What do you think?
Rate this book
The Hitler of History
Since 1945 there have been over a hundred biographies of Hitler. What happens when so many people reinterpret the life of a single individual? Does Hitler emerge as a mythic anti-hero whose crimes and errors blur behind an aura of power and conquest? By making Hitler's biographers, rather than Hitler himself, the subject of inquiry, Lukacs reveals the contradictions that take us back to the true Hitler of history. By examining those like the controversial historian David Irving who have been involved in a rehabilitation of Hitler, Lukacs draws powerful conclusions about Hitler's differences from other monsters of history, such as Napoleon, Mussolini and Stalin. As the New York Times said of this 'Surprising, even shocking. Mr Lukacs arrives at his conclusions with painstaking, exhaustive logic that is hard to resist.'
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1997
23 people are currently reading
457 people want to read
About the author
John Lukacs
63 books116 followersLukacs was born in Budapest to a Roman Catholic father and Jewish mother. His parents divorced before the Second World War. During the Second World War he was forced to serve in a Hungarian labour battalion for Jews. During the German occupation of Hungary in 1944-45 he evaded deportation to the death camps, and survived the siege of Budapest. In 1946, as it became clear that Hungary was going to be a repressive Communist regime, he fled to the United States. In the early 1950s however, Lukacs wrote several articles in Commonweal criticizing the approach taken by Senator Joseph McCarthy, whom he described as a vulgar demagogue.[1]
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Lukacs sees populism as the greatest threat to civilization. By his own description, he considers himself to be a reactionary. He claims that populism is the essence of both National Socialism and Communism. He denies that there is such a thing as generic fascism, noting for example that the differences between the political regimes of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy are greater than their similarities.[2]
A major theme in Lukacs's writing is his agreement with the assertion by the French historian Alexis de Tocqueville that aristocratic elites have been replaced by democratic elites, which obtain power via an appeal to the masses. In his 2002 book, At the End of an Age, Lukacs argued that the modern/bourgeois age, which began around the time of the Renaissance, is coming to an end.[3] The rise of populism and the decline of elitism is the theme of his experimental work, A Thread of Years (1998), a series of vignettes set in each year of the 20th century from 1900 to 1998, tracing the abandonment of gentlemanly conduct and the rise of vulgarity in American culture. Lukacs defends traditional Western civilization against what he sees as the leveling and debasing effects of mass culture.
By his own admission a dedicated Anglophile, Lukacs’s favorite historical figure is Winston Churchill, whom he considers to be the greatest statesman of the 20th century, and the savior of not only Great Britain, but also of Western civilization. A recurring theme in his writing is the duel between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler for mastery of the world. The struggle between them, whom Lukacs sees as the archetypical reactionary and the archetypical revolutionary, is the major theme of The Last European War (1976), The Duel (1991), Five Days in London (1999) and 2008's Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat, a book about Churchill’s first major speech as Prime Minister. Lukacs argues that Great Britain (and by extension the British Empire) could not defeat Germany by itself, winning required the entry of the United States and the Soviet Union, but he contends that Churchill, by ensuring that Germany failed to win the war in 1940, laid the groundwork for an Allied victory.
Lukacs holds strong isolationist beliefs, and unusually for an anti-Communist émigré, "airs surprisingly critical views of the Cold War from a unique conservative perspective."[4] Lukacs claims that the Soviet Union was a feeble power on the verge of collapse, and contended that the Cold War was an unnecessary waste of American treasure and life. Likewise, Lukacs has also condemned the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
In his 1997 book, George F. Kennan and the Origins of Containment, 1944-1946, a collection of letters between Lukacs and his close friend George F. Kennan exchanged in 1994-1995, Lukacs and Kennan criticized the New Left claim that the Cold War was caused by the United States. Lukacs argued however that although it was Joseph Stalin who was largely responsible for the beginning of the Cold War, the administration of Dwight Eisenhower missed a chance for ending the Cold War in 1953 after Stalin's death, and as a consequence the Cold War went on for many more decades.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
January 8, 2013
This is high-octane Hitlerology. But Mr Lukacs' vast learning is spat out like a series of aggravating orange pips you didn't expect to find in your mouth. He swats historians like blowflies on a hot day in Alabama. Thwap! goes Toland. Splot! goes Irving. He regards the resulting mess with icy indifference. He surveys Alp after Alp of Hitler history with Olympian hauteur, and if you can't keep up with him, if you don't know your Hillgrubers from your Gorlitz-Quints, or your Intentionalists from your Functionalists, or indeed your schreibfests from your Joachim Fests, then you're in the wrong part of the train, second class is that way, move along please.
This was a reread, but alas, I still felt that this book was well above my paygrade most of the time. He's so contemptuous about those who call Nazis fascists. Huh, of course they weren't! He thinks it's positively infantile to call the Third Reich totalitarian - no! it was authoritarian, idiot - now don't you forget it. Still, as the old adage has it, "A cat may look at a king" where cat = P Bryant and king = J Lukacs.
So, frinstance, p176 :
It was because of Hitler that anti-Semitism became unacceptable, if not unthinkable, intellectually as well as politically, after the war
This book was published in 1998 and even so I say : really? Unacceptable to who? Not to Hamas, not to the Iranian revolutionists of the 1970s and 80s and not to the Nation of Islam, to name a few serious political organisations.
He comes out with some ringing paragraphs every now and again – this is a typical thundering and slightly off-kilter example:
It is not only that Hitler had very considerable intellectual talents. He was also courageous, self-assured, on many occasions steadfast, loyal to his friends and those working for him, self-disciplined and modest in his physical wants. What this suggests ought not to be misconstrued, mistaken or misread. It does not mean : lo and behold! Hitler was only 50% bad. Human nature is not like that. A half-truth is worse than a lie, because a half-truth is not a 50% truth, it is a 100% truth and a 100% untruth mixed together. In mathematics, with its rigidly fixed and immobile numbers, 100 plus 100 equals 200; in human life 100 plus 100 makes another kind of 100.
So this is not a history of Hitler, and it's not even a history of the history of Hitler, although that's what Mr Lukacs says it is. It's actually a series of grumpy, irritable, densely-packed, often oblique notes and opinions and apercus about the history of Hitler which are footnoted half to death on every page.
This was a reread, but alas, I still felt that this book was well above my paygrade most of the time. He's so contemptuous about those who call Nazis fascists. Huh, of course they weren't! He thinks it's positively infantile to call the Third Reich totalitarian - no! it was authoritarian, idiot - now don't you forget it. Still, as the old adage has it, "A cat may look at a king" where cat = P Bryant and king = J Lukacs.
So, frinstance, p176 :
It was because of Hitler that anti-Semitism became unacceptable, if not unthinkable, intellectually as well as politically, after the war
This book was published in 1998 and even so I say : really? Unacceptable to who? Not to Hamas, not to the Iranian revolutionists of the 1970s and 80s and not to the Nation of Islam, to name a few serious political organisations.
He comes out with some ringing paragraphs every now and again – this is a typical thundering and slightly off-kilter example:
It is not only that Hitler had very considerable intellectual talents. He was also courageous, self-assured, on many occasions steadfast, loyal to his friends and those working for him, self-disciplined and modest in his physical wants. What this suggests ought not to be misconstrued, mistaken or misread. It does not mean : lo and behold! Hitler was only 50% bad. Human nature is not like that. A half-truth is worse than a lie, because a half-truth is not a 50% truth, it is a 100% truth and a 100% untruth mixed together. In mathematics, with its rigidly fixed and immobile numbers, 100 plus 100 equals 200; in human life 100 plus 100 makes another kind of 100.
So this is not a history of Hitler, and it's not even a history of the history of Hitler, although that's what Mr Lukacs says it is. It's actually a series of grumpy, irritable, densely-packed, often oblique notes and opinions and apercus about the history of Hitler which are footnoted half to death on every page.
April 22, 2023
A cím mindent elárul a szerzői célról és hozzáállásról. Különösen a „történelmi” jelző. Lukacs abból indul ki, hogy a Hitlerről alkotott vélemények két végpont között szóródnak. Egyfelől vannak azok, akik Hitlert démonként festik le, egyfajta sátáni kísértőként. Ezzel azonban olyan halmazba helyezik, amely inkább a teológia vagy a fantasztikum eszközeivel írható körül - magyarán kiragadják a történelemből. A másik véglet viszont Hitler részleges vagy teljes felmentésén munkálkodik. Lukacs megengedi, egy részük öntudatlanul, rosszul értelmezett hazafiságból – azon vágyuk, hogy a német történelmet megtisztítsák a rátapadt szennytől, oda vezet, hogy Hitlert is megkísérlik lecsutakolni. Ez sem történészi munka, sokkal inkább érzelmi folyamat, ami az érintett író elfogultságairól árulkodik, ilyen értelemben pedig a pszichológia tárgykörébe tartozik. Amit ezzel szemben a történésznek kutya kötelessége megtenni – Lukacs elképzelése szerint -, az az, hogy ezt a kolosszális tömeggyilkost vissza kell hozni a históriába, az objektivitás és az értékelhetőség birodalmába, fel kell oldani a vele kapcsolatos tabukat. Ez persze veszélyes játék, mert megnyithatja a kaput azok előtt, akik Hitler relativizálásában érdekeltek, ugyanakkor csakis így érthetjük meg a folyamatokat, amelyek a Harmadik Birodalom kialakulásához vezettek. A megértés pedig fontos, mert anélkül a megelőzés sem lehetséges.
Lukacsról az a véleményem, hogy felettébb alkalmas erre a feladatra. Elsősorban azért, mert képes egyszerre lendületes és gondolatgazdag prózában írni*. De tán még ennél is fontosabb: képes egyértelmű és nem titkolt konzervatív világnézetén felülemelkedve végezni a történészi munkát. Ami a lukacsi véleményeket illeti, hát, néha finoman szólva sem tudok azonosulni velük, de ami a módszert illeti, csak bámulni tudom. Világos érvelés, tárgyilagos fogalmazás és akkurátus forráskezelés jellemzi – mindig pontosan érthető, mit és miért állít.
A kötet rendkívül sokszínű, végigzongorázza a Hitler-kérdés csaknem minden aspektusát, szót ejt az államférfiúi nagyság kérdéséről, a holokausztról vagy épp arról, hogyan illeszthető be a német történelembe. Fáradhatatlanul szemlézi a Hitlerről írott tenger szakirodalmat, miközben leereszkedik olyan szerzőkhöz is, akiket én bottal se piszkálnék**. Igazából rámenne a napom, ha az összes inspiratív gondolatát kiszedegetném, de egyet azért kiemelnék.
Ahogy látom, Lukacs gondolkodásának sarokköve Hitler „modernsége”. Nem tartja őt diktátornak abban az értelemben, hogy a diktátorok rendszerint egy szűk elitre támaszkodva uralkodnak a többségen. (Ahogy mondjuk Sztálin.) Hitler ezzel szemben modern, mert populista: ő az egész néppel akar azonosulni, vagyis a többségre támaszkodva hajtja végre céljait. Ami Montesquieu legvadabb rémálma a többség uralmáról, igazi pervertált demokrácia. A(z általa definiált) néppel való azonosulás legfőbb kötőanyaga pedig a gyűlölet******: Hitler nyilvánvalóvá teszi, kin kell átgázolni a boldogság felé vezető úton, az akaratot és a tettvágyat így csatornázza a neki megfelelő mederbe. Az erőszak bizonyos formáit legitimmé, sőt kívánatossá teszi, a közösen elkövetett bűn lesz tehát a népközösség cementje. A tragédia pedig az, hogy ez a módszer tökéletesen megfelelt a német tömegeknek, simán bekajálták, sokkal inkább megmozgatta őket, mint a szeretetelv akármelyik formája. Az okfejtésnek mindazonáltal van egy következménye, amit ugyan Lukacs nem tárgyal, de attól még megfontolásra érdemes: ha Hitler a többségre támaszkodott, az egyben azt is jelentheti, hogy a felelősség is szóródik. Nem csak Hitler vagy az NSDAP a hibás mindazért, ami a második világháború során történt, hanem mindazon németek (és persze a csatlós államok lakossága) is, akik belementek a piszkos alkuba. Nyilván ez messze nem kisebbíti Hitler bűnét (ha háramlik is belőle másra, attól még bőven marad neki elég), egyszerűen azt jelenti, hogy mi is felelősek vagyunk azok tetteiért, akik alá rendeljük magukat.
* Többször leszögezte már, hogy a történészi munka elsősorban írói munka, és bizony ez bizony látszik is – kevés nála jobb stilisztát ismerek a pályán. A gondolatgazdagságot pedig a lábjegyzetek nagy száma is jelzi - ugyanis intellektuális csapongásra késztet.
** Itt van például David Irving, aki korai, bizonyos tekintetben figyelemre méltó munkái után masszív holokauszttagadóvá avanzsált. Lukacs az ő esetében is respektálja, hogy rengeteg forrást felkutatott, ugyanakkor meggyőzően bizonyítja, hogy 1.) azokat önkényesen, kontextusokból kiragadva magyarázta 2.) bizonyos forrásokat viszont egyértelműen ő maga hamisított***. Hitler iránt érzett nyilvánvaló elfogultsága**** pedig lehetetlenné teszi, hogy legtöbb kijelentését komolyan vegyük. No most a figyelem, amit Lukacs Irvingnek szentel, érdekes kérdést vet fel: jót tesz egy nívós történész, ha egy veszélyes (fél)sarlatán megcáfolására időt szán? Felemeli ezzel magához, vagy épp ellenkezőleg, csak eloszlatja a vele kapcsolatos félreértéseket? Gondolom, is-is. Azt gyanítom azonban, hogy nem Irving könyvei teszik holokauszttagadóvá az embereket, hanem azok, akikben eleve megvan a hajlam a holokauszt tagadására (illetve Hitler ideológiájának elfogadására), megtalálják maguknak Irvinget. Ilyen értelemben Lukacs hozzászólása a témához őket nem befolyásolja, de abban segít a laikusoknak, hogy Irvinget a valós értékén (a bányászbéka sejehaja alatt) kezeljék*****.
*** Lukacs amúgy írja, hogy a féligazság nem 50% igazság és 50% hazugság, hanem 100% igazság és 100% hazugság összekeverve, ebben az értelemben pedig rosszabb, mint a sima hazugság. Pont e logika alapján tartom én Irvinget rosszabbnak, mint egy „normális” hülyét, aki csak úgy érzésből árasztja ki a száján a fekáliát. Mert amikor Irving valós és konstruált forrásokat egyszerre önt elénk, azzal az egész történészi módszertant gyalázza meg. Nem csak szimplán idióta, hanem olyan idióta, aki nagyon ügyesen szakértőnek álcázta magát.
**** Két visszatérő állítása: 1.) Hitler nem tudott a holokausztról, ha tudott volna, akkor nem engedélyezte volna. Ez baromság, gyökeresen ellentétes azzal, ami Hitler minden megnyilvánulásából árad. 2.) Hitlert beleugratták a háborúba. No most egyfelől ez pompásan rímel arra, amivel Putyint szokták mentegetni, és ugyanazt válaszolhatjuk rá: az, hogy valakit „beugrattak” egy háborúba, feltételezés, amit külön bizonyítani kell, szóval láss neki. Az viszont, hogy valakinek a hadserege egy másik ország területén van, a legszigorúbban vett tény, ami nem szorul bizonyításra. Másfelől tegyük fel, Hitlert tényleg „beugratták” a háborúba. Mégpedig sorra mindenki: a lengyelek, a jugoszlávok, a norvégok, a hollandok, a franciák, az angolok, az oroszok, satöbbi, satöbbi. No most vagy az van, hogy szegény Hitler egy naiv pacák, akit az összes rosszindulatú piszlicsáré nemzet rejtélyes okból magára akar húzni, vagy egyszerűen ő az a hülye a viccből, aki autózik a rossz sávban, és azt hiszi, nem ő megy szembe a forgalommal, hanem mindenki más.
***** Nem akarok sokáig lovagolni Irvingen, mert meg se érdemli, de egyvalami tényleg nem fér a fejembe. Hogy egy angol mit eszik Hitleren. A kommunizmusról legalább elmondható, hogy egy olyan eszmét akart rákényszeríteni más államokra, ami talán hülyeség, de legalább színleg egyetemes. Hitler ezzel szemben egy olyan eszmét hirdet, ami speciálisan germán: hogy Németország a legnagyobb, és Németországnak kell megmondania (nyilván Hitler szájával), ki hány kiló. Mit lehet ezen bámulni? Ez valami burkolt öngyűlölet Irvingben? Vagy a rabszolgalét iránti rejtett vonzalom?
****** Itt van egy paradoxon, szerintem. A gyűlölet ugyanis egy zsigeri, atavisztikus érzet (atavisztikus már csak azért is, mert tagadja a pluralizmust), tehát látszólag nem fér össze a modernitással. Hitler sikere ilyen értelemben annak tudható be, hogy egy atavisztikus jelenséget képes volt modern eszközként használni.
Lukacsról az a véleményem, hogy felettébb alkalmas erre a feladatra. Elsősorban azért, mert képes egyszerre lendületes és gondolatgazdag prózában írni*. De tán még ennél is fontosabb: képes egyértelmű és nem titkolt konzervatív világnézetén felülemelkedve végezni a történészi munkát. Ami a lukacsi véleményeket illeti, hát, néha finoman szólva sem tudok azonosulni velük, de ami a módszert illeti, csak bámulni tudom. Világos érvelés, tárgyilagos fogalmazás és akkurátus forráskezelés jellemzi – mindig pontosan érthető, mit és miért állít.
A kötet rendkívül sokszínű, végigzongorázza a Hitler-kérdés csaknem minden aspektusát, szót ejt az államférfiúi nagyság kérdéséről, a holokausztról vagy épp arról, hogyan illeszthető be a német történelembe. Fáradhatatlanul szemlézi a Hitlerről írott tenger szakirodalmat, miközben leereszkedik olyan szerzőkhöz is, akiket én bottal se piszkálnék**. Igazából rámenne a napom, ha az összes inspiratív gondolatát kiszedegetném, de egyet azért kiemelnék.
Ahogy látom, Lukacs gondolkodásának sarokköve Hitler „modernsége”. Nem tartja őt diktátornak abban az értelemben, hogy a diktátorok rendszerint egy szűk elitre támaszkodva uralkodnak a többségen. (Ahogy mondjuk Sztálin.) Hitler ezzel szemben modern, mert populista: ő az egész néppel akar azonosulni, vagyis a többségre támaszkodva hajtja végre céljait. Ami Montesquieu legvadabb rémálma a többség uralmáról, igazi pervertált demokrácia. A(z általa definiált) néppel való azonosulás legfőbb kötőanyaga pedig a gyűlölet******: Hitler nyilvánvalóvá teszi, kin kell átgázolni a boldogság felé vezető úton, az akaratot és a tettvágyat így csatornázza a neki megfelelő mederbe. Az erőszak bizonyos formáit legitimmé, sőt kívánatossá teszi, a közösen elkövetett bűn lesz tehát a népközösség cementje. A tragédia pedig az, hogy ez a módszer tökéletesen megfelelt a német tömegeknek, simán bekajálták, sokkal inkább megmozgatta őket, mint a szeretetelv akármelyik formája. Az okfejtésnek mindazonáltal van egy következménye, amit ugyan Lukacs nem tárgyal, de attól még megfontolásra érdemes: ha Hitler a többségre támaszkodott, az egyben azt is jelentheti, hogy a felelősség is szóródik. Nem csak Hitler vagy az NSDAP a hibás mindazért, ami a második világháború során történt, hanem mindazon németek (és persze a csatlós államok lakossága) is, akik belementek a piszkos alkuba. Nyilván ez messze nem kisebbíti Hitler bűnét (ha háramlik is belőle másra, attól még bőven marad neki elég), egyszerűen azt jelenti, hogy mi is felelősek vagyunk azok tetteiért, akik alá rendeljük magukat.
* Többször leszögezte már, hogy a történészi munka elsősorban írói munka, és bizony ez bizony látszik is – kevés nála jobb stilisztát ismerek a pályán. A gondolatgazdagságot pedig a lábjegyzetek nagy száma is jelzi - ugyanis intellektuális csapongásra késztet.
** Itt van például David Irving, aki korai, bizonyos tekintetben figyelemre méltó munkái után masszív holokauszttagadóvá avanzsált. Lukacs az ő esetében is respektálja, hogy rengeteg forrást felkutatott, ugyanakkor meggyőzően bizonyítja, hogy 1.) azokat önkényesen, kontextusokból kiragadva magyarázta 2.) bizonyos forrásokat viszont egyértelműen ő maga hamisított***. Hitler iránt érzett nyilvánvaló elfogultsága**** pedig lehetetlenné teszi, hogy legtöbb kijelentését komolyan vegyük. No most a figyelem, amit Lukacs Irvingnek szentel, érdekes kérdést vet fel: jót tesz egy nívós történész, ha egy veszélyes (fél)sarlatán megcáfolására időt szán? Felemeli ezzel magához, vagy épp ellenkezőleg, csak eloszlatja a vele kapcsolatos félreértéseket? Gondolom, is-is. Azt gyanítom azonban, hogy nem Irving könyvei teszik holokauszttagadóvá az embereket, hanem azok, akikben eleve megvan a hajlam a holokauszt tagadására (illetve Hitler ideológiájának elfogadására), megtalálják maguknak Irvinget. Ilyen értelemben Lukacs hozzászólása a témához őket nem befolyásolja, de abban segít a laikusoknak, hogy Irvinget a valós értékén (a bányászbéka sejehaja alatt) kezeljék*****.
*** Lukacs amúgy írja, hogy a féligazság nem 50% igazság és 50% hazugság, hanem 100% igazság és 100% hazugság összekeverve, ebben az értelemben pedig rosszabb, mint a sima hazugság. Pont e logika alapján tartom én Irvinget rosszabbnak, mint egy „normális” hülyét, aki csak úgy érzésből árasztja ki a száján a fekáliát. Mert amikor Irving valós és konstruált forrásokat egyszerre önt elénk, azzal az egész történészi módszertant gyalázza meg. Nem csak szimplán idióta, hanem olyan idióta, aki nagyon ügyesen szakértőnek álcázta magát.
**** Két visszatérő állítása: 1.) Hitler nem tudott a holokausztról, ha tudott volna, akkor nem engedélyezte volna. Ez baromság, gyökeresen ellentétes azzal, ami Hitler minden megnyilvánulásából árad. 2.) Hitlert beleugratták a háborúba. No most egyfelől ez pompásan rímel arra, amivel Putyint szokták mentegetni, és ugyanazt válaszolhatjuk rá: az, hogy valakit „beugrattak” egy háborúba, feltételezés, amit külön bizonyítani kell, szóval láss neki. Az viszont, hogy valakinek a hadserege egy másik ország területén van, a legszigorúbban vett tény, ami nem szorul bizonyításra. Másfelől tegyük fel, Hitlert tényleg „beugratták” a háborúba. Mégpedig sorra mindenki: a lengyelek, a jugoszlávok, a norvégok, a hollandok, a franciák, az angolok, az oroszok, satöbbi, satöbbi. No most vagy az van, hogy szegény Hitler egy naiv pacák, akit az összes rosszindulatú piszlicsáré nemzet rejtélyes okból magára akar húzni, vagy egyszerűen ő az a hülye a viccből, aki autózik a rossz sávban, és azt hiszi, nem ő megy szembe a forgalommal, hanem mindenki más.
***** Nem akarok sokáig lovagolni Irvingen, mert meg se érdemli, de egyvalami tényleg nem fér a fejembe. Hogy egy angol mit eszik Hitleren. A kommunizmusról legalább elmondható, hogy egy olyan eszmét akart rákényszeríteni más államokra, ami talán hülyeség, de legalább színleg egyetemes. Hitler ezzel szemben egy olyan eszmét hirdet, ami speciálisan germán: hogy Németország a legnagyobb, és Németországnak kell megmondania (nyilván Hitler szájával), ki hány kiló. Mit lehet ezen bámulni? Ez valami burkolt öngyűlölet Irvingben? Vagy a rabszolgalét iránti rejtett vonzalom?
****** Itt van egy paradoxon, szerintem. A gyűlölet ugyanis egy zsigeri, atavisztikus érzet (atavisztikus már csak azért is, mert tagadja a pluralizmust), tehát látszólag nem fér össze a modernitással. Hitler sikere ilyen értelemben annak tudható be, hogy egy atavisztikus jelenséget képes volt modern eszközként használni.
December 22, 2022
John Lukacs, forever gadfly and self-proclaimed "reactionary, not conservative", here deconstructs and revises just about everything we thought we knew about Adolf Hitler. For your consideration: Hitler was not a committed anti-semite ever since his Vienna artists days, as he claimed in MEIN KAMPF. Only after getting out of combat in 1918 and living briefly under the Soviet Republic of Bavaria, led by Jewish Communists and Socialists, did he come to equate Judaism with Communism; Hitler was a nationalist, not a racialist. He desired German hegemony over Europe, which in turn required the expulsion, and only much later the elimination, of European Jewry as an obstacle to that goal; speaking of which, Hitler did not aim for a global empire, so you can cast away all those "the Nazis take over the world" counterfactual novels and films. In his eyes, Germany would conquer Europe, neutralize England and leave the United States and the Soviet Union alone; England, not Russia, was his principal enemy, and even there he wished for Britain to exit the war, not invade the island. "Operation Sea Lion" was a contingency plan, not a viable option; Hitler was willing to let Stalin dominate the Balkans and the Baltics provided Stalin let him have a free hand in the West. Barbarossa came about when England refused to surrender and Hitler became convinced the existence of Russia as a potential British ally was the only thing preventing a German victory in the war. I have doubts about may of these claims but take pleasure at being goaded by Lukacs into thinking differently.
January 19, 2009
I read this for the first time in November of 2003, largely in one sitting on the train from Bologna to Parma. This is a fascinating book that attempts to gauge the shifts in historians' opinions of Hitler over time, and also use these shifts to provoke (and attempt to answer) the main question here: what did Hitler mean?
Lukcas is a careful writer who nonetheless possesses a very droll style that is always engaging, even if it requires a close reading. Recommended for anyone who takes a more nuanced view of history or who would like to go beyond the standard textbooks.
Lukcas is a careful writer who nonetheless possesses a very droll style that is always engaging, even if it requires a close reading. Recommended for anyone who takes a more nuanced view of history or who would like to go beyond the standard textbooks.
September 19, 2011
So relentlessly footnoted that establishing any kind of rhythm proved to be an impossibility—but nevertheless wholly absorbing and counter-intuitively illuminating and learnedly cantankerous, a work that, through its dissection of the vast realm of Hitler scholarship and literature—and even more now than in 1997—by means of a topical basis in trying to assess Hitler's legacy, place in history, formative influences, and character, alerted me to the possibility that John Toland might not actually be the last word on Mr. Mustache whilst simultaneously alleviating me of some of the distress engendered within by my marked inability to muster the requisite appreciation for Hannah Arendt's
The Origins of Totalitarianism
.
