Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 Vague 1.1 On journalists vs. academics 1.2 One More Concern 2 External Link Incorrect

[edit] Vague

I think the following is overly vague:

Despite receiving popular acclaim over the years, academics in universities and colleges have often dismissed Shirer's book as a work of a journalist rather than by a true historian.

What are the specific criticisms "academics" "often" have with the book? How widespread are they? Even a couple of examples or a link would go a long way. --Misterwindupbird 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I can tell you that my college advisor, a respected academic historian, snorted at the mention of the book. Mackensen (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if we could consider it to be an early example of modern popularised history? Not academically rigorous, but instead deliberately targeted at the general public, and written in an appropriate style... Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

That's... um... not exactly the kind of example I was hoping for, Mackensen. --Misterwindupbird 22:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On journalists vs. academics

Misterwindupbird, I agree with you completely.

As to Mackensen's comment, I can assure everyone (if they even need such assurance) that academics (historians or otherwise) are often far from bias-free. There's often a touch of condescension among academics for the work of someone outside their clique or who — perish the thought — actually earned a living doing something other than pure "academic" research. Perhaps there's a touch of sour grapes mixed with the condescension.

Shimgray asks whether The Rise and Fall might be scorned by academics for not being "academically rigorous". Shirer's work (1143 pages in the 1981 paperback edition) contains nine pages of bibliography and nearly 32 pages of end notes (not to mention hundreds of footnotes intermingled with the text). If that's not academically rigorous, I don't know what is.

I wouldn't describe The Rise and Fall as "popularized history" — that term makes me think negatively of "documentaries" long on dramatization and short on attention to facts. However, I think it's fair to say that Shirer did write his work for the masses. The old cliché states that "journalism is the first draft of history" comes to mind here. Shirer spent eight years in Berlin explaining Nazi Germany to American newspaper and radio audiences. It therefore seems only natural that, when the Third Reich was over and after its archival material became available, for Shirer to be the one to put this history into its second draft for those who knew the Third Reich only through Shirer's dispatches and broadcasts, and to those of us who came afterwards. That The Rise and Fall may have been written for the literate public and not for a narrower academic audience is not, IMHO, a justifiable criticism provided the work is based on factual material with citations to prove it. Rise and Fall surely meets my primary tests of historical material: (1) factual, (2) educational, and (3) interesting.

Lastly, if the respected historians in academia or elsewhere have legitimate grievances with Shirer's work, it would be instructive for someone to sum them up (ideally with attribution) here. To date, there has been little documentation of these views which, I dare say, I find a bit academically short of the mark. It would also be interesting if someone cared to provide a list of the material we should be reading instead. -- JonRoma 03:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

+++ For considerations of the book+++ Most people of todays generations have no real concept of true evil. The book illuminates the evil regime with footnotes and observations. It is a must read in todays war happy environment. Neil

In response to the above, I should mention: MANY teachers of German History snort, not only because it is not academically rigorous, but also because it is so widely distributed that it is taken as being great simply by virtue of its circulation, which is irksome. I would not discount the idea that some historians are being cliquish; it is known to happen. Nor do I think that being a popular history is bad, even though the term has become perjorative. I further agree that a more clear and well-documented citation of the disdain be provided.

I must, however, challenge the criteria for academic rigor presented above, to quote "If that's not academically rigorous, I don't know what is.": 1143 pages, with 9 pages of Bibliography and 32 pages of end notes; this is not exactly rigorous, and not nearly as much as it sounds.

A few examples:

"Barbarians, Marauders, and Infidels" which is well-regarded and written by an academic, but still is considered "popular", is 335 pages long. It has 22 pages of end notes. It has TEN pages of bibliography.

Now, "The Merovingian Kingdoms" by Ian Wood, a seminal work in the field of Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages, is incredibly rigorous and respected. It is hardly popular, though. This work is 395 pages long. It has 16 pages of bibliography. And this is in a field that has FAR less primary material available.

What does this mean? Well is two titles under 400 pages could muster more bibliogaphy than a book nearly 3 times in length, what does that say for the "rigor" of the title? It only outpaces a book a third of its length in endnotes by ten pages. Not very much.

Do end notes mean that the work is neccessarily good? No. But it cannot be, in any way, used a a yardstick for how rigorous this book is.

In this very field, end notes are problematic. David Irving produced a number of works that were well-ctied; they were also falsehoods.

The point? The endnotes do not make this title more rigorous, or affect its academic standing in any way.

Does the book have value? I am sure it does. But I do not think it belongs in a discussion of any serious historical works on the period, aside from an acknowledgement of its popularity. The fact that it is interesting has nothing to do with its historical value. I would like to find something more specific to deal with this issue; If i can, I will write it into the article if it can be cited and explained.

--L.A.F. 02:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I found some reviews from scholarly journals. Accordingly, I shall add them with citation, to deal with this. --L.A.F. 02:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One More Concern

I wonder if you might be able to shed some light on a specific concern about this book. I've heard several times that even the later editions include the now "discredited" theory of the Nazis themselves burning the Reichstag in 1933, and while this is somewhat addressed in the second last paragraph I feel it could be included (if true) as a supporting example. As far as the above sentiments relating to academic piety as the basis for most discrediting of this book, that's been my experience as well. - 21 October 2005 Reason.

Hello, Reason.

I don't think historians agree on the Reichstag fire, so I don't think one can truly say that the theory about Nazi involvement can be either proven or refuted. See the Reichstag Fire page along with its rather lively talk page. It's generally agreed that van der Lubbe had a hand setting the fire, but it's less clear how much if any assistance he had, or whether his presence was pure coincidence that proved convenient to the Nazis. Either way, the Nazi propaganda machine was quick to exploit the fire to the party's benefit.

Shirer's statement that "the whole truth about the Reichstag fire will probably never be known" is, I think, as accurate in 2005 as it was the day The Rise and Fall was published in 1959. Shirer points out that most of the storm troopers who had first-hand knowledge of the events inside the Reichstag on the evening of the fire were subsequently murdered in the purge of the SA in the Night of the Long Knives the following year. As a result, not much in the way of direct evidence was available at the Nuremberg Trials.

Some 72 years after the fire, we may know a few more details, but the rest appears to be speculation. I don't know of any proven facts that makes any certainty out of the mysteries of the Reichstag fire.

In closing, I should note that later editions of Shirer's book were reprints rather than revisions, and hence the historical details therein were the facts known to the author in the years leading up to its 1959 publication. No doubt other historians have (and will continue to) assimilate the data, including Shirer's accounts, for their own interpretations of this pivotal event in the story of the Third Reich.

Note that in-depth discussion of the Reichstag Fire itself is probably more appropriately made in that article's talk page than here.

-- JonRoma 05:24, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate the clarification, Jon. I was of the impression that there were revisions and not simply reprints, thanks for the correction. I have some reading to do. Perhaps I'll see you on the Reichstag talk page! ;-) Reason. 22 October 2005

I happen to be again trying to inform the WP editors at Ludwig Kaas by means of Shirer, and seeing these posts have to inform you that it was the Nuremberg Trials which stated their conclusion upon the Fire, that within in all reasonable doubt it was a Nazi gang who set the Fire. You could question the judgement of the Tribunal of course, or ignore it . There has to my knowledge been no new evidence or testimony. A quick google of Nuremberg /Reichstag /Fire will lead you to the findings.

This would relate to the very recent statement by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld , that Hitler came to power legally. Shirer does not report such complacency from Nuremberg, which adjudges the entire a rolling Conspiracy or Common Purpose , to Institute Totalitarian Government in Germany. On page 249, Shirer qualifies the entire historical crux of the empowerment in this light of the findings of the Nuremberg Trials: "except for the arrests of the Communists and some of the Social democratic deputies, it was all done quite legally, though accompanied by terror."

It may suit Mr Rumsfeld's current rhetoric, but is as wide of the mark as can be. Persoanlly I believe as a statement it is linked to the over-all pro vatican policy of the current administration, visible in other civil ethical fields. It remains highly, extremely and excessively important that Hitler's rise be deemed as legitimate or Legal, as this justifies or excuses the involvement of the Catholic Church under [[Pope Pius XI}] with the illegal Hitler regime. The Rumsfeld line now is no accident whatever.

EffK 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link Incorrect

The page says that William Shirer "authorized" the scanning of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by Amazon.com. Not so. First of all, Shirer died years before Amazon was established. Secondly, those scannings are controversial and are not specifically authorized by the writers. Frankly I think it should be removed in its entirety, out of respect for this great journalist and author. However, I will retain it for the time being while fixing. --Tomstoner 01:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)