Anmerkungen zu Hitler

by Sebastian Haffner

RO60014695. ANMERKUNGEN ZU HITLER. 1981. In-12. Broch. Bon tat, Couv. convenable, Dos satisfaisant, Intrieur frais. 157 pages. Ouvrage en allemand.. . . . Classification Dewey : 430-Langues germaniques. Allemand

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Biography, Politics, Germany, World War II, War

191 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1978

About the author

Sebastian Haffner (the pseudonym for Raimund Pretzel) was a German journalist and author whose focus was the history of the German Reich (1871-1945). His books dealt with the origins and course of the First World War, the failure of the Weimar Republic and the subsequent rise and fall of Nazi Germany under Hitler.

In 1938 he emigrated from Nazi Germany with his Jewish fiancée to London, hardly able to speak English but becoming rapidly proficient in the language. He adopted the pseudonym Sebastian Haffner so that his family back in Germany would not be endangered by his writing.

Haffner wrote for the London Sunday newspaper, The Observer, and then became its editor-in-chief. In 1954, he became its German correspondent in Berlin, a position which he kept until the building of the Berlin Wall.

He wrote for the German newspaper, Die Welt, until 1962, and then until 1975 was a columnist for the Stern magazine. Haffner was a frequent guest on the television show Internationaler Frühschoppen and had his own television program on the German channel, Sender Freies Berlin.

Reviews

[Lilo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not too long ago, I reviewed Sebastian Haffner’s book “Defying Hitler” (German original title: “Geschichte eines Deutschen: Die Erinnerungen 1914-1933) and wrote that this book was THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK I READ THAT YEAR (2019)—maybe even the most important book I read in all my life. This still holds true.

And now, I recently finished reading Sebastian Haffner’s book “The Meaning of Hitler (or rather its German original, titled “Anmerkungen zu Hitler”). We are only 4 weeks into 2020, and I can already say that this book may be THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK I READ THIS YEAR .

So which of the two books may be the most important book I read in all my life? Hard to tell. One thing is for sure, however: I am again shouting:

MUST READ! MUST READ!! MUST READ!!!

Upfront: The title of the German original as well as the title of the English translation are both understatements. While I, of course, haven’t read all books that have ever been written about Hitler, I dare say that the above book is outstanding, and it is very unlikely that there is any other Hitler biography that can compare.

Therefore, if you will read only one book about Hitler, read this one. And should you already have read many books about Hitler, make sure you won’t miss this one.

So what is so special about this book? Here is the answer:

This book gives answers for, more or less, all of Hitler's actions, which, as we all know, lead to one of the biggest catastrophes in history. Not only has Haffner done extensive historic research, as one can expect from a reputable historian, he also happens to be a natural talent to dig up the psychology that's behind historic figures and historic events.

Thus, Haffner dissects Hitler's mind and also sheds light on many other phenomena that influenced the era of the Third Reich (including the mindsets and actions of the other players--European countries and its statesmen as well as the role that America and Roosevelt played).

And why is this book so very important?

It is so very important because IT SEEMS TO ME THAT HISTORY IS ABOUT TO REPEAT ITSELF—not in Germany, but here in our so-called “Land of the Free”. And if it does, not only will America be no longer the “Land of the Free”, what might await us all—Americans, Europeans, and other inhabitants of our planet alike—could be much worse.

One thing I learned from this book, and what I found so particularly scary, is that our present ruler here in the U.S. seems not only to have followed Hitler's recipe to come and stay in power, there are certain indications that he might even have Hitler's destructive and murderous notions.

O.k., you might think that I am imagining things, and maybe I am. Yet there are so many things that point in this direction. For instance: craving for absolute power, egomania, megalomania, making lone decisions not listening to advisors, demanding absolute loyalty from not only the people around him but from all followers (and eventually from all citizens), fierce attacks not only on those who criticize (may it ever be so mildly) but also on those who won’t turn into complete sycophants, firing of anyone who doesn’t 100% play along, and—not to forget—temper tantrums.

So let me ask you first: Does such a person seek to unify a country? My answer: Of course, he does—AT HIS TERMS! This is what Hitler called “Gleichschaltung” (could be translated as “forced synchronization” or “forced political assimilation). This gets accomplished in many different ways. It can be done by replacing judges and high civil servants. It can also be done by brainwashing uneducated, naive, and/or stupid people with propaganda. It can further be done by vilifying opponents and dissidents, by creating mass hysteria at rallies. And it can be accomplished with bribery and with intimidating and threatening those who refuse to be bribed.

And does such a person seek peace with other nations?

I doubt it.

With Hitler, the answer is clear: He had planned a war from the very beginning, and not only a war to restore the “Grossdeutsche Reich” (Greater German Empire), Hitler had been aiming at world power. (Haffner supplies evidence for this.)

So does our present ruler plan a war? I can’t tell, as I don’t have clairvoyance. Not every dictator wants to conquer other countries or even the whole world. Yet when things go wrong, there is always the temptation to start a little war to distract from failure or a scandal. I suppose most of you are familiar with the movie “Wag the Dog”.

Now what happens if such a war goes wrong?

Again, since I don’t have clairvoyance, I can only tell you what Hitler did and for what Sebastian Haffner supplies ample evidence:

Once Hitler understood that he no longer had any chance to win the war (and eventually rule our whole planet, which had always been his final goal), he "comforted himself" with being rather successful at going about his 2nd goal, which was exterminating the Jews, for whom he had a pathological and unfounded hate. Not enough with this, he, obviously aimed at finishing the lost war with the highest possible destruction and fatalities, not only for his enemies but also for the German population. He turned into a pathologic serial killer of unimaginable dimensions and would have done more damage (to the Germans) had the Allies not arrived before Hitler's last orders could or would be carried out.

I recently heard on CNN that, at the time when Tillerson was still in office, our present ruler attacked, insulted, and degraded his generals and other military personnel in high positions, throwing a temper tantrum because, in his opinion, they did not fight strong enough in Afghanistan. Hitler had done the very same with his generals when they did not perform according to Hitler's fantasies (or dared to warn against a suicidal military move). Could our ruler imitate Hitler here, too?

This would, of course, be the absolute worst possible scenario. Yet wouldn’t something less than the absolute worst possible scenario already be a catastrophe of unimaginable dimension? Wouldn’t a “little” WWIII with nuclear weapons already exceed the destruction of WWII, even without a megalomanic ruler having insane destructive and murderous notions to destroy his own country if his war didn’t go as planned?

You tell me.

[Nika · Rating 4 out of 5]

I can see at least two reasons why we should read this book today.
First, it deals with an important topic that influenced the world we live in.
As the author notes,
"It is impossible for a serious historian to maintain that without Hitler world history in the twentieth century would have taken the course it has taken. It is by no means certain that without Hitler a second world war would even have taken place; it is quite certain that if it had taken place it would have taken a different course — possibly even with entirely different alliances, fronts and outcomes. Today’s world, whether we like it or not, is the work of Hitler. Without Hitler there would have been no partition of Germany and Europe; without Hitler there would be no Americans and no Russians in Berlin; without Hitler there would be no Israel; without Hitler there would be no de-colonialization, at least not such a rapid one; there would be no Asian, Arab or Black African emancipation, and no diminution of European pre-eminence. Or, more accurately, there would be none of all this without Hitler’s mistakes. He certainly did not want any of it."

Second, Haffner provides some valuable insights into the psychology of a tyrant. Since human nature has seemingly not changed, the lessons of history can be helpful in better understanding current events.
That being said, some observations the author made seem to be dated, as could be seen from the above-mentioned quote.

The author committed himself to an examination of the motives that shaped Hitler's policies.
Haffner shows how Hitler's flawed character and his personal motivations fueled most of his actions.
The author takes pains to document both successes of the first years of Hitler's regime and his numerous failures including fatal mistakes that would hasten Germany's disastrous defeat.
He lists monstrous crimes of the Nazis emphasizing Hitler's inclination to kill on a large scale when it obviously worsened the position of Nazi Germany. Political pragmatism was not foreign to Hitler but the ‘programmatician’ in him usually prevailed over the politician as did the instinct of a serial killer.

Hitler had countless harmless people put to death, for no military or political purpose, but merely for his personal gratification.

This was what distinguished Hitler from some other bloody conquerors.

Hitler, who was known for his dilettantism, was not personally responsible for certain successes during the first years, such as economic growth and financial stabilization. Several steps taken by the previous government partly accounted for those achievements. However, as the author points out, Hitler was able to support a series of reforms that would prove short-term beneficial. The Fuhrer also backed some important innovations in the military despite the opposition of the respected military experts.

These novel army formations [independently operating armoured divisions and tank armies] possessed in 1938 only by the German Army, proved to be the campaign-deciding weapon during the first two years of the war. They were subsequently copied by all other armies.

Among Hitler's mistakes, the author underscores his decision to declare war on the US. Hitler's policies and mistakes made possible a barely imaginable alliance between the Soviet Union and Western democracies. In Hitler's understanding of reality, racial improvement in the stockbreeding sense was a more pressing issue than reaching some agreement to stop the war that was not going according to his plan.
When Hitler came to understand that his aim to establish a global empire by wars of conquest failed, he switched to another of his two major goals - the extermination of the Jews. And he persisted in it. He did not want to end the war by negotiations and compromises. Hitler was driven by the principle 'everything or nothing.' Unlike several other tyrants, he was not concerned about preserving the state. He did not seem to care about the sufferings of the Germans either.
He knew that he was cutting off the possibility of peace with his enemies by proceeding with his crimes but it did not seem to bother him.

A separate peace with Russia on a status quo basis, which he might have got in 1942 and perhaps even in 1943 (when the Russians, bleeding from a thousand wounds, were bearing virtually the whole burden of the war and clamouring in vain for a second front in Europe), was emphatically rejected by Hitler. As for the possibility of a peace with the West, he threw away any chance of it by his monstrous crimes during just those years after 1941.

Sebastian Haffner suggests that had Hitler not been driven by the idea of races and the imminent struggle for life, the disaster which he inflicted on the world could have turned out less enormous and Germany's defeat less total.
Haffner's analysis is based on Hitler's worldview dominated by races and the idea of the 'most fit must win'.
According to the author, when Hitler saw that the tide of the war had turned and Germany was losing the war, he turned against his own people. He could have decided to sacrifice Germany if it could not win. We know that Hitler was consistent in defending his idea of the 'future belongs to the strongest' and in his cruelty towards ordinary people.
The force of Hitler’s hatred, the homicidal drive in Hitler which had raged for years against Jews, Poles and Russians, was now quite openly turning against Germans.
The author refers to Hitler's words that reveal how he may have treated the Germans when they failed, in his eyes, to prove their racial superiority and subjugate others.

‘If one day the German nation is no longer sufficiently strong or sufficiently ready for sacrifice to stake its own blood for its existence, then let it perish and be annihilated by some other stronger power ... In that case I shall shed no tears for the German nation.’ Eerie words.

Eerie and horrible, indeed.
Hitler's suicide, which he had been anticipating, came as a logical conclusion to this murderous attitude.

Hitler had always believed in a world of races and despised the state, its institutions and its structures. Before Nazi Germany started destroying states in the East, first collaborating with the Soviet Union in this, Hitler had reduced Germany herself to becoming a military device designed to crush others.
Haffner describes Hitler as someone who could not leave any of his plans to his successors. He could not bring himself to think of succession which is one of the pillars of statehood.

Since he [Hitler] regarded himself as infallible and blindly trusted his ‘intuition’, he could not create institutions which would have placed fetters on it; and since he regarded himself as irreplaceable and was absolutely determined to accomplish his entire programme in his own lifetime, he could not plant anything that needed time to grow.

For Hitler, "politics is war and the preparation for war, and war is mainly about living space."
The author highlights features that prevent from locating Hitler on the extreme Right in the political spectrum. In many regards, he was closer to the extreme Left.

Of course he was no democrat but he was a populist, a man who based his power on the masses, not on the élite, and in a sense a people’s tribune risen to absolute power. His principal means of rule was demagogy, and his instrument of government was not a structured hierarchy but a chaotic bundle of uncoordinated mass organizations merely held together at the top by his own person.

[Lilo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not too long ago, I reviewed Sebastian Haffner’s book “Defying Hitler” (German original title: “Geschichte eines Deutschen: Die Erinnerungen 1914-1933) and wrote that this book was THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK I READ THAT YEAR (2019)—maybe even the most important book I read in all my life. This still holds true.

And now, I recently finished reading Sebastian Haffner’s book “The Meaning of Hitler (or rather its German original, titled “Anmerkungen zu Hitler”). We are only 4 weeks into 2020, and I can already say that this book may be THE MOST IMPORTANT BOOK I READ THIS YEAR .

So which of the two books may be the most important book I read in all my life? Hard to tell. One thing is for sure, however: I am again shouting:

MUST READ! MUST READ!! MUST READ!!!

Upfront: The title of the German original as well as the title of the English translation are both understatements. While I, of course, haven’t read all books that have ever been written about Hitler, I dare say that the above book is outstanding, and it is very unlikely that there is any other Hitler biography that can compare.

Therefore, if you will read only one book about Hitler, read this one. And should you already have read many books about Hitler, make sure you won’t miss this one.

So what is so special about this book? Here is the answer:

This book gives answers for, more or less, all of Hitler's actions, which, as we all know, lead to one of the biggest catastrophes in history. Not only has Haffner done extensive historic research, as one can expect from a reputable historian, he also happens to be a natural talent to dig up the psychology that's behind historic figures and historic events.

Thus, Haffner dissects Hitler's mind and also sheds light on many other phenomena that influenced the era of the Third Reich (including the mindsets and actions of the other players--European countries and its statesmen as well as the role that America and Roosevelt played).

And why is this book so very important?

It is so very important because it seems to me that history is about to repeat itself—not in Germany, but here in our so-called “Land of the Free”. And if it does, not only will America be no longer the “Land of the Free”, what might await us all—Americans, Europeans, and other inhabitants of our planet alike—could be much worse.

One thing I learned from this book, and what I found so particularly scary, is that our present ruler here in the U.S. seems not only to have followed Hitler's recipe to come and stay in power, there are certain indications that he might even have Hitler's destructive and murderous notions.

O.k., you might think that I am imagining things, and maybe I am. Yet there are so many things that point in this direction. For instance: craving for absolute power, egomania, megalomania, making lone decisions not listening to advisors, demanding absolute loyalty from not only the people around him but from all followers (and eventually from all citizens), fierce attacks not only on those who criticize (may it ever be so mildly) but also on those who won’t turn into complete sycophants, firing of anyone who doesn’t 100% play along, and—not to forget—temper tantrums.

So let me ask you first: Does such a person seek to unify a country? My answer: Of course, he does—AT HIS TERMS! This is what Hitler called “Gleichschaltung” (could be translated as “forced synchronization” or “forced political assimilation). This gets accomplished in many different ways. It can be done by replacing judges and high civil servants. It can also be done by brainwashing uneducated, naive, and/or stupid people with propaganda. It can further be done by vilifying opponents and dissidents, by creating mass hysteria at rallies. And it can be accomplished with bribery and with intimidating and threatening those who refuse to be bribed.

And does such a person seek peace with other nations?

I doubt it.

With Hitler, the answer is clear: He had planned a war from the very beginning, and not only a war to restore the “Grossdeutsche Reich” (Greater German Empire), Hitler had been aiming at world power. (Haffner supplies evidence for this.)

So does our present ruler plan a war? I can’t tell, as I don’t have clairvoyance. Not every dictator wants to conquer other countries or even the whole world. Yet when things go wrong, there is always the temptation to start a little war to distract from failure or a scandal. I suppose most of you are familiar with the movie “Wag the Dog”.

Now what happens if such a war goes wrong?

Again, since I don’t have clairvoyance, I can only tell you what Hitler did and for what Sebastian Haffner supplies ample evidence:

Once Hitler understood that he no longer had any chance to win the war (and eventually rule our whole planet, which had always been his final goal), he "comforted himself" with being rather successful at going about his 2nd goal, which was exterminating the Jews, for whom he had a pathological and unfounded hate. Not enough with this, he, obviously aimed at finishing the lost war with the highest possible destruction and fatalities, not only for his enemies but also for the German population. He turned into a pathologic serial killer of unimaginable dimensions and would have done more damage (to the Germans) had the Allies not arrived before Hitler's last orders could or would be carried out.

I recently heard on CNN that, at the time when Tillerson was still in office, our present ruler attacked, insulted, and degraded his generals and other military personnel in high positions, throwing a temper tantrum because, in his opinion, they did not fight strong enough in Afghanistan. Hitler had done the very same with his generals when they did not perform according to Hitler's fantasies (or dared to warn against a suicidal military move). Could our ruler imitate Hitler here, too?

This would, of course, be the absolute worst possible scenario. Yet wouldn’t something less than the absolute worst possible scenario already be a catastrophe of unimaginable dimension? Wouldn’t a “little” WWIII with nuclear weapons already exceed the destruction of WWII, even without a megalomanic ruler having insane destructive and murderous notions to destroy his own country if his war didn’t go as planned?

You tell me.

[Jens · Rating 1 out of 5]

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 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 1983.

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. 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. 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.

Haffner concludes that another Hitler would be impossible because in today's (or 1983'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 1983 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.

"Without Hitler, [...] no Israel, no decolonization, no Asian, Arabian and African emancipation" - what's even the point of saying that and how can that be proven true or untrue? 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". It's reallly mind-boggling. 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.

[Lewis Weinstein · Rating 5 out of 5]

this is an absolutely magnificent analysis of Hitler's decisions and why he made them ... solidly buttressed with historical evidence ... first published in 1978 ... here are a few excepts ...

... Germans believed Hitler's speeches about peace ... until he invaded Poland in 1939 ... which caused widespread bewilderment and dejection

... Hitler accomplished everything against weak opponents ... Weimar Republic ... France (Rhinelands) ... British (Munich) ... Czechoslovakia ... Poland ... he killed what was already dying ... he had an instinct for spotting the imminent decline of opponents with the nose of a vulture

... Hitler possessed political and military gifts ... what he lacked was the constructive imagination of the statesman and the ability to build enduring structures

... Hitler had destroyed the state so that he was answerable only to himself and his own intuition

... Hitler had no military or political purpose in killing Jews ... he did so for his personal gratification ... he was, simply, a mass murder

... the mass murder of Jews was not an act of war ... impeded the conduct of the war ... SS men diverted from military ... transports utilized rolling stock urgently needed for supplies

... in Dec 1941 ... Hitler made his final choice ... he abandoned German domination of the world in favor of extermination of the Jews ... he accepted Germany's total defeat as the price of being able to carry out the extermination of the Jews ... this explains Hitler's complete inactivity and lethargy during the second half of the war ... so strikingly contrasted with his earler alertness and resolution ... he was indulging the delights of a killer who has shed his last restraints, has his victims in his grasp, and deals with them as he wishes

... in 1945 ... the annihilation of Germany was the last goal Hitler set for himself

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Since it seems obvious that a substantial portion of the current American population, whether knowingly or not, supports neo-fascist ideas or, at a minimum, craves the simplicity of being subjected to authoritarian rule under the guise of some false idea of democracy, I’ve put together a reading list for myself to periodically consider what it means to be a fascist and how its ideas have played out during various episodes of world history. Sebastian Haffner’s musings on Hitler, a late 1970s sensation in Germany, seemed an obvious starting point.

Haffner’s collection of seven essays, which has wrongly been translated in English as The Meaning of Hitler—I’m sure Haffner must have cringed at that since it should be accurately titled Notes on Hitler (or Observations About Hitler). His purpose is to raise questions by musing on aspects of Hitler, not to create some overarching, definitive notion of “meaning.” Haffner’s seven essays consider Hitler’s Life, Achievements, Successes, Misconceptions, Mistakes, Crimes and Treason (Leben, Leistungen, Erfolge, Irrtümer, Fehler, Verbrechen and Verrat).

Some notes from Notes on Hitler:

• Hitler was a “half-educated” “one-dimensional” man who could “impress because [his audiences] knew absolutely nothing.”
• Hitler’s greatest achievement was to turn around Germany’s economy. Yes, he rebuilt the military in violation of Versailles, but “the vast majority of the 6 million unemployed when Hitler took power found employment in completely normal civilian industries.”
• Hitler’s rise to power was facilitated by fortuitous, for him, systemic breakdowns: the failure of European unity in the post-Versailles era, the inability of Weimar Germany to sustain respect for constitutionality, the worldwide Depression, and delusional Western foreign policy that refused to recognize his real intentions.
• Hitler saw war as a legitimate, essential tactic to exercise foreign policy and was briefly stymied by Chamberlain’s failures from going to war in 1938.
• His other great achievement was the successful, quick campaign to conquer France, which actually confirmed, among his most devoted followers, what they wrongly perceived as strategic military acumen.
• Public pressure forced him to curtail his T4 policy to exterminate people with disabilities, causing him to keep as many parts of his Jewish annihilation policy as secret from the public as possible.
• He never planned for the contingencies of military victory or defeat.
• When he declared war on the U.S. on December 11, 1941, the war had for all practical purposes been lost already and it led to an intensification of the policy to eliminate Jews and other minorities.
• The Battle of the Bulge, far from being an attempt to change the course of the war, was intended to have Germany commit suicide along with him.
• By realizing the opposite of his goals, Hitler’s legacy did more to create the shape of the modern world than any other influence.

[Ferda Nihat Koksoy · Rating 5 out of 5]

1938'de Almanların büyük kısmı Hitler'in yanında değildi; Hitler iktidara el koymaktan çok onu hile hurdayla ele geçirmişti; o iktidara ancak yaşlı bir devlet başkanının etrafında çevrilen dolaplarla ve zafiyet içerisindeki cumhuriyeti koruması gereken güçlerin başarısızlığıyla gelebildi (Hitler şansölye olduğunda oy oranı %35, yan yana gelemeyen diğer kanat ise %47).

Hitler'in 1919 Eylül'üne kadar hiçbir yerde ifade etmediği ve içinde uyuyan gizli antisemitizmi, 1.DS yenilgisi ve zorla kabul ettirilen aşağılayıcı barış anlaşması (ve tam yenilgi oluşmadan kabul eden yetkililer) ve savaşın sonucu değil kaybetme nedeni olarak gördüğü Münih Sovyeti Devrimi ve enternasyonalizmin nedeni olarak gördüğü Yahudilerden dolayı tahripkâr bir Yahudi düşmanlığına döndü.

Hitler'in rehineleri olarak kalmak istemiyorsak, Hitler denilen bu Alman travmasıyla yeniden ve tekrar tekrar hesaplaşmalıyız. Onu ne kadar unutmaya çalışırsak o bizi taciz edecektir; ona yakından bakabilmek için bu kitaptan daha iyisi yok.
-Guido Knopp (Önsöz).

*****

Hitler (20.04.1889-30.04.1945) ortaokulu bitiremedi ve güzel sanatlar akademisine giremedi; önce Viyana, sonra Münih'te kıt kanaat yaşarken gönüllü katıldığı 1.DS'da, 4 yılda, onbaşılıktan öteye geçemedi.
Yaşamında haysiyet ve saygınlık katacak her şey, eğitim, meslek, aşk, arkadaş, evlilik, babalık eksiktir.

Nasyonalizm ve Doğu Avrupa'dan devşirme antisemitizmin füzyonu olan siyasi görüşü, onun her şeyi idi: Duyduğu yarım yamalak bilgileri, kendi etrafındaki herkese her fırsatta, çatlak ve boğuk bir sesle anlatan ve hipnoz düzeyinde etkileyen bir yarı-cahildi.
Etrafındakilere karşı her zaman mesafeli ve soğuk davranan, sonuç çıkarmada yetenekli, cesur, atılgan, dayanıklı, çevresinden etkilenmeyen, yaptıklarının sonuçlarını umursamayan, özeleştiriden tamamen uzak, kendini dev aynasında gören bir kişilikti.

30 yaşında katıldığı küçük bir milliyetçi parti olan Alman İşçi Partisi'nin liderliğini, hitabet ve ikna yeteneğini keşfetmesiyle eline aldı ve ismini NAtional SoZIalistische (NAZI) Alman İşçi Partisi (NSDAP) olarak değiştirdi.
Gücünü kitlelerden alan bir popülistti.

İki büyük hedefi vardı:
1) Başta Rusya ve Doğu Avrupa olmak üzere Avrupa'yı egemenliğine alan LEBENSRAUM (Büyük Alman İmparatorluğu),
2) Beyaz ırkı bozan unsurların yok edilmesi: Önce "faydasız yiyici" dediği psikiyatrik hastalar, ağır hastalar, bedensel engelliler ve öğrenme güçlüğü olan çocuklar ile başladı (Eylül 1939), sonra sırasıyla çingenelere, Polonya aydınlarına, Rusya aydınlarına ve sonunda da dünyayı bozan, tembelleştiren, enternasyonalist ve tefeci olarak lanetlediği Yahudilere soykırım (1941 ortası) emirlerini verdi.

1.DS sonunda gelişen ve monarşiyi kaldırmayı hedefleyen Münih Sovyeti, başarısız kalsa bile imparatorluğu bitirdi, yerine koyduğu Weimar Cumhuriyeti ise SPD, sol liberaller ve katoliklerin zayıf koalisyonuyla sürdürülmeye çalışıldı.
Olanlar çok güçlü bir anayasa düşmanı sağ muhalefet yarattı ve bunların ortak hedefi cumhuriyetin yıkılmasıydı; ortam tam Hitler ve benzerlerini yaratacak havadaydı ve meclisin çoğunluğuydu. Hitler, Weimar Cumhuriyeti'ni değil, onu yıkan sağ muhalefeti yıktı.
Alâkasız şekilde 1.DS'nın kaybedilmesinin nedeni olarak gördüğü (gerçekte devrim savaşın sonucuydu) ve milliyetçiliğinden dolayı nefret duyduğu Münih Sovyeti (kısa sürede ezildi), Almanya'da aristokratların egemenliğindeki siyaset ve ordu yapılarında sıradan insanlara kapı açtı ve Hitler de bu kapıdan parti üyeliğine girebildi; Napoleon'un Fransız Devrimi'nin ürünü olması gibi, Hitler de Münih Soyyeti'nin ürünüydü.

Münih'te milli uyanış hareketinin hatibi, FÜHRER'i olarak toplantılar düzenledi, Ludendorff (general), Himmler (ziraat müh.), Göring (yüzbaşı), Röhm (yüzbaşı) ve Hess (ekonomi, jeopolitik) ile birlikte düzenlediği 1923 Münih Birahane Darbesi bastırılıp hapse atıldı (34 yaş).
1926'da kuzeyden Münih'e yerleşmiş olan Göbbels ile tanıştı ve partinin propaganda ve katılım oranı yüksek hızla gelişti.
Münih Birahane ekibi, Hitler döneminin tepe kadrosu olarak devam etti.

Yaşam ve ölüm Hitler'in kendisi için her zaman birbirine çok yakın durumlardı ve her zaman intihar edebilecek bir kişiliğe sahipti. 1945'de gerçekleştirdiği intiharı, 1923 Münih Birahane Darbe başarısızlığında da düşündü ve zor vazgeçirildi.

35 yaşında KAVGAM kitabının ilk cildini, yani ideolojisini dikte ettirdi.
Partisinin tüm yönetimini, son derece bilinçli bir şekilde, kendi ikame edilemezliği, ya ben ya kaos düsturu üzerine bina etmişti.
Parti içinde rakip ya da muhaliflerini hizaya sokan, tüm parti üyelerini mücadele hırsıyla dolduran ve seçim makinesi gibi organize eden, acımasız paramiliterleriyle korku salarak yol alan,
hükümettekilere bile ağzına geleni söyleyen, çekinmeden nabza göre şerbet verebilen ama ekonomik kriz ve işsizliğe karşı tek bir somut öneri dile getirmeyen bir demogog idi.

İNSANLARI DEVLETLEŞTİREN Hitler ile onun "finans sihirbazı" H.Schacht, vazgeçmeksizin yürürlüğe kondukları eski önemli projeler (zorunlu çalışma, otoban, vergi bonoları, Mefo senetleri vb.) ve programa direnç gösterenlerin veya uymayanların kurulan çalışma kamplarına gönderilmesiyle, 1929 dünya büyük ekonomik bunalımıyla oluşan 6 milyon kişilik büyük işsizliği, 3 yıl gibi kısa sürede tam istihdama (büyük çoğunluğu sivil istihdam), enflasyonsuz, ücret ve fiyatları stabil tutarak ve büyüyerek geçmeyi başaran Alman ekonomik mucizesi, parti dışı insanların da gönlünü çelecek bir gelişme oldu (1928'de %2.5 olan oy oranı, diğer partilerin kapatılmasından önceki son seçim olan 1933'de %35, 1936 sonrasında ise tahminen %50'den epeyce fazla).

Diğer taraftan, Hitler'in kendi inisiyatifiyle kurduğu entegre ve tek başına davranabilen motorize tümen ve ordularla yenilenen ve silahlandırılan ordu 1938'de Avrupa'nın en güçlü kara ve hava gücü haline geldi ve 1.DS'nın aşağılayıcı Versay anlaşmasını geçersiz hale getirdi.

Böylece Hitler ekonomik ve askeri mucizeler yaratan bir keramet sahibi durumuna geldi, Fransa galibiyetiyle bu zirveye çıktı insanların büyük çoğunluğunu yanına çekmeyi başardı.

Naziler, İtalyan Faşistleri gibi yüksek sınıfların yönetimi ve orduyu ellerinde tuttuğu bir tavır içinde değildi, tersine olarak "Milli Birlik" ve "sınıfsız toplum" anlayışıyla, sıradan insanların yönettiği parti ve ordu olarak yapılandı.
Stalin'in "Tek ülkede sosyalizmi" ile Hitler'in "Nasyonal sosyalizmi"nin terminolojik özdeşliği çarpıcıdır.

Sosyalizmin karşı kutbu kapitalizm değil bireyciliktir; sosyalist devlet de mecbur olduğu kapital için işçinin yabancılaştığı emeğini kullanılır. Üretim araçlarının devletleştirilmesi bir haksızlığı ortadan kaldırır ama ağır bir verimlilik kaybına yol açar ki bu görüldü; diğer görülen, insanların birbirlerine yabancılaşmasını önlediği (sosyal cemiyetlerin artması, metazori birliktelikler) ve bireysel özgürlüklerin azaldığıydı.

1938'de İngiltere ve Fransa'nın açık ve kesin onaylarıyla Avusturya ve Südet bölgeleri ilhak edildi; 1939'da Bohemya, Südet, Moravya himaye altına alındı, Polonya mağlup edildi; 1940'da Danimarka, Norveç, Be-Ne-Lux işgal, Fransa mağlup edildi; 1941'de Yugoslavya ve Yunanistan yenildi; Hitler artık Avrupa kıtasına hükmediyordu.
1941-45 arasında ise, feci hatalarla karşısındaki ittifakları sağlamlaştırması ve güçlendirmesiyle başarısızlıklar ve nihayetinde facia geldi.

1941'de Kışın SSCB'ye saldırarak başlattığı akıl almaz kararlarına, ABD'ye savaş açmayı da ekledi; 1941 sonunda Moskova önlerinde kaybedeceğini anlayınca tüm Almanları çağırdığı topyekün ölüm veya zafere yeterli cevap alamayınca da sürekli bütün Almanların yok olması yönünde emirler verdi; ona göre Almanlar artık yaşamayı hak etmiyordu.
Kaybettiğini anladığında, Batı'nın kendisi yerine Stalin'e destek vermesi üzerine, barış anlaşması yapmak yerine savaşı uzatarak, perde arkasında Yahudi soykırımını gerçekleştirmeye, yani 2.büyük hedefini gerçekleştirmeye çalıştı, savaşın yerini toplu cinayet aldı.

SSCB (12-20 milyon ölüm)(savaştan süper güç olarak çıktılar), Yahudiler (4-6 milyon ölüm)(İsrail Devleti kuruldu) ve Polonya (3 milyon ölüm) başta olmak üzere dünyaya büyük onarılmaz zararlar veren Hitler'in en büyük zararı Almanya'ya (7 milyon ölüm, işgal edilmiş yıkıntı bir ülke ve siyasi bir çöl) oldu.

[Dimitri · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've read it in Dutch so often I can recite parts.
I've read it in German because my mind runs the subtitles.
I treasure my German copy.
Because it showed up at an open air bookstall at the Berlin Bebelplatz , where an infamous Nazi book burning took place.
Because nobody could forbid me to read it.

[Semjon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Eine Figur wie Adolf Hitler verfolgt einem während der ganzen Schulzeit und in den Medien. Man glaubt eigentlich sich gut mit diesem Menschen auseinander gesetzt zu haben. Und liest man dieses faszinierende Buch und man hat das Gefühl, die Zusammenhänge ganz neu zu verstehen. Bestimmt eines der besten Bücher über Hitler. Das hat mich noch lange beschäftigt.

[Daniel Villines · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Meaning of Hitler provided a lesson of sorts that illuminated the truths and falsehoods behind all those WWII propaganda films. The ones that show Europe being devoured by a spreading blot of black ink seeping into a map. Make no mistake, Hitler was deranged but The Meaning of Hitler defined that derangement. The book presents his various thought processes, defines the mistakes in his conclusions, separates out his accomplishments and success, and details his crimes. By the end of the book, Hitler is rationally dissected into a certain number of succinct ideas that guided his life and his decisions, as heinous as they were.

One of greatest attributes of this book is that the analysis is completed in only 165 pages. There is no need to spend weeks inside the mind of Hitler while entangled in the details of Nazi Germany. However, the author does assume that the reader has a casual understanding of historical events during the time period spanning the two world wars. The book is woven into this understanding and very few words are dedicated to explaining key events or the general political settings that existed during this time period. The knowledge required is not vast nor is it essential, but it does contribute to a greater comprehension of the facts that define Hitler.

And lastly, it’s been my observation that the myth of Hitler will forever be tied to his name, his image, and his deeds. The mere mention of his name often drives an emotional response that precedes the repulsion that would otherwise takes place based on the facts that comprised the man. I think that there is a danger with this sort of reaction wherein a myth, as evil as it is, determines our behavior. When we condemn Hitler based on myth alone, we disregard the real elements of the myth that are eternal, which are the facts. So much so that our future judgments of others may lead us to conclude that no one could possibly be as evil as Hitler seems, while in fact someone could indeed be as just as evil as Hitler actually was.

[Boudewijn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Analysis of the Hitler phenomenon from different angles

An original and courageous work where Sebastian Haffner, set against the time when this book was released for the first time, dares to ask questions which a lot of other historians had not even formulated, let alone had answers. Haffner is not one of those historians who demonised Hitler, regarded him as a weak dictator or simply reduced him to a historical accident.

Relieved, as it were, of this burden, Haffner objectively describes Hitler's successes and achievements, without losing sight of his mistakes and terrible crimes. And his ultimate betrayal to the German people.

In this psychological analysis, Hitler emerges as an irrational politician who, after already in 1941 realising he had lost the war, turned to a destructive policy in which his only motive was to exterminate the Jews and punish the German people for their betrayal.

Haffner gives an excellent introduction to the complexity of Hitler's thinking and acting, but he does not provide a conclusive answer to the question of why many Germans followed him, what their motives were and why Hitler managed to fail so spectaculary.

Read in Dutch:

[Lobstergirl · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short, fascinating, highly readable, remarkably insightful book about Hitler. It's not an academic history or scholarly biography; there are no footnotes. I'd recommend this to anyone who doesn't know much about Hitler, or knows a decent amount but still has questions. It will answer a lot of those questions. Haffner finds the sources of Hitler's motivations without getting into psychology or B.S. I would categorize this as mandatory reading for both the casual and serious Hitler scholar, although almost certainly the latter group has read it already.

[Rob · Rating 4 out of 5]

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. Bruning's 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 and dominate Germany would come about. With the withdrawal of the U.S. from European affairs the questions really were 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 manoeuvres 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 a 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. 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 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.

[Andrejs M. · Rating 2 out of 5]

While I don't like leaving reviews, this book is such dangerous and simplistic garbage which somehow achieved the veneer of legitimacy I feel I have to say something; leaving this book without remark would make me feel like I'm allowing something of a political crime to take place.

Here's a list of only some of its most egregious errors in no particular order:

First of all, Haffner insists on the separation of the 'morally bad' crimes, i.e. the Holocaust, from the 'morally ok' crimes (he actually suggests that it'd be best if we all just tried to forget about German war crimes as quickly as possible because everyone does war crimes. He really just comes out and says that). This is just not true. Dividing the Nazi war machine into the blameless Germans who just wanted to invade Poland (again, for him a legitimately excusable for the Wehrmacht thing to do), work for IG Farben, or participate in the countless political and cultural acts of policing already ongoing and publicly acknowledged since 1933. Haffner instead claims Hitler just misunderstood the meaning of war - war, he tells us, is supposed to be between two countries who then settle a peace agreement - and had he not had this whole Volk/Race war thing on his mind, his plan to unite Europe could frankly have been feasible. He actually uses the phrase "but let's not get carried away by dreams" when discussing a hypothetical state leader like a Bismarck 2.0 who is smarter and more tactful in uniting post-WWI under German rule.

He actually says that "nothing would be more misleading than to call Hitler a fascist." This apparently because Hitler didn't fight for the restoration of aristocratic rule.

In the final chapter he states that while Poland, the USSR, and the Jews all suffered high death rates, at least they all came out strengthened and the Israel even has Hitler to thank for its existence. As part of this tally process, he uses little gems like "In Poland 6 million people were killed, 3 million if we don't count the Polish Jews." No good reason is then given for this ethnic math. In contrast, Germany was completely destroyed. It's worth noting here he speaks of three discrete statistical categories: German deaths, Polish deaths, and Jewish deaths. I'm not going to go into the details. While what he says is in some senses technically true, he doesn't place this in some relevant seeming context and instead really argues that Germany was the biggest victim of Hitler.

On the topic of the Holocaust, the only historian he engages with is notable Holocaust denier David Irving - albeit to dispute him and to show that the Holocaust did indeed happen and that Hitler was responsible. Why we need 3 pages of this reassurance amidst no discussion of other, perhaps more worthwhile debates between non-denier historians remains less clear

Haffner consistently equates Hitler with Stalin. This is not done in poor argumentation; it's done with no argumentation. Except at one point he sneakily tells us between parenthesis that we should note the similarities in the names of National Socialism and Soviet Socialism. We're just told over and over, often at moments when it doesn't seem relevant to bring up, that Hitler was like Stalin.

On top of all that, Haffner ends by saying it's a shame Germans are no longer patriots, because the idea of ending German history with Hitler would be on par with Hitler's idea of destruction of the German nation as punishment for losing the war. Frankly this could be taken straight from an AfD speech.

This book isn't "all lies" or anything like that. Most of it is fact. Fact I would urge you to find elsewhere as it it so easily accessible on this topic. It's precisely the way fact and personal opinion interact here to deliver something claiming to be wisdom and insight that makes this book so insidiously stupid and dangerous. The only reason for its 2 stars instead of 1 is for the strength and, to my understanding, relative novelty, of the final argument that in the end of the war, Hitler really decided for a war against Germany as punishment for failing to live up to his standard.

[Jules · Rating 5 out of 5]

This should be mandatory reading in school.

[Jeff Bishop · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es gibt diverse Bücher über Adolf Hitler. Viele verteufeln ihn, wenige verehren ihn. Ich habe jedoch das Gefühl, dass wenige so objektiv und geradlinig verfasst sind wie Haffners "Anmerkungen".

Bereits 1981 verfasst, hat es nichts an Qualität eingebüsst und ist aufbauend in folgende sieben Themen gegliedert:

- Leben
- Leistungen
- Erfolge (Ja, auch diese gibt es bei Hitler trotz aller Boshaftigkeit)
- Irrtümer
- Fehler
- Verbrechen
- Verrat

Wobei die letzten Vier Kapitel einiges mehr beinhalten als die vorausgegangenen drei...

[Damla · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kırk yaşını geçmiş kitap. Çevirisi de biraz ağır ve günümüz Türkçesinden uzak. Hitler 101 değil, Kronolojik Nazi tarihi hiç değil. Gerçekten başlığın vadettiği gibi Hitler üzerine notlar: “Hitler’in sosyalistlerle ortak özellikleri nelerdi, Hitler’i neden devlet adamı olarak görmüyorum, Hitler’in aşkını neden aşktan saymıyorum... “ gibi gibi. Zaten konuya hakim olan insanlar okusun, biraz daha fazla yorum ve farklı bakış açıları görsünler amacı güdüyor gibi geldi.

[Cemre · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sebastian Haffner'in Bir Alman'ın Hikâyesi isimli kitabını okuyalı dört ya da beş ay oldu sanırım. Kitabı bir hayli beğenince Hitler Üzerine Notlar kitabını da aldım.

İkinci Dünya Savaşı esnasında Yahudilerin uğradığı soykırım, sanat dallarının popüler konularından biri olmaya halen devam ediyor. Bu temada yazılmış birkaç kitabı benim de okuma fırsatım oldu. Esasen İkinci Dünya Savaşı Dönemi ilgimi çeken bir dönem olsa da özellikle Almanya ve Almanlar bazında ele alınan konuların çok büyük bir kısmı Yahudilere yapılan zulüm üzerine (ya da en azından ben hep buna denk geldim). Buna mukabil, o dönemde yaşayan, Yahudi olmayan, Hitler'in "Ari ırk" olarak tanımadığı gruba mensup; fakat Hitler destekçisi olmayan Almanlara dair eserler görece çok daha az veya dediğim gibi ben sık karşılaşmadım. Haffner'in Bir Alman'ın Hikâyesi isimli kitabını da bu yüzden çok sevmiştim. Bahsi geçen kitapta Haffner, bir "Ari Alman" olarak bu dönemde nelerle karşılaştığını, kendisi gibi insanların neler yaşadığını etkileyici bir ��ekilde ele almış. Hitler Üzerine Notlar'ı alınca da Hitler'i bu Alman'ın gözünden okumakta gecikmek istemedim.

Hitler üzerine çok okuma yaptığımı söyleyemem. Hatta doğrudan Hitler üzerine okuduğum tek kitap Hitler'in kendi yazdığı Kavgam'dı. Onun haricinde Hitler'i akademik eserlerde okumakla yetinmiştim. Bu kitap aslında hem benim gibi olanlar hem de herkes için yazılmış. Kitabın önsözünde önsözün yazarı Guido Knopp, bu kitabın diğer Hitler kitaplarından farklılığını anlatırken Hitler üzerine yazılan kitapların çoğunun ya anlaşılması güç, ağır kitaplar olduğunu ya da Hitler'i karikatürize ederek gerçeklerden uzaklaşan yapıtlar olduğunu belirtmiş ve bir öğrenciden alıntı yapmış. Alıntı şu şekilde, "Hitler üzerine daha çok bilgi sahibi olmayı isterdim, ama Hitler'i ele alan tuğla gibi kitaplar hem çok pahalılar hem de anlaşılmaları çok güç". Knopp, bu kitabın tam da bu şekilde düşünenler için yazıldığını belirtmiş; fakat bu demek değil ki bu kitap "basit", "sıradan" bir Hitler kitabı. Knopp, Haffner'den Hitler'e dair pek çok şey öğreneceğimizi ve geçmişten gelecek için dersler alacağımızı vurgulamış.

Hitler Üzerine Notlar, gerçekten de Knopp'un belirttiği üzere okuması güç bir kitap değil; aksine, oldukça akıcı. Haffner, bu kitabında sıradan bir Hitler biyografisi kaleme almamış. Elbette Hitler'in hayatından detaylara yer vermiş; fakat Hitler'in hareketlerinin altında yatan motivleri ele almış. Bunu yaparken de ne Hitler'e gereğinden fazla paye vermiş ne de Hitler'i "aptal, deli bir adam" kalıbı ile sınırlamış.

Haffner, sıklıkla Hitler'in birtakım "başarıları"nın arkasında savaştığı güçlerin zayıflığının olduğunun altını çizmiş, ülkedeki muhalefetin güçsüzlüğü, dışarıda Ingiltere ve Fransa'nın güçsüzlüğü gibi. Bununla birlikte, yazar, Hitler'in tarihe yön verdiği gerçeğini de görmezden gelmemiş. Haffner'e göre "Bugün yaşadığımız dünya, beğensek de beğenmesek de Hitler'in eseridir. Hitler olmasaydı Almanya ve Avrupa bölünmeyecekti, Berlin'de Amerikalılar ve Ruslar olmayacaktı; Hitler olmasaydı İsrail kurulmayacaktı; Hitler olmasaydı sömürgeler dönemi geride kalmayacaktı, en azından bu kadar hızlı olamayacaktı bu gelişme...".

Haffner, Hitler'i ve onu harekete geçiren etmenleri tarafsız bir şekilde incelemenin, anlamanın önemini sıklıkla vurgulamış. Bugün, Hitler'in yaptıklarından sonra onu küçümseyip karikatürize etmenin cazibesine kapılınmasının çok normal olduğunu söyleyen yazara göre ise "Şeytan'ı sakın ola önemsizleştirme"meliyiz. Hitler gerçeği ile yüzleşilmediği müddetçe ondan ve etkilerinden kurtulmak mümkün olmayacaktır. Gerçekten de dünyanın mevcut durumu düşünülecek olduğunda aslında Hitler ile ortak yönlerinin bolluğunu görmek oldukça kaygı verici. Hitler'in ve Hitler'i Hitler yapanların motivasyon kaynaklarını anlamaksızın günümüzde mücadele etmek bir hayli zor olacaktır. Bu kitap bunu göstermesi açısından oldukça yararlı bir kaynak olarak okunmalı diye düşünüyorum.

