Why did People vote for Hitler?

According to some historians, Hitler offered only 'vague' promises to voters, and his ideology had no concrete policies. Yet somehow, a lot of people voted for Hitler. Well, why would they do that? There were plenty of other parties they could have chosen, so why did they vote for the one that offered them little or nothing? Today, we're going to take a look at what some historians say, and see if we can piece together exactly why the Germans voted for Hitler.

ATTENTION: I'm NOT a Nazi, nor a Fascist, nor a Marxist. And I am NOT promoting their ideologies. Instead, by giving people an accurate assessment of history, backed up by sources, we can learn from the past and prevent such disastrous totalitarian regimes from taking power again.

Videos EVERY Monday at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).

- - - - -

BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES

Specific video sources -
Brown, A. "How 'socialist' was National Socialism?" Kindle, 2015.
Dilorenzo, T. “The Problem with Socialism.” Regnery Publishing, Kindle 2016.
Evans, R. “The Coming of the Third Reich.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2004.
Evans, R. “The Third Reich in Power, 1933 - 1939.” Penguin Books, Kindle 2006.
Feder, G. "The Programme of the NSDAP: The National Socialist German Worker's Party and its General Conceptions." RJG Enterprises Inc, 2003.
Feder, G. "The German State on a National and Socialist Foundation." Black House Publishing LTD, 2015.
Fergusson, A. "When Money Dies: The Nightmare of the Weimar Hyper-inflation." Old Street Publishing, 2015 (original 1975).
Gellately, R. "Lenin, Stalin and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe." Vintage Books, 2008.
Hett, B. “The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power.” William Heinemann, Kindle 2018.
Higgs, R. “Depression, War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy.” Oxford University Press, 2006.
Hitler, A. "Mein Kampf." Jaico Publishing House, 2017.
Mises, L. “Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.” Martino Publishing, 2012. (Originally 1949)
Mises, L. "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis." Liberty Fund, 1981. 1969 edition (roots back to 1922).Rothbard, M. "America's Great Depression." Fifth Edition. Ludwig von Mises Institute, Kindle 2000.
Muravchik, J. “Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism.” Encounter Books, Kindle.
Reimann, G. “The Vampire Economy: Doing Business under Fascism.” Kindle, Mises Institute, 2007. Originally written in 1939.
Reisman, G. "Why Nazism was Socialism and why Socialism is Totalitarian." Kindle 2014.Sennholz, H. "Age of Inflation." Western Islands, 1975.
Spengler, O. “Prussianism and Socialism.” Isha Books, 2013. First Published 1920.
Taylor, F. "The Downfall of Money: Germany's Hyperinflation and the Destruction of the Middle Class." Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.
Zitelmann, R. "Hitler: The Policies of Seduction." London House, 1999.
Young, A. "Nazism is Socialism." The Free Market 19, no. 9 (September 2001).
von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, E. "Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse." Arlington House Publishers, PDF 1974.

- - - - -

SUPPORT TIK

- - - - -

RELATED VIDEO LINKS

My “Why I'm Passionate about HISTORY and What Got Me Into it” video

- - - - -

ABOUT TIK

History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.

This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.

#TIKhistory #HistoryDebate

[Baamtheth]

Now that I think about it, none of my highschool textbook even attempted to explain why the hyperinflation inGermany happened. Convenient isn't it ?

[brett]

They see racism as the right. So anytime racism appears in history, historians say there go those conservatives again. Even if they were politically socialist, progressives, etc. This is done extensively in US history and drives me absolutely insane.

[NathanMulder]

Isnt it sad that you literally have to state: "ATTENTION: I'm NOT a Nazi, nor a Fascist, nor a Marxist.", if you just want to make a video explaining and critically looking at something from history.

[auo]

I remember when I was studying pre war Germany in highschool history, the teacher specifically told the class several times if we were in Germany in 1933, we would all likely voted for hitlers nazi party because the nazi party would be the most appealing and actually got things done unlike the Weimar socialist parties

[ConfederceyCSA]

Hitler said in a speech : “Liberalism glorified individuality, Marxism glorified humanity, but both ignored the people, National Socialism fanatically affirms the people. The first and deepest representatives of the people is that part that feeds people from the riches of the earth and thus provides for the continuation of the family of the nation.”

[thomasjamison]

Germans were used to the idea of a strong ruler IE: the Kaiser. The German experience with multiple parties was not very promising, given the hyper inflation and then the great depression. Hilter offered a return to rule under a single strong leader, and I think a lot of Germans became a bit nostaligic for the good old days when there wasn't a mishmash of small parties and single strong leaders. This also explains the popularity of Hindenburg.

[benjamintreitz]

I happen to be from Germany and it is great to see how you achieve to pack all the facts we into a consistent narrative that, unlike the education we receive in school, does not require either malice or gullibility of the German people.

[adriano]

"And then one day, for no reason at all..."

[patrickmckenna]

I know for a fact that this is a brilliant talk TIK, and here's why.
I'm no longer young (quite the opposite in fact), but I have a unique position with regard to this argument. My grandfather on my mothers side was a German infantryman, and he was a POW in Britain during the latter stages of WW2. He ended up working on a farm, met my grandmother, they fell in love and got married, and here we are.
He lived to a ripe old age, and when I became interested (very interested, in fact) in German history, I had many in-depth discussions with him. And of course, we spoke about Hitler, his rise to power, the war, the persecution and mass murder of Jews, etc, etc.
The fact is that History in hindsight should be objective (it often isn't!), but even at the best of times, when you are living through the time in question, it's almost impossible to be objective. However, in Germany after the Wall Street Crash in the late 20's - let alone all the post WW1 problems that came previously - they were the worst of times.
My Grandfather and his parents were fed up with democracy, and fed up with politicians in-fighting, no bread on the table, with no jobs, with the loss of National pride, and with no hope for the future. They were terrified of Communism because (as you rightly said) they believed the consequences would be catastrophic...maybe even literally fatal.
They then began to take notice of Hitler and the National Socialists.
Hitler seemed to be a man who didn't mince his words, who had a definite view of things, and who spoke his mind. They saw the SA as thugs, but viewed them as a necessary evil because they were part of a dynamic movement who were going to bring about real change. Things were so confused and many people were so poor, that they felt that they had nothing to lose and that any change had to be for the better.
As hard as it is for people to accept this, Hitler had incredible charisma. My Great-Grandfather took my Grandfather to hear him speak just before he came to power, and he was mesmerised and enthralled by what he said and how he said it. Like you said, Hitler told the voters what they wanted to hear, and he gave them a vision of the promised land.
He really was seen as a messianic figure who's popularity grew with the apparent success of his early policies. Like many of the Germans who believed that their standard of living would improve substantially after Hitler came to power (and for many Germans, at the beginning it did), he believed that this man must be right and that his policies made sense .
It's very easy to sit back and judge the many people who supported Hitler and voted for him, but hindsight is a wonderful thing!

[MimeHTF]

my great-grandmother had voted for the NSDAP at the time and she had the following reasons for doing so 1. They were an alternative to the mainstream parties and the KPD 2. She had 7 children and the Nazis wanted to support large families financially 3. She didn't know much about their goals

[huginn]

If you have the choise between the communists, the weimar liberal establishment and the nazis it's not so hard to see why people would vote for them. Also the German Lives Matter narrative was attractive.

[konstantinatanassov]

A difficult question and a very good answer. In addition, this citation (not 100% exactly written) is very important:
"The Nazi Party was funded by the grassroots of the Nazi Party. Even within the depression, people were asked for entry fees (...)"

[dicktracy]

Wow this has a deep understanding of economics, which is almost always missing in these sort of discussions.

[dantobarbarian]

Weimar Germany sounds like our modern society...

[supertrooper]

more info in this 30 min vid than the entire History Channel archive

[smoessmee]

Yeah, I always thought it weird when I was in school that the National Socialists were portrayed as Fascists and Capitalists, considering their own name has the word 'socialist' in it...

[hlx]

"The economically ignorant vote themselves broke" <3 This is what I have been wanting to say, but couldnt without an hour of waffling. Beautifully put into one sentence.

[douglasdaniel]

No, no, that historian did _not_ just say that Stalin's Russia was less of a disaster than Hitler's Germany. Did he? OMG....
A couple of points-- the Weimar Republic never enjoyed unreserved support in some sectors of the country. Industrial magnates, the Army, the conservative circles of the Church, and so on, never fully accepted it, and rather wished for something else to come along. Too many people accepted the republic as a slightly preferable alternative to Bolshevism, and were all too eager to dump it like a bad habit when something else came along.
At the same time, we should remember that at no point in time did the Nazis win a majority in any general Reichstag election. The last three elections were July 1932- 37.27%, November 1932- 33.09% and March 1933 (after the Nazi's had gained power through entering into coalition government)-- 43.9%. Even after their coming to power, more Germans voted for someone else than for the National Socialists. Once again, proportional representation and a fragmented opposition gave Hitler his chance.
Lastly, I think modern historians flounder a little in explaining the rise of Nazism and Hitler because they are hindered by 20-20 hindsight. They _know_ choosing the Nazis was an irrational and self-destructive course of action, and they may have difficulties wrapping their heads around how an otherwise orderly people like the Germans could fall into such a pit. But people often are not rational, even when they are trying to be, and all too often in situations in which they fear something-- Bolshevism-- or loathe something-- a failed experiment in democracy-- they are all too often capable of reading into an agenda or onto a candidate aspects a coldly objective eye might not see. I could mention modern examples, but have no desire to roll a live hand grenade into the discussion. Hitler, to some extent or another, was always going to have to depend on being something of a _tabula rasa_ for people, on which they could write their hopes and fears.

[shawn]

The freeze frame at 1:20 sounds about right. I'm not even 40 yet, but I see that every single election. People will say "Oh Hillary will do this" or "Trump will do that" and it's completely baseless. People like a character first and then attribute things that may or may not exist. A famous example of this is when US elections were broadcast on TV, and it became clear that a more attractive candidate would "win" the debate more often.

[fabianoalexandre]

Socialists:
"I'm socialist and I hate national socialism, therefore nazis weren't socialists."

Neonazis:
"I'm nazi and I'm not socialist, therefore NSDAP wasn't socialist."

Me:
"No one learned ANY of the political lessons of the XX century, so put on your seatbelt kids, we're in for a WILD RIDE."