[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there's nothing remarkable about Hitler's personality that gives him that power - it was entirely his murderous acts that make him noteworthy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's where you may be wrong. This world is packed with people who would love to command armies to go on murderous rampages. They just never have the chance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why study Hitler and not Churchill? Both were great orators, Churchill more so. I'm sure plenty of people would like to be Prime Minister too. Why not Saddam or Qaddafi or Mandela? All fascinating men with powerful personalities. The answer: None of them had the opportunity to systematically slaughter millions.

Are you suggesting there is something else remarkable about Hitler that separates him from these people as a character worthy of study? I'm not saying his rise to power isn't noteworthy, but it seems most people are more interested in the personality than the events and circumstances that allowed him to get that power, which seems curious to me.

[ QUOTE ]
What Slater said he found interesting was that this one raving maniac who was near homeless for years at a time became (at least for a while) the most powerful man in the world, that his name remains synonymous with evil to this day. What allowed this one megalomaniacal whackjob to take power through sheer force of will when so many others were rooting through garbage for scraps of food?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't characterize Hitler as any of those things you call him. If you haven't read Mein Kampf, you'll find it interesting, thoughtful, quite rigorous, and not at all the work of a madman. And from the accounts of his life he seemed quite sane and rational to me, compared to your average person from that time.