Max Hastings "Inferno: The World at War, 1939-1945"

[@MSM4U2POM]

Wonderful author. I don't agree with him on everything, but he brings history alive in a way few others can.

[@tonykeith76]

The greatest author I ever read in over 50 years of readings

[@thomassweeney1258]

That covers a lot of territory, but in many ways I agree with you.

[@lw3646]

Looking forward to reading this.

[@robertmurphy6772]

Sir Max Hastings is one of the greatest historians alive. This is why I still watched this vid all the way through despite that maddening buzzing sound in the background, which I credit to the worst audio visual guy living or dead.

[@williamfong5427]

Hastings gives us something very precious that lesser writers and commentators on war fail to give: PERSPECTIVE AND PROPORTION. P&P in turn give rise to greater understanding and insight into the World Wars, and war in general. They also blow away myths, cliches, misperceptions and misinterpretations. I'm much richer for this.

[@lw3646]

I read his book and it does not disappoint. He's got a very engaging writing style and his commitment to the truth no matter how unflattering is really commendable. The section on the Arctic Conveys was my favourite part. The range of sources is really impressive too and helps ground the narrative. I think its better than his Vietnam book which I found very dense.

[@ojthesimpson35]

I clicked "I like" because there was no button for "I LOVE!!"

[@stanstanislav1471]

Simply Marvelous Writer!!! Thank you!

[@Pookleberry]

One of the best lectures about WWII Is this wonderful lecture available in text form? I would read it often.

[@roscomeon3965]

Sir Max Hastings a brilliant writer, historian and lecturer.

[@robrees8382]

outstanding author..I read anything that he writes with pleasure

[@geoffarsenal]

brilliant book from a brilliant author!

[@sundberg39]

I'm listening to an Audio Book of Inferno after listening to his speech on the book at Pritzker. It's chronological basically from Poland on I'm up to the Battle of Britain and it's been very good so far. I've read a lot of WWII books and there is new info in this one. Not the same ole story.

[@davidberger2069]

At a similar USO type function, Groucho Marx was introduced to President Roosevelt, after the immediate pleasentries, Groucho said "Oh Somebody Important just came in and walked off leaving the president.

[@davidberger2069]

The Fall of Berlin -another great new book with insights on the 1945 siege

[@hoalex5329]

In China, we need like him as professor in war history at all universities.

[@elghunk]

what a good lecture!

[@davidberger2069]

KZbin Orson schmoozes about Churchill-if you're reading Hastings and WW2 I recommend. David

[@davidberger2069]

FINEST HOURS-Hastings manages to bring fresh material about Churchill-bolstering his reputation but, also, providing great insights into Churchill's character (Brooke Chief of Staff hated war and loathed the fact the P.M. loved it. I think Churchill could be a 19th upper class twit but, he was the perfect person at the perfect time. The Churchill book is more uplifting then Armageddon or Nemesis.. wonder why? I'll give Hastings a chance-I've never seen his lectures read 2.5 of his books-best WW2 Historian alive (On his writing alone, he's right up there) Keegan, has past on "Gone But Not Forgotten"

[@rayward3630]

Maybe the best war historian ever.

[@davidberger2069]

Is the naval officer 'Hitchens' the dad of the late author? If Hitchens reads this-love you. The Marshall quote, Orson Welles talks about Cornelia Hunt (Stories from his war experiences)-I believe the Marshall bit to.

[@drgeorgek]

No not his Dad - I thought the same too. Good thought because his dad was in the navy as you would know from Chris’s talks on KZbin. Chris’s dad actually died from the same disease as Chris - oesophageal cancer - a rare coincidence.

[@tomscott2373]

What an intelligent man.

[@davidworsley7969]

Is someone using an electric razor? certainly sounds like it.

[@ramospk]

Yes. Sorry, big beard and mustache. Then I did my head as well.

[@dannyfardell5271]

(not-so) rampant rabbit.