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Azért érdemes ízlelgetni a címet: Megjegyzések Hitlerhez. Szerény cím – jelzi, hogy van itt ez a Haffner, aki pontosan tudja, ő nem történész, „csak” publicista, de hát azért megjegyzései neki is lehetnek, ugye. Nem érdemes tőle semlegességet várni, egyfelől azért, mert ugyan mondja már meg valaki, miért kéne semlegesnek lenni Hitlerrel kapcsolatban (én sem vagyok az, és nem is akarok az lenni*), másfelől pedig megengedheti magának, hogy kvázi személyiségprofilt csináljon a Führerhez. Egy olyan kijelentés, miszerint Hitler tulajdonképpen kollektív öngyilkosságot akart elkövetni egész nemzetével együtt (amiről persze a nemzetnek nemigen volt tudomása) egy történész számára talán értelmezhetetlen volna, mert szándékot tulajdonít (néha meglehetősen intuitívan) a tények mögé, de ebben a kötetben ez simán elfér – pláne mert magam is egyetértek vele. Persze ettől függetlenül nem hibátlan kötet – több esetben pontatlan, például túldimenzionálja a harmincas évek német „gazdasági csodáját”, más esetekben pedig (az emberiségellenes bűnök kapcsán) olyan evidenciákat közöl, amik ma már közhelyszámba mennek**. Még az érdekesebb passzusokról is (amikor rámutat a hitleri elképzelések – gondolatnak nem nevezném őket – kibékíthetetlen belső ellentmondásaira***) elmondható, hogy különösebben forradalmi megállapításai nincsenek – ezek alapján kijelenthetnénk, hogy e könyv valamiféle laza ismeretterjesztő olvasmány, gyorstalpaló azoknak, akik Hitlert eddig rendszeresen összetévesztették Chaplinnel. De azért erről többről van szó.

Haffner ugyanis gondolkodik. Hipotézist gyárt, és ezeket a hipotéziseket be kívánja vinni a köztudatba, egy olyan köztudatba, ami igazából szeretne minél kevesebbet tudni az egészről. Remek észrevételei vannak – például rávilágít Hitler államellenességére, arra, hogy cselekedeteivel sorra bontotta le az intézményeket és az államiság egyéb kellékeit. Ezzel tulajdonképpen saját személyéhez kívánta kötni Németországot, mintha nem is feltételezte volna, hogy Németország nélküle is létezni fog. Haffner továbbá sejteni engedi, hogy Hitler, bár talán maga is démoni személy, ugyanakkor egy démoni közhangulat terméke is – amiből kiókumlálhatjuk, hogy egy újabb démoni közhangulat akár megszülheti a maga újabb Hitlerét. Ami annál könnyebben történik meg, minél kevésbé vagyunk hajlandóak eszünkbe idézni nemzeti múltunk árnyékos oldalait. Hitler úgy foglalta össze a zsidók bűneit, hogy a zsidó „végső célja más népek elnemzetietlenítése, elfattyúsítása, a magasabb rendű fajok színvonalának csökkentése, valamint a fajok összekevert katyvasza fölötti uralom” – és amikor a szuverén országok szuverén lázálmainak kinyilatkoztatásai kezdik ezt a tónust utánozni, a „mások” démonizálását eszközül használják, világvégével fenyegetnek, amit csak drasztikus eszközökkel lehet megelőzni – akkor muszáj felismerni a hasonlóságot az előddel. Mert ha a hasonlót nem ismerjük fel, akkor azt se fogjuk látni, amikor ugyanaz lesz.

* A tényszerűség, az más. És Haffner tényszerű – tekintve, hogy tényszerűségeket közöl, csak éppen nyelvhasználatában nem leplezi Hitlerrel szembeni jogos ellenszenvét. De ne is leplezze.
** Bár hogy a kötet megjelenésekor, 1978-ban ezek mennyire voltak evidenciák, az jó kérdés.
*** Jelesül: hogy Hitler két fő elmélete nem békíthető össze. Egyfelől azt állította, hogy a történelem a fajok (illetve képviselőik, a nemzetek) egymás elleni küzdelmének története, másfelől meg azt állította, hogy a zsidók azért üldözendőek, mert fel akarják számolni a nemzeteket. Tehát kvázi azért utálta a zsidókat, mert azok, felszámolván a nemzeteket, felszámolták volna a fajok örök harcát is. Egy világ, állandó háborúk nélkül – khm, elég borzasztóan hangzik.

[Maksim · Rating 5 out of 5]

Очень грамотный разбор личности и его биографии. Очень понравилось, что как и автор, так и редактор этого труда, почти смогли удержаться от скатывания к критике, практически таубированых и/или всем известных фактов и действий. Интересные ракурсы рассмотрения этапов жизни и приятно выстроенное повествование.
Самое жуткое, что есть в любой исторической книге — осознание того, что история, если не циклична, то, как минимум, спиралеобразная.

Интересное наблюдение, адаптированый вариант книги почти в 2 раза больше оригинала, если измерять по количеству страниц(100 страниц комментариев и сносок).

[Kristi Thielen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Haffner's book, written in 1979, 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 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 nation of Israel. The Russians were not conquered and forced to become a feudal people: the Soviet Union became one of the two gobal superpowers. America did not remain a backwater: they rose to superpower status. And Great Britain, which Hitler actually admired and initially didn't see as an enemy: its empire was ended.

Haffner's book makes for absorbing reading for history and political buffs.

[Ігор Антонюк · Rating 5 out of 5]

С. Гаффнер «Гітлер. Примітки до біографії»
Біографічний нарис (1978).
Лаконічний, грунтовний та конструктивний аналіз життя та політичної діяльності Адольфа Гітлера в історії Німеччини на тлі «епохи екстремізму».

Дослідник у своїй праці відкидає домінантні кліше та штампи «демонізації особи» Гітлера та неконструктивну критику багатьох сучасників.
Висуває слушні та об'єктивні припущення, щодо химерного політичного шляху діяча та неоднозначної ситуації під час краху Рейху та існування «нікому не потрібної» Веймарської республіки.

Вказує на хибні ідеї та політичні промахи фюрера, як під час політичної кар'єри, так і військових дій, зокрема «найболючішою помилкою» для німців визнає не Сталінград, а наступ на Ардени (1944 р.)

Вражають психологічні штрихи та мотиваційні кроки Гітлера, описані автором, які здавалося б на перший погляд – безглуздими. Але, дослідник вміло, із розділу до розділу, підвів ідею Гітлера про «боротьбу народів», яка дещо перегукувалася із марксистами.

Криваві події Другої Світової війни стали цьому підтвердженням. У боротьбі народів, хтось виходить переможцем, а для переможеного приготована лише смерть. Тому, в останні роки війни, для німців Гітлер підготував загибель та винищення, оскільки перемогти вони не змогли...
Так, що вимкни wifi, читає книги.

[Joey Dhaumya · Rating 4 out of 5]

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. 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:
1.Life
2.Achievements
3.Successes
4.Errors
5.Mistakes
6.Crimes
7.Betrayal
Haffner wrote "The Meaning of Hitler" in 1978 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.

[Joren Steenput · Rating 4 out of 5]

Een voortreffelijke verklaring voor de intrigerende persoonlijkheid van Hitler, een ideoloog binnen het sociaal-darwinisme in zijn meest vulgaire vorm, bah. Hoewel algemeen bekend is dat dit menneke streefde naar destructie, werpt dit werk tevens een verhelderend licht op zijn neiging tot zelfdestructie. Het schetst een alles-of-niets narratief, verstoken van enige aandacht voor de opvolgende periode. Het enige wat ik miste was een tekort in het verklaren waarom het Duitse volk zo sterk hierin meeging, wat er binnen de bevolking speelde en waarom ze belangstelling toonden voor dat crapuul dat daar zat.
Naar mijn mening was zijn hele carrière meer geluk dan kunnen maar wist hij zich steeds te omringen met de “juiste” mensen, die hem dan uitmuntend steunden om te zien wat dat het was. Ja echt een speciaal figuur kan men op zijn minst stellen. Ooh lieve mensen, was hij maar toegelaten tot de kunstschool of in 1938 afgetreden.

[Ansove · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is totally great.

[GÜRSEL SOYBIR · Rating 5 out of 5]

“Hükümet etmek, nutuk atmaktan farklıdır. Aslında bu adam mevcut değil, mevcut olan sadece sebep olduğu gürültü” diyordu herkes. Dikkatli baksalar, 33 öncesinde, olağanüstü konuşma gücünün yanısıra organizasyon kabiliyetinin de olduğunu görürlerdi.

