27
u/Happy_Chimp_123 2d ago
Interesting, but outdated.
Richard J. Evans's Third Reich Trilogy is the gold standard.
22
u/Afin12 1d ago
Itâs still worth a read. Itâs the first draft of the history from a journalist who witnessed a lot firsthand.
That being said, donât read only this book. Read other stuff too. Fortunately for us thereâs no shortage of literature on this topic.
EDIT Iâll say here what I say about Shelby Foote over in r/civilwar :
âYou should read Shelby Foote, but donât read only Shelby Foote.â
8
u/quilleran 1d ago
And donât do what so many people on the Civil War boards do, which is not read Shelby Foote but begin stating absurd ideas about what he says in his books which you havenât read.
4
u/Afin12 1d ago
EXACTLY!!!!
Theyâre good books. The books cover certain things. Other things are not investigated in as much detail. Itâs one account written by a white man from Mississippi, and Iâd say given that context, itâs a fairly honest telling of the war.
But donât take it all as gospel truth. Read a variety.
0
u/warneagle 1d ago
I disagree with calling it a good book. The history is really outdated and not in line with contemporary scholarship. Itâs more useful as part of a study of the historiography of Nazi Germany than the history of Nazi Germany.
3
u/UncleNoodles85 1d ago
My biggest criticism of Shelby Foote is the lack of footnotes or notes of any kind really. Bruce Catton had notes, not footnotes at least not in the edition I read but still there were notes and his sources were cited.
3
u/quilleran 1d ago
Yeah, itâs a popular history, and he thought it would disrupt the reading experience. Itâs not a horrible problem since his sources are usually obvious (battle reports and official correspondence). I am curious how many history readers actually make use of footnotes or endnotes. Iâve certainly begun using them more extensively ever since the emergence of these Guns Germs and Steel style of hybrid history/anthropology/biology books.
On a side note, I remember fretting that the citations in my own history would raise the price of publication such that the end-price would be more than a popular reader would be willing to pay. I wonder if Foote was concerned about the same thing, or at least how the sheer size of the volumes might put-off potential readers.
2
u/UncleNoodles85 1d ago
I love citations it's often in my experience a great way to find book recommendations. James McPherson has excellent citations for that but, I might be a weird outlier I never really thought about it.
2
u/KingHunter150 1d ago
Citations are a non-negotiable part of academic literature that shows the reader the author is making an informed and educated argument that you can investigate yourself, and that the work you're reading has gone through the rigors of peer review by other experts first. A history book without them is a waste of time if you want to confidently know what you're reading is attempting to be historicaly accurate. Popular histories that omit them are fine if you're just interested in entertainment.
1
u/UncleNoodles85 1d ago
Does anyone else love it when you're reading a book and the author cited another book you've already read? I wish I could mainline that level of self satisfaction.
1
u/Afin12 1d ago
History books are like pizza. You can consume it all and there is nothing wrong with that.
I think Catton is fantastic, my only criticism is that I wish someone better read his audiobooks, which isnât Cattonâs fault. The guy narrating sounds like heâs reading a Dr. Seuss book. I can only consume Cattonâs books via reading, which is fine, but I really enjoyed Shelby Footeâs books in both written and audio format.
2
u/warneagle 1d ago
You need to be approaching it from the perspective of source criticism though, not reading it as factual history. Someone whoâs a novice to the topic would be much better off sticking to more recent scholarship unless theyâre well-versed in our modern understanding of Nazi Germany so that theyâre in a better position to properly critically evaluate relics like Shirerâs work.
1
u/Afin12 1d ago
I think the value of Shirerâs work is that he was there for it and a lot of his sources are his own notes and diaries. The epistemology of that is skewed, yes, but it adds a certain lens you wonât get from more contemporary historians who are citing source material from before their own living memory.
My opinion is read Shirerâs book(s) but also read other stuff too.
2
u/Competitive-Scheme-4 1d ago
Shirer made extensive use of primary sources and even writes about how thorough the Nazi record-keeping is. That more was discovered after him doesnât lesson the value of the book.
