This is the second of a two-part biography of Hitler. It is fairly well researched although Kershaw seems to place too much reliance on the diary of Goebbels for my taste. Kershaw makes no bones about his opinion of Hitler as an evil genius and seems to go out of his way to paint him as such. This is a good refresher for anyone with a basic knowledge of Hitler and his regime. He does seem to assume some knowledge on the readers part that would not be common for the average reader. He makes extensive use of footnotes and apparently put a lot of archival work into this, his Magnum Opus. I did find it to be definitive though as Kershaw leaves many details out that would seem important in a bigraphy and he often digresses into discussions of the regime that involve Hitler peripherally, if at all. Lastly, this book does reflect Hitler's preoccupation with the Eastern Front and it's discussion of the military decisons imposed by Hitler on the OKW do much to illuminate the otherwise incomprehensible strategic and operational decisions the Germans made in the east.I think it is overall a good book and would even reccomend it for the serious scholar of the Third Reich but I dont think it is a must buy. This book is a useful adjunct to other material on the life of Hitler.
Think of the stigma one might receive for even wanting to study Hitler in that much detail. I know he can be a fascinating character, but I wouldn't want to make my career off of his wretched name. 🙁
I've used this book in a couple of courses I've taken at AMU. As mentioned, it is an interesting resource for broader study of WWII and Hitler, but as a sole source it may not be the best choice. I've used it to complement Weinberg's A World At Arms
Agreed, but it is necessary to know evil to be able to detect it in future. The best way to know it is to study exemplars from the past.
Agreed. Hitler is actually a fascinating character study, if only because it's important to be able to recognize the rise of similar leaders in our own time.
I found Weinberg to be a good general history, if a bit long-winded in places and with some pronounced areas of Bias, or should I say lack of objectivity?