This paper will examine the views of certain scholars concerning Adolf Hitler. It will compare the views and interpretations of each author, attempt to place their perceptions in different categories, and discuss the views of these scholars on the relationship between Hitler's actions and Hitler's own work, Mein Kampf. There are two major groups of analysis in the historiography of Hitler: the first follows traditional historical analysis, the second combines history with psychology. As will be seen below, there are further divisions within these groups and controversies have erupted not only between the two major groups, but also within the "sub-groups."
The first group of scholars followed traditional historical analysis, placing Hitler in the world of the 1930s and outlining a connection between that world and Hitler's actions. These scholars not only attempted to explain Hitler on the basis of his own background, but also on the basis of his place in Germany and the world. Consequently, much of the disagreement between these scholars concerned which had more influence upon Hitler's actions, hid personal ideology or the world events at that time.
Although numerous books were written about Hitler during and soon after the end of the Second World War, one of the most important, and still one of the best, biographies was written by Alan Bullock around 1960. Bullock detailed both Hitler the man and Hitler the leader, relating the character of one to the character of the other. Hitler the man, according to Bullock, was a "consummate actor" in his speech and his actions. He used this skill to manipulate those around him, such as frightening others with displays of seemingly uncontrolled rage or charming them with his extraordinary personal magnetism. Through the use of these skills and modern technical means of communication, Hitler exerted supreme control over Germany and its people. In fact, Bullock asserted that Hitler alone was ...