Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Max Hastings

Discussion in 'WWII Books & Publications' started by LRusso216, Oct 12, 2013.

  1. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,320
    Likes Received:
    2,618
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Has anyone read anything by Hastings? I'm considering his history of WW2 and his story of the beginning of WW1. Thought I would get opinions first.
     
  2. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    1,924
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Marmite.


    Personally, now he's got over his slight German fixation of the early 80s (which I believe he conceded), I like him.
    Many would say he's not quite the cutting edge (though his Normandy book was considered ground-breaking at the time), but what he is, is a writer.
    It's all very well to have all the facts to hand, and a good grasp of how they join together, but that doesn't mean you won't turn out the most turgid prose possible, which can kill the narrative and overall aim of the book (like Anthony Beevor). Hastings has a decent historical grasp & good style, and usually turns out a highly readable account. I see him as a kind of 'stepping stone' Historian, who will at least not bore you off a subject so completely that you never want to know more (like Anthony Beevor).
    He's got a knack of creating a tabloid stir whenever he puts a book out (old newspaper man), which I think has soured his reputation among many who've never actually read him. Mostly far from as controversial as some seem to think really.
    He has also claimed to write on hot days sat in his Bentley with the aircon on... which I sort of approve of.

    Not read his most recent, but...
    Avoid 'Das Reich'. He was apparently dazzled by German Veterans he became matey with. Thin, one-sided, glosses over nastiness, and a bit too 'Steely'.
    'Bomber Command'; not my area, but an air book that finally piqued my interest long enough to actually finish, and I thought told the tale in a solid way which stuck in my mind.
    'Overlord'; really rather good ("You can fight a battle every day of your life, but you might not see a caterpillar like that in fifteen years!" ~ Brig 'Looney' Hinde, the day after the Viller Bocage incident... Hastings gives good vignette).
    'Korea'; Excellent.
    'Warriors'; Boys own adventure. Well told.
    'Armageddon'; Perhaps the most 'serious' of his books that I've read, absolutely jam-packed with little factoids (963 German Officers of General Rank & above died during the war... who knew!), but curiously disjointed as a whole. I enjoyed, but was a little puzzled as to what the main thrust was.

    I would imagine his recent stab at a wide history of WW2 would be worth a shufti, & I've heard good things about it, though he's not who I'd go to for a Generalist start on WW1 as it's not really his area. Maybe Richard Holmes for a lightish well-written start there?
     
    Martin Bull likes this.
  3. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    1,177
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Armageddon and Retribution are both excellent. I didn't enjoy his Korea book (found it kind of dry and lacking in detail), but I read it a while ago.

    As for his new wide-scope WW2 book, its sitting on my shelf now but I haven't cracked it open.
     
  4. merdiolu

    merdiolu Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    65
    Location:
    Istanbul Turkey
    Overlord , Retribution (published as "Nemesis : Battle for Japan 1944-45") , Finest Years : Churchill as Warlord 1940-45 , Bomber Command , Korean War and Falklands War books of Max Hastings were quite good I would say. Not fan of Armageddon though. Too German biased and oriented. Das Reich is so so. And I did not like Inferno (published as "All Hell Let Loose" in US ) He reduced history of WW2 and summarized as human stories dramas like a journalist in that book. Did not read "Catastrophe Europe Goes to War" yet
     
  5. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    I'd agree with von Poop's summing-up. Hastings is first and foremost a journalist, not an academic, which led to some slap-dash conclusions in his earlier books ( eg Das Reich, Overlord and - especially - the unrevised Bomber Command ). But he's very 'readable' and his later work has been more considered in style. IMPO his 'Finest Years' about Churchill ws very good. As others have noted, I wasn't over-impressed with Armageddon, although I'm not sure why.

    But he's an important writer about modern military history - although more in the Beevor mould than Overy or Kershaw.
     
  6. urqh

    urqh Tea drinking surrender monkey

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2002
    Messages:
    9,683
    Likes Received:
    955
    Won't bring personal opinions into it...OK I will...Said it before...Normandy book is good for stats...whether they still hold true though is for someone else to say...Was it Armegeddon or something like it? Started it few months back...have to get it down again..His writing flows...A good enough recounter of the story but not in the Cornilius Ryan stable....My personal opinion is he's made some mistakes...his biggest was himself up in Falklands....Certain paras only just got caught out from ambushing him on ship...And putting a cork up somewhere it should not really go.i..He Crapped on his fellow journos in that campaign...Never earned him any accolades
     
  7. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    I'm not sure I agree that Hasting's "...slight German fixation" was a bad thing but I know he was criticized for showing some aspects in a positive light. Certainly, he did NOT gloss over the atrocities of Oradour and Tulle in "Das Reich". He did feel he had to defend himself over charges that he was pro-Nazi. This, I believe this came about because in "Overlord" he made the statement that the German army in Normandy earned glory even though it fought for an odious cause. Oh yes, he also said that over all, the German army was better (around D-Day), at and below division level, than most of their American and British counterparts. Not only that, he showed that American and British soldiers executed POWs too. In these things he broke some ground. However, in "Armageddon" he felt he had to emphasize that the German cause was evil. I feel he is a great writer of popular history.
     
  8. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    It was far more than that. The whole thrust of his D-Day book was that the Allies were inferior to the Germans. He was/is a product of his generation. Starry eyed admirers of the losing side.
     
  9. LRusso216

    LRusso216 Graybeard Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Messages:
    14,320
    Likes Received:
    2,618
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Thanks. Now I'm more confused than ever. I think I'll get Inferno (one volume of WW2) and decide for myself.
     
  10. rkline56

    rkline56 USS Oklahoma City CG5

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    216
    Location:
    CA Norte Mexico, USA
    I just finished Overlord and found it to be pretty good. Kept me interested throughout as he looked into logistical successes and nightmares. Good look at the morale of the various units and problem solving methods that were used successfully. I liked A.B.'s Fall of Berlin too.

    Which author's will the rogues be recommending for the real straight tactical dope? I like Liddell Hart but I know many have problems with his perspective too?
     
  11. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    1,924
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    On Normandy?
    Hart can write, but it's dated & he seems to have had a fair few axes to grind with personalities.
    D'Este's book's a cracker, though again it's suffered a bit over time, and he has a rather American-centric view of the whole business (understandably, but it's enough to slightly throw the overall bias a tad too much).
    Keegan's Six Armies in Normandy is on the required list for me too. Another who can write, with a serious depth of knowledge behind it.
    I bang on about it too much, but Buckley's 'British Armour in the Normandy Campaign' is a modern eye-opener.

    If you really want on-the-ground detail though, despite the years having passed a bit (check the edition. They seem to revise them a lot) and the 'Then & Now' format being a bit of a curate's egg for me, I'd reccomend ATB's books:.
    Detail is what they do.
    http://www.afterthebattle.com/books/books_pp2.html
    D-Day double volume is... massive.
    (And 'Ruckmarsch' on there is a somewhat newer offering on a later part of the campaign, which I also found really rather good).
     
  12. rkline56

    rkline56 USS Oklahoma City CG5

    Joined:
    May 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,194
    Likes Received:
    216
    Location:
    CA Norte Mexico, USA
    Thanks Von..... very interested in Stalingrad and Kursk as far as logistics and tactics and the deeper Staff Plans and failures.
     
  13. von Poop

    von Poop Waspish

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    6,309
    Likes Received:
    1,924
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    I'm a bit out of the loop regarding recent Eastern Front stuff, but what I would say is try and source books that are as new as possible (excepting personal memoirs). 1990 is a bit of a cut-off, as the historiography really began to shift about then and things became a touch less exclusively based on German sources.
     
  14. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    The current 'ultimate' about Stalingrad from the point of view you're looking for has to be the first two volumes of David Glantz' Stalingrad trilogy ( Pt 3 not yet published....)
     
  15. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    Personally, I don't think so. He made the case that many of the Allied infantry divisions were tactically deficient compared to many of the German divisions and even to the more aggressive airborne troops of their own side. The British especially had hard going against their Waffen SS opposition. The Americans too were very much slowed down by inferior numbers of troops who expertly used terrain to their advantage. However, he didn't lose sight of the fact that some German units (such a Luftwaffe Field Divs)were third and even fourth rate. His critique of some Allied weapons was pretty much on the mark. We got better as the war went on but Normandy was a tough school with a high tuition rate.
     
    George Patton likes this.
  16. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    I do not think they had any problems simply because they were facing SS.

    How exactly was a landing on June 6th and a breakout in August anything less than a brilliant victory?
    I hear this argument a lot and the main thrust seems to be it should have taken less time to break out. Within 9 months German soldiers were surrendering in the millions so how is that 'slow'?

    Maybe we can sort this out once and for all.
    Give me an example of a time period when an Allied victory should have taken place. For instance would a breakout in a month have been a stunning victory?
    So what is it? Berlin taken in September?

    I think perhaps you and Hastings share the same outlook.
     
  17. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    372
    I think the W-SS were a little more of a difficult proposition than say a Luftwaffe Field Division. Yes, given the huge superiority in men, material, air power and firepower we had after the first couple of weeks, I DO think that it isn't unrealistic to expect that we should have broken out earlier! Both Eisenhower and Monty were unpleasantly surprised at the effort it took to finally get it done. So let me ask you a question: given all our advantages, why did it take so long to win the battle?
     
  18. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    I think you will find there was no expectation that the battle would be fought around the beacheads. Both Eisenhower and Montgomery expected that, after an attempt to wipe out the bridgeheads, the Germans would retreat into the interior of France and use the great rivers as natural stop lines. There would then be a long slow slugging match into Germany. The very 'phase lines' frequently used to hammer Montgomery show that the Seine was a D+90 expectation and the Rhine D+365.
    Which ever way you chose to look at it the pre-invasion targets were achieved by August and the Rhine well in advance. I wonder how that can be seen as a failure?

    On the claim the SS were 'more trouble' than ordinary Germans.
    The Commonwealth fought 12th SS & 1st SS as well as 21st Pz Div & Pz. Lehr.
    Provide evidence that attacks by the 2 SS Divisions achieved more and were feared more than the non SS Divisions. Should be easy if there is any foundation for the claim.
     
  19. m kenny

    m kenny Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,645
    Likes Received:
    225
    I reject completely the baseless claim that it took too long to get out of Normandy. The Germans did disrupt the Allied plan by fighting 'forward' in Normandy but this had the effect of bringing forward the long slow battle the Allied expected in central France. . The hard slog was expected. It just happened earlier than expected. The Allies believed they would grind the Germans down by the spring of 1945. They did it in the summer of 1944 instead.
    What you had was a reversal of the expected response but nowhere was an easy swift advance ever expected.
     
    von Poop likes this.
  20. LJAd

    LJAd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    Messages:
    4,997
    Likes Received:
    237
     

Share This Page