What do you think?
Rate this book
Hitler: A Study in Tyranny
Alan Bullock, historiador, relata la biografía de un tirano, Hitler, en dos tomos. El primer tomo cuenta con 880 páginas, y el segundo tomo cuenta con 430 páginas. Es una historia fascinante de transformación de una persona que fue escalando al poder, y finalmente empezó esa vertiginosa corriente de asesinato en masa.
489 pages, Unknown Binding
First published January 1, 1952
103 people are currently reading
3935 people want to read
About the author
Alan Bullock
74 books46 followersDr. Bullock, later Sir Alan and eventually a life peer, diagnosed the malignancies of dictatorship and tyranny that plagued 20th-century Europe. He twinned two such dictators in one of his later studies, ''Hitler and Stalin, Parallel Lives'' (1991, Knopf).
He was the last of three brilliant Oxford historians whose views influenced thought in the English-speaking world and beyond, even when their own views diverged. The others were A. J. P. Taylor and Hugh Trevor-Roper who, for instance, offered a more nuanced interpretation of Hitler than did Dr. Bullock.
While Dr. Bullock originally portrayed Hitler as a diabolical charlatan and cynical opportunist without convictions, Trevor-Roper saw him as an ideologue and demagogue convinced of his own political philosophy. It was a distinction crucial to the understanding of Hitler's initial successes as a politician, statesman and military strategist, and Dr. Bullock reflected it in his double study of Hitler and Stalin.
Nonetheless, his seminal Hitler book of 1952, published a mere seven years after Hitler's end, remained a scholarly classic and stayed in print, in one form or another, for more than half a century.
Dr. Bullock also compiled a three-volume biography of a Labor leader and former foreign secretary who helped shape postwar Britain, ''The Life and Times of Ernest Bevin.'' It took from 1960 to 1983 to complete.
He wrote or edited several other notable books on 20th-century European history, which also appeared in other languages.
Alan Louis Charles Bullock was born in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, the son of a gardener turned Unitarian preacher. He went to Oxford on a scholarship to study literature and modern history, which became his career, though he earned a doctor of literature degree in 1969.
Severe asthma ruled out military service in World War II; instead he spent it working for the European Service of the BBC as a political and diplomatic correspondent. After the war, he returned to Oxford.
Concentrating on the Third Reich of Hitler, he pored over the minutes of the Nuremberg trials. At the suggestion of the scholar A. L. Rowse, at Oxford, and the publisher Odhams, he produced the first comprehensive life of Hitler.
He also became increasingly active in academic affairs as dean and tutor of New College at Oxford. In 1960 he helped establish St. Catherine's, the university's first new college for graduate and undergraduate students in the 20th century.
He was vice chancellor of Oxford from 1969 to 1973. Over the years his outside interests included the chairmanship of the Tate Gallery (1973-1980). He was a former director of The Observer, joined the Social Democratic Party in 1981 and continued to lecture until 1997.
Dr. Bullock was knighted in 1972. Four years later, the Labor government of Harold Wilson made him a life peer; he took the title Baron Bullock of Leafield in the County of Oxfordshire.
He was the last of three brilliant Oxford historians whose views influenced thought in the English-speaking world and beyond, even when their own views diverged. The others were A. J. P. Taylor and Hugh Trevor-Roper who, for instance, offered a more nuanced interpretation of Hitler than did Dr. Bullock.
While Dr. Bullock originally portrayed Hitler as a diabolical charlatan and cynical opportunist without convictions, Trevor-Roper saw him as an ideologue and demagogue convinced of his own political philosophy. It was a distinction crucial to the understanding of Hitler's initial successes as a politician, statesman and military strategist, and Dr. Bullock reflected it in his double study of Hitler and Stalin.
Nonetheless, his seminal Hitler book of 1952, published a mere seven years after Hitler's end, remained a scholarly classic and stayed in print, in one form or another, for more than half a century.
Dr. Bullock also compiled a three-volume biography of a Labor leader and former foreign secretary who helped shape postwar Britain, ''The Life and Times of Ernest Bevin.'' It took from 1960 to 1983 to complete.
He wrote or edited several other notable books on 20th-century European history, which also appeared in other languages.
Alan Louis Charles Bullock was born in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, the son of a gardener turned Unitarian preacher. He went to Oxford on a scholarship to study literature and modern history, which became his career, though he earned a doctor of literature degree in 1969.
Severe asthma ruled out military service in World War II; instead he spent it working for the European Service of the BBC as a political and diplomatic correspondent. After the war, he returned to Oxford.
Concentrating on the Third Reich of Hitler, he pored over the minutes of the Nuremberg trials. At the suggestion of the scholar A. L. Rowse, at Oxford, and the publisher Odhams, he produced the first comprehensive life of Hitler.
He also became increasingly active in academic affairs as dean and tutor of New College at Oxford. In 1960 he helped establish St. Catherine's, the university's first new college for graduate and undergraduate students in the 20th century.
He was vice chancellor of Oxford from 1969 to 1973. Over the years his outside interests included the chairmanship of the Tate Gallery (1973-1980). He was a former director of The Observer, joined the Social Democratic Party in 1981 and continued to lecture until 1997.
Dr. Bullock was knighted in 1972. Four years later, the Labor government of Harold Wilson made him a life peer; he took the title Baron Bullock of Leafield in the County of Oxfordshire.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews
November 17, 2024
Given the recent election and state of affairs in the United States, I felt it was a good rime to read about a person who legally gained power via following the rules of the existing system then in place, only to slowly become an absolute dictator. Despite Alan Bullock's biography of Adolf Hitler being over sixty years old now, it is not dated and it reads remarkably well. Bullock, while fully recognizing the evil contained in Hitler, also wanted to show Hitler's talents as a manipulator, a liar, a party leader, and a delusional maniac.
Bullock spends a lot of time on Hitler's rise to power. From the beginning, Hitler was mainly an angry, unfriendly loser. He never really held a steady job, drifting from painting and drawing for individuals when he could find a taker during his days in Vienna. Hitler did not have a good relationship with his father, who died when he was 15 years-old. His mother lived a few more years, but Hitler mainly used her for money as he drifted around. Hitler did not want to work, and did not have any friends. He associated with only one of his siblings, and that was not much.
From his youth, Hitler had an intense hatred of the bourgeois class, the elite, and - especially - Jewish people. Hitler blamed the Jews for literally everything that he saw wrong with Germany, with Europe, and with the world. One thing that you can say about Hitler: he was consistent. Until the day he died, he spewed forth venom and hatred towards all Jewish persons. His hating was not confined to the Jews, but they received the most scorn from him of any group. Hitler also hated the Army (especially the officers), the French, the Kaiser, the British, the Russians, bolshevism, and Franklin Roosevelt (whom he accused of being a puppet for Jewish bankers).
Hitler served as a Corporal in WWI, was injured, but had an overall undistinguished military career. He was incensed at the German surrender to the Allies in 1918 and spent the ensuing two decades plotting revenge on all those whom he blamed for Germany losing that war. Despite his fairly limited military knowledge, Hitler threw his wartime service in the faces of his generals during WWII, all the while making disastrous decisions and not listening to their advice.
Bullock's account of Hitler's life throughout the 1920s is especially good. Hitler was a nobody. Really, he had no following, no money, no influence. He did not even found the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) but managed to slowly take it over and ease out those who did found it. He attempted a putsch of the existing German government in 1923, only for it to blow up in his face, resulting in him being injured and fleeing the scene, then getting arrested and subsequently imprisoned for a year. However, his rancid ideas were already finding a following, and the crowds that attended his speeches prior to the putsch attempt had been growing. Hitler was let off with a really light sentence, with the year's confinement resembling more a house arrest at a nice country house that allowed visitors than what one would picture a typical prison stint to be like. He even used the time to his advantage by writing his memoir Mein Kampf. I do wish Bullock would have written more about why the judges in his trial were so lenient and sympathetic to him, as this was the first really big instance of people who were in authority and could have prevented Hitler's rise instead either choosing to look the other way or tacitly support him.
Following his release, Hitler slowly continues to amass power - legally. While he did order illegal things such as intimidation and beating people up, it was all behind the scenes. As a party leader, Hitler his behind the guise of "legality", working within the existing system to expand his party's power base and reach. The Nazi Party was simply the vehicle that Hitler saw he could use to accomplish his own rise to power. He first and foremost - at all times - cared only about himself, not the Party. As Bullock shows, the Nazis never actually won a majority of votes during the late 20s and early 30s. They kept gaining larger share of the electorate, but they were never the majority party. Instead, to gain power, Hitler focused on weakening the opposition parties, denuding the influence and power of each one individually until, collectively, none of them were strong enough to challenge the Nazis, even when a few parties banded together in an attempt to do so. Many of these other party leaders viewed Hitler as a clown, and thought that they could easily control him. He was such a lunatic that they made the fatal mistake of not taking him seriously. Hitler manipulated them until he longer needed them, then he cast them aside.
The last person who most likely could have stopped Hitler, even after he became Chancellor in 1933, was President von Hindenburg. But he was quite old by this point (past 80) and did not think that he could legally stop Hitler because he had risen to Chancellor within the existing system. He pretty much let Hitler do what he wanted to, but at least on paper he could have acted as a final check on him. Once he died, there was nobody left who would dare challenge Hitler.
At this point, once he had full control of Germany, Hitler began an aggressive path of German rearmament coupled with strong-arm diplomacy that resulted in him forming an alliance with Mussolini in Italy and annexing countries or parts of countries to Germany. Great Britain and France couldn't get their act together, and kept capitulating to Hitler's demands, hoping each time that he would be satisfied after given what he was after (such as the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia). And honestly, if Hitler would have stopped after gobbling up that, along with Austria and Hungary, he probably would have been left alone by the Western Powers. But one thing that Hitler definitely did not possess was self-control. And when he invaded Poland, that was a step too far for both Britain and France. Here is where Hitler began a series of ultimately disastrous miscalculations, as he did not think that either power had the stomach to fight him. He was wrong, especially where Britain was concerned (Hitler never did admit to the relentlessness and determination of the British people).
