Ladies and gentlemen i welcome you here today in new york city, especially our supporters and all those who will be watching including cspan that is going to be an exceptional discussion. This is a special gathering where we rightly celebrate the publishing of a unique book. A look at a colossal event from a fresh perspective and an opportunity to yet learn something new and profound about the Second World War. Or as Victor Davis Hanson has titled his acclaimed bestselling history, the Second World Wars. I am the Vice President of National Review and the trustee b1 b17 i didnt know they were serving alcohol. [laughter] on the trustee of National Review institute and i do this on behalf of my fellow trustees some here today some of the board is here and president of the institute, lindsay craig. [applause] National Review was founded in 1991 by one by William F Buckley junior and a journalistic think tank established in advance the conservative principles with the National Review magazine by promoting and supporting the best talent at his last National ReviewBoard Meeting october 2016 buckley ordered literally the directors to make the fight against islamic terrorism a Central Mission of the overall mission. The institute took his firm directive for the western civilization. One is Andrew Mccarthy and the other is actor davis hanson. Lung Victor Davis Hanson it is an honor to call Victor Davis Hanson a friend and also ricj lowry so from the sun of california is a reason and all and armor author of dozens of acclaimed books senior fellow in residence of classics and libertarian history at the Hoover Institution and nationally syndicated columnist and the author of a weekly column for National Review online. Professor hansen is a distinguished fellow of history at Hillsdale College and awarded the National Humanities medal 2007 the bradley prize, 2008 and the buckley price 2015. We will proceed as follows with the topic of about 15 or 20 minutes to provide an overview and then to be joined by my other friend rich lowry editor and chief of National Review and acclaimed author in his own right i recommend to have his youthful appearance now celebrating his 2050 or at National Review. [applause] first coming to wish on National Review worked for me the fact that he survived that is a miracle. So while they are engaged we will collect question cards from the audience who will then have a talk with one of the great historians of our time. In his review of the Second World War writing National Review to say it is impossible to do justice to such a magnificent book in a short review. Given that vast quantities expended one would think there wouldnt be much left to say. Victor davis hanson proves that this is wrong. This will cement the 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 that is a nice introduction normally i am interested deuce as former colleague and son of a raisin and almond farmer. And so to explain this idea that anybody can say anything new. But the title that we use is that trump questions i was talking to the editorinchief so to explain this idea she said it sounds like the Second World War meeting that was the title but what we are getting at was our idea of the Second World War as an idea doesnt come into currency but only until 1941 all of which germany one except coming to impasse but at the same time the japanese created a east asia and italy was in the somaliland of north africa. And the axis had one because the russians were actively colluding under august 1939 in the british were engaged in appeasement until the fall of france and we were isolationist with misguided view of the strength and eventually the soviet union that led to three events that changed the course of history the three most momentous events and then changed a Second World War that was the soviet invasion on june 22, 1941 with pearl harbor attack and then singapore the next day in malaysia. And then the inexplicable declaration by italy and germany on december 11. At that point suddenly the axis on earlier preparation with the ferocity of the japanese and german soldier with those wonderful munitions and Technology Found themselves in a war they could not win. 170million against an alliance with the prewar gdp six or seven times larger so what was the decision about . As historians we dont like to say that was stupid there were all sorts of kinds if you were german or japanese. So britain was not able to be defeated despite those occupations so the idea was that we could be immune from the blockades if we turn on the provider of the soviet union. France collapsed this time around they will collapse very quickly and with the spanish war it wasnt very effective so there was a wrong and misguided impression was surrendering in world war i but they never taught a real global war is never upon the industry and blitzkrieg would die a natural death. And then for the time to get up to full strength. The second decision is more inexplicable because why would you attack the United States when gdp during the 20s and 30s of unpredictable times anywhere between ten or 30 times larger than japan to produce 70 of the worlds oil and the idea was they hadnt done anything during the blitz and holland no longer exist so the Dutch West Indies were wide open and no more france for Southeast Asia could be conquered. And i dispute to bypass pearl harbor but when running wild in china they didnt have the wherewithal or the shipping program in process to make a complete within two years that was larger than all those that participated but that was the inexact impression of the enemys capabilities. Finally to feel there are uboats that can think shipping from newark