Sir Max Hasting - Catastrophe

Graduates Council Discovery Lecture 2014.
Saturday Evening Lecture will cover highlights from his best-selling new book, CATASTROPHE, which tells the story of how Europe went to war in 1914, precipitating the first of the 20th century's great global tragedies.

[@seanmoran2743]

In 1914, the Public Schools Officers' Training Corps annual camp was held at Tidworth Pennings, near Salisbury Plain. Lord Kitchener was to review the cadets, but the imminence of the war kept him elsewhere, and Smith-Dorrien was sent instead. He surprised the two-or-three thousand cadets by declaring (in the words of Donald Christopher Smith, a Bermudian cadet who was present) "that war should be avoided at almost any cost, that war would solve nothing, that the whole of Europe and more besides would be reduced to ruin, and that the loss of life would be so large that whole populations would be decimated. In our ignorance I, and many of us, felt almost ashamed of a British General who uttered such depressing and unpatriotic sentiments, but during the next four years, those of us who survived the holocaust - probably not more than one-quarter of us - learned how right the General's prognosis was and how courageous he had been to utter it."

[@westerncherokeewireless642]

Smith-Dorrien essentially saved the BEF during the retreat from Mons. He should've been elevated above French at that point. The pompous French General Lanrezac had a poor opinion of the BEF, and contributed to the wildly inaccurate report that Smith-Dorrien's forces had been routed. History could've been changed and many lives saved had this not have happened. The British Empire could've (should've) remained the principle power of the western world. God knows the US didn't do so well.

[@jeffersonwright6249]

Hastings is right that WWI was a negative victory against the powers of autocracy. What not everyone understands is that war technology had advanced well beyond military imagination in all but one crucial avenue - battlefield communication.

[@glutinousmaximus]

Max Hastings is one of the really great war historians of the 20th century. His lectures and books are graphic and accurate - almost as if he were there. Thanks so much for posting!

[@eldragon4076]

Just finished the book - Highly recommended!

[@gnarfgnarf4004]

Brilliant. Deserves far greater viewing.

[@kevinbyrne4538]

17:47 "They underrated the dominance [that] their country was achieving through its industrial prowess, without firing a shot on any battlefield. Germany was powering ahead of Britain, France, Russia by every economic indicator. The supreme irony of 1914 to me is that if Germany had not gone to war, I can think of nothing that could have prevented Germany from completely dominating Europe within a generation by entirely peaceful, economic means." Ironically, both Germany and Japan went to war in the 1930s convinced that the alternative was poverty and impotence. Both countries fought huge neighbors that they couldn't conquer; both countries lost their wars; both countries recovered and returned to the ranks of the richest and most influential nations. If both countries had abstained from war, they would have become even richer and more influential. The wars were a complete waste of life and treasure.

[@lawrence9506]

Kevin Byrne Before WW1 the Germans were considered eyeglasses wearing intellectuals.

[@thomassweeney1258]

If all Races are interchangeable how do explain Japan and Germany's recovery from WWII? It would seem to me that the German an Japanese Races stand out from all others. How else can you explain their remarkable performance?

[@VanlifewithAlan]

Excellent lecture as of course would be expected. I would like to add that one can also consider the terms Germany imposed on France in 1871 whch I would argue were more severe than Versailles later was.

[@VanlifewithAlan]

***** Yes, exactly. Whereas I appreciate fewer people may be aware of the terms of the first Versailles treaty, there is no excuse for not knowing what happened at Brest Litovsk only a year before the second Versailles treaty.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Alan & Dick, Yup. Thanks. I guess I'd thought about the 1871 case, but Brest-Litovsk *almost* gives Clemenceau an excuse, given how close the French and Russians seem to have felt. I don't think that leaves Lloyd George any excuse though... May they both rot in Hell. -dlj.

[@jakejackson4177]

I'd just like to point out that in actual fact Lloyd George, while I dislike some of his policies and in his achieving of them, along with his misguided thoughts that he knew more than the Generals of the day to day battles etc...that in actual fact he argued for a lenient peace agreement that would not reduce German prestige but rather contain it and allow it to be a counter balance for any hegemony that France may attempt to secure in the future, but he was overruled understandably both by the French Government and President Woodrow Wilson, whose ideas of self-determination and the irradiation of Europe's central Monarchies ultimately caused a destabilised Eastern Europe laid many of the foundations for the Balkan troubles, revolutions and coups well into the late 20th century. The French on the other-hand I have a degree of sympathy of, in the fact that much of the eastern part of their nation had been occupied by the German Army and ravaged by war and of the enormous cost both in finance and life that France sacrificed to regain their control, I understand their willingness and eagerness to impose harsh terms upon Germany, but I do not regard the Treaty of Versailles to be mostly responsible for the ultimate rise of fascism and Nazism 20 years later.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Jake Jackson Jake, Lloyd George cheated fundamentally on the "armistice," keeping Germany starving through 1919 until Versailles got under way. Then there was no negotiation at Versailles because Germany had dissolved into a mixture of starvation, revolution, civil war, and anarchy. Wilson was muttering stupid niceties until his stroke, and after that his witless wife fluttered around incompetently. The savage Clemenceau and rest of the Allies simply imposed Versailles, and that was that. Dick and Alan's point about Brest-Litovsk, above, may explain, but does not excuse France's vicious stance, and I don't share an ounce of your sympathy for the vicious bastards. I do think, though, that you have Wilson's dangerous witlessness about right. Cheers, -dlj.

[@tonybailey7037]

As were the terms Germany imposed on Russia in WWi

[@markdavis1116]

Hastings has alway been anti-german apologetic for British sacrificing a generation. Britain fought to destroy an economic rivalry.

[@largelysubatomic]

7:38 to skip intro

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Thanks. You probably just saved the world ten or twenty person-hours of un-wasted time. I hereby award you 15X15 = $225 in Heavenly Rewardions.

[@taroyamato2856]

largelysubatomic "

[@taroyamato2856]

David Lloyd-Jones ...

[@taroyamato2856]

....?....p...

[@taroyamato2856]

...p..?....p..

[@stitesemailgmailcom]

While all may not agree, he has a substantive analysis, something often lacking in others.

[@rosesprog1722]

Except that the blank check includes the phrases: "Finally, as far as concerns Serbia, His Majesty, of course, cannot interfere in the dispute now going on between Austria-Hungary and that country, as it is a matter not within his competence". The blank check meant that if Russia decided to get involved in a war that didn't concern her, Germany would prevent her from eating Austria, it was a defensive entente. Then Sir Edward Grey, after denying any such entente for years finally admitted that there was indeed an entente with France. That event almost caused half the ministers to quit parliament in disgust to finally rally the cause of the war. Germany did not plan, want, pursue nor lost that war on the battlefield, she lost it in the dark back rooms of the Palais de Versailles through secret deals made by crooks whose goal was the economic destruction of an annoying competitor to some old, tired and dying empires for whom war was the only negotiation possible. Sir Hastings is a great historian, but hopelessly British, with the incurable bias it implies.

[@doctortimepmd3339]

There so much more going on a person couldn't get in one video.. No Fear I Am With The High Command..

[@guycroft318]

awesome, Sir Max at his best..

[@tolyamochin4066]

Главное, чтобы он с этой высоты не свалился и не сломал шею. А то английский народ будет в большой печали от потери своего аристократа!

[@PMMagro]

Good lecture!

[@brianaustin8989]

At least I can stay awake with a Max Hastings lecture, which is more than I could with those from A J P Taylor's

[@walterm.robertsiiiphd2157]

Love how he mimics Churchill's voice: 32:26

[@seanmoran2743]

I highly recommend reading The Darkest Days

[@MrDaiseymay]

During the centennial Year, 2014. BBC TV ,Broadcast a superb docudrama, called ''37 Days'', A 3 x one hour mini series, that was based on original , previously unreleased, Government documents, Personal letters, and Diary entries, by the people directly involved with all aspects, both Political and Military, during the 37 day run-up, to the Declaration of War, by Britain. Important and highly relevant meetings, and discussions, all round, are accurately recreated, between the Kaiser and his Generals, heads of States involved, and Britain's Liberal Party, who were at breaking point, over the vote for War, or neutrality. Great acting all round, by people who actually ( for once) looked like their historic character's. Highly recommended. Probably still on DVD.

[@WarScholar]

Sir Max Hastings spoke about his book on Operation Chastise and the Dambusters. The links to the interview are kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWGlq6ywm7Oknas and warscholar.org/?p=1153

[@DandDskeeto]

I’ve been a fan for decades.

[@seanmoran2743]

The Great War for Civilisation I didn’t believe in it then and I believe in it less so now JRR Tolkien

[@appanpappan]

Bah! I would like to ask all the english children who lost their fathers for the sake of Belgium of they thought it was worth it never to see their dads again. I know I wouldnt ever give my dads life for Belgium.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

When is a war ever justified then?

[@appanpappan]

@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 lots of times

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

@@appanpappan Was viet nam worth it?

[@michaelplunkett8059]

@@rudolphguarnacci197 It was for South Korea.

[@yamchadragonball6983]

It's really hard to make out the words, would be great with better subtitles.

[@joemanner6171]

Best chains ever...

[@0000thommes]

Hastings quotes Orwell and yet Orwell was an ardent supporter of Sassoon.

[@elrjames7799]

Good observation. Hastings is astonishingly tendentious in presenting a history of the Great War, if only in-so-far as it contrasts with his commentary as a simple journalist in the Falkland's conflict: "I counted them all out and I counted them all back".

[@terrysmith9362]

It was not Hastings who made the comment. It was the BBCs Brian Hanaran I have probably spelt his surname wrong

[@seanmoran2743]

Seems to me Max Hastings believes it was all Germanys fault and that Britain couldn’t have done any but join It also seems to me that he’s very biased in protecting a certain groups that were determined to get us into war The Tory Party the only party backing war Key Players in the Military and Imperialists in the Liberals inc Churchill It’s what max leaves out that’s important

[@ri-goblazt5894]

You have the Germans, riding high on their military gains and industrial advances at the time, view of the French as "sissy's" when it comes to war. The French, a power in decline, viewed the Germans as "murderous brutes" or "barbarians" (the old Roman reference to the Germanic tribes). And you bring in a generation of the children of the British Empire, raised on the romantic heroics of fathers who's destinies stand as pillars on which the Empire stands, ready to test themselves on the battlefield. There was an understanding level of apprehension at the start of WW2. "The Great War" started with lots of fanfare. Cheers and kisses to train full of well fed young men heading out on a journey of initiation into manhood. All the young were eagerly fed and got used up as instruments in the war. I find the argument, whether "it was good or bad" idea to start a war, is a way to justify an abhorrent act by "civilized nations" and maintain their "high moral ground" and the illusion of civilized people. There may be a good reason to fight a war but here is No good Reason to Start a War!

[@tolyamochin4066]

Я скажу одну банальную неприятность. Война не только двигатель прогресса, но и уравнитель численности населения нашей планеты. Так что ужасаться войне бессмысленно. Другое дело, что в некоторых странах мира народу проживает слишком много, а в других странах его попросту нехватает. И, конечно, война в малонаселённых странах - это действительно становится национальной трагедией.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Sir Max seems to think that “serious historians” are only those who agree with him. I’d politely suggest that serious historians are academics, or have at least some serious background in research. Hastings doesn’t. He’s a journalist with an interest in military history and the ability to write well and communicate his views effectively. The book in question here contains no primary research or footnotes and re hashes other historians’ views and was timed to cash in on the 100 year anniversary. It’s a well written and gripping book but it contains nothing new and let’s be clear - Hastings isn’t a serious historian. He’s a popular historian. And a good one.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

I understand your points, but not all academics are "serious historians." In fact, I would say that many live in the bubble of academia and detach themselves from reality.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

@@rudolphguarnacci197 Obviously depends on what “serious” means. I think it is open to interpretation but given the study of history and its research is key, and this is fundamentally an academic and intellectual exercise, it is fair to include academics in the general definition. As you say, not all will be serious but I would imagine more will be than writers who don’t address the substance of the issues or do first hand research. I think I possibly overstated criticsm of Hastings - he is a serious historian, but just has a different background.

[@rudolphguarnacci197]

@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 Just as The Framers never intended for politics to be a full-time job I am very leery of academics.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

@@rudolphguarnacci197 why?

[@thomasjamison2050]

There is no reason a non-academic can't be an excellent historian. By the obverse token, I can think of many well known examples of academics whose historical work is crap. I would add that I hold the quality of the footnotes to be the most accurate determinate of the quality of a given author's work. I would gladly take a poorly written but exceedingly well referenced work over a splendid piece of writing with a non-descript reference section, or even none at all.

[@gls600]

It's nice to see Max added a fresh coat of shoe polish to his hair.

[@michaelwutka9714]

What could Breaker Morant's poor fate deserve a "what if" ,given the backlash resulting from the Boer War and the real meaning of Winston Churchill lamenting the orders handed down "no longer will prisoners be taken" .At loss no doubt his short sighted historically lamenting his displeasure and placing total responsibility squarely upon Kitchener .Asking now whether ill reporting should garner equal blame within the guide lines " historical fog " , as time blurs facts sardonically for the sake of saving face as another event looms so.The British Empire and allies will face down, yet will that involvement take Boer War far away enough from any importance?

[@charleshowie2074]

Get the man’s name right perhaps?

[@wtrdawnlord]

I hate that I found this so late. I always enjoy hearing Sir Hastings speak. It only seems silly the introductions take 7:33 before he actually begins. Sometimes I am convinced the introducer(s) secretly wish they were the actual presenter.

[@tolyamochin4066]

А вы житель Британии не удивляйтесь этой манере вести лекции. У вас англичан так принято - первую половину лекции слушателям голову морочат всякой ненужной дребеденью, и лишь во второй части по существу говорят. У нас русских так не принято. Лекции у нас сразу начинаются по делу, и заканчиваются тоже по делу. Главное в любой лекции - это содержание, а не пустая профессорская болтовня на публику.

[@yukikaze3436]

Loos is pronounced Loss. otherwise a very good presentation

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Given the British empire was based on the very ideas that the prussians were seeking to espouse it’s difficult to accept such a broad brush moral view as does Hastings

[@ianwoolner354]

Max Hastings not Max Hasting

[@theque6566]

Lecture starts 7 40 spot

[@Johmiweil]

So, if Britain would not have joined in, this woyld not have become a global war and Germany would have won; this is what I learnt from this lecture.

[@philfluther2713]

18:32 'by 1916 the Russians would achieve a decisive advantage' without France how so?; so 1914 instead of going to war Germany might have attempted to patch up things with France. What oil is to Arabs shipping was to Britain circa 1914, 'Gallant little Belgium'.

[@antique7391]

Fantastic book. As a American I do understand that we did not win the war by ourselves nor did it start in April 1917. Ha Ha.

[@UsoundsGermany]

One single american hero defeats a complete company of Germans or Japanese, that is standard knowledge ..... (in Hollywood :D)

[@antique7391]

Well that's a good call. I watched a movie on television last week showing a damaged B-17 bomber with half it's crew wounded. The gunners none the less shot down 7 attacking planes in about 3 minutes. Young Americans have little or no knowledge of either war but do get their history from Hollywood.

[@tonygumbrell22]

All males get a huge testosterone boost at puberty. Their cultures transition them from boys to men at the same time i.e. enable them to grow up to become real men. American culture does little to ameliorate the testosterone boost or restrain boyhood impulses, and what it does offer in the way of restraint is female via a boys mother, his female school teachers, and other dominant women. This breaks down badly at the earliest opportunity, whenever the female restraint is removed or absent. Then Americans males are liable to go hog wild. They are easily seduced by fascism, or similar warlike, violent, authoritarian, macho, fantasies. They become dangerous children, very. Hollywood feeds their fantasies, because it's facile and quite lucrative to do so. It's like Lord of the Flies here sometimes, but not on a desert island.

[@michaelplunkett8059]

We just come in and tilt the equation. From 2 matched, exhausted sides, we swing balance to winner and completion.

[@wuffothewonderdog]

Did he have to blow his nose while wearing a microphone by his chin?

[@ruchirchaturvedi7793]

Reading OVERLORD by Max Hastings at the moment. Piercing analysis by Mr. Hastings throughout, it's the perfect blend of astute military analysis and spellbinding storytelling.

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

But zero original ideas or primary research. He doesn’t say anything new.

[@MBBurchette]

The idea that Germany was mostly, or even completely to blame for WWI has always struck me as ridiculous. Imagine if Edward VII, the heir to the British throne, had been assassinated by the IRA in 1914. The British would have razed Ireland to the ground. There were many times Germany acted in a manner that was indefensible between 1914-45, but starting the Great War wasn’t one of them.

[@terryhogard1090]

According to many historians, Germany had been itching to invade France and Russia for over a decade. All they needed was a pretext.

[@jackreacher5667]

@@terryhogard1090 Not saying your wrong, but Bismarck knew a war on two fronts was a military disaster.

[@lamalama9717]

The Belgians, French and British dividing up huge swathes of the world via massacre and invasion was alright, but Germans doing the same to fellow Europeans was just too much? That seems to be the true moral difference that goes unacknowledged.

[@tolyamochin4066]

А вы что, Милейший, только проснулись от длительного сна? А европейцы всегда считали себя великими моралистами. Только в отношении населения в своих колониях, они почему-то не очень гуманных принципов придерживались. Если в интересах колонизаторов требовалось уничтожить какую-то часть аборигенов, то они это делали без тени содрогания. А вот если в Европе начиналась война и её жители гибли, вот тут у европейцев начиналась истерика. Они на удивление сразу вспоминали, что они цивилизованные народы и надо к ним гуманней относится.

[@unmitigateddisaster3793]

"If Germany had not gone to war in 1914 she would have dominated the European continent entirely through peaceful means within a generation" China has been taking notes, it seems.

[@tolyamochin4066]

Тут вы глубоко заблуждаетесь. К 1914-ом.году у Германии практически не было колоний, из которых они могли бы черпать природные ресурсы для своей экономики. А вот у англичан, французов и итальянцев эти многочисленные колонии были. Вот поэтому Германия и ввязалась в Первую мировую войну, чтобы в случае победы потребовать от проигравших сторон поделиться своими заморскими колониями. Ибо для роста экономики требуются огромные ресурсы, а у Германии они были в ограниченном количестве.

[@emptyhearted9981]

nice jewelry

[@bezahltersystemtroll5055]

@fred brant are the jews also at fault that you never had a girlfriend? 🤔

[@brianjennings7644]

Amazing, how tortured the English language seems, the closer one gets to it's source.. (except Max, he's overcome such things)

[@davidwilkie9551]

There must be as many interpretations as individual participants, lumping responsibility for actions under the nation's title is perfect nonsense. The various people around the world imposed on by colonisers would have expected to see them turn on each other purely motivated by perceived profiteering advantages. The alternative offered to Returning Soldiers was a more effective egalitarian Democracy, a failed promise that will guarantee the continuance of the Forever War.

[@inotaishu1]

The genocide of the Herero was unlike anything in British colonialism? How many millions of people let the British starve in India? How many Native tribes/nations in Australia and North America were destroyed or decimated by British soldiers and colonists? Claiming the Herero genocide was worse than that is a spat in the face of the victims of British cruelty and their descendents. Or is it the old "well they did not intend it" excuse again?

[@madnohten]

Conservative viewpoint.

[@MyAquilo]

1: "Germany offering a blank cheque to Austria-Hungary was deeply irresponsible" 2: "Russia was right to support their Serbian ally." I could just as easily say: 1: Russia backing a semi-rogue Serbian state was very irresponsible. And 2: Germany was right to support their Austrian allies. Sir Max Hastings does have fantastic knowledge, but I have to disagree with him on some of his points of view.

[@joeblow9657]

Does Max Hastings even have a degree?

[@patrick6110]

No degree is required in journalism. It's a profession that doesn't require any skills taught at school beyond the most basic of writing abilities. Journalism schools are a joke. Most great journalists didn't attend one.

[@joeblow9657]

@@patrick6110 I meant with regards to the field of history

[@patrick6110]

I am not aware that History requires university studies. Some of the greatest historians who ever lived didn't go to university and the field hasn't evolved in 4000 years. It is my opinion that history and many of the so called social sciences should be studied at privately funded professional societies and not be studied at university. It would be better because all the subjects without merits that lose their interest would disappear and the state would not be involved in defining history as much. Imagine how long there would be private funding for gender studies.

[@joeblow9657]

@@patrick6110 The modern field of history has only existed for about 100-120 years. If you went to university foe history you'd understand that while university training is not necessary it is certainly worthwhile and to attempt to write history without it is done so at one's own risk

[@patrick6110]

@@joeblow9657 I agree that training is worthwhile. I feel that there is no point in that training being dome at university in any subject that is not forward looking. Historians, psychologists, etc... should be trained by professional societies.

[@jeffersonwright6249]

I still don’t understand why no historian ever points any blame at Austria

[@Buluga06]

Nice bling bling

[@fuuz642]

what os the shit arround this dudes neck?

[@MontyGumby]

boring