How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Discussions on every day life in the Weimar Republic, pre-anschluss Austria, Third Reich and the occupied territories. Hosted by Vikki.
George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1064
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by George L Gregory » 30 Oct 2021 14:04

HistoryDistory, how do you know who was Hitler’s paternal grandfather was? Your claim that Hitler was “genetically German” (a questionable term), how come one only has to go back to one of his grandparents and already there are already questions being asked?

That question has been baffling historians for decades now.

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/kein-ari ... text=issue
”Hitler - No proof of Aryan descent". Der Spiegel.

It is clear that Adolf Hitler proof of Aryan ancestry, he demanded to most Germans, for his own person could hardly have been able to provide. His paternal grandfather is unknown.
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/dichte-i ... text=issue

“Lineage of Adolf Hitler - Density inbreeding”

German historian Joachim Fest wrote:

The indulgence normally accorded to a man's origins is out of place in the case of Adolf Hitler, who made documentary proof of Aryan ancestry a matter of life and death for millions of people but himself possessed no such document. He did not know who his grandfather was. Intensive research into his origins, accounts of which have been distorted by propagandist legends and which are in any case confused and murky, has failed so far to produce a clear picture. National Socialist versions skimmed over the facts and emphasised, for example, that the population of the so-called Waldviertel, from which Hitler came, had been 'tribally German since the Migration of the Peoples', or more generally, that Hitler had 'absorbed the powerful forces of this German granite landscape into his blood through his father'.
The Face of the Third Reich, pages 19-20.

Hans Frank’s claim that his paternal grandfather was a Jew from Graz has been debunked for some time now by historians because Jews were expelled from that area until after Alois Schicklgruber was born. So, who was his grandfather and how do you know?

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1064
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by George L Gregory » 30 Oct 2021 14:46

British historian Ian Kershaw has written extensively about the breakthrough of the Nazi Party in the late 1920s and the reasons behind it. Surprise, surprised, antisemitism wasn’t a factor.
It is unlikely that anti-Semitism was as powerful in its motivational force for recruits in the Party’s ‘mass phase’ after 1929-30 as it had been for the early activist core of the NSDAP. A striking feature of the Abel material—and more than half of the sample came from members who had joined the Party before its ‘take-off in 1930—is indeed that even among ‘Old Fighters’ of the Movement—according to Merkl’s ranking of‘main ideological theme’—only about one-eighth saw antiSemitism as their most salient concern, while what he calls ‘strong ideological antisemites’ comprised only 8.5 per cent of the total sample. Merkl summarized his findings as follows: ‘A breakdown by dominant ideological theme ... shows about one-third to be primarily preoccupied with the solidaristic Volksgemeinschaft and over one-fifth to be superpatriots. Nearly that many are devotees of Hitler’s personal charisma. About one-seventh appears to be motivated mostly by their antisemitism. ... Ranked by the chief object of their hostility, Abel’s early Nazis by two-thirds turned out to be anti-Marxists.’ Merkl pointed out, of course, that these other categories by no means excluded anti-Semitic feelings, which were encountered in around two-thirds of the ‘biographies’ In fact, one could go further and claim that the negative image of the Jew provided a common denominator which was able to combine and provide justification for all these ideological themes.

However, the figures are certainly compelling enough to suggest that features other than anti-Semitism dominated the image of the Nazi Party in the eyes of its pre-1933 membership. If we accept that Hitler was regarded by most if not all as the embodiment of the Party, it would seem that, for most new recruits to the Nazi Movement during the rise to power, his own undoubted extreme antiSemitism formed a secondary rather than primary component of his image and appeal.

In the absence of modern opinion-surveys, the motivation of Nazi voters can only be inferred. But if we extend the above argument, drawn from the motivation of‘Old Fighters’ of the Party to the wider electorate, we would have to conclude that here—probably to an even greater extent—Hitler’s image was not dominated by his obsession with the ‘Jewish Question’. This inference gains some backing from the comparison of the content of Hitler’s speeches—revealing his self¬ profile—in the early 1930s, when the Nazi Movement was making huge electoral gains, with .the early 1920s, when it was a fringe völkisch sect. Examination of election propaganda before the 1930 ‘breakthrough’ poll has indicated that attacks on Jews provided more of a background than a main theme, and it appears that Hitler’s speeches tended not to tackle the ‘Jewish Question’, especially if dealing with an upper middle-class audience. By 1932, when Hitler was running for Reich President and the Nazi Movement was gaining the support of over a third of the population, the ‘Jewish Question’ scarcely featured in Hitler’s public addresses. Jews and the ‘Jewish Question’ were mentioned as such neither in Hitler’s New Year exhortation to his Party at the beginning of 1932, nor in his notorious speech to the Düsseldorfer Industrieklub in January, nor in his ‘Appeal to the Nation’, sold as a record in July and typical of his election addresses in the first half of the year.11 The main target was clearly ‘Marxism’ and the Weimar ‘system’, and the main message that he alone and his Movement offered the hope of salvation from these and from the disaster which they had brought upon Germany. Of course, for Hitler himself—and for some of his oldest and most fanatical supporters—all these ills were reducible solely to the ‘Jewish Question’, a point of dogma which was a fundamental premiss within the Nazi Movement. But the public image of Hitler at this time did not reflect the pre-eminence of the ‘Jewish Question’ in his own thinking. Though his popular image undoubtedly embodied the broad ideological prejudices and aspirations of the masses—including antiSemitism-it appears hard to argue that at the time that Hitler was gaining his widest electoral support the ‘Jewish Question was the decisive element in his growing appeal. The absence of verbal onslaughts against the Jews is also a striking feature of Hitler’s public speeches in the years 1933 and 1934. The ‘Jewish Question’ is not touched upon in a single major public address by Hitler in this period of the ‘seizure’ and consolidation of power—a time, as we saw earlier, in which his popularity was greatly extended and the ‘Führer myth’ massively enhanced. Only the exhortation to ‘all Party organizations’ on 28 March 1933 to carry out a nation-wide boycott aimed at Jewish businesses, goods, doctors, and lawyers, starting on 1 April, concentrated explicitly on the ‘Jewish Question’. Proclamations to the Party after the ‘seizure of power’ generally went out under Hitler’s name. In this case, however, though the style is recognizably Hitlerian (apart from the accompanying specific instructions for implementing the boycott, which seem to have been composed by Goebbels), the ‘appeal’ was signed collectively by ‘the Party Leadership’. No one, of course, could have imagined that the boycott was proceeding without Hitler’s express support. But the wording of the ‘appeal’ couched the action solely in terms of justifiable retaliation for the ‘campaign of agitation’ and ‘lies’ in the foreign press allegedly initiated by Jewish emigrants, and the claim that ‘hardly a hair had been touched’ on Jewish heads in the course of the ‘national revolution’ was meant to suggest that the Party Leadership (including Hitler) was ignorant of the daily maltreatment of Jews which had taken place at the hands of the Party rank-and-file. It was possible, therefore, so far as Hitler was specifically linked to the boycott at all, to see him only in connection with presumed justifiable action, and detached from the ‘unfortunate excesses’ of Party activists. As is well known, the boycott was less than a resounding success in terms of popular reactions, and, as an organized nation-wide affair, was called off after only a single day. The relative lack of resonance of the boycott can only have indicated to Hitler that he had been right to keep a fairly low public profile on the ‘Jewish Question’. Nor did the ‘Jewish Question’ feature in either Sieg des Glaubens or Triumph des Willens, the films of the first two Party rallies after the ‘seizure of power’, in which the Führer cult was so prominently projected of overt reference to the ‘Jewish Question’ in his major speeches, and the omission of his name as a signatory to the boycott ‘appeal’ can only be seen as a deliberate policy to detach the Führer himself in his public image from the violent anti-Jewish rhetoric and actions of which he privately approved. As we have seen, it appears that, despite his own obsessions, Hitler was politically aware from an early date— perhaps as early as 1923—that a wider currency than anti-Semitism was needed to distinguish the NSDAP from the purely sectarian politics of other völkisch groups, to extend the Party’s appeal, and to make a serious bid for power. The closer he came to attaining power, the more, purely for presentational purposes, anti-Semitism had to be subordinated to or subsumed within other components of the Hitler image. And once he had become Head of Government, the need to detach himself in public from the distasteful gutter tactics of his activist anti-Semites was prompted above all by foreign political considerations as well as by the necessity to avoid gratuitous alienation of the conservative German establishment around Hindenburg, whose own ingrained anti-Semitism nevertheless stopped short of arbitrary open violence. Moreover, by 1935, if not before, it was being made abundantly clear that anti-Semitic outrages and terroristic hooliganism aimed at Jews by Party activists were generally unpopular among the public at large. Nevertheless, by this time the violence provoked by the new anti-Semitic wave and incited by propaganda had put the ‘Jewish Question’ back in a high place on the agenda, and pressure was mounting from within the Party for antiSemitic legislation to fulfil the aims of the Party programme, and from the public for regulations to put an end to the ‘individual actions’ which had characterized the summer of violence. Hitler could no longer remain aloof from the ‘Jewish Question’.

