4 ms·
I figure it's actually rather complex: certainly the area most unanimous in their support for the Nazis (Bavaria) is also the most deeply religious. The simple
by pasabagi 5y ago
I figure it's actually rather complex: certainly the area most unanimous in their support for the Nazis (Bavaria) is also the most deeply religious. The simple explanation is that the Nazis were a big tent coalition that had a fetish for appearing ultra-unified - so you often get loads of conflicting and contradictory policies, together with an almost hysterical presentation of the mess resulting as the product of a unified vision of a unifying figure.
It's chimes with the article, actually. Just like Hirohito, Hitler was a void.
- jessaustin 5y agoEh, Hitler was a politician who regularly made rousing speeches. Hirohito was never seen in public, and the gyokuon-hōsō was the first time the public had heard any emperor's voice. On a regular basis, Hirohito would sit through entire meetings without speaking. If Hitler was a "void", it was definitely in a different sense than Hirohito was a void.
- pasabagi 5y agoWell, Hirohito is from a tradition of leadership where he's supposed to say nothing. Hitler is from a tradition where he's supposed to be a genius from which all policy flows. This obviously makes it a much more contentious assertion in Hitler's case, and it's compounded by the post-war political conveniences about who was and was not responsible on the German side. The analogy in my head is Trump- Trump had a lot of opinions, strongly-held opinions, even, and he would broadcast them at every opportunity. However, at its base, there wasn't a coherent world-view there. He didn't really have a grand political project that his positions stemmed from. Most of what Trump did was simply to try and please his audience, whoever that was. That's unlike, say, Nixon, or Carter, Wilson, or Obama.