Hmmm, I must admit that Shirer’s work is to be taken with a grain of salt: German-born American historian Klaus Epstein’s criticisms are still very valid, I must say.
In this regard, one should also keep in mind that while Epstein (1927-67) was a professional historian, Shirer was not - he was a journalist, and in journalism the narrative (and personal symathies and antipathies as well) often plays a bigger role than the historic facts, unfortunately.
I read with an eye for Shirer injecting opinion in his writing but I’m not sure if I always spot it. I’m not familiar with Klaus Epstein’s criticism so that would be of interest to me. I’ll have to see if I can locate it.
Shirer did have access to many who knew Hitler personally which gives his account some value. And he was in Germany during Hitlers rise to power. And he had access to a mountain of Nazi records that we brought back to the States. That wouldn’t prevent him from shading his version of events but a lot of Rise and Fall seems to be based on factual events.
I do know that one criticism German scholars had with his work is Shirer arguing that there was a link between Luther and Hitler.
I found this review of Klaus Epstein’s criticism and I don’t disagree with any of it.
I had discounted Shirer’s version of German history myself, it was simplistic and really it added nothing to his account of the events that he had witnessed, which for me is the only value of Shirer’s writing. His attempt to psychoanalyze the German psyche was foolish.