Who Voted for Hitler?

hm, Stauffenberg tried to kill Hitler, unfortunately unsuccesful. Good part: Stauffenberg was executed immediately, Bad Part: about 5000 other people that were thought of having played a part in the coup were tortured before they were executed.

The White Rose tried to stop Hitler - all of them were executed.

It is a bit more troublesome to revolt if you know that that will guarantee for your wife and family members to get raped, tortured and killed.

That's really something like an impossible question. Who the **** would vote for someone like Hitler? Vote for madman?

But it all comes back to the situation Germany was in. The economy was completly down. They had no money. they still had to pay half of Europe's country for what they "did" in WW1.
Then some guy comes and says GERMANS ARE SUPERIOR.JEWS HAVE PUT THIS COUNTRY IN THIS SITUATION.I'LL CHANGE EVERYTHING. It's obvious this would have an impact on nearly anyone from the low and middle classes and even some intelectuals would get persuaded especially because Hitler had such an oratory talent.

The other partys in Germany tought he might be helpfull because people trust such a man but he has no school and he didn't do any famous things in WW1 so he won't be a danger. But people stopped carrying about party's but about Hitler's personality.Yes, he was a NAZI but that was just a coincidence IMO.He would have done and reached the same no matter what party he would have been in. When you look at The NAZI Party's dogmas(before Hitler)you'll see they arevpretty close to those of the comunists.

Then after conquering poland, reestablishing the economy and holding his promises, it was natural that Geramans would adore him. The same would happen evrywhere in this world in the same circumstances.There's that German adage that says:" Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel" (could some German translate it?) and probably that's what occured.

On the other hand , what I find absolutely inspiring is all the remorse that the GERMANS felt just after they lost the War. They were so ashamed of having supported somone like Hitler that you could see it in your eyes(in the pics and interviews at least).


My point:The Hitler's of this world keep on existing, smaller or bigger, and they exist only because this sick world allows them to exist, only because this world feeds them.
I can tell that from own experience .In Romania a guy that is some neo-nazi wannabe(nobody can categorize him since he's been an communist before 89 and he was antisemit 4 years ago and he says he loves the jews now).He candidated as a President 4 years ago and he got 33 % of the votes. He had outcome the liberals, the republicans and only the social democrates managed to have more votes.
If you hear him and all the things that he say, you would think nobody would vote him because everybody learned from past's mistakes. It ain't like that.
And as far as I rememebr something similar happened in Austria not long ago. WHO VOTED THAT RIGHT EXTREMIST THERE???

and they still do feel remorse.

I don't think it is right to compare Joerg Haider with Hitler. Even though it makes fabulous headlines.

I didn't compare him with Hitler. I just said people do in some situation strange things. And it was the case in Austria as it was the case in Germany 70 years ago-keeping proportions of course.
What I mean with this is that it has absolutely o importance WHO VOTED or SUPPORTED Hitler but in what situation and in what times they suppored HITLER(or somebody else). I guess the problem in Austria were the immigrantes but I'm not sure...and he's still a very important political figure, isn't he?

gotcha!

First of all I must say this whole thing is never going to be completely understood. Why the hell could that happen? But this is just what is so attractive to it. Everyone knows who Hitler was and what he did.

However, my thoughts...

1. You have to forget about who Hitler was. You know, back then there was no chapter in history people could say about: Look back at what happened there. We mustn't let this happen again.
There was nothing like Hitler before, not to that extent. And even when he got the power, it wasn't the Hitler from today's view. It was just another guy. He wasn't known for going to erase zillions of people. It wasn't known for what he was going to stand for one day.

2. German politics were weak at that time. It's only been since 1871 that a bunch of principalities has been united. And it was until 1918 that there was an emperor in Germany. The attempts to establish a proper democracy failed deplorably because of half-heartedness and lacking mutuality. It still was all too split as it was with the many principalities.

3. From the early 20s o Hitler kind of tricked to his and his parties advantages upon serious political attempts. If I remember right there was even a putsch Hitler was part of. He wasn't even the leader if I'm right and at least the public knew nothing.
Finally, when he became chancellor it was more of a hardship because of weak or no alternatives.

