What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nazi Menace: Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and the Road to War
A panoramic narrative of the years leading up to the Second World War—a tale of democratic crisis, racial conflict, and a belated recognition of evil, with profound resonance for our own time.
Berlin, November 1937. Adolf Hitler meets with his military commanders to impress upon them the urgent necessity for a war of aggression in eastern Europe. Some generals are unnerved by the Führer’s grandiose plan, but these dissenters are silenced one by one, setting in motion events that will culminate in the most calamitous war in history.
Benjamin Carter Hett takes us behind the scenes in Berlin, London, Moscow, and Washington, revealing the unsettled politics within each country in the wake of the German dictator’s growing provocations. He reveals the fitful path by which anti-Nazi forces inside and outside Germany came to understand Hitler’s true menace to European civilization and learned to oppose him, painting a sweeping portrait of governments under siege, as larger-than-life figures struggled to turn events to their advantage.
As in The Death of Democracy, his acclaimed history of the fall of the Weimar Republic, Hett draws on original sources and newly released documents to show how these long-ago conflicts have unexpected resonances in our own time. To read The Nazi Menace is to see past and present in a new and unnerving light.
Berlin, November 1937. Adolf Hitler meets with his military commanders to impress upon them the urgent necessity for a war of aggression in eastern Europe. Some generals are unnerved by the Führer’s grandiose plan, but these dissenters are silenced one by one, setting in motion events that will culminate in the most calamitous war in history.
Benjamin Carter Hett takes us behind the scenes in Berlin, London, Moscow, and Washington, revealing the unsettled politics within each country in the wake of the German dictator’s growing provocations. He reveals the fitful path by which anti-Nazi forces inside and outside Germany came to understand Hitler’s true menace to European civilization and learned to oppose him, painting a sweeping portrait of governments under siege, as larger-than-life figures struggled to turn events to their advantage.
As in The Death of Democracy, his acclaimed history of the fall of the Weimar Republic, Hett draws on original sources and newly released documents to show how these long-ago conflicts have unexpected resonances in our own time. To read The Nazi Menace is to see past and present in a new and unnerving light.
416 pages, Hardcover
First published August 4, 2020
155 people are currently reading
3730 people want to read
About the author
Benjamin Carter Hett
9 books113 followersBenjamin Carter Hett, a former trial lawyer and professor of history at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York, is the author of Death in the Tiergarten and Crossing Hitler, winner of the Fraenkel Prize.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
January 13, 2021
The events of the years 1937 through 1941 appear fixed in time. It seems foreordained that Britain, France, the US, and the USSR would have gone to war with Nazi Germany under any circumstances. But that was assuredly not the case, as historian Benjamin Carter Hett makes abundantly clear in his illuminating portrayal of the period, The Nazi Menace. In fact, confusion reigned throughout those years, with the major players stumbling through thickets of uncertainty about one another’s intentions. The forces lined up only haphazardly into the now-familiar split between Allies and Axis. And the alliances in the war that ensued shocked and surprised many of those whose actions had made it inevitable.
No one really knew who would be fighting whom
“By early 1939,” Hett writes, “there was little doubt that war was coming in Europe, and coming soon. What was not clear was who would be fighting whom.” Hett explains: “The war of 1939 might have been Germany and Poland against the Soviets, with the Western democracies neutral.” Hitler certainly tried long and hard enough to persuade the Poles to join him in an alliance against Stalin. As he was fully aware, most Poles feared the USSR more than Nazi Germany. And his attention was always drawn eastward toward the Soviet Union.
Alternatively, among other possibilities, the war might have faced off “Germany against the democracies, with Poland and the Soviet Union neutral.” But that was not a given. Adolf Hitler’s order to attack the Low Countries and France was an impulsive, last-minute decision that horrified his general staff.
The largest cast of characters ever
The Nazi Menace opens with the largest list of characters I’ve ever seen in any book, with the possible exception of War and Peace. In fact, I’m not sure Tolstoy’s masterpiece would even come close. Hett’s list weighs in at thirteen pages. Included are the great, the near-great, and the inconsequential from Germany, Britain, France, Italy, the United States, and the Soviet Union. All the usual suspects are there: Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and their closest advisers. Lots of generals and cabinet ministers adorn the list. But Hett enlivens his tale by devoting special attention to a passel of individuals little known to the public. Here are just a few of them:
** Col. Friedrich Hossbach (1894-1980), Hitler’s armed forces adjutant (liaison) from 1934 to 1938. Hossbach, who was brutally candid, was a rare individual who told the Führer the truth whether he was likely to welcome it or not. He was the author of the Hossbach Memorandum, which memorialized Hitler’s sensational address to the Nazi military and foreign policy leadership (November 5, 1937). At that event, the Chancellor declared his intention to wage war in Eastern Europe but not attack Britain and France. Hett views the meeting as a turning point in the generals’ views of Adolf Hitler, igniting wider resistance.
** R. J. Mitchell (1895-1937), who designed the Spitfire and twenty-three other high-performance aircraft. The Supermarine Spitfire famously was major factor in the nation’s victory in the Battle of Britain.
** Franz Bernheim (1899-1990), who brought the issue of Nazi discrimination in a petition to the League of Nations in 1933 from Upper Silesia, then part of Czechoslovakia, thus opening many eyes in the west to Nazi anti-Semitism
** Basil Liddell Hart (1895-1970), a British army captain who gained prominence as a military historian and military theorist between the two world wars, devising the defensive military strategy adopted by Neville Chamberlain
** Hans-Bernd Gisevius (1904-74), a major figure in the anti-Nazi resistance, a reliable chronicler of its activities, and one of its few survivors
These intriguing characters and a great many others come to life in the pages of The Nazi Menace. Hett reveals through the vignettes he writes about them how the runup to war with Nazi Germany was fraught with uncertainty.
How Neville Chamberlain viewed the coming war with Nazi Germany
As Hett explains it, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain viewed the war he was convinced was coming with Nazi Germany through the lens of a three-fold strategy:
1. The defensive posture advocated by military theorist Basil Liddell Hart. Britain’s fortunes would rise or fall with the success of the Royal Navy and the RAF. Britain would send no ground troops to the Continent.
2. Rearmament, with special emphasis on the air force. The new Spitfire and, later, other superior fighter planes would help the island nation repel Germany’s bombers. The Chain Home network of radar stations around the coast would give Fighter Command early warning of any German attack. Meanwhile, Bomber Command would prepare to pulverize German cities.
3. Appeasement would buy time for Britain to arm for war.
Reassessing Chamberlain’s strategy
Hett is unsparing in his assessment of Neville Chamberlain, whose authoritarian tendencies he clearly deplores. However, he writes, “we see the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 as a vindication of Churchill’s long and lonely struggle against appeasement, and correspondingly, the final and damning verdict on Chamberlain’s policy. We see it this way because of the shocking outcome of 1940—the swift defeat of France—which we then assume to have been inevitable. But the dramatic Germany victory of 1940 was in fact a chancy, even unlikely outcome.”
“In the longer term,” Hett explains, “the Second World War provided a substantial vindication of most of Chamberlain’s strategy.” His emphasis on rearmament, especially in the air. The decision to minimize the role of the army. And a continuing insistence on keeping expenditures within bounds to maintain the health of the British economy.
Why blitzkrieg in the west wasn’t inevitable
As Hett explains, the blitzkrieg that won the day for Germany came about only because General Erich von Manstein went over the heads of his superiors in the OKW, or Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (the armed forces high command), and presented Hitler personally with the strategy they’d rejected. And even once adopted, the strategy might have failed. Heinz Guderian‘s Panzers broke through so dramatically in large part because the French defenses were poorly designed and both French and British generals stupidly fell into the cleverly conceived German trap that led to Dunkirk.
Hitler’s generals resisted an attack to the west for reasons that are lost on many observers today. In 1939, France’s army was widely regarded as the most formidable in the world. It was bigger than Germany’s, better trained on the whole, and it possessed more and better tanks. The top Nazi military brass feared a repeat of World War I. They fully expected a German offensive to bog down quickly, as had been the case in 1914. And that would guarantee a protracted war—which they knew Germany could not win. Even in 1939, most of the officers in the uppermost reaches of the OKW were convinced Hitler was mad and would lead their country to disaster.
The generals’ resistance to Hitler
In fact, Hett emphasizes the generals’ resistance to Hitler throughout The Nazi Menace. Few of the Wehrmacht’s top brass were ideologically driven Nazis. Nearly all viewed themselves as the heirs of the proud Prussian military tradition. From the earliest days of Hitler’s time in power, they resented taking orders from a mere corporal whose alleged military genius they ridiculed.
Two factions in the generals’ resistance
As Wikipedia notes—and Hett elaborates—the army’s Chief of Staff General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944), the Abwehr chief, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (1887-1945) and the Foreign Office’s State Secretary, Baron Ernst von Weizsäcker (1882-1951) were the “anti-war” group in the German government, which was determined to avoid a war in 1938 that it felt Germany would lose. This group was not committed to the overthrow of the regime but was loosely allied to another, more radical group, the “anti-Nazi” fraction centered on Colonel Hans Oster (1887-1945) and Hans Bernd Gisevius (1904-74) which wanted to use the crisis as an excuse for executing a putsch to overthrow the Nazi regime.
Chamberlain frustrated a coup attempt
But those five individuals were far from the only men in the upper echelons of the Nazi military establishment who turned against the Führer. And on at least one major occasion—in September 1938, when Hitler was moving toward an all-out invasion of Czechoslovakia—they were ready to launch a coup the moment he gave them the order. But Chamberlain unexpectedly intervened, frustrating both Hitler himself and them—Hitler, because he was forced to postpone the invasion, and the generals, because they regarded an unprovoked war as the only justification for their planned putsch. That Nazi Germany would wage war was no less certain. It would merely come a little later than Adolf Hitler wished.
The broader perspective
Hett views all these events in the prelude to World War II within the framework of the crisis of democracy—and he suggests a parallel in the broadest sense to the world of today.
The 1930s did, indeed, test the resilience of democracy. Much of Europe failed the test, with fascism taking firm hold in the nations that later formed the Axis and the weak democracies of central and eastern Europe crumbling in the face of Nazi aggression. Britain, too, was steadily drifting toward authoritarianism under Neville Chamberlain, who ruthlessly retaliated against his perceived enemies both within the Conservative Party and without. Only the United States truly met the test, as the New Deal restored hope for much of the public even though it was unsuccessful in delivering economic recovery until the nation rearmed in the face of war.
Is there truly a useful analogy between the 1930s and the present era? As Mark Twain is reputed to have said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Certainly, there are echoes of the rhyme today, with authoritarian nationalist governments in place across the world, from Russia, Hungary, and Poland; to India and the Philippines, and arguably China as well; to Brazil and (until this month) the United States itself. But the forces do not appear to be lining up in any recognizable pattern. And perhaps we’ve turned the corner with the election of Joe Biden and the shift in power in the US Senate. Perhaps. In the end, democracy may firmly reassert itself once again. We can hope so.
About the author
Professor Benjamin Carter Hett teaches history at Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). An earlier book, Burning the Reichstag: An Investigation into the Third Reich’s Enduring Mystery, was named the best book on Central European history in 2014. But he is best known for The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power and the Downfall of the Weimar Republic, which appeared in 2018. The Nazi Menace is the most recent of Hett’s four books to date.
No one really knew who would be fighting whom
“By early 1939,” Hett writes, “there was little doubt that war was coming in Europe, and coming soon. What was not clear was who would be fighting whom.” Hett explains: “The war of 1939 might have been Germany and Poland against the Soviets, with the Western democracies neutral.” Hitler certainly tried long and hard enough to persuade the Poles to join him in an alliance against Stalin. As he was fully aware, most Poles feared the USSR more than Nazi Germany. And his attention was always drawn eastward toward the Soviet Union.
Alternatively, among other possibilities, the war might have faced off “Germany against the democracies, with Poland and the Soviet Union neutral.” But that was not a given. Adolf Hitler’s order to attack the Low Countries and France was an impulsive, last-minute decision that horrified his general staff.
The largest cast of characters ever
The Nazi Menace opens with the largest list of characters I’ve ever seen in any book, with the possible exception of War and Peace. In fact, I’m not sure Tolstoy’s masterpiece would even come close. Hett’s list weighs in at thirteen pages. Included are the great, the near-great, and the inconsequential from Germany, Britain, France, Italy, the United States, and the Soviet Union. All the usual suspects are there: Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and their closest advisers. Lots of generals and cabinet ministers adorn the list. But Hett enlivens his tale by devoting special attention to a passel of individuals little known to the public. Here are just a few of them:
** Col. Friedrich Hossbach (1894-1980), Hitler’s armed forces adjutant (liaison) from 1934 to 1938. Hossbach, who was brutally candid, was a rare individual who told the Führer the truth whether he was likely to welcome it or not. He was the author of the Hossbach Memorandum, which memorialized Hitler’s sensational address to the Nazi military and foreign policy leadership (November 5, 1937). At that event, the Chancellor declared his intention to wage war in Eastern Europe but not attack Britain and France. Hett views the meeting as a turning point in the generals’ views of Adolf Hitler, igniting wider resistance.
