Take World War II: The Rest Of The Story And How It Affects You Today, 1930 To September 11, 2001 Curated By Richard J. Maybury Expressed As E-Text

ideas concerning the U, S. 's involvement in WWII are so farflung from most, they're borderline conspiracytheorymaterial, But if nothing else, he raised questions I hadn't thought of before, prompting me to evaluate war in a new way.
So that's good. The boys really liked this book, I found it to be a VERY different view of World War II than anything I've ever heard, Just to give you a taste, . . you won't think Hitler is the worst ever although still evil and definitely crazy and might not blame the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbor.
. . Yikes. You'd have to read it to see what I mean, This book is just great wow! I read it as part of my highschool American Government, History, and Economics course I read all the Uncle Eric Books for that course, actually, and I really enjoyed it.
It gives a totally different perspective than everything out there, I think all World War II historians and enthusiasts need to read this book before they read anything else, It's that good. I really liked this book, but I think that a lot of it went way over my head two years ago.
: So I'd love to read it again sometime! This book was recommended to me to help me prepare to teach a World War II History class.
I am glad I read it, but I have conflicted feelings about this book, It was hard to read while being an "easy read, " I was defensive about our national defense, I can see good things that Maybury doesn't acknowledge, Some of his claims are unsupported and some ignore evidence that doesn't support his opinions, I admit, I didn't really want to hear some of the things he wrote about, I agree there is a lot of corruption and it is tragic that innocent lives pay for that,

I gave itbecause it made me think about history from a different perspective, It compares poorly, however, to the many other books I read on the topic, That being said, I think Maybury succeeds in his purpose in writing this bookto challenge the mainstream approach of why the US was involved in WWII.


For the record, I don't care for his "Uncle Eric" writing style, It feels contrived.

Yet another in the MUST READS of "Uncle Eric", This one challenges many assumptions about World War II, how America

got into it, when it should have been over, whether the U.
S. had to get involved and why, Challenges the conventional interpretations of World War II with facts, figures, and dates, Maybury makes important points but can't resist innuendo or predictions of "what would have" happened had we NOT ended up in the war.
For example, he is certain that if we had NOT intervened in WWII, then Stalin would have been overthrown from within.

No one should seriously study WWII without examining the evidence cited in this book, Accessible, easy to read, challenging, If you read this, you WILL start to wonder if we ought to keep poking our noses in everywhere, Good. :
Also, may gore a few sacred cows on the left FDR had no idea that Pearl Harbor was coming and didn't cause it and the right WWII was entirely a Just War and the Allies including U.
S. behaved much better than the Axis,
I LOVED the first book, I really liked a lot of the second, too, But it's the first I'll recommend and reread,

This book made some amazing points,
Wars are rarely a battle of good vs, evil, but of bad vs, bad. We shouldn't choose the lesser of two evils, but allow evil to fight their own battles and then we may fight them IF and WHEN they come to OUR doorstep.


"Stay neutral and keep our powder dry"

And yet we believe we OUGHT to choose the lesser of two evils.
But then why did we choose Stalin over Hilter Hitler was responsible formillion deaths, Stalin formillion. Hitler was a new, small power, Stalin was larger, older. Hitler had stabbed himself in the foot early on in his game by putting quality over quantity when it came to war materials and put ego over rational when it came to war strategy.
. Stalin's influences and power lasted well into the lateth century, Why did we choose Stalin over Hitler to ally with

And what was the war REALLY about

And was Pearl Harbor unprovoked Or had we already been meddling in the war by delivering war supplies to England And what about how we'd cut off Japan's oil supply

History is most certainly written from the bias of the victor's.
And so, even if we don't come to the same conclusions as Maybury, it's good to ask these questions and to determine what measure we will use to base our own biases on, and whether or not it is truly righteous of us to meddle in the affairs of other lands.


Or maybe we should take after Switzerland does, and have no alleys, but protect what is ours and allow others to battle as they will.
I found it very interesting that they have had no wars in overyears, managing to stay out of even the conflict of the world wars though they were in the midst of it and a small nation at that.
Maybe there is something for militias after all, . .

Thought provoking read that I may end up recommending to people after all This is a wonderful book that delves deep into the reasons behind World War II.
Reasons that the history books won't teach you and that the government strives to keep a secret, The massacre at Pearl Harbor could have easily been avoided and the American people have been lied to for generations! These two laws make civilization possible.
. .Do all that you have agreed to do,Do not encroach on other persons or their property,
To summarize, this is an excellent book, highly recommend! reading this at the same time as sitelinkAll the People: gave me whiplash.
An examination of the ideas and events that led to World War II, events during the war, and how they led to subsequent wars, including the "war on terror," written as a series of letters from a man to his niece or nephew.
I almost gave this three because the author repeats himself so much throughout the book that it got super annoying, but I couldn't because the content is so great.
Such a fascinating view of WWIIan "other side of the story, " Some quotes:

"In my opinion, the best policy for America is to, . . Be friendly with everyone, visit them and do business with them, but no political connections and no foreign wars, "

"Summarizing the view taught to most Americans, World War II was a battle of good versus evil, and good triumphed only by the skin of its teeth.
To prevent another such catastrophe in which we might not be so lucky, the U, S. must have military forces that are global police officers, ready to go to any corner of the globe to fight evil.
I think you can see that this widely believed explanation is not supported by the facts, I am convinced there was simply no reason for American to be involved in the war, America's participation made the war much longer and far more bloodyit surely added ten million to the final body count, and probably a lot more.
"

"Wars are between governments, not between the people ruled by these governments, To jump to the conclusion that, for instance, the German government was evil and so all the German people were evil is to mislead yourself drastically.
" The letter writing style makes this a quick and enjoyable read, Maybury gives an interesting perspective to the Second World War and the consequences for today, This will make you seriously rethink what you learned in school and why, Wow! While I did not like the epistle format, I recognize that he wrote this for younger readers, Also, this book put things into an interesting perspective, Really, most of what he said, I knew, but I never saw it all put together in order like this, It really paints a wonderful picture, and it is one I think is fairly accurate the US did not need to enter WW, we didn't need to side with Russia, we didn't need to bait Japan to attack us, and we didn't need to bomb them.
I like how we are still facing the repercussions of WWtoday in a lot of ways US citizens don't realize.
I often view events and issues through an economist's lens and this book did just that, This made me order his WWbook, It's worth reading to get a contrasted view of the typical Hollywood outlook on the Second World War, It was particularly interesting to read about the economic influence, However, at the end of the day, Maybury fails to recognize the All Powerful God who sits in the heavens and laughs as the nations rage and plot in vain.
And because he completely ignores God throughout the book, the average reader is left to believe there is no more hope than to "stay neutral and keep our powder dry".
Talk about eye opening. I learned I don't like Franklin D, Roosevelt. We didn't need to be in WWII, I think of all the young Americans that were killed, It breaks my heart. I agree with Richard J, Maybury and the founding fathers who said we need to stay out of other countries' wars, Wow! Interesting book. Makes you question everything you were always taught about WWII, this book is a very good book to read if you want to know what really happend Wow, There is so much in this book to consider, As Mayberry repeatedly states, all of the facts he produces about WWare public knowledge and easy to access, His ability to arrange the facts slightly differently than the standard narration and make connections between events between countries has me rethinking a lot of my opinions and positions about the war.
Sometimes I feel like Mayberry's conclusions are a little farfetched, but even leaving those few bits out there is so much to think about.
I find myself especially reconsidering my opinions about FDR, the morality of the Allied alliance, and dropping the atomic bombs on Japan.
If you want a new perspective on WW, this is the book for you, Really excellent book about the things that history books don't say, Disturbing too. Wow loved this book! It completely changed my perspective on World War II! I learned so much and gained an even greater appreciation for economics.
I will not look at this period of history the same way, My son was completely engaged in this riveting read! It was a good book, that showed another view of World War II, that I think it correct, From the declaration of bias, to the footnotes, recommendations on additional research and a thorough index, there is a lot to like in Richard Maybury's letter formatted style.
See my review of World War I for my thoughts on my first exposure to him, This is a valuable work for anyone to consider, but please don't assume that means I agree with everything!

I don't know if the two books together was too long of a slog, but there seemed to be a lot more repetition in this book than WWI.
The alternative theories of history are compelling: Roosevelt's embrace of his own demigod, the manipulation of the Japanese to create excuse for American entrance into the war, America's lengthening of the war, seeds of the cold war and the message to the Russians sent by the dropping of the atomic bomb.
One thing is abundantly clear in all narratives of WWII, liberal, conservative, or libertarian: the Allies made a contract with the devil via engagement with Stalin.


In the end, while I find the arguments interesting and compelling, I also find some strong limitations with the overall big picture of Uncle Eric's reasoning.
What makes him think that people of the New World are, or should be expected to be, any different from those of the Old World The reality is that the human race, with all it's glories and depravities, is in fact more similar than different in lacking righteousness no matter how much each tries to convince of the ideals of it's cause in conflict.
I also find his New World argument to be one from silence, It is true that we don't have RECORD of nearly as many human lives lost through military engagement in the New World verses the Old World, but to conclude thatmilitary conflicts never happened because a record doesn't survive andthat the New World is somehow ideologically free from the conflicts known to humanity, seems foolish.


Many of Uncle Eric's arguments are supported by information known AFTER THE POINT OF DECISION, Yes, Stalin did turn out to be responsible for more deaths than Hitler, But the OUTCOME of their respective lives was not known at the time decisions were made about WWII, And surely the length of Stalin's life in comparison to Hilter's added him in furthering his attacks on human life around him.
While there are some reports via governments and journalists about what was going on in Germany, Japan or Russia, that proved to be true, there were also many inaccurate reports.
Only hindsight has the benefit of knowing one from the other, We should evaluate the wisdom of decisions made, but it need to be done with grace for in the moment limitations of the leaders who made them.


Along the same vein, how can Uncle Eric be certain that his strategy of nonintervention would have been successful inallowing Hitler and Stalin to defeat each other with USA and Briton standing by to mop up one or the other orPreserving Briton even as Hilter was intent on invading orreducing the loss of life accrued in through the entirety of the conflict.
Nonintervention has worked well for Switzerland, but what are they to do if attacked Fight only to their border And what would have happened to Switzerland had England fallen Would Hilter have eventually turned his sights to them And then would it have been to their detriment to stand alone after others that could have been allies had fallen Wasn't this what England did How many countries and their resources were sacrificed to Hilter before there was unified opposition It seems to me it is much easier to be nonintervention when YOUR nation/ home/ life is not threatened.
But, this also feeds to Uncle Eric's point that alliances favor weaker countries and lead to conflict a point President Washington emphasized in his final address.


I find his criticism of the British Empire interesting, Partly, because it runs counter cultural to the American historical flow, While he is clear on the ills of colonialism, he doesn't engage on either the benefits in commerce, economy, cultural preservation, travel/ naval/ steam/ engineering skill TO THE COLONIES, or reinforcement in the World conflict that came back TO THE BRITISH via their empire.
Nor does he even acknowledge either the tremendous shift in British foreign policy via the creation of the Commonwealth of nations or the roots of the Empire that go through USA in rising English as the dominant language and culture of the twentyfirst century.
Lest you think I am going beyond his scope, late chapters on how the events of WWII fed into the Septemberth attacks on the USA in the context of blowback to America and her allies clearly put these shifting factors into purview.
While he does document the great atrocities of the USG US Government in the Cold War period grievous failures all he does so with the benefit of hindsight and without reference to tremendous progress in other areas.
Blowback is not the only reasonable explanation for Septth, I'm not saying it shouldn't be considered as a factor, but to raise blowback as the primary force in the conflict between USA and radical Islam seems sophomoric.
As he stated, the cycle of the Old World is one of revenge in which the lines are so long no one can trace the origins of the conflict between groups.
Furthermore, he says the first fatality in war is truth, Surely these two principles would reasonably lead to the query: Isn't it true that those who WANT to fight can always find reason true or false to rally men to their supposed cause And it's corollary: It is very difficult to make peace with people who WANT to fight.
Neither of these principles are addressed,

I kept on thinking: if things had been different, they would have been different,

Finally, Uncle Eric's appeals to his nephew for temperance and caution as he approaches the age at which young men are romanced into soldiery are welcome.
However, once a man has been enlisted, I would think Uncle Eric's experience as a soldier would inform him that soldiers do not have the luxury of such intellectual evaluation of either their missions or their outcomes.
He seems to state that Chris should avoid military service because of the evils of political power, but he never deals with the reality that he, himself, Uncle Eric was DRAFTED and that sometimes young men cannot avoid the call of their governments, no matter how imperfect.
Nor does he reconcile his ideas about selfdefense of a nation with military service I guess you should train yourself to defend yourself but avoid military service to defend the nation

And yet, we have a rather succinct accounting with it's strengths and flaws of the libertarian narrative of twentieth century history.
Liberal accounts are easy to find, conservative somewhat more challenging, but libertarian thoughts are on the outer perimeter, The perspective also articulates a clear opposition to the big government statism that has eclipsed both liberals and conservatives in the early twentyfirst century and therefore has tremendous value.
In the world of ideas, I think this perspective deserves a succinct, approachable, presentation to students from Junior High and beyond.
The ideas merit a hearing,

My concluding thought is the same as with the previous book on World War I, "The question is not whether to have your student read this book, but when A student needs to demonstrate both the ability to handle cause and effect thinking as well as be comfortable with sorting out contrary ideas.
When the student has reached that point, this is excellent education, even if he or the teacher, doesn't agree with all that is printed.
"

I plan on reading the rest of this series including "Year War in the Middle East" and "What ever happened to Penny Candy", but for right now, I think I need a break from Uncle Eric.
.