Nazi Party Rises to Power

Ian Kershaw was a medievalist who, nearly 30 eld ago, turned his interests to the history of the thirdly Reich. This is the second volume of his encyclopaedic biography of Hitler, and the best thing in it is his treatment of Hitlers effect on the German people. He intersperses his biography with evidence of German popular sentiment, fractional and yet telling. Many Germans (perhaps understandably) have tried to separate the history of Hitler from the history of the German people during the triplet Reich, single historian going so far as to declare that there were no theme Socialists, there was only Hitler.This is nonsense, and Kershaw knows it re bothy well. The great majority of the Germans followed Hitler until the very end. Kershaws Hitler is more than telling about the Third Reich than about the man himself. The result is a one-dimensional portrait, and not an illuminating one. This is a pity, because we sh exclusively see more and more studies of Hitler (including, I fea r, more and more cl eerly composed and carefully disguised apologies).There is not one trace of defence or apology here, and Kershaw makes the much-needed and persuasive argument that even when no evidence of take orders exists, there is no reason to think that his minions were committing their brutalities contrary to, or even without, Hitlers wishes. But Kershaws portrait of Hitler is that of a single-minded fanatic with crazy ideas who was doomed to defeat. It was not as simple as that.Hitler was no fool, and his abilities as statesman and strategist derived from the same talents that had enabled him to become ruler of Germany. These talents were protean for instance, his uncanny capacity to foretell what his enemies would not do. Kershaw does not see how close Hitler came to furtherning the war, not only in the summer of 1940 but in 1941. His knowledge does not extend sufficiently to Hitlers adversaries, or to foreign policy. After November-December 1941 Hitler could no longer win the second world war, but he could still prevail by not losing it.Had he drive Stalin beyond the Volga, forcing an armistice of sorts, or thrown the Anglo-American armies into the sea in 1944, he would not have won the war, but one or other of his enemies would have been compelled to make some kind of arrangement with him. He knew that, and in December 1941 his entire strategy changed. He now faced a long war, and believed that in the first place or after-hoursr the uneasy and unnatural coalition of his enemies, capitalists and communists, would break apart. He was right but, fortunately, too late for him. ) He too knew that this could not be achieved by diplomacy, but by striking a conclusive blow against one of his enemies. At the same time he gave the command of German industry to Speer, tour it into an astonishingly successful and productive war economy. There is almost nothing in Kershaws book about this momentous change in Hitlers strategy. Nor is there anything abo ut Hitlers attempts to divide the Allies.Kershaw begins the present volume by summing up his first one in the 1930s Hitler was a political outsider with few, if any, special talents beyond undoubted skills as a demagogue and propagandist. besides in his foreign policy before 1939 his sense of time had been excellent, his combination of bluff and blackmail effective, his manipulation of propaganda to back his coups masterly. Another contradiction, within one paginate He was authorizedly alert to the dangers of a collapse in his popularity, and the likely domestic crisis which would then occur. Yet It is, in fact, doubtful whether he would have believed the accounts of poor morale, even if he had read them. By 1936 Hitler had archetype himself infallible his self-image had reached the stage of outright hubris. Yet in November 1936 Hitler said to Speer, after a long put away If I succeed, I will be one of the greatest men in history if I fail, I will be condemned, rejected, and damned. This volume is not well written there are many errors of facts and dates, and strange words such as devotalia, actionism, diplomatic outfall.The other main shortcoming is Kershaws extensive addiction on Hitlers statements as his primary source. The problem here is not only that Hitler, despite his loquacity, was a very secretive man (as he himself states on occasion) we must also keep in mind that he was a master of the spoken word (again, something which he often emphasised). The great turning point of his tone came in 1919 his decision to enter politics was contemporaneous with his discovery that he was a very cost-effective speaker.Thereafter, he always spoke with the purpose of influencing his hearers, not only in his public speeches but also in table conversations and talks with Goebbels, on whose diaries Kershaw sometimes unduly depends. Did Hitler always believe what he was reflection? Kershaw writes as though he did, yet we have evidence to the contrary. This i s especially so in the shimmy of Russia. Kershaw writes that in the 1930s Hitler was increasingly preoccupied with the looming threat, as he saw it, from collectivism.Not at all Hitler gave little thought to Soviet Russia until 1939, but he very ably used the threat of Bolshevism to impress conservatives in Germany and Britain. Several times during the war Hitler praised Stalin for having got rid of the influence of Jews. Yet in all his public statements, including the last ones in April 1945, he proclaimed the peril of Jewish Bolshevism. It is the great sexual morality of British writing to have married biography to history. In the 19th century, professional historians tended to eschew biography.The English tradition was an exception, with enduring results during the 20th century, to the extent that the appetite of the public for serious biographies is now larger than ever before, and every serious biographer now follows the practices of historical research. Still, biography re quires particular talents, including not only a certain degree of empathy with ones subject but an incisive understanding of human nature. Kershaw is a better historian than he is a biographer.