I know it is now June….I am usually done with this post by mid-March but this year we had a bunch of great games that came out in November and December and we just had to get several of them to the table before we shut 2025 down. Our opportunity to do so with full tables as there were several multi-player games in that bunch, was during Buckeye Game Fest in mid-March where we played lots of great games including Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 from Legion Wargames, Cross Bronx Expressway from GMT Games and Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations to name just a few. And now, with those final games getting played, comes the impossible task of distilling an entire year’s worth of gaming down to a list of the 10 games that we most enjoyed. I hate doing this. I love writing about, thinking about and sharing my experiences about the games we have played but hate having to make somewhat objective choices about which is better and which games should even be considered for the list. The first comment I would have is that not all games are the same. Not the same scale, the same play time, the same mechanically or even historically. Each game is unique and in my opinion, all games have something objectively good about them. Secondly, we didn’t get around to playing some of the new releases in 2025. I say some but we actually didn’t play a lot of the new releases and did the best that we could to play as many as possible. So we might leave off a game that you thought was very good and deserving and it probably is but we either didn’t get around to playing it or it just didn’t hit with us. But, in the end, I have to make this list and this is my best effort at doing just that!

In 2025, we played 33 unique titles from 22 different publishers. Some were operational, strategic or tactical scale and in the list this year I didn’t include any solitaire games. Some used counters. Some used cards. Some used wooden bits and some used miniatures. Some were only card games with no other components and some were cooperative. At the end of the day, in 2025 we played a lot of games! And here I present to you my list of the Top 10 Wargames of 2025!

10. China’s War: 1937-1941 from GMT Games

This is a game that I have been awaiting for a long, long time. Really since it was announced nearly 7 years ago in 2019. Yes you read that right…2019! And I am happy to report that the wait was definitely worth it as the game feels fresh and is a very worthy addition to the COIN Series. China’s War: 1937-1941 from GMT Games, which is volume 13 in the well respected and venerable COIN Series, examines the first five years of the 2nd Sino-Japanese conflict, when China stood alone against the whole of the Japanese Empire. Each player takes on the role of 1 of 4 Factions seeking to attack or defend the Republic of China including the aggressive and powerful Japanese, the harried Government represented by the Guomindang party, the rebellious Chinese Communist Party, or the unruly and fractious Warlords who are obedient when convenient but have their eye on gaining state power. Using military, political, and economic actions and exploiting various events, players will build and maneuver forces to influence or control the population, extract resources, or otherwise achieve their Faction’s goals and victory conditions. As with all COIN Series games that are Card Assisted rather than Card Driven Games, the deck of cards will regulate turn order, inject historical events into the game with major benefits or consequences, cause victory checks and other in game processes.

China’s War feels like a classic COIN Series game but in my opinion has 3 insurgent style factions against the powerful Japanese who don’t really act like the large Government factions in previous entries in the series. The focus really centers on the control of the Lines of Communication or LoC’s on the game board, which was a very refreshing approach that created some really interesting interplay and caused me to think differently about how I would go about achieving my Victory Conditions. 

We find that Brian Train’s designs are just fantastic. I think that sometimes they can be a bit opaque, meaning that their true genius cannot be seen with just a few plays but will be unlocked over 4 or 5 plays as we have found with A Distant Plain, which has continually moved up on my list of favorite COIN Series games with each play that now numbers around 5. But China’s War was just special. It is totally unique as to its take on insurgency within the COIN Series, is really frenetic and active and gives the feeling of classic COIN while really turning things a bit upside down with the way the powerful faction works in the Japanese as they really only care about maintaining and cleaning off their Lines of Communication. In fact, they are so unique that they are the faction that will place Terror on the board, which is typically reserved for the insurgent factions to sway Support and Opposition.

We very much enjoyed the game and had a good time with it. We had a newer COIN Series player and they seemed to take to the game quickly and understood what it was that they were supposed to be doing. With that being said, with only the 1 play, I am sure that there are lots of things that we didn’t experience and will be able to discover those in future gaming opportunities. Suffice it to say that we can’t wait to play the game again and I am planning to bring this one along with me to the World Boardgaming Championships at the end of July.

We recently shot a First Impression/review video and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in China’s War: 1937-1941, you can purchase a copy for $88.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-830-chinas-war-1937-1941.aspx

9. Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations

This spring, while attending Buckeye Game Fest in Columbus, Ohio, we were able to coordinate a 6-player game of Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations. Imperial Elegy 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.

Imperial Elegy is a fantastically themed game that takes place over 7 turns, with each of the turns representing approximately a decade. If the Great War breaks out due to the World Tension Track reaching a certain level, the game can be extended by an additional 6 shorter turns. A turn in the game consists of player impulses that is driven by the play of action cards for their Command Points or for the printed events. Players will use CP and events to take actions like colonize, conduct diplomacy with minor nations, fight wars, as well as hinder their opponents by playing events that take away their actions or resources. A turn will end once all players have consecutively passed or when all players run out of cards.

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.

Each of the represented nations in the game have their own special player board that contains various tracks that keep various information readily available to the players. Here is a look at the German player board. I very much enjoyed that they have gone to a great deal of effort to make these player boards and also that they gave each of the nation’s Stability, which decides whether various actions like war can be taken or if there are various positive or negative modifiers, the available Manpower that will determine how many armies can be built, Industry that tells how many action pointed you will have to spend during war to maneuver units, attack and replace losses. The focus of the game is about the control of territories both in Europe as well as colonies abroad and there is an automatic victory if a certain target number is met, in the case of Germany 15.

As we played, I started to realize that the key focus of the overall world stability and things like the Domestic Stability Tracks, which are focused of both the internal and external pressures faced by the powers. I really very much liked this thematic inclusion as no one wants to start a major global conflagration and there are steps that players have to take to skirt the inevitable troubles that result in their own actions and how they are seen by the other players in the game. But in our limited play, I never really felt threatened by this concept. Either our group was super skilled at avoiding the inevitable increase in tension or due to our short play we didn’t really experience some of the events that would have tipped this over the edge. I think that we say small increases in our full turn play but nothing that seemed unmanageable and we actually had an event that lowered it so it never became an issue. The game is about spending your resources wisely, in the form of your cards and your aspects like Stability, and to use your cards to do the events that could increase tension didn’t seem to be in our best interest, at least not in the 1st decade of the game. But maybe that will come later.

I wrote a First Impressions style post on the blog that you can read at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2026/05/06/first-impressions-imperial-elegy-the-road-to-the-great-war-1850-1920-from-vuca-simulations/

We do have a full 6-player game scheduled for later this month and will have more to report after that all day affair.

If you are interested in Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920, you can purchase a copy for $129.99 from the VUCA Simulations website at the following link: https://vucasimulations.com/products/imperial-elegy-the-imperial-world-at-war-1850-1920

8. An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 from Bellica Third Generation

Earlier this year, I was able to host Francisco Ronco at my home to play a few games together. One of the games we played was published by his company Bellica Third Generation and was called An Impossible War. An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838 is a block wargame that recreates the First Carlist War in the North of Spain which was a civil war between the Carlists who supported the succession of the late king’s brother Carlos de Borbón and the progressive and centralist supporters of the regent Maria Christina acting for Isabella II of Spain who were referred to as the Liberals. The game uses blocks representing units but also includes counters and uses cards.

