Is Shirer /his/ approved?

>>3325183
Because it's written the way a reporter writes a news piece, not the way a history professor writes a treatise on the subject. Shirer focuses a lot on the personal foibles of the Third Reich senior members, and his fundamental "thesis" is pretty much

>Le Eternal K*aut is too slavish and stupid to question anything when an authority figure tells him to do something, no matter how monstrous it is.

If you want basic overviews of stuff going on in the Third Reich, it's great. If you want actual analysis, it's terrible.

>>3325187
Why would you want an analysis anyway? I want to learn history in the most objective way possible.

>>3325183
Shirer is alright. He was a first-hand witness and thus informed on a large number of otherwise unknown details. Read the Berlin Diary.

>>3325196
Because you can't separate analysis from "objective history". What the writer thinks is important and unimportant will necessarily guide them in how they present the information ,and how they choose what to pay attention to and what to discard. Shitty analytics will lead to shitty history, even "objective" history.

Plus, you're looking in a window for a culture that is probably very much unlike your own. Are you that confident that if someone lists a reel of facts, that you'll be able to understand them properly?

read it for enjoyment, not rigorous analysis.