bookstore opened in 1990 and has become a regular stop for many author talks including president barack obama who spoke to 5 people in the store for his 1995 memoir, dreams from my father. book tv will continue to bring new programs and publishing news and you can watch all of our past programs any time at booktv.org. ♪ ♪ >> book tv on c-span2 every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors funding for book tv comes from the television companies and more including. >> the world has changed and today fast internet connection is something that no one can live without. wow is there for our customers, speed, reliability, value and choice. now more than ever, it all start with great internet. wow. >> wow, along with the television companies supports book tv on c-span2 as a public

service. ♪ ♪ >> and now on book tv we are live with best-selling author and military historian max hastings who over the next two hours will take questions via e-mail and social media. catastrophe 1914, overlord and, d day and the battle in normandy. >> the troops prepare to land. the beach is still empty and the cross fire of german guns rakes

the shore. [shots fired] >> the arrival of motorized equipment march the end of the first phase of the landing. >> the lci's, first loads of men now on the beaches go out to transports to bury more troops in shore. >> and that was 77 years ago today on the shores of france. our guest joining us from england sir max hastings have written a book about d day, came out in 1984. max hastings, 77 years later, do we have a different perspective

on d day? >> only in so far that i was lucky when i wrote the book years ago, i was able to interview a host of people, american and french and british and german who had actually been there and although you should never take up the evidence of all history witnesses completely unsupported by anything but they do give you a feeling of events and how they felt. it's very hard. one particular guy i interviewed higgins. he was very articulate guy who i met in new york and he landed on utah beach on d day and i asked him, well, how before it all happened, this huge event, how did it all seem to you and he said, for me higgins from the bronx, age 18, i just couldn't

get my mind in the idea that i was about to invade france and how incredibly young most of the guys doing the work and they could see the tiny bit of this but it was really only most cases long after it was over that they understood that they had been part of one of the biggest events in human history. one reason that d day still has this fascination, the an versaries -- anniversay. i don't think anybody has any doubts except a few lunatics. our parents were the good guys on this event and secondly d day, brilliant achievement. it was something that the british and the americans and the canadians did incredibly

well. >> max hastings, september 3rd, was it a surprise and could it have been prevented? >> it wasn't a surprise. when they wrote about it after words is the huge difference, the beginning of 1914 and 1939. 1949 came as a colossal shock. what is amazing that right up to 2 or 3 days before the war broke out and britain joined with all of the support, all the headlines in the newspapers all over europe, they were about all sorts of stuff, they were about industrial disputes, they were about troubles in ireland with the british.

it came with dramatic, catastrophe-like was happening. 1939 was completely different. a lot of people who read newspapers could read through that sooner or later that the democracies will have to take on. they could see the war coming. it was a very slow burn. and some historians have considered that britain and france would have gone to war in 1939 in czechoslovakia. i don't agree. in 1938 was a lot of people desperate to avoid war who still believed that you could bargain. what was dramatically different in september 1939 was that hitler's behavior had been such that everybody with half a brain could see that this guy was

somebody who you could not do business or not negotiate and only be dealt with by force of arms. >> what's nevil chamberland's reputation in great britain? >> it's pretty low. the man who signed away czechoslovakia and i don't think he was a very impressive prime minister. i don't think he was a very impressive leader but all national leaders can only go as fast as their nations will allow them to. franklin roosevelt understood this very clearly between 1939 and '41, churchill all the way through attempting to drag the united states into war and franklin roosevelt was desperately anxious that the democracies above all britain should not lose the war. he knew he had to carry the american people with him and until pearl harbor he knew he couldn't carry with them in declaration of war. well, in the same way i've

argued in my own book that churchill was lucky he did not become prime minister until may 1940 because he was able to shuffle the blame for disasters that happened after britain on the battlefield up to and including may 1940, which wasn't wasn't entirely fair. churchill was able to take over without bearing the blame of the shame of stuff that chamberland was responsible for. the curious thing is that before he became prime minister, chamberland had been successful and radical prime minister and terrific things for britain on domestic issues before 1938 but then after he became prime minister, he never did anything right and he he was in british eyes as the man who signed the

munich agreement. the writing of history is unfair. >> max hastings, churchill as war lord, 1945, came out in 2009. >> i may say -- i have to tell you, peter, i had more fun writing the book than any other book that i've written. writing about winston churchill is fabulous. he's such a fantastic character and i really enjoyed every moment of writing the book where sometimes -- >> has his reputation changed? >> say again? >> has his reputation changed? >> his reputation curiously enough -- churchill is today more admired in the united states than he is in britain. but in particular in britain as you may know. he's become entangled in this

great controversy of support for slavery and racism and my argument always as a historian what i'm trying to do all of the time when i write about other periods is to close my eyes and think not how does this or that look to us in the 21st century but how did it look to them in the times in which they lived and i wouldn't hesitate to say that churchill was a racist. everybody of his generation was. he behaved and treated black and brown people with a degree of condescending and contempt that makes pretty ugly reading these days. he was a have been or thian. he was born in the victorian era and one can't defend that. you can't say that the attitude were attractive, they were ugly. i remember one particular issue which i had written about in my book that the question arose, a lot of british troops were

stationed in india during world war ii fighting the japanese, the question arose, whether british private soldiers would have to salute indian officers and churchill said he wouldn't have it. he said should be obliged to a -- brown man. one can't defend churchill for saying. that what's been overdone now with every historical character, you have to say nobody was perfect. nobody was perfect. you have to say did they do more good than harm and one strongly, i would strongly argue that churchill services were so great but i also think one has to admit failures, 1944, there was a disaster in which you had millions of people starving and

the british, india was ruled by the british. and marshal appealed to churchill for shipping to send relief supplies to west bank and churchill, he said the indians will have to learn to tighten their belts as the british people have. this too was a monstrous thing to say because the indians in those days were living on far shorter than anybody in britain and to use a phrase tightening belts and people were dying and were able to eat on limited eggs and bacon. this was one of the most deplorable episodes in churchill's career as war leader, but, again, i still believe that his great

achievements, far outweigh the negative. but there is a mood in britain certainly among the young, people throwing paint on statutes of churchill demanding the statutes removed from parliament square. well, to me this is grotesque. this is ridiculous. we have to keep a sense of proportion. one of the hardest things with a lot of the movements that are going on at the moment whether about race, gender or political events in the past, very few things in life are blamed on --simple things of good and evil and the nuances get lost in debates when people now arguing that churchill was a racist and therefore statute should be removed and all the books about him should be rewritten. it's childish and this reflects the fact that awful a lot of people are driving these movements are very young and as we all did when we were young

