In 1945, Hugh Redwald Trevor-Roper, Baron Dacre of Glanton (1914 - 2003) was asked by British Intelligence to find out what happened to Adolph Hitler. Hitler’s bunker under the Reich Chancellory in Berlin was overrun by the Soviets, and probably owing to Stalin’s peculiarities, various misleading accounts of the whereabouts and nature of Hitler’s remains had been promulgated as Soviet propaganda. Trevor-Roper, a professor of History at Oxford and an officer in the Radio Security Service during the war, interviewed every significant witness to Hitler’s final weeks that he could find and created a report for the Intelligence Service. Shortly afterward, he states in his Introduction, he was asked to publish a version of the report for the general public - this book. The author had various addenda in the subsequent decade as information became available, e.g. concerning the death of Martin Borman, but those have been consolidated in this edition into the Introduction.
Trevor-Roper was quite controversial, strongly opinionated, and cultivated arguments with other historians of WWII especially concerning Hitler’s ideology and motivations. He encouraged the use of the historian’s imagination in the interpretation of historical events and was a supporter of Fernand Braudel and the Annales School.
Although the various peculiarities and faults of this work that have been pointed out by HTR’s critics seemed clear to me, I nevertheless found the book to be quite brilliant overall. The author’s sarcasm and his wild dislike for various characters were very entertaining. The extraordinary interrelationships among the assorted screwballs in Hitler’s entourage are analyzed with great insight into their motivations and include comments from the various witnesses, e.g. Albert Speer’s comment that Himmler seemed a combination of a school teacher and a crank. HTR did a fine job of mentioning the cross-correlations among his recorded testimonies to verify the veracity of his opinions. I am, of course, not able to have a personal opinion of any substance concerning the accuracy of his analysis of Hitler’s nature.
I was struck by the almost complete absence of mention of the Holocaust (the words Jew or Jewish appear twice), and the author seems to have thought that Hitler’s antisemitism was just a political expediency. Whether this reflects a British aristocratic antisemitism, as suggested by Lucy Dawidowicz, is a speculation that I find ultimately only slightly interesting.