An Impossible War is a fantastic design that attempts to capture the historical aspects of this titanic struggle for the throne of Spain in the mid 19th century. Historically, the Carlist forces who were defenders of traditional monarchy, regional privileges, and the Catholic Church, were a minority faction fighting an overwhelmingly larger, richer liberal government. The uprising phase reflects how the Carlists compensated for this disparity by forcing the Liberal government to fight on multiple fronts and suffer from logistical nightmares across hostile terrain. The Carlist Uprising Phase, and the use of its auxiliary Rest of Spain regional map, forces some really tough dilemmas on the Liberal player. They must attempt to divide their forces between the main Game Map and the Rest of Spain Map to prevent the opposition Carlist forces from overwhelming the home territory in the north. It serves as a vital strategic balancing act for the Liberal player that cannot be ignored and must be dealt with systematically and somewhat evenly. Too much focus on the Rest of Spain Map and the situation on the Game Map will quickly snowball and they will lose control. Focus on the situation on the Game Map and the protection of Cities and Towns and the Carlist Expeditions will gain momentum and turn the countryside red. While the primary war centers on the rugged terrain of northern Spain (Navarre and the Basque Provinces), the uprising mechanic abstractly models scattered insurgencies across the rest of the country. And as you know, insurgencies can be very unpredictable and difficult to contain. You stamp out one area only to see a fire start in another. The Liberal player must divert troops and supply resources to the secondary map to quell these localized rebellions and hunt down Carlist expeditions originating from the north. And, the important thing for the Carlist player and the expansion of the uprisings and the success of their expeditions is the possible generation of generation of Prestige and Victory Points, which is really crucial to their path to victory.

I very much enjoyed the asymmetry between the Carlist and Liberal forces in the game. It made for a very interesting tactical challenge for both sides as they have to play to their strengths and not get too overly concerned with the numbers. The Carlists will be much more mobile in their defense and look to exploit every gap in a supply line to move around and stay away from the numerically superior Liberal forces, whereas the Liberal player will have to move more methodically to take outlying towns and settlements to be able to shore up their lines and create less opportunities for end arounds by the Carlists. The disparity in the forces was a very interesting choice by the designer David Gómez Relloso and I am sure is reflective of the historical reality of the First Carlist War.

I very much enjoyed An Impossible War, even though I played just a few turns of a smaller scenario with Francisco Ronco. He was a master at the game, as obviously as the publisher and a playtester he is intimately familiar with the rules and strategies, and I learned a lot from him about how the game should be played. I am looking forward to future plays as the game is just very good and has some interesting aspects that create a very tense and interesting game of maneuver and strategy. The Game Map is very well done, from an aesthetic perspective as well as functionally, and the board makes playing the game easier.

If you are interested, we posted an interview on the blog with the designer and you can read that at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2025/07/14/interview-with-david-gomez-relloso-designer-of-an-impossible-war-the-first-carlist-war-in-the-north-1834-1838-from-bellica-3rd-generation/

I also was able to shoot a fairly short video summary of my game play with Francisco Ronco who is the owner of Bellica Third Generation and you can watch that at the following link:

Also I have embarked on a series of written Action Point post highlighting the various aspects of the game. Those published to date are as follows:

Action Point 1 – Game Map as well as the use of the Rest of Spain smaller map.

Action Point 2 – Units available to both sides and the importance of Supply.

Action Point 3 – Carlist Uprising Phase and what it means for the game.

If you are interested in An Impossible War: The First Carlist War in the North, 1834-1838, you can purchase a copy for 120,00 € ($139.08 in US Dollars) from the Bellica Third Generation website at the following link: https://bellica3g.com/en/product/una-guerra-imposible/

7. Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition from Decision Games

If you like classic wargames, and by that I mean simple I Go You Go Hex and Counter games from the 70’s and 80’s, then you are going to love Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition, which is a new updated version of 2 classic quadrigames from SPI covering several key battles from the American Civil War. Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition consists of the original eight games from the SPI Blue & Gray I & II Quadrigames but with massively upgraded components and counters and some better written rules. The key battles depicted are among the most important of the American Civil War and include Shiloh, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga and The Battle of the Wilderness.

The Deluxe Edition part of the title is really just a few changes including a mounted board that is really gorgeous and pretty sturdy. The counters have been slightly enlarged and there are a few additional optional rules including things like night turns, fatigue, leader casualties. There also were some optional unit counters that could be used but overall this was an artist and layout reissue of the game with some other nice additions such as period fonts and a very solid choice of colors for the maps and the counters as they really compliment each other well. But the game is really extremely playable meaning that is doesn’t take long to pick up the rules and the system is very standard fair. The game mechanics used are based on the Borodino/Napoleon at Waterloo system and frankly are very easy to grock and to get into. I did very much like the back and forth of the scenarios as the players will tend to clash over control of certain key areas that have defensible terrain and that are only approachable from a few areas. But the game does have a few concerns for me such as generally no fog of war and no difficulty in activating any and all of your stacks. But that is what the system is and it will truly appeal to those that are looking for that nostalgic feeling from their childhoods.

But it plays well, fast and is solid and any good solid wargame is good with me.

Here is a link to our review video:

If you are interested in Blue & Gray Deluxe Edition, you can order a copy for $140.00 from the Decision Games website at the following link: https://shop.decisiongames.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=P%2D3038

6. Fighting Formations: US 29th Infantry Division from GMT Games

One of my favorite tactical systems of all time is Combat Commander designed by the late Chad Jensen. I had yet to play his other tactical combined-arms series called Fighting Formations until the newest release came out in 2025 called Fighting Formations: US 29th Infantry Division. Fighting Formations is intended to be an ongoing series of wargames covering WWII tactical combined-arms combat at the platoon and squad levels. Each game in the series will feature a distinct combat unit, highlighting battles in which that unit participated as well as its particular order of battle and fighting characteristics. In this second volume of Fighting Formations, GMT features the US 29th Infantry Division—“Blue and Gray”—as it fought from just after D-Day in June of 1944 to the end of the year.

The core mechanics from the original Fighting Formations remain unchanged in this volume. The difference from the original game is in the way the units will fight. The different costs on the matrix place an emphasis on certain actions and assets for the 29th ID that were different than the others games way of approaching a battle. This game is far from Combat Commander though as it uses cards but they are not the engine of the game. The game also has a very interesting and unique activation system where each of the orders cost a different amount of Initiative and tuns into and impulse-type back and forth where the various Orders carry with them a certain cost in Initiative. The game has a pool of 40 Initiative that is spent to give these orders and then to activate units for those orders. At the end of every order, the player with the most Initiative is able to give the next order. In response, the opponent can also spend Initiative to conduct both Opportunity Fire or Reactive Fire which keeps the game very dynamic and fluid. Just a really great way to approach this and if you have played Downfall from GMT Games you will notice similarities with the system.

