December 2012


laid off

report card

Oliver Stone on the Untold U.S. History

America Could Have Been a Good Country Instead of a Geopolitical Power

Oliver Stone’s well researched new book and 10-part historical documentary mini-series on Showtime, “Oliver Stone’s Untold History of the United States, explores the disconnect in U.S. history between what’s officially reported and what actually happened.  And the contrast is stark. The documentary is a collaboration with historian Peter Kuznick from American University.
It exposes numerous myths such as:
  • The U.S. won WWII (It was actually the Russians)
  • The atom bombs dropped on Japan were militarily necessary (they were militarily unnecessary, decried by the top military leaders, and actually intended as a message to the Soviets that the U.S. was now vying for hegemony in the region.)
 

 

AMY GOODMAN: We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Oliver Stone, you’ve been working on this for years, unbeknownst to many people. Why?

OLIVER STONE:  From here to here—it’s like a Cecil B. DeMille movie, from 1940s to—it was a big job, four-and-a-half years, off and on…

We recently discussed Wallace and the bomb in 1997, when he was teaching at American University and I was there in one of his classes. And we talked about making a documentary of about an hour, hour and a half. He’s an expert on the atomic—on weaponry, and especially the atomic bomb. He founded the Department of Nuclear Studies in American—and Wallace is—Henry Wallace, as he can explain to you, is a key to the link: Would we have dropped the bomb? That’s the origin myths of this. Every school kid—still, my daughter in her school, in private school, in good school, is still learning this: We dropped the bomb because we had to, because the Japanese resistance was fanatic, and we would have lost many American lives taking Japan. This is one—there’s no alternative to that story. And we are beginning the process in chapter one, two and three of saying the bomb did not have to be dropped for strategic reasons and also because it was morally reprehensible. But strategically, it made no sense.

AMY GOODMAN: Professor Kuznick, why?

PETER KUZNICK: It made no sense because the Japanese were already defeated. They were looking for a way out of the war. United States knew they were defeated. Truman refers to the intercepted July 18th telegram as “the telegram from the Jap emperor asking for peace.” The United States—

PETER KUZNICK: The Japanese, yeah, but…”the Jap emperor asking for peace,” is Truman’s exact words on that. Everybody else knew that they were militarily defeated and looking for a way out. But the people who knew that the best were the Russians, because they were trying to get the Russians to intervene on their behalf to get them better surrender terms, and also because—their strategy was to welcome American invasion and then to conflict heavy damages and then force better surrender terms. But once the Russians invaded, then that undermined both their diplomatic strategy and their military strategy. So that was what really ended the war. It was not the bombing. We had already been bombing Japanese cities. We had firebombed over a hundred cities. Destruction reached 99.5 percent of the city of Toyama. From the Japanese standpoint, whether it was 200 bombs—200 planes and a thousand bombs or one plane and one bomb didn’t change the equation. But the Soviet invasion fundamentally changed it, and that’s what forced the final surrender.

OLIVER STONE: In Manchuria on August 9. Stalin moved a huge army to the East off the German—from the German frontier to the—and wiped out the Kwantung Army in about, I think two days or one day. And it was moving towards Japan. So, if you let a month go by, you know, if we really are interested in ending this war and using Russian troops, it’s perfect.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, let’s turn to a clip from the series. This one challenges the prevailing logic of World War II being the United States’ so-called “Good” War.

OLIVER STONE: Generations of Americans have been taught that the United States reluctantly dropped atomic bombs at the end of World War II to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men poised to die in an invasion of Japan. But the story is really more complicated, more interesting, and much more disturbing. Many Americans view World War II nostalgically as the “Good” War in which the United States and its allies triumphed over German Nazis and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism. Others, not so blessed. Remember, World War II is the bloodiest war in human history. By the time it was over, 60 to 65 million people lay dead, including an estimated 27 million Soviets, between 10 and 20 million Chinese, six million Jews, over six million Germans, three million non-Jewish Poles, two-and-a-half million Japanese, and one-and-a-half million Yugoslavs. Austria, Britain, France, Italy, Hungary, Romania and the United States each counted between a quarter-million and a half-million dead.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Oliver Stone, the “Good” War, and of course the war with the most carnage in the history of the world, right?

OLIVER STONE: It’s where we begin. But we deal with the three empires, Britain and the U.S. and the rivalry between the U.S. and Britain. And a lot of school kids don’t know that the British Empire is a dominant empire and has so many resources around the world. And Churchill is fighting, among other things, for the retention of the colonies and, all through the Middle East, the oil supplies, Greece, very important, North Africa, Egypt, Suez, India, Singapore. And that’s what he’s trying to get back. And he never—he never starts the Second Front for about two years. It’s been promised in ’42 to Stalin. Stalin is, meanwhile, rolling the Germans back and winning the war, as the British and the Americans are “periphery pecking” in retaining the British colonies for Britain. So, interesting story, the British, for example, go into Athens in 1944, after they’ve liberated it, so to speak, but they end up fighting in street battles with the communist resistance fighters who fought very heroically against the Nazis. We put in aa Nazi—a Greek who was working with the Nazis. Right away, we put him into the premiership. It’s a dirty story, dirty story.

PETER KUZNICK: What most Americans don’t know about the war—most Americans think that the United States won the war. But the reality is that through most of the war, the American and British combined were fighting 10 German divisions; the Russians alone were fighting 200 German divisions. That’s why Churchill says it was the Russians who tore the guts out of the Nazi army.

AMY GOODMAN: Let’s go back to another clip from your series, The Untold History of the United States. This one is about Henry Wallace, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s vice president and agriculture and commerce secretary. It suggests that the Midwestern statesman would have put America on a radically different trajectory had his path to the presidency not been blocked by the Democratic Party leaders in 1944.

OLIVER STONE: Seeing the war clouds gathering clearly on the horizon, Roosevelt decided to break with precedent and run for a third term in 1940 against the strongly antiwar Republican candidate Wendell Willkie, a corporate attorney from Indiana. The stakes were high. The nation might soon be at war. Roosevelt weighed his options and chose his controversial secretary of agriculture, Henry A. Wallace, as his running mate. Wallace had overseen an extraordinary return to agricultural prosperity during the Great Depression. These policies had been at the heart of the New Deal. For the urban poor, Wallace also had provided food stamps and school lunches. He instituted programs for land-use planning and soil conservation. He carved out his credentials in the New Deal years as an outspoken anti-fascist. Instead of the scientific community’s best ally, Wallace spoke out strongly against the building up of false racial theories in rebuke of the Hitler policies in Germany.

But Democratic Party bosses feared Wallace’s views, mistrusting his devotion to principle over politics. It looked like the Wallace nomination would go up in flames, when Roosevelt, angry and frustrated, wrote a remarkable letter to the assembled delegates in which he flatly turned down the presidential nomination.

His wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, saved the day. The first president’s wife ever to address a convention, she told disgruntled delegates that “we face now a grave situation.” The party bosses buckled and put Wallace on the ticket. They would, however, come back for their vengeance.

AMY GOODMAN: Oliver Stone, your inspiration for this whole series was about Henry Wallace. Why? Talk about his significance.

OLIVER STONE: I would say the inspiration was the bomb—the bomb shaped all our lives, and we lived in fear of it as we were in school…We were in a cold war up until 1989, ’91, with the Soviets. But it continues on…there was no peace dividend….what happened in the 1989, ’91 period, all the way through the ’90s…it just keeps going into the war on terror, the war on Noriega, the war on drugs…And do we have to keep doing this?

And the bomb is what leads you to Wallace, because Wallace was a key figure. He was supposed to be vice president in 1944, the popular choice; 65 percent of the Democratic voters wanted him. Two percent wanted Truman. And it’s an inside deal. It’s really ugly. It’s like a Frank Capra movie, where everything is rigged from the inside. And on one particular night, it comes down to a moment in time, like nine seconds, when Wallace almost makes it. He almost squeezes in. The crowd is cheering, “Wallace! Wallace!” And the bosses convene the convention that night, and then overnight they turn the—they turn favors and so forth and money and bribes. So Wallace does not end up as vice president. Roosevelt dies, and a little unknown party hack, really, called Harry Truman, at one of the most important times in the history of the world, becomes—a small man becomes leader of the world, with all the power, and, frankly, like a George Bush, he blows it.

PETER KUZNICK: And Wallace was very much of a visionary. He’s been lost to history. When I ask my students and other people, nobody knows Henry Wallace anymore. He was an extraordinary man. When Henry Luce in 1941 said the 20th century must be the American century, the United States could dominate the world in every way, Wallace countered as vice president, when he gave his famous speech, when he said the 20th century must be the century of the common man. He calls for a worldwide people’s revolution in the tradition of the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Latin American Revolution and the Russian Revolution. He says we have to wipe out monopolies and cartels.

He says we’ve got to end colonialism, end imperialism, raise standards of livings around the world. And the U.S. and the Soviets have to collaborate to refashion the world at the end of the world. That was the vision that he had. The party bosses hated him, as did the Wall Street people. Wallace said that America’s fascists are those who think Wall Street comes first and the country comes second. The anti-labor people hated him. The people against civil rights hated him. And the people who were against women’s rights hated him. He was the exemplar of everything good that the Democratic Party has ever stood for.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, I also want to ask about President Reagan. In your book, Oliver Stone, The Untold History of the United States, you have a chapter titled “Death Squads for Democracy.” Well, talk to us about Reagan and Central America policy.

OLIVER STONE: Briefly, Ronald Reagan set American policy back like 20 years. There had been attempts at détente, and he took the Cold War to a new level. He almost took it to the edge of world war again…Constantly he said that the Soviet Union was ahead of the United States in every military capacity…In all this time, these 80—70 years since the Cold War, we were always ahead. But we were always the underdog in our own mind. So, Central America, in Reagan’s mind, becomes the bulwark of communists in this country: We’re being threatened again; they’re coming in; the Sandinistas in Nicaragua are very dangerous, to the underbelly of Texas and Arizona; they’re going to come up. He’s worried about Guatemala. He’s worried about Honduras going—going red, and Salvador, very important. So he starts, basically, a dirty war in these Central American countries.

I was there. That’s when I went back to the—I made a film called Salvador and hung out, and I saw soldiers that reminded me of my own experience in Vietnam, young soldiers in the streets of Tegucigalpa walking around lost, white skin and all that, and saying, “What are you doing here?” You know, they don’t know…So, it was death squads, terror. The right-wing parties of Central America took their nod from Reagan and killed a lot of—in Guatamala, it was the bloodiest, but certainly Nicaragua, the Contra war, was a dirty war.

South America was decimated by the—really, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank played a huge role. And the people turned against it. These are democratically elected new leaders in the 21st century. They came in because of the policies, disastrous policies, of Reagan.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to get to President Obama before the end of this conversation. In the last chapter of your book, The Untold History of the United States, it’s called “Obama: Managing a Wounded Empire,” Oliver Stone. You’re fiercely critical of him, but you also supported him.

OLIVER STONE: I supported him because the alternative was more frightening. It’s a limited choice that Americans have. We live inside now a—no longer a national security state. I think it’s a global security state. Obama has made it very clear, as did Romney, that it’s about American power. We are the quote “indispensable” nation in the world, which is a form of American exceptionalism. And he made it very clear that he is going to take troops and so forth out of Afghanistan and Iraq, but he is committing, on a full-spectrum dominance, to a containment of China. He said it. Hillary Clinton has said the 21st century will be America’s Pacific century, which is a version, an echo, of Henry Luce’s statement. So, it doesn’t end.  Obama, I think, is going to move—make alliances, treaties with countries all around the world. He’s already expanding the Bush version of security. You know about the terror state. I guess you have done shows about—he hasn’t gone back on any of the civil liberty laws.

PETER KUZNICK: And he’s expanded it. We were so critical of Bush for doing surveillance against people without judicial review. Obama is targeting and killing people without judicial review. We’re acting as judge, jury and executioner now.

AMY GOODMAN: This is President Obama on the secret drug war on CNN—drone war:

Our preference is always to capture if we can, because we can gather intelligence. But a lot of the terrorist networks that target the United States, the most dangerous ones, operate in very remote regions, and it’s very difficult to capture them. And we’ve got to make sure that, in whatever operations we conduct, we are very careful about avoiding civilian casualties.”

I was just thinking about the Yemeni cleric Awlaki’s 16-year-old son who was killed, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, two weeks after his father was killed, also in a drone strike.

OLIVER STONE: People will hate us more for doing this, and we’re invading the sovereignty of Pakistan and Yemen and so many countries. I mean, the United States is acting with impunity. But the bigger issue is simply that there has been never—in the history of empires, and they’ve all fallen, no one has a monopoly on any weapon ever, and whether it’s the atomic bomb—was copied—or the hydrogen bomb. Or, in this case, Predator drones will be made by other people, and they will be coming this way or to our—we have 800 bases around the world under this empire that we’ve created. So, we’re very vulnerable. In most of them, we’ve created hatred and a desire for revenge.

PETER KUZNICK: And it doesn’t work. That’s the other point, that when we started our drone attacks in Yemen, there were 300 members of al-Qaeda there; now there are 700 or 800 members. It backfires, these policies. We just make people hate us. We refer—the CIA operators who target people in Pakistan refer to them as “bugsplats,” the people who are killed there. To the Pakistanis, those are human beings. To the operators here, they’re bugsplats. That’s the attitude.

OLIVER STONE: We have to get some comprehensive peace plan going. We have to join the rest of the world, and we have to be part of the United Nations, not an outlier. And that’s where we—

Conclusions: America Could Have Been A Good Country

wallace

Henry Wallace, Roosevelt’s VP

Had Henry Wallace been allowed by the Democratic party hacks to run for president instead of Harry S. Truman, history could have taken a major turn for the better. Some of the changes we might have seen include:

– There would have been no Hiroshima.

-There would have been no Korean War
-There may have been no cold War.
-There may have been no Vietnam War.
-The Middle East may never have become a source of tension.
-The U.S. might have issued in an era of global peace and prosperity.
It’s All About the Choices That An Educated Electorate Makes:The bottom line is that America could have been a good country instead of just a great, ruthless self-centered and corrupt geopolitical power.It could have focused on creating a strong middle class, raising our standards of living and inspiring the rest of the world to the ideals of democracy, equality and sustainable business models. Instead it chose to engage in empire building, exploitation of foreign nations for their resources, and the spread of warfare and munitions around the globe, leading to political, economic and social instability around the world. The middle class would live more prosperous lives, and the record wealth discrepancy that is decimating the nation today could have been held in check.

glass cieling

1. Research, Objectivity and The Pursuit of Truth

From Tom Eigelsbach, this might as well be the axiom of Snap!, as I attempt to expose the myths and memes associated with Marketing and Economics:

enlightenment

2. The Illogic Cultural Memes and Propaganda Marketing

A post shared by George Geddes to expose the fallacious reasoning of cultural memes that play into sentiment and coopt consent. I used to reason like that when I was a child. For starters, without a cite, it’s doubtful that the quote/paraphrase is truthful to begin with. But I’m particularly curious about who these 19 year olds are that “protect his…ass.” It probably references the thousands of kids that bought and sold politicians in the most militarized nation in history put in harm’s way to support the the chosen economic benefactors – the defense industry, the energy sector and others:

gun crap

3. Economics: NonSustainable Business Models

This two-part contribution from Mike Henderson needs no explanation but extensive research, analysis and wisdom to truly comprehend the unsustainable business models to which it refers.  First, vies at the LA Times article,

Throwing the Middle Class off the Cliff” to appreciate the real meaning of the Fiscal Cliff debate – “Slight of hand, misdirection leading us to general austerity, not prosperity. Score for the Big Money elite:”

birdhouse

ny resolution

constitution-founding-fathers

“Our Founders were not the 1%.”

~ Thom Hartmann

Often you hear the canard that economic freedom consists in allowing the very wealthy to dominate the economy. This is usually justified by pointing to some abstract notion such as “capitalism” or the “intent of the founders.” In fact, this is not what the nation’s founders intended, and it does not reflect the reality of their lives.

The founders, while landowners, lived in a time when land was cheap, and were far from wealthy. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington both died bankrupt. George Washington reluctantly assumed the role of first president because he needed the money.

What follows are excerpts of a broadcast by Thom Hartman in which he explains it:

“There’s a myth floating around right now about our Founding Fathers – and the men who wrote the Constitution – the Framers. And that myth is that America was created by rich white men who wrote the Constitution to protect their own interests and the interests of other wealthy, rich white men like themselves. It’s a myth that’s conveniently used…by people who argue for more corporate power in government and more advantages for the wealthy by saying that’s simply a continuation of the intent of the Founders and Framers of the Constitution.

And it’s also a myth used on the Left – especially during times of economic crisis when it seems like the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer…You know, it’s enticing to think that way. Especially at a time when nearly half of all the Members of Congress are millionaires – and laws are being passed that exclusively benefit millionaires and billionaires at the expense of the rest of us.

…But it’s not true – it’s the myth of the super-wealthy Founding Fathers.

Of course there were very, very rich people in America at the time of the Revolution – but they were not the ones taking part in the Constitutional Convention. In fact – all of the truly rich people here in the 1760s fled this new nation during the Revolution – they went up to Canada or back to Britain. There wasn’t a millionaire – in today’s dollars – living in the United States until the 1790’s – a generation after the Revolution.

In terms of lifestyle, assets, and disposable income – the Founders were upper-middle class at best…Toward the end of his life – Washington didn’t have enough money to buy the slaves his wife inherited so that he could set them free, which he genuinely wanted to do.  And Jefferson died in bankruptcy.

These guys weren’t bankers – they weren’t rich investors – they weren’t land speculators. They might have owned a lot of land – but that was about it, and land didn’t have that much value back then.

Historian Forrest McDonald did an exhaustive analysis of each state that ratified the Constitution – and looked at the make-up of the delegates and what they did for a living.

As McDonald found in, for example, Delaware: 77% of the delegates were farmers. And we’re not talking rich farmers. In fact – 2/3s of those farmers had meager incomes between 75 cents and 5 dollars a week. Only 23% of the delegates were professionals – people like lawyers, doctors, and judges. Not one delegate was a banker – not one was a manufacturer – not one was a rich merchant…not one. The same was true in New Jersey – where 64% of the delegates were farmers.

The point is – the people who hammered out, and then ratified the Constitution weren’t thinking about money…They were voting for democracy instead of oligarchy. They were voting to create and maintain a middle class instead of creating a nation of, by and for the rich.

As Thomas Jefferson said:

Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government.

People, for some reason, think the Constitution said that only rich, white, male landowners could vote – but none of those things are anywhere in the Constitution. While our new country was far from perfect, in many of the states in our early years women voted, blacks voted, and even people who lived in the poorhouses that George Washington appropriated federal money to pay for, voted. Although over time most of the states individually took away many of those rights…none of that was – or is – in the Constitution.

Today – our lawmakers could learn a lot from our Founding Fathers.”

So could our business leaders and every individual who has been persuaded to believe in the myth that our purpose as a nation and as an economy is to make the rich richer and deprive the rest of us of economic opportunity.

The fact is today’s right wing and civil libertarians stand in opposition to everything that the founders in fact stood for. The nation’s founders, including Thomas Jefferson, understood, and explicitly expressed, that the unnbridled influence of the very wealthy undermine both democracy and the economic viability of the middle class.

hype

Next Page »