4. World Economy Crisis 1929. What all you people got wrong: it was not Hitlers own effort that dragged Germany out of there. German economy already began to recover 1931/32. Nevertheless, he was just right in time and many people thought it was him. And of course, from 1933 on his armaments industry added a lot to it. This doesn't mean everyone built weapons. I name the motorways as just one example.

5. From when he took the power he and his party showed determinedness. They tackled the problems. A thing that Germany lacked of the past years. Plus they installed their huge educative system. You were told to be part of a great thing from when you were a kid (Hitler Youth etc.). Everyone got something to do. There was hope. But only a few knew what it would lead to.

6. A very important point is politics are made by a few, today equally as back then, but back then other than today it wasn't that much a public thing. There were no news every hour that told you which paper your head of state had signed just now.

7. Hitler supported scientific progress a lot. Secretly for his today well-known reasons and publicly for what is known as propaganda. The Volksempfänger (people's receiver - a one channel radio) was the first ever progressive mass medium in Germany. I guess you all know how and THAT propaganda can work.

8. Towards 1939 when an open war became obvious his system was established and stable. He really was on top. There was no chance to rebel cause actually nobody could even imagine he would do what it looked like.
Normal people didn't know much about what was happening and didn't dare to rebel either because the controling system with local SS and so on was amazing. And people in local SS were not necessarily supporters of Hitlers foreign politics. I doubt many knew about it. What I mean is that lots of people joined the controling system cause they were given some power over other people. I don't like to generalize here but those who scared people were those who wouldn't have get their lifes straight without such a system. The clever (and then of course supportive (to an extent)) people were the leaders of all those local and regional lots.

Later on there were lots of attempts to solve the problem Hitler, spunkywho mentioned a few. It freaks me out everytime I hear about the lot of coincidences that let Hitler survive all the time, like that bomb in the plane that didn't explode cause it was too cold in the height or so...

I don't dare to write just my 2 cents... :P

I wasn't sayiogn the people of Germany supported the genocide etc... but they were in dire straits and Hitler provided an alternative so they supported him even if they did not know the extent of what he was upto.

I wasn't sayiogn the people of Germany supported the genocide etc... but they were in dire straits and Hitler provided an alternative so they supported him even if they did not know the extent of what he was upto.

Well, as you said by yourself you don't need everyone to support you in order to overtook power. Reichs-president finally called him, actually not 100% supportively. And as I said it wasn't him who recovered economy alone. Every down follows a boom, the German economy miracle in the early 50s ain't so much of a miracle either...
And from the moment on he overtook power he established his dictatorship which always functions faster (=shows successes) than a democracy whilst the propaganda kept the masses calm.
What disturbed me was that you said doing nothing is the same as supporting. When I do not vote I do not support, but indeed I do nothing though.
And another thing: the brother of my grandmother fought on the Russian front. My grandfather fought in France, Italy, Africa where he became prisoner of war to the US for several years. And believe me both of them rather stayed at home with their young families than to went abroad to fight for some crazy nuts utopias.

For a lot of Germans though this remorse was not so much at what they had done, but what had been allowed to happen. In the East the real threat was of the red Jewsih-Bolshevik enemy coming to punish the Germans - it is interesting that the Nazi leadership convinced the people that they would be "punished" by the Soviets, suggesting an apocolpytic vision that became reality; but more interestingly it actually acknowledged guilt and that what had been done was immoral.

When the war started going badly it was not so much Hitler who was the target of people's dismay, but it was the Nazi machinery - party officials etc... somehow the 'Fuhrer myth' protected Hitler from this.

Ordinary Germans knew about the Holocaust, that I am sure of - and I think that is the popular opinion amongst Historians today. Ordinary Germans became passive supporters but many also pushed that boundary into "active" supporter and implementer, a boundary they did not have to push. It is fair to say that people felt a peer group pressure to support, but at what point does this translate into actually killing? That is the moral dilemma, and it is that that many Germans, and many nationalities to this day feel remorse for. I don't believe in this "being let off a leash" argument that some historians argue for, but I do think that there was a point where people were able to make decisions as to what extent they displayed their support for the party.