Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

Vague

I think the following is overly vague:

Despite receiving popular acclaim over the years, academics in universities and colleges have often dismissed Shirer's book as a work of a journalist rather than by a true historian.

What are the specific criticisms "academics" "often" have with the book? How widespread are they? Even a couple of examples or a link would go a long way. --Misterwindupbird 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I can tell you that my college advisor, a respected academic historian, snorted at the mention of the book. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if we could consider it to be an early example of modern popularised history? Not academically rigorous, but instead deliberately targeted at the general public, and written in an appropriate style... Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's... um... not exactly the kind of example I was hoping for, Mackensen. --Misterwindupbird 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Pigs snort. Academic historians rarelly aren't stupids and self-important. So you see, David Irving, the greatest historian of the 20th century, in some quarters, doesn't have a degree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.177.136 (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

As an academic historian in training, I find Shirer both useful and problematic. He is useful insofar as his works are laregly derived from a first-hand experience lacking from many polished and truely academic histories. This offers an insight into the mentality and perspective from which one person viewed the Third Reich. Shirer is problematic, however, as throughout his writing he allows his personal convictions and prejudices to intrude upon supposed objectivity. For example, when discussing the Hossbach Memorandum, Shirer says "the die was cast" for war as it eventually occured. Academic historians, however, have come to view this important document as an indication that Hitler held violent, warlike aspirations, but no clear cut "plan" as to the exact nature it would come about. Also, in "Berlin Diary", Shirer makes numerous disparaging comments as to the cultural ability of the German people to think independently and behave in a civilized manner, which garners him little favor in academic circles. Thus, he is treated with caution. And as to David Irving, he himself is a quagmire. His early works and contributions to the field are useful, but once he embarked upon his Holocaust denial kick, that credibility was utterly ruined. He is utterly discredited in the academic world and treated accordingly. Also, I would argue with the claim that Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" was the first comprehensive history of Nazi Germany. Alan Bullock's "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" predates Shirer by nine years and T. L. Jarman's "The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany" by five. Bullock's work, although centered around Hitler's person, provides a more than adequate general history of the Third Reich in nearly as many pages and Jarman's history, although drastically shorter, is equally comprehensive. Specifically, Shirer is criticized in academic circles for providing inadequate citation as to his source material and failing to live up to academic standards. An early example of criticism of his work was authored by Klaus Epstein in "Shirer's History of Nazi Germany", found in JSTOR. The article clearly highlights common criticisms and critiques that are still prevelant today and reason why Shirer is treated as a journalist and not a proper historian of the era.

On journalists vs. academics

Misterwindupbird, I agree with you completely.

As to Mackensen's comment, I can assure everyone (if they even need such assurance) that academics (historians or otherwise) are often far from bias-free. There's often a touch of condescension among academics for the work of someone outside their clique or who — perish the thought — actually earned a living doing something other than pure "academic" research. Perhaps there's a touch of sour grapes mixed with the condescension.

Shimgray asks whether The Rise and Fall might be scorned by academics for not being "academically rigorous". Shirer's work (1143 pages in the 1981 paperback edition) contains nine pages of bibliography and nearly 32 pages of end notes (not to mention hundreds of footnotes intermingled with the text). If that's not academically rigorous, I don't know what is.

I wouldn't describe The Rise and Fall as "popularized history" — that term makes me think negatively of "documentaries" long on dramatization and short on attention to facts. However, I think it's fair to say that Shirer did write his work for the masses. The old cliché states that "journalism is the first draft of history" comes to mind here. Shirer spent eight years in Berlin explaining Nazi Germany to American newspaper and radio audiences. It therefore seems only natural that, when the Third Reich was over and after its archival material became available, for Shirer to be the one to put this history into its second draft for those who knew the Third Reich only through Shirer's dispatches and broadcasts, and to those of us who came afterwards. That The Rise and Fall may have been written for the literate public and not for a narrower academic audience is not, IMHO, a justifiable criticism provided the work is based on factual material with citations to prove it. Rise and Fall surely meets my primary tests of historical material: (1) factual, (2) educational, and (3) interesting.

Lastly, if the respected historians in academia or elsewhere have legitimate grievances with Shirer's work, it would be instructive for someone to sum them up (ideally with attribution) here. To date, there has been little documentation of these views which, I dare say, I find a bit academically short of the mark. It would also be interesting if someone cared to provide a list of the material we should be reading instead. -- JonRoma 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

+++ For considerations of the book+++ Most people of todays generations have no real concept of true evil. The book illuminates the evil regime with footnotes and observations. It is a must read in todays war happy environment. Neil

In response to the above, I should mention: MANY teachers of German History snort, not only because it is not academically rigorous, but also because it is so widely distributed that it is taken as being great simply by virtue of its circulation, which is irksome. I would not discount the idea that some historians are being cliquish; it is known to happen. Nor do I think that being a popular history is bad, even though the term has become perjorative. I further agree that a more clear and well-documented citation of the disdain be provided.

I must, however, challenge the criteria for academic rigor presented above, to quote "If that's not academically rigorous, I don't know what is.": 1143 pages, with 9 pages of Bibliography and 32 pages of end notes; this is not exactly rigorous, and not nearly as much as it sounds.

A few examples:

"Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels" which is well-regarded and written by an academic, but still is considered "popular", is 335 pages long. It has 22 pages of end notes. It has TEN pages of bibliography.

Now, "The Merovingian Kingdoms" by Ian Wood, a seminal work in the field of Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages, is incredibly rigorous and respected. It is hardly popular, though. This work is 395 pages long. It has 16 pages of bibliography. And this is in a field that has FAR less primary material available.

What does this mean? Well is two titles under 400 pages could muster more bibliogaphy than a book nearly 3 times in length, what does that say for the "rigor" of the title? It only outpaces a book a third of its length in endnotes by ten pages. Not very much.

Do end notes mean that the work is neccessarily good? No. But it cannot be, in any way, used a a yardstick for how rigorous this book is.

In this very field, end notes are problematic. David Irving produced a number of works that were well-ctied; they were also falsehoods.

The point? The endnotes do not make this title more rigorous, or affect its academic standing in any way.

Does the book have value? I am sure it does. But I do not think it belongs in a discussion of any serious historical works on the period, aside from an acknowledgement of its popularity. The fact that it is interesting has nothing to do with its historical value. I would like to find something more specific to deal with this issue; If i can, I will write it into the article if it can be cited and explained.

--L.A.F. 02:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I found some reviews from scholarly journals. Accordingly, I shall add them with citation, to deal with this. --L.A.F. 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

One More Concern

I wonder if you might be able to shed some light on a specific concern about this book. I've heard several times that even the later editions include the now "discredited" theory of the Nazis themselves burning the Reichstag in 1933, and while this is somewhat addressed in the second last paragraph I feel it could be included (if true) as a supporting example. As far as the above sentiments relating to academic piety as the basis for most discrediting of this book, that's been my experience as well. - 21 October 2005 Reason.

Hello, Reason.

I don't think historians agree on the Reichstag fire, so I don't think one can truly say that the theory about Nazi involvement can be either proven or refuted. See the Reichstag fire page along with its rather lively talk page. It's generally agreed that van der Lubbe had a hand setting the fire, but it's less clear how much if any assistance he had, or whether his presence was pure coincidence that proved convenient to the Nazis. Either way, the Nazi propaganda machine was quick to exploit the fire to the party's benefit.

Shirer's statement that "the whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known" is, I think, as accurate in 2005 as it was the day The Rise and Fall was published in 1959. Shirer points out that most of the storm troopers who had first-hand knowledge of the events inside the Reichstag on the evening of the fire were subsequently murdered in the purge of the SA in the Night of the Long Knives the following year. As a result, not much in the way of direct evidence was available at the Nuremberg Trials.

Some 72 years after the fire, we may know a few more details, but the rest appears to be speculation. I don't know of any proven facts that makes any certainty out of the mysteries of the Reichstag fire.

In closing, I should note that later editions of Shirer's book were reprints rather than revisions, and hence the historical details therein were the facts known to the author in the years leading up to its 1959 publication. No doubt other historians have (and will continue to) assimilate the data, including Shirer's accounts, for their own interpretations of this pivotal event in the story of the Third Reich.

Note that in-depth discussion of the Reichstag fire itself is probably more appropriately made in that article's talk page than here.

-- JonRoma 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, Jon. I was of the impression that there were revisions and not simply reprints, thanks for the correction. I have some reading to do. Perhaps I'll see you on the Reichstag talk page! ;-) Reason. 22 October 2005

I happen to be again trying to inform the WP editors at Ludwig Kaas by means of Shirer, and seeing these posts have to inform you that it was the Nuremberg Trials which stated their conclusion upon the Fire, that within in all reasonable doubt it was a Nazi gang who set the Fire. You could question the judgement of the Tribunal of course, or ignore it . There has to my knowledge been no new evidence or testimony. A quick google of Nuremberg /Reichstag /Fire will lead you to the findings.

This would relate to the very recent statement by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , that Hitler came to power legally. Shirer does not report such complacency from Nuremberg, which adjudges the entire a rolling Conspiracy or Common Purpose , to Institute Totalitarian Government in Germany. On page 249, Shirer qualifies the entire historical crux of the empowerment in this light of the findings of the Nuremberg Trials: "except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social democratic deputies, it was all done quite legally, though accompanied by terror." unsigned comment?

It may suit Mr Rumsfeld's current rhetoric, but is as wide of the mark as can be. It remains highly, extremely and excessively important that Hitler's rise be deemed as legitimate or Legal, as this justifies or excuses the involvement of the Catholic Church under Pope Pius XI with the illegal Hitler regime.EffK 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

External Link Incorrect

The page says that William Shirer "authorized" the scanning of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Amazon.com. Not so. First of all, Shirer died years before Amazon was established. Secondly, those scannings are controversial and are not specifically authorized by the writers. Frankly I think it should be removed in its entirety, out of respect for this great journalist and author. However, I will retain it for the time being while fixing. --Tomstoner 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Still Looking For Specific Criticisms

I'm in the midst of wading through Shirer's tome and jumped in here to get a feel for its reputation. I'm surprised at the dismissive tone of some of the "academics," but troubled that their criticisms remain vague and general with few specifics. Surely there criticisms don't simply stem from Shirer's homophobic language. I'd remind those criticis that Mr. Shirer was as much a product of his times as any of us, and that at the time, homosexuality was considered a perversion. And regardless how liberal or enlightened one's views of homosexual behavior, the closeted, creepy, macho, closeted variety that seems to have suited some of the brownshirts' tastes might not fit most descriptions of healthy sexuality. Again, a product of the times. But I still haven't seen a specific criticism of the book itself. What specifically don't the academics like and what works might some recommend over Shirer's book as a better introduction to the subject at hand? MisterFitz 17:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, here are a few things, drawn from some academic reviews as well as from my humble opinion:

• The work is practically limited to the political, diplomatic and military history of the regime ; certainly it belongs to the core of the subject, but a work with a blackout on such things as culture, society and economics can hardly be considered as “definitive”. The few remarks on the economic mechanisms that are so important for the war are commonplace and naive (steel and coal supply is of vital importance: OK thanks for the information). He only devoted a few pages to the regime’s whole cultural, youth and media policy, and I think he evokes antisemitic legislation being passed only some years later.
• Even with this limitation, it is somewhat Wilhelmstraße-centered, ‘history from above’. The only hints one gets about the life of the German people under nazi rule seem to be drawn from what he saw in the streets of Berlin while walking to work every morning. Elections, for example, are only dealt with as far as their political effects are concerned, the results come from God knows where and nothing serious is said about the millions of German voters and why they voted like this. Compare this with the dozens of pages devoted to every diplomatic crisis, the extensive account of negociations, and notes and memoranda and statements and all ! (So far for academic “elitism” toward this “popular” work, by the way…) This is how history was written in the nineteenth century, but this book was published is 1960.
• Shirer has a serious anti-German bias; not just against the Nazis I mean, he considers Nazism as the product of the whole German history and collective personality and makes all sorts of comments on “Teutonic brutality” etc. He devotes some pages early in the book to the demonstration of his point and these pages are unfounded, exaggerating and filled with weak interpretations. This is of course one of the reasons his book was not really accepted in Germany.
• I read some enormous mistakes on topics not directly related to Nazi Germany. For example, he writes that Stalin was a Russian (he was a Georgian and the Soviet Union was not Russia), and that the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved in 1648 (although the treaties of Westphalia were an important factor of the decline of the Old Reich, it existed until 1806).
• Shirer is not an historian: he did not read history, he was not trained as an historian and does not follow the aims and methods of history. He uses archives and diaries to establish facts and report them, which is OK; but he does not reason or questions sufficiently, and his interpretations are commonplace and limited to the immediate, apparent, accidental causes of events. He barely tries to produce a general explanation or to discover the deep mechanisms that made things happen; and when he does, well it is excessively weak by academic standards. He does not comment on other historical works or question major historians’ thesis and visions. What justifies an article in Wikipedia is its huge success and reputation, not its contribution to knowledge.
• I’d say that if you accept the limitation above mentioned, Shirer is good at telling the history of the Third Reich, but not at studying the history of the Third Reich. It is a remarkable journalist’s work, a clear and enjoyable report on diplomatic and military events of that period with insights on the nazi governement, and as such it can be a useful document and an advisable read even for history students. But it is extremely weak if you consider it as an history book; one learns less about Nazi Germany in these over 1,200 pages than in some serious 200-page academic essays or handbooks.

