What do you think?
Rate this book
Nazi Germany: A New History
A military, social, and political history of the Third Reich argues that Nazism was not the inevitable next step for Germany, but rather that certain factors enabled Hitler to seize power and cause the annihilation of European Jews
Hardcover
First published January 1, 1995
12 people are currently reading
176 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
October 19, 2013
I read Nazi Germany some time around 2002, when I was working in California. George W. Bush was President, and a lot of people, including me, were extremely unhappy about the way he was running the country. You often saw him called a Nazi by people who didn't like him. I thought I needed to find out more about what Nazis were really like.
The book, which has been widely acclaimed, lived up to its reputation. It provides an excellent one-volume history of Nazi Germany, and it also gave me a clear answer to my question. George W. Bush was not a Nazi. One of the essential ingredients of Nazism is the use of force to eliminate opposing voices. Bush, I am prepared to argue, did many bad things while he was President. He got the US into an unnecessary, immoral and very costly war, he trashed the economy, he spied on his own citizens, and he did his best to subvert the Constitution by diverting far greater powers to the Executive than the Founding Fathers had ever intended. But he did not try to kill or imprison the many people who spoke up against him, and in the end his party was voted out of office in a peaceful election. A real Nazi would never have allowed this.
The word "Nazi" has been bandied about again recently on Goodreads. There is no doubt in my mind that the Goodreads management are guilty of censorship. (The clearest argument I have seen for this is Sea's excellent piece). But by no stretch of the imagination have they used force against any of the numerous reviewers opposing their policies. All they do is delete posts and block people. There is, needless to say, something wrong with the idea of deleting or hiding posts that accuse you of censorship, but that doesn't make you a Nazi.
Another organization comes to mind, however, whom it is not entirely unreasonable to name in this context. Stop the Goodreads Bullies have made rather direct attempts to harass reviewers they don't like. They have published personal details about them on the internet, and implicitly encouraged violence to be used against them. That, in my book, does begin to put them in Nazi territory. When you encourage random psychos to beat up women who post sarcastic reviews of your books, you're at least flirting with the idea of Nazism.
I think STGRB are beneath contempt, and I hope there is no truth in the rumor that GR management have been listening to them and taking their advice on how to deal with overly critical reviewers. Even though some evidence points in that direction (the initial list of deleted reviews apparently shows a rather high overlap with STGRB members), I can't help feeling that there is another explanation.
If, and I stress again that I consider this unlikely, it turns out Goodreads management have been talking with STGRB, I will get seriously worried. It's the only thing I can imagine which might start to make the Nazi label look appropriate. Until then, I'm giving them a clean bill of health.
This work by Manny is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
The book, which has been widely acclaimed, lived up to its reputation. It provides an excellent one-volume history of Nazi Germany, and it also gave me a clear answer to my question. George W. Bush was not a Nazi. One of the essential ingredients of Nazism is the use of force to eliminate opposing voices. Bush, I am prepared to argue, did many bad things while he was President. He got the US into an unnecessary, immoral and very costly war, he trashed the economy, he spied on his own citizens, and he did his best to subvert the Constitution by diverting far greater powers to the Executive than the Founding Fathers had ever intended. But he did not try to kill or imprison the many people who spoke up against him, and in the end his party was voted out of office in a peaceful election. A real Nazi would never have allowed this.
The word "Nazi" has been bandied about again recently on Goodreads. There is no doubt in my mind that the Goodreads management are guilty of censorship. (The clearest argument I have seen for this is Sea's excellent piece). But by no stretch of the imagination have they used force against any of the numerous reviewers opposing their policies. All they do is delete posts and block people. There is, needless to say, something wrong with the idea of deleting or hiding posts that accuse you of censorship, but that doesn't make you a Nazi.
Another organization comes to mind, however, whom it is not entirely unreasonable to name in this context. Stop the Goodreads Bullies have made rather direct attempts to harass reviewers they don't like. They have published personal details about them on the internet, and implicitly encouraged violence to be used against them. That, in my book, does begin to put them in Nazi territory. When you encourage random psychos to beat up women who post sarcastic reviews of your books, you're at least flirting with the idea of Nazism.
