>> next, booktv's monthly "in depth" program with max hastings. max hastings's many books include the recently published operation pedestal about one of the fiercest pedestals of world war ii.

>> aboard the lcis troops prepared to land, the beach is empty of the crossfire rakes for sure. the arrival of motorized equipment marks the end of the first phase of the landing. the lcis on the beaches go out to the transports to ferry more troops in sure.

>> that was 77 years ago today on the shores of france. our guests joining us from england, sarah max hastings has written a book about d-day that came out in 1984, "overlord: d-day and the battle for normany". max hastings, 77 years later do we have a different perspective on d-day q >> guest: when i wrote that book all those years ago i was able to introduce a host of people who had actually been there. you should never take the evidence of witnesses unsupported about anything but gave a feeling for events and how they felt.

one particular guy, a very articulate guy beach on d-day, how did it seem here, around the idea, those did that work. they could see the tiny bit of it. the biggest events in human history. one reason d-day has this fascination, first of all, a lot of wars before and after the second world war people had doubts whether they were the right wars.

i don't think anybody doubts accept a few lunatics that our guys come our parents and grandparents were the good guys in this event, d-day was a brilliant achievement, some things the british and americans and canadians did well. >> host: september 1st, 1939, two things. was it a surprise and could it have been prevented? >> it wasn't a surprise. a lot of people were there in 1939. they said the huge difference between 1914 and 1939, it was a colossal shock. when i was writing a book on that myself i was going through the newspaper files, what is

amazing is 2 or 3 days after the war broke out, all the headlines, all sorts of stuff, they were about industrial disputes, they hadn't really focused on the fact that this was happening. they could see a huge continent wide catastrophe, on off a lot of people read newspapers could tell right through 1933 that sooner or later democracies were going to have to take that on. they could see the war coming. some historians have argued it should have gone to war in 1938.

i don't agree. 1938 a lot of people were desperate to avoid war who still believed -- what was dramatically different was hitler's behavior, anyone with half a brain could see he could not negotiate but could only be dealt with by force of arms. >> host: what is neville chamberlain's group reputation today? >> guest: it is pretty low. he's always remembered as the man of munich who signed away czechoslovakia. he was not a very impressive prime minister or an impressive leader. on national leaders can only go as fast as their nations will allow them to.

from 1939 to 41, all the way through attempting to drag the united states to war and roosevelt was desperately anxious democracies, britain should not lose the war, until pearl harbor he knew he couldn't carry them to declaration of war. he was lucky he did not become prime minister until may of 1940 because he was able to shift the blame to britain on the battlefield up to and including may of 1940 on to neville chamberlain, the judge was able to take over without bearing the blame of all the stuff chamberlain was responsible for. before he became prime minister he was regarded as a successful

radical politician, terrific things for britain on domestic issues before 1938 but became prime minister, never got anything right and the man who signed the munich agreement allowing hitler to take over czechoslovakia but in a way, the writing of history is on that. >> host: max hastings's book on winston churchill, came out in 2009. >> guest: i may say, more than any other book i have ever written about winston churchill, he was such a fantastic character and i've enjoyed every moment of writing that book.

>> host: has his reputation changed? >> host: say again? >> guest: has his reputation changed? >> guest: his reputation, churchill is today more admired in the united states than he is in britain but particularly in britain, he has become entangled in the controversy about supporting slavery, racism and assault. my argument always as a historian, what i'm trying to do all the time when i write about other periods is close my eyes and think not how does this look to us in the 21st century but how did it look to thin in the times in which they lived. i wasn't hesitate to say churchill was a racist, every one of his generation was. he behaved toward black and brown people with a degree of

condescension that makes ugly reading these days but so did all of his generation. he was a victorian. one can't defend that. you can't say the attitudes were attractive, they were very ugly. i remember one issue i have written about in my book, the question arose, a lot of british troops were stationed in india during world war ii, the question arose of whether british private soldiers had to salute, he wouldn't have it. it is wrong white man to be obliged to defer to a brown man. these are terrible things to say in our own times, one can't defend churchill for saying that but what has been over done now with every historical character, you have to say nobody was perfect. you have to say did they do

more good than harm, one would strongly, i would strongly argue churchill's service in the cause of democracy was so great, they tower over his feelings. also think one has to admit his failings. 1944 was a disastrous famine in which you had millions of people starving, the british, india was ruled by the british and the viceroy of india appealed to the judge for shipping to send relief supplies. churchill said the indians will have to learn like the british people have. this was a monster us say. the indians in those days were living on rations more than

anybody in britain, to use that phrase when people were dying in the streets of calcutta, this was one of the most deplorable episodes in churchill's -- but again i still believe his great achievements outweigh the negative. certainly people throwing paint on statues of churchill demanding it be removed from parliament square is grotesque, is ridiculous. we have to keep a certain proportion. one of the hardest things in the movements going on at the moment, very few things in life are plain and simple choices between good and evil, most

things are nuanced and the nuances i feel get lost in these ferocious debates, people arguing that churchill was a racist and therefore his statue should be removed, all books about him should be rewritten, this reflects the fact that people driving these movements are very young, they know little real history. >> host: max hastings is the author of about 30 books, most on military history. is former editor-in-chief of the daily telegraph and the evening standard newspapers and he is our guest on "in depth" for the next two hours. you were born in late 1945 after the end of world war ii. what do you remember? what are your earliest memories of postwar britain? >> guest: i grew up in the shadow of the war right alongside the house in which we

lived as a child, a huge empty space covered in weed, a huge bomb site had been destroyed by a bomb. there were a lot of uniforms in the streets but there was still rationing. one remembers the rationing that was pretty painful. we were typical middle-class. i won't say we suffered that much but pigeons and things like that. i got used to everything was short, britain was very poor, ruined by the war. something a lot of british people thought about because it was terribly unfair, britain bore the burden alone of resisting hitler in 1940-41 while russia was hitler's ally.

the united states was -- it was terribly unfair that britain was broke but that is the way it was. the other thing, i spent the whole of my life since my childhood getting away from stupid ideas i got from my father and triangles and cousins, all the men in our family managed to enjoy the experiences, my great uncle made his first parachute jump at the age of 61. my father had done that sort of thing too and he was a war correspondent for the equivalent of life magazine. he managed to enjoy the war. my cousin served with a special air service. they all spent most of my childhood telling stories to each other and it was my mother

would say to me don't listen to the nonsense your father and uncle lewis talk about the war, it was ghastly and of course war is ghastly. the second world war, the united states had a relatively privileged second world war because it wasn't invaded or bombed. britain too had a pretty privileged war compared with the russians or occupied europe. i think one thing in particular when i started writing about wars i thought it was all about soldiers. and actually soldiers are an important part of it, the victims, you think for example the women of occupied europe and what it meant, millions of women to be at the mercy of any teenager with a gun. what women endured in the war was something we've hardly thought about.

i have come to realize how important it is. every soldier who manages to find war exciting or enjoyable, there are thousands of victims, the experience is despicable. we have to be willing to fight to defend the things we believe but one has to understand the awfulness of war, nobody should ever get into a war without thinking carefully about what they are getting into because it is so ghastly. >> host: max hastings's book on world war ii came out in 2011, why the name change, the copy i have is all hell let loose, but was it the american version that was in for no?

>> i thought the title which was the one we used mostly around the world, all hell let loose, what it is encapsulated to me if you listen to veterans stories, again and again, talking about things on the battlefield they fall back on that cliché and they will say and then all hell was let loose. i thought a lot about that phrase. to me it encapsulates what happened. if you were a young man or teenager and you had been brought up in oklahoma with the back streets of new york or oregon or wherever and live the life of peace, in a community of peace, and you suddenly find yourself on the deck of the destroyer or it flying in a

b-17 or on the battlefield in normandy and you see human beings literally blown to shreds before your eyes and you are expected to keep shooting and keep running and keep fighting in those circumstances, you are seeing terrible stuff all around you and the violence and horror the people saw, the phrase seemed vividly to encapsulate what huge numbers of young men and young women do, experienced in the war but the publisher thought that inferno was a better title and i never argue with the publisher who will sell the books. what i was trying to do in all hell let loose, the narrative of war, what happened from 1935 to 45, i too to tell it is a people story, from the bottom up and not the top-down yes, i

have written other books. the specific idea of that book was to show what it meant to different people because the war meant something different according to the way you live. if you were in britain for instance, the monotony of rations, the food was incredibly dreary during the war and you complained constantly about how dreary it was but if you lived in leningrad, 800,000 people in leningrad starved to death and a lot of people in leningrad resorted to cannibalism, 80 to other to stay alive. everybody in britain, however much you complained about the food, no one thought of eating each other. had they been successfully

invaded by the germans i do believe because britain -- the people of britain would have packed it in and the same is probably true in america. rather than eating each other as the russians, they were accustomed to terrible hardship, 1942, kill them off a lot of people and the russians were accustomed to living in these conditions of ghastly privatization. i don't believe british and american people in the same circumstances would have faced as much as the russians did. all the time what i was trying to do was show these comparisons. an awful lot of people have no idea the united states and

britain lost 400 did each. china lost 15 million, russia, 37 million and the sufferings of the chinese, i tried to bring them into the story because most people who study the history of the second world war, you study the british or the american, not important to get it into what went on. in the 21st-century, the people i see who justify writing books about that. go, not any great revelations or secrets previous generations -- it is in a new way and you expect it from a human perspective. >> host: all hell let loose in 2011, two years later,

catastrophe 1914, europe goes to war came out about world war i. first of all, max hastings, similarities between the two wars, and basically how to more one start? >> those are huge questions, let me take the similarities. it has become a cliché among a lot of people to say the second world war was not as bloodiest the first, this is nonsense was the battles, more terrible than in the first world war with more casualties but it was the russians, the british and americans were very fortunate, only relatively small numbers of british and american troops, a bomber aircrew too and they

suffered these terrible losses in the first half of the war. the only campaign in the second world war which the british and americans were up against the same experiences was in normandy in june of 1944. everybody focuses on d-day but in the days and weeks that followed, the losses were appalling. much worse than any other campaign of the war but most of the war the british and americans, reducing it to the simplest terms, in june of 1940, d-day in 1944, most of the british army, most of the american army were training at home, the famous men of the

band of brothers their first day in action was june of 1944. the germans and russians were fighting ferociously and suffering terrible losses so to me the real lesson is when you get wars between great industrial powers, and off a lot of dying and a lot of killing happens before you reach the end and the only thing you are arguing about is who is going to die and the british and americans were very fortunate in world war ii that the russians did most of the killing that was necessary to overcome. in world war i, it was in france, the french, especially the french but also the british, lost twice as many in world war i as world war ii, but those world war i

experiences with these suicidal attacks, happened in world war ii sure enough, parents and grandparents, did not happen on our side. the other question, how world war i started, the underlying cause was we now recognize the great wars are terrible things. one of the things that kept the world safe and alive through the missile crisis in 1962 was jack kennedy had read the book the guns of august how war came about in 1914 almost by accident and he was determined nothing like that was going to happen on his watch, not to

find himself -- the us chiefs of staff in 1962 were very enthusiastic about the russian missile sites on cuba, invaded cuba, kennedy wasn't having that but he knew the huge danger of getting into dramatic escalation. in 1914, germany especially was accustomed to regarding war as a usable instrument of policy. germany had fought three wars in the preceding century against denmark, austria and in 1878 against france. all of which had been huge successes for germany. across russia and until 1871

russia was the leading component of the german state but most of the senior officers of what had been the russian army and now the german army in 1914 regarded war as a usable instrument of policy. many of them got in their heads the idea of the vacancy russia becoming ever more successful economically and industrially and they were profoundly uneasy. their best shots of defeating the russians was to fight a war in 1914 rather than holding off until 1916 or later when the russians would have been far far stronger. all the people involved in 1914, what is terrifying is how few of them understood the immensity of the horror they

were facing. many of them genuinely believed we had people singing patriotic songs in the streets in 1914 as you most certainly did not in any sensible nation in 1939. singing patriotic songs in the street in 1939, were foolish enough to think that they -- in 1939 generally most responded with deadly seriousness. 1914 there was still the idea war could be something romantic and exciting, thrilling. all sorts of people who should have known better plunged into it with this terrible conflict without thinking too much but the kaiser, the german kaiser, wilhelm the second, i don't think he wanted a big war but he did what a small war,

allowing his ally, austria, to invade serbia and crush the serbs, he thought that would be a fine thing to do, he gave the austrians what was called by historians the blank check, to attack serbia and even when the russians made it plain they would fight in support of serbia germany went on regardless. anybody who watched this scenario unfold, very few of them understood the full horror of what they were taking on. >> host: you did not engine the assassination of the archduke of austria-hungary which generations of american schoolchildren have been taught was the key. >> guest: it was the trigger.

the archduke friends ferdinand -- franz ferdinand, the curious thing was nobody in austria-hungary much liked franz ferdinand. he was the air to the austrian throne but nobody really liked him. when he was killed, the foreigners in vienna were amazed how the morning was for the archduke. the austrian hungarian government seized on his assassination with the excuse they had been looking for for years to remove serbia from the map causing all sorts of trouble. austria-hungary was a mess of 20 or 30 different minority nations. all of the -- all these

minorities -- ruled from vienna seeking their independence and the government in vienna was desperately anxious to assert its own eminence. why they should have had these countries like montenegro and all the others on the table, the austrians valued their empire enormously and would have done it. the austrians variance went to war for an empire most people told them they had no chance of taking on anyway but they thought they were going to tidy things up. and far from that it precipitated this huge war with

germany coming in behind austria-hungary and the russians coming in behind serbia and on the other side friends was committed to support russia and the chairman's, whereby they took out france before they turned to deal with the russians, that they would only accept fringe neutrality in 1914, the french surrendered their border fortresses, as a guarantee of their good intentions. it was a mad progression of these two alliances up against each other. of course it was certainly the case the assassination of the archduke provided the figure for this but there were forces on the move in germany. one we haven't mentioned is the politics of germany. the socialists were very

antimilitarist deck, the socialists if they had been in charge of germany would not have allowed the kaiser to go to war, one of germany's generals who hated parliamentary democracy, they are not the glory of another successful war was what was needed. when one talks about in 2001, people who thought like this but they feared it was almost revolting, the readiness with which they went to war thinking it could do them some good. >> host: on top of this, czar nicholas the second was overthrown during world war i. >> guest: bazaar was a more sensitive figure than his cousin, the german kaiser. week and he knew how fragile

the russian empire was. he realized better than most, that russia had become engaged in a big war, could bring down this dynasty but he went ahead anyway, those around him who hated the germans, they thought this was an opportunity to see off the germans and nicholas saw more clearly than most what this could mean for his dynasty but he was too week to be any part of it. what is extraordinary is the people around him and moscow and st. petersburg obviously believed as to the germans that the war could do them some good, this was an opportunity to assert russia's new power

and this was ball money with the benefit of hindsight but there is a were, there was cheering in the streets. the outbreak of this. >> host: server max hastings, the author of 30 books between 2 of these are very broad looks at world war i, and world war ii, all hell let loose, catastrophe 1914, how do you begin a project? >> guest: i have been studying wars all my life, one can do that anytime i start a book, a lot of knowledge picked up in the last 50 or 60 years, even as a teenager i would read

about war and my first job, on a huge bbc series on world war i or the great war. the most distinguished, one lived in that atmosphere and i was very young, when i left the university i became a journalist, started working with newspapers, seemed i went to a lot of wars including vietnam, a couple middle east wars, one in angola and harbors increasingly fascinating, the more i saw, the more i read, the more i did to write about

it, it had become my life. it is ironic most of my books are designed to discourage people going to war. i suppose because i learned about war i'm able to draw longer experience, operation pedestal, about the british fleet across the mediterranean, in 1942 and in 1982, correspondence to recapture the falklands. when i was doing this in the last year or two, seeing in my mind's i, the scenes that i have seen, the ship sinking

will, you can hardly believe, huge ships by carrier, with plenty of those coming, the crests of waves, the scenes below decks in action, the way young men behave in action, all of those things by comparison in world war ii, what was like to see that, they were very much alive in my mind. >> to give you an idea how military and civilian these numbers are, difficult to find,

we will get max hastings's reactions but according to world population review, world war i, 9 million military and civilian deaths, world war ii, 70 million at least, the korean war, 5 million and the vietnam war, 1.3 million. we will talk to max hastings about experiences in the vietnam war but this is a call in program. once a month on booktv on c-span2 we invited author to talk about his or her body of work. max hastings joining us from england for this month's anniversary of d-day and here's how you can participate, 200 to the area code for all our numbers, look in the east and central time zone, you can call in, 748-8200. if you live in the mountain or pacific time zone, 748-8201.

if you are watching from the uk and would like to call in, feel free to call in on either of those numbers and if you can't get through on the phone lines, would like to make a comment you can send a text. this number is for text messages only. 202-748-8903. if you send a text please include your first name in your city so we can identify you that way. facebook, instagram, make comments there as well, that is what you need to remember. we will begin taking those in a few minutes. max hastings, when we look at these war death numbers, don't know if you can see this or not, 9 million in world war i, 70 million, are those pretty accurate? >> not quite estimates but the

truth, the second world war in china, most commonly used, 15 million chinese dead, trying to inflate those figures, don't think anybody knows we are dealing with huge numbers of deaths in a society when nobody really knows, no reliable census of who lived in what areas. all you can say the numbers represent an order of magnitude, we can be pretty sure british and american and german numbers are pretty accurate but for a lot of other nations, i mentioned earlier the 1944 famine, we think around 1 million people died of starvation but that again has to give one the order of magnitude. nobody really knows, the only

people who don't want to believe are for people who try to give exact numbers and pretend that they know but they don't. take for example in normandy. you know who died in normandy but very often nobody knows which day they died. casualty reporting got pretty confused in those first days. you know roughly how many people died but you don't exactly because quite a few people having died sometime from june 6th to april 9th so accept anything here of set numbers giving you an order of magnitude. in the same way the other thing, it is very important, all of us historians who write

about this stuff are making establish at what happened. if you ever see anna book jacket this is the definitive history, throw it straight in the bin because there is no such thing as definitive. we are all groping for truth. it is incredibly difficult to arrive at any approximation of the truth because a lot of reports of combat reports even from world war ii are not worth the paper they are written on for example the unit ran away as some unit sometimes did. nobody will write in the official report the 20 second infantry ran away. they will they felt a new positional got into trouble with british units when i mentioned they ran away.

you can't say that. they are all heroes. it is amazing how many men are very brave in war and women too. we are all making a stab at the truth but what is often struggling to get it right. >> host: one of the small statistics i found in all hell let loose, you report more people died crossing the street in london because of the blackout. >> guest: not literally crossing the street in london but in traffic jams and the blackout. that is true in the same way, another statistic is in 1944, hitler began raining his weapons, his rockets, flying

bombs on britain, they devoted enormous bombing assets to knocking out the sites but the net result of this was more french and dutch people were killed by allied bombings than british people were killed in britain. that is typical of the irony of war. you can make a case if you left all the lights on it wouldn't make that much difference in britain anyway. certainly one of those things, nothing depressed the british people more than that five years of those blackout nights especially the blackout bombings. >> host: april 20 ninth 1975. where were you?

