Trench Raid is a single-player game set on the Western Front in World War One. The player assembles a group of 10 raiders and plots their course on a map towards the enemy lines on the other side of No Man’s Land. With 12 different raid objectives and 20 random events that can take place during the crossing, no two playthroughs will be exactly the same.
The game also includes rules for campaign play — whether their raid was successful or not, the soldiers who make it back to their trench lines relatively unscathed will steadily get better at raiding, learning through experience how to survive.
During the summer of 2019, we were introduced to Maurice Suckling and his very interesting design Freeman’s Farm 1777 from Worthington Publishing and really enjoyed the mechanics and how they all came together to create an interactive and interesting look at the Battle of Saratoga during the American Revolution. I was very impressed with Maurice and his appraoch to design and we have followed him every since and played many of his great designs. including Hidden Strike: American Revolution, Chancellorsville 1863 and 1565 Siege of Malta and Crisis: 1914. In this entry in the Best 3 Games with…Series I wanted to highlight the games of Maurice Suckling and share those that I have had the best experience with.
3. Freeman’s Farm 1777 from Worthington Publishing
Freeman’s Farm 1777 is the first in the Battle Formations Series from Worthington Publishing that are designed for both solitaire and two players. The focus of the system is on the individual formations that appeared on the battlefield and places the players in the role of overall commander to make decisions about which formations to activate and how to use those formations to position themselves to attack the enemy. The key to these decisions is the morale of those formations as each command utilizes one of their levels of morale and if pushed too far, through attacking or being attacked, the formation will be forced to take a morale test to see if it will break.
There are a couple of things that I really liked about this one as I felt it told the story of the style of fighting of the time and incorporated some elements that were very important. This series has centered the focus on formations and how they can interact with each other on the battlefield. It simply looks at how the relative positioning of the formations opens up opportunities for attack or provides advantages or disadvantages to one side or the other. If you are above an enemy formation on high ground or have a superior firing angle on a formation in battle, shouldn’t you gain an advantage? And furthermore, if you are relatively inexperienced green forces and are facing the smoking gun barrels of your enemy’s cannons, don’t you think that your attempts to return fire will be less effective than if firing with hardened troops from cover? This spatial element is a major inclusion in the design and really feels right and makes your choices as commander that much more difficult as you decide how to activate your troops to take advantage of the situation. I really have enjoyed this spatial relationship during my plays of the game and think that the approach is very novel.
The other element that I really enjoyed was the concept of morale. The design has the player controlling several different Formation Cards that represent their troops on the battlefield and each has their own set of actions they are able to take. The key for these Formation Cards is that each time they are activated through the play of the corresponding Activation Card they have to pay for this activation. The payment comes in the form of paying 1 point of Morale from the Morale Track by moving the cube marker down one space. The formation may also lose Morale as they attack and are attacked throughout the game. The moment that a formation’s morale reaches 5 on the Morale Track they have to conduct a Morale Test to see if they will break and leave the field. This Morale Test is conducted by rolling a single d6 with any modifiers from Tactics Cards that the player controls and then comparing that result to the current Morale of the formation (i.e. where the Morale marker is currently on the Morale Track). If the die roll is higher than the marker location, the formation has failed the test and becomes broken. If the roll is equal to or less than the marker location, the formation passes the test and remains on the battlefield. Each successive reduction in the Morale of that formation will trigger another test which will be harder and harder to pass as the number decreases. Soldiers spend their strength and will to fight in each skirmish and as they are pushed more and more, and in the face of losses and exhaustion, reach a point where their will to fight is gone and they break. I like how the design dealt with this issue and it feels right.
The game uses wooden cubes, disks and sticks to mark formations on the board and it looks like those pictures in text books showing the location of troops during these historical battles. This was a nice thematic touch for me and helped me to get into the mind set of a Revolutionary War battle.
I wrote a series of Action Point posts covering the various aspects of the game. You can read those at the following links:
Action Point 1 – Game board that represents the locations and roles of both sides’ formations as well as their relative positions on the battlefield.
Action Point 2 – Formation Cards and how the Activation Cards are used to command and how Morale Tests work.
Action Point 3 – Momentum Cubes and how they are used to purchase the all important Tactics Cards.
Action Point 4 – Examples of combat and discuss the way the dice are used.
Here is a look at our video review of the game:
2. Chancellorsville 1863 from Worthington Publishing
While the next game on this list uses the same system, this entry in the series is definitely improved and matured and I very much liked the blind movement aspect which was added. Chancellorsville 1863 covers the Battle of Chancellorsville during the American Civil War using a similar system to Freeman’s Farm1777.
At the start of the game some units on each side are visible, which is mostly because they are adjacent (units adjacent to enemy units are always visible on the main map.) Other units are hidden, placed on spaces on their respective mini map hidden behind a screen, in one of a variety of spaces. The mini map is a smaller representation of the main map, with the same movement arrows and nexus points but with the same scale for ‘spaces’ so the same blocks fit on both maps. Each side has their own mini map. If units move into a space on the mini map that is adjacent to a space occupied by a unit on the main map, that unit becomes visible and is transferred to the main map.
There are also some spaces found deep inside the enemy’s lines of communication and moving onto those spaces on the mini map compels an immediate transfer to the main map. In addition, there are some spaces where the lead Union units are visible. This represents Jeb Stuart’s cavalry tracking the Union advance on the Confederate left. This added aspect really makes the game and creates a sense of tension for the players as they simply don’t know where all of the enemy units are located and have to play for those units coming up on their rear even as they are engaged in major battles along the front lines.
Activations are also slightly different from the Freeman’s Farm game as each side only has 15 activations per game but each activation card identifies at least 2 commanders to activate and move. This is very necessary because the Union side has more units to move, and farther to move them to put pressure on objective locations. This has been balanced with the addition of fortifications that allow the defender to set one die per combat at the number desired. This makes for some very interesting decisions about whether to attack or not and how. I have really enjoyed this one as the system is obviously evolving and introducing new elements. I am glad that the designer has decided to take the system to the next level as there are lots of opportunities and applications to various battles for the system.
Crisis: 1914 is a game of international brinkmanship meaning if you back down too soon, you lose. If you back down too late you lose. But you have hawks and doves in your cabinet and in your government, and out of these conflicting views you must somehow formulate a coherent response to the crisis to win the day and prevent war. The game is played with players building a tableau of event cards that will score them a certain number of points, some building off of each of the type of cards played, with some of the cards increasing the Tension level of Europe at the time. If the Tension gets too high The Great War will break out and the player causing it by the play of a card will lose with the others winning based on their total Prestige Points. It sounds really simple, and the game is not overly complex, but there is a lot of strategy to how you play your cards, when you play them and how are you are willing to push your luck each round.
There are 3 concepts at the heart of Crisis: 1914 including Prestige, Tension and Diplomatic Pressure. Diplomatic Pressure is how you score Prestige and reflects the skill at which you play your cards to keep your faction moving ahead of the others while simultaneously balancing the level of Tension. Tension is how you lose. Every card has a DP value and you apply DP by playing cards. The player with the most Diplomatic Pressure at the end of a turn earns Prestige points. There are other ways of scoring Prestige points too, but this is the most important one. Prestige is how you win. The player with the most Prestige at the end of the game is the winner.
I have played this one 3 times now and and I cannot wait for the next opportunity to play. It is best with 5-players so make sure you get the right group and give yourselves a chance to really learn the game as each faction’s deck is completely asymmetrical and repeated plays will help you understand each faction’s strengths and strategies. While this game is not necessarily a wargame, but more of a war themed Euro game with a bit of negotiation and tension as you build your tableau of cards, we had a great time with it and really feel that the game is a bit under the radar of folks and should be one of those games that is played at conventions as it seats up to 5 players and is really quite good.
Here is a link to a RAW video we did after our 2nd play while attending Buckeye Game Fest in 2024:
There you have it. My Best 3 Games with…Designer Maurice Suckling! He has done so many good games and the narrative and historical immersion of all of them are top notch. He is definitely a designer to keep an eye on and I know that he has multiple games currently in design including Rebellion: Britannia from GMT Games, Peace 1905 from Fort Circle Games (we played a prototype of this one at SDHistCon a few years ago and it is top notch) and The Emperor’s Choice from Worthington Publishing (I played a short game of this at WBC and it is very good).
What are your favorite games from Maurice Suckling?
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#98: The Balkan Wars from Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations
Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 is a massive card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games, which are both grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The game is quite grand and ambitious as it covers 70 years near the end of the Victorian Era and the Progressive Ear and sees quite a lot of global change and competition between the great powers of the time. The game is a Card Driven Game and uses Action Cards as a type of currency to spend for their Command Points or the printed event to take actions such as recruiting armies and navies, industrialize, moving fleets and armies around the globe, influencing minor powers and establish colonies in Africa, India and the Pacific Ocean. The cards are all tied to the history of the period but the game can be played very much as a sandbox allowing players to explore strategies by trailblazing new horizons or following history.
Before we dive into today’s chosen card The Balkan Wars, I want to first make sure you know about Mandatory Event Cards in the game and how they work as they work slightly differently from normal Action Cards. Mandatory Event Cards are all lime green colored and bear a large block “M” just under the CP Value listed in the upper left hand corner. Mandatory Events, as the name suggests, must be played for their events. However, when playing a Mandatory Event Card, players trigger the event and also receive the CP to spend on various actions. The events on Mandatory Event Cards are always resolved first before the CP are utilized. If a Mandatory Event Card is discarded, the event will immediately trigger. There is no way around these cards and they are included in the game to drive the action historically and interject the various special circumstances that drove the rise and decline of these Victorian Age empires. The player that discarded the card resolves the event as if they were the active player. If two such Mandatory Event Cards are discarded in the same impulse the events are resolved in turn order.
Some of the events that occurred historically prior to 1914 were ultimately precursors to The Great War in many ways. The Balkan Wars were two conflicts fought in 1912 and 1913 that stripped the Ottoman Empire of almost all its remaining European territory and directly set the stage for World War I. The Balkan Wars saw similar levels of carnage as machine guns and artillery equipped with hydraulic recoil mechanisms were used in large numbers. Politically, they highlight the volatile nature of international politics in the Balkan Peninsula and are included as a Mandatory Event to ultimately drive up the World Tension Track on a path toward the outbreak of World War I. When played, the World Tension Track will increase by +1 and if the Ottoman player controls any territory in the Balkans other than Istanbul, or has Diplomatic Influence with countries, they will have a chance to lose their control there as a result of the chaos of the First and Second Balkan Wars. If these checks fail, and they will incur a -1 DRM for each Ottoman Army that is located anywhere in the Balkans, non-player armies will be placed in those locations and will increase the difficulty for the Ottomans to gain a foothold in this area. According to the designer Michael Lorino, mechanically this event causes all kinds of trouble in the Balkans, as intended. Similar to the Mandatory Event Card Empire of the Sun, the original event was a bit more involved and had players fight an actual war. In an effort to keep the game in the playable zone, he decided to abstract these wars through a die roll.
I very much enjoy the concept of a Mandatory Event, although they are never convenient for someone at the table as they typically have negative effects for at least 1 faction. But I very much like the approach taken here with The Balkan Wars with the -1 DRM for control of a territory and its thematic connection with the Ottoman Empire’s presence in the region generating tension and setting off these Balkan Wars.
A Bulgarian postcard depicting the Battle of Lule Burgas.
The Balkan Wars were two conflicts that took place in the Balkan states in 1912 and 1913. In the First Balkan War, the four Balkan states of Greece, Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria declared war upon the Ottoman Empire and defeated it, in the process stripping the Ottomans of their European provinces, leaving only Eastern Thrace under Ottoman control. In the Second Balkan War, Bulgaria fought against the other four combatants of the first war. It also faced an attack from Romania from the north. As a result of these wars, the Ottoman Empire lost the bulk of its territory in Europe. Although not involved as a combatant, Austria-Hungary became relatively weaker as a much enlarged Serbia pushed for union of the South Slavic peoples. The Balkan Wars set the stage for the July Crisis of 1914 and was a prelude to the First World War.