to miami with these and the Japanese Navy would occupy the americans and they could never get across the atlantic that misimpression of American History because we transported 2 Million People and produce more artillery shells so those misimpression started a war against a new alliance communism and democracy that the axis could not win and that we cooperated more closely and that were nontransparent by nature so mussolini says you did not tell me where is pearl harbor . They say they just declared a nonaggression pact. But the theme is one of those of world war ii is a question that 1942 would they find that they would settle for an armistice . Because those access lung axis powers would quit but they would say because of the bursae treaty was partly to blame so that was punitive and humiliating but didnt address the problem to emasculate the germans. But this time it was we will go to berlin and tokyo and insist on surrender and most importantly the wherewithal to do it. United states and britain and the soviet union to be supplied its material needs and destroy two out of three soldiers and out of that calculus came the idea that the allies were on the uganda war to address the reserves. Hitler blundered the war with britain with no amphibious capacity they are absolutely incapable for the raf then declared war on a country that he could not reach new york much less detroit or san francisco. They did not feel a single aircraft carrier. Japan didnt build a bomber. The japanese, what were they thinking with pearl harbor, they thought materially we wouldnt use the resources at the potential disposal but more importantly, they thought we wouldnt react in the way we did because we havent reacted when they went into china or germany attacked britain so the question then after 42 is with these people that had this ideology and had been prepared is your soldiers, could they pull it off if we were in this room in june 1944 the answer would be absolutely yes. Within a week they thought of cutting it off and surrounded and cut off the river and the japanese had a series and there would eventually be 140 belt but they didnt know that. They invaded in july 1942 australia would be cut off. They were on their way to the suez and the iconic British Forces in libya. Within three months, they lost their best premiere army surrendered in 1943 and while the meaning to british army turned back, they landed in november and the First Marine Division they couldnt build and supply then it was just a question again with the allies insist on a surrender because to do so meant you had to deal with 15 million soldiers into these economies were still damaged and so the story of world war ii is basically how much blood and treasure are you willing to expand to defeat fascism and humiliate and impose a different constitution that would preclude the resurgence of the martial ideology. World war ii and became the most deadly event in Human History 65, it might have been 70 million. It was the first major war where they lost by a wide margin and 80 for civilian. It was still the greatest warriors in the world and they killed 50 Million People who couldnt defend themselves and they took on the three major powers that be much not just defeated and annihilated and humiliated them and final thoughts when you look at the war of the people that participate i have a little bit different take. It was a weak link and they were the first daughter belligerent ally did that and the only country that went to war not because it was a surprise attack in another country the only country that dared fight or by itself and when we look at the british production they were far more mobilized than occupied in the third reich. The worst was the bombing probably of coventry or manchester or liverpool during thaliverpool during thatentire e fighter production in germany, stick figurgermanycombusted figr production so at the end of the war they almost all produced all of the third reich and almost every category. Japan got off easy in the sense that they suffered more losses giving their carnage. That wasnt the only story. The story was we had people bombers because it had been open in three months said he was going to transfer eight, ten, 12. Flying one mission at a would have made the atomic bomb childs play but to save millions of japanese lives from the air campaign that the script just in three months 65 of the urban centers in japan. You can imagine 2,00 2,000 or 10 more would do and finally, just talking about this and we will finish the questions it only got off pretty easy. They had been an ally in world war i and the only to have their homeland fought over for more than three months and put. There was german versus italian and italian versus british. We kept them out. Their attitude was the have to be good, not perfect so the primary aim is to destroy the japanese militarism, italian fascism and nazism and not to let it come in again and Everything Else after that was considered practical and they could take the necessary adjustments that that achievement should remain on question and with that i will open up for questions. Thank you very much. [applause] good morning everyone. Victor is a great friend basically on the day of september 11 we bitterly when this monstrous attack happened to this country one of the first responses we had was to call them up and say can you immediately strike up the column which he did and as you could imagine incredibly compelling read for us once a week basically for 16 years since then and now victor has written a book which is grand of military history in the tradition of john keegan or donald kagan, and i have to say in the tradition of victor