/lit/ - Literature

>>18578762
Journalists don’t understand change over time or social forces.

>35 years after the book's publication,LGBTactivistPeter Tatchellcriticized Shirer's attitude towardhomosexuality, which he repeatedly describes as a perversion, and called for revisions to be made to the book's language and for mention to be made of thepersecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust.[19]
sounds pretty based to me

>>18578781
If you’ll accept that journalists history because of his views on poofs wait until you read about Lenin.

Anti-Nazi sentiment is so prevalent from cradle to grave that to voluntarily reach for a book which propagates that same sentiment is redundant. The only books worth picking up about the Third Reich are those with pro-Nazi sentiment simply because it's radically different and will actually test your ability to think. Read Hitler's Revolution instead.

>>18578873
Ordinary Men would be better.

>>18578877
>>18578873
None of these books are as comprehensive as Shirer's. I will read them too, but for now I am interested in something that covers the Third Reich to a far greater extent.

>>18578762
I really enjoyed it and it was comprehensive. I understand the criticism as nobody knows for sure what really happened but here's some pros:
>it was written shortly after the war with available documents
>he author was in Germany as a reporter up until 1940 or 1941 and sat in on chamberlain and Hitler negotiations, seeing Hitler in the flesh
>he went to the bar where Hitler's relative worked
>he has some rally based takes that history dropped over the years that make it more interesting

Its the probably the most interesting comprehensive history of the nazis, particularly because of shirers biases and connection to those years, they criticize the best thing about it..

>>18578762
It's a great read.

>>18578762
>There's some harsh criticism

>>18578762
Bro read the Tunnel instead.

>>18580799
What?

His biases and personal connections probably make it interesting. Others, from more professional historical corners, are Fischer's Nazi Germany (1995); Burleigh's The Third Reich (2000); Kirk's Nazi Germany (2007); Williamson's The Third Reich (2011). Scheck's Germany, 1871–1945: A Concise History (2008) if you want the longer time-line like Shirer.

>>18580988
Which do you think is the best one? What are the differences between them? Is there any point in reading more than one?

>>18578762
Its just old, its still good. People generally see its replacement as the Third Reich trilogy by Evans

>>18579788
The first third is the most fun since he was there most of the time.

>>18581287
Well, none are the journalistic-type narrative you will find in Shirer.

Williamson is a student-oriented text, focusing on certain domains and (historiographical) interpretative questions.

Kirk is analytical, covers the important domains of Nazi Germany in a nuanced way. German terms and abbreviations might make reading more heavy.

Scheck is lecture notes-turned-textbook, with heavy emphasis on politics, diplomacy and military.

Burleigh views nazism as a political religion, and is heavy with 'liberal' and humanitarian concerns.

Fischer is a nice synthesis from more academically entrenched studies, focusing on politics, military and social history. But it's a long read.

If you are used to academic writing Kirk is a nice one. Fischer is accessible and good, although rather lengthy. Shirer has its own qualities as other anons have described, so the reason to read beyond him is to get syntheses of over half a century of historical study, get more in tune with historiographical concerns, etc. But it's not a meme book so it's not like your wasting your time.

>>18579368
Have you tried Domarus? His editorialising is very biased against National Socialism, but he leaves the bulk of the space to Hitler's own words.

I remember reading this and all I remember is that he literally couldn't go like 2 pages saying how evil and monstrous Nazis were.

>>18580988
You haven't mentioned Evans, why?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Reich_Trilogy

>the most comprehensive history in any language of the disastrous epoch of the Third Reich". It has been hailed as a "masterpiece of historical scholarship."
>>18581478
No, I don't actually know much about history. I'm looking for something that I could actually apply. It seems as if I could learn much from the study of Rome, Florence, and the Third Reich. I'm 18 and care much about my brain development, so it makes sense that I branch out to philosophy/history after having gotten to the point with math&cs&econ&finance&managament where I just have to wait to go to uni (you graduate highschool at 19 here) and study math there, as I don't wish to get a headstart (repeating the same material would be tedious). This is because all fields except of Managament (which I chose to study because it's ludicrously easy and I wanted to see how easy it is to win an Olympiad - got a finalist on the first try) require this kind of math. Hell, finance is quite math-heavy from the start so I had to skip some chapters (since it's supposed to start in undergrad).
In conclusion, I care about brain development and just don't want to study solely math (IMO preparation for whatever it's worth) for the next year.

>>18580828
Bro read the Tunnel by William Gass instead.

>>18581741
Because it's over 2000 pages and OP didn't seem to be looking for that sort of thing. If you want to read that amount, go ahead.

>>18578762
I actually agree with the based gentlemen in this thread on how Shirer’s bias of his times made it more of an interesting read. I don’t know how people can whinge about Shirer calling the Nazi’s evil and such when it’s quite par for the course for any history that’s so popular, because it would never have become well known or even widely published otherwise. While Evan’s Third Reich history might have better scholarship, it is just so much more boring and of our globohomo-esque time. Evans is a boomer born in 47 and cannot separate himself from probably a lot that he picked up in his formative years in the 60s when he was young. Shirer on the other hand was born in 1904 and came of age in the 1920s, so they inhabit two entirely different mindsets of two very different eras. It’s all up to personal preference whether you prefer bland, modern writing, or the more dramatic and opinionated views of someone who actually lived through the events he wrote about. In my view there’s no comparison.

Extremely good book. Highly recommend.

>>18581879
>I don’t know how people can whinge about Shirer calling the Nazi’s evil
From my experience, it's because people are tired of the aggressive anti-German and anti-National Socialist rhetoric that the globohomo seems hell bent on pushing down their throats.
The realize that most of the stories have been sensationalized or outright fabricated to denounce the ideology after the war, so to hear another case of "the nazis bad" would immediately put a asterisk next to it along side the mountain of other globohomo certified stories.
Though, from how you describe it, and the with the input of the anons ITT in mind, the book actually sounds pretty good

>>18578762
>Anon why do you have a book with a giant swastika on its back in your shelf
what do you answer to this question?

>>18581830
I'm the OP
>>18581991
I have actually considered whether to put a book of this sort on my goodreads, but I decided that if someone's offended by it, then I have just very easily filtered someone who wouldn't be my friend (I wouldn't share something as intimate as a list of books that I've read with anybody else) for long, anyways

>>18581991
It's a insight into the Third Reich from a Journalist who was there.

>>18578762
Keep in mind that he wrote (re-wrote, more accurately) most of the pre-1933 parts after the nazi takeover, so whenever he talks about the "rise" of the nazis he's neither describing his immediate experiences nor is he unaware of the Machtergreifung happening in 1933 even though he writes as if he's describing his pre-1933 experiences.

>>18581956
>From my experience, it's because people are tired of the aggressive anti-German and anti-National Socialist rhetoric that the globohomo seems hell bent on pushing down their throats.

Not him, but what I think people are most tired of is the uncontrollable mass hysteria surrounding the topic. People are not upset that historians call the nazis evil - what else are you going to imply in the current zeitgeist if you have any intention of not becoming a pariah? - but all the petit bourgeois moralizing that bogs the topic down, the sloppy scholarship taken for granted because it is politically convenient (think pic related), the laboured drawing of parallels for good boy points, the absolute refusal to engage the third reich on its own terms so that it could be understood through its own internal logic instead of handwaving it all away with "capitalism in decay"/"muh nationalism"/"democracy that was not mamorud"/"muh sexual frustration"/etc.

I predict that it will take at least half a century, if not an entire century from now on until the first decent histories of the third reich will be written. Right now it's too integral to the post-WW2 mythological framework to be studied objectively.

Until then, we'll have to make do with what we have.

>>18582073
I just realized that I confused it with another work from a journalist with a similarly named book. Nevermind.

Read David Irving

>>18582149
>Right now it's too integral to the post-WW2 mythological framework to be studied objectively.
Oh, very good point. The (((current))) power needs to keep it's victim mentality up to continue to justify it's own existence.
It is quite sad to see the Weimar era of Germany get swept under the rug. It is an important time in history, as many of the issues that were prevalent then have resurfaced.
Also could you further explain
>handwaving it all away with "capitalism in decay"/"muh nationalism"/"democracy that was not mamorud"/"muh sexual frustration"/etc.

>>18581991
i took the dust jacket off of mine just to avoid shit like this

>>18582231
>capitalism in decay
It's the standard communist explanation of fascism/nazis/WW2 - of course it's an ideologically compromised one, you either subscribe to the communist framework where it makes sense, or it doesn't. It's a matter of faith, like most things in politics and historiography. Don't even ask these people why capitalism, an internationalist and anti-statist ideology would try to save itself with governments that were markedly anti-internationalist and statist. Gleichschaltung of the economy? What's that?

>muh nationalism
The standard explanation of both communists and liberals. God knows why nationalism arises in a society, though! Must be those pesky reactionaries and their satanic gospel leading the people astray from our gospel of Enlightenment. Don't even mention that nationalism was originally a lefty ideology.

>democracy that was not mamorud
Liberals really love this one, Weimar is the perpetual symbol of the democracy that did not go the way it should have - the lesson gleaned from it is usually that one should always be on the lookout for reactionary elements threatening democracy. Think of the "paradox of tolerance".

>muh sexual frustration
Psychoanalytic explanation. Used to propagate the view that unless the population is kept sedated by 24/7 orgyporgy fascism will rise again.

>>18582321
That clears it up for me.
I originally thought your were talking about the factors that lead up to the collapse of the Weimar Republic that lead to the rise of the Third Reich. (the rise of extreme degeneracy, the antagonism by the Communists and the rise of Antifa, the collapse of the economy, the failure of the democratic government to run and the abuses by the banking cartels )

>>18578762
Yes, well worth the read. If you want to dip your toe into something a bit lighter start with Berlin Diary.

Shirer was actually there, and much of the contemporary people who would criticize his account fall into same niche as those who missed the free love movement by a few years and are bitter about it.

>>18582380
>I originally thought your were talking about the factors that lead up to the collapse of the Weimar Republic that lead to the rise of the Third Reich. (the rise of extreme degeneracy, the antagonism by the Communists and the rise of Antifa, the collapse of the economy, the failure of the democratic government to run and the abuses by the banking cartels )

Oh, anon, it's so passé to talk about stuff like that! Just accept it as we tell you it was, the lost bohemian paradise worthy of a thousand panegyrics, brought low by the dark, murky grip of the wrong side of history. If only Liebknecht and Luxemburg did not get done in by the Freikorps so soon!

>>18582425
Fucking kek.
Jewish bitch got what she deserved

>>18578762
It's worth reading. It's not 100% accurate or at all unbiased, but it's worth reading. It gives an OK overview, and especially in the pre-war parts things are laid out in a good way. Then as soon as the war starts it takes a nosedive and he falls for multiple exaggerations and memes, just to paint a narrative. But then again, even he mentions he's a journalist, and not a historian.
Happy to read an actual historian's analysis of the same topic tho, so if any anons have good recs, please go ahead

>>18578873
most books worth reading are pro-books
you can be contrarian against anything
in our era at least, its seemingly more difficult to create than it is to copy or destroy

>>18582398
>as those who missed the free love movement by a few years and are bitter about it.
Not really cunt. It is more historians criticising people recommending a shite secondary source written by a journalist who should have written an essay on his experiences instead and provided a valuable primary source.

But no, americans hanker after journalists like cohens hanker after unclean women.

>>18582425
>Freikorps
I miss them so much bros

I like this book. I am not by any means a Nazi, but I especially like the prominent swastika on the spine; I display it prominently on my bookshelf, and enjoy people's reactions during business meetings on Skype when they notice it.

>>18581956
Die nazi scum

>>18584264
Oh and here it is.
I was worried you guys wouldn't show up, but you just couldn't resist

>>18584291
Happy to see me, anon-kun?

>>18584304
Not really, I just wanted someone to come in and validate the point of the post you replied to.
And you did that wonderfully. Beyond all expectations really. No bullshit, straight to the point

>>18584321
>implying the holocaust didn't happen
You lot are destined for the rope, we're dragging you out into the streets. :3

OP here, let me clarify myself. I have elaborated in >>18581741 on who I am, so that I may be recommended books that are most suitable. From Nazi Germany, I'm currently considering Williamson, Scheck, Kirk, or Evans. As a person who hasn't read a single history book, I ask for your help in choosing the one that fits my criteria the best.

watching babylon berlin right now. seems like weimar republic has a few similarities to present day america with the cop hating commies.

fuck I didn't know William Shatner wrote history stuff

>>18578762
Yes, Shirer was in Berlin and saw a lot of things first hand.
After the war had access to thousands of documents and was able to communicate with people who could give first hand accounts.
If you want a definitive history on the subject, this is it.

>>18584471
Are you fucking kidding me? Go back to failing anthropology.

>>18584391
You don't start reading history from summary texts if you want to read history. Summary texts aren't history.

If you want to read history regarding WWII try double teaming Male Fantasies followed by Ordinary Men. German WWII is significantly a history of the relationship between bureaucracy and masculinity. Male Fantasies claims strongly that German Fascism derived from a fear of women so strong it produced total homosociality, and that this fear of women was projected onto racial others and communists.

Ordinary men teaches you how to take a group of ordinary men and kill 20,000 people.

>>18584450
Yeah the aesthetics from then to now seems like we've gone back about 1000 years instead of forward 100

>>18578762
Reading it now and its pretty good. Most modern narratives don't even discuss how key prussian institutions were for Hitler's takeover.

>>18578781
No...it basically amounts to just another way to smear high-ranking nazis. It's not like he's directly addressing homosexuality; he's attacking nazis and Nazism and uses "hey, there are rumors about so-and-so being a homosexual."

>>18578762
It's an OK place to start. Afterwards, try reading a couple primary sources composed by people who were actually there: Inside the Third Reich (Albert Speer) and With Hitler Until the End (Heinz Linge...he was Hitler's personal valet and stood outside the door when he shot himself).

>>18584528
>You don't start reading history from summary texts
Actually, that's exactly how you start. You then consult the bibliography to find primary sources and specializing historians. If the summary didn't contain notes on historiography (which is odd) and you don't have background enough to figure that part out on your own: go to journal articles and/or web search the historians you drew from the summary text.

>>18584802
No mate, that's how you start reading fantasy stories.

>If your summary didn't include notes on historiography
Then it was a summary. Even magisterial surveys like Braudel are suspicious. Most "summaries" aren't even lies for children, they're pathetic political interventions by journalists like OP's suggestion.

You don't start by feeding your children scat. There is no "geist" to work down from. There are only practical problems of text interpretation and stories that hold closely enough to a vast rigorously interpreted source basis that they're interesting lies.

>>18584528
P.S. I just noticed you recommended Ordinary Men and Male Fantasies. Ordinary Men is great but it's about the holocaust and not the Third Reich. It also doesn't "teach you" how to turn men into killers...it presents data related to the beginnings of the holocaust and makes an argument concerning social psychology and wartime atrocity. I'd say you got that idea from Jordan Peterson, but then you recommended Male Fantasies. Male Fantasies is garbage written by a sociologist and presents bunk ideas that personify fascism; it's nearly devoid of historical input and is largely apeing "theorists" like Foucault and Deleuze. Recommending Male Fantasies to someone who wants to learn about the history of the Second World War is retarded.
>>18578762
I know this is /lit and I already made recs here: >>18584769. However, checkout these doc series if you're interested in the subject:

The World at War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0b4g4ZZNC1E
Apocalypse: The Second World War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_LwdbFDuH0&list=PLQv7ILzUxt5Y-G-r0zg2hVcuwg7jgHkKk
Battlefield (this episode is my favorite but the others are great as well)
https://youtu.be/1w30FkSXyTE

>>18584528
I'm interested in reading history to actually apply that knowledge to my daily life. Considering the criticism put forward by others regarding these recommndations, I think it's safe to say that they wouldn't be useful to me.
>>18584903
Thank you

>>18584980
And he's just recommended the "Clean Wehrmacht" starter pack of lies for big boys.

>I'm interested in reading history to actually apply that knowledge to my daily life.
How is the hysterical homosociality of Junker fascist bureaucracy relevant to your daily life? You want theology, not history. History is meaningless unless you are engaged in a political project, in which case you should ask your party. Or if I'm predicting you're a useless fuck J & B Hammond Rural Labourer, Town Labourer, Skilled Labourer; EP Thompson Time; Lenin in England.

>>18584903
>It also doesn't "teach you" how to turn men into killers...it presents data related to the beginnings of the holocaust and makes an argument concerning social psychology and wartime atrocity.
Now who is being naïve. It was a US military doctorate.

>>18585045
I'm not interested in sociology, I don't see how it would actually be of any use to me. Again, I'm 18 and have no interest in politics, so I'm not really looking for that angle, either. I got interested in the aforementioned Rome, Florence, and the Third Reich, because methinks that they all are full of people whose actions I could learn from. Theology is of no interest to me, albeit I have little education in philosophy, I'm convinced in my position of avoiding cognitive dissonance. As such, I'm an atheist, even though due to the absence of Hempel's ravens, agnosticism logically makes more sense.

>>18584828
No, that's how you start reading history. You brute force materials and recognize patterns. From there you delve into the bibliography as I described before. You don't just read one book retard.
>Most "summaries" aren't even lies for children, they're pathetic political interventions by journalists like OP's suggestion.
You're just being a pretentious pseud. Do you seriously get that carried away by what you're reading? Well, given how pretentious you're being I could see how you'd get easily carried away before doing all of your homework.

>>18585235
>I read lies.
Good job mate. Call me back after your third.

>>18585232
>I am 18, and Nazi Germany is relevant to my being
Read ordinary men. Then read nuremberg evidence.

>>18578762
Oh I have the abridged version in my drawer. Why is it controversial?

>>18584391
Journalistic writing (pre 1990s) can be some of the most enjoyable and engaging reading that you can do. Shirers is the best written of the couple of books on Nazi Germany that I have read.

Thought Evans' trilogy was the authority on this subject.

>>18578873
this is such a retarded way of looking at things.
Picking up general societal attitudes about things is nowhere close to actually learning about them.
General societal attitudes are often wrong and change a lot over time, but to think that you know all that you 'need' to know just because people namedrop nazi crimes in WWII video games, or your teacher talked to you about the holocaust once, years ago in high school, or you've read the wikipedia page for the nuremberg trials; doesnt mean that you should pivot only to critiques and commentary on the 'established narrative,' the vast majority of the time the people you see talking about it have no fucking clue of the scope of what they're talking about and are only trying to push for their own modern-day values using generalities.

>>18585288
it's written by a journalist, not a historian and also just old. anything written about ww2 before the end of the cold war was using only half the evidence, the rest having been locked up in soviet archives until the 90s.

>>18578762
Yes, but more as a primary source from someone there.

Evans' Third Reich Trilogy is far better.

>>18578873
Untrue. Myths like Hitler saving the German economy and shit being wonderful still are pretty popular. US historians felt the need to bump up the danger of Germany to justify the Soviet alliance and contemporary Cold War spending.

In fact, Hitler's peacetime rule saw real wages plummet by almost a third and widespread shortages of basic goods like refined flour and animal fats. Evans and The Wages of Destruction catalog Nazi cronyism and economic retardation is extreme detail with individual primary sources and statistics.

>>18585769
it is but evans publicly destroyed the career of a holocaust denial guru so you'll find a lot of wackos trying to suppress him online

>>18585769
Ian Kershaw is a much better writer overall.

>>18584384
You see, this is what I'm talking about.
This neurotic behavior is radicalizing more people, more efficiently then any stormfaggot or glownigger could ever dream of accomplishing.
You are the architects of your own downfall, and yet you relish

>>18578762
It pushes the (((narrative)))...

>>18585769
Evans is painfully boring to read