0

I know that German Reich with the leadership of Adolf Hitler was a dictatorship, however I think, at least in some part of history the majority of Germans supported him and his ideologies. This article claims that Hitler was very popular in between Germans. Also this article says the Nazies had a wide range of supporting group.

But, i believe in some point of history the majority of people stop supporting him. I know there were German resistance to Nazism since 1933, but they were individuals or small groups. But, here i am talking about the majority of society.

My questions is, since when Germans stop supporting Hitler? In other word, what made Germans revise about their opinion?

5
2

As Pieter said in comment, May the 8th 1945 should be chosen for the event you're speaking of.

Why? Well, because if during the dictatorship from 1933 to 1939, people could still enter resistance, the Germans were still mostly supporting or passive about nazism and Hitler.

Then came the war: from this point, the war triggered two factors:

  • By that time, most of the population was patriotic, even if it was not nazi. This was notably true for some German, aristocratic generals that thought nazism was low-people politics. They thought they were above that, but overall they were patriotic so they stayed loyal
  • The war triggered more control of the society, and it was seen even worse to be critical against th Nazis

Note that resistance was still possible: for example, Operation Walkyrie.

So the point is that during the war, there was no tangible sign that Hitler was not supported anymore. And it is mostly because no such signs could express, except for an uprising that never came. So on May, 8th 1945 there was a brutal change. And it seems that the Germans, considering the Shoah and the disaster for Germany at the end of the war (death, destruction, foreign occupation), changed their minds quickly.

-1

There is no strong evidence that, given a free choice, a majority of Germans ever supported the Nazis.

The Weimar Republic was a multiparty proportional-representation Parliamentary Democracy. Under such systems, its quite common for no one party to hold a majority.

In the last legitimately Democratic election in that nation, the Nazi party secured only 37% of the vote. That was more than any other party in the nation, and enough that it probably wouldn't be feasible to form a government without them in the ruling coalition. However, its a fact that nearly two thirds of Germans in that election wanted someone else.

Looking over the results, it looks like there was one other right wing party that won seats in that election, with about another 5% of the vote. None of the rest of the top parties were anywhere near as right-wing as the Nazis. This means two things: First, that it looks like they scooped up nearly all far-right voters that election, and Second, that the vast majority of the country did not want a government on that end of the political spectrum.

14
  • 2
    "there is a strong consensus among historians and eye-witnesses that Hitler's popularity soared in the early years of his regime as he delivered on his economic promises [...]" (link). – Tomas By Jun 12 at 21:01
  • 2
    All socialists, whether national or international, are left wing. Stop perpetuating lies about the political spectrum. In the Berlin transit Workers Strike just a few months before the election you reference, the Nazi and Communist strikers ate lucnh together for 3 days. – Pieter Geerkens Jun 12 at 21:02
  • 1
    "The Third Reich was not a dictatorship maintained by force. Indeed, the Nazi leadership developed an almost fearful preoccupation with the mood of the populace, which they monitored carefully, devoting considerable energy and resources toward fulfilling consumer desires, even to the detriment of the country's rearmament program." (link) – Tomas By Jun 12 at 21:05
  • 1
    It's modern double-speak. Ayn Rand would be right-wing. – Tomas By Jun 12 at 21:08
  • 2
    @PieterGeerkens - Again, this isn't the place to be having this discussion. The question here is whether the statement made in the post is a supportable statement, and the fact is that it is. If you don't like it, and want it to be changed, I'd need much better against it than crude name-calling. If you instead just have a contrarian position you'd like to promote, I'd like to think there's a good place for that, but this isn't it. – T.E.D. Jun 12 at 21:15

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.