This unique show takes a look at the History of the USA from WW2 up until now. Including the darker side of the USA's decision's during that period

"Narrated by Oliver Stone, this new one-hour series features human events that at the time went under reported, but crucially shaped America's unique and complex history"

from wiki "It would cover the reasons behind the Cold War with the Soviet Union, U.S. President Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, and changes in America's global role since the fall of Communism"

here is the first episode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ciIE8HKKU

I'm about as interested in Oliver Stone's opinion on modern history as I am Jim Cramer's thoughts on investing, Jamie Gold's poker strategies or Colonel Sanders' chicken recipes.

About 25% of what Stone talks about at any given time is actually likely to be correct, but could be explained better and in more detail by the actual source material. The other 75% is likely to be either embellished, misunderstood, misinterpreted, or taken 2+ steps too far. There is plenty in that 25%, though, that the average American probably ought to know about.

really ? noyone brings it back like Colonel Sanders when it comes to fried chicken dude..Nobody

I agree Stones movies have every bit of hollywood that other historic movies include coupled with the fact Stone is not a historian. But his source material for this specific documentary had to go thru major factcheckers

Stones documentary is just as fact checked as docs on the History channel or discovery channel . Id say 95% of Oliver Stone's "Untold History Of the United States" is accurate in detail while the rest is mixed with a touch of Hollywood yet still true. The information presented in Stone's show is accurate, the numbers are ran by multiple fact checkers who are brought in from the outside


I feel this is a excellent series to watch and I highly recommend it to anyone with even a minimal interest in the History of the United States.

Have you found the second episode anywhere?

Is Peter Kuznick reputable enough that him acting as a co-writer for the program genuinely gives the show more credibility than you are suggesting?

checkout showtime on demand if you have the channel. Episode 2 is a real good one to catch.

otherwise im not sure where 2 is which is odd bc episode 3 is on showtimes site

I thought some of the footage was excellent to look at. Especially of the big three at Yalta, much of it never before seen

loliver stoned

tonight at 8pm et is the season finale

titled Bush And Obama : The Age Of Terror

shd be interesting

I read some excerpts from the book version of this when I was hanging around Barnes & Noble the other day. Overall it's not bad, and is decently referenced. For a popular audience looking for a somewhat alternative (that does not mean fictitious) history of the US in the diplomatic sphere might find it useful. I reiterate what I said above that there are authors who give the material better treatment, but it's not like this stuff is pulled out of thin air.

interesting stuff by stone by mostly taken from the book "The Sorrows of empire" c. Johnson. good book

Johnson's trilogy on the pitfalls of American postwar foreign policy (Blowback, The Sorrows of Empire, and Nemesis) are pretty good in dealing with the less-savory aspects of US diplomacy. The final book in the trilogy might be a little too much polemic vs. substance, but his research is certainly well-conducted. It's maybe more Poli Sci than History, but there's obviously some crossover.

Pretty critical review of the book that I'd tend to agree with, assuming its characterization of Kuznick's (and Stone's... but I imagine Kuznick did a lot of the legwork) argument is accurate--I only read about 40ish pages. Again, it's not like it's spewing falsehoods, but there definitely seemed to be times when they carried the argument too far. I mean, it's nice to see Henry Wallace defended as something other than a communist sympathizer, but he wasn't quite Superman, either.

I agree Wallace was over reported on in the Stone documentary. Although by most means not many Americans are aware that Henry Wallace could have been successor to FDR"s presidency. Or for that matter the fact that he was FDR's second VP, not Harry Truman.

But yes the stone doc made it appear that Truman and his followers stole the 44' election, while that is not entirely the case there were some red herrings in the election that people ought to know about.

from wiki- Robert E. Hannegan, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee who had worked feverishly to secure Truman's nomination, later said he wanted his tombstone inscribed with the words "Here lies the man who stopped Henry Wallace from becoming President of the United States"


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1944_De...nal_Convention