** R. J. Mitchell (1895-1937), who designed the Spitfire and twenty-three other high-performance aircraft. The Supermarine Spitfire famously was major factor in the nation’s victory in the Battle of Britain.
** Franz Bernheim (1899-1990), who brought the issue of Nazi discrimination in a petition to the League of Nations in 1933 from Upper Silesia, then part of Czechoslovakia, thus opening many eyes in the west to Nazi anti-Semitism
** Basil Liddell Hart (1895-1970), a British army captain who gained prominence as a military historian and military theorist between the two world wars, devising the defensive military strategy adopted by Neville Chamberlain
** Hans-Bernd Gisevius (1904-74), a major figure in the anti-Nazi resistance, a reliable chronicler of its activities, and one of its few survivors
These intriguing characters and a great many others come to life in the pages of The Nazi Menace. Hett reveals through the vignettes he writes about them how the runup to war with Nazi Germany was fraught with uncertainty.
How Neville Chamberlain viewed the coming war with Nazi Germany
As Hett explains it, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain viewed the war he was convinced was coming with Nazi Germany through the lens of a three-fold strategy:
1. The defensive posture advocated by military theorist Basil Liddell Hart. Britain’s fortunes would rise or fall with the success of the Royal Navy and the RAF. Britain would send no ground troops to the Continent.
2. Rearmament, with special emphasis on the air force. The new Spitfire and, later, other superior fighter planes would help the island nation repel Germany’s bombers. The Chain Home network of radar stations around the coast would give Fighter Command early warning of any German attack. Meanwhile, Bomber Command would prepare to pulverize German cities.
3. Appeasement would buy time for Britain to arm for war.
Reassessing Chamberlain’s strategy
Hett is unsparing in his assessment of Neville Chamberlain, whose authoritarian tendencies he clearly deplores. However, he writes, “we see the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939 as a vindication of Churchill’s long and lonely struggle against appeasement, and correspondingly, the final and damning verdict on Chamberlain’s policy. We see it this way because of the shocking outcome of 1940—the swift defeat of France—which we then assume to have been inevitable. But the dramatic Germany victory of 1940 was in fact a chancy, even unlikely outcome.”
“In the longer term,” Hett explains, “the Second World War provided a substantial vindication of most of Chamberlain’s strategy.” His emphasis on rearmament, especially in the air. The decision to minimize the role of the army. And a continuing insistence on keeping expenditures within bounds to maintain the health of the British economy.
Why blitzkrieg in the west wasn’t inevitable
As Hett explains, the blitzkrieg that won the day for Germany came about only because General Erich von Manstein went over the heads of his superiors in the OKW, or Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (the armed forces high command), and presented Hitler personally with the strategy they’d rejected. And even once adopted, the strategy might have failed. Heinz Guderian‘s Panzers broke through so dramatically in large part because the French defenses were poorly designed and both French and British generals stupidly fell into the cleverly conceived German trap that led to Dunkirk.
Hitler’s generals resisted an attack to the west for reasons that are lost on many observers today. In 1939, France’s army was widely regarded as the most formidable in the world. It was bigger than Germany’s, better trained on the whole, and it possessed more and better tanks. The top Nazi military brass feared a repeat of World War I. They fully expected a German offensive to bog down quickly, as had been the case in 1914. And that would guarantee a protracted war—which they knew Germany could not win. Even in 1939, most of the officers in the uppermost reaches of the OKW were convinced Hitler was mad and would lead their country to disaster.
The generals’ resistance to Hitler
In fact, Hett emphasizes the generals’ resistance to Hitler throughout The Nazi Menace. Few of the Wehrmacht’s top brass were ideologically driven Nazis. Nearly all viewed themselves as the heirs of the proud Prussian military tradition. From the earliest days of Hitler’s time in power, they resented taking orders from a mere corporal whose alleged military genius they ridiculed.
Two factions in the generals’ resistance
As Wikipedia notes—and Hett elaborates—the army’s Chief of Staff General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944), the Abwehr chief, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris (1887-1945) and the Foreign Office’s State Secretary, Baron Ernst von Weizsäcker (1882-1951) were the “anti-war” group in the German government, which was determined to avoid a war in 1938 that it felt Germany would lose. This group was not committed to the overthrow of the regime but was loosely allied to another, more radical group, the “anti-Nazi” fraction centered on Colonel Hans Oster (1887-1945) and Hans Bernd Gisevius (1904-74) which wanted to use the crisis as an excuse for executing a putsch to overthrow the Nazi regime.
Chamberlain frustrated a coup attempt
But those five individuals were far from the only men in the upper echelons of the Nazi military establishment who turned against the Führer. And on at least one major occasion—in September 1938, when Hitler was moving toward an all-out invasion of Czechoslovakia—they were ready to launch a coup the moment he gave them the order. But Chamberlain unexpectedly intervened, frustrating both Hitler himself and them—Hitler, because he was forced to postpone the invasion, and the generals, because they regarded an unprovoked war as the only justification for their planned putsch. That Nazi Germany would wage war was no less certain. It would merely come a little later than Adolf Hitler wished.
The broader perspective
Hett views all these events in the prelude to World War II within the framework of the crisis of democracy—and he suggests a parallel in the broadest sense to the world of today.
The 1930s did, indeed, test the resilience of democracy. Much of Europe failed the test, with fascism taking firm hold in the nations that later formed the Axis and the weak democracies of central and eastern Europe crumbling in the face of Nazi aggression. Britain, too, was steadily drifting toward authoritarianism under Neville Chamberlain, who ruthlessly retaliated against his perceived enemies both within the Conservative Party and without. Only the United States truly met the test, as the New Deal restored hope for much of the public even though it was unsuccessful in delivering economic recovery until the nation rearmed in the face of war.
Is there truly a useful analogy between the 1930s and the present era? As Mark Twain is reputed to have said, “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.” Certainly, there are echoes of the rhyme today, with authoritarian nationalist governments in place across the world, from Russia, Hungary, and Poland; to India and the Philippines, and arguably China as well; to Brazil and (until this month) the United States itself. But the forces do not appear to be lining up in any recognizable pattern. And perhaps we’ve turned the corner with the election of Joe Biden and the shift in power in the US Senate. Perhaps. In the end, democracy may firmly reassert itself once again. We can hope so.
About the author
Professor Benjamin Carter Hett teaches history at Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York (CUNY). An earlier book, Burning the Reichstag: An Investigation into the Third Reich’s Enduring Mystery, was named the best book on Central European history in 2014. But he is best known for The Death of Democracy: Hitler’s Rise to Power and the Downfall of the Weimar Republic, which appeared in 2018. The Nazi Menace is the most recent of Hett’s four books to date.
