I read this book several years ago, when I became fascinated by the Mitfords. One sister, Nancy, wrote a couple of the most delightful comic novels ever, (Love in a Cold Climate, especially) largely revolving around the love life of the English aristocracy. Another sister married into the higher reaches of English aristocracy. One sister, Jessica, got involved in the Spanish Civil war, then moved to the US, became a communist party member, and wrote a best selling expose' of the funeral industry that even my conservative-republican father loved. Another sister, Diana, married the head of the British Fascist party a few years before the beginning of the Second World War.

The youngest sister, Unity, (Yes, I finally got to her!) hung out with Diana, teased Jessica, and ended up, as a teenager, loitering around Berlin in Hitler's known hangouts. She managed to get herself picked up by Hitler himself, who at that time, loved the idea of attaching an English Rose to his group. She went with the "inner circle" to various speeches; she was close friends with numerous vicious anti-semites, whom she seemed to find agreeable and sensible; and she publically argued for a German-English 'alliance' even as Germany invaded its neighbor states.

Apparently, the view we often get of England completely united against facism is not entirely accurate. There were a significant number of English people who thought Hitler was a good thing, and Jews were a big problem, and would have been happy to side with Germany. Unity's brother-in-law, Mosely, would appear to be the man Hitler would have chosen to run England for him if things had turned out differently. Unity's sister Jessica fear that Mosely's crowd was going to take over, and that is why she moved to the US. (Although I suppose we had the same sort of people in the US too ...)

Unity hung out in the thick of this group, and with the Nazi's themselves, and apparently had a marvelous time. She was treated like a Princess by the people who ran Germany (her life in England had been more troubled... She was something of a misfit.) She invited here parents to visit (more English aristocrasy) and they enjoyed meeting Hitler very much; thought he was a fine fellow.

Unity was not disillusioned with her choice until England actally declared war on Germany after the invasion of France. She was living in Berlin then, close to Hitler and his crowd, and she shot herself in the head when the announcement came. She survived, and Hitler himself arranged to have her sent back home to England through neutral Switzerland, where she lived out the rest of her life physically and mentally disabled.

I suppose I haven't really talked about the book. I can't swear as to whether or not it was well-written because I was so fascinated by the subject matter I didn't care. Very readable, though, as I recall. And it seemed to have a reasonable, relatively objective (or at least not vindictive) perspective on the politics and personalities involved.

The Fuhrer's Reserve is a very readable book. Lindsay gives some depth to the main character, FBI Agent Taz Fallon, by giving him emotional issues. The problem is, you still do not really care about him. He is merely an instrument providing a means to an end.

The plot is original, and littered with attempted plot twists. What I am trying to say is that I enjoyed reading this book, and I am not upset that I spent my time reading this book, but the plot twists and revelations were as easy to anticipate as sunrise and sunset.

May not have been the best book ever written and I can't say there is anything original in this one. The most annoying part was having to sit and listen to the FBI agents discover what Deker and his partners in crime had discover 20 pages ago. You could also see the "plot twists" coming from 5 miles off.

I am always a sucker for books dealing with a resergeance of the Nazi idology. I was surpised with how much I enjoyed this book it does a wonderful job of keeping you awake

This was a very good book to read. The book had two heroes,Taz
Fallom and Sivia Roth. Our villains were Curt Decker and the Curator.The Fuhrer's Reserve is a cache of old and valuable paint
ings that were stolen and hid by the Nazis(from the Jews of Europe).The paintings are being hunted by a group hoping to bring
the Nazis back to power. Fallon and Roth are in hot pursuit of the Criminals hunting for the paintings.There is nonstop action
from start to finish of this book.The final identity of the evil
Curator is a surprise. There is also a conspiracy that is to be
undertaken. This all makes for a surprise ending. You will enjoy this book.Read it.

I have been very intrested in Hitler and national socialism since I was 13. I'm 23 now so I have read quite many books on the subject by now. when I first read this book about two years ago I was stunned by it. The aurthor John Lukacs seem to have a bottomless knowledge of the 20th centurary European history. Although you can criticize his somewhat "was and is always right" attitude, he none the less often presents his case so compelling arguments that I buy most of his thesis. He explains that nationalism, and nationalsocialism not only was a german phenomenon but an universal idea, which dominated th 20th century, and was far more important than communism or even old style UK-US libaral democracy. He also explains Hitlers antisemitism and his place in Germanys history. For me this book was an awakning, and I have read it many times. I understand Hitler and the national socialistic movement much better now. Hitler did not create the national socialism. Even though in Germany he used the radical nationalism in his want for power, he was rather the most central revolutionary figure, of that movement. The only a little bit annoying is that Lukacs takes much time argue against the british history revisionist, and holocaust denier David Irving. This may well be with well intent, but I think its rather unnecessary. It would be better to just ingnore him, this takes needless space from other important insights. Irving has already been repitudated by so many before.

We have not yet come to terms with Adolf Hitler, and perhaps we never will. It's not for want of trying. More than 100 biographies have attempted to make sense of the Nazi leader -- not counting Hitler's own unreliable autobiography, "Mein Kampf" -- and new ones are still hitting the shelves.

As historian John Lukacs observes in his often suggestive "The Hitler of History," we have not yet come to the crest of the "Hitler Wave" that German historians first noticed building nearly three decades ago.

Despite Hitler's inescapable presence in our popular consciousness, he remains difficult to pin down. We know everything about him -- except what it all means. In "The Hitler of History," Lukacs attempts to make some sense of the debate. His book is not, as he hastens to point out, "a biography of Hitler, but a history of his history, and a history of his biographers."

In a series of provocative chapters, Lukacs examines a number of key questions surrounding the Nazi leader: Exactly when and where did his ideology first crystallize? Was he a reactionary or a revolutionary? An ideologue or an opportunist? A beloved leader or a despot? Lukacs navigates this difficult historiographical terrain with considerable skill -- though, it must be admitted, he's much better at asking questions than answering them. (Suffice to say that his tentative answers to the above questions resist easy summary.)

Still, there are times when even those who agree with Lukacs will find themselves frustrated by this contentious book. Lukacs dismisses the work of certain historians with an impressively Olympian disdain -- and though many of his targets deserve this sort of dismissal (one thinks especially of the inexplicably popular Nazi-friendly historian David Irving), Lukacs would have done better to engage their arguments in more detail.

Unfortunately, when Lukacs does get into specifics, he tends to fall into a sort of debate-club pedantry, blasting away at minutiae in rambling footnotes that at times threaten to overwhelm the text itself. And there are curious omissions: Though Lukacs devotes a chapter to the question of Hitler's popularity with the German people, he manages to avoid discussing the often-vitriolic debate over Daniel Goldhagen's book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners," which (as its title suggests) argued that there were more than a few "good Germans" willing and able to carry out the dirty work of the Holocaust.

It's a pity Lukacs does not weigh in on this particular debate, for the question of ordinary German "willingness" to follow Hitler, as Lukacs himself acknowledges, is absolutely central to our understanding of the Holocaust itself. Hitler, as Lukacs reluctantly acknowledges, "may have been the most popular revolutionary leader in the history of the modern world ... He is not properly comparable to a Caesar, a Cromwell, a Napoleon. Utterly different from them, he was, more than any of them, able to energize the majority of a great people, in his lifetime the most educated in the world, convincing them to follow his leadership ... and making them believe that what they (and he) stood for was an antithesis of evil."

We need to understand not just the "banality" but the strange respectability of Hitler's evil if we are to keep what happened in Germany from ever happening again.

John Lukacs looks at the historiography of Hitler. The Hitler of History is not a biography in any sense of the word although biographical details of Hitler's life are presented throughout and, often, in very illuminating ways. This book looks at the historians and the historiographical problems surrounding Hitler (and there are many of both). It is not necessarily for the uninitiated but will be more useful to those with a little background knowledge of the various theories being promoted and with some of the work already out there. There will be a little (or a lot) to upset any historian but there is also much to consider. The last chapter is a corker both to read and to contemplate and sums up much that has gone before in a well-written, lucid and exciting manner. This book is not the place to first read about Hitler, but it should undoubtably be the second place.

Mein Kampf is just another Dak Kapital. Hitler and Marx took themselves too seriously. As you can see from history, Socialism\Marxism\Leninism\Communism and Fascism all failed. Why? BECAUSE HITLER AND MARX GOT IT ALL WRONG. Im not gonna explain how becuase I would need a whole lot more than 1,000 words. I really think that when I wrote the review for Das Kapital I should have just said DONT BUY IT UNLESS YOU HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF FREE TIME. So I am saying it now, DONT BUY MEIN KAMPF UNLESS YOU HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF FREE TIME!!!

I have just spent some time reading this book for the first time, and I can only come to the conclusion that most of the reviews of this book are written by people who have not read the book.

Hitler makes profoundly accurate indictments of modern internationalism and anti-culture. For anyone who has some understanding of how empty our modern culture is, this book will have a great deal of meaning.

The Jewish Question is a rather minor point in this book, and contrary to popular belief you will find no evidence for the Holocaust in Mein Kampf.

Overall, this book is not about Racism, but cultural unity. Race is perhaps a part of cultural unity but Hitler does not argue such a point in the way most would think. In this modern era of anti-internationalism known as anti-globalization, you will find in this work the first thorough criticism of the obliteration of group culture both in economics and art.

I find Hitler's writing style to be very personal, and genuine. Despite whatever one may think of his conclusions, he writes with a passion that is rare. In the future, this book will be much more appreciated as it was the first articulated reaction to our modern times. One thing is absolutely certain, the path humanity is currently following will ultimately fail. This book is an early attempt to explain why human existence is much more than having food, clothing, and shelter.

I took this book just out of inquisitiveness and to gain an insight into the believes of a much talked about personality-Adolf Hitler.My aim was to find out the reason behind Hitler's extreme hatred for jews.After reading the book,I feel that Hitler,though a very intelligent person,lacked the ability to judge a situation in a balanced way.He always managed to see only one side of the coin.Though he was a man of strong views-yet his views were borne more out of sentiments rather than logical analysis.On one hand he was all gaga over the 'Aryan' race as if it was gods greatest gift to the earth,on the other hand he preached extreme hatred for jews,which was completely unjustified.The book has numerous examples which illustrate his extremist and biased thinking.

However,leaving apart the content,the book is a literary treat in itself.I had heard about hitler's capabilities as an orator,however this book proves him an equally effective writer as well.Some of his ideas,if implemented in a better way can go a long way in improving the prevailing political scenario.

The Kirkus Review of David Irving's "Goebbels" could not have been more one sided if it had been written by Doctor Goebbels himself as a review of a Jewish author's book. This well researched book, and it's author, have been the subject of a smear campaign because the author has had the audacity to blasphem a religion.

If a person were an ordinary atheist, he would probably be allowed to freely enter Germany and Canada. However, if he were to examine and attempt to publicly debate the religiously significant number of six million, which is now called "Shoah" and a cornerstone of the Jewish religion, he will probably be imprisoned if he does so in Germany or half a dozen other countries. David Irving is probably lucky just to have been banned from these countries.

Yes, this is a look at Goebbels that gives him more depth of personality than is usually politically correct. But to have such an out pouring of hate focused at the author after he has provided us with the new perspective is indicative of the same mentality that had persecuted unpopular beliefs all through out the ages.

In his biography of Joseph Goebbels David Irving has provided some masterful and provocative insights into the inner workings of the Nazi hierarchy. However, the book is sometimes confusingly organized and Irving's use of the present tense when describing past events can be irritating and seem a bit amaturish in so seasoned a writer.

With these caveats in mind, this is still an important book and necessary reading for any student of World War II. Mr. Irving is neither a Holocaust denier nor a proponent of the Nazis or their ideology; he simply has a different point of view. It's amazing how vociferous and censorious the academic history establishment can become when their 'established' truths are challenged; and in this book, Mr. Irving has done just that.

No historian has ever been able to report the "absolute" truth about what happened in the past. It is simply impossible. However, David Irving comes closer to "the world of real history" than any other contemporary WWII historian. I noticed most of the reviews of his books center around the reviewer's opinion of Mr. Irving as a person and have no constructive criticism of his books themselves. This is a good indication that the book was probably not read, but simply attacked by the reviewer based on false assumptions. Irving writes his books from the point of view of his subject. This forces him to take what may seem like a pro-nazi POV, when in fact he is trying to get inside the mind of Hitler's henchmen and allow the reader to understand how the Nazi leadership thought and acted. All of Irving's biographies are brilliant and this one merely continues his string of masterworks. Just because some judge in Britain has called Irving a liar, that should not make you give up your individual quest for truth. Irving's books are essential to our understanding of the war. I can't wait for his next one.

Psychoanalysis of dead historical figures can get old, fast. This book, which I first saw mentioned in print (probably pre-publication) about 15 years ago, is an exception, though I doubt that anyone would read it straight through.

Hitler's favorite painter was Von Stuck. The author of this book mentions a vignette in which Hitler, upon seeing one of Von Stuck's paintings (of Medusa), gasped "those are the eyes of my mother!" For good measure, both Clara Hitler's photo and a photo of the painting are juxtaposed...

Robert Waite approaches his subject, the distorted mind of Adolf Hitler with all its historic consequences, from two directions. Firstly, he gives a revealing picture of the murky side of German culture that flourished since German unification in 1870: the baleful complex of hyper-nationalism, pan-germanism and anti-semitism. Secondly, he gives a psychiatric analysis of the mind of Adolf Hitler.

Even if the author does not succeed in substantiating every detail of this analysis, much of it is convincing. Particularly elucidating is the suggestion that the reason why Hitler frenetically tried to surpass everyone else in his anti-semitism was that he felt the need to suppress in his own mind the lingering suspicion (unsupportable for many people in Austrian society at that time) that he himself might be partly Jewish (for a quarter of his genes). Waite finds convincing evidence that Adolf Hitler's grandmother, Mrs. Anna Schicklgruber, who later was to marry a certain Mr. Hitler, conceived her son, Alois (Adolf Hitler's father), while she was serving as a maid in the household of a Jewish medical doctor, Mr. Frankenberger, who might have been the father of her child. In fact, Mr. Frankenberger in subsequent years was paying money to Mrs. Schicklgruber. The child was eventually to be "posthumously recognized" by Mrs. Schicklgruber's deceased husband (or rather his brother) and thus got the family name "Hitler". His son Adolf seems to have been aware of this part of the family history.

This is a very useful book for those wanting to acquire a deeper understanding of the mind that was to a large degree responsible for the monstruous derailment of German history in the period 1933-1945.

This is the first and only book that I have read that actualy attempts to understand the mental inner-workings of the greatest political mind in the past hundred years, and through that,understand how he was able to accomlish his goals. Robert Waite's thorough analysis of Hitler's beleifs, personality, mindset, and methods finally explains the inexplicable; how can one man convince an entire country, nay, a continent, to abide by his childish whims and maniacal will, to accomlish what certainly must be considered one of the most horrific, if not the most horrific, acts of all time. The question is a burning one that begs for an answer, and Mr. Waite strives mightily to do just that. Through intense and delicate research, as well as some speculation on his part, he traces Hitler's family origin, the sources of his beliefs, and most importantly, his psyche, and molds them into a very viable theory that is at once enlightening and sickening. This is an excellent book, written by a first class historian. It is without question required reading for any individual that wants to know the "how" of the Holocaust. My only small complaint is that in his immense dislike for his subject, Waite finds it impossible to refrain from sarcasm and showing his disdain at certain points in the reading. I might add, however, that these instances are usually very entertaining.

I very much enjoyed James Pool earlier book about who financed Hitler. This book I enjoyed far less. It exaggerates the economic forces driving Hitler and the power of the business people in Germany.

It has selective quotes from Speer. For example Speer makes it quite clear in his book that Hitler never was as dependent on these financiers as Pool states. When he asked Hitler to make a statement to support them in the long term, Hitler refused.

Many fact Pool states I doubt. Such as that Hitler needed to attack Russia for financial reasons. That Dr Todt was murdered by Goring (I would like to see more evidence for this).

Some I just think are ridiculous such as the Allied could have dropped paratroop near the dead camps, given the Jew's weapons and so freed thousands of Jew's. Then he goes to state that such an attack would have created serious military problems for Germany. Untrained men, without leadership and starving with a few hand guns would have I am sure made a heroic resistance but I doubt little military problems to the German military.

Furthermore his so called "new" evidence that he presents about the drugs that Hitler was taking affecting Hitler's physical and mental state is hardly new.

Overall I think he exaggerates the business world hold on Hitler. I agree many business people took advantage of the war but they certainly did not control Hitler and were hardly his partners.

I've read both of Pool books, and I've found them both very insightful on the American, England and German "money" interest in the Nazi's rise to power. Without their backing, Germany would have fallen into a communist state in the early 1930s. Certainly, the high-powered money interest of Europe preferred the Nazi Party to the communist. This is why the "money" interest supported the Nazi party. Understanding this truth is key to understanding the Nazis rise to power.

We all know what Hitler's views were, but we haven't until Pool research, addressed what powerful forces were instrumental in his rise to power. As a history major, Pool represents what the craft of history is all about. A high recommended reading for anyone.

I've read both of Pool books, and I've found them both very insightful on the American, England and German "money" interest in the Nazi's rise to power. Without their backing, Germany would have fallen into a communist state in the early 1930s. Certainly, the high-powered money interest of Europe preferred the Nazi Party to the communist. This is why the "money" interest supported the Nazi party. Understanding this truth is key to understanding the Nazis rise to power.

We all know what Hitler's views were, but we haven't until Pool research, addressed what powerful forces were instrumental in his rise to power. As a history major, Pool represents what the craft of history is all about. A high recommended reading for anyone.

Although this book showed the reader that Payne knew the topic of Adolf Hitler well, the reader begins to wonder where Payne acquires all of this information, for he rarely credited his sources.

Thomas Payne, while well-meaning and by no means a "revisionist" conspiracy theorist, had written what can best be described as a work of fiction.

Mr. Payne is not out to lie or decieve. But there are many parts of his book which, we now know (and he could have known when he wrote his book) that are based not on actual fact, but on bogus, sensational "biographies" of Hitler which have nothing to do with the truth. The problem with biographies of Hitler is that, being as close as humanely possible to absolute evil, one readily believes ANYTHING bad about Hitler. But it just ain't so in some cases.

Examples:

1). Hitler as a lazy, dirty beggar in Vienna: Yes, Hitler WAS down-and-out in Vienna. But the description of the dirty, lazy beggar is lifted from one of the first bogus "biographies" of Hitler, by one Mr. Hanish, "I WAS HITLER'S FRIEND" from the 1930's. Hanish claims to have known Hitler in early Vienna - but facts prove otherwise; Arno Kubitzek, who really WAS Hitler's friend at the same (and slightly earlier) period, contradicts Hanish, and records also show that at the period Hanish supposedly "knew" Hitler as a pennyless beggar, he was living rather comfortably on his orphan's pension and the small inheritence he was left by his parents. The whole account of the period, which generally quotes Hanish, has all the touches of a melodramatic "made-for-TV" biography. Hitler is not only down-and-out, but "a figure rarely seen amoung christians" in his dereliction. He is not only supposedly helped with old clothes by kind merchants, but (what else?) by JEWISH merchants (I mean, where is the irony factor otherwise?), and so on. But it just ain't so.

2). Hitler's "visit" to England in 1911/12: this is complete fiction. It is lifted from another fake "biography" of Hitler, ghost-written as if by Hitler's sister-in-law, Bridgit [sp?] Hitler, who was married to Adolf's half-brother Alois Jr. According to this book Hitler visited Liverpool for almost a year and became (what else?) a burden on everybody, until he left back to Germany after a row with his brother. In fact, police reocrds show that at the time Hitler was supposedly "visiting" Liverpool (of all places) he was in fact living in Vienna.

The annoying thing about these two episode is that Payne adds insult to injury: not only does he rely on fictional accounts, but he makes far-reaching conclusions of the usual pop-psychology sort about the "origin of Hitler's evil" based on Hitler's "bad behavior" on these (fictional) occasions.

3). A "meeting" between the Soviets and Germans in 1943 in German-occupied territory: A whole chapter is devoted to this supposed "meeting". It never happened, as we now know for sure after the soviet archives had opened.

4). Hitler's suicide: Payne prints a photograph of "Hitler's" body, supposedly clutching a picture of his mother (!). This photograph came straight out of end-of-the-war time tabloid sensationalist press. It is now well-known that it is not a photograph of Hitler's body at all, but simply of a slightly similar man with a mustasche.

In conclusion, Payne does some basic research reasonably well, but one must say that his work must be read with great caution. You never know when Payne will swallow hook, line, and sinker one of the outrageous claims made about Hitler by bogus biographers, and present it as gospel truth.

Definitely an interesting read. My only question is "how much can one believe?" Good advice, by the way, to ALL students of history: Just because it's printed doesn't make it "FACT". What I did like, however, was that Payne explored a little-known "rumor" about Hitler's supposed 6-month stay in Liverpool (yet it brings one back to the original dilemma-- where did the author get his facts from?) Reader beware.

Any author who thinks that Hindenburg was loyal to the Weimar Republic is out of his mind. There wasn't a German alive who liked it and to say that somebody was loyal to it is ludecrous. He also implies that Hitler outwitted Hindenburg to gain the chancellorship. That's also crazy. Hitler just got lucky that Papen underestimated him when he used him in his plot to try to gain the chancellorship for himself (which failed obviously). In fact I don't believe that Hitler and Hindenburg had any interaction at all on the subject (except of course when he was sworn in). The matter was proposed to Hitler through Papen. If Fischer could be so off base on such a basic concept, I shudder to think about how acurate the rest of the information in this book is.

NOTE: This is not an uninformed opinion. I have compared this book with others by Burleigh, Kershaw, Machtan, and Turner on similar subjects.

My recomendation is to forget about this book and get Kershaw's book Hitler: 1889-1936 Hubris. It's actually more of a biography of Hiter's power. I found it to be a much more logical, coherent, and enlightening book.

Klaus Fischer's account of Nazi Germany succeeds as a source of basic information, particularly regarding the early roots of the Nazi movement. Since this is its main purpose, it merits consultation by anyone seeking a solid basic grasp of those world-shattering events. However, the reader should be prepared to wade through some fairly archaic, and at times deeply disturbing, ideological baggage that pops up along the margins of the main historical narrative. First, Fischer's fleeting references to Marxism and Communism as historico-social phenomena are shallow, unsubtle and dismissive in a manner only possible for a scholar trained in America (as Fischer was), and thus saddled with that peculiar cultural blind spot of ours. However, this blind spot does not much compromise the narrative, beyond giving the misleading impression that the ideas of Marx are somehow "natural" (as opposed to historical and contingent) breeding grounds for totalitarianism. More disturbing by far is the extent to which Fischer's account of the psychological makeup and personal characters of Nazi party members echoes and reproduces some of the same archaic ideologies for which they themselves were so notorious. For example, Fischer makes frequent use of the term "deviance" to describe Nazi operatives, and explicitly includes under this rubric not only sadism but homosexuality! In his desire to paint the Nazis as twisted fiends, he ends up demonizing gays in much the same way that Jews were demonized by the Nazis. Equally archaic is his reference to facial physiognomy as evidence of criminal character among Nazis. Clearly, Fischer is unaware of the large body of literature (best represented by SJ Gould's The Mismeasure of Man) which documents the intellectual bankruptcy of such thinking. Both of these ideas played a role in the racist, homophobic thought complex which National Socialism inherited from the late nineteenth century and put to such deadly effect. That an historian writing in the 1990s could continue to use ideas that have been so thoroughly discredited by scientific research is unfortunate, and given Fischer's topic, gruesomely ironic. The problems noted here do not distort Fischer's account of matters of public record, but they do raise serious questions about his interpretive competence. In the end, some readers might not have the moral stomach to reap the factual rewards undeniably offered by Fischer's book.

For a comprehensive overview of the Third Reich, Fischer's book is one of the best single-volume works on the market. It's eminently readable on all aspects of Nazi society: the sham politics, the ruthless military ethos, the imposition of one man's psychosis on the policies of an entire nation. The opening chapter, "The Origins of Totalitarianism" is a cogent synthesis of the historical strains from which the darkest period of the 20th century emerged: Germany's anti-modernism, which stretched back to the Enlightenment; the economic breakdown, political instability, and unraveling of civil society which the Versailles Treaty wrought; and the scapegoating of two groups which Hitler believed were a mortal threat to the country--the Communists and the Jews.

Hitler's Niece by Ron Hansen is an enthralling, convincing look at the feeble man who became the great monster. Although Mr. Hansen also paints a splendid portrait of the thoughtless, mesmerized minions who made up his cult, the primary eyes through which this portrayal is painted are those of Geli Raubal, the daughter of Adolf Hitler's half-sister, Angela. Hitler shows little interest in his niece as a child, but when she reaches her late teens, the charming, witty, attractive, young woman - an easy character for readers to love - becomes an object of obsession to him. As he and the Nazi Party gains significant momentum and his megalomania blooms, Hitler becomes Geli's financer, caretaker, companion, surrogate father and, if he has his way, sexual partner. Hitler takes meticulous, roundabout, disgusting measures to confuse and dominate the young girl. Geli, thankful to "Uncle Alf" for bringing her out of the Raubal's poverty, lives in fear and dread of her uncle and the power he holds over her, over everything he touches, while she wears a jovial public smile. The engaging, lushly told narration slowly and gracefully moves toward the type of nail-biting conclusion whose inevitability only causes it to be more absorbing and affecting. The tale, based on actual occurrences and obviously well researched, is a believable, fascinating speculation on the emotional emptiness that backgrounded Hitler's appalling evil.

As a fan of Ron Hansen's previous works, I picked up Hitler's Niece with low expectations. I didn't expect to enjoy the story. In fact, even if I enjoyed the story I expected to feel guilty for doing so as it involves hate on a global scale. In any case, I was mesmerized from page one. Far from "humanizing" Hitler, as some reviewers suggested, the novel shows that Hilter's was as brutal and maniacal in his personal affairs as he was in affairs of state. What makes the book so readable is Hansen's relentless attention to fact and detail that highligh Geli's vibrancy as well as Hitler's horrible vanity. I couldn't resist the writing any more than I could Desperadoes and The Assassination of Jesse James--other Hansen novels I didn't expect to like much as I am not into cowboy fiction. But Ron Hansen can take any topic and find the stirring and startling human truth, usually in the apparently unremarkable details of a remarkable person's life and times. I'll read anything he writes.

This is the story of how Hitler came to power told through the eyes of his niece, Geli Raubal. Although a work of fiction, Hitler's Niece is based on factual events. It retells the conditions in Germany after World War I and the disorder, which created the climate for Hitler's rise to power. In addition, it greatly details the lives of the other major players of the Third Reich. It talks about how such characters as Goebbels, Goring and Hitler were all relative failures, and for that reason had to blame somebody, mainly the Jews and Communists, for their lack of financial and career success. One account speaks of how the Brownshirts assault an old man at a rally just because he happened to "look like" Vladimir Lenin. The book points out the unmistakable reasons why such thugs came together, and how blowing personal failures to a level of racist fury can become a powder keg leading to a collective feeding frenzy. To be sure, the book also tells of how Hitler's family reflected inwardly on how insane the "Fuhrer" and his entourage was, and how complacency always allows the evil in society to flourish. In this work, Hitler's followers catapult him to the level of a deity and describe themselves in so many words as willing slaves to the whims of the Fuhrer. It also probes into the plasticity and facade that was the Reich. Hitler's Niece is an honest and necessary tale of caution. A must-read for all those concerned with how one level of mere unhappiness among a group of individuals can mount into a full-blown campaign of extermination. The fact this book retells true historical accounts through the fictional eyes of Geli Raubal does not detract in any way from its effectiveness.