Adolf Hitler and his Personal Library

A Book Review of Timothy Ryback, 2009, 'Hitler's Private Library: The Books that Shaped his Life', 1st Edition, The Bodley Head: London

Adolf Hitler is well known to have been an avid reader and as he himself relates in 'Mein Kampf': he would often spend his days and nights reading from the time that he was a 'down and out' in Vienna to the final days of his noble self-sacrifice in the Fuehrer bunker during the battle for Berlin. Timothy Ryback has attempted to bring us a slice of what Hitler read and in essence to help form a coherent view of some of Hitler's reading material and habits. Unfortunately despite the innovative selection of the topic: the book itself isn't really about research, but rather about foistering Ryback's opinions on the reader as well as character assassinating Hitler at every conceivable opportunity.

The book starts off well enough describing the dearth of literature covering the issue of what Hitler's private library contained and that it is rather hard to tell what Hitler actually read of it. Ryback correctly points out that in order to understand Hitler you have to first understand what formed the opinions that created National Socialism, but what Ryback forgets, or rather doesn't seem to care for, is that in order to understand what Hitler read and why it appealed to him one has to get inside his head. This Ryback doesn't do and when he does: he asserts, by implication, that for some reason he has special knowledge of what Hitler liked and what he did not.

For example in dealing with a worn typed manuscript of the, apparently unpublished, book 'Law of the World' by Max Riedel: Ryback claims that it was 'well read by Hitler', because it would 'appeal to him' with little evidence martialled as to Hitler's taste in literature let alone proof that it was actually read by Hitler. Let us note that all Ryback has to 'indicate' this is that it was in Hitler's library (which was huge and as Ryback correctly notes elsewhere Hitler certainly didn't read all, or even most, of it), that it had underlining (again Ryback correctly notes elsewhere that other individuals habitually read Hitler's books before him and recommended to him what they thought he would like to read therefore this isn't proof either), that the book was rather worn from reading (where we don't know the original condition of the book and nor do we know who read it so much: one cannot jump to the conclusion that it was Hitler although it is a unproven possibility) and that this book was supposedly given to Hitler by his maid on the request of Riedel.

This kind of equation, although it apparently satisfies the otherwise scholarly (if rather incorrect at times) Ian Kershaw, is not satisfactory in any evidential sense, because it is a series of speculative 'what ifs' and because others routinely read books in Hitler's private library then it is rather unlikely to have been Hitler personally unless we have specific proof, which Ryback simply does not provide. However this doesn't stop Ryback from trumpeting this 'discovery' and declaring that:

'Here we glimpse at least a portion of Hitler's essential core. It was a distillation of the philosophies of Schopenhauer or Nietzsche than a dime-store theory cobbled together from cheap, tendentious paperbacks and esoteric hardcovers, which provided the justification for a thin, calculating, bullying mendacity.' (1)

This assertion by Ryback is simply absurd and overt character assassination rather than the logical conclusion from 'careful analysis' he implies it to be. Ryback here is simply asserting, without analysis or even a basic understanding, that National Socialism is a 'dime-store theory' and that one of its key statements, 'Mein Kampf', is simply a bunch of ideas distilled from cheap literature. To argue that National Socialism, by virtue of his assertions about Hitler, is a 'dime-store theory' is not only a serious intellectual error but a sign of a mind that has decided before hand that it is irrational and therefore sets out to find evidence as such from Hitler's private library.

Ryback asserts that National Socialism, in effect, has no real basis in German philosophy and that Hitler's thought was just a collection of quotes that he had found in his reading. Ryback claims that Hitler read for quotes rather than to understand and simply asserts that this was the case without even attempting to provide evidence for it: one suspects it is because it actually entails trying to understand National Socialism, which is something Ryback seems to what to avoid as doggedly as possible.

That National Socialism was the logical product of German philosophy, and that Hitler certainly had read and understood this philosophy, can be found by comparing the work of Edgar Julius Jung a conservative revolutionary philosopher (who opposed National Socialism and even Ryback would have to admit knew what he was talking about philosophically) to Mein Kampf and by noting the certain similarities of thought: although due to having less of a formal education Hitler's expression of that thought was a little less extensive and developed and tended to (correctly) focus on the practical applications (and learning from historical experience) rather than theorectical elements of philosophy. Ryback simply doesn't know what he is talking about, but that doesn't stop him making the nonsense equations and false assertions that he does.

The 'dime-store theory' comment has its roots in the fact that Hitler had a liking for American 'dime novels', which were short relatively simple fictional stories that were cheap and easy to read. That Hitler had a large collection of these Ryback sees as 'proof' that Hitler was simple-minded and hadn't really read or mastered the great classics of German literature. Ryback here ignores that National Socialism is based heavily on those very classics of German literature and it was Adolf Hitler more than any other man who set the tenants of National Socialist philosophy.

It is also notable that Ryback doesn't take into account that Hitler at this point had just been through the first world war and part of the staple of any soldier then as now is entertainment and that is provided by reading. That Hitler had not long come back from the front and had picked up a passion for 'simple' literature is hardly surprising given that as, Ernst Juenger relates in his war memoir 'Storm of Steel', reading was a fairly common way of decreasing the boredom of trench life and passing time. Juenger himself read a good deal in the trenches and it is reasonable to assume that given Hitler's love of reading before and after the first world war that he also engaged his passion in whatever literature could be found.

One rather thinks that these 'dime novels' were simply readily available (Hitler himself notes the dearth of good propaganda reading material that the German soldiers had available to them to such an extent that they would actually look forward to reading the enemy's new propaganda leaflets that were dropped over their lines) and that in the trenches Hitler found it hard to acquire decent reading material (Juenger himself was lucky, and an exception, in that he was fluent in French and able to read the contents of the local inhabitants libraries) and that these 'dime novels' were relatively easy to acquire and offered an escape from the tendium and terror of trench life. Ryback, of course, completely ignores such necessary considerations and plunges on in his 'attempt' to prove that Hitler was an 'imbecile' when he was something of a genius (considering he created a coherent weltanschauung and consistently acted within its dictates without even a standard education).

Ryback also implies that because the books in Hitler's library that were by the classical authors of German literature and philosophy were apparently unread (and mind you we have only Ryback's claim on this point and he is hardly a trustworthy, let alone objective, witness as I have demonstrated above) this evidences his position, but again we find that Ryback is selectively interpreting his 'facts' (even if we assume these copies not be unread) since he fails to take into account that Hitler spent much time when he was in Vienna in the libraries reading. Since these classics were almost certainly represented in those libraries and 'Mein Kampf' shows the influence of these works then we can only assume that Hitler had first read them while he was Vienna or possibly behind the lines during first convalescense after being wounded by a diversionary attack on the Somme by the British in 1916. That is what the logical conclusion would be if one were take into account the evidence, but then Ryback isn't interested in factual/logical work, but rather in throwing rotten fruit at a man he doesn't even try to understand.

Also notable in this regard is Ryback comments about the proofs for 'Mein Kampf', which he argues by implication that because Hitler routinely misspelt some basic words that he was stupid. Rather misspellings are common on proof copies in any age, especially in the days that one did not have word processors to check spellings, and the grammatical errors that Ryback makes much of are merely the result of an unfinished education. It is also quite possible that Hitler was dyslexic given his general intelligence as demonstrated by his later work, his trouble with spelling as well as grammar and the fact that Hitler was a somewhat disruptive boy at school (as dyslexics often can be, because of their sense of frustration). This demonstrates Ryback's attention to detail when it suits him, but also his selective interpretation of evidence that frequently ignores more plausible explanations if one takes the situation and other evidence into account.

In addition to this Ryback doesn't actually spend several chapters of 'Hitler's Private Library' talking about Hitler at all, but rather outlining weird theories in regard to Alfred Rosenberg and Alois Hudal who was a German Catholic Bishop and philosopher in Rome. Hudal wrote a book in 1937 called 'The Foundations of National Socialism', which was an ambitious attempt to reconcile National Socialism with Catholicism that, although not much attention was paid to it at the time, was highly successful in doing just what it proclaimed to do. Ryback asserts that this work was the Vatican's attempt to challenge Alfred Rosenberg's strong anti-Christian views as expressed in 'The Myth of the Twentieth Century': this is rather tenuous as when reading the work one has to actively look for what Ryback asserts is the 'manipulation' of National Socialism to fit the Vatican's supposed agenda. One may reasonably opine that it is doubtful Ryback has even read the work in question, but rather uses tortuous inferences in other texts and Hudal's other work to suggest that this is the case.

This seems unlikely because the Catholic Church had already published several counters to 'The Myth of the Twentieth Century' before this point, such as the rebuttal to 'The Myth of the Twentieth Century' published by the Archdiocese of Cologne in 1934 that Rosenberg responded to in later editions of 'The Myth of the Twentieth Century'. That Ryback doesn't note this should be no surprise by now as it shows just how little research Ryback actually did before writing 'Hitler's Private Library'.

All in all Hitler's private library is a severe disappointment. The idea for a work covering Hitler's literary interests and the contents of his library is a good one and does deserve extensive treatment by a scholar and that scholar is certainly not Timothy Ryback who, despite the several good reviews the book has received by learned professors who seem more interested in cashing their paycheck than the ideals of scholarship, in any sane world would be tarred, feathered and exiled to Ascension Island or another deserted rock in the middle of the ocean.

(1) Timothy Ryback, 2009, 'Hitler's Private Library: The Books that Shaped his Life', 1st Edition, The Bodley Head: London, p. 161