The Atom Bomb and the Truth Bomb


Editor’s note: The following is the third installment of a series of articles Frontpage is running in response to Oliver Stone’s neo-Communist documentary series, “The Untold History of the United States.” Frontpage will be reviewing each episode of the Stone series, exposing the leftist hateful lies about America and setting the record straight. Below is a review of Part 3 of the series.

World War II is unique for many reasons. One of those reasons is that it revealed the duplicity of the left and its utter lack of consistency. Before John Kerry was for the Iraq War before he was against it, the left was for World War II before it was against it, before it was for it, until it was once again against it.

The left was for war before Stalin signed a pact with Hitler. It was vociferously against war once Hitler and Stalin were playing on the same team. When Hitler launched a surprise attack on the USSR, then they were even more loudly for war. And when the war drew to a close and Stalin stopped thinking of survival and began looking for ways to maximize territorial gains from the war, then the left, with the predictable rhythm of a weathervane blowing in the cold wind from Moscow, turned against the war.

Or rather against the occupation of Europe, the Marshall Plan and the atom bomb. That attitude of the old left, with its deep red veins of Communist sympathies, pulses through Oliver Stone’s propaganda series, “The Untold History of the United States.”

The third episode of the series, “The Bomb,” labors to make the case that using atomic weapons on Japan was unnecessary because a Soviet invasion would have forced Japan to surrender in any case leading to a lesser loss of life.

Supposing we take that assumption at face value, it is at best unclear whether Hiroshima and Nagasaki or a Soviet invasion would have led to a higher civilian death toll. Certainly an atomic bomb, unlike the Red Army, did not rape several million women. And looking at Communist Asian countries like China and North Korea, it is not difficult to imagine that a Soviet occupation of even part of Japan would have led to a far higher civilian casualty rate than dropping the bomb.

But Oliver Stone, like the rest of the left’s historical revisionists, doesn’t really care about Japanese civilians. Stalin had killed far more people, Russian and non-Russian, than every atom bomb combined. When it came to cynical power plays, the Soviet Union starved millions and would have starved millions more in the name of the same dominance that Stone and Kuznick accuse Truman of.

Stone and his collaborator Peter Kuznick resurrect the tired myth of a heroic Soviet Union standing alone against Hitler, only to be undermined and betrayed by American and British imperialists. The dropping of the atom bomb is meant to be the original sin that kicks off the Cold War leading us to Vietnam and drones in the sky over Pakistan.

But that myth is a bedtime story told to red diaper babies before they go to sleep at night dreaming of directing firing squads and storming the winter palace.

The Soviet Union threw in its lot with Nazi Germany because both empires shared a common agenda of carving up and taking over Eastern European countries that were under Western European protection. Stalin trusted Hitler so much that he refused to hear the intelligence relaying Nazi plans for an invasion. And when Soviet imperialism blew up in Stalin’s face, he was forced to turn to the West for help. The West sent massive shipments of aid that provided everything from jeeps to canned food to half-a-million boots for the feet of Red Army soldiers.

Oliver Stone follows the left’s line of playing up Russian casualties on the European front and contrasting them with American casualties. What he leaves out is that Russian casualties were so high because the Soviet Union invited Nazi Germany into its backyard, purged its own generals and then threw horrifying numbers of unprepared and, sometimes, unarmed soldiers into combat in massive killing fields that slowed down the German advance with miles of corpses.

The United States did more than its share of bleeding on the Pacific front, and brutal fighting in Iwo Jima made the unavoidable case that an invasion of Japan would lead to completely unacceptable loss of life.

The left had a solution for this. Put the Russians on the job. The Soviet Union had been willing to casually throw away hundreds of thousands of men without a care. The Red Army would do the dirty work that the United States was not prepared to do, and Japan would have been turned into another North Korea; piled high with corpses and turned into a prison state for an unknown number of generations.

The United States was meant to bring its superior firepower to bear in Europe and Asia, only to turn over the spoils of victory to the Soviet Union. And while the Communists did get China and Eastern Europe, they remained bitterly angry at being denied Greece, Italy, France, Germany and Japan. They saw the origins of the Cold War in that refusal to turn over the world to them.

“The Untold History of the United States” takes that same Soviet perspective in “The Bomb” as it does in its previous episodes. It places the blame for a breakdown in relations with a megalomaniacal Soviet dictator, every bit as mad and murderous as Hitler, on the United States. It spins a conspiracy theory of American plots to dominate the post-war era, at a time when the United States was allowing Eastern Europe and China to fall into Communist hands.

Stone’s untold history isn’t just revisionist; it’s seventy-year-old revisionism from a regime and an ideology every bit as ugly as Nazism. It’s the revisionist history of the aggressor power in the Cold War looking to retroactively justify its aggression against the free world by accusing the leading nation of the free world, that had fed and provided for its soldiers and civilians, of conspiring against it.

Like William Carlos Williams’ red wheelbarrow, all this edifice of bad history depends on Henry Wallace, FDR’s Vice President, and at the time, a Soviet dupe. Stone is obsessed with imagining a different policy that would have emerged if Wallace, not Truman, had become president. There is just one little problem with that. Wallace, despite being fooled by the Soviet Union, did eventually figure out the truth.

In 1952, Wallace wrote an article titled, “Where I Was Wrong” in which he said that, “Before 1949 I thought Russia really wanted and needed peace. After 1949 I became more and more disgusted with the Soviet methods and finally became convinced that the Politburo wanted the cold war continued even at the peril of accidentally provoking a hot war.

“As I look back over the past 10 years I now feel that my greatest mistake was in not denouncing the Communist take-over of Czechoslovakia in February of 1948… my analysis failed to take into account the ruthless nature of Russian-trained Communists whose sole objective was to make Czechoslovakia completely subservient to Moscow.”

Henry Wallace had learned from his mistakes. Sixty years later, Oliver Stone still has not.

“Americans don’t know history,” Peter Kuznick said in an interview “and the history they do know is mostly wrong.” Kuznick’s putdown is far truer of himself and Oliver Stone. Their bastard offspring, “The Untold History of the United States,” like them, doesn’t know much history and what it does know is mostly wrong.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • UCSPanther

    I think it is sickening how some idiots beat the drum about how the Japanese were poor innocent victims of WWII. They obviously fail to read about the rampage the Japanese went on when they landed on China, amongst the many other war crimes Japan added to their name (Including their sick experiments with biological weapons, using Chinese civilians as test subjects). As far as I am concerned, they reaped exactly what they sowed when Nagasaki and Hiroshima got "cleansed" with nuclear fire.

    Hitler and Stalin were very much alike. They both were conquest-mad tyrants, they both held and acted on racist and antisemitic views, and they both showed a horrifying disregard for human life. Even if their alliance had lasted, they would have eventually turned on each other like the rabid beasts they were. It was unfortunate that Stalin did not end himself like Hitler, but he still died a humiliating and painful death in the end when the fear of his wrath stopped his servants from seeking help when he had his stroke.

    • Mary Sue

      yeah not too many people know about the whole "Rape of Nanking" thing. The Chinese still hate the Japanese for that.

      • intrcptr2

        Comfort Girls ring a bell?

        Koreans don't much like them either…
        But the Japs learned their lesson, Commies never do.

        • Mary Sue

          I remember seeing a story about "Comfort Women" in the paper a few years ago.

    • patron

      The Imperial Japanese were much more monstrous enemies than the Nazis or Soviets. The European monsters at least tried to maintain the facade of Geneva Conventions. The Imperial Japanese burnt POWs alive, targeted civilians, surgically experimented on POWs, had death marches and engaged in cannibalism. al-Qaeda looks silly compared to the Imperial Japanese, who had just under a dozen air craft carriers and viewed anyone not born on the island of Japan as sub-human.

      They also detonated their own atomic bomb before Hiroshima. They tried giving it to the Nazis, but that went wrong and Germany surrendered.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "The Imperial Japanese were much more monstrous enemies than the Nazis or Soviets."

        Yes, right up until they discovered our power. It's easier to forgive people who seem to understand their failures.

        "al-Qaeda looks silly compared to the Imperial Japanese…"

        They're a different animal altogether, but at least the Japanese can be dealt with rationally. That is what makes Islam more dangerous. The Japanese obviously also had more firepower and opportunity to reveal their ruthless souls too.

        "…who had just under a dozen air craft carriers"

        Precisely.

        "and viewed anyone not born on the island of Japan as sub-human."

        That was pretty much a low point for racial theory around the globe. We can judge them for it yes, but we must remember they saw themselves as defending their nation and race against encroachment. There were other murderous collectivists at the time who really might have destroyed the Japanese at some point, but the threat was not eminent by any means. It was more along the lines of theoretical. Evil? Yes. Rational? In the end, also yes. They were worse than Nazis but we didn't expect Westerners to behave like that.

      • Infidel Prime

        Are you freakin' serious? The Japs were pretty sick back then but you really think their actions were worse than Nazi's who killed 6.5 million Jews and an unknown amount of others and the Commies who are responsible for more murder than all wars combined? Wow!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Are you freakin' serious? The Japs were pretty sick back then but you really think their actions were worse than Nazi's who killed 6.5 million Jews and an unknown amount of others and the Commies who are responsible for more murder than all wars combined? Wow!"

          It's not a parallel comparison really, and a tough call. It's not an unreasonable question to ask. The average Japanese soldier seemed more vicious, and some of their actions were more barbaric than the behavior of some of the worst Germans, but the leading argument against the Germans as being far more evil (arguing in favor of the accusation) is the centrally planned extermination.

          So which makes a group worst, average behavior of the individual, or worst end-result due to central planning? I don't know. Germans are demonized far more than "Japs" or "Shinto Soldiers," "kamikaze," etc. Among the living today, there is a rational argument that states that the Germans are more ethical as a people. I'd even say that the Germans tolerate the criticism better than the Japanese, which is another reason we're permitted by the left to criticize them.

          That speaks well in general for Western civilization. We have traditions of tolerating criticism better than any other civilization. Islamic imperialists use that against us, and so does the left.

      • wsk

        The Japanese were trying to develop atomic weapons, just as the Russians and the Germans were, however, they were nowhere near actually exploding an atomic weapon. The German a-bomb project was effectively derailled with the destruction of Norway's heavy water facilities by british Commando's. The Russians were busy stealing our secrets. So, no they did not detonate their own atomoc bomb as you had written. They were despicable by every other standard though.

    • mlcblog

      Thank you. No one wants to say this.

  • Mladen Andrijasevic

    Americans should read Vasily Grossman's Everything Flows http://www.amazon.com/Everything-Flows-Review-Boo

    to understand what happened in the Ukraine in 1932 and his masterpiece Life and Fate http://www.amazon.com/Life-Fate-Review-Books-Clas

    to definitively understand the Soviet Union.

    • Mary Sue

      I've heard of people that fetishize russian state collective farm workers (or their look/stereotypical attire). *facepalm*

      • Cat K

        Thanks I just ordered the V. Grossman books

    • Cassandra

      Thanks. I ordered the book. Some Americans know history but not many. The problem in the USA is that history books in high schools and middle schools are watered down. I just read my grand son history book and could not believe what was in it. I told him that his book was full of lies and that I would tell him the truth. The worse passage, wouldn't you know, was on Mohammed and Islam.

      • RoguePatriot6

        Not shocked one little bit. If I had the money, my kids wouldn't be within line of sight of any public indoctrination center…eh…ahem…"school". I'm curious, where in the country does your grandson go to school?

      • Smitty

        This is why parents should teach their children a different and perhaps a truer version of history. I was born before WWII and remember the atrocities by the Japanese against not only the Chinese, but all other countries their troops in which Japanese troops set their boots. To this day, the Japanese refuse to mention their outrageous actions in their own history books.

        Mohammed and the resulting Muslim religion will undoubtedly be portrayed in the same type of watered-down manner. It's sad. I often fantasize about returning to my world history class I took in high school, using a lifetime of knowledge to pin the history teacher to the wall. It would be fun.

      • carrie

        I found out the same with my son's school books.
        Native American ,Muslim and the coverage of Slavery were all bastardized and out of perspective.

  • whatthehell

    And naturally the same Left is now *for* the atom bomb — as long as it's in Iran's hands, of course…

    Noam Chomsky: If Iran had nuclear weapons most Arab people would feel safer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xusFPZHuZvE

    • intrcptr2

      Now that is funny; Arabs would feel safer when Persians have the bomb.

      Chomsky is an idiot, a very intelligent idiot, who simply rests on 50 year old laurels. Sadly, his linguistic theories are actually falling apart these days too.

      • wsk

        not so "sadly". Chomsky is a fraud.

    • Infidel Prime

      Noam Chomsky is a perfect example of how and why America lost it's soul. Our education system has set the pace for future generations ever since public education became the norm. With people like Chomsky and Singer at the apex of that system providing education to our primary school teachers, lawyers and journalist is it any wonder why our schools, legal system and media are in the sad state they're in today?

    • Mary Sue

      Q: Is Noam Chomsky getting senile in his old age?

      A: False. He's always been senile.

  • IRL

    "It’s the revisionist history of the aggressor power in the Cold War looking to retroactively justify its aggression against the free world by accusing the leading nation of the free world, that had fed and provided for its soldiers and civilians, of conspiring against it."

    That was typical of Stalin. His pretext of creating a "buffer zone" in Eastern Europe was alledgedly to protect himself from "aggression" from the West. Of course the only aggressor was himself.

    Handing over half of Europe to Stalin to appease him was betrayl.

    • davarino

      Ya, kinda like Obama not putting the missiles in Eastern Europe. Our allies have to be shaking in their boots not knowing if America is on their side or if Obama will just hand them over to Russia.

      What is this little deal Obama will make with Putin now that he is free to do what he wants?

  • Mladen Andrijasevic

    At least during the Cold War the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction ( MAD ) kept each side from starting a nuclear war. That does not work any more with Iran.

    Why are Bernard Lewis's views on MAD ignored? http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/why-a

    Matthias Kuntzel – Antisemitism, Messianism and the Cult of Sacrifice:The Iranian Holy War http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/matth

    • Larry

      MAD only works when both sides are rational. When one sides firmly believes in 72 white raisins for dieing in a nuclear exchange MAD is not an option.

      • RoguePatriot6

        Not as many as you may think actually believe in that in Iran. They and the established regime are kind of at odds with each other but I get your point.

        • A 22 Year Old Man

          The ironic conclusion of that is that of all the revolutions in the last 4 years, the 2009 Green Revolution in Iran is the one we should have supported, but Obama did not. Yet he supported the terrorists in Libya, Morocco, Egypt and Syria. Speaking of which, I hope Assad retakes his country. If he falls, Turkey may move in, and we could very well see an Erdogan – vs – Morsi competition for leader of the renewed Caliphate. Things could get very ugly.

          • RoguePatriot6

            "The ironic conclusion of that is that of all the revolutions in the last 4 years, the 2009 Green Revolution in Iranis the one we should have supported, but Obama did not."

            I've learned many times in politics, particularly with lib/progs, to let their actions paint their character. In short actions speak louder than words. Have you noticed how enraged the left gets when people accuse Obama of being a Muslim or being loyal to the Islamists that are waging this war against us (and the entire western free world). Since the man has been elected every action and policy that he has implemented has been to the advantage of Islamists. He and and I would say, a large part of the administration knew what the outcome to Arab Spring was going to be and they dove into it aiding them in assuming power uder the guise of "Democracy" to subject the people of the Middle East to another form of totalitarianism. An old wise dude, once told me "Son when it smells, looks, feels and sounds lke BS, then that's probably exactly what it is".

          • RoguePatriot6

            The REALLY disturbing aspect of all of this, is that he seems to want to subject the citizens of this country to the same thing. Good example, the man who made this video "that's suppoedly responsible for the Benghazi Massascre", is still detained on "parole volation charges". Funny, that for 6 months the Feds or local police didn't seem to care until he published his movie. The message is clear, "ISLAM UNTOUCHABLE".

            It makes me want to vomit!!!!!!!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Not as many as you may think actually believe in that in Iran. They and the established regime are kind of at odds with each other but I get your point."

          Your comment is useful because it reminds us of the complexity of the situation, and yet, the salient question is; 'Will a Shia Islamic zealot who hates the West by the way, get access to nuclear weapons?'

          Just because there are those who oppose the zealots makes little difference if that risk is real. I think the risk is very real. The nuanced details do however make a difference in how we solve the problems.

          • RoguePatriot6

            I honestly believe that there is more than I think main stream is letting on. Funny thing that the Obama Administration don't get all hot and bothered about their struggle for freedom and democracy. Then again, I guess I'm kind of repeating what objectivefactsmatter, just said. However, this is more evidence that paint this man's treasonist attitude.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "I honestly believe that there is more than I think main stream is letting on. Funny thing that the Obama Administration don't get all hot and bothered about their struggle for freedom and democracy."

            He simply did not want to offend (Islamic) religious feelings. Period. That will always be the start and finish of the Obama foreign policy. If China wants to defeat us in a matter of days, they only have to declare their nation a member of the OIC. The same goes for Russia. I hope neither figures out how easy it would be before this disastrous person is gone from office.

            "Then again, I guess I'm kind of repeating what objectivefactsmatter, just said."

            No, you just made a nuanced point that argues for hope. I actually have no problem with regime change in Iran, but it must be done with strong guarantees and possibly in exchange for access to their nuclear facilities and so forth.

            "However, this is more evidence that paint this man's treasonist attitude."

            This is a very good point given that he seems perfectly happy with the present regime, that is the main issue we agree on that has to stop. I just want strong assurances. I also want people to be aware of their arguments, even though the real reason is all about appeasement, they claim they want stability and as you say, they discount the viability of the opposition movements.

          • RoguePatriot6

            " If China wants to defeat us in a matter of days, they only have to declare their nation a member of the OIC."

            No arguments there. Did you happen to catch the well guarded news of what he and Hillary did at a counsel meeting in Europe around his time last year. They voted "yea" to making an international law to insult Islam. Yes, our Commander and Chief, and I use the term loosely, pretty much voted to sell our 1st Amendment Rights down the river to these goons. Now, I ask you is that TREASONIST or is that TREASONIST? If I'm not mistaken isn't selling the rights of the citizens in your country the same as "surrenduring the enemy while having the means to resist"?

            The man is a criminal.

      • Mary Sue

        In that case the only proper course of action is wipe them right the eff out before they can retaliate.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Henry Wallace had learned from his mistakes. Sixty years later, Oliver Stone still has not."

    That's what shocks me about these…people. Anyone who wants to learn the facts can check out who was lying. It's very obvious today who was lying the whole time. Why can't Stone and others like him consider a real investigation?

    They don't believe in objective facts at all. They truly don't.

    • wsk

      DOESN'T FIT THE NARRATIVE……

  • tagalog

    So, with full understanding of what the Red Army did to the Germans as they penetrated their homeland, Oliver Stone would claim that allowing the Red Army to overwhelm Japan in an invasion (assuming that Stalin would have participated in an invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, something he would surely have balked at) would have been better than bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs?

    Do I have that right?

    Of course, thousands, maybe millions, of Japanese would have starved to death due to the Allied blockade in addition to the invasion bloodbath, but I guess that possibility requires too much thought. After all, the Bomb was bad and that's all we need to know, right?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Do I have that right?"

      Anyone could say "Shoulda, woulda, coulda." It's the left that led to these fools having influence on the populations.

      "After all, the Bomb was bad and that's all we need to know, right?"

      Ah, the tyranny of simplicity.

  • keith41

    Unfortunately, Oliver Stone's version of history is being taught in our schools.

    • mlcblog

      That is sad to hear and alarming.

  • geoplaten

    Leftism is, at its core, anti-people. Actually, more accurately, it's anti-OTHER people. Leftists believe they have a right to rule over everyone else. That's the one common thread among all of their seemingly inconsistent beliefs, and why they support mass-murdering dictators like Stalin. It's not inconsistent when you simply believe you are right and everyone else is wrong, regardless of the question – crazy, definitely, but not inconsistent.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Leftism is, at its core, anti-people. Actually, more accurately, it's anti-OTHER people."

