What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler #2
Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis
The New Yorker declared the first volume of Ian Kershaw's two-volume masterpiece "as close to definitive as anything we are likely to see," and that promise is fulfilled in this stunning second volume. As Nemesis opens, Adolf Hitler has achieved absolute power within Germany and triumphed in his first challenge to the European powers. Idolized by large segments of the population and firmly supported by the Nazi regime, Hitler is poised to subjugate Europe. Nine years later, his vaunted war machine destroyed, Allied forces sweeping across Germany, Hitler will end his life with a pistol shot to his head. "[M]ore probing, more judicious, more authoritative in its rich detail...more commanding in its mastery of the horrific narrative."—Milton J. Rosenberg, Chicago Tribune
1115 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1998
245 people are currently reading
7300 people want to read
About the author
Ian Kershaw
105 books1,076 followersIan Kershaw is a British historian, noted for his biographies of Adolf Hitler.
Ian Kershaw studied at Liverpool (BA) and Oxford (D. Phil). He was a lecturer first in medieval, then in modern, history at the University of Manchester. In 1983-4 he was Visiting Professor of Modern History at the Ruhr University in Bochum, West Germany. From 1987 to 1989 he was Professor of Modern History at the University of Nottingham, and since 1989 has been Professor of Modern History at Sheffield. He is a fellow of the British Academy, of the Royal Historical Society, of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, and of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung in Bonn. He retired from academic life in the autumn semester of 2008.
Ian Kershaw studied at Liverpool (BA) and Oxford (D. Phil). He was a lecturer first in medieval, then in modern, history at the University of Manchester. In 1983-4 he was Visiting Professor of Modern History at the Ruhr University in Bochum, West Germany. From 1987 to 1989 he was Professor of Modern History at the University of Nottingham, and since 1989 has been Professor of Modern History at Sheffield. He is a fellow of the British Academy, of the Royal Historical Society, of the Wissenschaftskolleg zu Berlin, and of the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung in Bonn. He retired from academic life in the autumn semester of 2008.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews
April 26, 2016
Adolf Hitler is the greatest car-wreck in human history. We cannot not now, nor will we ever, be able to look away. He dominated and shaped an entire century. As a world-historical figure, he has to be near the top of the list in terms of ultimate impact.
He just beats all. His look-at-me-ness is ineffable.
How can you describe Hitler?
He is one part black comedy. A twisted, diminutive figure with an ugly mustache, halitosis, and a bombastically spastic style of speaking that has been ripe for parody from Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator) to Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds). Even straight dramatic portrayals of Hitler tend to tip into ludicrousness (see, e.g., the many Downfall mash-ups on Youtube.com).
He is one part cartoonish supervillain. A man like G.I. Joe’s Cobra Commander who wanted nothing more than total world domination.
And he is part conqueror, a genocidal Alexander who at one point had almost all of continental Europe under his thumb.
He has also become the dictionary-definition of “evil,” however we decide to define that word.
Ian Kershaw’s Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis is the second of a two-volume life of Hitler. Taken together, the two books add up to 1,431 pages of text, not including the copious endnotes.
As I noted in my review of Volume I, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, Kershaw is a careful, sober historian, steering well clear of fantastical explanations of what made Hitler tick, and scrupulously avoiding topics – such as his relationship with niece, Geli Rabaul – that are not strictly verifiable.
The result in Volume I was more of a political biography than the biography of a once-living human being. It followed – in sometimes overwhelming detail – Hitler’s rise from a rabble rouser in a small-time political fringe group to German chancellor. It was a slog at times, especially since Kershaw refused to pay much attention to Hitler the man.
Yet it also gave the reader a framework for understanding the Third Reich, a concept called working towards the Fuhrer that Kershaw returned to time and again. In this paradigm, Hitler provided the general idea, the overall goals, and then left it to his sprawling, chain-of-command-free bureaucracy to sort things out and get things done. By playing all his subordinates off each other, Hitler became Germany’s indispensable man, eventually accumulating more personal power than perhaps any other leader in history.
Like its predecessor, Volume II tends towards dryness. This is not really a critique of the writing itself. The prose is undramatic but mostly clear. It is more a function of Kershaw’s professorial approach to his subject. He is not concerned with narrative momentum but in a thorough, painstakingly-cited analysis of Hitler’s Reich.
However, as before, Hitler the person (twisted and foul though he be) recedes into the background. For long stretches of the book, he is hardly around at all. Indeed, there were periods I could have been tricked into believing I was reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
This does not really detract from the book’s essential quality. If you take this as more a general history of the Third Reich, rather than a focused study of Hitler, the book succeeds. As I said before, Kershaw is a scrupulous historian of good reputation. He knows Hitler’s Germany as well as anyone. Certainly, by dint of the subject matter alone – the crisis of World War II verses the tangled webs of the Weimar Republic – this is a crisper, more engaging book than Volume I. (I especially appreciated Kershaw’s take on the July 20th plot to kill Hitler).
For all that, I wanted more of a look at Hitler himself. Kershaw seems to recoil at that. He keeps Hitler at broom’s length, almost as though getting to know his subject personally would taint him. (There is, after all, a school of thought that it’s inappropriate to learn or study Hitler).
I thought the best parts of the book were the ones where Kershaw swallowed his distaste and gave us a little glimpse of Hitler’s real life, a peek at the daily life of a megalomaniac. Turns out that Hitler often stayed up late watching movies with Goebbels or lecturing his secretaries; that he slept far into the day; and that he refused to let anyone help him dress, lest he be seen naked. He liked dogs, did not smoke or drink, and was a vegetarian. (Kershaw’s dislike of Hitler’s diet is as palpable as anything in this volume).
Hitler was also beset with numerous mid-life health problems, including what might have been the onset of Parkinson’s disease. Kershaw details the extraordinary number of medicines and injections given to Hitler by his quack of a doctor. By the end, in the bunker, he was a nervous twitching wreck, his mental faculties fleeing with his physical condition. It is a cold comfort to the world, but at least he suffered.
Hitler is readable scholarship. It is intellectually rigorous but palatable for the everyday, non-grad student reader. It consistently avoids scintillation or fireworks. There are precious few psychological insights (Kershaw does proffer a tentative paragraph or two, towards this end, but nothing more). Most of the Nazi inner circle, with the exception of Joseph Goebbels, is barely sketched. The Gotterdammerung in Hitler’s Bunker is highly condensed, and before you know it, Hitler is dead – snuffed out in a small final paragraph after 1,400 pages. (It is worth reading the endnotes for a discussion of the mode of Hitler’s death; for more information on the Bunker, you’ll have to turn to Joachim Fest).
At some point, anybody who reads a lot about the Nazis has to come to terms with the seemliness of reading so much about the Nazis.
This hit home for me the other day as I was working in my man-cave. While in the midst of an important game of spider solitaire, the door swung open and my 14 month-old daughter toddles into the room to amuse herself. She immediately goes to one of my bookshelves (of four walls, three are covered with bookshelves) and begins pulling out books. Finding thissuper annoying adorable, I reach for my camera and snap a picture. Later, I upload that picture onto my computer and see, in the background, more swastikas than I’m usually comfortable having in my daughter’s pictures.
My daughter, of course, had stumbled onto the Nazi shelf, where even reputable books tend to sport the seductive iconography of Hitler’s Nazi Party. Stripped of context, the shelf is – well – really, really creepy.
Kershaw’s biography of Hitler is more of an anti-biography. It attempts to be truthful and honest but also to subtly deglamorize and deflate its central character. I suppose this is commendable in a way. But when it comes to Nazis, the Third Reich, Hitler – and all the death and destruction and waste they called – it is impossible to look away.
This is probably the most authoritative modern biography of Hitler. But it is not even close to the last word. I don’t think there will ever be a last word.
He just beats all. His look-at-me-ness is ineffable.
How can you describe Hitler?
He is one part black comedy. A twisted, diminutive figure with an ugly mustache, halitosis, and a bombastically spastic style of speaking that has been ripe for parody from Charlie Chaplin (The Great Dictator) to Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds). Even straight dramatic portrayals of Hitler tend to tip into ludicrousness (see, e.g., the many Downfall mash-ups on Youtube.com).
He is one part cartoonish supervillain. A man like G.I. Joe’s Cobra Commander who wanted nothing more than total world domination.
And he is part conqueror, a genocidal Alexander who at one point had almost all of continental Europe under his thumb.
He has also become the dictionary-definition of “evil,” however we decide to define that word.
Ian Kershaw’s Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis is the second of a two-volume life of Hitler. Taken together, the two books add up to 1,431 pages of text, not including the copious endnotes.
As I noted in my review of Volume I, Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris, Kershaw is a careful, sober historian, steering well clear of fantastical explanations of what made Hitler tick, and scrupulously avoiding topics – such as his relationship with niece, Geli Rabaul – that are not strictly verifiable.
The result in Volume I was more of a political biography than the biography of a once-living human being. It followed – in sometimes overwhelming detail – Hitler’s rise from a rabble rouser in a small-time political fringe group to German chancellor. It was a slog at times, especially since Kershaw refused to pay much attention to Hitler the man.
Yet it also gave the reader a framework for understanding the Third Reich, a concept called working towards the Fuhrer that Kershaw returned to time and again. In this paradigm, Hitler provided the general idea, the overall goals, and then left it to his sprawling, chain-of-command-free bureaucracy to sort things out and get things done. By playing all his subordinates off each other, Hitler became Germany’s indispensable man, eventually accumulating more personal power than perhaps any other leader in history.
Like its predecessor, Volume II tends towards dryness. This is not really a critique of the writing itself. The prose is undramatic but mostly clear. It is more a function of Kershaw’s professorial approach to his subject. He is not concerned with narrative momentum but in a thorough, painstakingly-cited analysis of Hitler’s Reich.
However, as before, Hitler the person (twisted and foul though he be) recedes into the background. For long stretches of the book, he is hardly around at all. Indeed, there were periods I could have been tricked into believing I was reading The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
This does not really detract from the book’s essential quality. If you take this as more a general history of the Third Reich, rather than a focused study of Hitler, the book succeeds. As I said before, Kershaw is a scrupulous historian of good reputation. He knows Hitler’s Germany as well as anyone. Certainly, by dint of the subject matter alone – the crisis of World War II verses the tangled webs of the Weimar Republic – this is a crisper, more engaging book than Volume I. (I especially appreciated Kershaw’s take on the July 20th plot to kill Hitler).
For all that, I wanted more of a look at Hitler himself. Kershaw seems to recoil at that. He keeps Hitler at broom’s length, almost as though getting to know his subject personally would taint him. (There is, after all, a school of thought that it’s inappropriate to learn or study Hitler).
I thought the best parts of the book were the ones where Kershaw swallowed his distaste and gave us a little glimpse of Hitler’s real life, a peek at the daily life of a megalomaniac. Turns out that Hitler often stayed up late watching movies with Goebbels or lecturing his secretaries; that he slept far into the day; and that he refused to let anyone help him dress, lest he be seen naked. He liked dogs, did not smoke or drink, and was a vegetarian. (Kershaw’s dislike of Hitler’s diet is as palpable as anything in this volume).
Hitler was also beset with numerous mid-life health problems, including what might have been the onset of Parkinson’s disease. Kershaw details the extraordinary number of medicines and injections given to Hitler by his quack of a doctor. By the end, in the bunker, he was a nervous twitching wreck, his mental faculties fleeing with his physical condition. It is a cold comfort to the world, but at least he suffered.
Hitler is readable scholarship. It is intellectually rigorous but palatable for the everyday, non-grad student reader. It consistently avoids scintillation or fireworks. There are precious few psychological insights (Kershaw does proffer a tentative paragraph or two, towards this end, but nothing more). Most of the Nazi inner circle, with the exception of Joseph Goebbels, is barely sketched. The Gotterdammerung in Hitler’s Bunker is highly condensed, and before you know it, Hitler is dead – snuffed out in a small final paragraph after 1,400 pages. (It is worth reading the endnotes for a discussion of the mode of Hitler’s death; for more information on the Bunker, you’ll have to turn to Joachim Fest).
