Hah! Really? I guess I can see that concept of 'out of the ether' depersonalizing books, but something about that design - big picture of the author, no boilerplate - just appeals to me ...

I love the Bible too (but the world wasn't created by magic)!

Like everybody, I smiled at that savage review - but honestly, I don't understand it. What "wrong impressions" would somebody come away with, if Shirer's book was the only one they read? Meaningful wrong impressions, that is, not the kinds of things a reviewer or a WWII buff would consider meaningful! I can't think of a single one.

Haha yes, sorry I’d don’t mean to imply you hadn’t read that review. I added that parenthetical because I think a lot of the reviews, Epstein’s specifically, miss Shirer. And that’s a good point, okay he got some details about unification wrong, so what? Scholars and history buffs are ALWAYS going to tediously find incorrect facts or something to quibble with. Is that really going to be distracting or harmful to the general reader? Probably not. But when dealing with the sum of them, I suppose I find it more comfortable to recommend something like Burleigh’s book. On the general point, I still think the worry someone might be reading one or two books on a topic - or maybe just getting started with it - justifies thinking about how up to date it is, however classic the book. Obviously we read for enjoyment, but with history we’re reading to learn as well. So it’s natural, to me, for that to be a concern here where it isn’t for fiction. But maybe you don’t think with great works of history it’s usually too much of an issue.

@@saintdonoghue ​ How would you guys rate Richard Evans's trilogy against Shirer's one volume?

@@BluStarGalaxy well I’m not sure how meaningful it is to weigh one against the other. Evan’s trilogy is excellent, of course. Also, a couple of the points I raise here Evans mentions in the preface to the first volume concluding Shirer’s book isn’t really fitting for a modern audience. I don’t really get what he means by that. It might be worth saying that Evans and Shirer are doing different things in their history, with Evans being more academic, for lack of a better word, and trying to systematize whereas Evans had been reporting from Germany and very much writing from that experience. Shirer is also more broad and sweeping than Evans who can be a lot more granular with the point of stringing together details into competing themes and narratives. Hopefully that isn’t too vague. I recommend both, as I’m sure Steve does (and be reviewed at the very least the last volume of the trilogy, which should be easy to find)

@@davidmurphy5142 Thanks for the reply. Given Shirer experienced what he wrote maybe some distance from the events might be needed for better clarity. Also the amount of information that has come to light since then might make it in some respects better for a modern audience. I plan on reading both but it is quite daunting.