HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Video & Multimedia (Forum) » The Untold History Of The...

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 05:07 AM

The Untold History Of The United States ~ Chapter 2 ~ Roosevelt, Truman ...

https://

14 replies, 3093 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 14 replies Author Time Post
Reply The Untold History Of The United States ~ Chapter 2 ~ Roosevelt, Truman ... (Original post)
geefloyd46 Jan 2013 OP
SJohnson Jan 2013 #1
PDittie Jan 2013 #2
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #8
geefloyd46 Jan 2013 #10
PDittie Jan 2013 #13
Confusious Jan 2013 #3
geefloyd46 Jan 2013 #5
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #9
newthinking Jan 2013 #12
mtasselin Jan 2013 #4
sasha031 Jan 2013 #6
geefloyd46 Jan 2013 #7
newthinking Jan 2013 #11
limpyhobbler Jan 2013 #14


Response to geefloyd46 (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 07:52 AM

2. This series is just flooring me

To think about how different this country would be if the big business interests and party insiders hadn't pushed Henry Wallace out for Harry Truman... smh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PDittie (Reply #2)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:17 PM

8. No need to shake your head - we were spared.

Wallace might've been a good guy, but he would be a lousy president and had too close of ties to the Soviets and Stalin - who even FDR was becoming increasingly wary of at the end of the World War. I know the Cold War is very conflicting here on DU, but his naivety toward the Soviets - buying into the idea that communism, specifically their communism, was some Utopian society, would have setup for some nasty, nasty blowback at home.

Now while I expect Wallace would have become increasingly cautious toward the Soviets the more he saw their true intentions, as Roosevelt did toward the end of his presidency, the damage would've been too grave and his lack of political skills (Wallace wasn't the most charismatic, give 'em hell types) probably means he's not elected outright - and worse, Republicans might go to the right and nominate Taft instead of staying left with Dewey. Either way, Dewey/Taft win, the Roosevelt era comes to an end, Wallace is remembered has a Soviet sympathizer, who hurt the Democrats' image to the point where it's not far-fetched to suggest Republicans dominate the government for a generation-plus.

I know some DUers will disagree and buy the line that he would've been a fantastic leader - but I don't. I think his soft approach on communism would have been devastating, especially if it was a direct result of Soviet aggressiveness in Europe. A big reason why the Soviets didn't start World War III (or at least march into, say, Greece) in the '40s is because they knew America would not be on their side. If Wallace, who was not nearly as vocal in his criticism of the Stalin regime, was seen as not countering that aggression, who knows what stunts the Soviets pull. But while the Cold War certainly outlived its usefulness, in the 1940s, it was the only thing keeping the Soviets in check, as they very well could have run roughshod over Europe if they wanted to - you know, if they were up for another bloody war.

I'm not saying Wallace was a bad guy (I think he was a good guy who wanted to do good), I just think he was not set to be president and many high-profile Democrats knew this. Hell, even FDR had to sign off on this and he did. Roosevelt was still the President and if he really, really wanted Wallace his vice-president, he would have looked at the party and told 'em flat out they either renominate him or he declines a fourth term - which would have instantly ended any hope for the Democrats to win (as FDR was the only candidate who probably could have won that election, even with the U.S. gripped in war).

Even if he reluctantly agreed to the move - he still agreed to it and signed off on it. FDR was just as culpable as everyone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:54 PM

10. Hard to think that anyone in 1945 would have said that Truman was prepared to be president...

It is easier to believe that they thought that Truman was somebody they could control. And it is a valid point whether anyone could have effectively taken on as Eisenhower said could have taken on "the military industrial complex." It's still a question now if anyone can control that some complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 09:55 AM

13. We quite obviously disagree

but thank you for sharing your opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geefloyd46 (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:19 AM

3. It's a bullshit series and bullshit history

He selectively picks around for facts that prove his already formed theory, while ignoring those facts that contradict his views.

I know a great deal about history, and certian periods in particular, and noticed that bullshit going on and turned it off before i had even finished watching one episode.

