What made Hitler such an effective orator?

What made Hitler such an effective orator? Also general oratory thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y9P65fGAE
youtu.be/RJz--yIpHyg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Body language.

>German people can't psychologically accept that they lost WWI on battlefield
>Along comes Hitler who not only affirms their beliefs, but also has the convenient scapegoat they can now blame the defeat on

I think body language was a factor, but not the defining factor. Hitler's speech was just as potent over the radio as in person.

Literally any right-leaning politician in interwar Germany meets that criteria

Passion and excessive practice

>Literally any right-leaning politician in interwar Germany meets that criteria
Name two.

>I think body language was a factor, but not the defining factor. Hitler's speech was just as potent over the radio as in person.
Only because you imagine him waving his arms around.

Are there any Germans who find him hard to understand? I speak German pretty well but sometimes his accent is too strong when he's on tv etc

>Literally
Filtered.

The use of his voice. His normal, calm voice was completely different

That's intentional. You just fill in what you don't understand with what you want to hear.

What?

Erich Ludendorff and Alfred Hugenberg

>Autist doesn't understand the concept of a living language
Filtered

Literally any right wing interwar politician could have replaced him. He was such an overt product of his time.

I'm German. I don't find him difficult to understand. If anything he seems to go out of his way to enunciate clearly.

There is a certain melody to his speech, which might at times help to stress certain arguments further and keeps the listener interested throughout.

Feeling nostalgic here Hans?

>certain melody to his speech
>keeps the listener interested throughout
>seems to go out of his way to enunciate clearly

GERMAN NATIONALISM ON THE RISE

Body language, voice proyection, and the social context.

>>Autist doesn't understand the concept of a living language
>Filtered

> Misusing words until they have no more meaning
Fuck the hell off.

Ignorant American here. What American politician in modern times would you say speaks in a similar way to Hitler, if any.

wew lad

Un-ironically mr trump

Trump even though he is not the next hitler

In terms of speaking style? I know they speak about somewhat similar topics but I'm looking for an English speaking equivalent to get a feel for what it's like with body language

>In terms of speaking style?

In terms of the sort of rhetoric he uses, mostly. Trump has studied Hitler's speeches and it shows.

no he speaks very differently

Vril concentration and visualization techniques.

Hitler seems to be one of the last people to ever practice gestures in public speaking.

In much of the 20th Century, when people teach of public speaking its mostly verbal content, grammar, enunciation, wordplay, etc. But earlier, even the way you fucking moved, the gestures you used while talking, was taught to you.

Hitler taught himself that.

youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y9P65fGAE

Basically his story:
>hey germans, you are fucked up, arent you?
>You know what, it shouldn´t be like that, we deserve the clay of those utermenschen to the east
>It´s our destiny, plus we are inherintly superior, so it´s not inmoral
>What do you say? Why did we lose the war if we are INHERENTLY SUPERIOR?
>Oh, yeah, that´s the jews fault, they hate us somehow, we should probably exterminate them...

Kind of genious if you think abut it. This was basically his whole discourse. His main strength IMHO was not his oratory skills, but the determiation he stuck to his discourse. There is this thing that the NSDAP never changed their 25point programm of 1920, even when realities had grosly changed. Reading it, you may realize that lots of the stuff came completely irrelevant by ´33. That was the genius of Hitler, realizing that it is not what you say, but that you have to avoid a rational discussion about what you are saying at all costs without loosing determination.

forgot pick

>le jews are innocent ebin meme xD

fuck off

In my experience gesture is still very much present in public political speaking, athough much subtler. Merkel is an example of someone who, despit clearly having been schooledin it, doesn´t seem to be able to get it right.

...

>le /bol/
>le marxism is everywhere but nationalism belongs in specific board

Yeah I know, but cunts were more expressive physically when public speaking back in the late 19th Century. I'm not talking hand gestures, but literal arms thrown out, almost headbanging, kind of gestures. Just look at Hitler: people call his moves "exagerrated" but really he's reminiscent of 19th century public speaking.

