General Discussion

LanternWaste

(37,748 posts)

60. History often pisses off armchair nationalists..

Reply to WilliamPitt (Reply #16)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:25 PM

Nov 2012

"That's black-letter history."

Objective history often pisses off armchair nationalists...

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

HaHA Oliver STONE dropped the bomb on BROKAW on Morning Scabs [View all] UTUSN Nov 2012 OP

sounds great Enrique Nov 2012 #1

I don't get Showtime, so going for the book (wish paperback). The trouble with Kindle UTUSN Nov 2012 #3

Me too... truebrit71 Nov 2012 #53

It's fairly clear to anyone who looks at the ETO during WWII alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #2

Why then was Operation Sea Lion canceled in Nov 1940? dmallind Nov 2012 #7

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

Stone's point... CanSocDem Nov 2012 #6

self-serving? typical response. A lot of the Russian deaths were due to stalin as much as the still_one Nov 2012 #11

"Victory was bought by American Spam, and paid for with Russian blood" LanternWaste Nov 2012 #25

ok still_one Nov 2012 #32

The USSR was fighting Nazi Germany to a stalemate along a 2,000-mile front while coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #33

And he hurts that point by driving an anti-US agenda at the same time. nt stevenleser Nov 2012 #30

It's not "anti-US" to want a better education... CanSocDem Nov 2012 #34

Nice try, but no. That is not his only agenda. Contrast Stone with James Loewen who really has stevenleser Nov 2012 #38

Change? Check. Significant? Check? Be all and end all? No. dmallind Nov 2012 #9

and they also shortened the war in China from the Japanese, where the war was happening also still_one Nov 2012 #12

at some point the boo USA crowd Johonny Nov 2012 #10

I am not "boo USA." I am more for America than the jingos. JackRiddler Nov 2012 #14

Stalin's "alignment" came after the Munich accords... JackRiddler Nov 2012 #13

Hmmm DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #15

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

No one is denying those efforts Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #44

The reverse is also true. That's the problem as I noted down thread. stevenleser Nov 2012 #45

The only one taking any allies off of the equation is you Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #49

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

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines that Downtown Hound Nov 2012 #54

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

You understand the situation well. I have to agree with you and A Simple Game Nov 2012 #63

it would be absurd to claim a premise from that country's naval casualties or lack of casualties LanternWaste Nov 2012 #59

Except that I am not arguing any of that. stevenleser Nov 2012 #61

So, wait... WilliamPitt Nov 2012 #16

History often pisses off armchair nationalists.. LanternWaste Nov 2012 #60

The Americans and the Brits bore the brunt of the Pacific hifiguy Nov 2012 #17

Actually the beaches of Normandy, and other battles were no picnic either still_one Nov 2012 #19

Absolutely correct, hifiguy Nov 2012 #23

I agree still_one Nov 2012 #40

Stalin is also responsible for millions of Soviet casualties. MicaelS Nov 2012 #41

Exactly. There were three Axis powers. The Soviets dealt with only one of them and even then... stevenleser Nov 2012 #24

Correct answer, Mr. Leser! hifiguy Nov 2012 #29

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

Back To Brokaw DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #31

Plus Americans Have A Different Approach To Warfare DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #26

Patton's approach probably explains why we lost 58,000 in Vietnam but managed to coalition_unwilling Nov 2012 #39

kick Blue_Tires Nov 2012 #20

Oliver Stone Speaks Truth to Power in 12 November, 2012 CNN Interview MinM Nov 2012 #21

Stone and Kuznick were on with Tavis twice last week. Video is available. Bozita Nov 2012 #27

Has this series started yet? Blue_In_AK Nov 2012 #35

It was no secret lyingsackofmitt Nov 2012 #37

No US or UK strategy was motivated by that. Zero. Not because of a desire to do good... stevenleser Nov 2012 #48

Oliver Stone(d) couldn't get history correct if it was dropped on his head. Archae Nov 2012 #46

That movie was a mess Kolesar Nov 2012 #56

Why don't we start pressuring Obama on this RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #47

Truman gave us the Cold War and a permanent military-industrial complex Kolesar Nov 2012 #55