It's always refreshing and instructive to listen to a real historian discussing matters of great importance within his area of expertise. Thank you, Dr Hanson.
@@nazihater2798 I take your point, but having often had to alter my own views when better arguments and information/artefacts appeared ( I was trained as a mediaevalist), I would tend to think of history as the attempt to make coherent sense of the information about events in different times. There are better and worse ways of approaching this task, of course. Best wishes to you in any case.
@haroldwood1394 you see that is the problem nowadays, every one has clear bias, both the blogger and the real historian are either saying Churchill wanted all out war or wanted to prevent a war, while the truth is in thr middle, Churchill was impulsive and preferred to make statements that UK can be bald and strong, but that can backfire badly and clearly shows he preferred wars to other diplomatic solutions, for instance when he hadnt listen to all of his senior British allied commanders when they told him the plan of operation Jupiter was completely bad, but he never listened and ordered the attack, because when he faced a problem, all he could think about is attack, but that doesn't mean he wanted a war with germany, it just shows that he was naive and violent.
@@McElvissspointing out politely that someone’s claim is not based on facts then explaining what they got wrong is welcoming the argument. “This guy is obviously a Nazi apologist and his opinion is totally wrong and unhinged” is not. Seriously, I’ve never been more disappointed in the free speech advocates on the right than listening to them get all outraged over Daryl Cooper. Cooper really did hit them right where they are emotional instead of rational. We need way more of VDH’s calm and polite, professorial approach to challenging people who get things wrong in public.
@@lanagordon5669 It still adds up to both being right though. I agree that we need way more VDH's in the world, but your statement is strongly tinged with "oh, there goes the right wing again." The acrimony towards the right wing as responsible for any evil in the world and morally decrepit while the left are superheroes in a world "justice league" is just as ridiculously partisan. You have a new generation of Daryl Coopers, who arrogantly approach history as if it's all false and influenced by the victors, the white racists and patriarchs and we're going to come in and find those discrepancies and falsehoods and prove our "enlightened" narrative of everything is "oppressor vs oppressed" is the right one is youthful hubris on steroids. A just as important reason for more VDH's..
While you're waiting, check out Spaight's 'Bombing Vindicated'. Mr. Hanson is a keen historian, but unlike Spaight was neither there at the time nor personally involved with the Air Ministry.
I wouldn't hold your breath, Tucker only wants to hear his own idiocy. Besides Hanson, there was another historian, who was Speaker of the House in the 90's. Newt Gingrich. Apparently Tuckervthinks this cooper is a better mire truthful historian than Hanson, Gingrich, and myriads of other actual historians.
Since the response Mr. Hanson wrote was behind a paywall, I'm very pleased to hear this. I note that, unlike most responses, Hanson was welcoming of other voices and never used slander or derision. He remains a breath of fresh air. I would love the two of them, Hanson and Cooper, to speak together on the subject as an example of civility and dialog.
Love VDH's eloquent, articulate, informed answers. This interview should be played in every American and UK high school so the younger generation are informed of the actual events instead of listening to ill informed bloggers.
This is an excellent display of the type of back and forth discussion we need to have. Instead of being opposed to one another - notice how the discussion between Daryl Cooper and Victor Davis Hanson has not devolved into name calling or insults, but rather an actual discussion that assumes that the other person is merely mistaken, not some evil person. It would be very exciting to see Darryl and Victor discuss these issues in a calm manner together. Not in a spirit of tearing anyone down or trying to discredit anyone, but in an attempt to reach the truth.
I agree with the spirit of your statement and, in this day and age, I understand that people long for the days of civil disagreement. But just because somebody speaks calmly and without calling names, it doesn't mean their ideas aren't heinous. Cooper is a Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier. He has the right to believe what he believes, but I would prefer not to see him ever pop up in mainstream discussion ever again.
You are refusing to hold Cooper accountable for blatantly spewing lies on a large platform, and instead resign to a circle-jerk of an "excellent back and forth" discussion.
Kinda makes sense. Victor's father was a high functioning alcoholic after WW2, and he loved him dearly. I am 90% sure Daryl calling Churchill an alcoholic, in a condescending way really hit home.
@@accidentalfinder4916 Okay. I said upfront that I'm sometimes skeptical of the man. It sounds like you are too. However, the WW2 point stands. Or are we supposed to totally ignore people that we don't 100% agree with?
I really enjoyed both perspectives It was crazy to hear people melt down about Tuckers episode with Cooper - I didn’t agree with most of what he said but it was still a really fun listen I also love anything VDH does and enjoy listening to him
It was crazy to you that people would be outraged by a major public figure airing the views of a clear anti-semite without ever challenging those views in the slightest?
@@Merknilash I couldn't care less what you say you are, he very clearly implied that Churchill was controlled by Jewish financiers. That's pretty much as anti-semitic as you can get without putting on an SS uniform.
@@Merknilash Why do clowns like you refuse to hold these kind of guys accountable when they spew out misinformation at the very least a misrepresentation of history on large platforms?
@@tomac100 Victor Davis Hanson’s foreign policy is not identical to Dick Cheney’s. Hanson’s analysis often incorporates historical context and philosophical arguments about democracy and culture, while Cheney’s focus is more pragmatic regarding immediate security concerns. Furthermore, Hanson has critiqued certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy decisions made during the Bush administration
Great at wrecking he’s own country A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which, if we are ever to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand, perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the community….a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and the exhaustion of the conquerors. Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings.” Very insightful in 1901 when he wrote this 13yrs later the war mongering side made him forget
@@tommore3263 Churchill was a blundering racist imperialist who sacrificed the British Empire needlessly. Hitler had no quarrel with the British Empire at all. He only wanted a free hand to move eastward toward Russia. Churchill was a damned fool and an awful character. His racism was as bad as Hitler.
@@Beau136 look up Ernst zundel and david Irving. Tons of evidence. Or do you need permission... They were labeled n@$!s . They investigated later in life and try to tell the public what they found, all documentation and data... Look what happened to them . Should that happen to anybody unless it's a threat to a globalist agenda?
This is exactly the right response to Tucker Carlson's interview of Darryl Cooper. Welcome the contribution, but calmly present the case against it. Excellent!
During the May crisis Lord Halifax wanted to negotiate a peace agreement with Hitler through Mussolini and he had enough support to possibly push it through parliament and force Churchill out. However, it was clear that one of the components of a peace deal was that Britain would have to curtail the Royal Navy, much like France. This was absolute anathema to Churchill who said that would not be peace but it would make Britain nothing but a puppet of Hitler. It was then that he made his famous speech to the MP's where he said he would rather lie choking in his own blood that give in to Hitler. The MP's and Chamberlain, to his credit, came on board with Churchill and Halifax (and Oswald Mosley) were checkmated. I'm no scholar, just a high school graduate, but it amazes me how people with all these degrees fail to see the simple fact that has been proven time after time that showing strength is the way to prevent war.
Well, Churchill kept his beloved Navy at the cost of 50 million lives. Instead of Hitler dominating eastern Europe, we got Stalin dominating eastern Europe.
@@afritimm LOL. As if Hitler would simply not try and invade after it cedes its naval supremacy? Absoloutely bonkeres tha people beleive this. Hitler HATED britain, he wanted to invade even IF the "peace agreement" was signed. That would lead to the subjugation of not just eastern Europe (hitler also occupied france at this time btw). But also set the stage for ambitions outside of Europe. In future, pehaps giving so much benefit of doubt o hitler, consider that he might not be as benevolent as you may think.
@@oldschool1993 No we didnt get such a world. A large part of the world suffered under murderous communism after WW2, which was very much strengthened by the results of WW2. 100 million dead from Stalin and Mao. Eastern Europe crushed for 45 years. Obviously Britain and the US would have fought Hitler if Hitler attacked us. The question is do we jump into every war where we have not been attacked. George Washington said no.
He lost me when he began shilling for Israel. He was the greatest disappointments of all the intellectuals I used to admired or listed to including Douglas Murray, Peterson, Gary Elders.
@@nyc_girl_in_london925 the thing is with Cooper he can’t claim to be Mr ‘I do so much research before my podcast’ persona like he was spouting on Tuckers show, and then come out with a reading of history that only a bad college historian could possibly come up with, and then be given the benefit of the doubt. He’s thus a well read con man, or he’s unread and not as thorough has he claims to be. Either an idiot or he’s covering up his blatant hatred of Jews with a pseudo history about Churchill. Scholars like Hanson are too old, experienced and well read to fall for such an obvious phoney.
Excellent response to some revisionist history. As VDH alluded to in far better wording, one can certainly have their own opinions but not their own facts. The good professor's book; The Second World Wars, is an excellent overview of all the various theaters of combat across the globe of that conflict. He demonstrates the effect of each belligerents economic and manufacturing capability and how that either did, or should have influenced the leaders of the countries involved. It is truly a great study to read and learn from.
I heard Tucker’s interview with Cooper and knew Cooper was way off base. I’m so glad to hear V.D.H. talking about this to set the record straight. Thank you for posting this video and letting us hear Mr. Hanson explain it so well.
There is an award-winning book called _Churchill and His Money_ which came out in 2015. It confirms everything Cooper says. In fact, if Cooper is guilty of anything, it is of severely _understating_ Churchill's corruption. After exhaustive analysis, Lipstadt was forced to concede that Irving's books were 99.9% accurate. Irving may have one foot in the grave, but we have many other fantastic writers who will carry the torch for him. Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Thomas Dalton, Edmund Connolly, Brenton Sanderson, Tobias Langdon, Ron Unz and Thomas Goodrich are the sharpest minds we could ever hope for. Indeed, there are no words to convey how vital their work has been. After 85 years, the information blockades are finally starting to erode. The powers that be are desperate to plug up the leaks in the dam, because if it bursts, it will be the sociopolitical equivalent of Krakatoa.
Im a huge fan of Daryl Coopers podcast (Martyrmade) and im really looking forward to his series on WW2 because i can't see how he arrives at his conclusion at all yet
VDH knocks it out of the park again - and how gracious of him to say, "There has to be a common set of FACTS and in this case the person in reference apparently wasn't aware of the facts.....". As ever, Victor brings those facts to the debate. Oh, how we need quality, learned, seasoned and ACCURATE educators in this era of "my truth"... Thank you, Pepperdine.
(1) Because Britain had a formal alliance with Poland, which they honoured when it was invaded [as they had likewise honoured their alliance with Belgium in WWI, when it was invaded by the German Empire]. (2) The British command were intelligent enough not to make the same strategic error that Hitler did, by declaring war on two major powers simultaneously. They believed -- rightly -- that Stalin could eventually be peeled away from Germany. It is wrong to suggest (as other non-historians like the blogger on Carlson's show have) that Churchill was therefore somehow happy to ally with Stalin, or naïve about the dictator's intentions in Eastern Europe. As the Potsdam and Yalta conferences clearly show, Churchill and Truman had no illusions about the brutality of Stalin, but recognised the necessity of keeping the Soviets in the war until the Nazis had been defeated. As martial doctrine dictates, deal with the worst and most capable enemy first, then deal with the second later. That is why the Cold War was already beginning before WWII was even over -- and remember, it was Churchill himself who coined the phrase 'Iron Curtain' in his 1946 speech.
The agreement between the USSR and Germany to divide Poland was not public knowledge. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact. Stalin invaded Poland after Germany. So the British never considered giving the Soviets a warning.
@@tanler7953 Sounds like Kamala word salad. he fact is that the British never considered declaring war on Russia or issuing a warning for invading poland because Britain knew they needed The Soviets on their side. Britain is good at starting wars and depending on others to save them.
But Stalin had already committed the Holodomor genocide. How could anyone claim that Hitler was worst than Stalin at that time. Also Hitler wanted to take back the stolen German territories that had been given to Poland after WW1. Hitler's reason to be in Poland were much more significant than Stalin who had absolutely no business there.
@@paulmelonas7263 I agree. But if you look at the negotiations between Russia, Britain and France during March and April of 1939, the Soviets desperately tried to form a united front against Germany. The main stumbling block was Poland which could never accept Russian troops within Polish borders. Britain could hardly be blamed for starting WWII. Germany broke the terms of the Versailles Treaty many times over before Britain reacted.
One big question is whether Britain would have been stronger in the period 1945-2024 had a deal been done with Germany in 1939 or 1940, given that the nation lost almost all its power after 1945 and saw a relative economic decline in relation to those nations over which we were victorious. A further question is whether the world would have been a better place post-1945 had Germany, after a peace treaty with Britain, been free to deploy all its resources against the Soviet Union, thus extinguishing communism there, preventing its spread to China and on to Korea and Vietnam, amongst others. And would the effect on Jews have been worse or better had there been a settlement in Western Europe in 1939 or 1940?
@@Ollies2CentsWardill As implied in my final paragraph, I think that the Jews would have been better off in Western Europe had Britain and France not declared war on Germany. Poland would have not been ruined had we and the French not given war guarantees to it, thus forcing it to come to a reasonable compromise with Germany over Danzig. Polish Jews therefore would have been better off. In the end, my government's first duty in 1939 was to neither Poland, Czechoslovakia nor Jews, but to the British people and British Empire. I consider it to have failed on both points, given our history post-1945.
A bigger question is why people like Churchill dragged and cheered Britain into 1914 An even bigger question is why 1914-19 is ignored in favour of 39-45
@@Sean-p3o You are right about the disaster of 1914. Had Britain stayed out of the conflict, then it would have remained strong; and the war itself woudl have been over much sooner. Also, the Russian Empire would probably have survived and Boshevism would have remained just another Marxist theory; no Red China, no Korean War, no Vietnam War, none of the ruinous movements that have harmed human welfare in the developing world during the 20th Century.
Cooper was just giving a different perspective, he said himself that he was being hyperbolic. He raised a lot of good questions, it’s not fair to paint him as a crackpot.
@@justinchamberlain3443 Very funny. There have been numerous historians from both the right and the left for decades who have vilified Churchill, Cooper is hardly the first. He's been accused of genocide in India, bringing about the end of the British Empire, being solely responsible for the crippling debt owed to the USA, selling out Poland and a hundred other accusations. What singles out Cooper's claims is their factual inaccuracies and overall stupidity.
An excellent text which validates each of VDH's points is 'Five Days in London, May 1940' by John Lukacs, a masterpiece of modern historical writing. Also, David Starkey's brilliant documentary series 'The Churchill's' in which Starkey compares WSC with his ancestor, John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.
The Allies heavily bombed major German cities to weaken the German war effort. Even the American day bombing wasn't accurate enough to target only factories much less the British night bombing. And like the German bombing during the blitz, the civilian population was the target. The bombing of Japan was much the same. WWII was a brutal war. We should all hope we never see its like again.
Even without all of VDH’s vast knowledge of history, I instinctively felt the Tucker interview was incorrect about Churchill. I feel better about my reaction now.
How would you know until they debated the subject? It seems like Cooper triggered a lot of people that don't want certain information in the mainstream. WW2 was not as black and white as certain pundits want to present it. Do your own extensive research before you trust your world to people on the video screen.
That interview (along w/other things going on w/him) has distanced him from most things I believe to be true. I don't know what's happened with Tucker (along with Candace Owens). And I don't want to know at this point.
That guy on Tucker’s pod has been resoundingly dismissed by anyone with a firm grasp of history. Not disagreeing Tucker to have people with divergent perspectives, but this is a great example of when true academics/historians matter.
"that guy" was an outright Nazi and should be publicly confronted to admit his extreme views so others who are not fascists are not carried away with his delusions not knowing their logical conclusions.
@@timothyapplescotch1361calling people nazis doesn't work anymore, the trurh is European Civilization lost WW2, Bolshevism triumphed and FDR funded it.
Thank you Victor for exposing the lies in Cooper's view of Churchill, and relating the timeframe. He will always be our hero, despite the mean attitude of ignorant bloggers.
Regarding the last point. Wasn't there an Operation Gomorrah? Brits were specifically targeting civilians and tried to create "firestorm" effect to maximise the casualties. Scientist Freeman Dyson worked on the project, you can find it on youtube.
That is well known and not contested, a part of total war. The Germans, US and British all targeted civilians through bombing in order to erode the enemies ability to fight. Unlike Germany the US and British developed the technology to be devastatingly effective at it.
Excellent video. I watched Cooper's interview on Carlson and I wasn't comfortable with what he said. At the same time, the public outcry seemed to carry a lot of misrepresentation of his remarks and ascribing him positions that he did not take. Victor Davis Hanson has handled this professionally, addresses only things that Darryl Cooper actually said, explaining why they aren't correct, and avoiding personal attacks.
He made it very clear that he believes Churchill was a puppet of Jewish financiers and that they were partly responsible for the Second World War. He didn't say those words explicitly, but you have to be either feigning ignorance or be genuinely intellectually stunted to fail to understand what he was implying.
Thank you Mr Hanson. I watched that Tucker Carlson interview and was disappointed that Tucker didn't push back on the comments about Churchill made by Cooper. I think it would be a good idea if Tucker interviewed you for a balanced discussion on Churchill specifically and WWII in general.
With Victor expertly correcting Cooper's nonsense, I find it profoundly reassuring to see one of our finest adults are back at the (historical) wheel. Bravo!
Very good interview. I’m growing very tired of the use of “warmonger” as a slur used against those who understand that we have not only a moral obligation, but also significant geopolitical and economic interests, in stopping imperialist dictators like Hitler or Putin or Khomeini or, increasingly, Xi. The people using that term tend to fall into two categories. First, there are those with little understanding of history, geopolitics, or economics, and are ignorant of the difference between someone actively seeking war where it’s not necessary (looking at you, LBJ and Cheney) and understanding that a just war must sometimes be fought and/or aid must be provided to allies against unprovoked imperial aggression. The second camp is those who actually sympathize with and idealize/rationalize those imperialist dictators’ domestic social policies, and think we need to be friends with them on those grounds, but since they know that’s not politically acceptable, they cloak their support with calls for peace at all costs and denigrate those who oppose their idols as “warmongers.” I believe Carlson and Cooper, as well as some extreme politicians in the U.S. like MTG and Gaetz, fall into this latter camp. This isn’t unique to one side of the political spectrum though. The far right has done it with Hitler and Putin, and the far left has done it with the USSR, China, and, well, basically all U.S. foreign policy post-WWII.
You can’t be in Europe now and see that the wrong side won. Please visit us in Sweden and see what has happens. Europe should be populated by Europeans.
The fall of France was THE pivotal moment in WWII and Winston Churchill was the only politician who stood between Nazi domination and survival for democracy in the western world. We stand here today with the freedom to express our opinions because of this man, a fact that should NEVER be forgotten.
I'm so glad you chaps are old enough to have personally witnessed all the political conversations and communications in the late 1930's and bring forth the facts without the opinions of others...
You do realize there is written historical record of all this? Some written contemporaneously by the participants, the rest based on interviews of those participants after the war.
@@jondrew55 If you have a spare $800.00 or so I thoroughly recommend "Churchill's War", and "Hitler's War," by David Irving. Very informative. @jonowens8850 could greatly improve his knowledge.
neither gentlemen point out that during the Battle of Britain that when the RAF started bombing civilian targets, it caused the Luftwaffe to do likewise. whether you believe it a terrorist action or not, this gave the RAF a breather.... (the RAF was on it's last legs from having airfields bombed and aircraft destroyed on the ground) this was THE critical turn in the war... did Churchill know this would happen? who knows??? sure looks to be the brilliant move to me.
Thank you for the response to this VDH, God bless the first amendment, but we are forced to listen to people who could not pass a community college history class.
It's always refreshing and instructive to listen to a real historian discussing matters of great importance within his area of expertise. Thank you, Dr Hanson.
Well said .
History = His-story from the winning side, nothing more, nothing less.
@@nazihater2798 I take your point, but having often had to alter my own views when better arguments and information/artefacts appeared ( I was trained as a mediaevalist), I would tend to think of history as the attempt to make coherent sense of the information about events in different times. There are better and worse ways of approaching this task, of course. Best wishes to you in any case.
@haroldwood1394 you see that is the problem nowadays, every one has clear bias, both the blogger and the real historian are either saying Churchill wanted all out war or wanted to prevent a war, while the truth is in thr middle, Churchill was impulsive and preferred to make statements that UK can be bald and strong, but that can backfire badly and clearly shows he preferred wars to other diplomatic solutions, for instance when he hadnt listen to all of his senior British allied commanders when they told him the plan of operation Jupiter was completely bad, but he never listened and ordered the attack, because when he faced a problem, all he could think about is attack, but that doesn't mean he wanted a war with germany, it just shows that he was naive and violent.
I recommend another real historian, Prof. Nigel Knight, whose "Churchill - The Greatest Briton Unmasked" must be read.
This is the way it's done. Victor Davis Hanson welcomes the argument rather than personally attacking the other side...the way debating used to be.
0:48 ish. "the person in reference apparently was not aware of the facts". Maybe not an attack, but deadly none the less.
He doesn’t really welcome the argument, because he acknowledges that the argument isn’t based on facts.
Now I just want a debate between VDH and “the person in reference” 😂
@@McElvissspointing out politely that someone’s claim is not based on facts then explaining what they got wrong is welcoming the argument. “This guy is obviously a Nazi apologist and his opinion is totally wrong and unhinged” is not.
Seriously, I’ve never been more disappointed in the free speech advocates on the right than listening to them get all outraged over Daryl Cooper. Cooper really did hit them right where they are emotional instead of rational.
We need way more of VDH’s calm and polite, professorial approach to challenging people who get things wrong in public.
@@lanagordon5669
It still adds up to both being right though.
I agree that we need way more VDH's in the world, but your statement is strongly tinged with "oh, there goes the right wing again." The acrimony towards the right wing as responsible for any evil in the world and morally decrepit while the left are superheroes in a world "justice league" is just as ridiculously partisan.
You have a new generation of Daryl Coopers, who arrogantly approach history as if it's all false and influenced by the victors, the white racists and patriarchs and we're going to come in and find those discrepancies and falsehoods and prove our "enlightened" narrative of everything is "oppressor vs oppressed" is the right one is youthful hubris on steroids.
A just as important reason for more VDH's..
Great respect for VDH - he has an enormous breadth and depth of knowledge and is such a coherent thinker! Thanks you…
He doesn't represent American interests though.
@@jmo8525 How so?
Can’t wait for Tucker’s interview of Victor. That will be a treat.
Tucker is a Jew-hater.
While you're waiting, check out Spaight's 'Bombing Vindicated'. Mr. Hanson is a keen historian, but unlike Spaight was neither there at the time nor personally involved with the Air Ministry.
Pretty sure there has been many, but I too would like to see a fresh one after the Cooper interview.
I wouldn't hold your breath, Tucker only wants to hear his own idiocy.
Besides Hanson, there was another historian, who was Speaker of the House in the 90's. Newt Gingrich. Apparently Tuckervthinks this cooper is a better mire truthful historian than Hanson, Gingrich, and myriads of other actual historians.
Tucker Carlson has been exposed by the discovery in the Fox lawsuit to be an absurd fraud, a grifter and liar to boot. The guy is a POSz
Clarity of convictions comes from solid scholarship. Thanks VDH.
VDH always providing a voice of intelligence and reason...thank you.
Na he’s a fucking lunatic and hypocrite. Yes he’s one of the few sane conservatives out there, but he facilitated Trump and now this is the result.
Since the response Mr. Hanson wrote was behind a paywall, I'm very pleased to hear this. I note that, unlike most responses, Hanson was welcoming of other voices and never used slander or derision. He remains a breath of fresh air.
I would love the two of them, Hanson and Cooper, to speak together on the subject as an example of civility and dialog.
Cooper is still ignorant if basic facts
Love VDH's eloquent, articulate, informed answers. This interview should be played in every American and UK high school so the younger generation are informed of the actual events instead of listening to ill informed bloggers.
The fact that both you and the host need to use petty insults like "blogger" to attack the man rather than his argument says a lot. Neocon clown.
Thank you for taking the time to clear this up mr Hanson.
Thank you for your truthful insights.
A lucid and informed analysis of the facts.
Thank you for the rebuttal!
This is an excellent display of the type of back and forth discussion we need to have. Instead of being opposed to one another - notice how the discussion between Daryl Cooper and Victor Davis Hanson has not devolved into name calling or insults, but rather an actual discussion that assumes that the other person is merely mistaken, not some evil person.
It would be very exciting to see Darryl and Victor discuss these issues in a calm manner together. Not in a spirit of tearing anyone down or trying to discredit anyone, but in an attempt to reach the truth.
Fake and gay
Dary Cooper is a moron.
I agree with the spirit of your statement and, in this day and age, I understand that people long for the days of civil disagreement. But just because somebody speaks calmly and without calling names, it doesn't mean their ideas aren't heinous. Cooper is a Hitler apologist and Holocaust denier. He has the right to believe what he believes, but I would prefer not to see him ever pop up in mainstream discussion ever again.
You are refusing to hold Cooper accountable for blatantly spewing lies on a large platform, and instead resign to a circle-jerk of an "excellent back and forth" discussion.
Very well explained, thank you.
Thank you for this.
Victor Davis Hanson. Always a calm, reasonable, verifiable historian.
Calm. Yes. Verifiable?
Or just selective ?
For foreign interests, yes.
When VDH holds you in such contempt he refuses to refer to you by name, you probably weren’t cut out to be a historian.
A not-so-subtle gentlemanly move by a disciplined professional.
Kinda makes sense. Victor's father was a high functioning alcoholic after WW2, and he loved him dearly. I am 90% sure Daryl calling Churchill an alcoholic, in a condescending way really hit home.
Thanks for the clarification.
Thanks for this interview with Professor Hanson good information to know.
Have a great day!
I am sometimes skeptical of VDH, but man is he a great source for WW2 knowledge. Knocked it out of the park.
You’re aware that VDH calls any criticism of Israel antisemitic? Yet American Jews criticize Israel and VDH says nothing. Yeah, that’s fishy.
@@accidentalfinder4916 Okay.
I said upfront that I'm sometimes skeptical of the man.
It sounds like you are too.
However, the WW2 point stands.
Or are we supposed to totally ignore people that we don't 100% agree with?
I really enjoyed both perspectives
It was crazy to hear people melt down about Tuckers episode with Cooper - I didn’t agree with most of what he said but it was still a really fun listen
I also love anything VDH does and enjoy listening to him
It was crazy to you that people would be outraged by a major public figure airing the views of a clear anti-semite without ever challenging those views in the slightest?
@@cerdic6305 nothing in the episode was antisemitic in the least
I’m Jewish btw
@@Merknilash I couldn't care less what you say you are, he very clearly implied that Churchill was controlled by Jewish financiers. That's pretty much as anti-semitic as you can get without putting on an SS uniform.
@@Merknilash Why do clowns like you refuse to hold these kind of guys accountable when they spew out misinformation at the very least a misrepresentation of history on large platforms?
@ shut up idiot
You sir are a national treasure
Thank you Mr David Hansen.
Thank you for the history lesson. We need more Professor Hanson.❤👍
@@tomac100 I was cheering Dick C at that time myself. Now looking back we realize Neocon is no f good.
@@tomac100 In what way?
@@tomac100 Victor Davis Hanson’s foreign policy is not identical to Dick Cheney’s. Hanson’s analysis often incorporates historical context and philosophical arguments about democracy and culture, while Cheney’s focus is more pragmatic regarding immediate security concerns. Furthermore, Hanson has critiqued certain aspects of U.S. foreign policy decisions made during the Bush administration
@@tomac100 expressed skepticism about U.S. military intervention in Syria
Excellent. Lucid. Accurate. Contextual. Churchill was indeed a great and insightful leader.
Great at wrecking he’s own country
A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heartrending struggle, which, if we are ever to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand, perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the community….a European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and the exhaustion of the conquerors. Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings.”
Very insightful in 1901 when he wrote this
13yrs later the war mongering side made him forget
@@tommore3263 Churchill was a blundering racist imperialist who sacrificed the British Empire needlessly. Hitler had no quarrel with the British Empire at all. He only wanted a free hand to move eastward toward Russia. Churchill was a damned fool and an awful character. His racism was as bad as Hitler.
Would be great to hear Victor and Darryl discuss this together.
It would make Daryl look foolish. Best he simply read better. Many authors are just saying whatever they want to say now anymore.
Nah Darryl is correct
@@tallswede80Prove it, show the historical evidence. You can't
@@Beau136 look up Ernst zundel and david Irving. Tons of evidence. Or do you need permission... They were labeled n@$!s . They investigated later in life and try to tell the public what they found, all documentation and data... Look what happened to them . Should that happen to anybody unless it's a threat to a globalist agenda?
Victor would wipe the floor with him. Victor is a world renowned scholar and professor of history, the other guy "plays" history.
Thanks for the factual clarification.
Context matters. Thank you VDH
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
The first sense I've ever heard out of Hanson's mouth. Good on you. Finally.
This is exactly the right response to Tucker Carlson's interview of Darryl Cooper. Welcome the contribution, but calmly present the case against it. Excellent!
During the May crisis Lord Halifax wanted to negotiate a peace agreement with Hitler through Mussolini and he had enough support to possibly push it through parliament and force Churchill out. However, it was clear that one of the components of a peace deal was that Britain would have to curtail the Royal Navy, much like France. This was absolute anathema to Churchill who said that would not be peace but it would make Britain nothing but a puppet of Hitler. It was then that he made his famous speech to the MP's where he said he would rather lie choking in his own blood that give in to Hitler. The MP's and Chamberlain, to his credit, came on board with Churchill and Halifax (and Oswald Mosley) were checkmated. I'm no scholar, just a high school graduate, but it amazes me how people with all these degrees fail to see the simple fact that has been proven time after time that showing strength is the way to prevent war.
