Untold History of the United States

[Ian]

I've seen a couple episodes of it. It's good, though aimed at an audience with a lower level of knowledge than I already have

yah ian I would imagine there's not too many things that could match your high intellect.

I imagine it's enthralling to someone on your intellectual level. To me, I found it rather dull.

Did that sound condescending? Good. Now ask yourself this: why do so many people around here seem to condescend themselves to you? Because they're secretly intimidated by your intellect, or because we really do find you to be a dullard?

Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you when I posted my comments, much less attacking anything you posted. You needn't have replied to me at all. But if one is both a dullard and a complete jerk, I suppose one cannot help oneself.

[Jason]

So.. anyway. If Britain hadn't declared war on Germany, Hitler apparently didn't want to fight them anyway, then Germany would have conquered Europe. The Russians would have been squashed without the materiel supplied to them by the allies, Hitler would have sent his troops in with winter gear, the Japanese wouldn't have bombed PH, but focused on taking the remainder of China and forcing Russia to send significant forces to their western front to defend against Japanese invasion which the Japanese wouldn't commit to, but just keep the Russians tied up so the Germans could crush them from the east and BAM! Germany rules all of Europe and the war is over. Japan develops sausage fetishes instead of schoolgirl panty fetishes and Germany becomes the world's single super power.

[Rum]

A lot of 'ifs' and some plausible. In my book one of the real 'butterfly effect' moments though, was Hitler not invading Britian in 1941. The country was on its knees and far weaker than Hitler realised. They could have taken the country. With the UK out of the picture, or creating no more than nuisance resistance thy could have consolidated Europe, waited a bit and then gone for the USSR.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Lots of untold stories in any country. Teddy Roosevelt sent a battleship to "mediate" a war of independence between Panama and Colombia. End result, the Panama Canal.

[Seth]

Here and I thought *I* was the only one who knows Stone's "historical" works are shit.

Looks like I can sit back and enjoy the fun on this one.

[Rum]

Silly person is silly.

[sandinista]

Did that sound condescending? Good. Now ask yourself this: why do so many people around here seem to condescend themselves to you? Because they're secretly intimidated by your intellect, or because we really do find you to be a dullard?

"so many people"! Haha thats great! the more the likes of you, zilla, and seth think i'm a dullard the better I feel, trust me. Reading through this shit has been proof of that, pathetic. "Whaaa jfk sucked so this doc must suck cause jfk was a doc wasn't it ". fucking hell, this site is WHAT? Rationalia? You have to be joking. Not sure why Revolutionist bothers mopping the floors with these idiots other than for his own entertainment, but cheers for it anyway, good for a laugh.

To those, all two or three of you with half a brain who enjoyed the series, glad you liked it, keep watching, the whole thing is very well done. Like I said before, obviously, it's a tv doc, you won't get a full historical view of the decades represented, you would need to spend a lot of time reading to do that, and still barely scratch the surface, but for a cursory view this is a great series.

[JimC]

I've got no idea what is right or wrong here, but in terms of logical arguments, some of yours (plural) aren't making sense.

The distances involved would make a serious thrust by Japan into the USSR very, very dicey. They had a lot of their army tied down putting out spot fires in the part of China they occupied; their population did not allow for a massive land-oriented army, with all the supplies needed to do the job.

In addition, the arguments for a combined, "crush the soviets first" policy, whether possible are not, are only easy to see via historical hindsight; the Japanese general staff were analysing their options at the time, and decided on naval warfare (with the army given its main task as fully subduing China) as the option that worked best for the resources they commanded.

[Rum]

(Edit: A response to Sand)

You appear to be intellectually incapable of seeing that ideology, political perspective and culture can mould ones view of history. I tend to take a Marxist perspective myself, but at least I have the ability to realise it is just one prism through which to observe events from the past.

[Ian]

Sandi...

1) As I said, I generally enjoyed the episodes I saw. My critique (besides Stone's annoying narrating voice) was that there wasn't much in the way of "untold" history there. If you're genuinely learning some new things, then I'm happy for you.

2) You're the one who decided to attack me out of nowhere, not the other way around. Did you only post this thread soliciting opinions on the series so that you could attempt to belittle the opinions of those people you don't already like? Pretty tall task, especially when some of those opinions (like mine) are very similar to yours.

3) Please stop being an obnoxious poopie-head.

[sandinista]

(Edit: A response to Sand)

You appear to be intellectually incapable of seeing that ideology, political perspective and culture can mould ones view of history. I tend to take a Marxist perspective myself, but at least I have the ability to realise it is just one prism through which to observe events from the past.

Are you joking? Wow. That's been my point the entire time. That ideology molds historical viewpoints. Of course I know that. Not even sure why you would say that? My point from the beginning was that this doc was interesting because it gave a different pov than the standard ideological view of history that americans tend to have and teach.

As I said, I generally enjoyed the episodes I saw. My critique (besides Stone's annoying narrating voice) was that there wasn't much in the way of "untold" history there.

1. How many did you watch
2. To the average person not versed in history, I'm sure there is a lot that could be considered "untold". Of course those people may not watch the doc, but it's still the case. Covers a lot of issues not generally covered in run of the mill historical docs.

If you're genuinely learning some new things, then I'm happy for you.

I too, didn't learn very much new in the doc, but that's simply because I've studied this stuff for decades and have a degree in political science. What I do appreciate is this information getting a wider audience, and for it to be out there and available to those people who don't have the time, interest, or will to read stacks of books on US foreign policy and history.

You're the one who decided to attack me out of nowhere, not the other way around.

I wasn't attacking you. Just pointing out the uselessness and obnoxiousness of pointing out that nothing in this doc is new and that any idiot would know this stuff. Not a direct quote, but that seemed to be the idea you were trying to put across. Of course, that is not true, and there are many many americans who would 1. either not know a lot of this stuff, or 2. would not believe it.

Did you only post this thread soliciting opinions on the series so that you could attempt to belittle the opinions of those people you don't already like?

No, posted because I enjoyed the series and knew there would be some people on the board who would also enjoy it.

Please stop being an obnoxious poopie-head.

right back at you.

[Ian]

You're the one who decided to attack me out of nowhere, not the other way around.

I wasn't attacking you. Just pointing out the uselessness and obnoxiousness of pointing out that nothing in this doc is new and that any idiot would know this stuff. Not a direct quote, but that seemed to be the idea you were trying to put across. Of course, that is not true, and there are many many americans who would 1. either not know a lot of this stuff, or 2. would not believe it.

OK, but that was not the point I was trying to put across. Perhaps a tendency to assume things prompted you to come to that conclusion?

I appreciate that the series exists and could help out people who have a less developed understanding of history than we do. But shouldn't I be able to put in my own two cents on how this series appeals (or doesn't) to me without being obligated to mention such a disclamier? I wrote my opinions on behalf of myself and myself only.

Overall, it seems like we agree on this series quite a bit.

[sandinista]

You're the one who decided to attack me out of nowhere, not the other way around.

I wasn't attacking you. Just pointing out the uselessness and obnoxiousness of pointing out that nothing in this doc is new and that any idiot would know this stuff. Not a direct quote, but that seemed to be the idea you were trying to put across. Of course, that is not true, and there are many many americans who would 1. either not know a lot of this stuff, or 2. would not believe it.

OK, but that was not the point I was trying to put across. Perhaps a tendency to assume things prompted you to come to that conclusion?

I appreciate that the series exists and could help out people who have a less developed understanding of history than we do. But shouldn't I be able to put in my own two cents on how this series appeals (or doesn't) to me without being obligated to mention such a disclamier? I wrote my opinions on behalf of myself and myself only.

Overall, it seems like we agree on this series quite a bit.

fair enough, it is rather easy to misunderstand forum posts, it's not the first time it's happened and wont be the last.

[Seth]

(Edit: A response to Sand)

You appear to be intellectually incapable of seeing that ideology, political perspective and culture can mould ones view of history. I tend to take a Marxist perspective myself, but at least I have the ability to realise it is just one prism through which to observe events from the past.

Are you joking? Wow. That's been my point the entire time. That ideology molds historical viewpoints. Of course I know that. Not even sure why you would say that? My point from the beginning was that this doc was interesting because it gave a different pov than the standard ideological view of history that americans tend to have and teach.

Er, we call that "the objective truth," unlike Zinn and Stone's work, which is pure undiluted Marxist propaganda. Now if you're fine with it being Marxist propaganda, then why don't you just say so instead of trying to imply that it's even faintly objective or true? If you're going to be a Marxist, then for cripe's sake be a PROUD Marxist!

Che would be ashamed of you...

[pErvinalia]

History deals in "objective truths"? Are they the same type of "objective" as your natural rights? A lot of history (more the further back in time one goes) is derivative and second-hand. That makes it automatically subject to interpretation and potential biases. The narrative of any history can also be altered by what "facts" one historian chooses to show over another. As I said earlier in the thread, check out the "history wars" in Australia for a good example of when the practice of history goes crazy.