Talk:Helmuth von Moltke the Elder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I wonder if this article should be moved to Helmuth Graf von Moltke. He's better known as Count Moltke than H.K.B. von Moltke... Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second that, because i dont think Helmuth von Moltke "the elder" is formal. Its ok with Pliny the Elder cause thats what he has always been called; but this Moltke came before the other one(the younger), so he was never referenced as the elder of anyone. Ill go ahead with it, and if anyone has a problem with it, they can undo it and talk about it on the talk page. Xlegiofalco 21:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, nevermind then. I will wait for more input before moving. Xlegiofalco 22:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there are a lot of words that need upper-casing here, like the Chief of the General Staff, the King, Fourth Corps, etc. Also, "convicted of any strategic errors" sounds strange, but I haven't found anything better Jbhood 15:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

General Staff[edit]

Should it be "Chief of the Prussian General Staff," not the German General Staff? Sca 15:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be "Chief of the Prussian General Staff," and later "Chief of the Great General Staff".Saintonge235 (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Danish Subject[edit]

His family moved to Holstein which never was a part of Denmark, in contrast to the other part of the duchy (Schleswig). The entire duchy was ruled by the King of Denmark who also was a German prince (Duke of the Holstein-part of Schleswig-Holstein). Are there any proofs that they were Danish subjects? Serving in a foreign army at that time had nothing to do with being a citizen/subject.

Mental Illness at death?[edit]

My high school history teacher (who is now a full professor of history at Fordham University in New York) contended that Moltke the Elder died believing he was pregnant with an elephant. I know, this sounds absurd, and I am not aware of a published source for this information (which is why I place it on the discussion page rather than editing the encyclopedic entry). If anyone is engaged in updating this page, please be alert for verification for this factoid, which would make a wonderful addition! Many thanks. 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Your teacher has apparently confused Moltke with Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher. Nevfennas 05:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


Holstein was never a Danich province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC) My apologies. I am certain the confusion was mine, not his. Thank you for the correction, and best regards. 10:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, no need to apologize. The history of nearly all (sometimes former) German border territories is complicated and confusing. I'm sorry for spelling Danish as Danich. But I have one question. What's wrong with your time? I wrote on 15 January 2010 and you answered on 25 October 2007;). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that at this point 'Germany' was a geographic term and not a political entity[edit]

Why should it be noted? The allied (German) forces were sent by the German Federation (Deutscher Bund). This was a political German entity, although not a German (national) state in the modern sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

"perhaps most famous ... for being mis-attributed as author ..."[edit]

"Moltke is perhaps most famous in modern officer corps for being mis-attributed as author of a novel categorization of officers." That's pretty ridiculous and, even if Enzenberger should have written something like this, not sufficiently sourced. " The quote", which "is actually from Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord", reads quite different in his article (and Moltke is not mentioned there either). The quote allegedly mis-attributed to Moltke is also not mentioned in de:Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke. (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

deleted since no one objected. (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


The whole sentence fragment alluding to Moltke's use of blue for friendly forces has nothing to do with the modern phrase "blue-on-blue". This silly comment on friendly fire should be removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Helmuth von Moltke the Elder/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article seems to have everything needed for a B except citations. There are only two to indicate where the text came from, and these only cover trivial things. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 17:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)