April 30, 2021
The Nazi Menace was an excellent look at the events leading up to the Second World War.
Author Benjamin Carter Hett is a former lawyer and a professor of history at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He is the author of Death in the Tiergarten, Crossing Hitler, and Burning the Reichstag
Benjamin Carter Hett:
The writing here was very well done; Hett writes with an easy and engaging style, making this one very readable. A welcome change from many of the history books I've read, Hett's style here made it easy for the reader to follow the plot. Excellent communication, for sure.
The narration of the audiobook I have was also excellent; a welcome bonus.
The Nazi Menace is a fairly comprehensive guide, that covers all the major players and events leading up to the Second World War. Hett proceeds in a chronological fashion, introducing each key player to the reader as he goes. As its subtitle indicates; the book talks about Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, as well as many other central figures; including Neville Chamberlain, Heinz Guderian, and Hermann Göring, among many others. The intro of the book features a "cast of characters", where Hett outlines everyone included in the book, and their historical significance.
The formatting of this one was a bit unusual, but ended up really working here, IMHO. Hett begins each chapter with a few pages of writing in italics, that captures a specific historical moment. The text afterward takes a broader view; talking about the macro picture, and the major events.
I enjoyed The Nazi Menace, and would recommend it to anyone interested.
4.5 stars.
Author Benjamin Carter Hett is a former lawyer and a professor of history at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. He is the author of Death in the Tiergarten, Crossing Hitler, and Burning the Reichstag
Benjamin Carter Hett:
The writing here was very well done; Hett writes with an easy and engaging style, making this one very readable. A welcome change from many of the history books I've read, Hett's style here made it easy for the reader to follow the plot. Excellent communication, for sure.
The narration of the audiobook I have was also excellent; a welcome bonus.
The Nazi Menace is a fairly comprehensive guide, that covers all the major players and events leading up to the Second World War. Hett proceeds in a chronological fashion, introducing each key player to the reader as he goes. As its subtitle indicates; the book talks about Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, as well as many other central figures; including Neville Chamberlain, Heinz Guderian, and Hermann Göring, among many others. The intro of the book features a "cast of characters", where Hett outlines everyone included in the book, and their historical significance.
The formatting of this one was a bit unusual, but ended up really working here, IMHO. Hett begins each chapter with a few pages of writing in italics, that captures a specific historical moment. The text afterward takes a broader view; talking about the macro picture, and the major events.
I enjoyed The Nazi Menace, and would recommend it to anyone interested.
4.5 stars.
July 5, 2025
Goes through the intrigue of backroom dealings and shifting allegiances that preceded WW2. It was a great reminder of how far from inevitable the allied victory, as we think of it, was to happen.
The most interesting part of this book for me was the nature of alliance-making in the 1930s. Argues that the alliances were “up in the air”: “The war of 1939 might have been Germany and Poland against the Soviets, with the Western democracies neutral. It might have been Germany against the democracies, with Poland and the Soviet Union neutral.”
So why did get war end up being a strange democracy-communist alliance against fascism? It ultimately came down to 2 things: Stalin’s rebranding of communism and Hitler’s obvious expansionism. While Hitler continued to take more land than he promised, breaking the status quo of Post WW1 Europe, Stalin promised the allies that he had no intentions of “exporting communism” to other countries. It was then that the UK and the USA made a deal with the devil to defeat another devil. Which devil was defeated, however, was “up in the air” according to Benjamin Hett.
The most interesting part of this book for me was the nature of alliance-making in the 1930s. Argues that the alliances were “up in the air”: “The war of 1939 might have been Germany and Poland against the Soviets, with the Western democracies neutral. It might have been Germany against the democracies, with Poland and the Soviet Union neutral.”
So why did get war end up being a strange democracy-communist alliance against fascism? It ultimately came down to 2 things: Stalin’s rebranding of communism and Hitler’s obvious expansionism. While Hitler continued to take more land than he promised, breaking the status quo of Post WW1 Europe, Stalin promised the allies that he had no intentions of “exporting communism” to other countries. It was then that the UK and the USA made a deal with the devil to defeat another devil. Which devil was defeated, however, was “up in the air” according to Benjamin Hett.
September 20, 2020
Well its seems that I'm in a big minority when it comes to this book. It's not that the book isn't good, well researched or well written. The period covered by the book is 1937->1941 and ends at the German invasion of Russia.
My one complaint is that it focuses at least 50% on Hitler, 30% on Churchill and 10% each on Stalin and Roosevelt. I think that Roosevelt and Stalin deserved more time. There's nothing really new here so that it would have been interesting had he included Mussolini and Tojo for an Asian perspective. Like a lot of historians he's very Euro-centric.
Yes, I read the Title. But just like Trump, Hitler was a minority candidate who used propaganda and outright lies and cheating to become dictator. Hitler did what Trump is trying to do by cowering the opposition and taking control of the Judiciary. Santayana was right, but who would think that Trump or McConnell would read history much less read.
My one complaint is that it focuses at least 50% on Hitler, 30% on Churchill and 10% each on Stalin and Roosevelt. I think that Roosevelt and Stalin deserved more time. There's nothing really new here so that it would have been interesting had he included Mussolini and Tojo for an Asian perspective. Like a lot of historians he's very Euro-centric.
Yes, I read the Title. But just like Trump, Hitler was a minority candidate who used propaganda and outright lies and cheating to become dictator. Hitler did what Trump is trying to do by cowering the opposition and taking control of the Judiciary. Santayana was right, but who would think that Trump or McConnell would read history much less read.
August 29, 2020
This reviewer is thankful for receiving a copy of this volume through NetGalley. Known for his earlier work on subjects as the Reichstag Fire and the failure of the Weimar Republic, The Nazi Menace by Benjamin Carter Hett is an overview of the events that led to the outbreak of World War II. It is a story of the crisis Europe faced between the durability of democratic institutions versus the threat of rising totalitarian institutions. As such, the role of a militant Japan is outside of the purview of this volume. The book’s focus is on the dominant characters of Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill and Roosevelt. In addition, the author utilizes interesting vignettes of individuals for each chapter, such as the role of R.J. Mitchell and the development of the British Spitfire fighter. There is no denying that the subject arena of this work has already been explored by countless historians. This work justly adds to the collected literature due to its lively style, new emphases, as well as by being influenced by the current political atmosphere in which the issues of nationalism, the role of the press, and authoritarian societies dominate today’s conversations. Terms such as “fake news” creep into Hett’s analysis, not to its detriment.
Subjects such as the rise of a German military resistance group against the Nazis are explored throughout the book.
Topical issues for the role of the United States include the subject of immigration restrictions and the impact of a conservative State Department on the issue of refugees. For Roosevelt, an appeal to an American population’s roots in Christian principles would act to marshal resistance to totalitarianism abroad. Yet as Hett emphasizes, the crisis of American democracy lay in its own racism that acted a a model to Nazi legal restrictions against German Jews.
Attention is given to the role of the Munich Conference as a “critical turning point”. For Churchill, the the ill-fated conference was a “disaster of the first magnitude”.
Hett’s study of events moves past the outbreak of the war to the defeat of France and the fate of Britain against the Nazi onslaught.
Interesting descriptions of the major political leadership illuminate this volume. At times Chamberlain could be abrasive to criticism from the press. In fact, in an era of authoritarianism, Chamberlain’s government could be seen as too autocratic in its ruthlessness against opponents. Hitler remained determined to see his racist expansionist views come to fruition, willing to replace individuals in both the military or the cabinet if necessary. Churchill faced a new reality as Britain needed the aid of the United States in its resistance to Nazi Germany. As Hett emphasizes, Britain’s acceptance of the Atlantic Charter principles not only stood as democratic values in resisting Hitler, but were also telling for the future of the British empire.
Although not the definitive word on 1930s Europe, readers will find Hett’s volume as rewarding and instructive toward the inherent conflict between political freedom and autocratic regimes.
Subjects such as the rise of a German military resistance group against the Nazis are explored throughout the book.
Topical issues for the role of the United States include the subject of immigration restrictions and the impact of a conservative State Department on the issue of refugees. For Roosevelt, an appeal to an American population’s roots in Christian principles would act to marshal resistance to totalitarianism abroad. Yet as Hett emphasizes, the crisis of American democracy lay in its own racism that acted a a model to Nazi legal restrictions against German Jews.
Attention is given to the role of the Munich Conference as a “critical turning point”. For Churchill, the the ill-fated conference was a “disaster of the first magnitude”.
Hett’s study of events moves past the outbreak of the war to the defeat of France and the fate of Britain against the Nazi onslaught.
Interesting descriptions of the major political leadership illuminate this volume. At times Chamberlain could be abrasive to criticism from the press. In fact, in an era of authoritarianism, Chamberlain’s government could be seen as too autocratic in its ruthlessness against opponents. Hitler remained determined to see his racist expansionist views come to fruition, willing to replace individuals in both the military or the cabinet if necessary. Churchill faced a new reality as Britain needed the aid of the United States in its resistance to Nazi Germany. As Hett emphasizes, Britain’s acceptance of the Atlantic Charter principles not only stood as democratic values in resisting Hitler, but were also telling for the future of the British empire.
Although not the definitive word on 1930s Europe, readers will find Hett’s volume as rewarding and instructive toward the inherent conflict between political freedom and autocratic regimes.
January 23, 2022
Solid recounting of events leading up to WW2, particularly focusing on the opposing ideologies of Churchill and Roosevelt, who sought to preserve and respect the interests of the individuals who made up their countries, and Hitler, who viewed his citizens as cogs in his war machine. The treatment of Neville Chamberlain was balanced. Well researched, and full of historical nuggets I hadn’t previously come across. I aim to return.
October 13, 2021
Won this goodreads giveaway. Not my usual genre, but put in for or because my spouse enjoys war books. I found it incredibly dry and boring.
January 17, 2024
Just as it might be useful for American citizens to "brush up" on the 1850s in order to understand how "talking past each other" was a major contributing cause to our Civil War in the 1860s -- a recurrence of something like it chillingly not unthinkable once again in our fractured 2020s-- so also do I think it very instructive to look at the ideas, sentiments and fears of the masses, and the "solutions" offered by various players in the 1930s since they are alarmingly like the expressed discontents of so many millions in the US today.
As has been glibly said, "History does not repeat itself," and that is true. But as an historian I have found how often similar situations and conditions lead to similar outcomes -- NOT "identical," but darned similar.
As a young man in college and graduate school, I used to marvel at how the German people could have been "taken in" by Hitler. No longer! For as I watch millions of my fellow citizens march in lock-step behind whatever is claimed or asserted by the neo-fascist leader of our own times, I now understand how this can happen.
In this very readable book, Benjamin Hett gives us a deep dive into the passions, fears, and hopes of not just key players in the 1930s, but also of so many of the citizens. Alarmingly like our own times, it was a time when many were profoundly dissatisfied with the "tone" of their political leaders and the seemingly driftless nature of their politics: major problems just seemed to fester on without satisfactory resolution. And many of their concerns were similar to ours today: the role of the international economic structure vis-a-vis their own nation's, competing ideologies which seemed to have little in common except the promise that "they" were the answer to the problems caused by "them," and an overall weariness with the same-old, same-old that led many to look for someone who would promise -- and deliver -- on sweeping changes, protocol and order be damned.
Although not identical, the 1930s had its own problems with "globalization." "Was the world to be organized along liberal internationalist lines, with democratic systems everywhere, free trade, and rights for all, anchored in law? Or was the international system to be one of race and nation, with dominant groups owing nothing to minorities and closing off their economic space to the outer world as much as possible?" (P.31)
Moreover, the major competing ideologies of the time -- fascism (& Nazism) vs. Soviet Communism -- both rested upon "a conscious rejection of Western, liberal, capitalist democracy. And although [both] claimed to base [their] actions on a rational, scientific doctrine, [they] in fact operated on a tribalism not much different [from each other]... The individual human being disappeared along with evidence-based judgements. This was the essence of totalitarianism." (P. 42)
Nativism and fear of "the others" was rampant, and not only in Germany and the Soviet Union, but in the United States as well. It is one of the sad facts of the time that US restrictive immigration laws -- drawn up to favor the admission of "white, northern Europeans" over other peoples -- played a tragic role in excluding from safety here many thousands of European Jews who attempted to find safe sanctuary here away from the madness on the European continent.
Like all totalitarian leaders and would-be imitators, Hitler had a "low opinion of general public intelligence. 'The broad masses of the people are ... made up of a mass of human children prone to doubt and insecurity," ruled by 'sentiment rather than sober reasoning.' ...Hitler understood that lies could play an important role in politics.... A successful campaigner, Hitler wrote, focuses on telling big lies, and does not bother with small ones, for 'in the bigness of the lie there is always a certain amount of credibility.' The 'broad masses of the nation can always be more easily corrupted in the depths of their hearts than that they consciously or voluntarily become wicked,' so 'in the primitive simplicity of their nature they more readily fall victims to the big lie than to the small lie, since they themselves often lie about small things, yet would still be ashamed to tell a big lie,' and so 'they cannot at all believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.' [Moreover, once the lie was out there it] could never ben entirely erased. 'Evan if the true facts are given to them, they will still doubt and hesitate for a long time and will assume that at least some part of it is still true.'"
