Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old April 12th, 2013, 03:35 AM   #1
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: The sun
Posts: 2
Cool Nazi Germany propaganda 1933-1945


do you feel like the role of propaganda in maintaining the Nazi regime in power after 1933 has been exaggerated?

did it get progressivly stronger after 1933?
OllySargeant is offline  
Remove Ads
Old April 12th, 2013, 03:44 AM   #2

Scientist's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Moscow
Posts: 485

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllySargeant View Post
do you feel like the role of propaganda in maintaining the Nazi regime in power after 1933 has been exaggerated?

did it get progressivly stronger after 1933?
Yes, it did.

At no time up to 1933, did the Nazi Party win a majority of votes at elections. They may have been the largest political party in 1933, but they did not have a majority of support among the people. Therefore, those who had supported the Nazis needed to be informed on how correct their choice was with an emphasis on the strength of the party and the leadership. Those who opposed the Nazi Party had to be convinced that it was pointless continuing with their opposition. The fact that Goebbelshad so much power is indicative of how important Hitler thought it was to ensure that the people were won over or intimidated into accepting Nazi rule. Propaganda in Nazi Germany
Scientist is offline  
Old April 12th, 2013, 03:57 AM   #3
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: The sun
Posts: 2

but there were quite a few oppostion groups such as Edelweiss Pirates and swing groups which didnt beleive in Naiz Policies as likely ignored the propoganda

in addition this source suggests that people werent convinced but just kept thier head down and conforming so not to be social outcasts or be punished
I remember being in a big Berlin café when Hitler was announced to speak over the microphone. The loudspeaker was turned on. Next to me was a group of German businessmen. They went on talking in low voices. At another table was a woman writing a letter. She went on writing. The only man who stood up was a little fellow with his tie creeping over his collar at the back of his head. No one in the crowded café listened to Adolf Hitler. -Philip Gibbs, a journalist visting Berlin, in 1934

I agree that people needed to be convinced but was the degree it whcih everyone was convinced very high or were people just keeping thier heads down?

OllySargeant is offline  
Old April 12th, 2013, 04:03 AM   #4
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2013
From: australia
Posts: 2,449

Support rose as his industrial policy developed and in 1934 that wasn't very evident.
chimera is offline  
Old April 12th, 2013, 04:58 AM   #5

Fourteen's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: Melbourne
Posts: 1,286
Blog Entries: 7

Nazi propaganda as a tool to get them into power wasn't precisely that effective. What really was most influential was their more Volksgemeinschaft-active propaganda post 1933, when they were able to adopt less blatant methods through public policy and institutions - think the numerous mass rallies, the art networks, etc. that transformed Hitler into a messianic figure, for instance. If you're really interested, possibly the specialist on Nazi propaganda is David Welch - check out his The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda, or any of his articles on JSTOR.

As I posted last week in another similar thread (on the Carmina Burana):
Quote:
Goebbels had a firm grip on propaganda, as is well known, submitting not only cultural réseaux but also social and ideological ones, too, to the promotion of (or progress towards, if you prefer) Volksgemeinschaft. But it was never limited to explicit works, although certainly in retrospect they could be (I'll always remember discussing Nazi sticker books, where children were encouraged to form a collection of Hitler stickers and assemble them in albums, for instance).

Orff is always an ambiguous subject, although perhaps more oft forgiven than, say, Heidegger - it seems to me that his reputation or at least music hasn't been subject to question as much as the latter has. His work was classed by some Nazi officials as 'degenerate', but evidently not enough to ban him, and his treatment wasn't a personal one (unlike Mendelssohn or Weill, for example). It'd be tempting to say his reasonable success - not in music, because the Carmina Burana took off almost immediately and rather immeasurably popularly at its release in '37; and inevitably contributed, by giving him a reputation the Nazis were likely apprehensive to touch - was from his own attempts to distance himself from 'anti-Nazi' factors, such as jazz, and it's true he did do that. It's difficult to label and categorise as ever in these cases, of course; 'collaboration', as the case of France has proved, is never and never will be an easy subject to handle.
Fourteen is offline  
Old April 12th, 2013, 07:15 AM   #6

Scientist's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Moscow
Posts: 485

Quote:
Originally Posted by OllySargeant View Post
but there were quite a few oppostion groups such as Edelweiss Pirates and swing groups which didnt beleive in Naiz Policies as likely ignored the propoganda

in addition this source suggests that people werent convinced but just kept thier head down and conforming so not to be social outcasts or be punished
I remember being in a big Berlin café when Hitler was announced to speak over the microphone. The loudspeaker was turned on. Next to me was a group of German businessmen. They went on talking in low voices. At another table was a woman writing a letter. She went on writing. The only man who stood up was a little fellow with his tie creeping over his collar at the back of his head. No one in the crowded café listened to Adolf Hitler. -Philip Gibbs, a journalist visting Berlin, in 1934

I agree that people needed to be convinced but was the degree it whcih everyone was convinced very high or were people just keeping thier heads down?
All totalitarian regimes more or less based on lies. Government lies to people, people lie to government. Then secret police should find out what is really going on So if people lowed voices when Hitler spoke it's good enough
Scientist is offline  
Old April 13th, 2013, 06:50 PM   #7
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 5,835

Quote:
At no time up to 1933, did the Nazi Party win a majority of votes at elections. They may have been the largest political party in 1933, but they did not have a majority of support among the people. Therefore, those who had supported the Nazis needed to be informed on how correct their choice was with an emphasis on the strength of the party and the leadership. Those who opposed the Nazi Party had to be convinced that it was pointless continuing with their opposition. The fact that Goebbelshad so much power is indicative of how important Hitler thought it was to ensure that the people were won over or intimidated into accepting Nazi rule. Propaganda in Nazi Germany
The mistake you are making is to assume that all voters who did not select the National Socialist Party were opposed to it.

In fact, there was a large section of the electorate which voted for right-wing nationalist parties other than the National Socialists. Since those right-wing nationalist parties had similar policies to the National Socialists, it cannot be alleged that the voters for those parties had rejected or where opposed to the National Socialists; they had simply preferred other right-wing parties, and obviously preferred the National Socialists to any party that was not right-wing nationalist.

The National Socialists and their right-wing nationalist allies garnered more than 50% of the votes in all the elections held in 1932. Accordingly, it is historically true to say that in 1932 the National Socialist Party represented the views of a majority of the German electorate. Claims that National Socialism represented a minority view are false.

Furthermore, there was another section of the electorate that voted for parties such the Catholic Centre that were not right-wing nationalist, but nevertheless preferred the right-wing paries, including the National Socialists, to the redical Left, the Social Democrats and the Communists.

The only parties that absolutely opposed the National Socialists were the Social Democrats and the Communists, who even combined represented only a minority of the electorate.

Hence it is true that a clear majority of the German electorate either supported the National Socialists or were not opposed to them.

Quote:
but there were quite a few oppostion groups such as Edelweiss Pirates and swing groups which didnt beleive in Naiz Policies as likely ignored the propoganda
The Edelweiss Pirates were not a political group but simply a gang of juvenile delinquents led by adult professional criminals.

Their opposition to the National Socialist German Government was simply a variant of the opposition that criminals and juvenile delinquents show to whatever government they are living under, and indeed to society as a whole.

After the German State was abolished in 1945 and came under the rule of the various occupying powers, many of the the Edelweiss Pirates continued their criminal activities and had to be suppressed by the Occupation authorities. Some of them were even tried and executed by United States and Soviet Occupation authorities.
michael mills is offline  
Old April 20th, 2013, 02:14 PM   #8

Harold's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Apr 2013
From: USA
Posts: 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by michael mills View Post
The mistake you are making is to assume that all voters who did not select the National Socialist Party were opposed to it.

In fact, there was a large section of the electorate which voted for right-wing nationalist parties other than the National Socialists. Since those right-wing nationalist parties had similar policies to the National Socialists, it cannot be alleged that the voters for those parties had rejected or where opposed to the National Socialists; they had simply preferred other right-wing parties, and obviously preferred the National Socialists to any party that was not right-wing nationalist.

The National Socialists and their right-wing nationalist allies garnered more than 50% of the votes in all the elections held in 1932. Accordingly, it is historically true to say that in 1932 the National Socialist Party represented the views of a majority of the German electorate. Claims that National Socialism represented a minority view are false.

Furthermore, there was another section of the electorate that voted for parties such the Catholic Centre that were not right-wing nationalist, but nevertheless preferred the right-wing paries, including the National Socialists, to the redical Left, the Social Democrats and the Communists.

The only parties that absolutely opposed the National Socialists were the Social Democrats and the Communists, who even combined represented only a minority of the electorate.

Hence it is true that a clear majority of the German electorate either supported the National Socialists or were not opposed to them.



The Edelweiss Pirates were not a political group but simply a gang of juvenile delinquents led by adult professional criminals.

Their opposition to the National Socialist German Government was simply a variant of the opposition that criminals and juvenile delinquents show to whatever government they are living under, and indeed to society as a whole.

After the German State was abolished in 1945 and came under the rule of the various occupying powers, many of the the Edelweiss Pirates continued their criminal activities and had to be suppressed by the Occupation authorities. Some of them were even tried and executed by United States and Soviet Occupation authorities.
Why are you referring to the Nazis as "right wing?"
Harold is offline  
Old April 20th, 2013, 03:41 PM   #9

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,430

To me it would depend on what you mean by stronger.

If it's the quality of the work, I would say that Nazi propaganda DID get better from 1933 to 1945. With the power of the state behind them they could go from a few posters and advertisements in Newspapers to major film productions that cost a lot of money. "Triumph of the Will" won all sorts of awards for cinematography during the thirties.

If you mean by effective, then it goes up and down. And that comes from the fact that from 1933 to 1945 the Nazis were the only source for news, propaganda, and nationwide communication that was legal. German citizens might listen (illegally) to the BBC radio, but this was difficult to do without getting caught by the Gestapo. And while the Germans were "winning" the war, and while the front lines weren't approaching German territory, German propaganda did fairly well.

However, when the war truly began to go south in late 1944 to 1945 and the Allied armies began to approach, German propaganda lost its effectiveness. Most of it focused on the likely vile behavior of the Red Army, but the Germans ran so much of this propaganda that they overflowed the market, and as result the intended affect of the propaganda was lost.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Old April 20th, 2013, 03:51 PM   #10

Sam-Nary's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: At present SD, USA
Posts: 6,430

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold View Post
Why are you referring to the Nazis as "right wing?"
Because the Nazis are an EXTREME Right wing party. The "Socialist" in their name is a deception to attract those Germans in the Center-Right and Center-Left to vote for them. They are not Socialists of the political Left.

And if you look deeply into their polices, look at their specific goals...

1) Revitalization of the German military and expansion of German nationalism (including the removal of national enemies). Typical RIGHT wing ideology, and the removal of enemies take them into the extreme end of the Right Wing.

2) Expansion of Germany to subjugate the inferior Poles, Russians, and other Slavic peoples. This is also typical of the extreme Right wing.

3) The outlawing of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party (the Communists on the extreme Left and the Social Democrats on the Center Left) reflects typical political antagonism between the Left and Right, but in the case of the Nazis they got the power to do so. And since the target was on the Political Left, it must be assumed that the Nazis were on the Political Right.

4) Socialist parties, on various portions of the Left wing of the political spectrum have backed organized labor to varying degrees. The Nazis CRUSHED all organized labor in Germany from 1933 to 1945. It began with a small dispute over some sort of labor holiday. The compromise the Nazis gave was that German workers got their holiday, BUT the bosses got an end to all organized labor within Germany, allowing them to set the hours and how much the work was worth. By 1945, mostly due to the strains of the war, the Nazis had expanded this into organized slave labor. The crushing of Unions is also TYPICAL of the Right wing, the taking things to the point of slavery, however, is more Extreme Right wing.
Sam-Nary is online now  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
germany, hitler, nazi, propaganda, third reich



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How effective was Nazi propaganda in fuelling German anti-semitism? Rja17 European History 7 May 14th, 2012 12:22 PM
Germany 1933 - a revolution? revolutionary European History 14 June 20th, 2011 01:34 PM
On what day in 1933 was communism banned in Germany? DarkLightA History Help 5 June 2nd, 2011 12:24 PM
Doing Paper on German Navy 1933 to 1945. Optiow History Help 9 November 28th, 2009 01:09 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.