Rating: 
Summary: Engrossing
Review: If you are interested at all in the subject of this book, this is an indispensable work. I do not consider myself a serious student of history, but I thoroughly enjoyed this highly readable account of Hitler's life up to 1936. In my opinion two factors raise this book above other Hitler biographies I have read. First, Kershaw's writing is just superb, objective without being too dry. Second, his use of relatively new sources of information (i.e. Goebbels diary), all sources well documented. It is not a perfect book, certainly gaps remain in our knowledge of just how Hitler went from a man living on the streets of Vienna to the all powerful dictator of the modern German state. However, I think Kershaw has gone further in answering some of the questions than anyone else to this point.
Rating: 
Summary: Why?
Review: I have read half a dozen biographies of this lunatic, still looking for the definitive one. This is not it, but apparently the definitive bio hasn't been written yet and won't be.The key question has got to be why this vicious moron hated the Jews. Anyone can guess, but a good biography should know. Nobody does. There are plenty of guesses out there. This book does shed light on why the German people treated the Jews as they did. The Jews were a disliked and defenseless minority. Bullies aren't out looking for a true test of manhood and courage. They like to outnumber their victims, and to find victims who are unable to effectively fight back. That is why most attacks by Germans against Jews featured anywhere from 3 to 1,000 young German males attacking an old Jewish woman. A more accurate term for bullies would be bully-cowards. It would have been more impressive if lone Germans attacked groups of 3 to 1,000 Jewish men. No such luck. Ian Kershaw lets us in to a world that once existed, where Germans acted with cruelty or indifference towards their fellow human beings. It is utterly sickening.
Rating:
Summary: Recommended reading.
Review: Although I'm not particularly fond of Kershaw's style of writing, his book is full of some really important facts and detailed accounts of the most important events in Hitler's early life. I especially enjoyed the author's insights on the 1923 Putsch. "Hubris" is a key volume on the subject of Adolf Hitler and belongs on the shelf (alongside many other greats) of any true student of this fascinating period in history.
Rating:
Summary: My Review, Part III
Review: On the second question (ie. how do we understand Hitler better after reading this book), the biography seems even more admirable. It seems likely that this will actually be the lasting contribution of the work to our understanding of Hitler, rather than in its approach to the historical context. The reader gets a clear picture of the tensions between Hitler and, variously, his father, his schoolteachers, the Vienna Academy of Art (for which he failed to pass the entrance examination). It also is made transparent how the soldier Hitler made his way through the end of World War I into a civilian world in which he, despite loathing it, was able to escape from the earlier disappointments and cul-de-sacs which had so frequently characterised his youth. In terms of personal development, it can perhaps be argued that there is little point in analysing Hitler beyond the 1920s, for two reasons: first, that his personality traits were well-established by this time; and, second, that as leader he used different personalities according to political purposes, so that it is difficult to reliably discern what his 'true' nature really was. If this is true, then - despite its relative insignificance in terms of national and international politics - the earlier period covered by this work is actually the more important in terms of enhancing our knowledge of Hitler.
A number of photographs come with the work, mostly of Hitler and the immediate circle around him. (Perhaps the pick is a photograph of Hitler, circa late World War I, sporting a very foppish-looking handlebar moustache, and looking particularly odd.) Despite looking at them closely many times, they still seem to retain a curiously elusive air, as if not just their time, but also their main subject, are not capable of easy comparisons with the people and times in which they are now examined. In this light, although Ian Kershaw's work perhaps leaves unanswered more than it resolves, it is nonetheless meticulously-researched and comprehensive. It is a more than worthy addition to the many existing works on the German dictator, and may well provoke a rethinking of many tenets previously unchallenged in this area.