[@lw3646]

​@@ramospkthe Wolfman...

[@MarlboroughBlenheim1]

Great apart from the giant hornet in the background

[@TheScholar04]

Yes he wields a facile pen and a very good lecture indeed.

[@hugosowder4474]

Great historian and author. Just got Overlord for christmas

[@davidberger2069]

I hope youtube has cleaned its (our?). The author's name escapes me, but Persian Fire was a superb new work-as Hastings' work is. When the film the 300 came out-I made one tiny criticism (in the provided video-they showed the actors working out in a 21st century manner. I offered ' Why don't the actors train instead like the Spartans did." It was the scariest thing-be careful Love David

[@davidberger2069]

Orson Welles said "George Marshall was the greatest human being who was also a great man he'd ever met"

[@ralphbernhard1757]

Starts off badly. At 0:25 secs "...the stunning incompetence of German leadership..." The only "stunning incompetence" I can agree with, is that the Nazis bit off more than the German soldiers could chew. Simply said, there was just no way a single nation (with a few 2nd world allies) can take it up with the rest of the world. Hitler picked a fight with everybody at the same time. Rather stupid. Nothing that brilliant results on the front lines ("winning the battles") could have balanced out....

[@ralphbernhard1757]

akgeronimo501 I'm not sure what your point is. Could you describe in more detail?

[@akgeronimo501]

Ralph Bernhard You make the assertion that German Leadership was vastly superior to allied leadership. I will grant you at the tactical level, division and below, they were amazing. However you can't discount the fact that their strategic leadership was horrible. You can't separate the two, they are both "German Leadership".

[@ralphbernhard1757]

akgeronimo501​​​​ OK, thanks for the reply. I completely agree with your comment. I reread my initial comment, but I can't see how one can read support for the Nazi German government ( quote, '...you make the assertion that the German leadership was vastly superior to the Allied leadership...) into it. In fact, I clearly state the opposite. The Nazis were stupid, because they took on almost the entire world. Strategic planning had nothing to do with it, and the example Hastings gives ( they could have attacked GB in the ME) does not stand the scrutiny of a cross examination. The Axis lost because they were simply crushed by superior numbers, economies, production, manpower, etc.

[@akgeronimo501]

Ralph Bernhard Not support so much. I did mean to imply that. They were crushed under the weight of production no doubt. The Arsenal of Democracy.

[@adielstephenson2929]

That buzzing is so annoying.

[@elrjames7799]

One of the few 'faux pas' Max makes in this lecture is mentioning counter factual (contrary to the facts) as if it were synonymous with alternative history, which is something quite different.

[@macforme]

So is counter factual the same as false logic? And alternative history deliberate misinformation. Thanks for your comment... I had not caught that in his talk.

[@elrjames7799]

@@macforme Alternative History is simply that which would logically follow from a realistic historical variation. That's to say a random rather than a deterministic variable: in other words spur of the moment actions or events as opposed to a series of thought through decisions. For example, the 1944 'Bomb Plot' briefcase staying put next to AH, rather than being moved (on the whim of the moment) around the other side of a huge wooden table leg that protected him.

[@macforme]

@@elrjames7799 Damn... ( the moving of the briefcase) I would have called that misfortune.🤢

[@elrjames7799]

@@macformeNothing to disagree with.

[@macforme]

@@elrjames7799 👍😂

[@matshagglund3550]

Military personal losses of combat deaths compared to size of population reveals that per 10 000 citizens when USA lost 22 their soldiers (death) in combat, UK lost 52, Romania 168, Hungary 195, Finland 224 (Japanese combat deaths were lower than those of Finland but only little bit higher if taking non-combat deaths). Then there were of course appalling losses of Germany 450 and Soviet Union 620.

[@McIntyreBible]

4:08, statistic of the World War II.

[@danieldestree3235]

its so interesting how people talk about things like stalingrad or D-day or the blitzkreig of europe. no one ever talks about how the worst defeat happened after D-day in operation market garden. ignorance is such an interesting thing.

[@alleycat4437]

This is an excellent book.

[@davidberger2069]

Over the last couple of months my dad me theses books in succession after he had read them Armageddon (Fall of Nazi Germany), Nemisis the Fall of Imperial Japan and now, I'm reading FINEST HOURS CHURCHILL'S WAR I've never seen a lecturer who spoke so poorly but writes so well. A great story teller-but, more then that a fluid writer-and he somehow discovered new stuff (well trodden territory). Great sense of humour. Hastings- early, in 1940-1941, Harry Hopkins is FDR'S eyes and ears-Churchill is desperate to ingratiate himself with the Americans. Two british civil servants-"Well, the P.M. seems to getting along swmmingley with the American-A more cynical bureaucrat replied 'I've Roosevelt had sent a bubonic plague carrier, Winston would spend as much as possible with him.

[@Quinefan]

Why do you say he speaks poorly?

[@davidberger2069]

I'll leave with an anecdote from history, in 1944, Orson Welles, no introduction needed told a story of something he'd never seen all his life. He was in the Pentagon"? (half finished-somewhere) a private came to the door, the main meeting room was busy. The General listened and spoke to the young man for 12-15 minutes-know one around, just the general and a young private-Welles saws the whole thing without the general knowing. That man was George Marshall-Brooke was great but, FDR was fortunate to have Marshall-Marshall never spoke to FDR as nothing but Mr.

[@oddballsok]

I don't get it? there is O welles, he was private, but he saw another private talking to a general, one of both was G Marshall but who was Brooke? and where comes FDR in ? so confusing...

[@davidberger2069]

FDR I think was still alive. According to Welles, Truman who was the new VP (the last VP had been dropped. Rupert Brooke was the British armies Commander-in-Chief. Didn't mean to confuse. My point was that General Marshall was a great human being-he had empathy for the human race, one on one or a whole continent (the Marshall Plan helped a shitload of starving Europeans. The Dutch, for example, suffered during the winter of 1944-45. People were eating tulips to survive.

[@bobtaylor170]

@@davidberger2069 , it's possible, but Welles was a great, b.s.ing tale spinner.

[@davidberger2069]

Read Hastings-please check-Orson Welles talks about Cornelia Hunt- Orson Welles explains Marshall better then myself-shocking yes.

[@pelontorjunta]

Most of military historians have very narrow battle centric perspective and especially focusing mainly just those slow and quite meaningless land battles. The fact that even Germany gave 55-58% of its munition production to air war is remarkable poorly understood by these apostles of WW2. That USA was in warfare 20 times more combat effective than Stalin's backward armed forces led by incompetent mostly WW1 like commanders is also poorly recognized.

[@jimbobjimjim6500]

T34 tanks and katyusha rockets of this "backward army". They won the war more than anybody.

[@RouGeZH]

A very large part of these "55-58%" was dedicated to the support of the supposedly "meaningless land battles". O'Brien book is interesting but his conclusions are mostly way off.

[@thomasgilson6206]

There must be somebody in back using an electric razor.

[@MallowReload]

For exactly what reason? What he says is perfectly reasonable.

[@davidberger2069]

Stalin and Hitler are a contrast but, they never allowed a Marshall or a Brooke to survive- Zhukov was the best field commander of the war-I 2nd Hastings on that one

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

Well, microphone man, you tried. You failed, and the annoying, indeed painful, humming and buzzing continues throughout. You can, if you have friends in the business, filter your recording and re-post it in a way that we can stand to listen to. Since you probably don't and won't, could you at least take this as an urgent lesson, that you have to do better next time? Strand's fans deserve better than this.

[@hugosowder4474]

..................................... he is...

[@leonid7209]

,Al hell let loose, never read something better about 2WW ,even L.Hart went in shadow.

[@davidcoleman2463]

Jesus , ok we get it . WW2 was no fun ! I am a amateur historian . Even I could not take this . Thank the gods my family always lived in Canada .