>> guest: i was very scared young reporter in the compound of the us embassy in saigon but i felt -- i hasten to add i was one of the least distinguished reporters but i spent a lot of time there. once it became plain we were seeing the last act i wanted to see it and in fact when most of the journalists and americans in vietnam got through the evacuation the last morning, i said i would stay and report the fall of saigon, probably a

dozen others stayed, the assortment of australians and french reporters stayed but around lunchtime we had seen one aircraft shot down over saigon and there was shooting going on, not very serious, but scared of anarchy in saigon, large numbers, being portrayed of that sort by the west. i felt it was pretty scary in this city after everybody else had gone.

around lunchtime on the last day i was in the reuters news agency office with another british reporter much braver than me, tapping out our dispatches but he said to me i think the next 24 hours in the city will be pretty uncertain and i he is right. that afternoon i could see the helicopter factoring in and out of the us embassy from a mile away and i figure did my nerve was gone. i didn't have the nerve to hang on. i trotted to the embassy, a crowd of civilians and i pushed my way through them. marines in the embassy helped me over the wall, late that evening i got out to one of the

evacuation notices but it was a moment that showed the truth about myself. i would like to think you could to the brave things but they were braver than me. >> host: neville calling in from cleveland, you're on with max hastings. >> caller: my question is what is the way historians write about a war when their country loses. for instance, how do german and japanese historians write about world war ii? what is their perspective? can mister hastings give the name of any authors names? >> guest: that is an extremely

good question. there's a difference without going through my shelves for specific names. what i can say is the germans average exemplary books about the german experience. for instance the nearest thing to official history germany has produced is recognized by all scholars, quite outstanding objective accounts of germany's role in the second world war of all the horrors of the holocaust itself. the japanese come at it from a different angle. the japanese don't want to go there. all the important scholarly work about world war ii and japan is done by american or british writers and i am

afraid, japan's behavior in china, it would be regarded as a travesty. they just don't want to go there. some other countries, france on the allied side never produced an official history of the war because even to this day the french could never agree on what took place with the occupation. of all the important work on french behavior during the second world war was done by american and british historians. it is a pity but france scholars don't want any part of it. i would say the germans behind

me wants to come up with a string but not in the case of the japanese or other nations. >> host: max hastings has written "armageddon: the battle for germany". that came out in 2011. good afternoon. >> caller: good afternoon, max hastings. my father participated in d-day, and also the german army when hitler was poised to invade czechoslovakia, going to stage a coup and a stage it this coup if britain and france

supported them and france didn't do you think this would have made a difference if it had happened and why didn't it happen and also the british journalist malcolm said that after the warsaw uprising 1944 churchill became to stalin as chamberlain had been to hitler. i like to know what you think of that. >> host: that is a lot of information. >> guest: it is a difficult question whether there was a realistic prospect of the german army overthrowing hitler before the war. the best historians, the best biographer, the best account of it, some german officers were opposed to hitler.

the bulk of the german army was prepared to support him. it is debatable whether there was enough support before the invasion of czechoslovakia to overthrow him. my favorite historian, my mentor makes the point that up to july of 1944 what is extraordinary is how small the german resistance movement was. 's and civilians who did oppose hitler and do their utmost to get rid of him but what is amazing is the degree to which the bulk of the german people were prepared to support him. it would have been difficult other than western armed intervention in 1938-1939.

i am doubtful if the strength of feeling was there but one thing we must never discount, history could have been changed if somebody killed him. one of the bomb plot came close to success and that could have changed history but most western politicians had a deep prejudice against promoting the assassination of other nations leaders. i don't know, writing about the cuban missile crisis, seems to me one of the most difficult bits of history to come to terms with, the american president was so enthusiastic about moving or killing castro. it is a dangerous course when you talk about assassinating foreign leaders so i'm not sure.

world would have had cause to be very grateful if the several bomb plots to kill hitler had succeeded but i am not quite sure whether the western powers would have been well advised. as for your second question, it is true, much -- churchill was less diluted about his ability to negotiate with stalin but perfectly true it was a vanity of churchill that the power of his personality could create a working relationship with stalin. that possibly never existed, and privilege to believe we ever came. churchill became very bitter in 1945. attending roosevelt's funeral he was so bitter, roosevelt wouldn't support him in dealing

with the russians but you are absolutely right, quite a long time between 1941, 1944 churchill believed he had a working relationship with stalin, one of the most fascinating documents in the british national archives, in may of 1945 churchill - about the soviet take over. he told the chiefs of staff to prepare a plan, operation unthinkable about liberating poland with 44 divisions of the british and american armies and the remains, the british chief of the army, the whole idea was

ridiculous but the prime minister - indeed in the national archives, 93 pages of the draft plan for operation unthinkable to drive the red army out of poland, the americans were asked about this weber sensible and set under no circumstances and the british people would never support churchill in going to war with the russians when four years previously they were told the russians were the great comrades in arms. an extraordinary story. >> host: do you think roosevelt's health in january of 1945 during the yalta 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 but i am afraid historians believe that the

west could have handled it very differently, i don't agree. the truth is the russians got there first. that we want a free eastern europe and a free hungary, free poland, we would have to get there before the russians and the russians after suffering stupendous bloodbath were absolutely determined that they were going to get their reward. .. europe, identity and historians who believe, the army was already deep in and having blood >> i'm not persuaded with even he was the man he was a couple of years earlier with the

outcome it could've been significant the different. >> in a reminder to our friends in the uk, if you can't get through the phone lines, the new condyle on in any number that you see up on the screen. you can also sent a text message (202)748-8903, that is for text messages only and please03 incle your first name and your city. this text message comes from scott in danville, virginia, and he said i'm history teacher my question is what is pain not join the powers during world war ii. and if they had, what are they come to germany when the war hard. max: that is a very good question. and i'll be honest with you. spain's dictator was quite a nasty human being. but he was also had a sense of self-preservation. he was unquestionably supportive

but that if spain was openly with war, it prevented from getting the resources. remember spain had just emerged in 1939 an unbelievably blondie in the civil war. and franco was hanging onto his own power. it was a tangled story of why he did it. one would desire an aspect of it is that franco, if hitler was willing to give him france's colonies in africa. also in algeria. but at that stage in 1941 when franco was bargaining, he still had hopes they would become an

ally of germany and the war. sue was not w willing to change colonies to franco and there was another reason that franco did not come in. franco gave hitler and a token division like in russia and alongside him but he didn't take that off step for you know i personally believe that there's another scenario, my favorite historians always said don't waste your time. once you lose one variable others become possible. and i do think that in 1941, you could have started scenario that instead of evading russia, hitler had setting self to drive the british out anything prevailed in the mediterranee mediterranee.and also with the e

could've taken it is paratroops as well. and another couple of divisions to reinforce n in south africa.. and i think that he can almost got there and if that would happen it would've been as disastrous for britain but i might have think - but they could've lost the middle east. many british politicians and especially conservative eeterrorism. and is always try to keep the war going. and sorta make make the best piece that they could so, yes, i think that have spain had come in and germany had commissioned the resources to throw the british out of the middle east like the could've done, and even delayed his invasion of russia

by a few months or year. that i think the could've seen things looking much more difficult. but fortunately, do not pan out liket that. peter: that speaks a little bit to your most recent book "operation pedestal,". doesn't it. max: yes. what i'm trying to do now that i reached the advanced stages, the power for blockbuster books. and instead i am trying to look at specific episodes. and talk about - there's a whole book about the royal navy which i think was the most effective fighting force of the world war ii. also "operation pedestal," which was one of the biggest naval battles of the war in the west.

in 1942, also they face starvation and after the british and the convoys through, they failed. the italians had almost 600 aircraft. it got new boats, and in this predict unit, there . desperate. but if they couldn't get supplies through minutes 300,000 population wouldsl no longer be. they island would have to surrender. now some people, the navy, the british armed forces, they fought well because they said that's just the way it's got to be. in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. but that time, ath lot of people still thought the russians were going to be defeated. and they thought that they had

already won. in churchill i think, in 1942 he was deeply politically backed and he knew the many americans and many russians after seeing this defeated so often on the battlefield, it was an opinion poll in summer 1942. i printed this in one of my books, when americans as they thought was trying the hardest win the war. inevitably most repliedng ameri. in the second choice was the chinese and third choice was the russians and the british came nowhere near this. they believed that america was very widespread and always defeat the british army. but the british were very optimize in russia was the same feeling when stalin told churchill, your maybe runs away he told them.

and then disastrously defeated and had been broken up and most of the ships were american. in the beginning of july, it was a disaster. and the whole credibility of the fighting allies was at stake. churchill was personally the battle. people were saying, he talks a great game. but overseeing is defeat the british army had a surrender in the japanese army, another british army had a surrender, a germany army. there . disillusioned. and churchill decided to step back. but to see this jewel in the

crown, a jewel in the mediterranean crown. it would be a disastrous blow and affect the whole empire. so he gave the orders to the wrong navy, this applies gotta be run at any cost. and they kneel that they had any chance of getting this through, they're going to have to have it carried. now britain had four carriers of the war and we only had seven left. the american carriers. it will for those carriers were committed to operation pedestal along with two battleships seven cruisers and 30 destroyers and eight submarines. in the ships were dispatched, the passage of 14 and what

followed was three or four day battle. which was one of the bloodiest naval battles of the western war. and sometimes when the fleets go out thereur not sure with the be engaging with but every one of those did so with that fleet. they're going to have to fight the battle of their lives so they did. but the first day, after the mediterranean, nothing much happened. the weather was gorgeous as noises the mediterranean at that time of year. and some of the young young people with the fleet, they started to think that maybe is going to be different. they didn't think that anymore after the next day. because they were in the middle of a flyover of one of the carriers. and suddenly everybody hears this terrific noise and they

start looking over to one of the other cabins they see the carrier eagle had been hit. and gotten through the screen and eagle, begin to topple and topple and topple and topple with planes falling into the sea. and men were falling into the sea as well. and after it was hit, there's nothing left except rubble and debris and a lot of bobbing heads in the water. that was one g of britain's of carriers. will after that, everybody knew that this trip was not in the second day they started, they knew that it was going to be really rough and they knew that the enemies air force would

come. they had attack after attack after attack of the german italian submarines and aircraft, wave after wave of them. and by teatime, about five or 6:00 o'clock, every man was exhausted. they had been flying all day and tried to drive off all of these waves. they wereha exhausted. they spent an enormous examination. into italian submarines had sunk in quite a few more had been driven off. so by 5:00 o'clock in the second day, the british were thinking it has been a horrible day but we are still here. the worst has been damaged by bombs. but all the rest were still intact. and after that, from about five or 6:00 o'clock on the 12

august, for the next day, four hours the royal navy suffered some of then most disastrous of the war. a formation it of stupid dive bombers sit in on the carriers one of britain's carriers. in the whole fleet thousands of men and the other ship this column of dive bombers descending. and they didn't to achieve anything. so about a thousand pounds exploded in the whole ship was shrouded. and afterward they have have seen happened to eagle the previous day, they found there goes another carrier. miraculously after ten minutes of signal the situation under control the ship could no longer go because it was badly damaged but it was still afloat.

in the upper level, he looked like the british had lost to the carriers. he was spared them but the last day they felt with no choice but to all of the carriers remaining and the battleships to turn around. they're getting so close that they knew before they left britain that they could not do it cannot convoy on the last day. so the vessels were now left with these cruisers and the destroyers. peter: i'm going to interrupt you there max hastings, that's a little bit from his newest book "operation pedestal," about the british navy and muscular callers back involved in the

super mike in lakeside, california. mike thanks rolling around with father max hastings. guest: thank you. mediterranean theater in world war ii stories my question was about the end of world war i. i was also wondering with the various parties what they thought getting into world war i. coming out of world war i, the method of americans that would w wilson, maybe it was a french politician said that wilson's that even the good lord needed the ten commandments. which is . good. and also i think it was maybe a british or but a french politician that that there were 20 million, too many germans and so they would not sign a treaty to quick. peter: mike, given all that

you're saying there, what is your conclusion. about the end of the war. guest: just a little bit of a candor for max hastings about the british. i think that other characters decided to better upper president wilson and contribute to the method the nations work is brilliant idea to him self perhaps printed. peter: mike in lakeside, california. sir max hastings. max:ou i can keep you here all night if you brought a sleeping bag. it's one of the most interesting topics in history. i think one of the short topics to make is in some students in world war i, a disaster and unfair just. it is never going to be an easy way to call and ending to sign a treaty after a war that it

destroyed three empires and left an enormous legacy. but the allies did manage to oscrew it up . convincingly. and they didn't occupy germany as they did in 1945, when they left germany, and also germany had suffered terrible damage. almost no damage at all it is very easy the german right wing that it developed that after the war and had really never been defeated. if they were backed by loaded colonists and socialists. and with the la decisions to make germany signed this treaty are apparently it was not to occupy germany. this simply but the germans gone. and the other thing the disasters was from president wilson, his involvement and he

was repudiated by u.s. congress as is well known. after lunch very determine not to get involved. and because the united states was the only path with its authority diminished by the experience of world war ii, the united states was the only power that might've been able to exercise some affective influences in stabilizing europe and in preventing after world war ii and was willing to do so but the americans, many americans had been involved in europe's and the prominence of world war i and no doubt that the sentiment in america was very much and not wanting americans to get involved in europe's troubles. but of think the far best is that my dear friend margaret, canadian historian, brilliant study and what happened. i think that one could say that