"Nazism wallowed in the irrationality and anti-intellectualism it exploited." (Pp. 232-233)
And there is so much more in this book, too. It helps us better understand why Chamberlain so desperately fought for peace (not quite at any price), for most of his fellow citizens -- remembering the horrific costs of the First World War -- demanded desperate measure to preserve peace.
It was also the case that very few of the world leaders understood Hitler's true nature and designs at first; many wanted to believe that he, like themselves, was, after all, a reasonable man who was only pursuing "legitimate grievances" that Germany had following the terms of the Versailles Treaty.
Another clear irony is that Hitler could well have been stopped early IF the League of Nations -- given force by France and Great Britain -- had demanded a cessation to the earliest, timid violations of the Versailles Treaty.
But every time the League and the Western great powers of the day backed down, Hitler grew stronger and more self-confident.
This book also reveals the depth of distrust of Hitler, and fear for what another war would do to Germany, felt by so many of his top officers. Ironically, it was the West's repeated timidity that also weakened their arguments, for as Hitler grew stronger and seemed to achieve every goal with NO cost fewer people doubted that "just maybe" he DID have the answers for Germany.
This book is not just about a fascinating period the past and an incitement to ponder "what if only..." but also a timely warning about what happens when people sleepwalk past their principles to embrace someone who promises them an easy way out: JUST FOLLOW AND BELIEVE IN ME AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OK!
That is never how it turns out!
As has been glibly said, "History does not repeat itself," and that is true. But as an historian I have found how often similar situations and conditions lead to similar outcomes -- NOT "identical," but darned similar.
As a young man in college and graduate school, I used to marvel at how the German people could have been "taken in" by Hitler. No longer! For as I watch millions of my fellow citizens march in lock-step behind whatever is claimed or asserted by the neo-fascist leader of our own times, I now understand how this can happen.
In this very readable book, Benjamin Hett gives us a deep dive into the passions, fears, and hopes of not just key players in the 1930s, but also of so many of the citizens. Alarmingly like our own times, it was a time when many were profoundly dissatisfied with the "tone" of their political leaders and the seemingly driftless nature of their politics: major problems just seemed to fester on without satisfactory resolution. And many of their concerns were similar to ours today: the role of the international economic structure vis-a-vis their own nation's, competing ideologies which seemed to have little in common except the promise that "they" were the answer to the problems caused by "them," and an overall weariness with the same-old, same-old that led many to look for someone who would promise -- and deliver -- on sweeping changes, protocol and order be damned.
Although not identical, the 1930s had its own problems with "globalization." "Was the world to be organized along liberal internationalist lines, with democratic systems everywhere, free trade, and rights for all, anchored in law? Or was the international system to be one of race and nation, with dominant groups owing nothing to minorities and closing off their economic space to the outer world as much as possible?" (P.31)
Moreover, the major competing ideologies of the time -- fascism (& Nazism) vs. Soviet Communism -- both rested upon "a conscious rejection of Western, liberal, capitalist democracy. And although [both] claimed to base [their] actions on a rational, scientific doctrine, [they] in fact operated on a tribalism not much different [from each other]... The individual human being disappeared along with evidence-based judgements. This was the essence of totalitarianism." (P. 42)
Nativism and fear of "the others" was rampant, and not only in Germany and the Soviet Union, but in the United States as well. It is one of the sad facts of the time that US restrictive immigration laws -- drawn up to favor the admission of "white, northern Europeans" over other peoples -- played a tragic role in excluding from safety here many thousands of European Jews who attempted to find safe sanctuary here away from the madness on the European continent.
Like all totalitarian leaders and would-be imitators, Hitler had a "low opinion of general public intelligence. 'The broad masses of the people are ... made up of a mass of human children prone to doubt and insecurity," ruled by 'sentiment rather than sober reasoning.' ...Hitler understood that lies could play an important role in politics.... A successful campaigner, Hitler wrote, focuses on telling big lies, and does not bother with small ones, for 'in the bigness of the lie there is always a certain amount of credibility.' The 'broad masses of the nation can always be more easily corrupted in the depths of their hearts than that they consciously or voluntarily become wicked,' so 'in the primitive simplicity of their nature they more readily fall victims to the big lie than to the small lie, since they themselves often lie about small things, yet would still be ashamed to tell a big lie,' and so 'they cannot at all believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.' [Moreover, once the lie was out there it] could never ben entirely erased. 'Evan if the true facts are given to them, they will still doubt and hesitate for a long time and will assume that at least some part of it is still true.'"
"Nazism wallowed in the irrationality and anti-intellectualism it exploited." (Pp. 232-233)
And there is so much more in this book, too. It helps us better understand why Chamberlain so desperately fought for peace (not quite at any price), for most of his fellow citizens -- remembering the horrific costs of the First World War -- demanded desperate measure to preserve peace.
It was also the case that very few of the world leaders understood Hitler's true nature and designs at first; many wanted to believe that he, like themselves, was, after all, a reasonable man who was only pursuing "legitimate grievances" that Germany had following the terms of the Versailles Treaty.
Another clear irony is that Hitler could well have been stopped early IF the League of Nations -- given force by France and Great Britain -- had demanded a cessation to the earliest, timid violations of the Versailles Treaty.
But every time the League and the Western great powers of the day backed down, Hitler grew stronger and more self-confident.
This book also reveals the depth of distrust of Hitler, and fear for what another war would do to Germany, felt by so many of his top officers. Ironically, it was the West's repeated timidity that also weakened their arguments, for as Hitler grew stronger and seemed to achieve every goal with NO cost fewer people doubted that "just maybe" he DID have the answers for Germany.
This book is not just about a fascinating period the past and an incitement to ponder "what if only..." but also a timely warning about what happens when people sleepwalk past their principles to embrace someone who promises them an easy way out: JUST FOLLOW AND BELIEVE IN ME AND EVERYTHING WILL BE OK!
That is never how it turns out!
April 28, 2025
Hett's previous book
The Death of Democracy
was a fine piece of scholarship that shone a light on some under-discussed players and processes that lead to the concurrent collapse of the Weimar Republic and the rise of Adolf Hitler. It did so with a deft enough hand that it pulled off the neat trick of presenting a fresh view on events in the 1930s that seems quite relevant to the West's sudden lurch towards authoritarian fascism in the 21st century without belaboring the point nor making it feel as though the reader is being proselytized to.
Sadly, Hett's follow-up The Nazi Menace possesses none of those virtues: there's no original scholarship of note; the events described are exceedingly well known; and there is nothing new on offer by way of synthesis of the copious existing accounts, summaries, and studies of the politics and diplomacy of Europe in the 1930s. Moreover, one can't help but feel that Hett believes he's performing some sort of public service by not-so-subtly drawing comparisons between the Third Reich and the Trump Administration. Unfortunately for the author, those inclined to agree with him have already reached that conclusion, while those who hold the contrary view would not seem to think that Nazis are much of a menace at all, and would thus be uninclined to purchase (or read) a book with this title.
There are slight quibbles of fact and/or interpretation as well: judging by the number of times he is quoted or referenced in this book, it seems clear that Hett accepts Timothy Snyder's thesis that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. This view has ironically (and not surprisingly) gained quite a bit of traction with right-wing nationalists in modern day Eastern Europe. Part of this thesis rests on the claim that the disastrous Soviet famine of the early 1930s, caused and exacerbated by Stalin's policy of agricultural collectivization, was somehow a deliberate act of genocide against Ukraine. The problem with that claim is that there's just no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it (especially when one compares death rates in other areas of the USSR, some of which exceeded that of Ukraine). That it was a catastrophe that was the direct result of Stalin's policies is clear; that the intent of the policies was to starve millions of people to death is not. Ultimately, the Stalin = Hitler false equivalency founders on the shoals of reality: Stalin, for all of his paranoid brutality, could lead a nation that could coexist with the rest of the world; Hitler could not. For all of its flaws and its cruelties spanning decades, the Soviet Union was not the political expression of a death cult writ large; Nazi Germany was.
Those looking for extant studies that far surpass this book in quality would do well to read Tim Bouverie's excellent Appeasing Hitler (2020), Stephen Kotkin's Stalin: Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941 (2018), and Gerhard Weinberg's Hitler's Foreign Policy, 1933-1939: The Road to World War II (2005).
.
Sadly, Hett's follow-up The Nazi Menace possesses none of those virtues: there's no original scholarship of note; the events described are exceedingly well known; and there is nothing new on offer by way of synthesis of the copious existing accounts, summaries, and studies of the politics and diplomacy of Europe in the 1930s. Moreover, one can't help but feel that Hett believes he's performing some sort of public service by not-so-subtly drawing comparisons between the Third Reich and the Trump Administration. Unfortunately for the author, those inclined to agree with him have already reached that conclusion, while those who hold the contrary view would not seem to think that Nazis are much of a menace at all, and would thus be uninclined to purchase (or read) a book with this title.
There are slight quibbles of fact and/or interpretation as well: judging by the number of times he is quoted or referenced in this book, it seems clear that Hett accepts Timothy Snyder's thesis that Stalin was just as bad as Hitler. This view has ironically (and not surprisingly) gained quite a bit of traction with right-wing nationalists in modern day Eastern Europe. Part of this thesis rests on the claim that the disastrous Soviet famine of the early 1930s, caused and exacerbated by Stalin's policy of agricultural collectivization, was somehow a deliberate act of genocide against Ukraine. The problem with that claim is that there's just no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence against it (especially when one compares death rates in other areas of the USSR, some of which exceeded that of Ukraine). That it was a catastrophe that was the direct result of Stalin's policies is clear; that the intent of the policies was to starve millions of people to death is not. Ultimately, the Stalin = Hitler false equivalency founders on the shoals of reality: Stalin, for all of his paranoid brutality, could lead a nation that could coexist with the rest of the world; Hitler could not. For all of its flaws and its cruelties spanning decades, the Soviet Union was not the political expression of a death cult writ large; Nazi Germany was.
Those looking for extant studies that far surpass this book in quality would do well to read Tim Bouverie's excellent Appeasing Hitler (2020), Stephen Kotkin's Stalin: Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941 (2018), and Gerhard Weinberg's Hitler's Foreign Policy, 1933-1939: The Road to World War II (2005).
.
June 7, 2025
This is a refreshingly cogent picture of the political scene prior to WWII, when everyone knew war was coming but didn't yet know who would be fighting whom or where. Hett capably demonstrates just how fluid the situation was, how many off-ramps were missed, and how individual personalities and their relationships dictated the fate of nations. It was clear Hitler's political program, including the financial straits caused by rearmament, had war as its ultimate end. However, the striking thing from Hett's account is how often Hitler flip-flopped on how the great powers would line up. There was frantic paddling beneath the surface, primarily to block any alliance between the British and the Soviets, and a darkly ironic through-line of Herr Hitler's frustration at the pacific appeasement he got when open confrontation was his goal.
Hett's book begins with an intimidatingly long cast of characters, but the actual telling is more novelistic and never strains to juggle all of its players. The British and the Germans get the closest scrutiny, but the action also checks in on the Americans, Soviets, French, Czechoslovaks, and Poles, demonstrating that no nationality was a monolith, and the macro conditions for the war depended on internal debates and divisions in countries all over the world. The accounts of parliamentary wrangling and the relations between Churchill and Chamberlain are especially well done. Hett doesn't highlight parallels to the contemporary political situation, but it's plain for all who have eyes to see.
Hett's book begins with an intimidatingly long cast of characters, but the actual telling is more novelistic and never strains to juggle all of its players. The British and the Germans get the closest scrutiny, but the action also checks in on the Americans, Soviets, French, Czechoslovaks, and Poles, demonstrating that no nationality was a monolith, and the macro conditions for the war depended on internal debates and divisions in countries all over the world. The accounts of parliamentary wrangling and the relations between Churchill and Chamberlain are especially well done. Hett doesn't highlight parallels to the contemporary political situation, but it's plain for all who have eyes to see.
September 17, 2020
4.5. This political history of the 1930's details the struggle within Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union to deal with the rising threat posed by the Nazi regime in Germany. The main characters are of course Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt, but engrossing aspects are bought to light through discussion of secondary players (e.g., the generals in Germany who planned but failed to carry out a coup against Hitler, the men behind the design of the Spitfire and decision to emphasize air defenses that were critical in the Battle of Britain, Lord Halifax's meeting with Hitler in 1937, Harold Ickes speech castigating Lindbergh and Ford and fascism in general in front of a Zionist organization in 1938 - this while Roosevelt's interest in the plight of Jews in Europe was flagging, and more). As to be expected much is written about Hitler's determination to invade Czechoslovakia and the lead up to the failed act of appeasement that was the Munich Agreement, as well as the political machinations that result in Churchill becoming Prime Minister in 1940. At times this detailed narrative gets a little too much in the weeds, but for the most part it hits the sweet spot.
September 13, 2024
Εξαιρετικό βιβλίο που φωτίζει τις σκοτεινές διαδρομές και τις ανθρώπινες διεμπλοκές των πρωταγωνιστών του Β'ΠΠ που οδήγησαν στην ανελέητη σύγκρουση ανάμεσα στον Κόσμο μας(όπως τον ξέρουμε σήμερα και διακυρήχτηκε στην Χάρτα του Ατλαντικού) και τον Ναζιστικό Ολοκληρωτισμό. Ξεκινώντας ο συγγραφέας από την κρίση της Δημοκρατίας την δεκαετία του 1930(Βαϊμάρη αλλά και στον Δυτικό Κόσμο, μηδέ των ΗΠΑ εξαιρουμένων), τον Ολοκληρωτισμό του Στάλιν, με μυθιστορηματική γραφή μέσα από την απόλυτα τεκμηριωμένη αλληλεπίδραση πρωταγωνιστών και ιστορικών περιστάσεων, καταλήγει στον Β'ΠΠ
Οι συσχετίσεις με τον σημερινό κόσμο εύκολα μπορούν να συναχθούν από τον αναγνώστη, ο οποίος θα βγάλει τα χρήσιμα συμπεράσματα για τους κινδύνους στην σύγχρονη παγκόσμια κοινότητα.
Ένα βιβλίο ιστορικό, επαρκώς τεκμηρωμένο που διαβάζεται σαν βιβλίο μυθοπλασίας.
Μου άρεσε. Αν και θα έπρεπε να το διαβάσω μετά τον "Θάνατο της Δημοκρατίας" του ίδιου συγγραφέα, η γραφή του Benjamin Carter Hett με αποζημίωσε.
Οι συσχετίσεις με τον σημερινό κόσμο εύκολα μπορούν να συναχθούν από τον αναγνώστη, ο οποίος θα βγάλει τα χρήσιμα συμπεράσματα για τους κινδύνους στην σύγχρονη παγκόσμια κοινότητα.
Ένα βιβλίο ιστορικό, επαρκώς τεκμηρωμένο που διαβάζεται σαν βιβλίο μυθοπλασίας.
Μου άρεσε. Αν και θα έπρεπε να το διαβάσω μετά τον "Θάνατο της Δημοκρατίας" του ίδιου συγγραφέα, η γραφή του Benjamin Carter Hett με αποζημίωσε.
March 9, 2022
The Nazi Menace: Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and the Road to War by Benjamin Carter Hett is a well-researched and interesting book that explores the events and decisions that led to World War II. Hett brings these four leaders to life with their words and their actions; my only criticism of the book is that it focuses more on Hitler than on the other three, especially Roosevelt and Churchill. That being said, the book provides intriguing new insight into the rise of Hitler and is particularly disturbing and chilling in today's world when so many comparisons can be made to the events occurring in the present day world, such as xenophobia, both the accusations and the reality of fake news, the challenges of national security, and the dangers of technology to name a few. A must read for those interested in looking at the past to prevent present mistakes.
March 27, 2025
This is a good book about the years leading up to the beginning of WWII. It charts what was going on in the minds of the great statesmen of the time, as well as the maneuverings of the Nazi leadership and the opposition in the German military that was plotting to overthrow them (and then collapsed after Munich). Ever since the rise of the Nazis, politicians in the West have wanted, above all, to avoid becoming Nevil Chamberlains. Even now we find ourselves saying, "We can't give in to Putin in Ukraine, (or Georgia, or wherever) because it would be appeasement." The lessons we learned from Munich were hard won, but they have been burned deeply into the Western mind. Unfortunately, the lessons still seem applicable.
January 31, 2021
Three stars might seem a little harsh, I know. This book was perfectly fine, but I can't help but feel that we've traded a historian who did a lot of interesting work with German history, with both primary and secondary sources, for another one who wrote a Churchill/Hitler book. I like Benjamin Carter Hett a lot, but I hope he doesn't become just another "World War 2: The Highlights" historian. Full blog post here, for anyone interested: https://tylerwolanin.com/2021/1/31/wh...
-Tyler Wolanin
-Tyler Wolanin
October 4, 2021
Well, I didn't actually read this one. I won it and gave it to my husband who loves to watch History-war movies so I thought how he would love this book.
He thought it was Great.
He said it was true to the accounts that he remembered.
Jim my husband said that it was well written. He gave it 2 thumbs up too. I nominated the star
equivalancy to be about 4 stars
Thank for the book!
He Says He would definitely suggest others read it as well!
He thought it was Great.
He said it was true to the accounts that he remembered.
Jim my husband said that it was well written. He gave it 2 thumbs up too. I nominated the star
equivalancy to be about 4 stars
Thank for the book!
He Says He would definitely suggest others read it as well!
October 2, 2020
Absolutely brilliant! This is a hard-hitting, well-researched, beautifully written account of the four leaders who will always be identified by their role in WWII. If you love history and want the facts rather than opinion and fluff, you will be fascinated with this intriguing book. It is a priceless find for learning about the key figures who made the decisions that forever changed the world.
October 4, 2020
This is the second book I have read by historian Hett. He has a gift for writing succinct (around 300 pages) analyses of complex historical issues in an engaging style and giving vivid depictions of the people involved. My only criticism is that there was not enough discussion of the Soviet Union and Stalin and minimal discussion of Czechoslovakia and Poland.
August 18, 2021
I just finished this book and found it informative. Very well written on the period leading in to world war 2, it covers the leaders, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt in the days leading into the war. I'm interested in this time, so found the book interesting.
May 9, 2022
I loved this book. The best explication of the factors leading up to WWII ever, from the standpoints of Hitler, Stalin, Churchill & Roosevelt. So clear, concise and engagingly written. I thought I understood all this until I read Hett's work. This one is a "wow."
July 18, 2022
There are times when this just wants to be a history and times when it wants to be a preview of how to handle our current moment of slipping toward autocracy. We do seem to be handling Ukraine much better than the democracies handled Czechoslovakia, at least.
August 16, 2024
Interesting book this one. There is some madness to the followed methods of analysis, but that is a plus. Extra points for the various interesting details (e.g. the story of R.J. Mitchell, of Jona von Ustinov, etc.).
September 7, 2021
An interesting book which focuses on the internal social and political issues of the various countries in the run-up to WWII and how they affected their war policies.
October 4, 2021
Probably the most insightful book I've ever read concerning the political calculations of WW 2. If you're interested in the macinations of this war, look no further, it has it all.
May 15, 2022
Very interesting, very well researched, very dense. A bit hard to follow in some places but the parallels to what we see unfolding in the world today are stark and obvious. 3.5/5
December 24, 2023
Dense and tough to get through, but interesting
January 30, 2024
Just okay.
July 19, 2024
Good book, it was a huge challenge for me, but I completed it! Very informative and covered a lot of ground. I found it to be mostly about Hitler and Churchill, I would have been interested to hear more about the other two.
September 29, 2024
Very readable and I liked the way it mixed real lives with the more public political events
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews