Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as "HUBRIS"
Review: At the outset of the first volume, "Hubris", Kershaw states that he would like to explain Hitler in the context of his sociological attachment to the German people. While "Hubris" achieves this goal brilliantly, "Nemesis" comes up a little short. While the book is extremely informative, the narrative becomes a documentary of the war itself instead of a social study. Kershaw outlines Hitler's military blunders during the eastern campaign very effectively. I would have liked to see more analysis on Hitler's relationship with Eva Braun (and women in general). Overall, there is a lot to learn in this book, and Kershaw is a great writer in that he presents the material in an easy to understand manner. However, while "Hubris" presents a context for the rise of Hitler, "Nemesis" comes up a little short in explaining how he held power.
Rating: 
Summary: Wood through the trees...?
Review: Firstly, let me say that Mr Kershaw has written a good book. If you are interested in the build up of the Nazi's from 1936, the preparations for war and the war itself, then it's definitly worth reading. In places, I couldn't help feeling it resemble THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH, with a little more detail. Mr Kershaw has obviously done extensive research. While he offers little new information, he does offer more detail and analysis of that information, but loses sight, in places, of the fact that the books is supposed to be about Hitler and not an account, neccessarily of WWII, which it does end up look more like. Perhaps the author felt that broadening the picture helps put Hitler into perspective...The book is well written, easy to understand, if a little hard in places. I wouldn't consider this to be "light" reading. How historically accurate, can anyone really know for sure? Certainly, worth reading...if you have the time.
Rating: 
Summary: Drier than a Martini - Whats the Hype?
Review: I expected much more. Dry and tedious, Mr. Kershaw pacts each page with wave after wave of flat, colorless data. Nothing new, and certainly no personality - but then that woud require creativity and daring - something histroians dare not undertake with repect to the subject of NAZI Germany. Lots of boring, lifeless information. Would like to see David McCullough tackle his subject...a la his "John Adams".
Rating: 
Summary: "Working towards the Fuehrer" and the "Final Solution"
Review: I found the book as one of the most significant works on National Socialism that has appeared in the last decade. I also regard it as one of the most important studies of the developments towards and the realisation of the "Final Solution", in which all social and political aspects are interwoven and its centrality in the National Socialist ideology and politics is clearly revealed in its destructive world historical significance. Within his innovating thesis on "Working towards the Fuehrer" Kershaw has succeeded in integrating both his primary most detailed research and his most important recently published monographs on the subject.
Within the limited scope of these notes I would like to dwell at least on a few principal points. The first is the exposition of the whole subject, Kershaw's thesis and methodology in the introductory chapter, "1936: Hitler Triumphant". It is a masterly presentation of a historiographical concept and a methodological approach which is characteristic for the entire book. Although the point of departure is Hitler's person and the political dimension, foreign and internal, all the main areas and subjects that shaped the Third Reich form the background for this presentation: Politics, society, economy, the elites, the resistance from below, the question of opposition from within the regime, the churches and the "Kirchenkampf", the broad plebiscitary support of the Fuehrer, and last but not least, Hitler's radical antisemitism, which was widely shared in its various forms by different sections of society. In all these descriptions of the general euphoria the signs of imminent and, indeed, inevitable radicalisation are clearly marked in Hitler's concepts.
I wish to concentrate particularly on the subject of ...[the policy for] the "Final Solution". In this respect, I would like to point out the way in which Kershaw explores the "Marks of a Genocidal Mentality" in chapter 3 on the eve of the "Reichskristallnacht" and after. The detailed investigation of the manifold signs of radicalisation in the attitude towards the Jews and the mounting expressions for "annihilation" in the various sources is wisely summarised in the conclusion: "This was not a preview of Auschwitz and Treblinka. But without such a mentality Auschwitz and Treblinka would not have been possible." (p. 152). This sentence and the analysis of Hilter's abstract intentions, "how the war would bring about the destruction of the Jews", might be regarded as a final answer and a way out of the tiring and sterile historiographical dispute on intentionalist, structuralist, etc., explanations.
I see a similar methodological achievement in his analysis in chapter 8, "Designing a 'War of Annihilation'", of the intertwined genocidal intentions with the preparations for and launching of the war against the "Jewish Bolshevik menace" of the Soviet Union and its broad acceptance in this intertwined sense by all the elites and the masses of the future German participants in the war. ...The war in the East, which would decide the future of the Continent of Europe, was indeed Hitler's war. But it was more than that. It was not inflicted by a tyrannical dictator on an unwilling country. It was acceded to, even welcomed (if in different measure and for different reasons), by all sections of the German elite, non-Nazi as well as Nazi. Large sections of the ordinary German population, too, including the millions who would fight in lowly ranks in the army, would - once they had got over their initial shock - go along with the meaning Nazi propaganda imparted to the conflict, that of a 'crusade against Bolshevism'. The more ideologically committed pro-Nazis would entirely swallow the interpretation of the war as a preventive one to avoid the destruction of western culture by the Bolshevik hordes. They fervently believed that Europe would never be liberated before 'Jewish-Bolshevism' was utterly and completely rooted out. The path to the Holocaust, intertwined with the showdown with Bolshevism, was prefigured in such notions. The legacy of over two decades of deeply rooted, often fanatically held, feelings of hatred towards Bolshevism, fully interlaced with antisemitism, was about to be revealed in its full ferocity." The central, most tragic chapter, on "Fulfilling the 'Prophecy'" of the Final Solution (chap. 10) is a consequent continuation of the methodology in the two chapters that I mentioned above. Here, the figure of Hitler looms behind the dramatic developments more than previously, but again it is clearly demonstrated that there was no need for a special order for the Final Solution. It was "worked out" towards the Fuehrer in many ways by almost everyone involved. This methodology and these motives are present in all the following chapters of the dreadful drama up to the "Extinction" (chap. 17) and the "Epilogue".
Another most remarkable achievement of Kershaw's book I found in the combination of its scientific character and literary style. Almost every sentence or passage in it is based on direct quotation of, or reference to, the relevant source, or specific research literature. The attached scientific apparatus itself extends to the size of almost a third of the book. And yet, the impressive, thoughtful, and dramatic literary style of the whole narration makes the reading of the book - if I may say so, regarding its subject - an exciting literary experience. Last but not least, it is the personal humanistic approach, which is always present in Kershaw's narrative and assessments, somewhere between personal moral engagement and strict scientific detachment.
Rating:
Summary: hhhhiiiiitttttllllllleeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Review: i read the first volume of this biography with more interest in the small details in which i wasnt familiar, like how he rose to power! however, the second volume being reviewed here went into too much detail about Hitler from the Munich peace agreement. Nine years in about 600 pages was a little redundant especially if you were already well versed in WW2 and Hitlers life story. I think Kershaw could have worked harder and made his book much more interesting to delve into and not want to put down! Unfortunately, I put it down half way through. Kershaw is praised for the task he accomplished and maybe will consider writing a one volume, more easily read version of Hitler's life and the effects it had on Western civilization. in the mean time his 2 volume biography is the definitive reference about Adolf Hitler in the early 21st Century!
Rating:
Summary: Nothing new
Review: I read this book hoping for some greater enlightenment about Adolf Hitler, his life, and times. There is nothing new in this book that has not been covered in about a hundred others biographies. I will not go so far as to say this is a "bad" book. That it is certainly not. However, if you are already well read regarding Adolf Hilter you will find nothing new in these pages.
Rating:
Summary: I couldn't give it 5 stars ....
