A new documentary came out last month that I’ve been beseeched to watch, in light of recent discussions. It’s called The US and the Holocaust, by the famed Ken Burns — widely considered one of the foremost High School History Class filmmakers in all the land. The documentary is very long, something like seven hours in total, but I did my duty and watched. And I’m glad I did. Because it turns out the documentary is a perfect example of “revisionist history” — a term that gets angrily shouted whenever anyone seeks to critically examine some historical record. Typically the term “revisionist” carries the connotation of “bad” — as in, it’s bad and suspicious and dangerous that you’re engaging in “revisionist history,” especially as related to such-and-such sacrosanct historical topic. Please stop doing that. Well, I can confidently report that the new documentary falls squarely into the “revisionist history” category, although I wouldn’t tell Burns to stop working his craft, because his productions are always a useful window into generic conventional wisdom.
I guess Burns forgot to mention that great anti-war figure George Washington who warned against foreign entanglements. And he surely would never support the idea of George's never put party above nation. Something very much out of favor today.
Just disgusting. I used to respect Burns, now I detest him. Those of us counciling peace will never get to say “we told you so” if the crazy war hawks get their way. We have dangerous lying leaders. Trump kept us OUT of wars. Bring him back.
“they wanted no part of the foreign wars that the moneyed conservative Eastern class so much enjoyed and benefited from. The people knew that they were the ones who would do the dying” Vidal was talking about WWII but it still applies. Seems Ken Burns has gone from exquisitely calibrating conventional wisdom to actively serving the regime. The USA did little to nothing for Jewish refugees during the war. The heroic narrative has been greatly enlarged ever since. It seems here Burns is using the heroic tale to create propaganda. This is closer to messaging than it is to a balanced account. What you leave out can be a tell. Why is he supporting a senile puppet?
Kind of wish "Ken Burns" had remained a photo slideshow transitioning effect.
More seriously, history is messy. Only in retrospect can you judge it, but you can only live it going forward without the benefit of being able to sneak a peek at the ending. Beware of the person who tries to simplify it and turn it into a caricature or a slogan. They're trying to sell you something, and most of the time it's something you will really, really regret buying when you look back . . . that's if we live through this one and have a chance to look back.
I'm old enough to remember worrying about nuclear holocaust. I had thought those days were gone, but here we are. I'd say that history will remember these people poorly, though history remembering would require someone to be around to relate that history, and I'm not sure anyone will be. (If you can't tell, it's been hitting home a little lately how close we are to annihilating the human race, though at this point, I'm not too sure that's the worst thing. Another species can have its turn.)
But, in short, thank you so much for reminding me why Substack is such a valuable place and giving me hope that not all the intelligent, thoughtful people are dead or silence.
PS Any article that brings in the late great Kurt Vonnegut warms my heart.
I was extremely disappointed in Burns’ work this time around. Normally he’s very detailed in his research and interviews - which is why his series are loooong. But his approach her seems driven by a bizarre and irrational panic. A phenomenon that seems to infect the minds of elites these days ever since Trump came to power.
It seems Trump, and now Putin, have the magical power to turn once level headed individuals into raving lunatics. Did anyone see Sam Harris justify any action to ensure Trump not be elected?
Burns now has this historically inaccurate documentary lashed around his neck now - it’s his own 1619 project. Absolutely horrible work and blatantly propagandist.
Yes, Ken Burns is a revisionist, and he always has been. He's a 1970s antiwar protestor who set out to put out his own version of history. No doubt he came up with his "Holocaust" project because of an influx of cash from the usual suspects. The Holocaust is to Jews as slavery is to black activists - without it, no one would pay them any attention. I have read Charles Lindberg's diary and several biographies of him. He was NOT pro-Hitler, but he had lived in Europe for several years and knew the capabilities of the various military aviation forces of the belligerent nations, and he feared that the war would destroy Europe (which it did.) FDR and members of his administration hated him because they knew he was speaking truth. There were many who opposed US involvement in the war, including Henry Ford, who gave Lindbergh a job in his Willow Run bomber plant - unlike other industrialists, he wasn't afraid of Roosevelt. Lindbergh was actually a strong conservative and held the conservative view that America should stay out of Europe's wars.
As for Norman Thomas, few Americans have ever heard of him. Pete Seeger and Woody Gutherie were communists and followed the communist line of supporting Uncle Joe Stalin after Hitler broke their alliance and attacked the USSR.
If you want to watch something worthwhile, I would suggest the works of TimeGhost History. They have a full week by week coverage of the First World War with tons of additional specials
The fundamental point, which I think escapes you, is that those who opposed U.S. engagement in Europe, including entry into WWII, were wrong from every imaginable perspective. Staying out of Europe after WWI was bad policy from a realpolitik perspective, from a moral perspective, and from a prudential perspective.
The issue is not whether America Firsters were fascist sympathizers, racists, and anti-semites--some very clearly were, but only a minority. The question is whether they were blind to the realities of their age. The answer is that they very much were, just as you are blind to the realities of the situation in Ukraine.
It may be entirely true that many of those pushing for greater support for Ukraine lie or have base commercial motives. It is also entirely beside the point. Ad hominem is never sound argument. Ken Burns's perspective on the past, however defective, isn't the reason Western nations should keep pouring money and arms into Ukraine to hold off the Russians. The case for vigorously opposing Russia's invasion is based not on a distorted view of history, but on a clear view of the reality of our present. Joe Biden and Ken Burns are not bigger threats to world peace and security than Vladimir Putin.
I suppose Burns also forgot to mention Joan Collins? I joke. But I wonder what myths were made in the late '60's about World War II and if they different than the ones made now.
What great reporting, how very unique and perceptive. Your explication of American opposition to ww2 and the link to the latest military engagement is compelling. I wonder are people in the know (historians) giving you a thumbs up? Does an honest interlocutor dispute this supposition?
IMHO Ken Burns blew up his career with 'Holocaust'.....how dare he equate the Holocaust with illegal immigration today. The man is truly daft.
I guess Burns forgot to mention that great anti-war figure George Washington who warned against foreign entanglements. And he surely would never support the idea of George's never put party above nation. Something very much out of favor today.
Just disgusting. I used to respect Burns, now I detest him. Those of us counciling peace will never get to say “we told you so” if the crazy war hawks get their way. We have dangerous lying leaders. Trump kept us OUT of wars. Bring him back.
It’s also highly ironic that they’re the nazis they want to warn everyone is coming
“they wanted no part of the foreign wars that the moneyed conservative Eastern class so much enjoyed and benefited from. The people knew that they were the ones who would do the dying” Vidal was talking about WWII but it still applies. Seems Ken Burns has gone from exquisitely calibrating conventional wisdom to actively serving the regime. The USA did little to nothing for Jewish refugees during the war. The heroic narrative has been greatly enlarged ever since. It seems here Burns is using the heroic tale to create propaganda. This is closer to messaging than it is to a balanced account. What you leave out can be a tell. Why is he supporting a senile puppet?
That is exactly how opposition to the 2003 Iraq War will be portrayed in 2083.
Kind of wish "Ken Burns" had remained a photo slideshow transitioning effect.
More seriously, history is messy. Only in retrospect can you judge it, but you can only live it going forward without the benefit of being able to sneak a peek at the ending. Beware of the person who tries to simplify it and turn it into a caricature or a slogan. They're trying to sell you something, and most of the time it's something you will really, really regret buying when you look back . . . that's if we live through this one and have a chance to look back.
I'm old enough to remember worrying about nuclear holocaust. I had thought those days were gone, but here we are. I'd say that history will remember these people poorly, though history remembering would require someone to be around to relate that history, and I'm not sure anyone will be. (If you can't tell, it's been hitting home a little lately how close we are to annihilating the human race, though at this point, I'm not too sure that's the worst thing. Another species can have its turn.)
But, in short, thank you so much for reminding me why Substack is such a valuable place and giving me hope that not all the intelligent, thoughtful people are dead or silence.
PS Any article that brings in the late great Kurt Vonnegut warms my heart.
The Vietnam War, The Cuban Missle Crisis, the 2008 Crash - none of these are as scary & ominous, as what we're going through now.
I was extremely disappointed in Burns’ work this time around. Normally he’s very detailed in his research and interviews - which is why his series are loooong. But his approach her seems driven by a bizarre and irrational panic. A phenomenon that seems to infect the minds of elites these days ever since Trump came to power.
It seems Trump, and now Putin, have the magical power to turn once level headed individuals into raving lunatics. Did anyone see Sam Harris justify any action to ensure Trump not be elected?
Burns now has this historically inaccurate documentary lashed around his neck now - it’s his own 1619 project. Absolutely horrible work and blatantly propagandist.
Yes, Ken Burns is a revisionist, and he always has been. He's a 1970s antiwar protestor who set out to put out his own version of history. No doubt he came up with his "Holocaust" project because of an influx of cash from the usual suspects. The Holocaust is to Jews as slavery is to black activists - without it, no one would pay them any attention. I have read Charles Lindberg's diary and several biographies of him. He was NOT pro-Hitler, but he had lived in Europe for several years and knew the capabilities of the various military aviation forces of the belligerent nations, and he feared that the war would destroy Europe (which it did.) FDR and members of his administration hated him because they knew he was speaking truth. There were many who opposed US involvement in the war, including Henry Ford, who gave Lindbergh a job in his Willow Run bomber plant - unlike other industrialists, he wasn't afraid of Roosevelt. Lindbergh was actually a strong conservative and held the conservative view that America should stay out of Europe's wars.
As for Norman Thomas, few Americans have ever heard of him. Pete Seeger and Woody Gutherie were communists and followed the communist line of supporting Uncle Joe Stalin after Hitler broke their alliance and attacked the USSR.
If you want to watch something worthwhile, I would suggest the works of TimeGhost History. They have a full week by week coverage of the First World War with tons of additional specials
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheGreatWar
Their Between Two Wars series (also the best history program I have ever seen)
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrG5J-K5AYAU1R-HeWSfY2D1jy_sEssNG
Finally, they are currently doing a week by week of World War Two (currently at October 1943)
https://www.youtube.com/c/WorldWarTwo/videos
Own need only watch Burns's "Baseball" to see that he has been dabbling in revisionist history for a long time.
Maybe someone should tell Burns that nuclear war is bad?
The fundamental point, which I think escapes you, is that those who opposed U.S. engagement in Europe, including entry into WWII, were wrong from every imaginable perspective. Staying out of Europe after WWI was bad policy from a realpolitik perspective, from a moral perspective, and from a prudential perspective.
The issue is not whether America Firsters were fascist sympathizers, racists, and anti-semites--some very clearly were, but only a minority. The question is whether they were blind to the realities of their age. The answer is that they very much were, just as you are blind to the realities of the situation in Ukraine.
It may be entirely true that many of those pushing for greater support for Ukraine lie or have base commercial motives. It is also entirely beside the point. Ad hominem is never sound argument. Ken Burns's perspective on the past, however defective, isn't the reason Western nations should keep pouring money and arms into Ukraine to hold off the Russians. The case for vigorously opposing Russia's invasion is based not on a distorted view of history, but on a clear view of the reality of our present. Joe Biden and Ken Burns are not bigger threats to world peace and security than Vladimir Putin.
I suppose Burns also forgot to mention Joan Collins? I joke. But I wonder what myths were made in the late '60's about World War II and if they different than the ones made now.
(Star Trek. City on the Edge of Tomorrow)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uKWpWkcpdM
What great reporting, how very unique and perceptive. Your explication of American opposition to ww2 and the link to the latest military engagement is compelling. I wonder are people in the know (historians) giving you a thumbs up? Does an honest interlocutor dispute this supposition?