HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » HaHA Oliver STONE dropped...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:02 AM

HaHA Oliver STONE dropped the bomb on BROKAW on Morning Scabs

It might have been a re-run (I don't doze on it much anymore), but he and his co-writer/history professor Peter KUZNICK said - with BROKAW *not* present - that their Showtime chapter on WW II debunks the mythology of "The Greatest Generation" (ka-BOOM!1) and "Band of Brothers" by showing that the Soviets incurred 27M dead compared to 300K U.S. and that CHURCHILL had said the Soviets absorbed the guts of the Nazi war machine. They said their book/series complements Howard ZINN's social/domestic history with the focus on external events.

Only BARNICLE, HEILEMANN, and HALPERIN were present of the regulars, with some new dude sort of taking the Mika/Scabs seat. Scabs would have EXPLODED NUCLEARLY, so to speak, and BROKAW, whom I've always suspected cashed in royally by pandering with "The Greatest Generation" francise, might have lunged across the table.

For the record, STONE also said OBAMA has not received enough criticism from the Left on the continuation and expansion of Shrub war policies, that everybody jumped on Shrub for violating Constitutional civil liberties but not so much on OBAMA for killer drones, personally reviewing lists of who to kill, "which is much worse."

The review below is more hostile to the t.v. series, but there are more positive ones to be found.



*************QUOTE*************

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/showtracker/la-et-st-untold-history-review20121112,0,4744947.story

Review: American history, as Oliver Stone sees it

The filmmaker offers an alternative mythology that relies far more on broad-stroke storytelling than rigorous analysis. Still, there's some value in this Showtime miniseries.

By Mary McNamara, Los Angeles Times Television Critic
November 12, 2012

.... But the story of how the United States' actions, at home or abroad, have not always been noble or smart or superior to those of other nations is not quite as untold as Stone believes. That, for example, it was the Soviet army rather than the Americans that turned the tide of World War II has been dealt with in several fairly recent documentaries. That President Harry S. Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima had as much if not more to do with establishing America's dominance in the postwar politics than ending the war with Japan is something that activists, politicians and historians have discussed virtually from the moment he made it. ....

Which is not to say that there isn't value in the series. History demands constant reevaluation and certainly it is important to be reminded that the actions of our government can be tragically flawed. There are wonderful pieces of footage here and vivid glimpses of behind-the-scenes politicking, particularly regarding Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second vice president, Henry Wallace, a progressive liberal Roosevelt fought to get on the ticket, only to have him replaced by conservative forces during his fourth and final term by Truman. In early episodes, Wallace returns to Stone's narrative again and again as a lost hope for America, a man who might have saved us from the sins of the atomic age.

Not every historian sees Wallace as quite the tragic hero Stone considers him, but the narrative of "The Untold History" is too often just as one-note as the versions Stone seeks to replace. Indeed, the inclusion, at several points, of clips from Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" is as telling as it is narratively jarring. Stone presents his case with little recognition of the social, political and psychological complexities that dominate much of human development, turning it, intentionally or not, into an alternative mythology that relies far more on broad-stroke storytelling than rigorous analysis.

And isn't that what he was angry about in the first place?

*************UNQUOTE*************

63 replies, 5629 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 63 replies Author Time Post
Reply HaHA Oliver STONE dropped the bomb on BROKAW on Morning Scabs (Original post)
UTUSN Nov 2012 OP
Enrique Nov 2012 #1
UTUSN Nov 2012 #3
truebrit71 Nov 2012 #53
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #2
dmallind Nov 2012 #7
grantcart Nov 2012 #8
Barack_America Nov 2012 #4
still_one Nov 2012 #5
CanSocDem Nov 2012 #6
still_one Nov 2012 #11
LanternWaste Nov 2012 #25
still_one Nov 2012 #32
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #33
stevenleser Nov 2012 #30
CanSocDem Nov 2012 #34
stevenleser Nov 2012 #38
dmallind Nov 2012 #9
still_one Nov 2012 #12
Johonny Nov 2012 #10
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #14
JackRiddler Nov 2012 #13
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #15
still_one Nov 2012 #18
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #22
stevenleser Nov 2012 #28
Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #42
stevenleser Nov 2012 #43
Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #44
stevenleser Nov 2012 #45
Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #49
stevenleser Nov 2012 #50
Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #51
stevenleser Nov 2012 #52
Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #54
stevenleser Nov 2012 #57
Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #58
stevenleser Nov 2012 #62
A Simple Game Nov 2012 #63
LanternWaste Nov 2012 #59
stevenleser Nov 2012 #61
WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #16
LanternWaste Nov 2012 #60
hifiguy Nov 2012 #17
still_one Nov 2012 #19
hifiguy Nov 2012 #23
still_one Nov 2012 #40
MicaelS Nov 2012 #41
stevenleser Nov 2012 #24
hifiguy Nov 2012 #29
stevenleser Nov 2012 #36
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #31
DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #26
coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #39
Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #20
MinM Nov 2012 #21
Bozita Nov 2012 #27
Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #35
lyingsackofmitt Nov 2012 #37
stevenleser Nov 2012 #48
Archae Nov 2012 #46
Kolesar Nov 2012 #56
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #47
Kolesar Nov 2012 #55

Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:06 AM

1. sounds great

I always love hearing Stone, can't wait to see that video when it is posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:12 AM

3. I don't get Showtime, so going for the book (wish paperback). The trouble with Kindle

is that extra special books for me need to be physical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:10 PM

53. Me too...

...Love my Kindle, but there are just some books that HAVE to be physical..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:08 AM

2. It's fairly clear to anyone who looks at the ETO during WWII

that the Red Army defeated Germany, with the other forces (US, Britain) playing fairly minor roles.

The only really significant military role played by the US and Britain was the bombing of Germany's logistical and supply centers. The invasions (France, Italy) and various battles in Western Europe were child's play and little more than skirmishes compared to the killing fields of the East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:25 AM

7. Why then was Operation Sea Lion canceled in Nov 1940?

Wouldn't seem like a minor thing, and no Russians involved.

I think you are taken perfectly valid ideas about one aspect of the war (massed infantry engagements) and extrapolating it to the whole war.

80% of all German combat fatalities came at the hands of Russians - but some of the other 20% were crucial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:30 AM

8. lol well if your going that direction then it was the Russian geography and the Russian winter


that defeated the German Army and the Russian army was tactically and strategically supporting in a minor roll.


Obviously having a second front was a decisive constraint on the German army and civilian resources that undermined their eastern invasion.


Of course the Soviets sustained the vast majority of the losses of the allies but that was in large part to Stalin's incompetence and interference in everything from the economic/industrial complex to politicizing the Army and its Generals. It is true that the Soviets inflicted heavy losses on the Germans but it is a little like saying that you really hurt the other guy's hand by letting him smash your face in.

And of course it should be pointed out that Germany would never have been able to push the allies off of the continent and make them launch the greatest cross channel invasion in history if Stalin hadn't signed the Nazi-Soviet non aggression pact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:15 AM

4. Any argument that the Soviet Union didn't bear the brunt of Nazi Germany is foolish.

A successful argument simply cannot be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:16 AM

5. and Stalin initially aligned themselves with hitler also. I am not sure what Stone's point is, to

somehow minimize the losses of American soldiers in WWII, but about 400000 American soldiers lost their lives fighting that war. 60 million of the worlds population died.

The U.S. entry into WWII was significant, and did change the course of the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:24 AM

6. Stone's point...



...was that the "history" of the USA is misrepresented and self-serving. Like your post...

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:43 AM

11. self-serving? typical response. A lot of the Russian deaths were due to stalin as much as the

the germans.

You do not think that the European battles or the pacific battles had an effect, I don't know who is re-writing history.

and by the way, stalin would have been quite happy to have been aligned with hitler, but hitler had other plans

Many of the Russians who lost their lives because they forced the civilians to face the germans unarmed. Others because of stalin himself, who was directly responsible for millions of his own peoples deaths.

In 1961 they removed stain's body from a place of honor, to a regular grave because of his atrocities

It is not as black and white as mr. stone would like us to believe

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

25. "Victory was bought by American Spam, and paid for with Russian blood"

"Victory was bought by American Spam, and paid for with Russian blood" (Roosevelt's Secret War, Persico)

"Many of the Russians who lost their lives because they forced the civilians to face the germans unarmed. Others because of stalin (sic) himself, who was directly responsible for millions of his own peoples deaths."



Many, certainly. However, as fully 67% of ALL combat (non-civilian) deaths in WW2 (Axis and Allies) occurred on the Eastern Front (Utopia in Power, Heller - 9.7 million Russian, 3.5 million German, .75 million assorted satellites). One can easily conclude that the major brunt and the cost of the war was primarily from the East Front.

I don't think Mr Stone was in any way implying it's black and white, he was merely allowing voicing a premise that tends to raise the hackles of the "America's the Best" crowd...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #25)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:31 AM

32. ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:35 AM

33. The USSR was fighting Nazi Germany to a stalemate along a 2,000-mile front while

 

we and the Brits were dinking around down in North Africa.

Nazis had already been defeated at Stalingrad (by the USSR) long before D-Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #6)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:25 AM

30. And he hurts that point by driving an anti-US agenda at the same time. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #30)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:37 AM

34. It's not "anti-US" to want a better education...



...for its' citizens. Unless, of course, disinformation is the "agenda". Which, I guess, is his point.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:45 AM

38. Nice try, but no. That is not his only agenda. Contrast Stone with James Loewen who really has

a fair and unbiased view of history as his goal, and Stone's agenda becomes apparent.

http://sundown.afro.illinois.edu/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Loewen

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:30 AM

9. Change? Check. Significant? Check? Be all and end all? No.

The US made the European war slightly shorter and slightly less deadly, especially in the final clean up invasions. IS material and cash probably made a bigger difference than US manpower, and certainly decreased the cost in both terms for the allies.

What however is pure jingoistic revisionist shite is the never-ending crap like "if it weren't for us (almost never actually from anybody old enough to have been there) you'd be speaking German". as I mentioned above, Hitler dropped his plans to invade Britain over a year before the US even entered the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmallind (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:46 AM

12. and they also shortened the war in China from the Japanese, where the war was happening also

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:31 AM

10. at some point the boo USA crowd

gets boring and over the top too. Everyone has an agenda... even OBVIOUSLY Oliver Stone. I generally like Stone's movies, but I've listened to him enough to know what his agenda is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Johonny (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:52 AM

14. I am not "boo USA." I am more for America than the jingos.

I expect the United States to live up to its own ideals.

Thus I see something that should be better than the beast that raped Vietnam and Iraq.

Will America ever be, as Langston Hughes wanted it?

Let America Be America Again

by Langston Hughes

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed—
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me,
Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

Say, who are you that mumbles in the dark?
And who are you that draws your veil across the stars?

I am the poor white, fooled and pushed apart,
I am the Negro bearing slavery's scars.
I am the red man driven from the land,
I am the immigrant clutching the hope I seek—
And finding only the same old stupid plan
Of dog eat dog, of mighty crush the weak.

I am the young man, full of strength and hope,
Tangled in that ancient endless chain
Of profit, power, gain, of grab the land!
Of grab the gold! Of grab the ways of satisfying need!
Of work the men! Of take the pay!
Of owning everything for one's own greed!

I am the farmer, bondsman to the soil.
I am the worker sold to the machine.
I am the Negro, servant to you all.
I am the people, humble, hungry, mean—
Hungry yet today despite the dream.
Beaten yet today—O, Pioneers!
I am the man who never got ahead,
The poorest worker bartered through the years.

Yet I'm the one who dreamt our basic dream
In the Old World while still a serf of kings,
Who dreamt a dream so strong, so brave, so true,
That even yet its mighty daring sings
In every brick and stone, in every furrow turned
That's made America the land it has become.
O, I'm the man who sailed those early seas
In search of what I meant to be my home—
For I'm the one who left dark Ireland's shore,
And Poland's plain, and England's grassy lea,
And torn from Black Africa's strand I came
To build a "homeland of the free."

The free?

Who said the free? Not me?
Surely not me? The millions on relief today?
The millions shot down when we strike?
The millions who have nothing for our pay?
For all the dreams we've dreamed
And all the songs we've sung
And all the hopes we've held
And all the flags we've hung,
The millions who have nothing for our pay—
Except the dream that's almost dead today.

O, let America be America again—
The land that never has been yet—
And yet must be—the land where every man is free.
The land that's mine—the poor man's, Indian's, Negro's, ME—
Who made America,
Whose sweat and blood, whose faith and pain,
Whose hand at the foundry, whose plow in the rain,
Must bring back our mighty dream again.

Sure, call me any ugly name you choose—
The steel of freedom does not stain.
From those who live like leeches on the people's lives,
We must take back our land again,
America!


O, yes,
I say it plain,
America never was America to me,
And yet I swear this oath—
America will be!

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 10:49 AM

13. Stalin's "alignment" came after the Munich accords...

in which the Western powers sought to placate Hitler, sacrificing Czechoslovakia, and turn his attention to the East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:00 AM

15. Hmmm

Stating that the Soviets suffered the brunt of WW ll casualties and that the United States played a major role in defeating the AXIS powers are not mutually exclusive.


Hopefully there is a middle ground between mindless jingoism and denigrating all things American.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:13 AM

18. Exactly. This is typical stone bullshit. Also it fails to point out how many Russians were killed

by Stalin, through starvation, and lack of supplying them equipment

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:17 AM

22. It Reminds Me Of The Freedom Fries Days When Right Wingers Said French Assistance

It reminds me of the "Freedom Fries" days when right wingers said French assistance during our Revolutionary war was of no consequence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #15)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:22 AM

28. Correct: See my #24. I dont understand why it isnt enough for some folks to just say

that the UK, US and Soviet Union all played the biggest roles in that war defeating the axis.

The agenda of folks who try to say that any one of those three played 'the biggest' role is readily apparent to anyone who isnt similarly biased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #28)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:27 PM

42. I don't think it's anti-U.S. or some type of agenda to say that the Soviet Union

played the single biggest military role in defeating Nazi Germany. You could make an argument that the U.S played the biggest OVERALL role in not only providing troops and aid to Russia and Britain in the fight against Germany, but also against Japan. Russia, however, bore the brunt of the military cost against Germany, and that is a fact. All Stone is trying to do is throw some water on American exceptionalism that's been pervading our culture for years and has made us stupider as a people. You know, kind of like, hey, when we're in the midst of some ceremony remembering those that died for our freedom, maybe we could spare a moment to thank all of those Russians too and realize that we didn't do it ourselves. Far from it.

By the way, it's worth noting that Stone served as a Marine in Vietnam and that's where most of his so-called anti-U.S. views were formed. But I don't think his views are anti-U.S. All he wants is for America to live up to its ideals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #42)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:41 PM

43. But that's just it, you cannot say that. People who died isnt THE metric of military effort.

How did the Soviets help with defeating the Germans in North Africa? How did the Soviets help with the battle of Britain? How did the Soviets help with defeating the Germans in Italy and Southern Europe? How did the Soviets help with the war in the Atlantic versus the German submarine Wolf Packs?

Why are some folks so readily willing to believe that the Eastern front outweighs all of those things?

I don't think it makes sense to allow nationalism or anti-nationalism to make a judgement one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #43)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:46 PM

44. No one is denying those efforts

And no one is anyone saying that success is measured only in people dying. What is being said is that the bulk of the Nazi war machine was lost fighting the Soviet Union. Those 3.5 million Germans that died on the Eastern front allowed for for the victories you mention. You think Normandy would have succeeded if there had been millions more Germans waiting for us? It barely succeeded as it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #44)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:52 PM

45. The reverse is also true. That's the problem as I noted down thread.

The battle of Britain and all those other efforts, also allowed the Soviets to be successful.

Without the German troops that were needed in the west, in France and other countries to guard against potential invasion, without the German troops needing to be stationed in Italy, without the German troops occupied with trying to win in North Africa, those troops are thrown against the Soviets in the Eastern Front and to use your terminology, the Soviets barely held off the German advance as it was. Those troops, tanks and materiel that were used elsewhere thrown against Stalingrad and Moscow in 1940-1941 result in Germany winning and knocking the Soviets out of the war.

You cannot take any of the three allies out of the equation and have a victory against Germany or the other axis powers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #45)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:58 PM

49. The only one taking any allies off of the equation is you

All Stone and everyone here is trying to do is give some credit to the Russians who bore the "BRUNT" of the ground war against Germany and to throw some water on American arrogance. And that Russia bore the "BRUNT" of the ground war against Germany is pretty much well documented. Sure they had lots of help from us. Sure they had lots of help from Britain. Doesn't take away the fact that that they still bore the brunt of the cost and had the most impact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #49)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:02 PM

50. You got one part right, his goal is "to throw water ... on American arrogance" not to get history

right. That's the problem.

The Germans were involved in multiple fronts and multiple geographies. Land, sea, air, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Southern Europe and North Africa.

The Soviets only engaged the Germans in one of those fronts on land. There is no question it was the biggest front. But does it outweigh the fighting all other places? If you can easily say that, you have an agenda that goes beyond getting history right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #50)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:04 PM

51. If by "agenda that goes beyond getting history right" you mean doing simple mathematics

then yes, I have such an agenda. LOL.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #51)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:07 PM

52. Now we are getting to your error. You think simple math explains a multi-front multi-geography war

Using simple math, the entire Battle of Britain is much less important than a battle for a city of very little importance on the western front.

In reality, the Battle for Britain was one of the more important events of the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #52)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:25 PM

54. Actually, I was thinking more along the lines that

out of every 10 German soldiers killed in World War 2, about 8 of them died on the Eastern front makes it pretty clear where the brunt of the fighting occurred. That math pretty much seals it up for me, but if you want to live in your own world, go ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #54)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:34 PM

57. Troops killed always discounts the importance of naval and air battles. Thats why you dont get it.

Or at least one of MANY reasons why you don't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:17 PM

58. Yeah well, not only me but apparently lots of historians and documentaries that I've watched

"It is generally accepted that of the total German military combat deaths in WWII, which numbered about 3.4 million, about 75% and possibly 80% were on the eastern front. Additionally, up to June 1944 (Normandy) the percentage was even higher since there was little combat elsewhere that generated large casualties.
German material losses on the eastern front were also huge representing over 80% of artillery, tank and truck losses. Aircraft losses were about 50/50 on the eastern and western front. Of course, naval losses were almost exclusively in the west, even including defensive actions taken against Soviet attempts to massacre civilians on the open seas late in the war in the Baltic.
It is said that, 9 out of 10 German soldiers killed in World War II were on the Eastern Front."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_large_were_German_losses_on_the_eastern_front

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:20 PM

62. Whatever you may have read, you cannot articulate an argument for your contention other than a

simplistic one that does not take into account various important campaigns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #58)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:16 PM

63. You understand the situation well. I have to agree with you and

Churchill and Hitler's generals all of whom said fighting Russia was Hitler's biggest mistake. All you have to do is look at the logistics to know attacking Russia was Germany's fatal mistake. It is very simple to understand if you don't let anything cloud your judgment.

Stone wasn't belittling America's contribution, just putting it into perspective. If not for Russia, many if not most credible historians believe all of Europe, except for Russia, would all be speaking German now.

America didn't win the war, America shortened it. That is not a bad thing and we should be proud of doing so. But we need to be honest about history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #57)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:18 PM

59. it would be absurd to claim a premise from that country's naval casualties or lack of casualties

Troops killed is one of three (according to Von Clasuwitz) indicators of a country's ability to forestall defeat or find victory

If a nation state does not require a large naval presence (in this case, the Soviet Union), it would be absurd to claim a premise from that country's naval casualties or lack of casualties,

And, as the Soviet Union built approximately aircraft in a a ratio of 2/3 vis-a-vis the U.S., and doing so with close to 45% of its industrial capacity gone, and began both ground and offensive air operations well before Torch (all of which may be found in paul Kennedy's Rise and Fall of the Great Powers), all things being equal, it seems safe to conclude that the Soviet army had already beat the German army, though neither one realized it at the time.

And before we get too melodramatic, I don't have an agenda-- I merely attempt to look objectively at the numbers. Kennedy's book is fantastic for this, showing each countries arms productions, GDP, GNP, absolute dollars, etc. relative to each other, relative to the specific situation, and relative to the overall contribution to the allies eventual victory.

But I do understand that we often tell people who don't agree with our premise that "you don't get" for better self-validation of our own premises.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #59)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:19 PM

61. Except that I am not arguing any of that.

The fact of the matter is, if we go by a strictly troop casualty basis, the Battle of Britain was an inconsequential affair. Most naval battles are inconsequential. The battle for the atlantic fought by the US and UK against the German U-Boats was no big deal. Very few military personnel were lost in any of those battles or campaigns.

But they were a big deal. And they are lost and cannot be accounted for if you simply say "The Soviets lost more and killed more than we did." THAT is my contention.

Those matters, the battle for the Atlantic and the Battle of Britain have to be factored in if you are trying to go through the (in my opinion) useless exercise of who gets to flex their chest and say "X country did more in WWII or against the Germans than Y country did"

My contention is that the exercise of trying to satisfy one country or another's desire for nationalistic pride, or one groups desire to take that away from one of the countries involved by saying "X country did more" is both biased and non-supportable. This isn't a simple math equation. If it was, I could say, see, the US and UK participated in more theatres against the Germans. That math is as simple as "The Soviets killed more and had more killed". Neither of these approaches takes into account the full measure of what happened. I don't think its possible to determine 'who did more'. All did 'a lot'. All else is nationalism or anti-nationalism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:05 AM

16. So, wait...

His big proclamation was that the Soviets bore the brunt of the European war?

That's black-letter history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WilliamPitt (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:25 PM

60. History often pisses off armchair nationalists..

"That's black-letter history."

Objective history often pisses off armchair nationalists...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:08 AM

17. The Americans and the Brits bore the brunt of the Pacific

meat-grinder and the Soviets did so in Europe.

Them's the facts, Jack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:14 AM

19. Actually the beaches of Normandy, and other battles were no picnic either

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #19)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:19 AM

23. Absolutely correct,

but the Red Army and the Soviet Union absorbed millions of casualties in WWII. The raw numbers just aren't comparable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:54 AM

40. I agree

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:55 AM

41. Stalin is also responsible for millions of Soviet casualties.

If he hadn't purged the Army before the War, then the Red Army might have been a much more effective force. Plus the fact Stalin wouldn't even listen to his own spies when they told him Hitler would invade.

And don't get me started on Stalin's co-invasion of Poland and his massacre of the Polish Officer Corps.

Hitler was the #1 monster of the modern era, but Stalin was #2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

24. Exactly. There were three Axis powers. The Soviets dealt with only one of them and even then...

...you could also make the argument that it was easier for the Soviets to deal with the Germans because they were dealing with a one front one geography only portion of the war.

The US was fighting a naval and island hopping war in the Pacific, fighting German U-Boats up and down the Atlantic, fighting the Germans and Italians in North Africa, fighting the Germans and Italians in Europe, etc.

It's unfortunate that so many folks try to make this a one sided thing. The US, the UK and the Russians were main good guys who did most of the damage against the bad guys in WWII and none of those roles should be diminished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:25 AM

29. Correct answer, Mr. Leser!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #29)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:39 AM

36. Thank you! I think one of the key ways to think about this is, if you take any of the three main

allies out of the equation, the UK, the Soviets, or the US, the allies lose the war.

If the US is out, the Germans take North Africa, Operation overlord never happens, the Japanese aid their German allies by opening a second front on the Soviets on their pacific coast, sending aircraft carriers to attack Vladivostok, etc., and I dont think there is any chance that the Soviets stand up to a two front war against the Germans in the West and the Japanese in the East. Once the Soviets were out of the war, the axis powers would gang up on the UK and finish the job.

If the Soviets were out, the entire German army could have concentrated on keeping the US and UK out of mainland Europe and taking North Africa. The Germans would have eventually invaded the UK and could have sent their u-boat fleet to the pacific to bolster the Japanese effort there. I dont think the US prevails against all three axis powers.

If the UK is out, the Germans take North Africa and it takes away any effective way for the US to stage forces to invade mainland Europe, meaning the German Army is free to send the entire bulk of its force against the Soviets. The Soviets are then beaten and knocked out of the war. Again, it leaves the US to deal with three Axis powers on its own and we do not win against that.

Anyway you slice it, without one of the three it is catastrophe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #24)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:27 AM

31. Back To Brokaw

His "Greatest Generation" not only prosecuted WW ll but it bore the brunt of The Great Depression. I think folks lose sight of the second part of his thesis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #17)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

26. Plus Americans Have A Different Approach To Warfare

Patton famously said " it's better to make the other son of a bitch die for his country than that you should die for yours."


And when Stalin was offered minesweeps from FDR he turned them down, saying they had humans to perform that task !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #26)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:51 AM

39. Patton's approach probably explains why we lost 58,000 in Vietnam but managed to

 

kill 1-2 million Southeast Asians.

USSR lost 20 million. USA lost 250,000 (in Europe) in World War II.

Maintaining the ratio of 1 American life = 100 foreigners' lives.

See Operation Shocking and Awful for the latest iteration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:16 AM

20. kick

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:17 AM

21. Oliver Stone Speaks Truth to Power in 12 November, 2012 CNN Interview

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:20 AM

27. Stone and Kuznick were on with Tavis twice last week. Video is available.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:39 AM

35. Has this series started yet?

I really want to watch, but I'm at my daughter's house and they don't have cable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:40 AM

37. It was no secret

That the Americans and the British had hoped the Nazis and the Soviets would kill each other off. How much of war planning and strategy was motivated by that? Not sure. But when you look at the casualty figures, it seems like they at least pushed it in that direction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lyingsackofmitt (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:56 PM

48. No US or UK strategy was motivated by that. Zero. Not because of a desire to do good...

In the beginning of the war, it wasnt even clear at all that the allies would win and staving off a German victory took a maximum effort by everyone. By the time it was, after Stalingrad and El Alamein and other major turning point victories, say late 1942-1943, the goal was to beat the Soviets to Berlin. At no time were the US or UK planners saying, gee, lets hold off on our war effort to make it harder on the Soviets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:55 PM

46. Oliver Stone(d) couldn't get history correct if it was dropped on his head.

Exhibit A: "JFK"

Two facts were in "JFK," Kennedy was shot, and Clay Shaw was tried and acquitted for the murder.

The rest of the movie is bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Archae (Reply #46)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:33 PM

56. That movie was a mess

Stone tried to tie together two different conspiracy "theories".
I liked the costumes and the sets, though.
The courtroom scenes led to some great comic potential for a Seinfeld episode about Kramer flinging a hock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 12:55 PM

47. Why don't we start pressuring Obama on this

 

STONE also said OBAMA has not received enough criticism from the Left on the continuation and expansion of Shrub war policies, that everybody jumped on Shrub for violating Constitutional civil liberties but not so much on OBAMA for killer drones, personally reviewing lists of who to kill, "which is much worse."


Right wingers keep talking about the Constitution violating Obamacare, why don't we use this to discuss the real violations going on that none of us like?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to UTUSN (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 01:30 PM

55. Truman gave us the Cold War and a permanent military-industrial complex

The US and Britain did need to occupy and de-nazify Germany after the war. We did not need a huge deployment of atomic bombs, intercontinental bombers and the eventual missile armada that we later built. The MIC and the spy agencies have sapped the strength of our democracy.

The Soviet Union was crushed after the war. They were not about to overrun Germany and France or do whatever Churchill's imagined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread