nobody knows henry wallace anymore. when henry luce in 1941 said the 20th-century must be the american century, the united states must dominate the world, wallace said the 20th-century must be the century of the common man. he calls for a people's revolution in the tradition of the french revolution, american revolution, russian revolution. we must wipe out monopolies and cartels. we must and colonialism, imperialism, racism. and we must collaborate to refashion the world at the end of the world -- and of the war. the upper was bj at the end of the war. that was the view he had and the leaders hated him. he was the exemplar of everything good that the democratic party has ever stood for. >> we will be back in a minute. >> this is democracy now. the war and peace report. oliver stone and peter have "the untoldok, history of the united states." >> i want to ask about president reagan. you have a chapter titled death squads for democracy. >> the caribbean is our lifeline to the outside world. two-thirds of foreign trade an

they knew wallace wasn't going to survive another term. in 1941, henryentury. wallace countered that and said it must be the century of the common man. he called for a worldwide people's revolution. ending colonialism. >> wallace is a fascinating figure. he compares the american revolution and the revolution. he steps through the revolutions. broadly with this counternarrative which is kind of a revisionist history of the world war. i think that's a fair way of describing it. and it's a revisitist history that aren't novel in the left. this kind of history has been there before. and the issue here is the recognition of the nature of the soviet state, right? that wallace was on the wrong side of history in this respect. that he was duped. that he went there, he saw the siberian work camps, they said, oh, it's all volunteer labor. he wrote a book later in his life saying i was wrong. he actually ended up endorsing nixon and eisenhower, right? why should wallace be this kind of visionary figure if he was wrong about the soviet nation of the state, and that'

wallace said publicly at the convention if i were a delegate i would vote for henry wallace, which hewould have, but it's tragic as a say in the document is, it's tragic you didn't have the strength to fight at that point for wallace. >> i sense in the opening question, michael, you're pointing to the forces of history. and i see the marxist side of this, the forces that pushed history -- [inaudible] >> in the sense of wallace would've been opposed and the forces were not in his favor and the forces were ultimately between this capitalism versus communists ideology would clash and that would begin. that, of course, was the subject of the february 46 speech stalled amid that was misinterpreted by the west by the two systems are that speech -- when you read the speech -- [inaudible] >> that goes back to churchill. step up in the cold war. we go into those months by month, july 45 right to march 46 when churchill gives this incredible speech. again, i'm coming from the outside. you studied this on your life. i'm fascinated by the '30s. we did a chapter on the '30s and also the philippine

in a fundamentally different direction. >> he would have tried. >> eliot: people don't remember henry wallace's one of those vice presidents who are forgot no one the dust bin of history. >> the very first thing that comes up on the agenda is the atomic bomb. wallace knew a lot about it. he was the liaison with the scientists. he never would have dropped that bomb. there was no need to. japan was defeated. >> eliot: what is your theory about why the decision was made to use the bomb. >> to intimidate the soviet union and give a clear barbaric message to stalin that we are the new order of business. you will not screw with the united states, and we're willing to kill people at any level. >> eliot: to defend the history books on this one the decision to use the bomb is a controversial decision, and its debated, and so the debate that you're joining on this issue is not one that's been hidden from those who study. >> in school textbooks are not so good on this. you don't get the clear alternative of the soviet invasion the negotiation for surrenders and truman knew that there were. >> the telegr

fascists on the ropes in germany and italy the vice president of the united states of that type henry wallace wrote an op ed for the new york times and in it he warned americans about the creeping dangers of fascism or corporate government here in america he defined the fascist says those who pay lip service to democracy in the common welfare in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives do not hesitate surreptitiously to of they the law was designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion. that's a fascist than what's so different about those c.e.o.'s who decided to evade obamacare is mandate to provide health insurance for their employees guys like the new york city applebee's franchise owner zane turkle papa john c.e.o. john schneider and the executives at darden restaurants or what about the banks there's a goldman sachs who knowingly evaded laws who knowingly sold investors crappy deals or who knowingly scammed entire cities into bankruptcy who knowingly illegally foreclosed on thousands of americans through fraudulent robo signing they did this all in t

and this is the invisibility of, relative invisibility of henry wallace.this is, it seems to me a really interesting situation. because there is soviet documents station indicating very strongly that wallace was readily reporting to the kremlin am certainly in 1945 and 46 when still in the truman administration cabinet come at this point as secretary of commerce. but also one thing that i came up with with regard to the 1948 campaign is the frustration of a secret effort that currency and general marshall had made to who should approach the service about the possibility of negotiation, and that was blown wide open in a way that strongly suggests contact between wallace and the kremlin at the time that wallace was running on the progressive party ticket for president, third party ticket for president. so i asked myself, you know, who is the real hero in this story, in this whole history. someone who's gotten a bad rap so far in the hole whittaker chambers alger hiss case and some who got a bad rap from george f. kennan come but it is the president of the un

