Documentary dear Watson

So, for more then 12 months now my father has given me a really useful running Christmas present. A gift subscription to a 2 at a time Netflix account. And I guess because I always used it for the kids, a new movie here and there, I just never really explored the "documentary" selection they have available. Man, nearly every memorable History Channel, Military Channel, A&E, PBS and BBC documentary is on there. So, I loaded up on 40 discs in my queue. The frustrating thing is that while I could find reams of footage on NAZIs, Hitler, Goebbels, you name it - from every angle imaginable, studying every evil deed, war making, and occult of Hitler's personality, there was virtually NOTHING on communism, and the Soviet Empire in specific. You can get "the Tsars", and biographies on the different Soviet Premier's such as "Stalin: Red Terror", but there was only ONE dvd that captured the Soviet multi decade reign of terror, murder and oppression as a whole, and that had a release date "yet to be determined." There is loads of rampant Bush hating, Abu Grhab focusing, "GTMO is a gulag" horse sh**, but not the ACTUAL, original gulags it would seem. Why?

I have an interesting book: The Black Book of Communism, and while the book is dedicated to exposing the atrocities committed in the name of this ideology, the rather lengthy preface is dedicated exclusively to why higher academia has so highlighted fascist atrocities, personified in their greatest evil: Hitler, but that same "light" isn't focused on communist atrocities, personified in their greatest evil: Soviets. It's an interesting question, and one clearly demonstrated in the roster of historical classes offered at any college or University (I had 3 options for Nazi Germany classes in the history dept at USM, not one on Soviet Russia), all the way to movie and TV production where the focus is overwhelmingly slanted towards one over the other.

Now, surely there are some legitimate reasons as to this discrepancy. One, we didn't fight a multi year hot war with the Soviets in anything approaching our war with Germany. Two, in that nation defining war the Soviets were an ally. Three, and this is my opinion, the atrocities committed by communists are seen by academia, movie producers, et al as being politically and economically motivated, whereas NAZIs were motivated by the much easier to identify evil of racism. And the last, more cynical reason among these opinions of mine, and one presented in that preface I mentioned, is the Castro's, Chavez's, Che's, and various Soviet Premiers have a soft spot in the heart of the American left (be it in academia or entertainment) because of their "good intentions" to act on behalf of the poor, lower class of their nations. From the American (and Western) left's perspective it is almost as if the ideology of communism has "too much good in it" to be "that bad."Think about it - I can name at least 3 major stars, an ex president and a movie producer whom have gone and kissed the ring of Chavez and Castro in recent years, but haven't gone near the topic nor geography of obvious clearly fascist regimes as in Iran or Syria. Sean Penn isn't hanging with Ahmedadenajad I can assure you. Now of course Saddam was a fascistic totalitarian, but this group gives him a pass as previously "contained" because he was eventually deposed by the US government in an "illegal war" ... gag, cough*

Well, I ordered my 2 communism documentaries, and about 25 on Germany (out of the 100 available). I got the acclaimed HBO miniseries "Adams", that's first up. The Revolutionary War, founding fathers, one on Islamic terror, oh and 2 on Israel. The birth of their nation in 1948 and one hosted by a bright conservative talker I know of named Dennis Prager, describing the Israeli point of view, desire for peace and the toll the Palestinian conflict has taken on her. And one on the atrocities of Saddam ... just some light viewing.

****

Titus, on your last - you agree with Buchanan on this topic, fine, I get that (I don't agree with him on every topic either I might add, and sometimes that disagreement is vehement). But he went out of his way to state that FDR's New Deal, as a response to economic upheavals, was an utter failure; whereas he contends that the Coolidge, JFK, Reagan model of in essence "betting on the private sector rather then government", is the proven and preferred choice, and the one Obama should opt for, versus "channeling Roosevelt." So I want to be clear, you agree with that? I know you agree that lowering taxes in a slow down (or melt down) is the proper response, but Pat didn't stop with saying "Reagan/JFK were great", he made a point of excoriating FDR's economics as destructive.

After our battles on New Deal and what truly ended the Great Depression I guess I was a little surprised to hear you agree with that assessment, even if it is (and it is ) the correct one.