and they know incredibly little history. >> max hastings is the author of 30 books, former editor-in-chief of the daily telegraph and the evening standard newspapers and he's our guest on in-depth for the next two hours. sir max, you were born in late 1945 after the end of world war ii. >> yeah. >> what do you remember, what are some of your earliest memories of post-war britain? >> i grew up very much in the shadow of the war, right along the housing which we lived in london as a child. it was this huge empty space covered in weeds which was huge bomb site which the houses next door were destroyed by the bombs. one remembers especially sweet candy being rationed, it was

pretty painful. i wouldn't say that we suffered that much but one ate a lot of rabbits and pigeons. one got used to everything was short. britain was very poor and britain had been ruined by the war and a lot of british people felt bitter about and thought it was unfair that britain had the burden alone of resisting hitler in 1940-1941 was russia was hitler's ally and the united states was still neutral. it seemed terribly unfair. that was the way it was and the other thing i spent the whole of my life since my childhood getting away from some of the stupid ideas. when i was a kid from my father and my uncles and cousins, somehow all the men in our

family had managed to enjoy the experiences of the war. my great uncle who correspondent of the bbc, he made the first parachute jump at the age of 61. my father had done that sort of thing. very famous magazine which is equivalent of life magazine in britain. and he managed to enjoy the war. my cousin, special air service. they spent most of my childhood telling stories of each other what fun it had all been but it was my mother who would say to me, don't listen to the nonsense. your father and uncle talk about the war. it was drastic from beginning to end. the war was costly. the united states had relatively privileged second world war because it wasn't invaded or bombed but britain too had a privileged war compared with the russians who occupied europe and

i think one thing in particular when i started writing about wars, i thought that it was all about soldiers and actually soldiers, although they are an important part of it, some of the victims and you think, for example, the women who have occupied europe in world war ii, what it meant to be -- put millions of women to be entire of the mercy of any teenager with a gun, sexual mercy as much of anything else and what women endure in the war is something that we hardly thought about it. and i come to realize how important it is and every soldier who in some cases manages to find the war exciting or enjoyable, there are thousands of victims who has not was enjoyable and the experiences are unspeakable.

and i believe that we have to be willing to try to defend the things that we believe in. i also think that one has to understand just the sheer awfulness of war and nobody should get into war without thinking very carefully what they're getting into because -- >> max hastings world war ii, inferno, all hell let loose came out in 2011. why the name change, the copy i have is all hell let loose but the -- was it the american version that was inferno? >> i thought the title which was the one that was used mostly around the world, all hell let loose, what it encapsulated to me. if you listen to veterans' stories again and again when they talk about things that happened in the battlefield, they fall back on that cliché

and they'll say then all hell was let loose and i thought a lot about that phrase and to me it encapsulates what happens. if you were a young man or teenager, you had been brought up maybe in a farming community in oklahoma or in the back streets of new york or in oregon or whatever, and you've lived a life of peace and you've lived in a community of peace and you suddenly find yourself on the deck of a destroyer or flying in a b-17 or battlefield in normandy and you're seeing human beings literally blown to shredds before your eyes and you are expected to keep shooting and to keep running and keep fighting, in those circumstances. you're seeing terrible stuff going around you and the violence and the horror that people saw, all hell let loose

the phrase seemed to be vividly to encapsulate what a huge numbers of young men and young women too experienced in the war but my american publishes thought inferno was -- i never argue with the publishers that sold the books. i did regret it because what i was trying to do in all hell let loose, although the narrative of the war is there of what happened between 1939 and '35, i really want today tell it as a people story, not -- i wanted to tell it from the bottom up and not from the top down. yes, i had written other books of the great war leaders about roosevelt and so on and so forth. but the specific idea to show what it meant to different people because the war meant something different to -- to people according to the way you live and if you were in britain,

for instance, you got fed up with rations and you complained constantly about how dreary it was but on the other hand if you lived sieged by the germans, 800 people starve today death and a lot of people resorted to cannibalism, ate each other in the course of that siege to stay alive. now everybody in britain, however much you complained of the food, nobody thought of eating each other and i always believed if britain had been invaded, certainly invaded by the germans, i believe that because britain was a western democracy. i think the people of britain would put their hands up and same probably true in america. rather than eating each other whereas the russians, they were accustomed to terrible hardships

in 1942 killed people and hitler had killed and the russians were accustomed living in these conditions and i don't believe the british and the american people were in the same circumstances would have faced as much as the russians did to get through that. and, again, all of the time in all hell loose what i was trying to do is show the comparisons and to show -- if you're chinese, for instance, awful lot of people where the united states and britain lost the 400 dead each in the war give or take, china lost about 15 million and, of course, russia 27 million. and the sufferings of the chinese, again i tried to bring them into the story because most people who study the history of the second world war, if you live in britain or america, you studied the british or the

american and you don't go into what went on but i think as the 21st century who people like me to justify going on writing books about that period, we have to -- it's not great revelations we are going to produce. it's only great secrets that previous generations of scholars have missed. look at it in a new way and new perspective. a new human perspective. >> well, all hell let loose came out in 2011. two years later, catastrophe, 1914 europe goes to war, came out world war i but first of all, max hastings, similarities between the two wars, did you find those and just basically how did world war i start? [laughter] >> those are huge questions. let me take similarities, it's become a cliché among a lot of

people in britain america to say, well, of course, second world war was nothing like the bloodiest. of course, this is nonsense. battles is more terrible than those of world war with more casualties but it was the russians that were fighting them and where the british and the americans were fortunate it was only relatively small numbers of british and american troops and especially crews too. and some submarines crews to that suffered terrible losses especially in the first half of the war. the only campaign in the second world war which the british and the americans were up against the same sort of -- same sort of experiences that the russians had was in germany in 1944. everybody focuses on d day, june the sixth, but far more people

killed in the days that followed and losses of infantry unit, british and america were much worse almost than any other campaign in the war, but from most of the war, the british and the americans, if you reduce it to simplest term between the british being kicked out of france in june 1940 and d day in 1944, most of the british army and most of the american army was training at home. it didn't get into action. famous men of the brothers, easy company and their first day in action was june 1944, of course, germans and the russians have been fighting and suffering terrible losses all through the years before that. so i'm afraid to me when you get huge wars between great industrial parts, an awful lot of dying and awful lot of

killing is going to happen before you reach an end to them and the only thing you are really arguing about is who is going to do the killing and the dying and the british and the americans were very fortunate in world war ii that the russians did most of the killing and the dying that was necessary to overcome. in world war i, of course, it was in france and the french, especially the french but also the british took terrible casualties. britain lost around twice as many people in world war i as in world war ii. but those world war i experiences with these suicidal attacks in the phase of machine guns, they happened in world war ii sure enough but we were lucky and didn't happen on our side. as for your question of how world war i started, i think the underlying cause was that we now

