The Hitler Of History Chapter Summaries

Book Review: The Hitler of History
For the purpose of a meaningful review of The Hitler of History, a distinction has to be drawn between discussing the historiography of a subject, in this case that of Hitler, and discussing the subject itself. In the words of the author, The Hitler of History was “not a biography of Hitler, but a history of his history and a history of his biographies.” The former is an analysis of Hitler as a historical figure, probably and preferably relying on primary source for information. The latter is an analysis of the former, which by its very nature constitute a set of secondary sources.
As the author of The Hitler of History, Lukcas dawns a special cloak and plays the role of a commentator rather than a contributor

Due in part to the nature of the project, the book is plagued by the overcrowding of citations and footnoting that contains essential content for readers to understand the arguments of the book. This prevented the establishment of any rhythm and momentum while reading, especially in the first paragraph. Moreover, while most discussions proved to be interesting, many remained trivial and unfruitful. For instance, Chapter 2 was centered on a single discussion of when Hitler’s ideas, such as his anti-semantic sentiments, were crystallized, in Vienna before 1913 or in Munich after 1914. Given that Hitler’s rise to prominence came years after 1914 and his rise to power a decade after that, it seems unwarranted to dedicate an entire chapter to that discussion and Lukcas certainly failed to provide a context to explain the significance of devoting an entire chapter on that discussion.
The premise that Lukcas is being regarded and reviewed in the capacity of a historian of history commentating on the history of Hitler’s biographies comes with an assumption; that, as far as reasonably possible, Lukcas’ views and arguments should be directed at histories and bibliographies of Hitler. In other words, a reader of The Hitler of History should not be able to detect the author’s opinion on Hitler himself as a subject but only of the historiography of Hitler. It was however, not the case as Lukcas’ writing remained overtly affected by

Essentially, this essay argues The Hitler of History had failed to serve its purpose of providing a discourse on the historiography of Hitler. Instead, Lucas misused the position of a commentator of how others view Hitler and himself turned into a contributor to the historical image of Hitler. For example, the aforementioned core arguments about Hitler in chapter 9, particularly that about Hitler’s personality found little grounding in the secondary sources he evaluate and could only be construed as Lukcas’ own opinions. The same can be said about his view of Hitler as an enemy of the