pedestal about the fierce battle of world war ii.

>> still empty in the fire of german guns rinks the shore. the arrival of motorized equipment marks the end of the first phase of the landing. the lci now on the beaches for the transports to bring more troops in sure. host: 77 years ago today on the shores of france. our guest joining us from england are max hastings

writing a book about the day. max hastings 77 years later is there a different perspective on d-day? >> to host the host of people who actually had been there. and i should never take up the evidence of that oral history but they do give you a feeling of how they felt but i remember when i was watching one particular guy he was very articulate and landed on utah beach and ian asked him how

before it all happened is huge event how did that all seem to you? he said lily higgins age 18 and said i just could not get my mind on the idea i was abouthe to invade france and it was incredibly young for most of those in the book not long after it was all over that they understood the biggest event in human history one reason that d-day still has assassination that before and after. with the right cores that our parents and the grandparents were the good guys in this

event. but with the british and american and it incredibly well. and from what was achieved there. host: max hastings, september 1st, 1939, s in a surprising could have been prevented? >> . >> when they learned about it afterwards the huge difference between 1914 so what is amazing right before the war broke out but all the headlines in newspapers within

industrial disputes and with the british they hadn't focused on the fact that this was happening. but nobody in the july —- the end of july 1914 and enough a lot of people who just read newspapers through 1933 that the democracies would have to take that on tuesday the war coming. it was an slow bar. and some historians have argued we should have gone to war in 1938 over czechoslovakia. but i i think in 1938 they were desperate to avoid war but

they thought you can negotiate that in 1939 hitler's behavior was such that everybody with half a brain could see that this guy was somebody who cannot negotiate only be dealt with by force of arms. host: what is neville chamberlain's reputation today in great britain? >> it's pretty low those who signed away czechoslovakia that it was a very impressive prime minister or leader but the leaders can only go as fast as their nations will allow them to an roosevelt understood this thoroughly between 1939 and 41 there was church all the way through attempting to drag the united states into war. and franklin roosevelt was desperately anxious that the

we should not lose the war but new he hade to carry the american people with him and knew that he could in a declaration of war but in the same way i have argued in my own book that churchill was lucky until late 1940 because he could shuffle the blame up to the battlefield including 1940 up to neville chamberlain. but churchill was able to take over without bearing the blame of the shame that chamberlain is responsible for but before he became prime minister he was regarded as a very successful radical politician administer he has done terrific things on those domestic issues before 1938

but then after he became prime minister he never did anything right. of those who signed the munich agreement but allow them to take it to market and in a way it is a bit unfair for writing history is unfair. host: the finest years churchill as warlord came out 2009. >> i have to tell you peter i had more forethought than any book that he is such a fantastic character. host: has his reputation changed? >> his reputation? i thinkat churchill is today

more admired in the united states than in britain in particular.br he has become entangled in support for slavery and racism and so on. but my argument always what i write about other period just to close my eyes and think not how does not look to us in the t century the how did it look to them in the times of which they lived quick i would hate to say he was racist everybody was it does make are pretty ugly reading entries black and brown content was in the victorian era. one cannot defend that. you cannot say the added

should —- attitude was attractive. they are very ugly. but oneue particular issue, the question arose those that were stationed in india in world war ii fighting the japanese that whether british private soldiers have to salute. and then said with the white man or to a brown man. these are terrible things to say. but what has been over down now with every historical character you have to say nobody was perfect. did they do more good than harm? i would very strongly argue that churchill surfaces on —- services up our democracy was so great but in 1944 it was

disastrous in which you have millions of people starving and remember the british of course they wereia ruled. and then he appeals to churchill for shipping and then he said the indians have to learn to tighten your belt because the indians had more far shorter ration people were dying in the streets of calcutta that those could be a limited eggs and bacon.

this was one of the most deplorable episodes and churchill's career that far outweighs that was certainly among the young. but we have to keep a sense ofth proportions whether race or gender very few things in life are plain and simple choices between good and evil. it is the nuances that get lost with people now arguing because he was a racist all

the book should be rewritten and is childish a lot of people are driving these movements very young ast we all did with incredibly very real history. host: max hastings is the author of about 30 bucks the most on military he's on —- history. evening standard newspaper editor and our guest on in-depth for the w next two hours. sir max, born late 1945 after the end of world war ii. what do you remember or your earliest memories of postwar britain? >> i grew up very much in the shadow of the war but right alongside the house that which we lived as a child was a huge empty space covered in weeds which was a huge bomb site

there was still a lot of uniforms in the streets still rationing and candy was rationed which was pretty painful as a kid but we were a typical middle-class house but andng rabbits and pigeons things like that. them would have been ruined by the war. something ang lot of british people thought very visceral aboutt and that alone of resisting hitler in 1941 while russia was the ally in the united states was so neutral but that's the way it was. the other thing is i spent the

whole since my childhood getting away from some of the stupid ideas that my father and uncles and cousins somehow all the men enjoy the experiences of the work. myf great uncle corresponded with the bbc he had done that sort of thing and was more corresponded to a very famous magazine which was the equivalent of a black magazine and he managed to enjoy the work and they spent most of my childhood telling stories to each other and then it was my mother who would say don't listen to them of your father and uncle larry talk about the war. and of course it is ghastly

