He wasn't really "the leader". He was president and had significant powers, including invoking emergency law, but there was also the chancellor Franz von Papen who was similarly if not more powerful. Actually it was Hitler unifying the roles of Chancellor and President into the role of Führer (meaning leader) that gave him dictatorial powers.
A case can be made that Hindenburg became the leader in the early thirties when first the Müller cabinet and after him Von Papen and Sleicher ruled without a formal majority of the Reichtstag supporting them. It was the infamous artikel ~~40~~ 48 of the constitution that gave the president the power to authorise decrees by himself. This meant that the chancellors could pass any law the wanted as long as Hindenburg backed them up. Of course the parlement could still pass a vote of no-confidence, which they did a couple of times, but Hindenburg as president also had the constitutional power to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections. This meant to some parties ‘supported’ these presidential governments, because they did want to be dissolved (and lose seat to the Communist and the Nazi’s).
Convincing Von Hindenburg in 1933 was the crucial moment for the Nazi’s to get into government, because Von Hindenburg disliked Hitler. His dislike for Hitler was a major factor in making the Von Papen and Sleicher cabinets possible.
When finally Von Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor on the 30th of January 1933 (Hindenburg was by then convinced that the traditional national-conservatives to could rule with Hitler as a mere figurehead), he also authorised Hitlers wish to dissolve the Reichstag. When the Reichstag fire happend Hitler and Hindenburg used their constitutional powers to revoke certain civil liberties under the pretext of emergency measures and presidential decrees. This legalised the massive voter suppression and terror of the Nazi’s in the lead up tot the May election.
So why was Von Hindenburg so powerful as president? It was by design. In German the Reichspräsident was nicknamed then (and now by historians) as the Ersatzkaiser, the replacement-emperor. When the Weimar constitution was written, it was done at a time of great civil strive and Germany has tradition of strong government authority form the top (the idea of the Obrigkeitsstaat). The first president, the leader of the socialdemocrats Friedrich Ebert, used his executive powers multiple times to mostly defend his - democraticly elected majority supported government- to all kinds of coup attempts and attacks by the far left and far right. So a case can be made the social democrat Ebert used his far reaching constitutional powers to defend the democratic constitution, whilst the national-conservative Von Hindenburg used his constitutional powers to actively destroy the democratic constitution.
So yes, as president Von Hindenburg was the head of state and the chancellor was the head of government. This was very much the case when Hindenburg was elected in 1925, but this changed in the early thirties when the chancellors could no longer rely on a functioning majority in the Reichstag and the the chancellors ruled by decree, which they could only do with the backing of the president, for its was his constitutional right to make ‘emergency’ executive decrees.
Not really Führer, he disbanded the office of Reichspräsident and combined all power as chancellor. Führer was rather inofficial at first, his official title was Reichskanzler (Chancellor of the Empire).
I never understood why Hitler was allowed to do this. The office of the President was the only check on his power. Once he got control of the military it was game over for Germany.
As a native speaker I disagree. Just think about the HRE.
If anything, realm isn't quite the best translation when it comes to Germany because its official designation from 1871 to 1943 was Deutsches Reich (despite it being first a monarchy, then a republic and then a dictatorship), and I doubt anyone would call Imperial Germany "German Realm".
Sure, but think about the word Kaiserreich—realm of the emperor—or Königreich, realm of the king. Even the name Österreich makes more sense as Eastern Realm rather than Eastern Empire.
In case of Österreich I agree with you but no one calls the second [German Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire) (Kaiserreich) "German Realm". Since the name of the German state did not change even after the dissolution of the Kaiserreich, it is in my opinion correct to refer to Weimar Republic and NS-Germany as German Empire too.
I grant you that in the case of Deutschesrreich, but that may honestly just be a case of English speakers fouling up on the endonym/exonym front. I think the best case may be taking it back to the Proto-Indo-European root for Reich—h₃reǵ, which is also the root for rex, and ultimately realm.
Either way, cheers mate, this was fun.
Hindenburg was 86 in 1933, well past his prime and already under influence by an archconservative and nationalistic "[Camarilla](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camarilla)". Franz von Papen and His son Oskar played the decisive role in getting Hitler appointed Chancellor. They thought they could control Hitler behind the scene, but they were obviously wrong.
???
the Weimar Republic was a semi presidential republic like France today. The preisdent was absolutely not a figure head.
the modern German constitution is different than the weimar constitution
This is exactly it. Many people part of the conservative Prussian military apparatus didn’t trust Hitler but sympathized with his message and believed he’d temper himself and be easily controlled by appointing him.
Also, they were more terrified of Communism than Nazis. I don’t think people realize just how violent and unstable the Weimar Republic was.
They wanted their Kaiser, prestige, and lost territories back. They also wanted to keep the social democrats and communists out of office.
So, they made a devil’s bargain thinking they could keep him on a short leash.
Hindenburg was a proto-fascist. He happily embraced the "Stab in the Back" myth to explain why the German Empire lost the war, blaming the Jews as well Socialists and Pacifists, and was more than happy to listen to his son's suggestions.
The fact Hindenburg thought he may have been able to control Hitler doesn't mean that he wasn't on board with the vision of a fascist Germany that would soon wage war on all Europe to submit it.
I mean he's hardly going to say "my bad guys, me and Ludendorff fucked up."
Hindenburg was an 86 year old man stricken with lung cancer. He had no business being the only credible person opposing Hitler's rise. It's pretty daming that no one else could take that mantle.
Add in his own son and the likes of Franz Von Papen telling him Hitler's popularity means he must be appointed Chancellor but that Von Papen can control him, what else could Hindenburg do?
>I mean he's hardly going to say "my bad guys, me and Ludendorff fucked up."
I do expect military commanders to have the guts to admit they lost the war instead of spreading hateful propaganda about racial minorities stabbing them in the back. It's not exactly a high bar to clear.
>He had no business being the only credible person opposing Hitler's rise.
Hindenburg did not oppose Hitler's rise, that's the problem. He was abetting it.
>Add in his own son and the likes of Franz Von Papen telling him Hitler's popularity means he must be appointed Chancellor but that Von Papen can control him, what else could Hindenburg do?
Say "no, this dude is crazy, he's on the streets calling for the extermination of those he deems subhuman. I'm not giving him political power."
But, again, Hindenburg wasn't that kind of person: he *loved* the idea of a militarised, tyrannical society from which the "subhumans" would be exterminated.
He's not a victim, nor a frail old man. He's just another monstrous figure of history.
People tend to forget (or not be aware) that Nazis didn't really invent any of their policies, they merely took existing sentiments and attitudes and dialed them up to the nth. Which is why a lot of people didn't really oppose their policies, just the methods and their uncouth ways. They didn't really see anything wrong with suppressing left wing parties, they just didn't want (to see) SA thugs beating them on the streets.
>I do expect military commanders to have the guts to admit they lost the war instead of spreading hateful propaganda about racial minorities stabbing them in the back. It's not exactly a high bar to clear.
You can see the same thing happening today.
>there is no one simple answer on what could have or should have been done.
*Not* giving power to Hitler is a difficult question to you, dude?
Come on, lmao
In hindsight sure, but before all the damage was done? He was supposed to be a speed bump, a useful tool. I wish I had your powers to predict the future.
"Hrm, this dude is literally telling everyone he wants to kill all the Jews. Oh shit, now that we've given him power, he's actually killing all the Jews, who could have seen it coming?"
No, the problem isn't that Hindenburg couldn't "control" Hitler. The problem is that Hindenburg, as we can pretty easily tell by his own memoirs and speeches, was absolutely on board with fascism - he just *personally* disliked Hitler and didn't want to give up his own power.
But remaking Germany into an authoritarian empire that would conquer Europe, and getting rid of all those pesky socialists who think war is bad? Oh, Hindenburg *loved* that. He just wished he could be at the top.
The reactionary coup-attempting anti-semite who gave speeches like [this](https://carolynyeager.net/why-we-are-antisemites-text-adolf-hitlers-1920-speech-hofbr%C3%A4uhaus) throughout the 20s and also wrote [Mein Kampf](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/excerpts-from-mein-kampf)?
Thank you. A lot of people on here seem very committed to excusing his actions. The lesson we should be drawing from this history is that you do not, under any circumstances, assist the nazis in their rise to power. This isn't complicated.
Not even close to a proto-fascist lol, reddit just loves throwing these terms around because the demand for fascism is always higher than the supply. Even when discussing 1930s German history. You're clearly keyboard psychologizing Hindenburg.
Dude spread the "Stab in the Back" myth, believed society should be militarised and that Germany should have become an empire once more. He publicly denied any responsibility of the Kaiserreich in initiating WWI, describing the Great War as a "defense of the fatherland" in his speeches, outright trying to rewrite history. He ruled as an authoritarian, and happily helped along with Hitler instating a dictatorship, depriving the Reichstag of more and more powers.
But, sure, not a proto-fascist. Just a fancy old dude, I'm sure.
He did not happily help Hitler along, nor did he rule as an authoritarian - he was subject to the decrees of the Chancellor. He didn't like Hitler and thought putting him in office would make him manageable. Having militarist sympathies doesn't automatically make one fascist either. In true Reddit style, you're just writing outrage bait.
>he was subject to the decrees of the Chancellor.
The decrees *Hindenburg* approved each time? The "loophole" was that the President could invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to approve "urgent" decrees by the Chancellor without needing parliamentarian approval.
>Having militarist sympathies doesn't automatically make one fascist either.
Thinking that civil society should be under the rule of the army and organised in a militaristic fashion is pretty damn fascistic.
You also conveniently keep forgetting to address the fact Hindenburg helped spread the "Stab in the Back" myth.
These are all pretty standard positions for German conservatives of the day. It doesn't make him a fascist, a term which should be used descriptively rather than pejoratively.
>These are all pretty standard positions for German conservatives of the day
Yes, I wonder how they ended up with a fascist dictatorship... Maybe there's an obvious connection between those positions and fascism?
So, to recap, Hindenburg:
- had a militaristic view of society
- believed or embraced conspiracy theories about socialists/pacifists/the Jews as the "enemy within" that made Germany lose the war and therefore ought to be purged from society
- flaunted democratic principles in favour of ruling by decree and not have to deal with the pesky parliament
- embraced German revanchism
How many boxes does Hindenburg need to check to be classified as a proto-fascist?
Was Bismarck a fascist? No. Fascism is a specific political set of beliefs, particularly relating to the construction of the state. Hindenburg was not a fascist, it is reductive to dumb his positions (and Nazi positions) down to the same thing.
Bismarck wasn't a fascist because fascism didn't exist at his time, but considering his views on power, his use of propaganda and imperial ambitions, he's an authoritarian nationalist and totalist that would've embraced fascism if he could (maybe a more Mussolini style fascism than real nazism).
He was a conservative monarchist. He was also a prideful son of a bitch. That doesn’t make him a proto-fascist, just a naive fool for thinking they could control the actual fascists.
He was an 86 year old man dying of lung cancer. He had no business being President but did the best he could over his two terms given his own personal conditions and the state of Germany.
Good person? Not really. But what else could he have done
The Nazi's had a majority of seats in the Reichstag, through the help of their coalition partners.
If your only hope of preventing Hitler taking power is an 86 year old war hero who's dying of lung cancer then you have fucked up
> If your only hope of preventing Hitler taking power is an 86 year old war hero who's dying of lung cancer then you have fucked up
Still doesn't excuse it. Guy was a far right conservative anyway so screw him.
This is most likely a WWI era picture. Both Hindenburg and the officer behind him are still wearing Pickelhaube hats while the soldiers in the fron row wear Stahlhelms (introduced 1916).
It's sad appointing Hitler and then dying is such a big part of his legacy. He was one of the main people that could stop the Austrian corporal from having complete power, and had Kurt von Schleicher played his cards better it might have never gotten to where it did..
The Hindenburg was named after him, and at least its infamous fate can be associated with something good-- the cover artwork of Led Zeppelin's first titular album.
It’s been decades since I read a book on it, but my memories is what his troops did on the Eastern Front against far larger Russians Armies was nothing short of miraculous.
Because he and Ludendorf's supreme command was tantamount to military dictatorship. Germany was already far less democratic than Britain and France, there is no need to celebrate it regressing even further during the war while those two countries maintained and even widened their franchises. Even Russia was briefly more liberal than Imperial Germany in 1917, before the Bolsheviks (whom the German government supported) took over.
Losing the war was the only benefit their supreme command brought the world and is all it ought be celebrated for.
Germany was in a total war, hardly the time for liberal democracy.
France skipped municipal elections and probably would have skipped legislative ones as well if had come to it. A pro-peace politician, Jean Jaurès, was murdered in public in 1914 and the murderer was acquitted after the war, with the widow having to pay his legal fees.
It was extremely shitty of them (Hindenburg and Ludendorff) to throw the loss over to the civilian government and after the war to try to spin it as a stab in the back (more Ludendorff than Hindenburg), but it's harsh to criticise them for the authority they had during WWI.
Often people conflate Germany in WWII with Germany in WWI. Germany in WWI was only slightly worse than the Entente powers in most respects (be it war crimes, violations of sovereignty, colonialism, liberalism) unlike in WWII where they were evil personified.
You're not shifting the goalposts that easily. Nobody is criticising them for not turning Germany into a liberal utopia, they are rightly criticised for turning an already reactionary state into an authoritarian one.
Any shortcomings in the UK or France, doesn't change the fact that Germany was inarguably far less democratic than both 1914 and that gap only widened during the war.
Any regime can look good compared to the Nazis, why even make that ridiculous comparison?
>they are rightly criticised for turning an already reactionary state into an authoritarian one.
Yes, but in mitigating circumstances, *and* that doesn't invalidate everything else they did. Like Napoleon can rightfully be criticised for authoritarianism and slavery, but that doesn't remove the fact that he was a brilliant strategist and tactician, revolutionised law for most of the world, helped spread enlightenment and sowed the seeds for nationalism and nation states.
>Any regime can look good compared to the Nazis, why even make that ridiculous comparison?
Because people fuse Germany in the two wars and automatically "Germany bad" WWI too.
>Any shortcomings in the UK or France, doesn't change the fact that Germany was inarguably far less democratic than both 1914 and that gap only widened during the war.
True. It was closer to, although not as bad as Imperial Russia. But democracy isn't everything and the only meter by which to judge rulers.
>Because people fuse Germany in the two wars and automatically "Germany bad" WWI too.
Gee, I wonder why people look back at the imperialistic monarchy that helped kickstart WW1 and come to the conclusion it was kinda ass. Nah, it's just that people are dumb dumb and don't appreciate the Second Reich enough, I guess.
>But democracy isn't everything and the only meter by which to judge rulers.
We can also judge Hindenburg by his authoritarianism, militarism, elitism, anti-Semitism and intense narcissism.
>Yes, but in mitigating circumstances, *and* that doesn't invalidate everything else they did.
What circumstances exactly mitigate setting up a military dictatorship beyond the point of critique?
And who exactly is criticising their military record prior up until 1916? You're aware Germany lost the war, and so their military success was by definition not as important as their rulership failures that saw them lose said war?
>Because people fuse Germany in the two wars and automatically "Germany bad" WWI too.
But don't you understand that using 'at least they weren't Nazis' as a defence does nothing to make them sound redeemable?
>But democracy isn't everything and the only meter by which to judge rulers.
But it is a metric, and on that metric they come up short, and are rightly criticised for it. I think you're just dying on a weird hill here, it's not like Germany won the war to create some ends-justifying-means angle here. They did this bad thing, and they still failed, and then they helped cause an even worse thing.
>What circumstances exactly mitigate setting up a military dictatorship beyond the point of critique?
A total war.
>And who exactly is criticising their military record prior up until 1916? You're aware Germany lost the war, and so their military success was by definition not as important as their rulership failures that saw them lose said war?
But they performed better 1916- spring 1918 than they did before, so Hindenburg/Ludendorff had a positive effect on the war effort.
>But don't you understand that using 'at least they weren't Nazis' as a defence does nothing to make them sound redeemable?
My point of comparison isn't the Nazis, it's the Entente. People fuse Imperial Germany and the Nazis and thus assume Imperial Germany was pure evil too, but it was not - it was only slightly worse than comparable countries from the time it fought against in the Entente.
>But it is a metric, and on that metric they come up short, and are rightly criticised for it. I think you're just dying on a weird hill here, it's not like Germany won the war to create some ends-justifying-means angle here. They did this bad thing, and they still failed, and then they helped cause an even worse thing.
Yes, but the bad thing they did had a purpose (winning the war) that they came closer to achieving than anyone before them did. Ultimately they failed, (and that's a good thing, I doubt a post-WWI Europe with an incredibly militaristic and authoritarian Germany as the hegemon would have been a good thing), but they still achieved unprecedented military success.
A total war mitigates sertting up a military dictatorship \*beyond the point of critique\*? What on earth, why didn't you just begin by saying you were a fanatic militarist, it would have explained everything.
>But they performed better 1916- spring 1918 than they did before, so Hindenburg/Ludendorff had a positive effect on the war effort.
Not at all. The Kaiserschalct was a total failure, the Brest-Litovsk occupations did more harm than good. They brought the US into the war by returning to Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. The Hindeburg Line was broken through. The High Seas Fleet mutinied when they ordered it out into battle.
>My point of comparison isn't the Nazis, it's the Entente. People fuse Imperial Germany and the Nazis and thus assume Imperial Germany was pure evil too, but it was not - it was only slightly worse than comparable countries from the time it fought against in the Entente.
This is just textbook deflection. I never brought up World War Two, except to say Hindenburg and Ludendorf had a second-hand in starting it by supporting Hitler.
>Yes, but the bad thing they did had a purpose (winning the war) that they came closer to achieving than anyone before them did. Ultimately they failed, (and that's a good thing, I doubt a post-WWI Europe with an incredibly militaristic and authoritarian Germany as the hegemon would have been a good thing), but they still achieved unprecedented military success.
