In a recent interview with Rock Cellar magazine, Oliver Stone spoke of his upcoming HBO series on the “secret” history of the United States. True to obsessive form, Stone spoke of Vietnam and found its origins in the early Cold War. For Stone, whose penchant for conspiracy is infamous, the biggest one of all — dwarfing even the Grassy Knoll — was the Cold War. Stone laments that this conflict ever came about, and blames its rise on FDR’s veep pick in 1944 — had Roosevelt kept Henry Wallace (“one of the unsung heroes” of the HBO series, according to Stone) on the ticket, there would have been no Cold War.
Stone claims to have devoured all the history books he could get his hands on regarding the early Cold War. But somewhere along the way he must have overlooked — or, following his metier, edited out — all the information that doesn’t fit his thesis. He certainly doesn’t seem to have read the most recent book on this period, David Pietrusza’s 1948: Harry Truman’s Improbable Victory and the Year that Transformed America.
Stone is correct that there might never have been a Cold War if Wallace had been in charge, but only because Wallace would have assured an even greater Soviet empire. He supported Stalin’s aggression in Europe, including the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the attempt to take over Berlin during the Berlin Airlift, and wanted Poland — a country whose sovereignty the allies went to war over in 1939 — to stay in the Soviet orbit. Small wonder that William Z. Foster, head of the American Communist Party, endorsed his candidacy.
Even worse, Wallace had among his advisers not only card-carrying Communists but also more sinister elements. Speechwriter Charles Kane and campaign manager C. B. Baldwin were NKVD agents. Campaign filmmaker Carl Aldo Manzani was a KGB agent code-named Kollega.
Stone may not know all of this, but I suspect he does. A man who has fond relationships with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez would certainly not spurn Wallace, who represented the closet American Stalinists ever got to capturing the White House.
Saying there would have been no Cold War with Wallace is like saying there would have been no Civil War if Douglas had been elected Pesident in 1860. Call it an "amoral truism".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Stone laments that this conflict ever came about, and blames its rise on FDR’s veep pick in 1944 — had Roosevelt kept Henry Wallace (“one of the unsung heroes” of the HBO series, according to Stone) on the ticket, there would have been no Cold War. "
Blame America for the Cold War? Perhaps Stone should consider becoming an advisor to the Ron Paul campaign. Congressman Paul seems to blame so many foreign policy challenges upon past US actions.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's amazing that we've so white-washed our history that we pretend McCarthy was a raving loon afraid of non-existant communists. While he went overboard trying to ferret them out, the threat of communist agents and sympathizers in our government was very real.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut of course to treat the history of the Cold War in any other way than Stone no doubt will goes against what is the generally agreed upon narrative that the entertainment media follows, and to criticize same is to open yourself up to charges of McCarthyism
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWallace, in my opinion, is the father of the modern progressive movement that has dominated politics since 1948. A look at how he ran that campaign, how it was carried out, and the issues of that day that he campaigned on have now become the issues of the Democrat party. Universal healthcare was one of his issues, and it has now been realized; as has several other issues of his platform.
The GOP, and their allies, have never had an effective counter to stop the progressive agenda.
When someone tells me that they are a progressive, I ask them if they are a Roosevelt progressive, or a Wallace progressive. Knowing that they don't know the difference is proof that they have been indoctrinated and do not know it.
I'm wondering if Stone, a useful idiot of his generation, the generation most responsible for foisting progressive ideology on this nation, will show in his movie where Wallace wrote, "Where I Was Wrong", which is a mea culpa that also rang false when he published it in 1952.
Mr. Capshaw makes the same mistake that all others before him make when discussing Stone and others who uphold progressive values: he writes them off as cranks. They are not cranks; they are a threat to be taken seriously.
Because they are winning.
Al Smith was right. It's past time to study his remarks in 1936 in his speech entitled, "The Facts In The Case".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeople interested in this subject might enjoy finding and reading a copy of Dwight Macdonald's Henry Wallace (1948) -- a comprehensive trashing from a commentator who was at that time far to the left of center.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOliver Stone should stick with ancient history. I liked his "Alexander".
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"True to obsessive form, Stone spoke of Vietnam and found its origins in the early Cold War."
Well technically, that is correct. Not in the way Stone makes it out, but that line would not be totally incorrect.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, Oliver Stone just tacitly admitted he's a communist.
And, thanks to Mikhail Gorbachev, we know (as if we ever doubted it) that communism -- and the USSR that embraced it -- was built on a pack of lies.
Then we now have every reason to distrust the factual accuracy of the historical movies the communist Oliver Stone produces.
For we have every reason to believe that a communist would purposely distort the facts against America's interest to bolster the credibility of his fellow communist ideologues.
By citing Wallace as a hero, and someone Stone praises as likely to never have confronted the USSR, Oliver Stone has just discredited every inch of celluloid that he's devoted to American history.
It's so much better for all concerned when socialists assist us in revealing what actually motivates them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou think Oliver Stone ever had any credibility as far as American history is concerned?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI just read Pietrusza's wonderful book (and if you haven't read this or his amazing "1920" and "1960" election tomes, you MUST) and one of the telling things that differentiates Wallace from Stone is this: Wallace, when asked repeatedly by more mainstream progressives to repudiate the support of the out-and-out Communists in his campaign basically said "As long as they're voting for me, who cares?" whereas Stone seems to be willing to dump Obama in the name of ideological purity. Here's hoping he and his fellow travelers stay true to their school, run a symbolic protest candidate from the even-further-left, and drain Obama's re-election of more than a few votes, especially from the "rock/occupy-the-vote" youth their professors have indoctrinated, and when Obama loses proudly take credit in the name of purifying the true faith. Funny, isn't it, how they never, ever realize that Lenin's famous "rope to hang themselves with" comment is never, ever reflectively viewed by these doctrinaire idiots?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse