Part 2: The Second World Wars with Victor Davis Hanson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 чер 2024
- Could the Axis powers have won? What are the counterfactuals for World War II? Find out in part two of this episode as military historian, editor of Strategika, and Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow Victor Davis Hanson joins Peter Robinson to discuss his latest book, The Second World Wars.
Victor Davis Hanson explains the counterfactuals of World War II, the “what-ifs” that easily could have changed the outcome of the war. If Hitler had not attacked Russia or the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the USSR would have never turned on Germany and the United States would have never entered the war. Hanson argues that the leaders of the Axis powers overreached in their strategies, which ultimately caused their downfall. Hanson also explores the counterfactual surrounding the American commanders and the “what-ifs” that could have prevented American success in the war.
Victor Davis Hanson also reflects on his own family history and connections to World War II and how it shaped him as both a person and a scholar in his life today. He talks about his motivations to write his latest book, The Second World Wars, and how his family history and the current political climate inspired him to write it.
Watch part 1
• Part I The Second Worl...
About the Guest:
Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; a professor of Classics Emeritus at California State University, Fresno; a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services; host of the Classicist podcast; and the editor of the military history journal, Strategika. He is also the Wayne & Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College, where he teaches courses in military history and classical culture every fall semester. Hanson is the author of hundreds of articles, book reviews, scholarly papers, and newspaper editorials on matters ranging from ancient Greek, agrarian, and military history to foreign affairs, domestic politics, and contemporary culture. He has written or edited twenty-four books, the latest of which is The Second World Wars. Read more about the guest here.
Additional Resources:
• The Year That Changed History
• Victor Davis Hanson’s Website
• An Avoidable Great War
• The Deadly Cost of Mutual Misunderstanding
• The Axis Was Outmatched From The Start
For the full transcript go to
www.hoover.org/research/part-...
Interested in exclusive Uncommon Knowledge content? Check out Uncommon Knowledge on social media!
Facebook: / uncknowledge
Twitter: / uncknowledge
Instagram: / uncommon_knowledge_show
Thank you, gentlemen. I am Kenneth C Klahn (Captain, Infantry, WaARNG/1975-1985), son of Kenneth K Klahn, Pfc., 10th Mountain Division (Italian Theater combat veteran and .50 machine gunner in the field artillery). Dad not only handed us this country, but he and his cohort handed over a free Italy, as well.
Both men in this interview deserve far more recognition than they get.
While Dr. Hanson's fathers heroic action of saving his B-29 crew earned him the Distinguished Flying Cross is indeed extraordinary, what Dr. Hanson is doing today is equally heroic in bringing clear and true perspective in what it is to be American.
Will Steiner
If being American is distorting history then so be it.
I think the usa is the most agressive country on earth. We have no problem sacrificing other people for a political ambitions
Victor's last 10 minute screed is life changing.
Victor Davis Hanson has become my favorite historian.
He offers a unique perspective that we normally do not get. Thank you Mr. Hanson.
Dave S what is that perspective? I am sure the book he wrote is excellent. But what’s the new perspective he is providing?
Best content on youtube
Not better than all those fluffy kitten videos, surely!?! :P
I think Mr. Hanson has lived up to the name. Loved both parts! Hope to see him again soon!
I could listen to VDH lecture every day
Love the emotion at the end, we truly need to be more grateful to all of those who sacrificed their lives for our sake and be thankful for this wonderful world
I love his opinion at the end. He's a good man.
My only regret is that I have but one thumbs-up to give.
Hanson for presidency
Here here!
Hanson's great and all but I'll stick with Trump.
Yes! VDH! VDH! VDH!
Very important, especially the last part of the interview.
Fascinating interview Mr. Robinson, thank you for your fine work. My father was also on Tinian in 1945 and I am sure he would have very much appreciated Dr. Hanson's eloquence in describing the bravery and honor off those men and he would have also shared his skepticism of this age. Their courage and dedication should serve as a beacon in these confused time.
So smart and insightful. I appreciate much more those whose sacrificed so much after watching this. Thank you Mr. Hanson.
As always, Victor David Hanson is awesome.
The question and response at 26:17 is one that has stayed with me since I first heard it. Revisiting on the 75th anniversary of VE-Day and sharing with family and friends
Exceptional. Always learn so much from these interviews.
Thank you very much!
I just pre-ordered the audible! Can’t wait
YES VDH IS BACK THANKS UNCOMMON KNOWLEDGE!!!! Dr Hanson you are the man!!
The last question regarding the new generation understanding ww2 is critical. I hope ww2 will be continued to look at as an absolute extreme and critical event in our history that has given the life and world we have today.
Your heaven-sent goal is to keep us remembering which you untiringly do more successfully than any other American alive today. I am a 78-year old lawyer and can by definition read and write.
Theodore Branin I am pretty sure dozens of WW2 movies keep everybody remembering. He is apparently a very knowledgeable and insightful author. I am just saying just his effort individually isn’t very effective at making people remember the essentials but rather a more in depth look for those who know already. Just keeping people informed is done more effectively by documentaries.
Current generations learn visually. The documentaries were and are important. I recall as a 10 year old when they first came out. Richard Burton was one of the first narrators of a series. While the documentaries are essential, you have no reason to denigrate or diminish Dr. Hanson's efforts. I have read and followed him for 20 years and gained a graduate school understanding of the world I live in. The uneducable in society grows because of poorly trained teachers and flawed curriculum. Those who choose the path to learn about their world will find no better voice than that of VDH.
Fantastic interview as always.
Hanson has fascinating insights and provided some interesting perspective to events I previously thought I knew quite well. Cheers.
He is the Wisest Old Man
Good points at the end.
Wonderful interview. Looking forward to getting a copy of the book for Christmas:)
Dr. Hanson is clearly a brilliant historian with some novel takes, but I think both he and Mr. Robinson missed a glaring inconsistency from the beginning quote about the potential of a German or Japanese dominated continent being able to raise armies as large as the Soviet Union or North American and the British Empire respectively (and dovetails nicely with the discussion this led into): The Axis Powers were obsessed at the leadership levels with ideological notions of their own racial/cultural superiority, contemptuous of their current or previous enemies, and generally delusional of their own capabilities versus the military-industrial might of their eventual enemies.
Regardless of how many peoples would fall under the German or Japanese hegemonies, it is unlikely that they had either the political will or ideological flexibility to seriously incorporate those peoples in any meaningful way into their society or military. The conquered peoples were meant for exploitation, not integration; and this ideology fueled attitude at the leadership level would hamstring the Axis in any event.
When will VDH mention the greatest killer of our culture: the Frankfort Schools critical theory???
My sense is that there were so many better persons then than now. But this could be a trigger warning to current college students.
Very intelligent gentleman. Should run for president.
Truly impressive, I may actually read a book on military history now and it'd might as well be his). Hmmm.... very good.
When Japan went south to pick off the low hanging fruit of the former colonies.Stalin was able to move Gen. Zuchov and the Eastern troops, including the Mongolian front forces west. This essentially saved Moscow and turned the War around in the East.. As the Germans were freezing but still bombing the City... Imagine that. Excellent as usual Gentlemen.
David Shaw
You need to get the timeline right. The Japanese attacked The British, Dutch and Americans in the _same week_ as the Battle of Moscow.
All Hoover fellows make me feel stupid but at least nobody else knows
Well, I guess now I have to buy the book.
WOOW!!!
I'd love to have a pint with Hanson, Andrei Fursov and David Irving.
Link for Part 1?
The following is a link to part 1
ua-cam.com/video/EUELed7UuDQ/v-deo.html
What happened to Part 1?
I named you after your uncle. He was a football star and a war hero. You have a lot to live up to. You may not make it but you should try.
In almost an hour of interview time on a history of the Secondary World War VDH mentions Australia and Canada once.
Principles will make clear the better or worse, good things or bad things, should or shouldn’t. Strategies will help results of the winning or loosing, achieving or failings, victories or disasters. This is why I believe the principles are 1st, the strategy always accompany with America’s own principles to do the right things and achieve the right things without or less failures always and forever for freedoms and equality of the opportunity in America and in the world too.
