New Hitler biography
New Hitler biography
By Völker Ullrich.
http://www.amazon.de/Adolf-Hitler-Jahre ... er+ullrich
Der Spiegel interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 27155.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 155-2.html
Boby,
http://www.amazon.de/Adolf-Hitler-Jahre ... er+ullrich
Der Spiegel interview:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 27155.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 155-2.html
Boby,
Re: New Hitler biography
The amazon preview looks very interesting, thanks for bringing our attention to it!
Re: New Hitler biography
English translation has been published:
http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Volume-I-A ... B01C524SZS
http://www.amazon.com/Hitler-Volume-I-A ... B01C524SZS
- sarahgoodson
- Member
- Posts: 183
- Joined: 31 Oct 2015, 22:04
- Location: London
Re: New Hitler biography
It's not a new book but has just recently been translated into English.
Some very good reviews of it.
I wonder when Peter Longerich's biography of Hitler will be translated into English, given that his biographies of Himmler and Goebbels have been translated I'd say it's only a matter of time.
Some very good reviews of it.
I wonder when Peter Longerich's biography of Hitler will be translated into English, given that his biographies of Himmler and Goebbels have been translated I'd say it's only a matter of time.
Re: New Hitler biography
Read this book about 1/4 way through and have gotten bored with it. On the shelf it goes. Nothing new and basically just another "run of the mill" biography repeating the same old stuff in a not so engaging way. I guess I'm prejudiced in Hitler biographies since John Toland's is my all time favorite. When I read Toland's book for the first time, I couldn't put it down. The quotes and side stories he weaved into it were very interesting as was his writing style. He knew how to write. He made Hilter come to life and I think it's because he interviewed all those people who knew Hitler intimately. He also used primary sources of people who experienced Hitler first hand. Hard to beat Toland as a writer. He was not a professorial historian which is why his book is the best in my view. He tried to portray Hitler from "the man on the street" viewpoint without the collegial drab such as comes from the pontiffs of Kershawania.
Re: New Hitler biography
How does Tolands compare to Kershaws?
Re: New Hitler biography
I think it may also depend on what a person is looking for in a biography book whether or not it appeals to the senses.
I have read both volumes of Kershaw's biography and it does give a good analysis of how the Nazi state functioned.
His "working towards the Fuhrer" theory is clearly made and he gives a lot of detail on Hitler's decision making etc.
Kershaw also allows his personal biases and politics to intercede throughout the book, which I find irritating and tiresome.
Sir Ian, I understand you hate Hitler and everything he stands for. Hitler is evil...I get it.
Toland doesn't do this and gives Hitler, his associates, and his enemies a voice.. the bias or unbias comes from those who experienced it. You just have to read the book to understand what I mean and compare. To Toland, Hitler was a modern Genghis Khan, the "greatest mover and shaker of the Twentieth Century" who did more to change the world than anyone then or since (up to 1976 when the book was published). Everything about our world today is a reaction against what Hitler stood for. Toland does not exonerate Hitler from the mass killings nor defends the man on what he did. He simply wrote about Hitler as if he had "existed 100 years ago" as to diminish some of the the hysteria of what he meant to so many people (victims and collaborators alike). His use of Biblical quotations in some of his chapter headings set the stage for what was to come. "Deep are the Roots", "In the Beginning was the Word...", "...And Hell Followed with him.." as well as some of Hitler's: "Such a little human worm", "Into a Dark, Unseen Room", "The World Will Hold It's Breath". I think the coming to power chapter is by Goebbels: "It is like a Dream". There is also the consolidation chapter titled "Triumph of the Will". In addition to his 2 volume biography which is loaded with 3 photo sections each, he also published a separate, companion photo album of hitler titled "AH: The Pictorial Documentary of his Life".
A few criticisms: John Lukacs in his book "Hitler of History" chastises Toland for lack of "scholarship" which I am not sure is warranted because Toland had extensive footnotes and took his information from memoirs and extant books which he did not follow-up on authenticity questions to Lukacs satisfaction. Lukacs also berates Toland for making Hitler appear "too attractive" to his readers which in the early chapters he does show Hitler in a more favorable light than those works which paint Hitler a Damien Thorn from birth.
Toland gives credence to the "lost year" in London story (1913) from Bridget Hitler, which we now know is total BS and Toland did not know about Hitler ditching Vienna for Munich with Edmund (?) Haussler.
I think he may have also used some of the black propaganda books created by Hermann Rauschning as source info, which weren't considered elaborate fabrications until the 1980's. Kershaw knew better and states in his introduction that he ditched these works altogether but it doesn't make his book any more exciting for it. Toland's book is missing some detail on more obscure personalities (such as Kershaw's Greiser / Foerster feud over Polish Germanization) however the general threads of Hitler's life are all present and told in a very entertaining way.
I have read both volumes of Kershaw's biography and it does give a good analysis of how the Nazi state functioned.
His "working towards the Fuhrer" theory is clearly made and he gives a lot of detail on Hitler's decision making etc.
Kershaw also allows his personal biases and politics to intercede throughout the book, which I find irritating and tiresome.
Sir Ian, I understand you hate Hitler and everything he stands for. Hitler is evil...I get it.
Toland doesn't do this and gives Hitler, his associates, and his enemies a voice.. the bias or unbias comes from those who experienced it. You just have to read the book to understand what I mean and compare. To Toland, Hitler was a modern Genghis Khan, the "greatest mover and shaker of the Twentieth Century" who did more to change the world than anyone then or since (up to 1976 when the book was published). Everything about our world today is a reaction against what Hitler stood for. Toland does not exonerate Hitler from the mass killings nor defends the man on what he did. He simply wrote about Hitler as if he had "existed 100 years ago" as to diminish some of the the hysteria of what he meant to so many people (victims and collaborators alike). His use of Biblical quotations in some of his chapter headings set the stage for what was to come. "Deep are the Roots", "In the Beginning was the Word...", "...And Hell Followed with him.." as well as some of Hitler's: "Such a little human worm", "Into a Dark, Unseen Room", "The World Will Hold It's Breath". I think the coming to power chapter is by Goebbels: "It is like a Dream". There is also the consolidation chapter titled "Triumph of the Will". In addition to his 2 volume biography which is loaded with 3 photo sections each, he also published a separate, companion photo album of hitler titled "AH: The Pictorial Documentary of his Life".
A few criticisms: John Lukacs in his book "Hitler of History" chastises Toland for lack of "scholarship" which I am not sure is warranted because Toland had extensive footnotes and took his information from memoirs and extant books which he did not follow-up on authenticity questions to Lukacs satisfaction. Lukacs also berates Toland for making Hitler appear "too attractive" to his readers which in the early chapters he does show Hitler in a more favorable light than those works which paint Hitler a Damien Thorn from birth.
Toland gives credence to the "lost year" in London story (1913) from Bridget Hitler, which we now know is total BS and Toland did not know about Hitler ditching Vienna for Munich with Edmund (?) Haussler.
I think he may have also used some of the black propaganda books created by Hermann Rauschning as source info, which weren't considered elaborate fabrications until the 1980's. Kershaw knew better and states in his introduction that he ditched these works altogether but it doesn't make his book any more exciting for it. Toland's book is missing some detail on more obscure personalities (such as Kershaw's Greiser / Foerster feud over Polish Germanization) however the general threads of Hitler's life are all present and told in a very entertaining way.
Re: New Hitler biography
On Toland, I'm kind of surprised he is still mentioned as a credible author. He is much more a journalist than a historian, and one feels that all way through. His "Last 100 days" is patchy, undocumented, full of invented/reconstructed dialogs, and includes quite a lot of extrapolated (invented?) facts. His "Rising Sun", passed the initial 100 pages, pretty much ignores the Japanese perspective...
Re: New Hitler biography
Sebastian Haffner "The meaning of Hitler" (1978) is widely quoted as one of the best Hitler studies ever. No footnotes, no archival research, no bibliography. Obviously the work of a journalist.Mori wrote:On Toland, I'm kind of surprised he is still mentioned as a credible author. He is much more a journalist than a historian, and one feels that all way through...
Re: New Hitler biography
Excellent points. My opinion on Kershaw is the same: good secondary sources but, his anti-Hitler bias ruined it. Let the sources speak for themselves; we don't need an author constantly remind us how evil Hitler and the nazis were. We are not kids.J. Duncan wrote:I think it may also depend on what a person is looking for in a biography book whether or not it appeals to the senses.
I have read both volumes of Kershaw's biography and it does give a good analysis of how the Nazi state functioned.
His "working towards the Fuhrer" theory is clearly made and he gives a lot of detail on Hitler's decision making etc.
Kershaw also allows his personal biases and politics to intercede throughout the book, which I find irritating and tiresome.
Sir Ian, I understand you hate Hitler and everything he stands for. Hitler is evil...I get it.
Toland doesn't do this and gives Hitler, his associates, and his enemies a voice.. the bias or unbias comes from those who experienced it. You just have to read the book to understand what I mean and compare. To Toland, Hitler was a modern Genghis Khan, the "greatest mover and shaker of the Twentieth Century" who did more to change the world than anyone then or since (up to 1976 when the book was published). Everything about our world today is a reaction against what Hitler stood for. Toland does not exonerate Hitler from the mass killings nor defends the man on what he did. He simply wrote about Hitler as if he had "existed 100 years ago" as to diminish some of the the hysteria of what he meant to so many people (victims and collaborators alike). His use of Biblical quotations in some of his chapter headings set the stage for what was to come. "Deep are the Roots", "In the Beginning was the Word...", "...And Hell Followed with him.." as well as some of Hitler's: "Such a little human worm", "Into a Dark, Unseen Room", "The World Will Hold It's Breath". I think the coming to power chapter is by Goebbels: "It is like a Dream". There is also the consolidation chapter titled "Triumph of the Will". In addition to his 2 volume biography which is loaded with 3 photo sections each, he also published a separate, companion photo album of hitler titled "AH: The Pictorial Documentary of his Life".
A few criticisms: John Lukacs in his book "Hitler of History" chastises Toland for lack of "scholarship" which I am not sure is warranted because Toland had extensive footnotes and took his information from memoirs and extant books which he did not follow-up on authenticity questions to Lukacs satisfaction. Lukacs also berates Toland for making Hitler appear "too attractive" to his readers which in the early chapters he does show Hitler in a more favorable light than those works which paint Hitler a Damien Thorn from birth.
Toland gives credence to the "lost year" in London story (1913) from Bridget Hitler, which we now know is total BS and Toland did not know about Hitler ditching Vienna for Munich with Edmund (?) Haussler.
I think he may have also used some of the black propaganda books created by Hermann Rauschning as source info, which weren't considered elaborate fabrications until the 1980's. Kershaw knew better and states in his introduction that he ditched these works altogether but it doesn't make his book any more exciting for it. Toland's book is missing some detail on more obscure personalities (such as Kershaw's Greiser / Foerster feud over Polish Germanization) however the general threads of Hitler's life are all present and told in a very entertaining way.
IMHO, better Hitler Book from Hitler's POV remains David Irving's Hitler's War and the War Path.
Re: New Hitler biography
I suppose this is irony - unless this Haffner book is purely analytical and does not include any description of the events or of the life of the main character.Boby wrote: Sebastian Haffner "The meaning of Hitler" (1978) is widely quoted as one of the best Hitler studies ever. No footnotes, no archival research, no bibliography. Obviously the work of a journalist.
Let me revise my previous statement. What I fought was irony turns to be a widely different standard of assessing what makes a work of history valuable from what makes it crap.Boby wrote:IMHO, better Hitler Book from Hitler's POV remains David Irving's Hitler's War and the War Path.
Re: New Hitler biography
Are you saying Irving books are crap? Why? Can you mention better books from Hitler's POV?
As for Haffner book, I would not call it even a biography, so yes - it is mostly analytical drawing on a very very few sources.
As for Haffner book, I would not call it even a biography, so yes - it is mostly analytical drawing on a very very few sources.
Re: New Hitler biography
I very carefully read Irving's Rommel, which is older than his revisionist fame. This book has almost no value: questionable research + strong & obvious biais pulling every item in a pre-conceived direction. You can't use this source for anything. It's crap.Boby wrote:Are you saying Irving books are crap? Why? Can you mention better books from Hitler's POV?
Re: New Hitler biography
The problem is the lack of footnotes. Zero. But the research is very good: he discovered many original sources.
Sure he is biased, but are not ww2 historians biased?
Sure he is biased, but are not ww2 historians biased?
Re: New Hitler biography
It's a matter of degree. In this case, it is so extreme it ruins all credibility and nullifies the output.Boby wrote:Sure he is biased, but are not ww2 historians biased?
Well, I had the curiosity to comb his sources. They are available online, for a very small fee.Boby wrote:The problem is the lack of footnotes. Zero. But the research is very good: he discovered many original sources.
I realized the following:
1) There is little to discover there. Most of his sources are nothing special, nothing one would not spot after an initial research in the archives.
As a matter of fact, most of these sources are also available as printed books (e.g., Eisenhower's letters). They may not have been by the time Irving made his research, but the fact they were selected for publication underlines they were the "most obvious" sources.
2) Original material is therefore scarce, say 1 document out of 50. They tend to be disappointing, either:
- not relevant (ie: Irving copied something that proved useless - that happens to all scholars...)
- anecdotical (e.g., an original version of Patton diary, with a handful of irritated remarks that did not make it to "War as I knew it")
- the few original interviews were, first, few, and, second, without much insight
=> All in all, I could not see any "original sources" worth talking about.
3) Finally, seeing what Irving selected to copy definitively confirmed him a super-biaised author. The opposite of the "I check all available data to document a point"