Henry Wallace - The Untold History of the United States (2012) Discussion

[–] SassMcG 12 years ago

You have been successfully indoctrinated. Resistance is futile. Oliver Stone mission accomplished.

reply

[–] mr-bryce 11 years ago

same as john kerry or al gore. it would seem that an oligarchic regime always has its best representatives put aside to second place.

reply

[–] jbacon1486 10 years ago

try reading the book. It is Fully bibliographed. There are 90 pages of references.Fully fact checked. If you dont like the Doc series read the book

reply

[–] bloody-3 10 years ago

A lot of progressives in the United States were unhappy about the wartime alliance with Britain and their imperialist mindset. I think Henry Wallace was one of them. After all the British Empire in India, Asia and Africa had hundreds of millions of people under colonial domination who had very little or no say in the running of their own countries. It was not in keeping with the stated aims of the Atlantic Charter - http://codoh.com/library/document/2095/

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 2 years ago

Look what happened after the.Empires went!

reply

[–] tardifisa 8 years ago

Who's to say who was indoctrinated by whom anyway? It could be him, or it could be you, lulled by the many governments' official stories.

The history I was taught in school included a lot of what was told in this documentary. The difference you might ask, is that i'm Canadian.

reply

[–] serfs_up 12 years ago

Hear hear!

reply

[–] previn123 12 years ago

He was quite the progressive and ahead of his time.

But sadly even if he managed to become president in 1945 he would have surely lost to Thomas Dewey.

By 1948 his support plummeted, hence why we fared so poorly in the 1948 election.

reply

[–] Slug-3 12 years ago

I think it would be more accurate to say he was behind his time. His views were probably more common in those days, then they would be today.

reply

[–] jpalmquist-99-955350 8 years ago

Your comment doesn't make sense. Wallace would have failed against Dewey because Truman's support declined by 1948? Truman wouldn't have had any power.

Wallace would have continued Roosevelt's legacy and stood up to the elites, both very popular positions among the American public at that point.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

Wallace would have let the Russians have Europe and epitomised Lenin's useful idiots The results of over hasty decolonisation have surely
been obvious for decades.

reply

[–] rjbmuse 12 years ago

I agree! Forget the duped ignoramuses on here. They have succumbed to 65 years of propaganda of the power elite coupled with dismantling the US education system.

reply

[–] dwest-587-97875 12 years ago

Ron Paul is the GOP's Henry Wallace. He is consistent with his beliefs, he doesn't do what the party leaders want, and they attempt to isolate him because they don't want the type of america he would bring. FDR wouldn't even run for a third term unless Wallace was put on the ballot. FDR saw Wallace as the future of his policies and the new deal. If he would've "played politics" just a little bit, he would've been our 33rd president of the united states. He didn't believe that though and he did what he thought was best. Whether you agree with him or not, he is one of the most courageous politicians this country has ever known. Too bad only a few of us know who he is now.

reply

[–] ryan-anderson 12 years ago

he could of done so much good if he became president instead of Truman

Yeah, like appoint Soviet spies to his cabinet maybe? (Since Wallace stated he wanted to appoint Laurence Duggan and Harry White to Secretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury (respectively)).

Combine that with the fact he likely would have handed over Western Europe to the Russians (or at the very least, his opposition to the Marshall Plan might have forced Western Europe closer to communism for survival).....and I'd have to say FDR dumping him was a great move.

Sig: “Nobody on the left talks about race.” --GameBoyFan

Ignoring: MythicCDXX, Creeping Judas, ROU killing time, RonPaul_Lies, Digby (and aliases), ibestupid, Holiday_Hobo, sharon_18, TilaMoo, Okie-from-Muskogee/boo321, NorCalNik, Nullifidian

reply

[–] Satan2016 12 years ago

Truth about Commie Wallace by Ron Radosh:
The Continuing Stalinist Delusions of Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick: A Final Assessment http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/01/18/the-continuing-stalinist-delus ions-of-oliver-stone/

Four More Years! Ha ha ha ha ha ha

reply

[–] Starchie28 10 years ago

Any time someone uses the word "commie", we know we're dealing with some grumpy senior citizen who probably has landmines planted in his front yard.

reply

[–] Satan2016 (26197) 3 years ago

Commie Denier!

reply

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 12 years ago

He was forced out of the party by the same kind of manipulation that 'elected' George W Bush. When political parties and courts 'elect' or depose candidates, REGARDLESS OF THE WILL OF VOTERS you know that you are NOT living in a democracy.

_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"

Maximus Decimus Meridius

reply

[–] aag12345-1 11 years ago

I'm with you about Dubya and although I might have preferred Henry Wallace's decisions to Truman's, party nominations for President were decided in smoke filled rooms back then, let alone VP, which still isn't chosen in a democratic way.

"Boy that was really exciting. I bet you're a big Lee Marvin fan aren't ya."

reply

[–] OnlyRocknRoll 12 years ago

Truman turned out to be worse than I thought back when I read about him in highschool Forget Stones opinion, Truman damned himself out of his own mouth on radio and in print. What a total jackass.

_______________________________________
"ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED??!!"

Maximus Decimus Meridius

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 3 years ago

What he did do wrong in your eyes?

reply

[–] rex_ilusivii 12 years ago

This is what Wallace said in his broadcasted speeches:

- "Some have spoken of the American century. I say that the century on which we are entering, the century which will come out of this war, can be and must be the century of the common man. [...] There must be neither military nor economic imperialism. [...] The March of freedom of the past 150 years has been a great revolution of the people. There were the American revolution, the French revolution, the Latin American revolutions, the Russian revolution. Each spoke for the common man. Some went to excess, but people broke their way to the light."

- "I said bluntly that I thought the notion of Anglo-Saxon superiority, inherent in Churchill's approach, would be offensive to many. Churchill had had quite a bit of whiskey, said why be apologetic about Anglo-Saxon superiority, that we were superior, that we had the common heritage that had been worked out over the centuries in England and had been perfected by our constitution."

Controversial ideas.

no i am db

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 2 years ago

Churchill.was right !

reply