The Meaning of Hitler
People do evil things Hitler , Stalin, Saddam Hussein. Hitleresque Hitlerian Hitlerish Hitlerism Hitlerite.
Austrian surname held by Adolf Hitler. How does he support his position against the prima facie case in favor of the strongly counterintuitive claim that non-violence would necessarily defeat a Hitler? Woher sie kommen, was sie bedeuten C. Spanish Wikipedia has an article on: This was the case of Italy in 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. 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. 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 and dominate Germany would come about.
With the withdrawal of the U. 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 manoeuvres in the '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. If Great Britain did not attend they would be sidelined as unrealistic and truculent.
See a Problem?
Eventually they would come around especially if they were the only great power not in the ring. Maybe, maybe not since England had for 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. His writing is clear and concise and sometimes so forthright and acerbic as to be shocking. He has combined a 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 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. Viele verteufeln ihn, wenige verehren ihn. Aug 19, Kristi Thielen rated it it was amazing. Haffner's book, written in , can't benefit from the scholarship of the last 30 years and so offers some opinions that are no longer accepted.
Principally among them is his belief that Hitler's anti-Semitism came from eastern Europe, whereas scholars now attribute it to a long-simmering stew of beliefs that came from Germany itself. Much of what Haffner writes is still potent and insightful,however. I was especially intrigued by Haffner's case for why Hitler was obsessed with the destruction Haffner's book, written in , can't benefit from the scholarship of the last 30 years and so offers some opinions that are no longer accepted.
I was especially intrigued by Haffner's case for why Hitler was obsessed with the destruction of European Jewry.
For all his talk of world domination, Hitler was a provincial who thought of the world as being Europe and nothing else. In Hitler's mind,life was about the struggle of nations for supremacy over other nations. Nations were comprised of people of a uniform culture, beliefs,aspirations. Jews are an "international" people, not the bedrock of any one. They therefore can serve only to destroy national unity and must, therefore, be destroyed themselves. Haffner points out that, in many respects, Hitler's "accomplishments" include the creation of a world that is the complete opposite of what he wanted.
Jews have become a nation: The Russians were not conquered and forced to become a feudal people: America did not remain a backwater: And Great Britain, which Hitler actually admired and initially didn't see as an enemy: Haffner's book makes for absorbing reading for history and political buffs.
Mar 06, Jens rated it did not like it Shelves: This book is an ideological trainwreck. I started reading it because it is short and has a very good average score, although now, after finishing it, I can't possibly fathom why.
As a German, I already have a pretty healthy pool of knowledge about this topic, but I wanted to go into details about Hitler as a person, his rise to power and the question if another Hitler is possible in my country, and to learn why or why not. This is what the book promised to answer, and in regards to historcal fac This book is an ideological trainwreck. This is what the book promised to answer, and in regards to historcal facts, I think it did its job well enough in regards to how short it is. There were some details, especially about the Weimar Republic and quotes of Hitler himself, that I did not know before.
A big part of the book, however, is Haffner explaining what happened through his own worldview and sometimes even directly imposing his ideological thoughts on the reader. After having read some reviews, I initially did not expect this. I will list some of my notes from reading the book here to explain what I'm talking about. Haffner says it's a fact that human races exist and he talks about the black or yellow race.
This book is from He also puts National Socialism closer to actual socialism than to fascism. While there is a debate if National Socialism should be classified under the category of fascism or maybe as its own category that is related to fascism, it is absolutely false to say that National Socialism was a form of socialism, something that Haffner repeatedly does throughout this book. Ridiculously enough, he bases this claim on the terminological similarity between "National Socialism" and Stalin's "Socialism in one country", on the fact that both Hitler and Stalin often wore military uniforms and, lastly, on the "Volksgemeinschaft" whcih was meant to re-educate the German people.
This "people's community" was put in place to promote racism, fascism, hierarchy and obedience, anti-intellectualism and militarism.
- Cultivating Democracy: Civic Environments and Political Socialization in America.
- .
- A Smugglers Story.
Most of these aspects are the complete opposite of Socialists ideals, but due to organisational similarities, he claims National Socialism to be a form of socialism that was even more socialist than the socialism of the Soviet Union. If you're interested in any of this, you should read other books. Haffner is just completely and dangerously wrong about is. No matter what you think about the actual Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and Japan and the Soviet Union, it's just nonfactual.
If you don't believe me why would you, I'm just a stranger on the internet , please read actual, modern, scientific research on this topic. Hitler is also categorized as a "left" politician, but it is never explained why it's important. Maybe it's important to add that Haffner was known to be anti-communist. Throughout this book, there are constant equations between actual socialist and far-right positions. To explain Hitler's behavior, Haffner says that Hitler's life was devoid of any kind of private life - no job, no friends, no love, no kids, no education.
Navigation menu
He never says why that is important, but he implies that Hitler became what we was due to this lack of interpersonal, educational and occupational aspects of life. The author is clearly a supporter of the "Great man theory". Yes, I know it's a book about Hitler and the political structure of Nazi Germany was very Hitler-focused, but that doesn't mean you can explain as many phenomena or political events as a result of "generally Hitler" as the author does. For example, Haffner says that the economy was clearly subordinated under Hitler's rule, but that was, historically, not the case.
There is no further analysis between the industrialists of the time and the Nazis whatsoever.
The Meaning of Hitler
Haffner concludes that another Hitler would be impossible because in today's or 's Germany, there is no political movement that wants to abolish the state. I have no idea how true that was in regards to the situation of in West Germany, but I don't think you should read this book to get a sociopolitical analysis of today's world or today's Germany.
This book has nothing to say about the rise of right-wing movements in western countries such as contemporary Germany , not even about the situation in Germany today. If you want to learn about this, read other books. This one is just horribly outdated. This is unscientific, as all those things could have happened without Hitler, and I don't even know what Haffner is trying to say.
In a cynical way, this could be interpreted as a "Hitler did good things". On a similar note, it is argued that Hitler "made" the Soviet Union a super power. Haffner also brings forth some arguments based on his pretty grim imperialism. He says that, implicitely, Europe wanted a strong Germany to unite the continent by force so it could emerge as its own super power next to Russia and the United States and keep its colonies.
Basically, he says "Hitler should've stopped before the attack on the Soviet Union and the Holocaust and all would've been well".
Jun 23, Peregrine 12 rated it it was amazing Shelves: My only complaints are that he holds that Hitler's brand of anti-semitism was alien to Germany and came from Eastern Europe, which seems unsupportable to me, and, in his conclusion, claims that Hitler was not a true German, unlike someone like Luther?! Haffner maintains that Hitler was somehow unique. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Full of drama and pathos, of chaos and courage, JUTLAND, describes the sea battle in the dreadnought era from the point of view of those who were there.
He literally says "but let's not dream". Overall, it's just a big yes to imperialism, warfare and colonialism. In a similar vain, he describes warfare and conquest as normal and there's no statement that conquest is morally wrong. Even more, he says that Hitler is not morally wrong for starting the Second World War. Furthermore, he says that during the Nuremberg Trials "the guilty were judging the guilty". He also implies a possible "Pax Germanica" as a result of Europe being unified under Germany, disregarding all the atrocities Hitler's racist worldview would've caused.
Regarding the atrocities during warfare, for example massacres, the execution of prisoners of war or rape, Haffner says that those actions should be forgotten and only "justice fanatics" would want to bring them to court. This book also tries to answer the question who was "objectively" most damaged by Hitler's actions.
Haffner lists that the Soviet Union and Poland lost tens of million of lives, but that's supposedly nothing compared to England which lost its colonies and its status as a world power. The most damage, "objectively", he says, was not found in the Holocaust - it was done to Germany itself.
Overall, Haffner presents a very disgusting world view through his book and I have no idea why it is so well regarded on Goodreads. If you're interested in any of the questions this book promises to answer, you should seek out other books, because this thing is both too short to answer any significant questions and too long because it is full to the brim with Haffner's abhorrent ideology. Apr 20, Joey Dhaumya rated it really liked it. One of the best books on Hitler out there. What struck me the most was the argument that Hitler's government was not only based, but also sustained on a cult of personality - more than what people generally assume.
The Meaning Of Hitler
This conclusion is distilled from a ton of data and arguments and is by no means a simplistic assertion. There were obvious gaps in government infrastructure and the entire machine was bound to be replaced after Hitler's death. The book is divided into 7 chapters: Betrayal Haffner wrote "The Meaning of Hitler" in when the Iron Curtain was still up, and some of his predictions about international relations and communism were a bit over the top. But then again, just about all scholarly work on the Cold War around then involved a good deal of guesswork.
Aug 07, Andrew Rosner added it. A bit of background: Haffner witnessed the growth of Nazism first hand as a young man and fled Germany in , eventually establishing himself as a journalist of considerable repute in England before returning to Germany in Hitler was an 'empty man' who filled himself with pride and hatred. Haffner argues that on gaining office in , Hitler achieved many 'miracles' in economic and military policy. Had he died in , he would have been remembered as 'one of the greatest Germans ever'.
In the long run, his achievement came to nothing. Haffner states that all Hitler's foreign policy successes up to were gained without bloodshed. From then until , he was also a successful war leader. His attack on Russia began his decline, and the pattern of failure, success, then failure again, is unique in history. Hitler, who believed in the constant Darwinian struggle for power between nations, turned the German state into a war machine, according to Haffner.
The Jews, being internationalists, took no part in this struggle between nations and had to be eliminated in a 'murder of the helpless'. Hitler achieved the exact opposite of his stated goals, according to Sebastian Haffner. Germany did not become great, but was occupied and divided.
The Jews were not eliminated, but created their own state. European colonial empires dissolved: Haffner asserts that Hitler was a criminal who killed millions for his own gratification.