[Below is one of three responses to the miniseries solicited by the
editors.]


Understanding Evil

Regardless what conclusions the viewer ultimately draws regarding the
historical accuracy, aesthetic presentation, or its usefulness for
understanding the man and his time period, it is this reviewer's opinion
that CBS deserves credit simply for airing a primetime network presentation
concerning so controversial a figure as Adolf Hitler.  Furthermore,
attention to detail (e.g. uniforms, parades, city settings, etc.) combined
with an inspired cast showed a genuine desire by all involved in the
production of "The Rise of Evil" to present a serious and engaging portrait
of an undeniably important world figure.  While it is my opinion that any
television venture concerning Hitler (especially one limited to only four
hours) would draw close scrutiny and much criticism, I also feel that there
are several shortcomings to this series that detract from its academic value
for understanding or teaching history.  In the following response I will
discuss its limitations with an eye towards prompting discussion of the
interpretive and narrative value of this biography for the academic and
non-academic viewing public.

By far the most significant problem is the use of anecdotal and unreliable
sources to build, step by step from his earliest days, a one-dimensional
Hitler barely capable of self-control and seemingly ready for the rantings
of his 1945 Berlin bunker as early as 1919 or 1926.  The overall effect of
this hyperbole, it seems to me, is to create Hitler as a deranged evil
abstraction, rather than as a complex human being who led other human beings
into committing evil acts (I shall return to this important point below).  A
few examples will suffice, though undoubtedly many more could be found.
First, his service in World War I, where we are led to believe that the most
salient points of Hitler's military career were mistreating his dog (drawing
the scorn of his fellow soldiers) and conniving to blackmail a superior into
awarding him a battlefield decoration.  A quick glance at volume one of Ian
Kershaw's recent biography reveals a startlingly different picture of Hitler
as "a committed...and dutiful soldier" who "did not lack physical courage"
(p. 92) and who earned his war decoration.  Kershaw also notes that both his
superiors and fellow soldiers held him in high regard, while his dog was his
only real friend and close companion in the trenches.  Similar misleading
anecdotes arise from an over reliance on the questionable recollections of
the Hanfstaengls, many of which permeate the middle hours of the series for
no apparent reason.  For example, take the portrayal of an unbalanced Hitler
on the brink of suicide after the abortive Putsch of 1923.  Here again
Kershaw provides less drama and less mental instability: "...later stories
that he had to be restrained from suicide have no firm backing" (p. 211).
One could perhaps argue that the historical points themselves are minor
(though I would not, particularly regarding his war service), but taken
together these distortions serve only to uncomplicate Adolf Hitler as well
as the Third Reich by simplifying events down to the lunacy and psychotic
'evil' of one person.

The cumulative effect of this portrayal, mentioned briefly above, is that
Hitler appears to have been born an evil person.  One could conclude that
Hitler alone was the main problem with Germany, and ending in 1934 could be
taken to mean there is nothing left to tell--Hitler was evil incarnate who
extended his evil control by subjugating a nation (also suggested by the
unfortunate title).  Fans of Totalitarian theory, the model of a "strong
dictator," and the Intentionalist interpretation of the Holocaust might find
much to applaud here (though I think many would still balk at "evil" as an
explanatory category).  Unfortunately, the applause must also ignore the
bulk of academic scholarship for at least the last twenty years.  Once you
admit that Hitler was capable of kindness toward animals (which many
witnesses confirm up to his last days in the bunker), he becomes a human
being, and of course therefore much more complex and harder to understand.
Much the same can be said about the perpetrator's of the Third Reich's
crimes.  A human is quite less than evil, despite directly ordering, or,
depending on your point of view, at least creating the conditions for, other
human beings to engage in evil activities. The behavior and motivation of
Hitler's public following is never even broached in the series, as they
apparently remained spellbound and misled in the grasp of his "evil."

The one-dimensional quality of this Hitler, combined with the near complete
absence of interpreting World War II and the Holocaust (arguably the two
most significant results of his reign for world history), in my opinion
dramatically reduce the usefulness of this series for educational purposes.
For young people in particular, as well as those not versed in the academic
literature, I fear the message is oversimplified and might simply promote
more of the seemingly endless fascination with Hitler trivia and rumor.  Had
the personal anecdotes and gossip--bits and pieces saying very little of
historical value--been trimmed in favor of explaining Hitler's place in
Weimar political developments and social unrest (which could be the subject
of a separate review), perhaps more focus and historical context could have
been maintained.  It might also have allowed more attention to important
aspects of organizing a mass movement, using propaganda, the effects of war,
the role of German racial thinking, etc. to offset "evil" in explaining the
rise of the Nazi party.  As it stands, however, the series tells too many
strictly "personal" stories, and bends or distorts known facts to keep what
is really a hodge-podge under the explanatory rubric of evil.

Humanities & Social
Sciences Online

Copyright © 1995-2006 - Contact Us
RSS | Validate: XHTML | CSS