Anything by Max Hastings!

The "Lev Tolstoy of our time"; in my opinion. I just finished "Retribution" and was not dissappointed. Everything on the subject of WWII from Max has been excellent and comes highly recommended. I am so impressed with this writer that I might start with some of his works on other subjects.
Max Hastings - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
JeffinMNUSA
PS. And please-nobody tell "my wild Irish Rose" wife that my favorite author is "a bloody *&%^$ Brit!" (just joking! Haha-but she does have a thing about Brits from her grandmother who used to tell tales of Ireland during the Michael Collins era).

 

You and I share an enthusiasm, Jeff !

Yes, he's a journalist, yes, he can be controversial - but I have a great fondness for some of Hastings' books. His own books of memoirs are very good to read ; he has a nice line in self-deprecating humour. I'd recommend ( among many others ) 'Going To The Wars' about his years as a war correspondent and also, if you can beg, borrow or steal a copy of 'Editor - An Inside Story Of Newspapers' then do so !

People often say 'I read such-and-such a book straight through' and I certainly did that with 'Editor'.....

 

I believe he also wrote Bomber Command, a book I have but have not read yet.

 

Martin;
I have seldom found an author THAT I CANNOT PUT DOWN but Max is such an author. And he "calls it as he sees it" damn the politics. Such an approach is bound to ruffle some feathers but it is just possible that some feathers need ruffling. I will certainly take you up on your recommendation. Here is another weird thing about Hastings-I have found myself waiting eagerly by the mailbox for Max Hastings books like some kid waiting on a huge shipment of the finest candies in the world. This is all new for me and BRAVO MAX HASTINGS!
JeffinMNUSA

 

Bit of a major fan myself, I can fully appreciate people's quibbles about aspects of his work but he's just so readable. An excellent introduction to any area of the war that he's written on (Or other wars, his Korea book in particular is also excellent).

The only one that's left me scratching my head so far is 'Armageddon', again it's very good, and full of interesting stuff in his usual anecdotal style, but I couldn't really see what the point of the book was. It just didn't seem very cohesive to me.

And as for writing on Hot days in a parked Bentley with the Air conditioning on... I find the thought of that strangely appropriate for such a figure .

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Off my old forum...
Not quite finished with this one but WHAT A READ!
Das Reich - Max Hastings - Review - New light shed on dark times.
The book centers around the march of the SS Panzer Division "Das Reich" towards the Normandy Beaches and the delaying actions fought by the French Resistance. An interesting part is early on where a hoary old SS Russian Front vet makes a speech to the new recruits-many Alsatians, Romanians, Hungarians and other "junior members" of the "Ubermenschen World Order", and wins them over totally. After Normandy and the uprising of the French Resistance things take on a bloody minded momentum of their own. The book also delves into the SOE activities, Jedburgs, the various communist and non communist French Maquis groups and how all these elements collided against the mighty Das Reich during it's march Northwards. Von Rundstadt had recemmended that that the German forces in France cede the South to the Resistance and concentrate their available forces against the beachheads-but OKW would have none of this. It is rather perplexing that OKW would make such a militarily BAD DECISION. I am guessing that the Partisan Movements in the USSR and Yugoslavia played a part in High Command's decision-they had after all seen resistance movements in their Eastern territories grow from bad jokes into deadly threats, and perhaps hoped to "nip this one in the bud." It was a fatal overextension of the German Forces in the West's capabilities.
JeffinMNUSA
PS. Hastings also "gives the Devil his due" in admitting that the SS massacre did put a quick stop to Partisan activities. France was not the East....The French Resistance accomplished more by sabotaging the Railroads and forcing Das Reich to the roads than it did by any shooting actions in any case...

 

I'll be getting some Max Hastings tomorrow, thanks for the info.

 

I think 'Das Reich' was a bit of a low point for Hastings; as readable as all his stuff but also the point he was most deeply immersed in the Germanocentric view he's often been accused of, (and I reckon has withdrawn further from ever since that book).
He seems a little stuck to his own theories of the march as provided by the SS veterans he was in contact with and doesn't appear to apply too much objective depth to their subjective viewpoints.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Von Poop;
I don't think it "Germanocentric" to acknowledge historical facts-and the fact is that the German military machine of WWII was terrifyingly effective. WWII vets may not like to hear it-and Max would get his butt kicked if he were to go into a VFW in my hometown talking this stuff (or at least get rammed by some wheelchairs)- but the fact is that our infantry divisions-with a few exceptions- were NOT the biggest, meanest dogs on the block (if I recall from Max us Yanks had NOTHING on night ops in the book and little in the way of sniping programs). It is a good thing that our guys had air, arty, and material superiority or the Wehrmacht would have ripped them apart. There is an account in Hastings where during the breakout a column of Allied tanks is crossing a clearing in a forest and a Wehrmacht Self propelled gun opened fire? Well it killed five or six of ours and then vanished. Little details like that tell you that the Wehrmacht really knew it's business. And if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then the Two Superpowers adapting the tactics and weapons of the defeated German forces in the aftermath of WWII is some sincere flattery indeed.
JeffinMNUSA

 

I refer more to Hastings going a little over the top in his praise of the German military, and by extension too far in his critique of the allies. He's definitely pulled away from that perspective from 'Overlord' onwards, I seem to remember it's a failing from that period he's acknowledged himself somewhat in recent years.
On 'ripping the allies apart in Normandy' I'd respectfully suggest Hastings's 'Overlord' (if you've not been there already) followed by John Buckley's 'British Armour in the Normandy Campaign'. While Hastings's book was seen as pretty radical on it's release the Buckley one deals with many of it's themes in a rather (far) more serious way and comes to very different conclusions.

As I've said I like Hastings, I admire the fact he can write properly and always entertainingly (unlike Buckley... as others here can attest Doctrine doctrine doctrine ), but I'm pretty comfortable that it's fair comment to say he's an excellent 'generalist', sometimes not so good on the specifics, & has in the past been somewhat guilty of over-egging the German story, not unlike the old 'Ostfront' mythology perhaps largely down to over-focusing on German sources.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Hastings gores way over the top in his assesment of the German performance in Normandy. It can't be denied the Germans were comprehensively defeated and thus the admirers trot out the old chestnut 'yes but didn't they last a long time before they broke'.
By the end of August Germanys finest were hopelessly outfought, outmanouvered and thrashed. They were in full flight and I am at a loss how this defeat is held up as an example of 'superior' tactical ability.

Quite absurd. They were engaged head on. Dug in and with the advantage of a long range tank kill superiority they were still foced into headlong retreat.

This is the old myth of multiple tank kills for individual Panzers. The overall totals for tank losses in Normandy show that the Allied losses were less than 2:1 in the German favour. You often hear about Shermans bursting into flames but never get told that the Pz IV had an even higher burn rate than the Sherman. Whilst 80% of penetrated Shermans caught fire so did 80% of penetrated Tigers. The Panther burn rate was 60%.

 

Agree with everything else but this. Sure the losses were not in 2:1 but many German lost tanks were lost due to naval or aerial bombardement not in direct confrontation.



Cheers...

 

Not to be flippant but this is the standard second line of defence when the original uber-panzer myth is exposed. Most German tank crews fled their tanks and ran away during the retreat phase and this is claimed to be proof that they had better tanks! Deserting your tank (because you know that if you fight you will be destroyed) is elevated into some great feat of arms. Is running away and abandoning your tank an example of greater tactical superiority? Why not turn and fight?

 

I'm not judging wich tank was better or not. I'm a numberhollic so for me, putting odds like that without taking the proper measures to acess what caused the losses is like a small crime (I know I'm picky! Must be the Aspies pushing the strings).
I'm just debating that. For the superiority of German tanks over allied ones, I'll leave that to the apropiate place.



Cheers...

 

Hi all;
Here's an interesting book I will order sometime; Second World War Books: Review
And it might bruise some peoples' nationalistic pride but I remain convinced that the Wehrmacht was the most tactically effective ground combat force of WWII-convince me otherwise (it is most fortunate that Der Fuhrer was a strategic dunce). They were also serving a thoroughly malignant cause and if they had won the world would have been plunged into a new dark age. So why were these guys so effective? Well a large part of the puzzle is probably the Hitler Youth-a compulsory organization that prepared German young people for Hitler's wars. They also served as talent spotters for young people with leadership ability.
JeffinMNUSA

 

Well, hardly has Ian Kershaw's 'The End' hit the bookshops and along comes another Max Hastings title, released next week ; -

All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945: Amazon.co.uk: Max Hastings: Books

Although claiming to be an overall WWII history, much of the book is apparently devoted to the Russo-German conflict. Previous single-volume WWII histories have been an uneven bunch, so I'll wait for the reviews of this one to appear, even though I'm a confirmed Hastings fan.

On another note, the appearance of this book so quickly after Kershaw's ( and various other books ) that newspaper articles have appeared this week crticising the 'British fetish with WWII' but that, I guess, is for another thread............

 

Hitler a DUNCE????

I beg to differ.
To support this, (and at the risk of a storm of angry replys), I quote Liddell Harts "The Other Side of the Hill".....

Page 470.....CONCLUSION
Surveying the record of German leadership in the war, and the course of operations, what are the conclusions that emerge? An utter failure on the plane of war policy, or grand strategy, is seen to be accompanied by a remarkable, if uneven, run of performance in strategy and tactics. The explanation is also of a dual nature. The older, professional leaders trained under the General Staff system tended to prove highly efficient, but lacking in genius-save in the sence of "an infinate capacity for taking pains". Their immence ability carried it's own limitations. They tended to conduct war more in the manner of chess than as an art, unlike the old masters of war. Most of them, also, were limited in understanding of any factors outside the military field.
Hitler was quicker to spot the value of new ideas, new weapons and new talent. He recognized the potentialities of mobile armoured forces sooner than the General Staff, and the way he backed Guderian, Germany's leading exponent of this new instrument, proved the most decisive factor in the opening victories. Hitler had the flair that is characteristic of genius, though accompanied by liability to make elementary mistakes, both in calculation and in action. The younger soldiers he picked out and pushed on were often akin to him in these respects-especially Rommel, the most favoured military 'upstart'. Such men had an instinct for the unexpected and a greater sence of it's incalculable value in paralysing opponents, They brought back into warfare, in a new guise, the classical ruses and strategems which the established military teachers of the last half-century had declared out of date and impossible to apply in modern operations. By Hitler's success in demonstrating the fallacy of orthodoxy he gained an advantage over the military hierarchywhich he was quicker to exploit than to consolidate.
Sometimes the intuitive amateurs were justified by events; sometimes the mathematically calculating professionals-the latter more, naturally, in the long run. But the jealousy between them, and the way it aggravated inevitable clashes of opinion, proved more fatal for Germany than the actuall errors of either side. For that, the primary responsibility lay with the established hierarchy, as it always does. The result may have been inevitable, for war is not an activity that teaches wisdom to it's priests or the quality of reconciling contrary views. In view of Hitler's policy and temperament, he would have been very difficult to restrain in any circumstances; but the attitude of the professionals and the frequency with which his insight proved more correct than theirs made him uncontrollable. But neither side was conscious of it's own limitations.
The German generals of this war were the best finished product of their profession-anywhere. They could have been better if their outlook had been wider and their understanding deeper.

But if they became philosophers, they would have ceased to be soldiers. (end of extract).

Hitler a dunce?.... NO!!!!!

 

To label Hitler as a "dunce" is dangerous and volatile ground, he could be both kind and cruel, both intuitive and hide-bound in his opinions and wishes. He was far from a "dunce", but probably as far from "genius" as well. His IQ might most likely have fallen into the above average scales as measured at the time, but his ability to use his mental powers seemed to be limited to certain, specific fields.

Oratory, and debate being two fields in which he excelled, and another one of manipulation of others by identifying their own weaknesses or greeds. Military planning, not so much. His early military successes were more the fault of his opponents than his own ability. Hitler could get bogged down in the minutia of some areas, and not see the forest for the trees. Since the 1930’s, too late for Hitler to have been tested, a standard of IQ measurement was established by the Wechsler scales, and recognized as useful worldwide by scientists who tried to quantify such things. These were what was used in testing the Nuremberg inmates post-war.

An IQ tells you what your score is on a particular intelligence test, compared to your age-group. The test has a mean score of 100 points and a standard deviation of 15 points. What does this standard deviation mean? It means that 68 percent of the population score an IQ within the interval 85-115. And that 95 percent of the population scores within the interval 70-130.

Some examples:

What does it mean when your IQ is 100? That means that half of the population scores higher than you. The other half scores lower than you.
And what does it mean when you have an IQ of 130? That means that 97,5 percent of your age group scores lower than you. Only 2,5 percent scores higher.

An easy way to interpret an IQ is to use the following rules:
A score that is no more than one standard deviation (=15) away from 100, can be interpreted as a normal score.
A score that is between one and two standard deviations away from 100 can be interpreted as low (70-85) or high (115-130).
A score that is more than two standard deviations away from 100, can be interpreted as very low (lower than 70) or very high (higher than 130).

Goto:

The Intelligence Quotient (IQ), one of the most widely used measures in the field of psychology

As to the IQ’s of the leading Nazis, only Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and Borman are not included on this list, for obvious reasons. Those men were either dead or "missing" when these tests were administered.

1 Hjalmar Schacht 143
2 Arthur Seyss-Inquart 141
3 Hermann Goering 138
4 Karl Doenitz 138
5 Franz von Papen 134
6 Eric Raeder 134
7 Dr. Hans Frank 130
8 Hans Fritsche 130
9 Baldur von Schirach 130
10 Joachim von Ribbentrop 129
11 Wilhelm Keitel 129
12 Albert Speer 128
13 Alfred Jodl 127
14 Alfred Rosenberg 127
15 Constantin von Neurath 125
16 Walther Funk 124
17 Wilhelm Frick 124
18 Rudolf Hess 120
19 Fritz Sauckel 118
20 Ernst Kaltenbrunner 113
21 Julius Streicher 106

Goto:

IQ's of Nazi leaders tried for war crimes

Hitler most likely would have scored somewhere in the mid to upper set of his group of Nazi leaders, near or above Speer would be a good guess. That is just my own interpretation of course, since he and Speer seemed to have an ability to speak to each other on near equal terms in certain areas, even though he (Hitler) was far less educated than Speer. But "dunce"? Unlikely.

 

I have not ever seen IQ figures for leaders of the Third Reich. Surprised to see Streicher there. Von Shirach is another surprise. Totally UN-surprising is Goering near the top of the list. I have always maintained that Goering's drug addiction robbed Hermann of his true abilities, turning him into a very ordinary person. And an ordinary person was incapapble of performing the many tasks that Goering had collected for himself. He wasn't just greedy for food and art treasures, he was also a glutton for public offices!

 

I'm obviously being a bit dim here....does Hastings refer to Hitler as being a 'Dunce'.....?