Rating:
Summary: My Review, Part II
Review: In the Nazi party's eventual seizure of power, some significant questions are raised over the motives and methods of leading statesmen of the day, chiefly Papen, Schleicher and Hindenburg. It is suggested that these men and those around them were - directly and indirectly - responsible for Hitler's ascent to Chancellor in 1933. First, they weakened the German system of parliamentary democracy, principally by the frequent invoking of emergency decrees which granted draconian powers to the executive. Second, having largely removed the democratic basis of German government, they impatiently chose to resolve a political impasse by installing Hitler as Chancellor, when other options were available. Once installed in government, of course, the Nazi party went on the rampage to such effect that, 6 months after Hitler accepted the Chancellorship, no other parties existed in Germany. A year later, Hitler was additionally to assume the Presidency upon Hindenburg's death, having - during the intervening period - murdered his political opponents on the 'Night of Long Knives'. In these later events, he was strongly supported by the only German body still wielding an alternative power base; namely, the Reichswehr.
Der Fuhrer had, by this time, achieved near to absolute power within Germany. However, so it goes, the majority of his triumphs were not principally due to his own will, but rather to those of others. A biography, by its nature, can rarely be a story of one man alone. Indeed, to tell one man's story completely, it is also necessary to recount - at least in part - stories of those people and events around him. Thus, it is possible to assess the contribution which a work of this genre makes to the existing literature by considering two questions. First, what does it contribute to understanding of the subject's historical context (with or without the subject included)? Second, what does it contribute to understanding of the subject himself, as far as this may be known? On the first question, Kershaw's biography is an admirable attempt to, as he puts it, "search out the social and political motivations which went into the making of Hitler." In this enterprise, he clearly seeks to downplay the particular contributions which Hitler made to this himself. It seems to this reviewer that he only partially succeeds in making this convincing. The pieces on Hitler's 1924 trial and imprisonment are masterfully and thoroughly written. They establish without doubt that a remarkably biased judiciary was responsible for Hitler, instead of being locked away in relative anonymity, being freed as a triumphant hero just in time to reunite a movement which had fragmented in his absence. Similarly, the Reichswehr's backing of Hitler in 1934 seems, even at the time, an incredibly short-sighted piece of strategic thinking, at best. However, other passages are less convincing. It is certainly the case that Hitler's rise to power during the 1920s was assisted by many sympathisers in important places, where a former Austrian corporal would have had little success without them in the still class-divided post-1918 Germany. However, as in the case of 'Putzi' Hanfstaengl, the Harvard-educated half-american who later became Hitler's press secretary, there was a reason for this. Hitler said things people wanted to hear and, more importantly, said it in a way they would not have thought possible. His ability as a propagandist was a quality which inspired many of those who heard him, and clearly transcended the actual meaning of his ideas (all of which had been put forward before). Paradoxically, therefore, establishing (as Kershaw does very effectively, at least prior to 1924) Hitler's theoretical unoriginality simply highlights the strength of his charismatic talents. A similar objection may be made to the characterisation of Hitler as an untraditional leader, late-rising, indolent and only rarely spurred into intervening in his own party. Although all of these are undoubtedly very close to the mark, and may or may not reflect favourably upon Hitler personally, these same characteristics were extremely effective in building up a cohesive political party during the late 1920s. Indeed, as Kershaw himself states, "by avoiding doctrinal dispute, and focussing all energies on the one goal of obtaining power, Hitler could - sometimes with difficulty- hold the (Nazi) party together." The point is, put bluntly, it is never possible to know the counterfactual in the social sciences. If Hitler had been a more "hands-on" leader, the party may have grown and assumed power even quicker than it ultimately did, and thence would have had more time to rearm during the 1930s. Equally, however, it may have simply fragmented under internal dissension, with Hitler losing his aura as the appointed "leader", above party and squabbling. It is not possible to know what, hypothetically, would have happened, only to guess. By contrast, it is clear that Hitler actually, by his deeds and words, had by 1936 been instrumental in both the creation of a mass movement and the complete outmanoeuvring of all political opponents. In these respects, he was able to succeed where others would not have and, in the process, change history.
Rating:
Summary: Boy, If We Keep Talking About This Guy...
Review: Interesting regurgitation of previously known facts on the life of the twentieth century's version of the Anti-Christ. Two things (interrelated) for the sake of fanticiful(?)argument stand out: 1) Suppose Hitler had been raised in a family of middle to upper income Bavarian civil servants/minor nobles as opposed to the poor man's version of Tyrolian/Austrian "Junkers". What might his anti-semitic sentiments (presuming axiomatically and historically they would have been of the garden variety class-based, Catholic - but distinctly anti-Czech/Slav Roman clerical -anti-plutocratic bent) have been like?
