Just finished this

Lebensraum was his main goal, the white/jew stuff were just something on the side.

Lebensraum a shit. Fuck off our clay.

Just read Richard Evans' Third Reich trilogy and Ian Kershaw's Hitler.

>To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Hitler

>especially for a reader who doesn't know all that much about Hitler/WWII
>gets mad when a book is literally about what the title says it is about

Well done, retard.

Why would you read a jew perspective of this period? Jews are completely untrustworthy when it comes to every day shit, concerning the events that led to their greatest propaganda victory and white guilt-tripping lie yet -- forget about it.

David Irving.
Kershaw~

If you want a non-conformist Hitler biography then read Stolfi. Mind yout, this is some far out stuff man.

Hitler's Revolution
It's such a a great read

you're as dishonest about Hitler as liberals are and you know that.
8/pol/ is dead and the niggers on twitter are not honest people, the """""""""smart"""""" rw on their are not honest or really much better informed than the one's on 8/pol/ idk what you're insinuating

Rorschach Romanov highly recommended 'Hitler: Beyond Evil & Tyranny' back in the day.

Schirer's book is great for getting the big picture behind how the Nazis muscled their way into power over a weakened nation. Sure, you can get the information more concise about anywhere else, but having all the tedious details helps both with getting a sense of scale and all the facets which led up to revolution for the Germans

imma doubt that

lmao

Seems like the author was trying to portray Hitler as some kinda troubled genius just because other books said bad things about him. And rightfully so.

This would have been better served at Veeky Forums

Worth a read. Here is review from Star Tribune, Minnesota paper and I agree with its summary.

>Stolfi is no apologist for Hitler in the sense of minimizing his culpability for the Holocaust and the war, but the biographer wants to understand, even empathize, with the man. He portrays Hitler's great personal courage during World War I as an intrepid combat soldier, and afterward as a man who personally waged war in the streets of Germany against Marxist street gangs. Stolfi quotes Thomas Mann's reluctant admission that Hitler was an artist, and shows, in detail, Hitler's consummate understanding of opera and architecture and how those arts shaped his view of history and modern Germany. Stolfi analyzes Hitler as a world leader of astonishing capability, a leader unlike any other politician of his time. Hitler was a messiah, wishing to create a new Germany unencumbered by the restrictions of the Versailles Treaty that crippled German politics and the country's economy. Over and over, Hitler made decisions alone, drawing on an inner inspiration -- which Stolfi likens to Muhammad's impetus -- and commanding not only a loyal band of followers but the allegiance of millions.
>"The Allies did not win the war; Hitler lost it," Stolfi claims in this rousing book, which is sure to provoke outrage but also admiration for its author's attempt to offer a new and more comprehensive understanding of Hitler's psyche.
> “The great biographers take excessive liberties in denigrating his person, and, in doing so, they make it difficult to comprehend him." - Stolfi.

What the fuck are you talking about?

>our clay

This is what germanys borders should look like

OP is whining that it's too long and filled with irrelevant content about Hitler and WWII. The title is "Rise and fall of the third reich." Hitler is a part of that story. WWII is a part of that story. Neither of them are the subject of the story, and neither of them are coextensive with the declared scope of the book. It's not called "rise and fall of hitler" or "rise and fall of the german wwii effort." OP got exactly what he should have known he was getting: a history of the third reich drawing on the histories of Hitler and WWII only insofar as they affected the trajectory of the third reich.

"way too packed for a LAYMAN"
"-useless information for laymen (dates and times, irrelevant discussions)"

Meaning that those bits with Ribbentrop talking to person x and person y writing in his diary that ... and ... are "useless" to the layman. It isn't a criticism of the book itself but rather an advice that these bits of information are going to enrich and enlargen your knowledge about WWII if you already know something whereas if you don't, these sections are relatively "useless".

I think you'll find that this is actually what Germany's borders should be. Remove the Eternal Teuton.

no

You know Austria is German too, right?

>all those countries end up with a massive German population
>they vote for their own interests and take over via their industriousness
>Europe becomes entirely German

proceed

besides, Austria would rightfully take Bavaria so this map is shit anyway.

Austria is kept as a reservation so we don't deprive future generations of laughing at the hopeless Germans and their lack of banter.

You sound like a 48 year old obese bearded Englishman who's supporting his wife's son.

It’s also wildly out of date, and not representing anything like contemporary scholarship.

Best Hitler Biography is by Ian Kersaw, best history of the Nazis is The Third Reich Trilogy by Richard Evans. Best one volume history of the War is The Second World War by Anthony Beevor. The former two exist as audiobooks on pirate bay.

The Hilberg one is also an excellent book, but I won’t personally recommend it as a first pass book really, I’d put it on the more advanced side.

Everything else that had been suggested are explicitly pro-Nazi.

The other source I’d recommend is the Teaching Company course on the early nazi movement. If you search on pirate bay “TTC Hitler” you’ll find it. It’s an 8 lecture audio course which gives you a great overview and will make a lot of the above books more intelligible on first pass. Both the Kersaw and Evans have really fantastic introductions on methodology and the Evans especially gives you a good run down of what the field of relavent literature looks like.

Pretty hard to separate lebensruam from an explicit view that the people’s who land you are dispossessing deserve it less than you do.

I only bothered to read the rise part as I was knowledgeable enough about the rest. Thought it was brilliant, a fair treatment to all the major players and as unideological as it is possible to be

>Best Hitler Biography is by Ian Kersaw
Not at all. Stolfi has great critique of Kershaw.

with this said, Kershaw's book is still great. It's just that he doesnt' consider Hitler human at all.

youre just going to get recommendations for mein kampf and tenth rate nazi conspiracy theories, unless thats what youre after its not worth asking here

Back to r^ddit. Like the Germans were the first to ever talk about the jewish problem...

right, because everybody is a holocaust denier except for redditors. youre the normal one guy

There are people who care about truth and facts, and there are people who believe what they're told to believe. No doubt about what camp you're in.

If you German you should seriously buy the recent critical edition of his best-seller, otherwise I don't know why you'd read more than excerpts of that garbage.

if you read*
didn't mean to ebonics

Do you mean a version of MK? You should first read the one that was spread by NG during war, translated by Nazis to English.