Learn more about the Benson Center📕www.colorado.edu/center/benson/ Subscribe to the Benson Center Newsletter📰cu.tfaforms.net/94 Follow us on Social Media📢 linktr.ee/bensoncenter
Beyond stunning how much knowledge Dr Hanson has not just about World War II, but modern day American politics, ancient civilizations like Rome and grease.
Really great lecture from one of America's brightest minds. The explanation of the internal army/navy strife in the Japanese military was more thoughtful than I've ever heard. It's always a pleasure when new VDH material gets published.
Sealion? I have YET to conclude that Hitler and Sealion was any more as 'gonna happen' as Napoleon and his invasion. Sealion would probably have been Hitler's Borodino, because the RAF would have never been as necessarily beaten to allow a successful invasion considering the RN's capabilities against the 'moisture-laden dreams' of HItler. Even the Wehrmacht and Navy couldn't agree in their planning, much less agreed in their 'final plan', which would have given the RAF to recover AND the RN to step up it's game. TIME IS EVERYTHING, and the banality of thinking the Nazis were ready to invade is clear.
Trucks for Russia were not only Chrysler and GM, but mostly Studebakers. So many, in fact, to this day Russians refer to trucks of this size as "Studes".
I love Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, but he's wrong about the Third Reich never having a 4-engine bomber. The Germans did develop a heavy bomber, the Heinkel He 177 Greif. It was a 4-engine bomber, where the engines were packed into two nacelles instead of four. This was done to maximize efficiency of parts and lower building costs. Over 1,000 were built. The bomber suffered problems from overheating.
@richardseip4954 I didn't wanna sound like I was looking for an argument 🤣. I appreciate the information because the no 4 engine bombers had been all I ever heard. In fact, no even mentions. it was even a program . Thanks ever much '
VDH didn't mention it but the key part of any military endeavor is logistics. The extremely long logistical trail is a big reason why the Germans lost on the Eastern front. The issue was both long trail and the bombing of rail lines back to Germany reducing the ability of the Germans to support their troops. They tried with aircraft but their air force did not include large cargo type aircraft.
I believe so which reminds me of the huge logistical situation in June of 1944. The D-Day landings and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The allies achieved it. To me that is astounding. Later that year was the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Wow!
i think you will find new zealand was in there from day one until the end and so was australia so britain was not the only country, very interesting video i might add
The German army blamed civilians back home for the loss of world war 1 And before world war 2 ended they blamed the entire war and the lost of the war on one politician No wonder they lost two world wars People who can't take blame for huge mistakes and not only unwilling to take the blame but shifted there mistakes to other people make terrible leaders Most high ranking officers at the end of world war 2 where not upset about what they had done They where worried that what they had done would cost them the respect and honor due a German officer
Germany and Japan were trying to overthrowing a world order in which the United States, The British Commonwealth, and France were the flagship civilizations and linguistic cultures, with Russian and China potentially coming up on the side. The German and Japanese nationalists saw correctly that to compete in world power and make the German and the Japanese into the world's leading powers and flagship linguistic civilizations they would need resources on a continental scale like America, Russian and China had or on a worldwide scale like smaller Great Britain and France with their worldwide empires and linguistic civilizations. The Germans and the Japanese foresaw that although they might continue to grow as economic powers, their situation in relation to the giants would only get worse, and they would never have equality as civilizations. So why not go for it while it was still possible given the perceived unwillingness of the West to fight and general poor development of China? This is the story in a nutshell.
You are right in terms of the general idea, but it is important to note that the Allies should be split in to blocs otherwise than you have done it: namely, the USA and the USSR as ascendant radical powers, with Britain and France as extant imperial powers. Germany, Japan and Italy, in this model, could be called aspiring imperial powers. A victory for the Allies over the aspiring imperialists set up for a subsequent (unfought) victory of radicals over extant imperialists. Actually the policy of appeasement might have resulted in a better outcome for the British in the long run (whatever we think of the Nazis).
First, I'd like to thank VDH for his steadfast support for the interventions that led to the creation of ISIS. Hard to maintain an empire, even in the form of global hegemony, when you blow all your money on disastrous interventions, and provide security via 800+ foreign bases, in service of foreign powers and global elites (American included). Our military power is not overall put in service of the interests of American citizens. Our Founding Fathers admonished us over and over not to get involved in foreign military entanglements (they admonished us to be wary of taking in too many foreigners too fast as well). We have followed VDH advice over and over at our own peril. VDH is not even impressive as a WW2 in his analysis of WW2. Anybody can easily google GDP figures, armament statistics, troop and casualty numbers. But when it comes to the why's and wisdom of decisions, he just gives you the same old conventional BS mythology and propaganda. Why? For he is the Court Historian of the Neocon Establishment. No matter what interventionist blunder, no matter how great the failure, his reason why all the interventions he pushed for and cheer leaded failed is because our commitment was just not strong enough. But why do we need all these great precedents of the past but to support modern wars in the interest of, you know, the country the whose interest the Neocons put above all else, no sillies it's not America's. I'll give you a list of VDH positions. VDH believes Putin should have been pushed out of Crimea and the whole Ukraine thing was similar to the West's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. How many of you want to risk war with Russia over Crimea, a region that wanted to be part of Russia anyway, and that until not that long ago was actually part of Russia, not just the USSR. Why does VDH hate modern post USSR Russia so much? May have something to do with Israel. For some reason they believe he interferes with their ambitions too much. VDH wants war with Iran, because he believes it is inevitable. He said the Iran Deal was, wait for it, tantamount to the West's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. See according to VDH, Iran is a major threat to US security (meaning Israel's) so it is in our (Israel's) vital interest that America (actually America this time) fight a war with Iran that would make the Iraq War look like a cake walk, to preempt Iran's barbarous nuclear attack against the US (Israel) - (Israel that has 300 nukes). Absurd? Yeah, but Hitler. Or, VDH on if we should overthrow Qaddafi in Libya?" VDH, reply: Oh yes, indeed.."if Gadhafi or his family survives in power after the United States simply got tired and quit, we will also be able to say that this sort of defeat is something quite new in American history." How has that worked out VDH? Libya is a failed state. Qaddafi warned that if you took him out, Africans and Muslims would pour through Libya flooding Europe. Oh and they are. But if we had only more fully committed, I guess occupied, well we indefinitely occupied Libya, things would be different. The overthrow was good, it was the lack of commitment that was bad. Sure, VDH. VDH on his support for the US invasion of Iraq: "Hanson believed that the Iraq War, given the repeated serial violations by Iraq of UN sanctions, congressional mandates, and the threats that Saddam Hussein posed, in a post-9/11 climate, to the long-term security of the Middle East, was a necessary and worthwhile undertaking-and was, after a flawed occupation, eventually a laudable success that had led to a workable government in 2009 and relative calm in Iraq: analogous to the foundations of the successful American occupation of South Korea in the latter 1950s that led to the democratic society of today. However, he stated in 2008 that he, "... disagreed with many of the decisions made about the Iraq war," such as the dissolution of the old Iraqi army.[19] Hanson argued that the "surge" of 2007 had largely won the Iraq War by the beginning of 2009, and that rise of the Islamic State terrorist group which seized control of much of Iraq in mid-2014 was the result of what Hanson sees as the unwise withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq in December 2011, which he blames on the Obama administration.[26] Hanson argued that if only American troops had stayed in Iraq after December 2011, then the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would have been less sectarian and the Islamic State group would have never emerged.[27] Hanson argued that the December 2011 withdrawal from Iraq was motivated to help improve Obama's chances of reelection in 2012, an act that he compared to being equivalent to the United States pulling its troops out of South Korea in 1955, arguing if only the Americans had stayed in Iraq, then that nation would have evolved into a Near Eastern version of South Korea.[28]" Uh huh...or the common sense analysis that we would have to remain in Iraq for decades in order to forestall the inevitable, i.e. the Shiite majority would take power, align itself with Iran, which would fill the vacuum we left. Oh and thanks for supporting a war that created ISIS in order to take out al Qaeda that didn't exist in Iraq. VDH supported war against Serbia. Serbia/Kosavo was a BS intervention and has not even benefited greater Europe. Our leadership of Europe has led to a situation where Europe will soon no longer be Western, no longer be European, not too unlike our own country, taking in 2 million immigrants legal and illegal every year.
How to sum up WW2... The free west vs. socialism Yes the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) were fighting the marxist socialists (commies) but that doesnt make them anti-socialist. Shia and sunni are both islamic. ha ha, your revisionist history of the NAZI being "right-wing" just blew up in your face with facts, haw haw.
