The Daily Signal - Victor Davis Hanson: World War II Was a Brilliant Work of American ‘Strategy, Productivity, Courage, and Sacrifice’ 

Episode Date: September 4, 2025

“World War II was a brilliant work of American strategy, productivity, and courage and sacrifice. And the result was we destroyed the greatest threat to mankind, and we did it as economically as we could in American cost and lives,” Victor Davis Hanson says. He also addresses why the U.S. allied with the Soviet Union during the war: "We fought World War II and won the war, and we came away with losing very few soldiers. At the end of the war, the Soviet Union had no intention … of honoring their commitments made both at Yalta and then before the Japanese theater had ended at Potsdam. “But nevertheless, when the war was over, the United States was the preeminent power in the world—except for Britain—had lost fewer combatants than any of the major three allies, Britain, the United States, Russia, and China as well, and had lost fewer than Japan and Germany. “So, we fought that war very economically by giving material aid to the Soviet Union, who used their manpower and lost 20 million people to kill three out of every four German soldiers. “That's not an argument that you like the Soviet Union. I detest the Soviet Union. But it's an argument that in the ability of the United States to defeat Germany in 1941, it was a wise military strategy to use a third party to kill the German army, kill it off, and that's what happened, it was a success." 👉Don’t miss out on Victor’s latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You’ll be notified every time a new piece of content drops: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1    👉If you can’t get enough of Victor Davis Hanson from The Daily Signal, subscribe to his official YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@victordavishanson7273    👉He’s also the host of “The Victor Davis Hanson Show,” available wherever you prefer to watch or listen. Links to the show and exclusive content are available on his website: https://victorhanson.com  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

At Desjardin, we speak business. We speak equipment modernization. We're fluent in data digitization and expansion into foreign markets. And we can talk all day about streamlining manufacturing processes. Because at Desjardin business, we speak the same language you do. Business. So join the more than 400,000 Canadian entrepreneurs who already count on us. And contact Desjardin today.

We'd love to talk. Business. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hansen for The Daily Signal. I had a recent podcast that I hope you all enjoyed about the new revisionism of World War II. Specifically, I talked about an interview that a Cornell chemist, David Column, had given with Tucker Carlson, in which I disagreed with his suggestion that not only should we have not allied with the Soviet Union, but that we might have considered ally with Hitler. He didn't really say that specifically, but he said that would be a possibility.

And I had a vehement demand for an apology from the journalist-dash historian Diana West. She said that I had defamed her, and I want to read the two sentence or three sentences I said, because not only do I think I was correct in my assessment, but I think rather than me giving an apology, I think she needs to give me an apology to me because she misconstrued what I said and then she put it all over the Internet. Let me go back to that broadcast I gave you and read exactly, exactly what I said. Recently, there has been more revision about World War II, period. Tucker Carlson had on his show the other day a chemistry professor from Cornell University, David Cullum. There was sort of resonating, that was sort of resonating what a prior blogger,

Daryl Cooper had said about World War II in the vein of Diana West, Pat Buchanan, all the way back to Herbert Hoover. The gist, let me repeat that. The gist of it was that we should have never allied with the Soviet Union. Union. And we should have either let Hitler and Stalin fight it out or, comma, emphasis here, in the case of David Cullum, he suggested that we might have wanted to fight with Hitler, period. I'm going to read you what her demand is, but I think if you heard what I just said, I said three things, that there was a school of people who had been revisionist about World War II. And I mentioned two interviewees of Tucker Carlson, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Column.

And then I mentioned people in the past who had been World War II revisionist, including Diana West and Pat Buchanan and Herbert Hoover. And then I said, as I just quoted, that the gist of it was they thought that we should not have allied ourselves with the Soviet Union in World War II after the German invasion of June 22, 1941. And then I said in one particular case, and again, I want to say that in the case of David Cullum, so I was talking about David Cullum alone, not Darrell Cooper. Not Diana West, not Patrick Buchanan, not Herbert Hoover. He suggested we might have wanted to fight with Hitler. Okay. So I did not suggest that Diana West said that I wanted, I had said that she wanted us to have fought with Hitler. She never said that.

Let me make clear. She never wrote that. And I never said she did. Let me read you now this kind of long letter very quickly asking for apology. to Victor Davis Hansen and the Daily Signal. Now, she's copied on her demand. Newt Gert Wilders, Frank Gaffney, Richard Vigray, Michael Waller, Ruth King, Andrew Bossam, and many others.

That's unfortunate because she misspoke about me and misrepresented me, and then she sent it all over the Internet. And here's what she says. I am writing to demand the retraction of remark Victor Hansen made about me during his recent Daily Signal podcast and column concerning World War II history, August 29, 2025. Below verbatim is Mr. Hansen's remark in which he pairs the noxious Hitler provocation promoted by podcaster Daryl Cooper with my name, Diana West, referencing my book American Betrayal.

I paired her with Daryl Cooper only in the connection that both of them questioned why we allied ourselves with the Soviet Union and wished we had not. Let me continue. Mr. Hansen is actually expanded on the original smear which first appeared last month in an interview with David Colum on the Tucker Carlson show by adding my photograph to a montage of images of Tucker Carlson, David Colum and Daryl Cooper, as if we were all of us intellectual or political allies, exclamation point. Ms. West, I don't know about the photography, the photo that you're referring to. I never created any photo. I never published it on my own. I have no knowledge of it. Never have. When I do a daily signal or my own podcast, thousands of images appear. Some are

people who platform they want to add for it without my knowledge or consent some are just AI generated but I have no control over it if there was a picture that circulated on the internet maybe from the daily signal maybe from somewhere else I had nothing to do with it my permission was not asked nor was I given and I really resent the accusation that you think that I did it when you had no proof that I did and I did not. In addition, Column and some kind of neobundice network as conjured by the Daily Signal's lurid headline, World War II revisionists went too far with, we should have cited with Hitler claim. I guess she's objecting to the plural World War II revisionist.

She has a legitimate complaint there because I only specified one revisionist, David Colum, who actually advocated for an alliance with Hitler. The other revisionists, as I said, the gist of their arguments is that the United States should not have allied ourselves with the Soviet. That's two different things. I have no control over the title that the editors or anybody uses when I issue my video. The video is produced each day for the daily signal, and then they package it, they entitle it, they publish it. My job and my contractual obligations are to send them a five-minute video every day, and that's exactly what I did. For her to insinuate that I made the title, again, is about as fallacious as I circulated a photo with her picture along with these

other revisionists. Both the remark and the headline are utterly unjust and quite injurious to my work and reputation. And they are to mind to accuse me of that, Ms. West. Nor have I ever made a Hitler claim, and the proof is all in my widely published books, columns, blogs, and interviews. On the contrary, my work has nothing to do with these men. And further, I have published numerous articles, statements, and made podcasts, making my criticism and opposition to the corrosive agendas. They, Tucker Carlson, being the most influential, promote loud and clear. I have no doubt you're doing that. I never suggested that you did not. Nevertheless, here's what Victor Hansen publicly and recklessly stated about me, and then she quoted that. But again, publicly and recklessly,

when all of I said that you were a revisionist about World War II, the gist of which you suggested that we should not ally ourselves with the Soviet Union. If you want to take this occasion and say that I misspoke and that you really did want to. us to ally with the Soviet Union, then I will apologize. But that's not what I read, and I did read your book. That is not the impression that I got and which that you intended to give. And of course, I never said, as I said earlier, that you wanted to ally with Hitler. You had you read very carefully before you shot off this demand for an apology. You would have said I specified one person, David Callum, and in the case of David Callum. I demand a retraction from Mr. Hansen

on his podcast, social media, and his daily signal column, and alerts to Hansen's retraction by the daily signal on its website, social media along a daily signal correction for having erroneously included me under the lurid Hitler claim headline. World War II revisionist went too far, da, da, dot, dot. The reason for this demand is as simple as it's urgent. What Daryl Cooper has said about World War II is not, not, not in the vein of Diana West, nor have I ever advocated, siding with Hitler.

You've never advocated signing with Hitler, and I've said that very specifically. I said David Cullum did, not you. But like other revisionists, you have suggested that the alliance with the Soviet Union was disastrous or should have never taken place. Now, I can see why you would have said that there, and you made, I read your book. I thought the part about Soviet espionage was very telling the Verona Project, Harry Dexter White, Alger Hiss. they all had influence with the Roosevelt administration. They all wanted closer ties with the Soviet Union. They were all strong advocates for Lynn Lee's. They all may, may have been determinative in the decision of the Roosevelt administration to begin giving quite important materials to the Soviet Union.

And you made that clear in your book. And you also made clear, as I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you questioned the wisdom of the D-Day campaign, you thought it might have been better to invade up the underbelly of Europe, according to Churchill. My disagreement with you is not about whether there were communists. There were that are associated with Roosevelt, and I agree with you entirely. They had influence on his policy of the Soviet Union. My argument is a military one. On June 22nd, 1941, and before, we had very little influence on the war.

We were unprepared. Europe was all overrun. Every capital in the EU or NATO today was either under Nazi occupation, actively a Nazi ally or a pro-Nazi neutral. Britain alone was standing there. And when Hitler blew it, made a big, I think his most colossal era, invaded the Soviet Union. We made a decision to supply, along with Britain, about 20 to 23 or 4 percent of their war material.

The result of that was that the Soviet Union grew to over 500 divisions. It became a colossal juggernaut, and it killed approximately three out of all four German soldiers on the Eastern Front, in the entire war. Let me say that again. On the Western Front, they killed the equivalent of three out of four German soldiers who were killed in the war. In other words, all the other theaters killed just 25% of the German soldiers. In the process, they lost either to their incompetence,

to their disastrous earlier alliance under the Molotov-Ribbentrop alliance with Hitler, and through the fighting against Hitler and to the efforts of Hitler to slaughter and starve Russian civilians, about 20 million people. We lost about 450,000 depending on how you count combat fatalities. In other words, we fought World War II and won the war, and we came away with losing very few soldiers. At the end of the war, Soviet Union had no independent. I agree with you entirely of honoring their commitments made both at Yalta and then before the Japanese theater had ended at Potsdam. But nevertheless, when the war was over, the United States was the preeminent power in the world, except for Britain, had lost fewer combatants than any of the major

three allies, Britain, the United States, Russia and China as well, and had lost fewer than Japan and Germany. So we fought that war very economically by giving material aid to the Soviet Union who used their manpower and lost 20 million people to kill three out of every four German soldiers. That's not an argument that you like the Soviet Union. I detested the Soviet Union, But it's an argument that in the ability of the United States to defeat Germany in 1941, it was a wise military strategy to use a third party to kill the German army, kill it off. And that's what happened. It was a success. After the war, the Cold War started.

There were naivete that you pointed out, very, I think, adroitly. and we were unprepared for the betrayal of the Soviet Union, the Cold War ensued. But the idea that World War II was not worth it or had been fought under false auspices, I don't think is correct. I'm not suggesting you said it, but other people have. And all in all, World War II was a brilliant work of American strategy, productivity, and courage and sacrifice. And the result was we destroyed the greatest threat to mankind, and we did it. as economically as we could in American cost and lives. And then you also say,

and I don't want to read quotes from you, perhaps Mr. Hansen is somehow familiar with my 2013 American betrayal. No, I'm very familiar with it. In fact, I was asked to comment it, I think, by the late David Horowitz. I passed on that because I felt that people were actually ganging up on you and you had made some good comments about the infiltration of strategic thinking in the United States administration of Franklin Roosevelt. And that may or may not have affected our attitude on grand strategy in the war. I don't think it was determinative. And I agree in this case

with Conrad Black, who's addressed some of your theories and points and analyses. But nevertheless, you're quite right that the United States was overly influenced by the Soviet Union, but I don't think we had much choice, and I don't think that influence would have determined us in a wise way just to let them fight that out or not to ally with the Soviet Union, or not to help them, because, again, they were primarily responsible for destroying the German army on the ground. Aside from my book, however, it would have been very easy for him to learn the truth of my reflexive consternation at having been smeared by column on Tucker's show.

As soon as I saw what had been said about me in the Column Tucker interview, and which was included in the clip that went viral, 8.5 million views, I posted and pinned to my Twitter X account the following. I don't read your text or your Twitter account, but again, I did not smear you. David Cullum may have smeared you. I didn't read the intention. listen to the entire text or interview with Tucker Carlson. But I did not smear you unless you think I was smearing you by saying the gist, the gist of these revisionists in which I included you, and I think you would call yourself a World War II revisionist in a positive sense was that you doubted the wisdom of aligning ourselves and aiding the Soviet Union during World War II.

If that's wrong and you were an advocate of that alliance, then I will issue apology. If I was correct that you were suspicious and disapproved of that alliance, and I am correct that I never said that you advocated an alliance with Hitler, and I didn't say that. I think you can see by the text I didn't say that. Then I think you owe me an apology. I really do. And finally, she says,

Had Mr. Hansen bothered to check his facts before speaking writing, he could have seen this, or had he bothered to conduct quick grovel searches of my name and Daryl Cooper, he would have found that what tops the cue was another essay I wrote, Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, the Creeping Poison. Again, Ms. West, I have no doubt that you do not support the views of either Daryl Cooper or, or David Cullum, I did not. say you did. I said the gist of these revisionists of which you were included and the comment in which I was talking about was solely outlying ourselves with the Soviet Union, whether it was a wise or wrong-headed decision. I think you think it was a wrong-headed decision. They did too. I did not associate your name, however, with all of their other views, which I made clear

by saying that only, in my knowledge, had David Colum argued for an actual alliance, or at least helping Hitler. You did not say that. I did not say you did. And then finally, I'm sure that Mr. Hansen, the Daily Signal, do not wish to remain party to this continuing smear of my work and reputation. I look forward to swift rectification of the matter. I think you've got it right here. Let me just recap. I have nothing to do with the title of my video with a daily signal. That's made, that decision is made elsewhere by others. I have nothing to do with any photographs and to suggest that I did and I'm responsible is not a professional thing to say. I am aware of your book. I read it. I did not participate in the severe criticism which you incurred from historians. I have no, I don't prejudice a historian whether their

professional training as in journalism, as is yours, or whether it's through a doctor-in-air PhD program. And you kind of insinuated that maybe that was a question. It was not. I have respect for your historical analyses. Again, where I differ from you is, I think there were military, strategic, tactical, logistic concerns that warranted helping at that particular time the lesser of two evils. And then after the war, when Hitler was eliminated, then dealing with the now greater of the two, because the Hitler threat was over with, and Germany had been defeated. And now we had to deal with the Soviet Union. And you're right, as I have written in my own book, that we empowered the Soviet Union to destroy Hitler.

And then we had to live with that, and we did so in the Cold War, defeated it. and Stalin, as he had planned, never got into Western Europe. And with that, I think I've covered everything, whereas I have given a clear exposition of what I said, of the title, of the photograph of my clear reasoning that David Cullum alone had argued for a alliance with Hitler and that you and Pat Buchanan and Herbert Hoover and others had questioned the gist, again, the gist of what I was saying, that you had questioned the wisdom of alliance with the Soviet Union. Other than that, I did not associate you with any of these people on any other historical matter other than two things, generally vision of World War II and in particular

to the alliance with the Soviet Union. I wish you would tell your readers, to clarify that and that you withdraw the accusation that I had anything to do with the title. I didn't. With a photograph, I didn't. Or that I suggested that you wanted to ally with Hitler, which you did not and which I didn't say. Thank you very much. This is Victor Davis Hansen for the Daily Signal. Thank you for tuning in to the Daily Signal.

Please like, share, and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website at Victor Hansen. and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.