3 ms·
Was Hitler particularly good at that, or did he just have a desperate audience? The usual downfall that people point to with autocratic governments is that the
by mbg721 4y ago
Was Hitler particularly good at that, or did he just have a desperate audience? The usual downfall that people point to with autocratic governments is that their leaders think they're in touch with their citizens but are really a million miles away.
- nabla9 4y agoHe was at least good at it. His chief propagandist Joseph Goebbels was really good. Goebbels made propaganda that was way subtler than Hitlers. Nazi cinema created expensive movies under Goebbels until the end. Nobody sees them today but they are very subtle and clever in a way they build a sentiment. Not at all like the short clips they show you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolberg_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opfergang https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opfergang
- mbg721 4y agoI appreciate the added perspective; the Anglospheric view is often either "Look at those monsters, we would never do that" or "If only the German language had the concept of humor, they wouldn't have taken that guy seriously."
- nabla9 4y agoIf you want to see a American movie that has similar feel to the Nazi wartime propaganda movies, watch "Acto of Valor" (2012) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/ It's Navy Seal action movie, and not a very good movie (propaganda rarely is) but it has the "dark undertone" where individuals, enemies, heroism, duty and sacrifice are presented in the same way as it was in the Nazi propaganda.
- watwut 4y agoBy all accounts, he was good at it. Nazi party was not the only rough party fighting for dominance over audience. There were multiple of them. When Hitler joined, they were rather small party. Hitler as a speaker was drawing crowds, but he was not the only guy trying to get attention. They got large under his leadership.