Hitler's speech-Triumph of the will

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
If Germany (and many other European countries) had not already had a history of antisemitism (official and unofficial) then I doubt that Hitler's 'message' would have caught on- his voice, according to unbiased witnesses, was not particularly attractive or mellifluous- he certainly didn't have cadences of Martin Luther King or Churchill.

I would more accurately blame nationalism and militarism as the reasons why Germans were so exited about his speeches. Germans wanted solutions to their problems and I don't think many actually thought of killing all the jews as an actual solution in itself.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I would more accurately blame nationalism and militarism as the reasons why Germans were so exited about his speeches.

Nationalism was a common feature across Europe, post WWI- and in parts of the rest of the world too.

Militarism was hardly a defining feature of the Weimar Republic- and it could also be found (post WWI) in the Soviet Union, Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey....

Antisemitism and easy (bonehead) answers for complex problems made Hitler popular- although accordingtomy old headmaster (ex-spy in Nazi Germany) large numbers of German women found Hitler sexually exciting (at least in his speeches...).


Now that is bizarre...

[Heraclitus]

I disagree molly, antisemitism was convenient but it you are underestimating nationalism and militarism in the context of a desire for revenge and what the Germans percived as justice. Also you are underestimating the fear of Communism.

Nationalism in Italy and Spain argues against your case, since they were both fascist by 1939. Turkey was unique since it was a new nationstate.

Also nationalism in the Soviet Union was of a different kind.

[Kidlicious]

Also, German was specifically nationalistic and militaristic because of their history.

[BeBMan]

What are you referring to?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
What are you referring to?

Prussian history pre-unification.

[BeBMan]

Bad example. Militarism was much more a problem post the unification of 1871 and esp. after 1900 and in the pre-WWI times.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Kidicious
He wasn't really a good speaker. Germans were just good listeners.

Depends what speeches you are referring to.

His speeches from the early 30's were outright awful, he roared and screamed half-falsetto, and he missed and mispronounced words. Listen to the speech he gave 1933 shortly after he got power, or his comments on the so called Roehm coup 1934. His earlier speeches could be classified as rants, mixed with baseless accusations and his race theories, no less and no more. They were intimidating at best, not a bit convincing.

He improved a lot over the time, though, probably he had lessons (I think, never heard of it). For instance the mentioned above speech where he answered to Roosevelts telegramme (April 1939, if my memory does not fail). There he spoke more silently and only sometimes raised his voice, but he never roared as loudly as earlier. More importantly different were his words. He was entertaining and witty and did his very best to get the listeners (and the laughers as I may add) to his side, with undeniable success. Similarly were his later speeches, at least as long as things looked good for him (up to 1942/43).

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by BeBro
Bad example. Militarism was much more a problem post the unification of 1871 and esp. after 1900 and in the pre-WWI times.

Prussian militarism seems to be the root which is why I mentioned it.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
He improved a lot over the time, though, probably he had lessons (I think, never heard of it). For instance the mentioned above speech where he answered to Roosevelts telegramme (April 1939, if my memory does not fail). There he spoke more silently and only sometimes raised his voice, but he never roared as loudly as earlier. More importantly different were his words. He was entertaining and witty and did his very best to get the listeners (and the laughers as I may add) to his side, with undeniable success. Similarly were his later speeches, at least as long as things looked good for him (up to 1942/43).

Yes, his later speeches were extremely well rehearsed, and it looked like he paid a lot of attention to detail. Also, he was probably on amphetamines during some of the speeches.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
I disagree molly, antisemitism was convenient but it you are underestimating nationalism and militarism in the context of a desire for revenge and what the Germans percived as justice.

I'm not underestimating it, simply placing it in context.

Antisemitism also featured in places like Poland, the Ukraine and France- all states which had had a previous history of antisemitism.

However, in Weimar Germany (and Austria) Jews, especially converted or secularized Jews were also extremely successful and powerful, owning industries, shipping lines, and being (for instance) German foreign minister, and thus easily blamed for the perceived ills besetting the Weimar Republic- which were of course complex, and tied in to the world economy.


The Weimar Republic was hardly nationalistic or militaristic- which has been cited as one of its weaknesses- that it failed to set out a sufficiently simplistic notion of what Weimar stood for, in the same way that Prussia/the German Confederation could be reduced to militaristic/expansionist, the Kultur Kampf, etc...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
The Weimar Republic was hardly nationalistic or militaristic- which has been cited as one of its weaknesses- that it failed to set out a sufficiently simplistic notion of what Weimar stood for, in the same way that Prussia/the German Confederation could be reduced to militaristic/expansionist, the Kultur Kampf, etc...

Well it's hard to have a militaristic government after your military is crushed and your enemies demand that you demilitarize. That doesn't mean that the German people were not still militaristic. The Weimer Republic only lased 14 years after all, and it was very unpopular.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The Weimer Republic only lased 14 years after all, and it was very unpopular.

Certainly not for all of its history. It's unpopularity is closely allied to the economic downturns in the world at large, and Nazi propaganda.

That doesn't mean that the German people were not still militaristic.

It's a far cry from saying that certain elements in the German population were militaristic (like the rightwing Freikorps, like the Nazi party and its predecessors, like some of the old aristocracy and the Prussian Junker class ) to then saying that German culture and the German people as a whole was militaristic.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
It's a far cry from saying that certain elements in the German population were militaristic (like the rightwing Freikorps, like the Nazi party and its predecessors, like some of the old aristocracy and the Prussian Junker class ) to then saying that German culture and the German people as a whole was militaristic.

Come on now. Certain elements of the US are religious fanatics. Conscequently many people in the US are religious, and even those who are secular think like religionists most of the time. That's because we are historically religious people. The same can be said for Germany.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Come on now. Certain elements of the US are religious fanatics. Conscequently many people in the US are religious, and even those who are secular think like religionists most of the time. That's because we are historically religious people. The same can be said for Germany.

No, it can't.

You haven't shown that outside of Prussia or even the Prussian Junkers' class that MOST Germans were militaristic, or that German culture was militaristic as a whole.

Given that the Prussian ruling class were Calvinist/Lutheran Protestants and that many of the Junkers lived and farmed on estates in areas now in Poland, Lithuania and Russia, one might well ask what their minority culture had to do with that of Bavaria, or Rhineland, or Hamburg, where many of the population were not aristocrats, Calvinist or Prussian.


Barbara Tuchman quotes one inhabitant of occupied Alsace-Lorraine in the run-up to WWI in her book ' The Proud Tower ' :

'We are all obligatory Prussians'.

Note that 'obligatory'. It's hardly indicative of a general willingness to be militaristic, is it ?

http://www.amazon.com/Proud-Tower-Portrait-Before-1890-1914/dp/0345405013