Part I The Second World Wars with Victor Davis Hanson

[@RubenLensvelt]

I don't get how these videos don't get many thousands of views a few days. This is a hidden gem on YT.

[@arthurmiller9434]

Ruben Lensvelt You are right Ruben. Interviews like this are educational, not entertainment. That’s why this video doesn’t have thousands of views. Hanson is so interesting to listen to. Have you listened to any of his other interviews?

[@christophers5990]

Sadly because most people under 60 don't care.

[@jaik195701]

Chris Brown yes I agree... we grew up during the Cold War and our parents were in the Second World War. And now, kids and adults pay more attention to what victim group they belong to rather than appreciating the horrific sacrifices. Western civilization has no interest to them because Marxism has been rebranded as a struggle between the "oppressive patriarchy" (white men) and the "oppressed"(blacks, women, Hispanics, homosexuals, transsexuals, and Muslims)

[@jrsands11]

Partially true. I'm 65 & have read this book. I found that a highlighter & tags were a necessity! I then bought another copy for my 36 year old son (Marine). He loved it.

[@nyuki187]

was just about to write that comment

[@shaolin89]

Not only is VDH wonderful to listen to (and read), the interviewer is great as well! Thanks.

[@drywinddotnet]

VDH's book is amazing. The detail is impeccable and the style is accessible.

[@KenArkane]

Fascinating. I think i will buy the book. God bless VDH and Peter Robinson!

[@lars1296]

Just finished it. Along with The Storm of War by Andrew Roberts, this is my favorite volume of WWII. Thanks, VDH!

[@henridelagardere4584]

VDH is my favorite guest on Uncommon Knowledge.

[@dave91995]

VDH is phenomenal. Thank you.

[@kenjohnson4423]

Wow, no recent comments. Mr Hansen is an amazing man

[@harsha123v]

Amazing interview. It gave a few new perspectives to me.

[@stanw909]

Supperb as usual .

[@gardnert1]

I'd love to hear Victor Davis Hanson's opinion on what would have happened if instead of Japan attacking the US, they surprise attack the Soviets in coordination with the Germans, and neither of them declare war against the US.

[@michael7324]

I have so many questions that I would like to ask. Id love to sit and chat with Victor for a few hours.

[@pdd60absorbed12]

Germany pre-empted a Soviet attack; I concur. See Viktor Suvorov. Prior to Operation Barbarossa Germany conquered 8 sovereign nations and the USSR 5 sovereign nations. Accumulatively, Germany and the USSR were co-beligerants in shaping WWII in Europe.

[@CactusLand]

Great interview, looking forward to part 2.

[@littoy]

The full episode format is better.

[@mikeissweet]

Caio Cavalcanti When VDH is on, they should restrict it to 2 hours, _minimum_

[@thanksfernuthin]

Yeah. If this was double length, I'd be OK with it. But it's just normal length cut in half. I am SO happy I missed it when this was posted. Now I get to go straight to part two.

[@lapamful]

I wish Hoover would post the long form as well as edit little two and three minute clips with various different memes to bring in a much wider audience. We live in times of limited attention spans and most people won't watch anything longer than five minutes...

[@yuothineyesasian]

Could have been longer but I love VDH. thanks!

[@bigg5582]

VDH is a genius

[@mariojorge9529]

Thank you very much!

[@Alon77G]

Fantastic discussion. Thank you for this.

[@StopFear]

I strongly disagree with his statement at 23:05 when he says that “Russia” has a psychological claim to Crimea because they lost some millions of people recapturing it. He is technically not wrong but he almost characterizes a half of Ukraine (east of Kiev line) as if it was not Soviet Union, and as if the war was waged by “Russia” and not a multiethnic group that consisted of millions of people from areas that historically weren’t Russian but were acquired by Bolsheviks/Communists. You can’t separate Ukraine and the rest of USSR as if they were different countries. Millions of soldiers alone were recruited from Ukraine territory. The problem is today Russia is using WW2 as a pretext to justify any aggressive actions toward is neighbors. Actions which in principle are identical to Hitler’s capture or Sudetenland. Also modern Russia seems to view itself as the direct descendant or inheritor of USSR and all it’s achievements. Whatever contributions were made by Belorussians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, etc are dismisses by them just because Russia inherited most land and main cities of USSR. Everyone who participated in building of and worked in USSR deserves same credit as applicable to their territory at minimum.

[@mikeissweet]

VDH is the MAN!

[@MorphingReality]

Was anticipating this one!

[@clydecessna737]

I wonder whether the Russian experience with the Mongols shaped their character in not giving in to the Germans.

[@kuryenlaindia]

fantastic! thank you

[@michaelfasano8569]

The Notorious VDH

[@nustada]

If the USA was seriously indifferent, then maybe France and UK would have chosen to be properly armed and not have to depend on the USA.

[@TheCJUN]

nustada The French army was bigger than that of Nazi Germany at the beginning of WW2 but their military doctrine was obsolete.

[@danylopohrebnyak3862]

I haven’t heard anything new here, and I guess it’s impossible to add anything into this story.

[@CaptCutler]

I get the feeling that Germany was being used by Russia from the get go. They backed Germany while it took territory, and then they were going to take Germany after all the hard work was done. I feel this way as I'm watching the dialectic play out between the communists/globalists thesis in the US and the alt-right/nationalist antithesis. Remember, Nazis were socialists, and can only be called "far right" when the dominating force against them is communism. National Socialism is still far to the left of anything America "liberalism".

[@monroecorp9680]

The whole Left/Right thing Is beginning to seem a tired old Dino whose old bones need a nice museum. America and Europe seem to have different conceptions of what constitutes Left and Right, then there's the dimension of Conservative and Liberal - their meanings in terms of definition through to their inferred meaning based on the actions and politics of adherents to the labels AAANNND their relations to the Left and Right, respectively. Add to the joyous theatre of headless chickenry that Nationalism has been unduly convicted in the publics eye of being synonymous w/ the SS and expressly Right Wing (Wonder how 19th Century Conservatives would react to that idea) and we have a mess that just isn't going to be resolved. The whole Fascism and National Socialism being Right or Left Wing is a doozy because of this whole terminology shit-show.

[@ride0RgetR0DE0n]

Ever heard of the winter war? The ussr was absolutely humiliated by Finland. The only reason the they were able to mount this army is because they totally mobilized for self defense and had the people's support. It's hard to imagine the ussr could have invaded all the way to Germany if the Germans hadnt already exhausted their power on a war of aggression.

[@adamsmith275]

...Ernst Rohm would disagree with you... Especially after 30 june 1934...

[@davidshaw9262]

VDH is a real scholar, because history without the Great War then WWII followed by the Cold war (cause and effect) is not understanding any basis for current History of any type..As the Classics where before Rome. Just as Rome and Byzantium were before the Ottomans up to and including the far East and the great War. My humble opinion MHO Not to mention the tragedy for Ukrainians/Poland current archaeology studies in Anatolia, Indus and migration/conflict, patterns of Civilizations. Silk road conflictual history. San's the conspiracy theory B.S.

[@edward9862]

How many ww2's were there?

[@bernardhelinski1141]

😊

[@freman007]

One American aircraft carrier can fight and win a one-on-one war with most countries on Earth. America has 11.

[@johnburns4017]

Japan waged war and never had a real tank. But had aircraft carriers & battleships and one superb fighter plane. Germany hardly had a navy. The USA in 1939 never even had a tank with an army smaller than Portugals, with weak air force, but a good long range bomber and an excellent navy Only Britain was strong in all three services. The French were slightly lacking in their air force that was all.

[@robertburke9920]

If only the US had defunded Prog (1984) Ed in K-12, university and grad school after WWII, replacing the anti-brain and anti-republic pedagogy with Western (1776) Enlightenment and its love of Natural Law, Common Sense Philosophy, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property and Happiness. Oh well, we can still today defund Prog (1984) Ed and win liberty!

[@flybobbie1449]

WW2 started in 1937. Japan invasion of China for resources because America blockading Japan. And you could say it went on to Korean War. Germany used V1 and V2 because they were running out of pilots, it takes months to train pilot and might get shot out of the sky before becoming operational. We shot down German pilots because they were all rookies.

[@babysealavenger]

The germans had more aces than any other country during wwii. Not by a small margin either, but by a chasm.

[@anonimus648]

Wow this is a much more one sided depiction of the war on all levels than I am accustomed to. A mismatch

[@carolinetrace894]

Almost Alex Jones-like in his ability to cut his guest off in mid-thought, mid-sentence.

[@CoomerGremlinDGGfan]

Caroline Trace That's a bit of an exaggeration. No interviewer is that bad.

[@cpawp]

A reasonable man - but [sry] wrong in an important point. No objection to his arguments regarding the second world wars - the hybris of Hitler and the Japanese war cabinet to fight an industrial potential up to more than 5 times as theirs, is unbelievable. But the basis for these wars, the upcoming of a monster like Hitler (or Stalin), would be questionable - if the Germans had been treated fair regarding their 'guilt' for WW1. That war - the defeat and the unjust accusations, which VDH does not accept in their fragility - was the main reason for the development of the National-Socialistic movement (as well as communism in Russia). WW1 was not started by Germany alone, Christopher Clark raises the objection that first combat operations took place on German territories. VDH dismisses too easily a more war prone and militaristic France, the role of Russia in their search for an external stabilizing of their overdue aristocratic society and of a declining British empire. All of there actions were negligible, not by far, all of them were actors who had interests in the escalation of the killing in Serbia, were ready to make that shooting an inception incident for their plans to fight Germany. The thesis of Germanys war guilt is off the table, pls read the historians Niall Ferguson - Pity of War, Christopher Clark - Sleepwalkers. Especially for a highlight on Frances part in starting that meat grinder see - kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqnCh2eEdrqojZo - Where is the responsibility of France, GB and USA for the growing of a monster like Hitler ...?

[@acfalk3]

Dear Sir, As you refer to several books, let me strongly suggest that you read Sir Martin Gilbert's "Winston S. Churchill: Road to Victory, 1941-1945". And of course, a large part of this author's "Finest Hour, 1939-1941" is appropriate. The point is this, Sir: France, the UK, the USA, and to a lessor degree the USSR, were negligent by not proactively reacting to what was happening in front of their eyes, in clear daylight. The only significant exception to this was Churchill who for at least five years prior to 1939 warned and warned what was taking place. I refer you to his speeches before the Royal Society of St. George on 24 April 1933, a BBC broadcast of 16 Nov 1934, and finally a speech to the Conservative Party on 1 March 1936. All of these contained dire warnings to which party and opposition leaders simply would not listen. Sir, Hitler was fundamentally evil. He readily recognized the weakness of character of many in the UK and France, and exploited theses weaknesses to the hilt. Mussolini was no less evil, but not nearly as bold or clever. In summary, I wish to refute your positions about France, the UK and the USSR of in some way being participants in the guilt of causing the war in any other way than out of their neglect. Arnold Falk, Stans, Switzerland

[@acfalk3]

Your argument is well founded, but I cannot find evidence of any serious intent or mention to renegotiate the treaty. I would say that one of the core problems with the Treaty of Versailles, which resulted in its disastrous harshness, was that it was negotiated not in some neutral place “between equals” as desired by Wilson, but rather in of all places Paris, starting without a clear agenda or core philosophy. Wilson’s Fourteen Points had been abandoned, but had formed the basis of German expectations upon the armistice on 11 November 1918. Also, the Allies gradually accepted the demands of the French that they would not negotiate directly with the Germans. Chaos. Just reviewing the history of this period of late 1918/early 1919, it is easy to see how the myriad of angry claims between the many parties, and confusion among the Council of Ten with their 58 subcommittees, would ultimately end unfortunately with Clemenceau (and to a lesser degree David Lloyd George) winning the argument to basically to destroy Germany economically in the treaty. What I am saying here is that by the time the Versailles Treaty was signed in June 1919, all parties were totally exhausted with the subject and the constant threats to restart the war. Perhaps someone reading all this can offer some elucidation here, but I do not find any evidence that Germany came back to the Allies with hat in hand during the 1920’s to say, “Hey, it is in our common interests to look at this agreement again, especially in light of what is happening with the Bolsheviks in Russia.” Europe just rumbled on, with all but the Germans prospering adequately, and the scene building until Hitler took over as Chancellor in January 1933. Hitler’s rhetoric was clear, but it seems only Churchill was listening.

[@twidilidee8303]

Why stop at WW1? Bismarck fought 4 European wars, displacing Austria and France to become the leading continental power and inflicting on France an onerous peace settlement which the French were bound to try to overturn. WW1 can be seen as the end game of the Prussian aggrandisement which began with Frederick II. As to the scale of the disasters, these wars (WW1 and WW2) were the first socialised wars, that is wars where the person and property of every citizen were completely at the disposal of the state. This shift in the relation of state and citizen was the greatest tragedy.

[@waspishhen1]

Whatever the versatile treaty had in it in terms of the punitive consequences it never said that Germany was to be divided into fifths and occupied with a metaphorical gun to its head like it was after the Second World War. Had it been a existential conclusion to ww1 where a armistice was not signed but was a definitive defeat like at the end of ww2 then VDH argues that there would have been no Second World War. Niall is VDH colleague at Hoover and even Niall would acknowledges that VDH is more of an expert on this than himself.

[@captainamericaxxx3874]

Its funny to listen to a good World War II historian like Dr Hanson talk about American economic production and ramping up in a short time ,(1941 onwards),to have the largest Navy , airforce, Merchant marine in the world. Produce 70% of the world's Aviation fuel, feed 1/3 of the population of the earth. Provide enough food to feed every Soviet Soldier for two years(albeit a crappy Russian version of K rations). Weapons and vehicles to many of our Allies. But on another you tube video he knocks the New Deal policies as failures. Ha. I've heard this all before in the 1980s. He should stay away from modern history. Reminds me of Paul Kennedy and Pat Buchanan. By the way why would Germany need a carrier fleet without proper escorts such as Cruisers and such?