The last third of the book focuses on Hitler's (mis)handling of WWII. He thought he knew everything, listened to nobody, became increasingly isolated and delusional, especially in the last two years of his life when it became obvious that Germany was losing the war. Hitler made a disastrous decision to invade Russia in 1941, after having signed a peace pact with Stalin two years earlier. He was already at war with Great Britain, but because the Germans had knocked France out of the war, and forced Britain temporarily off of the European continent, Hitler thought he could finish off Britain soon enough, and he was ever suspicious about Russia. This resulted in a two-front war, which was exacerbated by the weakness of Italy in the Mediterranean, and worsened further when the United States entered the war after being attacked by Japan (Hitler foolishly declared war on the U.S. immediately even though Roosevelt had not declared war on Germany). Like with the British, Hitler discounted the resolve and the immense resources that America had at its disposal. Likewise he thought that Russia could be beaten fairly easily as well.
Bullock does not focus at all on the military side of the war other than to provide general details about key battles. His focus instead remains on Hitler, and his mental and physical deterioration. Always paranoid and suspicious, Hitler became more so, ultimately trusting almost no one. He suffered delusions of grandeur, considered anyone who brought bad news to him to be disloyal to him personally and Germany in general, and showed signs of drug abuse/poisoning due to being injected with all kinds of stuff that a quack doctor provided him with.
Despite ordering the deaths of countless individuals personally, and being the final authority over the Holocaust and the extermination camps, Hitler himself was the ultimate coward - choosing to commit suicide in his underground concrete bunker as the Russians closed in. He never cared about Germany, its people, or any people. In Hitler's world, Hitler was all that mattered.
Bullock made extensive use of the trial records from the Nuremberg Trials that immediately followed the conclusion of WWII. I very much enjoyed his writing style - despite knowing the ultimate outcome, the journey to get there was riveting to read. I do wish that he had provided more overall context for world affairs, as I felt that was missing. For example, he never mentioned the replace of Neville Chamberlain by Winston Churchill as British Prime Minister. And he refers to the Allies' policy of "unconditional surrender" but does not say that it was FDR who made that decision, without consulting Churchill or Stalin about it beforehand. And I think that a book about Hitler written today would include more about the Holocaust (Bullock does not even use that term, although he does talk about the horrors of the camps). But this is a very good, and very sobering, look at a lunatic who managed to gain power legally, then proceeded to destroy not just himself, but his country and even most of a continent. Let us hope that never gets repeated.
Grade: A-
Bullock spends a lot of time on Hitler's rise to power. From the beginning, Hitler was mainly an angry, unfriendly loser. He never really held a steady job, drifting from painting and drawing for individuals when he could find a taker during his days in Vienna. Hitler did not have a good relationship with his father, who died when he was 15 years-old. His mother lived a few more years, but Hitler mainly used her for money as he drifted around. Hitler did not want to work, and did not have any friends. He associated with only one of his siblings, and that was not much.
From his youth, Hitler had an intense hatred of the bourgeois class, the elite, and - especially - Jewish people. Hitler blamed the Jews for literally everything that he saw wrong with Germany, with Europe, and with the world. One thing that you can say about Hitler: he was consistent. Until the day he died, he spewed forth venom and hatred towards all Jewish persons. His hating was not confined to the Jews, but they received the most scorn from him of any group. Hitler also hated the Army (especially the officers), the French, the Kaiser, the British, the Russians, bolshevism, and Franklin Roosevelt (whom he accused of being a puppet for Jewish bankers).
Hitler served as a Corporal in WWI, was injured, but had an overall undistinguished military career. He was incensed at the German surrender to the Allies in 1918 and spent the ensuing two decades plotting revenge on all those whom he blamed for Germany losing that war. Despite his fairly limited military knowledge, Hitler threw his wartime service in the faces of his generals during WWII, all the while making disastrous decisions and not listening to their advice.
Bullock's account of Hitler's life throughout the 1920s is especially good. Hitler was a nobody. Really, he had no following, no money, no influence. He did not even found the National Socialist German Workers Party (the Nazi Party) but managed to slowly take it over and ease out those who did found it. He attempted a putsch of the existing German government in 1923, only for it to blow up in his face, resulting in him being injured and fleeing the scene, then getting arrested and subsequently imprisoned for a year. However, his rancid ideas were already finding a following, and the crowds that attended his speeches prior to the putsch attempt had been growing. Hitler was let off with a really light sentence, with the year's confinement resembling more a house arrest at a nice country house that allowed visitors than what one would picture a typical prison stint to be like. He even used the time to his advantage by writing his memoir Mein Kampf. I do wish Bullock would have written more about why the judges in his trial were so lenient and sympathetic to him, as this was the first really big instance of people who were in authority and could have prevented Hitler's rise instead either choosing to look the other way or tacitly support him.
Following his release, Hitler slowly continues to amass power - legally. While he did order illegal things such as intimidation and beating people up, it was all behind the scenes. As a party leader, Hitler his behind the guise of "legality", working within the existing system to expand his party's power base and reach. The Nazi Party was simply the vehicle that Hitler saw he could use to accomplish his own rise to power. He first and foremost - at all times - cared only about himself, not the Party. As Bullock shows, the Nazis never actually won a majority of votes during the late 20s and early 30s. They kept gaining larger share of the electorate, but they were never the majority party. Instead, to gain power, Hitler focused on weakening the opposition parties, denuding the influence and power of each one individually until, collectively, none of them were strong enough to challenge the Nazis, even when a few parties banded together in an attempt to do so. Many of these other party leaders viewed Hitler as a clown, and thought that they could easily control him. He was such a lunatic that they made the fatal mistake of not taking him seriously. Hitler manipulated them until he longer needed them, then he cast them aside.
The last person who most likely could have stopped Hitler, even after he became Chancellor in 1933, was President von Hindenburg. But he was quite old by this point (past 80) and did not think that he could legally stop Hitler because he had risen to Chancellor within the existing system. He pretty much let Hitler do what he wanted to, but at least on paper he could have acted as a final check on him. Once he died, there was nobody left who would dare challenge Hitler.
At this point, once he had full control of Germany, Hitler began an aggressive path of German rearmament coupled with strong-arm diplomacy that resulted in him forming an alliance with Mussolini in Italy and annexing countries or parts of countries to Germany. Great Britain and France couldn't get their act together, and kept capitulating to Hitler's demands, hoping each time that he would be satisfied after given what he was after (such as the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia). And honestly, if Hitler would have stopped after gobbling up that, along with Austria and Hungary, he probably would have been left alone by the Western Powers. But one thing that Hitler definitely did not possess was self-control. And when he invaded Poland, that was a step too far for both Britain and France. Here is where Hitler began a series of ultimately disastrous miscalculations, as he did not think that either power had the stomach to fight him. He was wrong, especially where Britain was concerned (Hitler never did admit to the relentlessness and determination of the British people).
The last third of the book focuses on Hitler's (mis)handling of WWII. He thought he knew everything, listened to nobody, became increasingly isolated and delusional, especially in the last two years of his life when it became obvious that Germany was losing the war. Hitler made a disastrous decision to invade Russia in 1941, after having signed a peace pact with Stalin two years earlier. He was already at war with Great Britain, but because the Germans had knocked France out of the war, and forced Britain temporarily off of the European continent, Hitler thought he could finish off Britain soon enough, and he was ever suspicious about Russia. This resulted in a two-front war, which was exacerbated by the weakness of Italy in the Mediterranean, and worsened further when the United States entered the war after being attacked by Japan (Hitler foolishly declared war on the U.S. immediately even though Roosevelt had not declared war on Germany). Like with the British, Hitler discounted the resolve and the immense resources that America had at its disposal. Likewise he thought that Russia could be beaten fairly easily as well.
Bullock does not focus at all on the military side of the war other than to provide general details about key battles. His focus instead remains on Hitler, and his mental and physical deterioration. Always paranoid and suspicious, Hitler became more so, ultimately trusting almost no one. He suffered delusions of grandeur, considered anyone who brought bad news to him to be disloyal to him personally and Germany in general, and showed signs of drug abuse/poisoning due to being injected with all kinds of stuff that a quack doctor provided him with.
Despite ordering the deaths of countless individuals personally, and being the final authority over the Holocaust and the extermination camps, Hitler himself was the ultimate coward - choosing to commit suicide in his underground concrete bunker as the Russians closed in. He never cared about Germany, its people, or any people. In Hitler's world, Hitler was all that mattered.
Bullock made extensive use of the trial records from the Nuremberg Trials that immediately followed the conclusion of WWII. I very much enjoyed his writing style - despite knowing the ultimate outcome, the journey to get there was riveting to read. I do wish that he had provided more overall context for world affairs, as I felt that was missing. For example, he never mentioned the replace of Neville Chamberlain by Winston Churchill as British Prime Minister. And he refers to the Allies' policy of "unconditional surrender" but does not say that it was FDR who made that decision, without consulting Churchill or Stalin about it beforehand. And I think that a book about Hitler written today would include more about the Holocaust (Bullock does not even use that term, although he does talk about the horrors of the camps). But this is a very good, and very sobering, look at a lunatic who managed to gain power legally, then proceeded to destroy not just himself, but his country and even most of a continent. Let us hope that never gets repeated.
Grade: A-
April 4, 2025
I picked up this biography in Washington, DC, during the time I was being interviewed for a job in Saudi Arabia. It was so well written that I pored over every chapter gleaning every detail. I hope to complete Kershaw's biography of Hitler next, and probably Kershaw and other biographers based much of their more recent biographies on Bullock's efforts.
People of every nation have to know who Hitler was, his background, the conditions under which he rose to power and who allowed him to seize control of the heart of one of the most civilized societies in the world. We will always have a Hitler lurking in the shadows standing between parentheses. Alan Bullock was one of the pioneers who is required reading even today.
****April 2, 2025. I just finished watching the Netflix series "Hitler and the Nazis: Evil on Trial", I highly recommend it to everyone, especially the young who probably feel so distant from WWII.
People of every nation have to know who Hitler was, his background, the conditions under which he rose to power and who allowed him to seize control of the heart of one of the most civilized societies in the world. We will always have a Hitler lurking in the shadows standing between parentheses. Alan Bullock was one of the pioneers who is required reading even today.
****April 2, 2025. I just finished watching the Netflix series "Hitler and the Nazis: Evil on Trial", I highly recommend it to everyone, especially the young who probably feel so distant from WWII.
December 9, 2012
This book was recommended by a well-respected author focused on the period when Hitler came to power. I bought the book because I study human behavior in political systems and the rise of Nazi Germany is a classic example. Its easy to criticize the German people for their decision to elect Nazis to power but the real story is much more complex. The winds of the time (aftermath of World War I, economic depression) along with the state of politics and mass psychology are the real factors that allowed a person like Hitler to rise to power. His enigmatic personality, harboring a will to power was hidden from the German people until it was too late. Bullock goes a masterful job of explaining the complex currents of the time and the personalities that made the rise of Germany possible.
February 3, 2022
An old but good biography of Europe’s greatest villain.
January 9, 2013
This was the very first complete biography of Hitler to be printed after his death, and it remains widely available in bookstores 60 years after it first appeared. My edition was revised slightly in 1958, but it on the whole it reflects the early post-war era and trends in understanding National Socialism from that time. As such, it may be of more value in studying attitudes and ideas of people in the victorious Western powers than in studying its subject. Hitler has been the subject of many biographies over the years, and particularly those of John Toland and Ian Kershaw offer much that overlooked or unknown at the time Bullock was writing.
The biggest surprise to me in this was Bullock’s willingness to accept what today seem like conspiracy theories about the Nazi Party. Today there are still many who believe that the Nazis burnt the Reichstag, or that Hitler ordered the killing of Geli Raubal (both of which are at least plausible), but Bullock is the only author I have seen who claimed that the SS was behind the attempt on Hitler’s life in November, 1939. The logic is torturous, and reminds me of 9-11 “Truthism:” because the attempt was used by the regime for propaganda purposes to try to make the public more sympathetic towards Hitler, therefore it must have been planned by said regime. The evidence is flimsy, based on the testimony of a British spy who was arrested by the SS after the fact and had no access to reliable information.
Bullock also follows Rauschning in his belief that the regime was marked by “nihilism.” Rauschning was regarded at the time as rather a more reliable witness than he is today, and his particular biases were largely shared by British and American observers at the time. I find it much harder to believe in this concept of “nihilism” today. People do not perform great acts of evil because of cynicism and lack of faith, they do so because of profound cosmic faith which blinds them to the actual human results of their actions. I think however that Bullock’s generation found comfort in believing that faith was on their side in the conflict, and that the other side lacked coherent beliefs.
It seemed to me that the strongest part of the book covered the period from 1925-1932, from just after Hitler’s release from Landsberg Prison up to the Presidential election Hitler lost to Hindenburg. This may be because this is the section of Hitler’s life about which I know the least, or it may be that there were more materials published on this more-distant time. The weakest part of the book was a tangent titled “The Dictator” which attempted to provide an intimate psychological profile of Hiter. Here, he devotes a few pages to the women in Hitler’s life, primarily Eva Braun, dealing only very briefly with Geli Raubal and dismissing Hitler’s relationship with Unity Mitford as “rumor.” He also tries to use Hitler’s public speeches to draw conclusions about his internal mindset.
Julian Jackson, writing in the introduction to Europe 1900-1945, claimed that, “[i]n Alan Bullock’s biography of Hitler, which appeared in 1952, the Holocaust only merits three pages; in Ian Kershaw’s biography forty-eight years later it is a central theme.” Actually, it was more thorough than I expected (I counted seven pages, but that’s a quibble in a 770-page book). He does cite Himmler’s private speeches, and is unequivocal regarding Hitler’s direct responsibility and the scale of the event. Interestingly, although “Auschwitz” does not appear in the index, it is mentioned on at least two separate pages here. He makes it reasonably clear that the subject deserves more attention, but the sources did not exist at the time.
In general, Bullock relied on the relatively limited published sources of the time, along with Nuremberg Documents, as his only sources. This is of course understandable – there wasn’t all that much else to work with in 1952. Apparently August Kubizek’s book came out between editions, so some of his information about Hitler’s early life appears here, but Bullock seems to have had no interest in Ernst Hanfstaengl’s 1957 account. He relies heavily (and largely uncritically) on Lochner’s published The Goebbels Diaries, on Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, on Otto Strasser, on Desmond Young’s Rommel: The Desert Fox and Baynes’s The Speeches Of Adolf Hitler, April 1922 August 1939: An English Translation Of Representative Passages (both of which he uses as if they were primary sources), and on the previously mentioned Rauschning. He tends to take witnesses at their word, not considering carefully the circumstances under which testimony was given. Interestingly, the BBC’s “monitoring reports” are used as sources for wartime Hitler speeches; unfortunately there is no comment in the bibliography explaining the value or implications of this.
This book remains of interest in terms of historiographic study of the Third Reich, because it’s hard to appreciate how far we’ve come without knowing where we once stood. But for non-specialists who want to know more about one of history’s most studied figures, it would be prudent to choose a more up-to-date study.
The biggest surprise to me in this was Bullock’s willingness to accept what today seem like conspiracy theories about the Nazi Party. Today there are still many who believe that the Nazis burnt the Reichstag, or that Hitler ordered the killing of Geli Raubal (both of which are at least plausible), but Bullock is the only author I have seen who claimed that the SS was behind the attempt on Hitler’s life in November, 1939. The logic is torturous, and reminds me of 9-11 “Truthism:” because the attempt was used by the regime for propaganda purposes to try to make the public more sympathetic towards Hitler, therefore it must have been planned by said regime. The evidence is flimsy, based on the testimony of a British spy who was arrested by the SS after the fact and had no access to reliable information.
Bullock also follows Rauschning in his belief that the regime was marked by “nihilism.” Rauschning was regarded at the time as rather a more reliable witness than he is today, and his particular biases were largely shared by British and American observers at the time. I find it much harder to believe in this concept of “nihilism” today. People do not perform great acts of evil because of cynicism and lack of faith, they do so because of profound cosmic faith which blinds them to the actual human results of their actions. I think however that Bullock’s generation found comfort in believing that faith was on their side in the conflict, and that the other side lacked coherent beliefs.
It seemed to me that the strongest part of the book covered the period from 1925-1932, from just after Hitler’s release from Landsberg Prison up to the Presidential election Hitler lost to Hindenburg. This may be because this is the section of Hitler’s life about which I know the least, or it may be that there were more materials published on this more-distant time. The weakest part of the book was a tangent titled “The Dictator” which attempted to provide an intimate psychological profile of Hiter. Here, he devotes a few pages to the women in Hitler’s life, primarily Eva Braun, dealing only very briefly with Geli Raubal and dismissing Hitler’s relationship with Unity Mitford as “rumor.” He also tries to use Hitler’s public speeches to draw conclusions about his internal mindset.
Julian Jackson, writing in the introduction to Europe 1900-1945, claimed that, “[i]n Alan Bullock’s biography of Hitler, which appeared in 1952, the Holocaust only merits three pages; in Ian Kershaw’s biography forty-eight years later it is a central theme.” Actually, it was more thorough than I expected (I counted seven pages, but that’s a quibble in a 770-page book). He does cite Himmler’s private speeches, and is unequivocal regarding Hitler’s direct responsibility and the scale of the event. Interestingly, although “Auschwitz” does not appear in the index, it is mentioned on at least two separate pages here. He makes it reasonably clear that the subject deserves more attention, but the sources did not exist at the time.
In general, Bullock relied on the relatively limited published sources of the time, along with Nuremberg Documents, as his only sources. This is of course understandable – there wasn’t all that much else to work with in 1952. Apparently August Kubizek’s book came out between editions, so some of his information about Hitler’s early life appears here, but Bullock seems to have had no interest in Ernst Hanfstaengl’s 1957 account. He relies heavily (and largely uncritically) on Lochner’s published The Goebbels Diaries, on Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, on Otto Strasser, on Desmond Young’s Rommel: The Desert Fox and Baynes’s The Speeches Of Adolf Hitler, April 1922 August 1939: An English Translation Of Representative Passages (both of which he uses as if they were primary sources), and on the previously mentioned Rauschning. He tends to take witnesses at their word, not considering carefully the circumstances under which testimony was given. Interestingly, the BBC’s “monitoring reports” are used as sources for wartime Hitler speeches; unfortunately there is no comment in the bibliography explaining the value or implications of this.
This book remains of interest in terms of historiographic study of the Third Reich, because it’s hard to appreciate how far we’ve come without knowing where we once stood. But for non-specialists who want to know more about one of history’s most studied figures, it would be prudent to choose a more up-to-date study.
March 6, 2017
Wiederlesen heißt wieder erkennen
Faktisch in zahlreichen Details überholte Darstellung, die aber immer noch ihre sprachlichen Meriten hat und deshalb ein gewisses Lesevergnügen bietet.
Keine Frage, Bullock hat die erste Biographie Hitlers nach dem Ableben des Führers geschrieben und 1952 veröffentlicht, bzw. 1962 überarbeitet. Mein Auflage von 1971 ist diese überarbeitete Version.
Die ersten zwanzig Jahre wäre alles andere als eine Fünfsterne-Bewertung eine Frechheit für diese Leistung gewesen, aber inzwischen sind viele Fakten zugänglich über die AB allenfalls spekulieren konnte. Und etliche Antworten, weshalb Hitler den Krieg verlieren musste, hat er in seiner späteren Biographie Hitler und Stalin erst fachlich fundiert beantworten können. Auch wenn sein Fazit, dass Hitler den Krieg verlieren musste, weil er ein Nazi war, auch in neueren Darstellung wie Andrew Roberts Storm of War seine Bestätigung bekommt.
