The Untold History of the United States ~ Chapter 1 - World War II

[geefloyd46]

[Confusious]

1. Bullshit history

Here, for example, is an incomplete list of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s historical revisions, mostly concerned—as much of the book is—with the Cold War: If the United States hadn’t been resistant to assisting the Soviet Union in the late 1930s, then in throes of the Great Terror, Stalin would never have allied with Hitler’s Germany. The Nazi-Soviet pact was an attempt at buying time, because “Stalin understood that the Soviet Union’s turn was coming soon.” The brutal details of the alliance—Soviets and Nazi military cooperation, the violent bifurcation of Poland, the Soviet invasions of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—are ignored (Stalin, the authors say, “asserted control” over the Baltics and was guilty of “heavy-handed treatment of Eastern Europe,” a rather gentle way of describing an almost half-century of brutal occupation).

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/19/oliver-stone-s-junk-history-of-the-united-states-debunked.html

[geefloyd46]

2. I'd agree with your assessment on this incident.

From a Russian point of view I would question what kind of effect it would have on the Soviets to see the Russia invaded by almost every western country right after WWI. The same thing happened after the French Revolution. Once the French brutally threatened the other royalty in the rest of Europe, and the rest of Europe tried to snuff the baby out in the crib. That is not excusing the brutality of the Soviets, which I agree should be played up more in the series, but it is trying to understand where the motivation comes from. I think the fact that the western democracies were willing to look the other way as long as Hitler kicked the crap out of the Russians was not lost on Stalin either. Stalin reached out to the west but he was rebuffed who's own aristocracy didn't like what had happened to the Russian aristocracy and we're very unsure which government they liked least.

[Larrymoe Curlyshemp]

17. Agreed

Stone always seems inclined to downplay or even excuse Soviet excesses. Stalin murdered 20 million people to Hitler's 12 million. (I am speaking, of course, about internal murders under each.)

[heaven05]

3. it's

all revisionist history. Next thing you know, slaves will have been happy and content working for massa. Oh wait! That was tried already.

[zeemike]

4. Yep...everyone gets to revise it the way they like.

He who controls the past controls the future...and he that controls the present controls the past.
So people like Mr Stone are not appreciated cause they fuck with that.

[Confusious]

5. Mr Stone isn't appreciated because he gives one side of the story

Just like people who ignore what happened to the Indians when talking about the wild west.

I guess it's OK when you agree with it. Which makes you different from the people who ignore the Indian side of the story how?

[zeemike]

6. But it is the side of the story that is ignored

Were Stone to tell the story of the west he would tell the Native American side too.,,And those are things you don't get in school.

[Confusious]

7. It's like that, I didn't say it was that

As an example:

Stalin's agreement with Hitler.

The brutal details of the alliance—Soviets and Nazi military cooperation, the violent bifurcation of Poland, the Soviet invasions of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—are ignored (Stalin, the authors say, “asserted control” over the Baltics and was guilty of “heavy-handed treatment of Eastern Europe,” a rather gentle way of describing an almost half-century of brutal occupation).

As for the claim Stalin was "buying time" Stalin couldn't believe that hitler had broken the pact, that's why they got as far into Russia as they did. Not the actions of a person who knew what was coming.


It's the side of the story he doesn't agree with, so he ignores it.

[zeemike]

8. And there are others that don't agree with your side of the story.

And so you expect that they are somehow required to give your side too?
Like fair and balanced...means you have to present the "other side" even if it is laughable?
The points you make may well be true...or Stone's version may be true...but he presents HIS view of it...which I find the most convincing...and I have had a long interest in history of the world wars.

[Confusious]

9. Don't agree?

It's in all the history books. it's well known that Stalin was just as much a psychopath as Hitler.

"those that don't know history are doomed to repeat it," and knowing history means coming to to some sort of objective truth about it, so, as the saying goes, we don't repeat the same mistakes.

I thought you might want that, I guess I was wrong. It's not about truth for you, it's about ideology.

and that's sad.

[zeemike]

12. "I thought you might want that, I guess I was wrong"

Oh please!
Let's not go there....enough of the childishness of implying motives.

No doubt that Stalin was a sociopath...but then you seem to think you knew what was in his mind...when you don[t know any more that Stone knows...he is putting his spin on it like you put on yours...and you have no cause to shit on his and he no cause to shit on yours...
I am glad to hear your take on it...but not if you want to call his take bullshit.

[Confusious]

16. Most History books at least pay lip service

To the things people want to ignore, not exclude them outright.

His history is nothing but a bunch of quotes from radical and revisionist historians who like to ignore anything that dosn't conform to thier idea. They had the theory, and used the facts they liked to make it match.

I see people condem fox when they do that. Is it right for you to do it becuase you have a higher calling? They think they have a higher calling also. How are you different?

The truth is grey, not black and white.

[Bucky]

10. Mike, it's not one person's side of the story vs another's. History isn't only he said-she said

The other thing Stone does is misrepresent how history is actually being taught. As a certified US history teacher, I get to see what the actual curriculum is that's taught to kids. Stone frequently suggests that major parts of US history are being ignored if they make the US look bad. Even in Texas, where I teach, that's simply not true. Except for some of the kookier stuff Stone and his co-author put out there (the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a "trap" set up by the Carter Administration, the Berlin Wall prevented a larger confrontation with the West, etc) most of the "UNTOLD" stuff he covers in the documentary is also covered in the state approved curriculum.

[zeemike]

13. Well I have no idea what they are teaching in school.

I am long sense removed from that.
I grew up in the 50s and history was not very informing about such things in those days.
But I will say that I had one teacher in a college course I took about Western Civilization that was informative...but he made the pint then that every time Germany was united that war broke out...wonder what he thinks today.
But that is the think about it...you can be good at history and still be wrong because history is made by people, and people are too complex to be able to call it right all the time.

[Bucky]

11. "We were the center of the world, there was a Manifest Destiny, we were the good guys."

Sorry, Oliver, that's not what gets taught in high school US history. As a history teacher I teach the nuances of human society. More importantly, I teach critical thinking skills--indeed, I'm mandated by the state of Texas (yes, Texas) to encourage a critical analysis of historical events from a variety of viewpoints and using a bunch of different primary sources.

Stone's take on Stalin's policies before the war are really over the top. Imagine Britain and France's reaction when Stalin proposed placing Soviet troops in Poland--how magnanimous of him! How short sighted of the western democracies to just hand over their ally to the communists.

[ricardA]

14. stalin and churchill were always smiling

and I find that sick, psicopathic like, but maybe is just a cultural expression of war for this courageous famous people. I have to admit how tempting is to speculate in the existance of a human war switch, so that it could turned off. What a difference with the culture of the present world: from wars to information wars to cravings for a real civilized world.

I intend to make a summary of real people in peace time, but I'm having a hard time finding a peace time in recent centuries.

[ricardA]

15. dopamine high

the little smile?

[limpyhobbler]

18. I think it's awesome.