Volker Ullrich's Hitler: Ascent, 1889-1939

>>9699793
>4.41 @ GR.
I can already tell you that it will be shit.

>>9699801
>747 ratings
That's not that many tho

>>9700090
Fair point.
I'd take any book released 10+ years after WW2 about Hitler with a truck of salt.

>>9700095
>any book released 10+ years after WW2 about Hitler with a truck of salt.
What about Ian Kershaw? He didn't started publishing books on Hitler/Third Reich until the 80's and 90's.

>>9699793
CSMonitor (yeah yeah Christian Science) generally have good taste in books/films although I've stopped following them for no real reason.

It's probably not shit if CS Monitor likes it.

>>9699793
I remember reading something that turned me off these. I would just go with the two volume Kershaw.

When's volume 2 coming out?

Kershaw is the GOAT

File: adolf-hitler-11.jpg (156KB, 785x1200px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 785x1200px

Toland is bretty gud

>>9700095
>I'd take any book released 10+ years after WW2 about Hitler with a truck of salt.
What? Wouldn't books released later be better due to more research being done?

>>9703193
Historians of fascism and other icky icky badthoughts right wingers can be pretty fucking bad. Major scholars can spend 30 years of an allegedly distinguished career rewriting intellectual histories of fascism that amount to repeating, every time:
>Indeed, Stevenson's new book proves Heidegger had lunch with THREE Nazis in 1933, not just two (!!!!!) as was previously thought, so now we KNOW he was a Total Fucking Nazi. It seems that his defenders are wrong, and we are right: Nazism is bad and it's bad to be a Nazi, and Heidegger had lunch THREE TIMES with THREE DIFFERENT NAZIS in 1933. Slam fucking DUNK, Nazis.

Like, it's not even that they're obsessed with going "NAZIS BAD!!" (no shit?), it's that they become obsessed with that way of approaching it. They see things only from that perspective, more like a lawyer finding damning circumstantial evidence of a foregone conclusion, than an open-minded investigator.

In most areas of historical study, this unprofessional shit is rightly seen as unprofessonal, and most historians become self-conscious about having the right balance of sympathetic understanding and "obviously, owning slaves was bad." But because Nazism is so recent and was so jarring, it attracts a lot of journalistic hacks who are able to regurgitate cliches and conduct relatively shallow analysis because they're in a safe bubble of certitude. When the whole reason you should read historical scholarship in the first place it so pierce and reshape your bubbles of certitude.

The proof of what I'm saying right now is that if you said it among historians, you'd be instantly accused of neo-Nazism or something like that. That literally happens.