Talk:Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck

Pour le Mérite

Shouldn't something about this award be added?

I think the following needs some clarification:

He fiercely opposed the Nazis, who upon inception of power made him work as a menial in Hamburg. There, Winston Churchill who still feared Lettow's military prowess but needed him for geopolitical necessities, tried to convince Lettow to assassinate Hitler. Lettow refused, on grounds that the original was lost forever and the only expiation was the total punishment of Germany.

When and how did Churchill get in touch with Lettow-Vorbeck, and why would Churchill assume, that Lettow-Vorbeck, now probably going on 70 and working as a labourer, would be in a position to assasinate Hitler? Also, I take it that "the original" refers to the Germany Lettow-Vorbeck knew and loved, but shouldn't that be explicitly stated in the text? Io 19:16, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed---I'm a little fuzzy on what exactly he did during the war. grendel|khan 06:38, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

My understanding, unfortunately without refererences available right now, was that L-V was reduced to simple gardening and the like during the WW2 years. He basically lived in obscurity... And also that what Churchill was interested in was L-V leading a post-war government. I have never heard that he was asked to or intended to assassinate Hitler...Engr105th 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[http://216.239.37.104/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&langpair=de%7Cen&u=http://dikigoros.150m.com/lettowvorbeck.htm&prev=/language_tools Translation of a link from the de: page] Wizzy 12:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I changed the intro to "colonial campaign", because Germany also remained undefeated in Russia. I don't have an account, though.

Removed the Churchhill story, as it remains unproven. Added DNVP party membership and reasons why he opposed the Nazis. --Dorthonion 17:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The only other German colonial force under arms not to surrender during the war was in German New Guinea under Leutnant (later Hauptmann) Hermann Detzner, who with the remaining police soldiers of the polizeitruppe expeditionary force in New Guinea avoided capture by the Australian military. About 20 police soldiers remained with Detzner, and though they fought no actions against the Australians, remained the only German colonial force to persist in a German colony for the duration of the war. See the Wikipedia article on Hermann Detzner for details, but this should solve the citation problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.168.39 (talk) 01:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Some issues with the article.

Most sources I've encountered concerning Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck give his middle name as Emil, rather than Erich. This is true, for example, even of some of the External links given in the article. A google search returns far more entries for Erich than Emil, but most of them seem to be reproductions of the Wikipedia page itself. If anyone feels that additional citations of Emil rather than Erich would be helpful, I will try to procure some in the near future.

Some additional thoughts:

1. The article doesn't really convey the sheer scale of the Allied efforts to catch von Lettow, nor the scale of the damage he inflicted. As an example, by war's end, the vast majority of von Lettow's forces were armed with captured British and Portuguese rifles, backed up by British and Portuguese machineguns.

1. The article gives a very vague and confusing impression of von Lettow's role in early Weimar politics:

"He soon became a right wing extremist who participated in the chaotic politics of the Weimar Republic. Following strikes and arrests, he served in the Reichstag from 1929 to 1930."

While this would seem to imply that von Lettow was busy striking and being arrested, he was actually a major figure in the Freikorps movement. While he was right wing, he intentionally abstained from participation in the planned military putsches following the paring down of the Bundeswehr.

1. Dr. Heinrich Schnee had no von in his name. I daresay the lack of one in real life bothered him rather more than its presence in the article bothers me, but it was an important aspect of his life, and of his relationship with von Lettow.

Hopefully, I will get a chance to actually sit down and edit this article in the near future, any comments would be appreciated.

Swuboo 07:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Go for it - please. Wizzy…☎ 07:33, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Changed

The name, according to My Reminiscences, is Emil. I changed the article to reflect the correct name. I don't know how to edit the title.

Update: Signed up, but my account is too new to change the article title.

Changed and moved. Srnec 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Futher literature

There exist a very good novel called the Ghosts of Africa (author ???) on this man's life.

The Ghosts of Africa is by William Stevesnon. One booksller on the web has this: "A fictional account of the campaign in East Africa, inspired by the character of Von Lettow-Vorbeck.

William Stevenson is an author, journalist and television writer and producer. A Canadian, though born in England, he served as a fighter pilot in WWII and as a reporter has covered many of the major conflicts in Africa, the Far East and the Middle East." Jeffmatt 10:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind, the novel "The Ghosts of Africa" by Stevenson is eactly that - a novel. It is not about Lettow-Vorbeck's life however. Its about his efforts in WW1. It takes a good deal of journalistic license with his personality, relationship with a woman named Kate (loosely based on Karin Blixen, of the movie "Out of Africa" fame), and speculates on Lettow-Vorbeck having a fathered a child. It also gives a slight sense of a somewhat younger man than he was at the time.
It's a great book - I have a copy - and does credit to L-V's military prowess and leadership. But it should not be taken as history. Engr105th 14:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NOT undefeated

The claims that Germany was "Undefeated" in the East Africa campaign are false, as several victories did occur that did not go the the Deuchland's favor, for more details see the East Africa campaign. And if it was referring to Lettow-Vorbech himself, it is still false, as he did suffer a few defeats personally. And the idea that calling the East Africa campaign "undefeated" over the fact that the Germans were not completely crushed is misleading and troublesome. I am changing it. ELV

“Undefeated” is misleading and troublesome? Hardly. Loose talk insults the memory of victors and vanquished alike. Even the Anglophile literature recognizes von Lettow’s command as “undefeated.” That 10,000 Germans, askaris and porters cannot prevail against 45,000 or more British, South African, Indian, Portuguese and Belgian colonial contingents in a pitched engagement requires no special military intuition. To survive then, the tactics employed had to be continual movement, escape, retreat, hit-and-run, stealth. When von Lettow surrendered his units in Northern Rhodesia, German East Africa was already occupied by Allied forces for some two years; nevertheless, von Lettow’s command was “undefeated.” Charles Miller writes in Battle for the Bundu that it was very much a “capitulation of an army that had not lost to an army that had not won.”--Gamahler 04:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I am with 'undefeated'. Wizzy…☎ 09:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Anglophile" literature? That hasn't existed for a century. Today the majority of history books on World War One and Two are strongly sympathetic toward the Germans and the Americans in tone and content. You can't deny that. Only recently are books being published reappraising the history of the British armed froces in the early 20th century. Even then who can say that because the author is English it lends more credence to the claim that Germany was not undefeated in East Africa? That has no factual bearing, other that to show how much Vorbecks's deeds have been romanticized. What about the Battle of Kondoa Irangi?

All the articles which say L-V was undefeated mean that at the end of the war he had not been defeated; he was marching to attack Katanga or Broken Hill, and the British were evacuating towns such as Kasama in the face of his advance. It doesn't mean that he did not suffer any defeats during the campaign. Rexparry sydney 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be that what you have just said is a complete contradiction.

To you perhaps -- why don't you sign your posts? -- have you ever heard the phrase: 'he lost the battle but won the war'? (I don't think this is going to apply in your case, though). Rexparry sydney 09:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur with "Undefeated". It is appropriate for L-V. One can lose a skirmish and win a battle (or wina skirmish and lose the battle); one can also win/lose a battle and win/lose the campaign (think Gettysburg). So how do you divide the action into Won vs Lost?
L-V's intentions were to tie down as many Brit forces as he could. He most certainly achieved this goal. So in that sense, he was also 'undefeated'.
By the way, I must agree with Rexparry above - that other individual needs to sign his posts. Engr105th 14:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is going to apply in your case". You explain to me how Vorbeck did not lose the battle of Kondoa Irangi and I'll admit that he is undefeated. Granted his strategy was successful, but his numerous successes over British colonial and native troops are not a testemet to his "superior" ability, which is the resoundiing tone of this article. Vorbeck had shorter interior lines and the position of the German colonies allowed him to run about and avoid fighting, as well as fight defensivesly, which is an issue which is always neglected in First World War literature. After all he was the hunted and not the hunter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.99.232 (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

-Undefeated in the sense that being vastly outnumbered and managing to hold back a force of 300,000, rather than 45,000, with about 10,000 men, and being blockaded by the Allied navies. Small skirmishes may add up at times to a victory or a defeat, but in this case, despite him losing "some" smaller skirmishes, the German African campaign was an astounding success thanks to the efforts of Gen. von Lettow-Vorbeck and his men. So I would imagine that the undefeated part of his reputation refers to the entire compaign, rather than EVERY battle he has been in. And as for his methods, had he met the opposing forces dead on his men would have been massacred. As such, guerrilla warfare was his only option, and considering that guerrilla warfare literally is a type of warfare, his victories hold up. The fact that he managed to last so long against a superior force IS a testament to his superior ability, as a leader. He spoke fluent Swahili and was known for promoting black officers, which gave him the respect and trust of the native soldiers under his command. Calling him hunted makes no sense. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he did it well. Just my two cents. - C — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:BB6:3712:CC58:2135:246:6B76:C675 (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Gov. Heinrich Schnee

Anybody know of any English-language resources on the life of Heinrich Schnee, the last Governor of German East Afrika ? I'm wonderng where he came form, and what happened to him after WW1...thanks, Engr105th (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There is an article in the German Wikipedia [1]. I don't speak German and my use of an online translator proved to be horrible. The little I understand is that apparently he was a lawyer and diplomat that run several colonial governments in New Guinea, Samoa and Africa between 1900 and WWI. In 1919 he participated in the victory march through the Berlin Gate of Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, the only one that the defeated Germany was allowed to do by the Allies. Later he joined the German People's Party and got a position in the Reichstag, and continued to serve as a diplomat. He died in Berlin in 1949.--Menah the Great (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Just for the records, since 2013 there also is an English entry for Heinrich Schnee. ...GELongstreet (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

"Myth"

There is to much unsubstantiated claiming of "myth" in that article. It somehow smells like Anti-German propaganda and polemics. Could we please revise this and get something more solid on Wikipedia (196.2.124.254 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC))?

Blatant POV

I agree with “Myth” and move a step further. On March 4, 2008 the Lettow-Vorbeck page was defaced in installments by near obscene POV pushing. Much nonsense has crept into the narrative; the footnote section deteriorated into a sloppy, disorganized mess with dubious references and sources. In all this, however, “Lettow-Vorbeck in German nationalism” is perhaps the crassest example of germanophobic trash talk and qualifies for removal in its entirety. It is hoped that editors who previously contributed to the Lettow-Vorbeck entry will take issue with such deceptions and assist in restoring the page.--Gamahler (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Distortions, distorters & aberrations, etc.

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck was a nationalist and patriot, a not unreasonable position for a senior officer from any nation. Since there is no record of L-V having spawned a new philosophical foundation of something called “German nationalism” as a unique and negative construct, the belaboring of “quests” is POV. What emerges then is that he was merely widely and rightly admired in defeated Germany. I will remove the offending section. I will also remove the van Deventer/year book references on ‘free hand at looting’ and ‘women.’ How could van Deventer or the year book editor know, were they tipped-off by the tooth fairy?--Gamahler (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo

The 1933 studio portrait of Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck by Heinrich Hoffmann is perhaps not the most appropriate picture for this page. The image shows L-V in an “unofficial” uniform with shoulder straps/epaulets of a Generalmajor, the collar tabs of a colonel, a nondescript blouse and a probably gray or dark brown replica of a Schutztruppe officer head cover. The previous World War I era photo in this place was historically fitting; the 63-year old in 1933 seems somehow “made-up-for-the-occasion.” It was after all the period when the Nazi hierarchy was still trying to convert L-V to their cause. I suggest a return to the previous WWI photo as a more suitable image.--Gamahler (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Solved, with Bundesarchiv image.Gamahler (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Meetings

Added L-V’s daughter born in 1927. Ursula Countess Rantzau, a widow, is still alive today.

Corrected L-V’s alleged Africa meetings with Smuts and Meinertzhagen, based on The Meinertzhagen Mystery by Brian Garfield, a critical exposé and "compelling read about a flamboyant rogue." L-V’s first meeting with Richard Meinertzhagen was at Bremen in northern Germany in June 1926. Garfield writes: "It seems to have been a cheerful and intense visit; both Lettow and Meinertzhagen discuss it in their memoirs." (p. 164)

Referring to L-V’s meeting with Jan Christiaan Smuts, Garfield quotes from L-V’s book Mein Leben: "In December 1929, I accepted an invitation from the British East Africa fighters and traveled with my wife to London. I arrived ... at the Holborn Restaurant in London, where 1,100 former soldiers had assembled, and where for the first time I met face-to-face my erstwhile opponent General Smuts. ... We lodged at Colonel Meinertzhagen’s" [house in Kensington Park Gardens]. (p. 178)

--Gamahler (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit too much of heroe worship?

Just coming from some edition on the German Lettow entry I have a look over here - whow this looks like a real fan page! I mean he was a brilliant tactical leader. But the "whimp" governor Schnee was right when he said (as mentioned correctly) that war would destroy everything he had achieved. I never saw any hint that it would have made a difference to the outcome of WWI if Lettow had NOT fought and just called it a day in 1914 - but tens of thousands of people would have lived. He hoped he would make a difference for Germany's chances - he was plainly wrong. The debate about "unbeaten" is something, too. Lettow plainly ran faster than the Brits who were just too dumb for that game though stronger. - The dysalotosaurus lettow-vorbecki named in his honour could be mentioned - as they start renaming all the "Lettow-Streets" in Germany that might be the public honour remaining. Kipala (talk) 17:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Dinesen/Blixen

I have changed "Isak Dinesen" to "Karen Blixen" in the Early Life-section. Isak Dinesen was a pen name. //erik.bramsen.copenhagen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.134.196 (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck → Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck – He's known as Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, not his full Christian name. The people at the German wikipedia, who should know what they are doing, have him at Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck. (To the closing admin. Someone seems to have copy-pasted a move some time back. There might be some history versions of the redirect worth saving.) HandsomeFella (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. The clear common name: 16,800 gbooks results for "Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck", compared to only 200 for "Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck". On a side note, I don't think a history merge would be appropriate because the two articles were text merged (way back in '04, interestingly) and have parallel histories. Instead, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck should be moved to Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck/Version 1 (or somesuch) and a {{copied}} should be added to this talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blatant POV, hero worship and repeating of myths no longer accepted by scholars

The article currently repeats several myths about Lettow such as supposed loyalty of Aksari troops, his supposed genius and so on. Almost no mention of atrocities that were committed. When they are mentioned, there is an attempt to blame them on British. Article needs a re-write using modern scholary sources for example German Colonialism and National Identity by Michael Perraudin, Jürgen Zimmerer --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

MyMoloboaccount is overstating his case in my opinion, but there he is right in that there is too much admiration, not enough about the horrors he caused and attempts to blame the his enemies. When a war kills 365 000 civilian Africans through overwork and famine and 12000 Europeans and African soldiers through conventional warfare -that's 30 civilian casualites for every soldier- it is reasonable to say that focus should be on the horrors the Africans civilians suffered, not the European warfare. -Sensemaker

"Genocide"

The "Herero Genocide" is a swindle. --105.3.212.230 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

"....General Jan Smuts, whose new approach was subsequently not to fight the Schutztruppe at all, but to go after their food supply"

If it was Smuts' approach to "not to fight the Schutztruppe at all, but to go after their food supply" how are can it be said thet "Lettow-Vorbeck's tactics led to a famine that killed thousands of Africans and weakened the population?" Might it be more accurate to say "Smuts' response to von Lettow-Vorbeck's tactics led to ..." ? Or do we say that the tactics of both sides led to the deaths of civilians? 2603:800C:3944:BC00:A4BD:272B:F129:25E5 (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)