I think STGRB are beneath contempt, and I hope there is no truth in the rumor that GR management have been listening to them and taking their advice on how to deal with overly critical reviewers. Even though some evidence points in that direction (the initial list of deleted reviews apparently shows a rather high overlap with STGRB members), I can't help feeling that there is another explanation.
If, and I stress again that I consider this unlikely, it turns out Goodreads management have been talking with STGRB, I will get seriously worried. It's the only thing I can imagine which might start to make the Nazi label look appropriate. Until then, I'm giving them a clean bill of health.
This work by Manny is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License
October 15, 2009
I haven't been in the US much since Obama was elected, and I'm finding it a little hard to wrap my mind around the idea that many American citizens are calling him a Nazi. Here in the-rest-of-the-world, it's more common to view him as a Christ-like figure who is doing his best to save the US, and, in fact, the world as a whole. That doesn't at first sight seem to square well with "Nazi".
But then I thought of Klaus Fischer's fine history of Nazi Germany, which I read a few years ago. As he says, the Nazis never liked Christianity, which they viewed as a decadent, Jewish-inspired religion. None the less, they did make an effort to absorb rather than simply crush the German Church, and there is an interesting section about how this played out in practice. Here is an extract:
Or am I still not getting it? Despite reading Professor Fischer's book, I admit that I don't know a lot about Nazism. And, by the way, the Goodreads spellchecker hasn't got the useful word "mongrelization". If you're living in a Nazi society, you need to pay attention to these things.
But then I thought of Klaus Fischer's fine history of Nazi Germany, which I read a few years ago. As he says, the Nazis never liked Christianity, which they viewed as a decadent, Jewish-inspired religion. None the less, they did make an effort to absorb rather than simply crush the German Church, and there is an interesting section about how this played out in practice. Here is an extract:
These Nazi Protestants claimed to represent what they called "Positive Christianity", which was little more than a thinly described racial ideology dressed up theological terminology. They held that God had sanctified the Aryan way of life, that racial mongrelization was immoral, and that appropriate laws should be passed to prevent racial pollution, especially by Jews.Well, I see that this is one way to reconcile the apparently contradictory positions of "Nazi" and "Christ-figure". Supporters of Obama, like those Norwegians who gave him the Nobel Prize the other day, would be like the Positive Christians. It does sort of make sense.
(...)
Indeed, the Positive Christians claimed that God revealed himself not only in sacred scriptures but also in historical events or personalities. Thus, for National Socialists, Hitler was manifestly an instrument of God sent into this world to save Germany. The idea that "Jesus Christ was sent to us in the form of Adolf Hitler", as one zealous believer expressed it, was abhorrent to the members of the Confessional Church.
Or am I still not getting it? Despite reading Professor Fischer's book, I admit that I don't know a lot about Nazism. And, by the way, the Goodreads spellchecker hasn't got the useful word "mongrelization". If you're living in a Nazi society, you need to pay attention to these things.
May 16, 2022
İlk önce söylemek istedğim bir şey var: ben tarih tutkunuyum..
