After several failed attempts, I have finally finished reading this! Last time I got about 500-600 pages before finally misplacing it. That was about two months ago. In any case, I took two hours vacation from work today so I could actually finish the last 250 or so pages. Amazing. Really.
I regret that I didn't read the book earlier. I also regret that I didn't pay very close attention in history classes. I never liked the subject when I was younger, and I wish now that I'ld had enough interest to at least pay attention. I think a prior understanding of some of the major events would have made this book much easier to read -- all 1500 or so pages of it.
My first impression is that there are A LOT of misconceptions I had about Hitler, about NAZIsm, and about Germany. My next impression is that there are a lot of general misconceptions wandering through our collective consciousness.
Where to begin? Well, let's just make a list in no particular order. Misconception number 1. I had been told by an unsavory admirer of current NAZIs that the NAZIs had actually developed an atomic bomb and produced two of them, but that Hitler had not used it because he was too much of a humanitarian. (Okay, I admit I never believed this one, but this is one of the most blatant falsehoods ever told to me.)
According to Shirer,
"As for the German atom bomb project, which had given London and Washington much worry, it had made little progress due to Hitler's lack of interest in it and Himmler's practice of arresting the atom scientists for suspected disloyalty or pulling them off to work on some of his pet nonsensical 'scientific' experiments which he deemed more important. Before the end of 1944 the American and British governments had learned, to their great relief, that the Germans would not have an atom bomb in this war."
But even if this were not the case, it is utterly inconceivable that any person knowledgeable of the facts would believe that Hitler would be guilty of 'humanitarianism.' The book is filled with the details of Hitler's ruthlessly barbaric treatment of those who dared to oppose him, and many of his writings and speeches are justifications for his rejecting the values of normal human beings, for example, the Geneva Convention.
Misconception number 2. I have often heard it argued that countries should simply declare neutrality when there are wars just as Switzerland did and that thus all countries which do so can avoid war. This ignores the fact that Belgium, Holland, and Norway had all declared neutrality and it did them no good whatsoever. I'm not sure why Switzerland was left out in Hitler's rampage, but I'm pretty sure it had nothing to do with the fact that they had declared themselves neutral. (Luxembourg might also have declared neutrality, but I wasn't sure from reading this particular book.) In any case, Hitler did discuss the possibility of 'violating Swiss neutrality'
Misconception number 3. I had heard it argued that censorship of hateful speeches doesn't work. Germany had such laws prior to the rise of the NAZIs and they had failed to work. I'm not defending censorship, but there are a number of problems with this assessment. 1) It is not logical to assert that because something has failed previously that it must always fail and 2) while it is true that the Weimar republic had such laws, it is only a partial truth to assert this. The NAZIs already had a great deal of control over local politics and were able to sidestep the brunt of the laws. Many NAZIs who were guilty of this got light sentences, while their opponents (both the communists and the social democrats) were prosecuted to the full extent of the law. So, while there were indeed such laws, they were not uniformly enforced.
Misconception number 4. I knew that America came into the war late, but I'd no idea how much capitulation had been done on the part of the allies. The Brits didn't back the French after Hitler marched into the Rhineland despite the fact that they were obligated to do so (by treaty). At that time (and Shirer is quoting the generals at Nuremburg here) France and England had overwhelming military superiority over Germany and could have stomped Hitler before he endangered all of Europe. But Chamberlain wanted to avoid war at any cost. This sounded noble enough until they realized what the cost of 'at any cost' meant. The attack on Austria (called the Anschluss) after Hitler proclaimed that he wouldn't interfere with Austria was a capitulation from Mussolini (Italy was Austria's 'protector' and Hitler was loyal to the end to Mussolini for giving him Austria). Then he marched into Sudeten Czechoslovakia without spilling a drop of blood in real battle because the French and English (ostensibly Czech allies) had convinced president Benes that even were the two great powers to go to war with Germany, the Sudetenland would nevertheless fall. The Czechs were told that under no circumstances would France and England go to war with Hitler if the Czechs resisted. However, in the Munich agreement, they solemnly swore to come to the aid of the Czechs if Hitler tried to annex the rest of the country beyond the Sudetenland. Within seven months, he did exactly this, and the French and English sat back and did nothing whatever. The Fuhrer had not completely digested Czechoslovakia when he marched into Poland, but found the Poles to be much more resistant. Now this would not have happened, had not Hitler already forged a nonagression with Stalin in Russia, in exchange for giving Stalin a cut in the take. In any case, the British and French finally figured out "Wow. This guy makes promises which he obviously has no intention of keeping." It's not clear to me that America had any obligation to enter WWII before it did. It is pretty clear that France and England did have those obligations after the Munich treaty.
Misconception number 5. NAZIism was socialist. This is only a part truth. It attracted many workers because of its socialist platform, but it was not a pro-worker party. Hitler did publicly ascribe to socialism, but in practice he disbanded labor unions, resisted land reforms, and purged the real socialists from his party. (Not only that, but he broke up the party meetings of social democrats, beat them up, and murdered them when he got the chance.)
Misconception number 6. Hitler had a good idea at first, but he eventually whacked out. I have no idea where this notion came from, but I've heard it from several germans. Contrary to what Hitler maintains in his Mein Kampf , he was indeed already anti-semitic even as a child in Linz. And reading Mein Kampf shows that the path he followed after becoming chancellor was the one he outlined while in jail.
This brings us to misconception number 7, that Hitler never broke any laws. I didn't believe this, but I've visited a web site that maintains it. It's not quite true. First, Hitler served jail time in Bavaria for the Beer Hall Putsch, his first attempt at seizing power in Germany. I imagine that the reason he was in jail is because it was illegal to do this. Second, while I'm not sure about the laws of the Weimar republic, I'ld be really surprised if the fact that his stormtroopers physically terrorized his opponents to the point they couldn't offer opposition was really legal. We also have the fact that he broke his treaty obligations (international law) some of which he entered into voluntarily. He also invaded Norway, Belgium, and Holland, which were neutral states. I imagine this is also a violation of international law.
Misconception number 8 is not so much a misconception as a wrong assumption on my part. If I understand Shirer, Hitler never finished high school. If so, this is a poignant advertisement for education.
Misconception number 9 is also not a misconception on my part. Some people assert that the Holocaust never happened. It may or may not be that it was exaggerated. I haven't looked at things enough to have an opinion one way or the other. But I think it would be very foolish indeed to declare or to assume that it never happened at all. Shirer quotes Mein Kampf in which Hitler declares that if the Jews started another world war in europe that it would mean the utter annihilation of jews in europe. In Hitler's last will and testament he made clear his claim that he thought 'the jews' (which jews? I don't know. 'THE' jews.) had started the war (well, that's what he claimed he believed, but it's even more clear that he had contempt for truth). Among those who claim that the holocaust never happened, there seems to be two groups: those who are actively involved in 'racial' politics and those who just listened to what this first group says and don't know any better. The second group, those who are merely ignorant of the facts, is curable. Ignorance can be treated. I know this because I've talked with a few and after a very short while, there views were perceptibly altered. The first group, those who have already put their egos into their opinions, are most likely simply lying in an effort to sway the merely ignorant. A very good thing to do would be to visit the various pro-nazi web sites throughout the net. (I would include links here, but I don't think geocities would approve.) To get a good flavor for it all, though, you can visit a site called NIZKOR which is an excellent site that contains mountains of refutations of the various claims the neo-nazis have made that the holocaust never happened. One has only to listen to (or read the writings of) the neo-nazis for a short period to understand that they are very dishonest. Some of their sites are comical, too. And again I strongly encourage anyone interested in seeing poorly educated people parade their utter lack of scientific understanding to go visit a few of these sites. I feel a little bad about making fun of people who are so stupid (willfully ignorant), but it's not their ignorance I'm laughing at, but the fact that they maliciously avoid the truth. "Jews are terrible because they're just so sleazy because they're dishonorable cowards who lie." And yet...well, anyone who can't see the humor in this situation must have been a victim of the Holocaust. (That's not a direct quote, btw, but it's pretty much what the NAZIs believe.)
There are a number of memorable passages in the book. One of them is a passage in which the Brits tell Hitler that a paper that he's given them during a peace accord is tantamount to a Diktat, whereupon Hitler takes the paper and shows them the top of it and says something like, "Nein! See! It says here it's a memorandum! It's not a diktat at all!" Hehehe. Curious. I've heard this before....different actors, different stage, different opening night, but the same script.
There is a lot more to write about, but that's enough for now. I do think that some time I'ld like to read a few additional things, though: the texts of the treaties of Versailles and Locarno, the constitution of the Weimar Republic, Winston Churchill's memoires, Mein Kampf and a few other things. Might be a few years before I can get around to them, though.
