Just discovered you from your interview with Sarah Paine. Amazing work, can’t wait to keep listening to your interviews. Huge fan! Congrats on ur well deserved success!
Never realized you are 23. Man. I'd really like to find out your story and how you become and maintain what you are building. I'm 19. I see you as a success. I wonder how you see yourself. You make me believe that it is possible to make it for young people against all odds. Thank you. As usual, great conversation. Greetings from Ukraine. Слава Україні.
Love your interviews with these historians! I like how you ask the questions that point at these historians deeper insight by giving them a chance to talk about these theories.
Hey, Dwarkesh, just wanted to say that your podcasts are next level! Going through them now and it is pure intellectual stimulation, no fluff. Keep it up!
Thank you for another great interview, this time it was a bit more breadth than depth but this is understandable given the number of historic periods and figures being discussed and limited time. As always the clean subtitles are very much appreciated, helps the non-native speakers a lot. The video on your side (but not on Andrew’s) was juddery on both LG OLED and iPad, maybe the frame rate mismatch?
Not only your podcast is a combination of thoughtful questions, great sense of direction and brilliant guests. Most of the episodes are also incredible book recommendations! btw, you should have Stephen Kotkin on the pod and Michael Levin
@@petermanfredini 23 years old bro. Maybe I was not hanging out in high performing circles when I was young, but I would consider myself to be high performing and I was nowhere near this intellect and energy at that age. I am sure you’re achieving more than interviewing Zuck etc though 🙏
40:00 Except that Mr Andrew Roberts is wrong, because Adolf Hitler's declaration of war was a mere formality. De facto the United States was already at war with the Reich and hence, for example, Roosevelt's bellicose speech about the arsenal of democracy, ''Cash and carry", Lend-Lease act, shoot on sight' under which three quarters of the North Atlantic was henceforth to become inaccessible to U-Boats.
Why does any of that matter? After Pearl Harbor, it was not a foregone conclusion that the US would declare war on Germany. It would've required some maneuvering on FDRs part to convince Congress to declare war on Germany. The smart move for Germany would be to just let that situation play out. Instead they just removed any doubt for no reason. The bottom line is, Germany declaring war on the US provided ZERO potential benefit for Germany. Only downsides. Not a decision any smart leader would make.
De-facto, but not actual. The declaration allowed the U-boats to rampage on the US east coast and Caribbean. I don't think anyone can really guess what would have happened if Hitler didn't declare war with the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly would have involved a much quicker build-up of US forces in the Pacific, especially air forces. Roosevelt's and Churchill's "War in Europe First" policy would have been delayed, at best.
The problem is nobody in the political class in the US has the will or skill, to articulate to the populace, the reasons why Russia must lose, for the good of the whole world
how about so that an authoritarian petro state doesn't conquer eastern Europe and subjugate it's people to another half century of oppression. it's not that complicated
The Americans massively impressed their allies when they turned up and scared the hell out of the Germans. Everyone else had to train their armies to shoot to a reasonable standard, the Americans turned up with a full army that was able to shoot as well as everyone else's best marksmen, and still had the will to do things like trench raids
Yes, FDR had the luxury of entering on our terms and wasn't about to go in willy nilly and use our soldiers as Canon fodder in a war the Europeans started in the first place... We came in when all the participants, especially our allies, when they and their empires were whittled down to almost nothing. We supplied the Russians well before that and they used the soldiers as fodder. We got UK bases on the cheap. Then came in, took charge, got the glory, and dictated the peace for the next 70 years, catapulting the US to Superpower status. I think the correct word is brilliant!
Horses were a big part of the reason why blitzkrieg works, their high mobility and focused fire on a weak point of enemy lines provide them enough advantage to win a lot of battles. Would be reasonable enough for the germans to try and replicate this succes against the russians, wouldn't it ?