Yazar Klaus P. Fischer 1990-larda yazmış olduğu "Nazi Almanyası" isimli eseri ile Nazi Almanyası tarihine adeta yeni bir nefes getirmiş. Ben kitabı Alfa yayınları çevirisinden okumuş bulunuyorum. Bir hayli beğenmiş olduğumu da belirteyim. Yazarımız "Nazi Almanyası" tarihine Hitlerin büyükbabası ve büyükannesinden Almanyanın çöküşü olan 1945 yılının May ayına kadar olan dönemi neredeyse 800 sayfaya sığdırmış. Bizleri adeta detaya boğmuş. Ama yazarın hakkını vermek gerekir. Zira yazar olaylara yalnızca önemli tarihleri yazmakla yaklaşmamış. Neredeyse her şeyi yazmış. Önemli olayların nedenlerinden tutun da Nazi Almanyasında tüm sınıftan insanların sosyal yaşamına kadar yazmış. Yazarın yazım tarzı bazılarınıza akademik gelebilir veya ilgi uyandırmakta zorlanabilir. Çalıştığım için ben mesela kitabı neredeyse 3 ayda bitirdim (tabii araya birçok kitap girdiğini de belirteyim). Ama tarih sevdiğim için kitabı beğendim. Gerçi beklediğimden biraz zor kitap çıktı ama buna değdi. Ayrıca yazarımız galiba Nazilere fazlasıyla nefret duyuyor ama yine de olaylara objektif yanaşmış olduğunu dememiz mümkün. Nazi liderleri fazlasıyla sado-mazoşist göstermeye çalışmak ve bunu kaynaklarla desteklemek (bu kaynakların sorgulanabilir olduğunu da unutmayalım) gerçi Nazilere karşı nefret hissi uyandırmaya çalışmak demek olsa bile yazarın kendisinin sonda yazdığı gibi Naziler ve sonrasına tarih yaklaşımı gibi bir hegemonik düşünce yaratmak fazlasıyla sorunlu ve hassas olabilir. Bir nevi hem Nazileri anlatarak insanlarda nefret uyandırmak ama yine de almanlara yaklaşımda daha toleranslı (zira almanlar hala nazizm hayaletini üzerlerinde hissediyor. Yazarın sonda yazmış olduğu gibi, alman tarzı konuşma almanların gitmiş olduğu ülkelerde hala ruhsal rahatsızlığa sebebiyet verebiliyor) bir tarih yaklaşımı sunmak dengeli bir yaklaşım gerektirebilir. Mesela, Savaş sonrası Almanyada özellikle Müttefiklerin desteklediği ve ynei Alman Hükümetinin hayata geçirmiş olduğu denazifikasyon iç politikası (o zamanlar seçimleri kazanmak isteyen partiler slogan olarak daha derin Denazifikasyon politikası ileri sürüyorlardı) o kadar sorunlara sebebiyet vermişti ki, sonunda denazifikasyon meselesi daha yumuşak formda hasıraltı edildi. Zira kimleri nazi işbirlikçisi olarak etiketlemek mümkün ? Üst Nazi liderlerini mi ? Orta ve aşağı kademe bürokrasiyi mi ? Zira bu yaklaşım fazlasıyla sorunlu. Hatta o kadar sorunlu ve karmaşıktı ki almanlar kendileri bile bununla dalga geçer hale gelmişdi (yazarın sözü).
Herneyse, çok uzatmayacağım. Tarihe ilgi duyanların, özellikle Nazi Almanyasını merak edenlerin mutlaka okuması gereken bir kitap.
Yazar Klaus P. Fischer 1990-larda yazmış olduğu "Nazi Almanyası" isimli eseri ile Nazi Almanyası tarihine adeta yeni bir nefes getirmiş. Ben kitabı Alfa yayınları çevirisinden okumuş bulunuyorum. Bir hayli beğenmiş olduğumu da belirteyim. Yazarımız "Nazi Almanyası" tarihine Hitlerin büyükbabası ve büyükannesinden Almanyanın çöküşü olan 1945 yılının May ayına kadar olan dönemi neredeyse 800 sayfaya sığdırmış. Bizleri adeta detaya boğmuş. Ama yazarın hakkını vermek gerekir. Zira yazar olaylara yalnızca önemli tarihleri yazmakla yaklaşmamış. Neredeyse her şeyi yazmış. Önemli olayların nedenlerinden tutun da Nazi Almanyasında tüm sınıftan insanların sosyal yaşamına kadar yazmış. Yazarın yazım tarzı bazılarınıza akademik gelebilir veya ilgi uyandırmakta zorlanabilir. Çalıştığım için ben mesela kitabı neredeyse 3 ayda bitirdim (tabii araya birçok kitap girdiğini de belirteyim). Ama tarih sevdiğim için kitabı beğendim. Gerçi beklediğimden biraz zor kitap çıktı ama buna değdi. Ayrıca yazarımız galiba Nazilere fazlasıyla nefret duyuyor ama yine de olaylara objektif yanaşmış olduğunu dememiz mümkün. Nazi liderleri fazlasıyla sado-mazoşist göstermeye çalışmak ve bunu kaynaklarla desteklemek (bu kaynakların sorgulanabilir olduğunu da unutmayalım) gerçi Nazilere karşı nefret hissi uyandırmaya çalışmak demek olsa bile yazarın kendisinin sonda yazdığı gibi Naziler ve sonrasına tarih yaklaşımı gibi bir hegemonik düşünce yaratmak fazlasıyla sorunlu ve hassas olabilir. Bir nevi hem Nazileri anlatarak insanlarda nefret uyandırmak ama yine de almanlara yaklaşımda daha toleranslı (zira almanlar hala nazizm hayaletini üzerlerinde hissediyor. Yazarın sonda yazmış olduğu gibi, alman tarzı konuşma almanların gitmiş olduğu ülkelerde hala ruhsal rahatsızlığa sebebiyet verebiliyor) bir tarih yaklaşımı sunmak dengeli bir yaklaşım gerektirebilir. Mesela, Savaş sonrası Almanyada özellikle Müttefiklerin desteklediği ve ynei Alman Hükümetinin hayata geçirmiş olduğu denazifikasyon iç politikası (o zamanlar seçimleri kazanmak isteyen partiler slogan olarak daha derin Denazifikasyon politikası ileri sürüyorlardı) o kadar sorunlara sebebiyet vermişti ki, sonunda denazifikasyon meselesi daha yumuşak formda hasıraltı edildi. Zira kimleri nazi işbirlikçisi olarak etiketlemek mümkün ? Üst Nazi liderlerini mi ? Orta ve aşağı kademe bürokrasiyi mi ? Zira bu yaklaşım fazlasıyla sorunlu. Hatta o kadar sorunlu ve karmaşıktı ki almanlar kendileri bile bununla dalga geçer hale gelmişdi (yazarın sözü).
Herneyse, çok uzatmayacağım. Tarihe ilgi duyanların, özellikle Nazi Almanyasını merak edenlerin mutlaka okuması gereken bir kitap.
April 8, 2023
Kitap ilk geldiğinde çok kalın olmasından kaynaklı gözümü korkutmuştu. 880 sayfalık kitabın anlatısı 781 sayfa sürüyor. Geri kalan 99 sayfalık kısmı kaynakça, kronoloji ve sözlükten oluşuyor. Bir aylık bir süreçte altını çize çize keyifle okudum. Son zamanlarda bende bu kadar merak uyandıran başka bir kitap olmamıştı.
Özellikle Türk Eğitim Sisteminde kendisine yer bulamayan bir konudur 2.Dünya Savaşı. Türkiye'de liseden mezun olan standart bir Türk Genci eğer özellikle araştırmadıysa bu kitapta bahsedilen konulara dair bilgiye sahip değildir. Buna karşın izlediğimiz film ve belgesellerde, okuduğumuz romanlarda, seyahat ettiğimiz şehirlerde, konuştuğumuz insanlarda bu savaşa dair pek çok şey duyarız ve konuya yabancı kalırız. Ama bu kitapla birlikte bu savaşın ana faktörü olan Hitler ve Nazi İmparatorluğu, onun insanlık dışı Holokaust'ı ve Auschwitz, Blitzkreig, Dunkrik, Normandiya Çıkarması gibi pek çok cephe savaşı, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Franco, Churchill, Roosvelt gibi karakterler hakkında detaylı bilgiler ediniyoruz. Hem de geride hiçbir soru işareti bırakmadan. Yahudilere uygulanan soykırımın nedenleri, şiddeti, detayları tüm çıplaklığıyla anlatılmış. İnsanın tüyleri kitabın bazı kısımlarında diken diken olurken, bazı kısımlarda da gözyaşlarını tutmak mümkün olmuyor.
Çok beğenerek ve severek okuduğum bu kitabı İkinci Dünya Savaşı sebepleri, süreçleri ve sonuçları hakkında detaylı bilgi almak isteyen herkese şiddetle tavsiye ediyorum.
Özellikle Türk Eğitim Sisteminde kendisine yer bulamayan bir konudur 2.Dünya Savaşı. Türkiye'de liseden mezun olan standart bir Türk Genci eğer özellikle araştırmadıysa bu kitapta bahsedilen konulara dair bilgiye sahip değildir. Buna karşın izlediğimiz film ve belgesellerde, okuduğumuz romanlarda, seyahat ettiğimiz şehirlerde, konuştuğumuz insanlarda bu savaşa dair pek çok şey duyarız ve konuya yabancı kalırız. Ama bu kitapla birlikte bu savaşın ana faktörü olan Hitler ve Nazi İmparatorluğu, onun insanlık dışı Holokaust'ı ve Auschwitz, Blitzkreig, Dunkrik, Normandiya Çıkarması gibi pek çok cephe savaşı, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Franco, Churchill, Roosvelt gibi karakterler hakkında detaylı bilgiler ediniyoruz. Hem de geride hiçbir soru işareti bırakmadan. Yahudilere uygulanan soykırımın nedenleri, şiddeti, detayları tüm çıplaklığıyla anlatılmış. İnsanın tüyleri kitabın bazı kısımlarında diken diken olurken, bazı kısımlarda da gözyaşlarını tutmak mümkün olmuyor.
Çok beğenerek ve severek okuduğum bu kitabı İkinci Dünya Savaşı sebepleri, süreçleri ve sonuçları hakkında detaylı bilgi almak isteyen herkese şiddetle tavsiye ediyorum.
September 2, 2021
回望这段历史总是让人脊背发凉，政治、文化、经济、社会情绪等等，到底是什么让纳粹走上了舞台并施下暴虐无道的罪行，也许每过一段时间就会有不同的思考与答案，每种立场大概也会从不同的角度去解读。
这个切实发生过的灾难，不仅是德国人要面对的，全世界的人其实都要面对它并思考，我们是在远离还是在重复的走近。
这个切实发生过的灾难，不仅是德国人要面对的，全世界的人其实都要面对它并思考，我们是在远离还是在重复的走近。
January 17, 2016
Having read my uncles account of his imprisonment and torture by the Gestapo, this book is facilitating my further research into the era.
April 15, 2023
Initially I was going to give Fischer's book 3 stars for being informative but rather dull. However, the pace really picked up about half way through and became somewhat of a page turner. I even found some of the battle descriptions riveting which is unusual for me.
A few ideas really stand out. Part of Fischer's goal is to understand the roots of totalitarianism and why it took hold in Germany. He traces national socialism or fascism back to the aftermath of the French Revolution from which would spring the democratic ideals of self-government. How should people govern themselves? On the one hand there was John Locke who believed that the individual and their freedom was key. His ideas would inspire our own democracy but also provide the foundation for libertarian thought. The other strain of thought as championed by Rousseau was more of a communal outlook. Individuals should do what's best for the community or government. And it's very easy for a communal outlook to turn authoritarian as we have seen with both communism and fascism. The difference is that the national socialist want to convince the 'proletariat' to support the state and integrate them into the conservative social order.
And Germany's fascism was really a repudiation of modernity. German totalitarianism was really a failure to integrate traditional institutions into a modern industrial society. That analysis really surprised me. But Fischer provides multiple examples of Nazi organizations that appear to be based more on feudal arrangements than anything else. Germany was a young state only having recently been forged a nation under Bismarck in the 1870s.
It also boils down to the German people and the lacking of any kind of democratic tradition. The Weimar Republic failed because not enough believed in its constitution. On March 28, 1930 Heinrich Bruning replaces Muller as Reich Chancellor. Nicknamed 'the Hunger Chancellor' for his laissez faire approach, Bruning was unable to get his agenda past the Reichstag (the Congress) and thus invoked article 48 of the constitution allowing him to dissolve congress and call for new elections. This would put Germany on a dangerous path as successive Chancellors followed the same playback; Bruning would be replaced by Franz von Papen who would be replaced by Schleicher. Each of them would call for new elections. Eventually Hitler would assume power through democratic means and be appointed chancellor and then upon president Hindenburg's death combine the two roles.
Of course the Great Depression and the Versailles Treaty had a devastating affect on the German psyche and helped to create the conditions which could lead to authoritarianism. However, under the Dawes plan reparations were actually reduced. Germany was actually fairing much better in the late 20s up until 1929, that is. There were also too many parties making it difficult to build consensus.
Fischer ends his book on the question of German guilt. He sites a German philosopher who rejects the notion of collective responsibility. Only individuals can be criminally responsible for criminal acts. Fischer ends by suggesting all Germans have a moral responsibility to ensure such criminal acts never happen again much the same way we all have a responsibility to act in the face of the horrific.
I found Fischer's book very enlightening and very readable. He uses a term that I'm going to start applying when I hear whataboutism arguments. He refers to it as 'comparative trivializations.' At the Nuremberg trials, Ribbentrop defending his actions, replies 'Haven't you heard about how the Americans slaughtered the Indians? Were they an inferior race?"
