Joachim Köhler argues that Adolf Hitler was merely a puppet of dead composer Richard Wagner. The destruction of democracy, the German conquest of most of Europe in pursuit of a dream of world domination, the mass murders of European Jews, the whole Third Reich: all Wagner's idea.

Really? Let's see. Overthrow of democracy? Wagner supported constitutional monarchy, with political parties of "men with equal rights"; the monarch to stay above politics and ensure stability. His essay _State and religion_ is clear enough.

German conquest of Europe, and world domination? Wagner's _What is German?_ specifically condemns German attempts at military conquest, saying that German culture and polity never prospers when Germans rule other peoples.

The Holocaust? Wagner's most antisemitic essay, _Jewishness in Music_, calls on German Jews to abandon their separate culture and assimilate into German culture. That's racist, but did it influence Hitler? Since Hitler preferred racial segregation followed by extermination, it would seem not. Nor could Hitler have been comfortable with Wagner's opposition to the rule of one "race" by another, nor his suggestion that Europeans get used to racial intermingling (_Heroism and Christianity_). Meantime Köhler ignores the mainstream antisemites of Wagner's day, who really did influence Nazi racial policies.

(Wagner privately made some loathsome antisemitic remarks to Cosima Wagner, who duly recorded them in her diaries for Köhler to make the most of. But they weren't published till after Hitler's death, and for other reasons can't have been an influence.)

Look up "Wagner" in the indexes of Hitler's books and speeches, and accounts of his conversation by Speer and other eyewitnesses, and you find, despite Köhler's picture of an "obsessed" Hitler, that Hitler hardly ever mentioned Wagner. Köhler even admits this, but claims - seriously - that it's part of a conspiracy to hide Wagner's posthumous puppet-mastery. But Hitler never once referred to Wagner's ideas or essays, only to music. Hitler didn't even find Wagner's antisemitism interesting or important enough to mention.

It's clear that Wagner's influence on Hitler is essentially the same, that is, emotionally intense with without intellectual content, as his influence on Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism. Both men were passionate Wagnerians. Herzl loved Wagner's music, regularly attending Wagner operas and concerts for inspiration and renewal while he wrote Zionism's founding texts. But that doesn't make Wagner the founder of Israel. Hitler likewise loved the music but showed little interest in Wagner's ideas.

Köhler deals with these intractable realities in five ways:

1 Make stuff up
Here's Köhler describing Hitler in the bunker, 1945: "As the outside world disintegrated, it was to his inner world ... that Hitler turned ... Like a film projected onto the screen of his consciousness, he was suddenly gripped by a vision". Köhler then describes Hitler's "vision", which turns out to be about Wagner and to support Köhler's thesis. But no source mentions this "vision". Köhler seems to have invented it because the historical record wouldn't give him what he needed. There are many other examples.

2 Footnote fakery
Though the book is festooned with footnotes, they only add credibility if you don't look them up. For example that "vision" passage is footnoted, but follow it up and you won't find a source. Instead it says that an irrelevant phrase Köhler threw into the passage echoes words Hitler used in 1936. Soon after, Köhler describes a 1944 meeting between Hitler and Wagner's grandson Wieland, with Hitler dismissing Wieland's claim to Wagner's manuscript scores "over supper". Follow up the footnote and you find that no meeting took place. A little further Köhler alleges that Hitler's words "The people will not tolerate any act of clemency", in relation to the murders after the Reichstag fire, are "taken almost literally from _Rienzi_". The footnote directs you, rather vaguely, to Act II, which I have just checked in vain for those words or anything like them. And so on.

3 Twisting words
Köhler's quotes from Wagner tend to give only two to perhaps ten words at a time, wrenched from context and ascribed sinister meanings. Thus Köhler describes Hitler's "orgies of killings in dark, secret places ... 'in the bosom of darkness and death', as Wagner once put it." But check "in the bosom of darkness and death" back to the source and you nothing whatsoever to do with "orgies of killing": Wagner meant "caves". This is no occasional slip-up; it is systematic. Almost all Köhler's Wagner quotes are twisted in this way.

4 Irrelevancy
Köhler's deceptiveness on that non-meeting between Wieland and Hitler is odd, because Wagner's grandson's access or non-access to Hitler in 1944 is irrelevant. Some of Wagner's descendants and their partners supported the Nazis, some went along, and some defied them. Köhler spends much of the book showing that some Wagner descendants were contemptible, but the Wagner Köhler wants to arraign was then long dead and gone.

5 The big lie
Sometimes Köhler just lets rip, and it's breath-taking. Try this, about the _Ring_: "The gods in Valhalla had ordained that the destruction of their 'deadly enemy' must precede the age of the 'master race'." That would certainly be damning, if true, but instead it's bizarre nonsense. Other claims, especially about the operas, are similarly fantastic.

There's much more, shonky chronology, dodgy sources, etc, but I'm out of space. Of course there's much to condemn about Wagner, but that's no excuse for fabrication. This is a bad book, partly for untruth concerning a flawed man, mainly for its evasion of the actual historical persons and forces that led to Nazism, the Holocaust and attendant horrors. Neither the far-right political parties, unions and associations, nor the antisemitic Christian right groups, nor the opportunistic business backers, nor the street thugs behind Nazism and neo-Nazism cared then, nor care now, a hoot about opera.

Misdirection like Köhler's not only tries to cede to Nazis a cultural treasure that they do not deserve, but by obscuring the actual historical origins of Nazism it gives comfort to those who deserve none.

Cheers!

Laon

Overall,I found Herr Kohler's book quite interesting. The workwas well researched and the "connection" between thesubjects certainly established. The Wagner-Hitler relation to history has been expounded upon in many works but I don't know of any complete volume other than this one, so I would call this the definative work on the subject. Kohler as a writer can be a bit emotional at times as he makes his case. I don't agree that Wagner can be "blamed" for the atrocities committed 50-60 years after his death(he died in 1883-Hitler came to power in 1933). No doubt, Wagner had a tremendous influence on Hitler, especially when he was a lonely youth in Linz and Vienna Austria in the early 1900's. It is interesting to me that Hitler's favorite opera was "Rienzi", a work of Wagner's that is rarely shown today, hardly touched upon in studies of his operas, and extremely in tradition of grand opera. Wagner composed this opera with the "guidance" or should I say the "influence" of the Jewish composer Giacommo Meyerbeer. It has even been suggested Wagner copied certain styles of Meyerbeer's when writing the music for this piece. Knowing what I know about Wagner and the contradictory nature of his personality, his witty although sometimes assinine prose writings, and certain facts concerning his life, there is more of a Wagner-Jewish connection than that with Hitler. Wagner envied the Jews and secretly deferred to them. To be sure, Wagner attacked them in the press and in his essay "Judaism in Music" but all his life he continued to associate with Jews and in his final years most of his retinue at Wahnfried consisted of Jews like the set painter Paul von Joukovsky and his "Parsifal" conductor Hermann Levi. His former favorite conductor Hans von Bulow stated that in order to be successful at Bayreuth it was necessary to be circumcised. Wagner had evidentally refused to sign an anti-semitic petition presented to him which Bulow had signed, much to his embarrassment. Many forget that Hitler had another favorite musician in the composer Anton Bruckner. He spoke mostly about the music of Rienzi or Bruckner, not about the 'ideas' of Wagner. "Parsifal" was not a favorite and was actually banned during the Third Reich. The quote from Hitler that "from 'Parsifal'I shall make my religion" comes from Hermann Rauschning's "Hitler Speaks" a dubious book of which it's authenticity has certainly been questioned. The Nazis themselves were not enthusiastic about Wagner either. They tolerated Bayreuth but for Hitler. You can "read" the Third Reich in the "Ring of the Nibelung" with it's Nordic heroism,the Aryan 'savior'Siegfried, the lust for power and final cataclysmic destruction, but for all that, Wagner shouldn't be made responsible for Hitler, any more than the Beatles can be held accountable for Charles Manson. There is also no proof that Hitler ever read any of Wagner's prose works(I don't think Hitler read a book cover to cover in his life. He read only to confirm his own outlook on the world. Most of his reading consisted of newspapers and periodical scribblings)which contain all of his ideas on art,race,and humanity that can be contradicted in his thousands of letters as well as by his life's actions upheld by the people who knew him. I believe the only writing of Wagner's Hitler read was the scores to the operas which he did seem to know pretty well, as many of his secretaries and associates confirm. The book is fascinating but the reader should bear in mind that it is only another interpretation of a very contraversial and contradictory "connection".

In Wagner's Hitler: The Prophet And His Disciple, Joachim Kohler, scholar of philosophy and German literature, persuasively argues that Wagner's influences played a vital role in shaping the cultural context in which Nazism developed. Kohler begins by tracing the legacy of the German romantic tradition and the irrational, egocentric, nationalistic, and intolerantly utopian features which Wagner and Adolph Hitler shared. Kohler goes on to trace Wagner's influence on Hitler from his days as a young and failed Austrian artist, to his triumphant days as dictator enacting megalomanic Wagnerian visions of a Germany that would rule the world. Also shown is how Wagner's family in Bayreuth supported Hitler from the beginning of his political career, and aided his introduction into highly influential social and political circles. Wagner's Hitler is insightful, provocative, engaging, challenging, and at times controversial, but always fascinating reading and recommended for students of Germany history in general, and the Nazis influences on German culture in particular.

A total piece of fiction from beginning to end. Any and every "story" is put together to try and build some case that the Nazi leadership had "Jewish ancestry"--therefore, the Holocaust was an act of Jewish self-hatred. It is so laughable that respectable historians don't even review it. It is another piece of anti-Semitic propaganda masquerading as history. You don't like history? Make up your own! The sad thing is that some people, perhaps well intentioned, will see a book like this on a web site and think: "well, somebody reviews such stuff before it is sold." Well, that is not the case. Anyone can make up anything they want and get it published. The slightly clever falsiers of history, like this guy, invent sources--take things of context--play fast and loose with the truth---but give it a gloss that looks like what real historians do. It's not history. Just like a "scientific looking" argument that the earth is flat is not science.

I have read the very controversial and hard to "swallow" "Adolf Hitler - Founder of Israel: Israel in War With Jews", and despite its seemingly offensive title, I strongly recommend this book. Foremost, I recommend this book to the Holocaust survivors and their families who seek the peace of mind about the horrors of the past and why they happened to them and their loved ones. Next, I recommend this book to all those who seek the truth (Kardel's motivating factor for writing it in the first place), and to all others who wonder why World War II has never ended but still 55 years later rages on in the Middle East and elsewhere. And most importantly, why in the process so many millions of us and even more of others have perished and continue to perish. In other words, borrowing from the book's subtitle, why ever since its inception thousands of years ago Israel has been in War with Jews and the rest of Humanity.

The Psychoanalysis of Hitler

In Hitler among the Germans Rudolph Binion attempts to use psychoanalytical theory to explain Hitler's personality and his political motives. Hitler's initial rise and control over Germany are seen as results of the way that he reacts to important events in his life. Controversial historical events are tenuously linked to psychological theory to develop Binion's shaky thesis.

Binion created a Hitler personality based strictly on Hitler's reaction to what Binion deems the most important events in Hitler's life and Binion's own psychological explanation of these events on Hitler's life.

Binion emphasizes Hitler's relationship with his mother. Hitler's mother had three children die before giving birth to Adolph. Binion presumes that his mother was overly nurturing and breast-fed Adolph excessively. This is one of the major premises of the book; that Hitler had an incestual relationship with his mother. This presents one of the plethora of problems with this psychoanalytical explanation of Hitler-over 90% of the region where Hitler was raised was not breast-fed and there is no evidence to suggest that Adolph was breast-fed. However, Binion takes it as fact and builds this in as a central tenet of his argument. His mother contracted breast cancer when Adolph was eighteen, which traumatized him. Her doctor was a Jew, and Hitler had asked him to use a burning chemical to attempt to alleviate the pain. In 1918 Hitler was stunned with mustard gas, but also devastated by the military loss of his adopted country, Germany. Binion argues that Hitler thought he was blinded but somehow recovered to see the light of day after the mustard gas incident. In addition, the mustard gas was a reminder of the stinging pain his mother suffered at the hands of a Jew. The destruction of the Jews and Germany's military loss are the defining objectives in Hitler's political agenda.

This experience enlightens the reader to the two main motives Hitler had in his political rise to power. Hitler sought to expand Germany and also eradicate the Jews. These two motives played off each other and Hitler would lecture on whichever struck him as more imperative at the time. This is the essence of Binion's argument.

This argument falls short on any number of accounts. It seems like he is going to take the argument in an Oedipus Complex direction, but this psychoanalytic term does not see the ink of the pages until the concluding chapter and is only mentioned as an explanation to understand Hitler's relationship with his father. His father is also only mentioned in the concluding chapter and none of Hitler's fantasies are ever evaluated for psychological merit. The other major fault of the book is the format. It is heavy in Hitler's quotes, but light on Freud and psychoanalytic theory. Binion has a proclivity for pulling quotes from all dates and speeches regardless of their context to attempt to support his points. In the course of one page Binion may pull quotes from three different decades in no chronological order and often times to make a pedantic point.

The problem with this choice of pedagogy is Binion's consistency which carries over to his bibliography, his over-simplifications, and his lack of examining fantasies. The bibliography contains an insufficient amount of psychoanalytical or psycho historical articles, which is also recognized in the endnotes. In order to use a Freudian basis to explain Hitler's personality and his struggle to lead the German people, exterminate the Jews, and conquer the world it would require much further research into Freudian and other psychoanalytical theory, which Binion fails to do. The second critique: there being an over-simplification of the defining moments in Hitler's early life is that these events are only given a single psychological explanation, other interpretations of how these events could have impacted him are not only disregarded but ignored. They are not mentioned and disproved, but remain obscured from the reader by the text, and anyone contemplating other psychoanalytical manifestations of significant historical events in Hitler's life is left pondering still. The last major criticism is the shortsightedness of the psychoanalytic theory used to explain the grown Hitler's personality and responses. The role of internal fantasies and internal conflicts are completely ignored in this manuscript.

The linkages from Hitler's speeches to the psychoanalytical theory were tenuous and need more grounding in actual theory. The evidence surrounding most of the major events in Hitler's life is also not established. The book depends too much on mere speculation and fails to convey to the reader its importance. In the preface to the book Binion points out, "no amount or kind of evidence can turn a psycho-historical insight into an inference (xi)." This does not mean that any event can be subjectively interpreted, fomented, or even created to suit Binion's needs, but he takes the liberty to do this anyway.

The Psychoanalysis of Hitler

In Hitler among the Germans Rudolph Binion attempts to use psychoanalytical theory to explain Hitler's personality and his political motives. Hitler's initial rise and control over Germany are seen as results of the way that he reacts to important events in his life. Controversial historical events are tenuously linked to psychological theory to develop Binion's shaky thesis.

Binion created a Hitler personality based strictly on Hitler's reaction to what Binion deems the most important events in Hitler's life and Binion's own psychological explanation of these events on Hitler's life.

Binion emphasizes Hitler's relationship with his mother. Hitler's mother had three children die before giving birth to Adolph. Binion presumes that his mother was overly nurturing and breast-fed Adolph excessively. This is one of the major premises of the book; that Hitler had an incestual relationship with his mother. This presents one of the plethora of problems with this psychoanalytical explanation of Hitler-over 90% of the region where Hitler was raised was not breast-fed and there is no evidence to suggest that Adolph was breast-fed. However, Binion takes it as fact and builds this in as a central tenet of his argument. His mother contracted breast cancer when Adolph was eighteen, which traumatized him. Her doctor was a Jew, and Hitler had asked him to use a burning chemical to attempt to alleviate the pain. In 1918 Hitler was stunned with mustard gas, but also devastated by the military loss of his adopted country, Germany. Binion argues that Hitler thought he was blinded but somehow recovered to see the light of day after the mustard gas incident. In addition, the mustard gas was a reminder of the stinging pain his mother suffered at the hands of a Jew. The destruction of the Jews and Germanys' military loss are the defining objectives in Hitler's political agenda.

This experience enlightens the reader to the two main motives Hitler had in his political rise to power. Hitler sought to expand Germany and also eradicate the Jews. These two motives played off each other and Hitler would lecture on whichever struck him as more imperative at the time. This is the essence of Binion's argument.

This argument falls short on any number of accounts. It seems like he is going to take the argument in an Oedipus Complex direction, but this psychoanalytic term does not see the ink of the pages until the concluding chapter and is only mentioned as an explanation to understand Hitler's relationship with his father. His father is also only mentioned in the concluding chapter and none of Hitler's fantasies are ever evaluated for psychological merit. The other major fault of the book is the format. It is heavy in Hitler's quotes, but light on Freud and psychoanalytic theory. Binion has a proclivity of pulling quotes from all dates and speeches regardless of their context to attempt to support his points. In the course of one page Binion may pull quotes from three different decades in no chronological order and often times to make a pedantic point.

The problem with this choice of pedagogy is Binion's consistency which carries over to his bibliography, his over-simplifications, and his lack of examining fantasies. The bibliography contains an insufficient amount of psychoanalytical or psycho historical articles, which is also recognized in the endnotes. In order to use a Freudian basis to explain Hitler's personality and his struggle to lead the German people, exterminate the Jews, and conquer the world is would require much further research into Freudian and other psychoanalytical theory, which Binion fails to do. The second critique: there being an over-simplification of the defining moments in Hitler's early life is that these events are only given a single psychological explanation, other interpretations of how these events could have impacted him are not only disregarded but ignored. They are not mentioned and disproved, but remain obscured from the reader by the text, and anyone contemplating other psychoanalytical manifestations of significant historical events in Hitler's life is left pondering still. The last major criticism is the shortsightedness of the psychoanalytic theory used to explain the grown Hitler's personality and responses. The role of internal fantasies and internal conflicts are completely ignored in this manuscript.

The linkages from Hitler's speeches to the psychoanalytical theory were tenuous and need more grounding in actual theory. The evidence surrounding most of the major events in Hitler's life is also not established. The book depends too much on mere speculation and fails to convey to the reader its importance. In the preface to the book Binion points out, "no amount or kind of evidence can turn a psycho-historical insight into an inference (xi)." This does not mean that any event can be subjectively interpreted, fomented, or even created to suit Binion's needs, but he takes the liberty to do this anyway.

The only people who would enjoy this book are those who are convinced that aliens have abucted them and hijacked them to other universes. This book is pure science fiction from start to finish and poorly written fiction. Let's get doewn to brass tacks:

The evidence that Hitler and Eva Braun died in the Berlin bunker at 3:30 in the afternoon on April 30, 1945 is irrefutible. Both commited suicide. There are multiple eyewitnesses who saw the corpses and who survived to tell the story, either in Russian captivity, on American TV or to dozens of different historians over the years. All saw Eva Braun dead and saw her incinerated in the garden of the Chancellery.

Only the most perverted and uneducated mind could possibly believe for a single milesecond that Eva Braun escaped from the Bunker. Aside from the fact that almost no one escaped alive and got into the American sector at this impossibly late date, what would Eva's motive have been? Hmmm?? She risked her life by traveling to Berlin to die at Hitler's side. He rewarded her loyalty by marrying her the day before their joint suicide. According to the author, Eva then (inexplicably) deserts Hitler and successfully escapes from the Bunker?

Never mind that this is a physical and emotional impossibility for her. Forget that there are no eyewitnesses, either in the Bunker or anyone who saw her alive after 4-30-45. Let's sweep under the carpet that Eva, a devoted family person, never bothered to visit or see her parents again, or her two sisters, Gretl or Ilse.

This book is insulting in its premise, torpid in style and ridiculous in all areas. Avoid it like the plague, it's pure fantasy.

Like a great detective, Thomas explores and thoroughly checks every scrap of evidence before he comes to conclusions. His forensic background only heightens his credibility and serves to convince you even more as you read this intrigueing story. Thomas goes to great lengths to reconstruct what actually happened in those last few weeks in the bunker and afterwards, and is quite convincing in doing so. Was Hitler actually murdered and did things occur the way Thomas surmizes? The world may never know as all living evidence is now gone. This is a most fascinating detective story that will make you think and wonder.

People Who Made History: Adolf Hitler by Brenda Stalcup is a biography of Adolf Hitler. This book was very informative and meticulous. I liked this book because it had many fascinating facts about the horrific life Hitler went through. Most people think he was only involved in the Holocaust but as I read, I learned that he affected so much in history other than that. Before the Holocaust even started, he was infamous in Germany. I would definitely recommend this book for people who love learning about history around the world or for the people who are interested in reading about Hitler and what he did to change history.

This is a little tome. Clocks in at 11 pages. It is probably of more interest to poets than to historians. But Williams does uncover some little known facts and he applies a novel technique in order to cast light upon the failed Hitler assasain Johann Georg Elser. Works like Williams' are in the forefont of a poetry style known as investigative poetry. The I.P school was founded by Ed Sanders. A central tenet: To relieve poetry of its obsessive preoccupation with egoistic internal states and to focus content around things that really happened.

Richard Hughes wrote High Wind in Jamaica, one of the strangest and most compelling books that I've ever read. His next novel, The Fox in the Attic, is a well written and intelligent fictional account of life in Europe between the two world wars. A sophisticated, educated, and upper class Englishman visits his relatives in Germany and becomes aware of tensions between Bavaria and Munich and tensions between republicanism and monarchy. There is very little understanding between him and his relatives. The English feel revulsion towards the idea of war; the Germans, on the other hand, are determined to fight again, but to win this time. Hughes describes this very well. There are some notes that will remind the reader of High Wind in Jamaica: some charming descriptions of children and some concerns about what it means to be "I". The novel is odd, and the characters are difficult to understand, but High Wind in Jamaica was magical with characters that one will always remember. I'm not sure how I would have felt about this wook had I not read HW in Jamaica first. Recommended for people wanting a different viewpoint on Hitlers rise to power in Germany.

If ever a subject cried out for an epic poem it is that of the last days of the Fuehrer, whatever your feelings about him may be. Snodgrass' poem is brilliant and creative, but....the glory of April 1945 still seeks its singer.

The book "Hitler and Germany" was interesting in the way that it had alot of facts in it. There were alot of things I did not know. This book was very well written but it wasn't very entertaining.I recomend this book to anyone who has great interest in Hitler's struggle for power and his plans for a perfect Germany. I don't recomend this book to young readers, some of its contents would go over their heads.

This book deals simply with the organisational structure and personnel surrounding Hitler's Military Headquarters. The terse text is complemented by numerous archival photos of der Fuhrer in group photos with other luminaries and dimmer wits of the Fascist league.