Book · 1960
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
by William L. Shirer
William Shirer's 1200-page eyewitness account of Nazi Germany, written by the CBS correspondent who watched it happen from inside Berlin.
What does Reddit think of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?
Thirty mentions across two subreddits, with r/AskHistorians carrying 23 of them. That concentration tells you something: this is a book historians talk about, not always warmly. The ↑103 comment from r/AskHistorians puts it directly — the commenter takes "a rather dim view of it as a general history" and notes it "deserves its place in an historiographical review" while questioning the reverence it still holds in conventional circles. That's the honest position on Shirer: valuable as primary source, shaky as scholarship. The ↑378 comment captures the civilian reader: someone mid-read, enjoying it, asking AskHistorians what to stack next. That's most people who pick this up. Sentiment across both subs is neutral — not damning, not cheerleading. Seven mentions in r/history, 23 in AskHistorians over seven years, with consistent annual traffic (four mentions in each of 2023, 2024, and 2025). Nobody's forgetting about it. Nobody's calling it essential without caveats.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Primary-source eyewitness journalism versus scholarly history
- · The Weimar Republic's collapse and conditions for fascist rise
- · Hitler's psychology and the OSS intelligence portrait
- · Historiographical debates about Nazi Germany
- · The gap between popular history and academic consensus
Common praise
- + The eyewitness detail from Shirer's Berlin years gives scenes that no secondary source reproduces.
- + r/AskHistorians commenters cite it alongside Churchill's memoirs and Liddell Hart as a foundational reference point for the period.
- + Readers mid-book consistently report wanting to keep going, which is not nothing for a 1200-page history.
- + Works as a starting map of the Nazi period before moving to more specialized academic sources.
Common criticism
- − The ↑103 r/AskHistorians comment calls it a dim choice as a general history and questions why it still commands reverence.
- − Shirer's journalism background means the book reflects attitudes of its 1960 publication date, including outdated frameworks around sexuality and psychology.
- − The OSS portrait of Hitler that Shirer draws on — linking homosexuality to degeneracy — is flagged in the ↑2642 thread as a product of wartime intelligence bias, not historical method.
- − Professional historians treat it as an artifact of historiography, not the state of the field.
Who it's for
If you want to understand why historians argue about popular history, Shirer is the case study. Read it if you're starting on the Third Reich and want a single-volume narrative before moving to Evans's trilogy or Kershaw's Hitler biography — just go in knowing its limits. The r/AskHistorians consensus is that it earns its place on a reading list without earning the uncritical reverence it sometimes gets. Skip it if you've already done Evans and are looking for something that pushes the scholarship forward.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
“The words of Strasser and Putzi, among others, were sued by American intelligence services in their attempts to create a picture of Hitler’s person, and Langer’s 1943 report for the OSS exemplifies the result, and again, equates homosexuality in some ways with a degeneracy: >The belief that Hitler …
“When people say that the Weimar Republic was exceptionally progressive, they are usually talking about one of two things: the Weimar Constitution or "Weimar culture". The former is true. The Weimar Constitution guaranteed universal adult suffrage, including for women, and many individual rights and…
“I have never heard this claim, in any book I have read regarding Hitler, Nazism, or the Third Reich. It is hard to prove *definitively* that this isn't true, but I based on my searches, I'm going to call this "highly unlikely" although I welcome an authoritative source to the contrary. The fact that…
“fascinating! thanks for your time and effort. I'm currently reading through Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." Any opinions on this one? I'll definitely get started on your two references.
“I'd like to point you to this excellent response by /u/killfile and build on it. I'd also challenge one of the premises of your question: the "key cities…
“**Sources** * Churchill, Winston (2010) [1948-1953]. **The Second World War**. * Liddell Hart, Basil H (1953). **The Rommel Papers**. * v. Manstein, Erich (1998) [1955]. **Verlorene Siege** (in German) (15th ed.). Bonn: Bernard und Graefe. ISBN 3763752536. OCLC 75863994. * Shirer, William L. (1…
“I wrote up about it to a related question which you may find of interest, which I'll repost below, but the overall gist is that I take a rather dim view of it as a general history. It deserves its place in an historiographical review, no doubt, but the reverence it continues to hold in conventional …
“One piece of low-hanging fruit is simply to do a web search for the author's name and for the title of the book. Look particularly for the author's professional background (e.g. professors and other professional historical researchers tend to be less likely to be cranks); honors, awards, and recogni…
Convinced? Pick up The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
What else does r/AskHistorians read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Guns, Germs, and Steel
Jared Diamond
A Pulitzer-winning argument that geography, not race, drove civilizational dominance — and the book historians most love to demolish.
1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus
Charles C. Mann
Charles Mann reconstructs the Americas before Columbus — bigger populations, denser cities, and more deliberate landscapes than most history classes ever admitted.
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
Edward Gibbon
An 18th-century historian spends six volumes arguing that Christianity and barbarians killed Rome, and three centuries of scholars haven't stopped arguing back.
Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era
James M. McPherson
James McPherson's one-volume Civil War history that r/AskHistorians recommends by name when someone asks where to start.
The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy
Adam Tooze
Adam Tooze's account of how Nazi Germany's economic desperation drove the war machine — and why it was always running out of time.
The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America
Andrés Reséndez
Andres Resendez reconstructs five centuries of Indian enslavement in the Americas — a system that ran parallel to African chattel slavery and outlasted it.
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich — frequently asked
Is The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich still worth reading in 2026?+
Depends on where you're starting. r/AskHistorians (23 of the book's 30 total mentions) treats it as a historiographical artifact — useful to understand, not a substitute for current scholarship. One ↑103 comment explicitly calls it a poor choice as a general history while acknowledging it belongs in any historiographical review. For first-time readers of the period, it works as an entry point. For anyone who's already read Evans or Kershaw, it adds context but not new ground.
What does Reddit think of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich?+
Neutral overall, with most of the 30 mentions living in r/AskHistorians rather than r/history (23 vs. 7). The sentiment scores zero in both subs — not hostile, not enthusiastic. The recurring position is that Shirer was there, which counts for something, but that the book reflects 1960 assumptions and should be read alongside more rigorous academic histories. No one calls it useless. No one calls it definitive.
How does The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich hold up against academic histories of Nazi Germany?+
Poorly by specialist standards, usefully as primary source. The ↑103 r/AskHistorians comment is the clearest statement: it earns a place in an historiographical review but the reverence it holds in conventional circles is questioned. Shirer's OSS-influenced portrait of Hitler — flagged in the ↑2642 thread — shows how wartime intelligence frameworks shaped his analysis in ways that later historians corrected.
Should I read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich before or after more academic histories of the Third Reich?+
Before, if you're new to the period. The r/AskHistorians thread where a reader asks mid-book what to read next (↑378) points toward exactly this pattern: Shirer as orientation, specialists as follow-up. Reading it after Evans's Third Reich trilogy would feel like a step backward in rigor, but as an introduction to the terrain it still functions. The seven years of consistent annual mentions (four in both 2024 and 2025) suggest it keeps finding new first-time readers.