AboutMichael FitzGerald Expertise I am an expert in German history between 1918 and 1945, particularly with regard to the Nazi era. I am also very knowledgeable about most areas of philosophy (I have an honours degree in the subject) and am able to answer questions on that subject too. In addition, I am very knowledgeable about poetry. One of my hobbies is also politics, mainly British and European though I follow the US political scene as well. Another one is the history of crime and punishment and British social history (the two often overlap!) I am willing to answer questions on all the above issues.
Experience Author of two published works, 'Storm Troopers of Satan,' an account of the lunatic fringes of Nazi ideology, and 'Adolf Hitler: A Portrait,' a biography of the German dictator. 'Adolf Hitler' was published in July 2006 by the top history publisher Spellmount and was named historical biography of the month by the Good Book Guide. I correspond with Ian Kershaw, Peter Stachura, Jeremy Noakes, Roger Moorhouse and Stan Lauryssens. I have undertaken research for radio, television, newspapers and magazines
Organizations Society of Authors
Education/Credentials I have an Honours degree in philosophy.
Awards and Honors LT prize for poetry
Historical Biography of the month, Good Book Guide
Expert: Michael FitzGerald Date: 8/25/2007 Subject: Hitler's "brilliance"
Question Were Hitler's speeches "brilliant," as some have claimed, that is to say, were they on the order of Churchill's or Lincoln's or JFK's speeches?
Answer Hi Reg,
This is one of those areas which is so subjective that you cannot give a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. I saw speeches by JFK (incuding the famous one in which he told the baffled people of West Berlin that he was a 'doughnut' - in German, 'ein Berliner' is a doughnut. He OUGHT to have said 'ich bin Berliner,' 'I am a citizen of Berlin) and did not find either the content or delivery of his speeches to be impressive in any way. Fashions in speechmaking also change over time. Lincoln's most famous speech is probably the Gettysburg address which is actually extremely short. At the time it was hardly noticed by the audience or the press of his day. It was not until a week or so later that people suddenly decided to 'talk it up' into a major speech. Maybe Lincoln's spin doctors felt that the President needed a boost as the war was not coming to the rapid conclusion he wanted and politically he was anything but guaranteed re-election in the 1864 Presidential elections. From all accounts, Lincoln was not a particularly good public speaker either. Kennedy was most definitely a positively poor public speaker.
Churchill is a different matter. He and Hitler had much in common in their approach to speechmaking. Both talked in a completely different way in private to how they performed before an audience. Both had voice coaching lessons, both had lessons in how to present themselves. Both, in effect, were professional actors as much as politicians.
The content of Hitler's speeches is generally anything but appealing, especially in his anti-Semitic rants. On the other hand, his delivery was, however carefully stage managed, electrifying. From the point of pure technique, he was a better speech-maker than Lincoln or JFK. So too was Churchill. However, Churchill, Lincoln and JFK at his best (which was not very often) had the advantage of superior content. From a purely technical point of view, Hitler had more variation of tone and modulation of voice than Churchill, so I suppose from that standpoint he would have to be regarded as the best speech-maker.
None of this in any way alters the fact that he was a mass murderer whereas Lincoln, Churchill and JFK all tried to free people from tyranny instead of seeking to impose it upon them.
Hope this helps. Please feel free to ask me for any further information you may require.