In Sachen Lesevergnügen verdient diese Darstellung immer noch fünf Sterne, auch in den Charakterisierung der Nazis als eine gewissenlose Verbrecherbande, für deren Handeln es keine Entschuldigungen gibt und geben kann, hat sich nicht so schrecklich viel geändert. Auch wenn AB später den Opportunismus Hitlers zugunsten gewisser Grundüberzeugungen herunter gestuft hat. Auch ohne allzu große Einlassungen auf den Massenmord an den Juden zeichnet Bullock einen denkbar schäbigen und unsympathischen Hitler, der nur seine Macht auf Kosten aller anderen im Sinn hat. Unter diesem Aspekt nimmt das Verhältnis Deutsches Reich - Italien, bzw. Führer - Duce einen unverhältnismäßig großen Raum ein. Die streckenweise starke Abhängigkeit von Fälschungen wie Rauschnings Gespräche mit Hitler ist auch eines der Handicaps dieser Pionierarbeit, die aus einer überaus britischen Perspektive geschrieben ist, die sich gelegentlich auch in naiv-patriotischen Auslassungen niederschlägt.
Vergleichendes Vergnügen
Für mich war die vergleichende Lektüre mit der späteren und in jeder Hinsicht besser informierten Biographie schon ein Erkenntnisvergnügen, zumal ich Bullocks Darstellung auch in den Vorträgen meines Geschichtslehrers wieder erkannt habe, bzw. nachvollziehen kann, warum gewisse ein wenig verbissene Bullock-Fans in meiner Vita wenig mit Fest anfangen konnten, dessen vom regelmäßigen Umgang mit Albert Speer beeinflusste Darstellung eines kaum glaublichen Aufstiegs doch bis zu einem gewissen Grad zu Sympathien mit dem GRÖFAZ bis zum Anschluss einlädt.
Ein derartiges Risiko besteht bei A Study in Tyranny sicher nicht, die als komplettes Schurkenstück rüberkommt. Allerdings wirkt die alte Darstellung manchmal eher wie Königsdrama mit Schuld und Sühne oder Verhängnis und Verblendung, jedenfalls im Vergleich zu neueren Darstellungen. Aber vielleicht macht dieser altmodische Zug vor dem Tod des Tyrannen einen besonderen Reiz aus.
Fazit:
Als einzige Hitler-Biographie ist ABs mittlerweile 65 Jahre alte Darstellung schlichtweg Zeitverschwendung, auch wenn die durchgängige Schwarzmalerei gut in diese Zeit passt.
Da viele wirtschaftliche Zusammenhänge nicht ausreichend dargestellt sind, fehlen etliche Gründe für das Scheitern. Auch den entscheidenden Effektivitätskiller von Hitlers divide et impera stellt Bullock im Riesenwälzer Hitler und Stalin besser dar, ganz ohne das Schicksalsgewaber, an dem mein Geschichtslehrer so viel Gefallen fand. Wenn es nicht um Mentalitäts- oder Forschungsgeschichte geht, dann ist die Doppeldiktatorenbiographie die bessere Wahl, selbst wenn man sämtliche Stalinkapitel bis zum gemeinsamen Auftritt beim Showdown der Tyrannen im zweiten Weltkrieg überspringt.
Faktisch in zahlreichen Details überholte Darstellung, die aber immer noch ihre sprachlichen Meriten hat und deshalb ein gewisses Lesevergnügen bietet.
Keine Frage, Bullock hat die erste Biographie Hitlers nach dem Ableben des Führers geschrieben und 1952 veröffentlicht, bzw. 1962 überarbeitet. Mein Auflage von 1971 ist diese überarbeitete Version.
Die ersten zwanzig Jahre wäre alles andere als eine Fünfsterne-Bewertung eine Frechheit für diese Leistung gewesen, aber inzwischen sind viele Fakten zugänglich über die AB allenfalls spekulieren konnte. Und etliche Antworten, weshalb Hitler den Krieg verlieren musste, hat er in seiner späteren Biographie Hitler und Stalin erst fachlich fundiert beantworten können. Auch wenn sein Fazit, dass Hitler den Krieg verlieren musste, weil er ein Nazi war, auch in neueren Darstellung wie Andrew Roberts Storm of War seine Bestätigung bekommt.
In Sachen Lesevergnügen verdient diese Darstellung immer noch fünf Sterne, auch in den Charakterisierung der Nazis als eine gewissenlose Verbrecherbande, für deren Handeln es keine Entschuldigungen gibt und geben kann, hat sich nicht so schrecklich viel geändert. Auch wenn AB später den Opportunismus Hitlers zugunsten gewisser Grundüberzeugungen herunter gestuft hat. Auch ohne allzu große Einlassungen auf den Massenmord an den Juden zeichnet Bullock einen denkbar schäbigen und unsympathischen Hitler, der nur seine Macht auf Kosten aller anderen im Sinn hat. Unter diesem Aspekt nimmt das Verhältnis Deutsches Reich - Italien, bzw. Führer - Duce einen unverhältnismäßig großen Raum ein. Die streckenweise starke Abhängigkeit von Fälschungen wie Rauschnings Gespräche mit Hitler ist auch eines der Handicaps dieser Pionierarbeit, die aus einer überaus britischen Perspektive geschrieben ist, die sich gelegentlich auch in naiv-patriotischen Auslassungen niederschlägt.
Vergleichendes Vergnügen
Für mich war die vergleichende Lektüre mit der späteren und in jeder Hinsicht besser informierten Biographie schon ein Erkenntnisvergnügen, zumal ich Bullocks Darstellung auch in den Vorträgen meines Geschichtslehrers wieder erkannt habe, bzw. nachvollziehen kann, warum gewisse ein wenig verbissene Bullock-Fans in meiner Vita wenig mit Fest anfangen konnten, dessen vom regelmäßigen Umgang mit Albert Speer beeinflusste Darstellung eines kaum glaublichen Aufstiegs doch bis zu einem gewissen Grad zu Sympathien mit dem GRÖFAZ bis zum Anschluss einlädt.
Ein derartiges Risiko besteht bei A Study in Tyranny sicher nicht, die als komplettes Schurkenstück rüberkommt. Allerdings wirkt die alte Darstellung manchmal eher wie Königsdrama mit Schuld und Sühne oder Verhängnis und Verblendung, jedenfalls im Vergleich zu neueren Darstellungen. Aber vielleicht macht dieser altmodische Zug vor dem Tod des Tyrannen einen besonderen Reiz aus.
Fazit:
Als einzige Hitler-Biographie ist ABs mittlerweile 65 Jahre alte Darstellung schlichtweg Zeitverschwendung, auch wenn die durchgängige Schwarzmalerei gut in diese Zeit passt.
Da viele wirtschaftliche Zusammenhänge nicht ausreichend dargestellt sind, fehlen etliche Gründe für das Scheitern. Auch den entscheidenden Effektivitätskiller von Hitlers divide et impera stellt Bullock im Riesenwälzer Hitler und Stalin besser dar, ganz ohne das Schicksalsgewaber, an dem mein Geschichtslehrer so viel Gefallen fand. Wenn es nicht um Mentalitäts- oder Forschungsgeschichte geht, dann ist die Doppeldiktatorenbiographie die bessere Wahl, selbst wenn man sämtliche Stalinkapitel bis zum gemeinsamen Auftritt beim Showdown der Tyrannen im zweiten Weltkrieg überspringt.
November 4, 2020
This is among the best of the biographies I've read about Hitler. The author, in this revised edition, is fully conversant with the works by Shirer and Trevor-Roper but essays more of a psychological portrait than they manage. Unlike Trevor-Roper, Bullock is less at pains to qualify his sources. Instead, he draws freely from the 'Table Talk' and the memoirs and testimonies of those close to the dictator to come up with a credible characterization.
June 25, 2018
From Wikipedia: Fascism in Europe was composed of numerous ideologies present during the 20th century, all were similar. Fascism was born in Italy, but subsequently several movements across Europe which took influence from the Italian faction, emerged. Commonly the following European regimes are described as fascist:
Falange in Spain under Francisco Franco (1937–1975)
Fatherland Front in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss and Kurt Schuschnigg (1934–1938)
4th of August Regime in Greece under Ioannis Metaxas (1936–1941)
Iron Guard in conjunction with the Romanian military dictatorship in Romania under Ion Antonescu (1940–1941)
Ustaše in Croatia under Ante Pavelić (1941–1945)
National Union in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar (1933–1974)
Nazi Party of Germany under Adolf Hitler (1933–1945)
Hlinka Guard in Slovakia under Jozef Tiso (1939–1945)
Arrow Cross Party in Hungary under Ferenc Szálasi (1944–1945)
And, it’s back! Nazism is flourishing again throughout Europe, and also right here at home. Like so many termites, white supremacists are destroying the framework of our democracy. Learned much from ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’ by Alan Bullock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Bu... . 808 Pages of text. There is an abridged edition though it’s not obvious which words need to be pared. Bullock didn’t waste words. The used book I bought is a 1962 Revised edition. Alan had a killer resume; must give him that.
Schicklgruber – never was Herr Hitler’s name; just his grandma’s. Funny how that old canard keeps popping up. Trump, however, was a Drumpf. Words matter. Heil Schicklgruber just doesn’t have that special ring to it; more of a thud. Divine intervention, guidance? Hitler believed he was destined for greatness. He seemed to believe in Providence but, boy howdy, how he hated Christianity. Anything that smacked of charity was a threat to him. The milk of human kindness was, to Adolf, like some horrible debilitating disease; just like to our own baby-snatcher Drumpf. Much evidence that angry Adolf suffered from syphilis. His insanity and wasting body may have been an indication of the tertiary stage of the disease. Jews and the pox – the two scourges of mankind according to Hitler.
Page 62: at age thirty, Hitler, the self-styled savior of the German people, strides forth. The following pages present an amazing story of how an unknown, slovenly, lazy, knock-about becomes the crazed leader of a vast military machine that eventually brings ruination to an entire continent. It could have been strangled in the crib but by wit, a gossamer of legality, a maniacal will, and just enough useful fools, a suicidal political movement gained absolute power. Maybe that’s why the alarm bells are ringing in our fair nation. Something evil is rapidly gaining strength. Will the nation bestir itself in time? Come November we will find out.
Here is a Hitler quote that is unnervingly true. Page 69: regarding the masses, “It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.” That explains why converting the Drumpf fanatics to sanity is impossible. The more evidence that Drumpf is an anathema to their well-being; be it global warming, poisoned water, lack of medical care, lack of education for their kids, etc., etc. - the more they cling to the legs of their dear leader. To my utter dismay, instead of helping to reveal the threat, our vaunted mass media, lured by the proverbial, shiny, thirty pieces of silver, use their dazzling high definition picture frame to help poison the minds of the gullible. God help us as FOX, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc., etc. refuse to work to enlighten the masses. Always the other side must be heard, even if the other side is Beelzebub himself. And not to forget that always, “both sides do it.” No … they don’t. Only one side snatches babies from their mothers. It can happen – it has happened. Read all about it.
Page 72: Political Maxim: Violence and terror have their own propaganda value. The display of physical force attracts as many as it repels. And for Hitler it attracted exactly the type of man he wanted; those who were willing to smash and kill. Another Hitler quote, “the reputation of our hall-guard squads stamped us as a political fighting force and not a as a debating society.” When the blood lust is up, reason flies out the window. The Dems must forget being so damn polite. Not easy to unlearn that which one first learns in kindergarten (ironically, a German invention). Hard to relax knowing so much depends on the upcoming midterms. If we lose the Supreme Court, tenuous as it currently is, our democracy is in deep trouble – just one more judge. Obama’s biggest fail - being owned by the Gang Of Pirates, resulting in Gorsuch spoiling the SCOTUS. During the election, Barry stood as mute as a potted plant, never mentioning Drumpf’s collusion with Russia, while Comey, Obama’s Judas of a commandant of the FBI stabbed Hillary in the back.
Got to love German names. Page 129-30: one of Hitler’s prominent supporters, Rudolf Buttmann, declared, “All my scruples vanished when the Führer spoke.” Sadly, we have become a nation infested with Buttmanns.
I can’t keep this report going in such detail for all 808 pages. This story however rates a mention. From page 139; July 1926, at a mass rally in Weimar, Thuringia, five-thousand party faithfuls marched past Hitler’s big Mercedes while the man himself, for the first time, used the outstretched arm as the Nazi salute. This was a big deal in a party mesmerized by theatrics. (Ever notice how the Drumpf Dreamers, like the erstwhile Teabaggers and baggerettes, love to play dress up?) That image was reproduced 100,000 times by the party paper, The Völkischer Beobachter, and distributed throughout Germany. The genius of propaganda, Herr Goebbels, now took his place as a major player in world history.
Yet another parallel with our times, Hitler’s first demographics of support came from the rural regions. Page 157; Hitler, “the great mass of working-men want only bread and circuses.” Philosophy? Not so much. Are we a nation of over-weight people endlessly seeking amusement? For a nation professing to be ever so Christian, the Sermon on the Mount would be wasted on us. Very low rating, “What? Only fish? I don’t like fish!” … and, “where’s the tartar sauce?”
A main Nazi tenet – ATTRACT ATTENTION – or the concept of, “no such thing as bad publicity”. Hitler believed that for the great masses, even mindless spectacle was highly effective. He was not wrong. Emotional manipulation as practiced by the Drumpf in collusion with hit-hungry mass media. There is the outside danger of over-reaching; has Drumpf now gone too far? Can we say unequivocally that citizens of the U.S. are opposed to caging babies? But then; there were those troubling emails – CNN, FOX, et al said so. That Drumpf is as morally bankrupt as his bank account has been known for a long time. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-all-... . I found this site amusing. Page 159; in 1930 the mood of a large segment of Germany was one of resentment. Again, a frightening parallel with our benighted land. Don’t be black while breathing; using up all those good white people’s oxygen. Also, here is the best op-ed that I’ve read for a long time. https://stoehr.substack.com/p/trumps-... it may as well have been about Hitler. Appearing weak was his greatest fear. That’s why he hated Christianity to a level of incoherence. His personal power was everything. Gaining power was for him all-consuming. Then he over-reached. Stalin could also generate an appalling display of iron will.
Before I forget, this subject also warrants attention; the use of amphetamines by Hitler, and indeed by both the German and allied forces, was extensive and effective. High risk with a potential for high reward in desperate situations. https://tailendcharlietedchurch.wordp... . Still in use today. Reminds me of the Navy anti-drug poster showing a fighter jet formation with the caption; “you can’t do this high”. Bull shit; that’s exactly how it’s done. By the end, Hitler was strung out bad. He was hopelessly in thrall to his quack of a doctor. From the afore referenced site, “Adolf Hitler was given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician Theodor Morell.” But what of the oft incoherent middle-of-the-night tweets from our Commander in Chief? The hopped-up Cheeto Donald Drumpf? Wakey-wakey Donald.
Page 162: Hitler, “Democracy must be defeated with the weapons of democracy.” Left unsaid; we will use every dirty trick we can think of. Actually, he did say it, just not in public. “Discredit democratic institutions and bring government to a standstill." At times one gets the feeling that one is reading from the GOP handbook on overthrowing our Republic. In essence what Herr Hitler is saying is that one must always maintain a veneer of legality. The book goes on at great length on this subject. Hitler did not have an easy time controlling his overeager thugs. To move too soon with too much force was to imperil all his efforts by bringing the German army under the honorable old man Hindenburg into the fray. He knew, that as yet, he lacked the power. He knew that the old style, “to the barricades!” brand of revolution had been negated by the machine gun. Everything about the Nazi movement proclaimed its brazen contempt for the law. Gosh, that does seem familiar.
There are also noticeable differences between Hitler and the tyrant in training Drumpf. Hitler worked at building his power with an indefatigable energy. In that regard he was in no way a lazy man. Drumpf has cohorts for the skullduggery, he just plays the reality show host … and golfs.
This on page 276 is chilling, “Hitler resorted to his favorite tactic of the surprise of doing just the things no one believed he would dare do, with a blend of contempt for convention or tradition.” Page 319, “Hitler’s fevered vision: the empire of the Herrenvolk (master race) based on the slave-labor of the inferior races. Those Untermensch would be fed in order to work but education and medical care would be, for them, verboten. MAGA.
1934-36, page 380, the new technology of radio becomes for the Nazi Party a powerful means of disseminating propaganda. Hitler’s main strength was his gift for oratory; for him this was a major development. Hitler was the first to use radio and loudspeakers (needed for his huge rallies). Speer, from his speech at his post war trial noted, 80 million people were deprived of independent thought for one man, one party. Hitler was bound by no sense of morality or tradition. He had no loyalties, had zero respect for other lives. Hitler by lying and cunning whipped up his crowds to a frenzy of hatred. The GOP has an entire television network and the gutter of AM radio; progressives have a few news shows on MSNBC. Hybris, the Greek god of insolence, must be Drumpf’s chosen deity. New word learned, "Hybris", who is the mother of Pan, at least according to one version of his birth in Greek mythology. The name’s meaning is the same as the word hubris which today tends to mean ‘overweening pride’ but which in early Greek implied ‘shameless’ or ‘violent disorder’. Yes, the hybris of our Dear Exalted Cheesy Puff.
Another great word, “Weltanschauung”, which means “world view” as in; Ignatius Reilly was greatly concerned with the working man’s Weltanschauung. Of course, as Hitler could have told him, inspiring the masses to such a depth of thinking was basically hopeless.
The balance of the book is a documentation of what happens when a people decide to follow an incompetent leader who thinks himself a genius, a man of rare intelligence, but who is, for all purposes, a complete idiot. Come November, I can only hope we become woke in time to put this insanity to a full stop.
Page 672: Bullock describes Hitler as a vulgarian surrounded by gangsters, spivs (men, typically characterized by flashy dress, who make their living by disreputable dealings), and bullies, all of whom are on a constant lookout for the rake-off. Yep, sounds like our Dear Leader and his Cabinet of Horrors.
In conclusion – point your magic wand at the Dumpster Fire Drumpf and say the magic words - Reductio ad absurdum – if only it were so easy. It starts by knowing history. Bullock’s ‘Hitler’ is a good place to begin.
Falange in Spain under Francisco Franco (1937–1975)
Fatherland Front in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss and Kurt Schuschnigg (1934–1938)
4th of August Regime in Greece under Ioannis Metaxas (1936–1941)
Iron Guard in conjunction with the Romanian military dictatorship in Romania under Ion Antonescu (1940–1941)
Ustaše in Croatia under Ante Pavelić (1941–1945)
National Union in Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar (1933–1974)
Nazi Party of Germany under Adolf Hitler (1933–1945)
Hlinka Guard in Slovakia under Jozef Tiso (1939–1945)
Arrow Cross Party in Hungary under Ferenc Szálasi (1944–1945)
And, it’s back! Nazism is flourishing again throughout Europe, and also right here at home. Like so many termites, white supremacists are destroying the framework of our democracy. Learned much from ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’ by Alan Bullock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Bu... . 808 Pages of text. There is an abridged edition though it’s not obvious which words need to be pared. Bullock didn’t waste words. The used book I bought is a 1962 Revised edition. Alan had a killer resume; must give him that.
Schicklgruber – never was Herr Hitler’s name; just his grandma’s. Funny how that old canard keeps popping up. Trump, however, was a Drumpf. Words matter. Heil Schicklgruber just doesn’t have that special ring to it; more of a thud. Divine intervention, guidance? Hitler believed he was destined for greatness. He seemed to believe in Providence but, boy howdy, how he hated Christianity. Anything that smacked of charity was a threat to him. The milk of human kindness was, to Adolf, like some horrible debilitating disease; just like to our own baby-snatcher Drumpf. Much evidence that angry Adolf suffered from syphilis. His insanity and wasting body may have been an indication of the tertiary stage of the disease. Jews and the pox – the two scourges of mankind according to Hitler.
Page 62: at age thirty, Hitler, the self-styled savior of the German people, strides forth. The following pages present an amazing story of how an unknown, slovenly, lazy, knock-about becomes the crazed leader of a vast military machine that eventually brings ruination to an entire continent. It could have been strangled in the crib but by wit, a gossamer of legality, a maniacal will, and just enough useful fools, a suicidal political movement gained absolute power. Maybe that’s why the alarm bells are ringing in our fair nation. Something evil is rapidly gaining strength. Will the nation bestir itself in time? Come November we will find out.
Here is a Hitler quote that is unnervingly true. Page 69: regarding the masses, “It is always more difficult to fight against faith than against knowledge.” That explains why converting the Drumpf fanatics to sanity is impossible. The more evidence that Drumpf is an anathema to their well-being; be it global warming, poisoned water, lack of medical care, lack of education for their kids, etc., etc. - the more they cling to the legs of their dear leader. To my utter dismay, instead of helping to reveal the threat, our vaunted mass media, lured by the proverbial, shiny, thirty pieces of silver, use their dazzling high definition picture frame to help poison the minds of the gullible. God help us as FOX, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc., etc. refuse to work to enlighten the masses. Always the other side must be heard, even if the other side is Beelzebub himself. And not to forget that always, “both sides do it.” No … they don’t. Only one side snatches babies from their mothers. It can happen – it has happened. Read all about it.
Page 72: Political Maxim: Violence and terror have their own propaganda value. The display of physical force attracts as many as it repels. And for Hitler it attracted exactly the type of man he wanted; those who were willing to smash and kill. Another Hitler quote, “the reputation of our hall-guard squads stamped us as a political fighting force and not a as a debating society.” When the blood lust is up, reason flies out the window. The Dems must forget being so damn polite. Not easy to unlearn that which one first learns in kindergarten (ironically, a German invention). Hard to relax knowing so much depends on the upcoming midterms. If we lose the Supreme Court, tenuous as it currently is, our democracy is in deep trouble – just one more judge. Obama’s biggest fail - being owned by the Gang Of Pirates, resulting in Gorsuch spoiling the SCOTUS. During the election, Barry stood as mute as a potted plant, never mentioning Drumpf’s collusion with Russia, while Comey, Obama’s Judas of a commandant of the FBI stabbed Hillary in the back.
Got to love German names. Page 129-30: one of Hitler’s prominent supporters, Rudolf Buttmann, declared, “All my scruples vanished when the Führer spoke.” Sadly, we have become a nation infested with Buttmanns.
I can’t keep this report going in such detail for all 808 pages. This story however rates a mention. From page 139; July 1926, at a mass rally in Weimar, Thuringia, five-thousand party faithfuls marched past Hitler’s big Mercedes while the man himself, for the first time, used the outstretched arm as the Nazi salute. This was a big deal in a party mesmerized by theatrics. (Ever notice how the Drumpf Dreamers, like the erstwhile Teabaggers and baggerettes, love to play dress up?) That image was reproduced 100,000 times by the party paper, The Völkischer Beobachter, and distributed throughout Germany. The genius of propaganda, Herr Goebbels, now took his place as a major player in world history.
Yet another parallel with our times, Hitler’s first demographics of support came from the rural regions. Page 157; Hitler, “the great mass of working-men want only bread and circuses.” Philosophy? Not so much. Are we a nation of over-weight people endlessly seeking amusement? For a nation professing to be ever so Christian, the Sermon on the Mount would be wasted on us. Very low rating, “What? Only fish? I don’t like fish!” … and, “where’s the tartar sauce?”
A main Nazi tenet – ATTRACT ATTENTION – or the concept of, “no such thing as bad publicity”. Hitler believed that for the great masses, even mindless spectacle was highly effective. He was not wrong. Emotional manipulation as practiced by the Drumpf in collusion with hit-hungry mass media. There is the outside danger of over-reaching; has Drumpf now gone too far? Can we say unequivocally that citizens of the U.S. are opposed to caging babies? But then; there were those troubling emails – CNN, FOX, et al said so. That Drumpf is as morally bankrupt as his bank account has been known for a long time. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-all-... . I found this site amusing. Page 159; in 1930 the mood of a large segment of Germany was one of resentment. Again, a frightening parallel with our benighted land. Don’t be black while breathing; using up all those good white people’s oxygen. Also, here is the best op-ed that I’ve read for a long time. https://stoehr.substack.com/p/trumps-... it may as well have been about Hitler. Appearing weak was his greatest fear. That’s why he hated Christianity to a level of incoherence. His personal power was everything. Gaining power was for him all-consuming. Then he over-reached. Stalin could also generate an appalling display of iron will.
Before I forget, this subject also warrants attention; the use of amphetamines by Hitler, and indeed by both the German and allied forces, was extensive and effective. High risk with a potential for high reward in desperate situations. https://tailendcharlietedchurch.wordp... . Still in use today. Reminds me of the Navy anti-drug poster showing a fighter jet formation with the caption; “you can’t do this high”. Bull shit; that’s exactly how it’s done. By the end, Hitler was strung out bad. He was hopelessly in thrall to his quack of a doctor. From the afore referenced site, “Adolf Hitler was given intravenous injections of methamphetamine by his personal physician Theodor Morell.” But what of the oft incoherent middle-of-the-night tweets from our Commander in Chief? The hopped-up Cheeto Donald Drumpf? Wakey-wakey Donald.
Page 162: Hitler, “Democracy must be defeated with the weapons of democracy.” Left unsaid; we will use every dirty trick we can think of. Actually, he did say it, just not in public. “Discredit democratic institutions and bring government to a standstill." At times one gets the feeling that one is reading from the GOP handbook on overthrowing our Republic. In essence what Herr Hitler is saying is that one must always maintain a veneer of legality. The book goes on at great length on this subject. Hitler did not have an easy time controlling his overeager thugs. To move too soon with too much force was to imperil all his efforts by bringing the German army under the honorable old man Hindenburg into the fray. He knew, that as yet, he lacked the power. He knew that the old style, “to the barricades!” brand of revolution had been negated by the machine gun. Everything about the Nazi movement proclaimed its brazen contempt for the law. Gosh, that does seem familiar.
There are also noticeable differences between Hitler and the tyrant in training Drumpf. Hitler worked at building his power with an indefatigable energy. In that regard he was in no way a lazy man. Drumpf has cohorts for the skullduggery, he just plays the reality show host … and golfs.
This on page 276 is chilling, “Hitler resorted to his favorite tactic of the surprise of doing just the things no one believed he would dare do, with a blend of contempt for convention or tradition.” Page 319, “Hitler’s fevered vision: the empire of the Herrenvolk (master race) based on the slave-labor of the inferior races. Those Untermensch would be fed in order to work but education and medical care would be, for them, verboten. MAGA.
1934-36, page 380, the new technology of radio becomes for the Nazi Party a powerful means of disseminating propaganda. Hitler’s main strength was his gift for oratory; for him this was a major development. Hitler was the first to use radio and loudspeakers (needed for his huge rallies). Speer, from his speech at his post war trial noted, 80 million people were deprived of independent thought for one man, one party. Hitler was bound by no sense of morality or tradition. He had no loyalties, had zero respect for other lives. Hitler by lying and cunning whipped up his crowds to a frenzy of hatred. The GOP has an entire television network and the gutter of AM radio; progressives have a few news shows on MSNBC. Hybris, the Greek god of insolence, must be Drumpf’s chosen deity. New word learned, "Hybris", who is the mother of Pan, at least according to one version of his birth in Greek mythology. The name’s meaning is the same as the word hubris which today tends to mean ‘overweening pride’ but which in early Greek implied ‘shameless’ or ‘violent disorder’. Yes, the hybris of our Dear Exalted Cheesy Puff.
Another great word, “Weltanschauung”, which means “world view” as in; Ignatius Reilly was greatly concerned with the working man’s Weltanschauung. Of course, as Hitler could have told him, inspiring the masses to such a depth of thinking was basically hopeless.
The balance of the book is a documentation of what happens when a people decide to follow an incompetent leader who thinks himself a genius, a man of rare intelligence, but who is, for all purposes, a complete idiot. Come November, I can only hope we become woke in time to put this insanity to a full stop.
Page 672: Bullock describes Hitler as a vulgarian surrounded by gangsters, spivs (men, typically characterized by flashy dress, who make their living by disreputable dealings), and bullies, all of whom are on a constant lookout for the rake-off. Yep, sounds like our Dear Leader and his Cabinet of Horrors.
In conclusion – point your magic wand at the Dumpster Fire Drumpf and say the magic words - Reductio ad absurdum – if only it were so easy. It starts by knowing history. Bullock’s ‘Hitler’ is a good place to begin.
March 24, 2016
Till maybe 8 years ago my knowledge about Hitler was minimal. I knew Hitler was probably one of the greatest antagonists of the post medieval world. Why? Because he was responsible for the second world war and killing of approximately 6 million Jews. How did he do that? No idea. Then i happened to watch ‘der untergang’ the German movie on the last days of Hitler. The depiction of the last days of Hitler's life and the splendid performance of Bruno Ganz just blew me over. The movie to a certain extent humanises his character. Then i saw many of the other movies on world war 2 Schindler's list, the boy in the striped pajamas, the pianist et al. The disaster that was the world war 2 and the role of this monster in the lead up and during the war became a little more clearer. Yet not all questions were answered. Well, they are now.
Hitler : A study in tyranny I believe is one of the best books out there on Hitler, his rise and his eventual fall paralleling that of the nazi party and the third Reich. It doesn't leave anything to imagination. Extensively researched, it traces every event of any significance right from his birth. His childhood and teens is breezed through mainly due to the lack of data and information. His days in Vienna (a city he didn't like much) which made him what he became are commented upon in some depth. Almost all his ideas set during this phase remained the same and in many cases only got stronger as he got more powerful.
The story next moves to mainland Germany. Here the rise of Hitler from a prickly, crazy, loud, good for nothing agitator who spoke like he argued and argued like he had a fit, to a serious player in the German politics, to a master strategist and politician to becoming the Reich Chancellor through intrigue, bribes, threats and lies to finally becoming the Fuhrer, the dictator, the sole point of power across all Germany is mapped out in considerable depth. So is his eventual rapid downfall after the initial successes of the war.
It can't get much better than this I guess.
Hitler : A study in tyranny I believe is one of the best books out there on Hitler, his rise and his eventual fall paralleling that of the nazi party and the third Reich. It doesn't leave anything to imagination. Extensively researched, it traces every event of any significance right from his birth. His childhood and teens is breezed through mainly due to the lack of data and information. His days in Vienna (a city he didn't like much) which made him what he became are commented upon in some depth. Almost all his ideas set during this phase remained the same and in many cases only got stronger as he got more powerful.
The story next moves to mainland Germany. Here the rise of Hitler from a prickly, crazy, loud, good for nothing agitator who spoke like he argued and argued like he had a fit, to a serious player in the German politics, to a master strategist and politician to becoming the Reich Chancellor through intrigue, bribes, threats and lies to finally becoming the Fuhrer, the dictator, the sole point of power across all Germany is mapped out in considerable depth. So is his eventual rapid downfall after the initial successes of the war.
It can't get much better than this I guess.
December 31, 2015
This is an excellent biography. Inevitably, the fact that it was written nearly fifty years ago shows--more scholarship has been done and some of Bullock's ancillary facts are wrong (e.g., in 1941, the Russians were not better equipped and better fed than the Germans (Ivan's War); Albert Speer's "economic miracle" was almost entirely the work of the man he replaced (The Wages of Destruction); and so on)--but does not detract from Bullock's accomplishment in describing and analyzing Hitler's career. He explains the Beer Hall Putsch so that I understand it, which no one else I've read has managed (he's not as good on the Night of the Long Knives--Hohne is better--but that's less about Hitler's personal machinations and more about the machinations of those around him). Bullock talks very lucidly about why Hitler made the decisions he did, and without ever losing sight of the ideological reasons, he makes it clear how Nazi ideology both sprang out of and dovetailed with Hitler's personal obsessions and egomania.
I also appreciate Bullock's insistence that we give Hitler credit for being what he was--a man with a genius for politics and political manipulation--rather than simply dismissing him as a vulgar demagogue. But he also says:
The fact that his career ended in failure, and that his defeat was pre-eminently due to his own mistakes, does not by itself detract from Hitler's claim to greatness. The flaw lies deeper. For these remarkable powers [laid out in the preceding paragraph] were combined with an ugly and strident egotism, a moral and intellectual cretinism. The passions which ruled Hitler's mind were ignoble: hatred, resentment, the lust to dominate, and, where he could not dominate, to destroy. His career did not exalt but debased the human condition, and his twelve years' dictatorship was barren of all ideas save one--the further extension of his own power and that of the nation with which he had identified himself. [...] National Socialism produced nothing. Hitler constantly exalted force over the power of ideas and delighted to prove that men were governed by cupidity, fear, and their baser passions. The sole theme of the Nazi revolution was domination, dressed up as the doctrine of race, and failing that, a vindictive destructiveness. It is this emptiness, this lack of anything to justify the suffering he caused rather than his own monstrous and ungovernable will which makes Hitler both so repellent and so barren a figure. (486-7)
This is an old-fashioned view--no trendy pomo existential moral-relativism-cum-nihilism here--but I think it does articulate something about Nazism and Hitler that matters: their essential pettiness--and, even more important, the idea that human beings can, and deserve to, be better than that.
I also appreciate Bullock's insistence that we give Hitler credit for being what he was--a man with a genius for politics and political manipulation--rather than simply dismissing him as a vulgar demagogue. But he also says:
The fact that his career ended in failure, and that his defeat was pre-eminently due to his own mistakes, does not by itself detract from Hitler's claim to greatness. The flaw lies deeper. For these remarkable powers [laid out in the preceding paragraph] were combined with an ugly and strident egotism, a moral and intellectual cretinism. The passions which ruled Hitler's mind were ignoble: hatred, resentment, the lust to dominate, and, where he could not dominate, to destroy. His career did not exalt but debased the human condition, and his twelve years' dictatorship was barren of all ideas save one--the further extension of his own power and that of the nation with which he had identified himself. [...] National Socialism produced nothing. Hitler constantly exalted force over the power of ideas and delighted to prove that men were governed by cupidity, fear, and their baser passions. The sole theme of the Nazi revolution was domination, dressed up as the doctrine of race, and failing that, a vindictive destructiveness. It is this emptiness, this lack of anything to justify the suffering he caused rather than his own monstrous and ungovernable will which makes Hitler both so repellent and so barren a figure. (486-7)
This is an old-fashioned view--no trendy pomo existential moral-relativism-cum-nihilism here--but I think it does articulate something about Nazism and Hitler that matters: their essential pettiness--and, even more important, the idea that human beings can, and deserve to, be better than that.
June 28, 2012
A very good book on the topic. Hitler is definitely a fascinating historic figure and the events surrounding the Nazi time in Germany are very interesting. That doesn't mean I like him or what he did. At the same I don't like books that just portray Hitler as a monster, no matter how disgusting his actions were. By doing so people often give themselves the idea that this could never happen again because Hitler was so different from other people, which unfortunately isn't a reality. If we compare some of his actions and views to some things that are happening these days we can see that it wasn't that extraordinary. For example, his portrayal of Jews that was basically a simplified, evilized caricature is very similar to some portrayals of Muslims these days. Knowing and understanding this will help us to prevent things getting out of hand as it happened before. And Alan Bullock for them most part does a good job to avoid a biased tone towards Hitler. Which of course is very hard.
I was mainly interested in Hitler's character development, the attitudes of Germans during the development of Nazi movement and Holocaust, and Hitler's mentality during the defeat. Unfortunately there was not enough of this topics for me (except for the defeat stage). He did discuss his childhood and young years in Vienna but it was too brief for what I hoped for. I will try to find some more books that are more psychological on this topic.
At the same time the book is full of historical facts. I am not sure how accurate they all are since the book was first published about 50 years ago, but I definitely learned a lot. I did study World War back in school for several years but there were many details that were new for me. I admit sometimes when it was discussing political meetings I was getting slightly bored, but it would not happen to someone who is very intersted in the political aspect of the topic.
All in all it is definitely a great book which has about 500 pages of facts on WW2 and Hitler. I would really recommend it to anyone interested in this.
I was mainly interested in Hitler's character development, the attitudes of Germans during the development of Nazi movement and Holocaust, and Hitler's mentality during the defeat. Unfortunately there was not enough of this topics for me (except for the defeat stage). He did discuss his childhood and young years in Vienna but it was too brief for what I hoped for. I will try to find some more books that are more psychological on this topic.
At the same time the book is full of historical facts. I am not sure how accurate they all are since the book was first published about 50 years ago, but I definitely learned a lot. I did study World War back in school for several years but there were many details that were new for me. I admit sometimes when it was discussing political meetings I was getting slightly bored, but it would not happen to someone who is very intersted in the political aspect of the topic.
All in all it is definitely a great book which has about 500 pages of facts on WW2 and Hitler. I would really recommend it to anyone interested in this.
September 9, 2013
An outstanding, exhaustively thorough recounting of the most famous life-that-never-should-have-been-lived of the 20th century. (I read the full length version, not the abridged.)
Especially intriguing is that Hitler's genius in speech-making, and therefore crowd control, lay in his ability to discern the mood of a crowd and reflect that back to that crowd. Clearly, he could not have become what he became without the approval of (too many of) the German population, at least at first. Of course, by the time the assassination attempts began, it had already been too late for too long.
Bullock, who lived through WWII, avoids moralizing and sensationalism; instead he writes in a balanced, rational style, presenting only the facts, which are the more chilling for their lack of sentimentality. (Steven Spielberg, take notice.) Only in one chapter in the middle of the book, and also in the epilogue, does the author allow himself any commentary on Hitler's character, but that commentary is incisive and worth waiting for. From the epilogue:
"The fact that his career ended in failure, and that his defeat was pre-eminently due to his own mistakes, does not by itself detract from Hitler's claim to greatness. The flaw lies deeper. For these remarkable powers were combined with an ugly and strident egotism, a moral and intellectual cretinism. The passions which ruled Hitler's mind were ignoble: hatred, resentment, the lust to dominate, and, where he could not dominate, to destroy. His career did not exalt but debased the human condition, and his twelve years' dictatorship was barren of all ideas save one -- the further extension of his own power and that of the nation with which he had identified himself."
The analysis of Hitler's legacy, left to the final page, is no less brilliant.
All in all, a top-notch cautionary tale of what kind of person not to be.
Especially intriguing is that Hitler's genius in speech-making, and therefore crowd control, lay in his ability to discern the mood of a crowd and reflect that back to that crowd. Clearly, he could not have become what he became without the approval of (too many of) the German population, at least at first. Of course, by the time the assassination attempts began, it had already been too late for too long.
Bullock, who lived through WWII, avoids moralizing and sensationalism; instead he writes in a balanced, rational style, presenting only the facts, which are the more chilling for their lack of sentimentality. (Steven Spielberg, take notice.) Only in one chapter in the middle of the book, and also in the epilogue, does the author allow himself any commentary on Hitler's character, but that commentary is incisive and worth waiting for. From the epilogue:
"The fact that his career ended in failure, and that his defeat was pre-eminently due to his own mistakes, does not by itself detract from Hitler's claim to greatness. The flaw lies deeper. For these remarkable powers were combined with an ugly and strident egotism, a moral and intellectual cretinism. The passions which ruled Hitler's mind were ignoble: hatred, resentment, the lust to dominate, and, where he could not dominate, to destroy. His career did not exalt but debased the human condition, and his twelve years' dictatorship was barren of all ideas save one -- the further extension of his own power and that of the nation with which he had identified himself."
The analysis of Hitler's legacy, left to the final page, is no less brilliant.
All in all, a top-notch cautionary tale of what kind of person not to be.
October 4, 2017
My dad bought this book back in the seventies and I've still got it.
Very thorough book.
Very thorough book.
June 6, 2020
As a matter of coincidence that I just realised when I sat to write the review of this book, today marks the 74th anniversary of D-Day - the landing of Allied troops in Normandy.
I have read this book over the course of ca. 6 months for several reasons, most of which unrelated to the book. The ones that are, relate to the depth of the analysis and the level of detail with which the author has answered the question of what was the role of Hitler in the events that happened in Germany and in Europe from the beginning of 1920s until 1945. In answering this question, the author provides an exquisite biography of Hitler, considered as the most comprehensive to date.
Save for the intrinsic value that this biography has in itself, I found it especially helpful and relevant for understanding essentially how (and why) an autocratic regime is not healthy in long term. It may seem that, 73 years after the end of WW2, democracy is taken as an axiom, but the truth couldn't be farther. Reading about the measures that the Nazi party took to consolidate their power in their first years in the government, I couldn't help but draw parallels with what leaders of democratic countries nowadays: Putin in Russia, Trump in US, Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary - are also doing to consolidate power and deter democracy. Around Hitler there is an aura that always connects his figure with the monstrosities that occurred in particular with the mass-murders and attempted extermination of the Jewish. However, these are extensions of what was essentially a regime where one person, or at times a group of people, made decisions that impacted the lives of millions of people without any right of representation. It is for this reason that I find a logical inconsistency in denouncing only the results of a corrupted regime, without denouncing the mechanisms upon which this regime is built. It is sad to see that such mechanisms, used to deter democracy and install quasi- or complete autocratic regimes, are present in many apparently-democratic countries now; they have not died with Hitler, or with the Third Reich. In such considerations, I see this book as relevant now, as it was in 1962, when it was first published.
I have read this book over the course of ca. 6 months for several reasons, most of which unrelated to the book. The ones that are, relate to the depth of the analysis and the level of detail with which the author has answered the question of what was the role of Hitler in the events that happened in Germany and in Europe from the beginning of 1920s until 1945. In answering this question, the author provides an exquisite biography of Hitler, considered as the most comprehensive to date.
Save for the intrinsic value that this biography has in itself, I found it especially helpful and relevant for understanding essentially how (and why) an autocratic regime is not healthy in long term. It may seem that, 73 years after the end of WW2, democracy is taken as an axiom, but the truth couldn't be farther. Reading about the measures that the Nazi party took to consolidate their power in their first years in the government, I couldn't help but draw parallels with what leaders of democratic countries nowadays: Putin in Russia, Trump in US, Erdogan in Turkey, Orban in Hungary - are also doing to consolidate power and deter democracy. Around Hitler there is an aura that always connects his figure with the monstrosities that occurred in particular with the mass-murders and attempted extermination of the Jewish. However, these are extensions of what was essentially a regime where one person, or at times a group of people, made decisions that impacted the lives of millions of people without any right of representation. It is for this reason that I find a logical inconsistency in denouncing only the results of a corrupted regime, without denouncing the mechanisms upon which this regime is built. It is sad to see that such mechanisms, used to deter democracy and install quasi- or complete autocratic regimes, are present in many apparently-democratic countries now; they have not died with Hitler, or with the Third Reich. In such considerations, I see this book as relevant now, as it was in 1962, when it was first published.
May 30, 2020
Page-turningly gripping narrative. Trustworthy portraits of the other figures too, Goering, Chamberlain, etc. Interesting that Bullock read AJP Taylor's Origins of WW2 prior to revising Study in Tyranny for the 2nd (1964) ed, but did not change his view in line with Taylor's view (see Preface p10). Taylor's view that Hitler was not sui generis, but a wily politician like many others, now seems to hold sway.
December 31, 2017
Magnificent, essential book. Do not opt for the abridgement; do the deep dive.
August 22, 2024
Świetna, szczegółowa książka, która bardzo przystępnie a zarazem dokładnie opisuje wszystkie wydarzenia i pozwala zrozumieć historie.
December 3, 2024
Autor był dosyć krótkowzroczny i atakował grupy lewicowe bez żadnego uzasadnienia ale tak to nawet ok.
September 2, 2016
This book has been sitting on my shelf for a couple of years now and I've finally this month plucked up the courage to tackle it! Setting myself challenging but achievable reading targets...I ended up smashing them! The last 400 pages I got through in four days and that is no mean feat for a serious work of history like this one. I of course take no credit for the speed of reading, rather I can only commend Alan Bullock for writing an account of a truly terrible time in such a readable way.
I was disappointed for a while about the lack of any real mention of Hitler's domestic policies and was tempted to mark the book down until I thought a little more. The book was published just seven years after the Third Reich fell and yet the level of detail is stunning. In those areas where there is less detail Bullock informs the reader as to why that decision has been made, and I can only rate the book on what it IS rather than what it is not. A comprehensive view of the Third Reich it is not. What it achieves admirably though is a masterly, and where it merits it a balanced, profile of arguably the most infamous character in Europe's history. One of Bullock's greatest achievements in my view is to highlight Hitler's qualities and victories whilst still presenting him as the monster he truly was. Bravo!
I was disappointed for a while about the lack of any real mention of Hitler's domestic policies and was tempted to mark the book down until I thought a little more. The book was published just seven years after the Third Reich fell and yet the level of detail is stunning. In those areas where there is less detail Bullock informs the reader as to why that decision has been made, and I can only rate the book on what it IS rather than what it is not. A comprehensive view of the Third Reich it is not. What it achieves admirably though is a masterly, and where it merits it a balanced, profile of arguably the most infamous character in Europe's history. One of Bullock's greatest achievements in my view is to highlight Hitler's qualities and victories whilst still presenting him as the monster he truly was. Bravo!
to-read-per
July 23, 2017In the introduction of Volker Ullrich's Hitler: Ascent 1889–1939, the author describes the only four seminal biographies of Adolf Hitler.
In part he writes:
Alan Bullock's thrilling 1952 debut, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, has been the starting point for all subsequent academic study of the "Hitler phenomenon." The British historian had advance access to confiscated German documents which had been used as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials and which were about to be made public. Bullock depicted the German dictator as a completely unprincipled opportunist driven solely by lust for power at its most raw and pure. In his conclusion, Bullock cited the former Danzig (Gdansk) Senate President Hermann Rauschning, a German exile whose 1938 book The Revolution of Nihilism had greatly influenced views of Hitler at the time. In it, Rauschning asserted that National Socialism was "the very essence of a movement, pure dynamism, a revolution with various slogans that it was always willing to change." One thing, according to Rauschning, that National Socialism was not was "a world view and a doctrine."
In part he writes:
Alan Bullock's thrilling 1952 debut, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, has been the starting point for all subsequent academic study of the "Hitler phenomenon." The British historian had advance access to confiscated German documents which had been used as evidence at the Nuremberg Trials and which were about to be made public. Bullock depicted the German dictator as a completely unprincipled opportunist driven solely by lust for power at its most raw and pure. In his conclusion, Bullock cited the former Danzig (Gdansk) Senate President Hermann Rauschning, a German exile whose 1938 book The Revolution of Nihilism had greatly influenced views of Hitler at the time. In it, Rauschning asserted that National Socialism was "the very essence of a movement, pure dynamism, a revolution with various slogans that it was always willing to change." One thing, according to Rauschning, that National Socialism was not was "a world view and a doctrine."
April 18, 2017
As far as Hitler biographies go, this one is down on the list. Most works on Hitler (and other leading Nazis) are not quite so myopic. Save for his parents, everyone else in Hitler's life - his ministers, Eva Braun, even Geli Raubal - is barely given a cursory glance. While Hitler himself was rarely influenced by those around him, they did play a role in his life and can help the reader understand the main subject. This exclusion therefore also excludes large swaths of Hitler's personal life, which kind of defeats the purpose, ya know?
Bullock also fails to mention rather important moments, like when England entered the war, when the US entered the war, when the Battle of the Bulge occurred, etc. Bullock is so focused on his subject he rarely steps back long enough to provide the reader with context and relevant events.
At least this is an objective biography that is useful for those more interested in Hitler's involvement with the military.
Bullock also fails to mention rather important moments, like when England entered the war, when the US entered the war, when the Battle of the Bulge occurred, etc. Bullock is so focused on his subject he rarely steps back long enough to provide the reader with context and relevant events.
At least this is an objective biography that is useful for those more interested in Hitler's involvement with the military.
October 5, 2014
While watching and listening to The Great Courses "A History of Hitler's Empire, 2nd Edition" by Professor Thomas Childers, I decided to read some of the books listed in his Bibliography. Here's what he wrote about "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny": "Although dated in some ways, Bullock's well-written and pioneering biography of Hitler remains one of the best one-volume attempts to capture Hitler and his times." The cover of the book shows a squib by W. L. Shirer: "Will long remain, I believe, the definitive and standard work on the subject."
Fools like I can only echo such praise -- extremely well organized, tight writing, no "what ifs", no theorizing -- only well documented facts. The bulk of the book deals with how Hitler rose to power, which, of course, is a vital question for any democracy.
Fools like I can only echo such praise -- extremely well organized, tight writing, no "what ifs", no theorizing -- only well documented facts. The bulk of the book deals with how Hitler rose to power, which, of course, is a vital question for any democracy.
March 5, 2014
Bullock's biography isn't a dry recitation of facts, but it does tend to hit the main notes in the life of Hitler. The highlight of the read comes in "The Dictator," the chapter that basically fills in the details of Hitler's personal life, his outlook, his interaction with his inner circle, and how he was able to hold such a hypnotic effect on both his followers and those who might not have been predisposed to follow him blindly. Hitler is a hard subject to write biographically - there isn't the normal development of a worldview, or a line between official statements and private thoughts. Bullock's work, though it has been surpassed by later biographies, offers a good entrypoint.
March 11, 2015
Written in the 1960's, A Study in Tyranny has long been considered the definitive English-language biography of Adolf Hitler. Reading it today, it's easy to see why. Bullock approaches subject as a strict historian, without any axe to grind. The result is an exhaustive and sober study of the life and character of Adolf Hitler, which corrects many mistakes, myths and falsehoods about the man which persist even today. Some of the conclusions and sources may be outdated, but this remains an excellent work, well written and authoritative.
March 15, 2020
A classic based on the information available at the time. Compare with Hitler by Kershaw who has written the current critically acclaimed version of Hitler's life and times. My recommendation, read both and decide for yourself.
December 6, 2020
It is one opinion. I would urge people to discover more opinions. Don't take this book as the last word on the subject. It is a very big subject, probably the biggest subject of the modern world. I am not just reffering to WW2.
May 7, 2007
Good history book. I had to read this Junior year of high school. It was enlightening and taught me to consider the POV of the author as well as the information contained within a history book.
July 6, 2009
Slightly dated but virtually the best all round portrait of how one man's sad character can mirror a time and a place, playing out his emotional poverty on the world.
July 21, 2011
Authoritative and definitive. The First complete biography of the corporal from Vienna. All other scholarship is indebted to Bullock for his comprehensive study.
February 20, 2018
If you ever want to understand how Hitler came to power, and thus by proxy how other brutal tyrants can come to power, then this is the book to read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 97 reviews