World War II: The Rest Of The Story And How It Affects You Today, 1930 To September 11, 2001

Uncle Eric #11

by Richard J. Maybury, Jane A. Williams

Mr. Maybury presents an idea-based explanation of the Second World War. He focuses on events in the Second World War and how our misunderstanding of this war led to America s subsequent wars, including the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Iraq-Kuwait War, and the "war on terrorism" that began September 11, 2001.

To improve the student's learning experience, also purchase the student study guide for "World War II" titled "A Bluestocking World War II" also available through Amazon.

Can be used for courses in World History, U.S. History, International Relations, Economics, Business, Finance, and Government.

This is part two of a two-part series on the world wars. For part one, check out "World War The Rest of the Story and How It Affects You Today" also available through Amazon.

Table of Contents for "World War II"
Author's Disclosure
Cast of Characters
Timeline

Part Who Were The Good Guys?
1. The Main Theater of the War
2. Good Guys Against Bad Guys
3. Not Six Million
4. World War II Was Nothing New
5. Millions
6. Britain Was A White Hat?
7. British Conquests
8. P.T. Barnum Knew
9. British Area Bombing
10. Two Questions

Part First Rumblings
11. When Did The War Begin?
12. Appeasement and Comparative Brutality
13. Carving Up Central Europe

Part The U.S. Enters the War
14. The French versus the French
15. Significance of the Higgins Boat
16. Only Genghis Khan Did It
17. The Solution
18. Events Leading to Pearl Harbor
19. Hiding Facts about the Brawl
20. The Great World War II Myth
FDR's Pearl Harbor Speech
21. A Secret Agreement
22. Why Did The Japanese Attack?
23. Pearl FDR's Deceit
24. The Flying Tigers and B-17 Bombers
25. "Caught With Their Pants Down"
26. Planes Parked Too Close Together
27. The Prokofiev Seamount
28. The Necessary Sacrifice?
29. You've Seen The Photos

Part The Economics of the War
30. The Myth of German Might
31. Focus On The Eastern Front
32. Of Photographs and Weather
33. German Production of Weapons
34. Germany's Unknown Second Army
35. Tank Treads, Trucks and Submarines
36. Germany's Wonder Weapons
37. Oil and Rifles
38. Americans Were Less Intelligent?
39. The Bookings Revelation
40. Russia Invaded by Keystone Kops
41. Omaha Beach, Bravery versus Heroism

Part The USG Makes It Worse
42. The German Underground
43. Unconditional Surrender
44. Why Did Roosevelt Do It?
45. Rarely Questioned
46. Why Was Nagasaki Bombed?
47. 105 Aircraft Carriers
48. Surrender Near
49. Fierce Fighters
50. The Russians React
51. The Soviet Uprising

Part Effect On Us Today
52. Arm Any Gangster
53. September 11th and the Destruction of the World Trade Center
54. Blowback
55. MAD
56. Policeman of the World
57. Summary

Part Final Thoughts About War
58. The Needless Deaths of 35 Million
59. The Normal Conditions of Humans
60. The Cause of War
61. Minor League to Emperor of the World

Appendix
Bibliography and Suggested Reading
Suggested Listening
Suggested Viewing
Glossary
About Richard J. Maybury
Index

Index of Maps
Map of Europe
British and Russian Empire
Expansion of the Russian Empirev Conquered by European Regimes
Washington's Pacific Bases in 1940
San Diego, Pearl Harbor, Japan
Japan, Bungo Strait
Prokofiev Seamount
Rebel-held Territories during WWII
Axis versus Allies

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Economics, Historical, World War II, Read For School, Politics

349 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

About the author

Richard Maybury, also known as Uncle Eric, is the publisher of U.S. & World Early Warning Report for Investors. He has written several entry level books on United States economics, law, and history from a libertarian perspective. He writes the books in epistolary form, usually as an uncle writing to his nephew, answering questions.

Maybury was a high school economics teacher. After failing to find a book which would give a clear explanation on his view of economics he wrote one himself. Some of his books include Uncle Eric Talks About Personal, Career & Financial Security, Higher Law, Whatever Happened to Penny Candy? and Whatever Happened to Justice? .

Reviews

[Hannah · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[lucia · Rating 3 out of 5]

reading this book officially gave me beef w FDR 🫶

lowkey presidents have always done things that should get them impeached, some just aren’t good at hiding it (or their fake tan)

HOWEVER I feel like some of the claims Uncle Eric makes are a leeeetle lacking in concrete evidence, or he completely disregards evidence to the contrary. I find this in most of his books, i fear. like his argument about Pearl Harbor leans conspiracy level but is simultaneously quite believable? I just take issue with the fact that he treats it like fact, not theory. Oh, or the idea that the Germans and Russians would have beaten each other into submission? His economic and logistical evidence makes for a good case? but as always he’s so oversimplified with it, which ticks me off. Idk if it’s just the audience (middle school level imo, but probably high school, people are stupid) but I feel like the oversimplification is just too much.



TDLR: oversimplification and repetition butchers some of Uncle Eric’s arguments. Also I hate FDR

[Natasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

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 it 3 stars because 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 book--to 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.

[Keturah Lamb · Rating 4 out of 5]

I LOVED the first book. I really liked a lot of the second, too. But it's the first I'll recommend and re-read.

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 for 20 million deaths. Stalin for 42 million. 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 late 20th 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 over 200 years, 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 ;)

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Maybury has some technical details wrong, but he's also got some excellent excellent points. Whether or not you end up agreeing with the author's thesis, this book serves as a lightweight-easily readable introduction to the idea (and historical fact--see by bias? ;) that maybe being the world's police force isn't the best idea. WWII was in many ways a starting point, but in many more simply just a bloody continuation of how life in Europe had always been. The only differences were cameras and a new nation, the likes which old Europe had never seen, of paralleled power, and where this new nation would decide to play its cards.

[Mayzie Hamel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. I really do not like our government, or government in general. I can’t wait for the day when Jesus is reigning on Earth- only trustworthy government.

[Erik B. · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will begin this review by saying that this book is quite the piece of literature. As I read through the text, I found myself interested. The book, written to cover the truth of the events leading to World War II and how The War affects us in the modern day, uses effective and powerful evidence to fulfill its purpose. Being the last book in a series on United Sates law, economics, and politics, I can say that the book was really able to tie in all the aforementioned subjects from other texts together. The book is, however, slightly too pushing in my opinion. Mr. Maybury sort of drops the information on you. Not to the point of making the book bad, but to the point where some text may have been overly complicated or confusing. I myself have taken a keen liking to World War II and its truths, so this book was great for me as it was really helpful in that Mr. Maybury presented his facts in chronological order and with the evidence to defend the claims. I feel this book to be great for war and/or history buffs such as myself. This book provides a comfortable, subtle, and respectable third-party view on World War II. Overall, this book is filled to the brim with great content, factual, a little bit forceful inn presentation, and consistent with its claims.

[Andy · Rating 5 out of 5]

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).

[Dan Davidson · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a libertarian take on WWII. He has some very compelling points about why America got into the war. He makes the case that Roosevelt deliberately setup the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor. His argument that the Germans and Russians (both bad guys) would have fought each other into submission is total conjecture. He argues that the USA could have stayed out of the war and that Germany was very weak and would have lost soon. His claim that the USA could have avoided 9/11 if it would have stayed out of the middle east altogether is not supported by fact.

As a libertarian, his basic premise is that people are good and governments are bad. He does not delve into the individual motivations of key actors and leaves aside any moral element to the war. This is a good read to understand an alternate view of WWII, but leaves you wondering why the entire war happened.

[Suzanne · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was conspiracy theory at its finest. Some of the "facts" are clearly only known in hindsight. While it does make for interesting, thought provoking reading, if this man were in charge of the US during WW2, we would have just let Hitler run his course in Europe. He advocates choosing the lesser of evils, since Hitler killed fewer people overall than Stalin, so we shouldn't have allied with the USSR. And he confuses the terms "friends" and "allies". They are completely different terms when used in the diplomatic sense, and we would do well to remember that in our diplomatic issues of the present.

I simply could not finish a book that seemed to continue to advocate comparing death tolls and allowing the lesser killer to go on killing.

[Stephanie · Rating 4 out of 5]

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.

[Robert]

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.

[Dawn Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maybury has permanently changed my perception of history. I don't agree with him 100%, but his books are well-researched, documented, and argued. He's made a non-interventionist out of me. I read this one aloud to my 9yo military history buff, and we were both riveted.

[Meredith Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Maybury's ideas concerning the U.S.'s involvement in WWII are so far-flung from most, they're borderline conspiracy-theory-material. 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.

[Bobby · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book will really give you a complete new view of the Second World War.

[Lincoln · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic explanation of how, when, and why WWII started and what happened that involved the U.S.

[Skye · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow! Interesting book. Makes you question everything you were always taught about WWII.

[Jo Ann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really excellent book about the things that history books don't say. Disturbing too.

[Jarod · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very interesting analysis of World War II. I am still trying to digest all of the points made. It turns what I knew about this war on its head.

[Emily]

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!

[Gabriella · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a good book, that showed another view of World War II, that I think it correct,

[Bob Large · Rating 5 out of 5]

Will make you wonder if you can ever trust a government again.

[Leah · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book is a very good book to read if you want to know what really happend

[Ebookwormy1 · Rating 4 out of 5]

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 that 1) military conflicts never happened because a record doesn't survive and 2) that 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 in 1) allowing Hitler and Stalin to defeat each other with USA and Briton standing by to mop up one or the other? or 2) Preserving Briton even as Hilter was intent on invading? or 3) reducing 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 non-intervention 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 twenty-first century. Lest you think I am going beyond his scope, late chapters on how the events of WWII fed into the September 11th 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 Sept 11th. 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 self-defense 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 twenty-first 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 "1000 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.

[Jenny · Rating 4 out of 5]

I almost gave this three stars 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 WWII--an "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 bloody--it 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."

[Zachary · Rating 4 out of 5]

I agree with the people who say that while this book has its shortcomings, it is still a must for a better understanding of WW2 and foreign policy in general. The author defines the two laws he believes in: do not encroach on another person or their property, and do all you have agreed to do. This assumes that all humans are on an equal standing and have certain unalienable rights. On a practical basis, we really only have the rights that the government gives us. If "unalienable" rights exist, they can only come from God. Maybury fails to recognize this. I very much appreciate the lies and corruption that Maybury exposes, but his worldview is hard to defend. When it comes down to it, why should anyone follow Maybury's laws? If there is no God, and this life is all there is, than why should we treat other human beings with respect? After all, the secularists tell us that we're just highly developed animals! Now, if God created all human beings in His image, that changes the story! So, in summary, I highly recommend that you read this book, because it will challenge your preconceived notions about foreign policy! But, make sure that you (as always) examine the validity of the author's arguments in light of the Scriptures.

[Vincent Darlage · Rating 5 out of 5]

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 WW2, 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 WW2 today 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 WW1 book.

[Laura · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. There is so much in this book to consider. As Mayberry repeatedly states, all of the facts he produces about WW2 are 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 far-fetched, 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 WW2, this is the book for you.

[Genna Zavocki · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think this book is definitely worth reading, as it gives a view of war and governments that you don't see or hear about much. However, I found it very depressing, and void of hope. The author explains in great detail many accounts of times when people in power did wicked and evil things. And how all war is bad versus bad. In this book it is very easy to see how "absulote power corrupts absolutely." But at the end of it you are left to feel that there is no real hope at all. The conclusion is that the best thing you can do is to, "stay neutral." So while I think this book has a lot of good and wise things to say, I found it a difficult read. I felt that things were getting repeated a lot towards the end; it seemed to drag on longer than it really needed to.

[Peter Krol · Rating 4 out of 5]

The facts and data were quite helpful and enlightening. I particularly appreciate the global economic perspective on the war. I've generally focused so exclusively on the characters and battles of the war that I never grasped the total number of deaths and production capacity of each country involved.

One frustrating thing about the book is that the author consistently claims to know the thoughts and motivations of historical figures. It would be credible to cite personal correspondence when making such claims. But it diminishes persuasiveness when such claims are frequently made simply from circumstantial details.