AboutDylan Pemberton Expertise My area of interest is the holocaust with particular reference to the Auschwitz Birkenau extermination camp. I can answer most questions regarding the lead up to and the ultimate deployment of 'The Final Solution' including the Wannsee Conference, ghetto liquidations, the Nuremberg Trials, post-war 'Nazi Hunting' by the likes of Simon Weisenthal etc. My knowledge / experience is perhaps best suited to someone who - for example - had a homework / coursework assignment in this area as opposed to a professional interest in which case there are, naturally, recognised experts and historians available.
Experience Lifelong interest in ensuring the events of the holocaust are never forgotten, visits to Auschwitz Birkenau and extensive literature on the subject.
Education/Credentials 10 GCSE's, several A-Levels, BTEC National Diploma Graphic Design, 15 years senior level business experience.
Question 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: Great question. I guess any speech is benchmarked against the content / objectives so we go to the good versus evil debate; JFK is famed for speeches about improving black rights and most famously sending man to the moon so delivery aside - that is a more noble objective than Hitler who tended to preach bile. Churchill was a fairly good speaker, especially in Parliament but he was considered somewhat of a plagerist.
Hitler's speeches were clearly briliant enough to mobilise and brainwash an entire nation into following his perverse ideology. He was however a naturally poor and nervous speaker who in fact received a great deal of coaching in his early days. He studied patiently the means that commanded authority and respect: words, gestures (movements of the hands), stance, posture, attitude. What he was also very good at was reading the audience reaction and aiming his considered delivery very precisely in almost staccatto like chunks.
Some would say he had a magnetic power that attracted the huge crowds whereas others would cite the fact many attendes were almost compelled to be there and prompted to react at key points in an almost staged fashion - the Nazis were after all the pioneers of political spin. Although he became famed for his fiery monologues that appealed to the basist nature of the audience; those who approached him near the end of his life noticed that his charisma had all but disappeared - likely due to Parkinsons disease.
I have to admit I have not seen many of Lincoln's speeches so I would find it difficult to compare him to Hitler but I would say that Hitler was a decidely ordinary man who became a brilliant orator at an important time. I understand he was personally very competitive with Churchill who regularly vexed him so that is probably s strong compliment about Churchills oratory prowess.
Out of interest, what prompts your question?
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: I have read so many accounts from Germans of that period, particularly Goebbels (spelling?) who say his speeches were mesmerizing and "brilliant." They loved the man. I wanted to know if there was something special about his use of the language. (I know no German.) Was he eloquent, did he use special and imaginative figures of speech, that sort of thing? I have to be curious to know how such an evil man got so many to follow him into disaster. Thanks for your time and comments!
Answer It was a combination of things that led to his almost Christ like status - not just the speeches. I think it was mostly a case of right place right time and having his finger on the collective pulse ready to subvert it; we still see that today, for example; we may have a terrorist bombing one week and a by election the next; chances are the far right will do well in that by-election when ordinarily they would have been also-rans.
There are of course many reasons why and how he gained power but it was largely in the context of Germany's period of crisis after World War I. He used propaganda and the charismatic oratory we have spoken of to emphasize nationalism, anti-Semitism, and anti-Communism. That alone wouldn't have been enough and it was his actions that largely consolidated his status - he restructured the economy and rearmed the military against international will which brought him respect at home and allowed him to - over a period of time - establish a totalitarian dictatorship. The public were very much behind him as he pursued his aggressive foreign policy to expand German living space because he made them feel - through his oratory - that it was their god given right.
I guess this was thus the key element of Hitler's appeal to muppets like Goebbels - his ability to evoke a sense of offended national pride (caused by the Treaty of Versailles imposed on the defeated German Empire by the Western Allies). Germany had lost economically important territory in Europe along with its colonies and in admitting to sole responsibility for the war had agreed to pay a huge reparations bill totaling hundreds of billion of marks. Most Germans bitterly resented these terms so the Nazis attempted to gain support by blaming these humiliations on "international Jewry".
So that gave Hitler the platform for people to listen but the platform for them to then get behind action was his physical deeds - Hitler oversaw one of the greatest expansions of industrial production and civil improvement Germany had ever seen mostly based on debt flotation and expansion of the military. Nazi policies toward women strongly encouraged them to stay at home to bear children and keep house. Hitler argued that for the German woman her “world is her husband, her family, her children, and her home.” This policy was reinforced by bestowing the Cross of Honor of the German Mother on women bearing four or more babies. The unemployment rate was cut substantially mostly through arms production and sending women home so that men could take their jobs. He could thus claim that the German economy achieved near full employment. It was all bollocks of course - much of the financing for Hitler's reconstruction and rearmament came from currency manipulation and the negative effects of inflation were offset in later years by the acquisition of foreign gold from the treasuries of conquered nations - he was almost forced to invade other countries so that he could 'balance the books'!.
He also oversaw one of the largest infrastructure improvement campaigns with the construction of dozens of dams, autobahns, railroads and many other things. His policies emphasised the importance of family life: men were the "breadwinners", while women's priorities were to lie in bringing up children and in household work. This revitalising of industry and infrastructure came at the expense of the overall standard of living since wages were slightly reduced in pre-World-War-II years despite an increase in the cost of living. Labourers and farmers however saw an increase in their standard of living which positioned him well in his heartlands like Bavaria.
Hitler's government sponsored architecture on an immense scale with Albert Speer (who you will know as 'the Nazi who said sorry') becoming famous as the first architect of the Reich. In 1936, Berlin hosted the summer Olympic games, which were opened by Hitler and choreographed to demonstrate Aryan superiority over all other races - Jessie Owens (the black athelete) however threw quite a spanner in the works with his various gold medals!
So in summary and to answer your question - yes he was eloquent, imaginative and mesmersising in his speech (in a very manipulative and ultimately conniving and untruthful way) and he was loved but I believe it was more down to the fact that he was perceived to have provided physical deliverables at the time. I would (perhaps controversially) draw a parallel with someone like Tony Blair who captured the imagination of the British public at the time right time and then consolidated his position / badnwagon by actions that were positively spun to appeal to the public pallette and then underpinned by a highly visible investment programme that was ultimately all smoke and mirrors. Blair was able to claim for example that unemployment was down whereas in reality it was a simple manipulation of figures. He too led the country into an ill advised war through a cult of personality based on lies and manipulation.
All of this is simply mass pyschology - in times of crisis or perceived crisis, people want a strong leader and tend to lean towards more aggressive and radical policies than normal. Hitler just capitalised on that by blending personality and the cult of Nazism with a skewed, popularist policy portfolio. Humans are bassist in nature and you can never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups! Hitler was evil but arguably - so is mass pysche anyway so it was a marriage made in heaven. I guess that is why Hitler was so fascinated by Nietzche (who to paraphrase; when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back).
