The Storm of War

This week on Uncommon Knowledge historian Andrew Roberts discusses, with Hoover research fellow Peter Robinson, his book The Storm of War: A New History of the Second World War. In the book, Roberts investigates what led up to the war, the historical factors responsible for Hitler's rise to power, Hitler's shortcomings as a military leader, Nazi Germany's defeat, and Allied contributions to the victory.

[@TheTLElliott]

When I finished reading The Storm of War, I went back to chapter 1 and re-read it. It is very compelling; you can't put it down.

[@PAPITO_49]

I just discovered this author on your program and I'm enjoying his interviews. Thanks

[@Rsambo00]

What a great interview. I've watched it twice. Peter Robinson is an incredible host.

[@asphyxiafeeling]

I think this interviewer is one of THE BEST in western civilization today... if anybody knows anyone comparable, PLEASE share!!!

[@mrblues53]

Excellent interview.

[@gart97]

Excellent! Thanks!

[@Alireza-G]

Peter Robinson tried his best in last 5 minute to get something from Andrew Roberts about Muslim immigration to Europe that he didn't take the bait :))) he simply could ask it without sugar coating.! I think Europe should be careful with immigration and how it can culturally effect it.

[@mrvn000]

Amazing interview.....

[@user-bt8vn3dj6o]

Great historian.

[@182parker]

fantastic book. Ive read a lot on WW2 and this one def I a diff take on ww2. I like when historians talk about why Germany lost the war other than how the allies won it. Hitlers defiance in allowing retreats doomed his army from the start

[@joydiv0]

182parker In December 1941 it saved Army Group Center.

[@derrickfield8957]

The major achievement of the German Army was that it took the combined might of the British Empire the Soviet Union and the USA four years to defeat them.

[@hcometblaze]

yes.

[@csag5193]

non biased interview, i hope people don't comment like the do on the rest of the videos..

[@jerrypick]

Outstanding, Judging by 'comments,' how many conspiracy theorists are out there?

[@greva2904]

Very interesting interview with an acclaimed historian. I shall now read the comments below to see how many self appointed KZbin armchair experts are claiming that he’s an idiot who has got everything wrong!

[@MarshallTheArtist]

@50percentFirebird There was a pact between Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Japan, the USSR & Germany that made it nearly impossible for any power to stand up to them. They could have ruled the whole of the Eastern Hemisphere if Hitler, Stalin and Hirohito did not have so much contempt for their "inferiors."

[@gerardk51]

Victor Davis Hanson?

[@treyriver5676]

The man May well know a great deal about the overall strategy and effects of Army's Buzz understanding of basic weapons is not necessarily outstanding. at the onset of the war the standard trimming rifle is it k98k H5 shot bolt action rifle using stripper clip loading basically modernized World War II 98A. by comparison the United States has the 8 shot semi-automatic M1 Garand, is Soviet Supreme production the SVT 40 10 shots in automatic rifle both are better than the k98. Early war tanks or better operationally not mechanically they are not better vehicles then many of the vehicles they'll be fighting very soon and by 1942 realistically the M4 Sherman is better or as good as anything in general issued by the Germans the t34 is also as good or better as anything in general use by the Germans neither vehicle is arguably as good as it Panther on paper but battles are not fought on paper.

[@darknightbegins85]

Hair of PEACE

[@markstuber4731]

The old, "if we can undo the mistakes the Germans made while not addressing the mistakes the Allies made, the Axis would have won the war" argument. I made this argument once, it was for my term paper in my Freshman English Comp class. I got an A, but had I been the professor, I would have at least taken a letter grade off for the absurd logic. The idea that Hitler lost because he did not listen to his generals comes primarly from historiography based upon the writings and memories of German Generals after the war, who by the way really had one way to make a living after the war: writing memoirs. Gerhard L. Weinberg does a good job debunking this myth by using opened up Russians records the became available after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and other records. He demonstrates there were times when Hitler listened to his generals. There were times he didn't. Sometimes he was right. Some tines he was wrong. Guess, who cherry picked the record for times when Hitler was wrong and his generals was right. If you guessed the Generals Liddell Hart interviewed, go to the head of the class. www.amazon.com/World-Arms-Global-History-War/dp/0521618266/ref=sr_1_58?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419437305&sr=1-58&keywords=world+war+ii kzbin.info/www/bejne/bWquhmxvbNJspZY He's also wrong about the effectiveness of the combined British and American strategic bombing campain in slowing down the German economy. German out put was greater in 1944 than in 1945! I learned this from taking night classes in Montgomery Al, from historians whose day jobs were teaching at the Air War College!

[@squamish4244]

Mark Stuber Yes, the so-called 'Mediterranean Strategy' that was promulgated by Admiral Raeder and which this guy is referring to has been heavily criticized and pretty much dismantled by plenty of historians. There were just too many military obstacles Germany had to overcome in too short a time. I guess it sells more books, but the odds were stacked against Germany from the start. Almost everything that could have gone right for Germany did go right from 1939-41, and it still lost. Regarding the bombing campaign, it's also not true that it was effective. The one area where it was effective was in the oil campaign, otherwise it was poorly planned and executed at a huge cost in life and resources to both sides. It didn't help that Arthur Harris, the head of RAF Bomber Command, was a bloodthirsty sadist who got off on the idea of killing German civilians and went apoplectic when a lot of his force was temporarily diverted in 1944 because the Allies needed more planes for close air support during D-Day and the campaigns in Western Europe during the summer and fall of that year. Tactical air support was actually a lot more efficient for the Allied war effort than setting cities on fire.

[@markstuber4731]

***** That's a pretty big if . . . They were able to invade Russia without American interference, anyway. They were stopped before Moscow long before the U.S get involved. It's not even a given that the Germans would have won even if they captured Moscow. Napolian captured Moscow after all. Do you remember how it worked out for him? The huge eastern armies sttill would have been able to form even if Moscow had been captured.

[@markstuber4731]

***** Goering was a WWI Ace. His IQ was around 140. They tested all the people that went before the Nuemburg court. He was far from retarded.

[@squamish4244]

***** Britain may have been forced into a peace treaty if it had lost the Battle of Britain, due to pressure on Churchill to end the raids, but it still retained naval superiority that couldn't be overcome, and the support of the United States. It was never under threat of an invasion. They failed at knocking out the RAF because they switched strategies too many times, from bombing the airfields, to the factories, to the worker districts of London and other cities. Goering was very smart but militarily incompetent, and was under Hitler's orders, who was also very smart and militarily incompetent.

[@markstuber4731]

valinor100 re: " militarily incompetent" Maybe at the strategic level but the man did have 40+ air victories in World War I. I'd hardly call that "militarily incompetent."

[@newcjon]

I don't agree with you about Chamberlain. I think his position was completely untenable after the debacle of 1938 and the fact that he was obviously not a 'war leader' once it became obvious that Hitler was, despite his best intentions, unappeasable. I have to confess I had never heard of Antony Sutton but I have just ordered on amazon his book 'Wall Street and the rise of Hitler' to which I assume you are referring so I'll take a look.

[@mikeoli]

I have read many disparaging reviews of the book by this English historian They were inciteful and from there did not waste my time listening. This used to be an interesting show what happened

[@ckn56]

That the Germans had 'superb' equipment is simply untrue.

[@kevgh3869]

Right more super duper than superb.

[@marc-ob4443]

33:37 - 33:42 , revelatory lapsus linguae, he was about to say "islamic invasion"

[@csag5193]

sure.

[@scottscottsdale7868]

The discussions about hitler have relevance in 2022.

[@reidawg72]

"Hitler missed the bus." Chamberlain made that statement days before the Germans took Norway (& Denmark) against pathetically prepared British and French soldiers. Chamberlain lost all credibility in Commons: "In the name of God, GO!". A majority of the Conservatives may have backed Halifax at the time he and Churchill met with Chamberlain. Halifax, however, didn't want the job (made his "stomach hurt"). Some say Halifax saw himself as PM (after WC failure) in negotiations w/ victorious Nazis.

[@panzermarche]

I beg to differ the US in 1944 had the manpower and industrial might to cpnquoer the entire world alone.

[@6madx]

Good grief...nothing to do with tactics, strategy, organisation in the first part of the War then? It is conveniently ignored that British and American and Russian troops actually defeated them in the end. Utter nonsense..Reginald Mosley acolyte obviously.. how disrespectful to your ancestors can you be..shame on you

[@jessran70]

The German equipment was good but it had one huge flaw. A flaw that haunted them throughout the war. Instead of mass producing one tank, one fighter, one anti tank gun, they produced countless of all and much of that equipment was extremely complex technically and engineering wise. What did this mean? It mean't even with superior weaponry they did not have the ability to fix that equipment or replace it as quickly as the allies could. Toss in a terrible logistics system highlighted by the worst transportation system among all the combatants and it isn't hard to fathom why the Nazis stalled in Russia. The Russians by contrast mass produced effective, cheap, easily repaired and replaced equipment like the T-34. They also fought on interior lines so logistics was far easier and greatly aided by a huge influx of American trucks & jeeps that made their transport of equipment infinitely superior. I realize logistics isn't sexy but it matters. The problem I have with books like the one Roberts wrote is they concentrate on narrow thing: how any army fights, what ifs from the stand point of the losing side and accepting things at surface value. What it doesn't do is realize the Germans fought opponents especially early in the war that made a massive catalog of errors; no massing their tanks, ignoring weak spots in their defensive positions (Ardennes), fighting WW1 ..again, Stalin killing all his military cadre, ignoring intell that Germany would attack...in other words for every what if Roberts can concoct there is more than enough what ifs from the allied perspective to match. Yes Germany could've won if a ton of things had gone their way, however, in war rarely if ever do things go swimmingly even for the victors and positing what ifs is a blind alleyway littered with guesses and assuming the opponents would sit still if things were different.

[@joydiv0]

jesse murray It's plainly clear you're criticising Roberts' book without actually having read it. But what else can one expect from a youtuber? Also, I would very much like to know what major nation fought the Second World War with anything even closely resembling the naive notion of:"One tank, one airplane, one anti-tank gun". Would you satisfy my curiosity?

[@AuroraAustralis]

History is written by victor.

[@RemoteViewr1]

It is all true, but for the time cropped perspective. I would posit the most deadly military machine had nuclear weapons and were willing to destroy major civilian centers as a war objective. The Germans were very lucky not to have 5 to 10 cities turned into mushroom clouds. Had that occurred the military achievements of the germans would have literally paled in comparison. Germany? Saved by the bell.

[@ginanugent]

If Hitler was not obligated to declare war on the US due to his allegiance with Japan, (after it attacked the US, which was provoked by FDRs policies to begin with), than Britain had absolutely no obligation to protect Belgium's neutrality in 1914. As EVERYBODY knows, WWII was caused by WWI and according to many historians, e.g. Niall Ferguson acknowledged that it was Britain's involvement that caused the unnecessary chain reaction which caused the worst and most consequential event in modern history. And again, in WWII, Britain along with France provoked the war by lying to Poland about helping them in case of an attack, which they never did, and on top of it, omitting the fact, which the Allies very well knew due to the interceptions, that Russia will attack from the East. Even though I admire Churchill for many reasons, as a politician, he was the biggest catastrophe which made the 20th century as tragic as it was.

[@joydiv0]

Gina Nugent In one case, Britain was supporting an invaded country, in the other Germany was supporting an invading one. He should have done what Japan did in June 1941. Absolutely nothing. But he was never one for realpolitik.

[@pretorious700]

@50percentFirebird Another thing I find repulsive is the deification of Churchill. Yes, he was the leader England needed at the time, but by all personal accounts, he was a sociopath who, like Teddy Roosevelt, felt there was no greater purpose in life than to kill an "enemy in battle", a motivation that hopefully will someday be evolved beyond.

[@mindbreak76]

Great interview. But i blame the western downfall on the English who thought that half of the world belonged to them, and today Europe is paying the price for that.

[@---jc7pi]

How would all these Germans get to North Africa or Persia??? Are you relaying on the Italian Navy for Transport? Martch the Wehrmacht threw Turkey? That does not make sense? Britain actually had a large number of Troups all over the ME Command, not to mention new ones comming in from India and the African colonies.

[@andrewdolokhov5408]

Not to sound too savage, but about kill ratios: after 1945, the victors could have killed as many Germans as they wanted to. German military excellence only went up so high the chain of command. Not to sound too elitist, but the higher positions are the most important ones.

[@Broopster5]

"Histories" like this don't inform public perception, they appropriate and distort it. His view isn't only shockingly narrow, it's uninformed at that. Germany's tanks were "utterly superb!" You know who said exactly the opposite in 1941: Germany's generals. Good lord....

[@joydiv0]

Brett Burman After 1942, German tanks were indeed very good (though not flawless) and that's certainly what he is referring to. I guess he should have qualified his statement but, needless to say, he does so in the 700-page book you've just criticised. Without reading, off course. Why would one ever read a book before publicly panning it?

[@mujaku]

Of course Robert's like a typical pop historian avoids the Soviet Union and Stalin's plans to invade all of Europe including Germany on the first of July 1941. It is quite easy to prove this because the Red Army's weapons are designed for offensive warfare-oh, and the Red Army had 1,000,000 highly trained and skilled paratroopers (Germany only had 4,000). Are paratroopers used for defense? Let's get real. Just looking at Soviet tanks before 1941 they were very advanced like the Soviet BT high-speed tank and the amphibious T-40 tank, not to mention the T-34 - all were designed for offensive warfare. This doesn't include Soviet aircraft and bombers like the TB-7 that could fly faster that a German Me-109. Roberts is whitewashing the Second World War. The fact is the Wehrmacht saved Europe from Stalin. Looking back Hitler could have used nerve gas on the Brits which they hand no defense against, but out of compassion and his honest love of the Brits he didn't. It's time to get real and thank Germany for saving Europe from the Red menace.

[@markstuber4731]

Did you read his book? If not, how do you know what he ignored? By the way, any book about WWII would have to ignore something, unless it was thousands of volumes long. You do realize how big that war was. Right?

[@sm-xc6fn]

Mark Stuber You would think the actual causes of the war on the Eastern Front, the largest and most destructive war in human history, would be given priority.

[@markstuber4731]

+shibby dibby Good point, Shibby. You caught me commenting on a post which I did not thouroghly read. I just read mujak's full post. I stand corrected.

[@sm-xc6fn]

You don't need to even "prove" it in terms of the Red Army's military. Communism is expansionist ideology. It's goal is to reach every nation and man the world over. Soviet invasion of Europe was inevitable as it is simply in the nature of Communism to do so. Not to mention the Soviet's had previously invaded other countries such as Finland in the Winter War at the outbreak of WW2(something which was conveniently ignored by the British and French). They were not exactly trustworthy.

[@squamish4244]

mujaku Well, if WW2 was 'saving' Europe from the Red menace, then it was the most bizarre rescue in history. Most historians have dismissed Red Army offensive plans in 1941 or ever. First Stalin tried to sign a peace treaty with France and Britain. They refused. Then he signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact to buy himself time before an attack. He also hoped that Germany and the West would bleed themselves white, but once France collapsed, he realized he was next. (If he had any plans of invasion, which I have never heard of, he would have abandoned them then.) He even told a graduating class in 1941 that he hoped the war could be delayed 2 or 3 years because they weren't ready. The T-34 was available by 1941 but not in nearly enough numbers to make a difference. Other than that, there are so many holes in your argument I won't bother going into them.