THE CHURCHILL INTERVIEW: Sir Antony Beevor, military historian and author

[@Richard19551]

Beevor is incisive, amusing, a brilliant researcher and writer, and one who truly looks at all he can find - and writes without favor or previous inclination. He's a great joy to read - and to listen to - and I'm absolutely delighted that he's around in my generation. Thanks for posting this!

[@thevillaaston7811]

Beevor is an arrgant charlaten who brings nothing new to the subjects he pontificates about.

[@Richard19551]

@@thevillaaston7811 Oh, that's quite false!

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@Richard19551 Beevor was not even born until after the war. He was in and out of the peacetime army inside four years. For all of the subjects he tackles, the details have long since been in the public domain: the statistics, the contemporary documents and so on. I have no doubt there is not a a quote with any key people in his works that he has not had to obtain from someone else's research. What does he bring to his war time subjects?.. No first hand knowledge of those events, he is not old enough. No general experience of war. He has not been in one. rhe odd anecdote here and there from a foot soldier cvilian, or whatever... And his dangerous re-interpretation of events so that he can sell books in the USA, and get himself on the lucrative US lecture circuit.

[@Richard19551]

@@thevillaaston7811 There are more than a few historians who've written of Pericles or Alexander the Great, Xerxes or Cyrus, Ptolemy or Cleopatra, Boadicea or King Alfred - and yet though I could be wrong, I suspect that few of those historians participated in the conflicts that made the individuals famous, and am confident that the comments they cite in their books were not directly heard by the historians.

[@bigwoody4704]

Villa is a Monty nutthuger who fawns over the propped up fraud.Hastings,Beevor,Barnett,Barr,Ellis,Colley,Kershaw,Keegen,Thompson,Atkinson and many others point out what truly a bragging laggard Monty really was

[@marlecmarine5393]

an interesting and informative interview, AB was brilliant and full of funny stories as is his way, a living historical legend.....super sharp person.....

[@georgemoran1227]

O no

[@brucevilla]

Thanks for Uploading.

[@nicu_danciu]

Fantastic hystorian! Congratulations!

[@princetonburchill6130]

Unfortunately, most people get their historical knowledge from films which take no effort to watch while reading history requires a lot more dedication and commitment.

[@haeuptlingaberja4927]

I've been struggling to understand just why that is, but I don't think it's really a matter of dedication and commitment. I think it's much more that we've lost the "knack" of reading, in much the same way that the art (and pleasure) of letter writing has fallen into such disuse that we simply don't know how to do it anymore. Well, aside from a shrinking group of old timers like me. Another example is with woodworking. I learned how to do it using my grandfather's very old manual tools, and I still make canes using the old methods, even though I could do it much more quickly and precisely using power tools. Thing is, I don't want what I make to be perfectly uniform--the reason people like my walking sticks is because each one is different. And that is something like the difference between writing a letter by hand and writing an email. It's the medium. When you read an actual book, it's a physical act--the book in your hands has weight, texture, even scent--that engages more senses than just your vision. Even though it would appear that we are losing this knack of, and appreciation for, reading, as a result of technology, trend and zeitgeist, I think it's something that is easier to relearn than, say, woodworking the old way. One can only hope, because there is also a mode of thinking/reflection that is peculiar to reading an old-fashioned book. We are rudderless enough right now without losing what remains of our critical thinking skills, but perhaps the art of reading will be revived when young people discover how much fun it is...

[@MrInkblots]

I don't think it takes that much effort to read a book.

[@McIntyreBible]

31:31, Beevor's correct opinion on being a historian.

[@anuradhainamdar8967]

I have seen the movie " A bridge too far", and also see saw the KZbin video on operation Market Garden, so according to Antony Beevor it was a disaster for Bernard Montgomery. A marvellous analysis.

[@thevillaaston7811]

'A marvellous analysis.' How so?

[@anuradhainamdar8967]

@@thevillaaston7811 I admire Montgomery. And thought that all operations under Monty are successful. But in this discussion Beevor has elaborately explained why market garden was a failure & that is why I have used " marvellous "to describe the analysis.

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@anuradhainamdar8967 Beevor has elaborately explained his opinion that market garden was a failure. Views clearly designed for a US audience.

[@anuradhainamdar8967]

@@thevillaaston7811 May be, I am ignorant about that.

[@bigwoody4704]

No he tells the truth monty never showed up after demanding it,another of the laggards shit shows after sicily,Italy,Caen and Falaise.A propped up fraud Britain had much better officers

[@jimjohnson3609]

There was a lot of pressure to end the war as soon as possible if Eisenhower had said no then we would been speculating today if it would have ended WWII sooner speaking of Market Garden operation.

[@digitalnomad9985]

I know Sir Antony doesn't like counterfactuals (his dismissive term for "what ifs"), but if the commanders in general, and the Arnhem commander in particular, had fully embraced the help of the local resistance, or "underground" from the start, that might well have done the trick. Not only would this have materially assisted them directly, and been a tactical intelligence asset, but one of the key failures at the last bridge was the communication breakdown with higher command caused by radio equipment failure, causing key supply drops to fall on drop zones that had been overrun. When (too late) they finally broke down and accepted help, the underground was able quickly to connect the Arnhem commander to higher by TELEPHONE. Had they done this earlier, that would not only have secured their vital supplies, but it would have meant that the Polish paratroopers would have reinforced them as planned. This is not to be construed as a defense of the operation as a whole.

