[Metal Gear]

How much truth is there to the idea that at least a certain amount of Germans were under the influence of German propaganda, and therefore not active parts of the machine itself? Was it a matter of too many people being weak, and afraid to stand up, or was it a matter of Hitler having SUPPORT from the majority of the population? Majority support is not required to run a dictatorship if team-work is utilized by the people in power. Once in power, the dictator uses propaganda and brainwashes his subjects. The Bolsheviks certainly took power in Russia without majority support. Did Hitler simply outmaneuver his opponents and use underhand tactics to gain power, or did the people freely support him, in such a way that he did not have to use any deception? Would the people have supported him, if they didn't fear for their own lives? It's possible to create a climate of fear in which people won't speak up, and it's possible for many people to simply be apolitical. Of course a certain amount would have, but I'm asking about the majority.

My personal take is that Hitler had about 40% support, and muscled his way into power, systematically eliminating dissidents, and forcing many Germans to follow him. Is this view wrong?

[Maxim Litvinov]

I don't understand your questions.

What sort of 'deceptions' and 'propaganda' are you talking about? What sort of 'support' are you talking about? When are you talking about?

The tale of Hitler's electoral success is well documented, the subsequent work of his government is well documented....

Are you talking about tactics to win votes in the elections of the early 1930s? Means of suppressing dissident movements in the later part of the decade? Means of winning more widespread approval?

[Metal Gear]

I'm basically asking whether the Germans who didn't vote for Hitler still supported him. Of course they voted for someone else, but that doesn't mean necessarily, that they opposed him, just that they favored someone else.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Judging from how polarised the community was and how different the other parties were, you'd have to say - in general - no, would you not?

I mean, it's not as if you couldn't make up your mind between voting for socialists and voting for fascists. Centre-right or far-right, perhaps.

[Metal Gear]

I suppose if we limit the two sides to simply socialists and nazis, you are correct.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Even if we don't do that though, there is little reason to suppose that those who supported some of the other parties had Hitler as their 'second choice'. Radical parties like the NSDAP don't tend to attract a whole lot of second preferences, so one would presume if there was some sort of preferential voting system in place in Germany, the Nazis wouldn't have done so well.

Having said that, I believe there's some pretty well researched stuff on voting preferences in 1930s Germany if you're willing to look for it.

[Donna]

I recommend the movie Hitler: The Rise of Evil (if you can find it somehow, it was a TV mini-series). It's a fairly factual take on Hitler's ascension, from when he joined the German Workers Party to when Hindenburg swore him in as Chancellor. You can find parts of it (mostly the Night of Long Knives event) on YouTube.

[Torwan]

First, you have to see this with time-frames. You can't say "Hitler had/had no support from the Germans". It depends on the time.

Before 1930, Hitler had only very limited support whatsoever. His first uprising in 1923 had no major support. A reason why it broke down quickly.

His time began in 1929 with the world economic crisis and the downfall of the democratic coalition after the 1930s-election. He was able to use the new media (radio, movies, movies with sound) for his favor, because he could transmit his speech-skills to many more people than ever before.

In 1933, he had perhaps 50% support of the people. That's roughly the amount of votes for him and his coalition partner, the DNVP (German National People's Party, right-wing).

During the 30s, he was able to increase his approval with the end of the Versailles Treaty, militarizing the Rhineland, gain of the Saarland, the Sudetenland and Austria, the economic rebuilding, end of political chaos and unemployment. Historians estimate that he had an 80 to 90 percent approval at that time.

During the first war years, he even had more approval. Especially after crushing France in six weeks, he was regarded like a half-god by many, because he did in six weeks what Germany was unable to do in four years (1914-1918). Approval rates would have been as high as 90 %.

His downfall began with the hunt of the jewish people (who were, as we sometimes forget, also Germans). They never approved of him. Also Germans associated with Jews often disapproved of the laws and methods used. The Reichskristallnacht of 1938 was very unpopular. Therefore it was never repeated and anti-jewish actions were made in silence and secret, never that big again.

With building the extermination camps in Poland instead of Germany, the Nazis avoided major German attention of these camps. While the concentration camps were known, the image of them was positively, just like a hard prison - propaganda did that.

But the humiliating fact is, that German disapproval of Hitler wasn't caused by racism or holocaust - because of the fact that he began losing the war. Increasing losses of life, increasing bombing of Germany - that made him really unpopular. Beginning with the winter offensive of the Red Army in December 1941, his reputation suffered. The loss of Stalingrad in February 1943 made it even worse. And when the allied forces began controlling the skies in summer/autumn 1944 and the Red Army crushed the Armygroup "Middle" in summer 1944, pushing into East-Prussia, standing on German soil for the first time, his reputation was crushed. The majority didn't support him anymore, but there was nobody who could replace him - and people had different things to think about, like "who of my family is still alive" - "will the bombers kill me tomorrow" - "will I find food for my children tomorrow" etc.

The humiliating fact is: Support for Hitler never really ended until the war was over and people saw what in the name of Germany was done in the extermination camps.

[Metal Gear]

After reading this thread and places elsewhere, here are my viewpoints:

-Hitler started out as a fringe radical
-He eventually gained enough support to gain power, though not majority support
-As soon as he started winning wars, he gained enormous support.
-Though he lost support, his grip was strong enough that he never really was opposed until he was dead. Any opposition would have been swiftly eliminated anyways.

An interesting point was made that the original camps were made in Poland instead of Germany, as to keep the Germans ignorant of what was going on.

[Torwan]

@kane:

Quite right. All opposition forces were swiftly eliminated, the known Stauffenberg-opposition and several other circles as well.

However, one thing:

An interesting point was made that the original camps were made in Poland instead of Germany, as to keep the Germans ignorant of what was going on.

Little correction here:
The original camps were based in Germany, the "average" concentration camps like Dachau and Buchenwald.

The extermination camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau, the only ones equipped with gas chambers and corpse-burning-equipment, were built in Poland. There's a very interesting story behind that:

Before the war, there was an extermination camp in South-West Germany (forgot the name). It was built to kill disabled people. As it was very close to a town, the people soon found out what happened in there - and publicly demonstrated against it. The Nazis were forced to close down the facility. They learned from this lesson, that the Germans wouldn't support such action on a big scale, so they moved the camps to Poland where the Germans didn't see them.

However, this doesn't mean that the Germans are innocent. They saw that people "vanished" and they never asked where they moved to. They knew that disabled people who were moved to "special facilities" died after a few weeks because of a "disease". Engineers and workers occupied with the construction of the gas chambers and corpse-burning-facilities had to know what they were for. And the list goes on.

People didn't know everything, but they could have known, if they wanted to.

[Truth?]

Torwan quite true except for one point a lot of the NSDAP membership was told that the Jews were being rounded up till a suitable homeland could be found for them. So not much investigation was made by the German people because they believed the party was looking for a homeland. It is worthy of note that Hitler tryed deporting them to Western countries but they refused. He also wanted to make Morocco the new Jewish Homeland but obviously it wouldn't work with how fluid the North African Campaign was.

It is also of note that Holocaust slaughters didn't start happening to mid-war before that you had experimentation though. Some Historians have mixed views as to why the program started so late. Some claim Hitler just ignored the camps and let Himmler run wild while other believe he ordered their destruction because he had nothing else to do with them.

[Far-Right Sage]

He also wanted to make Morocco the new Jewish Homeland

Morocco? Are you sure you're not confusing Morocco with Madagascar? I have never heard of a planned expulsion of German and Eastern European Jews to Morocco.

[Shade2]

hey learned from this lesson, that the Germans wouldn't support such action on a big scale,

Typical nationalistic German fairy-tale to white wash Germans.
In fact in 1947 37% of asked Germans in polls by Allies supported extermination of Jews and Poles.
In letters from the East most German soldiers boasted to their family members about murdering Jewish people and were enthusiastic about it.

[Far-Right Sage]

Typical nationalistic German fairy-tale to white wash Germans.
In fact in 1947 37% of asked Germans in polls by Allies supported extermination of Jews and Poles.
In letters from the East most German soldiers boasted to their family members about murdering Jewish people and were enthusiastic about it.

If you want to discuss something "typical", then let's discuss the general nature of reactionary Poles these days.

[Torwan]

@Truth:

Quiet right. The official story was the "new homeland"-story. However, the Germans failed to investigate where the people were sent to before that so-called new homeland was secured. That you can blaim on them.

[Zagadka]

at least a certain amount of Germans were under the influence of German propaganda, and therefore not active parts of the machine itself?

Um, that's kinda the point of propaganda.

Many non-Nazi Germans were still upset about the Versailles treaty, and supported military action.

As to how many Germans actually blamed Jews etc... I think that is something that can't be calculated.

[Torwan]

As to how many Germans actually blamed Jews etc... I think that is something that can't be calculated.

That would be a small minority.

The problematic fact is, however, that the dominant majority didn't do anything to prevent the persecution and suppression of the Jews. Or better: Of Germans of a certain religion. These were Germans. They regarded themselves as Germans, not as Jews. Their neighbours and friends as well. Why didn't people do anything against that?

Because racism was an accepted ideology back then. Because people didn't care.

[Far-Right Sage]

Many non-Nazi Germans were still upset about the Versailles treaty, and supported military action

You know that I'm not one to moralize war, but from the standpoint of logic, if you were a German citizen in the late 1930's, you would find that the re-militarization of the Rhine, Anschluss with Austria, the occupation of Czechoslovakia(at the very least, the Sudetenland), and an invasion of Poland were all completely justified. In reference to the Polish question, the Poles had taken a large chunk of German land upon the collapse of the German Empire following World War I.

[Torwan]

@FRS:

True, but to be fair you have to say that several regions were allowed to vote on their future country and they voted for Poland.

Several other regions (Pommern, Danzig) were not allowed to vote and by that, the WW1-victory-powers laid the foundation for WW2. The "corridor"-question arose from the start and it was clear that this would the cause for trouble. That combined with the massive reparations and military disarmament was the reason why Marshall Foch said: "This is just a cease-fire for 20 years."

[Cid]

The corridor question did fuel German irridentism, but the UK was willing to make eventual concessions on this issue. France and the UK were partially responsible for the continueing tensions. France was hectic about seeking allies against Germany but the UK was unwilling to make tangible commitments. French foreign policy was also a total mess, she allied with Poland in case of agression however she build the Maginot Line, which implied the French would go into the defensive in case of German agression against Poland, thereby shattering the essence of the French-Polish alliance. The Locarno Treaties already gave a clue on how WW2 would ensue; France, the UK, Germany, Italy and Belgium guaranteed the western front (the Rhineland area) where any agressor from any side would be dealt with by the other parties, but the eastern front was totally neglected, thuse sealing the front where the next large European battle would start. But we must not forget one major cause for the continuation of the WW mentality, that is the German irridentism generated by the Germans themselves. The Dolchstoßlegende fueled the German belief to rearmament and to resettle their "betrayed" cause.