Expliquer Hitler serait indécent ?

Le journaliste nord-américain Ron Rosenbaum est venu en Europe et y a consacrer dix années de sa vie à essayer de répondre à la question : pourquoi Hitler.  

Claude Lanzman estime qu'une telle recherche relève de l'indécence. 

Pourquoi ? A-t-il lui-même déjà la réponse pour trouver qu'il faille la censurer ?  

Binion, as the french psychiatrist and psycho-analyste Roger Zagdoun do, did explained Hitler through Oedipus complex ("Hitler et Freud : Un transfert paranoïaque" 2002, éd. l'Harmattan, 268 p.)

David Lewis ignore or do repress some "facts" about the earlier relationships between Hitler and Freud, and Freud's relationship between himself and himself, as Jacques Lacan obviously understood for the "happy fews".

As an error is only a less truth, David Lewis's explanation is close the truth.

But Sigmund Freud before Edmund Forster invented Hitler's destiny.

Freud knew - that is to say he was fully aware - he was the one who first "invented" the Hitler to become  eleven years before Edmund Forster.

That's why Freud was inhibited and never spoke of Hitler before 1938, but confess in an indirect way, avoiding to approach the subject before Hitler seized the power.

Freud began only at 1933 to write the disconcerting unexpected "Der Mann Moses und die Monotheistische Religion", what is commonly considered as his testament, but should rather be considered as an ultimate thoroughly confession.

These remarks after I read thoroughly Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan, William Shirer, Walter Langer, Ernst Weiss, Joachim Fest, John Toland, François Delpla, Rudolph Binion, Roger Zagdoun, Lionel Richard, Ron Rosenbaum, Serge Cosseron, Timothy Ryback, etc ...