A Bit Disturbing (A Review of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)

[FVZA_Colonel]

As I was cruising around Amazon.com (when I should have been studying), I came across this

6 of 30 people found the following review helpful:

Going for the Story, not the History, March 4, 2006
Reviewer: Karl Baxter (Inverurie, Aberdeenshire) - See all my reviews
There's no denying that this is a good read and that it's packed with information that generally uneducated people will be unacquainted with, but to call it a definitive history of the Third Reich and to tell people that they won't need to read any other book on this era of history is frankly absurd.

Shirer was not a historian, he was a journalist, and this shows as he goes for the story like a rottweiler. The story here is the thrilling Hollywood Western of the nasty Nazis (perfect villains) gassing and killing millions until finally stopped by the Great Liberal Ring of Roosevelt, Churchill, and ...erm... Stalin.

Unfortunately, as we have so often learned to our cost with 9-11, WMD, etc., etc., the story is seldom the whole truth, but is more often a convenient myth to encourage and compel us to support or not support certain political agendas. I'm not saying this book is a crock of lies or that the Nazis were shining knights in panzers, but I think this period deserves better history than its getting in books like this. By better history I mean:

(1) A free debate of the period and the facts

This is impossible in the present day climate of intolerance of any kind of evidence that detracts from the established myth of the period. In several European countries people can be imprisoned just for reexaming the facts of this period.

(2) Higher academic standards

Because the Nazis are so detested, any history book that casts them as villains and attributes any kind of crimes to them is readily accepted as gospel, even if this can't be backed up by evidence. Shirer's book is an example. Shirer is happy to talk about orders for the 'Holocaust' but is muted on the subject of documentary proof. He states weakly that Hitler's supposed order for the murder of Jews "apparently was never committed to paper -- at least no copy of it has yet been unearthed. It was probably given verbally to G�ring, Himmler and Heydrich, who passed it down..." (p. 1148). This is the standard of history in this work and it's not very high.

(3) Removing this period of history from current political agendas

Everytime someone is called a 'nazi' - usually by Liberals who are trying to shut someone up - the cause of history suffers. Because of its role in contemporary politics as a Liberal cuss word, there are strong vested interests in maintaining the current closed and partially unsubstantiated view of 'the Nazi evil.'

(4) Less of the 'good guy bad guy' stuff

If we are going to look at the evils of the Nazis, what about the 10s of millions killed by Stalin? What about the firebombing and atomic bombing of civilian centres? etc. etc. And let's also remember that Germany was subjected to enormous pressures both before and during the war, yet most Germans clearly behaved with courage, self-sacrifice, hard-work, decency, and (too much) loyalty.

The myth that is perpetuated by Shirer's book - parts of which are of course true - is used by the Liberal Left to sit on and stifle rational debate on important issues facing our societies, like genteic racial diffrences, immigration, assimilation (or the lack of it), demographics, and the decline and ultimate disappearance of the White race. Just shout 'Nazi' and hurl Shirer's thick tome at them and they'll quickly go back to discussing the joys of diversity, the wonders of multiculturalism, and the evilness of the White race.

Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)



Among other things, how exactly would one get the idea that this is about "Evil White People?"

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

1. So this bozo kind of dances around the idea that maybe the Nazis were OK,

but he doesn't QUITE come out and say it... but aside from bashing liberals and implying the history as we know it is all washed up, doesn't come out and say anything to support his own position, or even say what that is, although I think we can formulate a pretty good guess. ("The Nazis were misunderstood, and actually had a lot of pretty good ideas! The implementation of those ideas was a bit clumsy though!")

Was this review helpful to me? I think not.

[BiggJawn]

2. Bet Karl gave all the "Prussian Blue" albums high marks...

The book is about Hitler, so of COURSE it paints "White People" (Aryans) in a bad light...

The guy should go to Austria and spout that blather.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

3. Do people in the UK even USE terms like "liberal" I wonder. Sometimes

I think that a large proportion of the RW trolls at sites like this one, amazon, bbc.co.uk etc. pretend to be non-Americans because that somehow gives them some kind of credibility or cover that they wouldn't have if they were revealed to be yet another idiot from Kansas or Indiana or Georgia suckling at Rove's teat.

[Faygo Kid]

4. For the first time ever on DU: Fuck that asshole reviewer.

Geez, I never use curse words. I just finished a new book, The Coming of the Third Reich, first of a trilogy. But Shirer's book, which I have read three times (it's big), will always give me the ultimate insight to evil. Bring it, Karl Baxter.

[MadMaddie]

5. I suppose when he gets to covering the rise and fall of the KKK

he will find that...they were just good, proud hard working whites trying to protect what was theirs....:sarcasm:

And PS to Karl Baxter Bastard....when a liberal uses the term Nazi to refer to the NeoCon followers agenda...we mean evil...racists......if the shoe fits....

[Monk06]

6. Liberals are Anti Aryan Bigots

"Shirer is happy to talk about orders for the 'Holocaust' but is muted on the subject of documentary proof. He states weakly that Hitler's supposed order for the murder of Jews "apparently was never committed to paper -- at least no copy of it has yet been unearthed. It was probably given verbally to G�ring, Himmler and Heydrich, who passed it down..." (p. 1148). This is the standard of history in this work and it's not very high."

"The myth that is perpetuated by Shirer's book - parts of which are of course true - is used by the Liberal Left to sit on and stifle rational debate on important issues facing our societies, like genetic racial differences, immigration, assimilation (or the lack of it), demographics, and the decline and ultimate disappearance of the White race. Just shout 'Nazi' and hurl Shirer's thick tome at them and they'll quickly go back to discussing the joys of diversity, the wonders of multiculturalism, and the evilness of the White race."

So Liberals use Shirer's self serving Biography to denigrate the white race, the race that Nazi's viewed as superior to all other races. This guy is blessedly ignorant of the notion of non sequitur.

He also wants to correct historicist views of Nazi history without mentioning the Wansee Conference
where Nazi plans for the final solution were committed to paper.

See http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-wannsee.htm

And this guy thinks he’s an historical critic.

[YouthInAsia]

7. Betcha this guy is one of thise loons who ALSO denies the

holocaust. He's a bit too "liberal" with the Nazi's in his "review."