At 03:22 PM 11/30/2012, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>It took me awhile to find it but here is the first episode of Stone's
>Untold History.
>
>http://digbysblog.blogspot.com.br/2012/11/atomic-history-what-your-teachers-didnt.html
>
>It covers from Japan's very early invasion of Manchuria to the Battle of
>Stalingrad in one hour. That's a lot of territory with a lot of background
>history that is skipped. It's only been in the last decade or so, I've
>tried to fill in blanks including a two volumn set on just the German
>Eastern Front.
>
>So there is plenty to pick at but it's not worth the detail. And Stone is
>not covering anything that wasn't known provided you changed focus from a
>direct US WWII movie script, and opened your mind to the Chinese and
>Russians. Stone will probably not get into the all the complications of
>the US-UK struggles with the Chinese Nationalists and marginalizing the
>Communists.
>
>In my remembered school histories the Russians and especially the Chinese
>are merely blank spots. There were a few mentions of southern China,
>Burma, and very distant US airfields. As for Russia I had no idea at all
>of the relative numbers. Stone uses the figure of 27 million Russian dead.
>These are tremendous numbers I only came across sometime in 1990s.
>
>I am trying to remember how the disappearence of Russia and China was
>accomplished. Probably maps. They both cover so much land area that the
>maps and illustrations simply left off the edge. In the Pacific that's
>pretty easy. A focus on Europe and the Mediterranean neatly obscures the
>Russian front until the very end. If the US public seems to be at the
>bottom of the charts on knowledge of history, the runner up has to be
>geography.
>
>Stone also concentrates on the internal conflicts between the US and
>British, FDR and Churchill which is usually left out until recently. On
>the downside, Stone uses a lot of war propaganda film which we've all seen
>for decades. The effect is nothing that is visually unknown or not already
>imprinted.
>
>It seems to me the more important question is to wonder at the uniformly
>reactionary reviews and responses. What is this really about? Maybe that
>will become clearer in later episodes.
>
>As far as I can tell the reaction is coming from a string of
>neoconservative writers and all the usual sources that backed up Bush,
>Obama, and so on. I still haven't answered what is their trip? Yeah paid
>for propaganda for the US Incorporated.
>
>CG
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
-- http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)