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

[–] ThomasMuf 11 years ago

Stone overdid the "Henry Wallace would have acted differently if he had been president instead of Truman" part - it became repetitive after a while.

Stone should not have forgotten the basic rule: There are no IFs in history.

He is correct though to imply that Truman's error of judgement in using the atomic bomb when it was no longer necessary (just cruel) might have caused the cold war. It was a war crime in and of itself, no doubt.

OTOH, using the atomic bombs THEN might have spared all of us the use of much more powerful such devices LATER!

reply

[–] phillipsdan83 11 years ago

1. Stone has no idea that Imperial Japan was dominated by the Imperial Japanese Army throughout most of World War Two. Even just before the atom bombings the Japanese cabinet was literally split down the middle between civilian and some naval leadership that saw the game was up, and fight-to-the-death fanatics. And even after the bombings, when Emperor Hirohito tried to surrender, mid level Imperial Japanese Army officers attempted a coup d' etat to stop the surrender.
2. By 1952, Henry Wallace admitted the Soviets had played him for a sucker.

reply

[–] motioneccentrica 8 years ago

Any proof that Wallace admitted to being suckered?

You know what the Queen said? If I had balls, I'd be King.

reply

[–] canzwg 8 years ago

Seriously?

Try googling it. He's not lying.

Soviet Russia's civilians long suffered under the communist party's regime. Wallace had no idea until 1952, unfortunately. Stalin didn't even care about communism, he just liked his power.

Wallace was a progressive socialist, which imo is the best form of idealism.

reply

[–] marktayloruk (2590) 2 years ago

Endorsed Korea in 1950.

reply

[–] Starchie28 10 years ago

Stone should not have forgotten the basic rule: There are no IFs in history

If he did that, this would have been a boring and most likely forgotten series. Considering that the "IFs" you are referring to revolve around the dropping of the bomb and the escalation of the cold war, "IFs" should be a big part of this analysis because there is plenty of evidence to suggest things could have gone a different way.

reply

[–] Kawada_Kira 11 years ago

He was pretty good, unusually progressive, and he could have done some good, but he was still just one man in a giant machine. Stone, in his effort to show how a more progressive American leader could have made things better, overdid it a bit, asking at one point if with a Wallace presidency the Cold War could have been prevented, the civil rights movement could have been victorious, etc. As I say, Wallace was good and he would have been FAR better than Truman, and I believe that for example under Wallace the Korean War would not have happened, but as far as the Cold War is concerned, Wallace could have delayed it for a couple years but he alone could not have prevented it entirely. As I say, he was one man in a whole system. Capitalism and socialism intrinsically contradict each other and cannot coexist. As such, with a powerful socialist country supporting the socialist revolution around the world, and a powerful capitalist country supporting capitalist counterrevolution around the world, conflict between the two systems was inevitable, and with the threat of nuclear conflict, it had to take the form of the Cold War, an indirect conflict. A single man like Wallace, no matter how well-intentioned, cannot singlehandedly stop a globe-spanning conflict between two conflicting social systems. He could have delayed it, but no more than that.

"The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history."
Mao

reply

[–] gd5150 10 years ago

Stone, in his effort to show how a more progressive American leader could have made things better, overdid it a bit, asking at one point if with a Wallace presidency the Cold War could have been prevented, the civil rights movement could have been victorious, etc.

That really was priceless Stone. I was laughing hysterically. Stones version of history is always so predictable but even that one couldn't have been foreseen. Great stuff! No cold war, women having equal pay for equal work in 1950, civil rights coming decades sooner, why not add Obama being elected in 1952, SUV's being banned before they were ever conceived, ending all hunger world wide, whales having a seat in the Senate, add whatever leftwing fantasy you can think of here.

reply

[–] dbryantvfx 8 years ago

Omg what a horror. Having equal rights for people. Man what are people thinking.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Jerry_Sprinkle 8 years ago

I'm surprised one of the speakers wasn't a stand up comedian who told all the Wallace supporters they were "being ridiculous"

reply

[–] Gd5150 (11965) 3 years ago

Stones revisionist history is Hillarious!

If only Wallace had won. We would have…
(Insert modern day political cause)
- Made abortion legal forevar!
- ended global warmingzes!
- avoided the Cold War completely!
- had universal healthcare!
- cured aids!
- prevented Russia from invading Ukraine!
- cured Coof!
- imprisoned Donald T-Drumtphs father preventing the birth of the most evil man in the history of all timez!

reply