Well, Churchill kept his beloved Navy at the cost of 50 million lives. Instead of Hitler dominating eastern Europe, we got Stalin dominating eastern Europe.
@@afritimm And you got a world in which you are free to spew your nonsense.
@@afritimm LOL. As if Hitler would simply not try and invade after it cedes its naval supremacy? Absoloutely bonkeres tha people beleive this. Hitler HATED britain, he wanted to invade even IF the "peace agreement" was signed. That would lead to the subjugation of not just eastern Europe (hitler also occupied france at this time btw). But also set the stage for ambitions outside of Europe.
In future, pehaps giving so much benefit of doubt o hitler, consider that he might not be as benevolent as you may think.
@@oldschool1993
No we didnt get such a world. A large part of the world suffered under murderous communism after WW2, which was very much strengthened by the results of WW2. 100 million dead from Stalin and Mao. Eastern Europe crushed for 45 years. Obviously Britain and the US would have fought Hitler if Hitler attacked us. The question is do we jump into every war where we have not been attacked. George Washington said no.
@@afritimm
Just always surrender and there will never be war
Love VDH and Tucker. This was so well done.
Please Victor ! You are one of my only remaining Heroes. Wait for Darryls publication
He lost me when he began shilling for Israel. He was the greatest disappointments of all the intellectuals I used to admired or listed to including Douglas Murray, Peterson, Gary Elders.
@@nyc_girl_in_london925Have you considered the possibility that they’re right and you’re wrong?
@@nyc_girl_in_london925 the thing is with Cooper he can’t claim to be Mr ‘I do so much research before my podcast’ persona like he was spouting on Tuckers show, and then come out with a reading of history that only a bad college historian could possibly come up with, and then be given the benefit of the doubt.
He’s thus a well read con man, or he’s unread and not as thorough has he claims to be.
Either an idiot or he’s covering up his blatant hatred of Jews with a pseudo history about Churchill.
Scholars like Hanson are too old, experienced and well read to fall for such an obvious phoney.
I'm a simple man, I see Victor Davis Hanson and I click.
Thank you for being honest. Dates and facts are important. Discussing all of this is important especially for the youth
It is so nice to see civil, educated people talk, not the YT garbage that's influencing our culture.
education isn't knowledge
Victor Davis Hanson is one of the greatest voices alive right now. I hope he’s doing well. We need him around for at least another ten years.
...@ least 👍🏻👍🏻
Of yeah, the author of ‘the case for Trump’ is a great voice… pull the other one
@@Ajsopranosrubberduxyes, anyone advocating for the greatest president of our lifetimes is a great voice.
@@bowencreer3922 Donald Trump is quite easily the worst president of all time in pretty much every conceivable metric
“It’s absurd”. Yes, and thanks for this.
Excellent response to some revisionist history. As VDH alluded to in far better wording, one can certainly have their own opinions but not their own facts.
The good professor's book; The Second World Wars, is an excellent overview of all the various theaters of combat across the globe of that conflict. He demonstrates the effect of each belligerents economic and manufacturing capability and how that either did, or should have influenced the leaders of the countries involved. It is truly a great study to read and learn from.
VDH - spitting facts!!!!
I heard Tucker’s interview with Cooper and knew Cooper was way off base. I’m so glad to hear V.D.H. talking about this to set the record straight. Thank you for posting this video and letting us hear Mr. Hanson explain it so well.
There is an award-winning book called _Churchill and His Money_ which came out in 2015. It confirms everything Cooper says. In fact, if Cooper is guilty of anything, it is of severely _understating_ Churchill's corruption. After exhaustive analysis, Lipstadt was forced to concede that Irving's books were 99.9% accurate. Irving may have one foot in the grave, but we have many other fantastic writers who will carry the torch for him. Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Thomas Dalton, Edmund Connolly, Brenton Sanderson, Tobias Langdon, Ron Unz and Thomas Goodrich are the sharpest minds we could ever hope for. Indeed, there are no words to convey how vital their work has been. After 85 years, the information blockades are finally starting to erode. The powers that be are desperate to plug up the leaks in the dam, because if it bursts, it will be the sociopolitical equivalent of Krakatoa.
I'm English and everything VDH said was correct! His measured yet authoritative tone was refreshing. A scholar of great intellect
Im a huge fan of Daryl Coopers podcast (Martyrmade) and im really looking forward to his series on WW2 because i can't see how he arrives at his conclusion at all yet
I like him too, but I suspect he's really wrong on this. VDH's arguments seem way more powerful on this subject.
Totally agree. As usual VDH is spot on..
i could listen to VDH all day on history
This was more validating than I expected.
VDH knocks it out of the park again - and how gracious of him to say, "There has to be a common set of FACTS and in this case the person in reference apparently wasn't aware of the facts.....". As ever, Victor brings those facts to the debate. Oh, how we need quality, learned, seasoned and ACCURATE educators in this era of "my truth"... Thank you, Pepperdine.
Oh My Giddy Aunt! Our perception of the real world has to be based on Fact. Shock, Horror!
VDH has a calm, measured, mature approach to disagreement we can all learn from. I love the gentle way he dismantles arguments.
Why was Dresden firebombed?
So allied troops could go through
Because Guernica was.
Because Stalin wanted it
If Britain declared war on Germany for invading Poland why didn't Britain declare war on the Soviet Union? They also invaded Poland.
(1) Because Britain had a formal alliance with Poland, which they honoured when it was invaded [as they had likewise honoured their alliance with Belgium in WWI, when it was invaded by the German Empire]. (2) The British command were intelligent enough not to make the same strategic error that Hitler did, by declaring war on two major powers simultaneously. They believed -- rightly -- that Stalin could eventually be peeled away from Germany. It is wrong to suggest (as other non-historians like the blogger on Carlson's show have) that Churchill was therefore somehow happy to ally with Stalin, or naïve about the dictator's intentions in Eastern Europe. As the Potsdam and Yalta conferences clearly show, Churchill and Truman had no illusions about the brutality of Stalin, but recognised the necessity of keeping the Soviets in the war until the Nazis had been defeated. As martial doctrine dictates, deal with the worst and most capable enemy first, then deal with the second later. That is why the Cold War was already beginning before WWII was even over -- and remember, it was Churchill himself who coined the phrase 'Iron Curtain' in his 1946 speech.
The agreement between the USSR and Germany to divide Poland was not public knowledge. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact. Stalin invaded Poland after Germany. So the British never considered giving the Soviets a warning.
@@tanler7953 Sounds like Kamala word salad. he fact is that the British never considered declaring war on Russia or issuing a warning for invading poland because Britain knew they needed The Soviets on their side. Britain is good at starting wars and depending on others to save them.
But Stalin had already committed the Holodomor genocide. How could anyone claim that Hitler was worst than Stalin at that time. Also Hitler wanted to take back the stolen German territories that had been given to Poland after WW1. Hitler's reason to be in Poland were much more significant than Stalin who had absolutely no business there.
@@paulmelonas7263 I agree. But if you look at the negotiations between Russia, Britain and France during March and April of 1939, the Soviets desperately tried to form a united front against Germany. The main stumbling block was Poland which could never accept Russian troops within Polish borders. Britain could hardly be blamed for starting WWII. Germany broke the terms of the Versailles Treaty many times over before Britain reacted.
Love every video VDH is in. Calmly speaking facts to back up all his points.
One big question is whether Britain would have been stronger in the period 1945-2024 had a deal been done with Germany in 1939 or 1940, given that the nation lost almost all its power after 1945 and saw a relative economic decline in relation to those nations over which we were victorious.
A further question is whether the world would have been a better place post-1945 had Germany, after a peace treaty with Britain, been free to deploy all its resources against the Soviet Union, thus extinguishing communism there, preventing its spread to China and on to Korea and Vietnam, amongst others.
And would the effect on Jews have been worse or better had there been a settlement in Western Europe in 1939 or 1940?
Obviously the jews just wouldn't be, at all, in that scenario.
@@Ollies2CentsWardill As implied in my final paragraph, I think that the Jews would have been better off in Western Europe had Britain and France not declared war on Germany. Poland would have not been ruined had we and the French not given war guarantees to it, thus forcing it to come to a reasonable compromise with Germany over Danzig. Polish Jews therefore would have been better off.
In the end, my government's first duty in 1939 was to neither Poland, Czechoslovakia nor Jews, but to the British people and British Empire. I consider it to have failed on both points, given our history post-1945.
This is great. I think the world would be way way better than today.
A bigger question is why people like Churchill dragged and cheered Britain into 1914
An even bigger question is why 1914-19 is ignored in favour of 39-45
@@Sean-p3o You are right about the disaster of 1914. Had Britain stayed out of the conflict, then it would have remained strong; and the war itself woudl have been over much sooner. Also, the Russian Empire would probably have survived and Boshevism would have remained just another Marxist theory; no Red China, no Korean War, no Vietnam War, none of the ruinous movements that have harmed human welfare in the developing world during the 20th Century.
Cooper was just giving a different perspective, he said himself that he was being hyperbolic. He raised a lot of good questions, it’s not fair to paint him as a crackpot.
Not sure if he's a crackpot, but I'm sure he is an attention seeker. He didn't raise any good questions in that they've all been asked before.
@@faustoferrari4303that’s absurd. So me any other historian of any note that isn’t engulfed in Churchill worship.
@@justinchamberlain3443 Very funny. There have been numerous historians from both the right and the left for decades who have vilified Churchill, Cooper is hardly the first. He's been accused of genocide in India, bringing about the end of the British Empire, being solely responsible for the crippling debt owed to the USA, selling out Poland and a hundred other accusations. What singles out Cooper's claims is their factual inaccuracies and overall stupidity.
Plus he's got the Kruger Dunning effect going for him. ..That ain't nothing.
@@faustoferrari4303 He's gotta eat. But at what cost? ..The truth?
An excellent text which validates each of VDH's points is 'Five Days in London, May 1940' by John Lukacs, a masterpiece of modern historical writing. Also, David Starkey's brilliant documentary series 'The Churchill's' in which Starkey compares WSC with his ancestor, John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough.
Absolutely correct. Thank you for this important talk
Helpful nuance and insight.
I trust Victor Davis Hanson over any blogger.
He's a little more than a blogger. That's like saying Rogan is a talk show host.
Great analysis
So why did they bomb Dresden?
The Allies heavily bombed major German cities to weaken the German war effort. Even the American day bombing wasn't accurate enough to target only factories much less the British night bombing. And like the German bombing during the blitz, the civilian population was the target. The bombing of Japan was much the same. WWII was a brutal war. We should all hope we never see its like again.
Because Dresden was a major transportation hub for German troops being sent to fight Russia.
Stalin specifically asked for Dresden to be bombed.
This is a real historian
Even without all of VDH’s vast knowledge of history, I instinctively felt the Tucker interview was incorrect about Churchill. I feel better about my reaction now.
How would you know until they debated the subject? It seems like Cooper triggered a lot of people that don't want certain information in the mainstream. WW2 was not as black and white as certain pundits want to present it. Do your own extensive research before you trust your world to people on the video screen.
That interview (along w/other things going on w/him) has distanced him from most things I believe to be true. I don't know what's happened with Tucker (along with Candace Owens). And I don't want to know at this point.
@@NVRAMboi They are telling the truth. That is what happened.
EXCELLENT PRESENTATION!
Cooper has kicked over some rocks
Thank you.
Once again, thank you, VDH, for correcting the lies and setting history straight.
Victor is a living Legend ! He should be in Trump’s Cabinet !
He wouldn't last three seconds. Trump can't stand anyone with actual knowledge and wisdom. He'd try to bully and humiliate VDH.
VDH always on point and articulate
That guy on Tucker’s pod has been resoundingly dismissed by anyone with a firm grasp of history. Not disagreeing Tucker to have people with divergent perspectives, but this is a great example of when true academics/historians matter.