In his address to the assembled Reichstag at the Nuremberg Party Rally np 15 September 1935, Hitler took up the ‘Jewish Question’ in a major public speech for the first time since becoming Reich Chancellor, recommending acceptance of the three laws placed before it—the ‘Flag law’, and the two notorious anti-Jewish ‘Nuremberg Laws’ (the Reich Citizenship Law, preventing Jews from becoming citizens of the Reich, and the ‘Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour’, banning marriage and sexual relations between Jews and ‘Aryans’). As in 1933, he accused the Jews abroad of stirring up agitation and boycotts against Germany, and claimed that this had made an impact on Jews inside Germany itself, whose public provocative behaviour had stirred up countless complaints and calls for action by the government. He justified the ‘legal regulation of the problem’ as the only way of heading off the likelihood of spontaneous ‘defensive actions of the enraged population’, and claimed the German government had been compelled ‘by the idea of being able, through a once and for all secular solution, of perhaps creating a basis on which the German people might possibly be able to find a tolerable relationship with the Jewish people’. If this hope was not fulfilled, and international agitation continued, he threatened, the situation would have to be re-examined. In subsequent speeches the same day, Hitler exhorted the Party and nation to maintain discipline, and not to depart from the path of legality in the matter. He emphasized that the laws opened up to Jews the possibility of their separate existence within Germany in all spheres of life, and renewed the command forbidding all ‘individual actions’ against Jews. The hypocrisy of Hitler’s expressed sentiments needs no emphasis. But in terms of his public image as seen at the time, he had been careful to distance himself from the unpopular anti-Jewish terror of the Nazi mobs and had placed himself on the side of legality. Reactions among Party members varied. Some activists were disappointed at the emphasis on legal measures and discouragement of ‘direct action’ and felt that legislation did not go far enough in tackling the ‘Jewish Question’. Others suspected the truth: that Hitler’s public stance did not represent his real feelings on the issue. A situation report from Hesse in March 1936 expressly mentions the opinion, allegedly widely held among the population in the area, though undoubtedly reflecting above all the views of Party activists, ‘that the Führer had for outward appearances to ban individual actions against the Jews in consideration of foreign policy, but in reality was wholly in agreement that each individual should continue on his own initiative the fight against Jewry in the most rigorous and radical form.'
Ian Kershaw, The `Hitler Myth' Image and Reality in the Third Reich.

I always find it amusing when a Nazi fanboy appears every now and then. I enjoy embarrassing morons.

