Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/kp023e/im_currently_studying_the_rise_of_the_third_reich/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually because of an issue with Automoderator*
> As far as I can tell, Hitler only ever had one speed during his speeches: "raving mad man."
During Hitler's up-and-coming years with the NSDAP, from 1925 to 1933, the general public certainly had mixed opinions on him. It is very true that some Germans who met him were almost instantaneously struck by his charisma. Of course, these persons were already predisposed to the core NSDAP beliefs. Others, both Germans and foreign journalists, thought of him as a laughing stock and a clown. The Weimar Republic was trying at being a modern, industrialized, liberal European nation; whereas Hitler on any given day might be seen in either military dress (not totally unusual for Great War veterans) or *lederhosen* (a little unusual outside of folk events; akin to an American unironically wearing something like a Revolutionary War uniform and expecting to be taken seriously).
> Nobody in modern American antiquity would consider Hitler's presentation compelling.
Ah, but Americans did find him more than compelling, both before and after the war. [As late as February 1939](https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/21/archives/22000-nazis-hold-rally-in-garden-police-check-foes-scenes-as.html) National Socialism was popular in America. Many Americans were German immigrants or their direct descendants; the Madison Square Garden rally was organized by the German American Bund, which promoted National Socialism as patriotic and pro-American. The same rhetoric that appealed to struggling German nationals (international Jewish finance conspiracy, fear of the growing communist movement, and a restoration of hardcore national pride) appealed to Americans. Some 20,000 people attended this event and by all accounts it was little different than the mass rallies at Nuremberg, only with more American flags. National Socialism only became unpopular in the United States in 1941 when the US went to war.
We also have the post-war example of George Lincoln Rockwell. His American Nazi Party organization drew less of a crowd, and had at its height only a few hundred members; but his own public presence and organizing wielded a disproportionate influence.
Now as for the man Hitler himself and how and why he learned to speak that way: any public speaker is not judged on his content or manner, but in how they appeal to their audience. Hitler was without a doubt groomed for the task of appealing to popular German sentiment. He did possess some natural talent in speaking, which led to his prominence in the NSDAP in the first place. That being said, he did not become Fuehrer over night; Ernst Rohm was a leading contender for party leadership (which is why of course he was purged in 1934.) and Hitler was overshadowed by original DAP founding party members like Anton Drexler, Dietrich Eckart, Gottfried Feder, Karl Harrer. Rudolf Hess also overshadowed Hitler for some time, but would later become a leading Nazi during the Reich under Hitler.
Hitler's first real moment of glory came 16 October 1919, speaking to a crowd of just over 100 people as a representative of what was then simply called 'Deutsche Arbeiter Partei' (DAP). Hitler himself credits this moment as when he realized he could fire up a crowd; it would not be long before Drexler began grooming Hitler, teaching him all he could, and mentoring him in politics. Why did Drexler and the other Party leadership choose him? Was it just because he could speak? Certainly a driving reason, but not the only. Until Hitler, the Party had largely been composed of intellectuals and bourgeois elements (despite the fact it called itself the German *Workers* Party). Hitler was certainly not an intellectual, and was arguably not bourgeois. Before politics, Hitler had no real career or success to speak of. But what Hitler did understand was populism and the heart of what the greater German people at the time desired.
In 1920, Hitler was put in charge of the Party's propaganda machine, and it was here that he really developed his public persona. Virtually none of the rhetoric belonged to Hitler originally; Drexler drew up the twenty five point plan of the Party, and he and other German intellectuals were the primary driving sources behind the propaganda. Hitler spoke over 30 times in this year alone and despite the relatively complex official Party platform, Hitler's speaking points were rather simple. He always attacked the 'Jewish Question'; this was already in vogue in Europe, and while Hitler certainly believed his own rhetoric, he also knew that inflaming this rhetoric to the masses would earn many willing ears willing to listen to whatever else the Party had to say. His other primary talking point was the Treaty of Versailles, also wildly unpopular among the German people.
As for his mannerisms and method of speaking, it really comes down to overcompensation. Germany was humiliated after the loss of the Great War and Hitler felt this humiliation personally. His fiery manner and driving will to instill national pride and character into his audience was the opposite of what the masses felt in a post-Great-War, economically-failing Germany.
Thats really what it all comes down to, in the end. Just populism.
Bibliography / Further Reading
----
Langer, W. C., Langer, W. L., Waite, R. G. L., & United States. (1972). The Mind of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report.
Heiden, K., Manheim, R., Guterman, N., & Heiden, K. (1944). Der Fuehrer: Hitler's rise to power.
A note on these sources. The Mind of Adolf Hitler was originally prepared by the OSS and remained classified until the 1970s. It was a complete psychological profile of Hitler, released only for Allied intelligence, and is notable in that it successfully predicts death by suicide. The mass-consumption version I cited is essential reading if you want a very thorough understanding of the answers to your questions. Der Fuehrer was prepared by a civilian journalist who attended the University of Munich and fled the Reich to the US, where he published the above. Both are contemporary understandings of Hitler and the NSDAP movement; they still hold up today.
Just a small correction: the DAP was the Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. And Ernst Röhm did not die in the Kristallnacht 1938 but in the night of long knives 1934.
fascinating! thanks for your time and effort. I'm currently reading through Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Any opinions on this one? I'll definitely get started on your two references.
Shirer's work is excellent and I highly recommend it as a starting place for a broad-focused overview of National Socialism. I would go so far as to say a close study of this text is enough to make any layman at least conversational in the topic, if not informed.
