Oliver Stone’s Distortion of the Eisenhower Era


Editor’s note: The following is the fifth 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 5 of the series.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower is responsible for transforming America into the imperialist global bully it supposedly is today, according to radical Hollywood fabulist Oliver Stone.

In the fifth episode of his multi-part revisionist assault on modern American history, Untold History of the United States, Stone argues that Eisenhower was a willing tool of greedy U.S. corporations and a warmonger who refused to make deals with a Soviet Union that was suing for peace.

Stone blames Eisenhower, the popular former five-star general who led the U.S. and its allies to victory in World War Two, for creating “a permanent war economy.” Essentially, Ike turned America into a high-tech modern-day Sparta, Stone claims, by permanently ramping up military expenditures. Of course to the extent that Eisenhower promoted high levels of defense spending he was only carrying on the policies of President Franklin Roosevelt. The Communist-loving director, known for palling around with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez, could never forgive Eisenhower for deploying nuclear weapons that were aimed at Stone’s beloved USSR.

“Nuclear bombs were now the foundation of America’s empire and provided the new emperor, its president, with a mystical power that required more and more suffocating secrecy even if those powers went far beyond the original limits of executive power defined in the Constitution,” Stone says.

Of course the United States has never been an empire, but Stone’s Marxist worldview clouds his perception. Apart perhaps from its pursuit of “manifest destiny” and a few military adventures in the 1800s, when the U.S. has projected its power beyond its home territory it has eventually pulled back.

The U.S., unlike so many world powers, does not conquer other countries: it liberates them and then goes home. This has, understandably, given the U.S. a special moral standing in the community of nations and it certainly does not make the American president an emperor.

But Stone’s unpatriotic rant continues. America’s nuclear arsenal and the pricey infrastructure supporting it allowed the imperialistic U.S. to dominate the world for decades, he insists. “And although the bombs themselves were not expensive, the huge infrastructure was, requiring bases in the U.S. and abroad and enormous delivery systems by bomber, missile, aircraft carrier, and submarine.”

America wasn’t threatening the free world; it was shielding it with its nuclear umbrella. This is not the behavior of a ruthless conqueror state.

Stone continues attacking Eisenhower, claiming that he planted the seeds for later “blowback” against the U.S. by intervening in the affairs of countries such as Iran. The Islamic revolution of 1979 that transformed that country from a U.S. ally to a hostile totalitarian theocracy was a long time coming. The revolution was an explosion of pent-up hostility, a delayed reaction to the U.S.- and U.K.-backed 1953 ouster of Iran’s socialist prime minister Mohammed Mosaddegh, Stone says. And to make matters worse, it was carried out solely to guarantee Western access to Iran’s oil, Stone maintains.

In other words, all the troubles between Iran and the United States are the American government’s fault. The fact that Mosaddegh and his fellow looters stole from U.S. investors by nationalizing the assets of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (later known as British Petroleum or BP) doesn’t figure in Stone’s calculus. He doesn’t care that the U.S. used its intelligence apparatus to restore property to its rightful owners, a proper function of government.

The Cold War itself, which began even before the dust of the Second World War had settled, was needlessly prolonged by Eisenhower, Stone argues.

Joseph Stalin died a little over a month after Eisenhower became president in January 1953. But according to Stone, Ike was incompetent because he failed to singlehandedly end the Cold War right there and then.

“Signs emanating from Moscow indicated the Kremlin was ready to change course, but because of ideology, political calculations, the exigencies of a militarized state and a limited imagination, Eisenhower repeatedly failed to seize the opportunities that emerged,” Stone says.

Stone has engaged in this kind of revisionist fantasy before. He previously attempted to turn President John F. Kennedy into a radical left-wing folk hero by inventing the idea that JFK was a dove who was secretly preparing to de-escalate U.S. hostilities in Vietnam when he was cut down by an assassin.

In any event, it’s unclear what Soviet smoke signals Stone is referring to and even less clear what Eisenhower could have done during the three years after Stalin’s death that it took the less bloodthirsty Nikita Khrushchev to consolidate power in the still-totalitarian USSR.

But this kind of bold unprovable assertion, the idea that Ike could have waved a magical wand to end the Cold War the moment Stalin died, is nothing new for Stone. The director pulls supposed facts out of thin air and trumpets them in order to generate publicity for his work.

Stone also takes on the U.S. rationale for fighting the Cold War. Defending America against Communism wasn’t a matter of national survival; it was strictly a means of fattening corporate coffers.

“Anticommunism was good for business,” the 66-year-old Oscar winner and media darling matter-of-factly intones.

Highlighting the same passages used to set the stage in the opening minutes of his paranoid conspiracy-theory film from 1991, JFK, Stone shows archival footage of Eisenhower in black and white, stiffly reading his 1961 farewell address aloud.

We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. [...] In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. [...] We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.

In Stone’s view, the address showed that “Eisenhower seemed to understand the monstrosity he had created and seemed almost to be asking for absolution.”

But that forgiveness is not forthcoming.

Stone accuses Ike of creating the very same “military-industrial complex” that the 34th president denounced in his famous farewell address.

“The inescapable truth is that the beloved Dwight Eisenhower put the world on a glide path towards annihilation with the most gargantuan expansion of military power in history and left the world a far more dangerous place than when he first took office,” Stone lectures, without trotting out actual evidence of heightened peril.

The mere fact that Ike led a U.S. military buildup is proof that he was a monster, in Stone’s eyes. That the Soviet Union was also participating in the arms race seems to have escaped his notice.

Stone is especially incensed at the role Eisenhower played in the so-called Red Scare. The phony threat of Communism, as he sees it, was perpetuated by Eisenhower after first being manufactured by President Truman, Sen. Joe McCarthy, arms makers and others to justify anti-Soviet saber-rattling.

Stone believes that the real tragedy, apart from America’s pesky insistence on defending itself against Communist aggression, was that left-wing groups intent on subverting America from the inside suffered political setbacks as their treachery was exposed for all to see. In other words, it disturbs the Communist-loving movie director that in the Eisenhower era, supporting Marxism temporarily ceased to be cool in America after decades of being considered avant-garde.

“The Red Scare eviscerated the U.S. left, the labor unions and political and cultural organizations which had spurred the reforms of the New Deal, 1930s and 1940s,” Stone says.

“With the exception of the civil rights and antinuclear movements left-wing dissent and progressive reform throughout the 1950s would remain silent and the labor movement would never recover.”

The Red Scare hurt America more than it hurt the Soviet Union, Stone editorializes. “It certainly decimated the legal Communist Party USA whose membership had dropped from 80,000 in ’44 to below 10,000 by the mid ’50s, with probably 1,500 of them paid FBI informants.”

Stone ignores the fact that after a few years in a holding pattern after World War Two, the Left enjoyed a ferocious resurgence in the 1960s and 1970s. He also doesn’t mention that the labor movement’s decades-long slide into oblivion is largely related to its own self-inflicted wounds, overreaches, and insistence on killing the corporate golden goose.

Stone doesn’t dare point out that the Communist Party USA wasn’t a bunch of kind-hearted idealists trying to make America a better place. The CPUSA was controlled by the Soviet Union for most of its history. The Moscow-directed party also engaged in espionage, infiltrated labor unions, and used front groups to act as a fifth column within the United States.

It needs to be noted that even the term Stone uses, “Red Scare,” is a lie. It is a deceptively misdescriptive name for American culture’s entirely rational response to the threat posed by world communism, Soviet spies, and domestic subversives in the 1950s.

Stone thinks Ike should have taken on the anticommunists in an era in which “paranoia was rampant.”

Because Eisenhower “never publicly attacked the extremist tactics of the Red Scare and the Lavender Scare,” it is his fault that throughout “the 1950s political debate essentially continued to vanish in the United States,” the director claims.

Stone doesn’t seem to understand that political debate didn’t exactly “vanish” in the Fifties.

It simply didn’t favor the Left.

But this is one of the key reasons Stone doesn’t like Ike.

Related articles on Stone’s series:

1. Bruce Thornton’s introduction to this Frontpage series.

2. Matthew Vadum’s review of Stone’s first episode.

3. Daniel Flynn’s review of “Roosevelt, Truman and Wallace,” the second episode.

4. Daniel Greenfield’s review of “The Bomb,” the third episode.

5. Bruce Thornton’s review of “The Cold War: 1945-1950,” the 4th episode.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • fruhmenschen

    January 15, 2013
    A groundbreaking work of investigative journalism, The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism exposes how the FBI has, under the guise of engaging in counterterrorism since 9/11, built a network of more than 15,000 informants whose primary purpose is to infiltrate Muslim communities to create and facilitate phony terrorist plots so that the Bureau can then claim it is winning the war on terror.

    An outgrowth of Trevor Aaronson's work as an investigative reporting fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, which culminated in an award-winning cover story in Mother Jones magazine, The Terror Factory reveals shocking information about the criminals, con men, and liars the FBI uses as paid informants–including the story of an accused murderer who has become one of the Bureau's most prolific terrorism snitches–as well as documenting the extreme methods the FBI uses to ensnare Muslims in terrorist plots, which are in reality conceived and financed by the FBI.

    The book also offers unprecedented detail into how the FBI has transformed from a reactive law enforcement agency to a proactive counterterrorism organization that traps hapless individuals in manufactured terrorist plots in order to justify the $3 billion it spends every year fighting terrorism.

    • Larry

      Rolling around laughing here.

      What's next? The moon landing was a fake? The USSR was a peace loving paradise? Mao wasn't a mass murdering dictator? Noam Chomsky isn't an idiot?

    • Chezwick

      "….infiltrate Muslim communities to create and facilitate phony terrorist plots…"

      "….extreme methods the FBI uses to ensnare Muslims in terrorist plots, which are in reality conceived and financed by the FBI."

      "…traps hapless individuals in manufactured terrorist plots…"

      I see. All those ensnared in FBI stings are "hapless"…victims to be sure. They NEVER drew the FBI's attention to themselves in the first place with their expressions of hatred and their desire for violence.

      There is an alternative narrative here….that the FBI identified Muslim individuals who were – through words and deeds – fitting a profile for terrorist proclivity, and instead of being reactive and waiting for horrific acts of terror to unfold, the Bureau was proactive, preventing the potential murder of scores of Americans by ensnaring the enemy in stings.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI's Manufactured War on Terrorism exposes how the FBI has, under the guise of engaging in counterterrorism since 9/11, built a network of more than 15,000 informants whose primary purpose is to infiltrate Muslim communities to create and facilitate phony terrorist plots so that the Bureau can then claim it is winning the war on terror."

      But really it's all about thwarting social justice. We know. We heard you the first zillion times.

      "…Trevor Aaronson's work as an investigative reporting fellow at the University of California, Berkeley, which culminated in an award-winning cover story in Mother Jones magazine…"

      Not exactly something to brag about outside of delusional leftist circles. I'm sure it was well-received in certain parts of the SFBA. No thanks. Retards.

    • john butala

      Yes, let's uncover the real terrorist plots. We know there haven't been any acts of terror perpetrated around the world for the last fifty years by Muslim extremists. No. Actually all those acts of terror were committed by nasty Christians under direction from the FBI, CIA, AMA, MADD, and various members of fraternal organizations like the Elks and the Moose. I think the Optimist Club and The National Society To Eat More Ovaltine might be involved too. They're all guilty of those murders of thousands of innocent people…not the Islamists who have sworn to kill infidels and impose an Islamist society on the entire world. I'd look into those religious orders as well. I think The Little Sisters of The Poor were behind 9/11. Yeah, and the Girl Scouts too. Nasty people.

    • Muslim

      When the FBI investigated La Cosa Nostra, they did not have as an informant an innocent French Immigrant housewife to get knowledge of the organization. They turned or rolled a criminal who had ties to the organization or was in the organization.

      In the story linked below maybe this layer is telling the truth or maybe he is just trying to get the guilty of the hook like you "early human". Will the FBI sometimes get bad in formants? Is every endeavor successful? It is a matter of percentages.

      "A mob lawyer giving closing arguments says informants have been "playing the FBI" as the government pursues a mob racketeering case in Philadelphia."
      http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philly-

      The point is to get people engaged in clandestine/illegal activity you need other people on the inside to effectively root it out.

    • Mary Sue

      oh yeah because Mother Jones is SUCH an unbiased source [/sarcasm]

    • Rifleman

      You mean "Hapless individuals" who want to mass murder Americans. My heart bleeds, like it did for the klan and neonazis, lol.

  • Chezwick

    I once read how Ike would play dumb during press conferences so as not to tip off the Soviets about secret US policy initiatives. The media began to regard him as an idiot….and he didn't mind one iota as long as it kept our enemies in the dark. THAT's leadership, folks.

  • EthanP

    So typical of lefties like Stone. No mention of the almost complete disarmament by the US after WW2. The partial rearmament thus caused was given new imputus due to Korea. A conflict Ike (not my favorite pol or gen) inherited. Of course facts never intefere with Stone's PC leftist view of the worls.

  • JacksonPearson

    Scru Oliver Stone. Few can hold up with General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower. His list of accomplishments and tough decisions are his legacy. Was he perfect?…Well hell no, because he was like you and I, human. But the good he did, out measured the other.

  • Rifleman

    "We will bury you," is a strange way to sue for peace. I bet stone had a hilarious explanation for the Berlin Wall.

    My DVR died in early November so I cancelled my satellite service (my contract was up two years ago) and sent the junk back. I haven't missed it yet, and my my nice big HD tv would go weeks without being turned on as it was, so I doubt I ever will.

  • Ghostwriter

    It's amazing. People like Oliver Stone can say that America is an empire where in fact it doesn't really exist,except in the fevered imaginations of people like Stone and Noam Chomsky,while the Soviet Union WAS an empire but we don't hear Stone calling THEM that. It's only when America defends herself against her enemies that these people do this sort of stuff. It's really obnoxious.

  • Anamah

    It seems these idiots are manipulating leading history facts to indoctrinate foreigns. Fake tales to despise the American Empire. They can be Oliver Stone or Michael Moore or Ford Coppola…, and even intellectuals from all over the world are convinced by them of the up side down reality; By instance the Iraqi war was the excuse to go there and grab their oil. They are a powerful machine, and I believe I never could persuaded anyone, that one of the most important events in the American Civil Rights Movement. was thanks of President Eisenhower merits, began as desegregation in Little Rock school and then across the Nation. The resentment against USA is deep, blind and nasty. The main stream media and Hollywood, are strong hands to distort the truth out of our borders. It is a mistake the lack of interest to translate such important articles as we find in David Horowitz sites.

  • Stephan

    Eisenower? What is so fascinating about a Swedish guy that said he hates Germans?

    • Anamah

      Was President Eisenhower who put an end to segregation in the US., he fought with Democrats in Congress to have these bills approved equalizing rights without distinction of race. Despite the leftist lies, the history tell us that as today the Democrats were the racist, as LBJ, the Senate Leader . who was rejecting time and time again the laws of social desegregation. And Ike Eisenhower did not hate Germans he hated Nazism as the horrific ideology for the destruction of human dignity. Thanks to Ike today we have graphic testimony of many of their cruelties. Thousands of pictures were made public, and the German civilians was ordered to witness what were happening inside their camps.

  • cynthia curran

    Well, Eisenhower also is crticized by the Right because of high maginal tax rates. I agree they were high in the 1950's that why some leftist now like the 1950's. However, Eisenhower had a smaller welfare state than even George W Bush and he deported illegal hispanic immirgants maybe 2 million instead of legalizing them like Reagan.

  • stevef

    Tragically, the Stone "documentary" will be shown in all of our nations schools by the Radical Left.

  • http://immaturebusiness.com/2190/google-we-prefer-dogs-instead-of-cats/ seo basics

    This is my first time pay a quick visit at here and i am truly happy to read all at alone place.

  • Phil

    Blaming the previous administration for Ike’s increased military spending? What was stopping Ike from decreasing spending with his own admin?