I've been trying to come up with a plausible set of character motivations and events for the first rise of Voldemort, some of it makes sense, while other bits... I find hard to reconcile.

We'll start at the beginning. (Wall of text warning)


Voldemort's First Followers

This is his circle of friends as gathered at Slug Club meetings and who later accompanied him to Hogwarts when he applied for the DADA position. These are men of an age with Voldemort, who knew him as a mere first year. I don’t doubt that Voldemort, being a charismatic sociopath, would have been able to manipulate them pretty easily, but there are some things he cannot hide from them.

Most importantly, they would know that he’s not a pureblood. This in itself makes them interesting characters, from my point of view. Were these men sophisticated schemers who believed they were using Voldemort to further their own goals, while Voldemort carefully sculpted their goals into mirrors of his own? Or were they thoroughly cowed followers like his later Death Eaters?

Already by 1957 these men referred to themselves as Death Eaters, while we know from Tom Riddle’s diary that they had already started using the name Lord Voldemort to refer to a 16-17 year old Tom. Just what is the significance of the name ‘Death Eater’ to these men? Dumbledore says that his first followers were weak, ambitious, or thuggish, this leans us towards the assumption that they are not much different from the later fanatics; blindly manipulated towards Voldemort’s ends.

What I find curious is their presence in the Hog’s Head when Voldemort is applying for the DADA position. I find it very difficult to align this with what I know of Voldemort. There is no doubt that Voldemort, in his narcissism, loves to have followers at his back for no other reason than the satisfaction that he has followers. But why on earth would they be hanging around the Hog’s Head, and why would he seemingly not want Dumbledore to know? If it’s his narcissism at work then it’s a power-play with Dumbles, but it doesn’t seem to be that. So what is it? Emotional support? That doesn’t stack up at all. The one possibility I can think of is that they chose to be there themselves, either to feel involved in Voldemort’s schemes or simply because they feel protective of Voldemort, or, more specifically, the potential personal advantage he represented.
Whatever it is, it speaks of a different kind of relationship between these men and Voldemort to the one seen between Voldemort and his later followers, despite what Dumbledore said about them.


The Younger Generation

It seems to me that the younger generation is perhaps easier to understand. These are young men and women raised in a poisonous environment of bigotry and egotism and would be easy prey for a skilled demagogue like Voldemort is supposed to be. A parallel with the Hitler Youth is perhaps not entirely unfounded, it does not take much to turn a young person’s idealism into fanaticism, especially if they are kept separated from their peers as they are in Slytherin house.

If we assume that Voldemort’s first followers had children in Hogwarts throughout his rise we can certainly see a way for a cult of personality to be created within the younger Slytherins, the manipulation here doesn’t need to be as careful or nuanced as they can choose to paint whatever picture they like to ensure absolute dedication. Hence within this generation Lord Voldemort is a near deific messiah and father figure, a protector and a leader. He is immortal and pure of blood, he is the very pinnacle of that which they hope to achieve; blood purity.

In ensuring that their children viewed Voldemort in this way the older Death Eaters probably signed their own death warrants. I imagine they, once the terror began, they found themselves becoming glorious martyrs for the cause, ensuring that no-one knew the truth of Voldemort’s background.


Dark Magic and Wizards

This is where things start to get difficult for me. The principal weapon of a demagogue is creating the impression of a benevolent father and protector, it seems to me that the concept of ‘Dark Wizard’ rather clashes with this idea. Unless, that is, Dark Wizards are a subculture within general wizarding culture, which seems lazy and unsustainable (if all Dark Wizards come from a specific subculture then that subculture will eventually be wiped out, either by the general culture, or by their own belligerence). Dark Wizards are, supposedly, practitioners of ‘Dark’ magic, just what is this magic?