the united states was relatively privileged because it wasn't invaded or bombed but so did british compared to occupied europe or the russians. one thing in particular when i started writing about wars it's all about soldiers. although an important part s of this in what it meant to be entirely at the mercy because i have come to realize then to

find war exciting or enjoyable that the it is unspeakable and not a pacifist but have to be willing to defend the things that we believe in. but i also think we have to understand the awfulness of war and nobody should get into a war without thinking very carefully what they are gettingtt into. host: max hastings book on worldoo war ii and for now or all hell let loose came out 2011. why the name change? the copy i have is all hell let loose but was at the american version was in for no? >> i thought the title was mostly around the world all hell let loose but what it

encapsulated to me if you listen to veterans stories, again and again talk about the battlefield they fall back on that cliché. and i thought a lot about that phrase to me it encapsulates what happens if you are very young man or teenager and have been brought up maybe in a bombing community in oklahoma or the back streets of new york or in oregon or whatever. and you lived a life of peace and the community of peace and you suddenly find yourself on the battlefield in normandy you will see human beings literally blown to shreds before your eyes you expect to

keep shooting and running and fighting. and the balance of the horror that people saw was david to encapsulate that what they experienced in the war but may mean publishers thought but i never argue with them who sell the books but i do regret it because what i was trying to do when all hell let loose was the narrative of the war is there what happened between 1939 and 45 i really wanted to tell it is a people story the bottom-up and not from the top down. but that specific idea the war

meant something different according to where you lived but if you were in britain for instance the food was incredibly dreary and complained constantly how dreary it was. but on the other hand if you lived in leningrad besieged for two years by the germans coming hundred thousand people in leningrad starve to death. a lot of people resorted to cannibalism and eight each other in the course of the siege to stay alive. but in england nobody thought of eating each other although they complained about the food although successfully invaded by the germans i do believe in

its june america. but the russians were accustomed to terrible hardships and russians were accustomed to living in these conditions that i don't believe the british and american people would have faced is much as the russians did to get through that that all the time in all hell let loose what i was trying to do a show the comparisons all those that have no idea united states and britain lost china lost 15 million in russia 27 million and the sufferings of the chinese again i try to

bring them into the story because most people who study the history of the second world war you have to get into what went on but in the 21st century for people like me to justify going on writing books about that period it's not a great revolution but only sequences previous generations it's the work in any way and in a new perspective especially new human perspective. host: 2112 years later catastrophe, 1914. europe goes to work came out about world war i. first of all, max hastings, similarities betweentw the two wars and how did world war i start?

>> that is a huge question. we take the similarities. it has become a cliché among a lot of people to say the second world war was not his blood he is the first this is nonsense the battles are more terrible than those of the first world war to place with more casualties but the russians were fighting them in all the british and the americans were very fortunate it was only a very small number of troops and even some submarine groups that suffered terrible losses that what they're british and the americans were up against and

that wass in normandy june 1944 everybody focuses on the day the farmer people were killed in the days and weeks that followed. the losses in some infantry units british and american were appalling much worse than any other campaign of the war. but for most of the war the british and the americans between the british being kicked out of france in june 1940 on d-day 1944 but the british army in the american army was training at home and did not get into action like the band of brothers the first day in action will of course germans have been fighting ferociously suffering losses. so to me the real lesson is

when you get huge wars and also a lot of dying and killing would happen before you reach in and. the only thing you are arguing about is who does the killing and who dies. americans were very fortunate russians did most of the killing and dying that was necessary where and world war i of course the french especially the french but also the british had terrible casualties britain lost twice as many and world war i as world war ii but those world war i experiences were idle attacks they happen in world war ii sure enough but parents and grandparents were just lucky most often

they didn't have them on our side basking how one world war i started, the underlying cause was we now recognize great wars are terrible things. but one of the things that help to keep the war safe on —- the world safe and alive to the cuban missile crisis was jack kennedy read the fabulous book the guns of august and how work can revive in 1940 by accident was determined nothing like that would happen on his watch. he was determined not to find himself sliding into war and then to be very enthusiastic

about bombing russian missiles. and invading cuba kennedy wasn't having that because he knew of the huge danger into dramatic asks one —- escalation. in 1914, germany especially was accustomed to regarding moore is a usable instrument of policy that germany had fought three wars in the preceding half-century against denmark and austria and france. all of which have been huge success for germany. germany could dictate the terms' until 1871 and a leading component of the german states that most of the senior officers of what have been the prussian army was now

the german army in 1914 and was a usable instrument of policy. to become even more successful in the best chance was to fight a war in 1914 to hold office until 1916 and those have become far stronger. all the people involved in 1940 just how few in the horror of what they were facing.

