|
I've read many books about WWII. Those by winners, like Winston Churchill, tend to emphasize they win because they outmaneuver Hitler. Those by losers tend to underestimate Hitler's leadership. This book by Sebastian is quite neutral, which is what makes me read to the end.
One very inspiring point from Sebastian is why Hitler is so successful between 1938 and 1940. Sebastian's point is Hitler did not change while his adversaries underperformed, both in Germany and in Europe. I tend to agree to this point as I constantly find it hard be believe that Hitler's success is a consequence of his early career or any of his newly developed skills. He had been good at speaking before he was the nation's dictator. It may be reasonable to conclude that the environment of the fragmented Europe called upon a leader to redefine a new order of Europe, and inversely Hitler's unique characteristics define the new Europe in such an unexpected way.
Hitler's grand failure is another great topic. From Sebastian's viewpoint, he failed mainly because of his stubborn attitude toward the Jews. The Jewish people, in Sebastian's point, had been in great alliance with the Germany before Weimar Republic. Hitler's animosity towards Jews distanced the latter from the Germany and accelerated Germany's failure. This explanation is new to me and sounds reasonable. But if we stick with the former explanation of Hitler's success that he succeed because of his under-performing adversaries, can we explore the possibility that he failed because of his adversaries were doing the right thing? Probably such explanation may be insufficient to explain all the details, but it does shed light on the statistical nature of the history. |
|