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?

  • Samsy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Just read the comments, and have to add, don’t forget the mastermind behind his speeches. Goebbels. Hitler’s performance is for a native speaker of today a bit of too much anger, loud, and a rolling “r” nobody actually speaking in germany. It’s like a special Hitler-accent, if someone tries to speak like that, everyone know it’s about making a Hitler-Joke.

  • Onionguy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    9 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
      9
      ·
      6 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.

  • Muehe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Well for lack of a better comparison, it’s kind of like a Trump rally. Not quite, of course, the style Trump applies is tailored to the current American sensibilities, with his silly little dances and whatnot. But the way he wields anger and hate and “patriotism” to get a rise out of the crowd seems very much alike. And yeah, it’s sadly undeniable that Hitler had a talent for this. Greater one than Trump maybe.

  • sasquash@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    12 hours ago

    Short answer: Yes he was a talented speaker and a great manipulator. He knew what the crowd wanted to hear and he could express it very well. However, this is a great simplification.

    Longer answer: The problem is we view his speeches from todays perspective. The world now is very different so we can only assume how germans felt at the time. If you are really interested in it, I suggest to read some books from Erich Maria Remarque. These show from the perspective of the time how it could have come to this. Germany, once a proud superpower, was devastated after the First World War. The heavy defeat, supply problems, hyperinflation and all that struggle, provided the breeding ground for all kinds of radical factions. It was no wonder a demagogue like Hitler was so well received back then. From today’s perspective, this is not really possible to judge. The Allies knew that this could not happen again after the Second World War. Thats why the Marshall Plan was introduced, which led to Germany maturing into a modern western democracy.

    • kambusha@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      10 hours ago

      Great author and books. Reads much like Hemingway. People in Germany were pissed about the conditions imposed by the loss of WWI and the effects of it. Hitler promised to overturn what a lot of people felt was unjust. A lot of emotion, especially anger, echoed what a lot of people must have felt at the time. If you’re in a tunnel, and someone shines a light, you follow it.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 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
    13
    ·
    11 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.

  • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    12 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.