in any sensible nation but those who were foolish enough to think that they can seal off the german but in 1849 generallyen most capitals responded with deadly seriousness but 1914 and the foolish idea that war could be something exciting and all sorts of people that plunged into this terrible conflict but the german kaiser , wilhelm, i don't think he wanted a big war. but he did want a small war. to a lot —- allow his ally austria, he thought that would be a fine thing and to be

given the blank check and carte blanche and even when they would fight in support of serbia.. and in those few weeks in the summer of 1914 with that understanding. host: you do not match in the assassination of archduke of hungary. and that was the key. >> that was the trigger. so the curious thing is that nobody in austria-hungary much

like ferdinand's and after he had been killed those loan foreigners were mourning the loss for the archduke but then he seized on ferdinand's assassination is the excuse they were looking for four years to remove serbia from the map causing them all sorts ofs trouble he was a mess of 20 or 30 different minority nations. all of these minorities were getting arrested and then to seek their independence. the government in the end i was anxious to serve for

germany over bits of the empire. and over all these countries like montenegro and to someone and so forth but the austrians value their empire and decided to hang on to it. but the hungarians went to war to preservehe an empire most would've said they don't have a chance to hang onto any way that they way tidy things that and end all this nonsense. force far from that are precipitated with germany coming up behind austria and hungary in the rush and on —- russians coming in behind serbia. and what france has committed to support russia, the germans

have a war plan whereby what they tried to do with the russians. so they told the french that they would accept french neutrality that was a good and guarantee their intentions so now there was a mad progression of these two alliances but of course that was certainly the case the assassination of the archduke provided the trigger but there were forces in the move in germany. so the politics of germany and those that were anti- militaristic the largest party in the german parliament. and the socialist what not

allow the kaiser together but one of the generals who hated socialists and democracy, they thought the glory of another successful war is what was needed and with the talks of 2021, but they did those readiness which they went to war. host: on top of this bizarre nicholas to was overthrown during world war i. >> the t14 was a very weak man and he knew how fragile and realize better than most that russiaia was becoming days and

can bring down the dynasty but he went ahead anyway because he was a week me and those around him hated the germans he thought it was an opportunity he probably saw more clearly than most his dynasty but he was too weak game man to say we wouldn't have any confidence. but what isbu extraordinary the way people landed in moscow is the biggest part. who honestly believed that this was an opportunity to assert russia's new power and again with the hindsight but with where they bore were on —- where they were and with the outbreak.

host: max hastings, you are the author of 30 books but two 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 like this? >> i suppose in a way you have an advantage because i have been studying more in particular all my life but one can draw upon the allies and then to pick up over the last 50 or 60 years even as a teenager i would read profusely in my first job on the huge bbc series on world war i call the great war but i was only 17. but the writers for that's the one —- series the most

distinguished writers in that period so we lived in that atmosphere even very young. whenou i left i became a journalist i started working for newspapers. i went to a lot for us. several times. the war in angola and india and pakistan and i became increasingly fascinated by the experience the more i saw the more i wrote in the morning wanted to write about it there was an audience out there willing to read what i wrote. and then it became my life because i suppose one is lucky. it is ironic most of my books

are designed to discourage people from going to war. by suppose because i've learned a great deal about war my latest book operation pedestal whiches is about the british fleet forcing its way across the mediterranean at a terrible cost. and in 1882, i was a correspondent with the british task force to recapture the falklands. and when i was writing operation pedestal and with the ship sinking in the plane shot down an extraordinary spectacle and then in the

south atlantic storms and with those crusted waves and the steve below deck of the way that young men behave in action. and to see something of that. the falklands was a very small war inn comparison anything happening in world war ii. but one had seen what it would be like in those large memories were very much alive with the operation pedestal. host: just to give you an idea, the numbers are a little difficult to find and completely we will get hit reaction but according to real population review and facing history.com, world war i, 9 million military and

civilian death, world war ii 70 million every least. create more5 5 million. vietnam about one.3 million. we will talk to max hastings about his other books including vietnam that this is a call-in program for the one someone on the tv on c-span2 we invite and author to talk about his or her body of work. max hastings joining us from england on the anniversary of d-day. here's how you canan participate as well.

's we will take a calls in a few minutes but look at the numbers. you can hear what i said 9 million world war i, 70 million world war ii. are those pretty accurate? >> those are not quite guesstimates but for example if you take the second world war in china the number most commonly uses 15 million chinese dead china tries to inflate that but the honest

truth and don't think anybody knows when nobody really knows of who lived in what area but 40 percent is the number represented. the british and german numbers are pretty accurate but yet we think around 1 million people died of starvation but again that is the magnitude and nobody really knows. the other people you don't want to believe and try to give you exact numbers but take for example give up those casualties in normandy you

don't know who died in normandy but nobody knows exactly which day they died on. because they were pretty confused so those that died on june the sixth but you don't exactly because quite a few people and so those principles of accept any figure in that of magnitude and in the same way the one point i like to make because i think it's very important and then we are making a stab i at what happened.