We have put out several pieces of content covering Imperial Elegy and find it to be a fantastic game. These include written posts and videos. You can visit those by following the links below:
Unboxing Video:
Video Review:
Summary of Solitaire Bots presented by our friend James:
Dogfight 1917 (2025, Arcane Wonders) has a lot going for it…as long as you play it as a free-for-all variant with a full complement of four players. There are cool biplane (and in the case of the Red Baron, a triplane!) miniatures, play time is speedy and mechanics are simple: fly at the other fighters to maneuver into the best positions to damage enemies just enough to make them run out of action cards, a deck which also serves as a player’s health meter.
20 action cards is all a player gets for the entire game to fly, maneuver in and out of harm’s way, and put bullets into the rear of a bad guy. Two of those 20 cards are single-use, meaning they are removed completely from the game after being played. (Those two cards are the same for each player’s deck, but other cards come with slight nuances that make each fighter’s deck unique.) With limited options to add cards back into each deck, a game of Dogfight 1917 might only last for 20-30 minutes.
Tactical tokens can be acquired through those single-use cards, via die roll bonuses on other action cards, or by finishing turns on certain spaces of the very small map representing the skies of World War I. You’ve got real-life pilots, ways to…
With this My Favorite Wargame Cards Series, I hope to take a look at a specific card from the various wargames that I have played and share how it is used in the game. I am not a strategist and frankly I am not that good at games but I do understand how things should work and be used in games. With that being said, here is the next entry in this series.
#92: Castelnau and Voie Sacrée from Verdun 1916: Steel Inferno from Fellowship of Simulations
Over the past several years, we have played quite a few World War I games with our focus on the Guns of August events every summer. We have really played some fantastic games including some of the true classics on the genre such as Paths of Glory from GMT Games and The Lamps are Going Out from Compass Games but also some real hidden gems like At All Costs from Hollandspiele, Devil Dogs from Worthington Publishing and Decisive Victory 1918: Soissons from Legion Wargames. A game that we very much liked was Verdun 1916: Steel Infernofrom Fellowship of Simulations. The game is a Card Driven Game that uses cards with events and operation points to tell the grim story of the year long fighting around the French city of Verdun. The game uses a bucket of dice approach to the initial bombardments in a battle and then players choose whether to follow that with an infantry assault that doesn’t use any dice to determine hits. The game is very much a wargame but I think the cover highlights a key fact about the game by calling it a “Strategy Game” namely that it is a game as there are wildly powerful events based in history, with lots of dependence on dice not just for bombardments but also for playing certain offensives Event Cards where Victory Points are earned based on the higher numbers rolled. The game is very well done, is truly interesting and surprisingly deep with its tactical choices and decisions.
Some cards cannot be played as an Event until a specific named card has been played by the player. This is indicated on the card with a small “requires” box above the title of the card which shows the card that must already be in play as a Permanent Event to allow the new event to be triggered. Also, these Required Cards also have a small “combo” box above the title of the card to remind players which card they will allow to be played as a Permanent Event. Sometimes this concept of Combos must be planned for and may take a few rounds to get lined up to be able to play.
A perfect example of this is the Castelnau/Voie Sacrée Combo. Castelnau is an Event Card that must be played down on the table as a Permanent Event and is available during Turns 1 and 2. Once it is played, then that unlocks the play of Voie Sacrée and allows a very powerful Combo to go into effect by allowing the French player to place 12 units into the En Route Box on the board meaning they will be available for placement during the next Turn. This is so very powerful as in order to get that many units to use, the French player has to sacrifice a total of 12 VP (1 VP per unit added as Reinforcements). With this Combo, you sacrifice no VP’s and get 12 units to place on the board to plug the inevitable holes that will be created by the powerful German Barrages and assaults. There are other Combos as well including several specified Offensives (Russian Offensives and the Somme Offensive) that take several Turns to accomplish with multiple cards to get an opportunity to roll dice to gain VP’s. This was a very novel idea for the CDG mechanic and really worked well to create some portion of the game that required planning and an investment.
The Voie Sacrée, which is French for Sacred Way or Sacred Road, is a road that connects Bar-le-Duc to Verdun, France. It was given its name because of the vital role it played during the Battle of Verdun in World War I. After March 1916, along the 45 miles of the Voie Sacrée, transport vehicles were on the move day and night, ferrying troops, armaments, and supplies to the Verdun battlefield. During the initial crisis of February 21st through March 22nd, 600 trucks per day had already delivered 48,000 tons of ammunition, 6,400 tons of other materiel and 263,000 men to the battlefield. Beginning on February 21st, all horse-drawn traffic and troop movements on foot had been ordered off the road, leaving it open for truck and motorcar traffic only. After March 1916, one truck passed every 14 seconds, submitting the road to considerable wear and tear. Quarries had to be opened nearby to supply the road with crushed stone. Over the course of ten months, 16 labour battalions worked to keep the road in good shape and order. The road had been recognised since 1915 as the only reliable vehicular road that remained in existence to supply Verdun safely. All the standard-gauge railway lines that could reach Verdun had already been interrupted by German forces in late 1914. To compensate for this precarious situation, the road had been widened to 23 ft during 1915, so it could accommodate the continuous up and down flow of two lines of truck traffic. This preemptive roadway improvement in 1915, plus success in organizing the transport system on the road (a mission supervised by Colonel Maurice de Barescut, the Chief of Staff of the French Second Army), is what ultimately saved Verdun in 1916.
The Voie Sacrée still exists, but it has been paved over and is now an active secondary road. In 2006, the route was renumbered RD1916, a reference to the road’s most critical year. From 1923, the Voie Sacrée was marked by a borne every kilometer along the route. Each borne is topped with a sculpture of an Adrian helmet, the helmet worn by French soldiers during the Battle of Verdun.
The town hall in the village of Souilly, on the Voie Sacrée, served as headquarters to Generals Philippe Pétain and Robert Nivelle during the Battle of Verdun. A large, well-preserved, two-story stone building fronting on the Voie Sacrée, the Souilly town hall is still in official use today. Several plaques on its facade remind the visitor of the historic role it played in 1916 during the Battle of Verdun and, later in 1918, during the Meuse–Argonne offensive.
During the First World War, the British and French made a secret agreement to carve up the Ottoman Empire – literally drawing on a map in red and blue ink – without respect to the peoples, culture, or history of the region. This would have devastating effects over the next century.
In Sykes-Picot, two players take on the roles of infamous diplomats Mark Sykes and Francois Georges-Picot, using red and blue markers to carve out territories to control and to influence on a dry-erase map. Trick-taking card play and table-talk negotiations drive the proceedings, with the winner of each trick choosing one of the two cards to implement, and the loser consoling themselves with the remaining card. Each player has a set of hidden objectives they’re trying to achieve. Players may be as co-operative or as competitive as they wish in pursuit of these goals.
Tonally, the game is light, reflecting the distance and cavalier attitude of these imperialist powers. We feel there’s something horrifying in that, and this approach captures some of that horror.
I think that every single wargamer knows the name Volko Ruhnke. He has designed several great series in the COIN Series, that has now stretched to a full 15 volumes, and then more recently Levy & Campaign Series, which has an astounding 5 released volumes with several others that are announced and about a dozen more in design. He can make a good game for sure! One of our first experiences in wargaming and the first Volko design we played was Wilderness War. He is now at it again with a new design in a continuing newer series called the Recon Series that uses hide and seek elements and hidden blocks to tell the story of the Allied intelligence efforts during World War I during the campaigns around Verdun in 1916. The game is called Drachen: Reconnaissance at Verdun, 1916 and looks to be very interesting and we reached out to Volko to get a look into the design.
Grant: Volko welcome back to the blog. What is your new upcoming game Drachen about?
Volko: Hi Grant & Alex! Thank you for this opportunity. I love what you guys do.
Drachen continues my new Recon Series, following on to the series’ recently released first volume, Coast Watchers. Volume II – Drachen – is about the struggle for reconnaissance information in a World War I trench battles, specifically, Verdun in 1916.
Grant: What does the title mean and why did you want to use it for this game?
Volko: “Drachen” means “kite” in German and is simply short for “Drachenballon” – kite balloon. The tethered observation balloons famous as targets for balloon-busting fighter aeroplane missions were really the queens of the battlefield in their ability to see what the enemy was up to and guide artillery fire onto enemy targets. They were in effect hydrogen filled kites in that they faced into the wind for stability. On a clear day, even a windy one, a spotter with binoculars in a kite balloon could provide information on enemy movements and positions up to 15 miles away. Tethered to the ground, unlike observer aeroplanes with either no radio or early transmitters only, balloons had instant and secure communications with friendly headquarters or batteries to coordinate fire.
Grant: This is Volume II in the Recon Series. Why does this subject fit your vision for the series?
Volko: I’m looking for the Series to visit settings in which secrets and their discovery really mattered to the outcome of a conflict. The advent of trench warfare on the Western Front was a remarkable moment in land battle because the age-old means of reconnaissance – the horseman – could no longer roam. For the first time, you would know nothing of the enemy beyond the next ridge unless you got up in the air. We gamers have tended to focus on ace-versus-ace duels in the sky. I wanted to explore what all the dogfighting was really about: winning the right to peer down upon your enemy.
Grant: How has your experience with series games assisted you in the development of this Recon Series?
Volko: OK, that’s a big question! I do try to learn, and I have developed some principles for series design:
1) Openness – Make room for other designers to take the series where you never imagined.
2) Complexity – Bigger is not always better. I wrote about this in depth in C3i Nr29.
3) Variety – Make it familiar, not samey. I wrote about that in C3i Nr30.
Regarding variety within a series, it helps to articulate a focus to guide selection of topics, what you keep the same, and what you vary for each setting.
For the COIN Series, that was the premise that counterinsurgency and other popular conflicts were multifactional, that factional relations were key.
For Levy & Campaign, it was that medieval warfare was equally complex as modern but in distinct ways, especially regarding command and logistics.
For the Recon Series, then, it is that secret information – which side protects it or discovers it better – can decide the outcome, at least for certain conflicts.
That said, for me, principle 1) above trumps the other two. Other designers certainly have taken COIN and Levy & Campaign to places beyond my original intent. I hope the same for the Recon Series.
Regarding “bigger is not better” for Drachen in particular, that meant being sure that Volume II did not just add subsystems like more ornaments on a Christmas tree. Rather, I try to drop something unneeded out for every new thing added in. For example, Drachen gets much deeper into resolution of combat than does Coast Watchers, but then Drachen has a much simpler resolution of who won the struggle: just most of 3 Objective cards fulfilled, rather than Volume I’s “victory point salad”.
To keep Drachen “familiar but not samey”, we keep not only the location blocks and open versus secret spotting but also two chit cups for resolution, for example. Where Coast Watchers has Delivery and Patrol cups, Drachen features Air and Group cups to resolve clashes in…well, you can guess where for each.
Grant: What did you need to make sure to model from aerial reconnaissance in WWI?
Volko: The key historical dynamics that I was able to find and felt were important to incorporate in the game include:
The main purpose of fighter aeroplane engagements as clearing the way for friendly observers and countering enemy observers.
The difference between just spotting something and being able to loiter long enough to cooperate with guns or take photos.
Which observation activity would be known to the enemy and which would be secret.
The importance of attrition in aircraft to observation dominance.
Grant: What sources did you consult to get the historical details correct? What one must-read source would you recommend?
Volko: I scarfed up all I could about Great War trench warfare in general, including the nature and use of observation balloons, how aeroplanes cooperated with artillery, the purposes of trench raids, and so on. Naturally, I particularly dug into how things worked in the Battle of Verdun, which was a great learning laboratory for both sides.
My two key secondary sources were The First Air Campaign by Eric and Jane Lawson, which discusses the evolution of air power in World War I and the special juncture that Verdun was in its development, and Alistaire Horne’s The Price of Glory, still for me the best of the several English-language works on the iconic battle.
Grant: What is your overall design goal and thesis with Drachen?
Volko: The design goal is to take apart how reconnaissance worked in trench battles, with the premise that winning the reconnaissance struggle set up the possibility of winning the kinetic part, the fire and assault.
Grant: Why do you feel that blocks and chit pull are the best ways to tell this story?
Volko: Blocks are an age-old but powerful way to manage secret information on the tabletop, without writing or referees. The Recon Series uses blocks in a new way: not as units that the opponent can see massing and moving across the map but as location information about which you start out seeing nothing and have to act to gain any knowledge of.
Chit pull gives me as designer an ability unparalleled by dice to subtly manipulate probabilities – and to give the players abilities to influence those probabilities – in a relatively simple and inexpensively produced way.
Grant: What other mediums did you consider or explore?
Volko: One question was whether to use “record” markers for players to log what they find. The Japanese player in Coast Watchers has such markers on the board as reminders of what is known of Allied blocks that have stood up hidden again.
In Drachen, there is even more to keep track of: various sizes and types of units and fortifications. And some of what players spot they do so secretly. So Drachen provides a record sheet reproducing the battlefield in miniature, but with room to take notes, plus screens to hide that record, if players want to use them. I considered providing record markers to place on the sheet, but the variety of items to spot mean that it would have been a mess, a big pile of counters to sort through – not worth it when a pencil works fine!
Grant: What different units are available to the players?
Volko: Here is a look at the blocks and counters, including the units represented. By the way, no real art exists yet – these are just my homemade prototypes.…
The standup blocks represent the guns, soldiers, fortifications, and depots that fight out the duels between gun batteries and the offensive’s barrage and assault. They build up hidden and are the targets for enemy observation missions. Positioning your hidden blocks will be critical both to make them harder to spot and to get the best use out of them in your plan for combat.
The counters represent those forces carrying out or supporting reconnaissance. They build up openly on the battlefield, except for anti-aircraft emplacements that may be AA sections or just harmless trucks. (Other counters here are markers that support various missions and actions.)
Grant: What is the role of Depots?
Volko: Depot blocks – if they survive unsuppressed – during the offensive resupply guns to fire again or fire at double strength. If the attacker exploits an advance, the depots refill and can again supply guns.
Grant: What are the All Quiet blocks and what do they represent from history?
Volko: “All Quiet” blocks (also nicknamed “trees”) represent just the usual presence of defenses at a side’s positions. So they do not mean empty, rather nothing special to see and shoot at. There are some troops garrisoning the line in what are probably battered trench works, perhaps some wire or field guns. If attacked, at least a few machineguns hidden there will answer.
Grant: What different air assets are available to players?
Volko: The workhouse in the air is the “Air Patrol” – either single or group, the latter more effective but uses up more airframes. Each player has a supply of Air Patrols at their aerodromes (on their mat) and sends them on specific fighter and observer missions or puts them into the Air Cup to add generally to the density of friendly aircraft prowling and protecting the skies over Verdun. Air Patrols suffer loss in action, so you can run out if you don’t manage the air battle carefully, potentially requiring you to recall counters from the cup or the map.
Of course we have balloons too, aloft over friendly positions behind the front line. Enemy balloon-busting fighter missions can destroy them or, more commonly, force them to lower. As noted above, these Drachen are highly effective observers, in the game reaching out to a distance of 4 positions, spotting secretly – you won’t know where your opponent’s balloons are looking unless they range guns in on your blocks – and unlike aeroplane observers automatically succeed in spotting their targets.
On the ground but protecting your balloons and blocks against enemy Air Patrols, you get antiaircraft emplacements – “AA Sections” or dummy “Trucks”. These will make any enemy air missions at or adjacent to them more dangerous. They also occasionally can cause a loss among your own nearby defensive air patrols, representing friendly fire.
The counters for Balloons and AA Emplacements are round to signify that these units can built up, adjusted, and used for free – whereas use of Air Patrols and trench raiders cost actions.
Grant: How are the serial assets used to perform recon? How does this work?
Volko: As reconnaissance and the efforts of fighters to stop it are the focus of the sim, most Air Missions as well as Trench Raids use an articulated chit-pull procedure accounting for a wide range of circumstances.
On the Air Missions table, you can see that we account for the presence of the enemy’s defensive Patrols and AA, how deep behind enemy lines you are flying, whether you are using an Air Group, and how many enemy chits you are likely to draw.
Various Asset cards, like “Boelke & Immelmann”, can further affect these results.
Grant: Why do you feel this is so important to the game?
Volko: Most trench warfare games either focus on the assault by infantry and perhaps tanks or cover the air duels going on overhead. But before those assaults and the barrages supporting them kick off, there would have been a critical period in which the sides were struggling to figure out what the enemy was up to and where they were massed. And that is when most of those aerial dogfights would be going on. Drachen pulls all that together to try to illuminate just HOW reconnaissance got done and would then set the course of a “big push”.
Grant: What is the layout of the game board and the purpose of the different shaped fortifications?
Volko: The game board shows the battlefield of Verdun. Area spaces, called “positions”, each hold a single block hiding the forces or fortifications there.
Terrain is either Lowland, Hill, or Fort – the latter effectively on hills too but tougher to crack. Hills and Forts enable guns on them to shoot a little farther, are harder to take by infantry assault, and often are the very targets that the attacker is assigned to seize.
A road and rail network spans the battlefield. Its effect is to limit where depots can be built up.
Land and Meuse River segments separate the positions. Little wooden stick pieces will mark the front along these segments. Positions group into sectors, such as “Left French”, to guide setup and solo play.
A final feature of the map positions is that some are observation posts. They function much like balloons but with far more limited reach, and they can be suppressed by artillery fire.
Grant: What is the general Sequence of Play?
Volko: In each of between 2 and 4 turns total, each side first builds up forces (blocks and counters). Buildup limits are most lenient on Turn I, so players generally need to set a plan of attack or defense then and just adjust positioning on later turns. On Turn II and thereafter, revealed (face up) blocks hide again (stand back up) unless suppressed by enemy fire or under loitering air surveillance. On Turn III and IV – if the attacker has not yet launched an offensive – the defender receives reinforcement in the form of an added block.
The main part of the turn follows buildup, “Reconnaissance” activity by Fighters then Observers. That includes mounting defensive “Barrier Patrols” and offensive “Jagd” against enemy Air Patrols plus Balloon Busting, then Aerial Observation, Trench Raids, and spotting by Balloons and OPs.
After that, the sides will exchange “Directed Fire” by their guns onto previously “Ranged” targets. Or, on Turn II or later, the attacker can instead launch the offensive that will resolve the game.
Grant: How is victory achieved?
Volko: After the offensive, or after Turn IV in the rare case that the attacker never launches one, Victory depends on who has fulfilled more of their 3 drawn Objective Cards.
Grant: What are the purpose of the Attacker & Defender Objective Cards?
Volko: The simulation premise of the Objective Cards is that reconnaissance is trying not only to discover where the enemy is but what they are up to – what matters to them? Will the attack go for a breakthrough, or are they just trying to pin our forces in place and divert our attention from some other part of the front? Or even less, are they for now just trying to grind down our forces and soften up our fortifications? Is the defender set to hold everything at all cost? Or do they just want to bloody us as we advance?
A second set of questions concerns how big an enemy buildup we are dealing with. The Objective Cards give players more robust forces to carry out the more ambitious task. So that too is an essential element of information that reconnaissance is trying to gauge – what are we up against?
The Objective Cards provide a neat and easy way to set out that secret information. Through recon successes, such as finding out how your enemy’s fortifications or troops are deployed, you can discern what your opponent’s cards may be. And if you invest in trench raiding, your raiders might reveal one or more enemy Objectives for certain.
Grant: What are the various hidden objectives?
Volko: Attacker and Defender each draw 3 cards from up to 9 Objective Cards, most of which are unique tasks hidden from the opponent. Each card not only sets out a task to be achieved but also provides added blocks to that side’s “Reserves” and specifies a number of blocks that the player can build up on the map on Turn I.
One twist is that you don’t have to use a card’s specified forces for that task: the blocks just add to your total available.
A second twist is that particularly successful trench raids can obtain “Plans” that reveal your opponent’s Objective Cards to you: potentially highly useful, as you win not only by achieving your own Objectives but by impeding your enemy’s.
Grant: What different types of these cards are there?
Volko: There is a separate set each for Attacker and Defender. In sets of 3, they go from least to most ambitious/robust, for the Attacker, “Preparation”, “Push”, “All-Out Attack”; for the Defender, “Retrenchment”, “Attrition”, “They Shall Not Pass”. Different scenarios then might limit some of these sets for one or the other side to reflect that stage in the longer Battle of Verdun.
As you can see by the examples, the cards are specific as to their tasks and forces. Generally, the Attacker is either destroy certain defenses, mount strong attacks, or take key positions. The Defender generally is to hold key positions or destroy substantial attacking forces.
Grant: How do players go about accomplishing these?
Volko: A key premise of the game is that reconnaissance success unlocked success of an offensive push. So in the game, you won’t earn VP or whatever for how you run your reconnaissance effort. Rather, knowing what your enemy has where – and “Ranging” those targets for accurate fire by your gun – will set up the combat success that you will need to fulfill more of your own Objectives.
But you will need to add to that skillful positioning of your forces and fortifications to make use of the information that you gather, and then the right decisions when and where to uncover your guns to fire or send your infantry waves into assaults and counter-assaults.
So the game is about reconnaissance but also how that feeds into running trench war combat.
Grant: What challenges does each side face in their objectives?
Volko: Since fulfilling your Objectives flows from how you handle the entire Sequence of Play, they really distill all the game’s challenges. But specific challenges to do with the cards include that the easier tasks come with skinnier forces to fight with, and that you start out unaware of what your opponents Objectives are. That latter can be critical, as even decent performance against the goals in front of you may not be enough to win if your opponent does even better at their secret tasks.
Grant: How do offensives work?
Volko: When the Attacker decides to launch the Offensive, both sides first get to recover some of their suppressed positions. Then each side’s guns, Attacker first, can “Barrage” to suppress enemy positions without needing Ranging by observers, just using more shells. Then each side can “Bombard” Ranged targets to Suppress them more efficiently or destroy them outright (as in the earlier “Directed Fire” phase).
Then players place “Wave” markers to commit where infantry Assaults and counterattacks will occur. For the Attacker, these will attempt to take the defender’s frontline positions. Those get resolved rather simply, including a draw from the Ground cup to give at least some chance for a weaker attack or defense to succeed.
If any such Assault does succeed in taking ground, the attacker may “Exploit” – meaning one more round of Artillery and Infantry combat, usually to try to seize a 2nd-Line position.
Grant: How many players is the game designed for? Is there a solitaire mode?
Volko: Drachen is a 2-player game. A larger number of players, divided into 2 teams, has worked well at the many demos that I have done.
There is a solitaire mode that enables a solo player to take the Attacking side in all the scenarios, whether German or French. It uses instructions and scenario setups found in the Playbook, a “Defenses” display to guide hidden block buildup, and a deck of 18 “Army HQ” Cards to help run Defender actions.
Grant: What opportunities for deception and signaling are there?
Volko: Great question! A point of the Recon Series is to feature not only secret information but both open and secret collection of that information – in part to enhance such opportunities for deceptive signals.
In Drachen, you will have plenty of secret information about which to mislead your opponent. And, critically, you will have potentially or automatically open information that you can transit selectively in order to mislead. Some ideas…in the game, you can:
Put a few Soldiers to get spotted where you do not intend to assault, or fortifications that suggest Objectives that you did not draw.
Range targets that you cannot actually or do not intend to Bombard.
Deploy air defenses in areas that are unimportant to you.
And so on. Circumstances and your imaginings are the only limits!
Grant: What do you feel the game models well?
Volko: I am quite pleased with how the flow of the game models trench warfare’s set-piece buildups, the contest for control of the skies, the danger and importance of busting balloons and launching trench raids, the tit-for-tat artillery duels, including the danger of firing and exposing your batteries too soon, and more. In short, Drachen plays out on the table my mental model of WWI trench battles.
Grant: What are you most pleased about with the design?
Volko: The biggest thrill for me is that the design has held the interest of a talented corps of testers for many moons and many plays – and that it seems to get universally positive reactions at con demos. Ted Raicer has done wonders to bring out the fascinating aspects of the Great War, but even now trench battles don’t get the spotlight among us wargamers that I feel they warrant. And Verdun does not even have British or Americans (outside some volunteer fliers). So I’m proud that Drachen is adding to our hobby’s examination of WWI’s Western Front in between the famous mobile phases of 1914 and 1918.
Grant: What other designs are you contemplating or already working on in this series?
Volko: I already have a playable prototype for Volume III, and it even has seen some playtests. I call it Masher and it is set in Vietnam. Perhaps a topic for another visit here!
Thanks again for this opportunity to talk about the Recon Series!
I think that this new series, and this game particularly, look really interesting and I am all in on the subject matter and the approach. Also, the game offers 8 main scenarios and a solo learning situation spanning German and French offensives within the titanic 10-month Battle of Verdun. I did just receive my copy of Volume I in the Recon Series called Coast Watchers but have not had a change to get it to the table as of yet. I will rectify that sooner rather than later.
If you are interested in Drachen: Reconnaissance at Verdun, 1916, you can pre-order a copy for $79.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1162-drachen.aspx
I am nearing the end of my time here at WBC and I’m starting to get a bit sad. I have tomorrow but I will be leaving 1 day early on Saturday and just am not ready for it to be over. I have had a great time, played a lot of games, 13 by my count, and also seen old friends and made new ones. I have also done 6 videos but have had some technical difficulties with the camera as the batteries keep prematurely dying even though they have been fully charged. Bit I have made great memories and I am happy with that.
Today, we got in a full 6-player game of the excellent Imperial Elegy from VUCA Simulations. Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 is a card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare, and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games. Grand scale sweeping epics that play multiplayers and take a day to play. Players play as 1 of 6 unique major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire.
The game is somewhat of a sandbox style game as you have so many options and choices about what to do during the course of the game. Obviously, your faction has some direction about what you should be doing but really it is up the player to spend their resources how they will to accomplish their ultimate goals and score Victory Points. I truly love that aspect about this game and as we played we saw that sandbox and the asymmetry between the various factions. Particularly at the start, each country has some specific goals that they have drawn from the National Goals Deck that are a source of Victory Points, in fact a major source of Victory Points, and players will need to prioritize these cards and decide which ones to attempt to go after from the start. With only 7 turns, they will have to make progress on these National Goals if they have any hope of actually achieving them.
I have now played 3 times and very much like the grand scale of the game. It is a tad long, todays game took us about 11 hours to play, and I am starting to have concerns with the ability of France and Germany to team up and dominate the game and the Great War. I played as France today and did fairly well scoring 9 VP’s from my National Goals and doing really well in Africa and Asia with colonies as well as breaking into Mexico. I was getting 8 cards near the end of the game because I had done well in my colonial keys and my stability. This gave me lots of options with my cards and I also built up a sizeable army with 5 full Armies on the board and 5 reserve armies with 5 squadrons on the high seas and several naval bases in the east, Africa and the Mediterranean.
I think the game is a tad bit long. This is because players have at least 5-7 cards each and the Battles are very long and are their own little sideshow with a war budget and multiple movements and attacks allowed. I like the game. Love it in fact but am beginning to think it is just going to be hard to get to the table often. Here I Stand is similar in scope and scale and uses the same system but can be played in 6-9 hours versus 10-14 hours for IE.
In the end, France, Germany and the Ottomans were teamed in the Triple Entente while UK and Russia formed the Triple Alliance even though Austria and Italy were left out in the cold. The TE won the game as they just had too much muscle. I look forward to the next time I can play but it might be a while.
I was then able to watch a few minutes of play of the new upcoming Here I Stand Series game called TheNight Watch: European Global Conflicts 1618-1648 from GMT Games, which focuses on the Thirty Years War. Just a prototype of the game but it looks epic and those playing seemed to enjoy it!
I was able to then go down to the vendor hall and bought quite a few games including The Alamo from Art of Wargames (solitaire), Sails at War from B2M Games, Year of the Rat Vietnam 1972 Deluxe Edition from Decision Games, Fortress of Oblivion from White Dog Games (solitaire), Le Conqueste from White Dog Games (solitaire), Model’s Counterattack from Dissimula Edizioni, On To Berlin from Multi-Man Publishing and Strike Counter Strike from Multi-Man Publishing. I was gifted a new copy of Assault Red Horizon ‘41 Revised Edition from Assault Games. Lots of great stuff to explore over the next several months.
I then met up with Bob Tkach designer of the upcoming Above the Trenches: The Fokker Scourge 1915-1917 from Flying Pig Games coming to Kickstarter this fall. This is a 2-player aerial dogfighting wargame that combines tactical, operational, and strategic elements of World War I air combat on the Western Front into a fast playing and fun game. The game focuses on the early years of WWI aerial warfare and the German-versus-British air battles.
The players will have to deal with the strategic board that has sector based objectives that will provide Victory Points and then place out their air units on the operational board where they will focus on height and positioning of observation balloons and fighters to protect them and finally will duel using cards on the innovative and very interesting combat wheel system for tactical positioning.
The players will draw a hand of technology cards, maneuver cards, speed cards and ace cards that all have numbers and some written events and will then play them to move the plane counter around the wheel and its various areas to take shots with front or rear based guns, avoid contact by maneuvering out of harms way and then starting over until one side or the other wins.
This game is not just about the dogfighting but players will be faced with the management of their squadrons, taking out of service planes to upgrade and repair them, give training to pilots to learn new skills and also to build new and upgraded planes.
A very fun and exciting game. As I was playing, I could really fell the excitement and tension building and very much loved what this one was trying to do. After playing, I was able to shoot a 30 minute video with the designer Bob and his developer Rich and I could feel their passion for the subject and the game.
After finishing up, I then met up with Uwe Wallentin from Sound of Drums to get a look at their upcoming lineup of games which includes many great looking titles such as Neither King Nor God Expanded Edition,No Retreat! The Russian Front Designer’s Edition, Battles of Napoleon Volume II: QUATRE BRAS 1815 / WARTENBURG 1813, Iron Cross Army Group North and Iron Cross Kharkov.
Uwe is a great guy and Sound of Drums is doing a great job of designing playable games with fantastic graphic design and artwork. I very much enjoyed our chat and we did a 30 minute video that’ll be up later on the channel.
That was it and I landed in bed around 10:30pm and need to get some rest for our final day tomorrow where we are playing Here I Stand from GMT Games.
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 looking at the longest-serving chancellor of the Weimar Republic, Germany’s first attempt at parliamentary government – Wilhelm Marx. And which game could be more appropriate for him than Weimar (Matthias Cramer, Capstone Games/Skellig Games/Spielworxx)?
If you want to read more ratings of historical leaders like this, I strongly recommend you subscribe to the blog – all new posts in your inbox right when they go live!
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.
Early Life: The Catholic Man of Duty
Wilhelm Marx was born in 1863 in Cologne, then a part of the Rhine Province of the Kingdom of Prussia, soon to be part of the united Germany. No one could have foreseen in his boyhood that he would rise to the chancellorship – he was the son of a mere schoolteacher, and a part of the Catholic minority which was always suspected of possibly disloyalty by the Protestant Prussian state. The young Wilhelm Marx was one of many who set out to prove that he could be just as patriotic as any Protestant: He studied law and entered public service. His Catholic faith, however, would always be the guiding star in his life.
He was first elected to the Prussian parliament in 1899 on the ticket of the Catholic Zentrum (Center) party – one of the four player factions in Weimar. By the time Marx was elected, he had been active for nine years in the Volksverein für das katholische Deutschland (People’s Association for Catholic Germany), an organization dedicated to improving the social conditions especially of the poorer Catholics. Social and cultural issues, especially the expansion of Catholic schooling, would remain close to his heart: In 1910, he founded the Katholische Schulorganisation (Catholic School Organization), a grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to the matter.
The same year, he was elected to the German parliament – his first electoral success on the national level after two campaigns in hopeless districts with very few organized Catholics which he had only undertaken out of duty to the party. In parliament as well as in his electoral campaigns, he aimed to form an alliance with the Protestant bourgeois parties against the burgeoning SPD (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Social Democratic Party of Germany), the second player faction of Weimar. However, this strategy failed when cross-confessional bourgeois solidarity eroded in the more confrontational cultural climate from 1911 on.
World War and Revolution
These divisions faded into the background with the beginning of World War I. Despite the pre-eminence of military and diplomatic action then, Marx’s political activity remained limited to domestic issues. From his papers, we cannot discern if he even formed an opinion on many of the pressing issues in those other realms (say, unrestricted u-boat warfare). He did, however, change his mind about cooperation with the SPD, with whom the Zentrum (and the liberal parties) partnered from 1917 on in their quest to place the imperial government on a more parliamentary basis.
The revolution of 1918/1919 took Marx by surprise. Once more, he placed his powers at the disposal of his party, and was elected to both the Prussian and the German constitutional assemblies. The National Assembly in Weimar developed a constitution which included many long-held dreams of his, as the Catholic church, Catholic associations, and individual Catholics finally had their rights guaranteed. The short period of cooperation with the Social Democrats (and, to a lesser degree, the progressive liberals of the DDP (Deutsche Demokratische Partei, German Democratic Party) had achieved what years of negotiation with the Protestant conservatives of the Empire had not. This early alliance between Zentrum and SPD is the starting point of any Weimar game.
Yet the new German republic was unpopular with the numerous conservative, monarchist Zentrum members, and cooperation with the Social Democrats doubly so. Marx thus spent much of his political energy advocating for the constitution among his fellow Catholics.
At the time, Marx considered leaving politics altogether in favor of focusing on social work: From 1919 to 1921, he acted as director for the Volksverein (but proved unsuited to implement the sweeping changes necessary to improve the Volksverein’s faltering popularity in the Catholic milieu).
Yet once more duty called: As many of the old Zentrum parliamentary leaders died, Marx was one of the most experienced politicians his party could field. And his conciliatory, even-handed manner was just what the Zentrum needed when the party was so deeply divided against itself on the question of supporting the republic or restoring the monarchy as well as if to cooperate with the Social Democrats or the Protestant nationalists of the DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei, German Nationalist People’s Party), the third Weimar player faction.
Marx was thus called on to hold the diverging wings together: He was elected head of the parliamentary group of the Zentrum and then also party chairman in late 1921. As the Zentrum’s governing partner SPD merged with the more left-leaning USPD (Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany), Marx advanced a closer cooperation with the two liberal parties DDP (in government) and DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei, German People’s Party, in opposition) – the two minor parties which the Zentrum can control in Weimar. Yet Chancellor Joseph Wirth’s attempt to entice the DVP into a government of all democratic parties (a Grand Coalition) failed in late 1922. As a consequence, the SPD left the government as well. The parliamentary basis for the government shrunk.
The following year, Germany was shaken by the French occupation of the Ruhr which exacerbated the already galloping inflation. Under these circumstances, the Grand Coalition of all democratic parties became reality, led by DVP chancellor Gustav Stresemann. While it tackled these huge tasks rather successfully, the government could not maintain its internal cohesion: The right wing of the DVP (under its parliamentary leader Ernst Scholz) wanted to use the crisis to abolish the eight-hour workday and expand the government to the right by including the DNVP. The SPD refused and left the government. Marx’s conciliating manner helped with bringing both of them back to the negotiating table and a new Grand Coalition was formed.
This one was even shorter-lived: When federal forces broke up the socialist state governments of Saxony and Bavaria, but (doubting the loyalty of the army) refused to act against the right-wing coup in Bavaria, the SPD once more went into opposition. Without a parliamentary majority, Stresemann was soon unseated as chancellor. As the SPD’s appetite for government responsibility was sated, a bourgeois minority cabinet would be formed. That would be straight-up impossible in Weimar – unlike left-wing or right-wing coalitions, the Weimar Coalition (with SPD and Zentrum as the player factions and the DDP as a minor party which is always attached to one of the two) cannot refuse to govern, and so SPD and Zentrum are often stuck with each other if they want it or not. Historically, the SPD was not quite as keen on governing as the party is in Weimar.
To get anything done without a parliamentary majority would require special skills at winning friends and not making enemies. Marx, the skilled mediator, was just the right man for the time. He was elected chancellor on November 30, 1923. The weighty issues facing him were Bavaria’s continued insurrection, the implementation of the measures against hyperinflation, and an agreement with the Allies on the reparations issue which had set off the entire crisis of 1923.
A full hand of cards, leading the government (chancellor token in the top left), both liberal minor parties aligned (bottom right) – a comfortable situation for the Zentrum in Weimar, but not so much in history.
The First and Second Chancellorships
Marx’s cabinet nominations sent a signal to Bavaria that he was willing to improve the relationship between the fractious state and the Reich: He made the Bavarian Eduard Hamm (DDP) Minister for the Economy, and, for the first time in the history of the republic, included a member of the BVP (Bayerische Volkspartei, Bavarian People’s Party) whose more radical members had been behind the coup in Bavaria (Erich Emminger as Minister of Justice). His discreet negotiations with the Bavarian coupists would come to fruition in spring 1924: They resigned and opened the way for parliamentary government again. Bavaria, however, would retain some special privileges and be exempt from federal oversight.
The BVP had played an ambiguous role in the anti-republican insurrection in Bavaria. While the party cooperated with the Zentrum in national politics, its leader Gustav von Kahr had also been behind the coup of September 1923. This playtest version of the “Bayerische Volkspartei” card strengthens the Zentrum in parliament, but also allows the DNVP to recruit a dissolved unit – the latter effect was removed in the final version of the game.
Both the reparations negotiations with the Allies and the massive financial and economic reform package which would solidify the end of inflation required Marx to gather parliamentary support far beyond his minority coalition’s meager base. As there were constitutional changes involved (for example, in merging the various state railway companies into a federal railway), he even needed a two-thirds majority. Marx’s parliamentary skills and his reputation as an honest broker who would not abuse his power came together in securing an Enabling Act which would allow his government to gain the respective legislative powers despite their parliamentary minority. Equipped with such power, Marx set out to do the necessary, but unpopular steps forward. The cuts to public expenses which were to flank the currency reform massively reduced the number and salary of public employees and all but expropriated most pensioners.
The bitter taste of Marx’s domestic reforms was lessened by the negotiations with the Allies. Not even France had the stomach to force another confrontation after the chaos of 1923. They were thus inclined to negotiate a payment schedule which suited both sides. American bankers were to provide the loans with which Germany would cover a large part of the payments.
The electorate, however, was unimpressed. In the May 1924 parliamentary elections, Marx’s Zentrum held firm, but his DDP and DVP partners collapsed, as did the SPD. The right-wing parties were triumphant. Yet with no viable alternative to the bourgeois minority coalition, Marx was soon confirmed for his second chancellorship.
In the second tenure, he concluded the negotiations with the Allies. The final agreement would become known as the Dawes Plan after the chief Allied negotiator, American banker Charles G. Dawes. Once more, Marx needed a broad parliamentary majority. In addition to his government coalition, the SPD was sure to support the plan. The DNVP publicly railed against the Dawes Plan (which confirmed the infamous war guilt clause of the Treaty of Versailles), but DNVP chairman Oskar Hergt offered his support in return for policy concessions and the DNVP’s inclusion in government. Otherwise, he threatened that the Dawes Plan would fail in parliament. Marx, however, knew that the DNVP was internally divided on the matter and that a large number of DNVP members of parliament either saw the necessity of the plan for German economic revival or at least did not want to take the blame for the failure. Thus, he called the parliamentary vote without giving in to Hergt’s demands. The motion passed, as most DNVP members abstained.
Marx’s policy successes had not broadened his parliamentary base. As he kept refusing the DNVP’s inclusion in government in favor of a more centrist approach, new elections were called for December 1924. These did not change the parliamentary balance of power much. Marx resigned and was succeeded by Hans Luther, who formed a technocratic government based on the centrist and right-wing parties including the DNVP.
Parliament includes a lot of Zentrum members… but not enough for a majority.
Prussian Intermezzo, Presidential Election
Marx could not enjoy being relieved of his duties for long. When the Prussian DVP, as much a loose cannon as its federal counterpart, forced the end of the Grand Coalition in Prussia, Germany’s largest state, and demanded a right-wing government including the DNVP like in the Reich, Marx was called on to solve the government crisis. He was elected Prussian Prime Minister with the votes of the Weimar Coalition (SPD, Zentrum, DDP) on February 18, 1925, yet just two days after was toppled when renegades in his own party refused to support him in a parliamentary vote of confidence. Marx resigned, his appetite for politics lessened and his trust in the party damaged.
Still, Marx was one of the few Zentrum politicians who were well-known and had a good enough reputation to field in national elections. When President Friedrich Ebert (SPD) died, he was thus the natural candidate for the next presidential elections. The death of Ebert is a turning point in many Weimar games: The office allows its holder to play one card per round for two uses instead of just one. So, it is in essence a one-card bonus. As you normally only hold five cards, this is a huge boon. The presidential elections will thus be hotly contested and usually also serve as a check on who seems to be in the lead and must be reined in… sometimes in surprising coalitions.
In the first round, Marx gained 14% of the vote, the third-best showing after Duisburg mayor Karl Jarres (DVP, 39%) and the new Prussian prime minister Otto Braun (SPD, 29%). Now the coalition-building began. The SPD withdrew Braun, knowing that bourgeois voters almost never supported a working-class candidate in runoff elections. Instead, Marx was nominated as the joint candidate of the Weimar Coalition parties (People’s Bloc). Together, their candidates had received 49% of the vote in the first round. The right-leaning parties knew that Jarres, a man with no national standing, stood no chance in the second round. However, it was legal to field a candidate in the second round who had not stood in the first. They produced the old imperial field marshal Paul von Hindenburg – the “Victor of Tannenberg”.
Now the bickering for support in the second round begins! Unlike in history, parties in Weimar may support candidates which are ideologically opposed to them (usually to prevent a runaway leader or as part of a bigger political deal).
Marx might have been a more attractive candidate for centrist and bourgeois voters than Braun, but he still failed to attract votes beyond the Weimar Coalition. Conservative Protestants did not vote for him, and even his more conservative Catholic brothers and sisters in faith deserted him in favor of Hindenburg. Despite their Catholic fundament and Bavarian particularism, the BVP supported the Protestant Prussian marshal. Hindenburg was elected on April 26, 1925, with 48% of the vote (Marx carried 45%).
The Third and Fourth Chancellorships
The centrifugal forces within the Zentrum intensified. The party’s right wing blamed the defeat at the presidential election on Marx’s refusal as chancellor to form a coalition with the DNVP. The existing coalition under Luther fell apart when the DNVP refused to consider an agreement with the Allies which would confirm the post-Versailles borders in Western Europe. In December 1925, Luther formed a bourgeois minority coalition supported by Zentrum, DVP, DDP, and BVP in which Marx headed both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry for the Occupied Territories.
The next inevitable call of duty came when Chancellor Luther resigned in May 1926. When the Zentrum once more turned to Marx to fill the post, he wrote to his wife, “Now they’ve found their idiot again”. Like the first two times, Marx’s cabinet based on Zentrum, DVP, DDP, and BVP had no parliamentary majority, so he had to look for outside support. While the SPD bumbled in the Princes’ Expropriation campaign, it could be relied upon to continue the foreign policy of rapprochement with the Allies, and thus Marx was able to negotiate the admittance of Germany into the League of Nations in 1926 – in Weimar, one of the most difficult, but also most valuable foreign policy successes of a government.
Marx’s government was toppled by a vote of no confidence over the military’s secret cooperation with the Soviet Union in February 1927. By now, the right wing of the Zentrum was clearly ascendant, and the party pushed for a coalition with the DNVP. Marx opposed the notion, but felt compelled to give in to his party’s wishes. Thus, his fourth cabinet included DNVP ministers for the first time – no fewer than four of them. Despite this new right-wing bent, the new government implemented a major piece of social security with the introduction of unemployment insurance.
Marx’s special ability in Weimar allows him to swap two issues on the debate track: He might, for example, bring the attractive Unemployment Insurance issue to the Zentrum area of the track – and instead give the SPD the Stab in the Back issue which would have them face the dilemma between either weakening their own position or strengthening the DNVP.
However, infighting increased both in the Zentrum (between its republican and its conservative wings) and the government coalition at large. Marx attempted to pacify the former by pushing for legislation which would please both by appealing to their shared Catholicism – and which was dear to his own heart: A federal school law should codify the equality of confessional schools (with religious instruction only in the corresponding faith) with “simultaneous schools” (with both Protestant and Catholic religious instruction on offer). While that improved cohesion in the Zentrum, it put a strain on the coalition: The liberal parties DVP and DDP opposed the measure. Marx was unable to find a compromise. As the coalition disintegrated and the Zentrum’s right-wing gained ever more traction, the subsequent electoral defeat of May 1928 was almost a relief for Marx. A new Grand Coalition, led by chancellor Hermann Müller (SPD), was formed.
After Politics
After the election, Marx withdrew from politics. His centrist course was abandoned by his ever more right-leaning party which ended the Grand Coalition in 1930, operated a minority cabinet without parliamentary support strictly via presidential emergency decrees, and finally even voted in favor of the Enabling Act of 1933 which transferred the legislative power on the freshly elected Nazi government.
Marx himself limited his public activities to umbrella organization of Catholic student associations which he chaired. When the organization was to be Nazified in 1933, he let himself be pushed aside without a fight.
Marx’s old acquaintances shunned him after the Nazi takeover, as nobody wanted to be perceived to be close to an exponent of the democratic system. He lived a private life on very limited means and was fortunate to be left alone by the Nazis. When the post-war political system was formed in Germany, Marx joined the CDU (Christlich-Demokratische Union, Christian Democratic Union), the new cross-confessional Christian party. Soon after, Wilhelm Marx died on August 5, 1946.
Weimar Germany’s longest-serving chancellor is today all but forgotten.
The Rating
Foreign Policy
Marx’s foreign policy was neither original – Hermann Müller had outlined it as foreign minister and chancellor in the early 1920s – nor entirely his own – Gustav Stresemann, who served as foreign minister in all of Marx’s cabinets, carried out a good deal of it. It was, however, successful, as both the Dawes Plan and the admittance to the League of Nations show. Sometimes, the soft-spoken, conciliatory Marx also enjoyed advantages over the brash Stresemann – tough talk would not have finalized the Dawes Plan.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Domestic Policy
Marx had been reared to champion the cause of Catholic cultural equality from his early years on. His tragedy is that most of the disadvantages Catholics faced in the Protestant German Empire were removed by the Weimar Constitution, and those which remained – for example, that Catholic civil servants were less likely to be promoted – had no simple legislative solutions. Yet such solutions Marx kept pursuing, as with his ill-fated school law (despite the fact that 85% of Catholic schoolchildren already attended Catholic confessional schools). This practical non-issue has not even made it into the Weimar game – neither as an event card nor as a debate issue. Marx squandered political capital in the pursuit of an object which was neither useful nor attainable.
Rating: 1 out of 5.
Economic Policy
The ambitious anti-inflation reforms of 1923 and 1924 had been initiated by Stresemann, a friend of decisive action. Yet their actual implementation fell to the more measured Marx – probably a lucky stroke. Neither of them attempted to curtail the social effects of the reforms, and thus many pensioners and former as well as current civil servants fell into poverty, often alienating them from the republic.
Similarly, the introduction of unemployment insurance was a great step forward for social security – but it was underfunded in the relatively prosperous years of the beginning, and when unemployment and thus costs exploded after the crash of 1929, the system proved to be both a burden on the national budget and insufficient to alleviate the hardship of the many.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Vision
Marx was content to be placed wherever his party or the country needed him and do what he thought was required of him. He did not shape politics as much as answer to calls of duty.
Rating: 1 out of 5.
Pragmatism
Considerable parliamentary skill and his negotiation as an honest broker allowed Marx to gain him the majorities for his Enabling Act (1923) as well as the ratification of the Dawes Plan (1924). His mastery in that mere year contrasts unfavorably with his constant inability (despite his best attentions and efforts) to control the direction of his party (or at least keep the renegades under control), most markedly in the Prussian fiasco of 1925. His willingness to go along with any situation and answer any call of duty weakened his negotiating power, and forced him to repeatedly carry out political operations with whose premises he did not agree.
Marx was personally incorruptible. He managed to be both a committed party man, but govern with all of his country in mind. However, the Enabling Act set a dangerous precedent for the erosion of the constitution.
Rating: 4 out of 5.
Overall
In his first and second chancellorship, Wilhelm Marx rose to the challenge of implementing the solutions to the great crisis of the republic. In his later tenures, he performed markedly worse despite the much-improved situation. His biggest successes are holding the course in foreign and economic policy in 1924, his biggest failure his inability to develop and implement a long-term plan for his party and the republic.
How would you rate Marx? 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 Marx is Hehl, Ulrich von Wilhelm Marx: 1863—1946.Eine politische Biographie [Wilhelm Marx: 1863—1946. A Political Biography], Matthias-Grünewald-Verlag, Mainz 1987. Its somewhat dry style is made up for by its detailed, source-rich research.
For the broader context, see: Herbert, Ulrich: A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
We’ve been assessing the merits of political leaders in (more or less) democratic countries on this blog for a few years now – UK prime ministers, US presidents, German chancellors. Today, we’re returning to German presidents, looking at Friedrich Ebert. 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 presidents 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 president.
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 president can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the president is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the president increase German influence in the world and the security of Germans at home? Did the president wield German power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected?
Domestic policy: Did the president increase the liberty of Germans to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the president promote domestic security and shape the framework for fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the president facilitate the prosperity and economic security of Germans (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the president’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the president 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 president’s policies steer Germany (and, if applicable, Europe) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the president succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the president manage the support from parliament, society, the administration, the media?
Integrity: Did the president understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the president 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.
In all other ratings (UK prime ministers, US presidents, German chancellors) the subject’s life after holding the office is also assessed (for they are still seen as ex-office holders, but as a secondary consideration). This does not apply here, as – spoiler! – both Weimar Republic presidents died in office.
In Ebert’s special case, I will not only assess his conduct as president, but also as chancellor before, as he held the post at a time when Germany did not have a head of state.
Ebert’s Life
From Saddler to Chancellor
Friedrich Ebert was born on February 4, 1871, as the son of a tailor. He learned the trade of a saddler and became involved with the workers’ movement during his journeyman years. In 1891, he settled down in Bremen, where he ran a pub while working for the trade union. Ebert’s political work in the trade union and the Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, SPD) assumed ever more importance. He was elected to the Bremen city council (1899) and became a full-time trade union secretary. In the following years, Ebert rose to national prominence: He was elected to the SPD national party committee (1905) and to the Reichstag, the national parliament of Germany (1912). One year later, he became one of the leading Social Democrats in Germany when he was elected co-chairman of the SPD.
The Social Democrats faced their crucible at the outbreak of World War I. Ebert successfully advocated supporting the government’s war efforts (instead of attempting to forge an international workers’ coalition against the war). In the later years of the war, more and more Social Democrats took up a strict anti-war stance, forming up as Independent Social Democrats (Unabhängige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, USPD). Ebert maintained his previous stance and kept most of his allies within the party (now known as Majority Social Democrats (Mehrheitssozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands, MSPD), yet tried to mediate between workers protesting and striking against the war and the government (notably during the January Strike of 1918).
When the military situation looked grim for Germany in fall 1918, de facto military dictator Erich von Ludendorff resigned and pushed for a new government to assume responsibility for the impending defeat. Ebert joined a parliamentary government and became its interim chancellor on the day that emperor William II was forced to abdicate. Two days later, Germany and the Allies agreed on the Armistice which ended the fighting on the Western Front.
Many socialists, especially from the USPD, now pressed for a full-scale political and social revolution based on the workers’ and soldiers’ councils sprouting up everywhere. Ebert, who abhorred the Russian Revolution, wanted to bring about gradual change which would transform Germany into a democracy by parliamentary means. The sweep of revolution brought MSPD and USPD together in an uneasy government alliance. The opposition between moderate and radical socialists provides the basis for the SPD and KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands – Communist Party of Germany) players’ relationship in Weimar (all forms of radical socialism are subsumed under the umbrella of the KPD (which was historically only founded in January 1919) in the game). The USPD is a minor party in the game which can be aligned with either SPD or KPD (starting in the latter’s camp) and which provides more gumption for actions in the street and sizable parliamentary bonuses in the early game.
The USPD gives additional seats in parliament in the first four rounds of the game as well as a bonus point in the reserve each round (on the board to the left of the card). If the SPD can wrest the party away from KPD control early, that usually results in a large democratic majority under SPD leadership.
In the heady first days of the revolution, MSPD co-chairman Philipp Scheidemann proclaimed the German Republic (Ebert had opposed it and wanted Germany to become a parliamentary monarchy). The new government also proclaimed wide-ranging individual liberties and promised sweeping economic and social reforms (ranging from the eight-hour work day over housing programs to social security) as well as democratic elections in which both men and women would have the right to vote – here Ebert and the USPD agreed in substance, yet not in process: The USPD regarded the consent of the workers’ and soldiers’ councils as enough legitimation; Ebert insisted to carry out the reforms through a parliamentary process. Ebert outfoxed the USPD by having the Reich Councils’ Congress agree to hold parliamentary elections at the earliest possible date.
While Ebert outmaneuvered his rivals on the left, he also secured his right flank. Millions of German soldiers streamed back from the frontlines after the armistice. They needed to be demobilized in an orderly fashion, and, most of all, the threat of a military coup against the nascent republic needed to be warded off. Ebert thus struck a bargain with the army’s conservative leadership: The army would not act against the republic. In return, the new government would forgo the democratization of army structures. The deal already paid off for Ebert by December 1918: When the conflict of the government with the left-leaning People’s Naval Division over outstanding pay and the choosing of its commander escalated, Ebert had the Division dissolved by armed force. The same fate awaited the singularly ill-prepared Spartacus Uprising of January 1919.
A revolution makes for strange bedfellows: Social Democrat Ebert is inspecting German troops in the illustration of the “Pact with the Old Powers” event card. The event is extremely powerful under the right circumstances. Note that the SPD player could also use it to suppress a right-wing insurgency!
When the National Assembly had been elected in January 1919, Ebert’s MSPD was by far the strongest party. Its allies, the Catholic Zentrum (Center), and the progressive-liberal DDP (Deutsche Demokratische Partei, German Democratic Party) also fared well at the ballot box. Due to the armed unrest in Berlin, the National Assembly was convened in the quiet provincial town of Weimar, thus providing the common name for the first German republic (and, consequently, also for the alliance of SPD, Zentrum, and DDP – the “Weimar Coalition”). The Assembly elected Ebert the first president on February 11, 1919.
The Parliamentary President
The National Assembly established wide-ranging rights for the president in the constitution. Yet Ebert interpreted these as powers to be used in emergencies. In his view, the president was a steward whose role was to guard the constitution and integrate the nation. Thus, Ebert only rarely got involved in the day-to-day business of the cabinet, now headed by Philipp Scheidemann – for example, when the Allies presented Germany with the Treaty of Versailles, Ebert remained publicly non-committal.
Even when the republic as such was threatened, the president was not always the first to respond: The right-wing power grab by Wolfgang Kapp and Walther von Lüttwitz was stopped by a general strike. While Ebert’s name appeared on the pamphlet calling for the strike, it is likely that he was in fact not involved in the move. Ebert’s main contribution to the failure of the coup was of a different kind: When the coup leaders occupied Berlin, the federal civil service refused to do their bidding. Even though most of the civil servants had been hired under the emperor and felt attached to the monarchy, they had come to respect Ebert and would not enable the coup against his lawful government.
The 1920 parliamentary elections dealt the (M)SPD and its allies a heavy blow. They lost their parliamentary majority. Ebert advocated for a “grand coalition” which would include not only the parties of the Weimar Coalition, but also the pro-business, national liberal DVP (Deutsche Volkspartei, German People’s Party). His counsel was not heeded. Instead, Zentrum and DDP formed a bourgeois minority government.
Ebert was the most imposing political figure of the early Weimar Republic. While his integrative approach did much to wed the more moderate workers to the Republic (they would remain its most steadfast defenders till the very end), his suppression of revolutionary activities also alienated the more radical workers… thus the “Red Emperor” event card (showing Ebert at his presidential desk) can cut both ways, placing either an SPD- or a KPD-aligned worker marker on the society track.
As the government had no parliamentary majority, the president might have assumed a greater role. Ebert, however, maintained his interpretation of the presidency as a stewardship, detached from party politics and the day-to-day decisions of the cabinet. In economic and social matters, Ebert retained his representative role, mediating at times in collective bargaining struggles. In foreign policy, the president’s constitutional role was larger, and while Ebert generally supported the general foreign policy of the bourgeois minority governments, he was left out of the actual decision-making. In the meantime, Ebert tirelessly lobbied for cooperation among all democratic parties. It took a plunge into catastrophe for the young republic to heed his counsel.
When Germany reduced the reparation payments to the Allies in January 1923, France occupied the industrial heartland on the Ruhr. The German government called on the workers of the Ruhr not to collaborate with the occupation force in extracting the reparations in kind (“passive resistance”). That required the government to pay out ersatz wages to millions of people, accelerating inflation to a ludicrous degree. By August 1923, prices compared to January had multiplied by 100 (!), and France was still occupying the Ruhr. With Ebert’s support, all democratic parties from the SPD to the DVP formed a grand coalition under chancellor Gustav Stresemann.
Stresemann ended the ruinous passive resistance. While economically sound, this blow to German national sentiment caused backlash: The Bavarian state government declared a state of emergency, aiming to build a new authoritarian system in Bavaria (equivalent to the establishment of a right-wing regime in Weimar) and then exporting it to the Reich as a whole. In response, SPD-KPD state governments formed in Saxony and Thuringia (both in the path for a “March on Berlin” from Munich).
Once more, Ebert suppressing a leftist challenge to the republic. The Reichsexekution placed Saxony and Thuringia under federal control.
Ebert used the constitutional emergency powers granted to the president to depose the Saxon and Thuringian state governments. Federal troops quelled the unrest there before any uprising had even materialized. Yet while the army would march against leftist challenges to the republic, it was notoriously unwilling to confront right-wing movements (as Ebert knew from the Kapp-Lüttwitz coup). Thus, while Ebert formally put the army’s commander Hans von Seeckt in charge of Bavaria, he did not order any concrete action. In the end, the authoritarian government of Bavaria was overthrown from the fringe of the right-wing movement – Germany’s erstwhile military dictator Ludendorff and an ambitious demagogue named Adolf Hitler took the key government players captive and called for a march on Berlin. It was stopped within its first kilometer by 130 policemen. After that, the authoritarian government collapsed. The republic had been saved.
Lots to deal with: The Weimar Republic was close to collapse in 1923 – in game terms, approaching its seventh threat marker in the Deutsches Reich box.
While the Weimar Republic stabilized, Ebert fought for the dignity of his office. He had been smeared by enemies of the republic from the beginning of his term. When Ebert had visited a beach town in 1919, a local photographer had snapped a picture of him in swimming trunks. The monarchists bought that picture and kept circulating it, often contrasting the half-naked president with one of the emperors of the old Germany in full regalia.
The nationalist DNVP begins the game as the weakest of the four parties. One strategy for them is to erode the democratic majority – for example, by attacking the SPD’s parliamentary standing with the President in Swimming Trunks event.
Ebert’s detractors also attacked his conduct. Most famously, they attacked him for his role in the January Strike in 1918. A court found those calling Ebert a “traitor to his country” for his participation in the strike guilty of defamation, but added that they were factually correct – symptomatic for the monarchist leanings of the Weimar courts, still staffed with jurists from the ancien régime. The court’s ruling was only overturned in 1931. Ebert would not live to see it. He had put off surgery for appendicitis due to the trial and died of the resulting peritonitis on February 28, 1925. He was only 53 years old.
Ebert’s death is a watershed moment in a Weimar game. As long as the Ebert token occupies the Reichspräsident spot, the presidency is neutral, and nobody gains any benefits from it. When Ebert dies, an election is held in which the parties’ popularity with the voters is measured. Each party fields a candidate. The two candidates with the most votes advance to the second round, in which the two parties whose candidates have been eliminated can pledge their votes to any of the remaining candidates. That is a crucial moment to make deals, to forge alliances, to exact promises in return for the votes, and, more often than not, to pivot away from an ally who has become too strong. (I have seen my Social Democratic candidate defeated by a very grand coalition of the other three parties – Nationalists, Conservatives, and Communists.) From then on, the party holding the presidency can play a card both for the event/actions and for a debate once per round, effectively giving the party one more party card (which, as you typically only draw three of them per round, is huge). This less restrained approach to the presidency reflects the presidential activism of Ebert’s successor Paul von Hindenburg.
Even though foreign policy was the area in which the president’s role was constitutionally confirmed, Ebert followed rather than led. While he – much like his head of government Philipp Scheidemann – personally found the terms of the Versailles Treaty unacceptable, he stayed on when Scheidemann resigned, displaying a keen sense of duty and order. Ebert supported the various governments in their unpopular, but necessary fulfilment of the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty and their orientation toward the western powers. At times, he was entirely sidelined, as when chancellor Joseph Wirth and foreign minister Walther Rathenau forged the Treaty of Rapallo with the Soviet Union.
Ebert’s achievements in this realm lie during his tenure as chancellor. His Proclamation (Nov 12, 1918) ushered in an unprecedented era of personal liberty and social equity, exemplified in the commitment to freedom of the press and women’s suffrage. Ebert’s integration of the army into the new republic avoided a civil war. Later, his uneven use of force dealing with the uprisings of 1923 was pragmatically understandable, but failed to conciliate the political right with the republic or make the army more accountable to the political leadership.
The Proclamation of November 12, 1918 laid the foundation for the eight-hour work day, a milestone for the working population of Germany. An overlooked contribution of Ebert’s to economic development is his advocacy for the “grand coalition” – only this broad alliance could bring about the far-reaching currency reform which ended hyperinflation in 1923. That Ebert’s calls to alleviate the social hardships which came as a side effect to the currency reform went unheeded by the bourgeois minority government which followed the grand coalition is symptomatic for the limited power of the presidency in the realm of economic and social policy.
Ebert has often been criticized from the left as too cautious, not able or not willing to dream big. And indeed, in hindsight his thought and practice seems much less imaginative than his critics’ utopias of socialist republics based on grassroots councils. Yet in 1918, the thought of a liberal, parliamentary Germany – the realization of the dream of 1848 – was revolutionary, and, most importantly, it was achievable. Ebert helped to bring about the German democracy and guided it into calmer waters during his tenure.
Rating: 5 out of 5.
If Ebert (pictured in the background of the election poster) played Weimar, he’d select this agenda card every round.
Pragmatism
Ebert made it possible for the bourgeois politicians, the army, and the civil service to get along with a Social Democratic government. While this was an impressive feat in itself, his pleas for cooperation were often not heeded – neither from his own party nor from those he sought as allies. His natural inclination to compromise veils his deft handling of his political opponents: The USPD joined the provisional government on equal footing in November, yet ended up entirely outmaneuvered by January – its moderates falling in with Ebert’s call for elections as soon as possible, its radicals reduced to a singularly ill-advised attempt at armed uprising.
Ebert is the rare politician who, presented with the opportunity to make wide-reaching decisions with a free hand, refused it. His belief that a freely elected parliament must make the important choices guided him during the revolution. Later, Ebert understood himself as a steward of the republic, a president of all Germans, and was unwilling to use his office for the gain of particular individuals or groups. He used the wide-ranging emergency powers assigned to the president in the constitution only when presented with a grave crisis. His thoughtful wielding of power becomes ever more apparent in comparison with his successor’s liberal use of the emergency powers which contributed to the fall of the republic.
Friedrich Ebert took on the highest duty in tumultuous times. He wielded power responsibly, with the best of intentions, and remarkable success. His restraint and willingness to compromise were admirable in themselves, but sometimes emboldened the enemies of the republic he had helped to create.
How would you rate Ebert? Let me know in the comments!
Further Reading
For a short introduction to Ebert (and all other German chancellors in history), see: Sternburg, Wilhelm von (ed.): Die deutschen Kanzler. Von Bismarck bis Merkel [The German Chancellors. From Bismarck to Merkel], Aufbau, Berlin 2007, pp. 187—210 [in German].
The standard scholarly biography remains Mühlhausen, Walter: Friedrich Ebert. 1871—1925. Reichspräsident der Weimarer Republik [Friedrich Ebert. 1871—1925. Reichspräsident of the Weimar Republic], Dietz, Bonn 2007 [in German].
For the broader context, see: Herbert, Ulrich: A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
Three years ago, I have inaugurated a new irregular series on my blog assessing the merits of UK prime ministers (illustrated through the lens of a single board game each). The rating system seemed robust enough to apply it to other countries/leaders (at least if they are more or less democratic). Thus, we branched out to American presidents and German chancellors. Today’s subject is the rare German president with political power – Paul von Hindenburg, the second and last president of the Weimar Republic. 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 presidents 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 president.
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 president can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the president is assessed as follows:
Foreign policy: Did the president increase German influence in the world and the security of Germans at home? Did the president wield German power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected?
Domestic policy: Did the president increase the liberty of Germans to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the president promote domestic security and shape the framework for fair justice dealing with offenses?
Economic policy: Did the president facilitate the prosperity and economic security of Germans (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the president’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?
Vision: Did the president 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 president’s policies steer Germany (and, if applicable, Europe) in this direction?
Pragmatism: Did the president succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the president manage the support from parliament, society, the administration, the media?
Integrity: Did the president understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the president 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.
In all other ratings (UK prime ministers, US presidents, German chancellors) the subject’s life after holding the office is also assessed (for they are still seen as ex-office holders, but as a secondary consideration). This does not apply here, as – spoiler! – both Weimar Republic presidents died in office.
Hindenburg’s Life
Paul von Beneckendorff und Hindenburg was born in 1847, when Prussia was still an absolute monarchy. Like most men in his family, he opted for a military career and had his baptism of fire in Prussia’s wars of unification: He fought at Königgrätz (Sadowa) against the Austrians at age 18, at Sedan against the French three years later. The socialist Paris Commune which had been formed against both the Prussian siege of Paris and the liberal French government filled him with a horror of civil war and revolution which would influence him all his life. Back from the wars, Hindenburg enjoyed a successful career as an officer, culminating in his promotion to (full) general in 1905. In the forty years between the victory over France in 1871 and his retirement (aged 63) in 1911 he would not fight another war.
Hindenburg was recalled into active service shortly after the outbreak of World War I and placed at the head of the 8th Army, the only German force dealing with Russia’s invasion of East Prussia. At the advice of his energetic chief of staff Erich Ludendorff, Hindenburg opted for a daring counter-attack which annihilated one of the two Russian invasion armies. The actual execution of the plan was left to Ludendorff. Hindenburg’s main contribution was to remain steadfast when Ludendorff wanted to abandon the plan in the middle of the operation during one of his nervous fits – a pattern which would become characteristic for the rest of the war. Hindenburg and Ludendorff had won the most significant German victory of the early weeks of the war, and they had done so on German soil. The fundament for the myth of Hindenburg was in place.
While Hindenburg, now the commander-in-chief of the German forces on the Eastern Front, had suddenly become the most admired and revered German, the ambitious Ludendorff also urged him to demand greater influence over the course of the entire war. That embroiled the duo Hindenburg-Ludendorff in a continued rivalry with the OHL (Oberste Heeresleitung, Supreme Army Command) under Erich von Falkenhayn. Hindenburg, brought up with the values of a Prussian officer, was now routinely insubordinate to his military superior Falkenhayn, until Emperor Wilhelm II sacked Falkenhayn in August 1916 and replaced him with Hindenburg. Of course, it was once more Ludendorff, who (now as First Quartermaster General) pulled the strings.
Hindenburg and Ludendorff widely sidelined the emperor and ran Germany as a quasi-military dictatorship. However, their double role of political and military decision-makers did not come with increased effectiveness: What the politicians Hindenburg and Ludendorff demanded (a victorious peace, vast annexations, a German hegemony over Europe), the generals Hindenburg and Ludendorff could not deliver. And while the military leadership of the German armies remained strong, the political decisions lacked judgment – unlimited submarine warfare drew the United States into the conflict on the Allied side in 1917; the mishandling of relations with post-revolutionary Russia tied down German forces in the east. Hindenburg and Ludendorff gambled on a last offensive in the west in 1918 – and lost. The reserves were spent now. As the Allied armies pressed forward in a counter-offensive, making peace seemed like the best option to Germany’s military dictators.
They applied to US President Woodrow Wilson for peace – in the hope that a lenient peace based on the Fourteen Points could be obtained. Wilson, however, remained firm: On the one hand, he insisted on parliamentary government for Germany (and thus the end of the OHL dictatorship); on the other, the territorial losses and military restrictions to be applied to Germany seemed dishonorable to Hindenburg and Ludendorff. One way or the other, their desire to remain responsible for the country waned – they complained in bitter terms how they had been “stabbed in the back” by a non-supportive home front. In the end, Ludendorff resigned, but Hindenburg stayed on as the head of the OHL – but complemented with a chancellor whose power base was the German parliament. Their attempt to save the German monarchy with an orderly transition out of the war was quickly swept away by the revolting masses in the revolution of November 1918.
Now Hindenburg showed remarkable pragmatism. While the revolution was made by the Social Democrats, pariahs under the monarchy to which Hindenburg was so attached, his dislike for them was outweighed by his horror of civil war. Together with Ludendorff’s successor, general Wilhelm Groener, he placed the German army at the disposal of the new government led by Social Democrat Friedrich Ebert… with the understanding that it would be used to quell any Bolshevik unrest. The (Majority) Social Democrats thus were able to complement their political dominance over the more left-leaning Independent Social Democrats with the hard power of the army and usher in a parliamentary republic.
The pact between Ebert and Groener allowed them to put down socialist revolutionaries. Note that the game event (which is a SPD card) could also be used against a right wing uprising!
