Good morning, friends. Welcome. Ladies and gentlemen i welcome all of you here today with us and in new york city and especially our supporters and all who will be watching the a cspan2 an exceptional discussion. This is a special gathering where we will learn about and, if you will, rightly celebrate the publishing of a unique book. I am jack fowler, the Vice President of National Review and a trustee of [applause] i didnt know they were serving alcohol this early. [laughter] but thank you. And a trustee of National Review institute. And i do this welcoming on behalf of my fellow trustees, some here today, chairman peter travers, rich lowry, i think maybe stan town, i could be wrong, dan mahoney, and the president of the institute, lindsay craig. [applause] she curtsied, National Review institute was founded in 1991 by william f. Buckley jr. It is a journalistic think tank established to advance the conservative principles bill championed and to complement the mission of National Review magazine by promoting and supporting its best talent. At his last National ReviewBoard Meeting in october 2006, bill buckley ordered, literally, the directors to make the fight against islamic terrorism a Central Mission of the overall National Review enterprise. The institute took bills firm directive and formed the center for the defense of western civilization which is the home, if you will, for two nri fellows; one being andrew mccarthy, and the other the man we are assembled today to hear, Victor Davis Hanson. Please visit nrinstitute. Org to learn more about the center and all the institutes programs. It is an honor to call Victor Davis Hanson a friend and rich lowry too. So as to the former, this son of california is a raisin and almond farmer, the author of dozens of acclaimed books, the martin and Ellie Anderson senior fellow in residence in classics and military history at the Hoover Institution at stanford university, a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of a weekly column for National Review on online. Professor anson is also the wayne and marsha busk distinguished fellow in history at hillsdale college, and among other honors, he was awarded the National Humanities meddle in 2007, the medal in 2007, the bradley prize in 2008, and the buckley prize in 2015. We will proceed as follows. Professor hanson will give a talk of about 1520 minutes to provide an overview of some key themes of of the Second World Wars. Then he will be joined by my other friend, rich lowry, an acclaimed author in his own right. I recommend all should read his lincoln unbound. And despite his youthful appearance, the man now celebrating his 25th year at National Review. And please do cheer that. [applause] you know, rich, when he first came to National Review, worked for me, believe it or not. And the fact that he survived that, that is quite a miracle. Anyway, rich will join victor for some informed q a about the book. And while rich and victor are engaged, we will collect question cards from the audience, deliver them to rich who will select a few to further talk, a talk with one of the great historians of our time. In his review of the Second World Wars, mac owen said it is impossible to do justice to such a magnificent book in a short review. Given the vast quantities of ink expended on accounts of this great conflict, one would think that there was not much left to say. Hanson provides that this belief is wrong. His fresh examination of world war ii cements his reputation as a military historian of the first order. Indeed. Ladies and gentlemen, it is a distinct pleasure to introduce professor Victor Davis Hanson. [applause] thank you very much, jack, for that nice introduction. Its much different when i go to universities, im usually introduced as victor hanson, raisin grower and former colleague of jerry tarkanian. [laughter] anything after that is gravy. Id like just very briefly, in the 15 or 20 minutes i have, to explain this idea of, arrogant idea that nick can say anything anybody can say anything new when theres about 7,000 books published per year on the Second World War. The title we used, Second World Wars, is the one that prompts questions. I was talking to the editorinchief at basic book i think whos here, laura and i explained this idea i had, and she said it sounds like the Second World Wars, to me. Meaning, that was the title that we came up with, it wasnt mind. But what we were getting at is that our idea of the Second World War as an inclusive, holistic concept really didnt come into currency until 1941. It was the german border war, danish war, low countries war, france war, yugoslavia, greece, all of which germany won except they came to an impasse with britain. At the same time, the japanese had their border war and were creating this greater east asia coprosperity sphere, and italy had been in somali land and was in north africa. And the axis had won. Finish and they had won because the russians were actively colluding under the nonaggression pact of august 23, 1939. The british were engaged in appeasement until the Prime Ministership of Winston Churchill during the fall of france, and we were isolationists. And that gave an inexact or improper or misguided view of the strength of the United States and Great Britain and eventually is the soviet union. And that led in 1941 to three events that changed the course of history. I think they were the three most momentous events in the 20th century and then changed what we knew as these wars into the Second World War. And that was, of course, the soviet invasion the german invasion of the soviet union on june 22, 1941, the parallel harbor attack pearl harbor attack, as well as the invasion of singapore and malaysia and then the inexplicable definition of war by italy and germany on december 11th. At that point the entire complexion of these border wars changed, and suddenly the axis who had prided themselves on earlier preparation, the ferocity of the japanese and german soldier and their wonderful munitions and Technology Found themselves basically in a war they could not win. They had about 170 million now against an alliance that could have over, draw on over 400 Million People and who had had a prewar gdp about six or seven times larger. So then what was that decision about . As historians, we dont like to go back and say that was stupid. At the time there were all sorts of [inaudible] that made it wise if you were a german or a japanese or an italian planner. We dont have time to go through them all, but very quickly britain was not able to be defeated by the third reich despite the occupation of what is now the European Union by 1940, in late june. So the idea was that we could be we, being the germans could be immune from blockades if we turned on our provider, the soviet union. People said they collapsed, they being the russians in world war i. France never did. France collapsed this time around, so the soviet union will collapse very quickly. Soviet union had been very unimpressive in poland and finland. Spanish war, they were not very effective. So there was a wrong, misguided impression that the soviets had been eager for the nonaggression pact, they had surrendered in world world war i earlier than the french, and they were ripe for the plucking. And that distorted the idea that they had never fought a global war, they had no ability to go beyond the urals. 80 of their transportation was provided by horses, and blitzkrieg would die a natural death in 42. And at that point it was just a question of time for the red army to get up to full strength, 12. 5 Million People. The second decision is even more inexplicable because why would you attack the United States when its gdp all during the 20s and 30s, often during economically diverse and unpredictable times, had been anywhere from 10 to 30 times larger than japan . It produced about 70 of the worlds oil. Japan had 1 . And the idea was be you were a japanese thinker that the americans hadnt done anything during the blitz to help their key ally. Holland no longer exists which meant the Dutch East Indies were wide open. There was no more france, Southeast Asia could be conquered, and there was a dispute whether you should go into the philippines and bypass it or bypass pearl harbor. But the impression, like the german impression, is they had run wild in china, they would run wild. The americans didnt have the wherewithal, they didnt know about our ship boning program in progress that would make a fleet within two years that was larger than all the fleets that participated in world war ii put together. So again, what causes war is this inexact impression of what the enemies capabilities are both spiritual and material. And finally, hitler declared war on the United States, partly it was because he felt that his uboats, each though he only had 10 or 15 active off the east coast, could ship could sink shipping from newark to miami with ease. And more importantly, he had an inordinate impression that the Japanese Navy would occupy the americans, and they would never be able to get across the atlantic. Again, a misimpression of american history, because remember in world war i we had transported two Million People without losing a single soldier, and we had produced more artillery shells than france and britain by 1918. So those misimpressions started a war against a new alliance, as dispairtive as it was, communism, democracy, that the ax sit could not axis could not win. In fact, we cooperated more closely and were more synchronized than these ideologically akin axis people or nontransparent who, by nature, dont trust each other. Mussolini says you didnt tell me, hitler wakes up, wheres pearl harbor . Japanese are fighting the russians, and the germans just declared a nonaggression pact with our enemies, and they did the same thing to the germans before the invasion. The theme then would be, to finish one of the themes of world war ii, it was just a question in 1942 would the allies fight as they did in world war i and settle for an armistice . At some point these ax sit powers were going to axis powers were going to quit. And the answer was we cant do this because the versailles treaty was partly to blame for the present war. In other words, combined the worst of both worlds. It was punitive and humiliating, but it didnt address the problem ofs maas calculating german emasculating german aggressions. This time we are going to insist and impose an unconditional surrenderer, and were in an existential war, and most importantly, we have the wherewithal to do it. The United States and britain had four engine longrange bombers, the idea was that the soviet on union would be supplid 20 of its material needs. It would destroy two out of three soldiers, and out to have that calculus came the idea that the allies were modern thinking that when you get into war, you have to address the manpower industrial reserves of your enemy. Hitler blundered oh, in a war with britain, he had no lip capacity, no amphibious capacity, the luftwaffe was absolutely incapable of defeating the raf, and then he declared war on a country that he could not reach new york, much less detroit or san francisco. What was he thinking when, as i said, it made no sense other than he lived in the world of fantastic, battlefield efficacy, spiritual excellence, all of these intangibles