Haffner purposely does not give the "big picture" of the 19 years between 1914 and 1933. The general outline of German / European history during and after WW I should be known to the reader from elsewhere to get more out of reading "Defying Hitler". But what Haffner does provide is an excellent account of those years from the perspective of the educated middle class during the last years of the German Empire and the years of the Weimar Republic. He speaks of the daily struggles, the daily compromises, the tragic inabilities.
Key to understanding Nazism (and, as Haffner points out repeatedly, Communism) is, in my opinion, Haffner's account of the future judges' and attorneys' mandatory stay at a paramilitary training camp. He and other attendees critical of the Third Reich expected brain-washing lectures and seminars to get them and the Nazis on the same page. They are surprised to find that none of this happens. Their daily mind-numbing and de-individualizing camp routines (marching, singing nationalistic marching songs, cleaning the camp, shooting, cracking dehumanizing jokes with their "comrades") do the brain-washing in a much more subtle and effective way than lectures. The latter could have been countered by these future jurists with intellectual arguments, the former could not. As has been noted by other reviewers, the Nazis militarized the German people as a whole and exposed it thus to the entoxicating fumes of comradery that dissolved thinking individuals in a brainless mass.
Haffner's perspective often led me to ask myself: What would I have done? It was the little daily compromises he writes about that made me think this. E.g., in the camp: Should he, a firm anti-Nazi, refuse to wear the swastika, or was that too small a cause to die for as a martyr, right at the beginning of camp? How about using the "Hitler Gruss" (outstretched right arm), or laughing when "everybody" was laughing? At the end of a list of compromises, Haffner asks himself: Well, I thought I could make all these compromises because "my real self" wasn't really involved here, I was just acting -- but will that really be a valid excuse?
Nazis today, 60, 70 years after the events, often look like evil monsters. Haffner's contemporary perspective shows: It was more difficult to sort through all this, especially in practical terms, in camp and in "normal life". Nazis were also friendly to their "Aryan" peers, could be funny and quite likable. This is to say, under peer pressure and against acquaintances it was more difficult to resist than it often appears today. This is why this book has lessons for today and every time: It takes extreme courage to go against the stream of public opinion, for teenagers as well as adults. And there are only very few people who have the character and conscience to rise to that challenge.
A final question stuck in my mind: What really made Haffner different? Why did he not become a Nazi like so many of his friends and fellow lawyers?
Five stars for this fine account of a German who explains but does not excuse his fellow Germans.