The abovementioned Professor Russel Stolfi in his abovementioned book boldly stated that “half a century after [the death of the Führer of Germany], no biographer or historian has put together an adequate interpretation of Adolf Hitler”. Which was, alas, true and correct.
Now, more than seven decades after Hitler’s death nothing has changed. And the sole reason for that is that all Hitler’s biographies (and, alas, Stolfi’s is no exception), have been written based not on facts, logics and common sense (as they should have been), but on emotions.
“Orthodox” (“mainstream”) biographies are based on antipathy (if not outright hatred) for Hitler; “revisionist” (i.e. essentially neo-Nazi) ones – on sympathy (if not outright adoration and even worship of the Führer).
Both kinds of historians, alas, start with conclusions and thus write their books on Hitler in exactly the wrong way. And both make moral judgements (negative or positive), which makes their books not history (i.e. not science) but either anti-Nazi or neo-Nazi propaganda.
Consequently, there is a tremendous need for an objective biography (and a profile) of Adolf Hitler. The one written from an emotionally neutral position (neither sympathy, nor antipathy) and the one that makes no moral judgements (positive or negative) of Adolf Hitler’s decisions and actions.
In other words, makes only functional (e.g. whether Adolf Hitler made the best possible decision in a given situation) and legal (whether his particular decision or action constituted a crime) judgements. And, of course, based strictly on indisputable facts, rock-solid logic and good old common sense