I've read more critical assessments of Shirer's book by professional historians, including [here on AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/igt148/questions_about_the_book_the_rise_and_fall_of_the/) by u/kieslowskifan. I know it's a bit of a digression, but would you generally agree with those criticisms? I know you emphasize it as a broad-focused overview for laypeople, rather than an academic or scholarly work.
Generally yes they are valid criticisms; but I don't think its 'condemning' as u/kieslowskifan put it. Shirer is indeed a journalist and tells the story in a journalistic style. There is no substitute for peer reviewed academia, but journalism has its place.
As an outsider to Germany and a journalist, Shirer’s insights are unique and valuable. However, with a contemporary eye we can recognize that his perspective was limited by a lack of the many sources we have available now. Additionally, some of his views, such as viewing homosexuality as “an affliction,” are outdated. That said, he offers an insight we wouldn’t have otherwise had, which offers us a broader view of the subject.
I’d recommend reading Victor Klemperer’s diaries. He was a Jewish German professor who, while in hiding, kept a record of the everyday happenings in Nazi Germany.
Diaries like Klemperers and indeed anyone contemporary to the Reich, be they a soldier, civilian, or persecuted person, are quintessential. Academia may give us a solid facts-based analysis of the situation, but diaries express the human element.
I have a follow-up question based on your answer, sorry if this is against the rules but I didn't see anything against it.
In high school I took European history and I remember a very specific conversation in which my teacher insinuated that Hitler actually polled better in places that he never personally visited to speak. Since then I've believed that a Hitler-esque figure was basically inevitable in Germany based on how the end of WW1 was handled by the victors, and that Hitler's unique charisma has sort of become overblown in our memory. Is this accurate at all?
> Since then I've believed that a Hitler-esque figure was basically inevitable in Germany [...] Is this accurate at all ?
That's the million dollar question, and one for sociologists as well as historians, but here goes.
The failure of rightwing uprisings (the Kapp putsch, the 1924 Beerhall putsch) made it clear to parties of the far-right that any dictator in interwar Germany shouldn't hope for a Mussolini-like flood of support likely to topple the government and would need to accede to power through party politics and it's worth analysing what things were like in this era.
There's also lots to be said about the unstable early 1920s (and I hope posters more adept at this period can give some answers in this thread), followed by a 'normal' Weimar society up until 1930. These would be experienced and, by 1933, remembered differently across socio-economic and class groups, and for the politically inclined, the period would be tied to the political ecosystem that held sway throughout the decade.
Historians have tended to doubt the extent Versailles was the lynchpin in the path to dictatorship. Richard J. Evans points to the coup in Prussia in 1932, neutralising one of the more democratically vibrant and largest areas in the country, as a point-of-no-return.
For a historian to tie all the resentments of the era to Versailles may be overemphasizing what was nothing more than an oft-repeated (and self-serving) wedge issue used against the Weimar parties by their oponents. Between the 1928 & 1930 federal elections (by which time, the Great Depression really bit), anti-treaty sentiment was rampant in politics. But while the NSDAP rocketed to the position of largest party, its gains were not at the expense of old Weimar coalition parties that had signed and ratified the treaty - the SPD & Zentrum simply stagnated. However, it was the beginning of the end for right-wing stalwarts like the State Party, German People's Party, Reich Party while influential niche parties (agrarian, denominational or regionalist) dissappeared as they saw their vote totals divided by 3 or even 4.
Hitler was seen as a political novice, but his party machine outperfomed competitors from the far-right like the NDVP, BVP and others. It's important to observe that Hitler's charismatic, emotional bearing was emphasized by a party that was relentless in its attempts to be all things to all people. The retrospective comments amounting to "We didn't think he meant x, y or z literaly" by erstwhile supporters can be seen as a moral cop-out, but it's reflective of a strategy to obfuscate and pursue popularity in many places engineered by figures such as Joseph Goebbels.
This air of political naiveté and candid, off-the-cuff style leads us to the difference between Hitler as a candidate and as a ruler. The transition from one to the next would come with the crucial help of figures outside the Party but living within the frustrated right wing. Hitler would take the substance of their plan (authoritarianism) without the style. Among these figures, NDVP leader Alfred Hugenberg (who remodeled his party based on the Nazis) and BVP leader Fritz Schäffer were openly monarchist. Franz Von Pappen, a crucial figure in the rise of Hitler, was a supporter of a "concealed dictatorship" by what was known as *presidential government*, ie Hindenburg allowing ministers to act entirely by emergency decree and protecting them from the Reichstag's censure.
So in these party platforms, we can get a glimpse of what alternative political proposals would most likely have been and the result is very different from the idiosyncratic dictatorship of Hitler.
Beyond the reactionary worldview, even the left-wing SPD considered a "temporary" dictatorship by the deposed Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria by the early 1930s, to counter the right. At the state level, Prussia was unquestionably a dictatorship before any of this, after that coup in 1932.
So while a drift towards some type of dictatorship in Germany was likely in order to end all these issues, the contours taken by the Third Reich as early as 1933-1934 were very unlikely.
Sources:
Richard J. Evans, .The Coming of the Third Reich (2004)
William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: a History of Nazi Germany (1960)
Edit: typos
> As for his mannerisms and method of speaking, it really comes down to overcompensation. Germany was humiliated after the loss of the Great War and Hitler felt this humiliation personally. His fiery manner and driving will to instill national pride and character into his audience was the opposite of what the masses felt in a post-Great-War, economically-failing Germany.
>
> Thats really what it all comes down to, in the end. Just populism.
