It is possible that this history is new to many people, especially they gave up with history in elementary school. In school simple stories are taught and quite a few myths too. While this series aims to be new there is nothing in that is not known but Stone gives some undue emphasis to certain items. He and the team that made this commit several unforgivable sins of historical methodology and analysis which mean that the series fails convince.
The approach is to retell all the events we know – that if we read a few books besides the school texts. Fine. Good background but what this method does is lull the audience with the indisputable and then mix in debatable, which becomes acceptable. That is a subterfuge. The method is clearly signaled and makes the 'essay' of this series like a very good high school essay but which has many, many flaws.
A good starting point is the perspective. Stone's tacit premise is that government does good things and when it doesn't or acts in terms of real-politik, he is upset. But there is no reason for government to act with high moral purpose. It is a matter of degrees. Looking after self-interest is expected; genocide and war are not acceptable. It is not either/or but not to Stone who has the view of a naïf, one that he carries in his films, that somehow having discovered the world is not nice, it must be morally purged. Well that is great for 7 year olds but real adults and governments have other things to manage.
This last point is expressed in his fairness doctrine toward the Soviet Union. He treats US Soviet relations as one of deceit by the US on the basis of political philosophy alone. That is a falsehood but what his left out is that the fear and loathing toward communism in the 1920s and beyond was triggered more by its atheism. Fear of atheism triggered fascist responses and the disparate coalition against the Soviets. This is forgotten now but something more elemental to a person than political allegiance is their religion and to politicians in the US and UK and elsewhere this made it necessary to destroy communism. One may not agree, but nowhere in history has it been doctrine that alternative views must be given a good chance or a fair turn as if this was the school play yard.
Finally, Stone makes the laughable error of believing every quote as rendered. If historians did that they would be taken apart by their peers in review. More analysis is required not just using the juicy quote like a cub reporter and believing that you've nailed the case for the negative. That is school stuff. The more serious side of that is that in using quotes in such a simplistic manner he believes he has established a case when dissent is a normal part of political life. So, some people didn't believe carpet bombing was right or some other thing, that is normal, hardly new unless you hold a child's simple notion of good government, always ethical. Time to grow up! Ultimately this may be good for those viewers who have no idea of the last 70 years. For anyone else this is not worthwhile at all.
The approach is to retell all the events we know – that if we read a few books besides the school texts. Fine. Good background but what this method does is lull the audience with the indisputable and then mix in debatable, which becomes acceptable. That is a subterfuge. The method is clearly signaled and makes the 'essay' of this series like a very good high school essay but which has many, many flaws.
A good starting point is the perspective. Stone's tacit premise is that government does good things and when it doesn't or acts in terms of real-politik, he is upset. But there is no reason for government to act with high moral purpose. It is a matter of degrees. Looking after self-interest is expected; genocide and war are not acceptable. It is not either/or but not to Stone who has the view of a naïf, one that he carries in his films, that somehow having discovered the world is not nice, it must be morally purged. Well that is great for 7 year olds but real adults and governments have other things to manage.
This last point is expressed in his fairness doctrine toward the Soviet Union. He treats US Soviet relations as one of deceit by the US on the basis of political philosophy alone. That is a falsehood but what his left out is that the fear and loathing toward communism in the 1920s and beyond was triggered more by its atheism. Fear of atheism triggered fascist responses and the disparate coalition against the Soviets. This is forgotten now but something more elemental to a person than political allegiance is their religion and to politicians in the US and UK and elsewhere this made it necessary to destroy communism. One may not agree, but nowhere in history has it been doctrine that alternative views must be given a good chance or a fair turn as if this was the school play yard.
Finally, Stone makes the laughable error of believing every quote as rendered. If historians did that they would be taken apart by their peers in review. More analysis is required not just using the juicy quote like a cub reporter and believing that you've nailed the case for the negative. That is school stuff. The more serious side of that is that in using quotes in such a simplistic manner he believes he has established a case when dissent is a normal part of political life. So, some people didn't believe carpet bombing was right or some other thing, that is normal, hardly new unless you hold a child's simple notion of good government, always ethical. Time to grow up! Ultimately this may be good for those viewers who have no idea of the last 70 years. For anyone else this is not worthwhile at all.