Friday, January 25, 2013

Guns, can't live with em', can't live without 'em.


January 20, 2013

A (Not So) Brief History of the Gun

By Trevor Thomas

As debates about guns and gun rights in America rage, truly to understand the gun, one needs to look at its history.  The story of the gun is a fascinating and riveting look not only at history, but also at science, business, politics, justice, and morality.  Throw in a great deal of ingenuity, a good deal of heroism, and a small dose of romance and the story of the gun is the world's greatest tale of human invention.

The gun's story begins with the invention (or discovery) of gunpowder.  Gunpowder most likely was invented just prior to 1000 A.D. [They say in China. But the history of China is the history the history of an island empire, a land surrounded by deserts and jungles as isolating as the Pacific is to Australia.]  It became rather prominent around the turn of the twelfth century.  Theories abound about who actually invented gunpowder, but no one really knows.

According to noted historian Ian Hogg, [One of the late twentieth century’s finest historians of firearms] "[t]he first positive statement relating to gunpowder appears in a document written in 1242 by Roger Bacon entitled On the Miraculous Power of Art and Nature.  Hogg also notes that since, during that period, "fiery compositions" were considered an element of the "Black Arts," Bacon, a Franciscan friar, concealed his formula in an anagram (which remained unsolved for over 600 years).

Early guns were really cannons.  The first illustration of a cannon appears in a 1326 work entitled On the Duties of Kings, prepared for King Edward III of England.  These early cannons fired large stone balls -- sometimes weighing up to 200 pounds.  However, such stones were still lighter than iron shot of a similar diameter and, due to the relative weakness of early gunpowder, were safer to use.

Such cannons were massive and thus difficult to move.  Smaller calibers that were more mobile were much desired.  This led to the development of the "hand-gonne."  These were simply miniature iron or bronze cannon barrels attached to the end of a lengthy wooden staff.

By the 15th century, "arms of fire" with a lock, stock, and a barrel -- the same basic look we have today [And where that old phrase comes from] -- became somewhat common.  The first weapon that could be carried, loaded, and discharged by a single man became known as the matchlock.  This was a muzzle-loading gun that was discharged when a hand-lit match was lowered into the flash pan.

The term "lock" most likely originated from the fact that the gun-lock operated in a similar fashion to the locking mechanisms of the day.

These early guns were not very accurate or reliable.  They could be quite dangerous to use (as the burning wick necessary to ignite the powder in the flash pan was often in close proximity to the stores of powder on the user), and were virtually useless in wet weather. The matchlock also was not very useful for hunting, as the burning wick alerted most every type of game. [Most likely by the smell, not the sight.]

A new lock design for igniting the powder was needed.  Thus, around 1500 A.D., the world was introduced to the wheel lock.  The wheel lock made use of a centuries-old process for lighting fires: striking stone [flint] against steel and catching the sparks. No longer was a cumbersome and dangerous burning cord necessary for discharging a gun.

For the first time, a firearm could now be carried loaded, primed, and ready to fire.  Again, the actual inventor is unknown, but Leonardo da Vinci had one of the earliest drawings of a wheel lock design.
The wheel lock also led to another advancement in firearms: the pistol.  For the first time, a weapon could now be carried concealed.  It was at this point that many of the first laws against carrying firearms came into being.

Like the matchlock, the wheel lock had its shortcomings.  If the wrench necessary to wind the wheel [spring] was lost, the weapon was rendered useless.  Also, with over 50 individual parts, the wheel lock was of a complicated and intricate design.  This made the gun very costly to own and difficult and expensive to maintain.

Efforts toward a simpler, less expensive, and more reliable gun led to the next significant step in firearms: the flintlock.  The first flintlock design was by the Frenchman Marin le Bourgeois around 1615.  The flintlock was a more simple design, and most of the moving parts were inside the gun.  This made it much more weather-proof than its predecessors.

For over 200 years, the flintlock was the standard firearm of European armies.  It was used in the greatest battles of the 18th century and helped determine many of the rulers of Europe, not to mention helped set the borders of many European nations.  The flintlock brought to an end the armor-wearing knight and also saw the end of the Napoleonic wars.

The flintlock was also the customary firearm of the young United States and was instrumental in our battle for independence.  In fact, to battle lawlessness and Indians, and to put food on the table, the gun was the most essential and prized tool in early America.  As soon as they were old enough properly to hold and fire a flintlock, many young American boys were expected to help feed their families.  Thus, generations of boys growing up and using guns from a young age played no small part in America winning her independence.  "The Americans [are] the best marksmen in the world," lamented a minister of the Church of England in 1775.

The first original American contribution to firearms was the Kentucky rifle (which was made in Pennsylvania).  

This gun was superior to most every European contemporary.  It was longer and lighter, and it used a smaller caliber than other muzzle-loading guns at the time.  Most importantly, as the name indicates, the Kentucky gun was "rifled."  This process, which involves cutting helical grooves inside the gun barrel, greatly increased accuracy. [Doing this by using a hand broach in a barrel 30” long is rather intimidating.]

A bullet fired from a rifled gun spins and thus helps stabilize any bullet imperfections (which were usually significant in the 18th century) that otherwise would distort flight (think bow and arrow vs. slingshot).
In spite of all this, most American Revolutionaries still carried smooth-bore muskets.  Kentucky rifles did take longer to load than smooth-bore muskets, and often the volume of fire was/is more important than accuracy.  General George Washington did make significant use of American marksmen armed with the Kentucky rifle, though.  These riflemen played major roles (as in picking off British officers) in such conflicts as the Battle of Saratoga (see Morgan's Riflemen).

The birth of a new nation meant the need for a national armory.  In 1777, General Washington settled on a strategic location in Springfield Massachusetts as the setting for the armory.  In addition to being important for our national defense, the Springfield Armory led the world in technological advancements that would change manufacturing forever.

The manufacture of firearms at Springfield helped usher in the age of mass production.  An ingenious inventor named Thomas Blanchard, who worked for the Springfield Armory for five years, created a special lathe for the production of wooden gun stocks.

Such a lathe allowed for the easy manufacture of objects of irregular shape.  This led, for example, to the easy mass production of shoes.  Many other technical industries -- such as the typewriter, sewing machine, and bicycle -- were also born out of the gun industry.  Factories that produced such products were often located near firearm manufacturers, as the firearms industry possessed the most skilled craftsman necessary for creating the complicated parts for such machines.

The Springfield Armory also introduced contemporary business practices to manufacturing.  Concepts such as hourly wages and cost accounting practices became customary at Springfield and were important steps in modernizing manufacturing.

The next step in firearms development came from a minister.  Due to his severe frustration with the delay between trigger pull and gunfire (which too often allowed for the escape of his prized target: wild ducks) from his flintlock, the Reverend Alexander Forsyth invented the percussion cap.

Inside the cap is a small amount of impact-sensitive explosive (like fulminate of mercury). Thus, muzzle-loading guns now did not have to rely on exposed priming powder to fire, were quicker to fire, and were almost completely weather-proof.  However, gun users were still plagued by a centuries-old problem: they were limited to a single shot before reloading. Enter Samuel Colt.

Making use of the percussion cap, in 1836, Colt (with the aid of a mechanic, John Pearson) perfected and patented a revolving handgun.  Although little of Colt's design was original, he ingeniously brought together existing features of previous guns and fashioned them into a mechanically elegant and reliable revolver.
Along with being an inventor, Colt was a shrewd and capable businessman.  His genius was not only in his gun design, but in the techniques used to manufacture it.  His guns were made using interchangeable parts (made by machine and assembled by hand). [An idea brought to the fore by Eli Whitney the inventor of the “Cotton Gin”, the machine that made slave cotton production profitable.]

In 1847, with an order of 1,000 pistols from the U.S. Army but no factory to build them, Colt looked to noted gun-maker Eli Whitney (often called "the father of mass production") to help fill the order.  It was the production of guns, and men such as Whitney and Colt, that led the way in the pioneering and perfection of the assembly line. [This would be the production of the Colt Patterson, built at the town in New Jersey that had been founded to utilize the water power of the falls to drive multiple production facilities.]

When Colt's American patent expired in 1857, there were many who stood ready to take the next step in firearms -- none more so than a pair of men who had spent much of their time perfecting ammunition: Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson.  In 1856, just in time to take advantage of Colt's expiring patent, their partnership produced the world's first revolver that fired a fully self-contained cartridge.  This cartridge was a "rimfire" variety that Smith and Wesson patented in 1854.

As handguns were progressing, long arms were beginning to catch up.  This is where another American icon enters our history: a wealthy shirt maker named Oliver Winchester.  Winchester took over a fledgling arms company in 1855 and in 1857 hired a gunsmith named Tyler Henry to turn it around.

By 1860, Henry had created a breech-loading lever-action repeating rifle (firing 16 rounds). The Henry Repeating Rifle was a tremendously popular, useful, and reliable gun.  It was this weapon that began to make the single-shot muzzle-loading rifle obsolete. [The Henry is still produced in Brooklyn, and is known by its brass side panels. During The Civil War Confederates said ”It was the rifle that was loaded on Sunday and could be fired all week.”]

In 1866, Winchester improved on the Henry rifle and produced a model named after himself.  The Winchester model 1866 fired 18 rounds, had a wooden forearm to make it less hot to handle, and contained the familiar side-loading port. [This is the rifle we know from the westerns of the 40’s and 50’s. The Ringo Kid in Stagecoach.]

It was in 1873 that the two most legendary guns of the Old West were produced -- the Winchester model 1873 (which was a larger caliber than the 1866 model) and the Colt model 1873, otherwise known as "The Peacemaker."  Carrying on with the savvy business sense of its founder, the Colt Company built this model to hold the exact same ammunition as the Winchester model 1873. [.44-40]

Though such guns put more firepower in the hands of an individual than ever before, they paled in comparison to what was next.  With virtually every step in gun advancement, there were many attempts toward the same goal.  This was no different for the "machine gun."

Certainly the most famous of the early versions of the machine gun was the Gatling Gun.  Mounted on a central axis with six rotating barrels, the Gatling Gun was fired by hand turning a rotating crank mounted on the side.  Although not a true automatic, the Gatling could achieve several hundred rounds per minute. [Welcome to Wounded Knee.]

The most successful and famous of the early fully automatic guns was the Maxim gun.  Invented by an American-born Brit, Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim, this gun was introduced in 1884.  The maxim was completely automatic in the sense that it was "self-powered."  In other words, using the tremendous amount of energy that was released when the gun was fired, it was now unnecessary for a discharged cartridge to be manually ejected and the next cartridge to be manually loaded.  With the Maxim gun, this action continues with a single trigger pull.  Maxim's gun could fire 10 rounds per second.

Maxim spent several years studying how to put the recoil energy of a gun to good use.  He patented virtually every possible way of automatically operating a gun -- so much so that, as Ian Hogg put it, "he could have probably quoted [only] one of his many patents and stifled machine gun development for the next  21 years, since almost every successful machine gun design can be foreseen in a Maxim patent."

Men like John Browning [America’s greatest firearms designer], Baron Von Odkolek, John Thompson [And his trusty sub-machine gun, the gangster’s friend], Mikhail Kalashnikov [The farther of the AK-47.], and several others built off Maxim's success, and machine guns became smaller and lighter.

This brings us into the 20th century, where fully automatic weapons that could be carried and operated by a single man were commonplace and necessary for any successful army. [At least after 1944 with the introduction of the StG 44 (Sturmgewehr 44, literally "storm (or assault) rifle (model of 1944") to the Waffen SS.]

From before the founding of this great nation, firearms have been essential to the preservation of life, the enforcement of law and justice, and the establishment and protection of liberty.  Our Founding Fathers understood well how important the gun was to the founding and maintaining of liberty in the U.S.

Thus, they gave us: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."  And just what is the "militia"?  No less than the co-author of the 2nd Amendment, George Mason, tells us: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people[.] ... To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

What's more, the technology that drove the progression of firearms and the improved manufacturing and business practices adopted at gun factories propelled the U.S. into the Industrial Age.  America owes much to the gun.  Americans, whether they are gun owners or not, whether they love them or despise them, would be wise to remember all that the gun has meant to this nation and hope and pray that guns remain in the hands of its citizens.

Trevor Grant Thomas: at the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. www.trevorgrantthomas.com

Thursday, January 24, 2013

Do you have to be stupid to be a liberal? But does it help.


JOHN NOLTE 23 Jan 2013,

On Brietbart’s Big Journalism

Anti-science Salon landed in hot water today for posting an article defending conspiracy theorists, including 9/11 "Truthers." After much criticism, the piece was yanked with an apology, but Ace of Spades highlights the best part.

Salon:

But unlike with Sandy Hook, 9/11 conspiracy theories flow from a scientific fact: whatever the 9/11 Commission Report might claim, fire generated by burning jet fuel is not hot enough to melt steel.

Ace:

Ahem.

Look, I don't mean to sound like a smarty-pants here, but here's a scientific fact these ignoramuses want to check out:

Many solids change suddenly into liquids as they hit their melting point. Water ice, for example.

But water ice is just one kind of solid. There is an entire class of elements -- we call these "metals" (and no I'm not trying to be silly-- they're really called "metals") which change from solid to liquid gradually and gracefully, rather than abruptly.

There is a sharp distinction between water ice and water liquid -- the things have entirely different properties. But metals transition slowly as heat as applied. Metals do not suddenly go from a perfect crystalline solid to a perfect amorphous liquid as water does.

Rather, at high temperatures well short of their actual melting point, they slowly begin losing some properties of a solid and start gaining some properties of a liquid.

For example: You can't bend ice. Ice does not bend. Ice breaks.

But you can bend metal. Metal is deformable, without actually breaking.

This is what happens when you watch Rosie instead of reading a book.

[ I Added to the comments stream on this article. Here is the statement by MRBUNGLE, with my comment.

MRBUNGLE

LOL...i could see one tower collapsing but not three...........google  WTC 7    this building was not hit by anything and collapsed in it's own footprint.  a demo crew could not have done it better........how come they found molten steel weeks after the collapse???  ....and how hot does jet fuel burn and how hot is a smelting furnace? 

JimG33

You obviously don't live in NYC. WTC7 was so close to the south tower that debris could not have missed it. It was closer to the Tower than the Winter Garden across West Street that was pierced by flying I-Beams that went through that building. Similar flying beams took out the skin of the new American Express Building on the other side away from the collapse site. The old ATT building is just north of WTC7 but its steel frame was wrapped in masonry, it still stands, though it was holed up and down its east and south side. WTC7 was a glass curtain containing a steel frame. Also WTC7 contained tanks of diesel used for co-generation; these tanks were low in the building and burned for hours. Just above them were main structural members, a condition that has been covered above. [In a situation when fuel tanker trucks burn under a highway overpass.] To the south the hotel was buried and the Cass Gilbert building just south of that had its facade sheared off. I won't mention the Deutsche's Bank building that stood as an empty burned out hulk for years.

Now I'm just a retired cabinetmaker, but I do live in downtown Manhattan and have for years.
You are a moron without the slightest understanding of structure and materials. And I would advise you to shut your pie-hole at this time.

"It is better to stay quiet and have people think you a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

 WARNER TODD HUSTON 19 Jan 2013 

at Brietbart’s Big Hollywood

Actor and hardcore progressive Danny Glover should add revisionist historian to his growing resume of left-wing activism after a recent visit to Texas A&M University where he told students that the Second Amendment was mainly meant to keep African Americans in slavery and to kill Native American peoples.
During his January 17 appearance at the university, Glover thought to teach the students attending about the real purpose of the Second Amendment.

"I don't know if people know the genesis of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect, for settlers to protect themselves from slave revolts and from uprisings by Native Americans. So, a revolt from people who were stolen from their lands or revolts from people whose land was stolen from. That was the genesis of the Second Amendment."

This is simple historical revisionism. Slave revolts had yet to become the constant, nagging fear it was later to become for southern slaveholders. There was no such preoccupation in the late 1780s, during the debate over the Constitution, or in the decades previous to that; and it certainly wasn't a cause for northerners to worry. [Though runaways were a problem.]

Glover is completely wrong in every respect.

Slave revolts were a factor in the later decades after the Constitution was enacted, of course. Fears of slave revolts took hold in the south because of several major revolts that frightened whites here and elsewhere. But previous to the debate and ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there had been few such revolts, and none of them really served as the basis of any pervasive fear.

One of the most famous slave revolts of the founders' era was that in Haiti made famous by the leadership of a former slave named Toussaint L'Ouverture. The revolt shocked the world, for sure. But this revolt didn't start until 1791, four years after the U.S. Constitution was a done deal. This revolt played no part in the creation of the Second Amendment.

There were slave revolts before 1787, though. One slave revolt in the founder's recent memory was called the Battle of the Lord Ligonier and occurred back in 1767. But that occurred on a ship in the Atlantic, not on our own shores. Another revolt termed the New York Conspiracy happened in 1741. The next one back, called the Stono Rebellion, occurred in South Carolina in 1739. (And, remember, the famous Amistad incident wasn't until 1839.)

None of these revolts that occurred before the framing of the Constitution had much impact on the founders' thinking.

It should also be remembered that, when the founders were debating the Second Amendment in 1787, slavery had yet to become the economic powerhouse it was later to become. [Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were in constant debt and they were not able to just sell off their slaves to make ready cash. In the case of Washington he refused to break up families for sale. In the case of Jefferson the Hemmings were closely related to his late wife’s family. During times of inflation prices and the markets were slow and no money could be made in this market. Especially when the Congress debased the currency.]

Previous to 1810, slavery was developing a bad reputation throughout the country--even in the south--and by 1810 manumission had been bestowed upon nearly 200,000 slaves. [Washington granted it at his death.] Then came the growth of the South's plantation economy and with it a growing refusal of southerners to consider the end of their "Peculiar Institution." But that came a few decades after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793.

For an economic barometer of the times, cotton exports went from 500,000 pounds in 1793 to 93 million pounds by 1810. This abrupt change made slavery an economic necessity if the south were to continue growing as it had. But, again, all of this was years after the Constitution was in place.

So, while it is true that southern plantation owners would eventually develop a bone-shaking fear of slave rebellions and because of that would begin a vicious routine of suppressing blacks, this fear didn't manifest itself until the 1820's and 30's when slavery had become an important and growing institution for the southern economy. [The saddest thing about this, that I have learned from the book "Bound of Iron", is that slaves who upgraded their skills were trapped in a maelstrom of inability to control their lives. But that's just it, isn't it.] 

The truth is, the 2nd Amendment was a philosophical ideal based on humanity's long history of using government force on a disarmed public, force that resulted in oppression and in the subsequent loss of religious freedom, and as a result of the fact that the founders wanted a weaker, decentralized federal government that could not harm the rights of the people.

It had nothing at all to do with slavery and Indian attacks, Mr. Glover. Nothing at all.

Where's Blackwater when we need them.

So I'm watching Hillary shuck and jive (and I can use that term, I've got a license) for about an hour last night and I'm wondering "How does she get away with it?"

Just like Sgt. Schultz on "Hogan's Heroes"..."I know notink, notink! And my trusty little helpers know notink too!"

"I didn't get the memo!"

"I just receive  so much communication throughout the day I just can't keep track of it all"

And my favorite, "Madame Secretary you have traveled so far around this planet doing work for us I'm just in awe of your fabulousness! And please explain the strange light that emits from your eyes?"

What strategy she and the POTUS are pushing has always seemed a mystery to me. "Leading from behind" ain't a strategy. I don't know what it is but it ain't no strategy.

And the problem of the local security guards keeps popping up. They always seem to be running away, hmmm.

Back in the dark days of the Iraq War State Dept. security was handled by Blackwater Security, a company that hired retired green beanie types to ride shotgun on armored SUV convoys. but both Left and Right found them to be too trigger happy. To ready to fulfill their contracts as it were. So to make a small footprint Blackwater was let go, and sued till they went away.

Maybe we could have used them in Benghazi?






Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Executive Power in the Service of Weakness


With these pending nominations we see that the ideas that Dinesh D'Souza presented in his movie 2016 are coming to pass: and he didn't even take into account that The President was abandoned by both his mother and father; is not Valerie Jarrett not another parental substitute, as Rev. Wright was in his time?

But as Ronald Reagan said "America has not gone to war because she was too strong." 

And war is on the horizon. Oh I know, if we'll be nice to them they will reciprocate. But as Trotsky said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

For those who want to study this subject more look up The Washington Naval Treaty, The Kellogg-Briand Pact, The League of Nations, The Open Door Policy and any of the other pacific fantasies of the 1920's and '30's. It's all been tried before, and it always comes to the same sad end.


Roger L. Simon on PJMedia

January 8th, 2013 - 12:03 am

During his late, lamented campaign, Mitt Romney opined:
It’s the economy, and we’re not stupid.

Well, maybe. But the economy is a lot of people, millions of them actually, from the assembly line worker to the CEO, and has a surprising way of righting itself despite a plethora of bad policies. Capitalism is a mighty motor; economies rebound when you least expect them to.

Not so with foreign policy. It’s in the hands of one man — the president.

Yes, Congress has the right to declare war, blah blah. History has shown us again and again who is really running the show on global matters. The president is dictating foreign policy usually before anybody outside his inner circle knows what is happening, and long before his adversaries can do much about it.

So while Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians are all revved-up about gun control, social issues, and even the economy, the real permanent damage is being done elsewhere.

Good-bye, Pax Americana. Hello to the era of Kerry, Hagel, and Brennan.

And when I say permanent damage, I mean it. You can always change gun laws (we have several times already). The social issues are largely determined by the culture, and as I noted above, the economy is only partially in the hands of the government.

What you can’t simply change is the nature of global forces, the power configuration of our planet. Since World War II, the world has survived and prospered to a remarkable degree under U.S. leadership. Nazism was defeated, followed by the downfall or reformation of equally murderous communist regimes.

Barack Obama’s deepest intention — emotionally and ideologically — is to change all that.

Forget objective reality. As Dinesh D’Souza demonstrated in his book and film, Obama’s psychological makeup — his heart — is influenced to a significant degree by a belief that America is a dangerous colonial power, that world leadership must be shared.

Yet “leading from behind” is a euphemism. There is no such leading.

Our near-certain next secretary of State, John Kerry, our only slightly less certain next secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, and our next CIA director, John Brennan, hold the same views as Obama, or are close enough to those views to be easily manipulated.

Besides the obvious expected policies, such as pushing Israel to make self-destructive concessions for a two-state solution the Palestinians have shown no evidence of wanting, this triumvirate will support Obama in undercutting numerous formerly bipartisan policies. Including, perhaps most significantly, the gutting of the defense budget.

They also will continue the administration’s bizarre Middle East policy that has resulted in the rise of Islamism everywhere from Mali to Egypt and beyond. And no matter the rhetoric we will most likely hear at confirmation hearings, Iran will get the message that serious American power is in actuality “off the table” when it comes to interdicting the mullahs’ march to nuclear weapons.

Outside of the usual Middle East hot-spots, Russia and China are watching.

Obama already told Medvedev to wait until after the election for a more pliable Russia policy, particularly on missile defense. Well, it is after the election: the president is delivering tout de suite, notably in his nomination of Hagel, a selection made all the more repellent because of the nominee’s recorded bigotry toward Jews and gays.

I urge people on the right to fight this nomination with all their might. This president, who was able to lie so blatantly about the Benghazi terror attack — even in front of the United Nations — is now sticking it to us with almost palpable glee.

I repeat: foreign policy is the place where we must make our stand. Everything else pales by comparison.ONE MORE THING (As an homage to the late S. Jobs, I have decided to add “One More Thing” to some of my posts): When it was announced that Obama nominated Chuck Hagel for Defense, I was not in the slightest surprised. Obama for some time has quietly had “sympathy for the mullahs”. We learned that several years ago when the democracy demonstrators in the streets of Tehran cried out “Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?” and the president said nothing. It was the single most reprehensible foreign policy act (or non-act) by an American president in my lifetime. Liberals, of all people, should be ashamed. Chuck Schumer, are you listening?

Monday, January 7, 2013

What does Oliver Stone hope to gain by lying?


- Ron Radosh - http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh -
Click here to print.
The Real Henry A. Wallace: The Truth About Oliver Stone and
Peter Kuznick’s “Unsung Hero.”
Posted By Ron Radosh On January 6, 2013 @ 3:22 pm 
I did not plan to write again about Oliver Stone’s and Peter Kuznick’s Untold History of the 
United States, their Showtime documentary series and accompanying book. Three things,
however, have prompted me to once again address the series and its continuing distortions and lies.

First: in the January 10 issue of The New York Review of Books, the publisher of Stone and
Kuznick’s book — Gallery Books — took out a full page ad proclaiming the companion volume to the
TV series an “Instant New York Times Bestseller,” although when I searched the paper’s list I could
not find it anywhere, even in their extended list of non-fiction bestsellers.

The ad reproduces blurbs by a group of major U.S. historians — many of them leftists — but includes
some mainstream and well-known scholars. Lloyd Gardner of Rutgers University calls their book one
that “many would consider impossible.” Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian (London) terms it a “counter
narrative to the enormous tide of hogwash that dominates most public discussion of America.”
Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post says it is “grounded in indisputable fact.” Historian Doug Brinkley
says that the two grapple “with the unsavory legacy of American militarism.” Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon
Papers fame: “Brilliant, masterpiece!” And Pulitzer Prize winning historian Martin Sherwin, in a truly
over-the-top comment, calls it “the most important historical narrative of this century, a carefully
researched and brilliantly rendered account.”

The century is rather young, and in fact it might be the only narrative yet to appear … but anyone who
reads it knows that it is not well-researched and is nothing but a synthesis of long-standing leftist
“revisionist” history. All of these writers and historians, in praising the Stone-Kuznick work in such
glowing terms, reveal only their own total ignorance about the history of the Cold War.

I doubt that those who have given it such generous blurbs have actually even read it carefully. A clue as
to the position of the authors is given by the first blurb, written by none other than Mikhail Gorbachev
— the former Soviet premier writes that what is at stake “is whether the United States will choose to be
the policeman of ‘Pax Americana,’ … or a partner with other nations.” It should come as no surprise that
the USSR’s last leader would praise a book and TV series that depicts the Soviet Union as being right in
its foreign policy during World War II and in the Cold War; the others who have offered their unstinting
praise have no such excuse.

Second: CSPAN has been airing After Words [1], their book program, in which the Georgetown University
historian Michael Kazin engages in an hour-long conversation with both Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick.
Kazin, who once wrote one of the most devastating attacks on the work of Howard Zinn [2], treats Stone
and Kuznick as major historians who have actually contributed something to understanding our past.
Watch for yourself, and see the fawning and uncritical reception by Kazin to their work.

Kazin is not a Cold War historian, and his inability to challenge the two reveals his own lack of familiarity
with the major issues. He was undoubtedly chosen because he was acceptable to his former colleague
Kuznick, and because Kazin regards himself as a man of the Left.

He correctly identifies Henry A. Wallace as the book’s and TV series’ main unsung hero, but pauses only
to challenge a relatively unimportant point. Kazin argues that at the 1944 Democratic convention,
Roosevelt did not really want Wallace on the ticket with him. But he never says anything to them about
Wallace’s view of the Cold War, and in fact, seems to agree with them that he was a prophet before his
time. It is indeed sad to see that a historian like Kazin melts in the presence of Oliver Stone, and lets his
critical faculties entirely disappear when in the presence of the supposedly great director and his
left-wing historian sycophant.

On Saturday, Christopher Hayes of MSNBC’s weekend program Up With Christopher Hayes [3] had both
Stone and Kuznick as guests. He, too — and not surprisingly given that the network is the voice of the
Left and that Hayes is on the staff of The Nation — lets them spend close to an hour telling audiences yet
again how in this documentary they produce only facts, and tell the truth about the alternate world we
might have had if only Henry A. Wallace had become president after F.D.R.’s death rather than Harry S.
Truman.

So let me begin by presenting the truly unknown Henry A. Wallace in a way that somehow escapes the
brilliance of Michael Kazin, Christopher Hayes, and all those sycophants who pretend to be giving
Americans the real story.

I start with pointing to the question raised at the end of the recent Whitaker Chambers symposium [3]
at Yale University by historian John L. Gaddis, thebiographer of George F. Kennan [4] and perhaps our
nation’s outstanding Cold War historian [5]. Towards the end of the panel he was on, Gaddis noted that
he wanted to raise a question that puzzled him — that of “the invisibility of Henry Agard Wallace.” On
that, he agrees with Stone and Kuznick that most Americans no longer remember the former
Vice President and Secretary of Commerce. But unlike Stone and Kuznick, Professor Gaddis notes:
“There is Soviet documentation that Wallace was regularly reporting to the Kremlin in 1945 and 1946
while he was in the Truman administration,” and that later, when both Kennan in the State Department
and Secretary of State George C. Marshall were considering a secret effort to approach the Soviets, that
was “blown wide open by Wallace when he was running for president on the Progressive Party ticket” in
1948. Gaddis then asked: “Who’s the real hero?”

He then noted that often Roosevelt gets “a bad rap” for “whatever reason” he had for dumping Wallace
from the 1944 ticket and replacing him with Harry S Truman. Instead, he noted, he sent Wallace “on an
inspection trip to Siberia, where he confused gulags with collective farms.” If you want to play the
counterfactual game,” Gaddis said, “consider what might have taken place had Roosevelt not dumped
Wallace and he became the president of the United States at the time all was breaking loose. What
would have happened at that time?” (Go to 58:00 on the video to watch the Gaddis comments.)

Professor Gaddis, unlike those who praise Wallace as an unsung hero, knows the Cold War. He implies
correctly that had Wallace become president, what would have happened is the reverse of what Stone
and Kuznick believe would have taken place.

Wallace would have created an American foreign policy run by Soviet agents he had installed in the
White House — including Lauchlin Currie, Harry Dexter White, his former assistant at Commerce, and the
secret Communist and Soviet agent Harry Magdoff who wrote Wallace’s Madison Square Garden speech
in 1946 that led Truman to fire him – all of whom would have developed a policy meant to give Joseph
Stalin precisely what he sought: control of Eastern Europe and inroads into subversion of France, Italy
and Great Britain as well.

The result would have been a deepening of Stalinist control of Europe, and a tough road that might well
have made it impossible for the West to actually have won the Cold War and to have defeated Soviet
expansionism.

Moreover, as Gaddis suggests, new evidence has emerged that points to just how much Wallace was
under the control of the Soviets, and how they were counting on him as the man in the United States
best suited to serve their ends.

In the Vassiliev Papers [6], the KGB files that Alexander Vassiliev copied and brought from Moscow to
London, an entry appears in the Vassiliev notebooks dated February 10, 1945. An NKGB agent —
Washington D.C. station chief Anatoly Gorsky — reported to NKGB head Lavrenti P. Beria that he was
enclosing a telegram from the intelligence agency’s station chief in Washington, D.C. about the station
chief’s future meeting with Henry A. Wallace, which would take place on Oct. 24, 1945. (At above
Vassiliev link, see the translated pdf of the Black Notebook.)

What the document reveals is that Wallace initiated a contact with a senior Soviet diplomat, who he more
than likely knew was the resident KGB officer in the Soviet Embassy in Washington, D.C. In his
conversation, he explained that he supported a pro-Soviet policy and was pushing for it in the United
States government.

For that task, he asked the Soviets for assistance.

The context of Wallace’s comments reveal that he saw himself as an ally of the Soviet Union and as a
collaborator with them in a common cause. He saw himself not as a supporter of “a century of the
Common Man” and an anti-imperialist — as Stone and Kuznick claim — but as a fervent believer in the
Soviet Union who was asked for foreign intervention on their part in U.S. internal political fights.
Here, from the Vassiliev papers, is the actual document:“To Comrade L.P. Beria” “I am enclosing a telegram
from the NKGB USSR station chief in Washington regarding his meeting with U.S. Secretary of
Commerce Wallace.” (Molotov’s decision: “Cde. Merkulov! This should be sent to Cde. Stalin without
fail. Molotov. 2.10.45.” Vadim had been introduced to Wallace (the former Vice President) previously.
Wallace called him personally and invited him to breakfast at the Dept. of Commerce, which took
place on 24.10.45. He was interested in what the reaction would be if the USA were to invite a group
of Soviet scientists to become familiar with science in the USA. Truman wants Kapitsa very much he is
working on the atomic project. Wallace was interested in the Soviet reaction to the discussion taking
place in the USA regarding the safeguarding of the secret of atomic bomb production.

“Safeguarding the tech. information pertaining to that question in the USA leads, in Wallace’s opinion,
not only to a worsening of already highly strained Soviet-Amer. relations, but also gives the rest of
the world the impression that the USA is the most potentially aggressive state on earth.

Wallace said that he has been trying within the government to get control over the use of atomic
energy for military purposes handed over to the UN Security Council. However, his attempts have so
far been unsuccessful. Wallace described Johnson’s bill pertaining to this question, which was put
before Congress, as a reactionary attempt by the War Department that was incited by the
representatives of major industrial capital: ‘DuPont’, ‘General Electric’, ‘Union Carbide’, and ‘Carbon
Corporation’. Vadim asked how one could explain Truman’s diametrically opposite statements on this
question.

“Wallace faltered somewhat, before saying that Truman was a minor politico who had taken up his
current post by chance. He frequently has ‘good’ intentions but yields too easily to the influence of
those around him. Wallace explained that there were two groups currently fighting for Truman’s ‘soul’
(his expression word for word) a smaller one, in which he included himself, and a more powerful and
influential one, of which he named only Hannegan (Postmaster General and Chairman of the
Democratic Party), Tom Clark (Attorney General), Byrnes (Sec. of State), and Anderson (Sec. of
Agriculture). The smaller group believes that there are only two superpowers in the world: the USSR
and the USA; the well-being and fate of all mankind is dependent on good relations between them.
The second group is very anti-Soviet (Wallace singled out Byrnes in particular) and sets up an
opposing idea of the dominant Anglo-Saxon bloc (chiefly comprising the USA and England) which is
decidedly hostile to the Slavic world that is ‘under Russia’s heel’. With regard to this, Wallace blurted
out: ‘You (i.e., the USSR) could help this smaller group significantly, and we have no doubt of your
desire to do so’. Wallace declined to specify what he meant by this statement, and I felt it would be
awkward to press him.”

Then Wallace, of his own initiative, touched upon Anglo-American econ. talks. “At the end of the
conversation, Wallace mentioned that congressmen who had returned from trips to the USSR and
around Western Europe were spreading a lot of anti-Soviet lies here.”

In their book The Haunted Wood [7], Allen Weinstein and Alexander Vassiliev discuss the same
document. They call this meeting “one of the most remarkable and unexpected meetings of the
period.” Noting that Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov found it so important that he noted it had to
be sent to Stalin, they write:

"That Wallace had chosen the Soviet intelligence chief in Washington as his conduit to the USSR
leadership testified to the daring (and recklessness) of the man whom FDR had removed from the
Democratic ticket in 1944 in favor of the more conservative Truman. Wallace’s proposal, considering
the Truman Administration’s cooler relations with the USSR in past months, was also startling.
They note the importance of Wallace’s suggestion to Gorsky that technical data about the atomic
bomb should not be kept in U.S. hands, a suggestion, they correctly write, that was “extraordinarily
indiscreet.”

I would add that Wallace’s suggestion that he opposed Senator Edwin Johnson’s bill to keep control
of the bomb in U.S. hands rather than transfer it to the U.N. Security Council — which he called a
“reactionary attempt” created by “representatives of big industrial capital” — is precisely the
argument used today to explain opposition to Wallace by Stone and Kuznick, who actually present
old Soviet and communist arguments as their own contemporary original analysis.

They also concur with Wallace’s statement to Gorsky that Harry S Truman was a man who fell under
“the influence of people around him,” a group which Stone and Kuznick keep repeating was made up
of reactionary Southerners like James F. Byrnes who represented big corporate industry.

Most importantly: Weinstein writes that Wallace’s call for Soviet support on behalf of those who
shared his views “reached beyond the fragile boundaries of discretion,” particularly because Wallace
asked the Soviet to “help this smaller group considerably,” referring to himself and his supporters.
Wallace, in other words, was a complete dupe of the American Communists, a group which — as I
have explained in an earlier column — convinced him to run for president on the so-called Progressive
Party ticket in 1948.

Further evidence for Wallace’s myopia comes from the pen of my colleague and co-conspirator in the
history of American communism and Soviet espionage, John Earl Haynes. His material appears in
Dubious Alliance: The Making of Minnesota’s DFL Party [8], and Red Scare: American Communism and 
Anti-Communism in the Cold War Era. [9]

Haynes writes:

"An incident I discuss took place in October 1946. Hubert Humphrey up to that point had greatly
admired Wallace and at the 1944 national Democratic convention had led the Minnesota delegation in
a demonstration for retaining Wallace as Roosevelt’s vice-president and, to the great irritation of the
more regular Democrats in the MN delegation, had refused to shift to Truman even after Truman’s
victory was clear. After FDR’s death, he wrote an emotional letter to Wallace regretting that Wallace
was not in a position to assume the presidency. In September 1946 Truman filed Wallace for his
criticism of Truman’s developing Cold War policies and in October Wallace made a nation-wide
speaking tour, including an appearance in Minneapolis. At the airport then Mayor Humphrey officially
welcomed Wallace and sought a meeting with him to discuss the political situation in Minnesota. That
night Wallace met with Humphrey and a few of Humphrey’s close political aides. After Humphrey
explained his increasing difficult relations with secret Communists operating in the Democratic-Farmer
-Labor party, Wallace told Humphrey that he personally knew of only one Communist active in liberal
politics, Lee Pressman of the CIO. Humphrey was taken aback by this because Wallace had ridden
from the airport with a delegation of Minnesota Wallace supporters, including several well-known
Communists (turning down Humphrey’s offer to escort Wallace to his hotel). Worse, however, Wallace
then suggested that Humphrey privately approach Soviet officials and ask that they order their
Minnesota subordinates to behave with greater discretion. Appalled by Wallace’s combination of
naiveté and willingness to accept Soviet involvement in domestic American politics, Humphrey
severed his ties with the man he once fervently hoped would be president of the United States."

One other incident confirms Wallace’s complete naiveté about the Communist control of his own
movement in 1948. His good friend, C.B. “Beanie” Baldwin, whom he knew from New Deal days,
became his top advisor and campaign manager. Baldwin, unbeknownst to Wallace, was a secret
Communist Party member.

A congressman who was a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities wrote Wallace
to inform him that he had information that the leaders of the Pennsylvania branch of the Progressive
Party were both members of the CPUSA. Wallace responded that he asked Beanie Baldwin about this,
 and Baldwin told him it was not true — that the men were independent progressives. Baldwin, who
had appointed these two Communists to the leadership of the movement in Philadelphia, lied to
Wallace.

Had Henry A. Wallace become president in 1948, and had FDR let him stay on the ticket, Wallace
would have proceeded to implement policies favorable to Stalin in Europe. There would have been no
Marshall Plan, no NATO, and U.S. policy would have been to formally support the Soviet takeover of
Eastern Europe, including approval of the Czech coup that put the Communists in power after the
killing of Jan Masaryk.

As John L. Gaddis suggested, the future of the world would have been very different, since there
would have been no Western opposition to Stalin’s expansion as he moved politically to create
Communist regimes throughout Europe.

In repeating a mythical history of the Cold War from the Soviet perspective, Oliver Stone and Peter
Kuznick continually misinform the American public about the real history of the Cold War. That the
American media has featured them on virtually every major television and radio talk show — without
any challenge to the analysis they offer — is more than a major disgrace.

It makes the talk show hosts who book them complicit in the spreading of lies about our own past,
and hence does a great disserve to the public. It is bad enough that CBS has run their TV series on
Showtime. To then allow them to spread their lies unopposed compounds the disgrace. Which will be
the program brave enough to invite on anyone who can challenge the portrait of the Cold War
painted by Stone and Kuznick? Even hosts like Joe Scarborough and Mike Huckabee have given their
programs over to these dishonest and ill-informed would-be historians.

I have offered to appear with them in a debate, alongside someone like Prof. Wilson Miscamble of
Notre Dame University (author of a serious book [10] on the Cold War that proves how bad the
history of Stone and Kuznick is and another book [11] on the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan).

To date, Stone and Kuznick have not replied to the challenge. I think I know why. Both of them would
not be able to handle real evidence and argument that challenges many of the assertions and
so-called “indisputable facts” they present.

They are moral and mental cowards, willing only to appear on their own before hosts who do not
know history, and before audiences of confirmed leftists who cheer them on.

It is time Showtime, CBS, and the programs that regularly book them on the air hear from those of us
who are disgusted with their propaganda barrage and demand that others who hold a different
perspective have the chance to counter their work.

Article printed from Ron Radosh: http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh
URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2013/01/06/the-real-henry-a-wallace-the-truth-
about-oliver-stone-and-peter-kuznicks-unsung-hero/
URLs in this post:
[1] After Wordshttp://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Kuz
[2] devastating attacks on the work of Howard Zinn: http://hnn.us/articles/4370.html
[3] Up With Christopher Hayeshttp://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/309872-1
[4] biographer of George F. Kennan: http://www.amazon.com/George-F-Kennan-American-Life/
dp/1594203121/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357497598&sr=1-6&keywords=John+L.+Gaddis
[5] Cold War historian: http://www.amazon.com/Cold-War-New-History/dp/0143038273/
ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357497598&sr=1-1&keywords=John+L.+Gaddis
[6] Vassiliev Papers: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/digital-archive
[7] The Haunted Woodhttp://www.amazon.com/Haunted-Wood-Espionage-America-Paperbacks/
dp/0375755365/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357509172&sr=1-1&keywords=
The+Haunted+Wood
[8] Dubious Alliance: The Making of Minnesota’s DFL Party: http://www.amazon.com/
Dubious-Alliance-Making-Minnesotas-Party/dp/0816613249/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=
UTF8&qid=1357513831&sr=1-1&keywords=Dubious+Alliance
[9] Red Scare: American Communism and Anti-Communism in the Cold War Era.: http://www.amazon.
com/Red-Scare-Menace-Communism-Anticommunism/dp/1566630916/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie
=UTF8&qid=1357513862&sr=1-4&keywords=Red+Scare
[10] serious book: http://www.amazon.com/Roosevelt-Truman-Potsdam-Hiroshima-Cold/dp/
0521728584/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357513711&sr=1-2&keywords=Wilson+Miscamble
[11] book: http://www.amazon.com/Most-Controversial-Decision-Cambridge-Essential/dp/0521514193/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357513711&sr=1-1&keywords=Wilson+Miscamble