Frederick Taylor (1) (1947–)

The period in German history following the Second World War is probably one of the most neglected in terms of popular history, far overshadowed by the war itself and frequently overlooked as a mere footnote to the origins of the Cold War. Yet the fascinating question remains as to why the peace following the First World War contributed to the beginnings of the Second, whilst the policies following the latter led to one of the longest periods of peace on the continent.

How the victors handled show more their policy of ‘unconditional surrender’, and what this entailed for occupied Germany, is the subject of Frederick Taylor’s book. It covers the final stages of the war, as the Allied and Soviet forces prepared to attack and occupy Germany proper. Military actions only play a background role in the narrative, Taylor focussing only on interactions with the civilians, including the atrocities most severely carried out on the Eastern Front, as well as retaliatory attacks by Nazi fanatics and so called ‘Werwolf’ units.

Where this book shines is in Taylor’s ability to compare and contrast the widely differing policies and practices of the occupying forces. Despite the complexity of the subject, the book highlights the differences between those directing policy and those governing forces on the ground, between those espousing punitive policies and those wishing to see a rapidly rehabilitated Germany, as well as comparing the Soviet, American, British and French zones. It becomes clear just how much of a challenge the question of denazification posed to the victors, which ostensibly remained an inflexible goal of all parties. The totalitarian nature of the Nazi Party meant that virtually no one had remained completely aloof of the system, leaving policy planners the major task of separating hardline Nazis from ‘career Nazis’, ‘muss Nazis’ or fellow travellers. Taylor treats each of the occupying zones separately, and looks at the systems put in place and measures their successes and failures, not just in terms of raw numbers weeding out devout Nazis, but also the impact of these policies on the German population, and to what extent these changes were lasting.

Unfortunately, this book has one major failing, and that lies in its title. Subtitled “The Occupation and Denazification of Germany”, there feels to be rather too much of the former and not enough of the latter to justify the name. Taylor does spend a lot of time dealing with the occupiers’ attempts to remove Nazis themselves from positions of influence in German society, but there is little to nothing on their own and subsequent German policies as regards dealing with Nazism as an ideology. There is surprisingly little on areas such as education, the media and law, and even such mundane things as the renaming of streets or the treatment of the swastika are left out. Even the Psychological Warfare Division responsible for Allied propaganda goes unmentioned in the index (albeit some of their actions are covered). Aside from this, it is also disappointing that there are virtually no comparisons to occupation and denazification policies in other countries after the Second World War, e.g. Austria or France, or similar ‘purification’ actions during other periods (Taylor mentions the de-Ba’athification policy of the Iraq War a few times, without making any direct allusions). However given the scope of the book, the omission can be understood. Finally as another commenter pointed out, it seems that someone working for the publisher decided that the book would sell better with HITLER written in large letters across the front, which is at once no doubt true, but all the same bitterly depressing.

For all this, Exorcising Hitler is an extremely well-written and well-researched account of immediate post-war Germany. No apologist, Taylor points out appalling conditions in Western POW camps, engineered through pure legal sophistry, the mass rapes and atrocities in the East, and the sufferings of refugees and ‘displaced persons’ driven from their territories and turned back from others. A potentially bewildering subject, Taylor takes the issue of denazification apart and analyses each policy and practical element in turn, comparing and contrasting the different approaches, and examining the successes and failures of the post-war occupation. The book’s epilogue ties the whole together with an excellent summary of the reactions to and effects of these policies in post-war Germany right through to the present day. show less

When I first acquired this book, I was immediately struck by the way that the publisher packaged the work, with the name of Hitler front and centre, when the subject - and much of the narrative - takes place after his death. I find this to be an intrusion and a misrepresentation. Indeed, in the text, Taylor talks about the way that the Nazi Party influenced and affected so much of life in Germany. Hitler could not have exercised his power without his "willing executioners", and the book is show more in part about them, not him.

It is also about the victors, because much of the book is about the occupation and how the Allies set about restoring Germany to some sort of 'normal' political and public life. There is a lot to say about this process; and so much of this was driven by attitudes and preconceptions on the part of both policy-makers in London, Washington, Paris and Moscow, and of the occupiers of all ranks on the ground. A lot of the book draws on personal recollections, but this has to be balanced against the story of the occupation itself, because that is otherwise so rarely encountered. For instance, I had never seen an account of the French occupation, or of the ambitions that the French harboured over the dismantling of the German state, a desire to turn the clock back to the 18th century with the country broken up into a patchwork of statelets that could never again threaten the European peace. Taylor advances the view that the French occupation was, in its own way, perhaps more savage and repressive than the Russians'; he then goes on to contrast the speed with which France and (West) Germany were reconciled in the 1950s with the other Allies.

I had seen reference to the Saarland in various contemporary post-war publications, but it was never fully explained. I had also, in travelling in Germany, heard some accounts of post-war famine and hardship. But until reading Frederick Taylor's book, I lacked any context to put this in. Equally, I spent some time travelling in western Poland - the former Silesia - and I have also encountered inhabitants of the Sudetenland. In each instance, the people I met were of the post-war generation; but they were well aware of their German heritage, even if they did not display it openly. The ethnic cleansing of these parts of the former Reich was extensive, but it was never going to be 100%. People's circumstances vary, and some people's ability to make pragmatic life choices should not be underestimated. Nonetheless, that story is rarely told, and it bears re-telling.

I do, however, have a problem with Taylor's treatment of Austria and the Austrians. He takes time in the early chapters to illustrate how the Nazi Reich infiltrated all aspects of life in Germany, and then used that influence to condition and control the German people. Yet when he briefly turns to Austria, he lapses directly into assumptions and stereotypes about that country, describing them as "enthusiastic citizens of the Third Reich" and of course making reference to Hitler's Austrian birth. He then reports, fairly directly, the surprise about Austria being described as 'the first occupied country'. In this, he is neglecting his historical perspective, which is a surprise. The political debate in Austria for the preceding 120 years had been whether Austrians were Germans. Should they look west, to the nascent German state, with whom they shared a language (albeit in the same way that Americans and British share a language), or should they look east, to the lands of Central Europe where they had forged political, cultural and social ties. The entire inter-war period is known in Austria as "the Civil War"; militias of Left and Right fought it out on the streets and terrorist bombing campaigns were widespread. Austrian Nazis had been responsible for the coup attempt in 1934 which ended with the death of right-wing Chancellor Englebert Dolfuss; the plebiscite that was imposed on Austria to confirm the Anschluß has gone down in history as one of the most blatant exercises in vote-rigging in modern history, with ballot papers pre-printed with the "correct" answer. It is true that it took Nazi Germany to settle the question of Austrian national identity once and for all; Austria was divided over this question until their national identity was taken away from them in 1938. Most pro-Nazi Austrians expected that Hitler would treat them in the same way that Austria treated Hungary during the Dual Monarchy – two nations with equal status. By the time it became clear that that was not what was going to happen, it was too late. Germany reduced Austria to the status of a provincial backwater, the Ostmark, and it had no influence in making the policy of the new Reich.

And if Hitler had been such a dedicated Austrian, why was it that at the outbreak of the First World War, he went and joined a Bavarian regiment instead of joining the Imperial Army?

All in all, then, Taylor's treatment of the matter of the occupation and de-Nazification of Austria is almost totally absent. There is a literature on this subject, of course, but it has to be actively sought out and for the most part Taylor leaves this aspect unexamined.

But despite these objections, this is an important book, though it tells us little about the origins of the Cold War. There is still a lot to be discovered about this period, but this book is a good starting point. show less

Incredibly good. The holistic picture of the attack on Dresden is laid out in almost forensic detail so that you really feel you understand the situation that the attack happened within and the impact it had. Pretty much everyone seems to get a fair hearing apart from the Nazi party official in charge of the region, who doesn't seem to deserve one anyway.

This is a really excellent book. I've never read much about the post-war occupation or about the allies specific relationships with each other. Taylor is blunt about the numerous problems and common perceptions, and seems pretty damn unbiased to me (though not having studied the subject I'm not the best judge). He certainly doesn't focus on one nation's flaws more than the rest.

Much of the first half actually deals with situations before the war is over, but doesn't focus on the big-picture show more war so much as various allies' priorities, POW camps, plans for occupation, behavior in overrun towns, etc... It's necessary to give background on what followed. His really in-depth coverage only goes to about 1949-50, and after that still provides a lot of information up to the present day just not in such great details and covering fewer aspects.

The only odd thing was that he initially talked about how history should have informed the politician's and military's views/policies towards the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions but didn't, only to basically drop the subject. He'd occasionally make a one or two sentence remark later, but with that little attention focused on it he should have dropped the comparisons completely.

It really was fascinating, and he provides quotes and stories from numerous sources (both civilian and military), which makes the book much more readable than it might have been. The writing is very good, and while it's not completely chronological the book is broken into multiple topics which are then presented chronologically. I found it easy to follow and engaging. The audio book edition is extremely well-read. show less