Customer Reviews

Explaining Hitler

5 star:		(46)
4 star:		(31)
3 star:		(10)
2 star:		(10)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil by Ron Rosenbaum. Highly recommended.

Explaining Hitler is a misleading title, for the focus is primarily on the Jewish academic community's attempts to explain Hitler-to put it in grossly oversimplified terms, this is somewhat like the prey explaining the motivations of the predator. The result is that, while Hitler remains a mystery, the academic and personal biases of the explainers are revealed. To each person's theories and comments Rosenbaum adds his own analysis, finding the flaws with precision.

Hitler explanation ranges from the deeply personal (abusive father, infection by a Jewish prostitute, mother's painful death under the care of a Jewish physician) to the inevitable influence of historical forces (post-war inflation, depression). Rosenbaum discusses the personal in depth, including Hitler's rumored Jewish ancestor and bizarre relationship with his half-niece Geli Raubal, the convolutions each theory takes, and the lack of facts or reliable information to support any of them. For example, Rosenbaum astutely points out the only real "proof" of the abusive father is Hitler's own assertion and sarcastically suggests that there is reason not to trust Hitler's word. One argument that immediately comes to mind that Rosenbaum only briefly alludes to later is that millions of people have abusive fathers, bad experiences with individual members of ethnic and other groups, and so forth, yet do not turn into war criminals responsible for the deaths of millions. In short, these theories might explain Hitler's anti-Semitism, but not the results.

What is disturbing about so many of these explanations (some of which are advocated by such noted people as Simon Wiesenthal, who favors the Jewish prostitute theory), and more sophisticated ones that appear later in the book, such as George Steiner's, is their insistence that a Jew or a group of Jews is responsible. In these theories, a Jewish ancestor, a Jewish prostitute, an Eastern Jew with a different appearance, or the Jewish "blackmail of transcendence" and "addiction to the ideal" is responsible for Hitler-implying Hitler is not responsible at all. Although the egotistical and monomaniacal Claude Lanzmann, maker of the documentary Shoah, is too self-centered and angry to clearly articulate the basis for his belief that Hitler explanation is inherently "obscene," it could be because so much "explanation" has found a way to point a finger at the Jews, directly or indirectly, while minimizing Hitler. Perhaps for that reason, Lanzmann is interested only in how the Holocaust was accomplished, not with the motivations of Hitler or his followers. The major flaw is that Lanzmann has missed the point by dictating that his rule of "There is no why" must apply to all other individuals-and the irony of that.

As Rosenbaum repeatedly points out, no explanations for Hitler are acceptable that excuse him-that look to a bad experience with a Jew rather than to, for example, the influence of anti-Semitism surrounding him in Austria and Germany. Again, however, it can be said that anti-Semitic influence has surrounded many people (as Rosenbaum notes, pre-war France was more anti-Semitic than either Austria or Germany) who have not killed, let alone killed millions.

Rosenbaum's approach is excellent, pairing individuals with complementary or opposing viewpoints, e.g., Lanzmann and Dr. Micheels, the theologian Emil Fackenheim and the atheist historian Yehuda Bauer in "The Temptation to Blame God." Even revisionist David Irving is given a chapter. Rosenbaum saves what seems to be his preference for the last chapter-Lucy Dawidowicz's belief that Hitler decided on The Final Solution as early as 1918, based on what he said and did not say over time, and on the "laughter" that is transferred from the Jewish victims to the Nazi victors. While this does not explain the origins of Hitler's evil, it pinpoints the time frame and removes the notion that he was ambivalent or experienced a sense of moral ambiguity. Dawidowicz's Hitler knows early on what he wants to do and lets insiders in on the "joke" he finds it to be. Presented in this way, Dawidowicz does seem to have come closest to the truth about Hitler. After all, how can one capable of ambivalence ultimately kill millions?

To me, one critical question is not why or how any one man became evil or chose an evil course of action, for the explanation could simply be that the capacity for evil in an individual may be higher than most of us are capable of realising or accepting. That is, everyday evil like John Wayne Gacy's is accomplished in isolation and is therefore limited in scope. The intent and the desired scope given opportunity remain unknowns. The more frightening question is why and how so many chose to follow Hitler. I do not necessarily mean the German people, per se, but the thousands of bureaucrats, managers, and soldiers who physically carried out The Final Solution, knowing exactly what this entailed and what it signified. Hitler seized the opportunity offered by the political and social situation to institutionalize his personal evil. A single man may envision and desire genocide, but it takes followers and believers to carry it out. Explaining Hitler (or Stalin or Genghis Khan) is not enough to explain the scope of this particular human evil. Without followers, there are no leaders. And without followers, millions of Jews (and Cambodians and Indians and so forth) could not have died. The evil that is so hard to face goes well beyond Hitler to a place that no one could truly wish to discover.

Diane L. Schirf, 18 January 2004.

Rosenbaum opened this thoughtful and literate review of the supposed "explanations" for Hitler with a gripping account of a winter journey to Hitler's birthplace in the Austrian hinterland, to glean what can be gleaned from the - largely obliterated - traces of his family and early life. There is effective use of the dangerous iciness of the mountain roads as a metaphor for some of the people and places he encountered there: cold to the bone, dangerous, and frozen in time.

That set-piece opening led to a consideration of some of the "explanations" of Hitler's madness and evil: that Hitler had been abused as a child, that he was genitally deformed, or even that he was born normal but traumatised when his genitals were mutilated by - of all things - a goat. These and some of the other speculations that have been offered - that Hitler was homosexual, that he had caught syphilis from a Jewish prostitute, that he was brainwashed into megalomania by a doctor experimenting with new psychological techniques, and so on - led Rosenbaum to a fascinating discussion of what is involved in even attempting to "explain Hitler".

Rosenbaum noted that many of the attempts at explaining Hitler tend, deliberately or not, to reduce the focus on his evil. To understand is to forgive, at least a little, and risks reducing Hitler to a victim, whether of other people or of circumstances. Worse, many of the proffered explanations put the blame on Jews, for example Weisenthal's notion of the (probably imaginary) Jewish prostitute who gave Hitler the clap.

Rosenbaum then examined some of the people who have made a career, or a business, of "explaining Hitler", beginning with engaging portraits of the old school historians Trevor-Roper and Bullock, two wise and wily old dons from an intellectual and academic world that has since largely - regrettably - vanished. This was followed by portraits of Claude Lanzmann, who came to feel he owned the Holocaust, and of David Irving, who tried to minimise it and deny Hitler's guilt, whose treatment is less affectionate. For these sections alone, and for the fascinating material on those journalists, Hitler's contemporaries, who tried to warn Germany and the world what Hitler was, and paid for their courage with their lives, this book deserves classic status.

But the book loses momentum and coherence somewhere past the half-way point. The editing is partly at fault, but worse, Rosenbaum's critical reasoning and crap-detecting seem to flag. He settles, finally, for Lucy Davidowicz's idea that Hitler had planned the Holocaust as early as 1918, based on isolated lines from Hitler speeches, such as, "they [the Jews] are not laughing now." It was a pity to see Rosenbaum apply critical reading for most of the book only to let his guard down completely for something as flimsy as this. The words Davidowicz cited do not say what she claims they say.

Previously Rosenbaum had challenged people who backed their claims with rhetoric rather than evidence, insisting on precision on what words were said, what they meant, who said them, and when. Davidowicz's claims are not only contradicted by almost all recent work on the Holocaust (as an atrocity that evolved over time and took its final form after the war had commenced), they are not even supported by her own citations. And Davidowicz's "explanation" would explain nothing even if it were true. She offered a fanciful and unconvincing answer to the question "when?", but the real question is not "when" but "why?"

However Rosenbaum's earlier chapters more than justify buying and keeping this book. The most reasonable conclusion, taking Rosenbaum into account, is that we will never know the cause of Hitler's madness and evil, but this is not the real issue. Ultimately Hitler was a squalid psychopath, in the same broad category as, say, Charles Manson or Jeffrey Dahmer. He was intelligent, with the ability to charm and impress people when he needed, and murderously mad. Any alternative-history version of Hitler's life would probably have finished with him as a mass murderer: but he should have been another lone killer with a grisly basement and victims numbering in the tens, or fewer, not a head of state with victims in the tens of millions.

So although "why?" is the right question, we should perhaps not direct it at Hitler, but at the forces that put him in a position of power. That means looking at the political, military and business figures, who were basically sane, and evil only on a normal human scale, who actually did the deals that made Hitler the German Chancellor against the wishes of the majority of the German electorate. And even after Hitler was in power, there was a long period after it was quite clear - "crystal" clear - what he was, when it was still possible to remove him, had the will been there.

That group, who nurtured a rootless psychopath and put him into power for their own varied purposes, and who kept him there until he destroyed them too: perhaps it's the people like Papen, Hugenberg, Hindenberg and others, who have not yet received their share of historical scrutiny, or of humanity's hatred, ridicule and contempt. I suspect that this group is the best place to look for meaningful answers, not only to the question, "how?", but also to that most anguished of questions: "why?"

(People sometimes defame democracy by claiming that Hitler came to power by democratic means. In fact the Nazis never won an election, and had lost ground in the election before Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Hitler was installed into power in a betrayal of the voters, and thereafter there were no elections.)

Though "Explaining Hitler" ends disappointingly, it still offers some fascinating portraits of heroes and villains, historians and pseudo-historians, and a great deal of interesting and insightful writing. Though I don't always agree with his conclusions, it is never less than a pleasure to read Rosenbaum thinking aloud. Strongly recommended.

Laon

This book examines the various schools of thought regarding Hitler and the Holocaust and the author did a wonderful job of researching and interviewing many of the scholars on the topic who have in turn influenced our understanding and perceptions of what happened and why. The questions may ultimately not have definitive answers but reading this and having Rosenbaum guide us through the various viewpoints is a worthwhile exercise in intellectual and philosophical investigation. The question of whether Hitler was essential to the Holocaust or if in his absence someone else would have set the same events into motion is one example of an unanswerable question that gets considered.

The questions surrounding the origins of Hitler's anti-semitism are also explored in detail.

There are scholars quoted who adamantly believe that any attempt to understand is misguided because understanding Hitler's motivations is considered by them to be the first step toward rationalization and diminishing the horror of the Holocaust to just a human crime on a larger scale.

This is not a biography of Hitler although many critical episodes in his life are referenced. Instead this is a fascinating look at how different perspectives on the nature of Hitler's evil have developed and how in the end there is no comprehensive answer as to the how and why of the suffering he unleashed. THere is a quote used from Primo Levi's book Survival in Auschwitz. Levi suffering from thirst reaches for an icycle. An SS guard knocks it away and Levi asks "why ?' The response.."there is no why here". I think that story captures some of the spirit of Rosenbaum's book.

A highly stimulating series of perspectives in the attempts to 'explain Hitler', at the end of which we still, no doubt,are without the explanation, a point made by the author with his epigram of Emile Fackenheim at the beginning of the book. One might note the danger of being distracted by details, when the probably impossible-to-obtain explanation is both ordinary yet unknowable, as we gaze on a crime scene, assessing clues. There is a danger of becoming metaphysical in the wrong way, notwithstanding the need to consider the nature of radical evil.
There are a series of obvious explanations, none of which can be confirmed, but which emanate from the occult stench and dark muddled rumours of this episode of history, and many leadup and synchronous episodes completely disconnected with the historical context, which also includes 'explaining Nietzsche', not easy to do. That genre of explanation tends uniformly toward the crackpot and doesn't explain anything either, but that aspect of the evidence is always missing (and was surpressed at Nuremberg)
This is a very informative account, dealing with the whole history, starting with Trevor-Roper and Alan Bullock, to Goldhagen. Especially gripping was the account of the journalists of the Munich Post battling Hitler from the early twenties in the gangster world from which he emerged, to the final accession to power, when they were all wiped out.

The author states that the purpose of this book is to 'disentangle the historical Hitler from the meanings projected upon him' [p. 205] and to find out what made Hitler *Hitler*. He succeeds admirably on both counts.

Rosenbaum neatly untangles the gnarled web of myth and fiction surrounding Hitler's supposed Jewish grandfather and the sexual activities and possible suicide of Hitler's half-niece and paramour Geli Raubal. He then moves on to a dispassionate and carefully considered survey of the major explainers of the Hitler phenomenon, from Hugh Trevor Roper and Alan Bullock to George Steiner and Daniel Goldhagen, not omitting the likes of David Irving along the way.

Was Hitler convinced of the rectitude of what he was doing, or was he an actor, a mountebank who came to believe in his own lies and impersonations? Was he one in a long line of demonic figures, from Caligula and Genghis Khan to Stalin, or was he a unique eruption of pure unadulterated evil? Was he a human being like us (Hitler within), or was he somehow different, because of a missing testicle, conflicted identity, self-hatred, or some other tragic flaw? Does the Holocaust mean that God does not exist, or else is powerless? Did Hitler, then, defeat God?

These are some of the questions that Rosenbaum and the Hitler explainers that he covers grapple with. Rosenbaum held extensive interviews with most of the people whose ideas he presents, and he gives each their due consideration. As he modestly admits in the preface to the book, Rosenbaum is a consumer of scholarship rather than a scholar, but in *Explaining Hitler* he has produced a book that should be the envy of any true scholar.

Mr. Rosenbaum states very early in EXPLAINING HITLER that "throughout his life, wherever he went, Adolph Hitler was always a Mysterious Stranger". Following from this statement, and from the title of the book, we would naturally expect Mr. Rosenbaum to definitively shed some light on this enigmatic person. To the extent that he does not, we can be justifiably disappointed in the book.

But wait a minute. The task at hand is immense - there are scores of biographies written on Hitler, some dating back to before the war. Furthermore, this book was intended to shine a light on the origins of the man's evil (which it does); hoping however, to fully illuminate that darkness, is a vain hope indeed. Also, EXPLAINING HITLER was not intended to be a historiography of Hitler biographies - for that check out John Lukacs' THE HITLER OF HISTORY. Mr. Rosenbaum offers instead a sythesis of historical explanations of Hitler's evil, specifically as manifested in his rabid anti-semitism. The author is clear in stating that his interest is in what this says about the historians themselves, their views of human nature, and how they see evil - in Hitler and mankind in general. On this score Mr. Rosenbaum delivers as promised.

One of the techniques used by Mr. Rosenbaum (an investigative reporter by training) is interviews with these various Hitler historians. Incisive and revealing, especially when the question that is explored is whether one sees Hitler's evil as something unprecedented in history or as a sign of the malevolence of human nature. The assumption being that how one answers indicates perspective. There are two camps of Hitler historians; those that see him as patently evil and individually responsible for the attrocities of the Nazis, and those that see other forces (societal or psychological) at fault.

Mr. Rosenbaum is at his best when providing a sythesis of the various schools of thought on Hitler. We see that within the group that sees evil and responsibility residing in Hitler, the focus is on the connection with his anti-semitism. They are constantly in search of documentary proof; some key turning point; a statement from him initiating the 'Final Solution'; any clear indicator of his turn toward evil. Mr. Rosenbaum calls this the "Lost safe-deposit syndrome". More well developed are the views that qualify as belonging to the Societal/Psychological school of thought. Strange bedfellows are to be found here. Daniel Goldhagen of HITLER's WILLING EXECUTIONERS fame would be shocked to be grouped with a Hitler apologist such as David Irving but so be it; both find explanations for Nazi attrocities that excuse Hitler. Some of the more pernicious explanations - those that portray Hitler as a victim - are also on offer in this group. Amazingly, some see Jews at fault. The Doctor who treated (or mistreated it is argued) Hitler's mother, failing to prevent her painful death from breast cancer; thus breeding resentment in young Adolf. Mr Rosenbaum explores others such explanations, examples of what he calls the "Menendez defense". Naturally, if we are going to apply the metaphor of modern legal defenses to Hitler histories we should expect to find versions of two of todays most popular legal appeals on display here. Yes, there are Hitler histories that are examples of the insanity plea and the sexually abused childhood defense. Certainly plausible in general but they make us distinctly uncomfortable when applied to Hitler.

Perhaps that is the larger point of this whole analysis of Hitler histories. What do they say about how we view ourseves and culture as a whole? As the author says "Hitler explanations are cultural self-portraits; the shapes we project onto the inky Rorschach of Hitler's psyche are often cultural self-portraits in the negative. What we talk about when we talk about Hitler is also who we are and who we are not".

Ron Rosenbaum joined a group of journalist whose work I would follow in the future with this book( or rather discussion compendium) on Hitler and the Jewish Holocaust. Although not as sharply honed and morally penetrating as Gitta Sereny Mr Rosenbaum never the less did a fine journalistic job of bringing together some fascinating minds with their insights and peculiarities making it easily accessible for the casual scholar.

The book is a praiseworthy attempt to come to grips with the enigma of Hitler. The work essentially deal with the WHY behind the man and his actions. It is the big WHY that every intellectual that Rosenbaum approaches attempts to answer in different ways that makes this book really interesting. It is certainly not a complete in depth study of Hitler (for that I would recommend the reader to lower their guard of possible justified prejudice and read David Irvings Hitler or the last days of Hitler by Hugh Trevor Roper) but rather deals with the approaches to the answer WHY. I actually found the book tells me more about Rosenbaum and his individual contributors than necessarily elucidating Hitler the man. It raises more questions than it answers and I would argue that it is there were the value of this contribution of Mr Rosenbaum lies. It makes a contribution towards the intelligent continuation of the dialogue. And that is the most important Keep talking for in language will we lose and find one another. It will not erase history although it might obscure it but in the act of dialogue we can at least have the opportunity to reach out to one another something that silence will never achieve . The WHY can be summarised as follows WHY Don't ask its perverse - Claude Lanzmann, WHY It's the Germans, Hitler was just a puppet - Goldhagen, WHY It the shape of his nose and primitive Social Darwinism- Fritz Gerlich ,WHY He was a self hating closet Semite - George Steiner, WHY He is a lunatic petty ruffian with a mayor inferiority complex- Munich Post, WHY It was really Goebbels - Hitler was innocent -David Irving, WHY He was a mesmerising actor and the world his stage- Hugh Trevor Roper, WHY One testicle can make a guy do terrible things - Alan Bullock, WHY He just could get no weird sexual satisfaction - Walter Langer ,Robert Waite, WHY The Holocaust lies outside of language Silence is the key ( and 20 000$ per seminar) -Eli Wiesel, WHY He was just an evil son of a bitch - Lucy Davidovitz, WHY It's the culmination of 2000 years of Christian hatred -Hyam Maccoby, WHY God needs to do some serious answering - Yehuda Bauer Emil Fackenheim, and many more.....

Many critics have cited this book as incoherent and biased. When you look at the above rather crude summaries can anybody expect not to have a sense of incoherency in their work when you are primarily reporting the words and thought of these diverse and very opinioned people? Of course not. Rather criticize Mr Rosenbaum for omitting competent thinkers like Raul Hilberg, Noam Chomsky Hannah Arendt and Joachim Fest. A central theme that does carry through all the works discussed is Mr Rosenbaum s' attempt to put Hitler the man back into the picture. He was not and accidental tourist in a spontaneous eruption of long simmering anti Semitism according to Rosenbaum. He was not the puppet result of an abstract dialectic of historical forces. Anybody that rides the whirlwind must reap it.. He was the key. He might have sowed into fertile ground but without him there would have been no bitter harvest. This I agree with but I do not discount the Dialectical undercurrent of history that could turn a mediocre painter into a fearsome Autocrat. Our history(as it socially ,culturally impacts on the individual) always means more for our future than our past.

What most Holocaust writers especially Jewish writers tend to do is place a moral distinction between the level of Evil ( Stalin was bad but Hitler was the worst) as well as the fact that the Holocaust was somehow incomparable to other genocides mainly due to the almost mythical transcendence of normal ethical/moral boundaries by the Waffen SS and the Einsatz Gruppen responsible for the genocide. I would have preferred if Mr Rosenbaum could have incorporated this slant into the discussion in greater depth. I'm always amazed that the victims would complement their tormentors in such a way. The victims of Stalin certainly never did and never will.

A Jewish friend suggested to me that the Jewish religious focus on being God's Chosen People makes them culturally prone to turn their tormentors into the Chosen Perpetrators as well .If they are chosen by the Almighty then so must be their tormentors. Both actors in the play of 20th century mankind's attempt to rediscover the Truth in a secular way( Communism , National Socialism, Capitalism) have paid one another a perverse but ultimate compliment it would seem. What horror do we not commit on one another when we want the temples but we do not want God in it. This more than anything else was the core impression the diverse tapestry of ideas around this complex subject left in my mind on completion of this entertaining work. Read it - it is definitively worthwhile

This book is an excellent survey of the considerable amount of work and thought contributed by many scholars on some of the most crucial questions of our time: Who was Hitler? What was Hitler? Where did he come from? What environmental and psychological forces shaped him? How did he get to power? Who supported him? Who recognised him for what he was and stood up to him before he came to power? What happened to them? Why was Hitler allowed? Was he a puppet or a devil, a war-traumatised, dysfunctional soldier or a self-aware and cunning murderer? The only question not answered for me was: Why do we see so much of him on TV, filmed after 1939, strutting about until his demise, while the important issues (addressed by this book) are too-often ignored? We must know as much as possible about Hitler to help us recognise new Hitlers before they come to power, recognise the constellation of forces that produces them, recognise the flattery, and resist the seduction. Ron Rosenbaum's style helped to make this difficult and controversial subject interesting and more personal. He visited and described for us many of the places pertinent to Hitler's early life and his rise to power to give the reader a feel for time and place. He introduces us to people who were there at the time and who have tried so hard to contribute to our, as well as their own, understanding. He surveys their writing and introduces us to the main themes. Much is made in the book of whether an explanation of Hitler would lessen his culpability. But without explanation there is only emptiness and we cannot use emptiness to help us recognise another disaster in the making. It is always worthwhile to attempt an explanation of Hitler. This is an excellent book.

"Explaining Hitler" by Ron Rosenbaum is a bit of a "bait and switch." Rosenbaum doesn't really attempt to "explain" Hitler himself. Instead, he attempts to "explain the explainers," and the work does an admirable job of peeling each of those onions. This book gives the reader marvelous insight into Hitler's character, and reveals many mysterious sides of that character that I was not previously aware of. However, if you are looking for a book to explain the Holocaust through an explanation of Hitler, you will be disappointed. Rosenbaum, rightfully, does not attempt to do that. If that's what you are looking for, pick up a book about the history of western civilization. But if you want some fascinating insight into Hitler, his personal history and development, his relationships, and different theories about his make-up, this is an excellent resourse, well written and very readable.

ALthough not the most tightly written book around, Ron Rosenbaum has nonetheless produced one of the best books ever written about Hilter and about those who try to understand Hitler. I admire Rosenbaum for making it clear at several points that he has a point of view that he is not trying to hide, and yet I found him overall to be quite objective in his discussions about what other's think. He is a little harder than necessary on poor Hugh Trevor-Roper, but perhaps not without reason. Overall, this remains a marvelous cultural history, with the added bonus of a great detail of interesting information about Hitler.

I found Rosenbaum's portraits of those pursuing an explanation for Hitler, and those who say that there should be no attempt to try to undestand or explain the man, to have been uniformly intersting. Particularly disturbing were the chapters on the pitiful Hitler-as-a-nice-guy David Irving, and the awesomely awful, supremely arrogant and fascist Claude Lanzmann (can this man have any credibility left?). Perhaps most disturbing are the Steiner and Hyam Maccoby sections. Rosenbaum's section on Steiner led me to read his controversial The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. I came away from that satisfied that Steiner is not a self-hating Jew who was trying to blame the Shoah on Jews. Rather, he wrote a thought-provoking book that has been used in ways that he naively did not (and does not) recognize could be done. Maccoby I find even more despicable than David Irving; what a hateful, narrow-minded, terribly sad person. Finally, the section of Goldhagen was quite illuminating, not only for its dissection of the weaknesses of Goldhagen's book, but, more imporantly, for the incredible hyprocisy displayed by some in the academic community--the font of freedom of ideas--who savaged Goldhagen.

No one need agree with the above characterizations. One of the wonderful things about Rosenbaum's book is that the author does two things--he gives plenty of information to let one reach one's own conclusions and also inspires one to seek out the works of those he writes about. (In addition to the Steiner book, I ordered Trevor-Roper's The Last Ten Days, Primo Levi's book on Auschwitz, and Berel Lang's Act and Idea in the Nazi Genocide.) The reader will also come away from the book with a much better understanding of Hitler, and what the central questions are about Hitler that seem to beg answering.

This is a thought-provoking, richly detailed book, that will profit all who read it. Rosenbaum is to be commended for his courage in tackling this subject, and for the relentlessly objective eye that he brings to the subject. This book, along with Ian Kershaw's first volume of his Hitler biography, are the absolute best places to start if the reader wants to learn about Hitler and his impact on the latter half of the last century.