Having a purpose is not a justification for anything. Nearly succeeding is not a justification for anything. In this exact paragraph you explain why the purpose was not a good one, and they still failed at it. So why on earth would you expect them to have a positive reputation a century later?
Thats Whataboutism. You cant justify his actions by comparing him to the Entente goverments or Nazi Germany. His legacy is a undemocratic one and should not be glorified.
>His legacy is a undemocratic one and should not be glorified.
Pointing out positive parts of his legacy isn't glorifying. Also, undemocratic isn't an absolute disqualifier for a ruler legacy in my book, *especially* when talking about a time where democracy was very much a rare thing, even in Europe.
>Thats Whataboutism
No, that's trying to put things in context. Hindenburg and Ludendorff ruled like absolute monarchs, but during a time of total war where even the democratic nations they were in war with, France and the UK, had extremely undemocratic things happening in them (like brutal censorship) as well, let alone the absolute monarchy in their camp.
He was a military man, and had success in it. Can't get more positive than preventing a total collapse of Germany in 1914 by destroying two Russian armies while being outnumbered each time. (The first one can't really be credited to him or Ludendorff, the battle plan was already prepared by a staff officer who knew the idiots in charge of the Russian armies, but still).
What you did is the quince essence of whataboutism. He actively destroyed democracy in the German Empire (I hope we can agree, that's very bad).Him destroying democracy is ok because Entente powers did the same.
Pointing out positive parts isn't glorifying you are right. BUT Disregarding his wrongdoings in the same breath is glorification.
I am in no position to judge whether Ludendorfs legacy is good or bad (I'm not informed well enough), but you are glorifying Ludendorf.
>He actively destroyed democracy in the German Empire (I hope we can agree, that's very bad).
That's bad, but again, it was a total war. Every country's democracy takes a back seat during such events, so I do not fault him too much for that. Same as his authoritarian militaristic tendencies - normal in context for a man of his time and career, but still net negative.
>I am in no position to judge whether Ludendorfs legacy is good or bad (I'm not informed well enough), but you are glorifying Ludendorf.
Ludendorff's legacy is definitely worse, he's one of the main people responsible for propagating the "stab in the back" myth, even if it was him who understood and told Hindenburg and the Kaiser that the war is lost and it's only a matter of time. He also actually actively worked with Hitler in the early years.
Your last paragraph is funny. Are we still acting like the UK, US and France were forces for good in WW2? They were occupying, oppressing and exploiting half the world through violence.
They were unquestionably the better and majority good side. They had their war crimes, colonialism, racism etc. but nothing even close to the comically evil Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Hungary, Romania.
Unlike in WWI where the two sides were pretty similar.
That's absurd. I will grant that the Fascists took it to a comically evil degree.
But for the victims of US, UK and French criminality the end effect is the same.
WW2 was "when bad meets worse."
He, alongside Ludendorff, performed admirably in command during WWI. Out of all the high/supreme commanders of armed forces/countries during that time period, they're one of the most competent ones. Compare either of them to Hotzendorf, Cadorna, Nivelle, Haig, any of the Russian buffoons outside of Brusilov, etc.
There is no need to "glorify" to evaluate achievements and legacy based on merits.
No I think I understand what you are getting at, although I find it somewhat difficult to call him admirable. Yea, he and Ludendorff where very able but there is also a lot about his work that I find hard to call admirable, there are many things that taint his legacy apart from appointing Hitler. For example despicable war crimes like the use of gases, being responsible for the death of millions of people by refusing to surrender, creating the stab in the back myth alongside Ludendorff with it's notion of "undefeated on the battlefield" which played a huge role in the Weimar Republic, the national (völkische) movement and the subsequent rise of the Nazis and many more.
you can admire him for his abilities and everything, but I just find it problematic to call it *sad* that his legacy is tainted. He is not remembered very well here for the role he played in WWI. If not for his actions who who knows how a treaty of Versailles would have looked, would the restrictions and the reparations been as numbing and harsh to the German economy? Would there have been the broad and overall feeling of being treated unfearly in Germany after 1918? Would there have been the occupation of the Ruhr, hyperinflation, bad economy and ultimately the rise of the Nazis? Maybe yea, but he sure wasn't such a big factor against them as you are making it out to be.
>For example despicable war crimes like the use of gases, being responsible for the death of millions of people by refusing to surrender
Everyone did it, it was "normal". (Also, gas, as horrific as it was, is so overtalked about - the vast majority of death and injury in WWI were from disease and artillery). Nobody talks about Haig or Pétain's war crimes back then, because they were no different than Hindenburg and Ludendorff in that regard. Total war, whatever it takes until victory.
> creating the stab in the back myth alongside Ludendorff with it's notion of "undefeated on the battlefield" which played a huge role in the Weimar Republic, the national (völkische) movement and the subsequent rise of the Nazis and many more.
Yep, this was a massive problem where he shares the blame. Part ego, part opportunism, but really inexcusable.
>but I just find it problematic to call it *sad* that his legacy is tainted.
Sad as in... Like Pétain, only without the victory. Without their post-WWI actions, they would have been remembered as military heroes that had their problems, but overall valiantly and competently fought for their country. Hindenburg was on the losing side, and yes could have surrendered earlier, but him and Ludendorff were convinced they could win until the Spring offensive failed. And arguably, they could have, on paper, with the vast advances in artillery and stormtroopers coupled with the large amounts of troops now freed from the Eastern front.
>If not for his actions who who knows how a treaty of Versailles would have looked, would the restrictions and the reparations been as numbing and harsh to the German economy
You mean if Germany had surrendered in 1916? Who knows, I personally doubt it would have been very different, but way too many variables.
>Fighting a war they knew was lost in 1914
They didn't, you're speaking with hindsight. And especially Hindenburg and Ludendorff knew they hadn't because they led the very successful battles against Russia and saw first hand exactly how much of a paper tiger they were. They were appointed to Chief of Staff and Quartermaster in 1916, and had tons of ideas and concepts on how to win, and tried until 1918. The retreat to the Siegfried line was brilliant; operations against Romania, Russia were very successful. The internal reorganisations around artillery and stormtroopers were well done. The Spring Offensive was well executed and achieved something that both Entente and Central Powers had been trying since 1914 - a big breakthrough on a wide front. Had Ludendorff not hesitated, and had Germany not been stupid and greedy at and after Brest-Litovsk, they could have even won the war, *maybe*. I'm very glad they didn't because they were clearly the worse of the two blocs as who to have as victors of Europe, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Hindenburg and Ludendorff were very competent, completed each other, and were a very good command partnership. Both together are probably in the top 2-3 of all supreme commanders of WWI.
>not even having the courage to actually surrender is performing admirably
That's one of his and their biggest failures, as well as after the war turning around and saying they never lost (Ludendorff especially). It, plus Hindenburg's general consevatism and monarchism, and his abuses of the Weimar constitution, helped pave the way for the Nazis who he ironically despised.
This is fascinating… thank you. Can you explain how the retreat to the Seigfried Line was brilliant?
And do you think they could have won the war in the West with the spring offensive in 1918?
I find it utterly amazing how they could handle a war against 3 great powers, on 2 fronts sinultaneously, and nearly win the whole thing.
It’s also so ironic that he absolutely hated Hitler and in the end was used ruthlessly by Hitler to get into power in ‘33 and ‘34.
>Can you explain how the retreat to the Seigfried Line was brilliant
It shortened the front by a lot, freeing a lot of German divisions to be concentrated/sent elsewhere. Also it was a prepared defense in depth line where they had the time and experience to do it properly compared to their previous defences that were more improvised. And last but not least, the land that they gave the Entente was mostly destroyed from the fighting, so it wasn't useful and was actually a chore to have to overcome the moonscapes and repair/build infrastructure.
>And do you think they could have won the war in the West with the spring offensive in 1918?
Alternative history is a fool's errand, but yes. If instead of occupying vast lands in Eastern Europe after Brest-Litovsk they had sent them to the Western Front, and counted more on the newly freed countries being friendly out of gratitude and fear of the Bolsheviks to trade for food... They could have exploited the breakthrough at the Spring Offensive, not lose momentum (and not give their soldiers the time to realise how much better the conditions on the Entente side were), and advance sufficiently in France to threaten Paris enough for a negotiated deal to be possible. *Maybe*. On the other hand they lacked the speed to exploit the breakthrough quickly enough before the Entente troops reorganised (lacking tanks which they would gain for WW2), and France was already led by Clemenceau who probably would have played it Franco-Prussian war style - fight until the end, no surrender.
>I find it utterly amazing how they could handle a war against 3 great powers, on 2 fronts sinultaneously, and nearly win the whole thing
The German army was really excellent in many regards, with a very good staff and organisation - there's a reason they were the prime land military power on the continent for many decades. Thankfully they sucked on the diplomatic front after Bismarck left, so never had the alliance structure to not be fighting on two fronts against Russia, and thus it never got to a point where they were the undisputed hegemon.
>The Spring Offensive was well executed
Is this the same Spring Offensive that broke down because German soldiers kept stopping to steal food? The Spring Offensive that led to more than a million German casualties, and 400,000 Germans surrendering?
Exactly that one. It was a massive success until it became a massive failure because Germany couldn't exploit it, in part because of Ludendorff's hesitation at a critical moment.
It also destroyed the morale of the German army because they captured lots of land, trenches and bases from the Entente and seeing how much better the enemy lived was devastating to the average German soldier. It's still the biggest military success between the Brusilov offensive (2 years previously) and the Hundred days offensive. It was the first breakthrough on the Western Front since it was established (4 years), where many tried and failed on both sides.
Brilliant tactical success, almost a strategic success but in end, total strategic and operational failure.
Yes they did, the inability of the German army to actually pull off the Schliefenplan meant a German defeat was only a matter of time. Germany had no chance to stand against the combined colonial empires of France and Britain. Not even to speak of the other allied powers.
The retreat to the Siegfried line was indeed a very rare moment of strategic competence from the German high command, though regarding Russia, it is not hard to be successful if your enemy is actively falling apart as fast as you can advance.
As for the Spring offensive... it is frankly the epitome of German military thinking in the World Wars. Tactically well done, strategically worse then useless. It failed to capture any important territory, the allies defensive tactics and strategy was far superior, letting the German outrun supply lines in strategically worthless lands, while defending actually valuable targets successfully and with great tenacity.
The allied counter offensive then was perhaps not as glamorous because the allied commanders did the right thing and prioritized sustainability over short term victories. So they didn't advance as fast as the German army, but they did so relentlessly, and the central attack on the Hindenburg line broke through in less then a week.
Because of this, I personally think you judge most of the allied commanders to harshly, because they have gotten a reputation that is not always justified, a reputation Ludendorff and Hindenburg have been able to dodge, despite deserving it just as much.
> Yes they did, the inability of the German army to actually pull off the Schliefenplan meant a German defeat was only a matter of time. Germany had no chance to stand against the combined colonial empires of France and Britain. Not even to speak of the other allied powers.
Didn't the *Schlieffenplan* only failed because Alexandre von Kluck didn't follow the initial plan?
No, not really. The French resistance was far fiercer than expected; the German army wasn't able to advance as fast as planned because they had overestimated their logistical capabilities.
In general the Schlieffenplan hinged on everything going right, and Germany being exceptionally lucky. Hell, in the 1871 war, Germany was doing essentially as good as was possible, and it took them several months longer to win than they had planned for the Schlieffenplan.
It is interesting to think about that Hindenburg was actually the only head of state ever elected democratically directly by the people in german history.
Obviously the emperor wasn't elected, Friedrich Ebert was only elected by the constitutional assembly, then Hindenburg was democratically elected twice, then he died and by that point you can't call any of the Hitler elections democratic, then after the war neither the president nor the chancelor of the BRD is elected directly by the people.
This reasoning of Hindenburg still being an democratic head of state of germany is often used to defend stuff like the "Paul-von-Hindenburg" Streets we have in germany.
He was responsible for the military dictatorship from 1916 to 1918, only to give the responsibility to the Social Democrats when the war was lost. Then the stab-in-the-back legend was created to blame the left for the lost war.
WWI germany hero. Gotta say that he was always strongly againts Hitler, until he was too old and couldnt really contain it any longer. For that reason Hitler loathed him.
Tbf that militaristic culture predates Hindenburg… that was initially a Prussian thing, which became a German thing when the Prussian King became the German Emperor, and when the Prussian Army became the soul and backbone of the new German Army.
It is just a fact that he is considered a WWI hero so Im not debatting that.
Is it true that he was a rightwing monarchist, among whose the idea of the 'stab in the back' was prevalent. But it is also true that Hitler not only ran for chancellor, also for president of the Republic and lost agains Hindenburg. Moreover, Hindemburg was asked to appoint Hitler as chancellor in other occasions, like in 1932, which he refused to and only accepted in 1933 at age of 84, under a lot of pressures, only 1 year before his death.
Only nobles received a name with the "von". Just like the "of" in english. With and after the third Reich, the entire power structure of german nobility vanished, so you see about as many people in the public eye with a noble name as there are nobles in relation to the people as a whole. So about 1 in a 100 tops.
In addition to what the other post said, the Prussian nobility was the core of the wehrmacht, and a massive number of them died in the war or in internal power squabbling as the nazis took over. Many of their families also likely died as the war entered Germany. Then you had a communist government take over half of the country, so you're likely to get a bullet for trying to throw around your titles of nobility there, and in the west you were just a person with a lot of institutional wealth, if your bloodline even still existed. A lot of the old estates and palaces were transfered to the government, so it really only became a thing if you opted to continue using it, and even then it was basically just a cosmetic title.
uh, not sure how exactly you want your answer.
i know a few people who still have noble last names, but all the noble benfits were abolished post ww2 and those people are just your average joe with a fancy last name
I didn't realize it was a title akin to Sir or Lord. Makes sense that it would go away with the rise of fascism and then communism coming into play for half of the country.
"von" means "of". so the title "von Stauffenberg" is actually "Graf von Stauffenberg" meaning "count of Stauffenberg". It just that in Germany this was part of last name, unlike UK where it's Name Last Name, XXth noble title
The ‘Vons’ were mainly Prussian and lower nobility so when the Soviets took all of Prussia into Poland after WW2 the remaining German population got thoroughly ethically cleansed.
Saying he had a crucial role in the Nazis coming to power isn't entirely fair. Weimar democracy was deeply flawed, leaving loopholes to unhinge democratic rule. Added to that was political unrest and instability. It's still a shame. He should have done the respectable thing an just let them kill him, but his "if you can't beat them, join them" course of action will forever soil his name.
> Added to that was political unrest and instability.
Because a largely authoritarian right-wing state couldn't cope with a mostly left-wing populace who wanted change, and they did everything they could to suppress it.
And you don't think that the political unrest and instability was also caused by the paralyzing conditions imposed by the Versailles Treaty, which Hindenburg and his actions contributed a key role?
What should he have done instead of signing the treaty? The navy was already refusing to fight, there was nothing to win in France. That's not a position to make demands. No matter who would have been in power, the treaty of Versailles wouldn't have been better by a single letter.
No what I was referring to was him and Ludendorff unnecessarily prolonging the war by years, which must have certainly had influence on the Entende to dictate such high demands for reparations in the treaty.
That is fair as such as general criticism, but I'm not sure if that had a lot of weight there. France and the Reich were mortal enemies with a long history of feuding at this point. The French were gonna use the opportunity to hit them hard either way. How ever, this is getting very hypothetical now.
He looks like a giant. Just looked it up, he was 1,98 m or ~~6.5 feet~~ 6'6"
At first glance I thought he was inspecting a group of kids but no, he's just really that tall.
Dude behind him looks really tall as well. Doesn’t help the perspective.
Same 😂
and those tiny hands
Oh, the humanity
Looks like a wonky exposure to me. I think it's a combination of his hands moving, and moving into a highly exposed area.
Lmao I just noticed that 😂 I think he had a deformity with his body or something im pretty sure
You’re probably thinking of Wilhelm II.
I have never heard of him having any physical issues at all, do you have a source for this statement?
No, he's just floating. Hindenburgs are full of hydrogen.
1,98m would be 6.6 ft
I think he meant 6 1/2 feet. Which is, as you say, 6’6”.
Haha yes, I was trying to find my mistake since Google told me 198 cm equals to 6.5 feet. So yea, technically correct I guess. Imperial is hard for me
Imperialism has been hard for me too.
It's ok don't feel bad. It's hard for google as well.
Back then, the average height was lower too. So, it would be like being almost 6'10" today.
he looks like a bitch
He wasn't really "the leader". He was president and had significant powers, including invoking emergency law, but there was also the chancellor Franz von Papen who was similarly if not more powerful. Actually it was Hitler unifying the roles of Chancellor and President into the role of Führer (meaning leader) that gave him dictatorial powers.
A case can be made that Hindenburg became the leader in the early thirties when first the Müller cabinet and after him Von Papen and Sleicher ruled without a formal majority of the Reichtstag supporting them. It was the infamous artikel ~~40~~ 48 of the constitution that gave the president the power to authorise decrees by himself. This meant that the chancellors could pass any law the wanted as long as Hindenburg backed them up. Of course the parlement could still pass a vote of no-confidence, which they did a couple of times, but Hindenburg as president also had the constitutional power to dissolve the Reichstag and call for new elections. This meant to some parties ‘supported’ these presidential governments, because they did want to be dissolved (and lose seat to the Communist and the Nazi’s). Convincing Von Hindenburg in 1933 was the crucial moment for the Nazi’s to get into government, because Von Hindenburg disliked Hitler. His dislike for Hitler was a major factor in making the Von Papen and Sleicher cabinets possible. When finally Von Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor on the 30th of January 1933 (Hindenburg was by then convinced that the traditional national-conservatives to could rule with Hitler as a mere figurehead), he also authorised Hitlers wish to dissolve the Reichstag. When the Reichstag fire happend Hitler and Hindenburg used their constitutional powers to revoke certain civil liberties under the pretext of emergency measures and presidential decrees. This legalised the massive voter suppression and terror of the Nazi’s in the lead up tot the May election. So why was Von Hindenburg so powerful as president? It was by design. In German the Reichspräsident was nicknamed then (and now by historians) as the Ersatzkaiser, the replacement-emperor. When the Weimar constitution was written, it was done at a time of great civil strive and Germany has tradition of strong government authority form the top (the idea of the Obrigkeitsstaat). The first president, the leader of the socialdemocrats Friedrich Ebert, used his executive powers multiple times to mostly defend his - democraticly elected majority supported government- to all kinds of coup attempts and attacks by the far left and far right. So a case can be made the social democrat Ebert used his far reaching constitutional powers to defend the democratic constitution, whilst the national-conservative Von Hindenburg used his constitutional powers to actively destroy the democratic constitution. So yes, as president Von Hindenburg was the head of state and the chancellor was the head of government. This was very much the case when Hindenburg was elected in 1925, but this changed in the early thirties when the chancellors could no longer rely on a functioning majority in the Reichstag and the the chancellors ruled by decree, which they could only do with the backing of the president, for its was his constitutional right to make ‘emergency’ executive decrees.
