In The Hitler of History, John Lukacs analyzes the biographies written about Hitler. Lukacs recognizes that there are numerous works chronicling Hitler’s life and does not attempt to add to the copious amount of biographies. Instead, he writes a history of Hitler’s biographies and evaluates the merits of the biographers’ conclusions. The opening chapter of The Hitler of History serves as a summarization of the biographies written about Hitler since the end of World War Two. In this chapter, Lukacs condemns biographers he believes sympathize with Hitler, especially Holocaust denier David Irving. He also disagrees with biographers who resort to labeling Hitler as insane. Lukacs resists this simple categorization in order to depict a more
…show more content…
John Lukacs’ wealth of information on the subject lends a voice of authority to his writing. However, the book is not without its faults. The opening chapter reads like a litany of books. Lukacs moves from one biographer to the next without giving enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion. He concentrates on biographers who revere Hitler or deny the Holocaust to illustrate the importance of creating an accurate picture of history. While it is important to recognize people’s ignorance in regards to Hitler, these authors are already widely disavowed in academia and only hold influence over a small minority of people. The questions posed by Lukacs often go unanswered or he draws vague conclusions, convoluted by his own personal distinctions between various ideologies. He also quotes various biographers only to dispute their claims but often fails to expand upon why their views are erroneous. Much of the book depends on Lukacs contrast between the good, humane, evil, patriotic, conservative, and modern depictions of Hitler. However, Lukacs’ opinions are never fully realized. Lukacs’ comparison of Hitler with Napoleon argues that Hitler was inherently more evil than Napoleon. However, anyone with limited knowledge on the subject of European history would most likely draw the same conclusion. Despite these weaknesses, Lukacs’ historiography raises important questions and ensures no detail is
John Lukacs’ wealth of information on the subject lends a voice of authority to his writing. However, the book is not without its faults. The opening chapter reads like a litany of books. Lukacs moves from one biographer to the next without giving enough information to draw a meaningful conclusion. He concentrates on biographers who revere Hitler or deny the Holocaust to illustrate the importance of creating an accurate picture of history. While it is important to recognize people’s ignorance in regards to Hitler, these authors are already widely disavowed in academia and only hold influence over a small minority of people. The questions posed by Lukacs often go unanswered or he draws vague conclusions, convoluted by his own personal distinctions between various ideologies. He also quotes various biographers only to dispute their claims but often fails to expand upon why their views are erroneous. Much of the book depends on Lukacs contrast between the good, humane, evil, patriotic, conservative, and modern depictions of Hitler. However, Lukacs’ opinions are never fully realized. Lukacs’ comparison of Hitler with Napoleon argues that Hitler was inherently more evil than Napoleon. However, anyone with limited knowledge on the subject of European history would most likely draw the same conclusion. Despite these weaknesses, Lukacs’ historiography raises important questions and ensures no detail is