Is Tomorrow Hitler's? 200 Questions on the Battle of Mankind

In Short

This book serves as a diagnostic tool for the existential threat posed by Nazi Germany at the height of the Second World War. Structured as an intense series of two hundred questions and answers, it examines the origins of Hitler’s influence, the nature of the Soviet Union, the resolve of the British, and the perilous state of American public opinion. By cutting through the fog of political rhetoric and "isolationist" complacency, the author makes a rigorous, sober case for why the United States cannot afford to remain a bystander in a conflict that will ultimately dictate the survival of freedom itself.

The Story

The narrative unfolds as an escalating argument, moving from the psychological anatomy of Adolf Hitler to the strategic imperative of an American entry into the war. In the opening sections, the author strips away the mythos surrounding Hitler, framing him not as an inevitable product of history, but as a singular, destructive agent—a man who capitalized on German collective anxieties and a specific, perverse "psychic sickness." The book argues that Germany’s descent into totalitarianism was not an unstoppable historical wave, but the result of a specific, aggressive leadership that successfully radicalized a desperate electorate.

From Germany, the focus shifts to the Soviet Union. The author provides a hard-eyed assessment of Stalin, warning that while the Red Army’s resistance against the Nazis is a vital factor in the war, the Soviet system remains inherently at odds with democratic values. He uses original, on-the-ground reporting—gathering facts by interviewing workers and calculating the cost of living—to expose the reality of life in the USSR, demonstrating that the Soviet experiment has failed its own people.

The story then moves to Britain, where the focus centers on Winston Churchill. The author portrays Churchill as the necessary counter-force to Hitler, a leader who understands the gravity of the stakes. Through extensive analysis of Churchill’s rhetoric and his decision-making regarding Irish neutrality, the author establishes the British Prime Minister as a man whose integrity and tactical hardheadedness offer the only viable path to victory.

Finally, the arc reaches its culmination in the United States. Here, the author confronts the dangerous apathy of the American public and the rhetoric of isolationists like Charles Lindbergh. He draws a direct line between the moral decay that enabled the fall of France and the current debates in Washington. He contends that the "Atlantic Charter" is not a soft diplomatic gesture, but a cold, clear-sighted realization that the war must end with the total destruction of Nazi military power. The book concludes with a stern warning: by hesitating, Americans are not avoiding war, but merely ensuring they will eventually have to fight it on far less favorable terms. It is an argument for moral clarity, asserting that the nation’s survival depends on shedding its fear and fully committing to the defense of Western civilization.

How It Unfolds

The anatomy of a tyrant The author deconstructs Hitler’s rise, arguing that his personality, rather than vague social forces, provided the catalyst for the Nazi movement. He explores Hitler's "marriage to the German people" and the terrifying effectiveness of mass rallies in solidifying his grip on power.

The Soviet reality By comparing the standard of living in the USSR to smaller, democratic neighbors, the author exposes the grim material consequences of Soviet rule. He cautions against viewing the Soviet Union as a natural ally, suggesting that its internal structure remains a threat to human liberty even as it battles a common foe.

The Churchillian defense The narrative shifts to the British experience, highlighting Churchill’s clear-eyed understanding of the stakes. The author examines Churchill's speeches not as empty rhetoric, but as essential tools for forging a coalition against a "wicked" regime.

The American crisis The book turns its gaze inward, interrogating the isolationist sentiment that flourished in 1941. It equates the rhetoric of figures like Lindbergh with the "Copperheads" of the Civil War, arguing that their desire for a negotiated peace is a dangerous delusion.

The final imperative The text concludes with a stark ultimatum: there is no middle ground between total victory and total subjugation. The author insists that American morale will only truly crystallize when the nation stops viewing the war as someone else’s problem and takes full ownership of its role in the struggle.

The People

Adolf Hitler is the central antagonist, depicted not as a statesman but as a man suffering from a "psychic sickness" who has successfully seduced the German people. He is described as asexual and driven entirely by a singular, destructive ambition to control the world.

Joseph Stalin appears as a pragmatic, ruthless operator. The author analyzes his face for signs of belief or doubt, concluding that Stalin is focused exclusively on the preservation of his own power and the survival of his regime, regardless of the cost to his citizenry.

Winston Churchill emerges as the primary champion of the democratic cause. The author respects him for his "Churchillian" hardheadedness and his refusal to sacrifice long-term survival for short-term political convenience. He is the man who recognizes that the war must be fought to the bitter end.

Charles Lindbergh serves as the cautionary figure, a man whose "sincerity" is no excuse for his catastrophic misjudgment. The author treats him as a symbol of the dangerous, misguided isolationism that threatens American security, comparing his public stance to that of a traitor who has lost faith in the necessity of liberty.

In Its Own Voice

The author highlights the singular role Hitler played in shaping the modern catastrophe of the Second World War:

I contend that it was solely the genius of Adolf Hitler which eventually brought the whole country under his particular brand of collectivism.

Reflecting on the psychological nature of Hitler’s influence and his inability to engage in normal human connection, the author observes:

Naturally because Hitler never showed any sign of interest in women, he came under suspicion, but prolonged observation has convinced all the witnesses I know, including Germans and foreigners, that Hitler is simply asexual, has no sex life at all, or rather has sublimated it in his “marriage to the German people.”

What It's Really About

At its heart, this book is a meditation on the fragility of democracy in the face of charismatic, totalitarian extremism. The underlying argument is that political systems are not solely the result of vast, impersonal economic forces, but are instead shaped by the choices and characters of specific individuals. The author posits that the "battle of mankind" is a struggle between the rule of law and the rule of the unchecked, "wicked" will. By asking if a nation can survive while its leaders avoid the truth, the book explores the tension between national sovereignty and the global responsibility to defend human honor. It is a profound inquiry into the price of silence and the necessity of moral courage when confronted by an ideology that seeks to dismantle the foundations of civilized life.

Why Read It Today

Readers today will find this book to be a jarring, fascinating time capsule of 1941, capturing the precise moment when the United States stood on the threshold of a world-defining conflict. It is not an objective history, but a polemic from the front lines; it feels urgent, angry, and deeply concerned. Those who enjoy political history or the study of rhetoric will find the author’s sharp, incisive style—often stripping complex issues down to their bare, uncomfortable truths—to be refreshing.

However, the reader must be prepared for the author’s period-specific perspectives. The writing carries the biases of its time, particularly in its sweeping generalizations about national character and its intense focus on the geopolitical landscape of the early 1940s. The structure of the "200 Questions" can also feel repetitive at times, and the author’s frank, often harsh language regarding other nations and public figures might surprise a modern reader. Despite these challenges, the book remains compelling because of its unwavering commitment to the idea that inaction is a choice with real-world consequences. It stays with you as a testament to the weight of the decisions made by previous generations, reminding us that in times of global turmoil, the most dangerous thing one can do is remain "neutral." It is a vital read for anyone who wants to understand the intellectual and moral arguments that brought the United States into the Second World War.