and then those straight in the then because there is no such thing ash definitive. and it is incredibly difficult with any sort of approximation and then a lot of the thoughts and with that paper they are written on with the american and british armies nobody will write and official report with that 22nd infantry ran away. so with those british units thatti i mentioned and veterans came out of the woodwork and said it felt like you can't say that. and it's amazing and then to

stab at the truth but. >> one of the small statistics in allng hell let loose you report that more people died crossing the street in london because of the blackout then were killed by the blitz. >> not literally crossing the street but traffic accidents and the blackouts. and in the same way with another statistic but in 1944 hitler began raining in his rockets and flying bombs and they have devoted enormous effort to knocking out the site but the net result is

that the french and dutch people were killed by allied bombings that they were killed so that's typical of the ironies of war and then you can make a case if you left all the lights on it wouldn't make much of a difference and then to be very fortunate enough of those black-tie on —- blacked out nights? >> april 291870 side one —- 75 wherever you? >> very scared young reporter at the compound of the us embassy.

i had an ally the reporting in vietnam one of the least distinguished reporters but i had spent for a lot of time there between 70 and 75 and once it became plain we see the last act. and then the evacuation. but probably about a dozen. with that assortment of australians for the state. but that it wasn't very

serioustt but to be more frightened. to be scared and with the south vietnamese. ministry said itug was pretty scary and then around lunchtime i was in the reuters news agency but what he said to me i think the next 24

hours will be pretty unpleasant. but that afternoon you can see the helicopters coming in and out of the us embassy compound. i figured minor was gone. and then to see this thing up. and then i push my way through them and those on the embassy and then the evacuation and helicopter. but some like to think they

could do the brave things. host: neville from cleveland ohio you are on with military historian max hastings. >> >>caller: my question is what is the way historians write about a war when their country loses and then write about world war ii? what is that perspective can he give any offers or any names. >> that's an extremely good question but it's a different on —- a bit different although i could come up with a specific name but what i can

say is the germans with an exemplary book on the german experience. and with official history and then to scan the military institute and with the role of the secondnd world war faces up to so the japanese come at it from aom very different angle and it is very depressing. the japanese don't want to go there. almost all of the important scholarly work of japan is done by british writers i'm afraid that to restore japanese schools would be resorted to westerners that

they just want to go there. and other countries, it's interesting because france is the only major belligerent on the allied side never producing an official history of the war because even to this day in 2021 the french could never agree and what took place with the occupation of the collaboration with that french behavior of the second world war done by americans and british historians that french scholars don't want any part of it. but without hesitation the germans want to come up with a whole string of exemplary books by german scholars. but not in the case of the

japanese. host: max hastings has written armageddon. that came out 2004. donald. new york city. good afternoon. >>caller: good afternoon. my father participated in the day he jumped with the 82nd airborne. and landed in greece. the german army when hitler tried to invade justice of our kia fromit my readings was going to stage a coup if britain and france supported them and they didn't. do you think this made a big difference if it happened? and also the british journalistsur said that after

the warsaw uprising , 1944, churchill became as much of the teaser to stalin as chamberlain was to hitler. what you think of that? host: we will leave it there. that's a lot of information. >> it's a very difficult question whether there was a realistic prospect of the german army before the war. i think the best historian with what he has written is the best account of it. . . . .

my favorite is the historian that makeses the points in 1994, it's extraordinary is the resistance movement, we write to honor and did oppose did the utmost to get rid of it but what's amazing is the degree in which people work. i am afraid doing very little in 1938. i am doubtful whether they pop up. on the otherge hand, as i'm sure

you know, but most western politicians had a deep prejudice against the assassination of the leaders and i'm writing with this, it always seems to make one of the most difficult bits of american history, the fact that american presidents, especially kennedy natural enthusiastic. it's very dangerous, it would have caused him to be grateful if they succeeded but are not quite sure whether they would have been and it's even more themselves.dv

the question about the rising, it is true churchill was much less diluted about his ability to negotiate for the true it was the vanity of churchill. the power of hiser personality d create a working relationship and it never existed and churchill was foolish to believe in that. in 1945, roosevelt's funeral, roosevelt wouldn't support dealing with russia but you are right saying that. for quite a long time between 1941 -- 44, he couldn't have a

relationship with him. the most fascinating documents in the archives, in may he was so bitter about it but the chiefs of staff prepared for liberating, i think 44 divisions of the american armies and the remains of was. of course the idea is ridiculous but the prime minister's. for operation unthinkable to

drive it but of course when the americans were asked about this they said under no circumstances the british people would never haveve supported churchill going to war with the russians when they had been told the russians were the right liberator's. >> do think roosevelt in january 1945 during the conference three months prior to hishs death fractured his ability to negotiate. >> no caps auto roosevelt was a sick man but i'm afraid some historians believed they were very different than.

if we wantede free eastern euroe we would have had to get there for the russians. there were absolutely determined because they were going to get it, the reward so i don't agree withis historians who say they e the top things could've been different. starting flipping determined with russia and are not persuaded roosevelt was the man he was two or three years earlier. >> a reminder to our friends in the uk if you can't get to run up her mind, you can dial any number on the screen send a text

2027488903, texas army. include your first name andnd cy of this text mehdi is from scott in virginia which has a history teacher, my stained not joined after powers during world war ii? if they had come up g with a hae helped germany when the war? >> a very good question. although general plans to take it was like a human being but he was also having a better sense of self preservation and was unquestionably supporting it but terrified and in the war and

prevents those sources. spain had only just emerged but unbelievably slightly and franco was hanging onto his own power, untangled story of life. one bizarre aspect of it is franco thought he might comment he appears willing to give in. in 19411 franco was with him, he still hoped he was the ally of germany and the war and wasn't willing to trade so that was

anotherra reason. rush up against communism alongside them but he didn't take the last step. i personally believe my favor history, want to move one variable, and makes it possible. i do think in 1945 it was destructive and instead of debating russia they drive the british and could have prevailed in the mediterranean and shut off and maybe i could have taken them and they are used to it. another division in south africa

i think you could almost and it wouldn't happen militarily disastrous but i think churchill lost the middle east, clifton's position would have seen many british politicians cut turtle kept the work on. they kept it going so yes, i think it's fair to say germany committed the british outcome and even delay the invasion and they would see much more difficult for it but it didn't pan out thatt way.

>> that speaks to your most recent book, the battle. >> on time to do and 75, i'm a bit reluctant now that i have specific adversaries so i'm never written a whole book about it and world war ii, the u.s. navy was american and i launched onto theo operation of the biggest of the war in the west but 1942, close to salvation. the british attempt ran through the island and fell most that

have been stuck. with the predicament it looked pretty desperate so they were told that they can get supplies when at 300,000 population the island would have to surrender. the navy and british armed forces, i thought that's the way it's got to be in the grand scheme of things. at that time, many still half the russians would be defeated. and they thought we've lost already and churchill writes a different piece, 1942, he was

deep and he knew many americans and russians are the same in the battlefield and was the summer of 1942 in my book when americans were asked who they thought was hardest with the war and of course most replied america. a secondr choice with the chinee and the third twice was the russians and the british were near it. and in russia it was the same, he says your navy crunch away because one of those stopped with russia and was disastrous in most of the ship.

beginning july it was a disaster and the whole thing was an ally was personally about it and people rose there asking always talking about this the british army surrendered and if the japaneserm army and similar in e british people were pretty disillusioned and churchill decided to get this. they lost to the activists would be a disastrous blow to the entirere empire he gave the ordr

to the wrong leg and they knew if they have any chance of getting through their course you have to have a carer and they already lost for carriers and we only have seven left. four of them were committed to the operation along with two pedestals and the destroyers and use ships beginning of august 1942 to cover and was a three or four day battle which was the bloodiest in the west were and sometimes want sure there were

going to be engaged or not. nothing much else. the weather was gorgeous, always is in the mediterranean. some of the young ones in the fleet started to think it was going to be a whole deal. they didn't think that anymore after the next day and they were in the middle of the carrier and everybody here's a terrific nice.

and the guy at the top was rolling onto the deck and hundreds were going in to see an eight minute big hit, there's nothingg left except bubbles and a lot of bobbing heads. in the second day they knew it was going to be really rough in the enemies air forces were going to be coming. they had text after text after text in the submarines and way back by about 5:00, 6:00 and

every man was exhausted. and on every ship it was exhausted and enormous amount on it. moore had been driven off. the british were thinking it's been a terrible day but the worst) and have been damaged. the next day in the war. they are stupid to send it on in

the carrier and victor : and the waynd with that, one, two, three hundred exploded and the ship was shrouded in smoke and what happened the previous day miraculously after ten minutes from the blades on the bridge with the situation, the ship had lost every part. it was badly damaged but it was still afloat. they lost to carriers, he was spared the.

they thought it was no twice and all of the remaining carriers and battleships because they're getting so close, they couldn't on the last day so there were now left with his cruises of the destroyer'm. >> i'm going to interrupt you there, that's a little bit from his newest book operation pedestal about the british navy. let's get our callers back involved. mike, thanks for holding. >> thank you, mr. hastings.

both my question was about the end of world i war i about the various parties they had earlier but coming out of world war i, woodrow wilson started and i think it was maybe a french politician said even the good lord, the ten commandments which is pretty good and maybe a britishch said about the end of the war and decided there were 20 million too many germans so not have the treaty to click. >> what is your conclusion? >> just a little bit of a tender in the same spirit about the

british, i think perhaps laura gray and other characters decided to butter up our president and contribute to the myth, i believe mason's was his idea all by himself perhaps. >> mike and make psyched california. >> i could keep you here all night if you give me a sleeping bag. i think the short side was never a good way, not a cliché among some level one say it was a disaster. it was never going to be an easy way to call and ending after work with the three w empire and enormous legacy but they did screw up. they have the worst worst the

couldn't occupied germany and they manage their own affairs are also germany was undamaged by germany was almost no damage at all. it was easy for the german right wing to develop that after it was never really defeated and with the decision to make germany's side treated but not occupiedup germany and met them running, it was a disaster. they were determined not to get involved and because the united

