Dr. Hanson can speak this way about 10 different wars and a dozen other topics. No notes, connecting historical facts and contemporary political analysis with a beautiful narrative style, providing sharp insights and even a little humour at times. It is truly remarkable.
I heard basically NOTHING of my Marine father's time in Korea 😢 I did notice his BIG coat, boots and sleeping bag--which all seemed odd in So Cal.🤔 However, in Perth Australia 2014, I met native Koreans who were SO TOUCHED upon hearing about my Dad. Over and over they told me "OH! Please tell him thank you for us!" An amazing gift to me AND my father ❤
Like you said of Victor Davis Hansen being a "...national treasure" • is the same I recall someone else say to the audience of a Hoosier Institute dialogue • about Thomas Sowell who also is a Marine Corp Vet who served this country in our nation's involvement in the Korean War.
@@GweidemannThere are many people in this world who talk a great deal, know many things, and have accomplished much, but then there are those who possess TRUE WISDOM. Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Victor Davis Hansen are two in the latter category.
I went to Korea for a month while I was in the Marines. South Korea is beautiful. The people are so nice and grateful for Americans. The war was worth it.
My husband was in the Korean War when it was hot. He made Sergeant almost immediately. He died in 2005 at the age of 76 from cancer. He always wondered if his sacrifice was in vain. I love the Korean people. I think our presence was appreciated and protected them as they have become more awesome every year as their pride in their country’s accomplishments are second to none.
I had 3 uncles who fought in WW11 and in Korea- my uncle the fighter pilot said that the missions he flew in Korea were more dangerous than the ones he flew in the South Pacific. The other two uncles were Army - I remember what they had to say and have pictures that they took while there.
USS Bataan (CVL-29) ferried an Air Force F-84 wing to Japan with plans to return for overhaul immediately. Instead boarded Marine squadron VMF-212 and almost immediately launched close-air-support missions supporting evacuation from Hungnam.
During the Korean War, the The Mig 15 prevailed over allied aircraft in combat until the arrival of the North American F-86 Sabers. German WWII research influenced the design of both the Mig and Sabre, each of which had swept wings. The Sabre was armed by 50 calibre machine guns like American fighters of WWII. On the other hand, the Mig was intended to intercept American B-29's and was accordingly armed with three very powerful canons. This made the Mig very dangerous if its pilot could score even a hit or two. Arguments can be made about which was the better machine in combat, but possibly all round better trained Allied pilots contributed to victories over the Migs. On the other hand, the Mig could escape a fight due to its initial better rate of climb and slightly higher operational ceiling. Both types saw improvements over initial production. One interesting fact is that the Mig's engine was a licensed version of the Rolls Royce Nene. Without the cooperation of Rolls Royce and the British government, Russia could not have fielded a fighter in time that was the equal to the Sabre or perhaps even to the British Meteors and the US Navy's Panthers.
Did Mao really say that he wasn't worried about the possibility of the U.S. using the Atomic Bomb during the Korean War...because he could lose a million people and not even miss them?
From a documentary of History Channel I heard something close to that. Mao said to Khruschav, when he was thinking of invading Taiwan in the early 60s. He wanted nuclear weapons from Russia, Mao said, " I don't care if I lose a million soldiers, China is overpopulated". Khrushchev thought he was crazy.
Mao wasn't overly concerned about his people dying, any people for that matter. The difference between how history views Hitler Stalin and Mao? The German's and Russian's were more thorough bookkeeper's.
About 600,000 Chinese died from all causes. I wish I could remember the book that is from but was a story about a Chinese military attache who told one of his Hungarian counterparts who had spent much of the war in China and North Korea; "Actually we didn't do very well. We lost around 600,000 soldiers." The ONE MILLION number was suggested by Max Hastings without any evidence but is well loved by American Jingos.
They simply don't have the manpower and conventional weapons. There is my adoo about how their powerful howitzers can pound as far away Seoul. It may be true, but the rest, like their AF, is very limited. Therefore, their true defense is China and Russia.
Korea can defend itself against the North. US is an insurance policy to remind the North not to try something dumb. The point of deterence is to prevent another conflict. The USFK is by itself a deterence. Plus, if the US leaves S. Korea, the country will get nukes and there goes US policy of halting nuclear prolifetation...
The ROK army has something like 350,000 troops. 2200 tanks. 5000+ artillery. About 700 aircraft in the ROKAF. While not as large as the US (or DPRK, for that matter) military obviously (like most countries), that's a pretty sizable and credible force, and far larger than the US forces actually stationed in Korea (perhaps 30K-ish ballpark). It would very much be a case of "defending WITH" the ROKs, not "defending FOR". If the DPRK do ever come across the DMZ, most of them would be fighting ROK units, rather than US. And there's no reason to think that South Korean forces would not fight well. They generally did in 1950-53. At very least, US troops' regard for their ROKA allies usually seems have been much higher here than their successors would find later with the ARVN. (something I think VDH could have brought out a little while contrasting the two conflicts).
That depressed the heck out of me. I am Hanson’s and even though I work in STEM, which is more resistant with respect to wokenes, I am unable to come up with anything optimistic to counter his gloomy analysts. All that can can mean academias of the US as we know it and in 500 years we’ll be considered a slight detour in history that was trying to revive bankrupt ideas of freedom and individualism. There will be thesis written on subject in mandarin.
Very interesting. There is not date for this event, but it must have been prior to the election in 2020. The best part was near the end when Dr Hanson noted that if we had won the war (taken all of Korea), we would have ended up with a very long border with both Russia and China to "defend." Good point. That left North Korea as a sort of buffer state. I do not think anyone in the 1950's would have thought we would have to worry about a nuclear North Korea. My only trip into North Korea was to walk across the room in one of those blue building on the DMZ. Korea ROK troops were very helpful to the war effort in Vietnam, but I do not know if they get much acknowledgement of there effort. I felt relatively save whenever I was in an area controlled by the White Horse Division.
Our military is probably weaker now than any time since before the Korean War. Our manufacturing, including medical supplies and drugs, has all been sent to China. We would not be able to defeat China in a conventional war today.
As always I enjoy listening to Dr. Hanson and this is no exception. But I do think he is overly generous when he says the American forces fought magnificently. Some elements did, especially the Marines, but the Army had a lot of units bugging out haphazardly at the first sound of Chinese trumpets. Many American officers complained about this and the Brits were especially critical of the way the Americans cut and ran in chaotic fashion. Like I say, some units stood their ground but to say as whole they were magnificeint is a reach. As soon as he took command Ridgway saw that the Army lacked discipline and morale was in the toilet, mostly because the soldiers just weren't trained. MacArthur was too busy being the emperor of Japan to make sure the troops under his direct command were trained properly and the kids coming from state-side units were scared shitless and led by a mixed bag of officers. I'm not saying this to slam the military. I served, 23 years in fact, so I have mad respect for the guys who had to deal with the hand they were dealt in that mess. But it was a far messier mess than people realize. The Code of Conduct came about as a direct result of the way military discipline was lacking in Korea. The Marines had the highest survival rates because they were the most disciplined. And the big take away, that wars of containment are never a good idea, was lost on most everyone. Policy makers thought if it worked in South Korea it would work anywhere, especially Vietnam because after-all all Asians are alike. You'd think they would have learned that was false during WWII after fighting the Japanese. Another lesson that had been around since the War of 1812 was glossed over; if you have a democratic system don't get into a war that lacks popular support. Truman should have listened to the warnings he was getting from India regarding Chinese intentions if he went north and he should have looked around and gauged the national sentiment. Americans were never that gung-ho about the thing. Return the status-quo, declare victory, and come home. The same advice LBJ got and ignored in 65. Some lessons are never learned.
The stalemate and cease fire in Korea may have served as the template for the future Vietnam War. We believed we could accomplish in Vietnam what we had in Korea. Unfortunately, Vietnam had a triple canopy jungle. .
That notion comes from the Camelot myth-makers, party hacks like Schlesinger and Sorenson, even his own brothers. Kennedy increased the number of military advisors at a steady rate and dished out contracts for helicopters and fighter-bombers like it was 1942. He couldn't overtly go after Castro after the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis, though he certainly pulled a lot of covert nonsense with his brother Bobby leading the charge. Berlin was off-limits so he had to make a stand somewhere. He may not have stuck around as long as LBJ did but there is more actual evidence of his holding a hard line there than the revisionists can provide for the idea that he would pull out.
Why weren't the accounts on labor advertised ten or twenty years ago? Illegal cheap human trafficking vs USA citizens for work, jobs...sophists have three sets of books.
I would say the young man had a desire to die gloriously in battle. You know that a desire to die in battle is a thing. I grow weary of the essential denigration of the so called average American as they are not brave or courageous. People join the military for all kinds of reasons. People in the military kill people who are only fighting because their leader told them to fight. Their many people who lack the ability to feel fear. The people who do feel fear and put themselves in harms way are brave and courageous. The people who do not feel fear are simply not normal. This nation is not great because we have ability to kill the most people. This country is/should be great for the principles which is supposed to guide it. So please stop with the rhetoric of soldiers holding a higher status. Doing so puts you one step closer to serfdom.
We didn't lose Korea. We're still there spending billions of dollars a year. Until we quit sending money and military hardware and personnel, we haven't won or lost. Vietnam and Afghanistan, on the other hand, we lost, because we pulled out and left them a quagmire of $hit. I know several veterans who claim we won Vietnam. I ask them if our leaving Saigon with people clamoring to get on those C-130s and C-5s, why were they doing so, and what happened to our presence there? Same in Afghanistan. Lots of turmoil at the airports.
He omitted Truman himself publicly saying that Korea was of no importance to America only a couple of months before the war broke out. That's the biggest reason for the Reds getting convinced that they could take South Korea. The lightening fast destruction of the 2,000,000 strong Japanese Kwantung Army by the USSR is omitted here. It's the single most glaring example of Blitzkreig warfare in military history. It should have been noted by the Yanks. Ditto, knowledge of the Russian Front - there were umpteen Axis POW's who had a wealth of knowledge about it. Explanation for all of this = Yank complacency and arrogance - which is covered by Hanson. This same factor is shown with America being the prime mover in provoking Russia into a war with Ukraine. America really does still think it's more good than bad even now, summed up with the phrase "On the right side of history". This man omits the South Korean Army also holding the Pusan Perimeter, as well as the USA. He also doesn't address the tactical incompetence very well described by Colonel David Hackworth in "About Face" of the US Army in the Korean War. The aerial, naval and logictical might of America more than compensates for that.
Yank complacency and arrogance? Since you jumped around in time and theaters in your comment, I must assume that this explanation of yours applies to American actions throughout. So, explain how Europe and for that matter Asia dug themselves out of WWII without arrogant, complacent America?
I don't think the soviets misread magnanimty. They fought the war wih you. They saved themselves it wasn't america that saved them. This is another of Mr Hanson often smug and arrogant remarks, like how nobody is willing to work at a constituitiinal govenment etc, his dreary voice and misleading placid manner makes some of his angry and disdainful views of certain people and countries go unnoticed.
Maybe you should read 1/100th ( 1/1,000th? ) of the subject matter that Dr. Hanson has before you sit in judgment. The Soviet Union didn't "fight the war" on the Allies side. They agreed with Hitler not to attack each other so Germany could focus on consolidating Europe and preparing for the Allies' invasion of the continent. It was only when Germany broke the pact and attacked Russia, that the Soviets wanted to switch sides. Similarly, you ignored Hanson recounting the fact that the Soviets would not help in the war effort against Japan in the Pacific until the last two weeks of the war, when they positioned themselves easily for the post-war era.
Dr. Hanson can speak this way about 10 different wars and a dozen other topics.
No notes, connecting historical facts and contemporary political analysis with a beautiful narrative style, providing sharp insights and even a little humour at times.
It is truly remarkable.
A great summing up! Thanks so much.
You could never watch knowledge in any Dem.MSM
I heard basically NOTHING of my Marine father's time in Korea 😢 I did notice his BIG coat, boots and sleeping bag--which all seemed odd in So Cal.🤔 However, in Perth Australia 2014, I met native Koreans who were SO TOUCHED upon hearing about my Dad. Over and over they told me "OH! Please tell him thank you for us!" An amazing gift to me AND my father ❤
I could listen to VDH all day, I always go away from his talks with something to think about.
This is awesome. Dr. Hanson is such a national treasure.
Like you said of Victor Davis Hansen being a "...national treasure" • is the same I recall someone else say to the audience of a Hoosier Institute dialogue • about Thomas Sowell who also is a Marine Corp Vet who served this country in our nation's involvement in the Korean War.
@@GweidemannThere are many people in this world who talk a great deal, know many things, and have accomplished much, but then there are those who possess TRUE WISDOM.
Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Victor Davis Hansen are two in the latter category.
VDH is a very humble and smart intellectual.
I went to Korea for a month while I was in the Marines. South Korea is beautiful. The people are so nice and grateful for Americans. The war was worth it.
Ok fascist 🙄
@@shadetreader ok child
My husband was in the Korean War when it was hot. He made Sergeant almost immediately. He died in 2005 at the age of 76 from cancer. He always wondered if his sacrifice was in vain. I love the Korean people. I think our presence was appreciated and protected them as they have become more awesome every year as their pride in their country’s accomplishments are second to none.
@@shadetreader Gen.Kim is great, isn't it ? But Vietnam was betrayed by America sadly.
This should have 899 thousand views....huge fan of VDH! “War is a laboratory”
War is a laboratory? What does that even mean? No wonder your homeless.
@@SGTDuckButter the fact you don’t understand a statement doesn’t mean it is stupid. Have you considered other possibilities?
Listen to this man! VDH’s “sober and judicious” insights are rooted in empirical data and “muscular” common sense.
Thank you - great lecture - VDH is a national treasure as has been said many times. God bless all and the USA
i've learned so much over the years of watching dr. hanson's you tube videos i have probably earned several degrees. thank you professor hanson.
Hansen is accurate “on balance the US is a force for good, certainly not perfect.” Seems many many people want to come here, or where else?
Thank you VDH and Bucknell. My Dad was in country.
I had 3 uncles who fought in WW11 and in Korea- my uncle the fighter pilot said that the missions he flew in Korea were more dangerous than the ones he flew in the South Pacific. The other two uncles were Army - I remember what they had to say and have pictures that they took while there.
My dad who was a 3 tour Vietnam Vet who had 2 friends who were Korean veterans and he talked about them retiring with a 1000 yard stare
VDH is the wisest man in the world.
Thank you very much!
USS Bataan (CVL-29) ferried an Air Force F-84 wing to Japan with plans to return for overhaul immediately. Instead boarded Marine squadron VMF-212 and almost immediately launched close-air-support missions supporting evacuation from Hungnam.
Awesome presentation.
Tremendous talk.
Excellent presentation by Dr. Hanson ...but I did not get why host has made himself look like Rasputin...?!!! Is there any connection....?
Yeah or a Gnome lol
Soldiers in Korea said they were fighting chinese soldiers .
At the UN, there is a time-line/mural, that gives the history of the UN. The Korean War is nowhere to be found. Incredibly curious!🤷🏽♀️
Loved it, thank you
During the Korean War, the The Mig 15 prevailed over allied aircraft in combat until the arrival of the North American F-86 Sabers. German WWII research influenced the design of both the Mig and Sabre, each of which had swept wings. The Sabre was armed by 50 calibre machine guns like American fighters of WWII. On the other hand, the Mig was intended to intercept American B-29's and was accordingly armed with three very powerful canons. This made the Mig very dangerous if its pilot could score even a hit or two. Arguments can be made about which was the better machine in combat, but possibly all round better trained Allied pilots contributed to victories over the Migs. On the other hand, the Mig could escape a fight due to its initial better rate of climb and slightly higher operational ceiling. Both types saw improvements over initial production. One interesting fact is that the Mig's engine was a licensed version of the Rolls Royce Nene. Without the cooperation of Rolls Royce and the British government, Russia could not have fielded a fighter in time that was the equal to the Sabre or perhaps even to the British Meteors and the US Navy's Panthers.
Did Mao really say that he wasn't worried about the possibility of the U.S. using the Atomic Bomb during the Korean War...because he could lose a million people and not even miss them?
From a documentary of History Channel I heard something close to that. Mao said to Khruschav, when he was thinking of invading Taiwan in the early 60s. He wanted nuclear weapons from Russia, Mao said, " I don't care if I lose a million soldiers, China is overpopulated". Khrushchev thought he was crazy.
Mao wasn't overly concerned about his people dying, any people for that matter. The difference between how history views Hitler Stalin and Mao? The German's and Russian's were more thorough bookkeeper's.
I disagree with one thing Hanson said. Japan ruled Korea from 1910 to 1945 not 100 years.
About 600,000 Chinese died from all causes. I wish I could remember the book that is from but was a story about a Chinese military attache who told one of his Hungarian counterparts who had spent much of the war in China and North Korea; "Actually we didn't do very well. We lost around 600,000 soldiers." The ONE MILLION number was suggested by Max Hastings without any evidence but is well loved by American Jingos.
I loved history and wanted to know about the Korean War (we didn’t have the net) He refused to talk about it…at all! Let me see if I can find out why!
Tied down in Ukraine as well, now $$$$. Our enemies watching and munching popcorn
How is it that this many years later, the Koreans havent developed enough of an army to defend themselves...?
They simply don't have the manpower and conventional weapons. There is my adoo about how their powerful howitzers can pound as far away Seoul. It may be true, but the rest, like their AF, is very limited. Therefore, their true defense is China and Russia.
My question is, for a country with their GDP, why not...?
@@rickmcentee9204
They Have, even back when I was there (1968) they had a good little army. From what I've read they are better today.
Korea can defend itself against the North. US is an insurance policy to remind the North not to try something dumb. The point of deterence is to prevent another conflict. The USFK is by itself a deterence. Plus, if the US leaves S. Korea, the country will get nukes and there goes US policy of halting nuclear prolifetation...
The ROK army has something like 350,000 troops. 2200 tanks. 5000+ artillery. About 700 aircraft in the ROKAF. While not as large as the US (or DPRK, for that matter) military obviously (like most countries), that's a pretty sizable and credible force, and far larger than the US forces actually stationed in Korea (perhaps 30K-ish ballpark). It would very much be a case of "defending WITH" the ROKs, not "defending FOR". If the DPRK do ever come across the DMZ, most of them would be fighting ROK units, rather than US. And there's no reason to think that South Korean forces would not fight well. They generally did in 1950-53. At very least, US troops' regard for their ROKA allies usually seems have been much higher here than their successors would find later with the ARVN. (something I think VDH could have brought out a little while contrasting the two conflicts).
That depressed the heck out of me. I am Hanson’s and even though I work in STEM, which is more resistant with respect to wokenes, I am unable to come up with anything optimistic to counter his gloomy analysts. All that can can mean academias of the US as we know it and in 500 years we’ll be considered a slight detour in history that was trying to revive bankrupt ideas of freedom and individualism. There will be thesis written on subject in mandarin.
Oh!
You have All my Sympathy, poor you!
Sit down, relax, and try to get A Life!
Very interesting. There is not date for this event, but it must have been prior to the election in 2020. The best part was near the end when Dr Hanson noted that if we had won the war (taken all of Korea), we would have ended up with a very long border with both Russia and China to "defend." Good point. That left North Korea as a sort of buffer state. I do not think anyone in the 1950's would have thought we would have to worry about a nuclear North Korea.
My only trip into North Korea was to walk across the room in one of those blue building on the DMZ. Korea ROK troops were very helpful to the war effort in Vietnam, but I do not know if they get much acknowledgement of there effort. I felt relatively save whenever I was in an area controlled by the White Horse Division.
The US was on the WRONG side in Vietnam.
Our military is probably weaker now than any time since before the Korean War. Our manufacturing, including medical supplies and drugs, has all been sent to China. We would not be able to defeat China in a conventional war today.
As always I enjoy listening to Dr. Hanson and this is no exception. But I do think he is overly generous when he says the American forces fought magnificently. Some elements did, especially the Marines, but the Army had a lot of units bugging out haphazardly at the first sound of Chinese trumpets. Many American officers complained about this and the Brits were especially critical of the way the Americans cut and ran in chaotic fashion. Like I say, some units stood their ground but to say as whole they were magnificeint is a reach. As soon as he took command Ridgway saw that the Army lacked discipline and morale was in the toilet, mostly because the soldiers just weren't trained. MacArthur was too busy being the emperor of Japan to make sure the troops under his direct command were trained properly and the kids coming from state-side units were scared shitless and led by a mixed bag of officers.
I'm not saying this to slam the military. I served, 23 years in fact, so I have mad respect for the guys who had to deal with the hand they were dealt in that mess. But it was a far messier mess than people realize. The Code of Conduct came about as a direct result of the way military discipline was lacking in Korea. The Marines had the highest survival rates because they were the most disciplined. And the big take away, that wars of containment are never a good idea, was lost on most everyone. Policy makers thought if it worked in South Korea it would work anywhere, especially Vietnam because after-all all Asians are alike. You'd think they would have learned that was false during WWII after fighting the Japanese.
Another lesson that had been around since the War of 1812 was glossed over; if you have a democratic system don't get into a war that lacks popular support. Truman should have listened to the warnings he was getting from India regarding Chinese intentions if he went north and he should have looked around and gauged the national sentiment. Americans were never that gung-ho about the thing. Return the status-quo, declare victory, and come home. The same advice LBJ got and ignored in 65. Some lessons are never learned.
Could someone explain why when a war is won why do we not concur the opposition?
The stalemate and cease fire in Korea may have served as the template for the future Vietnam War. We believed we could accomplish in Vietnam what we had in Korea. Unfortunately, Vietnam had a triple canopy jungle. .
Not taking the war north was the biggest mistake in history. China and Russia border n Korea!😂
CAN TIGERS HAVE SPOTS INSTEAD OF STRIPES
is the host an orthodox priest?
He sure looks like one.
greek orthodox maybe?
Didn’t JFK make plans to leave the Vietnam war?
That notion comes from the Camelot myth-makers, party hacks like Schlesinger and Sorenson, even his own brothers. Kennedy increased the number of military advisors at a steady rate and dished out contracts for helicopters and fighter-bombers like it was 1942. He couldn't overtly go after Castro after the Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis, though he certainly pulled a lot of covert nonsense with his brother Bobby leading the charge. Berlin was off-limits so he had to make a stand somewhere. He may not have stuck around as long as LBJ did but there is more actual evidence of his holding a hard line there than the revisionists can provide for the idea that he would pull out.
The usa wouldnt intervene in the 1949 chinese civil war
So the 1950 korean war was the best option due to the
Geographical advantages!
Why weren't the accounts on labor advertised ten or twenty years ago? Illegal cheap human trafficking vs USA citizens for work, jobs...sophists have three sets of books.
I would say the young man had a desire to die gloriously in battle. You know that a desire to die in battle is a thing. I grow weary of the essential denigration of the so called average American as they are not brave or courageous. People join the military for all kinds of reasons. People in the military kill people who are only fighting because their leader told them to fight. Their many people who lack the ability to feel fear. The people who do feel fear and put themselves in harms way are brave and courageous. The people who do not feel fear are simply not normal. This nation is not great because we have ability to kill the most people. This country is/should be great for the principles which is supposed to guide it. So please stop with the rhetoric of soldiers holding a higher status. Doing so puts you one step closer to serfdom.
So we lost in Korea Vietnam and Afghanistan great
No we didn’t loose Korea we semi won
We didn't lose Korea. We're still there spending billions of dollars a year. Until we quit sending money and military hardware and personnel, we haven't won or lost. Vietnam and Afghanistan, on the other hand, we lost, because we pulled out and left them a quagmire of $hit. I know several veterans who claim we won Vietnam. I ask them if our leaving Saigon with people clamoring to get on those C-130s and C-5s, why were they doing so, and what happened to our presence there? Same in Afghanistan. Lots of turmoil at the airports.
He omitted Truman himself publicly saying that Korea was of no importance to America only a couple of months before the war broke out. That's the biggest reason for the Reds getting convinced that they could take South Korea.
The lightening fast destruction of the 2,000,000 strong Japanese Kwantung Army by the USSR is omitted here. It's the single most glaring example of Blitzkreig warfare in military history. It should have been noted by the Yanks. Ditto, knowledge of the Russian Front - there were umpteen Axis POW's who had a wealth of knowledge about it.
Explanation for all of this = Yank complacency and arrogance - which is covered by Hanson. This same factor is shown with America being the prime mover in provoking Russia into a war with Ukraine. America really does still think it's more good than bad even now, summed up with the phrase "On the right side of history".
This man omits the South Korean Army also holding the Pusan Perimeter, as well as the USA. He also doesn't address the tactical incompetence very well described by Colonel David Hackworth in "About Face" of the US Army in the Korean War. The aerial, naval and logictical might of America more than compensates for that.
Yank complacency and arrogance? Since you jumped around in time and theaters in your comment, I must assume that this explanation of yours applies to American actions throughout. So, explain how Europe and for that matter Asia dug themselves out of WWII without arrogant, complacent America?
If USA cant win in Afghanistan how is USA suppose to win against Russia . Of course USA Army can beat Russia Red Army but only in hollywood haha !
I don't think the soviets misread magnanimty. They fought the war wih you. They saved themselves it wasn't america that saved them. This is another of Mr Hanson often smug and arrogant remarks, like how nobody is willing to work at a constituitiinal govenment etc, his dreary voice and misleading placid manner makes some of his angry and disdainful views of certain people and countries go unnoticed.
Maybe you should read 1/100th ( 1/1,000th? ) of the subject matter that Dr. Hanson has before you sit in judgment.
The Soviet Union didn't "fight the war" on the Allies side. They agreed with Hitler not to attack each other so Germany could focus on consolidating Europe and preparing for the Allies' invasion of the continent. It was only when Germany broke the pact and attacked Russia, that the Soviets wanted to switch sides.
Similarly, you ignored Hanson recounting the fact that the Soviets would not help in the war effort against Japan in the Pacific until the last two weeks of the war, when they positioned themselves easily for the post-war era.