I don't mind literature (if you have a link, I'd appreciate it), but I'm guessing millions of Germans aren't going to read academic journals. But the academic stuff I've read seems detached and too focused on bragging to their colleagues (it seems to me, anyway), when I would rather know what the average man or woman thought, lived. I also don't know if the average anthropological academic left their nice office except to drink wine with their middle-class friends, thus probably not having their pulse on the people, but interestingly enough, their so-called expertise might influence people into thinking his/her reality in book format was what life was like.
Well, the average academic had a life, and a family, and a favorite bar. In fact, there's the journal of Agnčs Humbert that describes her everyday life under the Vichy regime. And of course, on the linguistic side, Victor Klemperer who was analyzing in real time the changes of German society under the dictatorship (there's a film on his work, actually, which I mentioned in the "documentaries" thread :
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0897265/ ).
But, as I said, the principle of anthropology, since 1918, is immersion. That is, living with the people whose voice and vision you aim to report, and not with the superficiality of a journalist, but long term, through the mutual confidence and understanding that only time and emotional investment can build (at the risk of losing yourself and "going native", which isn't bad in itself, but becomes personal and ditches the intended work). So yes, anthropology is all about, and uniquely, explicitly, ferociously about, the "pulse of the people". Be those people your neighbors from whatever club or current or corporation, or be them faraway members of some remote tribe. In fact, it's about seeing things simultaneously from within, and with the distant curiosity of a child or an alien (I've already used in a classroom the toilet scene of John Carpenter's
Starman to illustrate fieldwork, if it gives you an idea). In contrast, sociology is more about quantitative statistics, and broad pictures, but ethnology is more about qualitative studies, touching the meat of life (not sure how to phrase it). Not speculating about what people have in mind, but seeking it directly. Of course there are convergences (many sociologists would start shrieking in front of such a description of their work, some of them would be right, there's good "qualitative sociology").
But yes, the reports are then pretty often dry, technical and jargon-filled. Because indeed monographs are usually written for the peer (who else has the patience and curiosity to grasp another culture's outlook ? it's "work" after all), and because trying to sound objective and detached (not emotionally biased, and very cautious and self-aware by these biases) is the point. Style doesn't make it less informative, only less directly entertaining. It's only a matter of language, the described facts are just as fun and interesting whichever the words (sometimes, the detached scientific language makes it even funnier - I mean, try reading some of Erving Goffman's work on our public behaviors and keep a straight face, his professional clinical tone only makes us look more ridiculous in our everyday lives). And of course, some researchers (such as Nigel Barley) fully embrace the comedic aspects, and as such become more broadly readable. But usually, serious scientific questions (about human societies just as anything) get answered in a serious tone. And that's what science is : trying to be as objective and accurate as possible in a description.
Also, it's a jungle (of books, articles, etc). I haven't directly studied the matters that interest you, so, I don't have many sources at hand. I mentioned
Victor Klemperer (a hero of mine, but he's very focused on language, that's the angle through which he describes his society), and
Charlotte Beradt who risked her life to collect testimonies about dreams (what Germans were dreaming at night is a terrible window on their mental state during nazism). There's also
Christopher Browning's work on the "ordinary men" that constituted nazi death squads in 1942. There's collections of letters, written by members of the Wehrmacht (I have a book of them collected by a certain Marie Moutier, but it's all in french, I suppose equivalent works exist in English). And I just found a copy of
Timothy Mulligan's "Neither Sharks nor Wolves", a study of nazi submariners. I found
Daniel Schneidermann's extraordinary "Berlin 1933" quite enlightening about the general climate of the era, but its angle is the study of newspaper articles worldwide (it still tells a lot about how the rise of Hitler was perceived abroad), but it hasn't been translated to english as far as I know. Another fascinating book, in french, was
Pascal Ory's study on nazi comic books, which also indirectly hints at the cultural common sense of the era. And there's
Rudolph Herzog's studies about humor in Nazi Germany, which jokes were circulating, what the cabarets dared laughing about and how, etc.
It's all quite indirect, because we cannot send field anthropologists back in time. We do with what we have. But we also have a lot of direct biographical testimonies. For instance,
Karl Kraus had written a lot about his experience in Germany's nazi society, that's first hand testimony on people's discourses and behaviors. This may be more specifically what you're after. But it's one man's voice, you'll have to combine it with others.
Anyway, understanding the subjectivity of cultures and cultural moments is not an orphan endeavor. There's a whole science of people sharing this precise curiosity. And all the people who tried to grasp the mentalities and mindsets of totalitarian societies, a lot of whom have understood that the only valid approach is down-top, starting with the subjectivities of the involved individuals. There's nothing worse than speculating from outside, and just projecting what one would deem "logical" for another person to feel. Anthropology breaks this. But it's tough work, and can't be improvised, it's not about tourism, journalism or vox-pops.
My advice would be to... start with some of these sources ? Then dig into their own bibliographies at the end of the books ? Maybe explore a bit of "
sociology of nazism" and see if you find there something with the relevant approach ? It depends on how deep and far you mean to go. I tend to get a bit obsessive when an aspect of human life puzzles me too much.
Failing that, there's always fiction, even if it's a bit more dangerous, as it embraces imagination and invention. You never know what is well researched or what is pure speculation.
Philip Kerr's novels, for instance, take place in nazi germany, so, it does display a bit of its atmosphere. I wouldn't rely
too much on that, but it's still considered quality. So, there's that.