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: 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: A Self-Hating, Biased Account of the Nazi Dictator
Review: Ian Kershaw, an English historian and academic, has written the second volume of his biography of the Nazi Dictator. Unfortunately, it is hard to see what this book adds to our knowledge of Hitler that was not already presented in previous accounts by Bullock, Toland, Fest, Keegan and Flood. Kershaw's account relies heavily on Josef Goebbel's diary and the post-war accounts of other close Hitler cronies; unfortunately their self-serving and self-deceptive views do not clarify Hitler, they obscure him. However the biggest flaw of this account is the subtle but pervasive bias throughout. Kershaw states up front that he detests Hitler but is obviously fascinated by his career. Later, Kershaw concludes that Hitler was "an ill-educated beerhall demagogue and racist bigot". While true, it is an incomplete description. Yet for Kershaw it is enough and he uses this account to paint a portrait of Hitler almost as a self-destructive fool who was incapable of seeing reality. Not only Hitler, but the Third Reich, the Whermacht itself, most of the generals and even the German people seem pretty incapable and fatalistic here. Nowhere is Kershaw's account more biased than in his account of wartime operations. German successes are minimized, the campaigns in Poland, France, Norway and the Balkans get one page or less each. Kershaw attempts to chide the German Navy by stating that the cruiser Blucher was sunk "by a single shell from an ancient coastal battery". In fact, the cruiser was hit by two 11", thirteen 6", thirty 57mm shells and two torpedoes and despite this loss, the Germans still took Oslo. On the other hand, Allied disasters are totally ignored. Kershaw portrays Hitler's anguish over the loss of the Bismarck (mistakenly identified as a "pocket battleship"), but fails to mention the loss of HMS Hood. Hitler triumphs, like the glider assault on Fort Eban Emael or the sinking of HMS Royal Oak in Scapa Flow are ignored. Allied defeats, like Kasserine Pass or Gazala, do not appear in these pages. Later in the war, he notes the "ceaseless bombing that the Luftwaffe was powerless to prevent," while ignoring the fact that the Luftwaffe in fact dealt the Royal Air Force night bombers severe setbacks in early 1944. Arnhem is described as "heavy fighting," no mention of the virtual destruction of the British 1st Airborne Division. The Ardennes Offensive is described only in negative terms, no mention of the surrender of most of the US 106th Division or the initial panic all the way back to Eisenhower. On the eastern front, it is much the same. Kershaw states about Operation Barbarossa, "in retrospect, it seems sheer idiocy" and says that, "Hitler's best strategy in autumn 1940 would have been to sit tight and await developments". It is hard to see what developments might have occurred to help Germany after 1941, and Hitler was certainly aware of this. Kershaw then claims that Barbarossa failed in July 1941! Absolutely ridiculous. The 1942 Case Blue strategy is described as "sheer lunacy". Certainly Barbarossa and Blue had over-optimistic objectives with inadequate resources, but "idiocy" and "lunacy" are certainly inappropriate descriptions. Kershaw ignores the fact that both offensives gained most of their objectives and had the Germans stopped to consolidate in time and been more flexible about retreats, then both offensives would have ended up as net gains for Germany. Kershaw, like many other historians, directs intense criticism toward Hitler's intervention in military operations. To be sure, Hitler's mistakes in 1943-1945 cost Germany dearly. However, this doesn't give the reader a balanced view for two reasons. First, Hitler's interventions that were led to success are ignored. The glider attack on Fort Eban Emael was Hitler's idea, but is not mentioned. Nor are Hitler's orders to modify and enhance the German Panzer Arm in 1940-1 covered here, although they might show where Hitler was ahead of the "technical expert" (in fact, there were some real dunces in the German ordnance bureau). On the second count, Kershaw ignores the disastrous interference of other wartimes leaders like Churchill and Stalin. Churchill badly hurt the British war effort by diverting forces to Greece in 1941, then Singapore in 1942, then ordering a "no retreat" from Tobruk and later diverting RAF Bomber Command to bomb political rather than strategic targets. Stalin's stupidity in 1941 cost the Soviet Union 3 million men through "no retreat" tactics, and then thousands more in early 1942 in premature offensives. Furthermore, modern American presidents have involved themselves with micromanagement in military affairs that Hitler would never have dreamed of: Johnson had a terrain model of Khe Sanh built in the White House in 1968 and he attempted to direct units down to company level! The Kosovo War in 1999 allowed leaders to direct individual aircraft or missiles. Furthermore, the loathing and distrust that Hitler felt for his generals was echoed in 1968 and 1999 by US presidents who did not trust their military advisors. A less biased author might have been able to note that Hitler's interference was neither unique or wholly inimical. By the end, it is apparent that this is a very flawed and biased account. Even murderers like Hitler deserve an honest account but Kershaw does not deliver that. Hitler was evil but he was also tinged with genius (Kershaw would say it was gambler's luck) and charisma, and he was also genuinely popular in Nazi Germany. The fact that a man from such a meager background could rise to control not only Germany but much of Europe is still staggering. So yes, he was "an ill-educated beerhall demagogue and racist bigot" as Kershaw describes, but he was also a lot more than that. He was a man who had the ability to rise from obscurity to threaten the entire human race with his evil vision. However in a self-hating account such as this, Hitler appears little more than a whimsical dreamer.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding concluding volume of Hitler biography.
Review: Mr Kershaw concludes his biography of Adolf Hitler with this volume covering the period of Hitler's greatest successes and ultimate defeat. As before Mr Kershaw tells the story in a way that is accessible to the general reader, but provides many footnotes and a bibliography for those who are interested in more details. While the course of events from 1936 to 1945 is familiar to many readers, Kershaw provides new insights in many areas - including the relationship between Hitler and the Army leadership, the internal administration of the Reich, and the beginning of the Holocaust. One item of interest (among many) is the connection between the creation of the death camps in occupied Poland and the failure of the 1941 campaign against the Soviet Union. "Hubris" and "Nemesis" together are an authoritative biography of Adolf Hitler. For those who are interested in Hitler's life and times, I strongly recommend both volumes.
Rating:
Summary: And now you know...
Review: Right smack in the middle of the second volume is perhaps the most important revelation of all, the one all logical-thinking readers should take to heart. Kershaw writes that Hitler hated Christianity, that he wanted to wage war on the Christian churches once living space in the east had been taken from the Soviets. In a single paragraph, Kershaw shows the chilling similarity between Hitler and the modern left: Hitler banned religious symbols and prayer from public German schools.
There is much more information in the second volume than this, of course. The war years, with explanations of what the Jews went through during the Holocaust, are filled with much important information, notably how Hitler fired one general after another as the end rapidly drew to a close, in a last desperate attempt to blame Germany's ruin on anyone other than himself. But this volume, taken with the first, should leave no doubt in the mind of the reader as to the true nature of the left.
It could be argued, I think, that a move too far to the right would result in one of two unacceptable choices: chaos, or mob rule. A move too far to the left, however, always results in a singe unacceptable option, which is of course the only option left other than revolt: totalitarianism. The essential problem with Hitler, it turns out, is the same with any leftist ruler: he thought he knew what was best, and asserted his will by force. With Kershaw's excellent writing, it should be clear by the final chapter of the second volume why it is never a good idea to abandon representative government, backed by the willful self-governance of the people.
Hitler is exposed for what he was: a leftist, an anti-Christian, a collectivist, and a eugenecist. These two volumes are indispensable to anyone who cares about the republic in which they live.
Rating:
Summary: "When You Lose, You Lose Alone"
Review: The Fall: In this second of two volumes, historian Ian Kershaw shows how Hitler after his initial stunning successes in the 1930s finally over-reached himself, became responsible for the deaths of millions of people, and eventually destroyed a country, his movement, and himself. Again, as in the first volume, the prose is workmanlike, without emotion or flash. The annotations are extensive. The story is cautionary.
Rating:
Summary: Outstanding writing
Review: The skill needed to transform events into a good read whilst maintaining perspective and providing a balanced judgement from the evidence now available to scholars is clearly one of Professor Kershaw's strengths. This is an excellent biographical history to read in conjunction with social, economical and military histories of Germany in the 20th Century. I am a general reader and found this more than a worthy companion to the first, unfolding as it does, like some great Wagnerian Opera yet, full of telling detail to make the events sickenly vivid and memorable. In brief, I recommend it because:
* it is brilliantly written
* it had access to diaries previously unavailable
* it provides perspective regarding the significance of events - Dunkirk was strategically much more important than I otherwise knew - the Battle of Britain less so - the Russian campaign seminally important
* it provides strategic analysis
* it provides vivid detail - a local enthusiast in Lithuania clubbed to death 50 Jews in 45 minutes then hopped up on to the pile of corpses and played his accordian (p.464)
* it reminds us of events such as Babi-Yar where 33,771 (mainly)women and children were butchered
* it shows why Hitler did not destroy Athens
* it shows how Stalin's deportation East of one million German-Volgas helped to galvanize action regarding the final solution.
Rating: 
Summary: Where's the beef?
Review: There're no insights, no relevations on the Reich. Only recycled hash dresse up as new findings. The book fully reveals the shallow and inconsequential scholarship, if any, of Ian Kershaw as an academic historian. More suited as an agitator or propagandist.
Rating:
Summary: Nothing new
Review: This book is not only the definitive biography of Hitler but also an excellent history text of this time period. Few, if any books on Hitler are readable--this one will keep your interest from the first page to the last. The documentation is beyond belief--over 200 pages of footnotes--this is truly the "Bible" on Hitler. Read it--you won't regret it!
Rating:
Summary: "Working towards the Fuhrer"
Review: This could be the sub-title of Kershaw's biography because he mentions it so many times and sees it as the driving force and the motivation that explains the relationship Hitler had with his generals, the army, the implementors of Nazi policy, and the German people in general. All were seeking to do their Fuhrer's will; to be in accord with his ideas and to help fulfill his goals - 'working towards the Fuhrer'. Kershaw quickly puts his biography into context. Among the numerous Hitler biographies we can detect three trends (1) revisionists and apologists (David Irving), (2) Hitler as 'modern' 'great' or 'revolutionary' leader (Fest, Lukacs, Zeitelmann) and (3) Hitler and the use of power (Bullock and Kershaw). Kershaw is not in the least bit interested in exploring Hitler's leadership style in the context of a 'great' nor is he much interested in the man's personality. Kershaw defines his job as Hitler biographer. "It is a task which has to focus not upon the personality of Hitler, but squarely and directly upon the character of his power - the power of the Fuhrer". He achieves this admirably and does not lose this focus throughout. As such this biography can justifiably be referred to as 'definitive'. This is even moreso since along with his earlier 'Volume 1' HUBRIS, these are the first major Hitler biographies in some time. One final note on this historiography of biographies. I am sure that John Lukacs now probably wishes that he had delayed publishing his study of Hitler biographies - THE HITLER OF HISTORY until after HUBRIS and NEMESIS came out. How can you write 'authoritatively' on a subject when two authoritative sources have yet to be published? Bottom line - we can expect more works. Has Kershaw made others still to come redundant? Has he answered all the questions about Hitler? Obviously not, but where the focus lies on the nature of the power that Hitler wielded and how he got it, and why the German people gave it to him and allowed him to use it, Kershaw is without equal in his descriptions and explanations. Points which Kershaw elucidates are: > The paradox between "the emptiness of the private person" and the power wielded by this person. This power was "derived only in part from Hitler himself...[it]...was a social product - a creation of social expectations and motivations vested in Hitler by his followers" > Hitler's power was charismatic and led to the pseudo-religious, heroic, mythic, status of Hitler; the development of a Hitler cult. Hitler's extreme, personalized style of ledership fed this and encouraged followers 'to work towards him'. > The Final Solution for the Jews is seen in this context. It was developed with a high degree of consensus that it was the necessary approach to help realize the Fuhrer's mission. Perhaps equally as interesting as how Hitler used his power is Kershaw's analysis of how he held on to it. Kershaw convincingly argues that following the defeat at Stalingrad, the German people lost faith in the 'heroic' image of Hitler. There was a growing awareness and acceptance that the war was lost and yet people continued with support for Hitler. He remained fully in control, soldiers continued to fight, and people continued to sacrifice and die for his cause. The July 1944 bomb-plot, planned in the belief that there was support for his removal, we know, failed. Kershaw shows that this brought about an immediate reversal of fortunes for Hitler. His popularity once again surged. Puzzling. A notion which is all too frequent when we investigate any aspect of Hitler's life and his relationship with the German people. Perhaps the greatest puzzle remains, even after this biography. How could a man so patently evil be afforded so much power and be so venerated? Indeed it remains a mystery and a question for others to answer as it is an issue that Kershaw does not tackle.
|