No no no. Absolutely wrong. WW1: Germany and co. try and fail to become serious members of the colonial empire club, are punished for it WW2: Even more desperate (due to earlier punishment), Germany and co. try and fail to become serious members of the colonial empire club Cold War: Having weakened the colonial empire club using WW1 and WW2, and having eliminated aspiring colonial imperialists, "anti-imperial" USA and USSR collaborate to take apart and steal the colonial empires for themselves. You're part-right that Nazis (and Fascists) were leftists, though. Not wholly right. But read Corradini on proletarian and bourgeois nations, for example, and the doctrine is clearly Marxist class-struggle superimposed on nationalism.
You fail to point out where i was wrong! Lol Maybe on the wordage of "free west". But thats not a "gotcha" moment. I fully intent to devote zero energy into looking up the failed prophecies of marx. Or anyone masquerading as an objective knowledge base, while simultaneously touting marxism. The proletariat never rose up against their capitalist overseers. (something that angers the career marxist in perpetual orbit around college campuses)
A fantastic talk with rare quality - but, sry to say, for 1914 VDH is wrong. That first world war was forced upon Germany, mostly by a revanchistic France - for its defeat in 1870/71 - and a Russia, trying to seek external stabilization of its overdue aristocratic system. All the planning for war VDH cites, is irrelevant for the breakout of that war. Fact is, Germany was surprised by the very fast development from the terrorist attack up to a shooting war by belligerent powers, especially France and Russia, and his ally Austria-Hungary. But the Germans had no intention to start a war in August 1914, unlike the French, who tried to use the Balkan as a tripwire for war as early as 1912. See - Christopher Clark about France's role - th-cam.com/video/dx_V4NAUuW8/w-d-xo.html
It's only irrelevant to an idiot who thinks Germany was an innocent victim in the first world war. If anyone forced "poor" Germany into a war, it was their allies.
Germany was by no means 'forced' into the war, it made her own decisions, so she has to take part of the responsibility. During the Juli crisis there Berlin showed no intention to convert the event in Sarajevo into a hot war - quite the opposite to belligerent France and Russia, who used the Sarajevo incident as a tripwire. Germany's responsibility lies where she made the frivolous decision to back their ally Austria-Hungary - the (in-) famous 'blanc check'. The escalation of a seriously troubled situation into a shooting war was intentional by France and Russia, who decided to escalate the strained situation by negating every - even reasonable - demands of Austria-Hungary to participate in the investigation of this (Serbian state sponsored) terror attack - for finally waging war, in fear of loosing against their strong competitor Germany - Thycidides Trap (Graham Allison).
I have seen VDH's answer. Sorry to say, his arguments are not convincing; so I left a comment to his answer, but he did not agree to discuss the topics openly. You find arguments against his one sided guilt attribution - regarding the French ostracizing Germany in the Moroccan crisis's and its strong motive for a revenge war over the lost provinces in the wake of its aggression/ defeat in the 1870/71 conflict - in Christopher Clark's lecture about France France and the Origins of the Great War - th-cam.com/video/dx_V4NAUuW8/w-d-xo.html
The Axis defenders act as if 1908 never happened. As if Austrian aggression 1908 was a part of Frances master plan to war with Germany. And as if Germany didn't build a naval fleet out of nowhere, to contend with Britians mastery of the sea. As if Germany did not have an overseas empire that they wished to keep. ONLY Britain and France can be guilty of these things. It can only NOT BE Germanys fault. that's the only acceptable answer from the Axis apologists. Had 1870's events happened in 1470, they would still say that France waited 400 years to start a war with Germany. The reverse logic is used by these people, to defend German and Japanese aggression's in WW2.
Learn more about the Benson Center📕www.colorado.edu/center/benson/
Subscribe to the Benson Center Newsletter📰cu.tfaforms.net/94
Follow us on Social Media📢 linktr.ee/bensoncenter
Beyond stunning how much knowledge Dr Hanson has not just about World War II, but modern day American politics, ancient civilizations like Rome and grease.
Really great lecture from one of America's brightest minds. The explanation of the internal army/navy strife in the Japanese military was more thoughtful than I've ever heard. It's always a pleasure when new VDH material gets published.
Awesome historical perspective on WWII. If only this presentation was required viewing within the American public school system.
I learned more about Ww2 now than the previous 50 years thx victor keep YouTubing your wisdom
No mention about ‘The Battle of Britain’ that was a massive turning point that stopped Operation Sea Lion.
Not really the focus of the lecture or the book, to be honest.
Sealion?
I have YET to conclude that Hitler and Sealion was any more as 'gonna happen' as Napoleon and his invasion.
