In terms of their employment, religion, and sex, people who joined the Nazi party started off incredibly distinct from the people in their communities.
It's only near the end of WWII when they started resembling everyday Germans.
It's only near the end of WWII when they started resembling everyday Germans.
Early on, a lot of this dissimilarity is due to hysteresis.
Even as the party was growing, people were selectively recruited because they were often recruited by their out-of-place friends, and they were themselves out-of-place.
It took huge growth to break that.
Even as the party was growing, people were selectively recruited because they were often recruited by their out-of-place friends, and they were themselves out-of-place.
It took huge growth to break that.
And you can see the decline of fervor based on the decline of Nazi imagery in people's portraits.
And while this is observed by-and-large, it's not observed among the SS, who had a consistently higher rate of symbolic fanaticism.
And while this is observed by-and-large, it's not observed among the SS, who had a consistently higher rate of symbolic fanaticism.
In fact, the SS remained quite distinct throughout the rise and fall of the Nazi party, which is about what you'd expect.
But, did you know that over 1.5% of SS officers were just straight-up nobles? And 4-5% had PhDs?
The elites are often the most fanatical!
But, did you know that over 1.5% of SS officers were just straight-up nobles? And 4-5% had PhDs?
The elites are often the most fanatical!
These records are incredibly rich. They offer us a deep view into network dynamics, local politics, and demographics of the rise of an extremist movement, and they're only made possible because of the meticulousness of German record-keeping!
Source: nber.org/papers/w35120
Source: nber.org/papers/w35120
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
