Il y a deux mois de cela, le monde du livre a été secoué par la décision d’un grand nombre d’auteurs de quitter Hachette, la maison d’édition contrôlée par Vincent Bolloré. La raison n’était pas le positionnement politique, très très à droite, de Vincent Bolloré, mais l’éviction d’Olivier Nora, qui avait dirigé Grasset pendant plus de vingt ans. Les partants voyaient, certainement avec raison, une volonté de contrôle politique sur les publications, une mise au pas d’un homme trop indépendant. Preuve que ce n’étaient pas seulement les positions politiques de Vincent Bolloré qui justifiaient leur départ, les écrivains qui ont ainsi quitté le groupe Hachette ne sont pas tous de gauche, et l’on y trouve même quelques figures très à droite, comme Frédéric Beigbeder. Il s’en est suivi aussi quelques mouvements de solidarité dans le milieu du cinéma, que j’ai moins suivis parce que cela m’intéresse moins.
Quel rapport avec le jeu de société ? Le groupe Hachette n’est entré qu’il y a quelques années dans ce petit monde, mais, rachat après rachat, il en est rapidement devenu un acteur majeur. En font partie aujourd’hui une dizaine d’éditeurs français et canadiens, Gigamic, Studio H, Funnyfox, Le Scorpion Masqué, Sorry We Are French, Catch Up Games, La Boite de Jeu, Randolph, Blanc Manger Coco, et deux distributeurs incontournables, Blackrock et Gigamic. J’en oublie sans doute. Cela représente une bonne partie des jeux que vous pouvez trouver en boutique. J’ajoute qu’un autre acteur essentiel, avec lequel je travaille beaucoup, Iello, appartient à un groupe plus discret, Média Participations, contrôlé par Vincent Montagne, moins à droite que Bolloré mais tout aussi catho.
Croyant bien faire, quelques « influenceurs » du monde ludique ont, ces derniers jours, lancé une petite campagne sur les réseaux sociaux suggérant d’éviter les jeux publiés par les éditeurs du groupe Hachette, voire même tous les jeux distribués par Gigamic et Blackrock – en gros, on ne devrait plus acheter que chez Asmodee. Leurs discours relèvent de ce que les américains appellent le « virtue signaling », des prises de position motivées non par leur efficacité mais par une sorte de « posture morale », par le souci de monter que l’on est du bon côté. Je pense que c’est absurde.
Comme je l’ai expliqué plus haut, c’est par solidarité avec Olivier Nora, et parce qu’ils assistent à la mise en place d’un contrôle politique éditorial, que des auteurs ont quitté Hachette. Rien de tel ne s’est produit chez Blackrock ou Gigamic, et je suis bien certain que rien de tel ne se produira, ne serait-ce que parce qu’un jeu de société ne peut pas porter un discours politique avec la même subtilité et la même efficacité qu’un livre ou un film.
Et puis, surtout, Studio H, Gigamic, Blackrock, Scorpion Masqué, ce sont d’abord des gens que je connais bien, depuis longtemps, qui étaient là bien avant que Hachette ne rachète tout ça, et qui sont parfois très à gauche. Ce sont donc des amis avec qui j’ai plutôt envie de continuer à travailler. Je préfèrerais qu’ils ne soient pas chez Bolloré, ne serait-ce que parce que je n’aurais pas à écrire ce texte, mais je ne vais pas en faire une montagne.
De toute façon, quand vous achetez une boîte de Bellavista, la dernière grosse boîte de Studio H, vous faites gagner un peu d’argent à Bruno Cathala et Andrea Mainini, les auteurs, à Hicham et sa petite équipe, l’éditeur, et vraiment pas grand-chose à Vincent Bolloré, qui est bien au-delà de tout ça.
Je suis un homme de gauche. J’ai récemment repris, même si je ne fais guère que payer sagement ma cotisation tous les ans, ma carte du parti socialiste. Je ne soutiens en rien les positions identitaires de Vincent Bolloré, mais cela ne m’empêche pas de continuer à travailler avec des équipes que j’aime bien, que je connais parfois depuis vingt ans, et dont le boulot ne relève absolument pas du discours politique. Ils étaient tous à Etourvy le mois dernier, où l’on a d’ailleurs un peu parlé de cette situation. Je leur ai encore laissé des prototypes. Je serai aussi la semaine prochaine à Boulogne, avec tout le petit monde du jeu, à la fête d’anniversaire de Gigamic.
J’ajoute que je me méfie de plus en plus des discours annonant que « tout est politique ». C’est bien sûr un peu vrai, mais à force de le répéter, on en oublie que certaines choses le sont bien plus que d’autres, et on finit par se perdre dans des combats un peu ridicules et, pour cette raison, contre-productifs.
Two months ago, the French literary scene has been violently shaken when many well-known writers decided to leave Hachette, the publishing group controlled by the far right media mogul Vincent Bolloré. The reason was not Bolloré’s political convictions, but the fact that he had sacked Olivier Nora, the head of Grasset for twenty years. The leaving writers considered, probably rightly, that this sacking was the first step towards a political control on publications, something Olivier Nora has always avoided. The leaving were not all leftist, and there was even among them few very right wing authors, like Frederic Beigbeder. IN the following weeks, there has been also some ripple effect in the movie world, but I’m less interested in it and didn’t follow the details.
What does all of this has to do with boardgames ? Hachette has been in the French boardgaming world for a few years now, and has quickly become a major player. It now controls a dozen French and Canadian publishers, Gigamic, Studio H, Funnyfox, Le Scorpion Masqué, Sorry We Are French, Catch Up Games, La Boite de Jeu, Randolph, Blanc Manger Coco and two major distributors, Blackrock and Gigamic. This means a good chunk of the games you can buy in French gameshop. Furthermore, another major player on the French boardgaming scene, Iello, who published several games of mine, has been take over by another more discreet group, media-participations, owned by another less known media mogul, Vincent Montagne, who is less on the right than Bolloré, but as catholic as him, if not more.
Believing they were doing the right thing, a few French boardgame influencers have, these last days, suggested on social network that gamers avoid all games published by studios in the Hachette group, or even all the games distributed by Gigamic and Blackrock. Basically, this means buying only what’s sold by Asmodee. I think this virtue signaling is absurd, and may be counter-effective.
As I have explained before, the writers who left Hachette did it by solidarity with Olivier Nora, and because they were afraid of a political editorial control. Nothing like this happened at Blackrock or Gigamic, and I am confident nothing like this will happen because a boardgame cannot carry a deep and effective political message like a novel or a movie does.
And, most of all, Studio H, Gigamic, Blackrock, Scorpion Masqué, these are people I know for some time, who were there long before Hachette went in, and some of them are even dedicated leftists. They are friends with whom I have enjoyed working and hope to keep on working. Of course, I would have preferred them not to be in the Bolloré group, if only because I would not have to write this blogpost, but I can make do with it.
And anyway, when you buy a copy of Bellavista, Studio H’s last big box game, you are giving some money to Bruno Cathala and Andrea Mainin, the designers, to Hicham and his small team, the publisher, and almost nothing to Vincent Bolloré, who doesn’t need it anyway.
I am a leftist. I am in the French Socialist Party, even when I don’t do much more than paying my yearly subscription. I am as far as one can be from Vincent Bolloré far right identity politics, but this doesn’t prevent me from keeping on working with people I like, with teams I know sometimes for twenty years and whose work is not really political. They were all last month in Etourvy, and there was some discussion about this issue. I’ve given them prototypes, as usual. And I will be next week at the Gigamic 35th birthday party, with most of the French small boardgaming world.
I am more and more wary of people stating that “everything is political”. There is some truth in it, of course, but when we say it over and over about everything, we end up ignoring that some things are much more political than others, and we lose ourselves in ridiculous and often counterproductive fights.
Back to the history and board games of New York City! Last time, we’ve looked at the city’s humble beginnings all the way to the destruction wrought on the city by the Revolutionary War. Today, we’ll cover the first century of New York City as a city in the United States – how it established its primacy in the country, how it was at the same time very attractive and a horrible place to live in, and how it took shape as a modern metropolis. As always, board games will guide us.
American Capital
When Britain had recognized American independence in 1783, the young country gave itself a constitution – the Articles of Confederation. The United States were organized on strictly confederative principles. New York City became the capital. The advocates of broad independence for the states and minimal federal government, however, lost ground over the next few years as the United States struggled to deal with the post-war challenges, chiefly the states’ tremendous debt. Thus, over ferocious public debate, a new constitution was adopted in 1787, and according to it, a strong chief magistrate elected – George Washington, the first president, who was inaugurated in 1789 at City Hall, New York.
One of the fiercest proponents of a strong federal government was New Yorker Alexander Hamilton who became the nation’s first secretary of the treasury. In this role, Hamilton advocated for further government centralization, especially in regards to financial and economic affairs, based on his experience in the commercial hub New York. Hamilton succeeded in having the federal government take over the remaining states’ debts, but his opponents – chiefly rural southerners – demanded a price: The federal capital would move away from New York. Philadelphia would fill the role temporarily, before a new capital to be constructed in a southern swamp would be ready – the future Washington, D.C.
Even though New York City ceased to be America’s capital, it was still the prime center of American capital. In 1792, the New York Stock Exchange was founded. Its location – Wall Street – is synonymous with finance until today. The city’s booming harbor also attracted more and more commerce. By 1804, New York City had overtaken Philadelphia as the largest city in the United States at around 70,000 inhabitants. As growth did not slow down, the city’s leadership embarked on a scheme which must have seemed megalomaniac at the time: In 1811, they adopted a development plan which laid a regular grid of avenues and perpendicular streets over Manhattan Island, encompassing areas large enough to house a million people at the contemporary population density. That was the blueprint for modern New York City.
New York’s growth, however, was not pre-ordained. It relied chiefly on the city’s status the nation’s premier port. Yet as the United States grew westward, New York lay farther and farther away from many of the new towns and states. Goods could only flow to or from the Great Lakes or the Great Plains by arduous land journeys – or down the Mississippi. New Orleans, located at the mouth of the great stream, seemed poised to take over New York’s role as America’s port. That’s when the governor of New York state, DeWitt Clinton, proposed an ambitious engineering scheme: Nature might not have connected New York City with the great inland waterways of America. But men could. The 350-mile Erie Canal, completed in 1825, connected the Hudson River with Lake Erie and thus allowed uninterrupted ship transport from New York all the way to the western frontier states.
Packet Row (Åse Berg/Henrik Berg, White Goblin Games) is set in the bustling port of New York in the 1840s. Players need to find the right combination of trade goods (so, supply), contracts (demand), and ships to grow rich as merchants. Money alone will not be enough for victory: The game embodies the ethos of the magnates of the 19th century, which held that wealth came with responsibility for the community. Thus, the money earned in Packet Row needs to be spent on projects which benefit the city (say, the university) for victory points.
When the Erie Canal was completed in 1825, 89% of New Yorkers had been born in the United States. By 1860 that number had fallen to less than half. Let’s take a look at this great social and political transformation.
Immigration, Death, and Politics
New York’s status as America’s port made it incredibly attractive for immigrants: Its booming trade hungered for willing workers, and even if immigrants had different dreams – say, farming on the wide prairie – they would probably arrive by ship in New York. In the mid-19th century, an astounding 70% of all European immigrants to the United States entered the country through New York. The absolute numbers are even more breath-taking: In the decade after the Great Famine, a million Irish alone arrived in New York, along with German, English, and Scottish immigrants.
Despite this massive population influx, New York City had only around 800,000 inhabitants by 1860. That was partly because many immigrants moved on further inland, but also because of the astonishing mortality: For example, during the year 1856, 4% of all adults and 20% of all children in New York City died. The cramped living quarters in which most immigrants found themselves and the inadequate medical infrastructure made New York a fertile breeding ground for all kinds of epidemics, while the high cost of living forced the immigrants into long working hours at often dangerous jobs.
Under these circumstances, it is no surprise that the immigrants turned to anyone who promised them a helping a hand. And as they were so many (and usually gained citizenship after two years of residence), courting them became a viable electoral strategy. Fernando Wood became the first New York mayor whose election had been largely achieved by his success with Irish-American and German-American voters. His recipe for success – mobilizing various immigrant communities – would be copied for decades by his successors in Tammany Hall, the local Democratic Party’s political machine which traded patronage for votes.
Tammany Hall (Doug Eckhart, Pandasaurus) is centered on this political strategy: The basic move which players take is to select one immigrant token (Irish, German, English, or – inspired by the later 19th century – Italian) and place it in one of the wards of New York. That gives the player both some influence with the respective immigrant community and some potential strength on the ground in that ward, come the next election. Whichever player wins most wards in an election round becomes mayor of New York and thus gets to dole out City Hall jobs to their allies.
Tammany’s success in the 1850s was based on organizing various disparate communities. The Civil War brought ruptures to this alliance: Mayor Wood called for New York City to secede from the Union and become a “free city” in order to maintain trade relations with the treasonous southern states. The majority of Tammany Democrats, however, were staunchly in favor of the Union, but less enthusiastic about the cause of abolitionism. Thus, many of the German immigrants (often veterans of the 1848/49 revolution) abandoned the party in favor of the Republicans, and the German-Irish voting bloc split (although it would remain firmly united in its opposition to the temperance movement).
The split caused a Republican-led fusion ticket to win the mayoral election of 1862. It would be a short break from Tammany rule, as the new mayor faced growing racial tensions: On July 13 1863, protests against the continued draft erupted in violence. For the next three days, a mob (mostly consisting of Irish-Americans from the Lower Manhattan slums) rampaged through the city, targeting Black neighborhoods. The Draft Riots would only be put down once regiments returning from Gettysburg reached the city. Many Black New Yorkers left the city afterward, so that they amounted to barely over one percent of New York City’s population in 1865.
Tammany rule was restored in the 1864 mayoral election… not that it mattered much who exactly the mayor was, as long as he was a loyal follower of the Tammany machine. The unbridled access to power allowed the Tammany leader William “Boss” Tweed to become one of the richest men in New York – and public money also lined the pockets of many public servants and private contractors (especially in the construction business). The most outrageous example of this corruption was the construction of the County Courthouse. Tweed himself bought a quarry to supply the marble for the project at egregious prices, and the subcontractors had a field day, too, billing amounts like $360,000 for one carpenter’s month of labor or $7,500 per individual thermometer. The Courthouse’s final cost ran up to $13 million – almost twice the price of the contemporary Alaska Purchase!
Tweed, however had cranked the levers one too many times. Even New York Democrats (at least those set aside by him) distanced themselves from him. A court found Tweed guilty of embezzlement and sentenced him to a year in prison. He escaped and made his way to Spain, but was discovered and extradited to the United States, where he would die in prison. Tammany would rule New York politics for almost another century due to the machine’s continued ability to organize new immigrants (Italians and Eastern European Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), but the worst excesses of its corruption ended with Boss Tweed. Indeed, for a 20th century New Yorker, it would be almost impossible to imagine how political office could be mostly sought to enrich a few powerful individuals and their willing helpers.
The Dawn of the Modern Age
New York City in the mid-19th century was squalor and corruption, but it was also the place where the innovations of the modern metropolis first took shape. The explosive population growth and the crowded living conditions were countered with a massive park development – Central Park, until today New York’s finest place to breathe fresh air and surround yourself with the peace of grass and trees. Construction lasted from 1857 to 1876.
New technology also sprung from New York – literally and figuratively. When Thomas Edison looked for the first city in which to broadly distribute electricity, New York was the obvious choice. And the transformational impact of the railroad on America would not have been possible without the finance hub New York raising and directing the capital for the investments. So, all of you 18XX gamers, you can thank New York!
Finally, in 1886, New York City received its most iconic landmark: The people of France gifted the United States a large statue, symbolizing liberty, the chief value of the American Revolution. Once the Americans had succeeded at funding the pedestal for the statue – encouraged by campaigns of the New York newspapers – the Statue of Liberty was proudly displayed in New York harbor, welcoming newcomers and promising them a free life. In the words of Emma Lazarus, whose poem adorns the a plaque inside the pedestal of the statue:
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
In the years after the Statue of Liberty was erected, New York shape-shifted… upwards. The age of the skyscraper began, and nowhere more so than in Manhattan. But that’s a story for next time!
For a concise introduction, especially focused on local politics, see Lankevich, George J.: New York City. A Short History, New York University Press, New York City, NY/London 1998.
If you want a treatment which is both more in-depth and more journalistic (and lavishly illustrated) and don’t mind its history practically ending around 1970, see the book version of the 17-hour PBS documentary from 1999: Burns, Ric/Sanders, James/Ades, Lisa: New York. An Illustrated History, Knopf, New York City, NY 2001.
Es wird sportlich im SPIEL DAS! Verlag! Im Sommer habt ihr die Chance auf jede Menge Applaus. 😉 Denn mit ROLLYMPCS kündigen wir euch voller Vorfreude unsere zweite Neuerscheinung für 2026 an!🤩 Damit gibt es nach der Veröffentlichung von "Ninja Academy" (2022) endlich wieder einen neuen Spiele - Party - Hit mit verrückten Challenges und jeder Menge Würfel.
Erdacht von kreativen Köpfen aus unserem Verlag!
Bunte Würfel und verrückte Aufgaben - perfekt für euren Spieleabend.
Mit Würfeln jede Menge Applaus sammeln!
In sechs ganz unterschiedlichen Challenges erwartet euch ein spannender Wettkampf. Mal müsst ihr stapeln, mal Türme zum Einsturz bringen oder Tore schießen! Doch auch für Freunde der schnellen Reaktionsspiele ist gesorgt, wenn ihr passende Farben schnappen oder Würfel platzieren müsst.
„Rollympics“ ist ein Partyspiel für 3-5 Spieler:innen ab 8 Jahren. Die Dauer des familientauglichen Partyspiels liegt bei etwa 20 Minuten, Ende August wird es erscheinen. Weitere Infos findet ihr bereits hier auf unserer Website. 😊
… und immer auf dem Laufenden!
Folge uns in den sozialen Netzwerken und verpasse keine Neuigkeiten!
We’ve been assessing the merits of political leaders in (more or less) democratic countries on this blog for a few years now. Today, we’re returning to German chancellors… but not the way you know it. After a few chancellors from the Federal Republic of Germany (founded in 1949), we’re assessing for the first time a chancellor from the Weimar Republic, Germany’s first attempt at parliamentary government – Hermann Müller. And which game could be more appropriate for him than Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx)?
The Rating System
Some caveats ahead: The chancellors will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as chancellor.
Now, to the system itself: There are three policy field categories (foreign, domestic, and economic policy) and three more general ones (vision, pragmatism, integrity). A chancellor can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the chancellor is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the chancellor increase German influence in the world and the security of Germans at home? Did the chancellor wield German power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected?
Domestic policy: Did the chancellor increase the liberty of Germans to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the chancellor promote domestic security and shape the framework for fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the chancellor facilitate the prosperity and economic security of Germans (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the chancellor’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the chancellor have an idea of what Germany and Europe (the latter counting for more in times of German influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the chancellor’s policies steer Germany (and, if applicable, Europe) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the chancellor succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the chancellor manage the support from parliament, society, the administration, the media?
Integrity: Did the chancellor understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the chancellor respect the boundaries of the office?
Note: If you have read my UK prime minister or US president ratings, you will remember that I rated them on the global impacts of their vision as well. As the rating system is only really applicable to democratic leaders and no democratic German leader ever had the chance to conduct a truly global policy, I only assess their vision on national and European grounds.
Müller’s Early Life
Hermann Müller was born in Mannheim (in the southwest of Germany) on May 18, 1876. His father ran a small sparkling wine company, but died when Hermann was still a teenager. Thus, instead of taking over the company or going to university, the young Hermann Müller trained to become a clerk. He soon became involved with the socialist movement and joined the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in 1893. After some years working for social democratic newspapers, he was elected to the leadership board of the SPD in 1906. Müller was often charged with liaisons to other socialist parties in Europe – including a doomed trip to Paris in July 1914, trying to negotiate a joint refusal of French and German socialists to support their respective countries’ impending war with each other.
Müller was elected to Imperial Germany’s parliament in a by-election in 1916. Soon after, the German Social Democrats split between the Majority Social Democrats (MSPD, including Müller) who supported the war effort, and the Independent Social Democrats (USPD), who did not. When the war was lost in November 1918 and the monarchy swept away by revolutionary soldiers and workers, the MSPD soon took control of the revolution and steered a moderate course towards parliamentary democracy.
The revolution of 1918/1919 transformed the (M)SPD from the pariah party of Imperial Germany to the most important pillar of the new republic. As the Social Democrats were no longer barred from the positions of power, they needed scores of cadres to fill them. The general upswing also brought a promotion for Müller, who was elected co-chairman of the MSPD in 1919. Government came with its own challenges: The lost war, the ongoing Allied naval blockade, and the weak position of the new government made it imperative to conclude a peace treaty with the Allied powers. The provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, with which the Allies presented Germany, seemed unacceptable to most Germans – including many Social Democrats. Chancellor Philipp Scheidemann resigned rather than take responsibility for the treaty. He was succeeded by Gustav Bauer (also SPD) whose new administration Müller joined as foreign minister in June 1919. In this role, it fell to him to sign the treaty. From there, Müller sketched the outlines of a new foreign policy – one in which Germany would cooperate with the Allies, use its economic and cultural rather than its military strength to influence world events, and thus overturn the harsh provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.
The Bauer administration resigned after the Kapp-Lüttwitz coup of March 1920. Müller took over the chancellorship as a caretaker – elections were scheduled for June 1920. He was unable to tackle most of the many challenges which beset Germany (chiefly the agreement with the Allies on the details of the German reparations, the tensions over the German-Polish border, and the threat of right-wing terrorism and insurgency (as in the Kahr coup in Bavaria)). The only crisis which was dispelled during his time in office was the dissolution of the Red Ruhr Army, a left-wing militia which had formed in opposition to the Kapp-Lüttwitz coup and, after its failure, had continued their struggle for a council republic on the Ruhr. Their uprising was put down by army and Freikorps units and over a thousand workers (with more or less connection to the uprising) summarily executed.
The Red Ruhr Army can give the Communists a powerful push in the game… and make the Republican parties more forgiving of the Nationalists taking over army units (black units in Essen).
The first one and a half years of democratic government in Germany had proven a disappointment for many voters, including those who generally were in favor of the new republic. The three government parties (the SPD, the Catholic Center (Zentrum), and the liberal German Democratic Party (DDP)) all suffered heavy losses in the 1920 election. The SPD was particularly hard hit, as its handling of the Kapp-Lüttwitz coup and the Ruhr Uprising disenchanted many left-leaning workers. Both the USPD and the pro-business, conservative-liberal German People’s Party (DVP) gained a lot of votes.
With the majority for the government coalition lost, Müller attempted to broaden the government by including the USPD. Due to his handling of the aftermath of the Kapp-Lüttwitz coup, he was brusquely rebuffed. As he did not see potential to cooperate with the DVP, he led the SPD into opposition.
The Opposition agenda card in Weimar strengthens the SPD in parliament and allows the party to (re-)gain a minor ally (the USPD or DDP).