Sealion would probably have been Hitler's Borodino, because the RAF would have never been as necessarily beaten to allow a successful invasion considering the RN's capabilities against the 'moisture-laden dreams' of HItler. Even the Wehrmacht and Navy couldn't agree in their planning, much less agreed in their 'final plan', which would have given the RAF to recover AND the RN to step up it's game. TIME IS EVERYTHING, and the banality of thinking the Nazis were ready to invade is clear.
@@rbaxter286 Except Napoleon won the battle of Borodino and proceeded all the way to Moscow.
Trucks for Russia were not only Chrysler and GM, but mostly Studebakers. So many, in fact, to this day Russians refer to trucks of this size as "Studes".
I love Dr. Victor Davis Hanson, but he's wrong about the Third Reich never having a 4-engine bomber. The Germans did develop a heavy bomber, the Heinkel He 177 Greif. It was a 4-engine bomber, where the engines were packed into two nacelles instead of four. This was done to maximize efficiency of parts and lower building costs. Over 1,000 were built. The bomber suffered problems from overheating.
The He-177 was never deployed or even a factor in any air campaign.
Hmmm
We're the bombers ever employed, or we're the problems to frequent?
So they did but it didn’t work. Soo…I think he was correct.
@richardseip4954 I didn't wanna sound like I was looking for an argument 🤣. I appreciate the information because the no 4 engine bombers had been all I ever heard. In fact, no even mentions. it was even a program . Thanks ever much '
VDH didn't mention it but the key part of any military endeavor is logistics. The extremely long logistical trail is a big reason why the Germans lost on the Eastern front. The issue was both long trail and the bombing of rail lines back to Germany reducing the ability of the Germans to support their troops. They tried with aircraft but their air force did not include large cargo type aircraft.
I believe so which reminds me of the huge logistical situation in June of 1944. The D-Day landings and the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The allies achieved it. To me that is astounding. Later that year was the Battle of Leyte Gulf. Wow!
He’s worth it
48:00
So I can revisit this
i think you will find new zealand was in there from day one until the end and so was australia so britain was not the only country, very interesting video i might add
OK, every time he says, "Britain", I will hear, "Empire": I hope that will please you.
I was correcting a mistake. It was a kiwi that saved britian from defeat, yet they failed to defend us when we were under threat
debeeriz he mentioned that Britain included its territories nz aust Canada
They could have fought if they wanted. Yes.
The German army blamed civilians back home for the loss of world war 1
And before world war 2 ended they blamed the entire war and the lost of the war on one politician
No wonder they lost two world wars
People who can't take blame for huge mistakes and not only unwilling to take the blame but shifted there mistakes to other people make terrible leaders
Most high ranking officers at the end of world war 2 where not upset about what they had done
They where worried that what they had done would cost them the respect and honor due a German officer
❤
wtf is a GS-42?
Perhaps MG-42 was meant.
Germany and Japan were trying to overthrowing a world order in which the United States, The British Commonwealth, and France were the flagship civilizations and linguistic cultures, with Russian and China potentially coming up on the side. The German and Japanese nationalists saw correctly that to compete in world power and make the German and the Japanese into the world's leading powers and flagship linguistic civilizations they would need resources on a continental scale like America, Russian and China had or on a worldwide scale like smaller Great Britain and France with their worldwide empires and linguistic civilizations.
The Germans and the Japanese foresaw that although they might continue to grow as economic powers, their situation in relation to the giants would only get worse, and they would never have equality as civilizations. So why not go for it while it was still possible given the perceived unwillingness of the West to fight and general poor development of China? This is the story in a nutshell.
Anonymike interesting opinion
You are right in terms of the general idea, but it is important to note that the Allies should be split in to blocs otherwise than you have done it: namely, the USA and the USSR as ascendant radical powers, with Britain and France as extant imperial powers. Germany, Japan and Italy, in this model, could be called aspiring imperial powers. A victory for the Allies over the aspiring imperialists set up for a subsequent (unfought) victory of radicals over extant imperialists. Actually the policy of appeasement might have resulted in a better outcome for the British in the long run (whatever we think of the Nazis).
Moore Amy Gonzalez Margaret Wilson Angela
First, I'd like to thank VDH for his steadfast support for the interventions that led to the creation of ISIS. Hard to maintain an empire, even in the form of global hegemony, when you blow all your money on disastrous interventions, and provide security via 800+ foreign bases, in service of foreign powers and global elites (American included). Our military power is not overall put in service of the interests of American citizens. Our Founding Fathers admonished us over and over not to get involved in foreign military entanglements (they admonished us to be wary of taking in too many foreigners too fast as well). We have followed VDH advice over and over at our own peril. VDH is not even impressive as a WW2 in his analysis of WW2. Anybody can easily google GDP figures, armament statistics, troop and casualty numbers. But when it comes to the why's and wisdom of decisions, he just gives you the same old conventional BS mythology and propaganda. Why? For he is the Court Historian of the Neocon Establishment. No matter what interventionist blunder, no matter how great the failure, his reason why all the interventions he pushed for and cheer leaded failed is because our commitment was just not strong enough. But why do we need all these great precedents of the past but to support modern wars in the interest of, you know, the country the whose interest the Neocons put above all else, no sillies it's not America's.
I'll give you a list of VDH positions.
VDH believes Putin should have been pushed out of Crimea and the whole Ukraine thing was similar to the West's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. How many of you want to risk war with Russia over Crimea, a region that wanted to be part of Russia anyway, and that until not that long ago was actually part of Russia, not just the USSR. Why does VDH hate modern post USSR Russia so much? May have something to do with Israel. For some reason they believe he interferes with their ambitions too much.
VDH wants war with Iran, because he believes it is inevitable. He said the Iran Deal was, wait for it, tantamount to the West's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. See according to VDH, Iran is a major threat to US security (meaning Israel's) so it is in our (Israel's) vital interest that America (actually America this time) fight a war with Iran that would make the Iraq War look like a cake walk, to preempt Iran's barbarous nuclear attack against the US (Israel) - (Israel that has 300 nukes). Absurd? Yeah, but Hitler.
Or, VDH on if we should overthrow Qaddafi in Libya?" VDH, reply: Oh yes, indeed.."if Gadhafi or his family survives in power after the United States simply got tired and quit, we will also be able to say that this sort of defeat is something quite new in American history." How has that worked out VDH? Libya is a failed state. Qaddafi warned that if you took him out, Africans and Muslims would pour through Libya flooding Europe. Oh and they are. But if we had only more fully committed, I guess occupied, well we indefinitely occupied Libya, things would be different. The overthrow was good, it was the lack of commitment that was bad. Sure, VDH.
VDH on his support for the US invasion of Iraq: "Hanson believed that the Iraq War, given the repeated serial violations by Iraq of UN sanctions, congressional mandates, and the threats that Saddam Hussein posed, in a post-9/11 climate, to the long-term security of the Middle East, was a necessary and worthwhile undertaking-and was, after a flawed occupation, eventually a laudable success that had led to a workable government in 2009 and relative calm in Iraq: analogous to the foundations of the successful American occupation of South Korea in the latter 1950s that led to the democratic society of today. However, he stated in 2008 that he, "... disagreed with many of the decisions made about the Iraq war," such as the dissolution of the old Iraqi army.[19]
Hanson argued that the "surge" of 2007 had largely won the Iraq War by the beginning of 2009, and that rise of the Islamic State terrorist group which seized control of much of Iraq in mid-2014 was the result of what Hanson sees as the unwise withdrawal of all American troops from Iraq in December 2011, which he blames on the Obama administration.[26] Hanson argued that if only American troops had stayed in Iraq after December 2011, then the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would have been less sectarian and the Islamic State group would have never emerged.[27] Hanson argued that the December 2011 withdrawal from Iraq was motivated to help improve Obama's chances of reelection in 2012, an act that he compared to being equivalent to the United States pulling its troops out of South Korea in 1955, arguing if only the Americans had stayed in Iraq, then that nation would have evolved into a Near Eastern version of South Korea.[28]"
Uh huh...or the common sense analysis that we would have to remain in Iraq for decades in order to forestall the inevitable, i.e. the Shiite majority would take power, align itself with Iran, which would fill the vacuum we left. Oh and thanks for supporting a war that created ISIS in order to take out al Qaeda that didn't exist in Iraq.
VDH supported war against Serbia. Serbia/Kosavo was a BS intervention and has not even benefited greater Europe. Our leadership of Europe has led to a situation where Europe will soon no longer be Western, no longer be European, not too unlike our own country, taking in 2 million immigrants legal and illegal every year.
How to sum up WW2...
The free west vs. socialism
Yes the National Socialist German Workers Party (NAZI) were fighting the marxist socialists (commies) but that doesnt make them anti-socialist.
Shia and sunni are both islamic. ha ha, your revisionist history of the NAZI being "right-wing" just blew up in your face with facts, haw haw.
No no no. Absolutely wrong.
WW1: Germany and co. try and fail to become serious members of the colonial empire club, are punished for it
WW2: Even more desperate (due to earlier punishment), Germany and co. try and fail to become serious members of the colonial empire club
Cold War: Having weakened the colonial empire club using WW1 and WW2, and having eliminated aspiring colonial imperialists, "anti-imperial" USA and USSR collaborate to take apart and steal the colonial empires for themselves.
You're part-right that Nazis (and Fascists) were leftists, though. Not wholly right. But read Corradini on proletarian and bourgeois nations, for example, and the doctrine is clearly Marxist class-struggle superimposed on nationalism.
You fail to point out where i was wrong! Lol
Maybe on the wordage of "free west". But thats not a "gotcha" moment.
I fully intent to devote zero energy into looking up the failed prophecies of marx. Or anyone masquerading as an objective knowledge base, while simultaneously touting marxism.
The proletariat never rose up against their capitalist overseers. (something that angers the career marxist in perpetual orbit around college campuses)
VDH is so inspirational and educational.....except when he is talking about Trump.
I forgot that about him. How could he even remotely defend Trumps foreign policy?
Germany never started the war Mr. Hanson - the JEWS started it and planned it.
Idiot
Wiesel is a lying fraud. believe nothing he says. He belongs in jail
I thought that might set you off.
Go to 50:00 in the video. He's talking about the Japanese, but could be talking about you.
So what do you believe to be the truth?
A fantastic talk with rare quality - but, sry to say, for 1914 VDH is wrong. That first world war was forced upon Germany, mostly by a revanchistic France - for its defeat in 1870/71 - and a Russia, trying to seek external stabilization of its overdue aristocratic system. All the planning for war VDH cites, is irrelevant for the breakout of that war. Fact is, Germany was surprised by the very fast development from the terrorist attack up to a shooting war by belligerent powers, especially France and Russia, and his ally Austria-Hungary. But the Germans had no intention to start a war in August 1914, unlike the French, who tried to use the Balkan as a tripwire for war as early as 1912. See - Christopher Clark about France's role - th-cam.com/video/dx_V4NAUuW8/w-d-xo.html
It's only irrelevant to an idiot who thinks Germany was an innocent victim in the first world war. If anyone forced "poor" Germany into a war, it was their allies.
Germany was by no means 'forced' into the war, it made her own decisions, so she has to take part of the responsibility. During the Juli crisis there Berlin showed no intention to convert the event in Sarajevo into a hot war - quite the opposite to belligerent France and Russia, who used the Sarajevo incident as a tripwire. Germany's responsibility lies where she made the frivolous decision to back their ally Austria-Hungary - the (in-) famous 'blanc check'. The escalation of a seriously troubled situation into a shooting war was intentional by France and Russia, who decided to escalate the strained situation by negating every - even reasonable - demands of Austria-Hungary to participate in the investigation of this (Serbian state sponsored) terror attack - for finally waging war, in fear of loosing against their strong competitor Germany - Thycidides Trap (Graham Allison).
cpawp. Checkout his website victordavidhanson.com , he explains to a writer saying Germany didn't start WW1, how they did .
I have seen VDH's answer. Sorry to say, his arguments are not convincing; so I left a comment to his answer, but he did not agree to discuss the topics openly. You find arguments against his one sided guilt attribution - regarding the French ostracizing Germany in the Moroccan crisis's and its strong motive for a revenge war over the lost provinces in the wake of its aggression/ defeat in the 1870/71 conflict - in Christopher Clark's lecture about France France and the Origins of the Great War - th-cam.com/video/dx_V4NAUuW8/w-d-xo.html
The Axis defenders act as if 1908 never happened. As if Austrian aggression 1908 was a part of Frances master plan to war with Germany. And as if Germany didn't build a naval fleet out of nowhere, to contend with Britians mastery of the sea. As if Germany did not have an overseas empire that they wished to keep. ONLY Britain and France can be guilty of these things. It can only NOT BE Germanys fault. that's the only acceptable answer from the Axis apologists. Had 1870's events happened in 1470, they would still say that France waited 400 years to start a war with Germany. The reverse logic is used by these people, to defend German and Japanese aggression's in WW2.