This was doing well until he mentioned Patton - an average US general. The British destroyed over 90% of German armour in Normandy. All allied armies advanced at a rapid pace because there were no Germans about. Patton over stretched his supply lines. Few fighter-bombers knocked out tanks. The Sherman with the 75mm gun was no match for German heavy armour. A 1985 US Army study of the Lorraine Campaign was highly critical of Patton. www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a211668.pdf The document states:
"Few of the Germans defending Lorraine could be considered First-rate troops. Third Army encountered whole battalions made up of deaf men, others of cooks, and others consisting entirety of soldiers with stomach ulcers."
"Soldiers and generals alike assumed that Lorraine would fall quickly, and unless the war ended first, Patton's tanks would take the war into Germany by summer's end. But Lorraine was not to be overrun in a lightning campaign. Instead, the battle for Lorraine would drag on for more than 3 months."
"Moreover, once Third Army penetrated the province and entered Germany, there would still be no first-rate military objectives within its grasp. The Saar industrial region, while significant, was of secondary importance when compared to the great Ruhr industrial complex farther north."
"Was the Lorraine campaign an American victory' From September through November, Third Army claimed to have inflicted over 180,000 casualties on the enemy. But to capture the province of Lorraine, a problem which involved an advance of only 40 to 60 air miles, Third Army required over 3 months and suffered 50,000 casualties, approximately one-third of the total number of casualties it sustained in the entire European war."
"Ironically, Third Army never used Lorraine as a springboard for an advance into Germany after all. Patton turned most of the sector over to Seventh Army during the Ardennes crisis, and when the eastward advance resumed after the Battle of the Bulge, Third Army based its operations on Luxembourg, not Lorraine. The Lorraine campaign will always remain a controversial episode in American military history."
"Finally the Lorraine Campaign demonstrated that Logistics often drive operations, no matter how forceful and aggressive the commanding general may be."
*"He [Patton] discovered that violating logistical principles is an unforgiving and cumulative matter."*
The US Army study highlighted Patton's tendency to overstretch his supply lines.
victor davis hanson is a hansome fella
The firebombing of Dresden was more deadly than the atom bomb.
There is no reason to believe that Patton wouldn't have gotten his ass handed to him by the Germans if he had been allowed to advance at the rate that he preferred as he did when he decided to make a quick thrust to liberate his son in law from a POW camp 50 miles behind German lines in March 1945 (look up Task Force Baum if you are not aware of the incident of which I speak). Patton was only able to advance so quickly in the summer of 1944 because the majority of the German Army strength (including the vast majority of its armoured units) had been concentrated to the east against the British, Canadians and and the U.S. First Army which the Germans correctly regarded as the main Allied effort of the NW Europe campaign.
VDH may not be Achilles, but he is at least Homer. He may not be a hero of WWII, but he does sing their song.
Well, I won't forget. America, probably the greatest country ever.
Canon Wright -_-
Probably?? Pretty sure the issue has been decided.
so when is VDH the president?
I am thinking the same...
Lesson n°1 in warfare= never let the romanian 3rd be your wingman.
dan connor Are you talking about Stalingrad? :-)
Back when I was a translator for a Bundeswehr jaeger battalion, the co used to say that "He who has Italy on their side shall lose the war." Not totally accurate, but funny.
Parallels? Patton seen as not sober and judicious - Trump seen as not sober and judicious....
The past participle of "overrun" is "overrun," not "overran."
*Patton a genius? My oh my!*
*Patton was in the Lorraine and advanced 10 miles in three months.* The poorly devised Panzer Brigade concept deployed there with green German troops. The Panzer Brigades were a rushed concept to try and plug the gaps while the panzer divisions proper were being re-fitted and rebuilt after the summer 1944 battles.
The Panzer Brigades had green crews that never had enough time to train, did not know their tanks properly, did not have any recon elements and didn't even meet their unit commander until his arrival at the front. These were by no means elite forces.
17th SS were not amongst the premier Waffen SS panzer divsions. In fact 17th SS was not even a panzer division but a panzer grenadier division, only equipped with assault guns, not tanks, with only a quarter of the number of AFVs as a panzer division. 17th SS was badly mauled in Normandy and was not up to strength at Arracourt in he Lorraine. Patton never even once faced a full strength Waffen SS panzer division nor a Tiger battalion.
Patton's Third Army was almost always where the best German divisions in the west were *NOT.* Who did the 3rd Army engage? Who did 3rd Army defeat? In the Lorraine, 3rd Army faced a rabble. Even the German commander of Army Group G in the Lorraine, Hermann Balck, who took over in September 1944 said:
_"I have never been in command of such irregularly assembled and ill-equipped troops. The fact that we have been able to straighten out the situation again…can only be attributed to the bad and hesitating command of the Americans."_
Patton was facing a second rate rabble in the Lorraine for the most part. Patton was also neither on the advance nor being heavily engaged at the time he turned north to Bastogne when the Germans pounded through US lines.
The road from Luxembourg to Bastogne was largely devoid of German forces, as Bastogne was on the very southern German periphery. Only when Patton got near to Bastogne did he face 'some' German armour but it wasn't a great deal of armour. The Fuhrer Grenadier Brigade wasn't one of the best armoured units, while 26th Volks-Grenadier only had a dozen Hetzers, and the tiny element of Panzer Lehr (Kampfgruppe 901) left behind only had a small number of tanks operational. Its not as if Patton had to smash through full panzer divisions or Tiger battalions on his way to Bastogne. Patton's armoured forces outnumbered the Germans by at least 6 to 1.
Patton faced comparatively very little German armour when he broke through to Bastogne because the vast majority of the German 5th Panzer Army had already left Bastogne in their rear and moved westwards to the River Meuse, where they were engaging British and American forces under Montgomery's 21st Army Group. Leading elements were engaging the Americans and British under Montgomery's command near Dinant by the Meuse.
In Normandy in 1944, the panzer divisions had been largely worn down, primarily by the British and Canadians around Caen. The First US Army around St Lo then Mortain helped a little. *Over 90% of German armour was destroyed by the British.* Once again, Patton faced very little opposition in his break out (operation Cobra) performing mainly an infantry role. Nor did Patton advance any quicker across eastern France mainly devoid of German troops, than the British and Canadians did, who were in Brussels by early September.
Patton repeatedly lambasted his subordinates. In Sicily he castigated Omar Bradley for the tactics Bradley's II Corps were employing while he also accused the commander of 3rd Infantry Division, Lucian Truscott of being _"afraid to fight"._ In the Ardennes he castigated Middleton of the US VIII Corps and Millikin of the US III Corps. When his advance from Bastogne to Houffalize stalled he criticised the 11th Armoured Division for being _"very green and taking unnecessary casualties to no effect"_ and called the 17th Airborne Division _"hysterical"_ in reporting their losses. It was Patton's failure to concentrate his forces on a narrow front and his own decision to commit two green divisions to battle without adequate reconnaissance that were the reasons for his stall. After the German attack in the Ardennes, US air force units were put under RAF command, Coningham. Coningham, gave Patton massive US ground attack plane support and he still stalled. Patton rarely took any responsibility for his own failures. It was always somebody else at fault, including his subordinates.
Read _Monty and Patton:Two Paths to Victory_
by Michael Reynolds
Hanson, as all anglo saxxons I've heard, is wrong on the Axis attacking the Soviet Union. The main reason for the rise of fascism was to defeat communism. ww2 was a war against communism. The Brits just fought Germany, because they wanted to be the dominant force.
Attacking the Soviet Union was not a mistake. It was the entire reason for the consolidation of Europe prior and the war machine.
MWcrazyhorse
_"The main reason for the rise of fascism was to defeat communism"_
You really need to read a bit more.
so the National Socialists were aiming to destroy Communism?
It's not so much what you don't know, it's just that most of what you think you do know is wrong.
If Robert E Lee had had the men and resources Patton did he would have made even Patton look timid.
Patton was timid. Patton never achieved anything of note.
Sure, and if General Sherman had a thermonuclear device he wouldn't have had to waste matches and lamp oil. R E Lee believed his own bullshit, his ego defeated him as soon as he faced a competent opponent. There's no good way to do what is fundamentally wrong. Like defending human bondage.
The Nazis couldn't have won, because they had an impossible win condition: "Uber Alles." They might have been able to capture the oil fields, and refineries of modern-day Kazakhstan (They honestly couldn't do it without that, first) but their doctrine was to take over the world, and remold it into their twisted image of racial purity. I don't know if you noticed, but the vast majority of the human race don't get sunburned so easily. (Not to mention that if there was a master race under the Sun, they probably wouldn't get Burned by it.) So, I would posit the contrafactual that they would not have stopped there, and instead continued working on the plans they already had like the Sanger Vogelbomber, and bombed Amerika.
We all know how that turns out. Especially after they invaded Russia, already knowing how that turns out. Basically, they couldn't win, because the Nazis were in charge, and they never met a friend they they didn't eventually betray, and invade. So, essentially the Powell Doctrine: You can't win if your Win Condition is unclear, or impossible.
Also, Hitler considered nuclear science "Jewish." Ultimately, it's how we, and Russia got so many nuclear scientist for our nuclear programs. Even the non-Jewish nuclear scientist were driven out for Suspicion of Jewish sympathies, because they're nuclear scientists. I'm not blaming the anti-Semitism for our victory, there were several more significant factors (Steel, Oil, Yellow Cake...) but diverting rail traffic to Dachau, instead of the Eastern Front with soldiers, supplies, fuel, and munitions certainly didn't help. I'm just saying, that delusion of Racial Purity (Arayan means Persian, BTW. They also mistook Cossacks for Tajiks, so they had no etymological basis there, either) is what would eventually have cost them the victory, even if they had done everything right. They were not going to stop until the world was ruled by people who're poorly bred for SURVIVING in the vast majority of latitudes. They could have conquered Africa, but they couldn't have Survived there, (Except for the extreme southern tip, closest to Anarctica) so therefore, they cannot, ever rule the world. They would have settled for nothing less, it said it in their theme song: "Uber Alles." Honestly, the failed assumption that they are the master race, destined to rule the world due to racial purity was so false, the entire plan based on it was doomed to failure, from the start. They would have had to stop being Nazis, at some point, to have any hope of winning.
Hanson describes the USA as democratic and the British as Imperialist. Britain was democratic - he may not have known that. :)
Britain was not democratic in the sense of American selection of representatives and hasn't turned towards a more democratic approach since WWII. I've been reading in Carroll Quigley's massive history of the West from 1820-1970 "Tragedy and Hope" about the development of the British governing system.
The House of Lords was a functioning upper chamber until about 1920. The two primary parties in the House of Commons of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century were "from the Manor born." All were aristocratic even if they didn't hold a peerage.
Labor muscled to the table in the mid 1920's but, similar to Labor's large influence in the United States Democrat Party in the 50's-mid 70's, candidates and positions were "top-down" selections made by Party bosses. The Conservative and Liberal candidates were selected by Party Patriarchs in each district. All members from these two parties basically went to the same private schools and universities. All were part of the privileged class.
WWII broke the rigidity of the British Party system with the emerging middle class and newly rich class. At first there were scattered MP's that didn't come from the formerly strictly delineated "mates of of Harrow and Eton, Cambridge and Oxford." However, ministers, from both Conservatives and Labour, still had strong ties to the old aristocrats.
Margaret Thatcher arrive as the Prime Minister "who grew up living 'over the store.'" The PM's that followed, from Major to David Cameron came from essentially aristocratic roots. Theresa May has some "plebeian attributes" but she is no Margaret Thatcher.
There are parallels in the United States to leaders that come from Ivy League and Prep School backgrounds. But we have a far more diverse spread of backgrounds and education in US leaders than the British ever did.
The British, lacking many natural resources and dependent on sea travel from their island, colonized the world from the 1600's until the end of WWII. They were proud that the "sun never set on the British Empire." They were proud to be called Imperialists.
So while Britain has forms of democracy, its history and traditions are "for King and country." The British are still nominally "subjects" of the Queen. There is no written Constitution, no guarantee of rights. The "Constitution" of the UK is based on accepted practices and the Common Law dating back to the Magna Carta. Their form of government depends on current participants acting in accordance with "the way we do it."
That said, I never saw a more democratic election and the tabulation of votes than the thousands of people who counted yea's and nay's for BREXIT. That direct democratic action by secret ballot in the voting booth made me as proud as I could be of my fellow man. People showed that they were accountable to each other, and that they could work together to do the "right thing."
It may go down as the most anomalous and positive action of self-government taken in the 21st Century.
I would not call trump a George patton
Trump is the reincarnation of Patton.
Trump and Patton both being blunder busses 😂
fabulous interview except for the part about trump being like patton. the only thing trump had in common with patton is he's the king of blurt.