it was never going to be an easy way to get out of world war i and if you study germany's history, whatever we got wrong in one of the western allies got wrong in making peace, germany, if germany had been the victim of world war i they would've essentially gave rule over all of europe. in germany would've been the victim would been far more brutal. cedric does hear from carl in charlottesville, virginia. guest: thank you for taking my call. i know you're not a fan of counterfactual history but i do have a question concerning vietnam war. johnson administration not expended nor involved in combat troops in vietnam in the mid 60s. they identify the positive consequences such as the u.s. i want too know if you given thought to what the negative

consequences would have been had we not been more involved in vietnam and let's say with fallen in the late 60s instead it. i just want tot, that if you dot mind. max: i personally believe that it would've serve the interest of the united states very well. i said in my book, the fundamental reasons that the otherha side one, i think the vietnamese regime was a horrible regime. including after 1975 in the whole war. they were notrl enthusiastic abt basing with a one and of course they were the vietnamese. [inaudible]. but the problem always with the american and vietnam was that

the mutinies don't like foreigners, and they don't like for rule. all of the way through, the regime they received as just that, it was well-known the germans in saigon couldn't get out of the bed in the morning until they decided to get up. i always thought when i was writing my book, one of the previous things that one realized is of all of the meetings in washington, discuss policy, all of the decisions were made by the americans all the way through, he said all the way through, the commoners could always occupied people by these foreigners and i'm afraid that i don't think that was a good way

for america to be involved in vietnam. i think they were i'm afraid was the first thing to stay out of it. peter: richard from california, please go ahead with your questions or comments for max hastings. guest: is very appropriate that are on today. i personally attended the 40th anniversary of d-day beaches in 1984 clinton during france and i was in england in 1982 when it first became acquainted with you by counsel. and i've enjoyed your many books ever since and they're all great reads. max: thank you predict. guest: more than welcome, i've enjoyed it and honestly. since you do review books, have you any comments on the world war i and world war ii books by shaun mcmeekin, especially his new book, still in his war which is just come out and i'm

reading. peter: and what you think about richard. guest: while it is the sort of a history blaming in a sense, stalin and saying in effect that he was in it in the beginning and it also at the end of defeating the japanese and that is a lot of really directed by him even as much as hitler. very interesting take andas i ws wondering what max hastings would think about that. max: the comments of my fellow historian but not admiring his work. i do think that in all his books, he takes some interesting points and he carries them too far. far too far. i'm afraid he's a sensationalist and that he wants to make up something that will make headlines.

and he doesn't do nuances i think for example, in his earlier book about the outbreak of world war i, he sought to argue that it was entirely russia's fault because russia was determined. and he was sort of that right andt that he was right that the russians had a keen interest but i think, i have actually talk to my fellow historians about this. and i think there's sort of a measurable agreement that he just pushes some of his ideas are too far. in his search for head line grabbing material, afraid that i really don't view this the same as my other fellows do . peter: when are we have an offer on in-depth tv, we asked the favorite books and here's what

max hastings reported, the nuns of august, the young lions are one-shot and only slept gordon crying, london observer and eagle against the sun by ronald spector, all american authors. mr. hastings notes and currently is writing a book called aftermath, life in a the fallout of the third reich, 1945 - 1955. we have a texture about barbara and his says in the guns of august, barbara described how the frenchen general staff and n order the threats of the german army marching into france to belgium. what is your viewpoint on how this happened. this is timothy right here in washington dc. max: [laughter] i am a huge admirer of barbara. she's very fashionable.

a lot of historians think that she got a lot of things wrong but she had a huge difference on link because i was very young when the book was published in 1962. i thought it was narrative, i love the stuff is actually right and perfectly true. the french are planning for the war. that was f fantastic read, of misread almost everything that the germans would do. but the french were obsessed with the doctrine of attack. after the french were committed to launch made major advances by the south. in the planning of the work. peter: we have about 30 minutes left america's.

max hastings. peter: mr. hastings how does one become sir max. max: [laughter] twenty odd years ago, my contribution to writing newspapers and books. i was a better historian because, nothl highly respected, is one of t the cities but of course we all like . [inaudible]. is like winning literary prizes. i won some and we all enjoyed the british - but when does it make too much of them. [inaudible].

peter: so who nominates you to be aqu server, and did you get ignited by the queen itself. max: you do in the prime minister, and god knows i became very critical i received the wrath. that was in 2002. i would've doubt that i would've gotten but yes you do, the palace and woody allen money in the queen have shown the shoulder withou assorted. my grandchildren if they are interested will be able to see it. but is a big moment in the more i'm afraid i'm very passionate admirer of the queen. it is a big moment. an exciting day of my life.

your big fan of the queen, are you them on our kiss great is that a correct term for you. sue and i guess i am a monarchist party because the monarchy when i think it's like the president of britain. it is not the power that the queen has. but she will use it anyway. she has as much power as anybody else i think it's going to be a very difficult time when the queen dies. because there will be far more people who like elisabeth and huge admirers of the queen. in the royal family, they have gone on with the united states and is been . bumpy times in the last few years. at the time of the monarchy, on been very serious trouble in the late 1990s. i was a close eye witness on one

and spent a lot of time with all of the players at that point rated in the work moments in the late '90s when you really felt the whole monarchy was unraveling afraid it would be a mistake to think that everything is forever. but if the british people wanting is that monarchy which is always possible, well it could ago quickly. peter: in the middle of all of these military history books that you have b been writing and editing the daily telegraph and the evening center, a book came out in 2010 called did you really shoot the television. i justr] want to read a quote fm there. and perhaps you would like to expand upon this little bit. my mother's capacity to make bakewell remained undiminished. she was in her late '80s when i tore that i respected her decisions to leave herer entire state to my sister but that i

would love to have had her good pictures. they are two planar telephone ssyou mentioned the drawings i always liked, would you like to buy it she asked. i choked. i said to my wife, i murder her, i shall pleaded extreme provocation no jury will convict me. max: [laughter] very well. in my childhood, my family always the generations and had very exotic lives . so i wrote a very joking book about his. it was perfectly true that we have a program a cold desert island after which interviewed by your self in the jewish records. and what i did with desert island at 30 or 40 years ago. [inaudible]. and as a writer i'd always admired my mother. tonight didn't go on with it but

when my mother did, she didn't hold back anything. she talked about all the horrible things that i did as a child. my father, he had a lot of guns in second world war and when i was ten or 11 or so, my parents were out, i would play with him. it was a miracle they didn't shoot anybody.y. so the there was one occasion and somebody came up to me and filling station. and she told the story. peter: and he said did you really should television. i said that it was very small set but nonetheless, i said yes, i did. i did shoot our family television. it was not my finest hour. but it's one of the stories they come from a family of eccentrics. hopefully, and one of the reasons i'm so keen on the controls people like me, when

kids have access to firearms. peter: ron, in arlington, virginia. iran with with max hastings, please go ahead. guest: sir max hastings it's an honor to speak with you for a moment. but i would like toen go back to when you first started to talk about nationstates in the doctrine of attack from using war is main instrument of power. in 1914, at the time and culture, the political forces,s i'm interested in your insights into now, today's time using history and the present time and are we on path to go to war with iran. do you think america may be israel itself is on path to go to work with iran based on our political forces, senator cotten, the statements in the fence and ministration, china afraid as i see that they're mistreating what might be going

on and i'm interested. peter: let's get sir max hastings' take on the current roll predict. max: is a>> real issue. and looking at some of these things. but one of the best things we have going for us is in the nuclear world, all sensible powers relies it would be an absolute catastrophe. i strongly believe that the best way to avoid war is to be prepared to fight one. having wrote the strong armed forces. i'm costly writing articles in the british newspapers. most of all european partners, 'tthe defense and don't take ths seriously so i think that we have to have strong armed forces in order to have a prospect of detouring war.

on the other hand, all my experience or, both as a writer and having seen it firsthand, want to be desperately careful about going to work. before the invasion of iraq, in the army and streets of london and he had just come back to washington at the end of 2002 were they work making preparations for inpatients of a rock. in a simple how does it work. and he said well, going to baghdad but they don't have the slightest idea when we get there. of course after seeing this in iraq, in the same way is iran that had a very serious threat. the rulers of iran are not persuaded going to war with iran in the way. [inaudible]. it cannot be a good outcome because again, i think one has

toch exhaust. i think we should take a different view, realistic prospect that let's say the might take out iran's nuclear capabilities. i think there would be a case for this. the best one uses their weapons to destroy the nuclear facilities. it's very unlikely that airstrikes would be successful in knocking outas there nuclear capabilities. so i think to be very careful to try very every diplomacy and sanctions. and also the possession before one actually results of the use of force printed think war with iran be very very serious debt to the world. peter: you mentioned tony blair

earlier when you got your and your equated with current prime minister aren't you . max: yes. [inaudible]. i bitterly regret i'm afraid that he occupies the office. i am afraid our relations with europe poisoned with these politics. we are going to be hard and unhappy face for think the democracy is generally a very short of talented people freighted is very hard to say why peoplen' don't want this but boris johnson in the end i'm afraid that he not is not a serious person. i would've forsaken it because of the seriousness and i am afraid that i won't change my view about that . the leadership of the united states.

[inaudible]. written these tasers the middle sized country prayed and no doubt we should metal somehow but we will worry much more about who is in charge of the united states. because the united states always the leader of the west and we in europe, everybody whom i respect mike's america for the strategic leadership. in america takes the lead, it's important. [inaudible]. peter: is a fair to say sir max hastings for britain is punched above its weight for several years for unit 19. max: britain has tried to put don't really does. i'm talking toki americans, i'm well aware that americans has always been polite in their

dealings. but a very conscious i think americans most americans deeply regret britain's run down of the armed forces. so the armed forces nowadays. i think most american privately at least, places and think we have lost her sense of direction. and i think i agree with them freighted so punching above one's way, and is very difficult to justify britain and the security council. i just don't think there's enough to justify realistically. but we are there and of course, trying to hang onto them. peter: david, rochester, new york, good afternoon. noguest: good afternoon. is not her to speak to you sir

max hastings and i am all of your books in my library. have a couple of, two quick questions. one leads to the other. i've been collecting a here's a series of books published in the 70s in england out of the valentine illustrated history of world war ii. there were a lot of great picture photographs and some of british best historians at thet time, both of them including sir michael howard and also sir jon keegan. and i was wondering if sir jon keegan is famous for the face of babel book, which talks about the many historians that it was the first book by military and the story to emphasize the common soldier as opposed to the generals and rethink. and i wondered what your opinion of that is.

thank you very much. peter: thank you david. sue and i certainly agree read after changing the way we look t military history. max: it was about which division it on the face of battle although jon of course is now dead. he went and thanked me for saying this but i think it remains. [inaudible]. and it made us think about the reality of what war is like instead of just thinking it in terms of which division went which way. i think all of this would've followed to jon about writing about history of war. i always like to say that i read about the history of war. and we all owe a debt to jon because he started the way. and i rereadd his book recently.

and still reads fantastically well. he looked in all of the sort of things about what battles were really like. not everybody is a hero. in any given battle. and probably about a quarter of the guys would you say, are very targeted, and a quarter of the will be right up there with you. about half of them well for long hide. in another fourth of them will hardly get outir of the trenche. that's not surprising, that's just the way that mankind is hard j jon actually content to e security of what fighting means and how people behave in a way happens. i think that we all know that i actually have a an infection for his books.

peter: you got a booktv.org and use the search function at the top of the page and type his name in their and you can watch thatat whole interview with jon keegan. sir max hastings how was your world war i book different than his world war i book friday. max: from jon keegan yes, well i read the book about something very specific it, and jon wrote about the history of world war i. but catastrophe, my book when i try to deal is look at the manner in which the war and how the work started in with the first battles like. and churchill's had a terrific history of the world. when he said it matches the extraordinary excitement and sensations of those first days andug weeks and i thought this s so great and quite often get

letters from people about 1914 a might going to write others about 1950s and 1960s night said that i have written allab that i had to write about 1940. for instance, a lot of history in the past was totally nationalistic when written by americans and british. i think nowadays, we all try to get away from that. we'll try to see things in a global sense. for instance, i report and think about the little british army that was present 1914 is sort of a major factor. the british army that fought indulgent at the beginning of the war, after 1944, italians was. [inaudible]. and even the belgians had more

troops in the field than we did. i have fascinated by 1916, the bloodiest period of time read it was not for you but i think that is august 23rd 1914, the french army in the heaviest masses that anybody suffered was a whole for and i wanted to tell the stories of the suffrage grade more than the other books peter: in north las vegas, nevada. hi al. guest: is going to speak with you sir. two quick questions, the generals in world war ii, after the war of the read a lot of books saying that if it wasn't for hitler, but again, we would've been a lot better. nsf.f. the second question is you stated british, how would you rate it is a power. max: on the german generals, of

course, they sort of have a bed, and i also have a lot of thehe british veterans are still alive. some i also interviewed in 1970s and also 1980s rated and they would say that i would've one if hitler was not on our side. [inaudible]. but of course after the general were entirely self-serving. they were always saying that they would be all right if the hitler would've let them alone but they went along with hitler's decisions from the invaded russia even though they should've realized that germany was simply not powerful enough. to take out russia, it was such an untimed russia had such enormous resources. i would not buy that field.

today, i think we made a huge mistake by admitting to two expense of aircraft carriers. we are middle great king and i think the way out of her range. and one more carriers the south china sea to show the flag. there were take up 35 in the deck instead of 34 it think were supposed to be taken when the whole thing was planned. we can afford anymore. i'm afraid the carriers in the navy has to be deployed to provide for those carriers. and it was the pentagon's office of that assessment that included that the future of the carrier groups is very speculative in an image. i personally think we would've done better to have far more

platforms. i think the royal navy for today with his huge distortion of these two big carriers. because i have my doubts whether they are ever going to be deployed and if they are, find yourselves up against the chinese. i think we could get a very unpleasant shock. peter: there's about nine minutes left with our conversations with max hastings. next guest from michigan. please go ahead. guest: mr. max hastings i am in awe of your understanding of the details associated with these different wars. i would be interested in your observation of two generalizations that many americans have . one is that world war ii was an extension of world war i. in the second is since the vietnam war over the last

half-century that we've had one of the most peaceful periods in our history and perhaps the history of western europe as well. peter: thank you tom. max: let me tell you the second one first. again, the british historian michael howard was so much my mentor in my life. in one of his phrases that he often used, he said we use the word peace far too much predict its stability in the present that i call among many people in putting the past and presence of foreign relations and many other leading americans think that we are living in such dangerous times is because stability, that we are living in very unstable times.

and there were certainties during the cold war that have vanished. you can see military people on both sides of the atlantic. you could predict what the soviet union might do any given state. in china is on a serious path and today, there's soo many huge uncertainties. i do think the world is a very dangerous place. you actually right,ht statistically, internationalization's coming up with statistics showing that fewer people died by violence each year which is not the headlines. but do think this is our way dangerouses times. i think stability is very elusive in the world in which we now exist. i think we have to tread extremely carefully. i forgotten what your first question was rated. peter: it was about world war ii. sue and i think most historians

agree that one has to look upon was world war ii as an extension because relates to long-term and war. on the other hand i also as i've written in one of my books, that i think we would understand world war ii better if we called it world war ii because everybody got into world i war i for different reasons. the japanese firm quite different reasons from the germans after the americans came in for different reasons from those of the british or french. and in a way, we saw issues by calling it world war ii. with so many different strands. like the fundamentally, you have to say in the end that this was germany's to attempt to secure domination. in the second one, after the first one is a big difference was in 1918, a lot of germans were ready to believe whereas

australia noted that in april 1945, and german, i found no great sense of guilt but an absolute sense of defeat chiefly because of the level of destruction and imposed upon germany the cities flattened. the germans were absolutely - and it 1945 that they had been defeated and awake that they worked in 1918. peter: rachel in florida. guest: hi, can you hear me. thank you. hello mr. max hastings, i like that you mentioned nuances. i know about the taunts and such complications. my question regards more culture however. this idea that men have evolved

to make war of the male warrior hypothesis that men have a propensity forcs heroic sprayedn that war has provided competitive advantages. but also to keep young men off streets generally. i'm thinking of men in groups, among others. more as platforms for organizing young men into battle. and maybe naïve or feminine question or a possible to answer. what i can answer it. in one sentence . one of the big changes in attitude is i grew up in a very highly dominated household were all of the man is a mention earlier, had somehow simply enjoyed world war ii. and i grew up with a wildly

exaggerated idea of the importance and when i i was you. [inaudible]. but the older i got, the more i came to believe that a lot of young men possessed physical courage which is rather exaggerated. but it became very useful and more actually think far more important. i'm not saying anything here that i haven't written already by self. but it's taken many years to see this. i look back among teens in my 20s when i thought i was physically brave. and the implications is more can be very corrupting force young men. i'm afraid he can be. peter: let's hear from one less car, kim and california, please

go ahead. the last caller. guest: thank you very much. it's nice to speak with you max hastings. i would like to ask you this, before he died, president kennedy and tended to have 1000 troops withdrawn from south vietnam. and of course he was killed and another directive was not carried out. do you take that is some sort of assigned that it would not have gotten into the quite with that the next president didn't secondly if you are lbj, what would you have done to end that war in a way which you would've thought would've been satisfactory. peter: thank you and will tell you max hastings coming up two minutes to answer that very large question . max: to quickly on kennedy, personally do not think that kennedy would've gone out a bit numb because all of his thinking was directing to his reelection campaign and 64.

he repeatedly said that there's only just only concessions i can make in one year. but the longer part which insane. [inaudible]. hundred thousand troops there, we can never know the answer. but i do not think that he would've gone out. as for i don't think lbj had the best options. probably to cut his losses and get out as soon as possible after he took office. but he truly felt he had an enormous amount not feel able to do that. and i think on the american foreign policy and during that periodyb and maybe the policy of quite a few is that. [inaudible]. to serve domestic political and just rather than in accordance with the best judgments of the day. that's often the case but i

don't think it lbj had any good options. that's probably the worst. peter: from past two hours we have been talking with best-selling author and military and historian of former editor-in-chief of the daily telegraph in the evening standard, max hastings. there is his website and his latest book, "operation pedestal," and as you. notice he's working on the book forthcoming "operation pedestal," about one of the fiercest battles of world war ii. peter: think you max hastings for the last two hours . max: thank you predict. >> be sure to his cspan.org. here's a look at some books being published this week in the outlier, pulitzer prize-winning historian re-examines the carter presidency.

burns, the first black female ceo of the fortune five company, recalls her life and career and where you are is not who you are. an preventable and former senior advisor to president biden, offers his thoughts in the united states response to the covid-19 pandemic. and linguist amanda montel examines the use of language in creating and maintaining cult and cultish, also being published this week is ms. educated, friend and fleming recalls his journey from a school dropout to harvard educator and journalist weighs in on america's current struggles and offers his thoughts on how to fix them and last best hope. find these titles this coming week wherever books are sold watch for many of these authors who appear in the near future on book tv. book tv on "c-span2", every weekend with a lot under

nonfiction books and authors. on a tv comes from these television companies and more including comcast. >> it is way more than that. comcast is partnering with a thousand centers . low income families to get the tools they need to be ready for anything. comcast along with these television company supports book tv on "c-span2" as a public service. tonight on book tv in prime time, washington post investigative reporter, on the history of the secret service and why she thinks it needs to be reorganized. author and journalist sebastian yunker recounts his 400-mile walk along the train tracks from washington to philadelphia as he reflects on the concepts of freedom, independence and

community. a selling author jon grisham discusses his work with the innocence project and former new york city police department commissioner bill bratton, reflects on his more than three decades in law enforcement and offers his thoughts on policing in america. ... ... women on war, testimonies and reflections from women who have distinguished