Max Hastings vs Antony Beevor

[kiwitedferny]

I have read both these authors most recent works (All Hell Let Loose, and The Second World War).

Beevor's book surprised me. It was a work of substance, unlike his other 'popular' (or perhaps more correctly 'written for the masses') titles. Perhaps his publishers directed his initial efforts to write for the general audience in order to guarantee higher sales?

In any case, I though both books were excellent. Hastings produces an interesting and illuminating statistic on every page.

Probably the best one volume primers on the market.

Any opinions or disagreements?

[pasoleati]

Max Hastings has been decent in the past, but I found his Inferno terrible. Beevor is terrible throughout. For the best one-volume history of WW2, I'd go for Sir Basil Liddell-Hart's classic. Liddell-Hart has three weaknesses:
-he sometimes shows contempt for conscript armies
-he discusses Soviet foreign policy as that of any traditional country, which it was not
-he tends to blame Hitler for every German error.

Otherwise, it sweeps floors with Beevor.

[kiwitedferny]

Max Hastings has been decent in the past, but I found his Inferno terrible. Beevor is terrible throughout. For the best one-volume history of WW2, I'd go for Sir Basil Liddell-Hart's classic. Liddell-Hart has three weaknesses:
-he sometimes shows contempt for conscript armies
-he discusses Soviet foreign policy as that of any traditional country, which it was not
-he tends to blame Hitler for every German error.

Otherwise, it sweeps floors with Beevor.

Well, I think both Beevor and Hastings would be quick to acknowledge that 'they stand on the shoulders of giants'. Ie they owe a huge debt to the first generation of post war historians - Liddell Hart being one of the best.
The difference IMHO, is simply the modern historians access to information that was previously embargoed. That, and their role as 'synthesizers' of all the original and recently discovered material. I said 'primer' as opposed to a work of scholarship.
I'd certainly recommend either author to a 'newbie' or someone who wants the 'big picture' over Liddell Hart. No offense to Sir Basil!

[pasoleati]

I am afraid that is not so. Both Beevor and Hastings have limited linguistic abilities, therefore both rely heavily on what is available in English. Therefore especially Beevor's military historical basis is often based on 1970s level of knowledge. What is more, neither Beevor's nor Hastings's aim was/is to write objective and neutral histories in the spirit of sine ira et studio. Both are politically driven authors whose main purpose is to perpetuate Allied wartime propaganda. Beevor's bias is obvious from every line he writes, and Hastings has mostly worked for a British newspaper known for hating Germany for over a century. His Churchill biography is one of the worst examples of unadulterated hagiography.

[kiwitedferny]

I am afraid that is not so. Both Beevor and Hastings have limited linguistic abilities, therefore both rely heavily on what is available in English. Therefore especially Beevor's military historical basis is often based on 1970s level of knowledge. What is more, neither Beevor's nor Hastings's aim was/is to write objective and neutral histories in the spirit of sine ira et studio. Both are politically driven authors whose main purpose is to perpetuate Allied wartime propaganda. Beevor's bias is obvious from every line he writes, and Hastings has mostly worked for a British newspaper known for hating Germany for over a century. His Churchill biography is one of the worst examples of unadulterated hagiography.

Interesting. Which Allied Propoganda are we talking about?

[pasoleati]

First and foremost the overall view of Hitler as the only one who acted and the rest as ones who only reacted. In other words, e.g. the foreign political ambitions of the U. S. S. R. and the U. S. A. are basically omitted or presented as defensive only, a travesty to the truth. One Finnish reviewer noted several falsifications of what Hitler said per Beevor vs. what Hitler actually said. Naturally Beevor's version was always more negative to Hitler than the truth.

[kiwitedferny]

First and foremost the overall view of Hitler as the only one who acted and the rest as ones who only reacted. In other words, e.g. the foreign political ambitions of the U. S. S. R. and the U. S. A. are basically omitted or presented as defensive only, a travesty to the truth. One Finnish reviewer noted several falsifications of what Hitler said per Beevor vs. what Hitler actually said. Naturally Beevor's version was always more negative to Hitler than the truth.

Really? I seem to recall both being pretty harsh on the USSR and Stalin's imperial ambitions. And Hastings certainly doesn't avoid talking about Churchill's post bellum ambitions in the Mediteranian and Balkans (although I think Rick Atkinson's works cover this aspect better).

The US's territorial focus seems to have been pretty exclusively Pacific oriented - the Phillipines in particular.

Now that you mention it - I am struggling to think of any historian brave enough to say anything positive about AH apart from David Irving....and that guy, despite his protestations to the contrary, is a Neo-nazi.

[pasoleati]

Is he (Irving)? To me he is more of an ultra-Conservative British imperialist in his basic worldview...And I am not saying that as a derogatory note.

[kiwitedferny]

Is he (Irving)? To me he is more of an ultra-Conservative British imperialist in his basic worldview...And I am not saying that as a derogatory note.

I have seen some hidden camera footage of him speaking to an audience of far right Neo-nazis, where he felt comfortable enough to speak frankly. No doubt in my mind that he's a vicious anti Semite and fascist. That DOESN'T mean his early books weren't very good. But at some point, he had a meltdown...

[pasoleati]

By today's standards an average British (or Australian or Kiwi) Conservative of the 1930s would certainly be rated as a vicious anti-Semite and Fascist. Field Marshal Montgomery supported the apartheid politics in the RSA for as long as he lived. And frankly, he was correct.

[jmark]

By today's standards an average British (or Australian or Kiwi) Conservative of the 1930s would certainly be rated as a vicious anti-Semite and Fascist. Field Marshal Montgomery supported the apartheid politics in the RSA for as long as he lived. And frankly, he was correct.

I must have missed the history lesson in school when they discussed all the pogroms in Australia and NZ!

[kiwitedferny]

I must have missed the history lesson in school when they discussed all the pogroms in Australia and NZ!

I understand his point - anti semitism was pretty 'establishment' way back when, but yeah, not sure Auusie and NZ were ever hotbeds of Jew hating!

[eubank]

Is he (Irving)? To me he is more of an ultra-Conservative British imperialist in his basic worldview...And I am not saying that as a derogatory note.

Utter bunkum.

[eubank]

Armageddon by Hastings is an excellent read.

[JC ESQ.]

Irving's historical works are some of the best available, his use of source material is incomparable and his writing style is readable and engrossing, on the other hand the man himself is a utterly detestable tool.