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".