At some point, anybody who reads a lot about the Nazis has to come to terms with the seemliness of reading so much about the Nazis.
This hit home for me the other day as I was working in my man-cave. While in the midst of an important game of spider solitaire, the door swung open and my 14 month-old daughter toddles into the room to amuse herself. She immediately goes to one of my bookshelves (of four walls, three are covered with bookshelves) and begins pulling out books. Finding this
My daughter, of course, had stumbled onto the Nazi shelf, where even reputable books tend to sport the seductive iconography of Hitler’s Nazi Party. Stripped of context, the shelf is – well – really, really creepy.
Kershaw’s biography of Hitler is more of an anti-biography. It attempts to be truthful and honest but also to subtly deglamorize and deflate its central character. I suppose this is commendable in a way. But when it comes to Nazis, the Third Reich, Hitler – and all the death and destruction and waste they called – it is impossible to look away.
This is probably the most authoritative modern biography of Hitler. But it is not even close to the last word. I don’t think there will ever be a last word.
September 25, 2015
Excellent, top-notch scholarship, riveting book about Nazi Germany from 1936 to 1945.
It is not just the usual biography of Hitler, nor the standard WWII recount, but a detailed and competent analysis of the structure and workings of the administrative apparatus of the German state, its economy, and its social and political underpinnings. All major political and military developments are also explained very well.
It is a page-turner, informative, nuanced, and well researched. It manages also to give a deep feel for what it was like to be living in the Third Reich at the time, and it explains in a very credible way how the upper echelons of the German society (in particular the army, big industry, state apparatus, business) supported and tied themselves to the fate of the Nazi regime.
The complex relationship between the Nazi regime and the different levels and structures of the German society is also masterfully analyzed and explained.
Very comprehensive and fully researched and documented, it is a recommended read to anybody who is interested in a comprehensive review of this tragic period of European history. The only shortcoming of this otherwise excellent book is the only superficial and generic explanation of the Soviet Russia actions, perspectives and contribution to the war. 5-stars.
August 17, 2020
The first volume of Ian Kershaw’s study,
Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris
, examined how the people of a modern, highly cultured, economically advanced state could entrust their fate to a political outsider with few, if any, talents beyond unarguable skills as a demagogue and propagandist.
By the time the first volume drew to a close with the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler had acquired the support of the overwhelming mass of the German people – even those who hadn’t voted for him before he became Chancellor. From the depths of national degradation, most Germans were more than eager to share the new-found national pride, and the sentiment that Germany was on its way to becoming the dominant European power was widespread. Hitler’s own deep sense of personal degradation had long since been supplanted by a gathering sense of political mission – that of Germany’s redeemer from chaos and protector against the menacing forces challenging the nations’s existence. By 1936, his self-glorification had swollen to immeasurable proportions under the almost-deification projected upon him by his followers.
The German people had shaped their leader. Now, they were about to enter into his full expression: the greatest gamble in the nation’s history – to completely dominate the European continent. And they would have to live with the consequences.
The second volume of Kershaw’s study studies how Hitler could exercise the absolute power which he had been permitted to acquire, how the most mighty in the land were bound to a highly personalized form of rule acclaimed by millions and exceptional in a modern state, until they couldn’t extricate themselves from the will of the dictator who was taking them down the road to distraction, and how all German citizens became complicit in genocidal war, resulting in a state-sponsored slaughter on a scale never previously witnessed.
1936-1945: Nemesis doesn’t lack the insightfulness of Hubris . This second book is as detailed as the first one and exactly as full of vivid, interesting characters. From Berlin to the splendid villa in Berghof to the bunker of the Führer’s last days, Ian Kershaw leads the reader on an unforgettable journey through Adolf Hitler’s inner circle, thoughts, habits, rivals, speeches, assassination attempts, and so much more. I wrote it in my review of the first volume, and I’m writing it here again: I don’t have enough words to praise Kershaw’s outstanding work.
By the time the first volume drew to a close with the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, Hitler had acquired the support of the overwhelming mass of the German people – even those who hadn’t voted for him before he became Chancellor. From the depths of national degradation, most Germans were more than eager to share the new-found national pride, and the sentiment that Germany was on its way to becoming the dominant European power was widespread. Hitler’s own deep sense of personal degradation had long since been supplanted by a gathering sense of political mission – that of Germany’s redeemer from chaos and protector against the menacing forces challenging the nations’s existence. By 1936, his self-glorification had swollen to immeasurable proportions under the almost-deification projected upon him by his followers.
The German people had shaped their leader. Now, they were about to enter into his full expression: the greatest gamble in the nation’s history – to completely dominate the European continent. And they would have to live with the consequences.
The second volume of Kershaw’s study studies how Hitler could exercise the absolute power which he had been permitted to acquire, how the most mighty in the land were bound to a highly personalized form of rule acclaimed by millions and exceptional in a modern state, until they couldn’t extricate themselves from the will of the dictator who was taking them down the road to distraction, and how all German citizens became complicit in genocidal war, resulting in a state-sponsored slaughter on a scale never previously witnessed.
1936-1945: Nemesis doesn’t lack the insightfulness of Hubris . This second book is as detailed as the first one and exactly as full of vivid, interesting characters. From Berlin to the splendid villa in Berghof to the bunker of the Führer’s last days, Ian Kershaw leads the reader on an unforgettable journey through Adolf Hitler’s inner circle, thoughts, habits, rivals, speeches, assassination attempts, and so much more. I wrote it in my review of the first volume, and I’m writing it here again: I don’t have enough words to praise Kershaw’s outstanding work.
May 24, 2024
What can I say about this biography that hasn't been said better by others? It is 'magisterial' - and I don't often get to use that word in a review. If you want to understand what a mess Hitler made of everything Kershaw is as a good an author as any. Certainly he is to be preferred to older writers like Alan Bullock because we know and understand so much more about how the Nazi regime and the
'Führerprinzip' worked. Is it the best biography? I don't know how you would chose between it and Ullrich Volker's biography or between them and Richard Evans multivolume history of the Third Reich. They are all good and obsessive would read them all, but anyone author would suffice for any general reader and more importantly understanding Nazism and the Third Reich is more important then understanding Hitler. Indeed moist Hitler biographies are really history of the Nazi era - its not like writing Hitler's life story is like that of other monsters like Louis XIV, Peter the Great or Napoleon; there is no private life to discuss, no interests, passions or foibles - well Eva Braun and cream cakes but it doesn't make for many paragraphs. Its like his entourage never has a 'great man' surrounded himself with such mediocrities. Who could stand to spend an afternoon, let alone days with any of them? Goering maybe because he was the only one you can imaginer having any fun with but the others - Goebbels? Himmler? Hess? Ribbentrop? Hell is supposed to be other people - well we know who will be there.
The problem with monumental books like this is that there very size can put you off reading them and maybe hinder a further exploration of the subject. Don't le it. If you can't read face Kershaw look to some of the other marvelous books on this era, for example Mark Mazower's wonderful 'Hitler's Empire' which will tell you more about the nightmare that was Nazi Europe without wasting time on the Berchtesgaden tea parties.
'Führerprinzip' worked. Is it the best biography? I don't know how you would chose between it and Ullrich Volker's biography or between them and Richard Evans multivolume history of the Third Reich. They are all good and obsessive would read them all, but anyone author would suffice for any general reader and more importantly understanding Nazism and the Third Reich is more important then understanding Hitler. Indeed moist Hitler biographies are really history of the Nazi era - its not like writing Hitler's life story is like that of other monsters like Louis XIV, Peter the Great or Napoleon; there is no private life to discuss, no interests, passions or foibles - well Eva Braun and cream cakes but it doesn't make for many paragraphs. Its like his entourage never has a 'great man' surrounded himself with such mediocrities. Who could stand to spend an afternoon, let alone days with any of them? Goering maybe because he was the only one you can imaginer having any fun with but the others - Goebbels? Himmler? Hess? Ribbentrop? Hell is supposed to be other people - well we know who will be there.
The problem with monumental books like this is that there very size can put you off reading them and maybe hinder a further exploration of the subject. Don't le it. If you can't read face Kershaw look to some of the other marvelous books on this era, for example Mark Mazower's wonderful 'Hitler's Empire' which will tell you more about the nightmare that was Nazi Europe without wasting time on the Berchtesgaden tea parties.
December 16, 2020
A detailed study of Hitlers slide from the height of power to a rambling wreck hiding ten metres below a ruined Berlin - a city destroyed by bombs, wrapped in flames and swarming with Russians.
Some of the character traits that eased the path to power - stubbornness, iron will and self belief - became liabilities when his luck ran out and he started making mistakes. It's not as if Germany had ever suffered before from fighting on two fronts, and what was the point of declaring war on the US to "help" Japan?
What has always puzzled me is why "the establishment" in Germany did not remove Hitler when they realised that this madman was leading them to oblivion. Kershaw shows how a sense of duty couples with lucky escapes from assassination attempts meant that Nazi Germany stood by the Fuhrer until the bitter end. The Allies policy of unconditional surrender also helped bolster Hitler in a strange way.
An excellent read, with a great depth of research behind it.
I am just so glad that this is history, and that the world has learned from past mistakes.
Accomplished liars can no longer ride a populist wave, building on resentments, spouting untruths and stoking irrational fear of "the other" to sway the gullible and uneducated, thereby attaining power that they are utterly unprepared to wield.
Some of the character traits that eased the path to power - stubbornness, iron will and self belief - became liabilities when his luck ran out and he started making mistakes. It's not as if Germany had ever suffered before from fighting on two fronts, and what was the point of declaring war on the US to "help" Japan?
What has always puzzled me is why "the establishment" in Germany did not remove Hitler when they realised that this madman was leading them to oblivion. Kershaw shows how a sense of duty couples with lucky escapes from assassination attempts meant that Nazi Germany stood by the Fuhrer until the bitter end. The Allies policy of unconditional surrender also helped bolster Hitler in a strange way.
An excellent read, with a great depth of research behind it.
I am just so glad that this is history, and that the world has learned from past mistakes.
Accomplished liars can no longer ride a populist wave, building on resentments, spouting untruths and stoking irrational fear of "the other" to sway the gullible and uneducated, thereby attaining power that they are utterly unprepared to wield.
October 19, 2019
I read both volumes of this biography straight through. Having read Mein Kampf as well as several other biographies of the man, I found Kershaw's take to be distinctive primarily in terms of what he calls 'working towards' the leader. In other words, Kershaw sees Hitler's influence as being, first, his broadly outlining, forcefully, repeatedly and consistently, broad goals (elimination of undesireables, especially Jews and communists; expansionism; European hegemony; socio-genetic Darwinism) and, second, his followers, those being most Germans, implementing them, often without any prior official authorization from himself. Thus, for instance, there is no record of Hitler having ever officially ordered the wholesale murder of the Jews. It was, however, clear enough that once removal to the East proved impossible in 1942, such a radical solution as implemented by Himmler was well within the lines of his general intent and could proceed without Hitler's management. By then, of course, Hitler's primary concerns were military.
Being immersed in this for weeks while routinely following the news I couldn't escape finding parallels between Germany's leader and our own. Since the point of all this study of the Nazis is, in part, to avoid any repetition of or participation in the fascist phenomenon, here are a few of the apparent parallels: (1) Both Hitler and Trump exhibit narcissistic tendencies, both identifying their interests with those of their parties, their governments and their states. (2) Both are sociopathic in that they exhibit little empathy with others. (3) Both are megalomanics, overestimating their intelligence and knowledge despite having meagre educations. (4) Both have no compunctions about oath breaking and lying in general. (5) Under stress at least, both tend to impulsivity. (6) Both are anti-democratic. (7) Both see themselves as above the law, indeed as unimpeachable lawgivers. (8) Both are virtually incapable of self-criticism; (9) Both find the detailed work involved in governing unattractive and are, in this sense, lazy; (10) Both therefore leave government to others, effectively promoting disorganized and inefficient administration; (11) Both enjoy public speaking and media manipulation; (12) Both are racist; (13) Both regard females as inferior. The list could go on--neither drinks nor smokes, for instance, but those are some of the most salient parallels.
We are fortunate that Trump is not as capable as Hitler and, so far, not as bloodthirsty. We are fortunate as well that there has, so far, been no crisis comparable to the depression which brought the Nazis to power.
Being immersed in this for weeks while routinely following the news I couldn't escape finding parallels between Germany's leader and our own. Since the point of all this study of the Nazis is, in part, to avoid any repetition of or participation in the fascist phenomenon, here are a few of the apparent parallels: (1) Both Hitler and Trump exhibit narcissistic tendencies, both identifying their interests with those of their parties, their governments and their states. (2) Both are sociopathic in that they exhibit little empathy with others. (3) Both are megalomanics, overestimating their intelligence and knowledge despite having meagre educations. (4) Both have no compunctions about oath breaking and lying in general. (5) Under stress at least, both tend to impulsivity. (6) Both are anti-democratic. (7) Both see themselves as above the law, indeed as unimpeachable lawgivers. (8) Both are virtually incapable of self-criticism; (9) Both find the detailed work involved in governing unattractive and are, in this sense, lazy; (10) Both therefore leave government to others, effectively promoting disorganized and inefficient administration; (11) Both enjoy public speaking and media manipulation; (12) Both are racist; (13) Both regard females as inferior. The list could go on--neither drinks nor smokes, for instance, but those are some of the most salient parallels.
We are fortunate that Trump is not as capable as Hitler and, so far, not as bloodthirsty. We are fortunate as well that there has, so far, been no crisis comparable to the depression which brought the Nazis to power.
February 18, 2021
I finished the second volume of Ian Kershaw's detailed biography of Hitler. This volume starts from where the first volume stopped, that is in 1936, at which point Hitler had enticed the German public including those that didn't support his Nazi Party and completely amassed his totalitarian powers and in a foul mood for expansion of the Rhineland. It ends with Hitler committing suicide in his Berlin hideout. Hitler is the greatest of all demagogues that had worked the surface of the earth. May the world never experience another Hitler.
January 2, 2016
This is, as you may already have inferred, a biography for which the word "monumental" is not incorrect. 591 pages for the first volume, 841 for the second. It is, unfortunately, dated, because Kershaw was writing before the David Irving libel trial (see The Case for Auschwitz: Evidence from the Irving Trial, Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier, and The Holocaust on Trial, among others, for more information about Irving vs. Lipstadt), so there are some things (mercifully, mostly incidental details rather than anything crucial) for which Irving is the only source. Other than that--and while I'm remarking on Kershaw's flaws--his prose style is adequate at best. And it's not surprising, given the length of the project, that we don't maintain a steady state of "best." So you're not reading for the prose here.
Historians of Nazi Germany can be roughly divided into two camps: intentionalists, who believe that Hitler planned every step of the Final Solution, and functionalists, who believe that Hitler didn't plan any damn thing and the functionaries and bureaucrats of the Third Reich made the Final Solution up as they went along. (This is a reductive schema, and most historians, more accurately, fall somewhere on the continuum between the two poles.) Kershaw is a functionalist--which is an interesting perspective to write a biography of Hitler from, because it means that at every turn, he's looking for the least amount of agency from Hitler commensurate with the historical outcome. And what's really interesting about his biography is the degree to which he has to admit that Hitler was indispensible to the Final Solution, that it couldn't have happened without him and that, even though he shied away from direct involvement, none of it happened without his knowledge and approval.
(Functionalism does occasionally lead him into some rather odd corners: he is the only historian of the Third Reich whom I have read who argues that the Fritsch-Blomberg debacle wasn't planned by anyone, that it was bad luck and stupidity on all sides. Even the clusterfuck surrounding poor Fritsch. Although Kershaw does seem to believe that Blomberg knew his wife had been a prostitute and was trying to keep that a secret from Hitler, which seemed to me like a dubious piece of blame-the-victim thinking. But I digress.)
Kershaw is very very good at explaining, not merely the patterns in Hitler's thinking--the way that what he said in Mein Kampf in the 20s and what he did when he came to power in the 30s are of a piece--but the way in which his habits of thought remained consistent, and the ways in which they both brought him to power and caused his downfall. In particular, Hitler habitually thought in polarized binaries. He habitually radicalized any conflict into an all-or-nothing scenario ("Here ve see," as Monty Python say, "ze life-or-death struggle between ze pantomime horse and ze other pantomime horse for ze position in the merchant bank."), and he believed, from first to last, that compromise was unacceptable. Seeing the pattern in his early life makes his "leadership" during WWII, if not exactly explicable, at least comprehensible.
As a functionalist, Kershaw is also excellent at showing the degree to which the other power-elites of Germany were culpable in the Nazi seizure of power and in Nazi Germany's unprovoked and indefensible assaults on Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Russia . . . He stresses repeatedly that even though invasion after invasion was Hitler's idea, he couldn't have done it without the willing and frequently enthusiastic cooperation of the Wehrmacht and the rest of the German government. Hitler led Germany into World War II, but he did it with his followers treading on his heels. Kershaw shows the way that "working toward the Führer"--the method by which second- and third- and fourth- tier Nazis and government officials (and the two categories were not necessarily identical) tried to anticipate what Hitler wanted--both meant that Hitler rarely if ever had to issue an explicit order and that any initiative deemed to be what Hitler wanted would inevitably snowball, as everyone tried to jump on board.
Aside from a much better grasp of how Nazi Germany "worked" (and I use the word loosely), I came away from Kershaw's biography of Hitler with a profound sense of the paucity of Hitler's inner life, how wretchedly little there was of him beyond three or four idées fixes (and all of them crystallized and immune to modification after about 1923), wrapped up in ambition and garnished with hate. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Historians of Nazi Germany can be roughly divided into two camps: intentionalists, who believe that Hitler planned every step of the Final Solution, and functionalists, who believe that Hitler didn't plan any damn thing and the functionaries and bureaucrats of the Third Reich made the Final Solution up as they went along. (This is a reductive schema, and most historians, more accurately, fall somewhere on the continuum between the two poles.) Kershaw is a functionalist--which is an interesting perspective to write a biography of Hitler from, because it means that at every turn, he's looking for the least amount of agency from Hitler commensurate with the historical outcome. And what's really interesting about his biography is the degree to which he has to admit that Hitler was indispensible to the Final Solution, that it couldn't have happened without him and that, even though he shied away from direct involvement, none of it happened without his knowledge and approval.
(Functionalism does occasionally lead him into some rather odd corners: he is the only historian of the Third Reich whom I have read who argues that the Fritsch-Blomberg debacle wasn't planned by anyone, that it was bad luck and stupidity on all sides. Even the clusterfuck surrounding poor Fritsch. Although Kershaw does seem to believe that Blomberg knew his wife had been a prostitute and was trying to keep that a secret from Hitler, which seemed to me like a dubious piece of blame-the-victim thinking. But I digress.)
Kershaw is very very good at explaining, not merely the patterns in Hitler's thinking--the way that what he said in Mein Kampf in the 20s and what he did when he came to power in the 30s are of a piece--but the way in which his habits of thought remained consistent, and the ways in which they both brought him to power and caused his downfall. In particular, Hitler habitually thought in polarized binaries. He habitually radicalized any conflict into an all-or-nothing scenario ("Here ve see," as Monty Python say, "ze life-or-death struggle between ze pantomime horse and ze other pantomime horse for ze position in the merchant bank."), and he believed, from first to last, that compromise was unacceptable. Seeing the pattern in his early life makes his "leadership" during WWII, if not exactly explicable, at least comprehensible.
As a functionalist, Kershaw is also excellent at showing the degree to which the other power-elites of Germany were culpable in the Nazi seizure of power and in Nazi Germany's unprovoked and indefensible assaults on Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Russia . . . He stresses repeatedly that even though invasion after invasion was Hitler's idea, he couldn't have done it without the willing and frequently enthusiastic cooperation of the Wehrmacht and the rest of the German government. Hitler led Germany into World War II, but he did it with his followers treading on his heels. Kershaw shows the way that "working toward the Führer"--the method by which second- and third- and fourth- tier Nazis and government officials (and the two categories were not necessarily identical) tried to anticipate what Hitler wanted--both meant that Hitler rarely if ever had to issue an explicit order and that any initiative deemed to be what Hitler wanted would inevitably snowball, as everyone tried to jump on board.
Aside from a much better grasp of how Nazi Germany "worked" (and I use the word loosely), I came away from Kershaw's biography of Hitler with a profound sense of the paucity of Hitler's inner life, how wretchedly little there was of him beyond three or four idées fixes (and all of them crystallized and immune to modification after about 1923), wrapped up in ambition and garnished with hate. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Read
September 16, 2015SCENE: The Fuhrerbunker, the Map Room. You know the one.
KREBS
Nemesis is longer than Hubris and heavier going. The previous volume established your character, motivations and foundations of political power. Here we simply watch them play out to their bitter, gruesome end.
HITLER
Sir Ian Kershaw is an excellent historian, he'll highlight my rich and complex inner life.
KREBS
My Fuhrer... Kershaw...
JODL
Kershaw doesn't think you have a rich inner life. He thinks you're stunted.
HITLER slowly removes his glasses with a quivering left hand.
HITLER
These people remain here: KEITEL, JODL, KREBS and BURGDORF.
Everyone else, bar GOEBBELS and BORMANN, shuffles out of the room.
HITLER
That was an order! Revealing my sublime and inspirational life was an order! I am a colossus who stands astride the 20th century, how can this mildewed scribbler find so little development of note? Once more you've lied to me about this fellow! He's a hack!
BURGDORF
My Fuhrer, Kershaw does a very thorough investigation!
HITLER
He's a hack! You can learn more in my autobiography!
BURGDORF
That is ridiculous! This book is way better than Mein Kampf!
HITLER
You think a sniveling British bookworm with his doctorates and his fellowships can peer into the mind of a true genius? What rubbish! True: I didn't have anything resembling an intimate life. True: I didn't have a new idea after 1925. So what? I lived for Germany! I don't shift my positions with the wind like the bestial Stalin!
The historians have failed me! They seek to paint me as a warped and lonely figure, a splenetic autodidact, my genius merely a knack for translating my monomaniac obsessions to better play upon the resentments of a defeated, divided nation. I, the greatest statesman since Fredrick the Great am just some shallow vessel into which millions of Germans, princes and peasants, poured their fantasies of dominion and Volk!
They insinuate that I was lucky, that the triumphs of the greatest warlord in history were the result of reckless gambles taken against divided opposition, that I couldn't do anything to a united front but heedlessly raise the stakes. Such lies! I am the victim of more betrayals in death than in life! Never once is my logic accepted, despite its undeniable successes. Instead, we hear more defeatist blather about 'material supremacy' and 'wishful thinking'!
How do these quibbling pedants imagine it was that I became their subject, that Kershaw writes about me, not me about Kershaw? If I am the twisted freak they say I am, why then was I triumphant over Europe? How, if not for the hand of Providence did I survive the despicable plots and intrigues of my enemies near and far? Only this can be true: I rose through my own will and an iron understanding of the law of life, as suffering and struggle for existence. Only that matters, thus only cowardice and treachery by the unworthy German people could bring me down. The fool Kershaw thinks my last days were ignominious, but I chose my end as an inspiration to future generations that they will in time cast aside these grotesque mockeries, and so it shall be!
And that's not all! My vindication will be...
Hesitantly at first, the camera starts to recede. Out of the Map Room. Into the crowded hallway. His voice can still be heard, growing fainter with distance, now indistinct, blurring with the rumble of distant artillery. Don't worry, you're not missing anything.
END SCENE
KREBS
Nemesis is longer than Hubris and heavier going. The previous volume established your character, motivations and foundations of political power. Here we simply watch them play out to their bitter, gruesome end.
HITLER
Sir Ian Kershaw is an excellent historian, he'll highlight my rich and complex inner life.
KREBS
My Fuhrer... Kershaw...
JODL
Kershaw doesn't think you have a rich inner life. He thinks you're stunted.
HITLER slowly removes his glasses with a quivering left hand.
HITLER
These people remain here: KEITEL, JODL, KREBS and BURGDORF.
Everyone else, bar GOEBBELS and BORMANN, shuffles out of the room.
HITLER
That was an order! Revealing my sublime and inspirational life was an order! I am a colossus who stands astride the 20th century, how can this mildewed scribbler find so little development of note? Once more you've lied to me about this fellow! He's a hack!
BURGDORF
My Fuhrer, Kershaw does a very thorough investigation!
HITLER
He's a hack! You can learn more in my autobiography!
BURGDORF
That is ridiculous! This book is way better than Mein Kampf!
HITLER
You think a sniveling British bookworm with his doctorates and his fellowships can peer into the mind of a true genius? What rubbish! True: I didn't have anything resembling an intimate life. True: I didn't have a new idea after 1925. So what? I lived for Germany! I don't shift my positions with the wind like the bestial Stalin!
The historians have failed me! They seek to paint me as a warped and lonely figure, a splenetic autodidact, my genius merely a knack for translating my monomaniac obsessions to better play upon the resentments of a defeated, divided nation. I, the greatest statesman since Fredrick the Great am just some shallow vessel into which millions of Germans, princes and peasants, poured their fantasies of dominion and Volk!
They insinuate that I was lucky, that the triumphs of the greatest warlord in history were the result of reckless gambles taken against divided opposition, that I couldn't do anything to a united front but heedlessly raise the stakes. Such lies! I am the victim of more betrayals in death than in life! Never once is my logic accepted, despite its undeniable successes. Instead, we hear more defeatist blather about 'material supremacy' and 'wishful thinking'!
How do these quibbling pedants imagine it was that I became their subject, that Kershaw writes about me, not me about Kershaw? If I am the twisted freak they say I am, why then was I triumphant over Europe? How, if not for the hand of Providence did I survive the despicable plots and intrigues of my enemies near and far? Only this can be true: I rose through my own will and an iron understanding of the law of life, as suffering and struggle for existence. Only that matters, thus only cowardice and treachery by the unworthy German people could bring me down. The fool Kershaw thinks my last days were ignominious, but I chose my end as an inspiration to future generations that they will in time cast aside these grotesque mockeries, and so it shall be!
And that's not all! My vindication will be...
Hesitantly at first, the camera starts to recede. Out of the Map Room. Into the crowded hallway. His voice can still be heard, growing fainter with distance, now indistinct, blurring with the rumble of distant artillery. Don't worry, you're not missing anything.
END SCENE
June 4, 2018
Some years ago before joining Goodreads, I read the very long first volume of this 'biography', and only recall now its length, thoroughness and the fact that it was a bit dry at times. I came across this second volume recently which takes up the narrative from the point where Hitler had taken power.
The book, like volume 1, is more an explanation of the various social and political forces within Germany which led to such a person being put into power and then becoming completely central to an abnormally run state in which officials tried to "work towards the Fuehrer" by anticipating and carrying out his wishes without needing actual authorisation, often competing and clashing. Hitler, meanwhile, was governed by twin manias: the need to expand Germany's "living space" and the drive to remove - initially by emigration or deportation, and later on by extermination - those elements of the population he viewed as undesirables: chiefly the Jews, but also Gypsies, mentally handicapped, Communists and others. While presiding over mass murder, he took care to distance himself from it, though his constant generalisations against the Jews in particular inspired his subordinates to carry out his wishes. Kershaw describes the mindset which, contrary to any reasonable person's view, saw powerless victims as all-powerful enemies, but does not attempt to explain it.
Hitler's 'talent', as the author sees it, was for detecting the weaknesses of others, including heads of other states, and taking all-or-nothing gambles: until 1941, those paid off, and he had the almost 100% support of his military leaders and most of the general public. But the ultimate gamble, of attacking the Soviet Union, which he completely underestimated, was the one where it all started to unravel. Given his inability to admit any fault, he then scapegoated the Jews or his military chiefs for the repeated reversals. As the situation worsened, his paranoia spiraled until he distrusted the Army chiefs, in particular, and repeatedly sacked them. His megalomania was such that if Germany lost the war, it would prove the German people were unworthy of him and should perish with him.
For such a huge volume there were surprisingly few typographical errors other than a couple of repeated words such as 'the the' and an odd tendency in the first few chapters to use 'imply' and 'infer' incorrectly. Some of the wording is a little turgid, such as 'the implication to imply', but on the whole, the book was interesting and had some surprises: I hadn't known that the conspirators against Hitler had made other attempts before the one where they planted the bomb at the planning meeting. The one thing that this (and as far as I recall, volume 1 was the same) does not do is give a real insight into why Hitler was the way he was or try to give any psychological explanation for views which turned reality on its head. So I would rate this a 4-star read.
The book, like volume 1, is more an explanation of the various social and political forces within Germany which led to such a person being put into power and then becoming completely central to an abnormally run state in which officials tried to "work towards the Fuehrer" by anticipating and carrying out his wishes without needing actual authorisation, often competing and clashing. Hitler, meanwhile, was governed by twin manias: the need to expand Germany's "living space" and the drive to remove - initially by emigration or deportation, and later on by extermination - those elements of the population he viewed as undesirables: chiefly the Jews, but also Gypsies, mentally handicapped, Communists and others. While presiding over mass murder, he took care to distance himself from it, though his constant generalisations against the Jews in particular inspired his subordinates to carry out his wishes. Kershaw describes the mindset which, contrary to any reasonable person's view, saw powerless victims as all-powerful enemies, but does not attempt to explain it.
Hitler's 'talent', as the author sees it, was for detecting the weaknesses of others, including heads of other states, and taking all-or-nothing gambles: until 1941, those paid off, and he had the almost 100% support of his military leaders and most of the general public. But the ultimate gamble, of attacking the Soviet Union, which he completely underestimated, was the one where it all started to unravel. Given his inability to admit any fault, he then scapegoated the Jews or his military chiefs for the repeated reversals. As the situation worsened, his paranoia spiraled until he distrusted the Army chiefs, in particular, and repeatedly sacked them. His megalomania was such that if Germany lost the war, it would prove the German people were unworthy of him and should perish with him.
For such a huge volume there were surprisingly few typographical errors other than a couple of repeated words such as 'the the' and an odd tendency in the first few chapters to use 'imply' and 'infer' incorrectly. Some of the wording is a little turgid, such as 'the implication to imply', but on the whole, the book was interesting and had some surprises: I hadn't known that the conspirators against Hitler had made other attempts before the one where they planted the bomb at the planning meeting. The one thing that this (and as far as I recall, volume 1 was the same) does not do is give a real insight into why Hitler was the way he was or try to give any psychological explanation for views which turned reality on its head. So I would rate this a 4-star read.
April 16, 2021
"[Hitler] continued, as ever, to intervene willfully and arbitrarily in a wide array of matters, often of a trivial nature, undermining as he did so any semblance of governmental order or rationality."
Parallels in history, the way it repeats, the patterns, the actions, the rhetoric, the continuous revival of hatreds and debunked ideas, conspiracies that fly in the face of sanity, the gullibility of people to fall for these tactics, slogans and dogwhistles... This is one reason that I -- and you -- should read history, and lots of it. And think about it, process it, and put it into perspective. It's hard to do this if you aren't layering a lot of historical reading to get a sense of the big sweeping picture. Of course, you can just be one of those cool persons with a healthy sense of common decency, astute observation, tolerance, empathy, and all those good inate things that tell you when something just ain't right. But, to know why these patterns are dangerous, and repeatable, you have to engage what has happened before to fully understand what is happening now. People, alas, especially in echo-chamber masses, never really change that much. Base tribalism and the need for simple answers and blame-targets are ever at the ready to subsume the best qualities of our rational minds and humanity. Nobody ever thinks that THEY'LL be the ones to be Nazis, even when they start talking and acting like them.
During and after the tenure of Donald Trump, there were a lot of think pieces across the media about whether Trump was a fascist, a neo-Nazi, a white nationalist, a bigot, a divider, an exceptionalist, etc. Many struggled simply to define what fascism even means. Many outlets -- even some that are usually reliable -- decided that Trump did not meet the standard of the concept.
Having now read Ian Kershaw's massive two-volume history of the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler, seeing the constant parallels between him and our most recent demagogue, it's rather baffling and foolish to dismiss the similarities, the rhetoric, and, in some cases, the outcomes.
It would be a parlor game to wonder what would happen if Trump went back in time in a TARDIS and took over the role of Hitler in Germany, vaingloriously pandering to the worst in his people to stoke his ego and ambitions. Does anyone truly believe he would refuse?
Were the circumstances in Germany back then different than those in contemporary America? Of course. Those circumstances, however, do not diminish or negate the parallels. Trump not sending people to concentration camps does not mean that he can't reasonably be called fascist. The extreme ends of any ideology or set of policies are not the only benchmark by which to measure a political movement.
As Kershaw astutely notes in his books on Hitler, the Fuhrer was not wholly to blame for what happened. He merely exploited beliefs and currents that were already there among the people. He became a facilitator and a catalyst to rally people to make those heinous ideas the norm, to say the quiet parts out loud, to make it OK to beat up your neighbor, because, after all, they're not "like us." They want to destroy us. That kindly shopkeeper next door you've known and liked all your life, a working stiff who never bothered anybody, is really the enemy. Division is a classic tactic of the demagogue, to gain a rabid fan base and to gain and maintain power. Rallies to stoke that division and feed the ego of the demagogue were used liberally by both Hitler, and Trump. The messaging is always filled with fear, anger, finger-pointing -- and no real solutions. Unless it be a Final one.
As Kershaw points out in the book, Hitler's popularity "could not be accounted by propaganda alone." There had to be a basic mutual sympatico in place from the get-go.
Xenophobia, exceptionalism, bigotry, antisemitism, suspicion of racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants seeking a better life called human "bacilli" who've come to infect the pure blood of the nation, and a Crusade-like stance to defend "the West" against such unspecific and vague scary sounding ideas as "cultural Marxism" and lesser people from "shithole countries" intent on a "Great Replacement" of the white race were all ideas common to the lumpenroletariat of Germany, and were ideas Hitler shared with his brethen. With his rhetorical skills, these were ripe for the picking, to whip up and win the rabble. Every single one of these concepts are touted today by the alt-Right in our society; all of them. And Trump dogwhistled all of them for his own ends. To deny this is sheer delusion.
Anti-intellectualism is another idea exploited by these demagogues. It's tempting for under-educated people to gravitate toward blaming vaguely defined "elitists," "bureaucrats," know-it-alls, and ivory-tower liberal academics for the problems besetting them. This all gets twisted to the point of the denial of science -- of things as common, sensible and proven successful as vaccinations; in the present case, for Covid. No, it's not the right thing to do; it's a "plot" to turn us all into compliant zombies rather than a cogent and sane strategy for controlling a raging fatal disease. Normal, sensible things become politicized when a political party has no solutions to offer.
Trump doesn't believe in Christianity any more than Hitler did; both men used religion to strengthen their bases. Hitler, in fact, wanted to destroy the Church once his power was solidified once the war he was sure he'd win was over.
Trump cultivated a mass of adoring, uncritical adherents, ever willing to excuse anything he did. In the face of facts, they default to whacko conspiracies to justify all. Thus, it was Antifa that stormed the capitol, not thousands of Trump supporters; despite the facts of everyone's lying eyes. We won't even go into the debunked absurdities of QAnon and the "stolen" election...
What are the differences between Trump and Hilter? Hitler rose from relative poverty on his own initiative; Trump had everything handed to him. Hitler exploited a weak democracy, the Weimar Republic, to attain power. Trump was unable to attain full power because of the pushback within a stronger democracy. Hitler was easily able to centralize media control in a time of fewer outlets to control the message. Trump had "state media" outlets like Fox and other pandering outlets like OAN, and odiously cynical and mercenary Twitter to carry his message, but could not control the rest of the media, even though he suggested the arrest of reporters and the regulation of social media outlets that pushed back against his toxic rhetoric, disinformation and outright lies. Hitler actually believed his warped ideology and agreed with those who shared those ideas, whereas Trump is a complete amoral cipher with no discernable political ideology; his ideology was adaptable, flexible and mutable to cater to his egoistic self-stroking. But, like Hitler, he pandered to those who did believe those ideas. Both men were chaos agents; throwing dangerously irresponsible assertions into the body politic, and both were micro managers to the detriment of efficient government. Unlike the assertions of some apologists, fascism and Hitler's Nazi state -- as Kershaw points out -- was not efficient. Totalitarian regimes, despite their fondness for military regimentation -- are not models of economic or govermental efficiency. Hitler's, and Trump's, war on government were each disastrous and counter-productive. Much relied on favoring sycophancy, in both cases. Hitler's loyal and corrupt Gauleiters were a complete mess, and Trump's division of the country into "good Red"and "bad Blue" states showed the petulance of such a divisive view of his own country.
To quote Kershaw, and this is the context of the quote I highlighted above:
"The consequence was ... a further inpenetrable level of administrative overlap, confusion, conflict, and chaos. Hitler was keen to preserve his base of loyalty among the Gauleiter."
and
"What they did not fully grasp was that the shapeless ‘system’ of governance that had emerged was both the inexorable product of Hitler’s personalized rule and the guarantee of his power. In a modern state, necessarily resting on bureaucracy and dependent upon system and regulated procedure, centering all spheres of power in the hands of one man – whose leadership style was utterly unbureaucratic and whose approach to rule was completely unsystematic, resting as it did on a combination of force and propaganda – could only produce administrative chaos amid a morass of competing authorities. But this same organizational incoherence was the very safeguard of Hitler’s power, since every strand of authority was dependent on him. He continued, as ever, to intervene wilfully and arbitrarily in a wide array of matters, often of a trivial nature, undermining as he did so any semblance of governmental order or rationality."
As to those who think all this doesn't lead to a fatal course, in either case, consider the following. With a botched response to Covid that has left half a million dead, kids in cages and parents separated from parents and whole families plopped face down dead in the ditch before barbed wire fences at the border, is it a surprise that America's Republican party might be called a "death cult," intent on taking everyone down with them? How does this not invite comparisons to Nazi Germany?
As for Kershaw, it's important to know that he has subsequently edited and combined his two volumes of Hitler, Hubris and Hitler, Nemesis into one handy volume simply called Hitler for those afraid of tackling a two-volume 2,000-page behemoth. Not intending to read that, I'm not sure how well it turned out. All I can say, is that reading these two volumes over the past couple of months has been supremely rewarding and well worth the time. This volume, two, actually is smoother and easier to read than the first volume, though I have to say that the first part was more informative to me. The gain in nuance, even when the writing was sludgy, was what I was looking for. I am, therefore, recommending you tackle the complete two-volume version.
It's important to understand who and what Hitler was, and what he wasn't. And the answers are neither clear-cut, nor comforting. Was he smart? Yes. Was he smart? No. It always depends on what you mean by the question.
Read them, if for no other reason to understand why you have to be ever-vigilant.
EG/KR@KY 2021
Parallels in history, the way it repeats, the patterns, the actions, the rhetoric, the continuous revival of hatreds and debunked ideas, conspiracies that fly in the face of sanity, the gullibility of people to fall for these tactics, slogans and dogwhistles... This is one reason that I -- and you -- should read history, and lots of it. And think about it, process it, and put it into perspective. It's hard to do this if you aren't layering a lot of historical reading to get a sense of the big sweeping picture. Of course, you can just be one of those cool persons with a healthy sense of common decency, astute observation, tolerance, empathy, and all those good inate things that tell you when something just ain't right. But, to know why these patterns are dangerous, and repeatable, you have to engage what has happened before to fully understand what is happening now. People, alas, especially in echo-chamber masses, never really change that much. Base tribalism and the need for simple answers and blame-targets are ever at the ready to subsume the best qualities of our rational minds and humanity. Nobody ever thinks that THEY'LL be the ones to be Nazis, even when they start talking and acting like them.
During and after the tenure of Donald Trump, there were a lot of think pieces across the media about whether Trump was a fascist, a neo-Nazi, a white nationalist, a bigot, a divider, an exceptionalist, etc. Many struggled simply to define what fascism even means. Many outlets -- even some that are usually reliable -- decided that Trump did not meet the standard of the concept.
Having now read Ian Kershaw's massive two-volume history of the rise and fall of Adolf Hitler, seeing the constant parallels between him and our most recent demagogue, it's rather baffling and foolish to dismiss the similarities, the rhetoric, and, in some cases, the outcomes.
It would be a parlor game to wonder what would happen if Trump went back in time in a TARDIS and took over the role of Hitler in Germany, vaingloriously pandering to the worst in his people to stoke his ego and ambitions. Does anyone truly believe he would refuse?
Were the circumstances in Germany back then different than those in contemporary America? Of course. Those circumstances, however, do not diminish or negate the parallels. Trump not sending people to concentration camps does not mean that he can't reasonably be called fascist. The extreme ends of any ideology or set of policies are not the only benchmark by which to measure a political movement.
As Kershaw astutely notes in his books on Hitler, the Fuhrer was not wholly to blame for what happened. He merely exploited beliefs and currents that were already there among the people. He became a facilitator and a catalyst to rally people to make those heinous ideas the norm, to say the quiet parts out loud, to make it OK to beat up your neighbor, because, after all, they're not "like us." They want to destroy us. That kindly shopkeeper next door you've known and liked all your life, a working stiff who never bothered anybody, is really the enemy. Division is a classic tactic of the demagogue, to gain a rabid fan base and to gain and maintain power. Rallies to stoke that division and feed the ego of the demagogue were used liberally by both Hitler, and Trump. The messaging is always filled with fear, anger, finger-pointing -- and no real solutions. Unless it be a Final one.
As Kershaw points out in the book, Hitler's popularity "could not be accounted by propaganda alone." There had to be a basic mutual sympatico in place from the get-go.
Xenophobia, exceptionalism, bigotry, antisemitism, suspicion of racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants seeking a better life called human "bacilli" who've come to infect the pure blood of the nation, and a Crusade-like stance to defend "the West" against such unspecific and vague scary sounding ideas as "cultural Marxism" and lesser people from "shithole countries" intent on a "Great Replacement" of the white race were all ideas common to the lumpenroletariat of Germany, and were ideas Hitler shared with his brethen. With his rhetorical skills, these were ripe for the picking, to whip up and win the rabble. Every single one of these concepts are touted today by the alt-Right in our society; all of them. And Trump dogwhistled all of them for his own ends. To deny this is sheer delusion.
Anti-intellectualism is another idea exploited by these demagogues. It's tempting for under-educated people to gravitate toward blaming vaguely defined "elitists," "bureaucrats," know-it-alls, and ivory-tower liberal academics for the problems besetting them. This all gets twisted to the point of the denial of science -- of things as common, sensible and proven successful as vaccinations; in the present case, for Covid. No, it's not the right thing to do; it's a "plot" to turn us all into compliant zombies rather than a cogent and sane strategy for controlling a raging fatal disease. Normal, sensible things become politicized when a political party has no solutions to offer.
Trump doesn't believe in Christianity any more than Hitler did; both men used religion to strengthen their bases. Hitler, in fact, wanted to destroy the Church once his power was solidified once the war he was sure he'd win was over.
Trump cultivated a mass of adoring, uncritical adherents, ever willing to excuse anything he did. In the face of facts, they default to whacko conspiracies to justify all. Thus, it was Antifa that stormed the capitol, not thousands of Trump supporters; despite the facts of everyone's lying eyes. We won't even go into the debunked absurdities of QAnon and the "stolen" election...
What are the differences between Trump and Hilter? Hitler rose from relative poverty on his own initiative; Trump had everything handed to him. Hitler exploited a weak democracy, the Weimar Republic, to attain power. Trump was unable to attain full power because of the pushback within a stronger democracy. Hitler was easily able to centralize media control in a time of fewer outlets to control the message. Trump had "state media" outlets like Fox and other pandering outlets like OAN, and odiously cynical and mercenary Twitter to carry his message, but could not control the rest of the media, even though he suggested the arrest of reporters and the regulation of social media outlets that pushed back against his toxic rhetoric, disinformation and outright lies. Hitler actually believed his warped ideology and agreed with those who shared those ideas, whereas Trump is a complete amoral cipher with no discernable political ideology; his ideology was adaptable, flexible and mutable to cater to his egoistic self-stroking. But, like Hitler, he pandered to those who did believe those ideas. Both men were chaos agents; throwing dangerously irresponsible assertions into the body politic, and both were micro managers to the detriment of efficient government. Unlike the assertions of some apologists, fascism and Hitler's Nazi state -- as Kershaw points out -- was not efficient. Totalitarian regimes, despite their fondness for military regimentation -- are not models of economic or govermental efficiency. Hitler's, and Trump's, war on government were each disastrous and counter-productive. Much relied on favoring sycophancy, in both cases. Hitler's loyal and corrupt Gauleiters were a complete mess, and Trump's division of the country into "good Red"and "bad Blue" states showed the petulance of such a divisive view of his own country.
To quote Kershaw, and this is the context of the quote I highlighted above:
"The consequence was ... a further inpenetrable level of administrative overlap, confusion, conflict, and chaos. Hitler was keen to preserve his base of loyalty among the Gauleiter."
and
"What they did not fully grasp was that the shapeless ‘system’ of governance that had emerged was both the inexorable product of Hitler’s personalized rule and the guarantee of his power. In a modern state, necessarily resting on bureaucracy and dependent upon system and regulated procedure, centering all spheres of power in the hands of one man – whose leadership style was utterly unbureaucratic and whose approach to rule was completely unsystematic, resting as it did on a combination of force and propaganda – could only produce administrative chaos amid a morass of competing authorities. But this same organizational incoherence was the very safeguard of Hitler’s power, since every strand of authority was dependent on him. He continued, as ever, to intervene wilfully and arbitrarily in a wide array of matters, often of a trivial nature, undermining as he did so any semblance of governmental order or rationality."
As to those who think all this doesn't lead to a fatal course, in either case, consider the following. With a botched response to Covid that has left half a million dead, kids in cages and parents separated from parents and whole families plopped face down dead in the ditch before barbed wire fences at the border, is it a surprise that America's Republican party might be called a "death cult," intent on taking everyone down with them? How does this not invite comparisons to Nazi Germany?
As for Kershaw, it's important to know that he has subsequently edited and combined his two volumes of Hitler, Hubris and Hitler, Nemesis into one handy volume simply called Hitler for those afraid of tackling a two-volume 2,000-page behemoth. Not intending to read that, I'm not sure how well it turned out. All I can say, is that reading these two volumes over the past couple of months has been supremely rewarding and well worth the time. This volume, two, actually is smoother and easier to read than the first volume, though I have to say that the first part was more informative to me. The gain in nuance, even when the writing was sludgy, was what I was looking for. I am, therefore, recommending you tackle the complete two-volume version.
It's important to understand who and what Hitler was, and what he wasn't. And the answers are neither clear-cut, nor comforting. Was he smart? Yes. Was he smart? No. It always depends on what you mean by the question.
Read them, if for no other reason to understand why you have to be ever-vigilant.
EG/KR@KY 2021
October 11, 2020
The best biography I have read. The definitive account of the rise and fall of historys most famous dictator. A work of brilliance.
May 18, 2020
Отново, както и при том 1, оценката ми е 4 звезди само защото ме е яд, че за българското издание е предпочетена сбитата версия на книгата, а не пълното издание.
Иначе - всеки, който се интересува поне малко повече от любителски от историята на XX век, ще изпита, сигурен съм, голямо удоволствие от прочита на този страхотен труд на Йън Кършоу. За хората с по-повърхностен интерес предполагам, че ще е too much information.
Как човек, притежаващ един-единствен талант, и изтъкан от посредственост, нарцисизъм, комплекс за малоценност, ходещ провал до 30-тата си годишнина, водещ безличен и отчужден от всичко човешко живот, неспособен на емоционална връзка с никого, отхвърлящ системното знание и крайно мързелив, кретайки в блато от предразсъдъци и илюзии - как подобна личност в рамките на 15 години успява да стане безалтернативен център на власт и впоследствие 12 години да налага себе си на световната сцена, подготвяйки и започвайки най-голямата трагедия в историята на човечеството? Йън Кършоу изчерпателно дава своите отговори на тези въпроси в биографията си за човека Адолф Хитлер.
Иначе - всеки, който се интересува поне малко повече от любителски от историята на XX век, ще изпита, сигурен съм, голямо удоволствие от прочита на този страхотен труд на Йън Кършоу. За хората с по-повърхностен интерес предполагам, че ще е too much information.
Как човек, притежаващ един-единствен талант, и изтъкан от посредственост, нарцисизъм, комплекс за малоценност, ходещ провал до 30-тата си годишнина, водещ безличен и отчужден от всичко човешко живот, неспособен на емоционална връзка с никого, отхвърлящ системното знание и крайно мързелив, кретайки в блато от предразсъдъци и илюзии - как подобна личност в рамките на 15 години успява да стане безалтернативен център на власт и впоследствие 12 години да налага себе си на световната сцена, подготвяйки и започвайки най-голямата трагедия в историята на човечеството? Йън Кършоу изчерпателно дава своите отговори на тези въпроси в биографията си за човека Адолф Хитлер.
November 5, 2015
the usual story but well researched and keeping a good balance between the events and the Fuhrer's involvement in them; the chaotic government of the 3rd Reich, the German people's love and admiration for Hitler until quite close to the end and the way the army's leaders hesitation and doubts turned into hubris and enthusiastic acquiescence of Hitler's plans to invade Russia after the quick and decisive victories in Poland and the West are magisterially presented as well as the way the Holocaust happened - the liquidation of the Jewish people enthusiastically pushed by the SS leadership (Himmler, Heydrich and their immediate subordinates), while being modified to fit the circumstances (from the wild ideas about expulsion of the Jewish people to Africa when Hitler still cared about international opinion, to the decision about the "final solution" once the war started, first envisioned as Siberia where they would be worked to death once Russia was defeated and then finally the death camps in Poland once the Russian campaign stalled at Moscow in the winter of 1941 the clear progression which Himmler and his acolytes pushed non-stop, while Hitler gave them authority to do it is presented with evidence)
highly recommended and a definitive guide to the subject
highly recommended and a definitive guide to the subject
April 19, 2022
― Never in history has such ruination – physical and moral – been associated with the name of one man. That the ruination had far deeper roots and far more profound causes than the aims and actions of one man…. That the previously unprobed depths of inhumanity plumbed by the Nazi regime could draw upon wide-ranging complicity at all levels of society has been equally apparent. But Hitler's name justifiably stands for all time as that of the chief instigator of the most profound collapse of civilization in modern times. The extreme form of personal rule which an ill-educated beerhall demagogue and racist bigot, a narcissistic, megalomaniac, self-styled national savior was allowed to acquire and exercise in a modern, economically advanced, and cultured land known for its philosophers and poets, was absolutely decisive in the terrible unfolding of events in those fateful twelve years.
― Ian Kershaw, Hitler, Vol. 2: 1936-1945 Nemesis
British historian Ian Kershaw's Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis is the concluding second volume of his superb biography of Adolf Hitler. No figure in twentieth century history commands a careful biographical understanding more than Adolf Hitler. As the dictator of Germany and instigator of the Second World War in Europe that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 15 to 20 million people and the ruin of Europe, Hitler left his mark on the twentieth century like no other individual. Kershaw’s biography explores the nature and method of Hitler's power, and the effect he had on the German people. As Kershaw demonstrates, the great majority of the Germans followed Hitler until the very end. How was it possible for this megalomaniac to turn so many people toward brutality?
Kershaw divided his two-volume biography of Hitler into “Hubris” and “Nemesis.” By 1936, Kershaw writes, Hitler “had thought himself infallible; his self-image had reached the stage of outright hubris.” Some leaders have a special and potentially dangerous mindset that combines hubris (the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that they can do no wrong) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary that may itself be accused of hubris). The term Nemesis is used to refer to the ancient Greek goddess and retributions attributed to her. Nemesis was the goddess of divine vengeance and retribution.
With Hitler, the impulsiveness and vanity, the bullying and brashness, were obvious from the very beginning. If anything, they accounted for Hitler’s anti-establishment appeal. Hitler’s standard approach involved lying and blaming others (“There are so many lies that truth and swindle can scarcely be distinguished.”) He once claimed, “We will construct a gigantic wall separating Asia from Europe.” He got rid of anyone, especially military experts, who challenged him.
― Consistent only with his own warped and peculiar brand of logic, he was prepared to take measures with such far-reaching consequences for the German population that the very survival he claimed to be fighting for was fundamentally threatened. Ultimately, the continued existence of the German people – if it showed itself incapable of defeating its enemies – was less important to him than the refusal to capitulate.
― Ian Kershaw, Hitler, Vol. 2: 1936-1945 Nemesis
As Nemesis opens, Adolf Hitler has attained absolute power within Germany. Idolized by the majority of the German population and strongly supported by the Nazi party, Hitler was now in the position to begin the subjugation of Europe. The Nazi Party, ruling through totalitarian means, promoted German pride and anti-Semitism, and expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles—the peace settlement that ended World War I and required Germany to make numerous concessions and reparations. Nearly a decade later, the vaunted German war machine would be destroyed, Hitler would end his own life with a bullet to the head as Allied forces converged on Berlin. For all his claims of invincibility, he ended up a broken, sickly man. The very qualities that accounted for Fuhrer’s astonishing rise were also what brought about his ultimate ruin.
Like most historians, Kershaw believes that the condition of the German nation had much to do with Hitler's rise. As Kershaw says, “'The rise from the depths of national degradation to the heights of national greatness seemed for so many (as propaganda never ceased to trumpet) to be a near miracle—a work of redemption brought about by the unique genius of the Führer.” In the second half of the 1930's, Hitler gave most Germans what they wanted: victories abroad, a pumped-up economy, revenge on imaginary enemies and grand spectacles to celebrate the delight of belonging to a master race. In the end, however, Hitler was not just an opportunist who took advantage of the terrible economic and social conditions that had existed in Germany since the end of World War I. Hitler truly believed that he had been sent by “Providence” to save the German people, and forced himself upon the nation. He exploited the age-old German values of obedience, loyalty and patriotism.
What I found so frightening was how Kershaw’s two-volume Hitler biography seems to draw unnerving parallels to contemporary politics. I found Kershaw's biography a rather depressing book to read, not only because of what it tells us about Hitler but also because of what it says about the masses who follow such a dangerous man.
― Ian Kershaw, Hitler, Vol. 2: 1936-1945 Nemesis
British historian Ian Kershaw's Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis is the concluding second volume of his superb biography of Adolf Hitler. No figure in twentieth century history commands a careful biographical understanding more than Adolf Hitler. As the dictator of Germany and instigator of the Second World War in Europe that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 15 to 20 million people and the ruin of Europe, Hitler left his mark on the twentieth century like no other individual. Kershaw’s biography explores the nature and method of Hitler's power, and the effect he had on the German people. As Kershaw demonstrates, the great majority of the Germans followed Hitler until the very end. How was it possible for this megalomaniac to turn so many people toward brutality?
Kershaw divided his two-volume biography of Hitler into “Hubris” and “Nemesis.” By 1936, Kershaw writes, Hitler “had thought himself infallible; his self-image had reached the stage of outright hubris.” Some leaders have a special and potentially dangerous mindset that combines hubris (the characteristic of excessive confidence or arrogance, which leads a person to believe that they can do no wrong) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary that may itself be accused of hubris). The term Nemesis is used to refer to the ancient Greek goddess and retributions attributed to her. Nemesis was the goddess of divine vengeance and retribution.
With Hitler, the impulsiveness and vanity, the bullying and brashness, were obvious from the very beginning. If anything, they accounted for Hitler’s anti-establishment appeal. Hitler’s standard approach involved lying and blaming others (“There are so many lies that truth and swindle can scarcely be distinguished.”) He once claimed, “We will construct a gigantic wall separating Asia from Europe.” He got rid of anyone, especially military experts, who challenged him.
― Consistent only with his own warped and peculiar brand of logic, he was prepared to take measures with such far-reaching consequences for the German population that the very survival he claimed to be fighting for was fundamentally threatened. Ultimately, the continued existence of the German people – if it showed itself incapable of defeating its enemies – was less important to him than the refusal to capitulate.
― Ian Kershaw, Hitler, Vol. 2: 1936-1945 Nemesis
As Nemesis opens, Adolf Hitler has attained absolute power within Germany. Idolized by the majority of the German population and strongly supported by the Nazi party, Hitler was now in the position to begin the subjugation of Europe. The Nazi Party, ruling through totalitarian means, promoted German pride and anti-Semitism, and expressed dissatisfaction with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles—the peace settlement that ended World War I and required Germany to make numerous concessions and reparations. Nearly a decade later, the vaunted German war machine would be destroyed, Hitler would end his own life with a bullet to the head as Allied forces converged on Berlin. For all his claims of invincibility, he ended up a broken, sickly man. The very qualities that accounted for Fuhrer’s astonishing rise were also what brought about his ultimate ruin.
Like most historians, Kershaw believes that the condition of the German nation had much to do with Hitler's rise. As Kershaw says, “'The rise from the depths of national degradation to the heights of national greatness seemed for so many (as propaganda never ceased to trumpet) to be a near miracle—a work of redemption brought about by the unique genius of the Führer.” In the second half of the 1930's, Hitler gave most Germans what they wanted: victories abroad, a pumped-up economy, revenge on imaginary enemies and grand spectacles to celebrate the delight of belonging to a master race. In the end, however, Hitler was not just an opportunist who took advantage of the terrible economic and social conditions that had existed in Germany since the end of World War I. Hitler truly believed that he had been sent by “Providence” to save the German people, and forced himself upon the nation. He exploited the age-old German values of obedience, loyalty and patriotism.
What I found so frightening was how Kershaw’s two-volume Hitler biography seems to draw unnerving parallels to contemporary politics. I found Kershaw's biography a rather depressing book to read, not only because of what it tells us about Hitler but also because of what it says about the masses who follow such a dangerous man.
April 3, 2024
Although once again (as in the previous volume) prone to repetition (if I had a pound for every use of the phrases "working towards the Fuhrer" and "pushing against an open door") this is still a detailed retelling of the rise and fall of Hitler, the Nazi party and the 3rd Reich.
November 24, 2025
A M A Z I N G.
excruciatingly good book. an anthem, I'd say.
excruciatingly good book. an anthem, I'd say.
March 10, 2018
It's a great book, but it isn't about Hitler. It is more a social history of the Third Reich, and taken as that, Kershaw does a creditable job. As for revealing Hitler's psyche, decision making processes, or anything of the like, we see very little of that revealed. Many of the important people in the Hitler court are not even discussed, and Eva Braun is a minor character - indeed, she may have been in actual fact, but in a book about his life one would expect to see her given more attention. The same can be said for Albert Speer, the closest thing Hitler had to a friend and confidante, who is also largely absent in Kershaw's pages.
