I would certainly vote "Don't know".
And I think I have good reasons for doing so as I have investigated in Hitlers own writings and he has been a target of my interest in may years. This I can conclude after my to date studies:
* Hitler is one of the 'great' men since Leonard da Vinci we know absolutely lessest about whom he actually was. The main reasons are:
A) That Hitler left so very little writings after himself. What we have is roughly "Mein Kampf" and the essays he wrote for "Völkischer Beobachter" 1928-1931 (one every second week). "Mein Kampf" then is a book which is very constructed to give a certain political and personal impression, and several of Hitlers speeches show this fact as they differ on very fundamental points; for example Hitler knew very well that the Jews were not a Race. His actual racism was actually much more sophisticated then he tells in "Mein Kampf". He often laughed over the other Nazi highs racist wiews, for example he at several occasions called Alfred Rosenbergs book of Nazist and Racist Ideology "Laughable" and "Rubbish". So; it is not necessarily so that what Hitler writes in "Mein Kampf" is what he actually though on many things. It is difficult to make sure, and what we have mostly contradicts it. The VB essays are exactly the same kind of writing like "Mein Kampf"; raljant, polemic, aggressive, and ...constructed to give the same impression. But my point is, that except these writings, Hitler left almost no longer comprehensive text at all. What is left is in princip just autographs, bookmarginal-notes and similar short signs. So conclusion: we have very little evidence of whom he really was as person.
B) Hitler was also very secret in his private life and getting along with others. He very seldom and to very few people uttered any personal or more elaborated dedicated political thoughts at all. In the years before he became dictator, mainly the 1920ies; he showed up at the meetings at the Nazi party, and did his daily work as leader, but in his spare time nobody knew what he was doing. He seems to have known nobody privately. After he became dictator he mainly did what day-to-day work required, but the only people he actually socialized with was a narrow circle of adjutants and secretarys, and then he also talked most about things that did not actually reveal very much about what he actually wanted to do, what he thought and felt, personally or politically.
C) Hitlers method of arguing, in speeches and writings makes him even more difficult to interpret for some reasons. he often did things like taking up parts of his antagonists arguments, adn driving them to their farest extent, meanwhile leaving out some of their points. This is a trick to win the debates, and does not necessarily have to mean that he at those times expressed his own beliefs while arguing.
Also, and this is very typical for Hitler; he very often mixes logical arguments with emotional arguments. And the Theory of Argumentation Analysis in Philosophy tells that if one really intends to create statements with any constructive actual meaning, this is strictly forbidden to do. Almost like dividing with zero in mathematics; forbidden. This method of course makes his arguments both difficult to analyze and interpret, and to respond to as well.
So; this is three things that should have us tell that we actually don't know much about who Hitler actually was. he can be interpreted very differently even on the most basic points of his politics, a closer study will show this even more clear. Actually I would say the more I study Hitler, the more mysterious he appears to be to me.
I do belong to those few who think that a re-valueing of Hitler is needed. I think it is well possible to wiew Hitler in a more positive light then he is traditionally seen. Unfourtunatly, most people who say this are neo-Nazists, which makes it difficualt to argue for, still I think it is a good thing. Also, ok we have no written evidence that Hitler gave order about the Holocaust, right it could have been actually ordered by others or having been a solution on a much lower level, but on the other hand, the Holocaust could likely not have occured without that Hitler knew it, and therefore it is right to say that he was responsible for it. This horrible crime makes people react with disguist immideately and therefore few are receptive to what I claim here. I don't want to defend the holocaust in any way, but still I think Hitler should be judged without emotional engagement to get a more accurate wiew of him as a phenomeon.
There are, again, very little we actually know about Hitler, and there are many misbeliefs and images whicha ren't correct. Hitler is for example often described as a intelligent (but not extreme on that point), but uneducated and unliterate. Not much research is needed to prove the opposite. We have a lot of books that Hitler read left, and we can know that he read them and thought about them because they are generally full with marginal notes of his handwriting. He read about many kinds of things, also topics one might not expect, like religion, orientalism, America etc, and he read a lot, whole his life. This makes his result more difficult to grasp, then it is more then unusual that a massmurder is a literate person.
It is no idea not to be able to recognize and accept Hitlers advances, that he was a very good speaker or painter for example, but to do that is a good sign that one judges Hitler emotionally and not rationally.
Hitler likely also knew both what he was doing and, likely he was intentionally so secret as he wanted it to be difficult for the afterworld to interpret him. There is a saying of Hitler, adn many have heard him say that: "If I win the war, I will be hailed as one of World Historys Greatest - and if I loose it I will forever be the evil personified".
Say what you want but the winners write the history.
And Hitler played a high game.
And he lost.
Mats Norrman
mats.norrman@home.se