[@BK-uf6qr]

A strange view point meant to be divisive. I guess if one country didn’t have enough of its own soldiers killed as compared to another, that country should execute their own soldiers to gain a moral parity? Looking back at statistics is blindingly ignorant. As each day passes of the war, no country looks to gain parity in any hardship category. This sense of inequity in hardship or death as a barometer of a countries righteousness speaks only to this speakers distorted view of the world(and likely himself).

[@colmcmillan173]

Wrong. A country that has received fewer losses and less participation in the extermination of the enemy should not take the main credit for the victory.

[@lw3646]

He simply points out the view that the UK held out for 6 years before finally defeating the Nazis with just a little help from our Empire, America and the USSR is a myth. You see on his book the truth is that the British army struggled in WWII, losing most of the battles it fought agaisnt Germany and Japan until the end of 1944. The RAF performed very well though in the war and so did the Royal Navy winning the battle of the Atlantic opening up supply routes to Russia and winning key battles in the Mediterranean. It does matter because the British were saved from the kind of mass slaughter battles like Stalingard. So many brits assume UK casualties were much lower in WWII than WWI because we had better leaders and tactics. But the reality is most of the fighting and dying happened in the USSR in WWII. Unlike in WWII In WWI the British actually played the key role in winning victory in 1918 because the French army was so beaten and the US army was green and smaller at the time. Its not just about loses either, otherwise you'd have to rate China's contribution as high, its about the number of loses the enemy suffered, which were largely on the Eastern front.

[@Jenjenilou]

Yeah .. so laughable that the Americans have just given him one of their most prestigious awards for his work - the Pritzker Military Library's Literature Award - plus $100,000 dollars. Not bad for a 'degenerate'.

[@rosesprog1722]

Great author but so hopelessly British, the Bengal famine was caused by the Japanese and a drought while the Germans starved the whole world, so much for objectivity.

[@lw3646]

Yes, he points out though that Churchill refused to divert proper relief to India once the famine started. In 1944-45 though the RAF and others flew in large amounts of aid to prevent widespread starvation in Holland. Hastings is no self-flagellatiting leftie. He's reported on wars for a long time and is pretty clear eyed that they are messy and brutal by nature. He also writes for the Times, hardly a woke publication. Its just as he says, knowing the allied cause was so just and right, it does us no harm to acknowledge any small mistakes.

[@Xiphias52]

...Or, as Hastings originally titled it (with rather more panache) "All Hell Let Loose: The World at War, 1939-1945" Why does the American market ceaselessly demand name-changing of perfectly serviceable - indeed, elegant - titles? Hastings' 'Nemesis' became 'Retribution'; JK Rowling's 'Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone' became the rather less meaningful 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone'; and Philip Pullman's evocative 'Northern Lights' became the inaccurate 'The Golden Compass'.

[@bryancharlebois]

zzzzzzzz

[@kentw.england2305]

Can't listen to this.

[@hey_joe7069]

The old Tory appeasers, really ? lol Tell that to Chamberlain.

[@hey_joe7069]

The Americans hardly suffered at all, he says. as if we should feel guilty for providing enough food for our people and half the world. leftist revisionary twat!

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

@@hey_joe7069 Im afraid you completely misunderstood. He is saying the USA barely suffered casualties or rationing because thats true. There is no judgment here. Calm down on the persecution narrative.

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

@@hey_joe7069 Also the fact that you use the term "revisionist" instead of "negationist" proves you are not well-versed in History. Also Chamberlain was a Tory appeaser.

[@hey_joe7069]

@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 Chamberlain was a "Tory sympathizer" like John McCain or Mitt Romney are Conservatives in America. They're loyalties were or are, to their opposition.

[@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676]

@@hey_joe7069 Chamberlain was more then a sympathizer he was an active member of the Conservative Party

[@leew1598]

Looking forward to reading it.