Fritz reinhardt and the<i>Rednerschule der nsdap</i>

Bytwerk, Randall L.

doi:10.1080/00335638109383574

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, we are fairly confident that our failure to find consistent evidence of campaign effects on voting behavior in what appears to be one of the most likely historical cases indeed provides evidence of their absence. This, of course, does not imply that Hitler's campaign activi-ties were ineffective with respect to other goals, such as fund-raising (Goebbels 1992), canvassing for new party members (Bytwerk 1981), or simply enhancing an energetic party image (Allen 1984).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The parameter estimates indicate a negative relationship between the strength of local party organizations and the probability of a visit. An ad hoc interpretation of this finding would be that Hitler appearances were targeted at areas lagging behind in terms of organizational development to increase party membership (see Bytwerk 1981, 16). Unfortunately, the available samples from the NSDAP member files are too small to detect local changes in membership in the immediate aftermath of Hitler appearances.…”

Section: Predicting Hitler’s Appearancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

Selb

Munzert

2018

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hitler’s rise to power amidst an unprecedented propaganda campaign initiated scholarly interest in campaign effects. To the surprise of many, empirical studies often found minimal effects. The predominant focus of early work was on U.S. elections, though. Nazi propaganda as the archetypal and, in many ways, most likely case for strong effects has rarely been studied. We collect extensive data about Hitler’s speeches and gauge their impact on voter support at five national elections preceding the dictatorship. We use a semi-parametric difference-in-differences approach to estimate effects in the face of potential confounding due to the deliberate scheduling of events. Our findings suggest that Hitler’s speeches, while rationally targeted, had a negligible impact on the Nazis’ electoral fortunes. Only the 1932 presidential runoff, an election preceded by an extraordinarily short, intense, and one-sided campaign, yielded positive effects. This study questions the importance of charismatic leaders for the success of populist movements.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Predicting Hitler’s Appearancesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

Selb

Munzert

2018

Am Polit Sci Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, we are fairly confident that our failure to find consistent evidence of campaign effects on voting behavior in what appears to be one of the most likely historical cases indeed provides evidence of their absence. This, of course, does not imply that Hitler's campaign activities were ineffective with respect to other goals, such as fund-raising (Goebbels, 1992), canvassing for new party members (Bytwerk, 1981), or simply enhancing an energetic party image (Allen, 1984).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

Munzert¹

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hitler’s rise to power amidst an unprecedented propaganda campaign initiated scholarly interest in campaign effects. To the surprise of many, empirical studies often found minimal effects. The predominant focus of early work was on U.S. elections, though. Nazi propaganda as the archetypal and, in many ways, most likely case for strong effects has rarely been studied. We collect extensive data about Hitler’s speeches and gauge their impact on voter support at five national elections preceding the dictatorship. We use a semi-parametric difference-in-differences approach to estimate effects in the face of potential confounding due to the deliberate scheduling of events. Our findings suggest that Hitler’s speeches, while rationally targeted, had a negligible impact on the Nazis’ electoral fortunes. Only the 1932 presidential runoff, an election preceded by an extraordinarily short, intense and one-sided campaign, yielded positive effects. This study questions the importance of charismatic leaders for the success of populist movements.

show abstract

History: Public speaking via correspondence¹in the third Reich

Bytwerk

Diehl²

1989

American Journal of Distance Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fritz reinhardt and theRednerschule der nsdap

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

History: Public speaking via correspondence¹in the third Reich

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Fritz reinhardt and theRednerschule der nsdap

Cited by 6 publications

References 3 publications

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

Examining a Most Likely Case for Strong Campaign Effects: Hitler’s Speeches and the Rise of the Nazi Party, 1927–1933

History: Public speaking via correspondence1in the third Reich

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

History: Public speaking via correspondence¹in the third Reich