I agree the circumstances 100% led to the public support, but the war/power hungry military higher ups who picked Hitler for an oddly specific mission and helped launch his political career, raise two questions.

1. Even if you could go back in time and prevent Hitler from being born/make him be a more talented artist, would the most powerful General of WWI have just found some other unstable loyalist for the mission?

2. The General's view on war vs. peacetime, doesn't seem too dissimilar to the neoconservative views we see in modern America. The belief that the only real justification any war needs is America is #1, so if you have something we want, it's ours to take. Plus war is good for business.

I have to wonder how long the practice of manipulating public sentiment and even intentionally undermining economic circumstances has been accepted as an honorable military strategy. We're seeing it happen again now, and they're not even bothering to really disguise what they're doing.

Considering how embarrassed the General was following WWI, it almost reminds me of what many people believe were the actual causes of America's war in Iraq under George W. Bush. Vengeance for daddy. (Somewhat unrelated sidetrack. It's kind of a fascinating coincidence that Skull and Bones, the Ivy League secret society Bush Sr. and many other powerful neoconservatives belonged to, was created by an American who had been allowed to partake in the rituals of a German secret society while living abroad, and was inspired by their antidemocratic elitist legacy of a few chosen men destined to control the rest of society from the shadows).

Anyway, getting back to Hitler/Ludendorff (who coincidentally was born to a noble German bloodline): When General Ludendorff sent Hitler to infiltrate the Worker's party in 1919, or more specifically, when Ludendorff instructed the intelligence head of the "Education and Propaganda Department," to send Hitler, what was the purpose of the mission?

At first, Hitler was allegedly just sent to spy/be on the lookout for political agitators. But pretty soon he was joining and climbing his way to top leadership, while the head of the department of propaganda, helped him begin writing about economic anxiety and the antisemitic beliefs that had allegedly caused Germany's defeat in WWI. So what was Ludenhorff's end goal?

looks at present-day Germany

yeah... about that...

Capitalism is quite capable on its own of generating crises that radicalize people who can then be recruited for fascism by the rich to increase exploitation further.

Even if Germany had been supported, the Great Depression would still have happened. And like the US, UK, France, Spain, Netherlands, and many other "winners" and neutral parties in WW1, Germany would have had a thriving fascist movement.

Maybe Germany wouldn't have been the first nation to take fascism to the point of rabid invasion of white countries and make all the other white countries retroactively frame fascism as an unconscienable foreign enemy, but some nation would have been.

(This time the US seems the most likely bet. They have the bloated and quickly-getting-outdated military, the fascist wrecking the local economy, the establishment of a post-truth society, etc.)

I'm not disagreeing with about economic disruptions and how anxiety around those disruptions influenced public perception and support leading into WWII.

Just wondering how long powerful men in the military and government have been manipulating public perception.

Especially given the stab-in-the-back myth seemed to be Ludenhorff's excuse for Germany's failure under his military leadership following WWI.

One is more literally building a "nation" than the other. I was more pointing out that USA just occupied a territory & stayed there forever.
(You don't leave your military in a nation after the war is over. Sovereign nations don't allow that. Eg Mexico iirc.)

Both in their (USA) image.