The Untold History Of The United States (2012)

First of all, The Untold History of the United States is somewhat of a misnomer as a title because most of this is common knowledge or already taught in standard U.S. history courses--only remotely novel aspect to this is Kuznick and Stone's conjecture, opinion, Wallace/FDR worship, and what ifs about the political climate during WWII and the subsequent Cold War.What if FDR didn't conform to outside pressures and went with Wallace instead of Truman? What if we didn't drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What if we conciliated our differences with communist ideologues? What if...? And on, and on. Plenty of what is said is true but subterfuge is common, wherein they present a positive spin on many figures and sort of hand wave away their faults or never admit it at all. Quite a number of communist ideologues who slaughtered and oppressed their people are often seen in a rather benign light, and, in contrast, it's not uncommon to feel as if U.S. figures are unfairly demonized in comparison. Oh, hey Joseph McCarthy, let me call you a venomous snake and play ominous music whenever you appear, and I'll play weepy violin music for when Stalin dies--and let us make sure to portray Stalin with the old "papa joe" image! Both of these were juxtaposed together in practically the same breath.There is still a lot of speculation by historians concerning the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan. Both bombs were dropped 3 days apart and Stalin invaded Manchuria around the same time. It's hard to say what made Japan surrender because everything was so close together. Maybe they would have surrendered without Russia's involvement or without the bombs. Maybe one or the other would have been needed (definitely should have waited longer to drop the second bomb, if it was necessary at all, in HINDSIGHT). There are a lot of maybes and it's much easier to speculate in hindsight and play armchair philosopher. Here is another what if: what if we didn't drop the bombs and the war lingered on and Russia invaded mainland Japan and the country was partitioned similar to what happened in Berlin? Bad things can happen from what ifs, not just Stone's Kumbaya vision quests.While I agree that we often picked a regime that wasn't really any better than what they were competing against or the preexisting status quo, and the U.S. world policing has often done more harm than good, I found it rather funny that Stone paints Allende in such a positive light, who was a Marxist and had absolutely horrendous policies with starving citizens on par with 2018-level Venezuela, and the country was about to collapse. A coup was inevitable. Yes, Pinochet did bad things but Chile prospered in comparison to what preceded him, and he didn't kill nearly as many people compared to Castro's regime, who Stone never says a bad word about (because we sided with Batista and a lot of leftist figures seem quite fond of Castro for some reason). If we would have sided with Allende (WHAT IF???), then we'd probably be blamed for that too.As for the cold war, Stone tends to present the U.S. as being mostly to blame, even though it was both sides contributing to the problem rather than the Soviets responding to U.S. aggression. Also, while I generally agree with Truman's sentiment about the red scare and blacklisting, as highlighted in one of his quotes about how the U.S. should not be an entity on a witch hunt for dissenters, I wouldn't say that the condemnation of the communists in the U.S. was without reason. It's a destructive ideology and that was during the Cold War, against the Soviets, who were spreading the ideology and were the enemy of the United States. If you're actively fighting against communist ideologues, then it seems strange to allow them to proliferate and maintain roles in hollywood, politics, the education system, etc, where they have a pulpit to spread an ideology that is deemed antithetical to the United States' ideology--and perhaps allowing them to take over from within (granted, it was also often used to slander political enemies with no ties to communist ideology). Even now you see a very biased perspective in the media and school system. These systems are far more liberal than they are conservative; could not the same happen with any ideologues that infiltrate and maintain power? One might argue that we never weeded out the communist ideologues and their ideas have been presented in the media and academia in a manner more palatable and accepted by the masses. "Like Nixon, Bush appealed to voters' racism and fears of crime." This is actually a verbatim quote. And he goes on to blame the "far right" for everything without ever slowing down to analyze the flaws of the "far left."Admittedly, it is pretty well-made and has a lot of good footage compiled together, if you can tolerate Stone's spin on history. It's often propagandistic (complete with very schmaltzy music) in a very effective manner, such as Reagan's quoted reevaluation of the Vietnam War, where he laments the scenario but goes on to say that regardless of not winning the war and the many failings of the U.S., that it was for a noble cause--then immediately the scene cuts to a man blocking the camera and moving out of frame to reveal a dead child on the blood-spattered ground. It's excellent propaganda at times, not unlike Davis's Hearts and Minds.

As a Vietnam veteran with a number of outstanding documentaries and feature films behind, especially "The Platoon", "Born 4th of July", "JFK" and "Alexander", Oliver Stone has an epic sobriety that can fathom any historical problem. In this series, he has challenged the greatest historical problem of all, which is America.His main ambition with this series seems to have been to pinpoint the major American political mistakes since 1944, when everything went awry as Henry Wallace was not allowed to be a presidential candidate but was more or less out-manoeuvered by a foul coup, although he had been Roosevelt's vice president during his first three mandate periods. Harry Truman was pushed in as his last vice president to suit other minds than Roosevelt's.And then starts the dreary saga of the terrible horror tale of fatal American blunders affecting the whole world, starting with the use of the A-bomb, which Harry Truman rejoiced at, as if it was something to be proud of while it introduced something America hadn't experienced earlier on an international scale, namely dishonour.That triggered the inhuman nuclear race, while the greatest catastrophe during these 70 years of course was the assassination of the Kennedys. There everything went truly wrong with America, as his successor Johnson brutally reversed Kennedy's decision to get out of Vietnam before it was too late to instead turn it a decade of inhuman devastation of all life in Vietnam, comparable with the worst atrocities of the second world war.That part of the series, chapter 7, is probably the worst, the most horrible and upsetting, as it reveals the US drastic reverse from the enlightened "Camelot" of the Kennedys to the blatant barbarism of the Johnson-Nixon years, one worse than the other.Also Reagan gets his due as a brilliant facade to an abyss of ignorance and carelessness, ruining the one universal chance we had for a total nuclear disarmament as Gorbachev actually tried to take that initiative, while Reagan preferred his "Star Wars". His stupidity was only later exceeded by the minor Bushman's.In brief, it's a terrible settlement with an America that blew all its chances for its preference for lies, illusions and delusions, mainly motivated by reckless and inhuman greed that ignored and drove over all human values for the sake of the progress of the universally destructive juggernaut of power greed.Fortunately the series is not all dark and hopeless, as there are quite a few martyrs on the way that are dug up and remembered, foremost the Kennedys, Gorbachev and Henry Wallace, but there are many others, as well as there are many other scoundrels unmasked and living still today. The series is admirably neutral all the way, no conspiracy theories are even hinted at, the tone is objective, condoling or compassionate but never biased or passionate. It's the most admirable historical documentary I have seen, especially since its topic is the most difficult imaginable.

They should play this series from giant TVs on every street corner! "We all cherish our children's future, and we are all mortal" -JFKIf you've ever wanted to do something good for the world but had no idea how, watch this series. Know where you stand. Where we all stand. Know why the world is the way it is, how it got here, where it's heading if uninterrupted. We are all humans. We are all capable of understanding the world we live in and guiding it forward. The world is not as pretty and peaceful as the narrative we are fed. The leaders we have looked to are not as perfect as their PR campaigns claim. Everybody should know the truth of our history so they can do their part to make a better future. Also, not sure why this series is viewed as un-American. It is not. It's just an honest look at history. No fairy tale, no super human heroes, no pretty little narrative. Just honesty. The only thing it seems to be is anti-military. Which is something we should all be against. Watch the series, do some research, and understand why.

I am on episode 4. This is an excellent narrative. Although hardly an eye opener to anybody not brainwashed by American propaganda machine. Stone's premise is that by sabotaging Henry Wallace's VP ticket America left the progressive trajectory and turned itself into a British empire substitute with its citizenry subjugated to the wills of the military industrial complex (MIC). This rings quite true, especially given the warning that Eisenhower himself made in his farewell address, which is ironic since MIC flourished during his presidency. So far I noticed only one incorrect fact - USSR never captured Finland. Now, I would like to address some of the issues others brought up. Statement that Stalin's atrocities were not mentioned - not true. All the important bits are mentioned : Katyn massacre is mentioned. - Decimation of officer elite of the Red Army prior to the war is mentioned. - Gulag is mentioned. - Firing squad behind front lines that would execute anybody retreating. - Allowing Germans to drown Warsaw uprising in blood by stalling the attack on the city. - Mass rape of German women is mentioned. - Invasions into Hungary and Czechoslovakia were mentioned mentioned. These are well known facts, all are mentioned. As for the general theme of the narrative, this is exactly how Soviets perceived the US (and UK) during WWII and after the war. Soviet point of view is : UK and US were stalling opening second front in Europe for as long as possible to the point that it became irrelevant. By all means it looked like the second front was opened with the purpose of not allowing the USSR to march all over the Europe, that is to contain "red invasion". Granted the war would have lasted longer, but for USSR it did not make much difference anyways given already staggering amount of war losses (5 more or 5 less lost millions did not matter anymore).To those who say that American actions in Africa diverted German attention from Eastern front - less than 20% of German casualties came on African front. Even if Rommel was in charge in the battle of Kursk it would not have changed the outcome. Dropping of the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done not to get Japan to surrender (which they did not immediately after bombings anyway) but to show Stalin who is the boss now. A grave mistake by narrow minded hawks in Washington. This is when they created the Cold War. Of course MIC needed this like fish needs water. Warmongering would just get the contracts coming. To those idiots that write about leaflets being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prior to bombing. Here is the article on leaflets:https: //en.wikipedia.org/ wiki / Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#LeafletsParticularly:"In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, U.S. military leaders decided against a demonstration bomb, and against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation, and the wish to maximize psychological shock."Even with leaflets dropped elsewhere. Like it absolves of the war crimes somehow. Reminds me of this lawyer speak idiocy like "this cup contains hot liquid" on coffee cups in McDonald's. So it is theirs Japanese own fault they got fried, we told them to leave. So the fact is that US was the first and the only country so far that has used Nuclear weapons in the war. Not the evil Soviets. The bombs were dropped on the cities that had little military value. Even if justification was to cause Japan to surrender, frying 200K civilians to achieve this goal is a textbook act of terrorism.