Blog 4 History

There were a slew of news stories last week that specifically mentioned that Stone worked with two unnamed historians for his up-coming documentary on Hitler and other mass murders in an attempt to give us “empathy” for them and “provide” us with historical context to their rise to power. According to hundreds of news articles:

“…two historians are helping him [Stone] with [the doc]… to offer a fuller understanding of the 20th century…”

Stone’s message, “Hitler [was] enabled by Western bankers.” This should be interesting to see what connections Stone attempts to make and what sources he uses, but most importantly who are the two historians? I searched, and searched, and could not find them.

What I do know about post-WWI American businesses is that they wanted Great Britain and France to ease the reparations and the United States to forgive war payments in an attempt to protect their investments in Europe and Germany.

Now what Stone will attempt to establish is that it was not monetary interests alone, but more importantly racist, Jew hating capitalists somehow facilitated Hitler’s rise…

So who are Stone’s historians that apparently will provide him with the proper historical data?

Stay tuned.

[the photo is of our guy Stone and one of his heroes, Hugo Chavez. Need we say more?]

I mean this sincerely. I am saddened by the passing of Howard Zinn.

From the Associated Press:

Howard Zinn, the leftist academic whose alternative history of the United States became required reading for millions of ordinary people, as well as a following of celebrities, has died. He was 87.

Zinn’s death was confirmed by his website, www.howardzinn.org. The Boston Globe reported that the cause of death was heart attack and that he died Wednesday while traveling in Santa Monica, California.

I have made it clear on this blog I am no fan of Howard Zinn the activist historian. But Howard Zinn has done more for his country than I ever will with his WWII service, though I know later he had very complex issues about that time of his life. I found a photo of Zinn from those days and I want to celebrate his service.

Anyway, Godspeed Mr. Zinn.

My A.P. United States history class is fast approaching the 1930s; well now that we have switched from a 90 minute block to a 45 “skinny” we are creeping along since the year started. We will hit the 1980s/90s just in time for the early May exam. Also, during this semester we will crank up the practice exams (using previous AP exams) and essay writing.

So back to the point of this post, The Great Depression and more specifically FDR’s “New Deal.” Numerous books have come out lately challenging the so-called Liberal or Progressive point of view (that goes something like this): Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies were responsible for ending the Great Depression and that the causes of the depression were over-production, under-consumption, and unequal distribution of wealth.

The Books that I have been reading are: New Deal or Raw Deal?: How FDR’s Economic Legacy Has Damaged America by Burton W. Folsom Jr., FDR’s Folly: How Roosevelt and His New Deal Prolonged the Great Depression by Jim Powell, and The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression, by Amity Shlaes. Each book has basically the same take and none are perfect. They are at the least “skeptics” of FDR’s New Deal policies, and probably they are best described as fiscal Conservatives who downright loathed the big government shift of the 1930s.

My students will first read their textbook Out of Many: A History of the American People, which ignores most of the major issues the above authors point out with FDR’s policies.

The belief that unhindered capitalists brought the country down (thus leading to the Great Depression) due to greed (sound familiar?) is incorrect, according to the noted sources above. The major causes of the Great Depression, for example, as outlined by Mr. Folsom: 1) Negative consequences of WWI spending left the country with a national debt of $24 billion ( today its trillions) when it was before the war $1.3 billion. But most importantly, $10 billion was lent to European nations and most balked at repayments during the 1920s; 2) the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act that crippled American businesses and production; and 3) poor performance by the Federal Reserve, which was designed to stop precisely what happened, a banking collapse. The Fed raised interest rates sharply in 1928 and 1929 that made it harder for money to be borrowed and slowed the flow of money. Mr. Folsom contends that inflation in the 1920s was low, not high, and that the 1920s was a decade of overconsumption than underconsumption. FDR latched onto the “underconsumption” analysis and allowed it to drive a majority of his economic policies.

OK, lots of issues, but the bottom line is, like most major historical events, the Great Depression is complex. Mr. Folsom is for my practical purposes here and in the classroom no more correct or incorrect than those others who would disagree.

Questions to be addressed: Was the Great Depression prolonged by FDR’s policies? Did FDR “save” jobs and save the economy enough to keep it afloat? Many of Roosevelt’s policies failed or at least produced such meager long-term results that it is hard to point to them as successes. A couple of programs that Mr. Folsom viciously attacks are the New Deal’s National Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. Both of which (and more) I will address in part II of this series on the Great Depression.

To be continued….

How do I connect the title of the post…

Henry A. Kissinger was sworn in on September 22, 1973, as the 56th Secretary of State, and since that moment was one of those politicians whom people have loved to hate. Just do a Google search and there are all kinds of interesting websites; one even shows the man with a “wanted” ad for “War Crimes.” He was destined to be hated due to his untimely arrival in Washington: the Vietnam was a lost cause politically, and Kissinger’s even- keeled intellect was widely rejected by reactionaries.

Anyway, I read Kissinger’s book – Diplomacy – in in the mid-90s after  it came out as it was required for a class and was very impressed with his knowledge. He is an historian and reminded me, as far as his knowledge of history, of our 28th President, and leading Progressive of his time, Woodrow Wilson.

This leads me to a recent book I finished by Ronald J. Pestritto,  Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism, who literally disects the pattern of idealogy as expressed by Woodrow Wilson. In the book Pestritto “highlights Wilson’s sharp departure from the traditional principles of American government, most notably the Constitution.” Ronald J. Pestritto attempts to argue “that Wilson’s unfailing criticism places him clearly in line with the Progressives’ assault on the original principles of American constitutionalism.” He does do his homework,  his research is in depth, and in particular he focuses on the wide ranging array of writings and speeches that Wilson made while a scholar and student of history before he became president.

It’s fair to say that Pestritto is no fan of Wilson’s worldview. He does make an impressive argument, but he did not present an even and fair book.  But, then again, that was not his purpose. His goal was to connect the ideology of Liberalism today with the Progressive movement of Wilson and his peers. Pestritto clearly succeeds but I think a lot of Wilson’s Progressive-ness that was obviously for the good of the nation and potetntially for the world had anyone listened. For example, his 14 Points, League of Nations, Moralism, fiscal understanding of a modern economy, all got lost if not ignored by Pestritto. Wilson was a complex individual: intellectual, historian, scholar, racist, populist, progressive, ect. But he saw America as an “Exceptional” nation and saw human progress with America leading the way as uniter of the world. His Ideas for diplomacy and public policy, I think, were visionary and represent what was best in American values. He was not perfect and saw the state has having a larger role in government (a very large role), but clearly that was needed in many respects during his time.

This leads me to my final point. I was pretty pointed with Oliver Stone’s upcoming Documentary. I wonder if he will focus on how European leaders (Britain and France in particular) ignored/spurned Wilson’s call for victory without victors, and his Fourteen Points, as the true cause for the rise of Hitler? I somehow highly doubt it. Stone at least will try to make the connection between evil capitalists and how they underminded Wilson’s 14 Points/ LEague of Nations, that is my prediction.

I guess I am implying that some see him as not a “Disaster” and I think that to be the case, he has defenders does he not?

I am in the middle of a course on American Civil War Command and Leadership, and specifically the Joseph T. Glatthaar book Partners In Command. Glatthaar’s assessment of McClellan is scathing, but then again most are. I know that maybe Dimitri and some others might object, but how on God’s green (er, brown) earth can anyone say that McClellan was not a mitigated disaster and extended the war by perhaps as a long as a year and cost the country so many more lives?

I am obviously not a historian (though I hope I am in training) and am very aware of this. So I understand that I still have more to learn about McClellan.

So for now, lets look at what I know:

• His habitual inclination of paralysis by over-analysis… to say the least. During his Seven Days Campaign and his Antietam debacle in particular.
• His arrogance and temperance that did not allow him to work with both those above and below him. In specific, his contemptible behavior towards Pope and his refusal to reinforce during the Second Bull Run defeat.
• But perhaps most significantly, it certainly appears he was a man who had never really experienced defeat or failure and the thought of it caused him much delay.