Within Fanon we have a lot of competing ideas, most seem to assume Dark Magic to be either addictive or corruptive. Both of these options are unattractive to me because they subvert the psychology of the affected characters; they change personalities. Additionally I find it hard to imagine a society where such a destructive activity could be in any way accepted or overlooked, if Dark Magic causes a complete loss of moral compass then it is rather worse than the worst of drug addictions, which merely cause the sufferer to discount consequences beyond their next hit. Dark Magic is apparently about causing suffering at best, and pleasure for the practitioner through the suffering of the victim at worst. I cannot see an entire subculture dedicated to this practice existing for any great length of time.

Instead I see something a little more flexible. I see Dark Magic as being a representation of doing what is easy over what is right. The spells are apparently easy to perform, for the most part, and have generally devastating effects. Further to that, if magic is about will and intent, we start to see the danger of Dark Magic. It doesn’t give you some kind of disease that makes you unable to tell right from wrong, it simply encourages you to dehumanise your opponents, to want to cause fear and suffering and pain. It’s not a concrete effect, but once you know the possible effects of a spell you have to want your opponent to suffer that when you use it.

And Dark Magic rewards you for that callousness, it makes your fights just a little easier if you are willing to dehumanise your enemy. No addiction, just the attraction of taking the easy way out.

So if that is Dark Magic (my interpretation) then what is a Dark Wizard? Basically, any wizard unconcerned with using deadly force to reach their own ends. Any such wizard will always gravitate towards Dark Magic to accomplish their goals, because it makes those goals easier to reach without actually having any downsides (aside from the suffering of others, which does not matter much to this wizard). A Dark Wizard can be from any house or background, they simply need to be pursuing their desires with enough single-minded passion that anyone getting in their way ceases to be a person and instead becomes a simple obstacle to be removed.


The Dark Lord Image

This interpretation (pretty much any interpretation really) of ‘Dark’ becomes a real problem when it comes to Voldemort’s image. As I said earlier a demagogue will cast themselves in a benevolent role to appeal to their followers, calling yourself a name that basically announces unequivocally evil intent doesn’t work. In fact the only interpretation of ‘Dark’ that seems to make sense in conjunction with the ‘Dark Lord’ honorific is the idea of Dark Wizards being a recognised and persistent wizarding subculture, for whom the term Dark is actually a good thing. This still makes no sense.

At this point I am forced to consider less apparently rational ideas, fortunately for me though rationality often takes a picnic when cult’s of personality are around.

So we have a man who calls himself Lord Voldemort, the general population see him as a Dark Wizard while his followers believe him to be the saviour of wizarding society. His followers do not believe him to be a Dark Wizard (read: evil), they instead imagine that he, and they, are brave souls doing what must be done and can be done no other way. They further believe that those who call their leader a Dark Wizard are short-sighted sheep, who either cannot or will not see the light of his wisdom. So his followers choose to revel in the name, to sow fear and doubt among the sheep, and to show their disdain for the thought that their great leader could possibly be considered evil. He is a Dark Wizard, and he is Lord Voldemort; so they decide to cast him as the Dark Lord, a scourge of society (society in their minds now equals everyone not following their Lord), but for them he is a saviour and the moniker is an honor to him as it shows he is inspiring fear in the society that so disgusts them.

This is why, later in the story, we see them get so angry at people who dare speak his ‘name’ (Voldemort); they are not showing the fear and respect that should be due him by the small-minded and weak.
I believe it is Fanon to consider the likes of Grindelwald or Herpo the Foul to be ‘Dark Lords’, so far as I’m aware they are merely ‘Dark Wizards’ in the minds of normal wizards and witches.


How (When) to Begin

So now we’ve made a passable attempt at explaining his followers, how they came to be the fanatics they are, and how they came to apparently revel in the idea that they were obviously evil.
But now we need to work out what, exactly, Voldemort was actually up to.

We have a general idea of his activities before 1957; wandering the world, finding dark and ancient magic, learning it, stealing valuable stuff from old ladies, making horcruxes is the general gist. But then he returns to Britain and applies for the DADA job. You can make the argument that he just did this to hide his diadem horcrux, but it necessarily involves revealing his presence to Dumbledore, for me this suggests that he has decided that the game is afoot. That he has finished his preparations and will now start working against Dumbledore, his hubris forces him to announce himself to Dumbles before beginning.

But this leaves us with as many as 13 years of cold war between Dumbles and Voldemort, Dumbledore says in 1981 that they had had precious little to celebrate in the last 10 years, suggesting that hostilities came into the open around 1970, leaving 13 years of Voldemort seemingly sitting around twiddling his thumbs.
Oh, there’s no doubt he was influencing his allies and their children, attempting to steer Slytherins and purebloods in general towards his values, but this isn’t actually a particularly active past-time, he couldn’t exactly book seminars at Hogwarts to spread his dogma.

So what was he actually doing? I’ve been toying with the idea that he was carefully influencing wizarding society in general to be more submissive and inward-looking. The wizarding society we see in the books is extremely closed off and there seems very little interaction between families. This seems strange to me, I would expect such a small society to be rather more close-knit. So perhaps Voldemort and the Death Eaters were spreading rumours and perhaps even setting up crimes to undermine society’s trust in itself. Gradually, over 10 years, they managed to turn most families inwards, so that instead of paying attention to the world around them, they began focusing on keeping family safe above all else. This would aid Voldemort later as the majority of witches and wizards would avoid the war in the hope that it would pass their family by.

Perhaps they also tried non-violent means of achieving their goals, maybe those 10 years were spent in meetings and conferences with influential family leaders, hoping to sway them to the cause of pureblood propaganda, gradually lowering themselves to more strong-arm tactics of threats and intimidation leading eventually to open violence.


The Terror

Just how bad was Voldemort’s reign of terror? He didn’t actually take control of the Ministry, even with 10 years. How many people died? We really only have a short list of deaths (Mostly Order members) and a lot of fanfiction throws out numbers that are simply unbelievable where hundreds of witches and wizards pop out of the woodwork on a weekly basis just to be mercilessly slaughtered by the unending legions of Death Eaters.
This just doesn’t seem reasonable, I’m happy to accept that many witches and wizards died, but I’m not so happy to accept the existence of monthly ‘Battle of Hogsmeade’s or ‘Battle of Diagon Alley’s, the wizarding world simply doesn’t have the manpower to sustain those levels of casualties.

Instead I see an extreme terrorist campaign, with murders, kidnappings, threats and extortion aplenty. One thing I noticed in the books was an apparent lack of the older generation, now there is every likelihood that this was simply JKR being sparing with characters, but it does leave a possible avenue for a large number of deaths. We know that wizards can live well into their hundreds (see: Dumbles, Marchbanks, Bagshot) if not multiple centuries (see: Dippet at 350 years old), yet we actually see very few grandparents for Harry’s contemporaries. The elder Potters are, I think, unmentioned, but assumed to have died during the war as did a few others seen on the Black Family Tapestry.

Perhaps, if we need some deaths to make the ‘Terror’ believable, we can find a ready store of folk in their 50s and 60s. Many could be important family leaders, if their own parents died in the Grindelwald conflict. Or they may mostly be killed simply as a threat or retribution upon their parents.

Given that the Wizengamot is apparently still mostly occupied by people born approximately a generation before these people it seems plausible to me that the adult population was severely diminished during the early days of the war, leaving just the young and the old to continue on.

Has anyone else given much thought to the timeline and motivations of Voldemort's first rise?

 

About the Death Eaters name; I'm quite sure they were actually called the "Knights of Walpurgis" at first. It was the general populace that called them Death Eaters in the media and the name stuck.

As for the 10 years in between Voldemort's DADA interview and the "real" start of war. I'm assuming he didn't have much of a following yet. Considering he had been traveling the world and what not. He probably used the time to find more followers through his first associates (Malfoy, Nott, Black) and through extortion and threats or even simply the imperius curse.

I'm also assuming Voldemort would want to be independent in all form; money included. Maybe it's something he worked on as well during those years; threatening rich or influencial people with revealing their secrets. Silence in exchange of money and so on.

The first followers were probably thinking about out-witting Voldemort at first; using his agenda to further their own. However, considering the kind of power Voldemort had even very young. It wouldn't surprise me if his "friends" started to reconsider their vision of him early on (4th-5th year). Hell, we need to take into consideration how Voldemort was in school. All we know is that the teacher found him perfect and that everyone loved him. But how did he act with those in the know? Was he just the same? Promoting loyalty. Or was he more harsh and violent? Promoting fear. Hogwarts 1949 (FFN) explores Voldemort interaction with his followers but also how he made them indoctrinated through the use of Harry (who time traveled there accidentally). Might be worth a read if you haven't yet. One of the best Voldemort portrayal I've read so far.

 

This one? Welcome to Hogwarts 1949

 

I think the period between his application for the DADA position and the start of the war was a more political battle. Voldemort was reconnecting with his old school chums and reaching out to small factions of discontent families. Early on he might have attended society functions to lay out his agendas, but as his experiments with permanent transformation got less attractive, he'd leave the politics to his allies like Lucius.

With a society full of very long-lived individuals, you can imagine that getting any sort of public voice when you're young would require truly awe-inspiring skills and actions. Voldemort's allies in the first war were young men and women at the time.

Also, the post-Gindelwald era was guided by Dumbledore's influence, so many of the initiatives would be to apply constraints to the use of magic, particularly against muggles. The old families and those who felt the urge to use their power but couldn't would chafe against this 'kinder and gentler' garbage.

Anyway, Voldemort was extending his influence without ever suggesting that a self-made man like himself should be made the Minister. In fact, his presence would have faded into the background, at least until the political game had reached a stalemate.

When it did (probably in 1970), Voldemort changed the game- 'How much easier would it be if we could take the opposing bishop and make him our own? How much easier still, if that bishop's allegiance did not appear to have changed?'

Imagine an opposing faction led by a popular wizard; Voldemort uses the Imperius to create an assassin out of that leader's most loyal ally, no doubt someone with a strong character as well, but no match for Voldemort. When one man is killed at the hands of his ally, such alliances break down. Thus began the war, though few understood that a war had begun.

The next few years were much of the same sort of guerrilla politics, with the Death Eater factions hinting that lack of compliance would have consequences... "You'll call Voldemort?" "That's the Lord in the shadows, and I wouldn't be so loose with his name! I would not say it unless he were already here. If I should call his name..."

By the late 70's the Death Eaters were getting belligerent, but they still wore the masks to legally hide their association.

Everything was in place to tip the last dominos, but Voldemort was undone by chasing prophecy and suddenly his allies had to pull their parachutes.

Most were able to stay free.

When Voldemort returned once more, it only took months to re-establish his authority over the key personnel, so they could finish the game that they'd started with only a few extra pieces to remove before taking power.

 

Yes that's the one. Very nice read if you haven't yet.

 

In one of Rowling's interviews, I believe she mentions that she intended the Death Eaters to have been called, or perhaps this is what they originally were called before changing the name, the Knights of Walpurgis? I'm sure there are people who know more.

But with all the other stuff she's revealed about the tensions created by the Statute, in addition to the shared objective in both Riddle and Grindelwald's campaigns of reestablishing open dominance over muggles (though this was ultimately tangential to Riddle's greatest desires), it may not be too wild to wonder whether this was a primary component of his original campaign (as is the case I believe, in On the Way to Greatness), before he began terrorizing them with his might alone.

Perhaps Walpurgis was an older dark wizard, living in the seventeenth century and very disinterested in living in secrecy among muggles.

EDIT: Walpurgis ninja'd by Basilisk lol.

 

Taure's idea about how Lord Voldemort used the time between 1957 and 1970 is the one I like the most:

He was taking out potential enemies. People skilled enough to give him a run for his money.

But that's just Taure's idea. I think he started small, kidnappings of rich and influential people for money, killing people who threatened his progress, etc. Classic mob/guerrilla tactics. At first he wasn't an issue for the Ministry, nobody knew enough to make an elaborated idea, but once he was strong and feared enough it was already 1970 and we all know what he did in those years.

I think the OP doesn't hit the nail with the sociologic/antropologic/pshychologic analisis. Lord Voldemort is a complex individual to analyse, and his path to power needs more facts we don't have. I, for one, believe he appeared in the exact moment of time to fill up the vacuum left by Grindewald. He obviously had the brains to do everything he did, but he had a lot of luck as well.

Nice try, though. And please OP, do not use the moniker "Dumbles" in the future, I can't take you seriously if you do.

 

I like this thread, it has some interesting speculation. And Taure's idea of Voldemort taking out competition is great, it really explains why no peers to Voldemort or Dumbledore are left, and why everyone fears him.
So that's 10 years of Voldemort picking off possible future obstacles and Dumbledore slowly growing more suspicious of the deaths. This is after Riddle has travelled the world Dark magic, refined his skills, making more horcruxes, etc. So in my mind you have:
1) Riddle in Hogwarts, still not anything like a peer to Dumbledore, slowly fleshing out his plans.
2) Riddle obtaining all of the Founder's items, killing the old rich lady, working at Borgin and Burkes, etc.
3) Then he travels the world, refines his skill with magic, makes a couple of Horcruxes (since when he returns his appearance is significantly changed.)
4) Asks Dumbledore for a job, mostly to store a Horcrux in Hogwarts, but there is some degree of sincerity in Riddle's desire for a job there.
5) A decade or two of covert assassination, making plans etc.
6) Then more open warfare between Voldemort, the Ministry, and Dumbledore.

 

I was under the impression that the Knights of Walpurgis was a name for the Death Eaters only in the early planning stages of the books. Certainly we know from HBP that they call themselves Death Eaters by the time Voldemort applies to be DADA teacher.

I suppose Harry could be wrong and it could be misdirection on Voldemort's part, but surely Knights of Walpurgis is a far more positive name than Death Eaters. Walpurgis night is the symbolic opposite of Halloween and is centred on the rebirth and life represented by spring. I suppose, from a DE point of view, the two names could be seen to have similar meanings , fighters against death. It is also possible that JKR intended to create some back story around a Dark Wizard (Witch?) called Walpurga (Saint Walpurga was a woman).

On the subject of the Malfoys, I was of the impression that we have no proof of Malfoy involvement before Lucius. Certainly Malfoy does not turn up in the early lists of known death eaters and followers (Avery, Lestrange, Nott, Dolohov, Rosier, Mulciber). After a wiki-walk I have to admit that Abraxas does seem like a probable early follower, given that he was supposedly involved in the plot to remove the sitting Minister in 1968. That certainly sounds to me like an important move in Voldemort's scheme.

I really don't think he would be as cruel and demanding with his early followers, he seems to have had their loyalty through better means than mere fear, though we know he certainly did have a cruel streak as evidenced by his Diary I'm not sure such heavy handed tactics would be needed to deal with school children. He should be able to manipulate them quite easily without resorting to base threats.

Thanks! I hadn't read it (Was leery of the summary saying friendship between Harry and Tom). That'll be next on my list.

I can certainly say I agree with your assessment of the difficulty of gaining influence in wizarding society if you are not from an established family and are young to boot.

Although it is very interesting to note that the Minister for Magic (until the plot to remove him in 1968) was a muggleborn. That sounds very interesting to me, and according to the W.O.M.B.A.T his term may have been marred by more visible unrest than I had first thought.

This is one thing I've never been entirely clear on. Does Voldemort seek to rule or destroy muggles? Or is he seeking complete separation between wizard and muggles?

Also, just how much effect did Grindelwald have on Britain, given that he never actually went there? It seems reasonable to me that, after Grindelwald's defeat there would be a surge in 'pro-muggle' sentiment as a reaction to his anti-muggle violence. It also seems reasonable that, after this reaches a certain point (say, the election of a muggleborn minister) there would be a backlash from traditionalists against what they'd see as muggleborn propaganda. A backlash that would be very fortuitous for someone like Voldemort.

This makes a certain amount of sense, though for some reason I'm not all that fond of the idea that Voldemort would extort/blackmail people for money. It just seems to pedestrian, his followers are wealthy and privileged, I think they would look down on such behaviour as unbecoming. Extorting/Blackmailing them for political support, silence or even physical support I'm right behind. I just don't see them as willing to go stealing from other similarly positioned families. They may be classic mob tactics, but these men believe themselves to be the pinnacle of civilisation, not mere thugs. Murder is business, stealing is thuggery.

Voldemort is obviously a very complex character, and just because I describe him as a charming sociopath does not mean I am writing him off. No sociopath is the same, he just has the hallmarks of one; his disregard for others, and his ability to appear sincere for the purpose of manipulation.

Dumbledore is such a long bloody name, count your blessings and be glad I resisted the urge to short-hand Voldemort to Voldy. :awesome

I do like the picking off peers notion, I wonder if his application to the Hogwarts staff was part of this? Surely he would have had an easier time offing Dumbledore if he lived in Hogwarts with the man?

 

I think from DH we can assume he meant to rule over them. Magic is Might, and all.


What I'm not sure about is the Muggle sentiments being "held over" from Grindelwald. It seemed to me that both he and Riddle were picking up on and utilizing sentiments that already existed, ones that may have already been well-entrenched in the international communities they sought to dominate.

 

I don't understand what Voldemort's motivations are at all. The only conclusion I can come to is that he has been a sociopath/psychopath since he was a child. But that's quite dissatisfying. He wants absolute power because... he wants absolute power?

Also in terms of his initial followers, he may have made a impression at Hogwarts and impressed or manipulated a lot of people. But after that he went to work at Borgin and Burkes and then went travelling. That would cause most people to lose interest in him. I can only imagine that he lost the interest of people that actually went on to hold power. Voldemort had no intention of playing their political game or getting a job, therefore they saw no reason to work with him. This could be a strong reason for why even after over a decade the war was still going - he lost all his initial followers (he would want the world to permanently lose them too, in order to hide his origins). He would have to replace them, but it would be difficult to replace them with respected, powerful, older wizards. So he had to work with younger ones a lot more. A lot of that time was probably spent gaining momentum.

If don't understand why he is forced to announce himself at all. His preparations were complete as you say, so there is no problem.

But, his preparations weren't complete - he still hadn't made the 7th horcrux after decades. He didn't need to start anything after he lost the interview. Why didn't he make his final horcrux before starting his campaign?

Perhaps he was distracted with finding a suitable object for his final horcrux during the war as well.


When I first read Taure's explanation of what happened, I really liked it. In particular, I liked how Voldemort killed off his competition (and eventually in one big explosion). That explains how Voldemort succeeded so rapidly during the second war - there was no one left to fight him, no one with sufficient political experience or magical power.

 

The issue with someone like Voldemort is you cannot really know if he actually believes his own propaganda, or if he just considers it a useful tool.

I admit that that is true only if you attempt to read into the character in more depth, upon a shallow reading he's merely a very powerful/learned pureblood supremacist with an unparalleled fear of death who commands his minions through fear and intimidation.

We really don't know who exactly supported Grindelwald, it seems to me that his base is likely to be far wider than Voldemort's, given that he very nearly had Dumbledore on-side. His philosophy of ruling muggles for their own good would surely appeal to quite a large proportion of the society we see in the books.

Even the likes of Hagrid and the Weasleys could be swayed, given their ignorance of muggles and assumption of the superiority of magic. That is not to say they dislike muggles, quite the contrary. If they could be convinced that it was the duty of the magicals to protect the muggles from themselves, I can see an awful lot of well meaning pure/half-bloods joining the cause, perhaps even some muggleborns.

More extreme purebloods would be happy to go along with this line if it meant they got to lord it over the filthy muggles.

My point is that this position of 'doing what's best for them whether they like it or not' (The Greater Good) probably became an unpopular position to hold in the years after the war. There may even have been a political backlash, increased muggle/muggleborn rights, for example. Such a change in the way the wind was blowing would be sure to rile the more extreme anti-muggle factions and left them ripe for recruitment by Voldemort and his far more extreme philosophy.

It is difficult. We know he tried to take power (and succeeds), but we don't know what his long term plans actually were. We know that he greatly fears death, but has his work with Horcruxes scratched that itch, as it were. Or is the take-over an attempt to place him in an unassailable position to further cement his grasp on life?

We see him weeding out muggleborns, if he had managed that, would he have moved on to half-bloods? Would he have actually tried to control the Muggles? A difficult task indeed given the way the muggle government is run. Maybe he would have tried to destroy the muggles, an even more difficult task I think. Or perhaps he would simply be content with ruling a pureblooded society completely closed from muggles and muggleborns, with new muggleborns either ignored or killed.

That is interesting, though I admit I can't see Voldemort throwing away such useful contacts. Certainly he'd look to replace his old school friends, as he doesn't want anyone with substansive knowledge of his past running around, but I think he'd want to make sure he didn't need them before he discarded them.

Remember that his shade says he was using the name Voldemort even when at school amongst his close friends, if he had been forced to start from scratch accumulating followers after his period of study surely he would have shed the name as a last unneeded connection to his past?

My preferred assumption is simply that repeated splitting of the soul leaves it unstable (I think this is canon-ish, Dumbledore says something to that effect concerning the 1981 Halloween), and thus he was required to leave significant time between his later Horcrux creation rituals as his soul became progressively less stable. Given the downtime he was required to take between Horcruxes, Voldemort decided to get his other plans moving too, reasoning that he was still immortal, even if he didn't have his desired 7 fragments.

Does anyone have a link to that thread? I've done a search through Taure's post history and come up empty, my search-fu is obviously weak.

 

Well, now you're asking a different question.

I was answering your question about whether he meant to rule over or exterminate Muggles. From the statues in the Ministry he ran, and the presence of Muggles in the world after his victory without any news of mass genocides taking place, despite his open campaign of terror, he meant not to exterminate all of them but to rule over them as an underclass.

Now you're wondering whether or not he truly "believed" in that course of action, and I would say that since he followed it, he believed in it enough for it to matter. But we really don't know.

 

What I'm saying is that he didn't actually get far enough to prove it one way or the other, he was seemingly still consolidating his power within wizarding society. He wasn't about to begin doing anything about muggles until he was sure that his position in the wizarding world was completely secure.

So the fact that muggles exist after his fall doesn't really prove anything, and, as I said, the statue is just as much propaganda as was the Fountain of Magical Brethren. We can hardly take it as proof of intent.

What's more the whole 'rule the muggles as an underclass' may have been planned, but not the end goal. It's really rather messy, from his point of view. Muggles are useless to him, why would he want to keep them alive when they provide him no benefit and could possibly even be a threat given the sheer numbers they have. The most sensible option for him would be to assume control quietly, create a panic (terrorists) to allow him to create a police state, then slowly start marginalising ethnic groups and 'removing' them until the population is at a manageable level.

 

Personally, I've always had this image in my mind of Voldemort showing up one evening at one of his old "friend's" house, unrecognizable because of the horcrux transformation but also because of the time passed (17 to what 30 years old?). I'm also thinking he probably marked them before going abroad.

Pureblood: Who are you?
Voldemort: Has it been so long you would have forgotten about me?
Pureblood: Voldemort... *shudder*

 

It's from an interview Rowling gave.

Its a bit ambiguous as to what she meant.

 

It seems quite clear to me. They were called the Knights of Walpurgis rather than the Death Eaters.

Taure's fanfic which I was referring to.

 

It might also mean that they were once called that it her notes, it doesn't necessarily confirm that it's what they called themselves.


EDIT: Though I suppose her saying that it's back story clarifies it, but it still remains kind of ambiguous as to the context in which it was used.