Oliver Stone’s Unbelievable Crap

David Horowitz was one of the founders of the New Left in the 1960s and an editor of its largest magazine, Ramparts. He is the author, with Peter Collier, of three best selling dynastic biographies: The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (1976); The Kennedys: An American Dream (1984); and The Fords: An American Epic (1987). Looking back in anger at their days in the New Left, he and Collier wrote Destructive Generation (1989), a chronicle of their second thoughts about the 60s that has been compared to Whittaker Chambers’ Witness and other classic works documenting a break from totalitarianism. Horowitz examined this subject more closely in Radical Son (1996), a memoir tracing his odyssey from “red-diaper baby” to conservative activist that George Gilder described as “the first great autobiography of his generation.” His latest book is Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left (Regnery Publishing).

Twitter: @horowitz39
Facebook: David Horowitz


Originally published at Breitbart.com.

On the evidence of his new Showtime mini-series and companion book, Oliver Stone is both a communist and political moron, a redundancy to be sure. Having previously celebrated a trio of evil-doers – Castro, Arafat and Hugo Chavez – Stone now adds The Untold History of the United States to the cinematic garbage heap he has been piling up since J.F.K. and Born on the 4th of July. Like them, this latest contribution is an unrelenting (and unrelentingly perverse) attack on America as history’s Great Satan, the root cause of worldly evil.

The heroes of this latest Stone fantasy are — I kid you not — Vladimir Lenin and Henry Wallace. Wallace is cast by Stone as the visionary of a planet without capitalism and war, and consequently as America’s missed opportunity to change the world. Along the way, Stone composes nauseating apologetics for Joseph Stalin and other historical villains including even Saddam Hussein, all of which are necessary to sustain his preposterous narrative of America as the great villain of a century in which America in fact defeated the two most monstrous regimes on human record – the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany – liberating more than a billion people in the process.

For those too young to remember, Henry Wallace was a former Vice President who was snookered by American Communists into running for the White House in 1948 as the anti-Cold War candidate of the Progressive Party. The Progressive Party was a political front the Communists had created to help Stalin drag millions of East Europeans into his Soviet gulag and slaughterhouse. Two years later, when the Communists invaded South Korea, a chastened and pathetic Wallace went on television to concede that he had been duped into lending his name to a malevolent cause. Wallace died soon after in disgrace. Now Stone is attempting to resurrect his most shameful hour and present it to the uninformed as the second coming.

By contrast, every step of America’s way in Stone’s fabrication is portrayed in the worst imaginable light, up to and including the Islamist attacks of 9/11, which he describes as merely an excuse America used to conduct criminal wars “against two Islamic nations” that caused “far more damage to the United States than Osama bin Laden ever could,” while “shredding the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Convention” in the process.

Even the title of Stone’s rant is a lie, since his narratives of the Bolshevik Revolution (idealists whose noble vision was thwarted by capitalist pigs), World War II (Stalin won it) and the Cold War (launched by American imperialists but ended by peace-loving Mikhail Gorbachev) are a twice-told story: the first time by Kremlin propagandists and their minions, the second by leftwing diehards who can’t handle the truth, and who have now been joined by the executives at Showtime in airing a miniseries that is malignant and unbelievable crap.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Attila The Hun

    That's why I don't get neither Showtime nor HBO. The cure for this crap is a la cart Cable subscription. If people pick and choose the channels they want all this garbage will disappear and Mr. Stone will have much smaller audience to spew his crap.

  • SCREW SOCIALISM

    BDS any project that oliver stoneage is involved with.

  • Richard

    Oliver Stone's JFK – nonetheless a supremely entertaining movie – is virtually lie after lie after lie after lie but has convinced millions of people to have an unshakable belief that JFK was murdered by a vast criminal conspiracy rather than the victim of very bad luck when his limo chanced to pass beneath the window of the biggest nut in Dallas.
    The most successful propaganda convinces its dupes that they have no need to go to any other source because the other sources are fabrications of the enemy.
    Iago had simply to make cheap insinuation and wave a stolen hankie to fool Othello into murder.
    Propaganda works on the weak and the insecure and the ignorant and the lazy who the propagandist knows out number the unflappable, the thoughtful, the practical and the diligent.

    • Bazza Mackenzie

      The alternative title to Stone's 'JFK' is "Dances With Facts" (re book, 'Secret and Supressed: Banned Ideas and Hidden History' edited by Jim Keith (published in early 90s).

    • kasandra

      Only Oliver Stone could take historical fact, the assasination of JFK by a communist for whom the Soviet Union wasn't radical enough, and turn it into a tale about how the right, in form of the CIA, oil companies, and organized crime, killed him. But, then again, I once saw Oliver Stone in person. I was at a filming of Celebrity Jeopardy and for the whole of the time, during both the practice round and the filmed round, Mr. Stone spent most of his time wondering around aimlessly on the set and walking off behind the curtains. Nope, he didn't look at all like he was on drugs the whole time. Not a bit. (And, by the way, he could never remember to "ask in the form of a question.")

      • Questions

        Polls for decades repeatedly have revealed that around 80 percent of all Americans believe the JFK assassination and coverup was a conspiracy. Are my fellow countrymen "paranoid" for questioning the infinite wisdom of the Warren Commission?

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          IDIOTIC "troofers" have been around a long time.

  • Mary Sue

    It's like Oliver Stone is creating an Alternate Universe in his mind, which full-time operates in Fantasy Land, a curious Mirror Universe where up is down, left is right, and right is wrong, and vice-versa. What little of his mind is left, Mr. Stone lost a looooooooooooong time ago.

    I hadn't heard about Henry Wallace but perhaps I may be excused having grown up in Canada and thus not learning a whole lot of the intricacies of Presidential Candidates and former VPs in anything but the barest and vaguest of generalities. It doesn't surprise me that Master of the Alternate Universe Stone is warping that guy's history to suit his own desire for a reboot of American history.

    Someone should tell that guy, History is NOT a comic book, he can't just retcon it to his liking and keep repeating it until he convinces even himself that it is truth.

    Excellent article.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "It's like Oliver Stone is creating an Alternate Universe in his mind"

      That's what totalitarian ideologies require.

      • Mary Sue

        Yup pretty much.

  • Steve Chavez

    It is people like Stone who wish Saddam was still alive and in power. "At least there was electricity when Saddam was in power." People like Stone cried "Bush: Stop the Genocide in Sudan" but don't they realize that Bush stopped the genocide in Iraq? The goal of both Iraq and Afghanistan is the PURPLE FINGERS that citizens proudly displayed after they voted for the first time. (Maybe we need to dip our fingers in purple ink to eliminate the Democrats and ACORN-type fraud.)

    Our Soldiers too have spilled RED BLOOD in order for others to have the PURPLE FINGERS and yet their vote is not even counted due to Democrat purposeful screw-ups with the ballots.

    Let Stone do these types of films. It exposes who he really is. Just like Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez, the Congressional Black Caucus and Fidel Castro, and Obama and the Muslim Brotherhood. In all my years of observing protests, Communists, and fronts, I say "go ahead and expose yourself to the American people." It did no good in trying to stop them. Let the cockroaches come out from under their rocks!

    • Mary Sue

      Yeah let Olly Stone have his Alternate head-Universe. He's gotten senile in his old age and these falsehoods give his prematurely dementia-riddled mind comfort.

      But that also means people like us have to work extra hard to make sure people realize that Olly Stone's Alternate Universe is just that, an Alternate Universe with no basis in reality and marginally entertaining.

      • Questions

        I doubt you've seen of his films. He won a pair of Purple Hearts in 'Nam back in the day, if that helps.

        • Bugs

          Lots of people got Purple Hearts in 'Nam. Very few of them made their fortunes by trashing their country.

        • Stephen_Brady

          John Kerry "won" three of the things, back in 'Nam. He used them to get the heck out of Dodge, as fast as he could.

          Of course, we all know that he "fought in Vietnam" …

          • trickyblain

            Why the quotes?

          • Mary Sue

            Two words. Swift Boats.

          • Lucifer Dye

            How many Republican politicians and talking heads went to Vietnam? Ask Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, etc. what they were doing when people such as Oliver Stone and John Kerry went off to serve in the war that they themselves were so keen on. And don't forget St. Ronnie Reagan, who stayed behind in Hollywood during the Second World War. Oh yeah, there's always Ollie North, the convicted felon who sold arms to Iran while we were in a proxy war with them. Way to go, Repugnants, you're a shining beacon to the country.

          • Stephen_Brady

            The quotes are because he "says" he did these things.

            Swiftboat justice brought his candidacy down, thank God …

          • ebonystone

            And he tried to parlay them into making himself into a war hero.

        • Mary Sue

          I saw his JFK and facepalmed.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Bush: Stop the Genocide in Sudan" but don't they realize that Bush stopped the genocide in Iraq? "

      But don't you realize what they would have said if he did stop the genocide in Sudan too? They're all abominable liars.

      • Lucifer Dye

        Yeah, but he killed a couple of hundred-thousand innocent Iraqis while doing it. I bet they feel really good about that. Do you think they preferred being killed by us rather than by Hussein?

  • Omar

    Oliver Stone clearly likes to repeat Communist lies and propaganda against America, capitalism democracy and freedom. Apparently, he doesn't know (or doesn't care) that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) led directly to World War II. Stone is just another Stalinist/Maoist propagandist who supports Marxism and Sharia law.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Oliver Stone…"

      A dupe with a soap box.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Make that a DOPE.

    • Questions

      The idea that Stone supports Sharia law is beyond laughable. He knows he wouldn't survive under it.

      • 11bravo

        His son converted on his trip to Iran last year!!

        • Questions

          That doesn't say anything about his dad.

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            oliver stoned son became a Moose Limb.

            Stupidity is inherited.

          • Mary Sue

            moose limb! Haha nice one :)

          • SCREW SOCIALISM

            Koranimal.
            Koranazi.

  • Eugenia

    I’m getting to know some of these miserable progressives/communists through your incredible book “Radical Son.” Half-way through it now. It’s frightening to see just how entrenched they are in the Democratic Party. God bless you, Mr. Horowitz. Keep up the great work.

    • mlcblog

      Welcome!!

    • Zionista

      Another must read is "Unholy Alliance" in which Horowitz shows the perverse connection between the left and islamists. It's wonderful that Horowitz woke up and defected and now we not only have a brilliant guy on our side but one who knows the left very well.

    • Spider

      I read Radical Son years ago and I couldn't put it down. What an awakening it was. I have since been a fan of Davids' and his FrontPageMag. I welcome you.

  • Jimbo

    Oliver Stone blames the movie Patton for influencing Nixon to invade Cambodia, which caused the Khmer Rouge to commit Genocide. In other words, the Khmer Rouge's genocide was Patton's fault!

    Included with the movie Patton is a 2nd DVD containing bonus material. Part of the bonus material are interviews with various people who were involved in the making of the movie Patton, along with an interview of Oliver Stone. All of the other people who were interviewed spoke of the character of Patton, how he was a fascinating character, how he was out of place for most of his life, and lots of other things you would expect to hear from people making a movie about a particular person.

    In fact, you got the impression that all of the other people interviewed truly wanted to make an "honest" movie, one that accurately portrayed the real Patton, no matter how they might have felt about him in real life.

    Only Oliver Stone made a political statement in his interview. And his statement was a "blame America" statement, in this case, blaming America for the Khmer Rouge genocide!

    • tagalog

      The MSM, such as it was back then, made a great deal out of what a boob Nixon was, watching Patton and all. This was right around the time when Nixon and Kissinger fastened on the idea that Nixon would be characterized as a barely-controllable nut case, who might push the nuclear button at any time, and therefore North Vietnam should come to the peace table. What that tactic would have had to do with the movie Patton is a mystery to me and should be to anyone who has seen it.

    • jacob

      It is incredible how normal people pay attention to the crap this guy puts up….

      Rest assured elsewhere he would have to look for an honest day work if he wanted to survive or
      else be tarred, feathered and ran out of town…
      Better ask him how much did he get from Venezuela's dictator HUGO CHAVEZ to male a picture
      praising his "achievements", not to speak of those other "jewels" SEAN PENN and DANNY GLO-
      VER…
      What he lacks is shame and decency…..

      • Mary Sue

        Danny Glover being an idiot is not surprising I guess, but it sort of takes away from his performance in Lethal Weapon 2 at the South African Consulate. You know, the one with the bond-esque villain that had Diplomatic Impunity.

        • Lucifer Dye

          That's immunity, Mary Sue. By the way, do you get all your "facts" from watching the Hollywood movies you pretend to despise?

  • Jimbo

    The more I see people like Oliver Stone in Hollywood making influential movies, the more I believe that Stalin got as many moles into our society as he could while we were allies with Russia. Stone was probably put there by one of those moles. The reason I believe this is because Stone is SO anti-American, as are many of the movers and shakers in Hollywood.

    Hollywood would be a logical place to plant lots of agents and moles, who could influence the direction of Hollywood, and therefore the whole culture of the United States.

    • Questions

      You're in a fantasyland. The purpose of film is to tell stories, not to inject agitprop. I don't like the Leftist version of this, but the thought of conservatives doing this is intolerable. Stone's movie release of this past summer, "Savages," by the way, is none too friendly toward Mexican scumbag drug traffickers. And it got good reviews among conservative crtics, as did his 2006 film, "World Trade Center."

      • JakeTobias

        "World Trade Center" was not much of a movie. It was about a real tall building, that fell on top of some firefighters, nothing more. Except for the Christian/ex-military character. The one who flew into New York, and found the buried men. It initially made him seen otherworldly, almost physic. I liked that part, it was an interesting touch. But I also thought there was too much of a hint he was off his rocker, and a war lover. But that could just be my take.

        "Savages" I want to see. A year or two ago, I would have. But it's by Oliver Stone. No way. I went to see "Money Never Sleeps", after saying I would not. Not this time. I am staying strong.

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          If you must watch it, wait till it comes out on DVD. Many libraries have DVDs.

      • Mary Sue

        These days a lot of movies (and even some TV shows) serve a dual purpose. To tell a story/entertain, AND to inject agitprop. What did you think Ferngully The Last Rainforest was? Or the old Captain Planet cartoon?

  • Goering

    So the book was released today and episode 1 airs on November 12th. So the question is how does Horowitz know anything about either? There is pic of an advanced screening in the article but he never actually says what material he is basing his review on. There does not appear to be any direct quotes or any actual scenes depicted. So its not really a review. Its a bit like some an atheist saying the Bible is untrue so the movie "The Ten Commandments" is garbage. It could actually be entertaining or provocative whether you believe or not.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Go wring your neck.

      • Goering

        Thanks for the carefully thought out rebuttal! Happy Halloween!

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Happy uNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER of May 7th, 1945!

          • Goering

            Thanks! I assume we both think the allied victory was the best outcome. …or were you rooting for some one else?

    • reader

      I presume that you expect the movie to show Lenin for what he actually was – a mass murderer and a demaguogue, right? Something tells me that you are a big fan of Howard Zynn's crap, which is void of any credible information – and yet you probably ate it all up.

      • Goering

        Um no. I did not say anywhere anything of the sort. My comment is short so feel free to reread it. The point is Horowitz does not appear to have read the book or seen the movie. For example he cites no supporting quote or scene for the assertion "Wallace is cast by Stone as the visionary of a planet without capitalism and war". He is like the people who review books on Amazon and give them one star and its clear they have not read the book. Its hard to see how some ones review of something is useful if they have not actually experienced what they are reviewing.

        • david horowitz

          I have been reading Stone's book for 50 years. When I see someone regurgitate the account of the Cold War's origins by Soviet agent Carl Marzani, a book I read when i was 20, I pretty well know to expect. In my column I summarized other preposterous Soviet propaganda points the Stone slavishly repeats. He does not have to say in so many words "Henry Wallace is a hero" to convey that idea to the reader. He says the American century was defined by two visions. One by Henry Luce, the other by Henry Wallace which is the vision endorsed by Stone. You are simply incapable of seeing the wood for the trees. I stand corrected on the date of Wallace's death. He disappeared from public life around 1951 or 2. That's because he was a pathetic dupe of the worst regime in human history. It doesn't matter that Kennedy evidently pitied him enough to give him that award.

          • Mary Sue

            Too many leftists do not realize just how pro you are, Mr. Horowitz. It's like they're trying to erase your experiences!

          • Goering

            Thanks for the reply. So what is so terrible about Wallace? As noted before he was against Fascism, and for free enterprise, and the only clear thing about his involvement w/ The Communist Party seems to be they endorsed his Party and he did not disavow. He seemed willing to admit he was wrong when "in 1952, Wallace published "Where I Was Wrong", in which he explained that his seemingly-trusting stance toward the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin stemmed from inadequate information about Stalin's excesses and that he, too, now considered himself an anti-Communist.". This change of heart seems familiar from the likes of say 60s leftist. If its simply guilt by association, which off hand it appears, then perhaps you are taking it too far. Why doesn't his recant count? He was also a Freemason what to make of that? As for the trees for the forest there is some truth to that. Also there is truth in seeing the forest from a simplified, polarized, preconceived view of trees.

        • reader

          Oh, so you don't expect Stone's movie to show Lenin as a mass murderer and a demagogue. But Lenin was a mass murderer and a demagogue. The left is so used to manipulate the gullible that when normal people object to their insults of normal people's intelligence, they – like you are – go hysterical. Paraphrasing the dear leader, such objections offend them. O-o-oh.

          • Goering

            Weird. I am not sure I understand your response. I did not say anything at all Pro Lenin. I simply raised the point it appears unlikely Horowitz read and therefore inaccurately portrays the authors views, likely too simply discredit them before the fact. The direct comment you replied too was for information on why Henry Wallace was "disgraced". Your comment does not seem to address that. but actually presumes, incorrectly, that asking some one how they came to conclusions is the same same as embracing the opposite. Which it is not.

          • reader

            Oh, how clever. I keep addressing your initial post, which is an objection to Horowitz's criticism of Stone. You're telling me that you "raised the point" for pure academic purpose? I've already warned you not to insult my intelligence. Just because you're not saying anything pro-Lenin here, does not mean that you're – just like Stone is – not pro-Lenin. Otherwise you wouldn't go out of your way to attack Horowitz. Let me wrap it up for you: it dawned on me at a gentle age of 14, when I was sitting at the desk of a Communist school takling notes of Lenin's work (I believe it was the "Military Programme," that Lenin had been a ruthless demagogue. It was only the matter of time to conclude that he also had been a mass murderer. That makes both Stone and you immoral imbiciles, thank you very much.

          • Goering

            Thanks for the reply. So maybe some clarifying remarks. I don't object to Horowitz criticizing Stone, I do think his criticism is likely misleading and still think it unlikely he actually read the whole book. Horowitz, I assert, is making a straw man argument by attacking things Stone may not be asserting. This does not mean Stone is right. Stone might say be lying through his teeth for all I know, but I think reasonable that he calls no heroes out in his introduction. It does not follow that critiquing a review means you embrace the opposite. Am I to assume then you blindly believe anything Horowitz or other writers on this site write? You must because if you thought for yourself it could only mean you are a follower of "leftists" according to your "logic". It may surprise you to hear it is possible to not be an ideologue or a sheepish uncritical follower. I respect the "right" when they fight state control and the "left" to keep us from oligarchy. I "criticize" because the fact is you can disagree with people on one issue but not on another. What a strange grey world it would be if you had only two choices. As Wild Bill Shakespeare said "There are more things in heaven and earth, Reader, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. – Hamlet (1.5.166-7)". So that insight has been available since 1601. No doubt some how this will confirm your worst fears.

          • reader

            By the same tokin, you have no basis for judging the validity of Horowitz's criticism, because "Stone might say be lying through his teeth" for all you know. And – lastly – don't hope that I haven't noticed you carefuly avoiding to express your own attitude toward, say, Lenin himself.

          • Goering

            Actually that is the point. Stone may be wrong but not for the reasons Horowitz states. Horowitz claims to have read the book are suspect and his assertion of the authors heros also appears inaccurate. So the review is probably just an off the cuff reaction with guilt by association thrown. Stone is more likely to be wrong due to cherry picking facts than because of the inaccurate attributed hero worship. What is important in is calling out propaganda when you see, regardless of which wing of the spectrum. FWIW I find nothing admirable in Lenins politics, he seems to differ little in that respect from most dictators and tyrants, and has nothing to do with any of the points I was making.

          • reader

            "So the review is probably just an off the cuff reaction with guilt by association thrown. Stone is more likely to be wrong due to cherry picking facts than because of the inaccurate attributed hero worship."

            Yes, you're trying your hardest to explain away your incredible motivation for attacking Horowitz with your devotion to some "weird" version of academic integrity. Probably? More likely? Really? Who are you kidding, pal? Be honest. If you were not a commie, you would not even make as much of an effort as it takes to sneeze having read Horowitz's review.

          • Goering

            LOL! Well I guess you have your mind made up as you are repeating yourself. Thanks for the reply but it would seem we have reached an impasse. I still say I am not a commie, but Horowitz is wrong. You still appear unable to defend Horowitz nor prove the absurd allegation that only commies would "attack" an inaccurate review. Its like saying only Satanists would criticize something a reverend says about the wrath of God being the source of Hurricanes. They might be fellow Christians, atheists, scientists, theologians, or historians who are not necessarily hostile to his religion in its entirety but "attack" such ideas anyway because they are inaccurate and not the best explanation for the phenomena.

          • reader

            "You still appear unable to defend Horowitz nor prove the absurd allegation that only commies would "attack" an inaccurate review."

            Oh, here comes the proof, as far as I'm concerned. You see, in my lifetime I've seen even more commies than Horowitz did. And the one thing that commies are guaranteed to demand is the proof of something absurd. You said you're not a commie. Really? Perhaps, you're just a progressive? Entirely different specie, is it? How about proving that you're not? LOL. What a joke.

    • Mary Sue

      This isn't about Olly Stone's movies being "entertaining". As long as they're relegated to the Fantasy Land where they belong, they can be as entertaining as they like.

      • Goering

        Like Hororwitzs review. Since he has apparently has not read the book nor seen the movie we should assume his review can be entertaining and it is in Fantasy Land. And it is entertaining exactly for that reason.

        • Mary Sue

          did you read the book and/or see the movie?

          • Goering

            No I have not neither did I claim to. As I mentioned below the nearly 784 page book was released Oct. 30th. Since the average adult reads 1 paper back page a minute that's about 13 hrs. +/- Since I have a day job I just started it yesterday. Horowitz however seems to indicate he bought it and read it and wrote a review of it all on the same day. Which indicates he either is juggling the facts, or did not really read it (maybe skimmed?) or maybe got an advance copy (thought that would be a fairly open minded publisher to send him one).

    • David Horowitz

      I read the book Bozo. It's on Kindle. Regurgitating Stalin's propaganda sixty years later is neither entertaining nor provacative. Typically you have no actual argument. You could argue that Wallace is not Stone's hero (but you would be refuted by the first pages of his book). Or you could argue that Wallace was not a Communist dupe (but even he says he was). So where does that leave you? But I waste my breath.

      • Goering

        Thanks for the reply and citing a source. The book is on Kindle and looks like it was released yesterday. You are a quick reader or got an advanced copy. Either way good on you to slog through all 700+ pages. You are correct the visionary quote is from page 1 but it says "realists dismissed him as a 'visionary'", but the author does not say he is a visionary like your article seems to assert. Nor does it any where say, one page one any way, that Wallace is the authors hero. Rather he held up as contrasting figure to Luces idea of American Century, the authors do say at this point they would have preferred what the less hegemonic path advocated by Wallace. That does not appear to be a wholesale endorsement of Wallace as a person nor all of Wallaces views. Your point from page 1 perspective seems exaggerated for effect or through preconceived conceptions not present in the text itself. But maybe it won't after 700 more pages. Further you state Wallace soon died in disgrace after he admitted being wrong about Stalin in 1950. But it appears he died in 1965 and presumably not in so much disgrace that it prevented JFK from inviting him to his inauguration and this with Wallace supporting Nixon (and prior to that Eisnehower). Further this is the same Wallace who wrote: "We Must Save Free Enterprise" An article published in the Saturday Evening Post, October 23, 1943. and "The Danger of American Fascism" An article in the New York Times, April 9, 1944. So it seems he may have been a dupe but unlikely you or Stone are accurate in making him out as some long term commie.
        Also, weirdly, you also seem to think incorrectly that asking for citations to understand how your opinion was formed is synonymous with supporting its content. It is not.

      • Lucifer Dye

        "Bozo," and here I am thinking that people with the wit and wisdom of Oscar Wilde or Christopher Hitchens are a thing of the past. David, dear boy, how do you come up with such witticisms?

  • cynthiacurran

    Stone did Alexander the Great bad andncompared Alexdander attempted conquest into india as the Vietbam war.

  • Yigdal

    Test

  • mlcblog

    Stone has no interest in the truth. He does this purely for the sake of producing propaganda.

  • BUTSeriously

    Surprise, surprise! These smart idiots never seem to start with 57 Islamist sewer regimes, which surpass Stalin with the slogan its a blessing to kill all Non-Muslims. This director will not make a movie of the Balfour's corruption and the White paper that caused the holocaused. Because!

  • posse 101

    … and as if that weren't enough for you… his son just recently converted to Islam. hey pizza face, congratulations. now try converting back!

  • southwood

    " America in fact defeated the two most monstrous regimes on human record – the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany ".

    Wrong, David. As far as Nazi Germany is concerned America dragged its feet until the war was well advanced. It was only as a result of Pearl Harbour that the US entered the war. Even then they were allied to the brave and determined British and Soviet military. That reservation apart, the article is worthy.

    • Clay

      Well,the war was "well advanced" alright, but in the process of being lost. Without American intervention, there would have been no victory. So yeah, American in fact did defeat the Nazi's and the Soviets.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        The "anti-war" forces would want a negotiated settlement for WW2.

        But thanks to Winston Churchill the national SOCIALISTS had to SURRENDER, UNCONDITONALLY, as did imperial Japan.

      • Maxie

        No, the Soviets needed help from America in the form of massive infusion of fighter aircraft and massive amounts of other military and industrial supplies. America, prodded by Soviet spies(e.g.; Alger Hiss) in the FDR administration baited Japan into attacking us (Pearl Harbor) in order to keep Japan from invading the USSR in the East (Japan & Germany were allies in WWII). Learn some history fool.

        • southwood

          So, let me get this straight: America didn't need Soviet military personnel to conduct the war on the Eastern front from June 1941 until America declared war ? No, just let the " massive infusion of fighter aircraft and massive amounts of other military and industrial supplies " do the job without human intervention. Were these machinse robotized ? LOL. Then, after entering the war the US dismissed the Soviet allies and said, "Ok guys the yanks are here now, you can go home and relax." LOL (ouder) ! Wow, just incredible. Then there was the British who, of course, were not needed ! Ha !

          As for your Alger Hiss stuff, provide some links.

        • ebonystone

          The Japanese had already mixed it up with the Russians on the border between Manchuria and Russia, and gotten badly mauled. It was this experience that convinced them to follow a "Southern strategy" — gaining an empire and access to raw materials in the Pacific and SE Asia — rather than a "Northern strategy" — an empire in Siberia.

    • LibertarianToo

      Which is WHY the British were so intent on getting us into the war -so the allies might actually win. Hitler broke Stalin's heart when he invaded his buddy's country. Some of the subjects of the Soviets actually welcomed the invading Germans as liberators, only to find there was not much to choose between Nazis and Communists.
      The Soviets were indeed determined -determined to advance as far west as possible, and stay there.

      • Western Spirit

        America only dragged its feet about getting into the war with the attitude of letting Europe fight its own wars.

        But once Japan had attacked us it was a different matter. So much so some people thought Roosevelt had set us up for Japan's attack deliberately.

        If he did it was a foolish way to go about it because we were so devastated Japan could have had us If Admiral Halsey hadn't sent what was left of our fleet zig-zagging across the Pacific creating an illusion we weren't as badly damaged as we were.

        • Mary Sue

          Yeah I heard the whole "Roosevelt let pearl harbor happen" too. The person (when I was a kid) told me that Roosevelt could have stopped it because Japan's ambassador was in Washington. Even back then my mind was going, "Okay, since when does talking to an ambassador necessarily result in dissuading an enemy from attacking?" Even at that age I figured out it was no guarantee, there, and since it didn't make sense, it probably wasn't true.

          Words to live by, popularized by Judge Judy: "If it doesn't make sense, IT'S NOT TRUE!"

        • Maxie

          Americans were absolutely opposed to getting into the war. Roosevelt deliberately provoked the Japanese to attack us by embargoeing their oil. FDR seriously underestimated the Japanese military thinking it was a flimsy balsa wood and tissue paper affair that could be defeated quickly and that we could then turn on Germany. FDR was a sap and was manipulated by Soviet spies in his administration. He demanded "unconditional surrender" which caused the war to drag on getting many thousands more killed. He rejected covert offers of surrender from the Germans. Much of this history remains hidden from FOIA.

          • ebonystone

            FDR was also provoking the Germans with his clear tilt toward the British (and then also the Soviets), as evidenced by the destroyers-for-bases deal, Lend-Lease (for the British from March, 1941; for the Soviets from July), the designation of the entire western Atlantic as American territorial waters, and even American destroyers firing on German subs. Hitler — unlike the Japanese — chose not to be provoked. Until Pearl Harbor, that is: only three days later Hitler declared war on the U.S., for God knows what reason — he was under no obligation to do so. It was possibly his greatest mistake; already facing two powerful and as yet undefeated adversaries, he decided to take on a third, even more powerful one.

      • southwood

        Of course Britain wanted you involved. It's just a pity you hadn't joined in earlier as it would no doubt have saved many of the holocaust victims.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Before America's entry into the war, untold tonnage of critical supplies, like steel, flowed into the Soviet Union from this country. Without these supplies, the Soviet Union would have been defeated by the Germans by September of 1942.

      • southwood

        I am not denying that, am I ? It still required a massive effort by the Soviets as happened at Stalingrad perhaps the turning point in the war.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      southwoody said:

      "Wrong, David. As far as Nazi Germany is concerned America dragged its feet until the war was well advanced."

      Hey genius, That's because the "pacifist", "anti-war", non-interventionist punks wanted the US to stay out of the European war – which only benefited Socialist SHlTler.

      Today the FAKE "anti-war" punks work to aid the reactionary Islamofascist forces waging war all over the world.

      • Mary Sue

        QFT (quoted for truth)

      • southwood

        "Hey genius, That's because the "pacifist", "anti-war", non-interventionist punks wanted the US to stay out of the European war – "

        Oh, so 90% of the American people were pacifist, anti-war, non-interventionist punks ? Right, now I know. Thanks for that, SS.

    • pagegl

      Your grasp of history is tenuous at best. We were supporting the British war effort more than a year before Pearl Harbor and contributed substantial hardware to the Soviet effort. No doubt the Brits and Russian were brave and fought hard, but it is probable that if the USA had remained neutral, had not provided material support to both England and Russia, and had not entered the war against Germany most of Europe would be speaking German nowadays. It is very unlikely England could have survived the continual German assault and the Soviets probably would not have been able to advance on Germany without USA hardware and might even not been able to defend against the German advance without USA aid.

      • southwood

        Don't be so condescending and presumptious. I KNOW about American aid to BRITAIN, not "England" and the SOVIET UNION , not Russia ( your grasp of the names of nation states is tenuous but then Americans are renowned for their poor grasp of geography and that is a fact ). Just because I did not refer to it it you ignorantly assume I do not know about it. You may have a point about us not winning the war without America but for David Horowitz to baldly claim the America defeated Nazi Germany is ridiculous. You might as well say it was the army without mentioning the navy and the air force..

        • SCREW SOCIALISM

          Too bad that BRITAIN has permitted socialism to destroy itself.

          The EU is collapsing. Nice going boys!

          • southwood

            Still giving it the same tired anti-British vitriol. We have many in the UK, not including me, who are just as chauvinistic, perhaps even more so, towards America. But I think you are being incredibly silly by being so smug about Britain allowing socialism to destroy itself when Americans are currently allowing the same thing under comrade Obama. Come Tuesday you will see the installment of the 4 year plan. See who's smug then, SS.

        • pagegl

          And perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending and presumptuous regarding my knowledge of geography. As I was composing that message I was, as I have been for many years, aware that England is part of Great Britain and Russia was part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. So, as you might have said, just because I was referring to the central country of two unions do not assume I don't know the proper name of those nations. But, it appears that you ignorantly assumed that because I am a lazy typist I don't know geography. BTW, you misspelled "presumptuous".

          • southwood

            "And perhaps you shouldn't be so condescending and presumptuous regarding my knowledge of geography."

            How was I being "condescending and presumptuous (correct spelling, thanks for correction)" ? That is ridiculous; you used the wrong terms ! Am I supposed to read into your use of the wrong geopolitical terms that you actually know what the correct terms are ? How, pray tell ? I am not a mind reader.

    • jacob

      Sorry Southwood but Stalin was very comfortable with taking half of Poland when Hitler invaded
      Poland and he was forced to fight when Hitler attacked the Soviet Union…
      Good old USA was helping England as much as its isolationists allowed FDR to, to the extent
      that it is historical that there was a southern senator who suggested FDR should ask Japan
      whether the attack on Pearl Harbor was deliberate or a mistake…

      This moron falls in line with the idiots still ranting and raving to this day for the dropping of the
      A bombs on Japan which brought to a closing WWII…..

  • Massimo

    Amazing… Evert country that happens to have enemies, those are located "outside". We western countries have the most ferocious and dangerous enemies at home.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      They are called Islamofascists.

      • Mary Sue

        and their liberal lapdogs.

  • tagalog

    If it's true that the past of Oliver Stone that Mr. Stone has accentuated really constitutes the Stone past that he thinks is important and formative to him, then Oliver Stone is another sad example of how the Vietnam War twisted and perverted some people who objected to it. He's one of that dimly-remembered "Ho! Ho! Ho Chi Minh! NLF is gonna win!" crowd that John Kerry and a few other overripe types belong to.

    There was an honorable way to protest and resist the Vietnam War, but Stone apparently wasn't part of that and the poison that was injected into him a la Platoon has made him a mangled caricature of a certain type who came of age in that time.

    • trickyblain

      I'd say that after serving infantry in Vietnam he earned the right to say whatever the hell he wanted about it. And what's so bad about Platoon, anyway? There were good troops and some bad. Reality.

      Funny how many vocal opponents of war have actually been in war (Stone, Zinn, Kerry, the hero Pat Tillman). And how many of those that cheer and attempt to expedite it have never been close to it (Horowitz, Wolfowitz, Cheney).

      • pagegl

        I bet it's a safe bet to say that our military leadership, most if not all, is opposed to war. The difference between them and folks like Stone, Zinn, Kerry, etc. is they understand, unlike those leftists, sometimes war is unavoidable. Certainly Stone and others of his ilk are entitled to say what they like; doesn't make them right.

      • tagalog

        Yep, if he'd been a draft dodger, he'd still have the right to say whatever the hell he wants in America. That doesn't make him anything other than a mentally crippled used-up, superannuated product of a twisted mindset. He can talk all he wants, that's a good thing, it reveals him for what he is. That's what free speech is all about, the ability to evaluate what people think from what they say when they can speak freely.

        Platoon was an overheated anti-Vietnam War movie that was in the John Kerry "reminiscent of the tactics of Genghis Khan" school of antiwar rhetoric.

        Alexander Haig was Infantry in Vietnam; did he earn the right to say whatever the hell he thought, in your book?

        • Jim_C

          Oliver Stone is overheated–that's kind of his thing.

          Vietnam certainly caused the country to become overheated, and it twisted and perverted United States foreign policy. So maybe Stone/Vietnam was a good match in that sense.

      • Mary Sue

        Olly stone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts.

  • Glennd1

    Just ignore Stone. This movie will be an unadulterated commercial failure as a good way to understand the audience for it is to say it's a subset of MSNBC's tiny audience. If Front Page wants to actually do some useful journalism, it could actually take on the movie substantially, debunk it's claims and publicly go after Stone as a propagandist.

  • Armando

    So now we have two (Hollywoodites) useful idiots: Michael Moron and Oliver Stoned.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Sean Penncil, Wesley Snipped, Susan Saradong, Barabra Streisandrogynous, Whoopie Goldbrick.

      • Lucifer Dye

        Hey, Screw, not a Hollywood type, but don't forget Dick(head) Cheney, chicken-livered draft-dodger extraordinaire, who never found a war he didn't like — just as long as he didn't have to fight in it..

  • clarespark

    Stone's thesis is the main line of the elite universities, the state unversities (including the South) and of course public education in the elementary, middle, and high schools. Sometimes a bit more subtle than Stone's version. I showed how Herman Melville had a different view of the American mission in one of his most controversial books: http://clarespark.com/2009/09/06/the-hebraic-amer…. "The Hebraic American Landscape: Sublime or Despotic?" Liberals invariably attack HM for the passage I quoted here, as proof that he was a vile imperialist.

    • Jim_C

      Liberals attack Herman Melville? Really? Where?

      • clarespark

        I listed the major objectors to Amerikkka in the endnotes to the article I posted. If you want more details, see my book Hunting Captain Ahab: Psychological Warfare and the Melville Revival. Or try this link for more details: http://clarespark.com/2011/10/01/updated-index-to…. "Updated index to Melville blogs."

        • Jim_C

          I might have classified them as "leftists," or academics with too much time on their hands.

          Interesting.

          • clarespark

            The line between “liberals” and leftists has been so blurred that it is hard to tell where one begins and the other leaves off. I have noticed this particularly since the 1960s and the rise of the New Left. There was a time when social democrats were anticommunists. No longer the case.

          • Lucifer Dye

            Unlike you righties, who never spend time posting on sites like this.

      • Lucifer Dye

        Only in the outre fantasy land of the misanthropes who post on these sites.

  • Spider

    Oliver Stones' movies are mostly works of Leftist Fantasy and Fiction just like the New York Times and LA Times.

  • Lan Astaslem

    Funny how lefties and some libs are always ranting about how awful the US is, but they don't leave. Then there are the millions who leave (or yearn to leave) whatever hellholes they are from to come to this great, albeit imperfect, nation. Hey olly, when's the last time you saw anyone risking life and limb to get into cuba, the sudan, egypt, mexico……………………………………………………………….?

    • tagalog

      On the issue of lefties bad-mouthing the U.S. but somehow never finding in themselves the integrity to leave that which they think is so bad, my favorite example is Eldridge Cleaver, who left the U.S. as a fugitive black militant for Algeria, but who sounded like Chuck Berry singing "Back in the U.S.A." when he finally came back.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        stokely carmichael left for Africa and died there. He pissed off the local tribal chief too

    • Mary Sue

      maybe it has something to do with the fact that it's pointless to leave. Why? Because wherever they go they still have to pay US taxes! So they might as well sit at home in Beverly Hills or Malibu and whine about their government while benefitting from the taxes they paid.

    • pagegl

      What would be fun to me would be to hear Stone et al explain why so many people from elsewhere will do almost anything to get to the US and live here. If the USA is as eff'ed up as they claim, they will have to jump through some interesting intellectual hoops to align their attitudes with the reality of so many foreigners wanting to get here. Delusional comes to mind.

  • dennis

    this is why obummer is so dangerous to the USA he loves war and wants to bring it to the cities of the usa, obummer wants to start race wars he is going to destroy America just like the sharptons and faraconvicts and hsis rev wright want to do

    • pagegl

      Not that I would encourage it, but I tend to believe that Obama and his minions wouldn't stand much of a chance if they were to force a civil war.

  • jose

    Oliver stone blames america after leaving a solid built american home with fresh water and good food and a tv. He gets in his automobile and takes the highway while listening to satellite radio and a.m. f.m. radio. mr. oliver arrives at LAX to get in his streamline jet plane filled with liquor and beer from here. Then he arrives safely in NEW YORK to visit a good american restaurant while complaining on his IPHONE. He latere gets into his corvette and goes to a movie theater to see a film about how bad america is. Note: all of these were created by americans all of it even new york city.

  • Ghostwriter

    I'm not going to watch Oliver Stone's little series. I don't think I'd like it too much. I think the point of a documentary is to use FACTS,not fantasies. Oliver Stone has done far too much fantasizing and too little fact-based stuff.

  • douglas snow

    Appalling! Mr. Horowitz is evidently a lickspittle hireling of the corporate disinformation state, with a certain hysterical fervor all his own, that reminds one of the "half froth, half venom" of the Third Reich's demented propagandists. His villification of Stone is written with an ideological bias so extreme that it seems almost irrelevant to say that it is also unfair, untrue, and false in every cited matter of fact. Does Stone really apologize for Lenin and Stalin? Or temporize or make nice?–I make bold, without having seen Stone's book, to say that he could not, and has not. I am not prepared to defend Fidel Castro (and his record of oppression of gay people)–even while I acknowledge the justice of his overthrow of the violently corrupt U.S./Mafia stooge Batista–but to call him, and Yasser Arafat, and Hugo Chavez, "evil-doers" is a vicious, deliberately ignorant and demeaning mischaracterization.

    • Mary Sue

      says the person who has no facts to back up [various insane screeds].

      If you can't see Fidel, Arafat, and Chavez as evil-doers, then you live in DC Comics' Bizarro-World.

      Dude, Horowitz LIVED THIS STUFF FOR YEARS before opening his eyes and seeing the damage the far left wing commie garbage does! If anybody has credibility about this, HE DOES. The fact that you can't stand that he rejected the purple koolaid of his own volition, rather than any theoretical brainwashing from the other side, speaks volumes.

      Batista was nowhere NEAR as bad as Castro. Period.

      There's more to Fidel than gaybashing. How about enforced Child Slave Labor for all children in Cuba? Huh? Anything to say to that, smart aleck?

    • pagegl

      How long did it take you to look up all those multi-syllabic words? Arafat, Chavez, Castro, Guevara, and many other were or are evil to their fricking cores. Unless, of course, you believe that being murdering, tyrannical despots who trample the freedom of people a good thing. But, quite a few leftists such as Stone seem to think that.

    • Omar

      douglass snow, you are misinformed about the world. First of all, the United States supported Castro's ouster of Batista (the U.S. was even one of the first countries to formally give diplomatic recognition tothe Castro regime in Cuba). The U.S. had an arms embargo on Batista, told him to resign for at least a year before he actually resigned, and denied him asylum. The point is that Batista was not a "stooge" at all. You have been reading too much Castro regime propaganda. Read Humberto Fontova's books (Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant and Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him) to learn more about the truth about Castro's Cuba. You should also read Manuel-Marquez-Sterling's book, Cuba 1952-1959: The True Story of Castro's Rise to Power, to learn more about what Cuba was really like during the 1950s. The truth is that Cuba was a prosperous country until the Castro family dictatorship took over in 1959. Learn more about the truth about Cuba from these links: http://www.jeffjacoby.com/278/castros-true-legacy… , http://www.hfontova.com/ , http://babalublog.com/ and http://cuba1952-1959.blogspot.com/

  • stevef

    Much thanks for the commentary on this evil man.

  • Larry Allen

    Henry Wallace died in 1965.

  • "gunner"

    while i agree with the author of this piece, and all of you above, i think y'all are being too kind to oliver stone. he is a deluded fool and a simpleton, a gullible lackwit, easily seduced and confounded by high sounding theories he does not understand, loudy proclaiming a pile of overripe feces is true gold, and happily playing in the reeking mess, peddling it as art. he is not worthy of your attention, simply an idiot, telling a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    • Maxie

      Stone is just another of those Cadillac and Cavier Communists. It might interest you to know that Stalin and his Bolshevik comrades in the Politburo lived lavishly in the style of the Tsars while they brutally killed innocent people by the millions (Read about the Lubianka). Beria, Stalin's go-to executioner was a psycho-sexual sadist. Leftists are not only narcissistic fools they are major league hypocrites and, given the chance, genocidal maniacs.

  • "gunner"

    mr. snow,
    surely you jest, this is satire? or you are attempting to defend the indefencible?

    • Mary Sue

      if he's anything like the leftist dictator-apologists that I run into on a fairly regular basis IRL, he's either a deluded kool aid drinker who doesn't know any better, or an insane radical.

      Leftism ceases to be enlightenment and starts becoming a cult when they start enclaving themselves in their own opinions, rejecting the opinions of all who disagree with them on principle rather than on whether there are any disputable (or indisputable) facts that just might pierce their little cocoon of security and make them the slightest bit uncomfortable with their own worldview.

  • PETER

    Being both a history buff and military nut, I agree that the Soviet military effort was the most necessary ingrediant in the defeat of Nazi Germany. Perhaps, in time, we could have won, but the millions of soviet lives saved a possible equal number of ours. I also remember that Stalin was killing innocent Russians by the millions before the war even started and that Lennin hired Stalin to be his thug. Some say Lennin later came to fear him, but remember it was Lennin who believed shuch a thug was needed.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andrew.whitehead.5243 Andrew Whitehead

    Stone, like Moore, makes these movies because there are those in the business who see money being made and the truth really isn't a big issue…tickets sold is the primary motivator.

    I don't really know what the fuss it about Stone/Moore…those who believe their garbage are the kind of people I don't, and won't, associate with.

    Our lives are much easier when we exclude idiots from our circle of friends.

  • Guest

    This entire site is a collection of neo Nazi punks, Warren Commission apologists, and apologists for Israel. I suggest the right wingers return to elementary school and get the education you so sorely missed.

  • Frano

    You just HATE to hear the truth.

  • Fernando

    Sorry, but the unbelievable crap is what you have written here, showing you know zero about modern world history, and showing that, instead of learning, you prefer to close your eyes and believe the official shit.

    Most of what Oliver Stone says in his documentary is true. You might want to find serious historians (preferently not the shitheads who write the books you readed at the university) and ask them seriously. In the other hand, you minght not want to find them, but then, you should reconsider writing about something you don’t know.

    By the way: Abraham Lincoln (yeah, the “father of the nation”) was almost a communist. It is not me who says so, It is Lincoln books who explain it. You might want to read them.

    • Ironside

      Right. That must be why the CPUSA volunteers in the Spanish Civil War were named the Abraham Lincoln Battalion. But they also had a George Washington Battalion before they combined the two into a “Brigade”. Was Washington a communist too?

  • Tiberius

    If you believe in Communism there is no way you are going to believe anything else. As for Lincoln being a “communist” give an example of action or quote that shows this. You can go post anything about the benefits of communism, but those who are not party members and actually speak can tell you otherwise how communism really is.