This is an interesting book review in the NY Times of a book titled *HITLER’S BENEFICIARIES:
Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State. * By Götz Aly.
Quote from the review:
?? 
From what I read of (apolitical, nonpersecuted) ordinary people’s lives and from what I heard of my own relatives’ tales there do not seem to have been significant restrictions on domestic freedom of movement. Of course, particularly during the latter part of the war, if you were a military-age male you’d better have impeccable documentation of being on leave or of your military exemption.
Paradoxically, mentions of restrictions of movement and of travel permits figure prominently in accounts of the early years of Allied occupation.
As for standard of living, bonzer’s post agrees with what I read - supply of the necessities of life being largely guaranteed by the economic exploitation of the occupied countries, i.e. by war as large-scale armed robbery. Food was rationed but not to a harmful degree.
This should be considered in light of the fact that at the time, similar miscegnation laws were in full force in other developed countries, most notably in the United States, where they persisted well after the war.
I believe the name of the movie is Rossenstrasse. It’s a pretty interesting film.
The problem with national socialism was that the majority was safe, home free, the men got jobs and got to provide for their families, there was the possibility of getting a car for the ordinary worker (the “People’s car”, “Volks wagen”), holidays in Austria, and so forth and so on. Unseen of. Remember, this is in the 30’s, after the great (and in Germany it was great) depression.
People weren’t stupid, they were desperate, there was nothing to eat and the democracy was a joke. It didn’t work out, and at this time nobody of course had an inkling of the the horrors of the future.
Adolf Hitler was perceived as a hero who got Germany back on its feet, literaly saved it and its people - if you were “a blue-eyed, blond-haired, Caucasian, heterosexual Christian of non-Jewish descent”. Its the majority’s victory over the minority. Masters and slaves. Aryan and jews, whites and blacks, christians and muslims, pick your game and buy yourself a Chrysler on the way home. That’s how fascism works; otherwise it wouldn’t be a problem. As an ordinary man you gain by fascim. You even vote for it. Otherwise it would be extinct.
When things got messy Germans looked the other way. It isn’t that hard - it happens right now as I’m writing this post. We accept the news reels form the war machinery, we don’t want anything else.
Back to your question: How was The Third Reich for the ordinary German guy (until the war)? - Pretty good, I mean I’m the man…! Look at me go!
That’s the problem with fascim. You don’t notice, or you don’t care.
(All this until the war, going back to Germany. Germans didn’t want war, and Hitler knew that, which was why the Polish invasion was more or less hid until it happened [which at the time was unusual]; also waited too long strategically before switching to total war ), and why the british bombings of German cities was such a defeat.)
(The reason Hitler got to power is of course quite complicated, and the above is not intended to be comprehensive, but to focus on the question: “How’s it going, Schmidt, with the nazis and all?” “He’s a great guy , thanks for asking.”)
Sounded interesting so I went to Netflicks to order it. But the blurb doesn’t sound quite right. Here it is:
After her father dies, Hannah Weinstein (Maria Schrader) notices that her mother, Ruth (Jutte Lampe), is acting very strangely. Is Ruth’s behavior brought on by her understandable grief at the loss of her husband, or does the suffering spring from something older, something repressed? As her mother’s troubled childhood is revealed, Hannah realizes how little she ever really knew about the woman closest to her. Margarethe von Trotta directs.
(At Netflicks it was spelled Rosenstrasse. One s.)
Extra 's’s don’t know where to put them 
Part of the movie is based on the ‘mother’s’ reaction to the death of her husband. But there is more to it. Don’t want to spoil it for you.
Thanks
The idea might seem opressive by todays standards, but the race and ugenics part of it was widespread. It didn’t really seem unusual to the people at the time. The ideas were commonplace by common acceptance on both sides of the war. Henry Ford is always the example in this argument. Life went on, in all of the other countries and the squabble was really for naught.
I thought we spent a good part of this thread debunking that.
While writing my posts in this thread there were two thoughts hesitating my fingers somewhat: (1) Is this too provocative?, and (2) will readers of these posts understand that I write from a historical, contemporary perspective rather than airing my opions?
To answer the OP is of course impossible in a Internet thread, and the question of nazi German is extremely complex (politically, historically, economically, culturally, etc). But one problem often overlooked is that their was immense hope invested in the nazi regime after the humiliation and depression and the majority of “aryan” Germans gained from the nazi take over. (However, the economic boost isn’t Hilter’s merit.) Germans weren’t necessarily just dumb, and it can happen again. Walloon, do I have to add that I’m not a nazi?
You’re misunderstanding. Look back at the first page of this thread, where several posters, including me, pointed out that an idealized Aryan racial type is not the same as an idealized Nordic racial type. Aryan does not mean “blue-eyed, blond-haired.”
Was that your point…? I’m sorry, I truly misunderstood you, as you say. Sorry and thanks for clearing that out.