Debunking Oliver Stone’s junk history of the U.S.
Here, for example, is an incomplete list of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick’s historical revisions, mostly concerned—as much of the book is—with the Cold War: If the United States hadn’t been resistant to assisting the Soviet Union in the late 1930s, then in throws of the Great Terror, Stalin would never have allied with Hitler’s Germany. The Nazi-Soviet pact was an attempt at buying time, because “Stalin understood that the Soviet Union’s turn was coming soon.” The brutal details of the alliance—Soviets and Nazi military cooperation, the violent bifurcation of Poland, the Soviet invasions of Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia—are ignored (Stalin, the authors say, “asserted control” over the Baltics and were guilty of “heavy-handed treatment of Eastern Europe,” a rather gentle way of describing an almost half-century of brutal occupation).
Did you know that the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II too was an anti-Soviet provocation, which “exacerbated Soviet fears of both a rearmed Germany and capitalist encirclement”? But the Soviets surely blockaded Berlin, right? No, they “attempted nothing of the sort.” In fact, the 1961 Berlin crisis was also precipitated by the United States, but “the Berlin Wall defused the immediate danger” of war. North Korea invaded the South with Moscow’s blessing, but “believing that a South Korean attack on the North was coming, Stalin decided to act first.” Why did the Soviet Union invade Afghanistan in 1979? Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, an “obsessed anti-communist” who, the authors note darkly, was a member of the Bilderberg Group and Trilateral Commission, “set the trap for the Russians in Afghanistan.”











Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
wow.
Joseph Russo III on November 19, 2012 at 1:58 PM
If anyone turns to an Oliver Stone book on history honestly expecting to get a factual account, he deserves what he gets….
calbear on November 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM
These are the same kinds of “theories” of foreign policy pushed by the people who say that Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism is a reasonable reaction to so-called US “aggression.”
Doomberg on November 19, 2012 at 2:00 PM
Psssst, the KGB ain’t around to pay you anymore, guys. You really don’t have to keep feeding us their propaganda. Get with the times, circa 1992 or so, bro.
Sekhmet on November 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM
Now THAT is irrational.
Rocks on November 19, 2012 at 2:01 PM
No worries people!
The teachers in the Government schools and the BS artists in the Media will be sure to correct all those Lies and revisions……
Galt2009 on November 19, 2012 at 2:06 PM
I stopped reading here:
“The latest example of swivel-eyed, ideological history, this time from the left, is a collaboration between American University professor Peter Kuznick and filmmaker Oliver Stone,
Mimzey on November 19, 2012 at 2:07 PM
What’s the difference between Stone and many, if not most, college history professors?
I’m thinking, not much difference.
Moesart on November 19, 2012 at 2:09 PM
bong water brain
Oil Can on November 19, 2012 at 2:10 PM
I stumbled on to the first episode of this show. My husband and I are both history buffs, especially of World War II history, and we were both literally laughing out loud by the end. And he’s a liberal Democrat.
My favorite part was the hagiography of Henry Wallace. The guy was such a communist nut that Roosevelt replaced him in 1948 with the little-known and lightly regarded Harry Truman.
rockmom on November 19, 2012 at 2:14 PM
The “new sources” Stone seems to be bragging about seem to be Soviet-era Pravda and childrens’ textbooks
Sekhmet on November 19, 2012 at 2:22 PM
Fine.
Tunguska meteorite? Anti-Soviet provocation. (Quite a feat as there was no Soviet Union at the time, but I’m sure Stone could ‘splain it.)
MGM production of Wizard of Oz?? Anti-Soviet provocation. (This is prolly in a Pravda movie somewhere.)
1946 World Series? Anti-Soviet provocation. (Cardinals beat Reds.)
1952 First issue of Playboy? Obvious anti-Soviet provocation. Somehow….
1977 Star Wars? Definite anti-Soviet provocation. (And I’m not joking when I say Pravda said so.)
apostic on November 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Stone and Kuznick: useful idiots? Nope. Not useful….
apostic on November 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Even more scary, go to Amazon and read the one star reviews and the comments on those reviews.
People are defending this book like crazy
JPeterman on November 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM
I’ve got news for you, they are called Obungler voters, and they are in the majority.
Thomas More on November 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM
The Vietnam War was started by the government as a way to kill Oliver Stone.
Dack Thrombosis on November 19, 2012 at 2:49 PM
I must admit, I didn’t read the article after the first sentence, because telling me that a history book written by Oliver Stone is idealogical drivel is like telling me that Rosanne Barr can’t win a bikini contest. It’s just a self-evident truth that needs no further elucidation.
radjah shelduck on November 19, 2012 at 2:51 PM
“In fact, I think in many ways the most interesting candidate — I’d even vote for him if he was running against Obama — is Ron Paul. Because he’s the only one of anybody who’s saying anything intelligent about the future of the world.”
~Oliver Stone
Golden Boy on November 19, 2012 at 2:53 PM
When someone starts talking like this, it is impossible to take them seriously. The book magically debunks itself.
Greek Fire on November 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Debunking Oliver Stone’s junk history of the U.S.
Awww come on!!
O.K., well at least his DOORS movie was cool!!
ToddPA on November 19, 2012 at 3:06 PM
You give them too much credit. They know nothing of history. Most of them don’t even know who Biden is.
John the Libertarian on November 19, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Stone uses Henry Wallace as an example of the type of foreign policy the US should have used with Stalin. I.e., appeasement. But he fails to mention that Wallace later completely repudiated his views and acknowledged that he was misled about Soviet intentions and that his views in the forties were completely wrong.
SteveMG on November 19, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Oliver Stone is putting his name to history books now?
Wow, his coke habit must really be getting out of hand…
JohnGalt23 on November 19, 2012 at 3:48 PM
Sounds like Oliver Stone is a big fan of the fabulist Howard Zinn. May they both rot in hell.
slickwillie2001 on November 19, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Is this where history is going? Is the real thing so boring that we have to have these pathetic fringe narratives from people like Stone and Beck? Then we have the tabloid junk being produced by Discovery studios (Mermaids, Hitler, UFOs).
History and science are exciting and interesting and don’t need to be sexed up or sensationalized. The best that we can do as consumers is avoid this crap and demand better material from studios.
lexhamfox on November 19, 2012 at 3:57 PM
ditto.
GWB on November 19, 2012 at 4:46 PM