states was the only path diminished by the expansion world war ii united states was able to exercise some of it and stabilize europe and preventing the outbreak of world war ii with the americans, when he hated the experience of world war i and there was no doubt the sentiment was very muches progrs not wanting america to get involved but my dear friend, canadian historian, a brilliant study but in defense it was never going to be an easy way to get out off world war i if you study germany, whatever the

western allies got wrong, germany if germany had been the victory of world war i from they would essentially roll the whole of europe. >> let's hear from carl in virginia. >> thank you for taking my call. i know you're not a fan of factual history but i have a question concerning the end of the vietnam war. the johnson administration not a expended involvement in in combat troops into vietnam in the mid 60s,, it's easy to identify the positive consequences especially for the u.s. but i want to know if you've given some thought to what the negative consequences would have been had we not been more involved in vietnam and in

the late 60s instead. i would like your thoughts on if you don't mind. >> i personally believe it would have had the interest of the united states veryel well but i have sent in my book that the other side one, the regime was a horrible regime. including after 1975 when they found the war but they one ultimately because they were vietnamese but the problem always was american vietnam, the vietnamese don't likee foreignes or foreign rules. just like all regime's, they

receive those is just that, well known, they couldn't get out of bed one morning without asking if they could get up. i always thought when writing a book on it, one of the creepiest things one realized is all that is in washington to discuss policy, the vietnamese were never cashed out of the decisions were made by americans. all the way through my interview for my book, he said all the way through the commonness what always, you will occupy people and i'm afraid i don't think it was ever a good way for america to be involved but these nationalists i'm afraid the best thing to do is to stay out of

it. >> richard in california. go ahead with your question or comment. >> it's appropriate that you are on today and i personally attended the eighth anniversary of the date beaches in 1984 when france, i was in england in 1982 when iin first became acquainted with you by reading your accounts of the war and i have enjoyed your many books ever since. they are all great rates. >> thank you. >> you are more than welcome. i've enjoyed it enormously. since you do reviews, 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. >> what you think of it, richard? >> it's a revisionist history by me, and a a sense, stalin same

effect was in the beginning he was in at the end defeating the japanese and a lot of this was directed by heem even as much as hitler it's an interesting take and i was wondering what you would wish to say about that. >> thank you. >> i have to confess that i am not a fan of his work. i do think he takes some interesting points and carries them far too far. i'm afraid i think he's a suspicionless and wants to say something that will make the headlines. i think in his earlier books about the outbreak of world war i he sought to argue that was

russia's fault because russia was determined and he was sort of seems to me quite like russians to keep that interest but i think he wildly overstated it and i have talked to my fellow historians about his latest work on stolen. ... admire some of my other fellow historians. >> whenever we have an author on in-depth, we ask him or her favorite books and here is what max hastings reported, guns of august by barbara, the young lions by irwin shaw, the london observer by >> ronald

specter all american authors, 1945 to 1955 by harold yonner. we have a text message here about barbara tookman for max and it says in the guns of august barbara describes how the french general staff ignored the threat from the german army marching into describes how the french generals to ignore the threat from the german army marching into france to belgium. what is your viewpoint on how this happened? timothy from washington dc. >> i am a huge admirer but a very unfashionable figure now many say she got a lot of things wrong butut she did have a huge influence on me because i was very young when the book

was published in 1962. so planning for war of course fantastically inept but the french were committed themselves and those that were doing what they were doing. host: we have about 30 minutes left with our guest for her max hastings on the evening standard former editor. how did you become sir?

>> mostly lot. it was 20 years ago my contribution about writing to newspapers and books either im the better historian with those silly things but with any sort of honors. it's like winning prizes. and then. host: who nominate you in a united by the queen herself?

>> you do. the prime minister puts your name in. and if i hadn't been knighted in 2002 and then well tap you onap the shoulder but my grandchildren if they are interested but it's a big moment and i and the passionate admirer. it is a big moment it was one of the most exciting days of my life. host: you are a big fan of the queen? are you are monarchist? is that it correct term quick. >> i guessm im.

because those for the people who is stand for president in britain is not the power that she has but that it denies anybody else. it will beue a hard time when she dies it's amazing what she has been able to do their huge admirer is of the queen and then there's some bumpy times in the last few years most in the daily telegraph at the time serious trouble in the late 19 nineties and there was an eyewitness on one. and then to fill the whole monarchy was unraveling.

>> and maybe this was possible it can go remarkably quick. host: the middle of the military history books you have been writing and editing the daily telegraph and evening standard, about came out in 2010 did you really shoot television? i just want to read a quote and perhaps you would like to expound on this a little bit. go back my mother's capacity to make me quail remain undiminished. she was in her late eighties i told her i respected her decision to leave her entire estate to my sister but that i would love to have had one of her good pictures. year or two later she telephoned the mentioned the picasso drawings i had always liked. would you like to buy it she

asked? i choked. i said to my wife if i murder her i shall plead extreme provocation and no jury will convict me. [laughter] >> my families are all writers for three generations and have all exotic lies about a jokey book about it. and those of a tree interviewed about yourself and what i do and then to always admire my mother enormously as a writer that she didn't hold back anything. and my father from the second

world war sometimes i will play with them and it's a miracle i didn't shoot anybody and then somebody came up to me from a filling station and said did you really shoot the television? i explained it was a very small set that was not my finest hour but i come from a family of eccentrics on. but one of the reasons i'm so keen on gun control. arlington virginia pleaseo go ahead. >>caller:'s or hastings it's

an honor to ask you this question but i would like to go back is talk about nationstates and doctrine of attack using more as the main instrument of power. and in the culture and now with today's time and then to go with iran do you think it is not has to go to war based on political forces? senator cotton statements the past administration or even china cracks as i see they are misreading what is going on? host: let's get his take on the current world. >> .

