Talk:The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Link Incorrect 

message: :Image:TheRiseandFalloftheThirdReich.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheRiseandFalloftheThirdReich.jpg

message: It has been repeated several times in this talk page that there are many better sources for this subject than Shirer, but thus far no such sources have been offered. I read Shirer as a youth and still find it a factual source of some value, though I am no professional historian. Further, it is dangerous ground to criticize a work by literally weighing the number of pages in source material; the issue is whether the facts are right and we can tell where he got them.
It has also been twice contended here that Shirer lacked an analysis or concept, or that his concpetualization was commonplace. That may or may not be a real criticism, whereas judegements of "correct" or "misinterpretatiohn" are more to the point. Shirer, it seemed to me, was making points about how the political system in Weimar devolved into a crushing defeat. It the inner dynamics he depicts are incorrect, he deserves to be criticized and belittled. But if he has fundamentally laid out the facts, in order, and connected them to the right dynamic processes, he deserves, in my way of seeing things, to be considered a historian and not merely a popularizer. 
Finally, the article doesn't go very far into Shirer's biases or tendencies, and one can assume there were some. If there is an issue, and the Red Channels matter concerning Shirer suggests there was one, however misguided it may or may not have been, there may be some important source material relevant to interpreting the Rise and Fall. As the article stands now, almost nothing is said about the book's content, with the focus being what a big deal it was. comment added by Pcrosen (talk • contribs) 08:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to the Content Issue 

message: I did a little research and added some content, both to put the criticism in context (achieving some balance) and to elaborate somewhat on what the book's limitations are supposed to be.  More detail from the Epstein and Rosenfeld references would be useful, but I think we may be able to remove the NPOV tag at this point. Bertport (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Tag 

message: A couple recent edits are repeatedly removing material including the following, with edit summaries citing "POV":
"the first and most successful, large scale history of Nazi Germany in English for a general audienceEvans 2004, pg. xvi"
"Rise and Fall was the first book to present a comprehensive synthesis of the Nazi era.Rosenfeld 1994, pg. 102"
"The book was widely hailed as a great work of history.Epstein 1961, pg. 230"
As can be seen here, this material is cited by reliable sources.  If these are going to be removed from the article, I'd like to see an explanation here. Bertport (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  March 2010 

message: How split were the scholars? (English-language or American scholars, i think) If the article is not a self  it's close.
Sections "Success and acclaim" and "Criticism" imply to me that scholars were generally negative. A previous editor says "split", which I haven't changed, but it seems misleading, a generous summary.
Yet the section "Content and themes" says that the Sonderweg interpretation of German history (special path or unique course) --that much is my reword of previous copy; NOW QUOTE THE RECEIVED WORDING: "was then common to American scholarship; yet, despite extensive footnotes and references, some academic critics consider its interpretation of Nazism flawed.[8]" This implies to me that Sonderweg was the established position; it is supposed to be a bit surprising or incongruous that some critics (merely some) considered it flawed (merely flawed). --P64 (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic critics split? Sonderweg common to scholarship? 

message: "Gavriel Rosenfeld asserted in 1994 that Rise and Fall had been unanimously condemned, and considered dangerous to relations between America and West Germany, as it might inflame anti-German sentiments in the United States.[18]"
Am I interpreting this wrong or is this an actual mistake? How could Rosenfelt have been concerned about relations with West Germany if it hadn't been a country for 4 years? Dutch32 (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My reading of this is that Rosenfeld is making the assertion in 1994, but "had... been considered dangerous" indicates he's referring to concerns at the time of publication - 1960. Andrew Gray (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: : the book was "not sufficiently scholarly nor sufficiently well written to satisfy more academic demands... It is too long and cumbersome... Mr Shirer, has, however compiled a manual... which will certainly prove useful."[18]
Is this to say it proves useful to neo-Nazi's. What is the implied? Can anyone with access to Wiskemann provide more context? -Reagle (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The negative criticism all relates to the style of these four books (as they initially were written and printed). It isn't a popular work, like perhaps Alan Bullock's first work on Hitler - and neither it is a strict academical work, but sooner somewhere in between. Shirer uses his own experiences (living and working quite a few years in Hitler's Third Reich, including listening to several of Hitler's speeches "live") and mix it with imperative diaries, like Franz Halder's and Galeazzo Ciano's as well as thousands of other sources (presented in the work). Shirer also "jumps the subject" temporary, by using not so few interesting side stories (clearly marked by * signs, and put at the bottom of a page, well enough separated from the main text). Some university figures disapproved of this style. Perhaps as Shirer was not a university historian like them, but a journalist. But it's content and its degree of thoroughness in itself has rarely been the issue of any negative criticism.  Boeing720 (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is meant by Wiskemann "useful"? 

message: If I hadn't read the book, that's what I would conclude after reading this article.  This article seems to cherry-pick and emphasize now trivial negativity while devaluing all the positive reviews and also implying those reviews and journalists are merely of the uneducated rabble.
For example, the article's criticism of Shirer's trivial Luther-to-Hitler theory occupies much space in the article, yet as a reader, I never even noticed it, and I drew unrelated opinions of the rise of Hitler, mostly regarding 20th century economic and political upheavals.  IOW, the article is utterly unbalanced, that outdated, once-popular theory may pique some, yet to the average reader the whole issue is trivial or non-existent.  (Only important or noticeable to a niche group.) It's like assuming the whole from a single (yet true) incident.  IOW, a logical fallacy, an unintentional lie.  (It's not the article's facts I question, it's how they affect the overall tone of the article, it's balance.)
In reading the book I never once once considered it to be a history text.  Indeed why would anybody? —So why write; This book is not good enough to be considered a history book, —and create list of arcane flaws?  It may be true, but I submit, that is largely Off Topic.  While the book is required reading among historians of that era, naturally historians will flock here.  Please don't mix the categories.
IOW, it is unfair and unprofessional to judge journalism in the History arena.  (Should fantasy novels be accused of magical thinking?)  Any criticism by historians should be done apologetically and meekly, explicitly noting that judgement as unfair or improper.  A reminder, this article is NOT about the Third Reich!  It is about a journalistic summery, largely gathered in real time by a foreign correspondent. That and that only is the proper arena.
Another arguably off-topic example, this one in the lede section:
 "The book was feted honored by journalists, as reflected by its receipt of the National Book Award for non-fiction,[2] but the reception from academic historians was mixed."
(My suggested possible correction.)  The opinion of niche academic historians regarding trivia do not belong in the lede, (those only matter to historians).
My complaint seems to reflect the bulk of the comments above.  Yet the problem remains after all these years.   Why?   
I see only two ways to balance the article to match the actual real-world critiques.  1) For every negative criticism, add 19 positive criticisms to match reality, or 2) Delete (or soften?) the off-topic criticisms.  Wikipedia's target audience is the average Joe.  To him the take-away is "this book is garbage (more fake news)."  But to to me, Joe who's read the book, this article is a well-sourced, bullshit hatchet job.  I know Wikipedia can do better. <BR> --2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F8EE:3508:E2F1:A00F (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  So this book is garbage? 

message: I noticed a lot of CN notations in the reaction section. If anyone wants, I can add a good source for a lot of the things noted: Volume III of Shirer's memoirs (covering his life from 1945-1988). But if you feel it's too PRIMARY....let me know.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:35, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations on criticism  

message: Years ago I added an entire section listing many of the various sources used by Shirer. It was not definitive (as the current text implicitly suggests), but covered the main sources. Today's page still lists many of these various sources.
Unfortunately, the external link to the Color Books (which were exhaustively utilized by Shirer) reference has been deleted. 
Why? It's still available online, and is useful for those wanting to see the original sources.
See http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/ Interlist2 (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References