FDR tried to get us into the war by literally inviting Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor.
Stalin is worse than Hitler.
We joined the wrong side in World War II.
Inconceivable! Whoever actually thinks these things are true is clearly mental. Actually, someone wrote a whole book explaining why he makes these very claims and why you should agree that they are accurate. This person is named Richard J. Maybury and he writes about these controversies in his book World War II: The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today. I think it should have been called “World War II: The Rest of the Story and Everything You’ve Learned is a Lie.”
This time, I’m serious. Why so serious? Controversy interests me. Particularly if you’re coming up with evidence against something everyone learns in America as “common sense” and “historical facts.” Also, Maybury is an American historian who loves his country (but speaks against the government) and has written other educational books on economics, government, and history. He is known to his readers and his hypothetical nephew Chris as “Uncle Eric.”
Maybury is known for his clear, concise explanations of otherwise very complex ideologies, particularly with his government and economic publications. He states in the Author’s Disclosure that he does not want to take a mere objective view like other writers. He says that he is biased in favor of liberty, free markets, and international neutrality and that he is proud of it. He is disclosing his viewpoint, which he calls Juris Naturalism (the belief in a natural law that is higher than any other government’s law). At first, I just thought, “Whatever,” and kept reading. But as I read more and more, I found that this “Author’s Disclosure” was more like an “Author’s Warning.”
Maybury is not your normal history writer, and what he claims to be true or what really happened in history seems to contradict everything I had learned about World War II previously. Talk about anti-propaganda. I began to question my earlier learning and wondered if what the author was saying about these historical events were really true, as stated above. And if these things are true, then why isn’t Maybury widely known and debated or talked about?
In Chapter 1, he gets to the question “Who Were the Bad Guys?” right away and says “…the number of innocent people murdered seems one of the most revealing ways to measure evil.” So he looks at the body counts from both sides, the Allies (Britain, France, US., U.S.S.R..) and the Axis (Germany, Japan, Italy, etc.). The statistics plainly show that the Allies’ body count is WAY more than the Axis’. So, if we were to measure evil by total amount of people killed, this logic would clearly point out that the Allies are more “evil” than the Axis. Well, of course, there’s much more to it than just that.
Regarding the evidence for this claim and more to come? Maybury defensively says that the research is not from esoteric sources and has been freely available to the general public and to historians for years. He knows he may be faced with skeptical, disbelieving, questioning readers. Hey, he says, anyone can read the same stuff from real sources. Historians just didn’t want to touch on these certain facts, for reasons unknown; but I can take a guess and wonder if the reason we weren’t taught these “facts” is because we need to know that we were the good guys and didn’t know anything wrong in the war. Well, isn’t that sort of like saying “I’m the best human being on Earth?” Maybe slightly exaggerated, but extreme nationalism could be one of the reasons for why US historians avoided these “facts” that Maybury is claiming to be true. And this is just my theory. In the next paragraph, he says that all he has done with the research from the resources is to rearrange and highlight facts according to his Model, which is based on a particular law: Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
With that in mind, Maybury gives us the average US citizen’s perspective on World War II: “Hitler and the Nazis were the most horrible gang of cutthroats ever seen on Earth, they killed 6 million Jews and America had to join the war to keep them from conquering the whole world.” Is that your take on World War II? Because, again, Maybury is going to tell us throughout his book that the opposite is true; we were wrong, all wrong. Sounds a bit insane, right? Well so does the average US citizen’s perspective on World War II.
What else is cool and unique about Maybury is that he goes deep into the economics of each country involved in World War II and how that massively affects the capabilities, particularly with Germany, to show that they really weren’t as powerful as we thought. He takes this up later in the book, using evidence, facts, and statistics, to drive a point, and I might bring it up in a later post. But here he’s dealing with the ethics. The war has always been shown as white hats against black hats, which is the direction all the scholarly books written by the most respected historians take. That Americans were fighting for what they thought was good. That the Allies were pure good guys and the Axis completely wicked. He claims that the facts say otherwise.
And so I thought, yeah, maybe we weren’t so good and they weren’t so bad as all that; we Americans tend to over-sensationalize things. But maybe we were both really bad and that’s the end to it? Maybury is saying that both sides are bad, but the Allies were worse. Again, remember our logic before, when we measured evil with the total number of body counts. For each side.
And then he says something crazy about Hitler. But I’ll be talking about that in my next history post; believe me, the book gets more inconceivable by the page.
Meanwhile, please go ahead and comment. I think it’s important to think about these claims. Maybury is very dogmatic and is trying to persuade us to go against our country’s side of the story and see “the bigger picture,” but how do we know he’s right? It’s surprising that Maybury isn’t a huge, widely-known historian or writer, particularly when he says things like this. Why would you agree or disagree with him? This involves our country, real historical events. Is this guy trying to twist history itself just to have a different side? Is he actually destroying myths? I feel undecided.
But anyway, it’s an interesting paradox. Emphatic contradiction. Good controversy. I recommend the book just for the questions.