Oy Vey ‘
@@beagleman123456789the nazi recoils in shock
@@timothyapplescotch1361that nazi word is literally all you people have
"that guy" was an outright Nazi and should be publicly confronted to admit his extreme views so others who are not fascists are not carried away with his delusions not knowing their logical conclusions.
@@timothyapplescotch1361calling people nazis doesn't work anymore, the trurh is European Civilization lost WW2, Bolshevism triumphed and FDR funded it.
Really cool that Pepperdine is doing this.
Thanks
“Si vis pacem, para bellum” If you want peace, prepare for war.
Thank you Victor for exposing the lies in Cooper's view of Churchill, and relating the timeframe. He will always be our hero, despite the mean attitude of ignorant bloggers.
Female opinion ... disregarded and Churchill was evil and guilty of the brother war
The amount of details Victor remembers about so many parts of history is amazing.
Thank you for interviewing someone who has knowledge and knows how to articulate.
Nailed it.
Regarding the last point. Wasn't there an Operation Gomorrah? Brits were specifically targeting civilians and tried to create "firestorm" effect to maximise the casualties. Scientist Freeman Dyson worked on the project, you can find it on youtube.
That is well known and not contested, a part of total war. The Germans, US and British all targeted civilians through bombing in order to erode the enemies ability to fight. Unlike Germany the US and British developed the technology to be devastatingly effective at it.
Interesting. Thank you.
Excellent points. Very interesting.
Excellent video. I watched Cooper's interview on Carlson and I wasn't comfortable with what he said. At the same time, the public outcry seemed to carry a lot of misrepresentation of his remarks and ascribing him positions that he did not take. Victor Davis Hanson has handled this professionally, addresses only things that Darryl Cooper actually said, explaining why they aren't correct, and avoiding personal attacks.
He made it very clear that he believes Churchill was a puppet of Jewish financiers and that they were partly responsible for the Second World War. He didn't say those words explicitly, but you have to be either feigning ignorance or be genuinely intellectually stunted to fail to understand what he was implying.
God bless you, Victor.
Hanson's use of the terms inductive and deductive in the context of education and learning is very interesting.
Thank you Mr Hanson. I watched that Tucker Carlson interview and was disappointed that Tucker didn't push back on the comments about Churchill made by Cooper. I think it would be a good idea if Tucker interviewed you for a balanced discussion on Churchill specifically and WWII in general.
I think it would be a good idea if Carlson slunk away into obscurity. He is a malicious serial liar and propagandist.
Where can i watch full interview ? thanks !
With Victor expertly correcting Cooper's nonsense, I find it profoundly reassuring to see one of our finest adults are back at the (historical) wheel.
Bravo!
Very good interview. I’m growing very tired of the use of “warmonger” as a slur used against those who understand that we have not only a moral obligation, but also significant geopolitical and economic interests, in stopping imperialist dictators like Hitler or Putin or Khomeini or, increasingly, Xi. The people using that term tend to fall into two categories. First, there are those with little understanding of history, geopolitics, or economics, and are ignorant of the difference between someone actively seeking war where it’s not necessary (looking at you, LBJ and Cheney) and understanding that a just war must sometimes be fought and/or aid must be provided to allies against unprovoked imperial aggression. The second camp is those who actually sympathize with and idealize/rationalize those imperialist dictators’ domestic social policies, and think we need to be friends with them on those grounds, but since they know that’s not politically acceptable, they cloak their support with calls for peace at all costs and denigrate those who oppose their idols as “warmongers.” I believe Carlson and Cooper, as well as some extreme politicians in the U.S. like MTG and Gaetz, fall into this latter camp. This isn’t unique to one side of the political spectrum though. The far right has done it with Hitler and Putin, and the far left has done it with the USSR, China, and, well, basically all U.S. foreign policy post-WWII.
You can’t be in Europe now and see that the wrong side won. Please visit us in Sweden and see what has happens. Europe should be populated by Europeans.
Thank you, Victor Davis Hansen. You are brave to stay in California, I bailed 10 years ago.
The fall of France was THE pivotal moment in WWII and Winston Churchill was the only politician who stood between Nazi domination and survival for democracy in the western world. We stand here today with the freedom to express our opinions because of this man, a fact that should NEVER be forgotten.
What a great commentary. Based on a knowledge and grasp of history.
First time I agree with this guy.
Thank you Mr. Hanson for your truth telling based on deep knowledge and integrity. We need more people like you.
The level of intellect is night and day between Victor and this other guy.
I'm so glad you chaps are old enough to have personally witnessed all the political conversations and communications in the late 1930's and bring forth the facts without the opinions of others...
You do realize there is written historical record of all this? Some written contemporaneously by the participants, the rest based on interviews of those participants after the war.
@@jondrew55 If you have a spare $800.00 or so I thoroughly recommend "Churchill's War", and "Hitler's War," by David Irving. Very informative. @jonowens8850 could greatly improve his knowledge.
Sarcasm works much better when based in at least a little knowledge of the subject.
Yeah, I'm sure Daryl is sooo much more well read and closer to the factual origins of WW2 than WVDH... 😂😂😂
VDH vs some podcaster… I’ll listen to VDH all day, every day
neither gentlemen point out that during the Battle of Britain that when the RAF started bombing civilian targets,
it caused the Luftwaffe to do likewise.
whether you believe it a terrorist action or not,
this gave the RAF a breather....
(the RAF was on it's last legs from having airfields bombed and aircraft destroyed on the ground)
this was THE critical turn in the war...
did Churchill know this would happen? who knows???
sure looks to be the brilliant move to me.
Thats not relevant to the issue. It was the Nazis who first started civilian bombing in Spain and Poland
VDH is the Man!!!!
I vote. Victor Davis Hansen has been the best historian in America today.
💯 AGREED 🛑
Douglas Murray recommended we really listen to Mr Hanson on this subject about Churchill…
Much like Lincoln, the important question is not about Churchill's motives, but his policies..
How can I watch the entire interview ?
Sad that Tucker went there without research. Thank you Mr. Hanson for truth. God bless you.
Thank you for the response to this VDH, God bless the first amendment, but we are forced to listen to people who could not pass a community college history class.