Erik Graff's Reviews > The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William L. Shirer
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
974210
's review

it was amazing
bookshelves: history

This was the first, really serious grownup book I ever read.

My sole brother being almost eight years younger and no cousins being in the States, I was virtually an only child, condemned to the weekly dinner parties of my parents and paternal grandparents and their friends, most of them held elsewhere than our own home. At one particularly excruciatingly boring party held at Great Aunt Synnove's I was scanning the magazines and bookshelves for something to occupy the time. Being ten, the great swastika on the cover of one otherwise unknown book caught my eye. Nazis! I picked it up, checked out the maps on the inside covers and started to read . . . When, finally, they, the Old Ones, were ready to go, I was far enough into it to not want to stop. Aunt Synnove was kind enough to loan it out.

The reading went on for probably a couple of weeks. I recall reading about the Lutheran pastor, Niedemeyer (not looking it up--it may be misspelled, but I remember this in detail after all these years), who, almost alone amongst German churchmen, stood up publicly against the Nazis--and this in the backyard, at the juncture of our rickety garage and decaying white picket fence amidst the early flowers of springtime. I recall, days later, now on my sun-warmed bed downstairs at grandmother's cottage in Michigan, reading with fascinated horror about the death camps and the "scientific experiments" conducted in them.

Now a thirteen year old friend of mine has picked up Shirer, buying it in hardcover himself at a local used bookstore. He, not normally a big reader (he has a sister, two brothers and lots of cousins and friends), says he likes it because Shirer writes so clearly. Now, while all of us are, as citizens, in moral positions uncomfortably similar to those occupied by Germans sixty years or so ago, it is good to see that a book like this and the story it tells can still be read with interest by the young.
89 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

Started Reading
December 1, 1962 – Finished Reading
March 21, 2008 – Shelved
March 21, 2008 – Shelved as: history

Comments Showing 1-15 of 15 (15 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

Mark "Now, while all of us are, as citizens, in moral positions uncomfortably similar to those occupied by Germans sixty years or so ago" What does that mean? Are you actually comparing the US government with the Nazis? Give me a break.


Erik Graff Certainly in terms of the primary charge of the Nuremberg tribunals: Crimes Against the Peace. The list of nation-states we have invaded without actual provocation in my lifetime is a long one. (The Germans were told by their press that they had been invaded by Poland, that their counterattack was defensive, etc.--and they believed it!)


Mark I can't believe that you honestly think that.



Erik Graff Iraq? Afghanistan? Grenada? Vietnam? Cambodia? Panama? etc.


Mark I think there is a stark contrast between the Nazi aggression and occupations, driven by fanaticism, hatred, and racism and marked by wholesale slaughter and genocide and the American track record of maintaining and spreading liberation, freedom, and democracy for downtrodden and oppressed people around the world.

Besides, the lesson I take from the book is that appeasement of fanatical dictators never will work and the world payed a dear price for the results of it in WWII.


Erik Graff There is a difference in that the USA does not currently maintain racism as a state program either internally or externally like the Nazis did. We have, however, repeatedly and currently, broken the primary "law" we established in Nuremburg and judged the Nazis by, i.e. crimes against the peace. The motives of these aggressions have varied. Like the German state, the avowed motives have often been declared to be for such values as "liberation" and "freedom". Like the German state, the actual consequences have often been a lot of killing, disablement and economic exploitation. Speaking very generally, the primary rational motive for these aggressions has been that of economic exploitation while a secondary one has often been a matter of maintaining/increasing relative geopolitical strength which, of course, has its economic component.



Mark Come on Erik? You can't believe that the primary motivation is economic? You probably are one of those guys who thinks Iraq is all about "big oil."

Listen, it's hard to be the leader in a dangerous world, but someone has to do it. I suppose I should just get used to the fact that there are many who will enjoy the freedom and peace in the modern world, but will never understand its cost.

BTW, I saw a great video today that you will love. Seriously, it's kind of funny, and its very relevant to our discussion here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K75BzQ...




Erik Graff Oil is part of it as are the geopolitics of forward basing and the neoconservative expectation of some ideologists that our attack would lead to the establishment of pro-American, "democratic" regimes throughout the area.

I fail to see why this country, or any other, has to be a leader in your apparently military sense. The great powers in this military sense (Russia, China, ourselves) are hardly benign. If we are to "lead" I'd like to see us work towards international agreements for disarmament, arbitration and multinational peacekeeping and global development instead of acting as a rogue state.

I watched the video. If you liked that you might like the movie Canadian Bacon, a comedy about a US invasion of Canada. (It's not very good except for a few parts).


Mark Listen, I'm not against multinational efforts of arbitration, etc., and I think that military should be used as a last resort. But, again, look at the book. Chamberlain tried that and it took him all the way to the brink of no return. Fortunately they woke up before it was to late.

And we have a current organization that does what you suggest called the UN. You suggest our "primary rational motive ... has been that of economic exploitation" Have you observed the UN recently (oil for food, as one example)? Can you tell me some aggressive dictator that they've been able to talk out of something?

How would you suggest we appease the likes of Ahmadinajad or Kim Jong Ill. These guys are crazy and have sworn to murder our Allies. I'm not suggesting immediate military action, but it's hard to see any other outcomes as these nations will both soon have nukes and then the world will be in real danger.


message 10: by Erik (new) - rated it 5 stars

Erik Graff I haven't read enough about contemporary N. Korea to speak intelligently about it, nor do I know people from there. Iran, however, I have done enough reading about and know enough people from to be suspicious of its representation in the mainstream media. The tone is changing a bit now, with Obama in the executive office moderating our government's tone as regards that country.

As re nukes, I'm for multilateral disarmament and see our country and Russia as having responsiblity to lead the process. Meanwhile, one can understand why other countries want their own nuclear deterances. I don't like anybody having nukes or bio-chem delivery systems, but they do have a deterant value as the history of the cold war may have demonstrated.

The UN and the World Court are certainly steps in the right direction, but the UN is flawed and needs reform to make it more truly representative. As a step in that direction, I'd like to see a discussion about restructuring it into a two-house system like our own congress whereby each member state has one vote in one house and populations are proportionately represented in the other. The other matter for immediate attention is that of funding, tho here the legitimacy issue probably has to be addressed first. Shawcross wrote a decent book about the history of UN peacekeeping, outlining cases where the UN did a good job from those where it didn't and analyzing why. I'll get around to reviewing it eventually.

In all of this stuff I try to think of myself as a human first and as a US/Illinois/Chicago citizen second. This is helped by the fact that I've got family in Canada, Norway and Denmark and have lived overseas, but its obviously Eurocentric. Fortunately, I've got a brother whose lived for years in Haiti which has helped broaden my perspective.


Esteban del Mal Your review reminds me of my own experience with this book (although I read it much later in life than you). It fascinated me from my father's bookshelf when I was a kid and I resolved to read it.


message 12: by J. (new)

J. Interestingly, 'representation in the mainstream media' is a lot of what protects our Empire. Example, listen to when translators are used in the media. One notices, after a while, that the "terrorist" races are given harsh and guttural voice treatments whereas the citizens of "coalition" countries are nearly always calm & rational. This helps polish the storyline...
The basic point raised here by ME is a fair one, though. Because a superpower extends and protects its interests around the world it need not merit a comparison to putting its citizens in the position of the Germans in the prewar Nazi era.
Overall, though, EG has got it closer to right. The leaders of the Irans, North Koreas, Palestines of the world aren't, as represented, evildoers committed to the wrong side of the unerring moral compass. They are playing a desperate losing hand against the developed world, hoping for the smallest crack in the armor to appear.


Rahul Khanna I enjoyed this discussion and I am big fan of Erik.


Benjamin Juhlin Great comment by Erik.


message 15: by Donna (new)

Donna Eric, you are spot on. Our mainstream media can be counted on only to protect the interests of those who own them - the super wealthy. Even if that means invading other nations to exploit them, under the guise of false flag events. Good review, good comments.


back to top