> If you read the article, it's ideologically consistent - the main motivation in abandoning Fraktur was strategic (i.e. military), not ideological.

But that isn't quite what it says either. Pragmatic considerations may have given the decisive push, but it seems that Gothic script had always been in a precarious position on the faultline between the archaising and modernising instincts of Naziism. The specific tall story that was eventually presented about how it was Jewish was quite clearly a low-effort post-hoc justification, but it seems it was always quite easy to take an anti-Fraktur stance from a Nazi perspective: see A. Hiedler, op. cit. And even just going on the small extract provided from that Reichstag speech https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/luftwaffe... , it seems that Hitler's objections weren't just pragmatic: before he gives a practical reason to drop Fraktur, he attacks Gothic revivalism in general on aesthetic grounds, no small matter to the Nazis. My assumption is that his objection to Gothic revivalism was based partly on a general aesthetic instinct that too much revivalism is cosplay and naff; and partly on a disapproval of medieval Germany specifically as a model or claimed precursor for Nazi Germany, for various reasons. A possible third, type-specific, factor, mentioned in https://penelope.uchicago.edu/encyclopaedia_romana/luftwaffe... , is that compared to "Atiqua" "Fraktur" looks vaguely kinda more Hebrew-ish. That could plausibly have been the underlying sentiment behind the (apparently completely false and baseless https://worldcrunch.com/culture-society/nazi-typeface-fraktu... ) story spun about Jewish printers in Schwabach.