Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: HaHA Oliver STONE dropped the bomb on BROKAW on Morning Scabs [View all]DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
63 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I don't get Showtime, so going for the book (wish paperback). The trouble with Kindle
UTUSN
Nov 2012
#3
lol well if your going that direction then it was the Russian geography and the Russian winter
grantcart
Nov 2012
#8
Any argument that the Soviet Union didn't bear the brunt of Nazi Germany is foolish.
Barack_America
Nov 2012
#4
and Stalin initially aligned themselves with hitler also. I am not sure what Stone's point is, to
still_one
Nov 2012
#5
self-serving? typical response. A lot of the Russian deaths were due to stalin as much as the
still_one
Nov 2012
#11
The USSR was fighting Nazi Germany to a stalemate along a 2,000-mile front while
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#33
Nice try, but no. That is not his only agenda. Contrast Stone with James Loewen who really has
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#38
and they also shortened the war in China from the Japanese, where the war was happening also
still_one
Nov 2012
#12
Exactly. This is typical stone bullshit. Also it fails to point out how many Russians were killed
still_one
Nov 2012
#18
It Reminds Me Of The Freedom Fries Days When Right Wingers Said French Assistance
DemocratSinceBirth
Nov 2012
#22
Correct: See my #24. I dont understand why it isnt enough for some folks to just say
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#28
I don't think it's anti-U.S. or some type of agenda to say that the Soviet Union
Downtown Hound
Nov 2012
#42
But that's just it, you cannot say that. People who died isnt THE metric of military effort.
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#43
You got one part right, his goal is "to throw water ... on American arrogance" not to get history
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#50
If by "agenda that goes beyond getting history right" you mean doing simple mathematics
Downtown Hound
Nov 2012
#51
Now we are getting to your error. You think simple math explains a multi-front multi-geography war
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#52
Troops killed always discounts the importance of naval and air battles. Thats why you dont get it.
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#57
Yeah well, not only me but apparently lots of historians and documentaries that I've watched
Downtown Hound
Nov 2012
#58
Whatever you may have read, you cannot articulate an argument for your contention other than a
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#62
it would be absurd to claim a premise from that country's naval casualties or lack of casualties
LanternWaste
Nov 2012
#59
Exactly. There were three Axis powers. The Soviets dealt with only one of them and even then...
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#24
Thank you! I think one of the key ways to think about this is, if you take any of the three main
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#36
Patton's approach probably explains why we lost 58,000 in Vietnam but managed to
coalition_unwilling
Nov 2012
#39
No US or UK strategy was motivated by that. Zero. Not because of a desire to do good...
stevenleser
Nov 2012
#48