My two cents. Keriluamox (in French) 11:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Keriluamox raises some good points. Shirer was a newspaperman and wrote like one. I think he can be forgiven a certain lack of objectivity for having gone through the experience of watching an entire nation follow a single man into madness and a world into war. He was really angry over the experience and makes no effort to hide it. His tone and attitude echo many other survivors of the war, which may explain the book's long legs. MisterFitz (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You did not read the book, for if you did, you would have noticed a sympathetic view towards the Reich. Shirer, like most biography authors, is biased toward his subject, not against it. I do not recall mistreatment of homosexuals in the book (they were left untouched, except for a single rye remark). Unless he flies the rainbow flag for history's revisionists, he is in for a sound drumbeating. The nitpicking faults above read like they were found from hours of internet trolling, and not from one who sat down and read the book. Regardless of what you frauds say, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" remains the definitive work on The Third Reich in the United States. Authors do not like this subject, and only Shirer, as a reporter in Berlin in 1939 (reminds me of Raymond Burr as reporter Steve Martin in the opening minutes of the 1957 movie, "Godzilla"), could tell this truth. In the first hundred pages of this book, you will learn that:

1. Germany suffered two great depressions between the world wars, each of which wiped out all savings. Savings were wiped out due to the hyperinflation of 1921 to '23, and from the 1929 Great Depression.

2. It tried paying off World War I reparations by secretly printing money for the purpose. The government thought it could get away with this, as long as the money was circulated on the international market. Unfortunately, the law of supply and demand worked, and they got caught.

3. A separate, secret corporation was set up to hide all the Nazi loans borrowed from the private sector, used to finance its defense buildup. About half the government debt was legitimate, and half fraud (hidden).

4. The Nazi's wanted a slower, simpler society, unhindered by competition that naturally arose from capitalism, and their claims of jewish influence.

5. The regime set up dozens of clubs for its people (not unlike today's internet), that focused primarily on the trades and homemaking. The public was encouraged to subscribe to these organizations by mail, and in return they received a newsletter. The most successful of these clubs were the youth groups and the Hitler Youth, which prior to 1935 was similar to the Boy Scouts.

6. In 1945, the United States Army confiscated all of the government files from Berlin and the nazi regime, they were shipped to the United States, and they sat locked in a warehouse in Maryland for about six years. It was thought it would all be used against them at trial. However, the Nuremberg trials went on, oblivious to this, and all the paperwork was given back to Germany in 1951.

7. The trial of Marinus van der Lubbe, the Dutch communist who burnt down the Reichstag in 1933, was similar to that of the Lindbergh Kidnapping trial in the United States, in that it was a national event, most Germans had radio, and every household was tuned into the news every night to find out what was going on. The trial was extremely open and honest.

8. The Weimar Constitution, adopted by the Germans after World War I, was the best constitution Western minds could forge. It was considered even better than the United States Constitution, in that there were greater checks and balances in place to prevent abuse.

9. Shirer attempted to explain the German mind, by examining German history from about 1800 forward. This was a difficult task. He found that Germany were the first country in Europe to nationalize healthcare, and to improve upon the modern welfare state. He examined the First and Second Reich, Prussianism, Aryanism, what it meant to an Aryan.

10. He did not say so explicitly, however the reader comes away thinking the Second Word War was the result of punishing economic penalties from World War I, crushing economic turmoil, and the rise of a figure who gave nation hope. He does not blame the war on character, the German character, a character fault, an evil genome, or any other genetic fault found between the ears of these people. So much for lightweight liberal criticism that wants to condemn them all, lock the dungeon door, and throw away the key. Lord Milner (talk)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheRiseandFalloftheThirdReich.jpg

Image:TheRiseandFalloftheThirdReich.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I just stumbled upon this article and am frankly shocked by its tone, and by the excessive weight given to academic critics. I shall try to locate some counterbalancing material. Meanwhile, I am placing an NPOV tag on this article until these issues are resolved.--Silverscreen 22:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Shirer’s article credits him as an historian, so I don’t think the reviews of his history works by historians are given an excessive weight, they are just the kind of sources an encyclopedia might use to talk about the works of an historian. However, as I’ve explained above, I doubt that he should be called an “historian”: he was not trained as one, and he did not follow the aims and methods of history; publishing books about historical events doesn’t make one an historian. Perhaps it should be considered unsourced. I am translating the article about him for the French-language Wikipedia and I will probably write in the first sentence that he was an “American journalist and author of history books”, which is neutral and a good compromise.

As for the tone, I don’t think it is too biased either: if you read the first page of Shanahan’s review, you’ll see that his critic is actually more severe and dismissive that the quotation we took. Counterbalancing sources would be welcome, however. Keriluamox (in French) 11:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Back to the Content Issue

It has been repeated several times in this talk page that there are many better sources for this subject than Shirer, but thus far no such sources have been offered. I read Shirer as a youth and still find it a factual source of some value, though I am no professional historian. Further, it is dangerous ground to criticize a work by literally weighing the number of pages in source material; the issue is whether the facts are right and we can tell where he got them.

It has also been twice contended here that Shirer lacked an analysis or concept, or that his concpetualization was commonplace. That may or may not be a real criticism, whereas judegements of "correct" or "misinterpretatiohn" are more to the point. Shirer, it seemed to me, was making points about how the political system in Weimar devolved into a crushing defeat. It the inner dynamics he depicts are incorrect, he deserves to be criticized and belittled. But if he has fundamentally laid out the facts, in order, and connected them to the right dynamic processes, he deserves, in my way of seeing things, to be considered a historian and not merely a popularizer.

Finally, the article doesn't go very far into Shirer's biases or tendencies, and one can assume there were some. If there is an issue, and the Red Channels matter concerning Shirer suggests there was one, however misguided it may or may not have been, there may be some important source material relevant to interpreting the Rise and Fall. As the article stands now, almost nothing is said about the book's content, with the focus being what a big deal it was. comment added by Pcrosen (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

I did a little research and added some content, both to put the criticism in context (achieving some balance) and to elaborate somewhat on what the book's limitations are supposed to be. More detail from the Epstein and Rosenfeld references would be useful, but I think we may be able to remove the NPOV tag at this point. Bertport (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

March 2010

A couple recent edits are repeatedly removing material including the following, with edit summaries citing "POV":

"the first and most successful, large scale history of Nazi Germany in English for a general audience"

"Rise and Fall was the first book to present a comprehensive synthesis of the Nazi era."

"The book was widely hailed as a great work of history."

As can be seen here, this material is cited by reliable sources. If these are going to be removed from the article, I'd like to see an explanation here. Bertport (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Academic critics split? Sonderweg common to scholarship?

How split were the scholars? (English-language or American scholars, i think) If the article is not a self {{contradiction}} it's close.

Sections "Success and acclaim" and "Criticism" imply to me that scholars were generally negative. A previous editor says "split", which I haven't changed, but it seems misleading, a generous summary.

Yet the section "Content and themes" says that the Sonderweg interpretation of German history (special path or unique course) --that much is my reword of previous copy; NOW QUOTE THE RECEIVED WORDING: "was then common to American scholarship; yet, despite extensive footnotes and references, some academic critics consider its interpretation of Nazism flawed.[8]" This implies to me that Sonderweg was the established position; it is supposed to be a bit surprising or incongruous that some critics (merely some) considered it flawed (merely flawed). --P64 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

More trouble about what we mean

"that Hitler’s ascension to power was an expression of German national character, not of totalitarianism as an ideology that was internationally fashionable in the 1930s.[4][5][6]"

That is my rewording of clumsy prose, true to my reading of the previous version (not the sources). Someone who knows the sources should consider it.

"Author William L. Shirer summarised his perspective: ... "This reportorial perspective ...

Why do we call it a "perspective" and a specifically "reportial" one? What does that mean? (He summarized his thesis, i think.)

"In 1962, the Reader's Digest magazine serialization ...

