Best history of Nazi Germany?

[Anonymous No.18526313]

I haven’t read pic related but it’s highly recommended by normies. Which history book is the least biased (from both sides)?

[Anonymous No.18526394]

>>18526313
This is extremely biased. He legit implies that the germans should be wiped out to prevent future wars. It's okay, at the start, but he really starts losing the thread after the war starts. Also, a journalist, not a historian. I'm also looking for a better book on this exact time period though (weimar - 1945)

[Anonymous No.18526403]

>>18526313
You are literally never going to find an "unbiased" history of Nazi Germany. If you want multiple viewpoints then read multiple histories written by authors with different political ideologies.

[Anonymous No.18526427]

>>18526403
This.
It is next to impossible to find an unbiased documentation of the time period. You need to read multiple pieces from both sides in order to formulate an informed opinion.
>t. NatSoc who hates historic revisionism both ways

[Anonymous No.18526438]

>>18526427
Side A:
>thing happened and it was horrific, people's guts were pulled through their mouth by hitler himself, 6 million per day
Side B:
>nothing happened, the racial and genetic enemy of the state were sent to 5 star hotels
Not OP, but reading propaganda from multiple sides is useless.

[Anonymous No.18526440]

I'm actually 100 pages into this myself and the level of editorializing is obnoxious, it's very evident that the guy is a shitty journalist and not a historian. It's not good.

[Anonymous No.18526445]

>>18526403
>>18526427
I think everyone understands that but there are certainly less biased books than Shirer's, guy is a clear asshole. Anyone got a good recommendation on a more sympathetic book, if not unbiased?

[Anonymous No.18526448]

>>18526438
It's a royal pain in the ass, really.
Because of a funny thing called nuance you often find yourself at odds with both sides.

[Anonymous No.18527048]

>>18526403
>>18526427

I’m not looking for an unbiased look at the period. I was hoping for recommendations that aren't outright propaganda

[Anonymous No.18527144]

>>18526438

The problem with "both-sides-ism" is that by making it a "both sides" issue you make up stuff to fill and/or ignore stuff to subtract by put the dividing line in the middle and trying to make it equal. Then you ignore the possibility that there are more than two sides.

The dividing line is never in the middle and WW2 was not complex at all. A bunch of idiots had the reactionary idea that they could rule by force and found out they could not. Force doesn’t produce anything; it only takes. WW2 destroyed Europe. There is no bias in what is obvious.

>>18526445
No sympathy is warranted, and a “more sympathetic view” itself would be a bias that obscured or changed facts, hence the denialism of those who doubt the holocaust.

[Anonymous No.18527188]

>>18526313

The fantasy of what you wanted to happen is not history.

[Anonymous No.18527202]

>>18527188
Now tell Shirer that.

[Anonymous No.18527205]

>>18527144
> dont question state propaganda, any dissent is 'denialism'

[Anonymous No.18527225]

>>18527205
Obvious strawman. The "state" did not write that book, nor does the "state" in the USA ban any book. Just because the market bans your nazi propaganda doesn't mean that it is banned.
As I recall, it was the nazi that banned and burned books.

[Anonymous No.18527258]

>>18527144
>The dividing line is never in the middle and WW2 was not complex at all. A bunch of idiots had the reactionary idea that they could rule by force and found out they could not
You are the biggest Pseudo-Intellectual I've had the displeasure of meeting today.
For touting quote "making it a "both sides" issue you make up stuff to fill and/or ignore stuff to subtract by put the dividing line in the middle and trying to make it equal" and then saying that within the same post is perhaps the single most ignorant thing I've seen come out of 4chan.
Leave and never return. Or better yet kill yourself. I don't want you to shit up the gene-pool any further.

[Anonymous No.18527467]

>>18527225
Your argument is empty. Politics follow culture. If the culture bans something, it is in practice no different that legal banning.

[Anonymous No.18527476]

>>18526313
I dont think it exists anon sorry. You have to read from multiple angles to understand the history. Unfortunately, modern academia is not only dishonest but completely anti-intellectual so you're not going to find any honest evaluation of history for a few more decades. I think in ~200 years once the generations of morons we have now are long dead someone will put together the full story. Until then you're just going to get bombarded by half-truths and outright deceptions at every turn.

[Anonymous No.18527748]

>>18527467
not that anon, but clearly that isn't accurate. you and I and other canons have had exposure to natsoc and other 'banned' alternative politics and have been able to learn about them and judge them for ourselves. In an actual authoritarian state, the vast majority of people do not have the same access. China, for instance. People there have all been lead to believe that the great leap forward was just a three year period of natural disasters.

[Anonymous No.18527832]

>>18526403
Are there any good ones in English written by people with the correct ideology?

[Anonymous No.18527935]

>>18527144
>rule by force
versus
>rule by force but we dress it up in abstractions like "freedom" and "the will of the people"

[Anonymous No.18528024]

>>18527225
The allied occupiers burner even more, but I guess that's outside the baby-brained high school narrative

[Anonymous No.18528270]

>>18526313
It might be considered a bit too biased towards National Socialism, but the most objective attempt I have seen is Hitler's Revolution by Richard Tedor.

[Anonymous No.18528296]

>>18527144
The European theater of WW2 was basically Hitler v Stalin

US should have sat on the sidelines and focused on burning Japan to glowing ashes

[Anonymous No.18528352]

>>18527144
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

[Anonymous No.18528357]

>>18528352
How dare you post rational wiki here
That's like shitting on the dinner table

[Anonymous No.18528536]

>>18527144
>A bunch of idiots had the reactionary idea that they could rule by force and found out they could not.
All you had to do was write this sentence. Now we know you have a brainlets view of World War II.

[Anonymous No.18528559]

>>18527832
If you're reading history with ideology then you aren't reading history. But if you mean a book that is written from the view point of someone not trying to INSTAGIB this period of history then I would point towards Richard Tebor's, "Hitlers Revolution".

[Anonymous No.18529020]

>>18526313
It may not be unbiased but Shirer literally lived through the events and spoke to some important people.

[Anonymous No.18529040]

>>18527144
okay jew

[Anonymous No.18529054]

>>18528559
You should be reading history to inform your ideology though

[Anonymous No.18529060]

Pic related is great and unbiased

[Anonymous No.18529129]

>>18529060
does anyone really trust that a book about Nazis endorsed by a jewish paper like the NYT is unbiased?

[Anonymous No.18529199]

>>18529129
You should have called it the "Jew York Times," that would have really hammered your point home.

[Anonymous No.18529364]

>>18529060
Unironically came in to post this.
For how mainstream this book is, I was shocked at how unpozzed it was. Probably because it was published in 1970.

[Anonymous No.18529408]

>>18526313
it's pretty biased while appearing neutral, and the journalist might even fabricate certain scenes to make fun of the nazis. But there is also a ton of journalistic details on the main events.

[Anonymous No.18529493]

>>18526313
Read richard j evans.

[Anonymous No.18529500]

>>18527144
This. Ignore the seething /pol/fags and the conspiracy theories (which is something you have to believe in if you doubt the Holocaust).

[Anonymous No.18529526]

>>18529500
>/pol/fags
>conspiracy theories
>agreeing with the pseud

[Anonymous No.18529555]

>>18528352
>https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy
Your not wring anon but don’t link rational wiki.

[Anonymous No.18529564]

>>18529129
Your arguing that something is biased while using your own biases. It’s a fact that the Holocaust happened.

[Anonymous No.18529571]

>>18529564

[Anonymous No.18529578]

>>18529526
You literally can’t be a Holocaust denier unless you think there is a conspiracy to fabricate evidence.

[Anonymous No.18529582]

>>18529571
Nice gish gallop faggot. Pick one off the list to discuss.

[Anonymous No.18529597]

>>18529578
Why yes I do. And it's quite simple: Soviet meddling. Picrel.
>>18529582
Where are the cremulation machines?

[Anonymous No.18529615]

I got the audiobook narrated by Will Durant.Wouldnt read a book CLEARLY written by a journalist, "pulpy" and sensationalist which makes it oddly good and bad at the same time.

[Anonymous No.18529707]

>>18529597
They blew up the ones the Auschwitz-Birkenau crematoria but the remains remain and are in a museum. Pic is a former crematorium.

[Anonymous No.18529725]

>>18529707
Ah ah.
I asked for the Cremulation machines.

[Anonymous No.18530201]

>>18529725
>Cremulation
Sorry google corrected to cremation. From what I've been able to gather I think the bone crushing machines are at The National Museum of the History of Ukraine.

[Anonymous No.18530243]

>>18530201
Alright that's one.
What about rest of them? In order to fulfill the required amounts of cremation that supposedly happened you would need dozens of Cremulation machines. Where did they end up? Where they included on the original plans for the camps?
And on the topic of cremation, how is it that modern crematoriums were having difficulties in keeping up with the Covid pandemic, and yet the ones from the 40's had no problem in burning 6,000,000 bodies in under 5 years?

[Anonymous No.18530272]

>>18526313
>>18526403
>>18526427
>>18527144
David Irving is the only unbiased historian (he agrees with my (correct) opinions)

[Anonymous No.18530958]

>>18526313
>Buy book
>Put book in bookshelf
>Now there's a giant swastika in my bookshelf
great fucking job, Shirer

[Anonymous No.18530964]

>>18527144
>A bunch of idiots had the reactionary idea that they could rule by force and found out they could not
wow, sounds a lot like 21st century!

[Anonymous No.18531036]

>>18526313
>>18526394
>>18526403
You may want to judge how biased a book is based on whether or not it advocates for racial extermination as a preventative means. The author of that book is a zionist by the way

[Anonymous No.18531892]

>>18526313
I haven't finished it but the more I read the more I sympathize with Hitler. He really did want to fix the country. I'm convinced the only reason he is so harshly vilified is because he lost. He is not even close to being the most evil man in history which immediately makes me suspicious of everything else I read now. Stalin was far worse yet I see as much outrage of the atrocities he committed.

[Anonymous No.18531920]

>>18530958
It's a litmus test to guage how faggy your guests are

>"I like WWII history, is this any good?"
>"if you like that book you should read x"
Based guests

>"haha are you like a nazi or something hahaha"
>"that's scary to put something like that in plain view!"
People who need to leave

[Anonymous No.18531954]

>>18531920
I put it next to my copy of Mein Kampf, which is much less noticeable.

[Anonymous No.18531961]

I don’t think there are any because people are incapable of recording the history of Nazi Germany without making sure everyone knows that Nazis were bad. It’s kind of sad that a major historical period gets warped bin such a way. It was bad enough without the need to say “Da nazis were gay teehee”

[Anonymous No.18531972]

It's interesting to read about Germany before WW2.
Finnish author Olavi Paavolainen visited Germany as an author before the start of the war and wrote his observations. Book is called Guest In The Third Reich. Highly recommended.