When I finished reading The Storm of War, I went back to chapter 1 and re-read it. It is very compelling; you can't put it down.

I just discovered this author on your program and I'm enjoying his interviews. Thanks

What a great interview. I've watched it twice. Peter Robinson is an incredible host.

I think this interviewer is one of THE BEST in western civilization today... if anybody knows anyone comparable, PLEASE share!!!

Excellent interview.

Amazing interview.....

Excellent! Thanks!

Peter Robinson tried his best in last 5 minute to get something from Andrew Roberts about Muslim immigration to Europe that he didn't take the bait :))) he simply could ask it without sugar coating.! I think Europe should be careful with immigration and how it can culturally effect it.

The major achievement of the German Army was that it took the combined might of the British Empire the Soviet Union and the USA four years to defeat them.

fantastic book. Ive read a lot on WW2 and this one def I a diff take on ww2. I like when historians talk about why Germany lost the war other than how the allies won it. Hitlers defiance in allowing retreats doomed his army from the start

Great historian.

non biased interview, i hope people don't comment like the do on the rest of the videos..

yes.

Very interesting interview with an acclaimed historian. I shall now read the comments below to see how many self appointed UKposts armchair experts are claiming that he’s an idiot who has got everything wrong!

@50percentFirebird There was a pact between Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, Japan, the USSR & Germany that made it nearly impossible for any power to stand up to them. They could have ruled the whole of the Eastern Hemisphere if Hitler, Stalin and Hirohito did not have so much contempt for their "inferiors."

Victor Davis Hanson?

Outstanding, Judging by 'comments,' how many conspiracy theorists are out there?

I don't agree with you about Chamberlain. I think his position was completely untenable after the debacle of 1938 and the fact that he was obviously not a 'war leader' once it became obvious that Hitler was, despite his best intentions, unappeasable. I have to confess I had never heard of Antony Sutton but I have just ordered on amazon his book 'Wall Street and the rise of Hitler' to which I assume you are referring so I'll take a look.

The old, "if we can undo the mistakes the Germans made while not addressing the mistakes the Allies made, the Axis would have won the war" argument. I made this argument once, it was for my term paper in my Freshman English Comp class. I got an A, but had I been the professor, I would have at least taken a letter grade off for the absurd logic. The idea that Hitler lost because he did not listen to his generals comes primarly from historiography based upon the writings and memories of German Generals after the war, who by the way really had one way to make a living after the war: writing memoirs. Gerhard L. Weinberg does a good job debunking this myth by using opened up Russians records the became available after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and other records. He demonstrates there were times when Hitler listened to his generals. There were times he didn't. Sometimes he was right. Some tines he was wrong. Guess, who cherry picked the record for times when Hitler was wrong and his generals was right. If you guessed the Generals Liddell Hart interviewed, go to the head of the class. www.amazon.com/World-Arms-Global-History-War/dp/0521618266/ref=sr_1_58?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419437305&sr=1-58&keywords=world+war+ii ukposts.info/have/v-deo/b2l8iW9wbqNq0Gg.html He's also wrong about the effectiveness of the combined British and American strategic bombing campain in slowing down the German economy. German out put was greater in 1944 than in 1945! I learned this from taking night classes in Montgomery Al, from historians whose day jobs were teaching at the Air War College!

I have read many disparaging reviews of the book by this English historian They were inciteful and from there did not waste my time listening. This used to be an interesting show what happened

Hair of PEACE

That the Germans had 'superb' equipment is simply untrue.

The discussions about hitler have relevance in 2022.

The man May well know a great deal about the overall strategy and effects of Army's Buzz understanding of basic weapons is not necessarily outstanding. at the onset of the war the standard trimming rifle is it k98k H5 shot bolt action rifle using stripper clip loading basically modernized World War II 98A. by comparison the United States has the 8 shot semi-automatic M1 Garand, is Soviet Supreme production the SVT 40 10 shots in automatic rifle both are better than the k98. Early war tanks or better operationally not mechanically they are not better vehicles then many of the vehicles they'll be fighting very soon and by 1942 realistically the M4 Sherman is better or as good as anything in general issued by the Germans the t34 is also as good or better as anything in general use by the Germans neither vehicle is arguably as good as it Panther on paper but battles are not fought on paper.

33:37 - 33:42 , revelatory lapsus linguae, he was about to say "islamic invasion"

"Hitler missed the bus." Chamberlain made that statement days before the Germans took Norway (& Denmark) against pathetically prepared British and French soldiers. Chamberlain lost all credibility in Commons: "In the name of God, GO!". A majority of the Conservatives may have backed Halifax at the time he and Churchill met with Chamberlain. Halifax, however, didn't want the job (made his "stomach hurt"). Some say Halifax saw himself as PM (after WC failure) in negotiations w/ victorious Nazis.

I beg to differ the US in 1944 had the manpower and industrial might to cpnquoer the entire world alone.

sure.

Good grief...nothing to do with tactics, strategy, organisation in the first part of the War then? It is conveniently ignored that British and American and Russian troops actually defeated them in the end. Utter nonsense..Reginald Mosley acolyte obviously.. how disrespectful to your ancestors can you be..shame on you

The German equipment was good but it had one huge flaw. A flaw that haunted them throughout the war. Instead of mass producing one tank, one fighter, one anti tank gun, they produced countless of all and much of that equipment was extremely complex technically and engineering wise. What did this mean? It mean't even with superior weaponry they did not have the ability to fix that equipment or replace it as quickly as the allies could. Toss in a terrible logistics system highlighted by the worst transportation system among all the combatants and it isn't hard to fathom why the Nazis stalled in Russia. The Russians by contrast mass produced effective, cheap, easily repaired and replaced equipment like the T-34. They also fought on interior lines so logistics was far easier and greatly aided by a huge influx of American trucks & jeeps that made their transport of equipment infinitely superior. I realize logistics isn't sexy but it matters. The problem I have with books like the one Roberts wrote is they concentrate on narrow thing: how any army fights, what ifs from the stand point of the losing side and accepting things at surface value. What it doesn't do is realize the Germans fought opponents especially early in the war that made a massive catalog of errors; no massing their tanks, ignoring weak spots in their defensive positions (Ardennes), fighting WW1 ..again, Stalin killing all his military cadre, ignoring intell that Germany would attack...in other words for every what if Roberts can concoct there is more than enough what ifs from the allied perspective to match. Yes Germany could've won if a ton of things had gone their way, however, in war rarely if ever do things go swimmingly even for the victors and positing what ifs is a blind alleyway littered with guesses and assuming the opponents would sit still if things were different.

People i must stop to laugh but seriously look at that amount of anger in body language expression 13:23, please guys comment, want to know your views...

If Hitler was not obligated to declare war on the US due to his allegiance with Japan, (after it attacked the US, which was provoked by FDRs policies to begin with), than Britain had absolutely no obligation to protect Belgium's neutrality in 1914. As EVERYBODY knows, WWII was caused by WWI and according to many historians, e.g. Niall Ferguson acknowledged that it was Britain's involvement that caused the unnecessary chain reaction which caused the worst and most consequential event in modern history. And again, in WWII, Britain along with France provoked the war by lying to Poland about helping them in case of an attack, which they never did, and on top of it, omitting the fact, which the Allies very well knew due to the interceptions, that Russia will attack from the East. Even though I admire Churchill for many reasons, as a politician, he was the biggest catastrophe which made the 20th century as tragic as it was.

Great interview. But i blame the western downfall on the English who thought that half of the world belonged to them, and today Europe is paying the price for that.

History is written by victor.

It is all true, but for the time cropped perspective. I would posit the most deadly military machine had nuclear weapons and were willing to destroy major civilian centers as a war objective. The Germans were very lucky not to have 5 to 10 cities turned into mushroom clouds. Had that occurred the military achievements of the germans would have literally paled in comparison. Germany? Saved by the bell.

@50percentFirebird Another thing I find repulsive is the deification of Churchill. Yes, he was the leader England needed at the time, but by all personal accounts, he was a sociopath who, like Teddy Roosevelt, felt there was no greater purpose in life than to kill an "enemy in battle", a motivation that hopefully will someday be evolved beyond.

How would all these Germans get to North Africa or Persia??? Are you relaying on the Italian Navy for Transport? Martch the Wehrmacht threw Turkey? That does not make sense? Britain actually had a large number of Troups all over the ME Command, not to mention new ones comming in from India and the African colonies.

Not to sound too savage, but about kill ratios: after 1945, the victors could have killed as many Germans as they wanted to. German military excellence only went up so high the chain of command. Not to sound too elitist, but the higher positions are the most important ones.

"Histories" like this don't inform public perception, they appropriate and distort it. His view isn't only shockingly narrow, it's uninformed at that. Germany's tanks were "utterly superb!" You know who said exactly the opposite in 1941: Germany's generals. Good lord....

Of course Robert's like a typical pop historian avoids the Soviet Union and Stalin's plans to invade all of Europe including Germany on the first of July 1941. It is quite easy to prove this because the Red Army's weapons are designed for offensive warfare-oh, and the Red Army had 1,000,000 highly trained and skilled paratroopers (Germany only had 4,000). Are paratroopers used for defense? Let's get real. Just looking at Soviet tanks before 1941 they were very advanced like the Soviet BT high-speed tank and the amphibious T-40 tank, not to mention the T-34 - all were designed for offensive warfare. This doesn't include Soviet aircraft and bombers like the TB-7 that could fly faster that a German Me-109. Roberts is whitewashing the Second World War. The fact is the Wehrmacht saved Europe from Stalin. Looking back Hitler could have used nerve gas on the Brits which they hand no defense against, but out of compassion and his honest love of the Brits he didn't. It's time to get real and thank Germany for saving Europe from the Red menace.