The Meaning of Hitler

Sebastian Haffner was a German born journalist who left Germany in the late 1930's with his Jewish fiancee.Haffner is a believer in Realpolitik alongside with Kissinger, Bismark and some would say Machiavelli. I would disagree with this way of running the world as it "realistically" ignores the suffering caused by great power politics in the pursuit of further power or the maintenance of power. I am a soft Social Democrat.Haffner however is no right wing apologist. He quite perceptively assigns the rise of Hitler to the miscalculations of the nationalist right (or ruling class) in Germany and the misreading of Hitler's intentions by Great Britain and later France.Germany was well on the path to an authoritarian government before Hitler. Brunings minority government elected in 1930 governed by emergency decree. The powers behind the scenes Franz von Papen and Alfred Hugenberg while wanting a vaguely right wing authoritarian regime, a not unconventional solution for that part of Europe in the 1930's, fell out and Von Papen threw in his lot with Hitler after the 1932 election. Haffner makes the point that Weimar was unloved by everyone but especially the nationalist right. The German ruling class, the officer corp and senior bureaucrats were to a person enemies of Weimar. A state cannot exist with out the support of its own government apparatus and governing class. The "Vons" of Germany thought they could control Hitler. He out maneuvered them and, in eventually destroying them, finished off his only real or potential enemies according to Haffner. In this I agree with Haffner but I would go further in that all successful Fascist regimes were all invited to power by the ruling class. Although they (fascists) were of the right they were revolutionaries of the right. Governing classes that were scared of the lefts rising to power and felt themselves to be vulnerable would call upon the fascists to counter the left. They thought they could co-opt the elan and vigour of the fascists to prop up the regime. This was the case of Italy in 1922. Franco gobbled up the Spanish fascists as soon as he could but his was more an authoritarian regime. Haffner maintains that Hitler was somehow unique. Germany was unique the Nazi's were not.Hitler's uniqueness according to Haffner was his ability to sniff out the unspoken weakness of his opponents and more so "his successes were scored against opponents who were unable or unwilling to offer resistance." His right wing opponents in Germany (that is Haffner's term for the nationalists) gave him a country that was no longer bound by a constitution and "externally he finished off the European peace system in of 1919 when it had already shaken from within and proved itself untenable."England and later France were both willing to have a resurgent Germany reintegrated into the European power system. By the the time of the Munich agreement they were actually acknowledging that Germany was the dominant power in Europe. By destroying the Austro-Hungarian Empire, excluding the new Soviet regime and humiliating Germany the western powers virtually assured that a resurgent Germany would come about. With the withdrawal of the U.S. from European affairs the question really was how would this come about and how would the other great powers react. There was plenty of movement towards this possibility before Hitler, even to the extent of the Social Democrat governments secretly letting the German military participate with the Soviet military in maneuvers in the 1920's.A more assertive Germany indeed a Germany that was the leading power in Europe was inevitable. Hitler did not wrench this possibility from history. Haffner makes the very valid point that Hitler was no Bismark. He did not take the opportunity to further his aims by peaceful means. By mid 1940 Haffner thinks that Hitler could have had it all if he had general European peace/settlement conference. If Great Britain did not attend they would be sidelined as unrealistic and truculent. Eventually they would come around especially if they were the only great power not in the ring. Maybe, maybe not since England had for 300 years sought to make sure that no one European power was dominant.The truly evil disturbing part of Hitler was that he sought extremely violent solutions every time even when diplomacy may have got him what he wanted without further bloodshed. He sought victory over other countries not to impose generous peace treaties in favour of Germany but to crush them and dominate them as vassal states or in some instances to annihilate them as with Poland.In the end I was mostly convinced by Haffner's arguments in this book. His writing is clear and concise and sometimes so forthright and acerbic as to be shocking. He has combined a forthright journalistic style with a subject that he had mulled over for 40 years. Evidently this book was extremely popular in Germany when it was published in 1978. I can see why this was so. There was a need for Germans to hear that Hitler was no good even for Germany and even on the crudest level of politics was an utter failure.

This is a thoughtful, analytical examination of what made Hitler tick. The author does a very good job of connecting the dots. This is a serious book, by a person who fled Germany in 1933 and eventually became an important journalist.Admittedly, because the author was neither personally acquainted with Hitler, nor a psychologist by trade, there is a certain amount of speculation. But he was also very well-informed and intelligent, and is very clear about his reasoning. He walks you through details of Hitler's rise and fall that are relevant to his interpretation. There is nothing obscure: everything he describes is easy to verify.His analysis of Hitler's motives as of December, 1941 I found to be of particular interest. In a nutshell, he identifies this as the moment that Hitler turned his attention from the war to the extermination of the Jews. This of itself is a common enough observation, but the author does a clear job of tying together the relevant events (in particular the successful resistance of the Russians, the entry of the US into the war, and the timing of Hitler's statements and actions against the Jews around this time).On the other hand, this is where I found one area where he is, to me, unconvincing (or maybe I missed something). He attributes Hitler's much-criticized - because unnecessary - declaration of war against the US to exactly this turning of his interest from winning the war to prosecuting the holocaust. Yet he also says:"To Hitler, during the last three and a half years of war, the war had become a kind of race which he was still hoping to win. Who would reach his goal sooner, Hitler with his extermination of the Jews or the Allies with their military overthrow of Germany?"It seems pretty clear to me that by declaring war on the US, instead of letting America's new Pacific troubles sway US domestic sentiment toward a war with Japan rather than Germany, Hitler likely accelerated developments against him. Of course, I don't mean to say Hitler acted as a rational agent, just that Haffner's analysis needs to account for the fact that by declaring war on America (something which Hitler likely knew played right into Roosevelt's desire to more effectively support England), Hitler endangered his other goal. I suppose the answer is that Hitler talked himself into thinking that America would be too preoccupied with Japan to be a factor. But not everyone had this view (e.g., although the German foreign minister was pleased with the news of Pearl Harbor, the Italian foreign minister was worried). And, indeed, in less than a year America demonstrated the depth of its resources by being in both Guadalcanal and North Africa (the latter surprise causing the now panicked German foreign minister to phone the Italian foreign minister in the wee hours of the morning).The value of the book will depend on how much you already know about Hitler and the European Theater of WWII. The newer this subject is to you, the more interesting a read it will be. But I think it's a well-organized review even for knowledgeable people.For both audiences, though, I would recommend that you first read Haffner's more personal memoir, Defying Hitler. That's where he really makes a unique contribution by showing what it meant to be an average young German from the outbreak of WWI to Hitler's assumption of power. It's a very personal and direct book - compelling.

I learned so much about his mind and thinking that is not presented in most of the books demonizing (justifiably) this twisted man. He was not Satan, he was not a demon, he was just a man with all the failings that go with being a man. His own strange journey through life turned him into the very twisted person he became. As he found he had an audience (I think very much to his surprise) he became more and more convinced of his 'mission' to save and restore the German people to their "rightful place in the world". He felt that that Versailles had robbed Germany, and his mission was to undo this. As one success after another followed he became to feel he was destined for more than that.It still amazes me that no one seemed to understand what he was doing even though he had published a book stating exactly what he wanted to do.Maybe if everyone had not kept giving into whatever was he wanted, he might not have devolved into megalomania and remained in control of himself. Maybe he could have been handled, I doubt it but just handing him everything he asked for as the appeasers did was never going to do anything but whet his appetite for more like a parent that spoils their childIt amazes me to watch Europe and our current leaders do the same the to Putin in Russia and expect different results. The west does the same things in the mid east and expects different results than what has always happened in history.It is a lack of backbone, and wanting to take the easy way, which never works. Believing and wishing an evil gready person will see the errors of their way is not going to make it happen.Hitler said after Munich he had taken the measure of his opponents and they were little worms. I would say the same of current leaders

