff's actions during World War I. Only very cryptically do the authors allude to why they believe that he was the "man who made Hitler possible" (as stated on the book cover) - the authors seem to have left the reader to conclude for themselves that because Ludendorff's WWI tactical mistakes made Germany's defeat much more painful for the masses than otherwise, this discontent was what eventually led to the country's acceptance of Nazism.
Without the authors arguing how Ludendorff "enabled" Hitler or his thinkings, he definitely could not have been labelled "The First Nazi", as Ludendorff was not the founder of the Nationalist Socialist Party. Historically, it is generally accepted that Ludendorff has already begun to part ways with Hitler way before Hitler came to power.
5 stars for the early chapters and 1 star for the later ones, so I've given a more generous three stars than most other reviews on Goodreads.
November 7, 2019
Quite simply the worst book I've read.
Withholding the fact that the book is littered with errors such as the capitals of countries or the decade ww2 started it is the feel of the book is filled with bias.
The general argument for why Ludendorf was so bad can be summarised like this... Germany had already lost ww1 when the Schlieffen plan failed early in the war. Therefore because Ludendorf was so effective at winning battles and germany did not surrender for years later Ludendorf is responsible for all of the deaths after 1914. -This is preposterous.
The author also has huge american bias and portrays the Americans as the most important country of ww1 and that Ludendorf was an idiot for not thinking American was a superpower (despite the fact that america played a very small part and wasnt very powerful in comparison to other nations already involved in the war).
The author constantly refers to American war heroes, politicians and celebrities yet fails to mention Italy once in the entire book which is unforgivable.
Referring to Hitler as a 'madman' is also unnecessary. Historians should never be biased and should let the reader come up with their own conclusions based on the best evidence rather than the authors personal beliefs.
Withholding the fact that the book is littered with errors such as the capitals of countries or the decade ww2 started it is the feel of the book is filled with bias.
The general argument for why Ludendorf was so bad can be summarised like this... Germany had already lost ww1 when the Schlieffen plan failed early in the war. Therefore because Ludendorf was so effective at winning battles and germany did not surrender for years later Ludendorf is responsible for all of the deaths after 1914. -This is preposterous.
The author also has huge american bias and portrays the Americans as the most important country of ww1 and that Ludendorf was an idiot for not thinking American was a superpower (despite the fact that america played a very small part and wasnt very powerful in comparison to other nations already involved in the war).
The author constantly refers to American war heroes, politicians and celebrities yet fails to mention Italy once in the entire book which is unforgivable.
Referring to Hitler as a 'madman' is also unnecessary. Historians should never be biased and should let the reader come up with their own conclusions based on the best evidence rather than the authors personal beliefs.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Read
December 27, 2020Author name: Will Brownell and Denise Drace-Brownell
Book name: The First Nazi: Erich Ludendorff; the Man Who Made Hitler Possible
Reviewer Name: Eiman Nizam
The book entails the incredible true story of the World War I general who inspired Hitler’s rise to power. General Erich Ludendorff, the most important military individual of the last century, yet today he is one of the least known.
The book although is a well-researched written piece but lacks the earlier life in details of the said characters. Secondly, the writer has very negative biasness towards Ludendorff, which for a writer in my opinion is not recommended, since a writer's job is to lay down facts and present points based on research rather than on personal viewpoints.
Ludendorff is considered one of the most influential figures for the rise of soviet communism and Hitler. Overall, the book is a remarkable one among all military history books related to the rise and origin of Nazism and covers all the reasons and events that lead to the existence of the most famous personality of history The Hitler.
Name: Eiman Nizam
University: Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad
Program: National Institute of Psychology (BS-III)
Book name: The First Nazi: Erich Ludendorff; the Man Who Made Hitler Possible
Reviewer Name: Eiman Nizam
The book entails the incredible true story of the World War I general who inspired Hitler’s rise to power. General Erich Ludendorff, the most important military individual of the last century, yet today he is one of the least known.
The book although is a well-researched written piece but lacks the earlier life in details of the said characters. Secondly, the writer has very negative biasness towards Ludendorff, which for a writer in my opinion is not recommended, since a writer's job is to lay down facts and present points based on research rather than on personal viewpoints.
Ludendorff is considered one of the most influential figures for the rise of soviet communism and Hitler. Overall, the book is a remarkable one among all military history books related to the rise and origin of Nazism and covers all the reasons and events that lead to the existence of the most famous personality of history The Hitler.
Name: Eiman Nizam
University: Quaid-e-Azam University Islamabad
Program: National Institute of Psychology (BS-III)
June 10, 2024
I’m giving this book 3 stars only because I really like the topic.
However, this really felt like a really opinionated, yet entertaining high school book report.
The information was accurate. Believe me, I cross checked it. I don’t really think I needed too, because the authors provided the references they used, which is exactly why I say this felt like a book report.
Basically the author read a bunch of books and summarized it into this their book. Is that even legal?
Whether it’s legal or not, they got it published so good on them.
Gives me an ideas to finally read all the Harry Potter books, write my opinions on it and reference them on my book and get that published. Yeah!!! I’m gonna be rich baby!!!
Anyway the topic of the book is the guy who hyped up Adolf Hitler to get into position and set the stage for him to do what we all know occurred. Only problem with that is that it was a loser showing another loser what to do. In the end, as we all know they all lost for the better of the world.
Losers leading losers. What a good format for failure.
However, this really felt like a really opinionated, yet entertaining high school book report.
The information was accurate. Believe me, I cross checked it. I don’t really think I needed too, because the authors provided the references they used, which is exactly why I say this felt like a book report.
Basically the author read a bunch of books and summarized it into this their book. Is that even legal?
Whether it’s legal or not, they got it published so good on them.
Gives me an ideas to finally read all the Harry Potter books, write my opinions on it and reference them on my book and get that published. Yeah!!! I’m gonna be rich baby!!!
Anyway the topic of the book is the guy who hyped up Adolf Hitler to get into position and set the stage for him to do what we all know occurred. Only problem with that is that it was a loser showing another loser what to do. In the end, as we all know they all lost for the better of the world.
Losers leading losers. What a good format for failure.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews