The world is infested by various nutty ideas, and mostly you just have to ignore them, at least until you become King and release the hounds. But someone needs to oppose them, else the young and naive may fall victim. Now and then I get the urge, fortunately not too often.
One busy area is WWII revisionism.
1. The Roosevelt administration supposedly had prior knowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor and deliberately refrained from telling Admiral Kimmel and General Short. Not true: basically pretty silly. Suppose you were a Machiavellian willing to take a hit in order to stir up the public: you might be willing to lose a ship, but not most of the Pacific fleet! Most expected an attack, but not at Pearl. I could go on with the details of the JN series codes, the extent to which they were broken: what we could read, when we could read it, when the Japanese switched codes, etc. In December ’41 we couldn’t read a thing. The Kidō Butai avoided the shipping lanes, was radio silent. Radar on Hawaii was a week old: stealth was easy in those days.
Roosevelt expected that there would probably be a war if we continued to oppose Japanese expansion in China but he didn’t expect the war that we got, with a wildly successful first campaign for Japan.
2. Icebreaker. Victor Suvorov (alias) wrote a book saying that the Soviets were poised to invade the Nazi-controlled lands in the summer of 41. Silly: the Soviets were desperately afraid of a war with Germany, because they feared that they’d lose. So afraid they ignored credible reports of the coming attack from their own intelligence guys, Western powers, even from the German ambassador! it was too horrible to be true.
The German Army looked damned good in defeating France, while the Soviets had had a lot of trouble with Finland, caused in part by having just shot most of the higher officer corps. That and Simo Häyhä.
If the Sovs were within a couple of weeks of launching invasion, you’d think that they would have called up the deep reserves, bothered to get all of their tanks working, stockpiled fuel, run recon overflights, snuck sappers into German-occupied territory (to sabotage bridges and cut communications lines), finish reorganization of their tank corps, etc. etc.. – most of which the Germans did do, of course. None of which the Soviets did. The Soviet high command expressed great concern about their frontier about not giving Hitler an ‘excuse” for starting a war – like he needed one! Hitler may be the only person that Stalin really, truly trusted in his adult life: which must prove something.
3. Other Losses. No, Eisenhower did not scrag hundreds of thousands of German POWs. We let a large number of them go as soon as we caught them : usually with the boys and old men of the Volkssturm, sometimes with regular army, not with SS. I was just reading some comments from an uncle who was a company commander: they had zillions of Germans trying to surrender to his division, rather than the Russians. His division had 65,000 German prisoners: they let most of them walk home, other than the SS, largely because they couldn’t figure out what else to do with them.
4. The Werwolf resistance in Germany – how our occupation was (not) plagued by guerrilla warfare. This one is funnier: theory #1 appealed to people who were emotionally traumatized by Pearl Harbor (many people) and/or hated Roosevelt (many people). #2 appeals to Germans, and to people who hated the Soviets (not without reason) – and, of course, to people who are just generally goofy. # 3 basically appeals to Nazi sympathizers, not necessarily German. But this last one started out as a fairly stupid but innocent satirical article on the Internet, a pretend Reuters article from 1945 talking about how people in the US were getting sick of occupying Germany in the face of all that guerrilla resistance. The satiric article plainly stated that it was not a real Reuters article – it was satire, in support of the US continuing to occupy Iraq. People copied the article and left off the bit about it being satire. Some speechwriter for Rumsfeld used it, presumably without A. knowing it was not a real Reuters article and B. naturally knowing nothing about US history (or anything else). Once Rumsfeld had publicly argued that we had the same problems in Germany (except that it was deadly blonde Frauleins, rather than IEDs) it became a thing. Nobody in high office ever admits that they’re wrong: presumably it would leave little time for anything else. Good Busheviks knew that they should believe in it – I’m sure that some still do.
Rumsfeld even improved on it, later -talked about all the chaos and bloodshed after the American revolution (undoubtedly moderated by American near-gunlessness). Condi used it, I would guess because she was behind on her idiocy quota.