Oliver Stone's Untold History of the United States

I just got to see this series yesterday, skimming through the parts that were a bit drawn out.

I was expecting it to be like Evidence of Revision, exposing everything.

It was interesting to learn more about the cold war, but it was not EoR.

However, Stone seems to have some misconceptions that bleed out during the series:

-He speaks of Al Gore as someone that was different, that could have changed things for the better if the election wasn't stolen. (We know Al Gore is really part of the system, just a different branch.)

-He speaks of the war on terror as against a real threat, the one that we trained against Russia in Afghanistan. (Of course the signs show that 9-11 was not committed by these few people who couldn't even fly, etc.). No proper questioning of the 9-11 event itself and the holes in the official story, or the commission.

-He mentions that torture was not what got Bin Laden, but local police. The movie Zero Dark Thirty was just propaganda to credit the mission success to torture. (But, he doesn't see that the capture never happened- Bin Laden was likely dead for years)


So Oliver Stone, while being well versed in what happened to Kennedy, seems to be ignorant of the big holes in other stories. He seems to be following the Chris Hedges/ Amy Goodman type of alternative media. As much as I appreciate their analysis of other key issues that the main stream media ignores, I feel they are a part of covering up the really obvious clues of conspiracy.

I haven't seen the latest episodes yet, but it can be understandable that he cannot cross the official line for recent events. He has been pressured lately for his declaration to the press that "Jewish lobby" controls the media and public perception of the news. In the first episodes (I've watched until episode 6) he draws a parallel between the lies about the Korean war and later the Vietnamese war with the war on Iraq, but it takes only a few seconds where he shows a picture of G.W. Bush and B. Obama, without going into details. So maybe he didn't research the actual events sufficiently, and maybe he doesn't feel safe enough to go there, especially if he is labelled as a conspiracy lunatic or a terrorist or whatever. He shows that it is dangerous to be labelled to be in the opposition after WWII.

I've watched the first three episodes so far and think they're pretty good. Henry Wallace, FDR's vice-president during the Second World War, was a man of the same mould as JFK. He was maneuvered off the presidential ticket in 1944 when they placed that disgusting creature Harry Truman in there instead

Wallace was intelligent, very popular at home and abroad, spoke three languages, was secular but interested in mysticism, was aware of psychopathy, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, a populist, tried to end segregation 20 years before JFK, a scientist, a revolutionary and so much more.

His speech 'The Century of the Common Man', a rebuff to the brewing notion that the 20th Century was to be 'The American Century', is said to have terrified the oligarchs at home and in Britain. Listening to him talk about how 'Satan' operates in this world through psychopathic people, and how a revolutionary movement of ordinary peoples was sweeping the globe, it's not hard to see why:

Wow! Henry Wallace was really far ahead of his time!

I've also watched the whole new series of Oliver Stone and indeed Henry Wallace stands out as a grand example of a human being who wanted to change things in the political arena.

Ouote from Henry Wallace's speech:

...these stooges are really psychopathic cases. Satan has turned loose upon us the insane.

Click to expand...

This one just came up on SotT:

Paul Jay of Real News interviews Peter Kuznick (co-author with Oliver Stone of the Untold History of the United States). A Wallace Presidency might have prevented the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan and prevented the Cold War. But far more than that, it might have completely altered the course of modern U.S. history by leaving the 'Cold War' still-born.

Click to expand...

http://www.sott.net/article/270488-Untold-History-of-the-United-States-The-coup-against-Henry-Wallace-and-what-might-have-been

I have also watched this series, and found it well-made and instructive. A good place to start IMO for insight into USA's part in politics world-wide the previous century.

I happened to watch a couple or 3 episodes of this during Christmas vacation. As mentioned in this thread, there are lines Stone couldn't or wouldn't cross, but it has been worth it just to hear Henry Wallace's story. What a bad-ass...

I don't study history much, but as an American who was raised amongst whatever history lessons I was receiving in elementary, middle, and high school, it was interesting to hear a narrative of WW2 that really stressed the part that Russia played in that war and high-lighted the unimaginable loss of Russian life. Americans tend to think we swooped in like Superman and saved everybody in the world from Hitler.

I will continue watching this series.

I watched first 3 episodes of the series. It was very good. Coup against Henry Wallace's VP ticket is the turning point in American history giving front seat to oligarchy that shaped today's reality . Truman looked like Dubya of that era . It made me wonder, how what looked like a simple political backstabbing can change the shape of the entire world in a very short time.

I've been watching the series until chapter 6 when he covers the JFK period. I think the series is very well-made and it gives a good briefing of history to start with. The whole series leaves me with me very sad and it's worst when you know that the truth is even more horrifying.

Here's a Q&A session with Oliver Stone that I found very interesting. What a wise man.

Stone said something interesting recently at the end of this interview with RT:


So a interview and/or documentary with and about Putin is in the making...
Can't wait to see it next year or so. :D

He talks about the importants of the multipolar point of view at the end....

PS: Two articles about the Putin documentary and also a documentary about the ukraine that is in the making and aired next year:

-http://rbth.com/arts/movies/2016/09/08/oliver-stone-finishes-documentary-about-putin_628259
-http://europe.newsweek.com/oliver-stone-release-putin-film-2017-498620?rm=eu

Pashalis said:

Stone said something interesting recently at the end of this interview with RT:

http://<iframe width="560" height="...7U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So a interview and/or documentary with and about Putin is in the making...
Can't wait to see it next year or so. :D

He talks about the importants of the multipolar point of view at the end....

PS: Two articles about the Putin documentary and also a documentary about the ukraine that is in the making and aired next year:

-http://rbth.com/arts/movies/2016/09/08/oliver-stone-finishes-documentary-about-putin_628259
-http://europe.newsweek.com/oliver-stone-release-putin-film-2017-498620?rm=eu

Click to expand...

Stones latest movie has come out. It is called "Snowden" and in this interview with the CNN Propagandist-head, that also recently tried to put Lawrow on the spot (LOL!), he explains a bit about the movie, Snowden, his upcoming documentary on Putin and the US elections:

_http://edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/09/13/snowden-intv-amanpour-oliver-stone.cnn

His Snowden movie surely sounds quite interesting, as is his current work on the Putin documentary.

Rock on Oliver! Thank god there are still filmakers like Stone out there....

I've just completed watching the full series with my 15 year old son. We talked through some very good observations he made afterwards. He spotted that whilst in the main the series is an extremely powerful indictment of a century long US policy of hegemony over the rest of humanity, and as such should be necessary viewing for anyone who still claims the special role the US has played in spreading 'freedom and democracy', it is the omissions that stand out to the watchful eye rather than the revelations.

Yes, the episode by episode analysis of war crimes, narrative manipulation, empire agenda, racism disguised as exceptionalism, etc, come across in graphic and shocking regularity, but as the series gets closer and closer to today, the truth element becomes more and more blurred and the mainstream paradigm more maintained. Its as if its safe to say Wallstreet and the deep state funded the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s-1940s but not that Wallstreet and the deep state funded the rise of Islamic terrorism (despite admitting such in the episode that covered the CIA's initial funding of Bin Laden and the Mujahideen) in the 1970s-2010s. Its as if, over whelmed by the sheer scale and generation to generation horror of the accumulating war machine, the logical analysis of the now in the context of its beginning are beyond him, despite the over whelming amount of information that has escaped proving such during the internet age. History is safe to unravel; current affairs is not.

Even his take on the Kennedy coup feels tame as if he was aware that everyone would expect him to come out strongly on its causes and long term effect and hence he watered it down to stave off dismissal. And then, like a Chinese whisper, his letting go of the deep strand of interconnected events seems to escape him so we end up with Bush senior - the almost great president who almost brought peace with his ally Gorbachev, Reagan - the almost great president who just couldn't let his grasp on reality come between him and a war - Clinton, the almost great president who everyone loved brought low by unfortunate sex scandals etc right up to Obama who he almost eulogizes for pulling off the great American wild west success of killing the (already dead) bogey man Bin Laden. No sense of Irony detected.

Of course 9/11 goes by as per the mainstream agenda and the fake war on terror as a response, despite bringing up the PNAC plan, fake WMDs, etc. Its as if a schizophrenic duality of point of view takes a hold of him, that he just can't face the truth of the trail of evidence before him, so he tries to half straddle both paths, softening both as he goes. And as my son also spotted, the greatest omission of all is Israel - the gorilla in the room - barely mentioned in the entire series and certainly with no context or suggestion of a deep state relationship with the development of the American Empire.

Still one cannot expect miracles and if he had gone to where the evidence leads, the series would never have gotten out of the can! So we must be grateful for the fact that such a sweeping, provocative and in the end important TV event happened in this age at all. Still I still cant help wondering if its as effective a piece of psy-ops as I've seen. Gatekeeper or trail blazer? My jury is still out (and the same goes for his film on Snowden).

I watched this series over Christmas, and it was a reasonable job of surmising the last century of world events, through an american lens. Can't help but feel that as Kuznick and Stone are Jewish, they were unable to go deeper and look into the role Israel played in these events. As we got closer to the present age, it seemed to me that their critical faculties slipped a little. It just felt to me that they were reluctant to "go there", which was frustrating but not particularly surprising. Having said that, if they had done so it is unlikely that the series would even have been released.

It's well worth watching, but wasn't quite the "untold story" that was promised.