The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won

The Second World Wars — How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won©2017 Victor Davis Hansona Book Report by Ron HousleyHow did we learn about World War II in my generation, we who grew up in the 1950s? We sat through “Victory At Sea” on 1950s black-&-white TV, the war set to snappy Richard Rodgers melodies. We had Samuel Eliot Morrison’s tedious historical accounting of the war at sea, battle by battle. We had dinner-table conversations at home about the War and we had a large assortment of Hollywood offerings. And there was little more until the History Channel burst upon the scene decades later with a unending litany of World War II reporting, from every imaginable perspective --- well, so it seemed.Not until Victor Davis Hanson did it occur to me that perspective was precisely what had been missing from all those other accounts. What we had before VDH amounted to dubious narratives along with never-ending examinations of isolated elements of the War.There was little attempt to draw larger lessons in all these WW2 “histories;” there was little attempt to see the broad, centuries-long continuity wherein the puzzle-piece of World War II was to fit. And on top of that there had developed some accepted narratives about the War — like WW2 got us out of the Great Depression; like Hitler or Japan could actually have won; like it was in American self-interest to cooperate with Stalin; like Hitler’s holocaust being the worst mass-murder in history; like FDR provoked Japan into Pearl Harbor with his oil embargo — narratives riddled with misconception.I’m not sure that I could have followed VDH’s contribution to WW2 history without a previously acquired corpus of the war’s essential parts. But for me, this current volume is the perfect summary and epilog to a lifetime immersion in WW2 facts.THE INSIGHTSAfter all these decades of documentaries and Hollywood depictions, I came away with five important new insights as the result of opening my eyes to Hanson’s new book.[1]: INSIGHT ABOUT WHY THE AXIS LOST THE WARWhy is it so preposterous to contend that Hitler and Tojo could have won, “if only…?” It turns out that there were no “if onlys” about it:The Axis powers were unable to win (a)because of their own misguided strategic decisions, but mostly (b)because their chosen enemy was bigger and more powerful by nearly every metric: more people, more draftable citizens, more productive capacity, more technological inventiveness, all energized by a sense of righteous indignation that they had been surprise attacked.a) no Axis power had a four-engine, long-range bomber to attack Detroit, or to cross the Urals to attack Soviet factories, or to even reach Manchester or Liverpool. Only the Allies had these bombersb) no Axis power had a blue water Navy capable of challenging the Royal Navy at seac) no Axis power had aircraft carries that could support an attack on America’s west coast, or even support an attack on Suezd) Hitler lorded over 170-million people and proposed to wage a war on an Allied total exceeding 400-million.e) I was brought up to understand that the Germans and Japanese were “military machines,” much to be feared. But these countries were never able to invade or conquer America, to destroy its industrial strength (unlike today’s enemies with nuclear ICBMs).Hitler’s entire plan was based on two arrogant presumptions: (1) that if he could successfully surprise-attack poorly defended border states, that he could therefore dominate over well-fortified, well-supplied and well-armed major powers further away from home base; and (2)that Britain would continue its appeasement and that the US would continue its isolationism.But pre-emptive war against militarily weak neighbors ought not to have led a sane dictator to conclude that much stronger and larger nations could be similarly dispatched.British appeasement and US isolationism had the effect of destroying the deterrence that the two powers should have projected, if they had wanted to stop Hitler in the first place. Let that be a lesson for the ages; let that be a lesson for today: when a country “makes nice” with an aggressive enemy (think: Nazi Germany; Iran; North Korea), the aggressive enemy is encouraged to wage war. The next Pearl Harbor could very well be an EMP attack destroying an entire national power grid.The Axis powers, in short, declared war on the U.S. without any plan to actually win. They waged war totally unprepared; they had no idea of how to destroy their enemy’s ability to make war.[2]: INSIGHT ABOUT ATOMIC BOMB CONTROVERSYEven a casual reading of VDH puts to rest once and for all the decades-long contention that America’s use of the atomic bomb may have been a mistake, or even “immoral.”When a country is forced to fight for its life in a struggle launched and sustained by ruthless barbarians, it is unseemly to condemn the victims for waging too vigorous a defense. All moral blame for civilian deaths, even if any were remotely innocent, lies entirely with the aggressor who initiated military force in the first place.VDH reminds us that the firebombing of Tokyo was far more destructive of life and property than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.It has always struck me odd that an argument would ever be framed that moral judgments vary according to which method of killing is employed. Stop it![3]: INSIGHT ABOUT THE MAGNITUDE OF DEATHHere are seven factual points, all knowable to me, but which I did NOT know until VDH’s quietly pointed them out.(a): This is the first time anyone had done the arithmetic for me to divide the total war deaths by the number of war days and then report that WW2 killed over 27,000 people per day, every day, for over 6 years(!).Somehow, 60-million deaths was just a number; but 27,000 deaths per day seemed more real. Contrast that to the 3-day long Battle of Gettysburg which left a total dead of only 3,155.(b): I didn’t know that the losing side (the Axis) killed, or starved to death, 80% of the dead in WW2(c): Hitler is notoriously blamed for the death of 6-million Jews in the holocaust; but contrast that with the 30-million Eastern Europeans killed on the Russian front.(d): Of the 60-million WW2 deaths, nearly 80% were civilians(e): The March 9, 1945 napalm attack on Tokyo was the single most destructive 24 hour period in military history; yet, the atomic bomb attacks of August 1945 receive all the “moral” condemnations.(f): There were 3 Great Holocausts in the 20th century:1- Hitler killed 6-million Jews; 2- Stalin killed 10-million (prior to 1938); 3- Mao killed 40-70-million (1946-1970s)These 3 great leaders exterminated most of these off the battlefield; note that their totals are more than the 60-million killed in WW2 itself.(g): 50% of Allied bomber crews were killed (6,000 bombers and 40,000 airmen lost)[4]: INSIGHT ABOUT WHY THE ALLIES WONThroughout my years, I have been told that the Allies beat the Axis because the Allies were morally superior.VDH tells us that the real reasons the Allies won include (a)the Allies had larger industrial capacity; (b)America produced more implements of war than all other combatants combined; (c)the Allies had “righteous indignation” over having been surprise attacked; (d)the Allies developed cryptological excellence and trusted one another; (e)the Axis were duplicitous with one another.It turns out that the Allies erred on the side of serviceability and practicality and durability of its war implements, whereas the axis erred on the side of “gigantism:” building huge rail guns with limited use; building huge battleships with limited use; building huge tanks with limited use.Sealing the explanation for the Allied victories are factors such as (a)Hitler never grasped that he had neither the airpower nor the navy to overwhelm the UK; (b)Hitler had no idea of Soviet industrial capacity; (c)Hitler and Mussolini knew combat, but had little capacity to administer a Master war effort.[5]: INTERESTING FACTOIDS THAT I HADN’T KNOWN___I did not know that the developing and building the B-29 was bigger than the entire Manhattan Project.___I did not know that the Japanese were killing 20,000 per day when the decision was made to fire-bomb Tokyo. It probably would not have been more humane to allow the killing spree to continue.___I did not know that Curtis LeMay was prepared to firebomb all of Japan. It’s not that the atomic bomb saved American lives, it’s that the atomic bomb saved all of Japan from being firebombed into oblivion.___And much more!So now that I’ve digested Victor Davis Hanson’s perspective on the War, I have a better sense about the moral propriety of the Dresden fire bombing, of the Tokyo fire bombing, of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing. These bombings were the free nations of the world responding to a new phenomenon: an industrial statist regime willing to systematically butcher tens of millions of people.I have a better grasp of how strong nations lose the power of deterrence when they disengage, or when they appease a weaker enemy, or embrace Just War Theory’s call for proportionality.I see with greater clarity how the goal of “a lasting peace” absolutely requires a democratic victor to occupy a statist enemy’s homeland. (Once Germany and Japan were occupied, only then was the ground prepared for a lasting peace and cooperation with the former enemy — unlike what happened at the end of World War I.)What I do not understand is why none of these lessons or insights are taught today in the government schools, nor even in the military academies. And so it worries me that the stage is being set to repeat the whole thing over again.WW2 was the biggest war ever in history; it was the most costly war ever in history. The History Channel, and even the success of Hanson’s new book, confirms that WW2 still has a hold on the American imagination. Yet we are not prepared to learn its lessons as we go forth into the future.Unknown in the ranks of today’s generation is that the only way to end a war and to have lasting peace afterward is to utterly crush the enemy’s will to fight, and that necessitates taking the war to the homeland of the enemy to destroy his means of waging war. Today’s generation appears to favor making accommodations, deals, and appeasements.In the final analysis, America was good in what it did in WW2, heroic. Elsewise, there would have been a world-wide holocaust.My hope is that some of today’s generation might prepare for our security armed with just some of the lessons readily available from even a cursory study of Hanson’s “The Second World Wars.” — RWH

A sophisticated analysis from an author with the knowledge and background to write it convincingly. Taking a globalist perspective , similar to Weinberg but at half the length, Mr Hanson uses a unique approach. For example; Chapters 2 through 6 are entitled Air, Water, Earth , Fire, and People. I have never seen that methodology used before and yet the author makes it work. The author writes at a level which assumes the reader is knowledgeable of WW2 and has read at least some of the popular histories. This saves a great deal of time and text. The analysis concentrates on fundamentals of production ,logistics, time and distance while spending almost no space on battlefield sketches of individual actions. Mr Hanson is very good at avoiding the standard tropes and clichés , making his own reserved judgments. The Author has a firm grasp of basic Economics, essential to any serious History of this subject. Because I agree with much of what he writes, he sure seems insightful. The best one volume History of WW2 to come along since a" A World at Arms". I recommend the Read.

According to Hansen,WW2 was a moral crusade to defeat an evil enemy with the Allies overwhelming material resources, which enemy was still able to kill more of us than we killed of them. This paradox is fully explored in this magnificent work, beautifully written and massively researched, it is bound to be a standard in the field of strategic studies of the war. Read it.Just single out two issues:1)Hansen correctly emphasizes throughout the book the central role of Britain. The standard approach to this in most cases to to say well, yes, the British fought on alone for a year but with the entry of America and Russia Britain became a junior partner. In 1938 Britain was the only super power with the world's largest navy. Six years later she had the world's second largest navy as well as the largest mercantile marine. In the air British planes were preeminent throughout the war, particularly the Lancaster bomber and the Supermarine Spitfire and its engine installed in the P51.As Hansen makes clear in depth, the war as won largely as a result of allied dominance on the seas and in the air. In this sense Britain was at the forefront as the only Allied power who fought the entire war from 1939 to 1945. Also, the British Empire was essential in defeating the Axis by giving the Allies a global reach. For example, without the bases in Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, and Alexandria, North Africa and Italy would have been failed campaigns. The British army was smaller than Russia or the USA but that was not the deciding factor in the importance of Britain to the war effort. Britain's role in the Pacific is often slighted yet Britain had one million troops in Burma under General Bill Slim.2) Another now standard ploy says that Russia won the war by breaking the back of the German army. And yet that would have been impossible without the many "second fronts" such as North Africa, Italy, the strategic bombing campaign, Normandy as well as massive material aid. The simple fact is that it took three superpowers six years to defeat the Axis, something which no two of them alone could have done.

The most important history of the twentieth century is a must for anyone. The way it is related and analysed in this book will remain a milestone in history's books. I was worried all along thinking that the end of the book would be a bit of a flop compared to the other chapters but I was wrong. The end is as brilliant as the other chapters. In fact, at one stage, I had a look at the last paragraph of the last chapter and again I was subjugated by its quality. You may do that. Read first the last few sentences, highlighted by many, and you will jump in this book with avidity to know why the author could be so insightful. Every end of the year, I play a game with my family where we ask each other what was the best book of the year. This will be the one for me this year !

I like those books of Victor Lewis Hanson that I have read, so I bought this in hard-back, and, subsequently, in paperback (when the hardback book became damaged). It is now my go-to book on the 2nd WW, taking over from Roberts, Beevor and Hastings. The oddness of the writing is that, rather than writing chronologically, he writes on separate subjects in 7 parts entitled Ideas, Air, Water, Earth, Fire, People and Ends. Within those Parts, there are varying numbers of subdivisions. The fact is that there is cause for readers to see a new slant on hitherto familiar subjects, which makes this book a fascinating read. For English readers, I have to say that it is a real pleasure to read a book by an American author who gives credit to British Admirals and Generals , a virtue which he shares with Craig Symonds.I do not hesitate to recommend this book to anyone who is interested in a different slant in writing about the 2nd World War.

Wow! I love this kind of approach. Most "big" WW2 books suffocate with expositionary ploddiness, campaign by campaign; or, have kryptonite levels of analytical density. This draws off the energy of both - brilliant narrative compression, and superb thematic overview and insight. A masterpiece.

A history of the Second World War that focuses on different areas of battle: land, sea, air, leadership, casualties to give a new perspective on the war. Very well written and engrossing despite what initially appears to be a dense collection of facts and figures.

Well written and authortitative.