The book is much too long for that. Did RD publish an abridged version of the whole? (we might call it a serial abridgement and should say how many instalments) Or selections that were not comprehensive? --P64 (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Re the latter, two references provided after that sentence: [ref]Cedar Rapids Gazette, 9 October 1960, p. 47.[/ref][ref]Rosenfeld 1994, pp. 100–01.[/ref]

If the former is a source on Reader's Digest edition, it suggests that that serial version preceded release of the book (which we call "published 17 October 1960"). --P64 (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

"Gavriel Rosenfeld asserted in 1994 that Rise and Fall had been unanimously condemned, and considered dangerous to relations between America and West Germany, as it might inflame anti-German sentiments in the United States.[18]"

Am I interpreting this wrong or is this an actual mistake? How could Rosenfelt have been concerned about relations with West Germany if it hadn't been a country for 4 years? Dutch32 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

My reading of this is that Rosenfeld is making the assertion in 1994, but "had... been considered dangerous" indicates he's referring to concerns at the time of publication - 1960. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What is meant by Wiskemann "useful"?

the book was "not sufficiently scholarly nor sufficiently well written to satisfy more academic demands... It is too long and cumbersome... Mr Shirer, has, however compiled a manual... which will certainly prove useful."[18]

Is this to say it proves useful to neo-Nazi's. What is the implied? Can anyone with access to Wiskemann provide more context? -Reagle (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

The negative criticism all relates to the style of these four books (as they initially were written and printed). It isn't a popular work, like perhaps Alan Bullock's first work on Hitler - and neither it is a strict academical work, but sooner somewhere in between. Shirer uses his own experiences (living and working quite a few years in Hitler's Third Reich, including listening to several of Hitler's speeches "live") and mix it with imperative diaries, like Franz Halder's and Galeazzo Ciano's as well as thousands of other sources (presented in the work). Shirer also "jumps the subject" temporary, by using not so few interesting side stories (clearly marked by * signs, and put at the bottom of a page, well enough separated from the main text). Some university figures disapproved of this style. Perhaps as Shirer was not a university historian like them, but a journalist. But it's content and its degree of thoroughness in itself has rarely been the issue of any negative criticism. Boeing720 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

So this book is garbage?

If I hadn't read the book, that's what I would conclude after reading this article. This article seems to cherry-pick and emphasize now trivial negativity while devaluing all the positive reviews and also implying those reviews and journalists are merely of the uneducated rabble.

For example, the article's criticism of Shirer's trivial Luther-to-Hitler theory occupies much space in the article, yet as a reader, I never even noticed it, and I drew unrelated opinions of the rise of Hitler, mostly regarding 20th century economic and political upheavals. IOW, the article is utterly unbalanced, that outdated, once-popular theory may pique some, yet to the average reader the whole issue is trivial or non-existent. (Only important or noticeable to a niche group.) It's like assuming the whole from a single (yet true) incident. IOW, a logical fallacy, an unintentional lie. (It's not the article's facts I question, it's how they affect the overall tone of the article, it's balance.)

In reading the book I never once once considered it to be a history text. Indeed why would anybody? —So why write; This book is not good enough to be considered a history book, —and create list of arcane flaws? It may be true, but I submit, that is largely Off Topic. While the book is required reading among historians of that era, naturally historians will flock here. Please don't mix the categories.

IOW, it is unfair and unprofessional to judge journalism in the History arena. (Should fantasy novels be accused of magical thinking?) Any criticism by historians should be done apologetically and meekly, explicitly noting that judgement as unfair or improper. A reminder, this article is NOT about the Third Reich! It is about a journalistic summery, largely gathered in real time by a foreign correspondent. That and that only is the proper arena.

Another arguably off-topic example, this one in the lede section:

"The book was feted honored by journalists, as reflected by its receipt of the National Book Award for non-fiction,[2] but the reception from academic historians was mixed."

(My suggested possible correction.) The opinion of niche academic historians regarding trivia do not belong in the lede, (those only matter to historians).

My complaint seems to reflect the bulk of the comments above. Yet the problem remains after all these years.   Why?  

I see only two ways to balance the article to match the actual real-world critiques. 1) For every negative criticism, add 19 positive criticisms to match reality, or 2) Delete (or soften?) the off-topic criticisms. Wikipedia's target audience is the average Joe. To him the take-away is "this book is garbage (more fake news)." But to to me, Joe who's read the book, this article is a well-sourced, bullshit hatchet job. I know Wikipedia can do better.
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8EE:3508:E2F1:A00F (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)Just Saying.

Citations on criticism

I noticed a lot of CN notations in the reaction section. If anyone wants, I can add a good source for a lot of the things noted: Volume III of Shirer's memoirs (covering his life from 1945-1988). But if you feel it's too PRIMARY....let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Years ago I added an entire section listing many of the various sources used by Shirer. It was not definitive (as the current text implicitly suggests), but covered the main sources. Today's page still lists many of these various sources.

Unfortunately, the external link to the Color Books (which were exhaustively utilized by Shirer) reference has been deleted.

Why? It's still available online, and is useful for those wanting to see the original sources.

See http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/ Interlist2 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)