This is the one-volume version of Kershaw’s famous biography. The original two volumes are 1450 pages long with 450 pages of notes. This version has lost all of the footnotes and 600 pages of text. A bibliography of principal primary sources remains. The work did not seem deficient to me in any way, although I suppose I would have to read both versions to know what I missed.

Kershaw attempted to examine Hitler’s power and determine first, how he came to power in an economically developed, culturally advanced country and second, how he was able to exercise that power. In my small non-expert opinion, the work is certainly successful in its detail and depth. Compared to some other biographies I have read, I did not feel that Kershaw was pushing any particular basic or underlying psychological hypothesis. He does explicitly state in the preface that he is a proponent of Max Weber’s concept of charismatic authority asserting that Hitler’s authority was not based on any outstanding personal qualities, but rather on traits that were projected onto him by a following in crisis conditions.

My only criticism of this great work is in the one small area where I have some expertise. When Kershaw is explicitly discussing medical matters, he produces the small inaccuracies that one commonly sees in lay analysis of disease. This was most apparent in discussion of an illness that Hitler had in which he was jaundiced. By themselves, these comments are trivial, but I think there are underlying psychiatric problems among the various actors which might have been more clearly seen by an expert in those matters. I do tend to think that stressing the effect of societal structure, as Kershaw does, over the special characteristics of the leader, although affording valuable insight, may ultimately somewhat obscure things.

It is impossible to read this and probably any biography of Hitler at this time without drawing comparisons to the current administration in the United States. It is clearly de rigeur to always append a comment that no one can be compared to Hitler and that any comparison would be inappropriate. Various possible reasons for this prohibition come to mind: Hitler is such a well-known and extreme example that comparison with him is too easy and diminishes one’s argument (see Godwin’s Law); All people are unique; The idea that history does not or cannot repeat itself; The misery, death, and destruction caused by Hitler are somehow minimized by comparison with any current person or situation; The misery, death, and destruction caused by Hitler have some special quality or meaning associated with a particular religion or ethnicity and this is denigrated by comparison with any person or situation not associated with the same religion or ethnicity. Be this as it may, and without originally intending to, I highlighted my e-book when there were characteristics that were obviously shared by the two personalities. However, as I neared the denouement, I decided that these various shared peculiarities (megalomania; addiction to public adulation; surrounding oneself with sycophants; casting about for scapegoats; demand for loyalty but the inability to show any; having a central underlying fear-based philosophical delusion; complete lack of empathy; obsession with the military, ceremony, and childish ranks and uniforms; dilettante-like lifestyle with the inability to concentrate on a task; rambling thought process and speech patterns; inability to take advice; explosive temper; ability to manipulate others…) are best thought of, at least by me, as characteristics of a particular diagnosable disease or abnormality. Any clinician in the course of their training will notice the behavioral patterns held in common among patients with a particular disease, e.g. chronic pancreatitis, alcoholism, schizophrenia. These patients are all different people and have their distinguishing features, but the similarities can sometimes be striking. Obviously, there are similarities that we all share, this is the basis of much of human activity, of the art and science of medical diagnosis, of any human classification system, and of all of the Sherlock Holmes stories. But in cases where the similarities are associated with a personality disorder of someone in public office and directly linked to widespread damage and destruction of other people and the society itself, they are difficult to ignore.