..rise and fall of the 3rd Reich..Shirer..

[a white rabbit]

..has anyone else read this opus ? i'm around half way, and so far it's been a fascinating study in madness and bad manners, i'd go so far as to say a "shocking" or "horifying" study.

..How much creadance can be put on Shirer's reporting of the early events ? If they're accurate, then Hitler was madder than Idi Amin, obniously foamin' at the brain but got away with it, HOW ?[&:]

..i honestly reckon the early section to Poland as one of the most frightening books i've ever read, it makesSilence of the Lambs look like a kiddies story..

[vahauser]

It's been many years since I've read Inside the Third Reich.  As far as I know, Shirer's account is as honest and accurate as he could make it, although he was obviously not privy to the most secret goings on.  Also, as far as I know, nobody has discredited his account with any authority.  I call it a tremendous piece of journalism.
 
It's a shame we don't have journalists in this country today who are as forthright and clearsighted as Shirer was 70 years ago.

[nemo69]

I've read it more than ten years ago and remember it as quite a good book. Don't know how much academic authority it can have though.

[a white rabbit]

..to vahauser, i'll accept a certain journalistic quality, and he admits to using post war sources for the documents, he even is honest about times when he swallowed the package. Just because he was a journalist doesn't exclude accuracy, they too have their inside contacts. My problem is that if Hitler and crew were just one man, they'd have been arrested somewhere around just after invading Austria, and remanded in custody pending psychiatric reports..
 
..the treatement of the Austrian Chancellor was incredible, and that before the invasion. This guy's the head of a Sovereign State, i jsut find it so hard to believe he took it and didn't withdraw the Austrian Ambassador at very least ..

[Procrustes]

I loved that book, but it's been a couple of decades since I read it. He also wrote a book called "Berlin Diary" that detailed his years as a correspondent in Germany as the war was starting, and I think he wrote a quick book on the sinking of the Bismark.

I read Kersaw's two volume biography of Hitler a couple of years ago - that was pretty interesting, too - more update, at times a little stultifying, but good.

[Koniev]

Hi rabbit -

William Shirer is considered one of the more solid journalists of his time. He worked closely with Edward R. Murrow during the "Phoney War" and lived in Germany from the mid thirties until shortly before Hitler declared war on the United States.

I'm not sure when the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich was published, but it wasn't long after the end of the war so there has been a great deal of information released since that he did not have access to, but his reputation for honest reporting is impeccable.

As to HOW Hitler got away with it, you have to understand that the British and especially the French were terrified of another war like the bloody trench warfare of WW 1. Hitler, in the early stages, was bluffing, and often acted against the advice of his generals. He was also aware that the US would remain neutral unless attacked despite Roosevelt's desire to aid the British and French.

There is an old saying: "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Hitler was the perfect example of this.

Hitler's megolomania is an interesting subject.

[Burkowski]

Greetings.

Koniev has it right on two points: the timid response by France and Great Britain to the Rhineland escapade, etc. and Hitler's "bluffing," though I'd emphasize it as his instinctive reliance on his own intuitions about the people and politics in the 30s.
Shirer's book is still valuable but dated in the face of the avalanche of sources made available since then.
For the best flavor of the times, see Churchill's first volume of his WWII history, The Gathering Storm.. It's first person and close to the nexus of the action. Also fascinating in that it shows the machines at work on all sides.
The Austrian Chancellor, von Schuschnigg, was caught in a trap--- Hitler's revitalizing divisions on the border and the growing power of the National Socialists within Austria (including the murder of Austrian Chancellor Dollfuss in '34). No matter how fast von S. tried to apologize or appease, Hitler was able to treat him with disdain.... cat with a mouse.
I think the key was the lack of response by the West and, especially, their inability to pair with the Soviets in an early, expedient treaty vs. Germany.
It's the age-old story of hawks vs. doves. Weakness invites aggression... duh!

Burkowski

[a white rabbit]

..nooooooo..
 
..sorry but " we don't want another war" ???????????
 
..it wasn't a country, it wasn't people, it was one guy/one guy..
 
..so i run a country and the other treats me like sh*t, i bend over the chair ?...
 
..on your bike...
 
..but if you read the reports, as you would do before the the meeting, the guy you're seeing is bats, totally foamin'..
 
..nahh, sorry, doves don't do it..

[Johnus]

Read it about 30 years ago (I think) and again a year ago. It is as good as I remembered it. I think the history stands up pretty well. But even if did not, it would be worth reading for the atmosphere. It reads like a memoir in many ways.

[a white rabbit]

..finally got to the end. I don't know if the later war part is much use, there's better but up to Shirer leaving Germany, yahh, it's worth having in the book-case, both as a major reference work for the early period and frankly as a good read..