(i.e., is there something universally applicable about being born into the lower middle classes of a given nation that preternaturally gives rise to an internal obsession with class, economic, and social status vis-a-vis others of a distinct origin to the extent that one will resort to the extremes in ethnic villification and, in certain circumstances, genocide? And if so, why? Is it simply a matter of losing face with one's cultural contemporaries? Why does anti-semitism afflict the gentile mind so? Herrenvolken to the power of three (or more)? It appears that the problem is not with Jews, per se, but with the lower middle classes and their obsessions with status within their own socio/economic/racial context. Or perhaps they are merely history's squeaky wheel when economic conditions turn south? 2) Anglo/Irish academic David Cannadine has zealously recorded the twilight and decline of the British aristocracy throughout the inter-war years (and "Hitler" period) and has further intimated that John Bull's treatment of Indian, Egyptian, Kenyan, et al chieftain and caste nobilities within the Empire as near equals (while simultaneously looking upon Anglo-Saxon English middle-to-lower class unworthies as piddling nobodies) insulated Pax Britannica from attacks leveled against post-Weimar Germany regarding Teutonic race laws and class treatment. Hence the failure of British fascism under Mosley - despite support from numerous minor gentry. Might the Nazis have learned a lesson by extending the racial franchise BEYOND mischling? Sound impossible? Of course, they never had quite the overseas empire Victoria possessed nor continued the practice of primogeniture amongst the nobles, which in the British case,led to a desperate search overseas for kindred spirits once industrialization and plutocracy eroded the grandees local control. But again, Hitler's lower class origins made it difficult for him to traverse beyond the borders of provincialism, parochialism, and xenophobia and with no tangible overseas colonial network to fuel his imagination, ethnocentrism became his natural point of reference and, well, the rest is ignominious history...
Rating:
Summary: My Review Part I
Review: The starting point of any biography of Hitler might well be, as Sebastian Haffner in "The Meaning of Hitler" suggested, that of recognising the most striking of contradictions. How did this man, in whose life the first half was an unmitigated failure, rise in the second half to become the most infamous dictator of the century? Extrapolating this question brings further insight, for the road from 1918 (when Hitler was aged 28) to his eventual death (aged 56) in 1945 was by no means a smooth, unbroken ascent to power. Indeed, it is revealing to consider, variously, how a half-baked school dropout could turn into a charismatic speaker; how one so fundamentally misanthropic could become adored by millions; how one who made his reputation as a revolutionary would eventually outflank skilled parliamentarians; and finally, how a professional agitator and rabble-rouser could ascend to be the unchallenged leader of a huge 20th century nation. Ian Kershaw's biography partially explains these remarkable discrepancies by advancing a most important central thesis. Namely, the rise of Hitler owed far more to the deeds of others than to whatever abilities he possessed himself. This theme, which is emphasised, strongly and at length, throughout the book, informs all the key insights of Kershaw's work. To Kershaw, it is the post World War I officer corps, the Munich judiciary of the 1920s, the Bavarian and Weimar politicians of that era, the educated German classes of the early 1930s, who effectively smoothed the paths for Hitler to walk into power virtually untrammelled. Hitler himself is at times relegated to the role of a mere actor, on a national stage built and operated by others. The volume deals with the first 47 years of Hitler's life, between 1889 and 1936. The coverage is by no means chronologically even, however. The 30 years to 1918 are dealt with in all of 3 chapters (while the remaining 10 chapters cover Hitler's "political years" from 1919 to 1936.) This is probably necessary for at least 2 reasons: the paucity of (reliable) material extant from Hitler's early life; and, the obvious national and international significance of the later period. However, a clear picture emerges of the younger Hitler. As a youth, the pampered, indolent 'mother's boy' is apparent, living a lifestyle which is then quickly dispelled by vocational failure and financial destitution. Accordingly, it is as a failure that Hitler enters the German army in 1914, on the run from authorities in Austria and living a hitherto purposeless life. Interestingly, there is little evidence here of the ideology which he would later virulently employ, and claim (in Mein Kampf) to date back to his youth. Indeed, there is very little to suggest that Hitler ever had an original thought in his head before the end of World War I; even his notorious anti-semitism appears to post-date this period. After 1918, the early activities of Hitler are carefully analysed including a brief, and unlikely, period working as an army 'educator' for the Social Democrats (SPD). (This period is conveniently glossed over in Mein Kampf). It is to this period, too, that both Hitler's anti-semitism and discovery of his speaking abilities, are traced. Importantly, however, it is not through any organisational skills that he was able to rise to prominence in the then-embryonic Nazi party. Instead, it was only through patronage by a combination of his superior army officers and various Munich-based political organisers that he even was encouraged to speak further. The first vestiges of political talent were, however, shown in 1921, when Hitler temporarily resigned from the party in order to quickly return with absolute leadership authority.