Review: I was tempted to give it 5 stars only because of its sheer length (over 1400 pages when the 2 biographies are combined), its copious footnoting, and its obvious "scholarliness." And it was certainly a good biography, which I would recommend. But despite all that, I had a few problems with it, some trivial and some not: 1. I found the book to be both overinclusive and underinclusive. I mean the former in the sense that the lens of the author was so tightly focused on Hitler and Hitler only that it seems as if Hitler's every utterance, every thought, and every movement was included. The problem with this is that so many of Hitler's thoughts and sayings were repetitive that we didn't need to be advised each of the umpteenth times they occured. The author was also repetitive in his own right. For example, how often did we read the following? (10? 20? 100? In any case, TOO MANY.) 1. Hitler was determined that there would be no repeat of 1918. 2. Hitler insisted on a military success before any talk of settlement. 3. Hitler had an "either-or" way of thinking with no middle ground. 4. Hitler refused to capitulate. 5. Whenever anything went wrong, Hitler looked for scapegoats upon whom to case the blame. 6. Hitler felt the Jews and Bolsheviks were the root of all evil. 7. Hitler felt that Gemany's fortunes would turn around as soon as new weapons were developed. 8. Hitler felt betrayed by his generals. 9. Hitler ordered [fill in appropriate geographic area which was being wiped out the Allies] to be held at all costs. 10. By doing X [especially if it's something nasty against the Jews], Mr. Y was "working towards the Fuhrer". 11. The little phrases used over and over such as "pushing at an open door". By about the 5th time I read each of these sentiments, I got the point. I didn't need to be advised another 20 times. I think that one of the "dirty little secrets" of Hitler's life is that, once the war started to go sour--say after the failure of Operation Barbarossa--his life was not only unchanging but also not all that interesting. It was just one straight downward path culminating in his ultimate suicide. It seemed as if there were no ups and downs after 1942--it was just straight down. For that reason, I feel that the second half of the book could have been shortened significantly with virtually no loss in understanding Hitler the man. But just as I felt the book was overinclusive in terms of the author's steadfast focus on Hitler, it was also underinclusive in terms of how little attention was paid to various major events during the war. I recognize that the book was not about Nazi Germany per se and it is not called "Hitler and his times", but couldn't the author have devoted more than a few sentences to major events such as: The Warsaw Ghetto uprising? The British decoding efforts? The concentration camps? D-Day? Yalta? These events were almost completely ignored. Finally, one trivial--but for me annoying--trait of the book--was the author's constant translation of words, phrases and sentences into German. What exactly did this add to the book? That the author knows German? That the Nazi leaders spoke in German and not in English? What was the point?? He could have knocked off 20 pages right there. I was particularly annoyed with the translation of "annihilate" to vernichten. It must be no exaggeration to say that we are given that little translation at least 50 times (particularly if you include the offshoots such as "annihilation" which are also helpfully translated for us). Did the author not feel that the first 10 times were sufficient? Also, on some occasions, we are told that "vernichten" means "annihilate", while on several other occasions, we are told it means "destroy." I don't know about German, but for my money, those words may be--but are not necessarily--synonymous. Don't get me wrong--the book is a real achievement and "as I noted" (to use another of Kershaw's pet phrases without the royal 'we'), I would recommend it. I just think it could have been a little better.
Rating:
Summary: The ultimate biography. A splendid book, can't be missed.
Review: I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wishes to read about Hitler's life. I would suggest, though, that this book is read after having read the first part by the same author (1889-1936 Hubris). I had not read any books on Hitler before, and I am extremely glad that I have chosen this one, as I can't imagine others to be better. The only thing which could be improved is the description of WWII which is sometimes lacking details, but after all this is Hitler's biography, not a WWII history book. The two books are a splendid account of the dictator's life, which should not be missed by anyone.
Rating:
Summary: spellbinding biography of a madman
Review: I've read many a book about World War II, but this is one of the very best. Kershaw's first volume ("Hubris") was an outright biography, with the beginnings of the Nazi era in Germany, and that was interesting enough. "Nemesis" is on another level altogether. (You can tell that the author is British. No American historian or biographer would dare to put such titles on his books: Hubris is the pride that destroys, and Nemesis is the fate that destroys the proud.) It is at once the story of a man and the nation he led to ruin, a short history of the war and especially the calamitous Eastern Front, and a study of how the Houlocaust came to be. I can't recommend this book too highly. Buy it and read it, if you have any hope of understanding the most monstrous regime of the 20th century, if not the entire history of mankind. Then, when you're done, go back and read the first volume. -- Dan Ford
Rating:
Summary: The Best Biography to Date....Period!
Review: Ian Kershaw's "Hitler" is the best biography on Hitler...period! Is it perfect? No. The first volume was more personal and probably a little better than the second. The second gets a little too caught up in the war. There is some neglect of Hitler's very personal relationships with Magda Goebbels, Winifred Wagner, Eva Braun etc. But, Hitler's almost daily decisions during the war years are wonderfully covered as are his relationships with the military leaders and Nazi Party chiefs surrounding him. His grand vision for a new Reich is amply detailed and Hitler the man and the leader is well presented. His strategic military thinking is also well covered. His responsibility for the elimination of the Jews and others in Europe is well documented. All in all, a grand effort. We are fortunate to have these volumes...Fest is great, but not as new or comprehensive. Bullock doesn't measure up...not even close. John Toland...no. Colin Cross, forget it. While it is always a good idea to read a number of authors, if you are going to own just one biography...this is the one.
|
