The Political Landscape of Wartime Germany

As World War I dragged into its second year, Germany faced not only military challenges but also a crisis of leadership. Erich von Falkenhayn, Chief of the General Staff, maintained Emperor Wilhelm II’s confidence but struggled to contain the growing popularity of Paul von Hindenburg and Erich Ludendorff following their victory at Tannenberg in 1914. Falkenhayn’s attempts to sideline these rivals—including promoting August von Mackensen as an alternative hero—failed spectacularly. The German public, desperate for decisive leadership in a protracted war, increasingly saw Hindenburg as a symbol of national resilience.

This dynamic reflected deeper tensions in German political culture. Since Bismarck’s dismissal in 1890, the Reich had lacked a unifying figure capable of embodying both military prowess and political authority. Falkenhayn represented the traditional Prussian general staff elite, while Hindenburg—a stolid, grandfatherly figure—became a canvas for public hopes.

The Cult of the Wooden Titan

In October 1915, a remarkable propaganda spectacle unfolded in Berlin. A massive wooden statue of Hindenburg was erected near the Victory Column and Bismarck Memorial. Citizens could “armor” their hero by donating nails to be hammered into the structure—transforming the effigy from wood to iron. This participatory ritual, echoing medieval traditions, served multiple purposes:

– It channeled civilian war enthusiasm into tangible support
– Reinforced Hindenburg’s image as Germany’s “iron” protector
– Created a physical manifestation of national unity

Contemporary accounts like Swedish explorer Sven Hedin’s dinner with Hindenburg fed this mythology. Hedin described the field marshal as radiating “quiet, steadfast brilliance,” carefully attributing victories to God, the Kaiser, and subordinates while projecting humility. Such portrayals cemented Hindenburg’s reputation as the antithesis of Wilhelm II’s erratic leadership.

The Eastern Front Power Struggle

Falkenhayn’s containment strategy involved limiting Hindenburg and Ludendorff to northern sector commands, preventing unified control of the Eastern Front. This proved disastrous when the Brusilov Offensive shattered Austro-Hungarian forces in mid-1916. As Russian advances threatened to knock Austria-Hungary out of the war, Germany faced a dilemma:

1. Military necessity demanded centralized Eastern Front command
2. Political consequences favored keeping Hindenburg constrained

Key players recognized the risks:
– Falkenhayn knew appointing Hindenburg would require diverting Western Front resources
– Kaiser Wilhelm feared eclipsing his own authority
– Austro-Hungarian chief Conrad von Hötzendorf resisted German dominance

The compromise—placing Archduke Karl in nominal command with German staff officers like Hans von Seeckt handling operations—collapsed by July 1916. Hindenburg’s appointment as Eastern Front commander marked a turning point in German civil-military relations.

Romania’s Gamble and the Fall of Falkenhayn

Romania’s August 1916 declaration of war against the Central Powers, lured by Allied promises of Transylvania, became the final catalyst for Hindenburg’s ascent. Falkenhayn’s dismissal as Chief of Staff on August 29th inaugurated what historians term the “Third OHL” (Supreme Army Command)—a duumvirate of Hindenburg and Ludendorff that would dominate Germany until 1918.

The Romanian campaign showcased Hindenburg’s strategic pragmatism:
– Mackensen’s multi-pronged invasion from Bulgaria
– Falkenhayn’s (now demoted to field command) thrust through Transylvania
– Rapid December capture of Bucharest

This victory yielded critical oil and grain supplies while restoring German morale after Verdun and the Somme. More significantly, it cemented the OHL’s political authority.

The Shadow Government Emerges

With Hindenburg’s promotion, Germany effectively developed parallel power structures:
– The Kaiser and Chancellor Bethmann Hollweg’s civilian government
– The OHL’s military dictatorship-in-all-but-name

Bethmann’s hope to use Hindenburg’s popularity to negotiate a compromise peace proved naive. The OHL, backed by annexationists and industrialists, pushed for total victory. Ludendorff’s “Silent Dictatorship” began taking shape through:
– Control over war production via the Hindenburg Program
– Forced Belgian labor deployments
– The unrestricted submarine warfare decision (January 1917)

Legacy: The Manufactured Savior

Hindenburg’s wartime rise reveals critical dynamics of 20th-century politics:
1. The power of manufactured political symbols in mass societies
2. The dangerous erosion of civilian authority during prolonged war
3. How military success could translate into political capital

The wooden statue ritual foreshadowed later personality cults, while the OHL’s dominance established precedents for the Reichswehr’s political role in Weimar Germany. Ultimately, the very mythmaking that sustained German morale in 1916-18 would contribute to the disastrous “stab-in-the-back” legend and the eventual collapse of democracy.

Hindenburg’s trajectory—from retired general to national icon to Reich President—demonstrates how wartime exigencies can reshape political systems in ways that outlast the battlefield. The nails hammered into his effigy in 1915 were, in retrospect, the first steps toward the militarization of German governance—a process with consequences extending far beyond World War I.