Untold History of the United States

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It was a MOVIE ffs. Since when was it supposed to be truth? WTF is wrong with you two?

Why do you have such low standards?

[FBM]

They were interested in a quick fix to the "China Incident". (Anybody know what they didn't call it a war? Why China didn't declare war on the invader until Dec. 8th, 1941, local time?) They had been telling Showa the Incident would be over in a year since 1937. They were like the guys that keep buying self-help books they never read.

Help me out with this "China Incident," if you get a chance, please. Google isn't helping.

Edit: Cancel that request. Found something.

The euphemism was needed because of the US neutrality laws. Neither side would anything important from the US if a war was declared, so they just ignored that part. Japan could have gone ahead with a declaration of war after July 1941, but they weren't in the habit of bothering with things like that.

Yeah, I just caught on to that part. I also just found out that the Soviets signed a neutrality pact with Japan in 1941, ostensibly, as least, preventing them from coordinating a two-front attack with Germany. Interesting.

[pErvinalia]

It was a MOVIE ffs. Since when was it supposed to be truth? WTF is wrong with you two?

Why do you have such low standards?

Huh? Do you even know what a Hollywood movie is? I know the exact standards they work on. Make as much money as possible. Was it a successful movie, G? Do you really need me to explain this any more to you?

[mistermack]

It was a MOVIE ffs. Since when was it supposed to be truth? WTF is wrong with you two?

Why would you go to him for HISTORY ffs?
It's not like there is a shortage of historical films, from people who think the truth is important. The whole point of history, is to make it as truthful and balanced as possible.

Stone is just a ludicrous choice for that. It's a total waste, if you can't trust what your told. Maybe it's true, but if you can't trust it, you need to double check it. So you just wasted your time watching it.

[redunderthebed]

I'm a fan of docos 'zilla whilst stone's might not be the best example of I've enjoyed it.

I do agree that one should follow up watching a doco with some at least basic research and critical analysis and IMO if a doco is good enough it should compel you to do so.

[pErvinalia]

It was a MOVIE ffs. Since when was it supposed to be truth? WTF is wrong with you two?

Why would you go to him for HISTORY ffs?
It's not like there is a shortage of historical films, from people who think the truth is important. The whole point of history, is to make it as truthful and balanced as possible.

Stone is just a ludicrous choice for that. It's a total waste, if you can't trust what your told. Maybe it's true, but if you can't trust it, you need to double check it. So you just wasted your time watching it.

I'd pay money to watch you and Mr Jonno have a conversation at a pub. It would be one of the most ludicrously idiotic things I think one could ever hope to see. Engaging with you is pointless. You seem to have a total inability to make a rational and logical argument.

[mistermack]

I'd pay money to watch you and Mr Jonno have a conversation at a pub. It would be one of the most ludicrously idiotic things I think one could ever hope to see. Engaging with you is pointless. You seem to have no clue of what is being said here.

Lose an argument. Change to personal abuse.
That's a new one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd pay money to watch you and Mr Jonno have a conversation at a pub. It would be one of the most ludicrously idiotic things I think one could ever hope to see. Engaging with you is pointless. You seem to have no clue of what is being said here.

Lose an argument. Change to personal abuse.
That's a new one.

Don't bother, Wiki seems too much work for him. They'll bury him with the remote still in his hand.

[pErvinalia]

I'd pay money to watch you and Mr Jonno have a conversation at a pub. It would be one of the most ludicrously idiotic things I think one could ever hope to see. Engaging with you is pointless. You seem to have no clue of what is being said here.

Lose an argument. Change to personal abuse.
That's a new one.

Care to show me where I "lost an argument"? Lol. Your only coherent (if it can be called that) claim here is that because Stone once made a shit hollywood blockbuster (in your view), any history documentary he does should be automatically discounted as bollocks. Do you really need me to point out the retardedness of that "argument"? Seriously?

edit spelling...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You're nipping around the ankles, rev.

[pErvinalia]

I'd pay money to watch you and Mr Jonno have a conversation at a pub. It would be one of the most ludicrously idiotic things I think one could ever hope to see. Engaging with you is pointless. You seem to have no clue of what is being said here.

Lose an argument. Change to personal abuse.
That's a new one.

Don't bother, Wiki seems too much work for him. They'll bury him with the remote still in his hand.

Lol. You too seem to have no idea what I am saying. If it's possible for you, you might like to revise the thread and see that I have at no point said anything about the veracity of what Stone said. Your problem, like Mistermacks is that you seem to have a giant stick up your arse about Stone, therefore anything that isn't critical of him is viewed as glowing support in your limited world. Big fails. But do keep failing. It's entertaining.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

We just have higher standards than you, that's all. Don't feel bad, we can't all be perceptive and informed.

[pErvinalia]

What "standards" have I displayed?

I was the one that had to point out to you that all history that is derivative has to be taken with a large dose of skepticism. That includes both Stone's work, and your impressive catalogue of work somewhere, allegedly.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What "standards" have I displayed?

I was the one that had to point out to you that all history that is derivative has to be taken with a large dose of skepticism. That includes both Stone's work, and your impressive catalogue of work somewhere, allegedly.

Sorry, rEv, I'd give you a link, but I don't want to get my site dirty.

[mistermack]

Care to show me where I "lost an argument"? Lol. Your only coherent (if it can be called that) claim here is that because Stone once made a shit hollywood blockbuster (in your view), any history documentary he does should be automatically discounted as bollocks. Do you really need me to point out the retardedness of that "argument"? Seriously?

edit spelling...

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to practise surgery, you need to study surgery, and pass your exams, and then be supervised till you are competent to do it.
History isn't surgery, but it's important. Historians follow a similar educational path to surgeons.
By all means, if you want, put your trust in a surgeon who just wants to have a go.

Do you really need me to point out the retardedness of that "approach"? Seriously?