recognize that great wars are terrible things. you want to think very carefully before you get into a great war. one of the things that helped to keep the world safe and alive through the cuban missile crisis in 1962 was that jack kennedy had read fabulous book, the guns of august about and war came about in 1914 almost by accident and he was determined that nothing like that was going to happen on his watch. he was determined not to find himself sliding into -- into war whereas the u.s. choose to start in 1962 were very enthusiastic about bombing the russian missiles from cuba and invading cuba and kennedy wasn't having that because he knew of a huge danger that if you got into that scene, you got into dramatic

escalation. now in 1914, germany especially was accustomed regarding war as a usable instrument of policy, that germany had fought 3 wars in the proceeding half century against denmark, against austria and in 1870 against france. all of which had been huge successes for germany and germany had able to dictate in terms of the peace and known before because until 1871 russia was merely the leading component of the german state but most of the senior officers of what had been the russian army was the german army and regarded war as useful instrument of policy and weren't frightened by it and many of them the idea that they could see russia becoming ever

more successful and they were profoundly uneasy. they felt that their best chance of defeating the russians was to fight a war in 1940 rather than holding off until 1916 or later when the russians and especially their railway system were to become far, far stronger and all the people involved in 1914 were just terrifying, didn't understood the horror that they. >> facing but many of them genuinely believe that you did have people cheering and singing patriotic songs in the streets in 1940 as you most certainly did not in any sensible nation in 1939. not many people who sang patriotic songs in 1939 who were

foolish enough to think that they could see off the germans. in 1939 most capitals responded with deadly seriousness becoming to war whereas 1914, it could be -- war could be something romantic, exciting and thrilling and all sorts of people who should have known better plunged into this terrible conflict without thinking too much about it. .. .. what was being called by historians as the blank check

to attack serbia. even the russian made it plain their fight in support of serbia. germany carried on. but everybody watched this unfolding in these few weeks of the summer of 1914 with very few of them understand the full horror of what they were taking on. they went nasser max you did not mention the assassination of the archduke of austria class hungary. generations of american schoolchildren have been taught that was the key. >> guest: it was the trigger, it was the trigger. the curious thing fernand was killed in syria bye-bye in a session on june the 28th, the curious thing was nobody in austria-hungary much like france fernand he was the heir of the austrian throne, but no one really liked him.

after he had been killed a lot of foreigners were amazed how much morning there was for the archduke. but the austrian hungering government seized on prince fernand the excuse that been looking for for years there causing all sorts of trouble. austria-hungary was a mess of 20 or 30 different minority nations. all of these minorities were getting arrested the rules of unit seeking their independence. in the government in vienna was desperately anxious to assert over all of these different bits of the empire.

with all of these little countries like montenegro and so it and so forth. the austrians valued their empire they value to hang onto it. the hungarians went to war to preserve an empire that most people would've told them that no chance of hanging onto anyway. they thought nvidia serbia would tidy things up. would and all this nonsense. of course far from that precipitated this huge war with germany coming in behind austria and hungary. and the russians coming in behind serbia. and of course on the other side france was committed to support russia, the germans had a work plan whereby they took out fritz before they turn to guilty russians. so they told the french the

only except french neutrality at the front surrender fortresses which of course they were not going to do. it was just mad progression of these two alliances. course it was certainly the case but the assassination of the archduke provided the trigger for all of this. there were forces on the move in germany. for instance when we have not mentioned is the politics of germany. britain tight military the largest party in the german parliament. the socialist would not have allowed the kaiser to go to war. what of the generals who hated the socialists hated the idea of parliamentary democracy they that the glory of another successful war was just what

was needed see the social set home. people could have thought like this. but they did gives almost a frivolity about the readiness for which they went to war thinking the work you do them some good. >> on top of this we have to remember that czar niclas the second was overthrown during world war i. he never thought he was very weak and he knew how fragile the russian empire was. and he realized better than most people the russians had become engaged in the big war could bring down his dynasty. but he went ahead anyway because he was a weak man those around him hated the germans. they thought this was an

opportunity. this was obviously saw clearly than most what this could mean for his dynasty. he was too weak a man to resist we won't have any part of it. what is extraordinary with the people around him and moscow and st. petersburg who honestly believed as the germans the war could do them so good. this is an opportunity to assert russia's power. again this is bombing to hindsight. all kinds of cheering in the streets >> so max hastings are the author of about 30 books but two of these are very

broad looks at world war i and world war ii. catastrophe 1914, how do you begin a project like that? >> i suppose in a way because i've been studying war in particular the wars of the 20th century all my life. one can draw upon every time i start a book i can draw quite a bit of knowledge that i picked up over the last 50 or 60 years but even as a teenager i used to read hugely my first job as a researcher on a huge series on world war i, i was only 17. one lived in that atmosphere when i was very young.

when i left the university i became a journalist, i started working first for newspapers than for bbc television. i seem to be a lot of wars in those days. i want to love those words including vietnam several times. on an end goal at one in pakistan. i became increasingly fascinated by the experience of war the more i saw and the more i read the war i wanted to write about it but sort of became life i suppose one is lucky it is ironic most of my books are designed to discourage people going to war. god knows i am not a war lover. i suppose because i've loved

great deal my latest book operation pedestal which is about a british fleet goes across the mediterranean at a terrible cost in the summer of 1942. in 1982 was a correspondent with the british task force to recapture the falklands. when those writing operation pedestal in the last year to all the time i was seeing in my minds eye some of the scenes i had seen down there in the south atlantic with the ships sinking in the planes shot down. extraordinary spectacle until you've seen it in the south atlantic storms. sees vast ships of the crest of waves scenes of below decks

and action of the weight young men behave and action. all of those things i've seen something of that it was a very small war by comparison with anything that happened and world war ii. when had seen what is like to be on warships and those memories were very much live in my mind. >> just to give you an idea of military and civilian these numbers are a little difficult to find get max hastings reactions to it. according to world population review and facing history.com world war i9000000 military civilian deaths, world war ii 70 million at least. the korean were about 5 million and the vietnam war

about 1.3 million. were going to talk to max hastings about some of his other books, and his exploits in the vietnam war as well. this is a call in program once a month on book tv on c-span2 we invited author to talk about his or her body of work. some racks hastings is joining us from england for this month on this anniversary of d-day. here's how you can participate as well pay 202 is area code from all of our numbers but if you live in eastern central time zone you can call in 748-8200. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zone 748-8201. after watching us from the uk you can't get through it and send a text this number is for text messages only (202)748-8903. if you do send a text please

include your first name and your city so we can identify you that way. also, facebook, instagram, twitter, you can make comments there as well. @booktv is our handle. that is what you need to remember. we'll begin taking those in just a few minutes but max hastings would look at the zwart death numbers out you can see this or not you're probably here to send 9 million and world war i70000000 are those pretty accurate? >> all large numbers have got to be the figure that is most commonly used is 15 million chinese dead. i don't think anybody knows huge numbers of deaths they would be millionaires no

reliable sense of who lived in what areas. click and save as they represent a magnitude. british and an american and german numbers. for a lot of other nations you cannot be sure. we think around a million people died of starvation. but that again asked to give one the magnitude nobody really knows or ever will know the only one you don't want to believe the tried to give exactly what they know but they don't. take for example in normandie, you know who died in normandie. many know exactly the day they died on.

casualty reporting got pretty confused and those with a lot of cases you know how people died on june the sixth he do not know exactly quite a few people enter has died sometime between june the sixth and the ninth or whatever. the very principle is accept any figure of seven numbers, give me your magnitude prepare do not believe it's literally trooping the same way one point i love to make because i think it's very important, all of us historians who write about this stuff we are making a stab at what happened. there is no such thing as definitive we are all groping for truth.

it's incredibly difficult to arrive at any sort of approximation of the truth. there's a lot of reports of combat reports from people from world war ii. they were not worth the paper they'd written on if the unit ran away as some units of the american british army sometimes did. on the 22nd inventory ran away. got into trouble with british units when i mentioned normandie for instance they ran away. transcanada would work for years so we were all heroes. it is amazing how many men brave those wars and women to pray but not everybody is a hero. not all making a stab at the

truth but awfully struggling to get it right. >> one of these small statistics on all hell let loose more people died crossing the street in london because of the blackout they were killed. >> not literally crossing the street in london. it's killed in traffic accidents in britain. that is true in the same way another statistic i sometimes find ironic 1945 hitler began raiding his b weapons, his rockets on britain. they voted bombing effort sites for which these were launched. but the main result of this was more french and dutch people were killed by allied bombing of the weapon sites in british people were killed by the b weapons in britain.

that is another typical ironies of war. there are so many ironies of war. you can make a case where the left all the lights on it would not have made that much difference in britain anyway. the sings america was fortunate nothing depressed the british people more than that five years of those blacked out knights especially in this terrible blacked out long winter nights. >> host: april 29 covid 1975 where were you max hastings? [laughter] i was a very scared young reporter in the compound of the u.s. embassy in saigon. i felt i done a lot of reporting in vietnam was one of the least distinguished reporters.

but i had spent quite a lot of time there since 1970 and 75. once it became plain we were seeing the last i wanted to see it. in fact when most of the americans still in vietnam got out through johnson and the evacuation the last morning before the city fell. i said i would stay and report the fall of saigon the arrival of the north vietnamese. there probably about a dozen other germans. all the other americans went with an assortment of australians. the british reported and the french state. around lunchtime there shooting around the place within one aircraft shot down

over saigon. there's a lot of shooting going around town. it was very serious. i was more frightened of than the vietnamese was the breakdown of order in saigon. the large number of arms out there being betrayed by the west. just thought it was pretty scary being a westerner up in the city after everybody else had gone. around lunchtime on that last day i was in the writers news agency office with another british reporter much braver than me. we are tapping out our dispatches to admit that i think the next 24 hours in the city are going to be pretty unpleasant. and i thought my god if margin

is frightened i could see the helicopter on the u.s. embassy compound about a mile away. i just figured my nerve was gone prodigious did not have the nerve to hang on in there and see this thing out. i trotted to the embassy there's a great crowd of civilians and i push my way through them. some marines on the embassy helped me over the wall. later that evening i got out in one of the evacuation helicopters. i never regretted it. there's a moment that showed me the truth about myself. one would like to think one could do the brave things the guys who stayed were braver than me. >> colligan from cleveland, ohio.

you are with military historian max hastings. >> my question is, what is the way historians write about a war when the country loses? for instance how do german and japanese historians write about world war ii? what is their perspective? can mr. hastings give me the name of any authors names lester marks that are right neville thank you, thank you very much sir >> that is an extremely good question. there is a terrific difference i could, not come up with a specific name paid what i can say is the germans have written some absolutely exemplary books about the german experience. for instance the nearest thing to official history that

germany has produced. quite an upstanding objective account of germany's role in the second world war. all the horrors and the holocaust the japanese i'm afraid come out of my different examples very depressing. the japanese just do not want to go there. this all important scholarly work about world war ii in japan is done by american or british braces. i'm afraid with japan's behavior in china the started japanese schools was regarded as westerners as a travesty. they just don't want to go there. there some other countries it's interesting, france is the only major belligerent for those on the allies died is

never an official history of the war because even to this day in 2021 the french could never agree on the whole business of occupation and collaboration with the germans. all the important work on french behavior during the second world war has been done by american and british historians. it is a pity but french scholars do not want have any part of it. some berries from country to country. i would say without hesitation the germans if i return to the shelves behind it would come up with a whole string of exemplary books by german scholars. but not in the case with the japanese or some other nation for its victim max hastings has written as well, armageddon the battle for germany 1944 -- 1945 document

into thousand four. donald new york city good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon. good afternoon mr. hastings. first i went to say my father participated in d-day. as of the 82nd airborne also the german army when hitler was supposed to invade czechoslovakia they would stage this to britain and france supported them in britain and france didn't. it's going to happen when didn't happen? also the british journalist after the warsaw uprising in 1944 churchill became as much

of an appeaser to stalin as chamber had been to hit lynn. i'd like to think about. that is a lot of information that is quite a mouthful but >> is a very difficult question whether there was a realistic prospect of the german army think the best historians there was no doubt some german offers were strongly opposed. but the bulk of the german army was supporting. i think it's very debatable whether there is enough support before the invasion czechoslovakia to overthrow it. my favorite historian and mentor, he makes the

point right up to july 1944 what is extraordinary is how small the german resistance. we rightly honor the germans by soldiers and civilians who did oppose the bulk of the i'm afraid i think very little to get rid of this by any means other of western armed intervention. i'm very doubtful whether the feeling is there. on the other hand something must never discount if someone had killed him one or two of the plotkin very close to the success. but, churchill, most western

politicians had a deep prejudice against promoting the assassination i don't know i'm writing at the moment about the cuban missile crisis. it always seems to me one of the most difficult of modern american history to come to terms with was enthusiastic very dangerous course we start in on assassinating leaders. i think the world would have cause to be very grateful if they had succeeded. still not quite sure the western powers would have been well advised as to your second question about the warsaw rising it is true churchill

was much less diluted than was roosevelt about his ability to negotiate. it was churchill believed the power of his personality could create a working relationship with stalin and that possibility never existed and churchill was very foolish to believe he could. churchill became very bitter 1945. reason he did not attend the funeral he was so bitter roosevelt would not support him you are absolutely right but for quite a long time between 1941 and 1944 churchill diluted himself he could have a working relationship with stalin. one of the most fascinating

documents read in the british national archives and may 1945 churchill was so different about the soviet takeover but he told the chiefs pair a plan for liberating poland of the british and american armies in brought the british army uploaded the diary in the idea was ridiculous. but the prime ministers asked to plan for this so we must. and indeed in the national archives 93 pages for operation unthinkable to drive the red army out of poland. of course in the americans lost about this very sensibly

they said under no circumstances. that british people would never have supported churchill going to war with the russians when they had been told the russians where the great liberators of the very comrades in arms. it's an extraordinary story. >> she think roosevelt health in january of 1945 during the conference three months prior to his death affected his ability to negotiate with the russians? >> guest: there is no doubt at all that roosevelt was a very sick man some historians they could have more differently and tough libra do not agree or believe the brutal truth the russians got to europe first. if we wanted a free eastern europe if he wanted a free hungry, a free poland we would've had to get there before the russians. the russians after suffering

27 million dead or absolutely determined they were going to get the boutique they were going to get the reward for eastern europe. so identically the historians roosevelt and churchill a take it tougher line things could have been different. the red army was already deep in eastern europe. starling was determined to having even if these roosevelt had been the man he was two or three years earlier the outcome could also be significant. a reminder to our friends in the uk you cannot get through could dial any number you see up on the screen you can also send a text message (202)748-8903 that is for text messages only please include

your name and city. this text message comes from scott and danville virginia. he says i'm a history teacher my question is why did spade not join the axis powers during world war ii? if they had wooded and help germany when the war? >> is a very good question. although spain's dictator was quite as nasty a human being as hitler and mussolini and stalin he also had a better sense of self preservation. he was unquestionably supported of but he was terrified of the royal navy. the royal navy would blockade spain and prevent only just emerged, and the destructive

civil war. what's hanging onto his own power it was eight tangled story of why he did not come in. one rather bizarre aspect of it. franco thought he might commend if hitler was willing to give him france's colonies in africa morocco, tanzania and jute. [inaudible] went franco was a hitler still had hoped fritz to become a full ally of germany franco gave he did not take that last

step. i personally becomes possible. i do think 1941 you can construct a scenario instead of invading russia hitler has set himself to drive sees spain and shut off the royal navy. and by sending another couple of divisions to reinforce and north africa i think he could almost certainly come to cairo.

if that had happened it would not have been militarily disastrous but it might event the end of churchill. i think it churchill had lost the middle east this position would see too many british politicians and conservatives who did not like turtle much anyway churchill was a full to try to keep the war going. sought to make the best peace they could. so yes i think if spain had come in and germany had committed the resources and if he had even delayed his invasion of russia by a few months or a year that i think one could see things looking much more difficult with the western allies. but fortunately he did not pan out that way. >> host: that speaks a little bit she ripped most recent book operation pedestal the fleets at battle to multidose and not receive dance age of

75 i am a bit reluctant to do blockbuster books or catastrophe, instead i'm trying to look at specific episodes which can tell one -- talk about -- i've never written a whole book about the royal navy which i think was britain's most effective fighting force of world war ii. i locked onto operation pedestal which one of the biggest naval battles of the war in the west. in 1942 ledger starvation the british attempted to run several convoys to the island had failed they had been sunk. germs had more than 600 aircraft they got new boats

out the italian service fleet. the predicament look pretty desperate. they're told they cannot get supplies through thousand population could no longer be fed per the island would have to be surrendered. now some people the royal navy the armed forces they thought that's what it's gotta be that so it's gotta be. but in the grand scheme of things at that time a lot of people still thought the russians were going to be defeated. and they thought they'd lost a lot of stuff already so what. churchill writes he was in 1942 deep and politically in battle. he knew by the americans and many russians after seeing

what was defeated so often on the battlefield did not think much of it. it was an opinion upon the summer of 1942 which according to one of my books and the americans that he was trying hardest to win the war. of course they were playing america. but the second choice was the chinese third choice was the russians. that relief in america was very widespread. all this defeats suffered they were not right optimistic. crusher the same feeling was stalin tells churchill your navy runs away because one of their convoys have been disastrously defeated broken up. most the ships that were american. the beginning of july it was disaster.

the whole credibility of the fighting ally in britain churchill was personally it's a toxic great game is always talk about victory but all he knows is defeat. smaller german army and the british people after churchill were feeling pretty disillusioned and glum. churchill decided to seek not quite jewel in the crown jewel in the mediterranean crown lost to the actors would be a disastrous blow to the credibility of the whole empire. in the wake the order to the wrong navy supplies and got to be run at any cost.

they knew that any chance of getting them through their going to have to have air cover. that meant carriers britain already lost for carriers in the war while four of those carriers four of the seven committed to operation pedestal only to battleships, seven cruisers and 30 odd destroyers. and eight submarines. these ships the beginning all of this were dispatched to cover the passage of 14 emergent vessels to hold what follows the three or four day battle which was one of the bloodiest naval battles of the western war. sometimes of fleets were put to see they were there one find themselves engaged or not. every one of the 20000 without

fleet new they're going to have to fight the battle of their lives so they did. the first day, august the tenth nothing much happened. the weather was gorgeous as it always is in the mediterranean some of the young started thinking maybe this is going to be. [inaudible] they didn't think that anymore after the next day august the 1. they're in the middle of a flat for one of the carriers. when suddenly everybody hears his terrific noise they start looking over too one of the other carriers you see the carrier eagle had been hit, wham, wham, wham, wham. through the screen and eagle began to topple and topple and

topple with flames falling in the sea off its deck and hundreds of men falling in the c2. eight minutes after eagle was hit there's nothing left except bubbles and debris. a lot of bobbing heads of men in the water. that was one of britain's seven carriers gone. after that everybody knew this trip was not going to be a picnic. in the second day they started , they knew from first light he was going to be really rough. and they knew the enemy air forces were going to become a great altar that daily 12 of august they had attack after attack after attack of italian submarines, bite german@aircraft, wave after wave of them. by teatime, by about 5:00 p.m. -- 6:00 p.m., every man was exhausted. the pilots were exhausted they

fly all day to drive off these great waves of aircraft for the gunners on every ship were exhausted. that expended enormous amounts of ammunition. two italian submarines quite a few more had been driven off. so by 5:00 p.m. on that second day the british were thinking it has been a terrible day. but we are still here. the worst that happens one merchant ship had been damaged by a bombing. but all the rest was still intact. but after that from about 5:00 p.m. -- 6:00 p.m. on the 1h of august the next 24 hours the world navy and some of the most disastrous losses of the war. first a formation of dive bombers descended on the carrier and indomitable one of bruce's newest carriers for the whole of the fleet thousands of men on the other ships watch this column of dive bombers descending on

indomitable. the rain in the path of the barrage should not achieve anything grade one, two, three, thousand pound bomb exploded on indomitable. the whole trip was shrouded in smoke. after what they had seen happen to eagle the previous day they thought my god, here goes another carrier. while miraculously after ten minutes of signal blinks from the bridge, situation under control. ship could no longer fly off aircraft was heavily damaged but it was still afloat. the admiral on charge look like the british are lost to carriers and 20 hours. he was spared them. the last stage they felt was no choice but to order the

carriers, the remaining carriers in the battleships to turn around and head for gibraltar. they're getting so close to access airbase. they could not convoys emergent from the last state. see what i'm going to interrupt their max hastings at the little bit from his newest book operation pedestal about the british navy and multiply the scatter collars back involved. let's hear from mike and lakeside, california. mike thanks for holding your arm with author max hastings. specific thank you book tv and thank you mr. hastings. i am enthralled by the mediterranean theater world war ii story. my question is about the end of world war i.

on about the various parties what they thought getting into world war i. but coming out of world war i that myth that america and woodrow wilson started the league of nations. i think it was maybe a french politician said about both of those working points even the good lord only needed to take ten commandments. which is pretty good. i think is a french politician at the end the 20 million to many germans. basically let's not sign a treaty to quickly >> might give knowledge or saying there, what is your conclusion about the end? a little bit of candor in the same spirit for mr. hastings about the british i think perhaps laura gray and some other characters decided to

butter up our president wilson contribute to that myth the league of nations was his brilliant idea all by himself perhaps. meka mike and lakeside, california, sir max. >> i could keep your here all night if you brought a sleeping bag talk about this. it's one of the less complicated issues in history. i think the was never a good weight compared is a cliché on some students to say it was a disaster and it was unfair to germany. it was never going to be an easy way to call an ending, to sign a treaty of the war that destroyed three empires but left an enormous legacy. the allies did manager screwed up. they did not occupy germany as a deadened 1945. they left germany to manage their own affairs.

also as virtually un- damage and suffered terrible damage. germany had suffered on this note damage at all. it was very easy for the german right wing to develop their theme after the war. germany is never really been defeated free to step in the back by load of commoners and socialists. the alley decision was to make them sign the portal through the currently brittle treaty but not to occupy germany. but the germans run their own affairs. good thing was president wilson's involvement. he is reputed by congress which is well known is very determined not to get in european. the united states was the only path with its wealth and authority undiminished by the experience of world war ii.

the united states is for the only power that might've been them to exercise some effective influence in stabilizing and preventing the outbreak of world war ii and willing to do so. but many americans have paid the expense of being involved with world war i. no doubt popular sentiment in america was very much with congress and not wanting america to get involved in europe's troubles. what he think by far the best book on this is my dear friend a canadian historian which is a brilliant study of what happened. never going to be an easy way but if used that it germany or whatever the western allies wrong in making the peace, germany's shopping list. germany had been the victor in world war i the whole of

europe. germany as the victor. so when let's hear from karel in sharpsville, virginia good afternoon carl. >> thank you for taking my call. i know you're not of counterfactual history by have a question concerning the end of the vietnam war. as a johnson administration not expanded our involvement in combat troops into vietnam in the mid 60s is easy to identify the positive consequences but especially for the u.s. i just want to know if you've given some thought to what the negative consequences had been had we not been more involved in vietnam let's say the south had fallen in the late 60s instead. what your thoughts on that if you do not mind? thank you sir.

statement i believe it would have served the interest of united states very well to stay completely out of china. i've said in my book the fundamental reason the other side one the north vietnamese regime on the terrorized their people including after 1975 when they won the whole war. is not one is enthusiastic about but they want ultimately because they were vietnamese not because they were commoners. but the problem always with american vietnam was they don't like foreigners and they don't like foreign rule all the way through the saigon regime may perceive those as just that. it was well known the generals in saigon could not get out of bed in the morning without

asking their american advisers which side to get out. i always found one is writing my book one of the creepiest things one realized in early state all of the meetings in washington to discuss policy vietnamese were never invited to attend the wedding unchecked meetings all decisions are made by america. other through south vietnamese which i and did for my book all the way through he said the commerce could always occupied by these foreigners. i'm afraid i don't think it was ever a good way for america to be involved in vietnam. the best thing to do is stay out of the perspective richard insurer california please go with your questions or comments from max hastings bruce vicki think it's very

appropriate you are on today. i personally attended the 40th anniversary of d-day beaches in 1984 when touring france. i was in england in 1982 and i first became acquainted with you reading your account of the falklands war. i've enjoyed your many books ever since they are all great reads. thank you. you are more than welcome. i've enjoyed it enormously. since you do reviews in new york review of books have you any comments on the world war i and world war ii books by sean mcmeekin? especially his new book stalin's war which has just come out and i am reading. student equity think of it richard? >> it is sort of a revisionist history blaming and sense stalin and saying he was in at the beginning and then he was in at the end defeating the

japanese. and a lot of this was directed by him even as much as hitler. it's an interesting take. i'm wondering thank you very much. >> i very much dislike getting personal comments on my fellow historian. i have to convince i am not in admirer of his work. take some interesting points. i think i'm afraid he's a sensationalist. once us to say something going to make headlines. he does not do nuances. i think for example his earlier book about the outbreak of world war i he sought to argue it was an entirely or russia's fault because russia was determined to dominate. he was sort of a bit right to be a bit right and that he is

quite right with that russian interest i think he wildly overstated his fear and i have talked to fellow historians about the latest work on stalin. i think there's a considerable measure of agreement he just pushes of his ideas far too far. in his search for headline grabbing material i'm afraid no i don't really write him with my other fellow historians bruce vick whenever we have an author on in-depth on book tv we ask him or her favorite books. here is what max hastings reported the guns of august by barbara tuchman the young blinds by irwin shaw, dawn we slept, the london observer by raymond lee and eagle against the sun by ronald spector. all american authors. mr. hastings notes.

currently he is reading a book called aftermath, life in the fallot of the third rake 1845 -- 1955 by harold yonder. we have a text message about barbara tuchman and the guns of august barbara tuchman described how the french staff ignored german army marched into french from belgium. what issue viewpoint about this happen? this is timothy right here in washington d.c. statement i'm a huge admirer but she's fashionable figure now. a lot of scholars that she got a lot of things wrong but she had a huge influence on me i was very young when her book was published in 1962. i just thought it was a lot of the stuff she says is absolute right. which is perfectly true.

the french staff of the war planning for war was fantastically inept misread everything they like to do. the french were obsessed with the doctrine of attack of the french were committed of themselves to launch a major offensive absolutely right his judgment of the french general an idea of what we're doing in the planning. >> we have about 30 minutes left with our guest certain max hastings military historian former editor-in-chief of the daily telegraph and the evening standard. mr. hastings how does one become sir. [laughter] >> mostly luck i think. they gave me a knighthood 20 odd years ago.