government positioning himself as a vice president and the mas nations of a henry wallace. i think the more obvious reason why i'm invited because nathaniel is extremely, extremely, very, very, very persistent and would not take no for an answer although i explainedded i have little knowledge of chambers beyond reading the book when i was proxzly 16 years old, and having been influenced by it, i'm not in any way an expert on chambers, witness, influence, but i will talk as directed. [laughter] i want to pick up a little bit from where elliot started, and i might add, by the way, the irony that both elliot and i happen to hail from an organization that counts on foreign relations that chambers would have seen as a hot bed of pinko. the world changes. when i think of "witness," when i think of it, i think not just of the fact it's a document of great literary power, of which it is and heart of its literary appeal, but it was a weapon in the ideological battle against communism that was raging when it came out. it was not a weapon designed, funded, or created by the u.s. gover

position himself for a run at the vice president and the reminiscent of the -- alger hiss or a henry wallace. i think the more obvious reason why i've been invited is because nathaniel is extremely very, extremely, extremely, extremely, extremely, very, very, very persistent and he would not take no for an answer, even though i kept explaining to him that i have very little knowledge of whittaker chairs beyond having read the book when i was approximately 16 years old, like many people, and having been influenced by. i do not feel i'm in any way an expert on chambers or "witness" or its influence on impact but nevertheless i am here and i will talk as directed. and what i'd like to talk about is actually picking up a little bit from and where eliot started come and i might add by the way, i kind of fighting that both ellie and i happened to hail from position, the council of foreign relations that whittaker jim snow that would've seen at a hotbed of pinko commie sense but nevertheless the world changes. when i think of tonight, but i think about it is, when i think of it i think not just of

positioning himself for vice president in a way reminiscent of the mass nations of alger hiss or henry wallace. i think the more obvious reason why had been invited because nathaniel is extremely, extremely, extremely very, very, very persistent and he would not take no for an answer even though i kept explaining to him that i have very little knowledge of whittaker chambers jan having read the book when i was approximately 16 years old like many people in having been influenced by. i do not feel i'm in any way a expert on chambers. what i would like to talk about is picking up a little bit from where elliott started and i might add by the way the kind of irony that both elliott and i happened to hail from an organization the council on foreign relations that whittaker chambers nidal would have seen a site hotbed of commies but nevertheless the world changes. when i think of witness, what i think about is when i think of it i think not just of the fact that it is a document of great literary power, which of it is and the heart of this appeal but also the fact that it was this very potent weapo

we tell the story of henry wallace, the now forgotten vice president from 1941 to 1945 and how closeame to being president, how close he came in 1994 at the democratic convention to get the nomination instead of harry truman. had wallace become president instead of truman when roosevelt died, there would have been certainly no atomic bombing in 1945 and very possibly no cold war. we're looking at those turning points. >> it's really a fascinating series. it's controversial in some ways. it's on showtime as a ten-part series. >> nthank you for having us. >> sorry you couldn't get your question. >> you got another question? we have to go. i'm sorry. we have to let you go. >>> a german company seeking a special kind of person to work for them. people with asperger's syndrome. we'll tell you why these folks are uniquely qualified for the job. i can't imagine anything better. you're getting a ton of shrimp, and it tastes really good! [ male announcer ] hurry in to red lobster's 30 shrimp for just $11.99! choose any two of five savory shrimp selections, like mango jalapeÑo shrimp and parme

that is the in visibility relative invisibility of henry a part wallace.ng situation because there is soviet documentation indicating strongly that wallace was regularly reporting to the kremlin in 1945, and 46 in the truman administration cabinet, as secretary of commerce but one thing i came up with with regard to the 1948 campaign was the frustration of a secret effort that kennan and general marshall made to approach the soviets about the possibility of negotiation and that was blown wide open in a way that strongly suggest contact between wallace and the kremlin at the time wallace was running on a progressive party ticket for president. i asked myself, who is the real hero in this story, in this whole history? someone who has gotten a bad rap so far in the whittaker chambers/alger hiss case and got a bad rap from george kennan, the president of the united states, franklin d. roosevelt who for whatever reason, and we may never know the reason, dumped wallace from the ticket in 1944 and sent him on an inspection trip to siberia where he confused the la

i believe that chuck hagel is the gop's alternative to henry wallace. let me havethank you for lettine my comment. host: the next person will be on the independent line. are you there? we are going to try him once more. are you there? in newo on to donald jersey. democrat line. what do you think about the nominee's? caller: i think john brennan and chuck hagel are more than qualified for the situations they're being put in. i think both of these men are held in high regard as far as their expertise. i think the president made to very wise choices. -- two very wise choices. host: betti, independent line. what do you think about the president's choices? caller: i am independent but conservative. if you're a republican money did not get through. -- you do not get through. chuck hagel has a lot of baggage. he talked about the gay people in 1996 and 1998. he was 18. everybody is forgetting about that. i happen to be a gay american. he always picks a radical people. john mccain is a war hero. everybody can say whatever they want about chuck hagel but he's awf