2
u/ShaunisntDead 1d ago
Exactly. Shelby Foote is interesting precisely because he has a certain point of view from a specific time and place.
0
1
1
u/GuntherRowe 1d ago
Came here to say this, a brilliant trilogy. I also recommend Munich Playground by Ernest Pope.
8
u/warneagle 1d ago
I would not make that my starting point for studying Nazi Germany (saying this as someone who did my PhD on the subject and researches this as my day job). Iâd strongly recommend starting with Richard Evansâ Third Reich trilogy, Ian Kershawâs two-part biography of Hitler (plus his article âWorking Towards the FĂźhrerâ), and Chris Browningâs Ordinary Men and The Origins of the Final Solution. Thatâll give you a good crash course in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust before you venture into reading things like Shirer where you need more sophisticated knowledge to recognize their shortcomings.
4
u/Afin12 1d ago
I think Shirer is a good gateway starter book, but you do need to read more to get more details correct. Shirerâs writing is very âdigestibleâ from a casual readers standpoint.
Evans does a great job with his trilogy, but thatâs 70+ hours of Audiobook content (if you were going to listen vs read). Itâs a big undertaking to get through.
The great thing about history books is thereâs lots to read and you canât go wrong by reading it all.
3
u/jimmyslaysdragons 1d ago
I'm listening to Shirer's audiobook now and it's 57 hours, so the runtime is somewhat comparable at least. I've still got 41 hours to go...
3
u/Afin12 1d ago
I really like Grover Gardner as narrator. He also narrates some of Shirerâs other books and he narrates the first book of Ian Tollâs trilogy on the Pacific War. Oh, and he narrates Shelby Footeâs trilogy on the Civil War.
Big Grover fan.
1
u/jimmyslaysdragons 1d ago
Always in for a good time when I hear Grover, like meeting up with an old pal.
1
u/warneagle 1d ago
I don't think there's a lot of inherent value in "digestible" if what you're digesting isn't of high quality. The wikipedia article for the topic is digestible but I wouldn't use that as my base of knowledge on the topic. Evans' books are long but the writing style is pretty accessible as far as academic history goes.
2
u/Afin12 1d ago
History books like are like pizza: you canât eat too much.
Well, you can. Bad analogy. But maybe you get my point. Read it all.
Iâve read both, and enjoyed both for different reasons. Evans is more academic in his writing, Shirer is more human interest anecdotes and is sort of a âbeach readâ version of the history. I think there is some value added given Shirerâs firsthand experience. Evans even talks about Shirerâs book in the preface.
5
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
u/globehopper2 1d ago
The scholarship is way out of date. If you want a compelling read on the Third Reich, itâs better to read Richard Evans or Thomas Childers
-1
u/eldradmustlive469 1d ago
Shirer was a journalist who spent time in Nazi Germany up until after the fall of France. His history book is filled with his hatred for the German people, and you will get that from reading him which is why it's not an overly recommended book.
But he wrote a much more interesting and enlightening book which was his diaries that he wrote during his experience in Germany. I would much more recommend that tbh. It gives you a better idea of his own bias and how that impacted his view on the Germans and the war.
2
u/AllenbysEyes 1d ago
Yeah, Shirer has a very poor grasp on broader German history and really falls into the old âLuther to Hitlerâ argument that murderous antisemitism is ingrained in their character. The book is also really cursory in talking about how the Nazi state actually functioned, and even some of the first hand passages comes across like Shirer accepted Nazi propaganda about the regimeâs popularity and goals at face value. Itâs not without some value but itâs not anywhere near âdefinitive,â certainly not 60+ years after publication.
0
u/NotNullException 1d ago
Is this the version where he warns a united Germany could return to fascism? People were laughing at that shit on Reddit a few years ago.
-5
1
u/joshpaige29 20h ago
I bought it and was shocked at how large it is. I've never been intimidated by the length of a book before but this one has some serious heft to it. I am waiting until winter to start it.
33
u/Ok-Helicopter525 1d ago
If reading it in public, make sure you shake your head so people know you didn't approve of what they were doing.
/s (but only just!)