Kitleleri etkileyen salyalar saçması değildi, olgulardan müteşekkil bir arkaplandı. 33 de şansölye olduğunda 6 milyon işsiz vardı, 36 da ise tam istihdamı yakalamıştı. “Hataları olabilir ama, bize iş ve ekmek sağladı”diyorlardı.

“20 sene evvel, halkımın, kimsenin tanımadığı bir işçisi ve askeri olan ben, bütün bunları kendi gücümle başardım” diyordu. Bütün halkı on senede kendi saflarında kenetlemeyi demogojiyle değil icraatla başarmak muazzam bir başarıydı.

Üç büyük toplumsal değişim süreci yaşandı. Birincisi, toplumsal demokratikleşme ve eşitliğin sağlanması, yeni zümrelerin ortadan kalkması, sınıf farklılıklarının yumuşaması; ikincisi, seksüel ahlakın tamamen altüst olması, bujuva zerafetinin değer kaybetmesi ve reddi; üçüncüsü ise kadınların özgürlüklerine kavuşmasıydı.

Korporatif, yeni zümreler devletinin ihyasını bayrak edinen İtalyan faşistlerinden farklıydılar. “İnsanları, tekrar çıkmayacakları sağlam bir disiplin içine sokarsak, insanları devletleştirmiş oluruz” diyorlardı, bu nasyonel sosyalizmin sosyalist yönüdür.

Alman İmparatorluğu, bütünüyle bir fetih aracı haline gelebilmek için, devlet olmaktan vazgeçmeliydi.

Tekrar tekrar ortaya çıkan, yenileri oluşturulan, küçük komünist grupların, tamamen sembolik direnişi ve yeraltı dayanışması, hiç bir şansları olmamasına rağmen gösterdikleri, ölümü hiçe sayan cesaretleri insani olarak çok büyük bir saygıyı hak ediyordu.

Faşizm, doğal olmayan kitlesel bir coşkunun destek verdiği, yüksek sınıfların iktidarıdır. Hitler, kitleleri peşinden sürüklerken yüksek sınıfların desteğini almamıştır.

Faşizm ideolojisinin yegane prensibi, güç ve iktidar aşkı için güç ve iktidardır. Tarih, bir ulusun yaşam savaşı seyrinin tasviridir. Dış politika, yaptırım ve kavga demektir. Dövüşmek istemeyen hayatı haketmez. Politika savaş ve savaş hazırlığıdır. Yaşam alanının sınırlılığı, savaşı zorunlu kılar. Savaş bir erk ve boyun eğdirme meselesidir.

Beynelminel Dünya Yahudiliği; dış politikada pasifizm, enternasyonalizm, kapitalizm ve komünizm, iç politikada ise parlementerizm ve demokrasiyi kullanarak mücadele ettiği tüm devletlere düşmanlık yapar diyorlardı.


Yahudilik; en saf tek tanrılı dini, isimsiz, tasvirsiz, kavranamayacak ve hikmetinden sual olunamayacak şekilde, bir tanrı gibi dehşetengiz, bir fikri hiç sulandırmadan ve yumuşatmadan düşünmeye cüret etmiş ve sonrasında da koruyabilmiş bir dindir.

Hitler olmasaydı İsrail Devleti kurulmayacaktı.


Hitler, Almanya’yı, aslında hiç bir zaman gerçek anlamda tanımamıştı. Hırslı ve siyasi açıdan ne yapacağını bilemez halde bir ulus ve Avrupa’nın o dönemdeki en büyük güç potansiyeli olan Almanlar, kendisi için seçilmiş sadece bir iktidar aracıydı. Almanya için düşündükleri daha ziyade bir at yetiştiricisinin ihtiraslarına benziyordu. Hangi Alman Rusya’ya yerleşmeyi isterdi. İktidarı ele geçirdikten sonra da isteklere kulaklarını iyice tıkadı. Almanya’nın yok edilmesi kendisine koyduğu son hedefti.

[Andrew]

A bit of background: Haffner (1907-1999) witnessed the growth of Nazism first hand as a young man and fled Germany in 1939, eventually establishing himself as a journalist of considerable repute in England before returning to Germany in 1954. His posthumously released memoir of his early years, Defying Hitler, reveals Haffner to be a man gifted with extraordinary insight into German society.



In the 1970's Haffner brought his formidable analytic abilities to bear on Hitler himself with the publishing of this book, which became a huge bestseller in Germany. The tone is more sober and philosophical in comparison with his memoir, the work of an idealistic young man. It's a historical and psychological examination of Hitler, written so concisely and thoughtfully that it puts other Hitler biographers to shame. Ironically, even though he focuses on one man, it really is a work of universal application, a worthy addition to the political science library.



There is so much here that one could discuss, but in the interest of brevity I'll limit myself to the question which was on everyone's mind - could it happen in Germany again? His conclusion is no, on the basis that the German Right (and here one must be careful, for Haffner is not referring to Hitler, but to the aristocratic faction represented by von Papen and Schleicher that sought to co-opt Hitler; interestingly enough, Haffner sees Hitler as much more a politician of the left than the right) no longer rejected the state. Rather, it became a part of democratic Germany. Ironically, thirty years later, the possibility of fascism seems more acute in Western Europe, as political elites have sidelined mainstream conservatism from meaningful political participation. This book has many lessons to teach, and more applicability to the present day than we care to admit.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is much to discover in this short and powerful book. This insightful volume cuts through popular myth to deliver some eye opening analysis.

For example, Hitler was not merely an egomaniac, and not only a mass murderer. He was both stronger and weaker than is typically reported.

For example, Chamberlain's appeasement--turns out Hitler didn't want Britain and France to give him what he wanted, he was looking for a reason to go to war immediately. The extra time Chamberlain bought was to the Allies' (or at least Britain's) advantage.

For example, Hitler had decided as early as December 1941 that he could not beat Russia, and thus his primary goal was unattainable. Thus he settled on his other and contradictory goal, extermination.

For example, his death wish for Germany. Germany was not an end, but merely a means to attaining his goal. When Germany proved itself incapable, he took his frustration out on the German people.

But the most important insight of this book for me was the confirmation, that I had already surmised from reading Shirer’s classic, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, some Primo Levi, and other sources, that the primary reason why Hitler came to power was because the German conservatives turned against the Weimar government which they considered too liberal. This fact is disturbing given the recent history of the United States.

[Tim · Rating 5 out of 5]

I picked this up on the very strong recommendation of John Roderick, as mentioned on his Roderick On The Line podcast. As someone who hasn't spent much time at all reading about WWII history, I was hoping (based on Roderick's description) for an explanation of Hitler the man, and his place in 20th century Europe. The book delivered on this, and I found the author's doggedness in explaining Hitler as a person (an obsessive, destructive, megalomaniacal person) to be a useful counterpoint to the caricatures I was exposed to in earlier learning experiences. It is the author's conviction, and mine as well, that only by understanding the humanity behind what we think of as evil or atrocity can we work toward preventing their recurrence.
If the book has one flaw, it is the minimal explanation of Hitler's so-called mesmerism and his ability to enrapture a crowd. That ability is discussed as key to his rise to power, and as such is worthy of further exploration.

[Julio The Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

'He was like a comet. He came out of nowhere, crashed into the earth, transformed it, and then disappeared without a trace." Hitler's case was that of a man who until the age of thirty could only be described as a total loser: a high school-drop out with no friends, who rarely read books and had no political or religious beliefs. Twenty years later he stood one step away from global conquest while his shadow still haunts the world, from Ukraine to the Middle East. Haffner, a German conservative, correctly notes that the left proved incapable of stopping Hitler and only the conservative aristocracy in Germany posed any threat to his rule---and at that they failed. I suggest reading this interpretative essay before you read any Hitler biography. The meaning before the man.