Without getting into an argument about how big the wizarding world's population is, what percentage of the population do people think supported Voldemort?

 

I always thought the number supporting would be low 5-10%, maybe. Accepted/stood aside >50%. I felt that the number of people actively fighting against Voldemort would be only slightly greater than his number though.

Of course none of this is based on facts.

 

So would that mean that Dumbledore (and Harry who is his follower) are in fact revolutionaries and not status-quo fighters like I always thought ? And they were winning with appointment of Nobby Leach in 1960s but backlash from majority of population lead to radicals (Voldemort) gaining power and to First War ?

 

It's certainly one of the more reasonable explanations for why he's so ineffectual that doesn't involve him being incompetent or secretly evil.

 

I don't think that Voldemort and the Death Eaters ever had a wide base of public support. One of the main thing that the older characters, those that were around in the first war speak of, is the fear that anyone might be attacked. Which caused people like Fudge to deny that he was back for a year. If Voldemort genuinely did ever have a large public support base then surely the number of attacks would actually be quite small. Certainly someone like Fudge, who by your theory would be the kind of person who passively supports Voldemort's ideals, would not be so afraid of his return.

Personally, I'd say their support was never more than 5-10%.

 

tt;dr version: Read about the rise of Hitler and his dissenters, as that seems to be the parallel story.

I agree with the others, Voldemort didn't have a wide base of support. He did have two key pillars however.

Support from the oldest families (outside of the Weasleys). Purebloods are by definition, the oldest families. It can be surmised that the old families are also rich, unless the families do not hold to Pureblood values. Since about half the Pureblood families have members that support Voldemort (extrapolating from the Black family tree and the names we see in canon), it would follow that a lot of economic wealth (first pillar) and cultural power (second pillar) was consolidated in Voldemort's followers.

Beyond that, he was building on long-held prejudices in society, so there was definitely a number of passive supporters - at least those who supported keeping the human race pure (as opposed to mixing with giants, werewolves, etc). Umbridge represents this group, IMO, and I think, exposes a bias of the ministry.

Since the structure of the conflict is probably based on the historical Nazi Germany, your question can best be answered by asking studying anti-semitism in Europe in general, and Germany until the end of the second World War in particular.

 

Is it stated anywhere whether Dumbledore knew about Grawp or not in OotP? And if there's not a clear answer, are there clues/hints/indications that point towards one of the two cases?

 

I...honestly can't remember. I'm sure he'd know about it, since he knew a whole lot of other things going on at the time, though?

 

Different Question - about phrasing.

What sounds better, "Drifted off to sleep." or "Drifted off into sleep."

I've always said the former, but for some reason, it just doesn't sound right in the fic I'm writing.

 

I find it hard to imagine that he wouldn't know about it, but as far as I know there's nothing to say either way. I think that Hagrid probably would have trusted Dumbledore enough to tell him when he first brought Grawp there.

"Drifted off to sleep," is better. If you were going for the second one you'd need something else, like, "Drifted off into a deep sleep."

 

Weird question, but I figured this would be a good thread to talk about it.

So Fred and George were able to start Weasley Wizard Wheezes because they got the gold from Harry. Makes sense so far. But Ron's comments in OOTP seemed to suggest that if Harry hadn't given them the gold, they wouldn't have been able to start up their business, possibly turning to illegal action.

So here's my question: why couldn't they get a loan from Gringotts? Even despite the fact the wizarding economy is small, loaning money has been an element in banks for generations. Are the goblins just so miserly that they won't give any gold to anyone, and if that's the case, how does one accumulate capital to start new businesses if they're not well-off? Is the loan system handled by the Ministry of Magic? I'm assuming there's not much in the way of venture capital, but who the hell handles loans in the wizarding world?

And on that note, what department in the Ministry handles taxes? There's a government full of employees that somehow have to be paid, and I'm guessing St. Mungo's isn't all privately sponsored, so do wizards pay taxes? How are they collected? And what about property taxes on areas that technically only take up magical space, like Diagon Alley? How can one define taxes on space that's extradimensional - or indeed, how can you define taxes when one can expand space to suit your whims? And if Hogwarts has to pay some form of property taxes, how is this financed, along with other things like teachers' salaries?

These questions might feel trivial, but I'm considering taking my ongoing WIP into areas that explore some of this, and I'm going to need some answers, or at least some theories.

 

Well, I created the Department of Magical Finance in the Ministry of Magic to handle some of these questions, but I was wondering if there was anything close to a canon answer on this subject.

 

Maybe goblins' loans have a very big interest rate that Weasleys could afford not knowing if they business will be successful.

I suspect that everything works similar to the Muggle world. That also gave me amusing idea of Untouchable!Harry sending Voldemort to the Azkaban because of his unpaid taxes.

In this case you probably only pay for being there, not for how much space you take.

 

Money is Gringotts is stored in big piles of coins in individual vaults. This is not particularly compatible with making loans with depositors' assets, so unless you assume that Gringotts is extremely wealthy and controls most of the economy, there simply isn't much capital that they can loan out.

Individual wealthy investors looking for better than the 0% returns they get from having money sit in a vault is the obvious answer.

 

Would you give a loan to a pair of seventeen year-olds, with next to no qualifications, to allow them to start a "Joke Shop"? Really? If we take the common convention of the wizarding world paralleling the muggle world from a few decades previously, then bankers would not be willing to take big risks like that. It's only relatively recently in real life that a loan has become easy to get. So the goblins not giving them a loan is one of the more realistic things in the HP verse.

 

Canon-wise, there's nothing explained.

Thinking on it, aside from the what other posts have already replied with, it could be that the Goblins are either very stingey or that their repayment terms are ridiculous.

After all, we know how they are with goblin-made items, even those that belong to wizarding families by human values.