This Weekend, Oliver Stone Will Not be a Happy Man: Now The New York Times Takes Him On!
There is much I said to Goldman he left out, obviously because of space concerns from his editors at the magazine. I recommended to him in particular two books on the dropping of the A-Bomb that answer in detail the rehashed revisionist view Stone and Kuznick argue as if nothing has appeared to answer them since Gar Alperovitz’s first statement of the “atomic diplomacy” theory in the 1960’s. I told Goldman to consult Wilson D. Miscamble’s new book The Most Controversial Decision:Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan, and Robert James Maddox’s earlier collection, Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism.
If he did, there is no indication of it in the article. Both of these books would present chapter and verse on the kind of real evidence that Stone and Kuznick completely ignore. The evidence shows, for example – contrary to the assertion made in the film series – that dropping of the A-Bombs, as horrible as it was, saved not only thousands of American lives that would have been lost, but more Japanese lives than were lost as a result of the A-bombs being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They also show that contrary to the film’s argument, the Japanese government was not ready to surrender and end the war, until after both bombs were used.
Finally, I must note that as pleased as I am that Goldman went to me to counter Stone, and then to Wilentz, he colored (or his editors did) his account by referring to The Weekly Standard as a “right-wing” publication. One could more accurately refer to it as a conservative magazine. The term used is one of opprobrium, meant obviously by the editors of the Times to undercut the possibility that anyone reading it could learn the truth in its pages. And of course, as a “Red-diaper baby” who subsequently turned away from the ideology I once adhered to decades ago, many readers will suspect that a turn-coat like myself can hardly be judged to have anything worthwhile to say about Stone and Kuznick’s film.
Goldman ends his article by referring to Stone and Kuznick’s appearance at a forum at the 92nd Street Y in New York City, where Kuznick again bragged about the “glowing” reviews they were getting and actually said that “nobody’s challenging anything we’re saying.” Stone gestured and said, “Well, it’s early.”
On that point, Oliver Stone is right. Now he has been hit first by myself, next by Michael Moynihan, and now by Andrew Goldman. So I publicly challenge Stone and Kuznick. I will gladly appear with both of them in a public forum, along with another historian, such as Miscamble or other genuine historians of the Cold War, where we could in detail expose and challenge all the shibboleths they offer as unvarnished truth.
I’m waiting for their answer!
****
And may I recommend Ron Radosh’s excellent survey of Hobsbawm obituaries? I recorded my own responses to Hobsbawm’s first book in the famed tetralogy here: http://clarespark.com/2012/11/23/historians-vs-pundits-the-eric-hobsbawm-synthesis/. Radosh has shown himself to be a real historian, and not a flunkey for Stalinism, as the esteemed Hobsbawm clearly was.
What Radosh has written here gives me hope that we are climbing out of the abyss. Maybe.
Last week I happened to be tuning around and stumbled across an episode of Stone’s show on Showtime and was horrified to see it repeating the Communist party line of that time. I contacted Showtime and was told it was part of the network’s commitment to provocative and controversial programming.
I also wrote on piece on this and some other recent episodes along the same line.http://havechanged.blogspot.com/2012/11/showtimes-agitprop.html
I am glad, and pleasantly surprised, to see the Times take him on.
However, here’s what Stone is accomplishing even when criticized. After I saw the episode I found an LA Times review which criticized the show as too one-sided but then went on to note:
“That President Harry S. Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima had as much if not more to do with establishing America’s dominance in the postwar politics than ending the war with Japan is something that activists, politicians and historians have discussed virtually from the moment he made it.”
I just read your own blog and it’s first rate. Glad to see others are taking Stone on and letting Showtime know.
Dr. Radosh:
I remember buying and reading your seminal book “The Rosenberg File” way back in 1985; it changed the way I began to view post-WW II Soviet history and policy (thanks to the Verona cables that is). One would think that with the increased access to Soviet files since 1991, history would be a little clearer to those who sympathized with the USSR and show them the unvarnished truth. Much to my chagrin (since Stone appears to have some redeeming qualities), I’m stumped as to why the man refuses to acknowledge these truths about Stalin and his tyranny of terror. He can still argue with legitimacy that indeed, American history textbooks have discounted the enormity of the war that Russia waged with Germany with its attendant loss of life and, at the same time, recognize the monstrosity of the political system and its ruthless military which brought Hitler and Germany to its knees. Nor do I understand his anti-Semitism and why he clings to the base canard, repeatedly debunked time and time again, that the media is controlled by a cabal of Jewish interests. He might as well hawk “Protocols of the Elders of the Zion” on Showtime. Would they go for it? I wonder. I look forward to see if Mr. Stone is willing to go to the mat with you in public as you have challenged him to. Probably not and if he has any critical gray matter, he’ll respectfully decline. But you never know – he might just bite since, as the NYTimes Magazine author notes, he is very sensitive to criticism of his work.
This isn’t about whether Oliver Stone is wrong or right. This article and Stone’s potential reaction is all about a clash of ideology . . . and nothing else. Who is to say whether Stone or Mr. Radosh is right or wrong?
Why isn’t it about whether Stone is right or wrong? Americans of the past are being painted by Stone’s brush. He is no different than Howard Zinn. He rewrites history to satisfy his own sense of right and wrong with today’s sense of social justice which encompasses not a whit of understanding of the way things were back then and why.
Presentism is a false way to look at history. It is quite valid to say “Oh that was cruel” or something of that nature if you include, “by today’s standards which we use”. Stone is a flamer– but a good entertainer.
The Miami Herald published a stinging review the day before the show debuted.
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/11/3089382/the-truth-is-out-there-but-you.html