[@thevillaaston7811]

Anything coming from the Dutch Underground at the time of Arnhem was ignored due to German penetration of the Dutch Underground network during the previous year. It was not a case of anyone not breaking down.

[@thevillaaston7811]

@Alexander Kalish no way what amigo? Do you dispute what I have stated about the Dutch Underground?

[@DaveSCameron]

It was the American chief at nijmegan who was at fault, wasting nearly a day fortifying his drop zone snd gossiping about 1k panzers in the forest whilst completely ignoring orders and objective, ie. THE FUCKING BRIDGE @!!!!@!

[@bigwoody4704]

Um no XXX Corp & 43rd was late.Didn't matter when the Bridge was grabbed those troops didn't want to cross then stopped.That is a fact.The plan got blasted apart everywhere. In Arnhem 11,000 went in and 2100 came out - another one of the thicko Monty's ideas

[@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry]

@Alexander Kalish You mean the SS Panzer Grenadier Division on R&R that the British planners were warned about in an Ultra decrypt that they chose to ignore? That one?

[@johnappleyard4123]

Unfortunately to many people think that Hollywood is their history department when actually is in business of phantasy and no obligation to be bond by reality.

[@davidgray3321]

Absolutely correct John , constantly KZbin comments reflect this.

[@mickday5234]

They don’t invite Russia on commemoration of V day says everything but you have Germans there, so the one who took most of the load is not there it’s a good joke!?

[@Paul-talk]

This is excellent, but it was all layed out by major Ralph Ingersoll in his 1946 book 'Top Secret'.

[@brad3511]

That dude 😎

[@ghostinthemachine8243]

Beevor answered a question I have always had. Why was General Ridgeway not given command of the First Airborne Army? He had the most experience among the allied commanders with combat airborne operations. It is my opinion that he would have insisted on better drop zones, and pushed for dropping more troops on the first day. It is also my opinion that he would have ordered General Gavin of the 82nd Airborne to take Nijmegen Bridge immediately. To hear Beevor posit that General Browning was a political, not a military choice seems almost criminal on Eisenhower's part.

[@thevillaaston7811]

Browning was more senior and experienced than Brereton.

[@bigwoody4704]

He'd never led Airborne but at least he showed up unlike Monty

[@roddycavin4600]

Was Market Garden a bad plan? Probably. Could it have worked? Almost certainly. Was the decision not to move on Nijmegen bridge on landing key to its failure? Definitely. If xxx Corp had arrived at a taken Nijmegen bridge and with 2nd battalion still holding the north end of Arnhem bridge,would the operation have worked? Good question. Having read the book I'd also like to point out that Horrocks was wounded in north Africa not Italy.

[@curtskywalker7441]

Wow..there are so many experts in the comment section. I'd love to read your books and watch your interviews. Oh, you're likely all too busy working on your PhD. * rolls eyes *

[@marciasloan534]

Your dog dislikes sarcasm

[@curtskywalker7441]

@@marciasloan534 - you're not wrong. :)

[@jerseywalcott6408]

Who brought the little kid?

[@davidtrindle6473]

Add Macgomery succeeded and breaking through at on him on a narrow front, who was he expecting to cover his flanks once he got into Germany? The whole thing could’ve been a much greater disaster head they broken through and then been crushed on their flags I still dangerousAnd skilled German army.

[@haeuptlingaberja4927]

I love Beevor--he and Richard Evans, David Glantz and Sönke Neitzel are the very best--but this verbal tic of his, this "ah" he has, becomes highly annoying once you notice it. Reminds me of Dara Ó Briain (whom I also quite like...)

[@persallnas5408]

ffs how hard can it be not to get mics interfeering with clothing, get an old style skymic or something rather than this

[@raykirkham5357]

Churchill was a person who pursued war all of his life and relished it like few others of our species. I am ashamed that we continue to lionize such a person.

[@shielahaberecht3417]

"Ashamed".."such a person"..? How well did you know him? Oh, you didn't. You judge him by your obvious leftist views, and ignore the fact that his strength and understanding kept Britain from folding in the summer of 1940, inspired his people in their time of crisis and brilliantly directed the Brit war effort to victory. Only a leftist or a troll for the CCP would make such a false and inflammatory comment. Drop the propaganda….

[@raykirkham5357]

@@shielahaberecht3417 I have a good grasp of Churchill's history and his writings. He was always a war monger. Hitler made it easy for him to prosper. Once the war was over he faded like a bad dream.. You are worshiping at the altar of a hero with feet of clay and not the slightest sense of human rights.

[@shielahaberecht3417]

@@raykirkham5357 There's only one thing you have a grasp of. And don't presume to know me, or whom I worship. Your language is so extreme and volatile you can only be a paid CCP troll or a virulently anti-western leftist, or both.

[@raykirkham5357]

@@shielahaberecht3417 I have had to listen to British chauvanists all my life and that is a long time. Churchill is what we are talking about here not me and not you. Fresh out of school Churchill went to Crimea. You British are past history. True you have a little thing going with your stocks and bonds and the like but your empire is done for. It should have never been attempted in the first place. We need to learn how to live together on this planet, not extort cheap and slave labor like the British empire did for many year and tought countless wars with the French, the Dutch, Spanish. and other ravenous empire seekers, I find the glorious stories you believe are actually stories of intrigue and the most miserable forms of betrayal for the sake of empire. British history is just as vicious and wicked as any history be it Roman, Greek, northern European, Chinese, etc. etc. etc. The British people have plundered all over the world and now thankfully, at least some of that has become attenuated. We just have tyrants and people following the same general behavior patterns as Churchill and it will have the same results. At least they wont't be British blowhards.

[@shielahaberecht3417]

@@raykirkham5357 Fine.. then why not admit that he was the right man at the right time, and was singularly so. He led the Brits with confidence and skill.. seeing through Hitler's empty promises and Stalin's deceits. Before and after pale in importance against his contribution to ultimate victory. That's really the only relevant context here.

[@josephstewart516]

Ask them in india about churchill, or ireland

[@thevillaaston7811]

What would Indians know about Ireland?

[@bigwoody4704]

About the same you know about WWII History

[@garrystone5409]

Appalling sound quality.

[@thevillaaston7811]

Appalling quality

[@bigwoody4704]

only superseded by your ignorance

[@davidtrindle6473]

Prima donna monty undetermined the larger allied cooperative effort by failing to clear the anywerp estuaries so that supplies could be brought in thru this major port. Instead, against all push back by Eisenhower and his generals, Monty insisted on Driving ahead into the disaster of arnhem. As a result, for basically the rest of the war, the other allies were starved for fuel and supplies, including the Americans holding on by the skin of their teeth in the battle of the bulge.

[@aon10003]

Between 1540 and 1718, Sweden lost its half male population twice by being on the wrong side of the Baltic Sea. Do you think we wanna relive history?

[@PMMagro]

What do you mean, Finland was no colony it was the eastern part of our realm.

[@aon10003]

Im talking about the 30 year war and the Great Nordic War and the implications for the male Swedish Population. So, the Finns is best allies And quite frankly the only ones that provides to Swedish security instead of using Sweden.

[@goodyeoman4534]

It's irrelevant now. Sweden is being slowly supplanted by non-Swedes.

[@PMMagro]

@@goodyeoman4534 I assume you have never been here.

[@goodyeoman4534]

@@PMMagro Why would I need to? Do the figures and statistics lie?

[@bubiruski8067]

It is such that one needs to check many sideshows. -A lot of injust persisted in the Polish region. The Germans requested negotiations but all refused to do so. Most probably because the Brits build a harbor in Gdynia and the French a railway from Silesia to Gdynia. -Lipski the Polish ambassidor in Berlin said to Dahlerus that there is no need to negotiate anything. He expects the Polish troops to procede successfully to Berlin. At this time point the Poles had allready mobilised. -After the German attack on Poland the French and Brits declared war (most probably due to their investmenst in Gdynia). No other european country found this reason enough to declare war. -What all historians avoid to mention is that the Brits develloped Plan R4 what caused the German invasion of Norway. -What historians never emphasize is the fact that the Brits had formed allready half a million troops in France - the Expeditionary Force, what caused a preemptive attack of the Germans in the west. -What historians avoid to mention is the fact that the Germans had develloped a radio navigation system to find their military targets in all weather conditions. The Brits deliberately jammed it such that a bomber went of course (no evidence but very likely by the events). Churchill rejoiced - now he got a pretext to bomb German civillians. -What historians avoid to mention is that the British ambassidor in Moscow proposed to surrender Baltic gold and assets to the Soviets to get the Soviets to allied side. In the 1990ies the Brits purchased gold to give the Baltics back their gold. They did not have it anymore. Obviously they surrendered it to the Soviets. This caused Barbarossa. And this continues.... By all these facts I am unable to believe that the Brits are free of guilt. It was the Brits that orchestrated and fuelled this war !

[@thevillaaston7811]

Americans can pick up any Anthony Beevor book on the war with confidence. They will know that none of them will contain a single criticism of the USA.

[@bigwoody4704]

He's vetted,knighted,lectured at sandhurst and peer reviewed where you mop the puddles of the adult theater and source Poulussen who couldn't identify an M-1 or Neilands who wrote 90 books only 30 of them on the war and got a whole 2.5 on Amazon reviews.

[@sandrabbitlane]

Sooner or later the scholar who talks off the cuff makes a fool of himself by swerving into some subject which he has not studied. GW affecting future refugees? TILT!

[@astrofixluna8252]

Read Rumsfelt's "known unknowns" and study the new American century, follow how the 'liberation' of Libia for business, and the attempt to do the same for Syria subsequently opened the floodgates on Europe. Then you would probably realize that Beevor is far more informed than you suppose. I am afraid it is not he who is making a fool of himself here..