The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich discussion

this book is amazin for the insight into the furhers mind....n esp. the last wave of attack n fall of it..
fm normandy landing to enigma failure to evrythn....u ll be just amazed by the german way of fighting........

Simply the most interesting one volume history of Germany during the war. A must read for anyone interested in WWII

I read this many years ago and found it very informative. If you like WWII history your will definitely like this book.

Amazing read this. I remember when it first arrived through the post I couldn't believe how thick it was!

Particularly fascinating is the story of how the Nazis managed to get into power. If the economy gets mismanaged bad enough ANYTHING can happen! Even here. That's the lesson I came away with. Well worth reading.

I always recommend reading John Toland's "The Rising Sun" together with this one, to get the full Japanese story that completes the Axis picture.

I agree! This book is insightful and informative - not "dry" like some history books can be. I also thought that since it was written by a journalist who was in Germany during the time of Hitler's rise to power, it was unbiased. But, that was a time in history when journalists were supposed to be impartial. Great book!

For me it is the best book on the Third Reich.

I found the first 300 pages or so, the stuff that's all about politics, pretty dry. It was hard going for me. Once Hitler started his land territory-based game of poker, and the focus switched to military strategy, it read much easier for me! Overall, I thought it was very well done.

Written in the 60's but still relevant today. I really enjoyed the book including the political aspects.

Michael wrote: "For me it is the best book on the Third Reich."
It is for me too, but it is the only WW Two I have read.

Have you read any others that you think are worthwhile to read?

THis book along with the "Berlin Diary" are so informative of the rise of National Socialism. I read both books in 1970 while we were living in Germany. I tried to discuss the books with some Germans but all they said was we had it so hard "not a potato in the land"

Isn't interesting how one cultural sees a situation completely differently than another!

Steve wrote: "Written in the 60's but still relevant today. I really enjoyed the book including the political aspects."

Uh, of course its still friggin' relevant. Lots of things are. Everything important in life & culture stays relevant no matter what decade it is. Superficial phenomenon is what changes.

abhay wrote: "this book is amazin for the insight into the furhers mind....n esp. the last wave of attack n fall of it..
fm normandy landing to enigma failure to evrythn....u ll be just amazed by the german way ..."

I would say its not dry; but as it is so rich with detail and because it does take its time illuminating every shadow; it is slow going. Lots of footnotes and (in my opinion) you have to read footnotes as you go along rather than go back later.

I'm very interested in pairing this nonfiction with 'The Fox in the Attic' which is said to be one of the best novelizations of Germany under the Nazis; populated richly with characters in power at the time.

Letitia wrote: "Michael wrote: "For me it is the best book on the Third Reich."
It is for me too, but it is the only WW Two I have read.

Have you read any others that you think are worthwhile to read?"


This is fictionalized history, but it goes over a lot of the facts in this book

The Castle in the Forest it's by Normal Mailer.

Mailer sets "out to explore the evil of Adolf Hitler" in a totally unique and entertaining manner.

R. Michael wrote: "Particularly fascinating is the story of how the Nazis managed to get into power. If the economy gets mismanaged bad enough ANYTHING can happen! Even here. That's the lesson I came away with. Well..."

my thought exactly. our economy really worries me in reguards to our security.

Another book in this vein I would recommend is Albert Speer's "Inside the Third Reich". Wonderfully informative.

neatly organized, well narrated. I just hope some day one the books about Britain's and France's colonial agression make it to the NYtimes bestseller... just once. Hitler was Europe nightmare, exaclty like France and Britain for others. With just one difference: Time span. Those two latter happened for centuries.

Good point. However, I think there's a few more differences than just timespan. At the very least, you could say that the Nazis took over countries who were their contemporaries, their neighbors; nations who stood with them in the same stage of development and history. The age of Colonialism began with the premise that indigenous peoples were not equals and that these distant lands had no governments. They weren't seen as 'nations' at all. Maybe its a moot point since, (obviously) genocide was the unfortunate result in each case. Still, I don't think the analogy fits very precisely. Even Britain's role in the Irish Potato Famine was not a deliberate wish to exterminate a whole people for the sake of racial superiority. Colonialism was about economic markets. I myself do not see colonialism as a thoroughly clear-cut evil. It was a part of history that probably couldn't have occurred any other way. Given the timeperiod, what should we have expected from Europe of the 1600s?

I strongly urge you to read more about colonialism. Middle east and North Africa were NATIONS... part of the Ottoman empire which vanished just after some unknkown-to-turkish dictator userped power during WWI.By the way some say he is Jew. Now a bit into what you Feliks say, "the premise that indigenous peoples were not equals". Isn't it true that most American and European media preach the so called EQUALITY. In case you say "yes". Why is it that no single leader promote recompensation for us like what Germany paid and still pay generously... of course this is just a matter of opinion --nothing personal, since no one would ever dare.

Sorry, to add.
Isn't it exactly the same NAZI propaganda. Meaning arians are not equal to others. It's the same argument.

I found it a little dry. It isn't terrible, but I like Shaara's work better. I also like the theoretical work on fascism by Guerin (I read the English translation), and Trotsky.

Sadek wrote: "I strongly urge you to read more about colonialism. Middle east and North Africa were NATIONS... part of the Ottoman empire which vanished just after some unknkown-to-turkish dictator userped power during WWI.By the way some say he is Jew. Now a bit into what you Feliks say, "the premise that indigenous peoples were not equals". Isn't it true that most American and European media preach the so called EQUALITY. In case you say "yes". Why is it that no single leader promote recompensation for us like what Germany paid and still pay generously... of course this is just a matter of opinion --nothing personal, since no one would ever dare. ..."

Please. If you dislike my POV don't go telling me to ramp up my education. Sight unseen (just based on your reasoning, your poor elocution --without looking at your shelves) I'm betting I'm more versed in history than you.

Your arguments are simply on the weak side. In fact they border on gibberish. You're mixing up modern times with attitudes of 400 years ago, and you also bring in the term 'preaching'. Who is preaching? You're incoherent. The media is not the government.

Whatever 'nations' you think existed in North Africa in the 1600s; matters not a whit. They were not 'first-world nations' as would have been recognized by the ruling powers of Europe. Money talks, artillery talks, navies talk.

Reparations? Bwahaha a haha aaha. What? Look, its just like I said earlier: colonialism was something that couldn't have been avoided. Stronger vs weaker. No crying over spilt milk.

Good refs, Donna! Trotsky, one of the most brilliant political minds of the century; far too under-read.

dale wrote: "ShIrer was a journalist, American
Lets read of the Muslim invasion of Spain .the subjugation of eastern Europe .Money will change history ? No! Let's talk of monies owed theUSfromWW2. The only c..."

More gibberish. Who are these guys?

abhay wrote: "this book is amazin for the insight into the furhers mind....n esp. the last wave of attack n fall of it.. fm normandy landing to enigma failure to evrythn....u ll be just amazed by the german way ..."

Normandy is not covered by this book.

The best book to discover the ways of the German fighting machine is Rommel's 'Infantry Attacks'.

dale wrote: "ShIrer was a journalist, American
Lets read of the Muslim invasion of Spain .the subjugation of eastern Europe .Money will change history ? No! Let's talk of monies owed theUSfromWW2. The only c..."

dale wrote: "ShIrer was a journalist, American
Lets read of the Muslim invasion of Spain .the subjugation of eastern Europe .Money will change history ? No! Let's talk of monies owed theUSfromWW2. The only c..."

I admit the word 'arian' is mispelled. I should have written ARYAN. I am not native... Any way, your Mufti spoke for himself. He was a figurhead, a spiritual leader. No one ELECTED him. Besides, in his time Palestine was under British administration, naturally enough he would side with Germany - pay attention GERMANY as opposed to Britain, not Hitler. ... the list is very long.
For Spain... it was not OCCUPATION for the obvious reason that most Iberian intermaried with new commers who brought them Justice, Science, and and and.. there are some BBC documentaries about Islam in Spain and the "INQUISITON" you might be interested to watch Dale. Don't be surprised by the fact that Andalus finance waas managed by Jews.
And speaking of BBC, it broadcasted some documentaries about the acquisition of New mexico, California, Texas... and above all poor Native Indians.
My first post was about the 'OTHER OPINION'. it is very strange how some people preach freedom of speech for themselves and supress the "Horrible other". Believe me, I know this pattern.

Feliks wrote: "Sadek wrote: "I strongly urge you to read more about colonialism. Middle east and North Africa were NATIONS... part of the Ottoman empire which vanished just after some unknkown-to-turkish dictator..."

1) I did not say you are under educated. I say we are humain and we do miss things.
2) The media is the MAIN source of governments rhetoric.
And 3)Thank you for the last PARAGRAPH in your comment. It shed light on the past as well as on the present. thanks a lot.
I am utterly upset, I almost fell while reading your comment.

I hope this one is the last because we went far off track.
The main reason why Columbus went west is those nation you say are not equal. Europeans had to pay dear in order to have their goods across.
You might lookup the Otoman empire map during the 16th century.............

dale wrote: "But remember too that the Arabic countries are our source for modern medicine, and algebra"
And also Physics, Astronomy, Geography, navy... and even government.
I remember when I first started reading about America's founding fathers that some of them were influenced by some italien scholars who were influenced by Arab's idea's about governing.

dale wrote: "Thank you so much of modern medicine was brought back from the crusades. Smart is not race related
But I owe no monies to anyone."

Hey, not just medicine. The place where you now live was discovered by "someone" who based his theory of sailing west to reach India on OUR SCIENTISTS of the time works and their theories about the earth being round. And hey, people got hanged in europe of the time because they publicly said "it's a globe".

dale wrote: "Due to the large number of Muslim volunteers, the Handschar Divisions were the largest of Hitler's 38 Waffen-SS divisions."

