Talk:William L. Shirer

2006 from reader

(User 67.171.243.155 added the following question to the main article page, I have moved it to the Talk page where it belongs --Bookgrrl 02:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC))

Note: The last two sentences of the above paragraph [The Post War Years] are unclear. Was it during a visit by Shirer to Morrow's farm (and if so, why did Shirer take the initiative and visit if he was unwilling to reconcile), or was it during a visit by Morrow to Shirer's farm (in which case the situation falls together). Can someone please clarify? Thank you.

It was Murrow who wanted a reconciliation (before it was too late). Shirer wasn't interested in any reconciliation as he felt what happened could never be undone. However, Shirer did accept Murrow's invite to his farm considering he was dying. But Shirer (before they went) told his wife that he didn't want to discuss their break. It was the last time he saw Ed as he died the next year. Shirer said (in Volume III of his memoirs) that it was a "good reunion" but they never settled up completely over their break in '47.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Photo Caption

Why does the name Rachel R. Shirer occur under his picture and at the article Header?

ptrgallagher@gmail.com

Shirer's book effect upon eugenic sterilization

In this site: [Kr] you can read at the end:

"A psychiatrist named Foster Kennedy gave an address to the American Psychiatric Association’s annual meeting in 1941. In it, he strongly advocated not only for the forcible sterilization of the mentally retarded, but for killing them, especially if they fell below a certain functional level. Because he assumed that such individuals were in constant suffering and would be better off dead, he referred to this killing as euthanasia or mercy killing. His address was published in the Journal of the American Psychiatric Association in July of 1942. In the same issue an opposing viewpoint by another psychiatrist, Leo Kanner, was also published, along with an editorial. While Kanner had no objection to sterilization, he did object to euthanasia. He also questioned the validity of assuming that people of low IQ would necessarily beget children who were also mentally deficient, but did not spend any time exploring the ramifications that would ensue for his philosophy if this were indeed the case. He believed that sterilization should be reserved only for those who could not perform useful work. He feared that stopping more functional people of low intelligence from reproducing might lead to a labor shortage in unskilled occupations which would adversely affect the functioning of society. Of note is the fact that by July of 1942, psychiatrists were already aware of what was going on in Germany. Kanner noted, “If [journalist and historian] William Shirer’s report is true – and there are reasons to believe that it is true – in Nazi Germany the Gestapo is now systematically bumping off the mentally deficient people of the Reich…”"Agre22 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Rosenfeld source on U.S. success of The Rise and Fall

• Rosenfeld, Gavriel D. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 29, No. 1 (January 1994). "The Reception of William L. Shirer's the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in the United States and West Germany, 1960–62."

That is the most important source for The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I don't know it, but I have copied it here with a format change. The other article makes clear that it's the source for Carey-Thomas Award(*) but is not clear to me regarding Book of the Month Club, two-thirds of more than a million hardcover sales(*) and Reader's Digest, perhaps 12 million readers of selections(*).

(*) I have imported Carey-Thomas and Book of the Month Club to this article but not mentioned Reader's Digest. --P64 (talk) 20:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I added a link to Rosenfeld's paper and material in the article about sales & reception. There's plenty more to be gleaned there... --DadaNeem (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

CBS broadcasts from Berlin

This is the second of two substantial sections posted at once.

According to the lead, "he became known for his broadcasts from Berlin, from the rise of the Nazi dictatorship through the first year of World War II".

Last hour I passed over that clause except to specify the latter date (1940). But "rise of the Nazi dictatorship" seems misleading to me, after visiting This is Berlin at Amazon.com, whose Book Description limits his Berlin and first-hand Nazi coverage for CBS to 1938-1940.

(quote) "His first major Berlin broadcast was an eyewitness account of the Anschluss--the fall of Austria to Nazi Germany in 1938. Soon after, Shirer covered Neville Chamberlain's betrayal of Czechoslovakia and that country's subsequent capitulation.

For the next eighteen months [clearly understatement], Shirer's broadcasts covered ... the Battle of France, the Battle of England, and the threatened German invasion across the Channel.

This Is Berlin's reportage offers rich insights into the very last days before total gloom descended and World War II began.

(end quote) Elsewhere we give Anschluss March 1938, Battle of France May 1940, so 18 months is great understatement, but ours is great overstatement by mainstream interpretation of Nazi dictatorship. --P64 (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Really a historian?

The lead-in describes him as inter alia a historian but doesn't cite any actual training in historiography…is it simply because he penned an account which was categorized as a history book? (Rise and Fall of Third Reich) From what I've heard it's not taken seriously by (real) historians. Historian932 (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"popular historian" would be better. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Please cite what you've read about contemporaneous and modern reception of his histories. This article is probably not the place to lay down the law about what defined a "real" historian in the mid-20th-century -- a category that's still contested today, when Shirer would still likely qualify. Ben (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Shirer and Murrow

I plan to elaborate (a bit further) on the Murrow-Shirer split. I was re-reading Volume III of Shirer's memoirs the other day and I think there is more to add.

It's still kind of a fuzzy picture. (A lot of he said, she said type stuff.) Shirer speculates on Murrow's reasons for going along with CBS so willfully in dumping him.....but even he doesn't pretend to have ever completely understood it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I added my thoughts in. Any comments: let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Re-reading my changes and Shirer's memoirs....I didn't include the fact the sponsor decided it wanted Shirer back because of all the negative feedback it was getting. But this was nuked by Paley. I didn't think this worth mentioning because (as it stands) the focus is very much on the network turning on Shirer (which appears to be the biggest factor in his ouster).Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)