      It's collectivism. That means the individual will be sacrificed whenever the state or the class deems it to be beneficial. In essence though you are correct. Collectivism, being against individual rights, is generally against people in favor of delusions of a future Utopia. It's like trying to launch a rocket to Mars without hiring any engineers. Just sit around and think of vision statements and then when people are excited, tell them it's a done deal and you're ready to launch as soon as the funding arrives.

      Testing'? Huh?

      • geoplaten

        The thing is, the individual is NOT sacrificed if he or she's one of the ruling elite. In that sense, not even the Leftists themselves believe the stuff they are shoveling.

        It's simply an excuse to rule over others, plain and simple, the age old fight of freedom vs tyranny.

    • Mary Sue

      Irony. Leftism preaches tolerance for "oppopsing viewpoints" but doesn't actually have any.

  • jakespoon

    Everyone knows it's better for American service men and American civilians to die instead of those poor,poor,put upon Japanese soldiers and complicit civilians. All they did was butcher several million Chinese and Filipino civilians.Babies on bamboo skewers,beheading people taller than them,and starving people to death, using captives for bayonet practice,well,obviously that doesn't count. Oliver Stone has a mental illness.

  • Ghostwriter

    If this article is right,then Oliver Stone doesn't know a whole lot about history himself. Japan during the 1930's and 40's was a totalitarian country that was dominated by the military. Like Hitler,they wanted to expand all over the place. The Rape of Nanking was one of it's most well-known atrocities. There was also an incident in which the Japanese attacked an American gunboat,the "Panay" when it was in a Chinese river. They attacked it,even though it had an American flag waving and the time,America was a neutral nation. By the time the attack was over,a bunch of American sailors and an Italian journalist was dead. They even attacked American-run hospitals and convents.
    Even with all the mass murder and death that they had done,America did not do to the Japanese as they had done to us and so many others. By and large,we treated the Japanese well. Most likely,many Asians thought that the Japanese got far better treatment from America than they deserved and most likely many still feel this way.

    Does Oliver Stone truly believe that it would have been better for the Soviet Union to have occupied Japan than America? If you know what Stalin was truly like,the answer would be no. Hundreds of Japanese would already be dead and untold millions more would be have ended up in Soviet gulags. If you were Japanese,you knew you would have been better off with the Americans than the Soviets. At least,the Americans rebuilt their cities and helped make it an economic power. If the Russians had their way,the Japanese would have been A LOT poorer than they would have been otherwise.
    The real untold story here is Stalin and his minions were angry that America didn't let them take over more and more territory. The real imperialist power at the time was the Soviet Union,not the United States. THAT'S the real history of that time. It's sad that Oliver Stone and those like him DON'T want to tell that story. They want to tell the story of an evil America doing bad things,not the true story. That of an America that helped rebuild it's former enemies and made them prosperous nations. It's a shame they won't tell THAT story.

  • JCS

    Once in the 1970s a communist I argued with on campus claimed that most of the people who died trying to get over the Berlin Wall were "common criminals" and that is why the police shot them. According to his and Stone's belief's only a criminal would have wanted to escape the socialist paradise of the late very unlamented East Germany. I guess Stone believes that 1 million kulaks just happened to starve to death in a naturally occurring faimine in the Ukraine. Millions of people just happened to vanish after going to the Gulag under Stalin and millions more just vanished during the cultural revolution under Mao in China. If the number of corpses of people murdered under Mao were piled up they would dwarf that world's tallest building China is building.

    • Mary Sue

      You know the definition of words has been altered, and the narrative hopelessly distorted, when people who have their food TAKEN AWAY by soldiers are starving to death from a "natural famine."

  • patron

    Fascism also had strong support from groups of leftists. Joe Kennedy was an ardent pro-Nazi American. He had to be removed from the British embassy because of actively aiding the Nazis. Charles Lindbergh, Time Magazine's first ever Man of the Year, was a devout eugenicists and Nazi supporter. Chaplin's Great Dictator was banned because it offended fascists.

    Leftists made the myth of socialism as private freedom public intervention and conservatism as private intervention public freedom to distort the issues and lump the ideas of John Locke, Hamilton, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan into their common enemy.

  • Omar

    Why doesn't Oliver Stone and the left talk about the unprovoked Pearl Harbor attack? The reason is that the left supported Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor because the left hates America so much that it would support any enemy of the United States. The left has no morals at all and Oliver Stone is no exception. Stone simply hates democracy and freedom and loves totalitarianism.

  • Ghostwriter

    No real disagreement here,Omar. If you're right and "The Untold History of the United States" left out the Pearl Harbor attack,then he's doing a grave disservice to not just his viewers but to everyone. One of the main reasons I don't watch this show is that the "Blame America First" narrative is so omnipresent and so needless,that it distorts history,not clarifies it. That seems to be the whole reason for his show,to attack the United States for everything it does and make even the good things it does seem evil and wrong.
    While I agree that not everything the US has done is right,but to say that America is an evil country and has NEVER done anything right or good for the rest of the world isn't just a distortion,it's an outright falsehood. America is a far better country than it has ever really been given any credit for and it's a shame that people like Oliver Stone make shows like this to blame America for existing as it is and desiring Americans to feel ashamed of their country when they should be largely proud of it.

    • Jim_C

      With all due respect, I think the USA is given plenty of credit for the good it has done in the world. I am not a fan of the bame America first crowd, either–but isn't it also a form of political correctness to not look at the "mistakes" we've made and dismiss those who point them out?

      I've never personally balked at the use of the bomb on Japan, but I also never realized how widespread among our leaders opinion was against it. Of course it makes sense, since it is an incredible moral quandry. But it's also not a part of that narrative you hear a lot.

  • Paul

    Former President Bush who left office in 2008 said that on matter of war we must listen to our military leaders in the field. Is anyone aware that a slew of military leaders in the WW2 theatre including General Eisenhower and Admiral Nimitz were opposed to the dropping of the bomb as they knew that peace was at hand. They believed further bloodshed was unnecessary. Stone records this in his documentary. I suggest that naysayers refer to Gar Alperovitz's analysis on this issue. That study which reaches similar conclusions is thorough.

    • MikeGiles

      They were opposed to dropping the bomb because they wanted to use a blockade to bring Japan to its knees, a course that would have starved MILLIONS of Japanese to death. To facilitate this blockade the US was going to use its unchallenged control of the air to knock out the Japanese transportation system. Imagine Tokyo with no way to ship food in.

  • dr.music

    FRANKLY AND WITHOUT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS…..what would be the FINAL islam solution for the planet according to Black man Obama…..President Black Free Man Obama. Maybe President Black Free Man Obama has forgotten that his previous generations were slaves. Maybe President Black Free Man Obama has forgotten that he’s BLACK….as BLACK as this ink. If the black race EVER EVER forgets that it is black then islam will always be there reminding them of their PERPETUAL SLAVE STATUS as their black testicles are again cut ….islam will never let BLACK PEOPLE forget what is written in the filthy koran and in the words of moremad-the-dirty arab… the inventer of modern evil. BLACK PEOPLE ARE DOOMED. SAD.
    This is one of the fundamental reasons islam has to banned and physically pulverized into the earth by bulldozers and heavy machinery all over the planet.
    In a truly free society color is optional….in islam being an arab is not an option. You can be muslim-zombies but you can’t be an arab….dude !! islam is all about arabs…..wake the f up !! Happens…..Amnesia is generational. Blacks are doomed to slavery on planet earth if islam comes on big-time. Hey Black Bro…Rap and Rhythm is strictly Haram under islam. ….be careful….and that's just the beginning……!!
    The sands of saudi arabia is littered with the cut-off testicles of millions of BLACK SLAVES. …. That's how the COLOUR OF OIL IS BLACK. From millions and millions of unfortunate black SLAVES millions and millions of BLACK TESTICLES CUT-OFF by daggers and swords IN COLD BLOOD by the arabs since islam was started FOR SLAVERY by moremad-the-dirty-arab since 1400 years.
    The next time you have some grease or oil on your hands remember you're factually fondling a black-man's castrated testicles thanks to moremad-the-dirty-arab AND HIS GREASY CARAVAN RAIDING GANG OF BEARDED and VIOLENT R A P I S T S and slavery goons who can never mend their ways because moremad-the-dirty-arab was that bad and bad is good in islam….islam is a nut-job’s ultimate cult….. What more to say ?? Tell me again why islam should not be stopped in it’s blood filled tracks ? islam is surfing since only 1400 years on the planet’s b l o o d. Only.
    "It seems to me a certainty that the fatalistic teachings of Mohammed and the utter degradation of the Arab women are the outstanding causes for the arrested development of the Arab. He is exactly as he was around the year 700, while we have been developing." ~ General George S. Patton.
    General Patton's right…..islam is a case study of a self-stunted self-subbed human spieces. Deadly. Science is showing us what needs culling. It seems there was more to Patton than they let on….. He should have been alive today….General Patton would have broken islam's murdering neck. Our planet has limited resourses. Non-contributing people should be eliminated…not pandered to and fed……Giving islam a second chance is like standing still for it so it can aim better at you. Snap out of it people !!! Islam turns human beings into monsters. It's an utterly vile creed, rotten to the core. The Arabs and their paychotic cult-leader and his dirty mentality have been nothing but a curse to humanity while self-stunting their own growth.Islamorealism is a word…..say it properly….islamorealism !!
    "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they've tried everything else." ~ Winston Churchill.
    Islam is not halal.

  • dr.music

    What will happen to us as a species? How far will we progress before islam bombs our science? How long will islam last ? How many muslim-zombies will there be on the planet in the next 10 ten years ? Deadly…. what will happen when islam is everything. Only arab history will be taught and then what ? End of our lovely civilisation. Will islam ever be defeated? Will islam ever be cleansed from our planet ? What will happen to us ? Why can’t we bomb mecca to smithereens and let the muslim-zombies figure out that mo-boy had conned them from the beginning….the cool part will be mullahs swinging in the breeze on lamp-posts. We can live with that.

  • Ghostwriter

    But here's the thing we forget,how many lives would it have taken to invade Japan. The Japanese militarists were still in control of the government and they didn't care what happened to their people,as long as they got their "glorious battle" that they so desired. Their fanaticism was still there and thousands,maybe millions of deaths would have occurred during an invasion of Japan. So,I'm not going to second guess the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki too much. Yes,it was sad that innocent people died,but they died because their government was more concerned about saving face and getting their empire and fighting a war that was already lost rather than the needs of their people.

  • broken arrow

    Islam will not prevail , regardless of fools like Stone .

  • Learn ACTUAL Facts

    I find it funny that you can all blather on about how we needed to drop the bomb to protect our boys but disregard the thoughts of many of the U.S. military's finest officers (MacArthur, Leahy , Nimitz and some guy named Dwight D. Eisenhower) who state unconditionally that it was UNNECESSARY (and the Japanese were interested in peace). Really, you think you know better than our military leaders? I call B.S.

    Dwight D. Eisenhower wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

    "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[96][97]

    • MikeGiles

      Eisenhower didn't even know at the time that the US was reading Japanese code, so how in the hell was he supposed to know that Japan was on the verge of surrender? Eisenhower was a general from the European front. One of the great mysteries of WW2 is how little real communication and information sharing took place between the two fronts. NO ONE who hadn't fought the Japanese had any idea of what they were capable of.

  • Jim_C

    I spent a little time reading Chomsky, enough to realize he was something a of a broken record. I haven't read any Zinn, but someday I probably should.

    History is not neat and tidy, but America is an exceptional nation, and one that I think can handle frank and open discussion of opinions about what happened. Critical thinking is not simply ascribing imperialist motives to the US and calling it a day; but nor is it saying "We're the greatest country in the world!" and believing that absolves us of our mistakes. It is indeed possible to look at the good and bad we've done in order to have more of the former and less of the latter.

  • JCS

    Forunately most of Stone's movies from that tissue of lies Nixon and afterward have bombed at the box office, despite the liberal critics fawning over most of them.