Smart guy but he is a bit off on his drone understanding...surprise attacks with drones, especially in the black sea, were very effective. And no I don't think AI is going to be able to make snap decisions anytime soon in the role of drones.
I'm starting to think that when you say something that is completely untrue and reflects sheer ignorance instead of asking a question, it's an interview strategy, because brother, saying Patreous was anywhere near strategic decision making in Iraq in 2003 when it started is so far off base. Did similar things in other interviews, like Paine.
32:20 Well that didn't really pan out as far as Gaza showing the defensive is stronger. The various groups countries across the globe that are in armed conflict often are not at parity with technology and resources. Even Russia-Ukraine when Kiev is properly supplied that have no difficulty taking territory. Using Gaza war, Hamas vs Israel is an asymmetrical conflict. Only reason it's taking this long is Israel is actually trying to a degree not to slaughter civilians. If they didn't care, the war would have ended a year ago
Good stuff, but I disagree that Hitler underestimated US military strength. He fought them in WWI and had much respect for them. I doubt after Pearl Harbour he had much choice in declaring war; FDR was blaming him in his talks. Stalin probably did not go into a nervous breakdown at the start of the war; it appears now to be a myth.
“AI has the potential to create permanently stable dictatorships.” -Ilya Sutskever It seems Open AI likely ousted Altman because he was working with military weapons companies. Domestic or foreign who knows.. 💀
This is a fascinating discussion. I admit I have not watched all of this just yet, but having once been a fervent admirer of Winston Churchill, I had to reassess things when I saw what he had ordered perpetrated against India. I desperately wish he had not done that. It was an wholly arbitrary move put forward solely for the purposes of punishing India for their desire for independence. This does not erase Churchill's actual accomplishments, but I find it an appalling moral exercise to shrug off millions of starvation deaths to say "Yes, well, that happens sometimes. Nobody is perfect." This was not an accident, it was deliberate murder of millions by starvation as a punitive measure AGAINST people who had defended and sustained the empire for 89 years. Again, I love the show, and find so much of these topics to be enlightening, but I have to caution against brushing off important contemporaneous current socioeconomic issues. We are experiencing rampant corporate greed, an oligarchy seeming hell-bent on squeezing working class people for all they are worth, forcing people to spend the vast majority of their waking hours struggling to survive. The essential prevailing attitude being that if someone does not have the entrepreneurial cunning and flair necessary to acquire for themselves their own personal abundance, that they are an acceptable cost for the maintenance and expansion of our economic doctrine and processes. People are losing their houses, everything they have to pay medical bills, working multiple jobs to try and survive, and struggling due to chronic illness, and are wholly disenfranchised regardless of their prior service or contributions to society. There are serious problems that need to be fixed urgently, but are being ignored. Chortling about the shortcomings of socialism and ignoring these problems will actually increase the risk of compounded misery and radical "pendulum swinging" that causes further damage. Am cautiously enjoying your platform. It is expanding, and I hope it serves as a source of education and enlightenment for the future.
Britain barely participated in the Napoleonic war, establish a blocus on Britain did cost very little to Napoleon and most of Europe but tremendously to Britain.... not the other way around Like Roberts want people to believe. As far as Napoleon being a dictator, yes by today's standards, but then every European King was also a dictator... and Napoleon just another one but a lot more talented at absolutely everything he touched!!!
Good interview, his quick overview of the 1945 election was quite wrong though, the labour government brought in the NHS and the welfare state, both things that even the Tories support now, so his claim that it took the uk 50 years to realise their mistake is either foolish or a lie
That is a common misconception. The labor government was largely focused on national defense. It was not especially heavy on funding nationalised industries. It was a bipartisan consensus that lasted for 20 years that brought in the welfare state and nationwide industries
Please share if you enjoyed! Helps out a ton! And remember you can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and all other podcast platforms. Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/andrew-roberts-leading-historian-on-warfare-from-napoleon/id1516093381?i=1000635692079 Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/4K7iPHdop3WnuBUXJmn7iJ?si=SAsedZ7qR4axISXsP-zYrA Transcript: www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/andrew-roberts
Not sure Hitler "lost" in the sense of *"Triumph of the Will"* true to say failed absolutely but as for expanding out what was seen as impossible to begin perhaps unfortunate to say...perhaps not actually...but Hitler did for better or worse create that for Europe versus a very strong overwhelming belief in inevitable-ism of what is as all there is at the time which was defeat at Versailles 1918. True to say Germany would be divided East and West 1945-1991/93 but that is no longer true now. Nor is there a USSR anymore in the East quite the opposite an aggressive expansive Russia being defeated by Ukraine 2022-present remains the reality for what is Germany's East indeed Europe's East going on many Years now so how this *"Nazi 3rd Reich"* did what it did again for better or worse very much now matters knowing this😊😊
@11:08 The society is not tribal. Mercenaries controlling a society for decades is not a reflection is that societies aspirations. It’s the by product of empire. A means to an end. To describe an entire society on the basis of the military oppression they’ve been subjected to is ignorant at best.
Just discovered you from your interview with Sarah Paine. Amazing work, can’t wait to keep listening to your interviews. Huge fan! Congrats on ur well deserved success!
Never realized you are 23. Man. I'd really like to find out your story and how you become and maintain what you are building. I'm 19. I see you as a success. I wonder how you see yourself. You make me believe that it is possible to make it for young people against all odds. Thank you. As usual, great conversation. Greetings from Ukraine. Слава Україні.
He started the podcast as a sophomore in college.
I’m 24….
Much more relevant than "Why Hitler lost WW2" is the question:
Why did he start it?
So so true. I hope we get matured enough as a society to deal with this question.
Love your interviews with these historians! I like how you ask the questions that point at these historians deeper insight by giving them a chance to talk about these theories.
One of my favourite interviews with Lord Andrew Roberts. Great questions
Hey, Dwarkesh, just wanted to say that your podcasts are next level! Going through them now and it is pure intellectual stimulation, no fluff. Keep it up!
Great talk, the antidode to the Lex/Mearsheimer talk we all needed. I love your work, keep it up!
Thank you for another great interview, this time it was a bit more breadth than depth but this is understandable given the number of historic periods and figures being discussed and limited time. As always the clean subtitles are very much appreciated, helps the non-native speakers a lot. The video on your side (but not on Andrew’s) was juddery on both LG OLED and iPad, maybe the frame rate mismatch?
Not only your podcast is a combination of thoughtful questions, great sense of direction and brilliant guests. Most of the episodes are also incredible book recommendations!
btw, you should have Stephen Kotkin on the pod
and Michael Levin
What the actual fuck 23 years old?!.. How is it possible? Please do a Q&A so we can understand this talent and prodigy.
This can't be a real comment
@ why is that my son
@@simonnilsson5356 just can't believe how hard you're glazing him.
@@petermanfredini 23 years old bro. Maybe I was not hanging out in high performing circles when I was young, but I would consider myself to be high performing and I was nowhere near this intellect and energy at that age. I am sure you’re achieving more than interviewing Zuck etc though 🙏
@@simonnilsson5356 😂 you're glazing him so hard
40:00 Except that Mr Andrew Roberts is wrong, because Adolf Hitler's declaration of war was a mere formality. De facto the United States was already at war with the Reich and hence, for example, Roosevelt's bellicose speech about the arsenal of democracy, ''Cash and carry", Lend-Lease act, shoot on sight' under which three quarters of the North Atlantic was henceforth to become inaccessible to U-Boats.
Why does any of that matter? After Pearl Harbor, it was not a foregone conclusion that the US would declare war on Germany. It would've required some maneuvering on FDRs part to convince Congress to declare war on Germany. The smart move for Germany would be to just let that situation play out. Instead they just removed any doubt for no reason.
The bottom line is, Germany declaring war on the US provided ZERO potential benefit for Germany. Only downsides. Not a decision any smart leader would make.
De-facto, but not actual. The declaration allowed the U-boats to rampage on the US east coast and Caribbean. I don't think anyone can really guess what would have happened if Hitler didn't declare war with the US after Pearl Harbor. It certainly would have involved a much quicker build-up of US forces in the Pacific, especially air forces. Roosevelt's and Churchill's "War in Europe First" policy would have been delayed, at best.
The problem is nobody in the political class in the US has the will or skill, to articulate to the populace, the reasons why Russia must lose, for the good of the whole world
how about so that an authoritarian petro state doesn't conquer eastern Europe and subjugate it's people to another half century of oppression. it's not that complicated
“Americans fought very well in ww1” yes for the last two minutes.
weird comment
The Americans massively impressed their allies when they turned up and scared the hell out of the Germans. Everyone else had to train their armies to shoot to a reasonable standard, the Americans turned up with a full army that was able to shoot as well as everyone else's best marksmen, and still had the will to do things like trench raids
Yes, FDR had the luxury of entering on our terms and wasn't about to go in willy nilly and use our soldiers as Canon fodder in a war the Europeans started in the first place...
We came in when all the participants, especially our allies, when they and their empires were whittled down to almost nothing.
We supplied the Russians well before that and they used the soldiers as fodder. We got UK bases on the cheap.
Then came in, took charge, got the glory, and dictated the peace for the next 70 years, catapulting the US to Superpower status.
I think the correct word is brilliant!
The odd thing about the Nazis is that they invaded the Soviet union with horses.
Horses were a big part of the reason why blitzkrieg works, their high mobility and focused fire on a weak point of enemy lines provide them enough advantage to win a lot of battles. Would be reasonable enough for the germans to try and replicate this succes against the russians, wouldn't it ?
Andrew Roberts is great! Big fan of Napoleon as well. Nice work!
Smart guy but he is a bit off on his drone understanding...surprise attacks with drones, especially in the black sea, were very effective. And no I don't think AI is going to be able to make snap decisions anytime soon in the role of drones.
What did you think about the latest Marketing Monday?
I'm starting to think that when you say something that is completely untrue and reflects sheer ignorance instead of asking a question, it's an interview strategy, because brother, saying Patreous was anywhere near strategic decision making in Iraq in 2003 when it started is so far off base. Did similar things in other interviews, like Paine.
good interviewer, good questions.
32:20 Well that didn't really pan out as far as Gaza showing the defensive is stronger. The various groups countries across the globe that are in armed conflict often are not at parity with technology and resources. Even Russia-Ukraine when Kiev is properly supplied that have no difficulty taking territory.
Using Gaza war, Hamas vs Israel is an asymmetrical conflict. Only reason it's taking this long is Israel is actually trying to a degree not to slaughter civilians. If they didn't care, the war would have ended a year ago
38:48 Gaza now looks like Stalingrad razed to the ground. Hard to tell how much of Gaza is left standing at this point
31:53 Ouch that was awkward lol
Good stuff, but I disagree that Hitler underestimated US military strength. He fought them in WWI and had much respect for them. I doubt after Pearl Harbour he had much choice in declaring war; FDR was blaming him in his talks. Stalin probably did not go into a nervous breakdown at the start of the war; it appears now to be a myth.
Jeez could you take 2 minutes of your day to edit your description.
“AI has the potential to create permanently stable dictatorships.” -Ilya Sutskever It seems Open AI likely ousted Altman because he was working with military weapons companies. Domestic or foreign who knows.. 💀
If only more partisan conservative politicians were so articulate
This is a fascinating discussion. I admit I have not watched all of this just yet, but having once been a fervent admirer of Winston Churchill, I had to reassess things when I saw what he had ordered perpetrated against India. I desperately wish he had not done that. It was an wholly arbitrary move put forward solely for the purposes of punishing India for their desire for independence.
This does not erase Churchill's actual accomplishments, but I find it an appalling moral exercise to shrug off millions of starvation deaths to say "Yes, well, that happens sometimes. Nobody is perfect." This was not an accident, it was deliberate murder of millions by starvation as a punitive measure AGAINST people who had defended and sustained the empire for 89 years.
Again, I love the show, and find so much of these topics to be enlightening, but I have to caution against brushing off important contemporaneous current socioeconomic issues. We are experiencing rampant corporate greed, an oligarchy seeming hell-bent on squeezing working class people for all they are worth, forcing people to spend the vast majority of their waking hours struggling to survive. The essential prevailing attitude being that if someone does not have the entrepreneurial cunning and flair necessary to acquire for themselves their own personal abundance, that they are an acceptable cost for the maintenance and expansion of our economic doctrine and processes.
People are losing their houses, everything they have to pay medical bills, working multiple jobs to try and survive, and struggling due to chronic illness, and are wholly disenfranchised regardless of their prior service or contributions to society. There are serious problems that need to be fixed urgently, but are being ignored. Chortling about the shortcomings of socialism and ignoring these problems will actually increase the risk of compounded misery and radical "pendulum swinging" that causes further damage.
Am cautiously enjoying your platform. It is expanding, and I hope it serves as a source of education and enlightenment for the future.
Interview = How to say I’m clueless and pretending to be smart without saying it.
Britain barely participated in the Napoleonic war, establish a blocus on Britain did cost very little to Napoleon and most of Europe but tremendously to Britain.... not the other way around Like Roberts want people to believe.
As far as Napoleon being a dictator, yes by today's standards, but then every European King was also a dictator... and Napoleon just another one but a lot more talented at absolutely everything he touched!!!
Good interview, his quick overview of the 1945 election was quite wrong though, the labour government brought in the NHS and the welfare state, both things that even the Tories support now, so his claim that it took the uk 50 years to realise their mistake is either foolish or a lie
That is a common misconception. The labor government was largely focused on national defense. It was not especially heavy on funding nationalised industries. It was a bipartisan consensus that lasted for 20 years that brought in the welfare state and nationwide industries
Got a few hours? I’ll tell ya…..
Turfing machine, shovels, plastic sheeting, pallets, hammers and nails, pacifist unpaid labour=Invisible staging area.
Please share if you enjoyed! Helps out a ton!
And remember you can listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and all other podcast platforms.
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/andrew-roberts-leading-historian-on-warfare-from-napoleon/id1516093381?i=1000635692079
Spotify: open.spotify.com/episode/4K7iPHdop3WnuBUXJmn7iJ?si=SAsedZ7qR4axISXsP-zYrA
Transcript: www.dwarkeshpatel.com/p/andrew-roberts
Not sure Hitler "lost" in the sense of *"Triumph of the Will"* true to say failed absolutely but as for expanding out what was seen as impossible to begin perhaps unfortunate to say...perhaps not actually...but Hitler did for better or worse create that for Europe versus a very strong overwhelming belief in inevitable-ism of what is as all there is at the time which was defeat at Versailles 1918. True to say Germany would be divided East and West 1945-1991/93 but that is no longer true now. Nor is there a USSR anymore in the East quite the opposite an aggressive expansive Russia being defeated by Ukraine 2022-present remains the reality for what is Germany's East indeed Europe's East going on many Years now so how this *"Nazi 3rd Reich"* did what it did again for better or worse very much now matters knowing this😊😊
best???
reason to run away
from the "best"...
@11:08 The society is not tribal. Mercenaries controlling a society for decades is not a reflection is that societies aspirations. It’s the by product of empire. A means to an end. To describe an entire society on the basis of the military oppression they’ve been subjected to is ignorant at best.
Turned off when I heard betray due to mistress was a co author.