Antony Beevor, Author, "The Second World War"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 тра 2024
- Our guest is military historian and author Antony Beevor. He discusses his newly released historical narrative, "The Second World War." Beevor talks about the origins of the conflict spanning from before Hitler's invasion of Poland to the aftermath of the war and its global impact on the major powers of the day.
I had the very good fortune to drive Mister Beevor through parts of Eastern Germany on a few occasions in 2000, during which I was privy to some in-car conversations regarding the Battle of Stalingrad as well as getting my very own private question-and-answer session on topics such as Napolean and the advance of Soviet forces towards Berlin in 1945 across the very terrain we happened to be traversing on a trip from Cottbus to Berlin.
The fact this man puts his books for free on UA-cam speaks volumes. He wants the world to know the truth of history
Anthony Beevor spoke about Stalingrad to my class at the start of my masters degree in history. An inspiring historian and true expert of his subject.
... Who got himself banned in Russia.
@@thevillaaston7811......for telling the quiet parts out loud.
@@bthorn5035
Doubtless, he adopted his usual practice of passing off opinion as fact, and writing stuff to get book sales in the USA , and to get himself on the US lecture circuit.
@@thevillaaston7811 Exactly. This "historian" guy is actually nuts. He weirdly "hates" "scientific" history, for some reason.
I watched this just days after Bernard Pivot died.
Brian Lamb brought an attitude of modesty, curiosity and appreciation to these interviews which is a great credit to our American culture.
The best world war 2 author ever. I read Stalingrad and Berlin in 5 days. It was Epic
What an utterly fascinating man! I am left gawping at his intelligence and insight. Hats off Anthony Beevor!
I've not read any of Beevor's work (yet) but I'm impressed by the deftness with which he fields the interviewer's rather unexpected series of questions!
I have listened to this audiobook three times over and is brilliant
Very interesting Q & A, Antony Beevor is great to listen too, he is informative with a good sense of humour.....
I am reading the Fall of Berlin right now. He’s a gifted author.
not many interesting questions tbh, but its always great to listen to Beevor
Brian, you've given us a plethora of magnificent work during your career, and I thank you tremendously. This man may just meet you at your own level; and it is an astounding moment. I could see the two of you sitting in a Parisian Bar sharing stories for years, recording everything, and releasing nothing. I' love to see a conversation series between the two of you. What do you think? Would you be willing to make it happen? Yes, of course I'm dreaming, but what a masterpiece it would be.
I wish I knew more people to talk to about Hitler, Stalin and overall WW2. People my age(27) aren't really well read on this sort of history. For some reason I find dry lecture on history and the war fascinating. I try and read about every aspect of the war, even though the war in the pacific (sino/Japanese American/Japanese) doesn't interest me as much as the war in western/eastern europe
same 27...
Look for John Merriman's lectures on modern European history here.
cool man. I def will. thanks
I feel the same way ...I hate War ....but love studying it
182parker My interest in the Pacific theater grew after I actually read some memoirs & very loosely based fiction from soldiers & Marines who served there. James Jones' trilogy (From Here to Eternity, Thin Red Line, & Whistle) & Eugene Sledge's "With the Old Breed" come to mind.
Brian Lamb is the best interviewer. I miss him.
Great books, great historian. Have enjoy his books and go back to them to check facts. A good source of information for anyway interested in the era. Maurice from Malvern UK.
Why does this have less than 1,000 views?? Astonishing.
82,000 now.
Just came across this channel FANTASTIC.
Beevor is certainly one of the great historians of World War II. His books are masterpieces. And he wrote at just the right time gaining access to Russian archives. He is on the right side of all the great debates about the War. The one mistake that he and most World War II historians make is the importance of the War in the West. Now he does argue correctly about the importance of the Western Allies and the War in the West. My issue is that he keeps talking mostly about Lend Lease to demonstrate how the Western Allies supported the Red Army. Now while Lend Lease was indeed important, the greatest contribution was how the War in the West diverted German support from the Ostheer. Hitler sent the Ostheer east on foot with horse-drawn carts. Some 80 percent of the Ostheer was unmotorized. This was due primarily to two reasons 1) The Western Allies cut Germany off from the needed oil supplies and 2) German industrial output mostly went to fight the War in the West. While most of German manpower went east, most of German industrial output went west. This left the Ostheer poorly supplied and equipped.
I've just started reading it. Although comprehensive, it is also very readable which is actually rare.
We owe a lot to Mister Beevor. His work is epic…very very substantial
He is one of the very best military historian of our time.
Exactly academically acclaimed,award winning and lectured at Cambridge
Then god help the subject.
@Jake Stockton
Fine by me.
little villa talking to cyber space? Shocked I tell you, has monty been getting rough in the tub with you again villa,ring the nurses station and report this
I have read most of his books. Superb, all of them.
Good Yeoman How is Crete in comparison to his other works?
@@brane4859 That's the one I haven't read. I'm afraid I haven't read much on the Southern Europe theatre or North Africa.
I read his stuff on Stalingrad, Berlin, Arnhem, D-Day and Easy Company.
I really like his writing style, it is very clear and concise. I read The Second World War and plan on reading Stalingrad soon.
If you're interested in North Africa (which I find really interesting), I suggest you read Killing Rommel by Steven Presfield. It's historical fiction that is true to real events with real characters and one fictional (the narrator) and follows Long Range Desert Group and their secret missions in the desert. You won't find much about them online and the book paints a good picture.
@@brane4859 Yes, a good balance of military, political and anecdotal style. He said in a lecture he writes in the narrative style as history is like a (true) story.
@@brane4859 Crete is the weakest of his books, but its also one of his first.
Its too occupied with individuals, listing their backgrounds and irrelevant (as far as I was concerned) trivia.
Quite striking how different it is to Stalingrad, Berlin.
...I realize your question by now is 3 years old 😛
What is Sandhurst.? Did the interviewer not know the name of the military school as famous as West Point or was he simply extracting information that his viewers may not know? Hard to say
BRILLIANT COMMENTARY - WELL RESEARCHED. THANK YOU
would love to go for a pint with anthony.
Well as for the British Airborne troops: even the inexperienced ones were very well trained and motivated and their training did emphasise attack. They were let down by command decisions.
Great book. Congrats!
men like this our my hero i strive to know as much about this conflict as you one day
Wonderfull books Antony.
The clip is from the famous "Why We Fight" series.
Good discussion.. Distracted by cuff disparity, do Americans not consult with their tailors ?
Outstanding guest
Outstandingly woeful interviewer
Beevor is a hack that writes rubbish for the American arket.
This book is on my reading list. I've heard it is very good. What did you guys think?
I will look for this book too. I have read (several times) Antony Beevor's book "Stalingrad", and it is exceptionally good!
***** Ah! I have heard of that one. It's on my reading list.
i'm reading this book now and its pretty damn good. I wouldn't say its a generic over-view of WW2 but you definitely should know the specifics of the war before reading it.
Victor's Bookshelf If you're well read on WW2 id recommend a book called ''The third reich at war'' By Richard Evans. Its not a military battle by battle book but more of what was going on in German occupied territory during the war. The final solution, Himmler, Goring etc. Its chilling the details it goes in of the persecution of Nazi enemies
Thanks!
I love this man!!!! Excellent teller of history
Thanks for that list of others...
Weird sequence of questions from the interviewer.
And a very icy demeanour ..it almost felt like an interrogation .
Chris Coombes
... and obviously pretty ignorant himself, judging from those questions,
Like a teacher questioning a student on a book report.
Fascinating
the book was great it real did offer a new view of the overview of the war.
Great author
He’s very patient.
just found this guy, very apreaciated analisis and clarity, also i find all of this stuff appaling, our history as humans is horendous, im glad i live in the present where at least we evolved a little, wouldv been better to be in the future were hopefully these kind of stuff wont ever happen again
Hi, I can see your comment is from a month ago, but I'm gonna reply to it anyhow :p. Okay, you could go to wikipedia and type in Antony Beevor, here you'll see a small piece of text with the title "Controversy regarding Soviet rapes", you might wanna read that.
I've read it and It is very good
how?
Beevor got it wrong about American casualties. The Americans lost 220,000 dead in battle in Europe, 75,000 in the Pacific theatre. He reverses this about 39:00.
'Beevor got it wrong about American casualties.'
...and many other things.
villa pull your nose out of Monty's backside and stick it to a book
50:22, Beevor's belief of being a good historian.
3:01, Beevor's view of the beginning of WWII.
hands down best ww2 historian ever.EVER
Yeah, he's great guy. Very intelligent too.
At 27:00 he talks about the public not truly informed of the danger of the situation on purpose and that this is occurring now , is he referring to the Islamic invasion !
Beevor is a brilliant historian. He makes a common mistake when he comments that German armies at the end were doing their best to move west to escape Soviet labor camps in Siberia. While it is true that the Germans were trying to move west, it is not true that the Soviet labor camps were all in Siberia. Most were west of the Urals.
Interesting how they omitted the parts of Checoslovakia that was occupied by Poland and Hungrary on the map.
That, and many other omissions - and zero criticism of anything to do with the USA.
Villa he tells the truth that causes you to break out in hives. Go back to TIKs revisionist rabble
love his work, Berlin and Stalingrad were wonderful pieces. but his statement about Russian military losses is incorrect....a couple weeks ago the there was a piece on the news regarding Russian military losses are now figured to be between 14 and 15 million...
+Matt Griffin Sounds interesting. What was the source?
Serious historians will often err on the side of caution in order to not be accused of sensationalism and exaggeration.
They were not wonderful pieces. They were dreadful, biased and full with lies.
Stalingrad and Berlin were grossly incorrect.
Red Army soldiers being mowed down on mass for retreat at Stalingrad is such an example and a product of Western Imagination. Not just that, but also what happened at Berlin.
Specifically the 'Offensive' which was completely wrong and that his book goes about 90% of the supposed War Crimes committed by the Red Army and just 5% of the actual Battle itself.
+dvchel Fool
22grena Oh yes -- how? Enlighten me with your knowledge....
Regarding your comment about Roosevelt with his mouth open and in a fog most of the day, he should have been pulled out of that meeting because we missed a major opportunity to get rid of both Hitler and Stalin at the same time. The U.S. had tremendous leverage over Stalin as he could not have won the war with Hitler if the U.S. had not sent him an enormous inventory of military support; Stalin knew this very well was the truth, therefore we had, at that time, great leverage over Stalin. If we would have devised a plan to let Stalin become weaker and weaker fighting with Hitler, in other words, let the two of them (Stalin & Hitler) slug it out until they both fell to the floor we could have then overtaken Hitler and Stalin would be gone!
Americans can pick up any Anthony Beevor book on the war with confidence. They will know that none of them will contain a single criticism of the USA.
@Jake Stockton
He is a charlatan. He was in and out of the Army inside four peacetime years. All the subjects he writes about have already been one to death, by people who were actually there. I believe he is banned in Russia - good for them if that is true.
@Jake Stockton
'Russia is a communist country as well'
As well as what?
'A country that bans books'
Which country? Britain has, so has the USA.
As an admirer of John Keegan I agree that Germany lost the war by not developing the new weapons in time. It simply lacked the industry to do the required production engineering, thank god. But the V weapons were no thread to the English harbours, had Hitler wanted to. The later failed attempt to hit the Antwerp harbour from Rotterdam 90km away has shown this.
Hello bob. I do not put his empirical funds under doubt. But i think his disregard to the circumstances and the entire context is not only mistaken but also condemned.
I think I'm a Beleever.
I think I served under him in Jtr Rhyl
The interviewer clearly didn't read history or dropped out cause his idiotic questions expose his lack of knowledge. These renowned authors deserve interviewers who are up to par.
I wonder if Neville Chamberlin really was completly trusting Hitler like that. He was defenitly playing for time to re-arm.
It is interesting when folks talk about genocide of Mao, Stalin and Hitler they however conveniently leave out the genocide of the Indians, Africans and Australians
Was he with the Royal Dragoon Guards?
He was with the 11th Hussars.
Antony Leave It To Beevor
Nice archive won't respond fact no one will guess I will never know . Berlin
What is Sandhurst!?!? Wtf😮
No one outside of the UK knows what it is, I’m afraid
I'm in Australia and I know?@@k.s.9400
@@k.s.9400 Perhaps not many civilians do, but it's not unknown amongst some military types or even some informed journalists from elsewhere.
American viewers won't be familiar with Sandhurst. I bet quite a few Brits don't know what it is. Lol
very hard...
The interviewer is unsophisticated in his line of questioning
Beevor is fantastic but this interview is terrible. The interviewer is asking the type of questions a child would ask. I was half expecting "What's your favorite color". Truly pathetic questions that showed zero understanding of history, insight or the material Beevor has written. It was only saved by Beevor immediately rephrasing and reframing every inept child like question from the interviewer into a more interesting question
Poor interviewer: what is Sandhurst? Where was Hitler when the Soviets had surrounded Berlin? Etc., etc. Really??
God damn I'd love to talk about the war over a beer, or soda. Wha'ever!
Don’t use your Lords name in vain. Repent of your sins.
Is this guy the worst interviewer ever??
He always seems to be going for the “gotcha moment” to his guests.
Antony Beevor is not a historian. His book on the second world war is mostly a compilation of anecdotes without any real effort to understand the conflict.
Ah…ah…ah…
Etc etc etc
I've read a lot of books about D-Day and Antony Beevor's is good on detail but poor on balance and judgement.
Is it a case of ... books - smooks? We're all historians in our own little biased way. Give me physics any day ... and a topic which is infallible ... until proven otherwise. Even truth might be relative. Books verses UA-cam ... could you look into that please? Thanks.
+ameagher2 Unfortunately, books these days are secondary in influence when compared with such "reliable, unbiased media" as YT and wiki. It is very difficult for today's kids, who are liable to become tomorrow's historians, to know which sources are accurate and trustworthy, and that is probably quite deliberate on the part of those who wish to convince future generations of the veracity of their own versions of our pasts. However, having said that, I subscribe entirely to your views regarding the infallibility of physics and logic, which should be mandatory subjects for those undertaking the study of history, if only to give them a grounding in reality, and thus equip them with the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction. Sorry if I sound like a verbose arsehole, but I'm unable to put it any more clearly without coming across as a COMPLETE arsehole...
***** Dear User, (and abuser) ... in your first sentence you ask me a question about physics. Later, you suggest I'm in a state of ignorance and then, that I'm plain ignorant. Why question a person whom you don't know and have no respect for? Are you selling the biBLE by any chance? I ask that question because you sound like a "basher." My favourite piece of history happened five minutes ago ... I know it's true because I was there.
***** I fear your mental energy has been misdirected. My original post said "a topic that is infallible ... until proven otherwise." You've obviously missed the proviso or lack a sense of humour ... either way, you still sound like a very naughty boy who readily resorts to rudeness. I'll learn nothing from you or your boring rants - so, sadly, this is goodbye from me.
+User Error I understand WHY he decided to ignore you. So I'll take up his flame. The reason being, I feel almost the same way he does.
You use the example of string theory as one of your "proofs" of scientific ignorance, but you exhibit a total lack of understanding of the scientific process.
String theory wasn't guesswork. It resulted from previous observations of the behaviour of the universe, relating to its shape and origins. But something unknown was at work - certainly not any gods - and a theory was postulated to explain that something. Using mathematics as the starting point, and the previous known universal behaviour, string theory seemed a viable explanation. Subsequent research has modified the theory, using supersymmetry and extra dimensions, amongst other things. But these theories all have very good scientific bases.
Physics, contrary to your beliefs, IS founded on physical evidence. It's just that as our understanding grows, we feel the need to explain some of the things we don't YET understand and this is the very essence of the scientific process. Asking questions is how we find out about our environment, and those who do not question remain ignorant. And if scientists observe something but don't understanding what is happening or why, they use the knowledge they have gained to predict what MIGHT be going on, and thus have a basis from which to confirm or deny their theory.
Ameager's "we are all historians in our own little biased way" is ABSOLUTELY true of humans. Yourself included. We are story-telling creatures and like things to be linear, even when they are manifestly NOT.
Your snap judgement of his character exhibits the absolute worst case of scientific endeavour - you have posited as fact something which may be, but very probably isn't, completely true with not ONE SHRED of evidence.
You say there is an historical record - well, that's true. It has been written, mostly by men but increasingly by women as well, for as long as words have been written down. It was carried verbally for long before that, and was thus subject to errors. This happens because human memories are not infallible.
And it has been, and continues to be, modified in an ever-evolving manner because our understanding of past events becomes more crystalline with each new discovery that sheds light on the past. Many of these advancements are made possible with your greatest enemy - Physics.
Beevor is western troll . Jealous much .
God this is where Americans are thought as dumb; did he really not know what sandhurst is? Beevor quickly says your Westpoint. I wonder what he would of thought if he'd said Duntroon or Funze...Oh America we know your history learn your Allies
Mike Clark To be fair he probably did know- it was for the benefit of the general audience-Judges often do the same thing for the benefit of the jury.
You really think he did not ask that question for the benefit of the audience? That tells a lot about you.
"Funze"? You must mean "Frunze". Don't you know Russian history?
It depends on the audience. I’m an airline pilot and ex Navy. I’ve found most conservative Americans know quite a lot about history and although they may not know what Sandhurst is, they know that the US Navy, and even military is fashioned off of England’s military. They also know who was on the Allied side and Axis side. However, our public schools stopped covering history, especially military history about 20 years ago. Most who have been educated in the last 30 years cannot tell you when WW2, WW1 etc occurred much less how it impacts the world today. Colleges do teach history but it’s not alway required. Depending on the schools ideological leaning. The emphasis on evil American involvement in WW1-2 Korea, Vietnam, Iraq is the primary focus.
What a shameless avoidance of the real reasons. Carrying water, as is typical, for the real aggressors. It is a fact that the British Empire's policy was to destroy any power that could even remotely threaten its monopoly on empire.
So you are saying that Britain started WW2 by invading Poland? Or was it earlier when Britain aggressively tried to avoid war by allowing Hitler to annex Czechoslovakia? Both Poland and Czechoslovakia being, of course, part of the British Empire.
You, Sir, are a joke
white meat tastes best
@DDKILLER990
He just says what people want to hear.
What i've found out from this video.
Beevor is the first westerner i hear to speak of more or less fair numbers of military/civilian losses of USSR.
USSR won because of american trucks.
Berlin was taken because Stalin wanted a nuke, not because fall of Berlin means faster end of the war and its encirclement provides quick and easier capture if its reinforced, obviously. Leningrad stood for 3 years. Of course Berlin was in worse geographical position and germans did not seek for a storm, nevertheless it would be a lot easier to defend Berlin supplied from outside.
But here comes other thing i noticed - germans did not want to fight, they wanted to escape to the west. Why did not they escape then and kept fighting? Prague was liberated after Berlin, Kurland pocket kept fighting. Better to die in vain instead of going to gulag? I quite dont get this pretty logic - but i know why Beevor says it. He hints that soviet troops were that pathetic that couldnt fight germans who werent even fighting back, which is a lie and fits western front a lot more actually, its where germans were free to surrender at once, but even there they fought more or less. So this is bullshit in my amateur opinion.
Some korean was forced to fight for japanese puppets, then becomes a pow and is brought through whole country to be captured by germans. I guess he also made friends with Beevors father who told him this story so Beevor speaks of it being 100% sure.
That Stalin killed more than Hitler, i tried to count myself, even including nazis killed by Red Army i didnt manage to get numbers comparable to Hitler.
Also funny shit about changing accents from evil great purge that took lives of a rough million, probably due to numbers of victims known and its a bit difficult to prove how everyone of them were victims. Especially in situation when this purge with all mistakes made was blamed by soviet government yet in 1939 with necessary actions made. So instead of this we add some dumb topic about famine that somehow was inspirated by Stalin, in civilized west or eastern europe it is just a famine, victims of great depression are victims of them being assholes, and here we have a great crime committed to get rid of ukrainians (its especially evil because soviet government forcefully turned population of ukraine into 'ukrainians' and to keep the genocide on - Ukrainian SSR became a founder of United Nations).
Just a publicist to me he is.
German extreme right? (7:45) Actually the Nationalist Socialists were leftist, not from the right. Nationalism does not necessarily make you from the right, it isn't part of a left/right definition. The German Communists and Nazi's were competing for the same recruitment pool and became adversary's as a result of that, not from a left right right political confrontation.
+Justin Kinkade how are left and right assigned on a mobius strip?
Although the Nazi's had "Socialist" in the title, they considered themselves far right and are considered far right (fascist) by the majority of historians. They were also intensely anti-Communist in every way, themselves being on the opposite end of the ideological spectrum in every area except, perhaps, economics.
+jacko1232 www.nationalreview.com/corner/417926/was-fascism-right-wing-again-jonah-goldberg. check Jonah Goldberg's discussion on this. point is right of the Communists doesn't make you a right winger
His book is biased, i prefer others
I can answer why russians dont like when you speak about trucks - you wouldnt land in europe at all without russians, and you start speaking about your damned trucks in favour of people who died while most of you were calmly sitting on their asses, or peacefully producing these trucks for own profits. Its a talk of a degenerate, or a racist. Choose which one you prefer.
American help was always appreciated but as much as it deserved to be, but western whine about help is laughable, as all this 'contribution' was paid with blood.
Like, most common bullshit story is that a person got to gulag for a notice that american trucks are better than soviet (keeping in mind soviet trucks in majority were license copies of american Ford AA it must have hurt a lot). According to this soviet pilots who flied P-39, Kittyhawks, Bostons or director of a wartime movie where a character said compliments to B-17 must have ended their lives in gulag. Because it was forbidden to mention lend-lease in USSR and it was forbidden to say obvious things like that Studebekker truck is better than outdated Ford AA.
Those who win, get to lie whatever they want. The war in Iraq would sound different retold by Arabs, as well as the motives, who started, who commited war crimes and so on.
OMG... damn, this Beevor is even worse than i expected. How the hell he's called a historian. He writes about a man who was captured in Khalkhin-gol (where soviet and japanese exchanged their prisoners) and was put into soviet camp exclusively... WHY all of a sudden? upd. prisoners were exchanged 1 to 1. So this is possible, but Beevor doesnt even bother to mention this, since for his story its easier to say about how everyone was sent to siberian camps. And then to be brought through whole country to fight in the european theatre, what a waste of resources.
Does Beevor have any proofs of this korean is one he's talking about as there were thousands of koreans living in USSR. Looks like Beevors favourite job is to reproduce dumb myths using own popularity.
Still curious what is operation Borodino, guess secret folder with its name not even mentioned in russian internet was given to him by Luba Vinogradova, who stole it directly from KGB archives under risk of death, lol.
For those who like real history that is more interesting that dumb myths and fakes - look up for soviet operations "Monastery" and "Berezino".
you should become a historian and write your own books since your so well informed :)
Edward Brink nah, i'm an amateur and shit in history, that's why its more upsetting that I see obvious problems with his story.
There are too many 'beevors' in Russia who tell absolutely unrealistic crap sucked out of their middle finger, so Beevor is nothing special, just like that bunch of politically biased propagandists. The problem is that he is being called a historian, when hardly his stories can be called historical research. Because like you or not its quite lame to make conclusions out of extreme situations.
For instance. Beevor wrote some book about Grossman. I read Grossmans diaries (at least what was called so). There was a story about some mercantile oldman who was going through surrounding villages with an axe or a saw, and cut off legs of dead frozen german soldiers to warm them up later and take boots off for sale (if not winter they'd be simply taken off, obviously). How this story would be told by Beevor or some other western propagandist : Stalin ordered NKVD to organize platoons of cannibals who would cut off body parts of germans to feed people in gulag. Even soviet writer Grossman wrote about it in his diaries "he walked around battlefields and cut off germans' legs gathering them into his backpack".
I don't know, these stories about Korean that became a movie and about operation Borodino nobody ever heard in Russia annoyed me. For instance, soviet command did not tend to conscript unloyal people, political prisoners were banned from military service, as you may know, soviet state deported people in whose loyalty was not sure. And voila - some Korean who served in Manchurian army suddenly goes to serve in soviet (without being a soviet citizen? though it was quite easy to become a soviet citizen, you should just live in soviet territory to get this right, so he chose to be a soviet citizen? then betrayed USSR and joined Wehrmacht? Such could have happened but from my point of view there is no tragedy in this, just a story of an opportunist to me.). But this theoretically could have happened, though means absolutely nothing, just a script for some quite lame movie. Though if his bio was without empty spots and was tracked by documents in at least Red Army, because without it this story costs nothing, as I see nothing special in a soldier who served Asian fascists and later served European ones.
But 'operation Borodino' is something. As I said its never mentioned in Russian sources, but obviously USSR gained benefits from german nuclear programme, as did americans. But what conclusion does Beevor make? Berlin was taken because soviets wanted a nuke? What a damned nonsense. Berlin is where german HQ was, where Hitler was, logistical center finally, not to mention such unimportant things like its german capital. What did americans intend to do when liberated Paris then? Did it for lulz, or to taste a frog? In my opinion its not professional to point out at extreme cases, distracting from actual situation. Because when you give specially picked facts you can turn the story in 180 degrees. Everything should be told with and in context, otherwise facts cost nothing.
MrSpamaccount your right you are shit at history 😂
A pile of rubbish.
says a steaming pile
And Para Dave chimes in.
@Jake Stockton
Well, none of that rubbish.
as little villa is wrong and ignored yet again
Please please please stop reading this kind of fictional history if you want the truth, if you want real History, David Irving's books are the standard to go by! I feel saddened to have to say this about a respected 'Historian' or should I more rightly say popular writer such as Antony Beevor!
Irving is the standard Holocaust denier yes. Peddle ignorance back in the shadows of alternate history. Thank you!
Irving a real historian? Pfft...every time his books have been reprinted he has changed parts of them because he was caught out and challenged on his falsifications of fact by actual historians. This was happening years before he was proven to be a liar and manipulator of fact in court.
Americans can pick up any Anthony Beevor book on the war with confidence. They will know that none of them will contain a single criticism of the USA.