The game also tells a great narrative of the differences between the US and German troops as the 29th had access to more battlefield support than their German counterparts and the card deck is tailored to that experience as well. The US player in the new game has access to more cards and at lower initiative costs, bringing artillery and air support to the forefront in a way that we have not seen before.

We did a RAW video after our 1st play and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in Fighting Formations: US 29th Infantry Division, you can order a copy for $121.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1005-fighting-formations-us-29th-infantry-division.aspx

5. The Rock of Chickamauga from Flying Pig Games

The Rock of Chickamauga is the 2nd entry in the Black Swan Series from Flying Pig Games designed by Hermann Luttmann and follows closely on the heels of A Most Fearful Sacrifice. Using the same game system, which is based on the well received Blind Sword Series, The Rock of Chickamauga covers the entire Battle of Chickamauga, fought from September 18th through the 20th, 1863 in northern Georgia. The Union Army of the Cumberland, under William Rosecrans, is driving south from Chattanooga, hoping to envelop and trap Braxton Bragg’s Confederate Army of Tennessee. But Bragg anticipates the maneuver, pulls back and then counterattacks the overextended Union forces. They meet along Chickamauga Creek, nicknamed the “River of Death”, in an epic struggle. 

The Black Swan Series uses a card-draw activation system that functions similarly to a traditional chit-pull system. This system is a core mechanic for introducing uncertainty, friction, and the fog of war into the gameplay. The cards themselves contain specific game information and orders, which streamlines play and reduces the need to look up rules or charts, saving time compared to traditional chit-pull systems.

I also very much liked how the confusion and true fog of war that existed at the battlefield was included in the game play. Not only do to the commanders’ lack precise information about their opponent but also the physical nature of the battlefield. Both sides basically went into battle stumbling and bumbling through the woods, searching out what they thought was the enemy’s flank and actually being way off in their assumptions. The woods themselves were so uniquely characteristic in that they were mostly thickly grouped with little undergrowth (being cleared by the local farmers and millers), but still displaying significant canopies. This canopy functioned like a tropical jungle “roof” and trapped smoke and dust within it. To add to that, there had been little rain in the area and the trails, lanes, and roads were exceedingly dry and produced clouds of dust. My main concern therefore was replicating all that confusion and ignorance of the location of opposing forces and thankfully, that’s what the entire Blind Swords/Black Swan System is modeled to reflect. Therefore, I just doubled-down on the inherent “chaos” elements of the core system and made those factors even more prevalent.

I also love how the system models the units and their fighting prowess referred to as Cohesion. The Cohesion Rating of a unit is essentially a catch-all for its morale, training and experience and includes what the unit’s intangible fighting qualities are, other than just sheer number of men. It is probably the most important aspect of the game engine as it is the key element that will determine how well a unit will fight – and survive – during the battle. It is used throughout the game to measure a unit’s ability to fight and endure on the battlefield. The CR will fluctuate during the entire game, and it will do so often. Units that are Shaken or Battleworn will have their CR suffer. Units can also raise their CR temporarily through the use of various events or by providing them with Unit Support. A low CR makes units more vulnerable and increases their risk during a Break Test, which will cause them to leave the game if they fail. You have to focus on this aspect or you will be unable to consistently move your attacks forward.

Just such a great system and I love Hermann’s attention to the historical details and the way he tells these ACW stories. I love this Black Swan Series and look forward to future volumes.

We posted an interview with the designer Hermann Luttmann and you can read that at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2024/10/23/interview-with-hermann-luttmann-designer-of-the-rock-of-chickamauga-from-flying-pig-games-coming-to-kickstarter-october-24th/

We also did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in The Rock of Chickamauga, you can order a copy for $140.00 from the Flying Pig Games website at the following link: https://flyingpiggames.com/shop/ols/products/the-rock-of-chickamauga

4. BCS Inflection Point: The Battle for Kalach and the Battle of Chir from Multi-Man Publishing

Over the past couple years, we have played a few venerated and respected series games from Multi-Man Publishing for the first time that frankly I had initially turned my nose up at for various reasons. These reasons were not really anything important or truly about the design or mechanics but included things like price, graphic design, style and somewhat because of the complexity and reputation of complexity of those systems. These series included first the Standard Combat Series (SCS) with our first game being Rostov ’41 and now the Battalion Combat Series (BCS) with our first game being Arracourt and since we have played several other volumes including Brazen Chariots and Baptism by Fire. I must admit here that I am actually embarrassed that I hadn’t played those series and readily admit that I just discounted and dismissed them out of hand. I am so very glad that we repented of our stubbornness and found this system because it really is very, very good at what it is trying to teach and demonstrate about warfare at this scale.

One of the best parts about this new volume in the series is that it is actually 2 games in the same box. One game which is smaller, with fewer counters and formations and that uses a smaller version of the board included in the game and one that is the full campaign with more counters and formations, a larger board and is much more involved. Overall, I would say that the BCS is a fairly straightforward series even for someone who is a beginner and has less experience with the BCS system like me. I think that I thought they were designing Arracourt as the entry to the series, and I still think that is the case, but this volume has some of the same flexibility and approachability that some of the larger titles don’t necessarily have. I feel that players can cut their teeth on this one using the smaller scenario while getting comfortable with the rules and system before you attempt the larger scenarior or even other larger games in the series. I also feel that the game requires somewhat of a paradigm shift before playing. What I mean by that is really two fold.

First, I really feel that usually these big hex and counter wargames are set in their combat methods, namely focused on odds based Combat Results Tables and counting up combat factors to get the perfect odds, and require a bit of calculation. But BCS doesn’t use a traditional CRT but breaks the combat down into more of a collection of DRM’s based on many factors.

Second, the game also has very low counter density, with the scenario we played having about 40 counters per side on the map at any given time, and stacking limits are just 2 combat units with other counters also allowed such as support units or HQ’s. There are not enough counters here to create the long contiguous line or wall of units that are typical in some of the larger systems, which lends this one to a bit more maneuvering of units to get into good position while using terrain to attempt to isolate and cut off units from supply or to prevent the enemy from doing the same to your units. This created somewhat of a back and forth dance for us that kept my focus and attention and was really quite entertaining. Supply is important to the system but not as focused on it as say the Operational Combat Series (OCS). The players must manage their HQ’s and their combat trains to keep their units in full supply and this becomes somewhat of a different type of dance that sees players cautiously keeping their units in a loose perimeter to prevent a freak breakthrough or run around to get to the back of the formations to take out supply sources and cut off units. I really liked the scale and feeling of this BCS system and had a very good time in trying to learn and understand it and also trying to figure out the best strategies to engage.

The counters included in BCS Inflection Point are dual sided but the back side is not to show a reduced unit as is normal with these wargames. The front side is the unit’s move side while the back side is its deployed side. Each of these stances is very important and must be used by each player to get the most out of their units and to take it to their opponent.

I wrote a First Impressions style post on the blog that you can read at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2026/03/04/first-impressions-bcs-inflection-point-the-battle-for-kalach-and-the-battle-of-chir-from-multi-man-publishing/

We also did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in BCS Inflection Point: The Battle for Kalach and the Battle of Chir, you can order a copy for $112.00 from the Multi-Man Publishing website at the following link: https://mmpgamers.com/inflection-point-p-418

3. Close Quarter Battles: Waterloo from Lock ‘n Load Publishing

Close Quarter Battles: Waterloo was such a surprise of the year for us. It is a tactical level wargame that is truly intense and chaotic that attempts to, and does a fantastic job of accomplishing, the brutal, up-close engagements of Napoleonic warfare. The game puts players in command of elite British, French, or Prussian forces as they fight for control of key battlefield positions. The designer has chosen to center on the two strongpoints of the battle of Waterloo including the La Haye Sainte farm and the Hougoumont Farm. First off, the game is just gorgeous and the maps are stunning. In fact, they are so good that I am going to highlight them in an upcoming entry on the blog in the Beautiful Boards of Wargaming Series. But, the Waterloo battles here are skirmishes around and for the taking of these two farms. The game uses a grand tactical system that works to attempt to to simulate the interactions between infantry skirmishers of small groups, artillery sections and cavalry in a fortified area. This leads to the game being uber violent and bloody as assaults are common but difficult particularly for the attackers who will have to scale formidable walls and then take on the awaiting crack troops inside. Officers and generals are very important to the battle as they will influence the battlefield with their command range and other attributes to add DRM’s to the troops by issuing orders, rallying troops, and trying their best to maintain discipline.

I really like this one as it is really a game. Meaning that the rules are simple yet impactful and the game provides each of the players with a deck of cards that act as events to provide bonuses, allow for greater movement distance or to perform heroic acts. They also provide the chance to attack and eliminate leaders with sniper fire to cause even further chaos and blood.

We did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in Close Quarter Battles: Waterloo, you can order a copy for $129.99 from the Lock ‘n Load Publishing website at the following link: https://lnlpublishing.com/products/close-quarter-battles-waterloo-llp314531

2. All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859 from Legion Wargames

We very much enjoy the Blind Swords Series originally designed by Hermann Luttmann. We love it for its chaos, unpredictability and for is crunchy combat system. This past year, a new designer Bryan Armor took up the call and took this Blind Swords System and put it into action in the Second Italian War of Independence. All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859 simulates the decisive battle of the Second Italian War of Independence at the Brigade-level, with some additional Regimental-size and smaller detachments included.

And the other part that is so good about this system and the game itself is the activation chit pull system. The chit pull mechanic also very much aids in solitaire play, as does variable activation rules and reinforcement tables but it really makes for a lot of uncertainty about how and what units will activate. No battle is in your full control and this system really reinforces that truth about the battlefield.

One of the best parts is the morale system. Each corps has an associated Corps Morale marker on the Morale Track. Each Corps Morale marker will be reduced by one when they activate including movement and fire attacks but also when Leaders take casualties or break tests are failed. This can all lead to the corps becoming demoralized which means they will be unable to offensively move and attack and will be relegated to a defensive posture. So you really have to make good choices about what units and when they will activate. You cannot just wholesale activate each formation every turn but must look at their status to decide how best to manage this aspect that was a very interesting and nice addition to an all ready proven and very good system. This means that units are also prone to attrition and need to be covered or supported by artillery fire. They can be used most effectively if massed at certain points. The chits also effected the corps’ stance switching between aggressive or defensive and this is a choice that must be made with a full understanding of a plan of attack.

Just a very solid and playable game that felt like a big wargame that played fairly quickly and easily and didn’t get bogged down too much.

We did a review video and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in All Are Brothers: Solferino, 1859, you can order a copy for $58.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_AAB.html

1. Congress of Vienna from GMT Games

I am a big fan of the Great Statesman Series from GMT Games and several of its volumes including Churchill and Pericles are among my favorite wargames. But Congress of Vienna is a really great game, probably the best of the bunch, and has matured the system laid out by its found Mark Herman. Congress of Vienna has two different but related phases including the conference table where players first debate over the control of issues germane to the factions and the period of the war and second these issues are then used on the battlefield to recruit units, attack and take overall command of battles. The players will be playing cards from their hands to “debate” over the various issues that were placed on the table, which include all types of things such as Military Operations, Recruitment, who will lead the combined Coalition forces (Generalissimo), Future of French Government, British Financial Aid, Liberalism vs. Absolutism, Austrian Neutrality and several other issues, and then later the players will use their accumulated Resources gained from the issues to enact action on the Military Map and do things like mobilize troops, place Military Support Markers and the ultimately to conduct warfare.

The interesting thing about this mechanic is that sometimes the other players will win your issues by having them rest on their side of the conference table at the conclusion of the phase. In this case, the winning player will gain control of that issue and then will get the opportunity to choose where the issues will be placed on the Military Map, but the owner of the issue will still pay for it and must do where the placement is telling them to do, such as attack on a certain front. There also is a small area on the board where the Russian player must turn their effort to fight in Asia. This action has no real in game effect or benefit other than causing Russia to lose the choice of what they wanted to do in favor of doing something else. This can be a great tactic for the French player, or even for other Coalition players to spoil the plans of the Russian player and possibly box them out of gaining VP for military victories on various tracks.

The game relies on cards and cards can be used to negotiate, i.e. move an issue to your National Track. Cards can provide a particular issue with positive and negative DRM’s depending on which nation plays them and can also be traded with another player during the Diplomacy Phase. Certain cards are better than others for debating an issue moved by another player; and finally, if they are saved for the War Phase, staff cards can be used to modify dice rolling in battles. These are very versatile cards and the players will have to learn them and their benefits in order to be effective at the game.

But even though the game relies on cards and has an important Diplomacy Phase, without a doubt CoV is a wargame with DRM’s for units and military leaders, terrain, military support, a Casualties Table, retreat and advancing after battle, etc. However, both Phases are inversely related and if players use their Character Cards in the form of generals and military leaders for the Diplomacy Phase you will not have them available for the Military Phase. If you do not win enough issues during the Diplomacy Phase, you will not have recruiting or military operations where they are most important to your power.

I would say that the game is very involved and will take a few plays to really get comfortable with. I don’t want anyone to take this to mean that the game is overly complex and difficult to play. That is not the case. It is a very approachable system and game once you get the basics down through the play of a few turns. I would also say that there is a ton of differences and asymmetry with the nations and learning all of them well and understanding their tactics will take some time. But that is a good thing in my opinion and means that there is depth to the game and replayabilty is huge. And in my opinion, this was the best game that I played from 2025. Just fantastic!

I wrote a First Impressions style post on the blog that you can read at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2025/08/06/first-impressions-congress-of-vienna-from-gmt-games/

We also did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in Congress of Vienna, you are unfortunately out of luck as it is out of print but you can pre-order a copy for $65.00 from the GMT Games website at the following link: https://www.gmtgames.com/p-1167-congress-of-vienna-2nd-printing.aspx

Honorable Mentions:

Each year I feel compelled to tack on some games to this list just because they were so very interesting or dealt with unique settings that I feel they are worthy of mentioning. While they didn’t make the Top 10 list, they are each good games in their own right.

Alliance: Multi-Player Napoleonic Wargame from Columbia Games

All in all, we had a great time with Alliance. I think that we felt that the game was solid, with some great mechanics such as the card play and the block combat system, but was just missing some things. I would like to see what the community comes up with as far as variants and other changes over the next year. But the game delivers on its promise of a sandbox strategic level Napoleonic wargame with a focus on alliance building and maintenance. There is a lot to like and we plan to play this one again.

I wrote a First Impressions style post on the blog that you can read at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2025/03/06/first-impressions-alliance-multiplayer-napoleonic-wargame-from-columbia-games/

We also did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in Alliance: Multi-Player Napoleonic Wargame, you can order a copy for $99.98 from the Columbia Games website at the following link: https://secure.columbiagames.com/products/3221

Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 from Legion Wargames

Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948 is a COIN Series adjacent game designed by Clint Warren-Davey and Benjamin Feine and is an alternate history game, but the story that is presented is entirely plausible. Werwolf was a real underground guerrilla group, comprised of SS and Hitler Youth members. It was intended to lead an insurgency against the invading Allies and Soviets when it became clear that Germany was losing the war in a conventional sense in the mid-1940’s. They did in fact have a few successes and American intelligence officer Frank Manuel said that the Werwolves were prepared “to strike down the isolated soldier in his jeep, the MP on patrol, the fool who goes a-courting after dark, the Yankee braggart who takes a back road.” The game allows players to take on the role of the occupying Soviets and Western Allies along with this Werwolf insurgency and the Edelweiss insurgency.

This game was very good and frankly was a breath of fresh air in the COIN Series or COIN Series adjacent arena. This game was very kinetic and each faction had a ton of combat and had to engage each other to accomplish their goals. The cards were fantastic and the additions to the system such as Research Tokens, Heavy Weapons in the form of leftover tanks, Wunder-waffen and the Cold War Tension Track, were really fresh and well integrated into the game play. I loved the game and would play it again in a heart beat!

If you are interested in Werwolf: Insurgency in Occupied Germany, 1945-1948, you can order a copy for $106.00 from the Legion Wargames website at the following link: https://www.legionwargames.com/legion_WER.html

Verdun from Dragon Dawn Productions

Verdun is a card game that is focused on the famous siege of Verdun during World War I. As player’s hands dwindle down as they play 2 cards per round but only draw 1, players will also have to play cards that help the other side, timing it strategically to minimize their own casualties. The teams alternate being the Attacker, and each card played leads to more and more deaths. You are fighting over positive victory points from trying to win several positions through over the top attacks that are worth a set amount of VP but that are hidden from view until they are taken so you never know if you are going for the high VP area or the low ones until you blow the whistle to initiate the attack.

A game of Verdun lasts about 16 rounds as players start with 12 cards, which they then play in a series of 12 tricks. When you win the trick, you gain the VP for the position but the winner will lose their lowest valued cards while the loser will lose their highest value cards to the dead pile representing mounting casualties. Low cards have fewer skulls on them representing deaths while higher cards have more. So even in victory you will be accumulating negative VP’s and this is one of the key aspects of the game…managing those deaths! Just like the high command.

In the end, the player with the highest score will win and this number will be very low or can even be negative. In our play of the game, my French defeated Alexander’s Germans by a final score of 3 VP to -14 VP. What a great little trick taking game! The really interesting part about the late game is that your hand has dwindled to being full of your worst cards as you have most likely used the good cards earlier to win tricks or cause losses to your opponent. The last few card plays just seem brutal and you are just hoping to not have to take a lot of skulls. This felt very fruitless and mimics the despair of commanders as they had to issue orders that they knew were not going to result in any positive gains but only the loss of life.

We did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in Verdun, you can order a copy for €33,00 ($38.00 US Dollars) from the Dragon Dawn Productions website at the following link: https://dragondawnstore.myshopify.com/products/verdun

Drop Zone: Southern France from Worthington Publishing

Drop Zone: Southern France is a company-level wargame covering the Allied airborne assault that spearheaded Operation Dragoon, which was the invasion of Southern France or the Second D-Day on August 15, 1944. The history behind this operation is really very interesting as early on the morning of D-Day, the allied First Airborne Task Force (1st ABTF) parachuted a dozen miles behind the Riviera landing beaches to seize key towns and road junctions, to prevent the German occupation forces from counter-attacking the amphibious landing, and to facilitate the advance of Allied forces. The 4:00 AM parachute drop was badly scattered due to an unexpected dense fog bank that blanketed the battlefield. Drop Zone: Southern France covers the first two days of this airborne operation in six game turns, when the American and British paratroopers and glider-men fought surrounded and alone, supported only by French resistance bands. This game is very good and is just a solid wargame.

This game is surprisingly good and we had a great time playing it! There are just so many interesting elements to consider including the various operations, objectives and paths to take for the Allies to attempt to capture their objectives as planned. We found the game to be imminently playable and were very pleased with the strategy and planning required to do well. This one is a winner and I would recommend it highly as an introductory wargame that plays in 90-120 minutes but gives some real meat to chew on.

We did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in Drop Zone: Southern France, you can order a copy for $60.00 from the Miniature Market website at the following link: https://www.miniaturemarket.com/drop-zone-southern-france-wpub0101.html

Chicago ‘68 from The Dietz Foundation

Chicago ’68 pits revolutionary spectacle against civil order at the Democratic National Convention riots of 1968. Players take the role of either the Establishment, consisting of the Chicago PD and Mayor Daley, or the Demonstrators, including the Yippies and MOBE, and is a fast-paced game of street battles and political maneuvers.

Each side plays from two asymmetric decks of action cards. The Establishment positions tactical forces and police platoons to co-ordinate mass arrests while working the convention floor. The Demonstrators, on the other hand, can pivot from direct clashes to radical street theater; their tactics can be reactive and unpredictable, allowing for wild cat-and-mouse chases and mischief-making across the tear-gassed avenues of downtown Chicago.

This game is an area control/area influence game that uses cards to take a predetermined set of actions that can be upgraded and replayed with better actions as the game progresses. Each player will fight for control of the delegates to the convention as well as exposure to the nation through the media. Just a very well designed game that was a ton of fun to play.

We posted an interview with the designer Yoni Goldstein on the blog and you can read that at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2024/07/22/interview-with-yoni-goldstein-designer-of-chicago-68-from-the-dietz-foundation-coming-to-kickstarter-august-6th/

We also did a full video review and you can watch that at the following link:

If you are interested in Chicago ’68, you can order a copy for $68.00 from The Dietz Foundation website at the following link: https://dietzfoundation.org/product/chicago68/

There I am finally done. My list of the Top 10 Wargames published in 2025. I had fun playing them and putting this list together as I got to revisit each of the games and think about why they were included on this list.

Please let me know what your top games of the year were and what you think of my choices and what games you would have placed on such a list.

-Grant

In diesen Comics steckt ganz viel Crossover bekannter und unerwarteter Charaktere: Ob die verschiedenen Batmen und Scooby Doo, historische Figuren in Zatanna oder vom Weg abgekommene Sprösslinge in Vision & Scarlet Witch, in diesen Bänden ist Action in großem Stil angesagt.

Dieser Beitrag wurde von Verena Tribensky geschrieben

Operation Dragoon: The 2nd D-Day Solitaire Travel Game is a fast-playing corps and division-level operational solitaire game of the Operation Dragoon campaign from the initial invasion that hit the beaches on August 15th to the conclusion of the decisive Battle of Montelimar on August 29th.

As the Allies of the US VI Corps, French II Corps, and US/British/Canadian 1st Airborne Task Force advance, a column of German units of the Nineteenth Army, led by the powerful 11th Panzer Division, is marching up the Rhone River valley to escape envelopment and destruction at Montelimar.

The Allied player, aided by air support and bands of French Forces of the Interior (FFI), must eliminate as many German divisions as possible while ensuring the critical ports of Marseilles and Toulon are quickly seized.

We published an interview on the blog with the designer Dan Fournie and you can read that at the following link: https://theplayersaid.com/2024/08/21/interview-with-dan-fournie-designer-of-operation-dragoon-1944-from-worthington-publishing-currently-on-kickstarter/

-Grant

Fighting Formations is intended to be an ongoing series of wargames covering WWII tactical combined-arms combat at the platoon and squad levels. Each game in the series will feature a distinct combat unit, highlighting battles in which that unit participated as well as its particular order of battle and fighting characteristics. In this second volume of Fighting Formations, we feature the US 29th Infantry Division—“Blue and Gray”—as it fought from just after D-Day in June of 1944 to the end of the year.

-Grant

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 8^th 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.

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.

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.

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).

Domestic Policy

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.

Economic Policy

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.

Vision

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.

Pragmatism

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.

Integrity

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.

1. Abraham Lincoln 28/30
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt 25/30
3. Friedrich Ebert 25/30
4. Winston Churchill 25/30
5. Robert Walpole 24/30
6. Willy Brandt 23/30
7. Konrad Adenauer 22/30
8. Harry S. Truman 21/30
9. John F. Kennedy 17/30
10. Hermann Müller 17/30
11. Ludwig Erhard 12/30
12. Paul von Hindenburg 10/30

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.

Last year, 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, I’m branching out! After our first US president earlier this year, we now do a German chancellor – Ludwig Erhard, nicknamed “The Father of the Economic Miracle”. After a quick introduction to the rating system and an overview of Erhard’s life, we go straight into the rating. The accompanying game will be Wir sind das Volk! (Richard Sivél/Peer Sylvester, Histogame).

The Rating System

Some caveats ahead: The chancellors will be rated by the knowledge of their time. If they or their contemporaries could not have known about the effects of something, I will not use my hindsight to mark it as a mistake of theirs. The assessment is focused on their conduct as chancellor, but includes their life after holding the office (in which they will still be regarded in the public eye as (ex-)chancellors).

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 (the latter counting for a greater deal in times of German power being great)?

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 (the latter counting for more in more recent years)?

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.

Erhard’s Life

Ludwig Erhard was born on February 4, 1897. His parents owned a clothing store in Fürth, a city in the south of Germany. Erhard was initially destined to follow them in the business, but came back from World War I badly wounded and unable to stand for an extended period of time (as we would have had to as a store owner). He thus turned to academia and studied business. After graduating, he managed his parents’ store for a short time before it went bankrupt in 1928. Erhard then succeeded in following his academic aspirations and worked at various institutes and universities. Erhard was no supporter of the Nazi regime which took power in 1933, but conducted advisory research for them. In 1942, he failed in a bid to head his university’s institute for economics (losing to a member of the Nazi party) and was soon after forced out of the institute. He then set up his own one-man think tank, writing on how to re-build Germany’s economy after the war.

These studies – and Erhard’s relative distance from the Nazi regime – recommended him to the post-war authorities. After quick stints on the local and regional level, he was appointed Head of the Special Office for Money and Credit (and soon after Director of Economics) of the Anglo-American occupation zone in Germany. When he was informed by the Allied authorities of their decision to introduce a new currency (the Deutsche Mark) in the three western occupation zones, Erhard went ahead and also announced the lifting of price-fixing and production controls for most goods.

Economically speaking, the monetary reform and abolition of state control over the economy were not an immediate success. Prices shot up (while wages were still fixed) and unemployed quadrupled to 12%, thus, unrest (leading to a general strike) spread in West Germany. However, the abolition of price-fixing all but abolished the previously ubiquitous black markets. Erhard’s reputation thus was stellar, and the newly formed big-tent center-right party CDU (Christlich-Demokratische Union, Christian Democratic Union) invited Erhard to join forces with them. Erhard, who personally was more of a classical liberal than a conservative, joined with the intent of committing a large party to his ideas of free markets, and successfully ran for parliament on the CDU ticket in West Germany’s first national elections in 1949. Erhard then became Minister for the Economy in the new administration, a post he would hold for the next fourteen years.

Early in Erhard’s tenure, economic success blossomed: The outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 re-committed the American economy to war production – and West Germany seized the opportunity to produce the civilian goods not made in America anymore. The West German economy boomed. Unemployment fell. Wages rose. Exports grew manifold. And Erhard, who steadfastly (but not always successfully) defended his liberal economic principles against any attempts to introduce more state intervention, became the lucky charm of the German “economic miracle”.

Erhard’s corresponding popularity made him a natural contender for the succession of West Germany’s first chancellor Konrad Adenauer. When Adenauer finally resigned in 1963 (aged 87), the CDU and its allies in government elected Erhard as the new chancellor. Erhard, never a politician’s politician, refrained from domestic initiatives. His foreign policy was based on the attempt to align West Germany closer with the United States and Great Britain at the expense of the cordial Franco-German relationship his predecessor had built. Erhard won a resounding electoral victory in 1965, but his relationship with his own party remained frail. When a mild recession hit West Germany and the budget was threatened by Erhard’s earlier commitment to payments to the United States and Britain to make up for the spending of their troops stationed in Germany (the “offset arrangement”), his government broke down (1966). Erhard was forced to resign. The new government which was based on the CDU and the long-time oppositional Social Democrats elected Kurt Georg Kiesinger as his successor. Erhard retired to a quiet life, but remained a member of parliament until his death on May 5, 1977.

The Rating

Foreign policy:

Erhard’s only field of ambition during his chancellorship – and also the area of his most obvious failure. His pivot away from France damaged the Franco-German relationship and European integration (which he, against his general economic principles, did not seek anyway). On the other hand, Erhard could not make good on his aim to improve German-American relationships – his professed dislike for France took any kind of lever out his hand, and his willingness to accede to American demands (like promising full payment in the offset arrangement) did not result in any favors in return from the United States (the key prize would have been if America had continued to seek a Multilateral Force with nuclear weapons – which would have resulted in Germany’s nuclear sharing).

Domestic policy:

Erhard did not start any domestic policy initiatives and ignored the growing societal pressures beyond his favorite topic of the economy. In the rare cases that such topics were forced onto him, Erhard, to his credit, deviated from the previous course of German policy which had been to largely ignore the Nazi crimes: When he found out that his Minister for Displaced Persons, Refugees, and War Victims had been an active Nazi party functionary, Erhard forced his resignation (in a striking difference to his predecessor Adenauer, who kept his Chief of Staff for ten years despite the man’s well-known involvement in drafting the Nazis’ laws prosecuting German Jews).

As German law knew a statute of limitation preventing criminal prosecution after twenty years, all Nazi crimes would have gone unpunished from 1965 on. Erhard was in the minority of government members who wanted to extend the period of prosecution. Parliament passed an extension with a mixed-party majority – Erhard, however, had nor been able to convince his own government colleagues and was not instrumental in securing this majority.

Economic policy:

Another policy field of Erhard inaction – this time, however, by design. Erhard’s liberal economic credo kept him from intervening in the economy. That was defensible in the narrow view – economic activity in the short term – but defective otherwise: Erhard knew (more than a year before the budgetary crisis of 1966) that the economic downswing lowered public revenue while his promises concerning the offset arrangement would raise expenses. Erhard thus brought the budgetary crisis, over which he’d fall, onto himself. In the longer term, Erhard’s torpedoing of European integration denied the German economy export markets and delayed the innovation stimulus of increased competition.

Vision:

Erhard’s overarching vision in life was to allow free individuals to pursue their ambitions in a market economy – but when he entered office, he felt the preconditions for that were already achieved (a debatable claim). Thus, his policy mostly consisted of staying the course. He did pitch a foreign policy plan to refuse the Soviet Union loans and then “buy” German reunification when the Soviet economy collapsed, but was met with (justified) bewilderment by both his domestic and foreign interlocutors. Domestically, his only contribution which went beyond the immediate needs was his idea of a “Formed-Up Society” in which both egoism and pluralism would be overcome – an idea that he brought up during the 1965 election campaign and did not return to afterward.

Pragmatism:

Likely Erhard’s weakest suit. While he did not attempt much, what he attempted usually fell flat because Erhard was unable to secure support for it (or because he wavered and dropped it in the face of resistance). He had lost his own party’s support for his foreign policy within his first year in office. Their support for his domestic activities (or, rather, the lack thereof) withered soon after. Particularly instructive is the aftermath of Erhard’s 1965 electoral victory: Erhard squandered this testament of his popularity with the voters within weeks. He had intended to downsize the cabinet (and thus to get rid of ministers appointed by his predecessor and unfriendly to him) but waited too long to begin that process. In the end, the parliamentary parties of the coalition partners CDU, its Bavarian sister party CSU, and the pro-business FDP prevailed in securing all the posts for ministers they wanted. Erhard was forced to accept a virtually unchanged cabinet. Only one year after his electoral victory, the remainder of his political capital was spent and he resigned.

Integrity:

Erhard came into office planning to abolish his predecessor’s “democracy of favors” which was based on securing the support of powerful interest groups like the churches, the farmers’ associations, the employers’ associations, or the trade unions by passing legislation and channeling government funding in their favor. While Erhard was not above combatting European economic integration (against his liberal credo of open markets and the benefits of competition) to protect the German farmers from their French competitors, he doled out distinctly fewer favors than his predecessor. He also confined himself to the limits the constitution spelled out and did not attempt to shape the state offices to his liking (as Adenauer had done when he tried to move from the chancellorship into the presidency – but, of course, turning the presidency into the more important office). Finally, Erhard’s more collegial government style confirmed that Germany had moved beyond authoritarianism.

Erhard is the rare case of a politician not defined by the highest office he attained: He took the decisive action of his life as Director of Economics for the Bizone. He is best remembered by the public as Minister for the Economy. Looking at his chancellorship, it’s easy to see why: During this short period in office, Erhard did not attempt much, and what he attempted usually failed. His successors were left to respond to pressures resulting from the changing civil society and to repair the damage done to Franco-German relations (only achieved around ten years later). Erhard positions himself on the lower rungs of the leaders rated.

Full ratings so far:

1. Abraham Lincoln 28/30
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt 25/30
3. Friedrich Ebert 25/30
4. Winston Churchill 25/30
5. Robert Walpole 24/30
6. Willy Brandt 23/30
7. Konrad Adenauer 22/30
8. Harry S. Truman 21/30
9. John F. Kennedy 17/30
10. Hermann Müller 17/30
11. Ludwig Erhard 12/30
12. Paul von Hindenburg 10/30

How would you rate Erhard? 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).

For a recent English-language biography (or, rather, a hagiography), see Mierzejewski, Alfred C.: Ludwig Erhard. A Biography, University of North Carolina press, Chapel Hill, NC 2005.

The standard, primary-source based, scholarly biography (which is a bit vitriolic, but generally sound in its judgment) is Hentschel, Volker: Ludwig Erhard. Ein Politikerleben [Ludwig Erhard. A Politician’s Life], Olzog, Munich 1996 (in German).

I’ve started a little irregular series called Prime Minister Ratings – assessing British prime ministers by a very general rating system and showcasing one board game in which the prime minister in question or the problems they faced feature. Our first contestant was Robert Walpole, the very first prime minister. Today, we move on to a 20^th century heavyweight: Winston Churchill, the man who led Britain through World War II… and was elected prime minister for a second time six years after the war. Our accompanying board game is Churchill (Mark Herman, GMT Games).

Before we dive into Churchill’s life and the assessment of his policies, here’s…

The Rating System

Some caveats ahead: The prime ministers 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 prime minister, but includes their life after holding the office (in which they will still be regarded in the public eye as (ex-)PMs). And lastly, in the following, “Britain” serves as a shorthand for either Great Britain or United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland as applicable, “British” for the inhabitants of such.

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 prime minister can earn from one to five stars in each category (for a total sum of up to 30). In detail, the prime minister is assessed as follows:

Foreign policy: Did the prime minister increase British influence in the world and the security of the British at home? Did the prime minister wield British power responsibly and with positive results for the regions affected (the latter counting for a greater deal in times of British power being great)?

Domestic policy: Did the prime minister increase the liberty of the British to express themselves and to participate in the political process? Did the prime minister promote domestic security and shape the framework for equality before the law and fair justice dealing with offenses?

Economic policy: Did the prime minister facilitate the prosperity and economic security of the British (including in the mid- and long-term)? Was the prime minister’s economic policy based on mutual benefit of those involved or did it unduly burden one side?

Vision: Did the prime minister have an idea of what Britain and the world (the latter counting for more in times of British influence being great) should look like beyond the immediate future? Did the prime minister’s policies steer Britain (and, if applicable, the world) in this direction?

Pragmatism: Did the prime minister succeed in seeing their policy through from inception to completion? How well did the prime minister manage the support from Parliament, the Civil Service, the media, society (the latter two counting for more in more recent years)?

Integrity: Did the prime minister understand the office as a means to benefit themselves, special interest groups, the entire country, or another community? Did the prime minister respect the boundaries of the office?

Churchill’s Life

Winston Churchill (1874—1965) came from the English high aristocracy, but inherited a knack for populism from his father, a Tory politician. After formative years as an officer and war correspondent, Churchill turned himself to politics, being elected into Parliament in 1900 (as a Conservative) and joining the government (as a Liberal) in 1905. He held various government posts and was First Lord of the Admiralty when World War I broke out. Churchill resigned over the disastrous Gallipoli landings, but re-joined the government in 1917. While being regarded as a major political talent, Churchill seemed too fickle and unreliable for the highest of offices – for example due to his second change of party (back to the Conservatives) in 1924, after which he served as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Once out of office (in 1929), Churchill searched for new causes – and took up first opposition to Indian self-government and, from 1933, opposition to Nazi expansionism. Neither was a popular stance in the Conservative Party or the country as a whole. Churchill had much time for his second calling after politics – writing.

When Germany went to war with Britain in 1939, Churchill, the great Cassandra on Hitler’s aggression, was called back into government. Less than a year later, prime minister Neville Chamberlain resigned over the failure of the Norwegian operation, and on May 10, 1940, Churchill followed him as prime minister. On the same day, Germany invaded France. Churchill presided over a series of military disasters in his first weeks. In this difficult situation, he excelled at maintaining the fighting spirit of his government, Parliament, and the British people. Not only Hitler was surprised when Britain did not seek peace, but opted to fight alone against the Nazi war machine which controlled half of Europe. Churchill’s great speeches of the spring and summer 1940 – from “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears, and sweat” over “We shall fight on the beaches” and “This was their finest hour” to “Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few” chronicle his defiance.

Britain did not have to stand alone forever. In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Churchill disregarded his ardent anti-communism in cooperation with Stalin. Six months later, the United States entered the war on the allied side. Churchill was sure that this great alliance of Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States would emerge victorious. His task was now to drive forward the victory – and make sure that Britain, the least populous and productive of the three powers, was not relegated to second rank. For a long time, he succeeded. It was only after the D-Day landings in France in 1944 that Britain’s comparably small material contribution began to turn Britain into a junior partner. Churchill enjoyed great personal popularity for his role in the war, but in the parliamentary elections held two months after the German unconditional surrender, the British voters gave the Labour Party a majority.

Churchill was nominally the head of the opposition and made some memorable speeches warning of Soviet expansionism, but spent most of his time writing his war memoirs (like his other books, they turned into bestsellers). Labour enacted a series of ambitious domestic reforms (from the creation of the NHS to a housing program), but lost their majority in the 1951 elections – so Churchill returned to Downing Street No 10. By then, he was old and suffered from bad health, and domestic politics had never been too interesting to him. However, when Stalin died in 1953, Churchill hoped that a three-way summit between US president Eisenhower, the new leader in Moscow, and himself could resolve the nascent Cold War. His hope was in vain. He resigned in 1955 due to health reasons, but remained a member of parliament until a few weeks before his death in 1965.

The Rating

Foreign policy: Churchill’s focus of interest, and, as a wartime prime minister, the policy field in which the biggest challenges awaited him. He met them remarkably well. True, he did not increase British power and influence, but he staved off its likely demise by a negotiated peace with the Nazis, and held his own in league with the much larger powers of the United States and the Soviet Union for a long time. More importantly even, while it may have been these powers that eventually won the war, Churchill’s contribution in 1940 was to not lose it – and thus ensuring the liberty of hundreds of millions of people around the globe. Churchill’s wartime record is blemished by his less benevolent approach to the liberty of the peoples under British imperial rule which manifested itself in drawn-out colonial wars during his second premiership.

Domestic policy: Churchill’s main contribution was his unification of the country (and his own party, to begin with) to oppose Nazism – when isolationism, appeasement, and pacifism no matter the cost had been en vogue in the 1930s and still lingered early in the war. Also, the British government’s intrusion into the British people’s lives during the war was remarkably limited given the circumstances, and it can be argued that Churchill’s defense against Nazism was an enormous contribution to the British people’s life in liberty and democracy.

Economic policy: Tough to assess, as Churchill was never too interested in it and let his ministers run the show in these matters. The Labour members of his wartime government were able men, and letting them do their thing without hindrance is an achievement in itself (particularly for a leader as headstrong as Churchill). The British economy also was very efficiently mobilized for war production (and achieved a state of economic “total war” long before Germany’s). In Churchill’s second term, his major economic achievement was to accept and continue the sweeping economic and welfare reforms enacted by the Labour government from 1945 to 1951, even though they had been strongly opposed by the Conservatives when they had been in opposition. Churchill thus became a father of the post-war consensus.

Vision: Churchill’s great mission – the defeat of Nazi expansionism – was in itself not a long-term project. It ended with the Nazis’ unconditional surrender in 1945 – and so did Churchill’s premiership. He took to warning against Soviet expansionism and the hope to end it in a three-way summit between him, the American president, and the Soviet leader in his second term, but this proved futile.

Pragmatism: Churchill was one of only few government members who were committed to fighting on after the fall of France, but he carried his government, his party, and the country at large with him. His broadening of the government to include Labour and Liberal ministers ensured national unity as long as the war lasted. Once Germany was defeated, this unity was over – exactly how it had been designed to be in a competitive democracy. In terms of foreign policy, Churchill seized on the opportunity to cooperate with the Soviet Union and maintained this difficult partnership until the completion of its mission to defeat the Axis countries.

Integrity: As long as Churchill was a wartime prime minister, his conduct in office held up to high standards. Once Germany had surrendered and Churchill switched to election campaign mode, he was not quite as exemplary – alleging that Labour would want to install a “Gestapo” if elected, a smear as baseless as it was unworthy of a man who knew both Hitler and Attlee well enough to understand they stood at opposite ends of the political sphere. As a former prime minister, Churchill was given access to government files for his war memoirs – and used them to shape public opinion and gain another election victory.

Overall: Churchill had great qualities and marked defects. Fortunately for him, Britain, and the world, he was called into office in a time that demanded just what he could offer – and probably no one else who stood ready for the task at hand. With 25 out of 30 stars, he jumps to the top group of leaders.

Full ratings so far:

1. Abraham Lincoln 28/30
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt 25/30
3. Friedrich Ebert 25/30
4. Winston Churchill 25/30
5. Robert Walpole 24/30
6. Willy Brandt 23/30
7. Konrad Adenauer 22/30
8. Harry S. Truman 21/30
9. John F. Kennedy 17/30
10. Hermann Müller 17/30
11. Ludwig Erhard 12/30
12. Paul von Hindenburg 10/30

Further Reading

An excellent overview with portraits of all prime ministers is Leonard, Dick: A History of British Prime Ministers, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke 2014.

A good start on Churchill – and, despite the somewhat grandiose title, no hagiography – is Best, Geoffrey: Churchill. A Study in Greatness, Hambledon and London, London 2001.

Of course, Churchill’s own writings are of great interest to anyone reading on his times, especially his Nobel Prize for Literature-winning The Second World War, six volumes (also published as an abridged one-volume version), Cassell, London 1948—1953.

You can find Churchill’s 1940 speeches, among the finest examples of oratory in the history of mankind, on the website of the International Churchill Society.