So one concludes Kershaw's aim was simply not to discuss him in that level of detail and instead focused on the German state - in reality a Führer-state. It was no accident that Führer and state were inseparable by the end, and Kershaw does describe this process rather well. So anyone hoping to read the same tired old analyses of Hitler's scrotum or alleged sexual inadequacies will be disappointed. Those wanting to know more about how a nation of 80 million came to tie their fate to that of a failed Austrian painter and minor war hero, this book will satisfy.
It is riveting, informative, chilling and suspenseful, and above all, gives a masterful feel for what it was like to be living in the Third Reich at the time. There is no revisionist tone and no feeling of hindsight - as the pages go by, Kershaw gives a real sense of what Germans as a whole were feeling, from euphoria in May 1940 to abject defeat in February 1943, to ambivalence to life itself in April 1945.
So one concludes Kershaw's aim was simply not to discuss him in that level of detail and instead focused on the German state - in reality a Führer-state. It was no accident that Führer and state were inseparable by the end, and Kershaw does describe this process rather well. So anyone hoping to read the same tired old analyses of Hitler's scrotum or alleged sexual inadequacies will be disappointed. Those wanting to know more about how a nation of 80 million came to tie their fate to that of a failed Austrian painter and minor war hero, this book will satisfy.
It is riveting, informative, chilling and suspenseful, and above all, gives a masterful feel for what it was like to be living in the Third Reich at the time. There is no revisionist tone and no feeling of hindsight - as the pages go by, Kershaw gives a real sense of what Germans as a whole were feeling, from euphoria in May 1940 to abject defeat in February 1943, to ambivalence to life itself in April 1945.
July 31, 2024
Definitely one of my favorite books. I've read volume one several times. This volume I read 20 years ago, then after rereading volume one, I kind of crashed and burned my way through the second. A little tedious in places, but overall this is the best biography of Hitler in my opinion.
March 9, 2021
Part 2 of this great biography. In this part Kershaw seems to rely especially on the diary of Goebbels.
November 29, 2018
I bought this two book set probably well over a decade ago, and finally as of this year got around to reading them. I’ve read, and through collegiate work, studied, a good bit about World War Two, and have immense regard for Ian Kershaw’s work. He doesn’t disappoint in this two-tome history from the perspective of Hitler and the inner party. I must have had a stronger stomach in my youth, because I really took a long time in reading these two books. The subject material is understandably ghastly. The book is, unsurprisingly given it is written by Kershaw, impeccably researched and cited.
I have only one nit-picky complaint. As someone who has difficulty with dates and keeping timelines straight, I found myself time and time again in he notes I took wondering exactly what month or year ‘I was in’ when taking notes in the book. I remember at one point saying to myself ‘he has got to be talking about ‘Black May’ (referring to drastic loss of U-boats in 1943 by Dönitz as technology and the sheer force of arms continued to grind the Nazis to dust) but wasn’t able to confirm it until several pages later. I had countless moments like this where I would have difficulty ‘orienting’ myself to what specific time of history I was in within the book, as though Kershaw expected me to be a master of the subject. Perhaps he does. If so, shame on me.
I have only one nit-picky complaint. As someone who has difficulty with dates and keeping timelines straight, I found myself time and time again in he notes I took wondering exactly what month or year ‘I was in’ when taking notes in the book. I remember at one point saying to myself ‘he has got to be talking about ‘Black May’ (referring to drastic loss of U-boats in 1943 by Dönitz as technology and the sheer force of arms continued to grind the Nazis to dust) but wasn’t able to confirm it until several pages later. I had countless moments like this where I would have difficulty ‘orienting’ myself to what specific time of history I was in within the book, as though Kershaw expected me to be a master of the subject. Perhaps he does. If so, shame on me.
September 5, 2020
"Whether right or wrong, we must win. That is the only way. And it is morally right and necessary. And when we have won, who will ask us about the method? In any case we have chalked up so much that we have to win, otherwise our entire people - and in the first place we ourselves with all that is dear to us - will be wiped out"
Adolf Hitler to Josef Goebbels, pre-Barbarossa, 16th June, 1941.
Volume 2 of a 2-part biography, I picked this up sitting lonely on a second-hand bookshop shelf. I must try and get hold of Volume 1 to give this context.
What comes across is the cult of the Fuhrer held so extensively by those that immediately surrounded him and until the German people's faith in him began to crumble with the evident losses and the realisation that everything would go down in a Gotterdammerung of destruction. So much of this was based on Hitler's utter gambling instinct of 'all-or-nothing'. Everything was also presaged on his view of the Jewish-Bolshevik conspiracy and his hatred of both Jews and Slavs as non-human. Indeed everything seems to follow in the path of Mein Kampf. The early successes force fed the Fuhrer-cult and the ease with which the Rhine territories, the Anschluss and the Sudetenland were acquired without any seeming intervention by the western powers that he must have looked god-like and to be the future of the Reich. But the path was set with the invasion of Poland and the entry of Great Britain and France into the conflict though it mattered little for Poland given the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with the USSR. This would soon unravel as Russia was the great lebensraum that Hitler envisaged for the Reich and the source of the Jewish Bolshevik conspiracy which he saw as threatening not just the Reich but the whole of Europe.
This is first and foremost a biography of Hitler but to do this Prof. Ian Kershaw has had to look at all the minutiae of the causes and conduct of the 2WW to analyse the character of Hitler. What emerges is a bipolar narcissist with an utter belief in his own rightness, a social Darwinist convinced that the strong deserved to inherit the riches of the earth and that it was the right of the Aryan races to dominance and of the rest to be subservient, and in which racial issues governed everything. He wanted imperial conquest and with that would go genocide and subjugation of the conquered territories. He was a compulsive meddler in things he knew little about but which he pretended to be an expert. This could be overlooked in the face of weak opponents or easy gains but with Barbarossa he utterly underestimated the Soviet Union because of his belief in the racial inferiority of all Slavs and Russians in particular. This and the opening of two fronts were to cause the utter annihilation of the Reich and to cast a pall over German character which to this day still lingers.
It is his belief in being utterly right and to be guided by Providence that led him to the need for success which made his bond with the German people. From the start of Barbarossa Hitler rarely showed his presence to them as the vision began to unravel. He began to be seen as a remote and distant figure out of touch with what was happening as the Allies gained control of the skies and rained nightly and daily bombing raids on civilians. The climate of quick successes fell apart and with it , the Fuhrer cult began to look shaky. When the Russians counter-attacked he blamed everyone else, and because of his ‘all-or-nothing’ strategy refused to countenance giving up one inch of territory. Retreat to stronger positions was out of the question. So many paid the price for this. And yet because Hitler WAS the Reich then no quarter could be given till Hitler was not the Reich or there was no more Hitler. In the heated climate of his own closeted company this was out of the question till July 1944 with von Stauffenberg’s failed plot to assassinate the Fuhrer. By that time it was clear to all that everything would be lost, but this had been the case from the winter of 1941-42.
Ian Kershaw has written a brilliant examination of the mind of a dictator. Volume 1 will no doubt look into the reasons for his debilities and how his power arose. This volume is very much about the demise of a nation following a damaged demagogue who appeared to have the answers. Hitler became the chief hindrance to the ending of the war even though it was apparent well before the end that Germany could not overcome the manpower and material superiority of both the USSR and the Allies on the eastern and western fronts. Kershaw finds Hitler not clinically insane but suffering from congenital weakness as well as personality disorders bordering on psychic abnormalities.
If there was lunacy Germany found itself in by the autumn of 1944, it was not the purported insanity of one man but that of the high stakes ‘winner-take-all’ gamble for Continental dominance and world power which the country’s leaders – not just Hitler – backed by much of a gullible population had earlier been prepared to take, and which was now costing the country dearly and revealed as a high stakes policy with no exit clause.
November 22, 2019
Este libro narra básicamente toda la carrera política de Hitler, si bien se tocan algunas cosas personales, lo cierto es que este hombre fanático como lo era, una vez que se denomino el "Mesías" del pueblo alemán, dejo casi de lado toda su vida personal para dedicarlo a su lucha por el por el poder, a maquinar, a movilizarse y a hacer todo lo posible e imposible para llegar al poder.
Si algo tenía claro y creo que me ha quedado más claro aún con estos libros, es que este demagogo, no era un hombre inteligente, fue pagado de si mismo, fue un verdadero buen orador, buen vendedor de ideas, que estuvo literalmente en el lugar y el momento adecuado más de una ocasión y que, todo hay que decirlo, tuvo una habilidad, saber en que momento desestabilizar más la situación política y social para poder tener más oportunidades para él mismo.
Hay varios personajes a su alrededor que fueron verdaderas mentes maquiavelicas, mucho más que el mismo Hitler a la hora de hacer y llevar a cabo las cosas, pero una cosa me queda clara, las masas son brutas, son manipulables y son imbéciles, no piensan cuando están en conjunto. ¡Qué fácil es engañar a las masas!
Sin embargo este libro como he dicho es más un pormenorizado de la guerra, las decisiones, los personajes involucrados, las malas decisiones, que no necesariamente fueron todas de Hitler como se dice en todas partes, lo cierto es que este hombresito tenía un grave problema de complejo de inferioridad, era flojo, antisocial y por supuesto narcisista hasta puntos insospechados y a mi parecer muchos a su alrededor utilizaron todas estas "deficiencias de personalidad" de Hitler para aprovecharse, hacer carrera y hacer su santa voluntad. Los más perjudicados a mi parecer fueron los militares, muchos de ellos ni siquiera estaban de acuerdo con la Guerra ni mucho menos en la manera en que esta se estaba manejando, pero así son los militares, juran lealtad y siguen ordenes, eso no los exime en absoluto de muchas cosas, pero, en muchos casos fueron más utilizados que otra cosa.
Lo peor de esta historia y de esta guerra es Himler y sus SS, un hombre con una capacidad infinita de odio, (no digo que los demás Nazis no lo tuvieran, que conste), un manipulador y un hombre que llego a tener tanto poder como el mismo Hitler, solo que en lo más oscuro y tenebroso de esta parte de la historia.
Las guerras son feas, todas y no voy a decir que en esta guerra el único monstruo fue Hitler o Alemania, al final tantos muertos por pelear tierra y unas absurdas creencias no vale los millones de muertos.
Sin duda los mejores libros relacionados con Hitler que he leído hasta ahora
Si algo tenía claro y creo que me ha quedado más claro aún con estos libros, es que este demagogo, no era un hombre inteligente, fue pagado de si mismo, fue un verdadero buen orador, buen vendedor de ideas, que estuvo literalmente en el lugar y el momento adecuado más de una ocasión y que, todo hay que decirlo, tuvo una habilidad, saber en que momento desestabilizar más la situación política y social para poder tener más oportunidades para él mismo.
Hay varios personajes a su alrededor que fueron verdaderas mentes maquiavelicas, mucho más que el mismo Hitler a la hora de hacer y llevar a cabo las cosas, pero una cosa me queda clara, las masas son brutas, son manipulables y son imbéciles, no piensan cuando están en conjunto. ¡Qué fácil es engañar a las masas!
Sin embargo este libro como he dicho es más un pormenorizado de la guerra, las decisiones, los personajes involucrados, las malas decisiones, que no necesariamente fueron todas de Hitler como se dice en todas partes, lo cierto es que este hombresito tenía un grave problema de complejo de inferioridad, era flojo, antisocial y por supuesto narcisista hasta puntos insospechados y a mi parecer muchos a su alrededor utilizaron todas estas "deficiencias de personalidad" de Hitler para aprovecharse, hacer carrera y hacer su santa voluntad. Los más perjudicados a mi parecer fueron los militares, muchos de ellos ni siquiera estaban de acuerdo con la Guerra ni mucho menos en la manera en que esta se estaba manejando, pero así son los militares, juran lealtad y siguen ordenes, eso no los exime en absoluto de muchas cosas, pero, en muchos casos fueron más utilizados que otra cosa.
Lo peor de esta historia y de esta guerra es Himler y sus SS, un hombre con una capacidad infinita de odio, (no digo que los demás Nazis no lo tuvieran, que conste), un manipulador y un hombre que llego a tener tanto poder como el mismo Hitler, solo que en lo más oscuro y tenebroso de esta parte de la historia.
Las guerras son feas, todas y no voy a decir que en esta guerra el único monstruo fue Hitler o Alemania, al final tantos muertos por pelear tierra y unas absurdas creencias no vale los millones de muertos.
Sin duda los mejores libros relacionados con Hitler que he leído hasta ahora
July 5, 2019
If you are reading this book to get a sense of what kind of a person can become Hitler, what kind of person was he? An inhuman monster? A fool? The answers from this book are going to be complicated.
Firstly, how do you explore a person who left so little in the terms of insight into his person (mind) and his personal life.
What is a person? The book largely takes the stance that it is all the relationships that define the person and their life, in that sense, the book explores Hitler's various relationships. Hitler's relationship with German state and German people, his relationship with his various Nazi inner circles, his relationship with the German elite, his relationship with foreign countries, and his lack of any real personal relationships such as friends, confidants, or equal as lovers.
What was Hitler defined by? My understanding through this book is that he was a fanatic filled with German nationalism, and defined by the trauma of the end of WW1, and most of all, a great gambler, and that this is thread that carries itself all the way to the end.
Was he a fool? Far from it. Showing a great political genius and will to exploit opponents weaknesses, and lack of will.
Was he an evil monster? Not in his eyes. All the way to the end, Nazis and Hitler professed to be the victims of others, even as they were perpetrating one of the greatest genocides of all time, they were the victims in their own minds (this gives insight into how current political white supremacists view themselves as well).
I have many thoughts that I am not able to write right now, I will come back to this
Firstly, how do you explore a person who left so little in the terms of insight into his person (mind) and his personal life.
What is a person? The book largely takes the stance that it is all the relationships that define the person and their life, in that sense, the book explores Hitler's various relationships. Hitler's relationship with German state and German people, his relationship with his various Nazi inner circles, his relationship with the German elite, his relationship with foreign countries, and his lack of any real personal relationships such as friends, confidants, or equal as lovers.
What was Hitler defined by? My understanding through this book is that he was a fanatic filled with German nationalism, and defined by the trauma of the end of WW1, and most of all, a great gambler, and that this is thread that carries itself all the way to the end.
Was he a fool? Far from it. Showing a great political genius and will to exploit opponents weaknesses, and lack of will.
Was he an evil monster? Not in his eyes. All the way to the end, Nazis and Hitler professed to be the victims of others, even as they were perpetrating one of the greatest genocides of all time, they were the victims in their own minds (this gives insight into how current political white supremacists view themselves as well).
I have many thoughts that I am not able to write right now, I will come back to this
February 4, 2018
A monumental work, this two-volume biography, and a work of great importance. Though it is not the book I would start with -- that would still be Richard Evans' trilogy -- Kershaw's work is more analytically intensive and, in that sense, 'narrower', in certain areas.
I have elsewhere been very critical of the Functionalist approach to the Hitler-Problem:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Kershaw, however, with his conception of 'working towards the Führer' makes it fully workable.
Much of the second volume, taken up with the war, is dedicated to detailed millitary history, and so lacks the political sweep of Evans or Alan Bullock. Still, it is a fundamental work and should be read avidly by all interested in this extraordinary series of events.
I have elsewhere been very critical of the Functionalist approach to the Hitler-Problem:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Kershaw, however, with his conception of 'working towards the Führer' makes it fully workable.
Much of the second volume, taken up with the war, is dedicated to detailed millitary history, and so lacks the political sweep of Evans or Alan Bullock. Still, it is a fundamental work and should be read avidly by all interested in this extraordinary series of events.
March 30, 2025
It's quite possible to cavil with the way this book doesn't dive into the death camps as hard as it should. But Kershaw is more interested in personality dynamics than policy. He is particularly good in showing how the German people and those within Hitler's sphere reacted to Hitler's increasingly impetuous policies, particularly after Operation Barbarossa. And that is the reason (one among many) to read these two volumes -- ideally in combination with Richard Evans's HITLER'S PEOPLE and Milton Mayer's THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FREE.
May 11, 2024
One of the best bios I have read. I appreciated that Ian Kershaw described not only the person that was Hitler but also the key persons around him and other events that led to rise and fall of the 3rd Reich. This mind-painted a very detailed picture of the period that will stick with me for a long time.
November 12, 2024
Stejně jako první díl, fascinující čtení. A není to zdaleka jen popis průběhu druhé světové války nebo suchý životopis jednoho diktátora. Je to vlastně životopis celého válečného Německa, spojeného osobou Adolfa Hitlera a "s Vůdcem v duši" pracujícího na své vlastní sebevraždě.
Myslím, že jsem si jen těžko mohl vybrat na tohle složité téma lepší knihu.
Myslím, že jsem si jen těžko mohl vybrat na tohle složité téma lepší knihu.
September 28, 2018
Part 2 of an excellent and comprehensive biography of Hitler - his poor military decisions, his lack of regards for his troops and his population and his fundamental anti-semitism are the main themes which stood out for me. A massive megalomaniac who did carry the support of most of his population.
August 30, 2014
One gets the eerie feeling reading the second volume of Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler "Nemesis" that one is learning nothing new. The man remains exactly as he was at the end of the first volume. Having acquired the means by to pursue his strange goals by becoming Reich Chancellor, he sets out to do so. Neither his initial successes or his ultimate nemesis seem to affect him. His personality and methods do not alter as the horrendous events occur. He remains true to his monstrous self through to the end.
In Kershaw's view Hitler was lower class, uneducated and lacking any gift for organization. He was secretive and incapable of forming friendships. His extraordinary ability to raise crowds to a state rapturous enthusiasm was his only skill. His beliefs that Germany should eliminate Jews from the world and militarily conquer Europe guided his every action.
Kershaw repeatedly states that Hitler knew what actions were being taken against Jews from the time in the early 1930s when gangs of his thuggish followers committed random acts of violence against Jews in their towns to the massive, industrial slaughter on a continental basis that occurred at the end. However, he pretended to be unaware of what was happening. He never alluded to it in his speeches nor discussed it with his colleagues. He issued no orders, never visited a concentration camp and avoided getting involved in the process refusing to plan, allocate transportation or discuss budgets. At times he would even put a damper on the process. In the year preceding the 1936 Olympics, the violence against Germany's Jews took an unannounced pause and then resumed once the Games were over.
In part Hitler was simply applying the proven methods of a gangster. Like Don Corleone he would suggest that an "offer than cannot be refused" be made without either saying what he meant nor how it should be done. Having been in jail after his 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler had no desire to be put behind bars a second time. Once he was in power and prison was no longer a threat, he seemed to feel that he could use clemency towards the Jews as a bargaining chip in exchange for something else from foreign powers. Kershaw, does not suggest, as Jonathon Littell does, that he found the actual killings to be a dirty business that he did not want to dirty his own hands with.
As ruler of Germany, Hitler never got involved in domestic policies and made little effort to follow what his subordinates were up to. He concentrated first on diplomacy and then on the conduct of the war he finally provoked. Kershaw makes it clear that Hitler was no Bismarck who prided himself on acquiring territory through diplomatic sleight of hand. Germany had to expand through war if it was to become great. Hitler was furious when his negotiating partners handed him the Sudetenland. He had wanted a war and felt bitterly cheated. He resolved not to make the same mistake with the Danzig corridor and finally obtained the military conflict he wanted.
As the war progressed, Hitler took progressively more control of the military. He fired and verbally abused his generals. He concluded that they were both cowardly and stupid. As the military reverses became greater, the friction increased. The officers were for the most part aristocrats and considered Hitler to be a vulgar, social upstart. At one point, Hitler joked that he had started his revolution to crush the left and now found himself fighting with foes on the right. A group of officers from the aristocracy even at one point attempted to assassinate Hitler with a bomb that killed several in the room where it was planted but left Hitler unscathed.
As it became clear that Germany would lose the war, Hitler concluded that the fault was not his but that of the German people who had been unworthy of the mission he had confided to them. Rather than try to surrender to negotiate favourable terms, Hitler insisted that the war be fought until Germany simply had no means to continue. Since the people had failed, he wanted to maximize the destruction.
Kershaw ultimately has very little sympathy for the Germanys. Hitler had strong support in all factions of German society from the early 1930s to the end of the Third Reich in 1945. At the height of his power, his support was nearly unanimous. Hitler was a unique monster, but he could not have done what he did without the strong support of the German people.
Ian Kershaw has written a well researched and very thoughtful history of Hitler. The subject , however, is extremely unpleasant and I am sympathetic to anyone who does not feel up to reading this distressing book.
In Kershaw's view Hitler was lower class, uneducated and lacking any gift for organization. He was secretive and incapable of forming friendships. His extraordinary ability to raise crowds to a state rapturous enthusiasm was his only skill. His beliefs that Germany should eliminate Jews from the world and militarily conquer Europe guided his every action.
Kershaw repeatedly states that Hitler knew what actions were being taken against Jews from the time in the early 1930s when gangs of his thuggish followers committed random acts of violence against Jews in their towns to the massive, industrial slaughter on a continental basis that occurred at the end. However, he pretended to be unaware of what was happening. He never alluded to it in his speeches nor discussed it with his colleagues. He issued no orders, never visited a concentration camp and avoided getting involved in the process refusing to plan, allocate transportation or discuss budgets. At times he would even put a damper on the process. In the year preceding the 1936 Olympics, the violence against Germany's Jews took an unannounced pause and then resumed once the Games were over.
In part Hitler was simply applying the proven methods of a gangster. Like Don Corleone he would suggest that an "offer than cannot be refused" be made without either saying what he meant nor how it should be done. Having been in jail after his 1923 Beer Hall Putsch, Hitler had no desire to be put behind bars a second time. Once he was in power and prison was no longer a threat, he seemed to feel that he could use clemency towards the Jews as a bargaining chip in exchange for something else from foreign powers. Kershaw, does not suggest, as Jonathon Littell does, that he found the actual killings to be a dirty business that he did not want to dirty his own hands with.
As ruler of Germany, Hitler never got involved in domestic policies and made little effort to follow what his subordinates were up to. He concentrated first on diplomacy and then on the conduct of the war he finally provoked. Kershaw makes it clear that Hitler was no Bismarck who prided himself on acquiring territory through diplomatic sleight of hand. Germany had to expand through war if it was to become great. Hitler was furious when his negotiating partners handed him the Sudetenland. He had wanted a war and felt bitterly cheated. He resolved not to make the same mistake with the Danzig corridor and finally obtained the military conflict he wanted.
As the war progressed, Hitler took progressively more control of the military. He fired and verbally abused his generals. He concluded that they were both cowardly and stupid. As the military reverses became greater, the friction increased. The officers were for the most part aristocrats and considered Hitler to be a vulgar, social upstart. At one point, Hitler joked that he had started his revolution to crush the left and now found himself fighting with foes on the right. A group of officers from the aristocracy even at one point attempted to assassinate Hitler with a bomb that killed several in the room where it was planted but left Hitler unscathed.
As it became clear that Germany would lose the war, Hitler concluded that the fault was not his but that of the German people who had been unworthy of the mission he had confided to them. Rather than try to surrender to negotiate favourable terms, Hitler insisted that the war be fought until Germany simply had no means to continue. Since the people had failed, he wanted to maximize the destruction.
Kershaw ultimately has very little sympathy for the Germanys. Hitler had strong support in all factions of German society from the early 1930s to the end of the Third Reich in 1945. At the height of his power, his support was nearly unanimous. Hitler was a unique monster, but he could not have done what he did without the strong support of the German people.
Ian Kershaw has written a well researched and very thoughtful history of Hitler. The subject , however, is extremely unpleasant and I am sympathetic to anyone who does not feel up to reading this distressing book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 179 reviews