As with Ludendorff, Hindenburg let Groener fill the active role in their partnership while providing the myth surrounding his person. Groener and he made sure that the army, still spread out from France to Ukraine, returned in an orderly fashion. When the Treaty of Versailles was offered to the German government, Hindenburg personally understood that there was no alternative to it – Germany could not have renewed the war with the Allies. As he felt the Treaty was humiliating, though, he left it to Groener to advise the government to accept.
The “stab-in-the-back myth” contributed to the re-legitimation of the German right wing after World War I.
Once the Treaty was signed, Hindenburg retired to private life, but remained immensely popular, a beacon of the anti-republican Germany. When he stated at the parliamentary committee of inquiry dealing with the end of the war that the German army, “undefeated in the field” had been “stabbed in the back,” (by whom exactly, he did not specify – listeners felt free to fill in the blank with their preferred choice of enemy, usually “the Jews” or “the Socialists”) it gave the myth a quasi-official sanctioning.
His relationship with the German right, however, was rather complicated. Hindenburg was close with some members of the DNVP (Deutschnationale Volkspartei – German National People’s Party), but never became a party member. He did join the ideologically similarly inclined Stahlhelm (Steel Helmet) association of former soldiers, though. He condemned both major right-wing coup attempts of the early Weimar Republic – reluctantly in the case of Kapp and Lüttwitz, forcefully in the case of his former partner Ludendorff with the upstart demagogue Adolf Hitler.
When president Friedrich Ebert died in 1925, lesser men had to fill his shoes. None of the various candidates running in the first round of the presidential election came close to a majority by themselves. Coalition building was the order of the day now. The pillars of the republican order (Social Democrats, (Catholic) Center, and left-leaning Liberals) would put the Center candidate Wilhelm Marx forward as a joint candidate. While the right-leaning Liberal candidate Karl Jarres had received the most votes in the first round, the parties of the right feared that he would not be able to stand against a united republican camp. The constitution, however, allowed for candidates to be entered in the second round who had not been running in the first. And which candidate would, on merit of his personality, have a better chance than the old war hero, the victor of Tannenberg?
Hindenburg electrified a certain part of the electorate. Others criticized his closeness to the old monarchy (Hindenburg had sought approval from the exiled Wilhelm II before running, but denied this), his lack of experience with parliamentary politics, and his age (he was 77 already, and would be 84 by the end of his term). Hindenburg was elected in the second round with a plurality of the votes.
Hindenburg has the best chances to be elected president in Weimar – and will give the slow-starting DNVP a great boost when in office.
The election of a Reichspräsident is one of the turning points in a game of Weimar: The winner receives the very powerful Reichspräsident card which allows the player to use one of their cards twice every turn. As you only hold five cards each turn, being president thus guarantees you to be 20% more effective! In the game, Hindenburg acts as the candidate for the DNVP (which is an amalgam of various nationalist groups extending beyond the DNVP proper). His chances to win are typically pretty good, as the DNVP has many opportunities to place more party bases early in the game… and, as the DNVP typically does not score a lot of points in the early game, other players might also be more likely to cast their votes for Hindenburg in the second round of the election.
Early in his term, Hindenburg surprised many of his critics: Despite his background, he kept within the confines of the republican constitution (and declared publicly that he did not seek a return to monarchy), despite his inexperience, he immediately found a role in the political process (for example, it was his stern intervention that brought the quarrelling parties to form a government in 1926), and despite his age, he did not seem to lack vigor.
Hindenburg even showed his trademark pragmatism: When Hans von Seeckt, the chief of the German army, invited a Prussian prince to an army exercise, Hindenburg promptly sacked him to avoid tensions with the Allies. And when the Social Democrats won the 1928 parliamentary elections and formed a “grand coalition” government with the Center and the Liberals, Hindenburg worked well with them.
Yet his old networks persisted, and in the eyes of the monarchists, the military men, the aristocratic magnates of the old Prussia, it was clear that the Social Democrats, no, the whole parliamentary system needed to go. As Hindenburg grew older and relied more on his advisers (chief of them his son Oskar and Kurt von Schleicher from the Army Ministry), his attachment to the parliamentary, constitutional system lessened. When the Social Democratic Chancellor Hermann Müller opposed an agricultural aid package from which the aristocratic magnates would benefit most, Hindenburg decided it was time for a change in government. Together with Oskar and Schleicher, he sounded out the parties on the political right to form a minority government which would not act through parliament, but through presidential emergency decrees. They were intrigued.
The last Weimar Republic government which had a parliamentary majority broke apart in 1930 – ostensibly over a rather minor disagreement regarding the budget for unemployment insurance (by then, Germany was in the throes of the Great Depression). The schemers behind the scenes quickly put up a new minority government led by Heinrich Brüning from the right wing of the Center. Brüning would spend the next two ears trying to combat the crisis with a deflationary policy exacerbating the economic woes of the country. The Social Democrats opposed Brüning and, when he couldn’t get a majority for his budget, forced new elections in September 1930. Neither they nor the government succeeded at the polls, though – instead, the Nazi Party leaped from a fringe group to the second-strongest force in parliament (behind the Social Democrats). Brüning continued his minority government based on presidential executive orders.
Hindenburg and Schleicher regarded the Brüning experiment with ever less enthusiasm, and sought to push the government to the right – but they could not find the partners for such an enterprise yet: The DNVP refused to join the government coalition, and Hindenburg dismissed the Nazi Party because of his assessment of Hitler as too vulgar (understandable) and socialist (confusing his positions with those of the “national revolutionaries” in the Nazi Party). Hindenburg even gave in to Brüning’s and Groener’s (now Army Minister) pressure to outlaw the SS and SA Nazi paramilitary forces to stop the ever-increasing political violence in the streets.
After the seven years of his first term ended, Hindenburg, now aged 84, stood for re-election 1932. His main opponent would be Hitler. The parties who had supported Marx in his failed bid of 1925 had no candidate who could match the charisma of the other two – and so the left-leaning and centrist democratic parties rallied around Hindenburg. One would suppose that this would ensure a blowout victory – yet most of Hindenburg’s old supporters on the political right, concentrated in the rural, Protestant areas of Germany, defected to Hitler. Hindenburg won 53% of the vote in the second round and remained president.
Schleicher then pushed for a new, entirely non-parliamentary government, and when Brüning proposed a plan to settle derelict agricultural land in the east with the unemployed (to the detriment of the aristocratic owners), Hindenburg agreed that it was time for change. He dismissed Brüning, and, advised by Schleicher, appointed Franz von Papen (no party affiliation) chancellor. Papen was to govern with a cabinet of aristocrats which had no parliamentary basis whatsoever – the Cabinet of Barons.
Papen and Schleicher both courted the Nazis, but disagreed on the methods: Schleicher wanted to split the Nazis by allying with its “national revolutionary” wing; Papen (supported by Hindenburg) lifted the ban on SS and SA, ostensibly to decrease political tensions. The opposite happened: Nazi paramilitaries started a riot with Communist supporters in the working-class Hamburg suburb of Altona in which several people were killed. The fear of political violence provided a pretext for forceful government action: When there was no government majority after the state elections in Prussia, Hindenburg authorized Papen by executive order to depose the acting state government of the democratic parties (an open breach of the constitution).
Papen, however, had maneuvered himself into a dead end. His attempt of governing detached from parliament ignored the political will of the German people: Some of them might prefer the Nazis, others the Social Democrats, the Communists, or the Center – but barely anyone supported Papen, as the parliamentary election of November 1932 showed. Hindenburg sounded out all parties from the Nazis to the Liberals (but not the Social Democrats or the Communists), but failed to find a workable government.
Another solution had to be found. Schleicher convinced Hindenburg to sack Papen and took over as chancellor himself. His attempt to form a cross-ideological front of the army, the trade unions, and the “national revolutionary” Nazis made the established elites uneasy. Papen took his revenge by agreeing with Hitler on a coalition government – headed by Hitler, but with only a few Nazi ministers. Papen convinced Hindenburg that this was the way to tame the Nazis: Use their popular support while demystifying them as they got bogged down in the minutiae of government. On January 30, 1933, Hindenburg swore Hitler in as chancellor.
In Weimar, Nazi parliamentary rule would end the game – with all players losing. Hindenburg, playing with people of flesh and blood, rather than with wooden meeples, also seemed defeated after the Nazi takeover. He ceased resistance to Hitler and stood by him at the old church of the Potsdam Garrison in a symbolic merger of the old and the new national movement. In the meantime, the Nazis dismantled the democratic order. Paul von Hindenburg died on August 2, 1934. No new president was elected. Instead, Hitler acted as joint head of state and government – Führer und Reichskanzler.
The Rating
Foreign Policy
Hindenburg generally supported the government position on foreign policy, which aimed at shedding the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty and re-admittance of Germany as a fully equal great power. He did misjudge at times how to achieve these goals – for example, he thought that the League of Nations would put additional shackles on Germany (unlike foreign minister Stresemann, who realized the League’s potential to adjudicate conflicts which were before handled directly between Germany and the Allies).
Hindenburg was not particularly interested in domestic policy and left it largely to the chancellors and their ministers. Whenever he did get involved, however, it was to detriment of the freedom of the German people: His initial refusal to outlaw SS and SA contributed to the rise of political violence, as did his speedy cancellation of the ban after only three months. The subsequent Strike on Prussia was the most obscene breach of the constitution before the Nazis dismantled it altogether – without encountering resistance from Hindenburg, whose credibility with the military, administrative, and business elites might have prevented their walkover.
Once more, Hindenburg largely went along with the policies of his chancellors. In the case of Brüning’s attempt to combat the recession with the tightening of spending, that was catastrophic. Whenever Hindenburg attempted to leave his own mark, it was in favor propping up the failing system of East Elbian agriculture in a lucrative way for the old aristocratic elites.
What did Hindenburg eventually want? – He favored monarchy over republic, but did not seek a return to it in office. He swore an oath to the constitution, but treated it ever more casually the longer he ruled. His preferences for governing with, against, or beside parliament shifted according to his chancellors and advisors. He attempted to include or exclude the Nazis at times, and eventually was swallowed by them.
Hindenburg started strong in this regard: He was instrumental in the formation of governments and got along well with parties as different as the Social Democrats and the German National People’s Party. He also got his way in the change of governments from 1930 on (even though a good deal of this was conceived rather by his son and Schleicher). Yet these tactical strokes did not lead to strategic gains, and in the end, Hindenburg outmaneuvered himself with the Nazi-led coalition government.
Hindenburg attached great importance to be regarded as above the parties, as a representative of all Germans. Yet in practice, he played favorites, most notably in his economic policy which was shaped by his close connection with the East Elbian agricultural magnates. Hindenburg could also be petty, as when he refused to visit the Rhineland and Westphalia in 1930 because the Stahlhelm had been outlawed there for their breaches of the Versailles Treaty. On a grander scale, Hindenburg tested the limits of the constitution from 1930 on with his various non-parliamentary governments… and in the end, attacked the constitution frontally in the Strike on Prussia.
Overall: Hindenburg played a complex role in the Weimar Republic. While his age and his tendency to let others plot the course of action excuse him from some of the blame, he crucially contributed to the extension of the economic woes and political violence which engulfed the republic, and directly aided the steady erosion of parliamentary rule from 1930 on. Hindenburg enters the list at the very bottom.
How would you rate Hindenburg? Let me know in the comments!
Further Reading
Hindenburg has found surprisingly little attention in recent English-language scholarship. The standard scholarly biography in German is Pyta, Wolfram: Hindenburg. Herrschaft zwischen Hohenzollern und Hitler [Hindenburg. Rule between the Hohenzollern and Hitler], Siedler, Munich 2007.
A shorter, more accessible treatment is Rauscher, Walter: Hindenburg. Feldmarschall und Reichspräsident [Hindenburg. Field Marshal and Reich President], Ueberreuter, Vienna 1997.
For the broader context, see: Herbert, Ulrich: Herbert, Ulrich: A History of Twentieth-Century Germany, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2019.
Anmelden
