/his/ - History

>>34421

read it and tell us if it is

>>34424

I will, but it's awfully long, so an answer may take a while; and if it isn't any good, it would be a waste of my time.

That is why I asked.

>>34426

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/284ms6/why_is_william_shirers_the_rise_and_fall_of_the/

>inb4 reddit

/r/AskHistorians is an over-moderated shithole but it serves its purpose well

>>34439

Thanks for the link. I still haven't taken the time to figure out how reddit works.

>>34421

I've not read all of Shirer. It's quite dated in terms of its analysis, particularly his view of Hitler as an omnipotent dictator rather than a potentate in the medieval fashion.

Kershaw's work is much more readable, and isn't as coloured with the prejudices that existed in the immediate postwar world.

I own it and have read it, it's worth the read. Regardless of whether it contains some dated theories (particularly on Hitler himself) and the occasional 'prejudice' (which truth be told don't really take away from the content) it is certainly filled with information, and remains to this day to be among the most comprehensive histories of the Third Reich. I absolutely recommend you read it even if you don't swear by everything Shirer says, it'll give you a lot of insight into the general history of Nazi Germany and also serves as a seriously competent backbone/foundation for further studies.

It is always worth it to read something, if only to have a learned opinion on it. I have not read it, but from what I know of it, it is written by a non-revisionist journalist, so it is probably full of the same orthodox narrative we're all used to.

I'd read David Irving if you want a real history of the period, then approach these works in order to understand what the orthodox side thinks happened.