Read quite some time ago, and, what with my recent ingestion of another impressive work by the esteemed and educational Professor Lukacs, worth another run through, perhaps bookended either way by the longer, generally better reviewed work by Ron Rosenbaum.
Read quite some time ago, and, what with my recent ingestion of another impressive work by the esteemed and educational Professor Lukacs, worth another run through, perhaps bookended either way by the longer, generally better reviewed work by Ron Rosenbaum.
August 19, 2022
Leo a Lukacs porque es un autor inteligente, extremadamente culto y sugerente, además de un escritor brillante. A menudo no estoy de acuerdo con sus planteamientos y tampoco estoy cerca de sus posturas y manías espirituales y políticas, aunque esto es muy relativo y, en realidad, comprendo que su experiencia vital pesó en sus creencias, al igual que en las mías. Pisamos el mismo suelo cultural. Su mayor atractivo, para mí, son las reflexiones teóricas sobre la disciplina histórica que va intercalando con su narración. También me atrae su agudeza a la hora de analizar la historia de la historiografía. Y de eso va este libro, que queda lejos de mi campo de estudio pero me ha proporcionado modelos e ideas para trabajar, sobre todo en el terreno de la historia biográfica. En su mayor parte, el ensayo me ha gustado. Pero creo que, al contrario que en otros libros suyos, resulta digresivo. Sobre todo sus conclusiones, que dejan una sensación de divagación, de rodeo argumentativo con el que roza una idea y no la alcanza.
February 13, 2017
Lukacs delves into areas others fear to tread and asks some awkward questions about our perceptions of Hitler. His nit-picking at biographies uncovers authors intentions and reveals that even some of the best respected and most highly regarded of historians have on occassion faltered in their facts and figures (and that some have even used innacurate research by holocaust deniers!). This book has certainly made me rethink my view of Hitler, although I still disagree with Lukacs well-argumented case that we should consider Hitler a revolutionary rather than a reactionary (although his catogarizing Hitler as an idealist determinist is unarguable). The only down side to this book is the author's assumption that all readers are fluent in German, which makes some of his references difficult to understand without a German-English dictionary.
August 22, 2019
One of the indispensable books on Hitler, short and to the point!
September 2, 2017
John Lukacs is the most entertaining author about WWII and Hitler especially. The most interesting thing about him is his way of thinking. He always take usual view back. He is an assumed reactionnary. How right is he when he forbids calling Hitler a reactionnary ? Very fine. Lukacs describes him as a very clever, modern guy. He assumes Hitler was not antisemitic, and even not a racist. He was just a völkish, that means populist, judeophobic and a nationalist. Lukacs situes Hitler in the new wave of populism that araises through the world after WWI. Hitler's Kampf is not about race, but about nation, and the nation Hitler fights for is Germany, not aryans. Lukacs purpose contrasts heavily with academic books (such as Kershaw etc). But surely he is far more interesting. From where comes his freedom of speech ? Rehabilitating Hitler in a way, as a jewish himself, having suffered WWII personnally, Lukacs is surely free of talking what he wants about it. Unlike every other authors (Kershaw etc) he lived this period, he knew that time. In my opinion he is the only author to read, if you have only one to read, about Hitler and WWII.
Very good also is the way of rehabilitating forgotten authors like Joachim Fest (very good biography of Hitler).
Lukacs is definitely the author to read about WWII and Hitler. He's so inspiring. Your view of Hitler would change and been a lot enriched. Hitler was not a devil, a bad, a vilain ; he was just a man with his part of good and bad things. For example, Lukacs recalls the achievements of nazi era in social and economic policy. Lukacs recalls that the german middle class starting flavoured with Hitler. Hitler stopped the negative spiral Germany was plunged in since 1918 and 1929. Yet he lost his war. Bad things started when Hitler realized he could not win this war. As soon as 1941 summer, in the russian plains. Then the war had to be a total war including extermination of european jewry.
With Lukacs' book you really have the impression to get into Hitler's head. Far from the usual portrait dressed in academic books, describing Hitler as evil, deprived of all negative biases concerning Hitler, Lukacs dress a portrait which seems much more accurate than usual ones.
Very good also is the way of rehabilitating forgotten authors like Joachim Fest (very good biography of Hitler).
Lukacs is definitely the author to read about WWII and Hitler. He's so inspiring. Your view of Hitler would change and been a lot enriched. Hitler was not a devil, a bad, a vilain ; he was just a man with his part of good and bad things. For example, Lukacs recalls the achievements of nazi era in social and economic policy. Lukacs recalls that the german middle class starting flavoured with Hitler. Hitler stopped the negative spiral Germany was plunged in since 1918 and 1929. Yet he lost his war. Bad things started when Hitler realized he could not win this war. As soon as 1941 summer, in the russian plains. Then the war had to be a total war including extermination of european jewry.
With Lukacs' book you really have the impression to get into Hitler's head. Far from the usual portrait dressed in academic books, describing Hitler as evil, deprived of all negative biases concerning Hitler, Lukacs dress a portrait which seems much more accurate than usual ones.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 26, 2023
I'd seen this book around for a long time, often on the shelves at used bookstores or elsewhere, and I'd thought about reading it before now. But now that I've read it...I feel like I wasted my time.
"The Hitler of History," by John Lukacs, is supposedly about how Hitler has been dealt with by historians (or at least that was the impression I got from reading the description on the back). I have to say, though, that the actual text is often rambling, and rarely does Lukacs actually talk about a particular biography or body of thought concerning Hitler as he's represented in major historical accounts of his rise and fall or that of Nazi Germany. I guess because I read and enjoyed "Explaining Hitler" by Ron Rosenbaum, which did in fact consider the various attempts to explain Adolf Hitler in biographical works by Hugh Trevor-Roper, Alan Bullock, David Irving, and others. But this isn't nearly as good or interesting. It seems to be a lot of posturing on Lukacs' part about how wrong so many of the previous attempts to discuss Hitler are (as well as citing some of his own previous work, because apparently you can do that as an author).
Were there insights into the history of how we deal with Hitler and his evil? Yeah, but the overall book was a lot to get through, and I just didn't feel like it was worth it in the end. I'll be donating my copy to a thrift store and maybe seeing if I can get my hands on "Explaining Hitler" to revisit it (it's the much better book in terms of discussing Hitler and his depiction in history).
"The Hitler of History," by John Lukacs, is supposedly about how Hitler has been dealt with by historians (or at least that was the impression I got from reading the description on the back). I have to say, though, that the actual text is often rambling, and rarely does Lukacs actually talk about a particular biography or body of thought concerning Hitler as he's represented in major historical accounts of his rise and fall or that of Nazi Germany. I guess because I read and enjoyed "Explaining Hitler" by Ron Rosenbaum, which did in fact consider the various attempts to explain Adolf Hitler in biographical works by Hugh Trevor-Roper, Alan Bullock, David Irving, and others. But this isn't nearly as good or interesting. It seems to be a lot of posturing on Lukacs' part about how wrong so many of the previous attempts to discuss Hitler are (as well as citing some of his own previous work, because apparently you can do that as an author).
Were there insights into the history of how we deal with Hitler and his evil? Yeah, but the overall book was a lot to get through, and I just didn't feel like it was worth it in the end. I'll be donating my copy to a thrift store and maybe seeing if I can get my hands on "Explaining Hitler" to revisit it (it's the much better book in terms of discussing Hitler and his depiction in history).
July 31, 2018
Quite interesting but he tends to ramble a little. A lot of views presented from different historians and biographers of Hitler. I have less respect for John Toland now, and David Irving made up a lot of stuff out of his imagination ! Hitler was not a demon, but he sure was a hate-filled sort of genius that the Germans just loved at the time.
August 1, 2011
About 2/3 of the footnotes could have been incorporated into the text and the book would have been much more readable. Still, this intelligent survey and analysis of books on Hitler was fascinating and I learned a lot.
April 19, 2012
Not as weighty as some of his larger books on World War II (The Last European War, the Duel) but Lukacs is, as ever, one of the most astute historians of our time and his examination of the historiography of Hitler is a fascinating, insightful, interesting read. Highly recommended.
December 21, 2013
John Lukacs is terrific! I love his mind! Very compelling read--- for all his works! :)
Thanks, Neal H. Hurwitz NY NY
Thanks, Neal H. Hurwitz NY NY
September 20, 2024
Likacs analisa biografias sobre Hitler e pondera algumas antinomias sobre sua descrição. Então, busca apresentar um quadro mais fidedigno da personalidade e ações de Hitler.
O autor mostra que só foi em 1919, em Munique, aos 30 anos, que Hitler resolveu assumir seu papel político, fortemente orientado por ódio antissemita e antissistema. Ele se tornou um revolucionário nacionalista de viés populista. Ele não foi um reacionário, nem pode ser encaixado como de direita ou esquerda.
Em meio a uma mistura de ódio e vingança, o nacional-socialismo criou um Estado autoritário apoiado no consentimento da maioria e orientado por uma disposição cultural nacionalista do povo alemão. O autor também trata sobre as convicções ideológicas, os cálculos pragmáticos e os erros estratégicos de Hitler, apresentando importantes paralelos com Napoleão e sua invasão da Rússia.
O autor mostra que só foi em 1919, em Munique, aos 30 anos, que Hitler resolveu assumir seu papel político, fortemente orientado por ódio antissemita e antissistema. Ele se tornou um revolucionário nacionalista de viés populista. Ele não foi um reacionário, nem pode ser encaixado como de direita ou esquerda.
Em meio a uma mistura de ódio e vingança, o nacional-socialismo criou um Estado autoritário apoiado no consentimento da maioria e orientado por uma disposição cultural nacionalista do povo alemão. O autor também trata sobre as convicções ideológicas, os cálculos pragmáticos e os erros estratégicos de Hitler, apresentando importantes paralelos com Napoleão e sua invasão da Rússia.
August 9, 2022
Lukacs’ work is a dense but rewarding book-length historiographical essay on the treatment of Hitler by historians in the first half century since his death. Lukacs places Hitler as a populist, revolutionary nationalist figure, separating him from the conservatives (whom he used as allies in his ascent). Lukacs also dismisses Hitler’s repositioning as an anti-Bolshevik figure and the distinction between the war in the east and the war in the west. Lukacs possess a supple and incisive mind, and his complexity of thought can be challenging at times, but ultimately worth parsing.
March 26, 2021
Voor wie al meerdere biografieën van de Duitse dictator gelezen heeft. Luckacs, een Amerikaans Hongaars historicus die zelf de holocaust in Europa overleefde, overloopt verschillende hypotheses over Hitler en onderwerpt ze aan een scherp historisch oordeel. Ik was het niet met alles eens wat Luckacs zei maar was ten zeerste onder de indruk van zijn enorme eruditie. De man zou tegen het eind van zijn leven (gestorven mei, 2019) zo'n 18.000 boeken verzameld hebben in zijn persoonlijke bibliotheek en dat merk je als je dit boek doorleest.