>> looking at some of these issues but one of the best things we have going for us is in the nuclear world they realized more would be an absolute catastrophe. and i strongly believe the best way is to be prepared to fight one and often writing articles for british newspapers and european partners. so i think we have to have strong armed forces to have a realistic prospect to deter war and on the other hand with all my experience as a writer one should be desperately careful about going to war i

was for the invasion of iraq and i met all the ministries of london onek day. where they were making preparations for invasion of iraq. and i said how did it look he said and you have the remotest idea what will do when we get there. so that was an extremely prescientd remark so iran poses a very serious threat with a good outcome and with this country and what they are after. so i think churchill was right

so i'll be take a different view realistic prospects to take out the iran nuclear capabilities but everybody i trust him for those nuclear facilities it's very unlikely that airstrikes could be successfuls. someone has to be very careful with that combination of diplomacy and sanctions but also with the possession of force before one week exerts the use of force that would be a very serious step for the worse. host: you mentioned tony blair but you are friends of the current prime minister? >> yes and then i regret but

the opposite of doubts but i amio afraid our relations with europe port poisoned british policies and we are going through a very unhappy phase where the democracies generally are in their upper reaches and it's hard to say why they go into politics but for shells and in the end and i wrote three or four years ago to achieve the ambitions of the prime minister and i'm afraid nothing has happened sense to change my view. but the leadership of the united states is on board with the leadership of britain and with the middle size country and no doubt we should metal

through. but who is in charge of the united states? so however you dress it up always of leader of the west. everybody who i respect millet for strategic leadership unless america takes the lead nothing important gets done. host: is itt fair to say britain has punched above its weight for f several years? >> itt has tried to but i don't think it has im well aware americans are fantastically polite in their dealings with us but i am very conscious think most americans i know

deeply regret britain's rundown of the armed forces. and others high places washington. and then to lose a sense of direction i tend to agree. so punching about one's weight we try to have a seat on the un security council i don't think it'sli important enough to justify. and then to be alive to hold onto. host: rochester new york. >>caller: good afternoon. it's an honor to speak to you. sir and i have all your books in my library. and i have two quick questions

i have been collecting for years a series of books published in the seventies called the valentine industry it is several virtue. and the historians at the time answer michael howard so i am wondering is john keegan is famous for the book the face the battle which talks about many have said it is the first book to emphasize the common soldier and with those tactics and i wondered what is your opinion of that? thank you very much. >> i totally agree. a close friend of mine he

change the way we look at military history. which division went this way or that way of course now he is dead for quite a while that i think that remains is best to most influential. made us think about the reality. instead just in terms of numbers. and with all of those writing about history of war. we only debt to john because we read that quite recently. it reads fantastically well.

and for what it is like for example not everybody is a hero in any given battle about one quarter of your guys when you say charge one quarter will be up there with you have to come behind the other quarter will probably never get out of the trenches. that's not surprising. that's just the way mankind is. that john got down to the nitty-gritty of how people behave in a way nobody has before. so we all over tremendous debt. host: he appeared on this program 2003 go to booktv.org use the search function at o the top of the page type his name in there and you can watch that full interview.

sir max hastings how is your world war i book different than his? >> john keegan? i wrote a book about something very specific of the outbreak of the war but he wrote the history of world war i. but catastrophe of my book what i try to do of how the war started and with those battles were like because there is a phrase and churchill's history of the war that says none matches the extraordinary excitement and i thought this was so. and i get letters from people saying about 1914 what i write about 1915 or 1816?

know. i thought i said i had to offer so for instance a lot of history in the pastth was terribly o nationalistic so nowadays we try to get away from that and see things in a distance. and to think of that little british army as a major factor but yet and in the beginning of the word belgium. so talk about 1000 italians of the german and french each. and everybody thinks 1960 was the bloodiest period. it wasn't.

