I hear this is pretty inaccurate. Is that true? If so, what can

File: richevans.jpg (57KB, 919x720px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 919x720px

>>9264508

Richard Evans' trilogy is a better option, but honestly that book is still a good read.

I think it's well written and entertaining.

>>9264666
I'm looking for something perhaps more informative

>>9264508
There is a difference between "inaccurate" and "troubled analysis".

The author was a journalist with a glut of documentation from a recently crumbled regime known mostly for the paper based bureaucracy. He could only cherry pick what he was reading from a nearly endless library, and the corpus had not been subject to 50 years of scholarship.

Hence, >>9264523 is correct. What shirer does excel at, is the fact that he was there, on the ground, before and after, and he also provides a really wonderful narrative.

>>9264753
Tell you what.

I'll read both. I'll read the Evans trilogy and the Shirer one.

>>9264762
Arendt's Eichmann in Jerusalem is also very good.

On the extreme opposite of Evans are Churchill's Memoirs, and Guderians memoir "Panzer Leader", in that there is no analysis, only memory and emotion.

I think they would be interesting to consider too, especially Guderian for a nearly amoral view on the eastern front.

There is this one section in the first hundred pages where he suggests all german philosophy precipitated nazi ideology. It's pretty easy to laugh off but autistic historians believe that's reason to write off everything in the work. But Shirer is not a historian so that criticism doesn't even apply. The rest of the work is solid.