I’ve always been told that Hitler was a masterful public speaker; that his support can largely be explained by his compelling, if not mesmerizing hold on crowds. This narrative is not common, it’s universal.

Sometimes I think this is emphasized over how much the crowds approved of the content of his speech.

How do native German speakers feel when they view footage of Hitler? Do you think the reputation is earned?

  • Onionguy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    7 hours ago

    In school, we never just watched a Hitler speech and were asked “here, have a look, whatdaya think?” It is always, from the beginning, embedded in critical, solemn reminders to see it as the darkest chapter in history. We (at least in my school education) were taught how easily masses are manipulated by emotions, groupthink crowd dynamics and psychology. How strong and blinding tribalism can be.

    So to answer your question, what do I, as a German whose grandfather fought in France for the bad guys feel when I see a Hitler speech?

    Anger for people who lose their capacity for rational thinking and let themselves be blinded by emotions. Anger about rethoric. And a deep unsettling sense of dread, shame and sadness.

    • treadful@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 hours ago

      We (at least in my school education) were taught how easily masses are manipulated by emotions, groupthink crowd dynamics and psychology. How strong and blinding tribalism can be.

      Very cool. Wish we had more of this in my culture.

    • modeler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 hours ago

      That language is at a very much higher grade level and complexity to that of the current political discourse. Wow.

    • JohnnyEnzyme@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Unbelievable.
      It’s sort of the anti-Clinton, full of wonkish facts of the time, but like the coming admin, directed towards blame and hate.

      Which too-often snags the common person in to a vague basket of ‘yeah, we gotta get those guys!’ sentiment.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 hours ago

    I’m not a native German speaker, but I figure I should add some bit of context.

    Acting on stage is far different than acting on a camera. Facial expressions are exaggerated. The body is used more to communicate emotion. Speech is louder and more exaggerated. Most stage actors have to be told to tone down their acting when switching to film or TV because you can see more acting on a screen than in person.

    Hitler gives his performances as a stage performer, but we are watching his performances on film in close-up.

  • 5715@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    Deutsch
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    9 hours ago

    that his support can largely be explained by his compelling, if not mesmerizing hold on crowds.

    Don’t forget that there was massive propaganda to create this narrative, especially after the power grab for the NSDAP and Nazi movement.

    I think he was likely good at instilling anger in his temporary audience. There’s a lot of emotion transported.

    Also important to note: The 1933 power grab and the totalitarian regime in the next 12 years wasn’t Hitler’s work alone. The German electorate, Hindenburg and those who followed knew what they were doing.

    • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Pushing back, I don’t think they knew what they were doing. Hindenburg and the elites in power thought that by granting a little power to Hitler, they could control him and use his popularity for their own ends.

      Unfortunately, like Keyser Söze, Hitler and the brown shirts were willing to push and push beyond what was previously deemed acceptable to get what they wanted. They were willing to take power by whatever means served them best: violence, arson, intimidation, grievance, and the country was eating it up.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    10 hours ago

    We now have the benefit of hindsight of what Hitler and his system ended up doing, so when we hear a Hitler speech today, we know a lot more than the crowds who were listening to it at the time did; this causes some bias in answering this question honestly.

    It is true that his speeches are hardly ever boring. He was able to switch between a calm and an aggressive speaking style depending on what was fitting for what he was saying, sometimes within a very short time. This is true of some, but not all, other politicians too.

    • Cris@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Edit: I was mistaken that Hitler was elected, thank you to Sem who corrected me below. Hitler ran for office but lost, and was appointed to chancellor by the winner Paul von Hindenburg. When von Hindenberg died a year after Hitler was appointed to chancellor, Hitler succeeded him and abolished the office of president and declared himself Furher und Reichskanzler

      I think it’s pretty important that people are willing to grapple with the fact that people will gladly buy into hatred and fascism when a charismatic populist sells it to them as the ails of their people.

      Hitler was elected*. If we want to avoid the mistakes of the past, we have to be willing to confront the reality of how they happened in the first place. Hitler spoke to real fears and anxieties people had, and promised things they truly wanted, like a great nation they could take national pride in once again.

      • sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Hitler was never elected in a fair election. He rose to power first through back room deals, and once he had the power of the state, he used it to influence the next elections and concentrate power.

        • Cris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          Thank you for correcting me, I was mistaken.

          If I understand corectly, he was appointed Chancellor by the Paul Von Hindenberg who won the 1932 election that Hitler had also run in, and rose to power as the successor to von Hindenburg after Hindenburg died in 1934

          I’ve edited my original comment

        • Cris@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Interesting, that wasn’t my understanding, looks like I need to go learn some more about that and see if I was mistaken

          Thanks :)

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      I think its an important question to delve into if you are an American right now. Some could use with some introspection

      • tal@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        9 hours ago

        If you’re drawing an analogy to Trump, setting aside the many other things that aren’t parallel, Trump is a terrible orator. I mean, most US Presidents are at least decent, but Trump is horrendous.