A very valuable book indeed. Especially for anyone who now wants to go beyond the historical facts, or Hitler's dreadful crimes, toask the question of HOW did it happen, how COULD it have happened. For decades I have been puzzled by the completeinconsistencies in the Hitler story, how a complete nonentity could suddenly discover a talent that brought him to absolute power,then victory after victory despite the reservations of the army experts, then defeat after defeat, and finally disaster. Haffner describes theprocess brillianly, a wonderful readable analysis: Hitler's early life, his achievements, successes, misconceptions, mistakes, crimes andfinally his great betrayal of the German people.How could such a man, with hate radiating in his every speech seduce a highly civilised country? How could he enchant an entire countryand inspire such loyalty almost up to his death? Because he gave (at first) SPIRIT to a demoralised Germany, he put people back to work,he gave them a charismatic, energetic leader ... his performances simply blew them away! Look at any of the photographs - they adoredhim! "Without a vision the people perish" - he gave them that vision. And then he went bad, felt the German people hadn't fought hardenough, had let him down, deserved to perish with him - it's all a bit reminiscent of certain gurus. As says Haffner, within the highly giftedpolitician always lurked the mass murderer - he wanted to turn Germany into a sort of stud farm "and in the end Hitler acted like a bad-tempered and disappointed stud owner who has his best horse whipped to death because it proved unable to win the Derby".Let us not forget that the whole zeitgeist was different in the 20's & 30's. Many English admired him at first! If you read Conan Doyle &H G Wells, both respected authors even now, you will be horrified at their racist attitudes. Hitler was not seen as so utterly evil in the 30's!He could be said to be merely an exaggeration of the thought processes of those in power in Europe. Myself, I woke up at the age of 60,and stunned myself with "my God I was brought up as a fascist"! My family's racist attitudes, my loathsome authoritarian public school,(= private, elite school for you non-English...), the attitudes of the English ruling class, the heartlessness, the despising of "losers". So, hm, could a Hitler arise again? I fear the answer is obvious, unless we watch CAREFULLY. Be vigilant, defend your freedom - or lose it! Look since at Stalin, Pol Pot, Rwanda, N Korea, Ceasescu et al! No I fear WW2 did not make us humans much better! And for those who doubt Hitler's extreme popularity at first with the German people, consider that he only needed one tenth of the secret police that the grey "German Democratic Republic" that succeeded him in the East needed! The siren call is ever there of simple solutions (which all turn out are worse than the problem).This reviewer's final question to my readers is this: what would have been the story if Hitler had been squashed by a bus in (a) 1933, (b) 1939and (c) assassinated by the inefficient Stauffenberg in 1944? Because it was ALL Hitler, no-one else. He carried it all. Goering, his heir, was so totally different, more human, lacked the racism, loved the good things of life, was a gentleman; England could have done business with him perhaps. So can anyone answer my abc conjecture for me!?

A classic written in the 1970s by an eminent historian and journalist. Clear-eyed, wise and insightful. By striving for an objectivity on different aspects of the dictator's regime (he systematically analyses Hitler's successes, errors, intellectual misconceptions, crimes, and betrayal ultimately of Germany herself), far from offering an apologia, Haffner reveals the man to be even darker and more terrifying than even those fairly familiar with this material might have thought. It is a brilliant account and deserves not just to be in print but to be studied closely, especially now that we seem to be returning to an era of demagoguery.For follow up, I'd recommend the Ian Kershaw biographies (obviously) and especially 'The Hitler Myth'.

Good sound descriptive analysis of the man and his personal history, takes note of the troubled sociliogical economical enviroments which allowed Hitler to rise to power in the early days of Nazism in Germany.

Meets my 'as far' research requirements. A good read by an author of good repute.

Prompt delivery. Item as described. Deal with confidence.