I would be somewhat remiss if I didn't mention the horrific crimes the Nazis committed, some of which are detailed in Fischer's book. That something that heinous could have happened seems distant and almost incredulous. It's even more disturbing that we see a resurgence of some of those same talking points in today's discourse.
A few ideas really stand out. Part of Fischer's goal is to understand the roots of totalitarianism and why it took hold in Germany. He traces national socialism or fascism back to the aftermath of the French Revolution from which would spring the democratic ideals of self-government. How should people govern themselves? On the one hand there was John Locke who believed that the individual and their freedom was key. His ideas would inspire our own democracy but also provide the foundation for libertarian thought. The other strain of thought as championed by Rousseau was more of a communal outlook. Individuals should do what's best for the community or government. And it's very easy for a communal outlook to turn authoritarian as we have seen with both communism and fascism. The difference is that the national socialist want to convince the 'proletariat' to support the state and integrate them into the conservative social order.
And Germany's fascism was really a repudiation of modernity. German totalitarianism was really a failure to integrate traditional institutions into a modern industrial society. That analysis really surprised me. But Fischer provides multiple examples of Nazi organizations that appear to be based more on feudal arrangements than anything else. Germany was a young state only having recently been forged a nation under Bismarck in the 1870s.
It also boils down to the German people and the lacking of any kind of democratic tradition. The Weimar Republic failed because not enough believed in its constitution. On March 28, 1930 Heinrich Bruning replaces Muller as Reich Chancellor. Nicknamed 'the Hunger Chancellor' for his laissez faire approach, Bruning was unable to get his agenda past the Reichstag (the Congress) and thus invoked article 48 of the constitution allowing him to dissolve congress and call for new elections. This would put Germany on a dangerous path as successive Chancellors followed the same playback; Bruning would be replaced by Franz von Papen who would be replaced by Schleicher. Each of them would call for new elections. Eventually Hitler would assume power through democratic means and be appointed chancellor and then upon president Hindenburg's death combine the two roles.
Of course the Great Depression and the Versailles Treaty had a devastating affect on the German psyche and helped to create the conditions which could lead to authoritarianism. However, under the Dawes plan reparations were actually reduced. Germany was actually fairing much better in the late 20s up until 1929, that is. There were also too many parties making it difficult to build consensus.
Fischer ends his book on the question of German guilt. He sites a German philosopher who rejects the notion of collective responsibility. Only individuals can be criminally responsible for criminal acts. Fischer ends by suggesting all Germans have a moral responsibility to ensure such criminal acts never happen again much the same way we all have a responsibility to act in the face of the horrific.
I found Fischer's book very enlightening and very readable. He uses a term that I'm going to start applying when I hear whataboutism arguments. He refers to it as 'comparative trivializations.' At the Nuremberg trials, Ribbentrop defending his actions, replies 'Haven't you heard about how the Americans slaughtered the Indians? Were they an inferior race?"
I would be somewhat remiss if I didn't mention the horrific crimes the Nazis committed, some of which are detailed in Fischer's book. That something that heinous could have happened seems distant and almost incredulous. It's even more disturbing that we see a resurgence of some of those same talking points in today's discourse.
October 30, 2019
Un buon manuale per avvicinarsi alla storia della Germania dalla repubblica di Weimar al 1945 (la traduzione però mi sembra banalizzante e terribilmente stereotipata).
Read
October 31, 2022gud
February 4, 2023
I read some of the chapters of this book in order to write an undergraduate university paper.
February 13, 2025
Ich habe nur zwei Sektionen für meinen MA gelesen, jedoch es war gut geschrieben
March 20, 2024
1870'den 1945'e kadar olan süreci şiir gibi anlatan bir başyapıt. Bismarck Almanya'sı ile başlayıp Birinci Dünya Savaşı, Hindenburg dönemi, Hitler, Naziler, Muhalif partiler, toplumsal olaylar, Yahudi katliamı, İkinci Dünya Savaşı başlangıcı ve sonu. Kitap eksiksiz her şeye değiniyor. Hitler Almanya'sını NAZİ'nin nasıl oluştuğunu bundan daha iyi anlatan ve öğreten başka bir kitap yok. Okuyun okutun.
Currently reading
May 12, 2009I'm excited to own a copy of this book. the author studies 2 great phases of Nazi Germany: 1] The Root Era [1870-1933:] & 2] The Fruits Era -1934-1945]. This book is rich and complex, it discuss the context of the emergance of nationalist-socialism, the rise of Hitler, the emergance of Nazi party, life under Nazi, the crime of Nazi and so on.
I'm currently in Chapter 3, the first 2 chapters seem a bit tiring, because it contains so many analysis, like 3 factors contributing to such and such, 4 reasons why this happen or not happening, after some time I was a bit exhausted with the style. But now I'm on chapter 3 it's about "the rise of Adolf Hitler", I'll pick up again and hope for an exciting story telling chapter.
I'm currently in Chapter 3, the first 2 chapters seem a bit tiring, because it contains so many analysis, like 3 factors contributing to such and such, 4 reasons why this happen or not happening, after some time I was a bit exhausted with the style. But now I'm on chapter 3 it's about "the rise of Adolf Hitler", I'll pick up again and hope for an exciting story telling chapter.
March 8, 2023
张伯伦的雅利安人优越性理论影响了威廉二世的德国，也影响了第三帝国的领袖和理论家们。第二帝国时泛德意志同盟的种族优越观深深影响了第三帝国的建立者们，虽然后者视他们为保守派。希特勒父亲的生父存疑，可能的犹太人血统传言和近亲结婚的嫌疑都非常困扰他，这应该也是他下令摧毁他出生地村庄的原因。社会民主党无力清除对魏玛宪法和共和国有敌意的国防军和右派分子，而在民主党政府上台后他们采取了不合作的做法，这使得魏玛共和国的塔基非常薄弱，左翼和右翼激进分子都试图找到机会颠覆共和国，他们只是在等一个契机和方式。巴伐利亚失败的社会起义打击了中产阶级，让左翼一落千丈，反而强化了右派分子在人们心目中的地位，慕尼黑成为纳粹运动的起点也就不奇怪了。希特勒在1928到1929年的整顿实现了纳粹党向执政党的转型，大萧条给了它机会。冲锋队的建设吸收了大量青年人的加入让人震惊，当时德国无论左翼还是右翼政党都忽视了对青年人的争取，而这些青年人未来将成为德国国防军和党卫军的重要来源。希特勒的整顿行为让纳粹党真正可以通过大选上台而非通过街头运动，他对选民的滔滔不绝的承诺是建立在一个已经做好准备的政党基础上的。
施莱歇尔这个政治掮客看不懂他的动机是什么，作为军人他整垮了自己的导师格罗纳，作为政客他劝说兴登堡罢免了布吕宁，任命了毫无经验的巴本，造成德国形势更为恶化，为希魔上台铺平了道路。共产党与纳粹党各占据票仓的一半，为走中间路线的温和派敲响了丧钟。
纳粹德国对少年青年的组织控制，思想控制与现在的社会专制国家非常相似，通过宏大的仪式让参与者忘记个人的权利，沉浸在对领袖的狂热崇拜中，现在习的洗脑做法只是更为变本加厉而已。
施莱歇尔这个政治掮客看不懂他的动机是什么，作为军人他整垮了自己的导师格罗纳，作为政客他劝说兴登堡罢免了布吕宁，任命了毫无经验的巴本，造成德国形势更为恶化，为希魔上台铺平了道路。共产党与纳粹党各占据票仓的一半，为走中间路线的温和派敲响了丧钟。
纳粹德国对少年青年的组织控制，思想控制与现在的社会专制国家非常相似，通过宏大的仪式让参与者忘记个人的权利，沉浸在对领袖的狂热崇拜中，现在习的洗脑做法只是更为变本加厉而已。
December 5, 2015
A complete and thorough examination of Nazi Germany--from the top down. Fischer does a very thorough job introducing and examining the prominent personalities of the Third Reich: Himmler, Goebbels, Goering, Hitler etc. But after 600 pages, the reader remains largely ignorant of the lives of workers, women, peasants etc. A good read nevertheless.
March 31, 2014
Excellent overview of Nazi Germany. Goes into a lot of details, but the facts given never feel trivial. I especially like the conclusion which deals with Germany and attitude towards the war and the question of guilt.
Want to read
November 22, 2014So far, so good! Packed with information!
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews