Richard J. Evans (1)Kirja-arvosteluja

A compellingly readable narrative history of the particular parts of German history 1918-1933 (with a very brief recap of the Bismarck era that created German conservatism) that led to the rise of the Nazi Party. It's hard for me to judge if there are notable omissions as someone with only a basic understanding of the period. Obviously there are lots of parts where you could want extra information but that's the nature of a summary work.

I did wonder if there could have been more on the inter-left struggles that so doomed any SPD/KPD collaboration - the murders of Luxemburg and Liebknecht are mentioned but not even the event that led to them. There's also little on where the upper class support and funding came from - there's mention of aristocratic connections and also one little note about how the richer funders were small and medium businessmen with the big businesses preferring other parties until Hitler's ascension but minimal details unfortunately.

What stands out most is his emphasising of the Nazis as coming from continuity and the utter failure of the SPD to ever take the very real threat of the far right (including pre-nazi nationalist parties and the inherited aristocracy) seriously.

I know this book doesn't even cover a lot of things the SDP did, or at least not in detail (for example the Ruhr uprising is mentioned and the SDP moving to crush it but it's only a few sentences), but there were still things that surprised me even as someone who was exposed to a lot of communist anger about social democrats. Friedrich Ebert comes across as a particularly unpleasant figure. His interventions in the days of 1918 allowed many of the worst parts of the second Reich to carry over - the embedded aristocratic reactionaries in the army and civil service, the dominance of the Junkers, and even the more bland administrative issues like the imperfect federal system. Then as president he immediately legitimised ruling by decree instead of through the Reichstag and dissolved 2 state legislatures, paving the way for a similar move by Von Papen 10 years later for SDP governed Prussia, because although they were ruled by his party the SDP he considered them too dangerously left wing!

The SDP in general constantly failed to see the threat from the right, or at least meaningfully act on it, even as the Reichstag became dominated by anti-weimar parties. Weimar was created as a compromise to at least partly satisfy the right and it didn't stop them hating it from the start. Outside of actions against the left the SDP had a completely useless fixation on "legality" even to the very end (Sidenote: apparently in the night of the long knives Von Papen was roughed up by the SA and he just futilely protested that it was illegal to do this to him as he was vice chancellor). By the 1932 elections they were the only party that had a genuine interest in the Weimar constitution. They were reduced to the pathetic state of mobilising their party machine to vote for Hindenburg, who hated the SDP and the Weimar Republic, in order to try and desperately prop up the constitution under an authoritarian right wing chancellor from the centre party who had barely any Reichstag support and also hated the SDP. Evans points to this as the point where the SDP essentially lost any influence over the situation, demoralising their organised base and handing the state to the far right. Their later refusal to countenance a general strike or organise their paramilitary to fight back on Hitler's ascension was abysmal but almost understandable because by that point they'd failed for so long fighting back would have led to a massacre.

Evans also emphasises the long mainstream right wing ideological roots of the Nazi party. To many of the voters it attracted (predominantly middle class - workers and the unemployed overall stuck to the SDP and communists to the very end) it didn't seem that different in message from the other conservative parties, just with a new vibrancy and style. Anti semitism was just normal from all parties except the SDP and KPD (and even there the occasional party journal would use anti Semitic caricatures). The idea of an all powerful dictator and the crushing of meaningful parliamentarianism and who would lead a German militaristic reawakening to create a new German empire - this was all common imagery on the right and throughout educated society. Of the 3 major parties that formed the "Weimar coalition" at its founding - the Social Democratic Party, the Catholic Centre party, and the liberals of the democratic party - only the SDP held out to the end. The liberals quickly fell apart and declined into near irrelevance (except for 1 who became chancellor but was disliked by his party), the major part moving to the right. The centre party's Weimar supporting faction fell out of power by the time of the great depression under heavy pressure from the pope who much preferred an authoritarian far right state using the godless Reds as a bogeyman. Even if the Nazis hadn't existed in the form they did, by the 1930s there would have been some kind of authoritarian coup, most likely led by the army.

Evans focuses on the hyperinflation of the early 1920s and the great depression as the key events that made it near impossible for the republic to survive. The first destroyed the possibility of the middle class bourgeoisie reconciling themselves to the republic as they blamed it for their losses and the massive instability - also connecting it to the effects of the Versailles treaty. The great depression created massive unemployment which destroyed government budgets again and destroyed the last Reichstag coalition because there was no agreement on how to deal with it, putting government power entirely in Hindenburg's hands as chancellors were appointed by him without reference to the Reichstag and required his powers to rule by decree. The succeeding cabinets then completely failed to address the problems.

There was a sense in which the non-nazi forces just ran out of road - if there'd been another year, maybe things could have stabilised economically. In the second elections of 1932 the Nazis lost seats and could have lost momentum. But by that point things had reached crisis point and there was just not enough active support for the state as-is. There's a sort of grim inevitability to the final months of events - in the end nobody was willing to fight and just gave in. The communists may have done but they catastrophically misjudged just how urgent it was to react immediately to Hitler and assumed they could lie low under a period of repression without being destroyed. The SDP never raised a finger and let their paramilitaries and union members be disarmed without a fight. Even to the last, their deputies unanimously voted to support a Nazi motion in parliament to avoid being deemed unpatriotic before they were kicked out for good. The German aristocratic far right vastly overestimated their own strength and just assumed they could control events through legality and were anyway mostly soon reconciled to the Nazis after their parties were forcibly dissolved.

Depressing, but enlightening.

This is a very readable history of living under the Third Reich up to the point that war is declared by Britain. Highly recommended.

Very good introduction to the Third Reich for the beginner.

A very good ending to a very good series. I would recommend Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Shirer for an introduction to WW2 but if you want to start to delve deeper I would definitely recommend this series next.

Em 1939, Adolf Hitler mobilizou a Alemanha em uma guerra geral. O aclamado relato de Richard Evans mostra como uma sociedade inteira mergulhou nesse conflito de generais e soldados a ativistas da Juventude hitlerista e donas de casa da classe média , mapeando os acontecimentos desde a invasão da Polônia e a Batalha de Stalingrado até os planos de Hitler para o assassinato em massa de judeus e, por fim, seu suicídio. O Terceiro Reich em guerra é uma obra-prima histórica, que revela como a Alemanha lançou-se impetuosamente à destruição de si mesma e de um continente inteiro.

Como foi que os nazistas conquistaram o coração e a mente dos cidadãos alemães, distorceram a ciência e a cultura e colocaram o país no caminho de outra terrível guerra? Neste segundo volume da trilogia que conta a história do Terceiro Reich, o renomado historiador Richard J. Evans traz o relato definitivo da ditadura de Hitler entre 1933 e 1939, e mostra a impressionante nuvem de terror que se apoderou da Alemanha depois de os nazistas tomarem o poder.

I don’t usually make a habit of reading about WWII (either fiction or non-fiction). I’ve read some about it but my general view is that it’s a topic that has been done to death and then some, particularly in the historical fiction sphere it seems not a week goes by except there’s a new offering of some historical drama set in WWII. I tend to think the market is completely saturated and that other periods of history could benefit from some of the massive attention lavished on these six years in human history (even given their massive impact and importance).

However, this book came highly recommended to me and I realized my limited reading on WWII never dealt specifically with the central theme of this volume, namely how Weimar Germany fell and was replaced with the one party Nazi state. The recommendations are well deserved as this book is simultaneously sweeping in scope and deeply personal in its account of a country on the brink of a fascist takeover. The obviously immense amounts of research are balanced with first hand accounts from primary sources that show the human face of this turbulent time.

I’m planning on finishing the trilogy on the strength of this wonderfully written first volume. Whether or not I finish the remaining two books this is an excellent non-fiction title that hardly feels as dry or daunting as many history books.

Neste A chegada do Terceiro Reich, Richard Evans, um dos mais importantes estudiosos da história alemã, apresenta uma profunda análise sobre a chegada de Hitler ao poder e o colapso da civilização na Alemanha nazista. 'Com um domínio impressionante da literatura sobre o tema, uma análise perspicaz e um texto fluente, este livro não deixa dúvidas de que foi escrito por uma autoridade em História. As obras de Richard Evans sobre o terceiro Reich proporcionam uma compreensão completa sobre uma das épocas mais obscuras da História.' ― Sir Ian Kershaw (Professor de História em Sheffield, reconhecida autoridade em Hitler)

A great history of Europe from 1815 to 1914 by Sir Richard Evans, the author of the excellent trilogy about the Third Reich. It’s taken me a month to read this and summarizing it in any meaningful way for you is difficult, but...
The book is organized into sections based on concepts or historical themes including the end of the Napoleonic wars; the end of Serfdom; the Industrial and textile revolutions; the revolutions of 1830, 1848, etc.; the gradual advance of liberal democracy with the coming of modification of work hours, the reduction of work hazards and the expansion of the electorate; the development of trade unions, Socialism, and Communism; the independence of Belgium, the unification of Italy and Germany; the Crimean, Franco-Prussian, Russo-Japanese, Boer and Balkan wars; the coming of Imperialism; the development of the working and middle classes; plus the exploration of the Earth and the advancement of science. Whew.
In addition to considerable numerical and historical detail, with the discussion of what seemed to be every key person, the book is peppered with anecdotes, quotations and mention of important works of art and literature. For example:

At the time of the appointment of Talleyrand as the French foreign minister and Joseph Fouché as the minister of police, Chateaubriand commented that this was “vice leaning on the arm of crime”, and
when the Greek politician Ioannis Kapodistrias (1776 - 1831) was initially unsuccessful in the introduction of the potato to Greece, he had the potatoes surrounded by armed guards at the waterfront in Nafplio. The local inhabitants were then convinced of their value and stole them all.

There is a lot of fascinating stuff here, but I was especially enlightened by the author’s discussion of serfs; how they functioned, their importance in different countries, and the consequence of the abolition of serfdom. He commented that there were slaves in Europe, notably Gypsies in Romania. I also especially liked his final summary of the details of the coming of the first World War in the final chapter. The book is clearly an extraordinary accomplishment.

Péssimo! Para um autor tão prestigiado quanto este seria expectável uma obra muito muito melhor! Não está em causa a sua erudição, nem o seu conhecimento da História. Em causa está a sua falta de talento literário ao não conseguir dar um sentido à sua narrativa, ao revelar-se incapaz de tornar interessante o seu conhecimento sobre o tema.
Esta escrita positivista limitada à narração dos acontecimentos, sem qualquer interpretação dos mesmo, nem sequer qualquer ligação entre eles, é um péssimo serviço prestado à escrita da História. Este livro é um exemplo do academicismo estéril, que leva os académicos a escrever para os académicos. Pois que o façam nos órgãos próprios para esses efeitos, mas que livros secos como este nunca cheguem aos leitores comuns.
Treze meses depois de ter começado a leitura, desisti a meio do livro, na pagina 446. Comprei o livro por causa do título que prometia um tema interessante. Afinal, o título revelou-se o melhor do livro.

Wer jemals die Kraft der europäischen Aufklärung begriffen hat und ihren Übergang in Wissenschaft, Erfindungen und Technologien, Gleichberechtigung und Demokratie erfassen will, aber auch den danach folgenden Despotismus, Nationalismus und Rassenwahn, muss das 19. Jahrhundert mit seine vielfältigen europäischen Bewegungen und Wechselwirkungen begreifen.

Selten habe ich ein besseres Geschichtsbuch, kein spannenderes und deskriptiveres gelesen, weitgehend frei von Meinungen, die uns heute leider überschatten, wenn Politologen oder Historiker predigen. Fakten, Fakten und Geschichten, Menschen und Handelnde, ihre Ideen und Lösungen - wir lernen auf über 1000 Seiten, wie damalige Menschen zu denken, die sich den Möglichkeiten der Industrialisierung und der Globalisierung öffnen mussten.

In jedem Kapitel blicken wir zunächst auf eine konkrete Person und ihr Schicksal. Im ersten Kapitel (Das Erbe der Revolution) ist es der Steinmetz Jakob Walter (1788-1864), der als Soldat aus Württemberg in die Grande Armee des Napoleon eintrat, mit ihr nach Moskau und wieder zurück in die Heimat nach Ellwangen marschierte.

Alleine dieser Schock des Erlebten, aufgeschrieben in den Lebenserinnerungen des Jakob Walter, ist dieses Buch wert. Geschichte wird lebensnah und fühlbar, ein grandioser Schachzug von Richard J. Evans, für dessen Buch man wirklich dankbar sein muss.

The third volume of Evans` work is the history of the Nazi empire during the war. As others said it`s not the history of WWII but of Germany talking about its culture, society, etc., obviously in the mirror of the ongoing world war and genocide. A must to read.

An incredibly detailed and fascinating history of the Nazi empire between 1933 and 1939. A must for everyone interested in the era.½

Great account of rise of Nazis in Germany.

Probably the most detailed and easy to follow book I`ve ever read about the birth of the Third Reich. This is only the first volume of the monumental work. following things from the Bismarck era to 1933.

Evans trilógiája elképesztő vállalkozás: áttekinteni a Harmadik Birodalom működését a kezdetektől egészen addig a pontig, amíg az egészből csak egy marék hamu maradt. A nyitó kötetben a hatalomra jutásig követte figyelemmel az eseményeket, ebben a kötetben viszont eggyel nő a tét – amíg ott „pusztán” egy szervezet evolúcióját kísérhettük figyelemmel addig a pontig, amíg megszerzi a hatalom megragadásának képességét, addig itt már egy egész állam működését kell bemutatnia a maga eszméletlen komplexitásában. Ebbe a kísérletbe valahol már alapból bele van kódolva a kudarc – egy állam folyamatainak teljes körű ábrázolása (különösen, ha olyan agresszív és tevékeny államról van szó, mint a hitleri rezsim) olyan mennyiségű információ átadását feltételezi, ami valószínűleg lehetetlen – persze törekedni azért lehet rá. Evanson nem múlik: olyan tempóban lapátolja az adatokat, hogy az már néha az ember egészségének a rovására megy. Ez a hatalmas áradat szükségszerűen anomáliákhoz vezet a szövegben – ilyen például az egymásra rácáfoló határozatlan számnevek esete*. Másrészt Evans mindent megpróbál, hogy világos, átlátható csoportba rendezze az adathalmazt, de ez is elég parttalan igyekezet a számtalan összefüggő problémacsoport miatt. Mindenesetre a szisztéma, amire támaszkodik, a lehetőségekhez mérten logikus, és mindenképpen a könyv értelmezhetőségét szolgálja.

Ezeknél nagyobb, ám tökéletesen szubjektív problémám volt e könyvvel, hogy tulajdonképpen lehetetlen volt nem párhuzamos történelemként olvasni**. A Harmadik Birodalom eseménynaptára csurig van olyan jelenségekkel, amik a mai napig visszaköszönnek a populáris politika színpadán: a nemzeti konzultáció, a közmunkaprogram, az oktatási rendszer átalakítása, a liberális értékek démonizálása, a világösszeesküvés víziója, a tradicionális női szerep már-már komikus propagálása, és a többi, és a többi, egészen a végtelenségig. Ugyanakkor fontos látni, hogy ezek nem feltétlenül a rendszerek egyezéséből fakadnak, legtöbb esetben inkább külső jegyek – mint ahogy a marketing tudománya sem lesz attól még náci tudomány, hogy több elemét Goebbels alkalmazta először. Az pedig, ahogy a jelenkori migrációs politikában felsejlik az, ahogy a nyugati államok a ’30-as évek végén a zsidó menekülteket fogadták, igazán nem fogható rá egyetlen konkrét államra – inkább általános mintának tekinthető, ami folyton jelen lévő emberi félelmeinkre mutat rá. Szóval óvatosan a párhuzamokkal – nem azt jelentik, hogy egy mostani rezsim azonos egy egykori rezsimmel, pusztán azt, hogy… hát… hogy vannak párhuzamok. Mondjuk ez se valami szívvidító. És hát az sem árt, ha felismerjük őket.

Összegezve: elképesztően fontos könyv, minden hibájával együtt. Aligha megkerülhető annak, aki a Harmadik Birodalom történetével behatóbban akar ismerkedni. Nincsenek ugyan benne olyan vagány csaták, mint amilyen a sztálingrádi – de ettől függetlenül megsorozza az ember gyomrát.

*Ami alatt azt értem, hogy ugyanazon eseményre utalva először kijelenti, hogy „tömegesen tartóztattak le embereket”, majd később azt, hogy „a lakosság jelentős részét nem érintette” a letartóztatás. Ami természetesen lehet egyszerre igaz, mindenesetre pár szám enyhítene az ellentmondáson.
**Ez a jelenség már az első kötet kapcsán is meghatározta az érzéseimet, ám ebben a részben még élesebben jelentek meg ezek a tendenciák. Nem tudom megállapítani, hogy ez a változás a kötetnek, vagy jelenkorunk történéseinek köszönhető.

Megnyugtató úgy gondolni a második világháborúra, mint egy eseményre, amit bizonyos démoni személyek robbantottak ki olyan körülmények között, amelyek soha nem ismétlődhetnek meg. Evans könyve pont azért nyomaszt és rémít, mert pontról pontra bemutatja, hogy ezek az események felfogható emberi indulatokból születtek, és közönséges emberi és politikai hibák következtében logikusan jutottak el a végkifejletig. Vagyis megismételhetőek. Pedig Evans nem hoz be forradalmian új szempontokat a történelembe, csak egyszerűen felsorolja és vonalba rendezi a bőséges tényanyagot – ettől olyan félelmetes az egész. Szigorúan e könyv kapcsán két dolgot emelnék ki.

Ha egy konzervatív párt elnézést tanúsít a szélsőséges mozgalmak iránt abban bízva, hogy az ő támogatásukkal megőrzi hatalmát, és egyben arra számít, hogy majd kontroll alatt tartja őket, jó eséllyel nemcsak önmagát veszejti el, hanem a demokráciát és a nemzetet is. Mégpedig azért, mert képtelen felfogni: a szélsőséges pártokat nem lehet politikai machinációkkal irányítgatni, ők egyszerűen nem azok szerint a játékszabályok szerint játszanak, mint a demokratikus pártok. Ahol a hagyományos párt hazudik és időt akar nyerni, ott a szélsőséges mozgalom brutális és átgázol.

Másrészt: a forradalmi dinamizmus, az agresszió ideig-óráig sikeressé tehet egy pártot, de hosszú távon kaotikus állapotokat szül. A folyamatos aktivitás szükségessége olyan helyzetet teremt, ahol a mozgalom kénytelen egyre nagyobb és nagyobb problémákat állítani maga elé, mert tagjai igénylik a folyamatos konfrontációt. Így a csoport függővé válik, és addig rohan neki az egyre masszívabb akadályoknak, amíg egyszer csak betörik a feje.

Evans könyvét hiba úgy olvasni, hogy csak a párhuzamokat keresünk benne a jelenkorral. Ugyanakkor fontos látni még idejében minden dolgok mögött azt, ami lehet belőlük, ha hagyjuk kiterebélyesedni őket.

Ez a Harmadik Birodalom-trilógia eszméletlen vállalkozás és hatalmas eredmény, még akkor is, ha nem érzem hibátlannak. Egyrészt akkora terjedelmű szöveg, hogy ha egyetlen sorba írták volna (mondjuk egy sortörési válságnak köszönhetően, ami íróknál biztos előfordul néha), körbeérné az Egyenlítőt párszor, és azzal sem lehet vitatkozni, hogy minden szava mögött nagyon komoly kutatással és adatgyűjtéssel eltöltött órák állnak. Ugyanakkor a záró kötet tökéletes illusztrációja annak is, hogy a mérhetetlen mennyiségű információba bele lehet fulladni. No persze Evans azért messze áll a fulladástól, de azt határozottan éreztem, hogy amíg a második világháború periférikus témáit (mint amilyen a náci kultúra, tudomány és gazdaság) sallangmentesen foglalja össze, addig azokkal az elemekkel, amiknek amúgy is gazdag szakirodalma gyűlt már össze, nem mindig tud mit kezdeni: esetenként szétforgácsolódik keze alatt a kezelhetetlen mennyiségű információ.

Látványos, hogy Evans a Harmadik Birodalom legjellemzőbb tulajdonságának a világ homogenizálására tett erőfeszítéseket tartja – az ezzel kapcsolatos leírások teszik ki a könyvnek legalább a felét. Védhető álláspont, hiszen agresszív nagyhatalmakat láttunk már, de olyat, aki még a totális vereség küszöbén is azzal foglalkozik, hogy vélt vagy valós ellenségeit (zsidókat, kommunistákat, idegeneket, árulókat) kiirtsa, nem sokat. Mintha a hitleri rezsim egyetlen célja az lett volna, hogy csak a németek maradjanak a földön, meg még pár helóta – ha pedig a német vereség elkerülhetetlen, akkor inkább a németek se. Ebben a megvilágításban másképp fest mind a náci politika, de még a náci hadtudomány is: a világháború eszközzé válik, a cél pedig egy utópisztikus jövő, ahol árja lurkók szőke haját lobogtatja a szél a szőke ukrán búzamezőn, amit rabszolgák hada művel. Ez a vízió magva, a Harmadik Birodalom alfája és omegája – ami pedig eltér ettől (például a porosz konzervatív-nacionalista Wehrmacht-szellemiség, ami a birodalmon belül időnként valóban konkurált a nácikkal), az csupán marginális jelenség, és ha Hitler időt tud szakítani rá, előbb-utóbb felszámolja majd a többi hasznos hülyeséggel együtt.

Amúgy meg a könyv olvasása során az is világossá vált számomra, miért nyilvánulok meg bizonyos témákról radikálisabban, mint néhány éve: pont mert azóta elég sokat olvastam a második világháborúról. Engem a hadtudomány és a történelem pacifistává tesz, hisz minden háború tökéletesen illusztrálja azt a folyamatot, amikor egy csoport valamely más csoportot – az ellenséget – dehumanizál, olyan helyzetet teremtve ezzel, amelyben megölésük nem bűn lesz, hanem szakma, amelynek megvannak a maga „jó szakemberei”, akiket hősként tisztelünk*. Hitler ebből a szempontból nem tett mást, mint logikusan továbbvitte a gondolatot: az ellenség kitételt egész népcsoportokra – „fajokra” – is kiterjesztette, a civileket, gyerekeket és nőket is beleértve. Ezzel amúgy nem találta fel a spanyolviaszt, mert bár egyfelől mindez a Tízparancsolatok felfüggesztése, másfelől viszont paradox módon pont visszatérés az Ószövetség háborúfelfogásához, ahol Isten Saulnak azt parancsolja, hogy „Ne kíméld, hanem öld meg a férfiakat és a nőket, a gyermekeket és a csecsemőket, a marhákat és a juhokat, a tevéket és a szamarakat!” (Sám1 15,3)**. Ez a fajta népirtás csak úgy lehetséges, ha olyan közeget teremtünk, ahol az elpusztításra kijelölt célcsoportot lassacskán megfosztjuk emberi mivoltától – a XX. század első felében pedig pont kezdtek kialakulni és tökéletesedni azok a csatornák, amiken keresztül meg lehetett fertőzni gyűlölettel egy egész népet***. Ezek a csatornák ma még tökéletesebbek, nagyobb intenzitással képesek megszólítani szélesebb közönséget. Reális a veszély, hogy felelőtlen használatuk tragédiát okoz – ilyen értelemben én is félek, azt hiszem. Csak én nem attól félek, amitől szerintük félnem kéne, hanem attól, hogy miféle hibákat ismételtet meg velünk ezt a valakire fókuszált félelem. Evans három kötetének felbecsülhetetlen értéke pedig az, hogy eszement részletességgel vázolja fel az utat, ami a gyűlölet kezdetétől egészen a totális megsemmisülésig vezet – ez pedig egy olyan történet, amit sokkal többen kéne ismerjenek, mégpedig sokkal részletesebben. Talán ők is radikálisabbak lennének. Óvatosságból.

* Észrevettétek már, hogy a hős általában olyan személyt jelöl, aki feláldozza a saját életét, vagy megment valakit? Tűzoltót, orvost, mártírt. Egyetlen kivétel a katona, akit az ölésért is hősnek tekinthetünk. Ezzel szemben a hóhér az európai kultúrkörben megvetendő figura – holott ő is csak olyat öl, aki a hatalom életre méltatlannak nyilvánított.
** Félreértés ne essék, ezzel nem Hitler és a kereszténység hasonlóságára kívánok utalni. Hanem egyszerűen arra, hogy a Biblia szó szerinti értelmezése ilyen olvasatot is megenged.
*** Érdemes megnézni pár magyar sajtóorgánumot a ’20-as, ’30-as évekből, amikor a határainkon egyszeriben ezrével jelentek meg a csak jiddisül beszélő, kaftános ortodox zsidók, akik ilyen-olyan okból kénytelenek voltak elhagyni kelet-európai stetljeiket. És érdemes azt is végigkövetni, hogyan csúszott át az irántuk érzett idegenkedés, félelem vagy gyűlölet idővel az asszimilálódott zsidók közösségére, összemosódva az amúgy is létező úri antiszemitizmussal. Ezeknek a publicisztikáknak a hangneme nagyon is ismerős. Csak még nem tudni, a mai idegenkedés, félelem és gyűlölet ki mindenkire fog még kiterjedni, azokon túl, akiket céloznak vele.

Writing against false conspiracy theories seems like it might be a lose-lose situation. Giving incomplete arguments could leave readers with the sense that there is something to those theories. Giving complete arguments against those theories might have the paradoxical effect of dignifying them. (And then there is the maxim about wrestling with a pig.)

In this book, Richard J. Evans combats five ideas:

(1) The Protocols of the Elders of Zion accurately reflects Jewish machinations;
(2) The German war effort in WWI was intentionally sabotaged by forces on the home front;
(3) The Nazis conspired to burn down the Reichstag;
(4) Ruldolf Hess's flight to Scotland was backed by Hitler;
(5) Hitler escaped to South America after WWII.

These ideas aren't of equal stature. Idea 1 seems to be held by no one respectable. Idea 2 is nebulous enough that it's hard not to think that it might have a grain of truth. (Whether relevant or not, the fact that Germany surrendered while still in possession of its own lands surprised a lot of us non-experts the first time we heard it.) In the words of Wikipedia, Idea 3 "remains a topic of debate and research", no matter how strongly Evans wishes it weren't. Prior to reading this book, I had no idea that Idea 4 was even a thing. Idea 5 was the subject of a lot of bad movies in the 1970s when I was growing up, but if it weren't for stumbling across a rerun of "Hunting Hitler" while flipping the channels, I wouldn't have known that it was a going concern.

While this is fairly interesting stuff, it's not of the same quality as Evans' highly-respected trilogy on the Third Reich.

A few complaints and comments:

(a) The Introduction and Conclusion feel oversized for a book this short. Like most people, I was taught to tell the people what you're going to say, then say it, then tell the people what you said. But this tactic can often feel drearily repetitive to me as a reader, and it does so here.
(b) As an example of a real conspiracy, Evans mentioned how Nixon "organized" the Watergate burglary (p. 5). Wasn't there a more clear-cut example he could have used? While Jeb Magruder eventually changed his original story to say that Nixon made a phone call to him, John Mitchell, and Fred LaRue ordering the break-in, Mitchell and LaRue always denied this.
(c) On pages 206 and 207, Evans writes about the reviews for something on amazon.co.uk but forgets to tell us what that something was.

"The death of democracy in Germany was part of a much broader European pattern in the interwar years; but it also had very specific roots in German history and drew on ideas that were part of a very specific German tradition."

In this sweeping and arching chronicle of history, Richard J. Evans examines every nook and cranny of German society and culture from the looming spectre of the Bismarckian era to the fall of the Weimar Republic in delineating the causes of the rise of The Third Reich. Indeed, it also takes into account the turmoil, the overall attitude prevalent across the European continent when providing complicated answers to the perhaps most boggling and important questions of the 20th century: why did no one stop the Nazi Regime? Why did the German population engage in such silent acquiescence?

With a myriad of cultural anxieties, from the threat of Communism to the perceived collapse of the traditional family due to the First Wave Feminist movement to the perceived unfairness of the stipulations of the Treaty of Versailles to modernism gaining traction across art, literature, and cinema to the 1929 hyperinflation to the Great Depression era, and most of all the 'stabbed-in-the-back' myth after Germany's defeat in the First World War, and conspiracy theories of Jewish domination, Evans never leaves a stone unturned with his lucid narrative-style, where every section is gripping. No reason can be attributed as the single cause of Nazi Germany's seizure of power. Rather, several historical incidents, a tensed political ambience, etc., etc., each of them helped form its inception and strengthen its hold on the already-feeble Weimar Republic. History, unsurprisingly, is also full of complications and contradictions. And interspersed here and there are excerpts from diaries of German citizens, which share a glimpse of both the panic and fanaticism circulating across the masses. The steadily worsening state in every area of German society, with the brandishing of racial hierarchy and distorted Social Darwinism, in the last chapters was a terrifying read. Absolutely accessible for people who has little to limited knowledge on one of the darkest periods in history, The Coming of the Third Reich is an undeniably definitive work.½

Very informative, but I picked up on two errors which were worrying:

1. When discussing the Reichstag Fire and Marinus van der Lubbe, Evans suggests that anarcho-syndicalists call for the "propaganda of the deed" tactic. They definitely do not. This seems like a big error, especially since we're dealing with a historical controversy like the Reichstag Fire. Plus, I'm an anarchist so I'm just grumpy that Evans got facts about anarchy wrong. From this, I suspect his slightly condescending treatment of the "regime of the coffeehouse anarchists" is unfair and uninformed.

2. The French Revolution's Republican Calendar did not begin with 1789. (page 460 in the first American edition) Year One started in 1792, when the king was removed from power.

I'm only sorta being nit-picky. These two errors make me think that there are many more.

I selected this book for background reading regarding World War II and my ongoing study of the United States presidents. Since I am currently "studying" FDR I felt that I needed to understand what the war was all about. Before reading this book, my total understanding of Nazi Germany was a dictator who wanted to rule the world while eliminating the Jewish people and showing the world Aryan supremacy. Wow, did I get an education! And now I know I need more information.

This book showed the dangers of following blindly the dictates of a charismatic leader who has his own agenda which may or may not be the best for all. IMO what I saw in Hitler from this book, was a man who originally wanted to free the German people from the penalties that had been inflicted on Germany by the Allies at the end of World War I. And that cause was probably valid, however, once he managed to gain power he went to the extremes of controlling everything forcing the German Jews before the war to leave or buckle under. Those that left survived, those that chose to remain were annihilated. Hitler took a fledgling democratic society and within a few short years, forced those that were not part of the Nazi party (5 major political parties) and wiped them out with violence and intimidation.

Reading of how artists and scientists were treated if they were Jewish or married to a Jew is shocking, but seeing the numbers and names of those who were involved even more so. Three of the displaced scientists—Einstein, Franck, and Schrödinger
had already received the Nobel prize in physics. five more would eventually receive the prize. Artists were also driven out in a "cultural cleansing". Wikipedia states it better than I can. "In 1937 in Munich, two simultaneous events demonstrated the Nazis’ views about art. One exhibition displayed art that should be eliminated (“The Degenerate Art Exhibition”), while the other promoted, by contrast, the official aesthetic (“The Great German Art Exhibition”)." Modern artists were said to be compromising the purity of the German race and lost their jobs at galleries and such while artwork was removed and destroyed. If they remained in Germany, many ended up in concentration camps.

The revelations in this book are alarming. Similarities are noticeable with today's society. We must not let this ever happen again.

Horrific.

Os nazis começaram por ser pouco mais do que um gangue de extremistas e rufiões, que em poucos anos transformaram a Alemanha num Estado de partido único e conduziram um dos países mais avançados da Europa para a ruína moral, física e cultural.

Nesta história excelente, cativante e aclamada, Richard Evans revela como tudo aconteceu, questiona a inevitabilidade da ascensão de Hitler e recria o turbilhão de desordem, desastre económico, violência e polarização que deu origem ao terror do Terceiro Reich.

Not scintillating, but perfectly solid history. Evans is an awe-inspiring organizer of information, he writes clearly, and he's sceptical towards historical revisionism that hasn't entirely proved its case... but will also let you know what the revisionists say, while cautioning that they're only telling part of the story. One of the great public-facing historians of our time. I'm already enjoying the next volume of this one, and can't wait to read his Hobsbawm biography.