24 of 162 people found the following review helpful
journalists shouldn't try to be historians!,
By A Customer
This review is from: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany (Paperback)
Shirer's rise and fall of the third riech has to be #1 on the list of dramatized biased sensationalist works of the third reich.he claims in part to base his account of the third riech on having drinks with some of the high command,including hitler,(who didn't drink).the only thing I think this book had right was probably that it was the first complete cronology of events and their dates,otherwise it is needlessly written in a way that gives the reader the obvious impression that shirer hated hitler and wants the reader to convay the same sentiments after redaing his book.shirer states his theory that hitler became an anti-semite very early in his childhood,(how can one so young no anything of such matters unless it's imposed on him?).also,he describes hitler's down and out day's as a young man as being a derelict because he lived in flop houses.his art work is also insulted by shirer,while others prominant in the art world praise his work,(I guess the journalist can't figure out weather he'd rather try be a historian or art critic.)Shirer's rise and fall of the third riech is ok if you want events and their dates in cronilogical order,but it is otherwise very backdated,extremely one sided,and worst of all increadibly innaccurate.although it is said to be the best historical account on the third reich,(although their are plenty of movies these days that make fantastic claims about how good they are and turn out to be terrible.it sounds more like a selling angle to me.)try reading hitler's war by david irving.you will not get a more accurate and updated account by a real historian than this.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-9 of 9 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 13, 2008 4:15:43 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 13, 2008 4:15:53 PM PST
Wintceas Jr. says:
Nice! A Nazi review to make a difference!
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 22, 2009 12:31:02 PM PST
Posted on Jan 22, 2009 12:33:13 PM PST
"shirer states his theory that hitler became an anti-semite very early in his childhood"
If Shirer states this, then he really didn't do his homework. In Mein Kampf, Hitler states plain as day when, how, and why he became an anti-Semite, and it wasn't during his childhood.
Posted on Oct 10, 2010 3:34:51 PM PDT
Ash Jogalekar says:
The reviewer recommends David Irving's book. Irving is a well-known Holocaust denier whose assertions were refuted and who went to prison for his views. I wouldn't trust a reviewer who recommends a Holocaust denier's book.
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 29, 2011 11:44:31 AM PST
Homer Jay says:
Ashutosh, you bring out an excellent point. The reviewer here obviously has an agenda to push.
Posted on Sep 2, 2011 7:56:01 PM PDT
Cyn Wells says:
Shirer was a foreign correspondent during the period working in Berlin and Vienna. He had a first hand account of events in Europe and the basis for his accounts, although filtered through his own perspectives, was from real events. Given his real experiences with the Nazis, it would be difficult for him not to hate Hitler. Who could like a man responsible for the death of about 30 million people (toll from Holocaust plus war casualties)?
If journalists should not try to be historians, then people who are as uninformed as you and who write as badly as you do should not post reviews.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 8:57:38 AM PST
Can you really critique a book without capitalizing your sentences?
Posted on Apr 28, 2012 2:12:22 PM PDT
Stewart Weinberg says:
Really? You use "Weather" when you mean "whether"? By the way. Have you ever seen any of Hitler's paintings? They are worse than bad.
Posted on Jun 28, 2016 10:44:36 PM PDT
What the hell? Drank with Hitler? Did you actually READ this book?
‹ Previous 1 Next ›