/lit/ - Literature

Why would you not read both?

>>23294988
Blessed digits

Shirer is kino and makes stormcucks seethe

>>23294988
>88
>In Hitler thread

One time years ago when I posted about that book /lit/ recommended I read another series instead that was 3 volumes. All I remember about them is how boring they were.

Take/lit/ advice with a pinch of salt.

Because they are completely different books with only barest similarities

>>23295143
Was it Richard Evans’ trilogy? I also have it.

>>23294234
this book has been debunked. Nobody ever made skin lamps out of Jew leather.

>>23295471
That's it

>>23295511
Why is it bad?

>>23294234
It's written by a journalist and not a historian but it will give you a good overview of a lot of things. If you're interested you should read Kershaw's 2 vol bio of Hitler then check out some memoirs (Speer and Churchill's massive series).

>>23295527
Nah, I ain’t reading that racist prick.

>>23295552
Which one? Speer's is interesting if you read it like it's someone telling people what they want to hear, Kershaw's bio balances being academic with being readable, I haven't read most of Churchill's history but I've flipped through it...it's pretty intimidating to go through the whole thing but it's cool to use it as a reference for people/events you have specific interests in. Robert Gellately's Lenin, Stalin, Hitler is good if you want to know how their styles of government related to one another and how they reacted at various stages of the war.

>>23295601
Churchill was racist against Indians.

>>23295935
You can only be racist towards human beings thoughbeit.

>>23294234
You can't understand people in history very well without primary sources.

It is not a terrible book but he does often generalize and moralize. Very good book for general background, though.

>>23296005
That book is a primary source, dumbass.