March 20, 2022
Really fascinating. Lukacs writes in a way that seems to condescend to his readers. Condemning others grand pronouncements about history and then turning to make his own. This feels like an style that just isn't practiced as much.
I think this book is very useful, but not for someone unfamiliar with the historiography it deals in.
I think this book is very useful, but not for someone unfamiliar with the historiography it deals in.
October 11, 2022
John Lukacs's easy to read book is one of the best I've read in a long time. Lukacs omits useless academic jargon to deliver a fantastic history so that everyone can have a more clear understanding of the despot Hitler.
June 27, 2017
Amazing book.
December 30, 2020
Magistral libro de Luckacs en el que, una vez más, muestra su sabiduría y saber hacer al analizar a los analistas de la figura de Hitler. Abstenerse los que busquen una biografía al uso.
December 29, 2016
Es un buen libro, sin duda, explora la historiografía acerca de Hitler de manera, más o menos extensa; hay varias cosas notables del libro:
1. Su objetivo es exponer cómo los historiadores han tratado a Hitler e, indirectamente, la Alemania Nacionalsocialista, concluyendo que, las más de las veces prevalece en los estudios una visión subjetiva, y llena de prejuicios sin atender a una investigación explicativa y comprensiva.
2. De lo anterior, varios mitos quedan desechados, como el racismo nazi, la guerra originada por Hitler, el holocausto, y el papel de Hitler en la historia alemana, europea y mundial, por mencionar algunos.
A pesar de lo anterior, el autor se contradice en varias partes, emitiendo juicios de valor acerca de Hitler y el nacionalsocialismo, sin presentar argumentos válidos para sostenerlos; por otra parte, demerita a priori el trabajo de Irving y Toland -cuyos objetivos eran colocar a Hitler como fenómeno histórico cultural, y no uno providencialista-, por el simple hecho de contradecir hipótesis que el propio Lukacs defiende, o sea, crítica en estos autores lo que él defiende en el libro.
En cuanto a la edición, debo decir que el sistema de notas a pie de página al final del libro entorpece mucho la ilación del argumento, por ya no hablar del ritmo de lectura.
1. Su objetivo es exponer cómo los historiadores han tratado a Hitler e, indirectamente, la Alemania Nacionalsocialista, concluyendo que, las más de las veces prevalece en los estudios una visión subjetiva, y llena de prejuicios sin atender a una investigación explicativa y comprensiva.
2. De lo anterior, varios mitos quedan desechados, como el racismo nazi, la guerra originada por Hitler, el holocausto, y el papel de Hitler en la historia alemana, europea y mundial, por mencionar algunos.
A pesar de lo anterior, el autor se contradice en varias partes, emitiendo juicios de valor acerca de Hitler y el nacionalsocialismo, sin presentar argumentos válidos para sostenerlos; por otra parte, demerita a priori el trabajo de Irving y Toland -cuyos objetivos eran colocar a Hitler como fenómeno histórico cultural, y no uno providencialista-, por el simple hecho de contradecir hipótesis que el propio Lukacs defiende, o sea, crítica en estos autores lo que él defiende en el libro.
En cuanto a la edición, debo decir que el sistema de notas a pie de página al final del libro entorpece mucho la ilación del argumento, por ya no hablar del ritmo de lectura.
January 27, 2013
John Lukacs is an engaging writer and definitely opinionated. He himself should agree as he stipulates early on “all words revolve within a moral context”.
Despite the fact that he says the book is not a biography of Hitler, there is throughout, an examination of the influences on Hitler’s life. Many of the authors under Mr. Lukacs’s scrutiny are German and some, like Zitelmann, have never been translated into English from the original German. As Lukacs says we can attempt to understand Hitler’s sway over the German people – but there will never be a full understanding.
With his constant use of the word “great” to describe the “achievements” or “accomplishments” of Hitler, Lukacs himself may be misinterpreted as being sympathetic. Also, to some extent, Lukacs minimizes the repressiveness of the Nazi regime. It is true that Hitler was worshipped, but insubordination within the Nazi regime was not tolerated. There was nothing like a liberal press in Nazi Germany; censorship was strictly enforced.
Despite the fact that he says the book is not a biography of Hitler, there is throughout, an examination of the influences on Hitler’s life. Many of the authors under Mr. Lukacs’s scrutiny are German and some, like Zitelmann, have never been translated into English from the original German. As Lukacs says we can attempt to understand Hitler’s sway over the German people – but there will never be a full understanding.
With his constant use of the word “great” to describe the “achievements” or “accomplishments” of Hitler, Lukacs himself may be misinterpreted as being sympathetic. Also, to some extent, Lukacs minimizes the repressiveness of the Nazi regime. It is true that Hitler was worshipped, but insubordination within the Nazi regime was not tolerated. There was nothing like a liberal press in Nazi Germany; censorship was strictly enforced.
January 21, 2014
I read this quite some time ago.
An interesting look not at Hitler directly, but at how various biographers of Hitler have portrayed him in an attempt both to ferret out their particular biases and blind spots and also to arrive at a more complete understanding of the subject. If you are interested in Hitler and are looking for something just a bit different this may be for you.
An interesting look not at Hitler directly, but at how various biographers of Hitler have portrayed him in an attempt both to ferret out their particular biases and blind spots and also to arrive at a more complete understanding of the subject. If you are interested in Hitler and are looking for something just a bit different this may be for you.
January 17, 2013
I read this book years ago for a college course. I've hung on to it for some unknown reason so I added it to my GoodReads list.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews