Imagine if Vic got back to his hack treatment of ancient history instead of incessant ramblings on something he has no clue about (of course he's not always that good on the ancient history either). Vic has made it evidently clear his treatment of historical fact outside of ancient history is questionable at best
good bye
But what he says gets the patriotic juices flowing, so it doesn't matter what the facts are.
Can you cite any specifics in the posted article to support this opinion?
Why don't you be more specific? Where does Hanson make a mistake here about WWII? Where does he unfairly criticize war critic's treatment of current ops?
I'm a modern U.S. historian, and I find his treatment of modern history pretty damn accurate---much better than yahoo Freeper neoConfederates who think that only happy slaves existed in the South. If only all historians were as accurate in dealing with war issues as Hanson.
Where was author Hanson's perception of WW2 questionable? It was a bleak time, but nonetheless the U.S. overcame the odds and triumphed.
Hanson goes a little overboard on this one. It's mildly amusing, though he should stick to op/ed columns and lose the "historical" slant on these articles. He's good at ancient history and warfare, but I've never been a fan of his columns on modern war.