Opposition and Return to Government
Müller’s own inclination was to return to government responsibility, but he prioritized first the reunification of the SPD with the USPD (concluded in 1922) and then the prevention of another rupture. However, the SPD supported the bourgeois minority government (Zentrum, DDP, and DVP) in matters of foreign policy, which was conducted by the guidelines which Müller had laid out as foreign minister and chancellor in 1919 and 1920.
The reparations issue, however, remained unresolved. As tensions over it with the Allies heated up, France occupied the Ruhr again, to which the government responded with encouraging the population of the Ruhr to cease cooperation with the occupiers. This “passive resistance” relied on the national government funding the livelihood of millions of people and thus fueled inflation. As these interconnected crises escalated, it became clear that the government did not have the parliamentary and public support to deal with them. Government needed to rest on a broad basis. The first “Grand Coalition”, led by DVP chancellor Gustav Stresemann and including SPD, Zentrum, DDP, and DVP was inaugurated in August 1923. Four Social Democrats became ministers. Hermann Müller, however, was none of them as he was deemed indispensable to maintain control of the fractious SPD parliamentary group (whose vote to join the government had been on the narrowest of margins).
Stresemann’s re-roll ability makes him an excellent ally in any kind of crisis – coups, foreign policy, presidential elections.
While the Stresemann government successfully ended both the passive resistance (and French occupation) and the inflation crisis, the way there was rocky. It included challenges from both the left wing in Saxony and Thuringia (which were put down by the armed forces once the Communist Party entered a parliamentary government) and the right wing (a nationalist power grab in Bavaria was left unanswered as the loyalty of the army to the republic seemed suspect; an attempt to radicalize Bavaria even further led by a young demagogue named Adolf Hitler collapsed when it met resistance by the nationalist authorities). This uneven treatment convinced the SPD to leave government after only three months. Stresemann, thus without a majority, soon was toppled as chancellor, but remained foreign minister.
The SPD, despite being the largest party in parliament (and being confirmed in this status in 1924), would spend the next five years in opposition. Attempts to form another Grand Coalition failed in 1924 and 1925 (because the DVP preferred to cooperate with the nationalist DNVP and the new, monarchist, president Paul von Hindenburg), and in 1926, because Müller’s SPD engaged in the fool’s quest of pursuing a plebiscite to expropriate the former princes – the plebiscite failed to meet the quorum as expected, but it set the SPD on a path of confrontation with the bourgeois parties which ruled out any cooperation with them.
That did not mean that cooperation was impossible: The SPD continued to back the cooperative-revisionist foreign policy of the government, and also supported budget compromises. Thus, the party agreed to a budget for the year 1928 which included a first payment for new armored cruisers to modernize the navy. It then campaigned for the March 1928 elections on the slogan “Meals for Children instead of the Armored Cruiser”. The electorate returned the SPD with its best showing since 1919. Müller was able to form a government (once more including Zentrum, DDP, and DVP) and was elected chancellor for the second time.
Müller at work in his preferred arena – that of parliamentary debate, not of street action. His event often allows the SPD player to shift the issues decisively in their favor.
The Second Chancellorship
The contradiction between parliamentary action and campaign promises immediately backfired for Müller. The budget for the new fiscal year was due, and as agreed, included funds for the naval modernization. Müller belatedly realized that the decision had been made already, that the SPD had agreed to it, and that his government partners would expect the SPD to stick to its previous course. While Müller and the SPD ministers voted in favor of the budget in cabinet, the SPD parliamentary group revolted against the budget and forced them to vote against it in parliament. It did the rebels no good, as they could not find another majority for an alternative budget, but the revolt was a catastrophe for Müller’s authority.
The economic situation was similarly unpromising: When the trade unions of the Ruhr heavy industry proposed a pay raise by 15 pennies per hour, the employers responded by pre-emptively handing hundreds of thousands of workers their notice. Unions and employers then agreed on mediation, but when the employers did not like the result, they backtracked and disputed the legality of the process. Thus, 240,000 iron workers were laid off. Müller had a second mediator make a new proposal, which was suitably employer-friendly (with pay raises ranging from one to six pennies per hour). The employers contentedly saw that playing hardball paid off. Their confrontational stance would increase with the growing unemployment after the 1929 stock market crash.
For the time being, Müller enjoyed the greatest success of his tenure: He negotiated a new reparations agreement (without Stresemann, who died in October 1929), the Young Plan (named after Owen D. Young, who represented the American side). The negotiations were a great step forward for Germany (as the reparations were much reduced and payment put on a realistic basis), but a mixed blessing for Müller: On the one hand, the agreement was very unpopular (as it stipulated German payments for the next 58 years) and thus maligned by the right wing (which campaigned against it on the slogan “Enslaved for three generations). On the other, the combination of the undoubted necessity of the negotiations and their unpopularity meant that the moderate right-wing parties held off their assault on Müller for the moment, as they wanted him to take the blame.
The combo of the Young Plan and the petition against it may place up to three new crisis markers on the board. Müller really threaded the needle by successfully negotiating the reparations agreement and then fending off the referendum against it.
It was only a short reprieve. By January 1930, the Young Plan negotiations were concluded. The same month, the DVP, not being held back by the pro-government Stresemann anymore, had secretly decided to break the coalition if the SPD did not agree to radical pro-business reforms. The party had received encouragement from president Hindenburg, who also intimated to Zentrum leader Heinrich Brüning that he would support a Brüning-led bourgeois minority cabinet with presidential executive orders.
The showdown came in March 1930 over the reform of unemployment insurance. Müller had negotiated a compromise with Paul Moldenhauer (DVP), the minister of finance. However, the DVP parliamentary group refused to accept the compromise. Müller then tasked Brüning to work out another proposal which would be acceptable to all parties in government. Brüning’s suggestion – which would have postponed the issue by another year without solving it – found agreement in the DVP, Zentrum, and DDP parliamentary groups, but, despite Müller’s urging, not that of the SPD. The second Müller administration thus ended on March 27, 1930.
Müller had hoped that president Hindenburg would support an SPD-led minority government with executive orders. Instead, Hindenburg turned to Brüning whose chancellorship began the slide into government not backed by parliamentary majorities. The SPD, however, supported Brüning on key issues of economic and foreign policy lest the president find excuses to turn even more authoritarian. It was to no avail: Hindenburg and his camarilla got tired of Brüning in 1932 and replaced him in turn with Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher who enjoyed even less parliamentary support, before it seemed like a smart move to them to ally their nationalist elites to the popular movement of the Nazis in January 1933, ending German democracy altogether. Müller did not live to see his democratic republic destroyed: He had never been of strong health, had campaigned and governed against the advice of his doctors who counselled rest, and died on March 20, 1931.
The Rating
Foreign policy
Müller developed Weimar’s foreign policy in his first term in government (as foreign minister and chancellor), which aimed at proving to the Allies by faithful cooperation that Germany was willing to do its part in reconciliation (but had economic limits in what it could do) and would thus be re-admitted on an equal footing to the international community, which would allow the country to revise key portions of the Treaty of Versailles. While the theory was sound, its application ran into practical problems – for Müller as well as the other chancellors and foreign ministers of the Weimar Republic: French revisionism of the Treaty (France felt short-changed in the matters of annexations and would have liked to incorporate the entire left bank of the Rhine as under Napoleon), and the constant charges from the German right that international cooperation under the Treaty of Versailles was akin to betrayal of the nation.
Müller never gave much attention to the existing inequities during his two terms as chancellor. That he was aware of them is proven by his record as foreign minister, in which he massively overworked the diplomatic service (which had been almost exclusively staffed by nobles heretofore), opening it for applicants from all backgrounds. Similar reforms of the judiciary or the military, two other institutions still personally and mentally clinging to Imperial Germany, did not make it to Müller’s chancellor agenda, even though the atrocities committed on the Ruhr in 1920 while the army could not be used to deal with the Bavarian regime at all showed the necessity of these institutional changes.
Müller’s handling of economic policy was incremental and cooperative – a bad fit to deal with his counterparts in business and the government (DVP) who wanted radical changes through confrontation. Müller’s stance may have been the more reasonable. But Müller lost.
Rating: 2 out of 5.
Vision
Müller’s vision of a Germany based on constructive parliamentary debate and government compromise, cooperating with other countries on an equal footing, is compelling. However, Müller was not always successful in advancing these goals, as he prioritized party unity over compromise with others at times.
Müller failed to see most of his policy initiatives through. He kept neither his coalition nor his own parliamentary group in check. However, Müller prevented another rupture of his party, and as a skilled electoral campaigner, achieved the first place for the SPD in every national election with him at the helm of the party.
Müller was fair and even-handed in his conduct as a chancellor. As a Social Democrat, he considered the workers his natural constituency, but was always willing to include the interests of other groups in the compromises he forged. His only fault was to hope for the a-parliamentary executive order minority government which, in the end, was given not to him, but Brüning.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Overall
Hermann Müller’s chancellorship is traditionally considered a failure based on the collapse of the Weimar Republic soon after. Yet the Republic did not end with his tenure, and it was destroyed not by his actions, but by those of others. Müller’s most enduring contribution was the invention of the Weimar formula of foreign policy, his biggest weakness his inability to impose authority on his friends, partners, rivals, and foes. He failed because he was a middling chancellor in a hostile world.
How would you rate Müller? Let me know in the comments!
Further Reading
For short overview essays on all German chancellors from Bismarck on, see Sternburg, Wilhelm von: Die deutschen Kanzler. Von Bismarck bis Merkel[The German Chancellors. From Bismarck to Merkel], Aufbau-Verlag, Berlin 2006 (in German).
The only full-length biography of Müller is Reichel, Peter: Der tragische Kanzler [The Tragic Chancellor], dtv, Munich 2018 (in German). Unfortunately, the book suffers from the author’s misguided attempt to assign blame for the end of the republic on the SPD for an alleged lack of willingness to compromise, which runs through the entire book.
A revisionist, but insightful short treatment of Müller is Behring, Rainer: Hermann Müller (1876—1931) und die Chancen der Weimarer Republik [Hermann Müller (1876—1931] and the Chances of the Weimar Republic], in: Brandt, Peter/Lehnert, Detlef: Sozialdemokratische Regierungschefs in Deutschland und Österreich. 1918—1983, Dietz, Bonn 2017 (in German).
For the broader context, see: Herbert, Ulrich: A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
Wir haben in diesem Jahr noch eine Menge vor! Neben den bereits angekündigten Titeln „Hop’n’Roll“ und der Erweiterung zum Verkaufshit „Panda Royale“ kündigen wir heute drei neue Spiele an: Ob die nächste Party, den Spieleabend in der Familie oder Vielspieler:innen; hier ist für alle etwas dabei!🤩
Vom Erfolgsautoren PAUL DENNEN
Zwei Titel aus unserem Verlag: Mit Nachwuchsautor:innen arbeiten wir besonders gerne zusammen!
Nachschub für SPIEL DAS! Fans
Mit ROLLYMPICS erscheint der neue Partyspielhit für bis zu 5 Personen, der nicht nur alle Fans von „Ninja Academy“ begeistern wird. Diesmal stehen bei den Minispielen Würfel im Mittelpunkt. Diese werden gestapelt, gerollt, balanciert. Aber auch bluffen, schnelle Reaktion und Interaktion sind gefragt! Mit über 20 Würfeln und mehr als 20 Challenges bietet das Spiel nicht nur ansprechendes Material, sondern auch Abwechslung!
3-5 Personen ab 8 Jahren / Spieldauer ca. 20 min / voraussichtlich ab Juli
In BEST DAY EVER lädt Nachwuchsautor Jan Maier zu einem rasanten und humorvollen Tag für bis zu 6 Personen im Freizeitpark ein. Zwischen Achterbahn, Karussell und entspannten Pausen im Park plant ihr euren Tag mit möglichst vielen Attraktionen, um Zielkarten zu erfüllen. Alle spielen gleichzeitig, sodass kaum Downtime entsteht. Doch haltet auch die eigene Übelkeit und den rechtzeitigen WC-Besuch im Blick. Ein Familienspiel voller Witz und Tempo für.
2-6 Personen ab 8 Jahren / Spieldauer ca. 45 min / voraussichtlich ab Oktober
In WILD TILED WEST geht’s in den rauen Alltag des Wilden Westens! Durch geschicktes Platzieren von Landschaftsplättchen errichten die Mitspielenden ihre eigene Grenzstadt, nutzen Gebäudeeffekte und setzen sich gegen Banditen zur Wehr. Entwickelt wurde das Spiel von Paul Dennen, bekannt für erfolgreiche Titel wie „Clank!“. Es verbindet Drafting mit kniffligem Tile-Placement zu einem taktischen Erlebnis. Auf BoardGameGeek erreicht das Spiel eine Bewertung von 7,6: für Vielspieler:innen und Westernfans gleichermaßen ein Must Have!
1-5 Personen ab 13 Jahren / Spieldauer ca. 45-60 min / voraussichtlich ab Oktober
… und immer auf dem Laufenden!
Folge uns in den sozialen Netzwerken und verpasse keine Neuigkeiten!
The overall blog statistics are pretty meaningless – both last year and this year are skewed by WordPress sending my Farewell 2024 – Historical Fiction! post out to a bajillion people (from Dec 26 to Jan 8), which makes it easily the most popular post of each year (providing more than a fourth of my total views this year). If you factor that out, 2025 has been a good year on the blog, but slightly behind the (organic) record of 2023.
The posts doing particularly well have been the usual suspects, that is, the Most Anticipated Historical Board Games post in January, and the evergreen strategy posts for several games published over the last year. It was nice to see that a few of my research-intensive posts in the American Revolution and the Wallenstein series also did well.
Most of my readers come from the United States (also skewed by the Historical Fiction anomaly, but not entirely), as well as other Anglophone (UK, Canada, Australia) or European (Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and France) countries. Especially the Dutch have made a leap up… maybe because of my post on the history of Amsterdam? Welkom, anyway.
New arrivals in the top 10 of the countries from which most views stem are Sweden and Poland in a joint Baltic effort.
If you compare views with population numbers, there are possibly no more loyal readers of this blog than the fine people of Ireland, closely followed by Hong Kong, whose views eclipse those of huge countries like Japan, Brazil, or India. The Irish have been devoted to history, board games, and history in board games for some years now, for which I am grateful. The Hongkongers are new in their excitement for the blog – welcome! If you are from Hong Kong, leave a comment below!
I can only speculate what brought people to this blog (but maybe you can enlighten me with a comment, especially if read this blog, but don’t comment often or ever). Here is, however, what I think was the finest which I published this year – as per usual, with six instead of three entries, and without crowning a winner. Let’s go!
Most of the history articles on this blog are about what people in the past did – the politicians, merchants, soldiers of times past. Yet I also like to dwell on what they thought, and thus I’m very happy to have written this post on the political philosophy of the American Revolution, its core value of liberty, and the promise and limitation of that idea. It was also an opportunity to engage with the still-compelling documents of the Revolution – Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence.
It’s been a wild year politically. Almost forgotten by now is the Great Tariff Rollercoaster of April 2025, in which the American federal government announced tariffs on imports from almost all other countries and then engaged in a flurry of raising, lowering, and holding off on them that made everyone’s head spin. By now, the 145% tariff on Chinese goods imported by US buyers is long gone, but at the time it seemed like an existential threat to US board game companies manufacturing their games in China (so, almost all of them), and given that the current US administration will still be in office for another three years, one worth revisiting.
This blog often gives me the opportunity to learn about new subjects. Wallenstein was one of them. I approached the post about his life with not more than a general knowledge about his role in the Thirty Years’ War… and then was sucked into a research rabbit hole in which I read over 2,000 pages about the guy. The result is a four-part series and the longest, most detailed board game assisted biography I have ever written about anyone.
…and this blog also allows me to re-visit topics and games with which I have engaged for years (and sometimes decades) now. Frederick II of Prussia is such a person, and Friedrich (Richard Sivél, Histogame) such a game. Reflecting on their insights on Frederick’s campaigns, the command and control exercised, and Frederick’s psychology was a delight.
Amsterdam is one of the iconic cities of the world. It is a symbol of art, commerce, and progress, and unique in its canal-structured urban layout. Unsurprisingly, these characteristics have also inspired board game designers. I have told Amsterdam’s 750-year history through the lens of the many board games set in Amsterdam – which gives a glimpse into what the city stands for in the popular imagination. As both this and my earlier Venice post were so much fun to write, I should do more city histories!
One of my brighter new ideas was to link historical board games to period music. Of course, that works particularly well from the 20th century on – the age of the music record. I started with an immersive playlist for your next game of Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx), full of everything that was hot at the time – from traditional songs to jazz, from movie tunes to workers’ songs. It will surely not remain the only such playlist.
And thus concludes the year 2025 on this blog. I hope you had as much fun reading it as I had writing.
I wish you all an excellent year 2026, full of joy, health, and success!
The overall blog statistics are pretty meaningless – both last year and this year are skewed by WordPress sending my Farewell 2024 – Historical Fiction! post out to a bajillion people (from Dec 26 to Jan 8), which makes it easily the most popular post of each year (providing more than a fourth of my total views this year). If you factor that out, 2025 has been a good year on the blog, but slightly behind the (organic) record of 2023.
The posts doing particularly well have been the usual suspects, that is, the Most Anticipated Historical Board Games post in January, and the evergreen strategy posts for several games published over the last year. It was nice to see that a few of my research-intensive posts in the American Revolution and the Wallenstein series also did well.
Most of my readers come from the United States (also skewed by the Historical Fiction anomaly, but not entirely), as well as other Anglophone (UK, Canada, Australia) or European (Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and France) countries. Especially the Dutch have made a leap up… maybe because of my post on the history of Amsterdam? Welkom, anyway.
New arrivals in the top 10 of the countries from which most views stem are Sweden and Poland in a joint Baltic effort.
If you compare views with population numbers, there are possibly no more loyal readers of this blog than the fine people of Ireland, closely followed by Hong Kong, whose views eclipse those of huge countries like Japan, Brazil, or India. The Irish have been devoted to history, board games, and history in board games for some years now, for which I am grateful. The Hongkongers are new in their excitement for the blog – welcome! If you are from Hong Kong, leave a comment below!
I can only speculate what brought people to this blog (but maybe you can enlighten me with a comment, especially if read this blog, but don’t comment often or ever). Here is, however, what I think was the finest which I published this year – as per usual, with six instead of three entries, and without crowning a winner. Let’s go!
Most of the history articles on this blog are about what people in the past did – the politicians, merchants, soldiers of times past. Yet I also like to dwell on what they thought, and thus I’m very happy to have written this post on the political philosophy of the American Revolution, its core value of liberty, and the promise and limitation of that idea. It was also an opportunity to engage with the still-compelling documents of the Revolution – Common Sense and the Declaration of Independence.
It’s been a wild year politically. Almost forgotten by now is the Great Tariff Rollercoaster of April 2025, in which the American federal government announced tariffs on imports from almost all other countries and then engaged in a flurry of raising, lowering, and holding off on them that made everyone’s head spin. By now, the 145% tariff on Chinese goods imported by US buyers is long gone, but at the time it seemed like an existential threat to US board game companies manufacturing their games in China (so, almost all of them), and given that the current US administration will still be in office for another three years, one worth revisiting.
This blog often gives me the opportunity to learn about new subjects. Wallenstein was one of them. I approached the post about his life with not more than a general knowledge about his role in the Thirty Years’ War… and then was sucked into a research rabbit hole in which I read over 2,000 pages about the guy. The result is a four-part series and the longest, most detailed board game assisted biography I have ever written about anyone.
…and this blog also allows me to re-visit topics and games with which I have engaged for years (and sometimes decades) now. Frederick II of Prussia is such a person, and Friedrich (Richard Sivél, Histogame) such a game. Reflecting on their insights on Frederick’s campaigns, the command and control exercised, and Frederick’s psychology was a delight.
Amsterdam is one of the iconic cities of the world. It is a symbol of art, commerce, and progress, and unique in its canal-structured urban layout. Unsurprisingly, these characteristics have also inspired board game designers. I have told Amsterdam’s 750-year history through the lens of the many board games set in Amsterdam – which gives a glimpse into what the city stands for in the popular imagination. As both this and my earlier Venice post were so much fun to write, I should do more city histories!
One of my brighter new ideas was to link historical board games to period music. Of course, that works particularly well from the 20th century on – the age of the music record. I started with an immersive playlist for your next game of Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx), full of everything that was hot at the time – from traditional songs to jazz, from movie tunes to workers’ songs. It will surely not remain the only such playlist.
And thus concludes the year 2025 on this blog. I hope you had as much fun reading it as I had writing.
I wish you all an excellent year 2026, full of joy, health, and success!
The opening sequence of Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver depicts a New York with enough grit that you can feel it on your teeth. It’s a feral hour of the night. DeNiro’s sedan is cruising down a street awash in the radiant soul of the city. There’s a shot of the vehicle’s quarter panel. Beads of…
Looking for something comic related for that fan in your life for the holidays? Then consider the board game, Corps. of Discovery from Off the Page Games.
In this episode, Jamey Stegmaier and I chat about the various trends we’re seeing in the current game design landscape. We talk about solo and 2-player games, open worlds, licensed IPs, and more!
In this episode, Jamey Stegmaier and I chat about the various trends we’re seeing in the current game design landscape. We talk about solo and 2-player games, open worlds, licensed IPs, and more!
My game design book, Find the Fun, recently came out, and in this episode, I do a brief synopsis and give you the audio version of the first three chapters.
My game design book, Find the Fun, recently came out, and in this episode, I do a brief synopsis and give you the audio version of the first three chapters.
In this BGDL rewind from June of 2020, Corey Konieczka breaks down his entire design process.
Corey has several games ranked in the top 100 games of all time, and it was incredibly insightful to learn about how he brings a game to life. We chat about his path into the industry, his prototyping process, the challenges of working on IPs like Star Wars, when to walk away from a design, and more!
In this BGDL rewind from June of 2020, Corey Konieczka breaks down his entire design process.
Corey has several games ranked in the top 100 games of all time, and it was incredibly insightful to learn about how he brings a game to life. We chat about his path into the industry, his prototyping process, the challenges of working on IPs like Star Wars, when to walk away from a design, and more!
In this BGDL rewind from April of 2020, Ignacy Trzewiczek, founder of Portal Games and designer of Robinson Crusoe, discusses his company’s motto: Games that tell stories.
We go in-depth into Ignacy’s design process, talk about his most popular games, and get to the heart of what it looks like to create games that have players leaving the table with a story to tell.
In this BGDL rewind from April of 2020, Ignacy Trzewiczek, founder of Portal Games and designer of Robinson Crusoe, discusses his company’s motto: Games that tell stories.
We go in-depth into Ignacy’s design process, talk about his most popular games, and get to the heart of what it looks like to create games that have players leaving the table with a story to tell.
In this episode, I break down some game design productivity hacks that have been helping me lately, and I’m specifically talking about a concept called “habit fields.”
This was a presentation I gave recently for Board Game Design Pro, so if you find it useful and want more helpful content like it, be sure to check out BGDP here. You’ll find all sorts of skill sessions on designing, crowdfunding, and publishing games!
And if you use coupon code “33today” you’ll receive 33% off the membership price
Anmelden