but the french army but the heaviest losses anybody suffer the whole war in one day. host: north las vegas love that nine —- nevada go ahead. >>caller: it's an honor to speak with you serve. after the war they would a lot of books to say if not for hitler we would have been a lot better. the second question is how would you rate that as the seapower quick. >> with the german generals of course h they had a bit of a point because in the days when the british reference some

senior officers that i interviewed in the 1970s and eighties but if hitler had not been on our side because they made so many ludicrous decisions but of course that is the germans accounts to be entirely self-serving and it would have been a right if the left was not there but i don't believe that they went along with hitler's decision to invade russia even though they should have realized that germany was not powerful enough to take out russia. russia was fast with the resources so i would not bite of you of those generals. but i think we may a huge take

the making to enormously expensive aircraft carriers. ranking power. the way —- we are way out of our range one is about to sail to the south china sea we can't do not want —- we can't afford any more. so the whole maybe has to be deployed and they assessed 15 years ago the carrier groups is very speculative in the new age. with the dizziness of think we have done better toap have more and better and cheaper platforms. i think the royal navy is not a welcome figure today with this huge distortion of these

two big carriers because i have my doubts they will ever be deployed and if they are to find yourself up against the chinese we can have a very unpleasant shock. host: nine minutes left in our conversation with matt hastings. arbor michigan go ahead. >>caller: mr. hastings. i am in our of your understanding of the details associated with the different wars. i will be interested in your observation of two generalizations that many clueless americans have that world war ii was an extension of world war i. the second, since the vietnam war, over the last half-century we have had one of the most piece on —- peaceful period in our history and perhaps the history of

western europe as well. >> the second first. because michael howard was my mentor benefits phrases we use the word peace far too much the greatest good is not peace but stability and michael was among many included the president's counsel formulations and many others think that we are living in such dangerous times because stability is out of the window we are living in very unstable times in their uncertainties during the cold war that have vanished you find a lot of senior military people almost tinker for they certainties where you can predict that the

soviet union might do with the stage but today there are huge uncertainties in the world looks dangerous and frightening place but statistically international mobilizations are coming up with statistics showing more people die by violence in each year but i do think these are very dangerous times. and stability is very elusive in the world in which we now exist. i think we have to tread extremely carefully. but i forgot the first question. host: world war ii? >> yes. i think most historians agree you have to look at world war ii as an extension of world war i because it was a long german war. on the other hand i said one

of my books we would understand world war ii better if we call the world wars to because everybody got into world war ii for different reasons the japanese were there for different reasons for the germans we came in for different reasons of the british and the french. in a way we muddled the issue by calling at world war ii there were several different strands butn fundamentally yes in the end this was germany's to attempts to secure domination of europe. the second one after the first one wasdy is 1918 the great australian war correspondent

wrote in april 1945 and said in germany i found no great senseol of guilt but an absolute sense of defeat what has been imposed on germany. and the german and for absolutely no doubt to be defeated. host: spring hill florida go ahead. >>caller: hello, mr. hastings. i like that you mentioned nuances. no of the complications so my question regards more culture. this idea that men have evolved to make war from the meal for hypothesis and have a propensity for her relics and

war has provided competitive advantages. but also to keep young men off streets, generally. thinking of the book man in groups, among others as a platform for organizing young men into battle. that may be a naïve or femininene question or impossible to answer. >> i can answer the question because one of the big changes that i grew up in the mirror - - very male-dominated household. they somehow were contrived to think they enjoyed worldit war iid but i had a wildly exaggerated idea of the importance of physical court courage when i was young he wasted a huge amount of time parachuting with the army but

the older i got and the more i came to believe to possess physical courage but actually think moral courage is far more important will say anythingen here that i have not written myself but it has taken me many years to see this. i look back on the teens and twenties when i thought was physically brave was not the highest virtue and by implication is that war can be a very corrupting force and i think it can be. yes. l host: one last collar from california. please go ahead. >>caller: thank you very much. i am pleased to speak with you

mr. hastings. before he died, president kennedy intended to have 1000 troops withdrawn from south vietnam and then of course he was killed and that directive was not carried out. do you take that as a sign he wouldec not have gotten into that quagmire that - - lbj did? second if you were lbj what would you have done to and that war in a way that you that would been satisfactory? host: thank you. i will tell you max hastings you have two minutes. >> on kennedy we can never know. i personally do not think would have got out of vietnam because all his thinking was directed to the reelection campaign andes 64. he repeatedly said there's only so many concessions i can make do secure the election.

but some said he did not get out of south vietnam we can never know is the answer that i do not thank you would have gotten out. i don't think lbj ever had good options. the first was to cut t his losses and get out as soon as possible when he took office but he also thought he had an enormous amount approving could not do that. with the american foreign-policy is quite a few periods of history and then to serve t domestic political influencef and in the president of the day. but i don't think lbj had utterly good options that is the worst options to escalate.

host: for the past two hours we have been talking with best-selling author and military historian, former editor-in-chief of the daily telegraph and the evening standard, max hastings there is his website and his latest book, operation pedestal. he is working on a book on the cuban missile crisis. we will look forward to that. thank you for the past two hours on booktv from england. >> thank you for having me

and i think representing four years of angst and anxiety many saw this coming from a mile away i think millions of americans felt the same way that in that moment the entire country recognize the

fragility of our democracy and have great appreciation for the core my do not like to violate it but it is what i was feeling and four years of pent-up anxiety of what was transpiring right in front of our eyes.

host: and that gordon read 240 for the anniversary of 1776 are we that exceptional nation we often tell ourselves we are? >> we are certainly trying to be. host: in what way? >> there are number of people in society who are working to make the ideals of the declaration a reality. ideals expressed in the preamble about the quality and the pursuit of happiness