davis, so congratulations. Victor will discuss a little bit and then we will take some wele questions in the form of note cards so that you have questions please scribble them down and they will be passed down. We will just be able to get some of the high points but lets discuss some of the planes of the war. How close after the battle in the battle of france was hitler to knocking the british out of the war ended in the cabinet deliberations that are happening in britain . He thought churchill made that impossible they said napoleon made great britain. They almost defeated that they couldnt for a variety of reasons leaving the lead i later because of the rain nobody had done it especially if hitler invaded the soviet union. I dont think we need to start a war in an existential sense start with the idea i cannot have my enemies homelands and that is exactly what hitler did. What if you had to say was the most important battle of world war ii . I think it is stolen. If you look at such dramatic fashion it was their premiere army. That was like the aspect nobody got out of the army. Of al the 300,000 people about 11,000 survived. Is it too simplistic to say that the soviets were the ones that defeated hitler . They did kill two out of three. Two out of three soldiers were killed across the soviet bloc and british knowhow and experience that in our defense they were able to concentrate on a single front because we supplied the locomotives and freed them up for what they did best. Second we conducted the campaigns in the media transfer we conduct of the campaign and supplied and they did it at a constant. We accomplished that in 11 months it took four years to do it. 12. 3 million versus 12. 5 and there were 11 million soldiers weve lost. 03 of the force. We invested about 45 and debated about two to 7 . They wouldnt have been able to offer how do we not done the very diverse things that we did a. We are going to wear down the confederacy. You are not going to conquer russia but obviously personal Leadership Matters and spiritual factors what is the balance among all of this. Those are the material conditions after 1943. Within that domain splitting the forces and declaring the war in the United States not working with the japanese as a synchronized attack of the union at investing the equivalent of a billion dollars in the v1 and v2 programs that deliver an explosive about 100 times the cost, building a team that took about one hour of maintenance for two hours of operation all of these investments meant when they started the war they had no margin of error. We have had a lot of margins error. We could go in and destroy the division which we did, that there was no margin of error and they compounded the problem where they lost 700,000. Our losses were not catastroph catastrophic. Lets talk about the weaponry. Was there anything characteristic in each side was there anything typically german about the tank as opposed to . There was a higher premium and the craftsmanship so it was a much more impressive piece of machinery then better armor and guns and sloped armor if youre only going to build 1500 tigers or 600, one of the 50,000 there was about one over of maintenance and ten hours of operation to take out the transmission in two hours and send it back to the factory subquestion they call it the 72,000 because it was so expensive to operate. Those together sank a carrier and the americans would have said you made the best destroyer in the world but for the price you could have made more. So the theme is for a variety of cultural and political reasons for much more pragmatic and do those things that were good enough into practical in large numbers and durable whether it was the sherman tank or the p. 51. They were not on a continent. The russians were but the industry is across so they factored in the idea that they had to be transferred. Britain had to send people i see to north africa so those were the sessions you dont want to left to the 60,000 so we forget that we were a mobile people that had to be dispersed and make a lot of things that were good enough and we cooperated when it didnt seem like it was going to perform again the british came over and said we have a rollsroyce engine and when they got to normandy and decide we didnt know what it could do the british said lets put the show into the 70millimeter. They cooperated and consulted with as much. Lets turn to the pacific. What was the japanese theory about the endgame would be in the war against the United States because everyone thinks of the warning that he might have been in purple heart for thapearl harbor but wewill get r win. What was their theory of whats within . We created and formalized in 1940 similar to what china is doing now but they havent done anything and when we look at this we dont see military asset that are commensurate with the emotionmissions anymore and the American Fleet into the Pacific Fleet isnt quite comparable to our own. They didnt understand the willingness to go to war to match the resources that were there so they would say they came 3,000 bundles and radio silence and we didnt know it and that would be the end of the Pacific Carrier fleet and they could hang around hawaii. They didnt finish the job that was basically an idea the british will quit after they lose and they said you were going to quit after you lose these basically obsolete. So you discussed this in your remarks to come up with some of the questions on the audience in terms of dropping the bombs and firebombing in japan and elsewhere and people forget we cope from hundred thousand people in tokyo in one night is your attitude that you are in an existential struggle with an evi