Yes, very general statements.

It seems there were very real opportunities to take the war to Richmond in 1862, and perhaps decimate Lee and his army at Antietam, yet McClellan was not able to do so.

So, I ask you, where am I getting this wrong?

Oliver Stone is no stranger to conspiracy theories and to gross historical inaccuracies (see JFK for starters, Oswald was the lone shooter), and it looks like he is taking on yet more “misunderstood” events and people (thank God for Oilver Stone or we would all be , as he says “ignorant.”); only this time his focus is frankly mind-boggling. (Oh how I wish he’d stick to movies like Platoon, that was a great flick!)

According to the Progressive/Marxist director, “Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy — these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history,” – as quoted at the Television Critics Association in Pasadena. Stone is a Cultural Relativist who is not interested in “secret” or “true” stories about history. (Interesting  how he groups McCarthy with those other three. Whatever.)

We could say that Stone just wants to reexamine these controversial figures and figure out what made them tick, and how they came to be!? Not so fast.

Consider the following:

“Stalin has a complete other story,” Stone said. “Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can’t judge people as only ‘bad’ or ‘good.’ Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He’s the product of a series of actions. It’s cause and effect … People in America don’t know the connection between WWI and WWII … I’ve been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler’s shoes to understand their point of view. We’re going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions … Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated.”

Let me get this right!? He is going to tell a more “factual representation” of fascists dictators who did not kill millions, but tens of millions. His comment, “Hitler is an easy scapegoat…” is so full of ignorance and intellectual hogwash… only the mind of a Progressive nincompoop could utter such a stupid statement. Who has used and how has Hitler been used as a “scapegoat”? Neo-Nazis? Facists? I can’t wait to see.

How about this comment, “People in America don’t know the connection between WWI and WWII.” This is pure lunacy. Maybe the Hollywood hacks he hangs out with don’t! Every student that leaves 90% of United States history classrooms in this country was exposed to the relationship between those two events. If anyone does not know how WWI lead to WWII they are ignorant – War reparations, war guilt, the loss of key industrial territory, and thus Germany was destined during the Great Depression to be a breeding ground for a radical, eloquent, and charismatic persona such as Hitler. This purely evil person has nothing that needs to be studied, other than the environment (as already mentioned and including: hyper-inflation in Germany. If you are starving and someone tells you they know who is to blame and how you can live better, you will listen as well.) Besides, what led to Hitler was Germany’s neighbors and what they did; it was created in part by the French and their desire to punish Germany. Will this be explained? I hope so. Will the German people be held accountable? Lot’s of questions.

So will the above be covered and highlighted? Keep reading.

“I’ve been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler’s shoes to understand their point of view,” says Stone. Good, glad to hear it. Only you would want to walk in their shoes.

Understanding the past is a part of the historiography, indeed. Yet the implication for Stone, it seems from the above quote, is to put America in a cause and effect relationship with Hitler, “Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM.” It could be interesting to see how American corporations were duped by Hitler, just like so many politicians and political leaders. However, will this simply be a way for Stone to imply we are at fault for Hitler’s rise and his designs on Jews and Europe? (I wonder if Stone will talk much about “Mein Kampf”, Appeasement, Ambassador Kennedy to England who saw nothing wrong with the Nazis and Hitler, ect.?)

Note: If you are a teacher who wants to show a good and historically accurate account of Hitler, show your class Hitler in Colour.

According to reports, the 10-part documentary series from Showtime will also focus on events that “at the time went under-reported, but crucially shaped America’s unique and complex history of the last 60 years.” Such events as: President Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and the origins of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

Showtime is behind the curve here, big time. I wonder if they are aware of how much the Left and the New History movement has already written about these two events for what is going on 3-4 decades now?

However, perhaps the point is that this simply is an opportunity to show America as being just as evil for having dropped two nuclear bombs on innocent civilians when it did not have to (according to one point of view that is not widely accepted by historians)? Forget Hitler, might their point be: how many millions have we killed? I guarantee you there will be some kind of comparison that will imply how we are morally no better than them (the Nazis). Just wait.

I hope I am way off base here. I liked Stone’s movie W. It was an interesting look into Bush and I thought it was fair and revealing.

But knowing Stone’s political viewpoints and his actions abroad, I suspect this series will not be a fair or balanced presentation. It will not be History, and therefore it belongs on Showtime.

So I suggest you get a copy of The Good Old Days: The Holocaust as Seen by Its Perpetrators and Bystanders or maybe to a lesser extent, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, and read them if you want to understand how culture, acute malignant culture, can lead to Hitler. As I doubt Stone will tell that story.

A Vicksburg newspaper reporter once referred to Van Dorn as “the terror of ugly husbands.” (Van Dorn pictured left)

The apparently handsome Earl Van Dorn was born near Port Gibson, Mississippi, on September 17, 1820. He graduated from West Point in 1842 and later served in the Mexican War. Van Dorn resigned his commission in the US Army in January of 1861 in order to accept command in the Confederate service as a colonel. After being promoted to major general and named to command the Trans-Mississippi Department, his abilities as a commander came under scrutiny after defeats at Pea Ridge (1862) and Corinth (1862). Van Dorn was relieved of his command and reassigned to command a troop of cavalry. He later achieved his only real success when he attacked a Union supply depot at Holly Springs, Mississippi (December 20, 1862), forcing Gen. Ulysses S. Grant to retreat to Memphis, Tennessee.

But this is not why I am discussing Earl Van Dorn. The reason? The good general was one of the three murdered during the American Civil War. The others were Union Major General William “Bull” Nelson, shot as the result of a feud with then Brigadier General Jefferson C. Davis in September 1862; and Confederate Major General John A. Wharton, shot as the result of an argument with Colonel George Wythe Baylor in April 1865.

Van Dorn was killed in May of 1863 at his headquarters at Spring Hill, Tennessee, by Dr. James B. Peters. Van Dorn was known as a womanizer (hence the Vicksburg reporter) and Peters had accused Van Dorn of having carried on an affair with his wife Jessie. Thus in a fit of rage, or from an impassioned sense of honor, Peters entered the general’s office, walked up behind and coolly shot him in the back of the head. No challenge to a duel or some sort of more honorable confrontation does in context make the act look rather cowardly, nonetheless the results were surprising!

Peters, who had his home/residence confiscated some time before the shooting, was arrested, briefly held, but released and never tried, and later his land was returned back to him! Apparently the accusations were true and some sort of evidence provided???

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Van_Dorn

Elvis would have been 75 today, happy birthday to the King of Rock and Roll! My mother was a huge Elvis fan and I have to admit I own a couple of his songs on my iPod. Anyway, to another shining example of American Exceptionalism (and tragedy), Elvis Presley. That he borrowed indiscriminately – at times – from others is true, yet he did it so well. He is the legend. Here he is singing one of my favorite songs:

This week was the beginning of our second semester here in Colorado, and in my A.P. United States history class we changed from a block (95 min) class last semester to a skinny (45 min) class. We are up to the Progressive Movement and have found our numbers shrink from 26 to 12, due to the workload and couple of minor accidents… just kidding.

During our 2-week Christmas break I asked my students to not even look at their history book and just enjoy their break, and I am pleased to report they followed my instructions. So this week we took a pause to discuss American historiography. We’ve covered all of the various movements since the 18th Century: Romantics, Rationalists, Realists, Progressives, and up to the more recent Social, Conservative, and New Left movements.

However, I wanted to mention the fabulous discussion we had today that evolved organically and was not intended. The prompt centered on the question, “What is a historian?” All I can say is I wish I had recorded the discussions, simply wonderful!

[Note: Above photo is me -seated in the center- with some of my regular United States history class students from a few years ago. I do not take a lot of photos.]