If you are researching on Albert Speer, you might as well read Gitta Sereny's book biography. If you already read Sereny's book, this one will be boring for you until the 17th chapter. The weak points about The Good Nazi are: The author did not succeed in interviewing Speer. Dan van der Vat tries then to say this is a good thing by saying that this way he avoided getting under Speer's spell. His only one acchievement was to reveal that Speer tried to hide from the public some information about decisions he toke on Berlin evacuation of jews apartments by trying to destroy the original Chronicle of his activities at the GBI. The book is good in showing how Speer worked hard after Spandau release to build an image for himself of an apolitical member of the 3rd Reich, not involved in its racial policies.That is all it will add to you, if you know Sereny's book. Concentrating his work in trying to destroy this effort done by Speer instead of making a more deeper research on his time at the Nazi government makes the book sounds like Speer was more important after Spandau than in the Reich itself, for the historians and researchers of Nazism. Finally, as Gitta Sereny, the author could not bring up any document or testimony to prove and show how much commited Speer was with the Holocaust and the deportations, being able only to discuss that he knew it by his position in the leadership of the Reich Government.The book is written in an ironic and sarcastic tone which I did not like.