>Unironically being racist
>Not actually contributing to the conversion at all
Getting real sick of the 14-year-old /pol/tards on here

shure thing buddy. Your behavior really proves that a grat many fruticious arguments are beeing lost by sending you back to your containment board. I mean what discussion about ANY historic event is complete without someone pointing out that what reeally happend is that THE JEWS DID IT. As always. becaus they hate hate hate white men. Now please, post one of those awesome .jpeg files where, in a genial conjecture of text and image, the nefarious and sinister influence of the jew is once more exposed to enlighten us cucken liberatards communists.

I blame TV

You had to make protruding gestures for them to be seen in a multitude

>le I am the truth
>le everyone else belongs on specific boards for their falsehoods

Dude, protruding gestures are a pre-TV thing.

TVs have cameras that can zoom into you. Meanwhile in the 19th century and earlier, you're in front of a massive crowd and the guy at the back has to know you're actually the one speaking.

Your behavior once again proves that any attempt of discussion is futile. It is possib le to discuss without deviation, you know? good bye.

I blame TV for the dissapearance of the protruding gesture I mean. Sorry for my lack of clarity.

It's cool mang.

You realize that "literally" has been used purely as emphasis for more than 100 years right?

youtu.be/RJz--yIpHyg

How come Mussolini makes all these weird faces and poses during his speeches
If anything Trump is more like him than Hitler in his speaking style

You're literally retarded.

Conviction and German literacy.

probably because many modern political speakers would like to avoid obvious (although likely incorrect) Hitler comparisons.

training

mein kampf is dedicated to his tutors

>If anything Trump is more like him than Hitler in his speaking style
But the question was who is most like Hitler, not who was most like Trump

i know, but people were talking about Trump

I don't understand what being a product of his time has to do with his oratory skill. No shit he was a product of his time, everyone is.

Same reason Trump can sway the Republicans/NewRight/AltRights right now.

The same reason all the conservatives are preaching how illegals are stealing job, how the government is limiting freedom, how the government is too big, your safety is compromised, etc. (My neighbor in the apartment complex listens to this almost daily, its the same shit)

Quality

He was an avatar of Wotan.

I'm just talking out of my ass but what if that's because now most politicians around are career politicians - those who enter politics not as a result of some passion they have, but merely as something that they've studied as if they were studying some labor with just the same intent to just get by?

Like most of these guys are from well off families with the money and connections to make sure their children would succeed in entering politics eventually. Politicians are becoming something like an actual class.

You absolutely rarely if ever see a charismatic figure amongst these types. It used to be that charismatic people who had something to fight for, which a lot of people emphathised with, entered politics with whatever support they managed to garner. Whereas now you have these sons of officials whose goal to enter politics has been just to be in politics. Who instead of relying on some actual cause or charisma ride off their privilege (in the actual non-SJW meaning of the word) of knowing the right people and knowing how to play the system and public opinions to get in there and stay there.

I'm tired and this post got longer than I wanted and I probably expressed myself suboptimally but does anyone else agree?

This. Hitler was divinely inspired. You have to be an idiot not to see this. No mere mortal man can mold so many people into his own image, and train them to fight against the ultimate evil like Hitler did. I encourage everyone here to read "The Lightning and the Sun" by Savitri Devi.

t. Jew
At least I hope you're Jewish, and not one of those nu-male lefty nancy boys. Those are the guys who deserve extermination.

this desu

Trump reminds me more of Mussolini.

>GERMAN NATIONALISM ON THE RISE
The day I got the first real jolt of "I speak German" is the day when I randomly listened to Hitler speak on History channel and realized I understood what he was saying. It's a weird feeling since I've heard him on documentaries and such all my life but never really before payed attention at what he was saying or trying to understand it.

How do you filter anonymous, stupid shit?

Someone sound the alarms the Germans are feeling nostalgic again

>Hitler

>right leaning

My friend is studying politics and he said that they are taught to not practice gestures in speaking, because that has the subliminal message of them not having a wide spectrum of vocabulary, so they have to use their arms to express themselves. Thus someone could think that they are stupid.
He said that's why someone might think Latinos or Italians are stupid or unintelligent, because gesturing while speaking lays deeply in their culture.

interesting, I didn´t know that. Could you tell me who those where?

I just knew the lore, that Hitler wen´t to a rallly of the DAP and more or less hijacked it when he got emootional and started rambling wildly about muh jews whilst the audience listened cautivately. After that the leadership of the DAP begged him to work for them. I also read that he had an unnormaly loud voice.
tl;dr I always thought Hitler was a natural.

>Like most of these guys are from well off families with the money and connections to make sure their children would succeed in entering politics eventually. Politicians are becoming something like an actual class.

afaik this is not the case for any 1st world coutry except The US (and perhaps some of thse east asian countries like Korea, Japan or Singapore). I might be wrong though.

>voice
Everybody spoke like that back then. Not every hall had a working PA so it was necessary to scream to reach the whole audience.
Actually this is it. Every orator is only effective if the audience wants to hear what he says and like the way in which he says it.

>subliminal message of them not having a wide spectrum of vocabulary
...in a speaking class, where people will notice these things.

But what about talking to lots of plebs who know nothing about speaking? If you had a target audience like this, shouldn't you adapt your techinque, accordingly?

Of course you should, don't listen to that idiot. All of those body movements convey emotion, something severely lacking in modern politicians and emotion of course resonates with the average person

It's like this in Sweden. Only certain people become politicians, they are definetly a class.

A major party of the French goverments are usually composed of graduates from the École nationale d'administration. Almost all the graduates have never attended public school. They are de facto a different class.

pleasedo elaborate.I´m curious.

I knew about the École nationale d'administration thing, and I frown upon the elitist idea it implies. But, in fairness, isn´t there a rather transparent, meritocratic mecanism to determine who get´s in there and who doesn´t? Them beeing a class, inmy understanding of the word, implies a transgenerational succession of power. Of course you may have a few exeptions like the LePens, but ther than that, as a german, no other example comes to mind. Didn´t, for example, all recent Presidents of France (except Sarkozy) come from middle class or working class families?

>Didn´t, for example, all recent Presidents of France (except Sarkozy) come from middle class or working class families?
I'm not very well versed in french politics so maybe some other user can correct me if I'm wrong, but I know for sure that this is not the case. First example to come to mind is Hollande, who comes from an upper class family.
> isn´t there a rather transparent, meritocratic mecanism to determine who get´s in there and who doesn´t?
De jure yes, de facto no. As far as I know that is.

>pleasedo elaborate.I´m curious.
I'm not from Sweden, but I can relate to his standpoint. In Austria most politicians start their career very early. They decide that they want to be a politician and then choose to enter the youth organisation of a political party. When they graduate from upper secondary, they matriculate at a university and start networking in the student organisation of their party. It does not matter what they study, but what kind of contacts they acquire during that time. Until fairly recently, we had a chancellor that never attended his classes and spent most of his time as a taxi driver when he wasn't getting involved in university politics.

After a few years they've built up such a network, that they can get a small job in the party itself, or in an affiliated organisation. Those could be Social insurance companies, state TV, almost anything has a connection to some political party around here. Then it's merely a matter of bowing to their superiors and kicking theirr subordinates, until they climb up the ladder and are chosen for some political function. It's one of the purest applications of the Peter principle that I've seen so far.

wikipedia says that Hollande´s father was an Otorhinolaryngologist and his mother a social worker. Sound´s fairly middle-class to me. But disregarding the wealth aspect, there are wealthy doctors after all, I was refering to the class thing. In my understanding this contains a notion of hereditaryness. Or is just my understanding of the word class an incorrect one?

I have read about that too, especially that austrian politics is a very self referential system. What you describe however, as fucked up as it is, does not sound like a class system, but as a system, almost as meritocratic as posible within a capitalist setting. Please keep in mind, that I mean meritocratic not as in "merits" but as in "acomplishing what is necesary to succed".


because I sense that we are talking crossed purpouses here:
I do not want to negate the lack of connection of most politicians with "ordinary people", or the nefarious influence of capital on politics, or the elitism, clientelism and incestuos selfreferentiality of the political system. Far from it. What I ws referin, was that outside the American political Class, Nepotism (in the classical sense of the word) is much rarer in most of the developed world, and there is no signs of an american style political aristocracy to develope.

Admission to the École nationale d'Administration is regulated by a competitive centralized examination. Basically the places 1-120 get in, the other ones don´t. no exeptions. You can say what you will about the french, but they do love centralized national exams in which people are ranked from best to worst. Even certain highschool teacher positions are granted like that.

Dude it's like this even in eastern Europe.

Perhaps more alarming than politics becoming a playground of only the well off by and large, is the emergence of powerful families who produce the most important politicians. For example look at the Bush and Clinton families. But you have these families everywhere. Even in my small country, where one family threatens to have a president and a prime minister simultaneously, which amongst other things goes against the notion of separation of powers.

In that sense can anyone really argue that democracy is any different in reality from aristocracy?

He used demagogue tactics. You are an effective speaker if hat you are saying resonates with you audience, who in turn create an atmosphere which acts as the speakers "aura" in a way. Hitlers speeches were angry and powerful because the peoples of the Wiemar republic were angry and felt weak. He played on their fears and hopes, becoming therefore an excellent speaker.
TL;DR Just play to your audience and you become a good speaker.

Which country is your´s?

Lot´s of eastern europe isn´t 1st world quite yet I would say. Also, I am that guy. (just so we don´t misunderstand each other)

There is quite some historical researches on Eastern European elites before and after 1990. Bottom line is that the top dogs before 1990 didn't stay in charge. Certain factors, especially the liberalization of the markets, favored the pre-1990 middle management. Look at the guys who are now oligarchs: Most of them had higher training in the 80s were middle management and/or party-members.

>Bottom line is that the top dogs before 1990 didn't stay in charge
But they did.

In my country the first generation of the most influential politics after the fall of the USSR all belonged to the Communist party. They retained their position despite the fact that the political system made a 180 degree turn. If that doesn't raise any alarm bells then I don't know what will.

Oh and just to make it clear - the country I'm from is not some oligarch ruled shithole. My country always ranks as one of the freest and most transparent in the world. Corruption is also comparatively low. If anything we're a shining example of how to enter democracy after totalitarianism. And yet still we're plagued with these problems.

Estonia.

>What I ws referin, was that outside the American political Class, Nepotism (in the classical sense of the word) is much rarer in most of the developed world
Why do you assume that?

Trump no matter what you think of him as a person is very charismatic, just watch one of his speeches without going into it thinking "Lol trump is racist XD"

>just watch one of his speeches without going into it thinking "Lol trump is racist XD"
I literally cain't.

>convenient scapegoat

Yeah I'm sure them having a rich history of getting kicked out from hundreds of countries over 2000 years is just pure coincidence

good post user, I completely agree

Buttmad audience

Thanks for your Input. Why I do assume that? Long Story Short, because I grew up in very privileged circles in Latin America and, threw some corners heard the ramble of the oligarchy about them damned European polititians, coming from nowhere, having no class, trying to Tell them how to handle things. I also have a friend that is a rather powerful buerocrat, He Works in Mexican german economic Relations and He basically says that while Mexico everything is nepotism in Germany die process is important in everything, eben allocation of Power. Perhaps I overgeneralized though.

Sorry for the spelling, I am on my Phone.

*Due process

mind blown.

Trump actually IS the next Mussolini

you think of him as a leftist crook, but just because he lost. his concerns were literal existential threats to Germany and nothing else

maybe if you're a diplomat who wants to look level-headed speaking before other diplomats, but large scale demagoguery to huge audiences makes sweeping gestures great! he even had one you could follow along to!

he's obviously a charmer, but I can't look at him without him growing a waistcoat and tophat, snorting snuff and molesting maids

Nice meme. Completely different in terms of speaking.

>very charismatic
Only to dumbfucks.