would nullify practicality and reality. But again, the germannings had no ability to germans had no ability to reach the United States. They did not build one bomber that had a range more than 700 miles. They did not build a single aircraft carrier, neither did italy. Japan didnt build a fourengine bomber. The japanese, what were they thinking when they attacked pearl harbor . Again, they thought that we materially wouldnt use the resources at our potential disposal. But more importantly, they thought that we wouldnt react in the way that we did because we hadnt reacted when they went into china or when germany attacked britain. And so the question then after 42 was, would head start win the this head start win the world . These people who had been prepared and were fierce soldiers, could they pull it off . If we were in this room and it was june 1942, the answer would be, yes. They had climbed mount arabis at the caw cat says mountains, 70 of the soviet oil, they were within a week, they thought, of cutting it off. They had surrounded stalingrad and cut off the boulder river. The japanese had, in a series of five fierce battles, had sunk every carrier except the enterprise. There were 27 essex carriers and there would eventually be 120 built, but they didnt know that. Guadalcanal, they thought, would be invaded, and they landed and successfully invaded in july 1942. Australia would be cut off. Irwin rommel was barreling with the africa core 70 miles from alexandria on his way to the suez and had just taken the iconic british fortress in libya. And then it vanished. Within three months stalingrad, the tragedy of stalingrad for the germans, they lost their best premier army, 300,000 people at stalingrad would surrender in november 1943, the british army with the infusion of some american tanks turned back rommel. The americans landed in november in algeria and morocco. The First Marine Division proved it could fight like jalapeno nice, but the japanese could not build and supply like the americans could. Then it was just a question to sum up, again, would the allies insist on unconditional surrender, because to do so meant you had to deal with 15 million axis soldiers. And these economies were still not damaged. And so the story of world war ii, the Second World Wars, was basically how much blood and treasure are you willing to expend to defeat fascism and humiliate the german, italian and japanese people. And impose a different constitution that would preclude a resurgence of this martial ideology. World war ii then became the most deadly event in human history, 65 some people say 60 because of the chinese and russian archives it might have been 70 million were killed. It was so strange because it was the first major war where the losers lost less than the winners and by a wide margin. First world war, 80 of the 65 million were civilians. If you looked at the war in a reductionist term of people, average people who were killed, then the story is german and japanese soldiers killed unarmed and ununiformed people in Eastern Europe, soviet union and china, 50 Million People. And that should, i think, remind us a little bit when we worry about dresden we should, it was a barbaric fire bombing or the bombing of japan, the dropping of atomic bombs it was still if you look at the 27 million killed in russia, the 16 million probably in china, the 89 million in Eastern Europe, it was still the story of people who said they were the greatest warriors in the world, and yet they killed 50 Million People who couldnt defend themselves and took on three major powers that pretty much not just defeated, but annihilated them, humiliated them and ended their way of existence within two and a half years. Final thoughts, when you look at the war of the people that participate, i had a little different take. The british, we always say, was the weak link because the British Empire was in decline. United states would rise. Britain, remember, was the only country to fight the first day of the war and the last day. No other belligerent or ally did that. The only country that went to war saving poland not just because it was a surprise attack or a surprise attack in another country, the only country that dared fight hitler by itself. And when we look at british production, they were far more mobilized than occupied europe under the third reich. The worst day of britain was the bombing probably of coverren try or coventry. During that entire period they outproduced bf109 fighter production, spitfire production. So at the end of the war, they almost outproduced all of the third reich in almost every category except tanks and airframes. Japan got you have easy in the sense that no nations army killed more people and suffer fewer losses given their carnage in asia. And yet they were the only country that was not invaded. The atomic bombs precluded it. That wasnt really the story. The real story was had curtis lame had his way, we had idle bombers because the war in europe had been over in three months. And so he was going to transfer probably eight, ten, twelve fourengine bomber. Can you imagine the armada of having 15,000 bombers based not in the marianas, but okinawa and flying one mission a day with napalm . It would have made the atomic bomb carnage childs play. So the bombs were necessary not just to preclude an American Invasion, but to save millions of japanese lives from an air campaign that had already destroyed just in three months 65 of the urban centers of japan by 2,000 b29s. You could imagine what 10,000 bombers would do. And finally, just talking about the axis now and ill finish and well start questions, italy got off pretty easy. Nobod