User avatar
Hans1906
Member
Posts: 4301
Joined: 06 Jan 2020 23:13
Location: Deutschland

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by Hans1906 » 30 Oct 2021 15:56

It is completely sick, what goes off in this topic for days and weeks.
First the completely confused englishman with his *whatever*, next also still someone allegedly from Israel.
And now the blue eyes of Hitler, that was just missing.

Is there some kind of "missing link" in your exchange, some kind of a memory gap, very likely.

I am sorry to have written in such a topic myself, this will never be the case again.
Once aside from this orgy of quotes, and a sentence snotted underneath, this is just pathetic, cringe-worthy.
This nonsense has nothing to do with a dialogue anymore.

And on top of all the nonsense, oversized photos of this lunatic are also being spread around here, unbelievable.
Have we all always seen enough of this propaganda filth, enough is enough, get horny on something else!

Scheisse!


Hans
„Im Leben gibt’s die Bösen und die Guten. Und die dazwischen, das sind die Bagaluten.“

Linkagain
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 13 Apr 2021 18:04
Location: US

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by Linkagain » 20 Jan 2022 13:10

Message Number 17 shows that by NAzi Standards Hitler; Goering and Goebbels didnt exactly measure up :lol: :lol: nor for that matter did the High Priest of NAziism Henrich Himmler....of Borman or Rosenberg et al..the one who did was Reinhard Heydrich....a mexture of Gemran Culture and cold bloodiness together....

By the way there has been questions if Hitler had a Jewish ancestor....first the answear is n o and secondly even if there was Hitler would never be considered Jewish in any sense of the word....Jewish religious Law is very strict,,,,in regarding to Children "Inherting " the Jewish Religion....
Examples:
Jewish man takes a Non Jewish spouse for a wife...the children would inherit his bloodline..name et al....but not the religion,,,,the only way the children can be considered Jewish is if of their own free will they deceided to assume the iron yoke of the Torah and formerly convert to Judisam before and Orthdox Jewish religious Court...
Jewish Woman takes a non Jewish spouse for a husband....she may have converted to another Religion...she may be a athesit....but according to Jewish Religious Law....any children of this relationship are automacially considered Jewish any sons who marry Non Jewish Spouses....the children are not condifered Jewish unless they convert of their own free will..and daughters however who marry..regardless of their souses religion.....the children are considered Jewish...which is continually inheritied until...the male descendants are male....and marry non jewish spouses.....

As a result Lenin had aJewish grandfather who convereted....but becuase his grandmother was not Jewish...Lenin was not Jewish but only of Jewish descent....

HistoryDistory
Banned
Posts: 17
Joined: 28 Oct 2021 08:41
Location: Israel

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by HistoryDistory » 20 Jan 2022 21:36

The Reichstag Fire Decree gave Hitler unlimited powers and was one of the key features in the establishment of the one-party state and dictatorship.

It was the death of Hindenburg that made Hitler the “future Führer”.

You don’t have a clue, do you? :lol:
Uhh, so you only confirm that I am right. The key was the decree, and the seal was Hidenburg's death. Do you even read what you write?

User avatar
askropp
Forum Staff
Posts: 6587
Joined: 07 May 2008 23:42

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by askropp » 22 Jan 2022 11:22

A number of posts had to be removed because of racist and antisemitic content. This also includes posts which quoted the content in question.
If necessary, the next steps will be the lock down of this thread and - as a last measure - a request to remove offending members from AHF.
Stick to the forum rules, or leave!
There are times in history when staying neutral means taking sides.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1064
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by George L Gregory » 22 Jan 2022 12:54

HistoryDistory wrote:
20 Jan 2022 21:36
The Reichstag Fire Decree gave Hitler unlimited powers and was one of the key features in the establishment of the one-party state and dictatorship.

It was the death of Hindenburg that made Hitler the “future Führer”.

You don’t have a clue, do you? :lol:
Uhh, so you only confirm that I am right. The key was the decree, and the seal was Hidenburg's death. Do you even read what you write?
Do you think the decree was a good thing? :roll: It took away civil liberties of ordinary Germans and helped to solidify the establishment of a dictatorship.

The fact that the Nazis used the Reichstag Fire as a way to tell Germans that there was an imminent communist uprising doesn’t mean that there was one. In fact, the exact circumstances of the fire remain unknown.

Franz von Papen objected to the clause in the decree to give the German Reich basically ultimate power, but it was still passed and was used as the ‘legal’ way the Nazis were able to persecute communists.

Then shortly after the decree Hitler was able to get the Enabling Act passed which gave Hitler the right to do what he wanted without any of it being passed by the Reichstag i.e. the establishment of a dictatorship.

daveshoup2MD
Member
Posts: 1541
Joined: 01 Feb 2020 18:10
Location: Coral and brass

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by daveshoup2MD » 22 Jan 2022 22:30

George L Gregory wrote:
23 May 2021 09:48
Does anybody not find it puzzling that what Adolf Hitler told the Germans that he wanted the future Germans to be was in fact the complete oppose of what he was himself?

1. He wasn't German. He was born in Austria-Hungary to Austrian parents.

2. He had dark brown hair, although it's true that he had blue eyes.

3. He was only of average height, certainly nothing like his SS men.

4. He was very lazy and he was not physically fit.

5. His ancestry remains a mystery. He spend so much time preaching about racial purity but ignored the fact that he never really knew who his paternal grandfather was.

I just can't understand why the Germans of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s and early 1930s found him so appealing. What was it exactly?

Look at all of the top Nazis - Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels, etc, and none of them really looked Nordic, apart from Reinhard Heydrich.
"Describe the perfect Aryan: As tall as Himmler, as slim as Goering and as blonde as Hitler." ;)

KDF33
Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: 17 Nov 2012 01:16

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by KDF33 » 23 Jan 2022 05:13

George L Gregory wrote:
23 May 2021 09:48
Look at all of the top Nazis - Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels, etc, and none of them really looked Nordic, apart from Reinhard Heydrich.
Göring was arguably close to the Aryan standard in his youth. He just let himself go with age / morphin.

George L Gregory
Member
Posts: 1064
Joined: 13 Nov 2020 15:08
Location: Britain

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by George L Gregory » 23 Jan 2022 07:54

KDF33 wrote:
23 Jan 2022 05:13
George L Gregory wrote:
23 May 2021 09:48
Look at all of the top Nazis - Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels, etc, and none of them really looked Nordic, apart from Reinhard Heydrich.
Göring was arguably close to the Aryan standard in his youth. He just let himself go with age / morphin.
Not really. Reinhard Heydrich was arguably the most Aryan looking (Nordic) of the top Nazis. He was known as 'The Blonde Beast'.

Image

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Coruscant

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by Stiltzkin » 24 Jan 2022 17:24

Yes there is, your lack of the research is concerning.
In the field of genetics, the Genotype is more significant than the Phenotype.

User avatar
Cult Icon
Member
Posts: 3288
Joined: 08 Apr 2014 19:00

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by Cult Icon » 24 Jan 2022 18:08

I mean, did "the German people" think that their "race" was superior? While they had to do this or that due to state policies at the personal level it seems to me that there were variation in conviction, eg.

Hitler is on record for making fun of and saying that Rosenberg/Himmler were obsessed with race to a loony level. Overall Hitler seems to have been more obsessed with hating the Jews.

The German army also used a lot of Italian prostitutes in their brothels.. SS officers were sleeping with Ukrainian women (not surprising... :lol: ) etc.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23675
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Re: How did Adolf Hitler, an Austrian, dark haired man convince the German people that the Nordic race was superior?

Post by David Thompson » 24 Jan 2022 19:18

The discussion has drifted from the call of the question and posters are no longer giving sources of information for our readers so the thread is locked as unproductive.

Return to “Life in the Third Reich & Weimar Republic”