In the years immediately leading up to the failed Nazi putsch of 1923, it is made abundantly clear, the level of political violence in Germany was so high as to almost be socially acceptable. This has to be borne in mind when thinking about Hitler's early political years: his organisation was one of many which eschewed parliamentary means and favoured direct, paramilitary-style violence, directed against political enemies and the state itself. Munich, in particular, was a hotbed of such violence; indeed, Hitler's 'revolution' is depicted as - far from being original - being hurriedly formed only to pre-empt a similar uprising, deeply supported by the Army, against the Federal Government. The putsch's ultimate failure is then, largely, ascribed to the lack of careful planning due to its hasty arrangement. Significant importance is ascribed both to the conduct of Hitler's trial, and to the 9 months he ultimately spent in Landsberg Prison, for his part in the 1923 treason. It is found that, largely owing to the reputation he had built up as a virulent nationalist and red-baiter, Hitler enjoyed the sympathies of many within both the judicial system and the civil service. As a result, he was first allowed to turn his trial into a platform for spreading propaganda on a large scale, and then significantly indulged while in Landsberg. Finally, in a decision which in hindsight appears to flout every legal principle, he was released almost 4 years before his sentence was due to elapse. This decision, which seems explainable only by the existence of Hitler's friends in high places, is said to be (with reason!) one which changed the course of history. After Hitler's release from Landsberg in 1924, prestige considerably enhanced, his attempts to build up the Nazi party during the years 1925-1929 are discussed. In this, as in the party's later period of government, Hitler's style is portrayed as being very different from his deeds. Although Hitler is increasingly becoming the hero, or even god, of the party, he plays little role neither in its formal administration nor even in its decision-making processes. Recruitment, in particular, is left to others within the party, with Hitler only rarely intervening to adjudicate upon serious intra-party personal or ideological quarrels.
Rating:
Summary: Springtime for Hitler 1
Review: The two part Ian Kershaw's biography of Adolph Hitler are separate but equal portions of the life of Adolph Hitler, not the most popular, attractive or marketable of personages to dedicate a two volume biography. Though each volume is capable of standing on its own, both should be read in sequence. The first volume, Hubris 1889-1936, deals with Hitler's origins, various incarnations, and initial rise to power in 1936. This volume ends with Hitler's controversial invasion of the Rhineland. The second volume, Nemesis: 1936-1945, immediately picks up where the first leaves off, and takes us through the escalating war to its inevitable conclusion just outside a bunker in Berlin within range of the Soviet's artillery. Throughout both, we walk uncomfortably close to Adolph Hitler, and his minions. The overall work takes us through Hitler's full life in astonishing and carefully researched detail, clarifying and confirming what we knew, but more importantly debunking myths and leaving open to speculation events still without a definitive resolution. Where the author doesn't know and is forced to guess based upon what he does know, the reader is clearly informed. This is not often the case in many biographies and is a credit to this work. Throughout, the reader will come away with a sense of the "history as close-call," as Hitler approaches total failure and obscurity several times only to move on to what will become his fateful destiny for both himself and the world. Like a good novel the author allows us to speculate on our own on what might have been if for example, Hitler had been admitted to the school of architecture in Vienna. The author builds suspense and drama throughout. The second longer volume is a quicker and easier read, despite the occasionally gruesome subject matter. Nemesis takes us methodically through World War II. We are there for every decision, every triumph, and every failure. The slow unfolding of the war and the eventual turn of the tide against Germany is developed again with a keen sense of drama. The author develops the narrative as if we don't know what's going to happen next or how it will all end and does a fine job of it. As one might expect, both volumes require a large emotional investment. But it is worth it if you are to understand much about where we are today and how we got here. If you were to ask yourself before you read these works and after, what shaped the twentieth century, you might very well arrive at two very different answers. It is often interesting to speculate on how the world would look today if there had been no Hitler. Fortunately the author spares us that speculation. Many biographies to detriment stray from the subject matter to dwell on the peripheral matters with only remote ties to the subject matter. Not so here, the author rarely cuts way from his Hitler himself and even then only briefly. Very quickly we are back at Hitler's side watching over his shoulder or through the eyes of those around him. The author binds us to Hitler throughout making it clear that it is not always comfortable or safe to be in the room when Hitler loses his temper. The Kershaw freely admits it was never his intent to write a biography of Hitler, and he is not enamoured of his subject. He takes an odious subject and brings it to life. This makes for an interesting well written, but ultimately disturbing biography of the man of the century.
Rating:
Summary: A clear-eyed appraisal of evil
Review: Kershaw's two-volume biography of Adolf Hitler is, as the New York Times review suggests, likely to serve as the touchpoint for academic discussion of Hitler's character and ideology for a generation. That achievement is due to Kershaw's diligence in walking a fine line emotionally and morally with respect to the treatment he accords the subject of this book. Writing a biography of Hitler that manages to confine one's total loathing for the man and everything he represented is a difficult task. Yet, Kershaw does exactly this, appraising every act of Hitler's, especially once he becomes Reichschancellor, with balance. Adolf Hitler evokes a very visceral response in most Americans and Europeans, usually one of outright hatred and revulsion. It is important, though, to understand how much of the Third Reich was Hitler's creation and how much was created in his name. Hitler as a politician was a rabble-rouser, a fiery campaigner whose sole talents consisted of brilliant public speaking and an almost Svengali-like penchant for interpersonal relationships on a brief surface level. Hitler himself realized from the start how limited his intellect and personality were, and was honest and aboveboard about it during the early days of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Kershaw describes a young man ill at ease with himself and the rest of the world, an estrangement that would manifest itself in fanaticism and hatred as his political career progressed and Hitler himself came to believe in his own mystique. Kershaw's most salient points in this volume are two-fold: Adolph Hitler could never have come to power without the political miscalculations of an entire generation of German politicians; and the contours of Nazi Germany were shaped less by Hitler's personal fiat than they were by his underlings, who used Hitler's obvious disinterest in public policy and administrative detail to carve out power centers for themselves. Of the two, the latter is the more important revelation, because it ties the decentralized nature of power in Nazi Germany into the pre-Weimar political structure of the German state, which also lacked a formal arrangement of areas of responsibility and limits of authority between the various organs of the state. In the end, Kershaw's Hitler is a man who doesn't even bother to create a three-dimensional life for himself off-stage. He is a bully and a blusterer in a culture that respects those qualities at a time when its standing has been badly battered by losing a world war. Other than that, Adolf Hitler remains somewhat elusive, not because his is an enigmatic nature, but because he himself is far less than the sum total of the hopes that Germans placed in him. Hitler's humble opinion of himself in the early Twenties gave way as events led him to the top of the feeding chain. But it never lost its validity as self-judgment. Germany led by Hitler who had jettisoned that humility in favor of megalomania was inevitably doomed to destruction.
Rating:
Summary: Adolf Hitler; a lazy bohmien who got too much power
Review: This book gives you an idea how a low-educated person with a lazy attitude gets in control of political Germany. It is written chronologically and in the end it becomes very obvious what happens in Germany. German society becomes more radical and Hitler does not have to do anything but stir up the masses (or better, the people who believed in him like he did in himself). The book not only is about Hitler, but about the history of the Nazi party and the way German people thought about their own history. It is evident that Hitler was on his way to war, unfortunately people at the time thought he had a more peacefull attitude. This is a good book to read if you want to know a lot about pre war Germany and its political history and has a lot of interrsting facts
|