It's not educational, it's propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 09:24 AM

5. I know history too.

There are many out there who would call standard history bullshit too, and that much of what you learn is propaganda. It's all what strands of history get emphasized and what doesn't. There are some things that they suggest I agree with very much and some not as much. I think the paranoid evil nature of the Soviet Stalin regime, though it is touched upon here, could get bigger play here. I also believe business rise in the chaos of the depression and the fact they looked the other way or even helped the fascists before WWII doesn't get nearly enough play. I'm certainly not closed minded enough to close my mind to everything because I don't agree with a few.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Confusious (Reply #3)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 04:41 PM

9. It's an entire fantasy.

1) Wallace would have run into the same problems Truman ran into domestically - an unwilling Congress. That wasn't going to change under Wallace and no amount of progressive ideas would push through the gridlock. So, while Wallace might've been more inclined to push civil rights and universal healthcare, ultimately, as it was with Truman, almost everything would've died in Congress (there is a reason Truman called 'em the 'Do Nothing Congress').

2) This idea that Wallace wouldn't have dropped the bomb is just that, an idea. There is no shred of evidence Wallace wouldn't have taken the same path as Truman in this regard. More importantly, he would have been told the exact same information Truman was when he made the decision to drop it. Maybe Wallace decides against it - but that doesn't make him any more nobler since, A) we don't know how the war would've turned out under that scenario and 2) Even FDR would have dropped it if he had not died ... since he was behind the creation of the damn thing and really had no problem going to that level to win (see Dresden).

3) Even if FDR had not gone along with Truman as VP and demanded Wallace stay on the ticket (he really didn't put up much fight in this regard, so, the Golden Boy FDR was just as responsible as the evil party henchmen in Stone's eyes), it's unlikely he wins the party's nomination in '48 and it's even more unlikely he wins the presidential election if he somehow did win the nomination.

Ultimately, Stone is corrupted by the revisionist history that strikes all of us what-ifers. You know, like when we think of what could have been had Kennedy not been gunned down in Dallas (for sure, I'm guessing Stone will say he would've ended the Vietnam War and ushered in a new liberal era - even though there is only limited evidence on the former and no evidence on the latter ... as Kennedy wasn't some left-wing liberal).

It's what we do.

One thing I'll agree with Stone on - Wallace was a good guy. I just don't think he was presidential material. And I suspect, with how easy he rolled over when asked to switch running mates, neither did Roosevelt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #9)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:25 AM

12. His observations of the innacuracies of our view of WWII are right on

Having Russian relatives I know both (theirs and our) stories and have long understood that our view of that time was myopic and lacking empathy and honesty.

Stone is right in that it is hard for us to understand how incredibly catastrophic the most brutal war was and how it affected the way the soviets acted vs the way we were able to act, having not nearly suffered in the same manner. Russia was ravaged and raped and their motives, at least at that time in history, were not aimed at us. If the same had happened to us I have no doubt we would have been as aggressive, if not even more so.

Our own paranoia and right wing thinking contributed, unfortunately, to some bad decisions, and set up the next 50 years a cold war, that could very likely not have been nearly as adversarial with different leadership.

While certainly this version of events has it's own bias, it is refreshing, if not ultimately imperative, that history be looked at outside or own bubble.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geefloyd46 (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 08:29 AM

4. Like

I enjoy this series very much it gives you another prospective of history, so if you think you know history and won't bother to watch the series you just might be cheating yourself. There are many different views of what had happened, you can look at the JFK assassination and listen to the secret service agents and their views would be different from some person watching it that was in the crowd. Such is history!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geefloyd46 (Original post)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 12:39 PM

6. Thank you so much for posting this

I don't have Showtime, was going to buy the series along with the book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sasha031 (Reply #6)

Sat Jan 5, 2013, 02:54 PM

7. I don't either.

I'm interested and will keep my eyes open for the future shows.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geefloyd46 (Original post)

Sun Jan 6, 2013, 01:08 AM

11. Part 3 - The great lie - That the atomic bombing of Japan

was necessary. That in truth it was meant as a warning to the USSR. It had little affect on the surrender terms (Japan was already being carpet bombed and already trying to negotiate surrender) and the lie propagated that it saved so many lives was just that. It was Russian troops that forced the surrender.

This is an incredible documentary.

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/117924/Oliver_Stone_The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States_ep03/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geefloyd46 (Original post)

Wed Jan 9, 2013, 01:36 PM

14. I quite like this series.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread