
Screen shot from first episode of "The Untold History of the United States"
Film director Oliver Stone and American University history professor Peter Kuznick have produced a project called “The Untold History of the United States.” The project consists of a book released on October 30 and a documentary series that is scheduled to begin airing on Showtime on November 12.
The series begins with a kind of artist’s statement from Stone. To-camera, he reflects:
When I was a young boy growing up in New York City, I thought I received a good education. I studied history extensively, especially American history. It made sense. We were the center of the world. There was a manifest destiny. We were the good guys.
Well, I’ve traveled the world now. I continued my education as an infantrymen in Vietnam, made a lot of movies (some of them about history) and, when I heard from my children what they were learning in school, I was perturbed to hear that they were not really getting a more honest view of the world than I did…
As he explains, he produced this series so his children would have access to “something that looks beyond” what he calls “the tyranny of now.”
The book’s foreword and introduction builds off this statement that opens the first episode of the series, which is on World War II. The foreword prepares readers for a compendium of history that conflicts with the “basic narrative” most Americans are taught in school—what Stone and Kuznick describe as “that popular and somewhat mythic view” of history, “carefully filtered through the prism of American altruism, benevolence, magnanimity, exceptionalism and devotion to liberty and justice,” which is introduced in “early childhood, reinforced throughout primary and secondary education and retold so often that it becomes part of the air that Americans breathe.”
Both Stone and Kurznick are upfront about what their project is and is not:
…We don’t try to tell all US history. That would be an impossible task. We don’t focus extensively on many of the things the United States has done right. There are libraries full of books dedicated to that purpose and school curricula that trumpet US achievements. We are more concerned with focusing a spotlight on what the United States has done wrong—the ways in which we believe the country has betrayed its mission, with the faith that there is still time to correct those errors as we move forward into the twenty-first century…
The book covers the past one hundred years of American history and appropriately treats America as an empire, something textbooks school children are required to read do not do. The “roots of empire” are highlighted in the first chapter. The final chapter on President Barack Obama’s first term details the actions of a president tasked with managing a “wounded empire.”
The project invites comparisons with Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Unmistakably, the two are similar in the sense that both Stone and Kuznick appear to have put it together because they are committed to truth, justice and understanding. Zinn and Stone and Kuznick wanted something they could share that was different from what was being taught in schools. Zinn wanted a “new kind of history” he could teach to his students. Stone wants something he can pass on to his children and young generations of Americans, who know little about their country. But, while Zinn’s history aimed to empower the voices of those at the grassroots who had been written out of history, Untold History appears to be more interested in exposing the misunderstandings and myths that dominate what Americans know about each president, especially their role in building or maintaining US hegemony.
Stone and Kuznick’s project examines World War I, the New Deal, who really defeated Germany in World War II, President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who started the Cold War, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s policies toward the Soviet Union, President John F. Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Lyndon B. Johnson and the Vietnam War, President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (the “Madman” and the “Psychopath”), President Jimmy Carter and the collapse of détente, President Ronald Reagan and his use of death squads, “squandered opportunities” after the end of the Cold War, President George W. Bush and the Iraq War and the first term of President Obama.
Astutely posed in the beginning of the book is a set of questions. They are questions that indicate the most troubling concerns Stone and Kuznick have with American politics, society and government today. Some examples:
—Why does our country have military bases in every region of the globe totaling more than a thousand by some counts?
—Why does it still possess thousands of nuclear weapons, many on hair-trigger alert, even though no nation poses an imminent threat?
—Why are a tiny minority of wealthy Americans allowed to exert so much control over US domestic politics, foreign policy and media while the great masses see a diminution of their real power and standards of living?
—Why have Americans submitted to levels of surveillance, government intrusion, abuse of civil liberties and loss of privacy that would have appalled the Founding Fathers and earlier generations?
It appears Stone and Kuznick would ascribe much of how America has erred to US citizens’ general ignorance of American history. They cite the Nation’s Report Card on what young Americans know in fourth, eighth and twelfth grade, which found American students were “less proficient in their nation’s history than in any other subject.” The results showed “only 2 percent of 12th graders correctly answered a question concerning Brown v. Board of Education.”
This ignorance has been typical of young Americans. NPR highlighted previous reports of students doing poorly on history from 2002, 1995, 1985, 1976 and 1955. Each of those years, students were proven to lack proficient knowledge of their country’s history.
All of this serves the powerful well, as they are able to routinely suggest to Americans that America is some kind of “city upon a hill.” A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute showed 70% of white working class citizens believe “God has granted America a special place in human history.” Many Americans, who read the post-Versailles declaration of President Woodrow Wilson where he said, “At least the world knows America as the savior of the world,” would consider that statement from around a century ago to be sensible today. After all, both President Barack Obama and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney were able to trumpet American exceptionalism in the presidential debates, with Obama calling America an “indispensable nation” and Romney calling America “the last best hope of Earth” like Abraham Lincoln did.
Without knowledge of history, it is easy for Americans to go about their daily business with the belief that the country should be “unbound” by its history. Few are willing to accept that America should take responsibility for its acts. Republicans are always decrying those who they say like to “blame America first.”
Rarely do Americans ever find those challenging America’s projection of its power to be righteous or justified. They laud and celebrate US violence perpetrated abroad while soundly and, of course, understandably condemning violence against US citizens overseas or at home. But, it is not often that citizens admit America is the aggressor, the one inspiring people to challenge America’s hegemony because they themselves have been victims of US-sponsored repression or hostility.
The project is put forward with the hope that some Americans will pick it up and learn some truth about their country. Without knowledge, the world can expect Americans to do exactly what one would expect an empire of hundreds of millions of people, who find themselves to be entitled to whatever the world has to offer, to do. They can expect Americans to continue to display a complete disregard for the effect that their country’s policies and the nation’s collective sense of entitlement has on other populations in the world.
As Stone says in his opening statement, he believes “history does have a meaning” and a “purpose.” Ideally, it is impossible for America to right its course if Americans are not aware of “patterns” of conduct in history or how America’s conduct has become steadily more repugnant in the past century. In effort to convince more Americans to reflect on their country’s history and America’s role in the world, Stone and Kuznick present this project.




60 Comments

Truth about our Presidents! Maybe we can get Jackson off the twenty dollar bill now.
GWB will go to prison.
And I won’t have to explain to my teenage son why there are two Miami’s and that the Cherokee are not from Oklahoma.
I noted this in the post but I’ll be more explicit: This history project starts in 1912. It goes all the way up to the present, covering much of Obama’s first term.
Stone and Kuznick made a conscious choice to focus on what Henry Luce predicted would be “The American Century.”
Oops, I got carried away since I taught 8th grade U.S.history for awhile and we never made it past the civil war.
That is precisely why this project could have great value. I went through primary and secondary education without learning much of anything after World War II. I think McCarthyism was covered. There was a bit of focus on the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam War but history class did not extensively cover this history like it did the Revolutionary War or drafting of the Constitution, etc. What happened in the Sixties, Seventies or Eighties was just not taught.
The demands on a middle or high school teacher to complete the full curriculum for U.S. History are impossible. I chose to teach details and therefore went fairly slowly but other teachers would just rush through with just basic facts and still couldn’t get to the Vietnam war let alone anything past that.
Outstanding write up, Kevin. Thanks, and well done and reported.
Unfortunately, it’s not just U.S. history, but also general world history and knowledge that is lacking in many Americans. As an outside observer (I’m Canadian), I regret how little many American decision makers (i.e. members of the house and senate) know about other countries. How can American legislators craft the best policy if they don’t know what works and doesn’t work in other parts of the world?
My work has taken to most parts of the U.S., and I’m frequently surprised by how few people have lived, or even traveled in other countries. In San Francisco I met a senior executive who – at age 55 – had never been outside of California (though if you’re stuck in one state, California has to be a good choice).
Its about time.
I have taught history from 3rd grade to master’s level courses, and have focused on “the rest of the story”
(34 years with a teaching license from Iowa)
It has not advanced me professionally but I feel I have been true to the truth about American Empire.
About time!
Thanks, Kevin, for highlighting this. While I sometimes view Stone with a jaded eye, this project appears quite worthy and worthwhile. So kudos to Stone & those working him in an attempt to shed more realistic light on somewhat more recent US history.
Being “of a certain age,” I was taught History in various formats only up through about 1969, but we certainly, even back when I think our educational system was much better, didn’t get much teaching about the 20th Century. Plus the role of US Imperialism, which has been present from the get-go, was pretty much ignored, or barely covered with nice little platitudes to make it all seem “ok” or as if some diety had “planned” it that way.
Although I do recall *some* limited teaching that was more sympathetic to the horrendous plight US native Americans, that was often “balanced” by TV shows & movies during the ’50s & ’60s that mostly showed Native Americans as blood-thirsty murdering thieving savages who really just had to be killed… which, when you think about it, informs a LOT of our imperialistic foreign policy anyway.
Which came first? The savage Native American or the savage (fill in the blank)…??
This certainly looks interesting. At least it may reach some citizens and possibly arouse them out of their stupors to start considering what it is Team USA is doing and why and whether we should be… many of my well educated friends never ever bother to consider such things, sadly.
Sadly even when these senior execs travel all they see is the Hyatt
or Intercontinental Hotel where they stay. People make fun of the low information poor voter but I have found it is worse among the very wealthy.
Yes, quite.
Again bc I am older, and the US public school educational system was significantly better back then, I did get *some* exposure to what was called “world” history, and I also did get a somewhat reasonable amount of Canadian history, believe it or not! Not much, though, in terms of Latin American history. Mostly it was about White European history, and not much else.
I have friends and family members who have traveled widely, but their level of ignorance is still astonishing. Not sure, in too many cases, whether even foreign travel can manage to really “educate” a lot of US citizens, more’s the pity…
I feel for you. I was an above average student but had no interest in History at that time in my life.
Yes, you raise a good point.
One may either like or dislike Rick Steves, but at least his tours attempt to get the tourists a little bit off the beaten track of the BigHotel circuit.
Too many wealthy people stay in the hoity-toity hotels world-wide, where there’s not much difference whether you’re in Bangkok or Boston.
The best move I ever did was do history in reverse.
Students had to interview 3 generations to get their “take” on history before I gave them the text.(Studs Terkel would have been proud)
It does make sure your survey course gets farther than WWII(the GOOD war)
I hated history in middle school and know many current history buffs who were the same. Maybe we should recognize that and do things differently with the curriculum.
Wingnut heads exploding in 5…4…3…
Didn’t you get in trouble? In CA the parents rule and teachers must obey which is why I no longer teach.
Actually I first tried it at my summer survey course I was invited to teach at my very progressive liberal arts alma mater.
It went so well I was invited to teach humanities for a few more years.
Wish you taught me; this sounds very interesting. We need more master teachers like you out there mentoring the newbies. In CA 50% of the new hires quit within three years and mostly it is because they have no help.
We weren’t told in our history courses — or anywhere, for that matter — that the world’s indifference to America’s eradication of its native populations (and the Armenian genocide later) encouraged Hitler to deal with the Slavs the same way. Source: Adam Gopnik, “Faces, Places, Spaces: The Renaissance Of Geographic History”.
This just sounds dangerous, shouldn’t we just pretend a few dozen more times before we do something radical like declare Santayana was right?/s
Thank you. Been laid off three times in 34 years and presently subbing and Mr. Mom to my kids.
I am very rich!
Don’t you love it when politicians praise teachers as the noble profession every election cycle then cut the budget. When Jerry Brown was our Governor the first time he told the teachers they didn’t need a raise because they get a psychic benefit from their job more important than money. We have been going downhill ever since.
There is only one way to describe the historically illiterate—pathetic. People who don’t know history cannot understand their place in the world because they have left unchallenged their infantile notion that the world was fully formed when they achieved some sort of consciousness and they have no reason to understand why it is like that.
Of course, if you do know some history, you can spend your life looking at a lot of blank stares. Recently, I was at a party and I made the “mistake” of describing the 18-hour traffic jam that followed the 200th anniversary re-enactment of the Battle of Borodino on September 2. I thought it was an incredible story. My listeners actually asked me why I thought anyone would want to know this.
So while I applaud Stone and company for trying to raise the historical literacy of the typical American, I must ask after a long life of trying—why bother? This is a country where people are actually proud of their historical ignorance and have no intention of changing. It’s too much work and it makes them uncomfortable. And the fact that historical literacy allows them to actually think as an adult is not attractive AT ALL.
No one on here has gone after Obama harder than myself…to the point that I’ve said it would be better to have a republican in office when the problems about which Obama has done so little, start to kick in.
As push comes to shove, I was wrong. Mitt Romney is nothing but a rich man with a rich man’s ego, trying to engineer a leveraged buyout of what’s left of government “by, for, and of, the people.”
Worse, I think he’s stupid, and that, coupled with his wretched, greed-driven worldview, is just too dangerous to have him as president.
My vote in South Carolina will be meaningless, but I have to cast it, and I’ll cast it for Obama, in the hope that he will be re-elected and will find it in himself to confront the people who did so much damage to america in the 8 years of Bush’s savage idiocy, and whom are insisting that more of the same is what’s needed in our country.
I’m an adjunct professor at a local university. I’m astounded at the ignorance of the students in U.S. and world history, politics, and geography and other social sciences. It’s really quite pathetic. Forget about trying to assign a research paper.
I’ve been looking forward to this for quite a while. Thanks for featuring and highlighting the works, Kevin.
I hope the projects, both on film and in print, are able to do some good.
I voted for Jill Stein in TN. She’s on the ballot.
I don’t have much of any hope for Obama doing well, but I don’t buy the argument that he’s “the more effective evil” just because a) Dems always roll over anyways for what Repug presidents really want and really push for; and b) in the face of adverse demographics and the fact that despite all the chatter about the US being “a center-right nation”, conservative policies are actually hated by a broadening sector of the electorate. Of course, this does not give the Repugs pause in enacting their agenda; they instead have reacted to the unpopularity of their policies by attacking *elections themselves*.
Too many more Dubya presidencies and we just won’t have anything like free and fair elections anymore, is the trend we’re on now.
-stewartm
Tanbark @ 25
You are an interesting and principled individual.
oldgold!
You of course know the institution to which I refer.:)
soli deo gloria, my friend.
For anyone interested in history from a non-European/US perspective, Eduardo Galeano’s Open Veins of Latin America and the Memory of Fire trilogy are excellent.
A principled individual who defines themselves as liberal, progressive, or populist would reject both corporatist choices and vote for Jill Stein.
Stephen Ambrose’s Rise to Globalism has just about the most clearly-argued case on how the military realities of WWII drove the wartime and postwar diplomatic world.
In short:
a) The Soviet Union bore the brunt and did the most to defeat Nazi Germany;
b) The US military establishment (George Marshall) realized that Nazi Germany was the potentially most dangerous enemy and therefore made it enemy #1. This meant that supporting the Soviets was very important, given America’s long supply lines and two-front war; it would have been difficult for the US to field and supply enough ground forces to take on the Germans on the European continent with just British help (it would have been the most colossal blunder of military history to stand idly by and let armed forces of 11 million fighting on your side go down to defeat and do nothing to prevent it);
c) Ergo, George Marshall’s military needs overrode George Kennan’s worries about Soviet hegemony in postwar Eastern Europe. Kennan’s great hope–that Soviet armies would stop on the Europe’s eastern frontier–was Marshall’s worst nightmare.
d) The “Germany first” strategy and the need to man the long supply lines meant necessarily that the war against Japan would have to be fought on a (relatively speaking) manpower shoestring. Our ground forces would go to Europe, and Japan would have to be defeated using naval and air power and only relatively small ground force contingents in an “island hopping” campaign that would bypass and isolate Japanese strongpoints rather than defeat and occupy territory. This meant that unlike Europe, there would be no significant US presence on the Asian continent.
e) As it turned out, the US came out of WWII smelling like the proverbial rose–a booming economy, relatively small manpower losses, the Atlantic and Pacific American lakes, and in control of the richest and most productive and technologically advanced portions of Europe. The Soviets, by contrast, came out having lost 27 million people, 50 % of GDP, and got in return the most war-torn and backward portions of Europe, despite having defeated about 2/3rds of the German ground and air forces.
f) Despite e) above, millions of Americans came to believe that it was the Soviets, not the US, who had “won” WWII by Stalin “duping” Roosevelt at Yalta and elsewhere. Millions of Americans believed it was the Americans who had made all the sacrifices and bore all the cost while the Russians who had stepped in at the last moment and picked up all the marbles, facts notwithstanding. They believed that Roosevelt (and Ike) had stupidly “given” East Germany and East Berlin to the Russians even in spite of the military situation when the lines were drawn (when those lines were drawn, the Soviets were only like 20 miles from Berlin while the Western Allies were still bogged down in the Ardennes, in that light our negotiators did very well).
g) Likewise, there was postwar acrimony abuot Truman “losing” China when the fact that military reality dictated the “island hopping” strategy that there *would be no significant US ground forces on the Asian mainland*. One decision led directly to the other situation.
I could go on, but I think you get the gist. Military decisions, all made for perfectly sound reasons, largely dictated the postwar world.
-stewartm
Thank you for this.
I must ask, what does the typical American you know do if you ever describe the Battles of Stalingrad or Kursk? I mean, considering what most folks believe about WW II, can they even imagine that such battles happened?
JClausen @ 29
I had the same major as you.
Brye, Hippen and Leland were some of my favorites.
Without knowledge, the world can expect Americans to do exactly what one would expect an empire of hundreds of millions of people, who find themselves to be entitled to whatever the world has to offer, to do. They can expect Americans to continue to display a complete disregard for the effect that their country’s policies and the nation’s collective sense of entitlement has on other populations in the world.
That is a perfect description of the so-called 1%, whom are simply the most visible part of this “entitlement”. They are in the process of taking us, and the rest of the world (if they can actually manage it) down by skimming off the best of the cream the US skimmed in our name and with our cooperation.
Cole, Hippen, and Leland were my favs.
And a double major in the first Antho class with R. Clark Mallam(a personal mentor)
Great to see your fonts.
I’m not sure what this has to do with the discussion on history or Stone’s new project or why you thought this was a good thread to share your personal decision on who to vote for president.
It is true. When I reference Stone’s section on who really defeated the Germans, I am alluding to the Soviet Union.
I would think it fair to say much of the world’s richest 1 percent are in America. Those in the world’s 99 percent could direct much of their anger and frustration at them.
Heck, the Second Battle of Kharkov of May 1942 (about 55,000 Germans and 250,000 Soviets lost) dwarfs most battles in the West. The Second Battle of Kharkov usually gets mentioned just as a paragraph or two or three at the beginning of descriptions of the Stalingrad campaign starting in June 1942.
There are lots more relatively minor “unknown battles” that similarly are as big or bigger than anything fought in the West (the Soviet offensives against the Izyium bridgehead and over the Mius in July-August 1943, the battles against the Rhzev salient in November-December 1942, the Second Battle of Smolensk, the offensive into Rumania in April-May 1944). It boggles the mind how such awful bloodletting was withstood so long.
-stewartm
JClausen @ 37
Mallam was so popular I could not get into his classes. Many years later when I visited Effigy Mounds, I regretted not having had classses with him.
From what I know of him, you were fortunate to have been mentored by him.
Oldgold, thanks.
The reason practically all of us are on the Lake is because we believe, deeply in our hearts, that we ARE our brothers and sister’s keeper. How that shakes out to be put into effect, is, of course, a subject for debate, but we are on the right side; the humane side.
And that, the conservatives and republicans cannot sensibly claim. They see ‘well being” for america as ONLY derived from having a financial elite that seems to have more power over our government and our lives with every election, as the natural order of things.
I’ve never voted republican in my life and I’m damn sure not starting now. As for a third party candidate; I’m sure Ms. Stein is much superior to Romney and perhaps, even to Obama, but the specter of seeing Romney being sworn in got into my gut like the worm ourobourus, and selfishly, I will be very unhappy if that happens.
One caveat: If Romney is elected, I won’t join any chorus of “how stupid are the voters”. It will be the same electorate that, 4 years ago, doubled John McCain’s electoral vote, for Obama. The same electorate that gave him those big margins in the Congress. The same electorate that, unspinnably, had such high hopes and expectations that Obama would CONTINUE to fire up people about his ability to start to lead us back to representative government, instead of the corporate governmental oligarchy.
Those voters didn’t die. They haven’t been kidnapped by aliens. If enough of them just don’t turn out, or if they have, in desperation, gone for Romney’s corporate snake-oil, it will be because of Obama’s dangerous and foolish policy of “bipartisan” dealing with the assholes.
I just hope there are enough of them left to do the trick.
I’m apologize, Kevin. You are one of the best on here at looking at things straight in the eye.
It was the urgency I feel. It won’t happen again.
Anyone else notice how defensive our TeeVee histories get over this?? They tell us that:
1) The atomic bombings were necessary because the Japanese were all determined man/woman/child to fight each and every US GI to the death rather than surrender.
This is in spite of the fact that the US military itself concluded that it was the killing of surrendered Japanese by US GIs based on revenge for Pearl Harbor and race hatred, more so than allegiance to bushido or dying for the emperor, why those Japanese did not surrender. This also is in spite of the fact that those very same Japanese soldiers DID surrender, to the tune of hundreds of thousands, to the Soviets in August 1945. It is in spite of the fact that US bomber crews by the summer of 1945 flying low-level missions were reporting seeing Japanese civilians wave white hankerchiefs to them flying over.
2) But lookie at all those high-tech sekrit weapons that Japan was working on (jet aircraft and the nuclear bomb) and all those plans for last-ditch resistance!! Sure the atomic bombings were necessary to forestall that.
Nazi Germany too had plans for last-ditch, fight-to-the-last-man/woman/child resistance. It was Operation Werewolf for the civilians, and Alpine redoubts where Nazi soliders would dig in and hold out to the last. How’d that come off for them again?
Why would we think Japanese people would be any different? And besides, it may have been the Soviet Union entry into the war that was more decisive as it stood anyway.
As for the weaponry, the TeeVee shows seem to forget that having plans, or even a “prototype” in existence, is a far cry from having anywhere close to a battle-ready weapons. Heck, in the US it typically took 3-4 years even in the world’s largest and (possibly) most technologically advanced economy with few resource constraints and not under the danger of bombing disruption to get a weapon systems from the design stage to the battlefield, and even then longer to get everyone trained and in widespread use. The Japanese would have been worse off in every consideration.
3) And of course, the options for using the bomb as a demonstration sans killing anyone in the process aren’t mentioned, even though you’d think that would have been an equally effective way of provoking a surrender.
-stewartm
@ stewartm
Damn! If you are ever near Minnesota, let’s have lunch!
When I was finally beginning to get my arms around the history of the Great Patriotic War, the battle that just flat blew me away was the fight for control of Budapest. Here was a battle I had never even heard of and yet the USSR lost more troops in this “unknown” battle than the USA lost in all of WW II in both theaters.
I must also admit that I didn’t even know USSR had even been in WW II until I visited Leningrad in 1972. We were taken to this enormous cemetery where newly married couples came to lay flowers. We were there only about an hour and in that time, at least 50 couple showed up. I got back on the bus utterly determined to learn the real story of WW II. I feel like I have barely made a good start in the 40 years since then.
Anyone here ever watch Jaywalk on the tonight show? That is the average person in this country when it comes to history. Sad and scary.
The Soviets lost more men in the single battle for Berlin (300,000) than the US lost in the whole war. This was when the Germans wete beaten. Marshall was right.
Sometimes it gets down to the individual level and what they believe. Years ago, I worked with an immigrant from Nazi Germany who was a radioman in the Luftwaffe. I asked him about his war experiences and he told me about how they all waxed eloquent about the German military, it equipment and glory. He spoke proudly snout then intricate appointments of the fighters, it’s polished brass and inlaid wood instrument panel. Then he said “One day, I saw my first downed American plane. It was all painted the same color inside and out, very plain. I thought to my self Oh my God! These people mean business!”
It’s fine. I just wonder if you meant to be leaving this comment on another post, like maybe you had the wrong post.
Really enjoy the comments in this thread. I am going to have to make postings on some of what Stone has in his book a regular thing. Of course, as the show airs on Showtime, I’ll probably post reviews each week.
I picked up Open Veins a few years back. Yes, I was educated in the US, and graduated high school in 1974, and never heard of any of this. It was just the typical this or that explorer conquered this or that civilization.
Very powerful book. The devastation wrought by our ancestors from Europe is almost inconceivable. Would that more people were aware of our history more intimately. Perhaps we’d be a little more circumspect in our actions now.
Thanks for the recommendation.
While we’re talking about Oliver Stone, let me recommend South of the Border for very recent history/present in South America. Stone was obviously enjoying himself with leaders the mainstream media love to revile.
I’m sure 1491 and 1493 have been mentioned before. 1491 and 1493 by Charles Mann serve as solid foundations because they deal with economic and ecological history rather than merely political history. I hated my history classes because they told so little of the story; they never got to how we were impacting this planet, for instance. I’m reading the Columbian Exchange now, the book that inspired Mann’s investigation and research. These three books together create a deeper and wider understanding of history than I’ve ever encountered before.
The USSR lost 300,000 in the Battle of Berlin fighting kids with WW I weapons. One wonders if the rumors aren’t true that the Germans really did invite USA in from the west to avoid some of the revenge they expected from the Red Army. As for the Brits, Montgomery was so inept, he made Doug Haig look like a military genius.
I often wonder what would have happened on D-Day if Von Paulus and the 6th Army had been in charge of the western defenses. My guess is that the Allies would have never made it off of Omaha Beach.
The unvarnished truth of the American Empire is too grotesque for adults to accept as objective reality. Pretending to live in a democracy is mass delusion, similar to a religion.
The randomness of birth makes the notion of nationalism an absurd concept furthermore any allegiance to any particular flag.
The United States we were taught to love is Lincoln’s America following the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862-the America of the people, by the people for the people. It existed for a very short time, and ended after the sell-out to the old oligarchy of the Southern states following the 1876 election (read C. Vann Woodward, The Compromise of 1877). Even for the brief time this America existed, it existed only very partially, notably, brutal wars against the Native Americans continued throughout this period. Before this time, the slave economy dominated the nation. Afterwards, capitalism, bolstered by racism, was king.
There were wild whopping big tank battles near Debrecen and Nyíregyháza too boot, with Cavalry-Mech group Pliyev being encircled by the Germans and then being shaken out by counterattacks by 6th Guards Tank Army.
-stewartm
Not quite, more like 360,000 casualties and sick. Only about 85,000 dead (the number has been revised downward after access to Soviet archival sources).
The Soviets high losses, as David Glantz has pointed out, was a consequence where even as the Germans lost men by the boatloads, as the lines were forced back towards Berlin it resulted in a shortening of the frontage to cover which allowed the Germans to construct stronger defensive lines and which had more defense-in-depth. Back in 1944, in the Soviet Union proper, the German lines were stretched so thin that the Soviets only had one line to break and then they could unleash their mobile forces to exploit. That wasn’t the case in German proper.
-stewartm
Oliver Stone is CIA.