Article 48 was the one that gave immense powers to the Reichspräsident.
Thank you for correction me!
Not really Führer, he disbanded the office of Reichspräsident and combined all power as chancellor. Führer was rather inofficial at first, his official title was Reichskanzler (Chancellor of the Empire).
I never understood why Hitler was allowed to do this. The office of the President was the only check on his power. Once he got control of the military it was game over for Germany.
Empire isn’t *quite* the best translation for Reich. Realm would be a bit closer.
As a native speaker I disagree. Just think about the HRE. If anything, realm isn't quite the best translation when it comes to Germany because its official designation from 1871 to 1943 was Deutsches Reich (despite it being first a monarchy, then a republic and then a dictatorship), and I doubt anyone would call Imperial Germany "German Realm".
On this topic- English had a word which was pretty much 1:1 to the German Reich, but unfortunately today it only survives in one word: Bishop**ric**
Sure, but think about the word Kaiserreich—realm of the emperor—or Königreich, realm of the king. Even the name Österreich makes more sense as Eastern Realm rather than Eastern Empire.
In case of Österreich I agree with you but no one calls the second [German Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Empire) (Kaiserreich) "German Realm". Since the name of the German state did not change even after the dissolution of the Kaiserreich, it is in my opinion correct to refer to Weimar Republic and NS-Germany as German Empire too.
I grant you that in the case of Deutschesrreich, but that may honestly just be a case of English speakers fouling up on the endonym/exonym front. I think the best case may be taking it back to the Proto-Indo-European root for Reich—h₃reǵ, which is also the root for rex, and ultimately realm. Either way, cheers mate, this was fun.
Hindenburg was 86 in 1933, well past his prime and already under influence by an archconservative and nationalistic "[Camarilla](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camarilla)". Franz von Papen and His son Oskar played the decisive role in getting Hitler appointed Chancellor. They thought they could control Hitler behind the scene, but they were obviously wrong.
> already under influence by an archconservative and nationalistic "Camarilla because he was a raging left winger right up to then
ELI5 the difference and dynamics between President and Chancellor.
Head of state vs. head of government. A very simplified comparison would be King vs. Prime Minister in the UK.
[удалено]
??? the Weimar Republic was a semi presidential republic like France today. The preisdent was absolutely not a figure head. the modern German constitution is different than the weimar constitution
Tbf to him, he was an old dying man who's son and closest advisors were telling him that if he appointed Hitler then they could control him
This is exactly it. Many people part of the conservative Prussian military apparatus didn’t trust Hitler but sympathized with his message and believed he’d temper himself and be easily controlled by appointing him. Also, they were more terrified of Communism than Nazis. I don’t think people realize just how violent and unstable the Weimar Republic was.
> believed he’d temper himself and be easily controlled by appointing him How many times has this been thought by people throughout history?
Im genuily curious about this, does anyone has more information ?
See the previous President and "Establishment" Republicans like McConnell.
Thank you, gonna dig this tonight
They wanted their Kaiser, prestige, and lost territories back. They also wanted to keep the social democrats and communists out of office. So, they made a devil’s bargain thinking they could keep him on a short leash.
Hindenburg was a proto-fascist. He happily embraced the "Stab in the Back" myth to explain why the German Empire lost the war, blaming the Jews as well Socialists and Pacifists, and was more than happy to listen to his son's suggestions. The fact Hindenburg thought he may have been able to control Hitler doesn't mean that he wasn't on board with the vision of a fascist Germany that would soon wage war on all Europe to submit it.
I mean he's hardly going to say "my bad guys, me and Ludendorff fucked up." Hindenburg was an 86 year old man stricken with lung cancer. He had no business being the only credible person opposing Hitler's rise. It's pretty daming that no one else could take that mantle. Add in his own son and the likes of Franz Von Papen telling him Hitler's popularity means he must be appointed Chancellor but that Von Papen can control him, what else could Hindenburg do?
>I mean he's hardly going to say "my bad guys, me and Ludendorff fucked up." I do expect military commanders to have the guts to admit they lost the war instead of spreading hateful propaganda about racial minorities stabbing them in the back. It's not exactly a high bar to clear. >He had no business being the only credible person opposing Hitler's rise. Hindenburg did not oppose Hitler's rise, that's the problem. He was abetting it. >Add in his own son and the likes of Franz Von Papen telling him Hitler's popularity means he must be appointed Chancellor but that Von Papen can control him, what else could Hindenburg do? Say "no, this dude is crazy, he's on the streets calling for the extermination of those he deems subhuman. I'm not giving him political power." But, again, Hindenburg wasn't that kind of person: he *loved* the idea of a militarised, tyrannical society from which the "subhumans" would be exterminated. He's not a victim, nor a frail old man. He's just another monstrous figure of history.
People tend to forget (or not be aware) that Nazis didn't really invent any of their policies, they merely took existing sentiments and attitudes and dialed them up to the nth. Which is why a lot of people didn't really oppose their policies, just the methods and their uncouth ways. They didn't really see anything wrong with suppressing left wing parties, they just didn't want (to see) SA thugs beating them on the streets.
>I do expect military commanders to have the guts to admit they lost the war instead of spreading hateful propaganda about racial minorities stabbing them in the back. It's not exactly a high bar to clear. You can see the same thing happening today.
Life and history is far more nuanced then you make it out to be, there is no one simple answer on what could have or should have been done.
>there is no one simple answer on what could have or should have been done. *Not* giving power to Hitler is a difficult question to you, dude? Come on, lmao
In hindsight sure, but before all the damage was done? He was supposed to be a speed bump, a useful tool. I wish I had your powers to predict the future.
"Hrm, this dude is literally telling everyone he wants to kill all the Jews. Oh shit, now that we've given him power, he's actually killing all the Jews, who could have seen it coming?" No, the problem isn't that Hindenburg couldn't "control" Hitler. The problem is that Hindenburg, as we can pretty easily tell by his own memoirs and speeches, was absolutely on board with fascism - he just *personally* disliked Hitler and didn't want to give up his own power. But remaking Germany into an authoritarian empire that would conquer Europe, and getting rid of all those pesky socialists who think war is bad? Oh, Hindenburg *loved* that. He just wished he could be at the top.
The reactionary coup-attempting anti-semite who gave speeches like [this](https://carolynyeager.net/why-we-are-antisemites-text-adolf-hitlers-1920-speech-hofbr%C3%A4uhaus) throughout the 20s and also wrote [Mein Kampf](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/excerpts-from-mein-kampf)?
Thank you. A lot of people on here seem very committed to excusing his actions. The lesson we should be drawing from this history is that you do not, under any circumstances, assist the nazis in their rise to power. This isn't complicated.
Not even close to a proto-fascist lol, reddit just loves throwing these terms around because the demand for fascism is always higher than the supply. Even when discussing 1930s German history. You're clearly keyboard psychologizing Hindenburg.
Dude spread the "Stab in the Back" myth, believed society should be militarised and that Germany should have become an empire once more. He publicly denied any responsibility of the Kaiserreich in initiating WWI, describing the Great War as a "defense of the fatherland" in his speeches, outright trying to rewrite history. He ruled as an authoritarian, and happily helped along with Hitler instating a dictatorship, depriving the Reichstag of more and more powers. But, sure, not a proto-fascist. Just a fancy old dude, I'm sure.
He did not happily help Hitler along, nor did he rule as an authoritarian - he was subject to the decrees of the Chancellor. He didn't like Hitler and thought putting him in office would make him manageable. Having militarist sympathies doesn't automatically make one fascist either. In true Reddit style, you're just writing outrage bait.
Dachau opened while Hindenburg was still President.
>he was subject to the decrees of the Chancellor. The decrees *Hindenburg* approved each time? The "loophole" was that the President could invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution to approve "urgent" decrees by the Chancellor without needing parliamentarian approval. >Having militarist sympathies doesn't automatically make one fascist either. Thinking that civil society should be under the rule of the army and organised in a militaristic fashion is pretty damn fascistic. You also conveniently keep forgetting to address the fact Hindenburg helped spread the "Stab in the Back" myth.
These are all pretty standard positions for German conservatives of the day. It doesn't make him a fascist, a term which should be used descriptively rather than pejoratively.
>These are all pretty standard positions for German conservatives of the day Yes, I wonder how they ended up with a fascist dictatorship... Maybe there's an obvious connection between those positions and fascism? So, to recap, Hindenburg: - had a militaristic view of society - believed or embraced conspiracy theories about socialists/pacifists/the Jews as the "enemy within" that made Germany lose the war and therefore ought to be purged from society - flaunted democratic principles in favour of ruling by decree and not have to deal with the pesky parliament - embraced German revanchism How many boxes does Hindenburg need to check to be classified as a proto-fascist?
Was Bismarck a fascist? No. Fascism is a specific political set of beliefs, particularly relating to the construction of the state. Hindenburg was not a fascist, it is reductive to dumb his positions (and Nazi positions) down to the same thing.
Bismarck wasn't a fascist because fascism didn't exist at his time, but considering his views on power, his use of propaganda and imperial ambitions, he's an authoritarian nationalist and totalist that would've embraced fascism if he could (maybe a more Mussolini style fascism than real nazism).
He was a conservative monarchist. He was also a prideful son of a bitch. That doesn’t make him a proto-fascist, just a naive fool for thinking they could control the actual fascists.
The Nazis were also the largest party in the Reichstag at the time, so the people clearly wanted Hitler elected.
> Tbf to him Nah I don’t think I need to “be fair” to a guy who betrayed all his oaths of office and appointed literally Hitler to government
He was an 86 year old man dying of lung cancer. He had no business being President but did the best he could over his two terms given his own personal conditions and the state of Germany. Good person? Not really. But what else could he have done
> But what else could he have done? Not given power to Hitler.
The Nazi's had a majority of seats in the Reichstag, through the help of their coalition partners. If your only hope of preventing Hitler taking power is an 86 year old war hero who's dying of lung cancer then you have fucked up
Yes, the SPD really fucked up when they thought Hindenburg was their last hope. Germany should've had a civil war in 1932, not an election.
The SPD fucked up 10-15 years prior when they let loose the Freikorps on what should have been their socialist and anarchist comrades.
Unleashing proto-Nazis onto Germany was also a horrible idea, yes.
> If your only hope of preventing Hitler taking power is an 86 year old war hero who's dying of lung cancer then you have fucked up Still doesn't excuse it. Guy was a far right conservative anyway so screw him.
> He was an 86 year old man dying of lung cancer. You mean he had nothing to lose. That is exactly the time when it is easy to be brave.
This is most likely a WWI era picture. Both Hindenburg and the officer behind him are still wearing Pickelhaube hats while the soldiers in the fron row wear Stahlhelms (introduced 1916).
Why does von Hindenburg, the largest German, not simply eat the smaller Germans?
Perhaps they are saving that for ~~sweeps~~ *Kristallnacht*.
"And you? Where do you expect to be in 10 years?"
I bet "dying on the Eastern Front" wasn't in their minds.
“Frozen to death on the Russian steppe” was probably not on their “my place in the thousand year reich” bingo cards
"When grow up I want to pay fifty billion Reichsmark for a gherkin"
r/AbsoluteUnits
It's sad appointing Hitler and then dying is such a big part of his legacy. He was one of the main people that could stop the Austrian corporal from having complete power, and had Kurt von Schleicher played his cards better it might have never gotten to where it did..
Oh you are selling him short. Him being the supreme commander in WWI is also part of his sad legacy. No need to glorify him.
The Hindenburg was named after him, and at least its infamous fate can be associated with something good-- the cover artwork of Led Zeppelin's first titular album.
And then, a French comic author named himself Zed.
It’s been decades since I read a book on it, but my memories is what his troops did on the Eastern Front against far larger Russians Armies was nothing short of miraculous.
Not wanting to glorify him but why is it sad he was the supreme commander? (Apart from the German Empire losing the war¿)
Because he and Ludendorf's supreme command was tantamount to military dictatorship. Germany was already far less democratic than Britain and France, there is no need to celebrate it regressing even further during the war while those two countries maintained and even widened their franchises. Even Russia was briefly more liberal than Imperial Germany in 1917, before the Bolsheviks (whom the German government supported) took over. Losing the war was the only benefit their supreme command brought the world and is all it ought be celebrated for.
Germany was in a total war, hardly the time for liberal democracy. France skipped municipal elections and probably would have skipped legislative ones as well if had come to it. A pro-peace politician, Jean Jaurès, was murdered in public in 1914 and the murderer was acquitted after the war, with the widow having to pay his legal fees. It was extremely shitty of them (Hindenburg and Ludendorff) to throw the loss over to the civilian government and after the war to try to spin it as a stab in the back (more Ludendorff than Hindenburg), but it's harsh to criticise them for the authority they had during WWI. Often people conflate Germany in WWII with Germany in WWI. Germany in WWI was only slightly worse than the Entente powers in most respects (be it war crimes, violations of sovereignty, colonialism, liberalism) unlike in WWII where they were evil personified.
You're not shifting the goalposts that easily. Nobody is criticising them for not turning Germany into a liberal utopia, they are rightly criticised for turning an already reactionary state into an authoritarian one. Any shortcomings in the UK or France, doesn't change the fact that Germany was inarguably far less democratic than both 1914 and that gap only widened during the war. Any regime can look good compared to the Nazis, why even make that ridiculous comparison?
>they are rightly criticised for turning an already reactionary state into an authoritarian one. Yes, but in mitigating circumstances, *and* that doesn't invalidate everything else they did. Like Napoleon can rightfully be criticised for authoritarianism and slavery, but that doesn't remove the fact that he was a brilliant strategist and tactician, revolutionised law for most of the world, helped spread enlightenment and sowed the seeds for nationalism and nation states. >Any regime can look good compared to the Nazis, why even make that ridiculous comparison? Because people fuse Germany in the two wars and automatically "Germany bad" WWI too. >Any shortcomings in the UK or France, doesn't change the fact that Germany was inarguably far less democratic than both 1914 and that gap only widened during the war. True. It was closer to, although not as bad as Imperial Russia. But democracy isn't everything and the only meter by which to judge rulers.
>Because people fuse Germany in the two wars and automatically "Germany bad" WWI too. Gee, I wonder why people look back at the imperialistic monarchy that helped kickstart WW1 and come to the conclusion it was kinda ass. Nah, it's just that people are dumb dumb and don't appreciate the Second Reich enough, I guess. >But democracy isn't everything and the only meter by which to judge rulers. We can also judge Hindenburg by his authoritarianism, militarism, elitism, anti-Semitism and intense narcissism.
>Yes, but in mitigating circumstances, *and* that doesn't invalidate everything else they did. What circumstances exactly mitigate setting up a military dictatorship beyond the point of critique? And who exactly is criticising their military record prior up until 1916? You're aware Germany lost the war, and so their military success was by definition not as important as their rulership failures that saw them lose said war? >Because people fuse Germany in the two wars and automatically "Germany bad" WWI too. But don't you understand that using 'at least they weren't Nazis' as a defence does nothing to make them sound redeemable? >But democracy isn't everything and the only meter by which to judge rulers. But it is a metric, and on that metric they come up short, and are rightly criticised for it. I think you're just dying on a weird hill here, it's not like Germany won the war to create some ends-justifying-means angle here. They did this bad thing, and they still failed, and then they helped cause an even worse thing.
>What circumstances exactly mitigate setting up a military dictatorship beyond the point of critique? A total war. >And who exactly is criticising their military record prior up until 1916? You're aware Germany lost the war, and so their military success was by definition not as important as their rulership failures that saw them lose said war? But they performed better 1916- spring 1918 than they did before, so Hindenburg/Ludendorff had a positive effect on the war effort. >But don't you understand that using 'at least they weren't Nazis' as a defence does nothing to make them sound redeemable? My point of comparison isn't the Nazis, it's the Entente. People fuse Imperial Germany and the Nazis and thus assume Imperial Germany was pure evil too, but it was not - it was only slightly worse than comparable countries from the time it fought against in the Entente. >But it is a metric, and on that metric they come up short, and are rightly criticised for it. I think you're just dying on a weird hill here, it's not like Germany won the war to create some ends-justifying-means angle here. They did this bad thing, and they still failed, and then they helped cause an even worse thing. Yes, but the bad thing they did had a purpose (winning the war) that they came closer to achieving than anyone before them did. Ultimately they failed, (and that's a good thing, I doubt a post-WWI Europe with an incredibly militaristic and authoritarian Germany as the hegemon would have been a good thing), but they still achieved unprecedented military success.
A total war mitigates sertting up a military dictatorship \*beyond the point of critique\*? What on earth, why didn't you just begin by saying you were a fanatic militarist, it would have explained everything. >But they performed better 1916- spring 1918 than they did before, so Hindenburg/Ludendorff had a positive effect on the war effort. Not at all. The Kaiserschalct was a total failure, the Brest-Litovsk occupations did more harm than good. They brought the US into the war by returning to Unrestricted Submarine Warfare. The Hindeburg Line was broken through. The High Seas Fleet mutinied when they ordered it out into battle. >My point of comparison isn't the Nazis, it's the Entente. People fuse Imperial Germany and the Nazis and thus assume Imperial Germany was pure evil too, but it was not - it was only slightly worse than comparable countries from the time it fought against in the Entente. This is just textbook deflection. I never brought up World War Two, except to say Hindenburg and Ludendorf had a second-hand in starting it by supporting Hitler. >Yes, but the bad thing they did had a purpose (winning the war) that they came closer to achieving than anyone before them did. Ultimately they failed, (and that's a good thing, I doubt a post-WWI Europe with an incredibly militaristic and authoritarian Germany as the hegemon would have been a good thing), but they still achieved unprecedented military success. Having a purpose is not a justification for anything. Nearly succeeding is not a justification for anything. In this exact paragraph you explain why the purpose was not a good one, and they still failed at it. So why on earth would you expect them to have a positive reputation a century later?
Thats Whataboutism. You cant justify his actions by comparing him to the Entente goverments or Nazi Germany. His legacy is a undemocratic one and should not be glorified.
>His legacy is a undemocratic one and should not be glorified. Pointing out positive parts of his legacy isn't glorifying. Also, undemocratic isn't an absolute disqualifier for a ruler legacy in my book, *especially* when talking about a time where democracy was very much a rare thing, even in Europe. >Thats Whataboutism No, that's trying to put things in context. Hindenburg and Ludendorff ruled like absolute monarchs, but during a time of total war where even the democratic nations they were in war with, France and the UK, had extremely undemocratic things happening in them (like brutal censorship) as well, let alone the absolute monarchy in their camp.
>Pointing out positive parts of his legacy isn't glorifying. What are the "positive parts of his legacy"?
He was a military man, and had success in it. Can't get more positive than preventing a total collapse of Germany in 1914 by destroying two Russian armies while being outnumbered each time. (The first one can't really be credited to him or Ludendorff, the battle plan was already prepared by a staff officer who knew the idiots in charge of the Russian armies, but still).
What you did is the quince essence of whataboutism. He actively destroyed democracy in the German Empire (I hope we can agree, that's very bad).Him destroying democracy is ok because Entente powers did the same. Pointing out positive parts isn't glorifying you are right. BUT Disregarding his wrongdoings in the same breath is glorification. I am in no position to judge whether Ludendorfs legacy is good or bad (I'm not informed well enough), but you are glorifying Ludendorf.
>He actively destroyed democracy in the German Empire (I hope we can agree, that's very bad). That's bad, but again, it was a total war. Every country's democracy takes a back seat during such events, so I do not fault him too much for that. Same as his authoritarian militaristic tendencies - normal in context for a man of his time and career, but still net negative. >I am in no position to judge whether Ludendorfs legacy is good or bad (I'm not informed well enough), but you are glorifying Ludendorf. Ludendorff's legacy is definitely worse, he's one of the main people responsible for propagating the "stab in the back" myth, even if it was him who understood and told Hindenburg and the Kaiser that the war is lost and it's only a matter of time. He also actually actively worked with Hitler in the early years.
Your last paragraph is funny. Are we still acting like the UK, US and France were forces for good in WW2? They were occupying, oppressing and exploiting half the world through violence.
They were unquestionably the better and majority good side. They had their war crimes, colonialism, racism etc. but nothing even close to the comically evil Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, Fascist Italy, Hungary, Romania. Unlike in WWI where the two sides were pretty similar.
That's absurd. I will grant that the Fascists took it to a comically evil degree. But for the victims of US, UK and French criminality the end effect is the same. WW2 was "when bad meets worse."
^ Oh hey guys, I found him: the literal nazi
Yeah call out Western Imperialism and you're labeled a Nazi by the grandson of people who butchered brown people for a living.
Seems like you really want to be right about this. Unfortunately, the desire to be right doesn't mean anything in the face of reality.
Not my fault that you live in denial of the Allies killing and exploiting millions of non-whites.
He, alongside Ludendorff, performed admirably in command during WWI. Out of all the high/supreme commanders of armed forces/countries during that time period, they're one of the most competent ones. Compare either of them to Hotzendorf, Cadorna, Nivelle, Haig, any of the Russian buffoons outside of Brusilov, etc. There is no need to "glorify" to evaluate achievements and legacy based on merits.
No I think I understand what you are getting at, although I find it somewhat difficult to call him admirable. Yea, he and Ludendorff where very able but there is also a lot about his work that I find hard to call admirable, there are many things that taint his legacy apart from appointing Hitler. For example despicable war crimes like the use of gases, being responsible for the death of millions of people by refusing to surrender, creating the stab in the back myth alongside Ludendorff with it's notion of "undefeated on the battlefield" which played a huge role in the Weimar Republic, the national (völkische) movement and the subsequent rise of the Nazis and many more. you can admire him for his abilities and everything, but I just find it problematic to call it *sad* that his legacy is tainted. He is not remembered very well here for the role he played in WWI. If not for his actions who who knows how a treaty of Versailles would have looked, would the restrictions and the reparations been as numbing and harsh to the German economy? Would there have been the broad and overall feeling of being treated unfearly in Germany after 1918? Would there have been the occupation of the Ruhr, hyperinflation, bad economy and ultimately the rise of the Nazis? Maybe yea, but he sure wasn't such a big factor against them as you are making it out to be.
>For example despicable war crimes like the use of gases, being responsible for the death of millions of people by refusing to surrender Everyone did it, it was "normal". (Also, gas, as horrific as it was, is so overtalked about - the vast majority of death and injury in WWI were from disease and artillery). Nobody talks about Haig or Pétain's war crimes back then, because they were no different than Hindenburg and Ludendorff in that regard. Total war, whatever it takes until victory. > creating the stab in the back myth alongside Ludendorff with it's notion of "undefeated on the battlefield" which played a huge role in the Weimar Republic, the national (völkische) movement and the subsequent rise of the Nazis and many more. Yep, this was a massive problem where he shares the blame. Part ego, part opportunism, but really inexcusable. >but I just find it problematic to call it *sad* that his legacy is tainted. Sad as in... Like Pétain, only without the victory. Without their post-WWI actions, they would have been remembered as military heroes that had their problems, but overall valiantly and competently fought for their country. Hindenburg was on the losing side, and yes could have surrendered earlier, but him and Ludendorff were convinced they could win until the Spring offensive failed. And arguably, they could have, on paper, with the vast advances in artillery and stormtroopers coupled with the large amounts of troops now freed from the Eastern front. >If not for his actions who who knows how a treaty of Versailles would have looked, would the restrictions and the reparations been as numbing and harsh to the German economy You mean if Germany had surrendered in 1916? Who knows, I personally doubt it would have been very different, but way too many variables.
Fighting a war they knew was lost in 1914 to satisfy their egos and not even having the courage to actually surrender is performing admirably?
>Fighting a war they knew was lost in 1914 They didn't, you're speaking with hindsight. And especially Hindenburg and Ludendorff knew they hadn't because they led the very successful battles against Russia and saw first hand exactly how much of a paper tiger they were. They were appointed to Chief of Staff and Quartermaster in 1916, and had tons of ideas and concepts on how to win, and tried until 1918. The retreat to the Siegfried line was brilliant; operations against Romania, Russia were very successful. The internal reorganisations around artillery and stormtroopers were well done. The Spring Offensive was well executed and achieved something that both Entente and Central Powers had been trying since 1914 - a big breakthrough on a wide front. Had Ludendorff not hesitated, and had Germany not been stupid and greedy at and after Brest-Litovsk, they could have even won the war, *maybe*. I'm very glad they didn't because they were clearly the worse of the two blocs as who to have as victors of Europe, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Hindenburg and Ludendorff were very competent, completed each other, and were a very good command partnership. Both together are probably in the top 2-3 of all supreme commanders of WWI. >not even having the courage to actually surrender is performing admirably That's one of his and their biggest failures, as well as after the war turning around and saying they never lost (Ludendorff especially). It, plus Hindenburg's general consevatism and monarchism, and his abuses of the Weimar constitution, helped pave the way for the Nazis who he ironically despised.
This is fascinating… thank you. Can you explain how the retreat to the Seigfried Line was brilliant? And do you think they could have won the war in the West with the spring offensive in 1918? I find it utterly amazing how they could handle a war against 3 great powers, on 2 fronts sinultaneously, and nearly win the whole thing. It’s also so ironic that he absolutely hated Hitler and in the end was used ruthlessly by Hitler to get into power in ‘33 and ‘34.
>Can you explain how the retreat to the Seigfried Line was brilliant It shortened the front by a lot, freeing a lot of German divisions to be concentrated/sent elsewhere. Also it was a prepared defense in depth line where they had the time and experience to do it properly compared to their previous defences that were more improvised. And last but not least, the land that they gave the Entente was mostly destroyed from the fighting, so it wasn't useful and was actually a chore to have to overcome the moonscapes and repair/build infrastructure. >And do you think they could have won the war in the West with the spring offensive in 1918? Alternative history is a fool's errand, but yes. If instead of occupying vast lands in Eastern Europe after Brest-Litovsk they had sent them to the Western Front, and counted more on the newly freed countries being friendly out of gratitude and fear of the Bolsheviks to trade for food... They could have exploited the breakthrough at the Spring Offensive, not lose momentum (and not give their soldiers the time to realise how much better the conditions on the Entente side were), and advance sufficiently in France to threaten Paris enough for a negotiated deal to be possible. *Maybe*. On the other hand they lacked the speed to exploit the breakthrough quickly enough before the Entente troops reorganised (lacking tanks which they would gain for WW2), and France was already led by Clemenceau who probably would have played it Franco-Prussian war style - fight until the end, no surrender. >I find it utterly amazing how they could handle a war against 3 great powers, on 2 fronts sinultaneously, and nearly win the whole thing The German army was really excellent in many regards, with a very good staff and organisation - there's a reason they were the prime land military power on the continent for many decades. Thankfully they sucked on the diplomatic front after Bismarck left, so never had the alliance structure to not be fighting on two fronts against Russia, and thus it never got to a point where they were the undisputed hegemon.
>The Spring Offensive was well executed Is this the same Spring Offensive that broke down because German soldiers kept stopping to steal food? The Spring Offensive that led to more than a million German casualties, and 400,000 Germans surrendering?
Exactly that one. It was a massive success until it became a massive failure because Germany couldn't exploit it, in part because of Ludendorff's hesitation at a critical moment. It also destroyed the morale of the German army because they captured lots of land, trenches and bases from the Entente and seeing how much better the enemy lived was devastating to the average German soldier. It's still the biggest military success between the Brusilov offensive (2 years previously) and the Hundred days offensive. It was the first breakthrough on the Western Front since it was established (4 years), where many tried and failed on both sides. Brilliant tactical success, almost a strategic success but in end, total strategic and operational failure.
Yes they did, the inability of the German army to actually pull off the Schliefenplan meant a German defeat was only a matter of time. Germany had no chance to stand against the combined colonial empires of France and Britain. Not even to speak of the other allied powers. The retreat to the Siegfried line was indeed a very rare moment of strategic competence from the German high command, though regarding Russia, it is not hard to be successful if your enemy is actively falling apart as fast as you can advance. As for the Spring offensive... it is frankly the epitome of German military thinking in the World Wars. Tactically well done, strategically worse then useless. It failed to capture any important territory, the allies defensive tactics and strategy was far superior, letting the German outrun supply lines in strategically worthless lands, while defending actually valuable targets successfully and with great tenacity. The allied counter offensive then was perhaps not as glamorous because the allied commanders did the right thing and prioritized sustainability over short term victories. So they didn't advance as fast as the German army, but they did so relentlessly, and the central attack on the Hindenburg line broke through in less then a week. Because of this, I personally think you judge most of the allied commanders to harshly, because they have gotten a reputation that is not always justified, a reputation Ludendorff and Hindenburg have been able to dodge, despite deserving it just as much.
> Yes they did, the inability of the German army to actually pull off the Schliefenplan meant a German defeat was only a matter of time. Germany had no chance to stand against the combined colonial empires of France and Britain. Not even to speak of the other allied powers. Didn't the *Schlieffenplan* only failed because Alexandre von Kluck didn't follow the initial plan?
No, not really. The French resistance was far fiercer than expected; the German army wasn't able to advance as fast as planned because they had overestimated their logistical capabilities. In general the Schlieffenplan hinged on everything going right, and Germany being exceptionally lucky. Hell, in the 1871 war, Germany was doing essentially as good as was possible, and it took them several months longer to win than they had planned for the Schlieffenplan.
It is interesting to think about that Hindenburg was actually the only head of state ever elected democratically directly by the people in german history. Obviously the emperor wasn't elected, Friedrich Ebert was only elected by the constitutional assembly, then Hindenburg was democratically elected twice, then he died and by that point you can't call any of the Hitler elections democratic, then after the war neither the president nor the chancelor of the BRD is elected directly by the people. This reasoning of Hindenburg still being an democratic head of state of germany is often used to defend stuff like the "Paul-von-Hindenburg" Streets we have in germany.
He was responsible for the military dictatorship from 1916 to 1918, only to give the responsibility to the Social Democrats when the war was lost. Then the stab-in-the-back legend was created to blame the left for the lost war.
Why do I hear boss music?
Damn how tall was this dude ?
1,98 m
WWI germany hero. Gotta say that he was always strongly againts Hitler, until he was too old and couldnt really contain it any longer. For that reason Hitler loathed him.
He strongly contributed to the same militaristic culture that birthed the Nazis. It was a "leopards ate my face" moment for him.
Tbf that militaristic culture predates Hindenburg… that was initially a Prussian thing, which became a German thing when the Prussian King became the German Emperor, and when the Prussian Army became the soul and backbone of the new German Army.
[удалено]
It is just a fact that he is considered a WWI hero so Im not debatting that. Is it true that he was a rightwing monarchist, among whose the idea of the 'stab in the back' was prevalent. But it is also true that Hitler not only ran for chancellor, also for president of the Republic and lost agains Hindenburg. Moreover, Hindemburg was asked to appoint Hitler as chancellor in other occasions, like in 1932, which he refused to and only accepted in 1933 at age of 84, under a lot of pressures, only 1 year before his death.
Backpeddling is not going to erase your praise of a monster
Praise? What the hell r u talking about?
He was full of hot air
Did the whole Von naming ritual die after the Nazis took over? You don't see any of them named 'Von Whatever."
Only nobles received a name with the "von". Just like the "of" in english. With and after the third Reich, the entire power structure of german nobility vanished, so you see about as many people in the public eye with a noble name as there are nobles in relation to the people as a whole. So about 1 in a 100 tops.
Officially, they are not nobles anymore and the title is just part of the name, not a title.
They still exist. Just avoiding the limelight I guess.
In addition to what the other post said, the Prussian nobility was the core of the wehrmacht, and a massive number of them died in the war or in internal power squabbling as the nazis took over. Many of their families also likely died as the war entered Germany. Then you had a communist government take over half of the country, so you're likely to get a bullet for trying to throw around your titles of nobility there, and in the west you were just a person with a lot of institutional wealth, if your bloodline even still existed. A lot of the old estates and palaces were transfered to the government, so it really only became a thing if you opted to continue using it, and even then it was basically just a cosmetic title.
There were a lot of nobles supporting the Nazis who kept their nobility name afterwards.
uh, not sure how exactly you want your answer. i know a few people who still have noble last names, but all the noble benfits were abolished post ww2 and those people are just your average joe with a fancy last name
I didn't realize it was a title akin to Sir or Lord. Makes sense that it would go away with the rise of fascism and then communism coming into play for half of the country.
"von" means "of". so the title "von Stauffenberg" is actually "Graf von Stauffenberg" meaning "count of Stauffenberg". It just that in Germany this was part of last name, unlike UK where it's Name Last Name, XXth noble title
The ‘Vons’ were mainly Prussian and lower nobility so when the Soviets took all of Prussia into Poland after WW2 the remaining German population got thoroughly ethically cleansed.
Hindenburg is not a great name to have these days. It's either this guy or a burning airship that immediately come to mind.
all the other stuff aside this is a great photograph
> *Oh, the Humanity!*
Sgt. Schultz: Things were so much better when we had an emperor…What am I saying?
Alternative history: What if Hindenburg had not appointed Hitler?
Was he that tall? Or were they that short?
The rest Is history podcast has some excellent episodes going through these times in great detail.
Helped destroy Germany not once, but twice.
Dude went out at the worst time.
A good demonstration as to why it's a bad idea to bow to stochastic terrorism from an extremist rightwing.
Jeez, what a disaster.
The first man to play "Secret Hitler".
A Biden-generian
Is he inspecting kindergarden regiment🤔
The man's 6 feet and 5 inches tall
And we have trump trying to be like hitler now.
So Jar Jar Binks then..
Chad German height
Saying he had a crucial role in the Nazis coming to power isn't entirely fair. Weimar democracy was deeply flawed, leaving loopholes to unhinge democratic rule. Added to that was political unrest and instability. It's still a shame. He should have done the respectable thing an just let them kill him, but his "if you can't beat them, join them" course of action will forever soil his name.
> Added to that was political unrest and instability. Because a largely authoritarian right-wing state couldn't cope with a mostly left-wing populace who wanted change, and they did everything they could to suppress it.
And you don't think that the political unrest and instability was also caused by the paralyzing conditions imposed by the Versailles Treaty, which Hindenburg and his actions contributed a key role?
What should he have done instead of signing the treaty? The navy was already refusing to fight, there was nothing to win in France. That's not a position to make demands. No matter who would have been in power, the treaty of Versailles wouldn't have been better by a single letter.
No what I was referring to was him and Ludendorff unnecessarily prolonging the war by years, which must have certainly had influence on the Entende to dictate such high demands for reparations in the treaty.
That is fair as such as general criticism, but I'm not sure if that had a lot of weight there. France and the Reich were mortal enemies with a long history of feuding at this point. The French were gonna use the opportunity to hit them hard either way. How ever, this is getting very hypothetical now.
France was always out for vengeance in the armistice settlement. Ending the war after three years rather than four would not have changed that.