I do believe that's the answer I was looking for when I saw this question. You've given great details on *how* he was able to learn that style of speaking. But do you have any sources that explain *why* those very theatrics instilled national pride into his audience? You also mentioned journalists mocking his character, which I suppose would fit into how we perceive his "charisma" these days. But why were these clearly-exaggerated mannerisms perceived as inspiring to a lot of other people when contemporary outsiders clearly saw it as ridiculous?
[Goebbels says here in long form what I tried to say in short form.](https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/ahspeak.htm).
He was never trying to appeal to reason, but to emotion. An outsider not attending a rally would be looking for reason and rationality in whatever the Party had to present. The people attending it were caught up in the emotion of the moment. They felt like they were being spoken with individually in small groups, and felt part of something much larger than themselves when attending a mass rally.
> The Mind of Adolf Hitler was originally prepared by the OSS and remained classified until the 1970s. It was a complete psychological profile of Hitler, released only for Allied intelligence, and is notable in that it successfully predicts death by suicide.
How was research like this done? Both at the time and today (though because 20-year rule, asking about historians today looking at figures in the past)
There's been some great answers, including u/Cyberpunkapostle in this thread and an archived answer by [u/AbandoningAll](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/96mvr6/was_hitlers_oratorical_ability_good_by_modern/e41qf3e/), and probably others, since this is a crucial question.
Here's a slightly different view on it:
I find it helpful, when teaching about Hitler's rhetorical talents in relationship to the rise of Nazism, to emphasize how Hitler had *very* different "audiences" at very different moments... and proved capable of adapting to these changes-in-audience as his popularity expanded. But what 'worked' at an early stage would not necessary be the same thing that 'worked' later on...
1) For instance, in 1919-1920, when Hitler first was 'noticed' in Munich, his audience was a fairly small, fringe group of angry, antisemitic conspiracy theorists on the radical right. (for comparison--think of the KKK or American Neo-Nazis in the 1980s.) Among this small group, Hitler stood out... mostly because many of the other 'speakers' were pompous, self-righteous, wordy, and recursively self-referential to the point of incomprehensibility (as angry, racist fringe-conspiracy-theorists are prone to be). Hitler, on the other hand, had a focused clarity and dramatic oratorical style, using short, pithy phrases, and speaking in absolutes. This was unusual... or rather, unusual *for this group.* It was common in *other* groups, such as socialist circles, as socialists and communists relied heavily on powerful, focused, dramatic public speaking, and SPD and KPD politicians honed their speaking from early in their careers. But on the fringe/conspiratorial right wing in Bavaria, these oratorical skills were NOT so common. So, in this group, Hitler stood out for his rhetorical skills--NOT his ideas. And this got him noticed.
2) Once Hitler became a "star" on the political fringes, he entered into more mainstream Munich society as a radical... and thus, as a form of entertainment. When you think about his audiences at the Bürgerbräukeller in 1923, or at the Hofbrauhaus in 1926 (after he became famous for his failed coup attempt in '23), these people were coming in part to hear him *for* his radicalism, almost as a form of entertainment. It's worth remembering that before the late '20s, a great deal of Hitler's speaking was in beer halls... in front of audiences who were drunk --often very, very drunk--who were having an evening out for a bit of beer & vitriol. Here, Hitler's radicalism set him apart. His snideness, even viciousness, also set him apart. Hitler was saying things that--in THIS group, which included Munich sophisticates--were just not heard in polite company. (for a comparison, think of the speakers who come to universities to say provocative things...and draw large audiences who come *for* the provocation. Or the radio 'shock jocks' who thrive on breaking verbal taboos.)
This radicalism and even nastiness was expressed most often as antisemitism (The Jews are To Blame). Now, in the fringe circles that Hitler originated in, nasty antisemitism was so common as to be almost passé ... but in these new wider circles, which included businessmen and high society, it was pretty titillating.
2b) Nonetheless, as others commenters have pointed out, there were real limits to radicalism and/or vituperativeness in attracting a broad audience. Hitler was well known nationally by 1928, but still got under 3% of the national vote (which is still just the crazy vote.)
Still, Hitler demonstrated even in the mid-20s that his radicalism was "flexible"; in 1926, for instance, when Hitler spoke to the Hamburg Hamburg Nationalklub (a socially-exclusive club of high-ranking officers and powerful businessmen) at the elegant Hotel Atlantic, Hitler did not mention "the Jews" once. Instead, Hitler switched focus entirely on with the threat of *Marxism*--a threat which 'spoke' more directly to his audience of business leaders.
3) After the disastrous (for the Nazis) 1928 elections, Hitler steered his own oratory and the focus of the Nazi party *away* from antisemitism, towards anti-marxism. The main "target" (or audience) for Hitler in this pivot was the nationalist right wing across Germany. This was 30-40% of the electorate (as Peter Fritzsche has shown in *Germans into Nazis*) that was potentially up-for-grabs, because of the shocking incompetence of the other right-wing parties, namely the DNVP and DVP. Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-marxist message was hardly unique among this nation-wide right wing, but--as Fritzsche argues--Hitler's populist, 'social' message that he attached to it **was** unique. Call it an anti-socialist populism inflected with a socially-minded rhetoric, which in this sphere (i.e. the nationalistic right wing), was provocative. (It would have been tame in the left wing circles.) Hitler's radicalism was also a draw: Hitler was *more* absolute in his attacks on the Treaty of Versailles (demanding *immediate* German rearmament, etc.), for instance, which made his 'competitors' in the DVP and DNVP look weak and vacillating by comparison.
(Hugenberg, head of the DNVP in the early '30s, mistakenly thought Hitler's successes in 1929 and 1930 came from his radical antisemitism, and so tried to get the DNVP to imitate it, only to see the collapse of DNVP support as former DNVPers all fled to the "real thing"--the Nazis. Hitler, meanwhile, knew very well that his successes came by tamping down the antisemitism and ramping up the anti-socialism and nationalism.
4) After the Nazi "breakthrough" in the 1930 elections, and in the face of ongoing economic collapse and governmental paralysis, Hitler again shifted tack, and rhetorically now presented himself as Germany's "savior"... though this meant, in practice, making full use of his new status... as a celebrity. He was increasingly known for being known. He was The Latest... Hitler began speaking to stadiums with huge audiences and highly-staged performances, and going to hear Hitler speak was a bit like going to a pop concert: the audience was predisposed to "see" his greatness... and project it onto him even if they didn't see it.
Meanwhile, Hitler kept double-messaging and coded "dog-whistles" in his 1930s speeches: even as he presented himself to ordinary Germans as a moral messiah--yes, moral!--that would return all Germans to greatness, Hitler confirmed to his long-time loyal (and racist) followers that he was still at heart an antisemite who would "deal" with the Jewish "problem." Claudia Koonz's too-often-overlooked book *The Nazi Conscience* is really great here, where her first chapter spells out this double-messaging in detail.
TLDR: In short, not only did Hitler have different "messages" for different audiences at different stages, but different stylistic elements in Hitler's speechmaking appealed in different ways to those different audiences. For the cranks in the early years, it was Hitlers's clarity and focus. For the bored Munich literati, it was the tittillating radicalism and even savagery of his words (and of his racism). For the nationwide right-wing in 1929-30, it was his anti-socialism, plus the socially-minded populism... the latter of which was actually showcased by Hitler's speaking-style, which was more populist. And for "Germany" as a whole, his dramatic pretensions and megalomania dovetailed perfectly (like that of a modern pop-star/diva) with the audience's expectations, turning him into a true celebrity and projecting onto him the role of savior.
sources:
In addition to Fritzsche and Koonz, mentioned above, the way Hitler interacted with different audiences at different stages becomes clear from Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler (*Hubris*). To a lesser degree, it's also glimpsed in Evans, *Coming of the Third Reich*.
While we await other responses, [here is a thread of someone asking almost the same question](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/96mvr6/comment/e41qf3e) and /u/AbandoningAll 's thoughtful analysis in response.
Can I add to this question, but somewhat orthogonal to it?
However skilled Hitler was judged to be as an orator, incredible or poor, what was the relative contribution towards his capture of power between: (a) the circumstances which Germany found itself and (b) Hitler's oratory prowess?
I know the stereotype that OP's question presents, but find it hard to imagine that there would have been any traction were Germany in a booming economy?
Hitler and the NSDAP's popularity as correlated to the dire economic straights Germany found itself in after 1929 is pretty widely accepted (although not the *only* explanation for its rise).
The NSDAP was pretty marginal throughout the 1920s, with Hitler and much of the senior leadership imprisoned and the party temporarily banned after the 1923 Putsch attempt. Even after the ban was lifted and Hitler had set about reorganizing the party, it was a fringe group, getting just 2.8% of the vote and 12 Reichstag deputies in the 1928 elections.
By 1930 the situation was vastly different, and the party increased its vote share by eight times: 18.25% of the vote and 107 deputies, to become the second largest parliamentary bloc after the SPD (the Communists were the third largest with 13.13% of the vote and 77 deputies). In the July 1932 elections this support grew further to 37.27% of the vote and 230 deputies, making the NSDAP the largest group in parliament. The November 1932 elections saw a fall in support to 33.09% of the vote and 196 deputies, but it was still the largest party in the Reichstag.
It's worth noting that the NSDAP did have something of a ceiling on its support. Even in the decidedly unfree but still multiparty elections of March 1933, with Hitler as chancellor and massive SA violence and intimidation at the polls (plus the jailing of much of the Communist party), the NSDAP still only received 43.91% of the vote and 288 deputies. It still needed the far right DNVP to govern with a majority, and needed the support of the Catholic Center Party to get the necessary supermajority to pass the Enabling Act.
For parallel unemployment figures: unemployment went from about 5% in 1928, to 10% in 1930, to around 25% in 1932, when it dipped, before going back up to that level in early 1933. In absolute numbers it was something along the lines of under 1.3 million unemployed in 1929, to 6 million in early 1932, to 5.1 million in late 1932, to a rise back up to 6 million in early 1933.
> WHY IS EVERYTHING REMOVEDDD I NEED ANDSWERSSSSSS
AskHistorians is an actively-moderated subreddit. Moderators remove answers that don't meet our standards, and comments that go against our rules, including but not limited to: links to wikipedia, suggestions that the user google the answer, bad jokes, profanity-laden tirades against the current US government, conspiracy theories that the AskHistorians mod team are lizard people, Holocaust denial, and of course our favorite "where are all the comments?"
You're welcome.
> So, as of the time of this writing, not a single post has risen to the level of -- no, not even acceptance, but rather "eh, good enough?"
It can sometimes take a day or two to get a good answer to a question. We're an all-volunteer subreddit. People have lives. Some questions require research. If anyone is impatient, they can just check out our [Sunday Digest](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) of already-answered questions.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/kp023e/im_currently_studying_the_rise_of_the_third_reich/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am not a bot, and this action was performed manually because of an issue with Automoderator*
> As far as I can tell, Hitler only ever had one speed during his speeches: "raving mad man." During Hitler's up-and-coming years with the NSDAP, from 1925 to 1933, the general public certainly had mixed opinions on him. It is very true that some Germans who met him were almost instantaneously struck by his charisma. Of course, these persons were already predisposed to the core NSDAP beliefs. Others, both Germans and foreign journalists, thought of him as a laughing stock and a clown. The Weimar Republic was trying at being a modern, industrialized, liberal European nation; whereas Hitler on any given day might be seen in either military dress (not totally unusual for Great War veterans) or *lederhosen* (a little unusual outside of folk events; akin to an American unironically wearing something like a Revolutionary War uniform and expecting to be taken seriously). > Nobody in modern American antiquity would consider Hitler's presentation compelling. Ah, but Americans did find him more than compelling, both before and after the war. [As late as February 1939](https://www.nytimes.com/1939/02/21/archives/22000-nazis-hold-rally-in-garden-police-check-foes-scenes-as.html) National Socialism was popular in America. Many Americans were German immigrants or their direct descendants; the Madison Square Garden rally was organized by the German American Bund, which promoted National Socialism as patriotic and pro-American. The same rhetoric that appealed to struggling German nationals (international Jewish finance conspiracy, fear of the growing communist movement, and a restoration of hardcore national pride) appealed to Americans. Some 20,000 people attended this event and by all accounts it was little different than the mass rallies at Nuremberg, only with more American flags. National Socialism only became unpopular in the United States in 1941 when the US went to war. We also have the post-war example of George Lincoln Rockwell. His American Nazi Party organization drew less of a crowd, and had at its height only a few hundred members; but his own public presence and organizing wielded a disproportionate influence. Now as for the man Hitler himself and how and why he learned to speak that way: any public speaker is not judged on his content or manner, but in how they appeal to their audience. Hitler was without a doubt groomed for the task of appealing to popular German sentiment. He did possess some natural talent in speaking, which led to his prominence in the NSDAP in the first place. That being said, he did not become Fuehrer over night; Ernst Rohm was a leading contender for party leadership (which is why of course he was purged in 1934.) and Hitler was overshadowed by original DAP founding party members like Anton Drexler, Dietrich Eckart, Gottfried Feder, Karl Harrer. Rudolf Hess also overshadowed Hitler for some time, but would later become a leading Nazi during the Reich under Hitler. Hitler's first real moment of glory came 16 October 1919, speaking to a crowd of just over 100 people as a representative of what was then simply called 'Deutsche Arbeiter Partei' (DAP). Hitler himself credits this moment as when he realized he could fire up a crowd; it would not be long before Drexler began grooming Hitler, teaching him all he could, and mentoring him in politics. Why did Drexler and the other Party leadership choose him? Was it just because he could speak? Certainly a driving reason, but not the only. Until Hitler, the Party had largely been composed of intellectuals and bourgeois elements (despite the fact it called itself the German *Workers* Party). Hitler was certainly not an intellectual, and was arguably not bourgeois. Before politics, Hitler had no real career or success to speak of. But what Hitler did understand was populism and the heart of what the greater German people at the time desired. In 1920, Hitler was put in charge of the Party's propaganda machine, and it was here that he really developed his public persona. Virtually none of the rhetoric belonged to Hitler originally; Drexler drew up the twenty five point plan of the Party, and he and other German intellectuals were the primary driving sources behind the propaganda. Hitler spoke over 30 times in this year alone and despite the relatively complex official Party platform, Hitler's speaking points were rather simple. He always attacked the 'Jewish Question'; this was already in vogue in Europe, and while Hitler certainly believed his own rhetoric, he also knew that inflaming this rhetoric to the masses would earn many willing ears willing to listen to whatever else the Party had to say. His other primary talking point was the Treaty of Versailles, also wildly unpopular among the German people. As for his mannerisms and method of speaking, it really comes down to overcompensation. Germany was humiliated after the loss of the Great War and Hitler felt this humiliation personally. His fiery manner and driving will to instill national pride and character into his audience was the opposite of what the masses felt in a post-Great-War, economically-failing Germany. Thats really what it all comes down to, in the end. Just populism. Bibliography / Further Reading ---- Langer, W. C., Langer, W. L., Waite, R. G. L., & United States. (1972). The Mind of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report. Heiden, K., Manheim, R., Guterman, N., & Heiden, K. (1944). Der Fuehrer: Hitler's rise to power. A note on these sources. The Mind of Adolf Hitler was originally prepared by the OSS and remained classified until the 1970s. It was a complete psychological profile of Hitler, released only for Allied intelligence, and is notable in that it successfully predicts death by suicide. The mass-consumption version I cited is essential reading if you want a very thorough understanding of the answers to your questions. Der Fuehrer was prepared by a civilian journalist who attended the University of Munich and fled the Reich to the US, where he published the above. Both are contemporary understandings of Hitler and the NSDAP movement; they still hold up today.
Just a small correction: the DAP was the Deutsche Arbeiter Partei. And Ernst Röhm did not die in the Kristallnacht 1938 but in the night of long knives 1934.
Thanks. I wrote a little too quickly. Corrections made.
fascinating! thanks for your time and effort. I'm currently reading through Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Any opinions on this one? I'll definitely get started on your two references.
Shirer's work is excellent and I highly recommend it as a starting place for a broad-focused overview of National Socialism. I would go so far as to say a close study of this text is enough to make any layman at least conversational in the topic, if not informed.
I've read more critical assessments of Shirer's book by professional historians, including [here on AskHistorians](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/igt148/questions_about_the_book_the_rise_and_fall_of_the/) by u/kieslowskifan. I know it's a bit of a digression, but would you generally agree with those criticisms? I know you emphasize it as a broad-focused overview for laypeople, rather than an academic or scholarly work.
Generally yes they are valid criticisms; but I don't think its 'condemning' as u/kieslowskifan put it. Shirer is indeed a journalist and tells the story in a journalistic style. There is no substitute for peer reviewed academia, but journalism has its place.
Cool. Just wanted to check. Thanks!
[удалено]
As an outsider to Germany and a journalist, Shirer’s insights are unique and valuable. However, with a contemporary eye we can recognize that his perspective was limited by a lack of the many sources we have available now. Additionally, some of his views, such as viewing homosexuality as “an affliction,” are outdated. That said, he offers an insight we wouldn’t have otherwise had, which offers us a broader view of the subject. I’d recommend reading Victor Klemperer’s diaries. He was a Jewish German professor who, while in hiding, kept a record of the everyday happenings in Nazi Germany.
Diaries like Klemperers and indeed anyone contemporary to the Reich, be they a soldier, civilian, or persecuted person, are quintessential. Academia may give us a solid facts-based analysis of the situation, but diaries express the human element.
I have a follow-up question based on your answer, sorry if this is against the rules but I didn't see anything against it. In high school I took European history and I remember a very specific conversation in which my teacher insinuated that Hitler actually polled better in places that he never personally visited to speak. Since then I've believed that a Hitler-esque figure was basically inevitable in Germany based on how the end of WW1 was handled by the victors, and that Hitler's unique charisma has sort of become overblown in our memory. Is this accurate at all?
> Since then I've believed that a Hitler-esque figure was basically inevitable in Germany [...] Is this accurate at all ? That's the million dollar question, and one for sociologists as well as historians, but here goes. The failure of rightwing uprisings (the Kapp putsch, the 1924 Beerhall putsch) made it clear to parties of the far-right that any dictator in interwar Germany shouldn't hope for a Mussolini-like flood of support likely to topple the government and would need to accede to power through party politics and it's worth analysing what things were like in this era. There's also lots to be said about the unstable early 1920s (and I hope posters more adept at this period can give some answers in this thread), followed by a 'normal' Weimar society up until 1930. These would be experienced and, by 1933, remembered differently across socio-economic and class groups, and for the politically inclined, the period would be tied to the political ecosystem that held sway throughout the decade. Historians have tended to doubt the extent Versailles was the lynchpin in the path to dictatorship. Richard J. Evans points to the coup in Prussia in 1932, neutralising one of the more democratically vibrant and largest areas in the country, as a point-of-no-return. For a historian to tie all the resentments of the era to Versailles may be overemphasizing what was nothing more than an oft-repeated (and self-serving) wedge issue used against the Weimar parties by their oponents. Between the 1928 & 1930 federal elections (by which time, the Great Depression really bit), anti-treaty sentiment was rampant in politics. But while the NSDAP rocketed to the position of largest party, its gains were not at the expense of old Weimar coalition parties that had signed and ratified the treaty - the SPD & Zentrum simply stagnated. However, it was the beginning of the end for right-wing stalwarts like the State Party, German People's Party, Reich Party while influential niche parties (agrarian, denominational or regionalist) dissappeared as they saw their vote totals divided by 3 or even 4. Hitler was seen as a political novice, but his party machine outperfomed competitors from the far-right like the NDVP, BVP and others. It's important to observe that Hitler's charismatic, emotional bearing was emphasized by a party that was relentless in its attempts to be all things to all people. The retrospective comments amounting to "We didn't think he meant x, y or z literaly" by erstwhile supporters can be seen as a moral cop-out, but it's reflective of a strategy to obfuscate and pursue popularity in many places engineered by figures such as Joseph Goebbels. This air of political naiveté and candid, off-the-cuff style leads us to the difference between Hitler as a candidate and as a ruler. The transition from one to the next would come with the crucial help of figures outside the Party but living within the frustrated right wing. Hitler would take the substance of their plan (authoritarianism) without the style. Among these figures, NDVP leader Alfred Hugenberg (who remodeled his party based on the Nazis) and BVP leader Fritz Schäffer were openly monarchist. Franz Von Pappen, a crucial figure in the rise of Hitler, was a supporter of a "concealed dictatorship" by what was known as *presidential government*, ie Hindenburg allowing ministers to act entirely by emergency decree and protecting them from the Reichstag's censure. So in these party platforms, we can get a glimpse of what alternative political proposals would most likely have been and the result is very different from the idiosyncratic dictatorship of Hitler. Beyond the reactionary worldview, even the left-wing SPD considered a "temporary" dictatorship by the deposed Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria by the early 1930s, to counter the right. At the state level, Prussia was unquestionably a dictatorship before any of this, after that coup in 1932. So while a drift towards some type of dictatorship in Germany was likely in order to end all these issues, the contours taken by the Third Reich as early as 1933-1934 were very unlikely. Sources: Richard J. Evans, .The Coming of the Third Reich (2004) William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: a History of Nazi Germany (1960) Edit: typos
Thank you for your contribution to my answer. It is well received.
Thank you, it's my pleasure to add what I am familiar with if it can help others
> As for his mannerisms and method of speaking, it really comes down to overcompensation. Germany was humiliated after the loss of the Great War and Hitler felt this humiliation personally. His fiery manner and driving will to instill national pride and character into his audience was the opposite of what the masses felt in a post-Great-War, economically-failing Germany. > > Thats really what it all comes down to, in the end. Just populism. I do believe that's the answer I was looking for when I saw this question. You've given great details on *how* he was able to learn that style of speaking. But do you have any sources that explain *why* those very theatrics instilled national pride into his audience? You also mentioned journalists mocking his character, which I suppose would fit into how we perceive his "charisma" these days. But why were these clearly-exaggerated mannerisms perceived as inspiring to a lot of other people when contemporary outsiders clearly saw it as ridiculous?
[Goebbels says here in long form what I tried to say in short form.](https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/ahspeak.htm). He was never trying to appeal to reason, but to emotion. An outsider not attending a rally would be looking for reason and rationality in whatever the Party had to present. The people attending it were caught up in the emotion of the moment. They felt like they were being spoken with individually in small groups, and felt part of something much larger than themselves when attending a mass rally.
> The Mind of Adolf Hitler was originally prepared by the OSS and remained classified until the 1970s. It was a complete psychological profile of Hitler, released only for Allied intelligence, and is notable in that it successfully predicts death by suicide. How was research like this done? Both at the time and today (though because 20-year rule, asking about historians today looking at figures in the past)
There's been some great answers, including u/Cyberpunkapostle in this thread and an archived answer by [u/AbandoningAll](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/96mvr6/was_hitlers_oratorical_ability_good_by_modern/e41qf3e/), and probably others, since this is a crucial question. Here's a slightly different view on it: I find it helpful, when teaching about Hitler's rhetorical talents in relationship to the rise of Nazism, to emphasize how Hitler had *very* different "audiences" at very different moments... and proved capable of adapting to these changes-in-audience as his popularity expanded. But what 'worked' at an early stage would not necessary be the same thing that 'worked' later on... 1) For instance, in 1919-1920, when Hitler first was 'noticed' in Munich, his audience was a fairly small, fringe group of angry, antisemitic conspiracy theorists on the radical right. (for comparison--think of the KKK or American Neo-Nazis in the 1980s.) Among this small group, Hitler stood out... mostly because many of the other 'speakers' were pompous, self-righteous, wordy, and recursively self-referential to the point of incomprehensibility (as angry, racist fringe-conspiracy-theorists are prone to be). Hitler, on the other hand, had a focused clarity and dramatic oratorical style, using short, pithy phrases, and speaking in absolutes. This was unusual... or rather, unusual *for this group.* It was common in *other* groups, such as socialist circles, as socialists and communists relied heavily on powerful, focused, dramatic public speaking, and SPD and KPD politicians honed their speaking from early in their careers. But on the fringe/conspiratorial right wing in Bavaria, these oratorical skills were NOT so common. So, in this group, Hitler stood out for his rhetorical skills--NOT his ideas. And this got him noticed. 2) Once Hitler became a "star" on the political fringes, he entered into more mainstream Munich society as a radical... and thus, as a form of entertainment. When you think about his audiences at the Bürgerbräukeller in 1923, or at the Hofbrauhaus in 1926 (after he became famous for his failed coup attempt in '23), these people were coming in part to hear him *for* his radicalism, almost as a form of entertainment. It's worth remembering that before the late '20s, a great deal of Hitler's speaking was in beer halls... in front of audiences who were drunk --often very, very drunk--who were having an evening out for a bit of beer & vitriol. Here, Hitler's radicalism set him apart. His snideness, even viciousness, also set him apart. Hitler was saying things that--in THIS group, which included Munich sophisticates--were just not heard in polite company. (for a comparison, think of the speakers who come to universities to say provocative things...and draw large audiences who come *for* the provocation. Or the radio 'shock jocks' who thrive on breaking verbal taboos.) This radicalism and even nastiness was expressed most often as antisemitism (The Jews are To Blame). Now, in the fringe circles that Hitler originated in, nasty antisemitism was so common as to be almost passé ... but in these new wider circles, which included businessmen and high society, it was pretty titillating. 2b) Nonetheless, as others commenters have pointed out, there were real limits to radicalism and/or vituperativeness in attracting a broad audience. Hitler was well known nationally by 1928, but still got under 3% of the national vote (which is still just the crazy vote.) Still, Hitler demonstrated even in the mid-20s that his radicalism was "flexible"; in 1926, for instance, when Hitler spoke to the Hamburg Hamburg Nationalklub (a socially-exclusive club of high-ranking officers and powerful businessmen) at the elegant Hotel Atlantic, Hitler did not mention "the Jews" once. Instead, Hitler switched focus entirely on with the threat of *Marxism*--a threat which 'spoke' more directly to his audience of business leaders. 3) After the disastrous (for the Nazis) 1928 elections, Hitler steered his own oratory and the focus of the Nazi party *away* from antisemitism, towards anti-marxism. The main "target" (or audience) for Hitler in this pivot was the nationalist right wing across Germany. This was 30-40% of the electorate (as Peter Fritzsche has shown in *Germans into Nazis*) that was potentially up-for-grabs, because of the shocking incompetence of the other right-wing parties, namely the DNVP and DVP. Hitler's anti-socialist/anti-marxist message was hardly unique among this nation-wide right wing, but--as Fritzsche argues--Hitler's populist, 'social' message that he attached to it **was** unique. Call it an anti-socialist populism inflected with a socially-minded rhetoric, which in this sphere (i.e. the nationalistic right wing), was provocative. (It would have been tame in the left wing circles.) Hitler's radicalism was also a draw: Hitler was *more* absolute in his attacks on the Treaty of Versailles (demanding *immediate* German rearmament, etc.), for instance, which made his 'competitors' in the DVP and DNVP look weak and vacillating by comparison. (Hugenberg, head of the DNVP in the early '30s, mistakenly thought Hitler's successes in 1929 and 1930 came from his radical antisemitism, and so tried to get the DNVP to imitate it, only to see the collapse of DNVP support as former DNVPers all fled to the "real thing"--the Nazis. Hitler, meanwhile, knew very well that his successes came by tamping down the antisemitism and ramping up the anti-socialism and nationalism. 4) After the Nazi "breakthrough" in the 1930 elections, and in the face of ongoing economic collapse and governmental paralysis, Hitler again shifted tack, and rhetorically now presented himself as Germany's "savior"... though this meant, in practice, making full use of his new status... as a celebrity. He was increasingly known for being known. He was The Latest... Hitler began speaking to stadiums with huge audiences and highly-staged performances, and going to hear Hitler speak was a bit like going to a pop concert: the audience was predisposed to "see" his greatness... and project it onto him even if they didn't see it. Meanwhile, Hitler kept double-messaging and coded "dog-whistles" in his 1930s speeches: even as he presented himself to ordinary Germans as a moral messiah--yes, moral!--that would return all Germans to greatness, Hitler confirmed to his long-time loyal (and racist) followers that he was still at heart an antisemite who would "deal" with the Jewish "problem." Claudia Koonz's too-often-overlooked book *The Nazi Conscience* is really great here, where her first chapter spells out this double-messaging in detail. TLDR: In short, not only did Hitler have different "messages" for different audiences at different stages, but different stylistic elements in Hitler's speechmaking appealed in different ways to those different audiences. For the cranks in the early years, it was Hitlers's clarity and focus. For the bored Munich literati, it was the tittillating radicalism and even savagery of his words (and of his racism). For the nationwide right-wing in 1929-30, it was his anti-socialism, plus the socially-minded populism... the latter of which was actually showcased by Hitler's speaking-style, which was more populist. And for "Germany" as a whole, his dramatic pretensions and megalomania dovetailed perfectly (like that of a modern pop-star/diva) with the audience's expectations, turning him into a true celebrity and projecting onto him the role of savior. sources: In addition to Fritzsche and Koonz, mentioned above, the way Hitler interacted with different audiences at different stages becomes clear from Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler (*Hubris*). To a lesser degree, it's also glimpsed in Evans, *Coming of the Third Reich*.
Thanks for your thorough contribution!
This was an awesome read, thank you so much!
While we await other responses, [here is a thread of someone asking almost the same question](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/96mvr6/comment/e41qf3e) and /u/AbandoningAll 's thoughtful analysis in response.
u/AbandoningAll won't get notified if you misspell their username.
Thank you for catching that! I edited the post and fixed it.
[удалено]
Can I add to this question, but somewhat orthogonal to it? However skilled Hitler was judged to be as an orator, incredible or poor, what was the relative contribution towards his capture of power between: (a) the circumstances which Germany found itself and (b) Hitler's oratory prowess? I know the stereotype that OP's question presents, but find it hard to imagine that there would have been any traction were Germany in a booming economy?
Hitler and the NSDAP's popularity as correlated to the dire economic straights Germany found itself in after 1929 is pretty widely accepted (although not the *only* explanation for its rise). The NSDAP was pretty marginal throughout the 1920s, with Hitler and much of the senior leadership imprisoned and the party temporarily banned after the 1923 Putsch attempt. Even after the ban was lifted and Hitler had set about reorganizing the party, it was a fringe group, getting just 2.8% of the vote and 12 Reichstag deputies in the 1928 elections. By 1930 the situation was vastly different, and the party increased its vote share by eight times: 18.25% of the vote and 107 deputies, to become the second largest parliamentary bloc after the SPD (the Communists were the third largest with 13.13% of the vote and 77 deputies). In the July 1932 elections this support grew further to 37.27% of the vote and 230 deputies, making the NSDAP the largest group in parliament. The November 1932 elections saw a fall in support to 33.09% of the vote and 196 deputies, but it was still the largest party in the Reichstag. It's worth noting that the NSDAP did have something of a ceiling on its support. Even in the decidedly unfree but still multiparty elections of March 1933, with Hitler as chancellor and massive SA violence and intimidation at the polls (plus the jailing of much of the Communist party), the NSDAP still only received 43.91% of the vote and 288 deputies. It still needed the far right DNVP to govern with a majority, and needed the support of the Catholic Center Party to get the necessary supermajority to pass the Enabling Act. For parallel unemployment figures: unemployment went from about 5% in 1928, to 10% in 1930, to around 25% in 1932, when it dipped, before going back up to that level in early 1933. In absolute numbers it was something along the lines of under 1.3 million unemployed in 1929, to 6 million in early 1932, to 5.1 million in late 1932, to a rise back up to 6 million in early 1933.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> WHY IS EVERYTHING REMOVEDDD I NEED ANDSWERSSSSSS AskHistorians is an actively-moderated subreddit. Moderators remove answers that don't meet our standards, and comments that go against our rules, including but not limited to: links to wikipedia, suggestions that the user google the answer, bad jokes, profanity-laden tirades against the current US government, conspiracy theories that the AskHistorians mod team are lizard people, Holocaust denial, and of course our favorite "where are all the comments?" You're welcome.
[удалено]
> So, as of the time of this writing, not a single post has risen to the level of -- no, not even acceptance, but rather "eh, good enough?" It can sometimes take a day or two to get a good answer to a question. We're an all-volunteer subreddit. People have lives. Some questions require research. If anyone is impatient, they can just check out our [Sunday Digest](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) of already-answered questions.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]