what are the best history books about world war two? is there a chart perhaps?
I've been reading antony beevor's "the second world war". is it thorough?
Here's a classic. Very comprehensive and thorough.
>>8157734
thank you very much anon, this seems like what i've been looking for.
>>8157734
Outdated now though.
Churchill's 6 vol Memoirs are extremely reliableand nice to have around the house aestheticallyif you believe the source, he does fall short of attacking certain british generals which he admitted.
The best academic source on the third reich is Evans' Third Reich Trilogy.
The best book on the Holocaust is The Destruction of the European Jews by Raul Hilberg
Desert Fox, a biography of Rommel, is done almost exclusively off his papers and provides good accounts of the Desert War
I have not done much looking into the Pacific Theater, but Oppenheimer' biography American Prometheus is a great work on the nuclear effort.
Stalin: In the Court of the Red Tsar by montefiore is a great work on the eastern front
>>8157744
what made it outdated?
>>8157728
Their are absolutely heaps
How you go about learning about it is better than the books, get a broad over view on the war, have a knowledge on world war 1. Understand the causes for the outbreak of the war. Then get into the more specifics of the war
due to the way history books are written they usually aren't ever trash, just filled with shit that isn't that relevant, but sometimes it can be hard to distinguish it from stuff that plays a subtle role
I don't know about your knowledge but major things to look at are
The rise of the fascism
The blitzkrieg of France
The Battle of Britain
Operation Barbarossa
Operation overlord
The battle for Berlin
The North Africa Campaign
American war in the pacific
>>8157756
Development of the atomic bomb as well. The making of the atomic bomb is pretty good, very dense science however, which I personally reslly enjoyed
There is a bbc documentary called the world at war, give it a watch, covers pretty much everything
>>8157748
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_the_Third_Reich#Criticism
Use the sources provided. Basically remember that Shirer is a primary source using secondary sources to fill in the blanks, a western journalist in Germany before the war that got exclusive access to undestroyed state archives afterwards. He is not a historian, nor did he have access to years of historical thought on the matter.
In his work Evans' devotes about 3 pages just to that source, and while he is respectful, he finds that its place as the "goto" history of the Reich may be more to its readability rather than to its academic rigor.