my contribution to writing both newspapers and books. as another thing i was a better historian all that anybody is one of those silly british things. of course we all like any kind of honors like winning prizes very much a matter of luck. i've won some and i've got other. we all enjoy and appreciate. one does not make too much of them for their quite useful. [laughter] >> nominates you to be as certain to get knighted by the queen herself? >> you do that's all very exciting. prime minister puts your name in. the prime minister of the date which is then, god knows i became very critical over the invasion of a not been

knighted in 2002 i doubt i would've gotten a knighthood. get go to the policy go down on when he and the queen taps you on the shoulder with a sword. might grandchildren if they are interested which they probably won't be will be able to see the pictures. it's a big moment of passion admirer of the queen a lot of people are. it is a big moment. it was one of the most exciting days of my life. >> you said you are a big fan of the queen. are you a monarchist? is that a correct term to use? >> i guess ima monarchist parade the best case for that monarchy attack about some of the people who stand for president in britain and is not the power that the queen has what she never uses anyway.

denies that power to anyone else. i think is going to be very difficult time when the queen dies. it's something she is liable to do in the next few years. there are far more elizabeth -ites of the queen of the institution of the monarchy. the royal family will go on a notice in the united states is had some pretty bumpy times over the last few years. i was editing the time of the monarchy is very serious trouble in the late 1990s. i was a close eye witness and spent a lot of time with all the players at that point. there were moments in the late '90s you did build the whole monarchy was unraveling. it would be a mistake to think anything is forever. but if the british people turned against the monarchy which is always possible based

on the 21st century it could go remarkably quickly. >> in the middle of all of these military history books you have been writing and editing the telegraph in the evening standard book came out in 2010 called did you really shoot the television. [laughter] a family fable. just want to read a quote from there and perhaps you would like to expound on this a little bit. quote my mother's capacity to make me quail remained undiminished. she was in her late '80s when i told her i respected her decision to leave her entire estate to my sister. but that i would have loved to have had one of her good pictures. a year or two later she telephone and mentioned a picasso drawing i had always liked. would you like to buy it she asked? i choked, i said to my wife penny, if i murder her i shall plead extreme provocation and no jury will convict me. [laughter]

: : : >> it was a normal sleep at as a writer. what my mother did she did not hold back anything, she talked about all the good things i did when i was a child and my father when the parents were way out of

play it was a miracle i didn't shoot anybody, there was one occasion, did you really shoot the television? can i explain and hopefully a little bit more sane this time. one of the reasons i'm so's keen on gun control, people like me when kids should have not access to firearms. >> ron in arlington virginia, please go ahead. >> thank you, sir hastings it's an honor to ask you this question into speak with you for a moment, i would like to go back when you first started talking about nationstates and

doctrine of attack using war as a main instrument of power, and in 1914 in that time and culture and the political forces, i'm interested in your perspective insight into now, today's time using history and the present time and are we on path to go to war with iran, do we think that america and israel itself is on path to go to war with iran based on her political forces, senator cotton statements opossum initiation, or maybe even china as i see they are misreading what might be going on, i'm interested. >> let's get hastings take on the current world. >> what is a huge issue, looking at some of these issues in some of these things, one of the best things with the relation is in in the nuclear world full of

sensible power will be an absolute catastrophe and i'm often writing articles in newspapers and the fact that our european partners don't take defense and seriously, i think that we have to have strong armed forces in order to have a realistic prospect of deteriorating war, on the other hand all of my experiences in war as a writer and having seen firsthand once you been desperately careful about going to work, i was a member before the invasion of iraq, i was the head of the army in the streets of london and he came back from

washington in 2000 to where they were making the preparations for the invasion of iraq, i said how does it look and they don't have the remotest idea, that proved in a president remark and iran poses a very serious threat, the rule of iran because again they have this huge country, churchill was right i would rather take a different view with a realistic prospect with moderate might take out with the

nuclear capabilities i think it would've been this case for this, everybody who likes us says this uses nuclear weapons to destroy in the possession. >> you mentioned tony blair, your acquainted with the current prime minister aren't you. >> he worked ten years in the telegraph and i regret that he occupies office and i'm afraid i

relations with europe would poison british policies and were going through very unhappy phase, the democracy generally are very short and talented people and out of reaches and it's very hard to say why these people want to turn to politics, boris johnson in the end. i wrote three or four years ago that they achieve the ambitions to become the prime minister but would've forsaken very serious country, i'm afraid nothing is happening the leadership of the united states with the leadership of britain, britain is a middle size country and losing charge of the united states, however, you dress it up the united states as always for

the leader and we look to europe, everybody who i respect we look to america for strategic leadership and ms. america takes the lead and nothing important it's on in the world. >> is it fair to say that britain has punched above its weight for several years. >> choice. they tried to but i don't really think it does in americans have voice been tested to be polite in their dealings with us. but i'm very conscious, i think americans most americans are there, deeply regret britain's run of the armed forces.

most americans in high places in washington and we lost her sense of direction and i'm inclined to agree with them, punching about one's weight we certainly tried to punch about one's weight i think is very difficult these days to justify on the unc or curating counsel. i just don't think were important enough to justify realistically. >> david rochester, new york, good afternoon i have a couple of quick questions, i have been collecting for years a series of books published in the 70s in england called the valentine

illustrated history of world war ii and there was a lot of great picture, photographs from a british historian at the time wrote for them including sir, michael howard and also sir, john keegan and i was wondering if sir, john keegan was riding at the phase of the battle which talks about many historians said is the first book to be released by a military historian to emphasize the common soldier as opposed to the general and the tactics and everything and i wondered what your opinion of that is. thank you very much. >> thank you david. >> i certainly agree, he was a close friend of mine and he change the way that we look at military history, it's overwhelmingly which division went this way and that way at the phase a battle which is now

dead. it made us think about the reality of what war is like instead of thinking of it in terms of numbers of which division, i think all of us writing about the history of war which is that i would like to say history of war, not military history. we owe a debt to john, we read it quite recently and it still reads fantastically well, he looked at all the things about what battle is really liking for example not everybody is a hero

there has been any given battle probably about a quarter of your guys when you say okay charge a quarter of your guys have been up there with you in about half of them will come behind in another quarter. and that's not surprising is just what mankind is. and they got done to them nitty-gritty of what fighting means and how people behave and nobody really had a voice. i think we all owe a true fit debt. >> john keegan has appeared on this program on in-depth it was in 2003 if you go to booktv.org use the search function at the top of the page type his name and you can watch the full interview, sir, max hastings how is your world war i book different than his world war i book. >> from john keegan's?

>> yes. >> i wrote a book about something very specific, the outbreak of the war john wrote a book the history of world war i, catastrophe in my book, what i try to do is look at the manner in which the war, how the war started in with the first battles were like i was afraid in churchill's book a terrific history of the war and the crisis when he said no. of the war matches the extraordinary excitement in the extraordinary sensation of those days and weeks and i thought this was so and i noticed people saying this is one book about 1914 and 1915 and 1916. i thought that i said all that i had to offer about 1914, for instance a lot of history in the past was nationalistic whether

by americans or british, i think nowadays we try to get away from that and we try to see things and for instance i think of the little british army in france in 1914 as a major factor in yet the british army at the beginning of the war, the germans in the french, evenly they had more troops than we did. i got fascinated, everybody thinks that 1916 and the battle was the bloodiest. , i think it was almost the 20th of 1914 the french army suffered the heaviest lawsuits in the whole war in one day.

i wanted to tell all of their stories and i've never written in any of the books. >> allison north las vegas nevada. >> good to speak with you, too quick questions the german generals in world war ii after the war they wrote a lot of books, wasn't hitler we wouldn't did a lot better and that stuff. second question the british navy today how would you rate it as a seapower. >> thank you. >> on the generals of course they had a bit of a point because it is been a lot of british references and who i interviewed in the 1970s and 1980s, they would say if

hitler had ever been on our side, it was a ludicrous decision. to help the allies. that is of course the accounts entirely self-serving the rule is going to explain if they left it for them, i don't believe that, i think for example they went along with those decisions in russia even though they should've realized that germany was not part of them to take out russia, russia was so vast and had in enormous resources. i would not buy the view of the german generals, i would not buy that, i think we made a huge mistake by two enormously aircraft carriers to fly we are middle ranking power and i think their way out of our range in one of her carriers is about to

sail through the south china sea to show the flag with eight f-35's instead of 24 that they were supposed to be taking when the whole thing was planned. i'm afraid the carriers and our navy have to be deployed to help provide escorts for those carriers and it was the pentagon office that included 15 years ago but the future carries or groups it's very speculative in the new age, i personally think we would've done better to have far more platforms for cheaper and cheaper platforms i think the navy with a huge distortion of these two big carriers. i had my doubts whether the ever going to be depleted and if they are if we find ourselves up against the chinese i think we

could get it on ourselves. >> nine minutes left in our conversation with max hastings, ann arbor michigan, please go ahead. >> mr. hastings i am in all of your understanding of the details associated with the different wars. i would be interested in your observation of two generalizations that many clueless americans have one is world war ii was an extension of world war i, the second is sent the vietnam war over the last half-century we had one of the most peaceful periods in our history and perhaps a history in western europe. >> thank you tom. >> let me tell you it was so

much my mentor, my life he said we use the word peace far too much, the greatest instability and the reason michael among many people the presence of america's counsel formulation and many other leading americans. we are living in such dangerous times because stability and we are living in unstable times and during the cold war when he took advantage of the senior military people on both sides. and for the certainties of the cold war where you can predict the soviet union might do at any given stage and it was not a serious part, today there is a huge uncertainty and i do think

the world looks very dangerous and frighting place and were absolutely right statistically it's a national organization coming up with statistics showing fewer people by balance each year which is level the headlines, but i do think these are very dangerous times and i think stability is very elusive in which we do not exist and we have to tread extremely carefully. i forgot what your first question was. >> world war ii. >> i think most historians agree that one has the look on world war ii as an extension because it was a long yemen war and on the other hand i will say i've seen it written in my book, i think we would understand world war ii better if we call it world wars to and everybody got

into world war ii but the japanese over there up from the germans and the americans came in from different reasons. in a way by the issue by calling it world war ii and there is different sounds, the fundamental, you have to say in the end this was germany's two attempts to secure domination of europe, the second one of the big differences in 1918 a lot of germans were ready to believe in the great australian workforce from it. he said in germany i found no great sons of guilt but absolute sense of defeat because of the label destruction that this

would impose for the cities and the germans were an absolute no doubt reminded that they had been defeated. in a way that they were in 1915. >> rate ends spring hill florida. hi rachel. >> can you hear me. >> we are listening. >> thank you. hello mr. hastings i like the image and nuances i know about such publications my questions were regards of culture, this idea men having evolve to make war of the male warrior hypothesis that men have a propensity for aerobic in that war has provided competitive advantages, but also to keep young men off streets generally

a groups among others, war as a platform for organizing young men into battle, it may be naïve or fundamental question or impossible to answer. >> i can also answer your question in one sense one of the big changes is i grew up in a very male dominated household and i mentioned earlier somehow complied to think that they enjoyed world war ii and i grew up with a wildly exaggerated idea of the importance of physical courage when i was young i was parachuting with army to wars and so forth. the older i've got and the more become to believe an awful lot of young men possess physical

courage, which is exaggerated and becomes very useful in war but actually think more courage is probably important i'm not saying anything that i haven't written myself as well but it's taken many of us to see this. i look back on my teens and 20s when i thought of the virtue and the implication some of the stuff that you are saying is war can be corrupting force. >> let's hear from one last caller in california, please go ahead you the last call today. >> thank you very much, it's nice to meet you mr. hastings i would like to ask you this, before he died president kennedy intended to have 1000 troops withdrawn from south vietnam and

of course he was killed and director of was not carried out, do you take that as some #that he would not have gotten under the quagmire that lbj did, secondly if you were lbj what would you have done to in that war in a way in which you would've thought would've been satisfactory. >> thank you, i will tell you to answer the very large question. >> the quick run on kennedy, i personally do not think that kennedy would've got out all of his thinking was directed to world work and he repeatedly said in between got out and hundred thousand troops, we will never know but i do not think he

would've gone out i don't think lbj ever had good options, the first option was to cut his losses and get out as soon as possible after he took office he felt he had an enormous amount and he didn't feel able to do that. i think a curse on american foreign policy on that. , maybe american florida policy in history is stuff has been done to serve domestic americans political trust rather in accordance with the best judgment of the day, that is very often been the case i don't think lbj ever had good options.

>> there is his website in his latest book operation pedestal, he noted he's working on the book to the cuban missile crisis. >> if you miss his program every air in just a few minutes thank you for being with us on but to be. >> with tv on c-span2 every weekend with the latest nonfiction books and authors, funding for book tv comes from these television companies and more including media,. >> the world changes in instants media, was ready, internet tracking and we never slowed

down schools and businesses went virtual and we powered a new reality because we are built to keep you ahead. >> media, along with these television companies support book tv on c-span2 as a public service. >> next book tv in-depth with historian max hastings, many books include catastrophe 1914 overlord, d-day and the battle for normandy. the recently published operation pedestal about the fierce battle of world war ii.

>> the troops prepared to land bases still empty in the crossfire of german guns still breaks the shore the arrival of motorized equipment marked the end of the landing. the lci's their first loads of men on the beaches to the transports to bring more troops ashore. >> that was 77 yearsea ago today on the shores of