Many Muslims were in the war front- with the allied forces as well.
My grand father almost went there too. I am grateful he hadn't.

Michel wrote: "Like you, JulieLaLa, I found the book compelling for any reader who has only casual interest in historical topics. However, I do not agree that the book is totally objective. The research that went..."

Correct.I would just add that Shrirer was a journalist, not a historian. His business was telling a good story, selling copy, making his case, not projecting insightful understandings of historical events.

Any noticed this? This author seems to over emphasize Allied victories while stubornly and despratly dwarfs Axes's. Any thoughts?

The book was a great, one of a kind effort. THe first part 200-300 pages was, for me, the most important section of the book, and the most informed by the author's experience in Germany as a reporter. The most important lesson of the Reich history wasn't the war, but how they got there.....the story of Hitler's and the Nazi's rise to power is a revelation, equal to any potboiler out there, and a lesson to us all, everywhere, of the dangers of demagogic solutions to crises and problems....amen...

Sadek wrote: "Any noticed this? This author seems to over emphasize Allied victories while stubornly and despratly dwarfs Axes's. Any thoughts?"

o.0

No mystery. Do you remember who won that war? The Allies. How else can you tell it? Germany lost.

And actually Shirer's book does dwell entirely on the German side of the events. What book were you reading? That's why it's called 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'.

Its not called 'The Triumph of the West', or 'How We Clobbered the Krauts', or 'D-Day Showed Them Who Was Boss'. The re-taking of Europe by the Allies isn't even in the book.

I really like this book. It truly informs me on how hitler came to power and it is very informative on the third reich and the third shock army division. I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the history of World War II.

Feliks wrote: "Good point. However, I think there's a few more differences than just timespan. At the very least, you could say that the Nazis took over countries who were their contemporaries, their neighbors; n..."

Ataturk wasn't Jewish, he was a Freemason. Bloodlines don't determine faith. He placed the Ottoman empire in Germany's hands, and perhaps this is why Germany was brought to its' knees. We now know that British and American banks were funding both sides of the war. The Bank of England transferred Czech gold Billion to the Nazi's. Why?

Oil was discovered in Iran 1908. Britain and France had their way with the Middle East and Asia after WWI.

There is also the fact that Stalin was much more murderous than Hitler. Stalin invented Gulags, and Hitler called them Concentration camps. Why does Hitler get all the credit?

Is there anything which unites these various points you're bringing up? Are you responding to something in my previous post? I don't recall ever mentioning Ataturk, as far as I can tell from re-reading the previous page where you're quoting me from. Naturally Ataturk wasn't a Jew; but I can't detect why you bring it up. Specifically who/what are you rebutting with this observation? Its interesting to learn of his freemasonry.

Probing through your remarks and looking for something else to reply to...I would say that yes, bloodlines rather do determine faith in the Middle East. Prestige and power is highly linked to descendants of the Prophet and descendants of the original followers of the Prophet. Its all over Turkey that way. Family lineage is strongly linked to faith/authority.

The Allies division of the Middle East after WWI: unfortunate, but still wouldn't make them in any way akin to the Third Reich. They didn't pack people up in cattle cars and send them to be gassed or used as slave labor.

Stalin: always glad to see someone mention Stalin and his evil. I'm all for that. But comparisons to Hitler, what is the actual difference? How to measure something like that? Both were despicable at a level where its not worth splitting hairs.

Uncle Joe did not invent gulags actually, because those Siberian prison camps existed long before he came along. They were thriving under the Czar.

p.s. tiny typo in your above remarks, its 'bullion' not 'billion'. (Czech gold? May I ask you for a source for this, as well?)

Overall good, just a little incoherent.

I was in second grade when this book was published, a time when memories of the atrocities of the Nazis were still felt keenly by my parents. My mom would send us away to our rooms to read when television reports came on showing piles of lamp shades made from human skin. I already knew Nazi fascism was evil when I was finally old enough to read this...I hope we never forget how it came about - how it destroyed millions. I'm glad people are still reading it.

Letitia wrote: "Michael wrote: "For me it is the best book on the Third Reich."
It is for me too, but it is the only WW Two I have read.

Have you read any others that you think are worthwhile to read?"

I'm sorry I saw this post almost 3 years after it was written. I would heartily recommend THE INEXTINGUISHABLE SYMPHONY by Martin Goldsmith. It is the story of the author's parents, who were Jewish musicians in Nazi Germany before the war. One of the most moving books I've ever read.

Good rec, there. Bravo.

Roxanne wrote: "I was in second grade when this book was published, a time when memories of the atrocities of the Nazis were still felt keenly by my parents. My mom would send us away to our rooms to read when te..."

You will be glad to know that no evidence has ever been produced for the lampsahade story, the football with heads story, the fat into soap story.