In the fourth chapter summary of "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", we step back to look at Hitler's authorship of Mein Kampf, as well as his historical and intellectual influences.
Here is a long comment from Richard Evans on the problems inherent in the Sonderweg approach taken by William Shirer and other historians:
"It has been all too easy for historians to look back at the course of German history from the vantage-point of 1933 and interpret almost anything that happened in it as contributing to the rise and triumph of Nazism. This has led to all kinds of distortions, with some historians picking choice quotations from German thinkers such as Herder, the late eighteenth-century apostle of nationalism, or Martin Luther, the sixteenth-century founder of Protestantism, to illustrate what they argue are ingrained German traits of contempt for other nationalities and blind obedience to authority within their own borders. yet when we look more closely at the work of thinkers such as these, we discovered that Herder preached tolerance and sympathy for other nationalities, while Luther famously insisted on the right of the individual conscience to rebel against spiritual and intellectual authority. Moreover, while ideas do have a power of their own, that power is always conditioned, however indirectly, by social and political circumstances, a fact that historians who generalized about the 'German character' or 'the German mind' all too often forgot."
You’re right to point this out. I am holding Shirer to a bit of a double standard. For a historian, it is a bit slipshod. For a journalist, it is not bad.
But let me explain why I think Shirer should be held to the standards of a historian. For starters, unlike a lot of journalists who dash off a book on a short leave, Shirer spent several years on this book. Additionally, his book is the go-to book for the history of Nazi Germany. When you rise to that level, oversights or mistakes are magnified.
Here is a long comment from Richard Evans on the problems inherent in the Sonderweg approach taken by William Shirer and other historians:
"It has been all too easy for historians to look back at the course of German history from the vantage-point of 1933 and interpret almost anything that happened in it as contributing to the rise and triumph of Nazism. This has led to all kinds of distortions, with some historians picking choice quotations from German thinkers such as Herder, the late eighteenth-century apostle of nationalism, or Martin Luther, the sixteenth-century founder of Protestantism, to illustrate what they argue are ingrained German traits of contempt for other nationalities and blind obedience to authority within their own borders. yet when we look more closely at the work of thinkers such as these, we discovered that Herder preached tolerance and sympathy for other nationalities, while Luther famously insisted on the right of the individual conscience to rebel against spiritual and intellectual authority. Moreover, while ideas do have a power of their own, that power is always conditioned, however indirectly, by social and political circumstances, a fact that historians who generalized about the 'German character' or 'the German mind' all too often forgot."
The quote is found in Richard Evans, "The Coming of the Third Reich," xxv.
Slipshod? Or merely journalistic?
You’re right to point this out. I am holding Shirer to a bit of a double standard. For a historian, it is a bit slipshod. For a journalist, it is not bad.
But let me explain why I think Shirer should be held to the standards of a historian. For starters, unlike a lot of journalists who dash off a book on a short leave, Shirer spent several years on this book. Additionally, his book is the go-to book for the history of Nazi Germany. When you rise to that level, oversights or mistakes are magnified.