OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 05:53 AM

"It would be a credit to Catters if they took the time to work out what was going on before assuming the role of moral judiciary."

Yes. We're not clear on what taboo thing Stone supposedly said, that Riginslinger found it worthy to flag up. Particularly as the 'shock' headline of the article linked to, bares no resemblance to anything Stone was quoted as saying, or indeed anything he has stated he wishes to achieve with this documentary.

It does seem clear however that Stone is critical of what he sees as the political influence of Jewish controlled media in America, and the "fucked-up" effect it's lobbying has had on American foreign policy. And while that's probably a contraversial position to hold, it's not akin to revising Hitler as a nice guy really who got a bit of a bad press.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:02 AM

"while that's probably a contraversial position to hold, it's not akin to revising Hitler as a nice guy really who got a bit of a bad press. "

But by misrepresenting his position, he can be discredited as anti-Semitic, just for saying what he did. Sorta like Eisenhower and his "military industrial complex" statement...

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 08:34 AM

Lox, the final toll of the Nazi death camps and other methods of mass murder will never be known, but the 6 million (in round numbers) refers to the number of Jews killed. The total, including Rom, homosexuals, Russian and Polish POWs, the disabled and others, is nearer to 11 million. If one includes the number of Soviet civilians who died, that number can easily double. Nobody in the West is likely to tell a Russian that the war was about freeing the Jews, then or now. Not at the time, because the extent of the disaster wasn't known, and not now because nobody really cares about events of 3/4 of a century ago, except for a rapidly-decreasing number of people who were closer to the events and historical pedants.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 09:04 AM

When I was a child, in the 1960s, I learned about the suffering of the Russians, especially in Stalingrad and Leningrad. I learned that the Holocaust had other victims besides Jews. I learned that the Japanese also committed war crimes.

Since the 1990's and since I came to the US in 1998. I've heard little of this. But that is understandable. The Russians and Gypsies and homosexuals and others are not looking for our support, money and arms in colonizing the Middle East, using the holocaust as justification.

Some people have a vested interest in keeping the crimes committed against Jews in the public eye. They have vowed to do so and started publicity campaigns with slogans like "never again."

Without hearing a single mention of the same happening to Homosexuals or Roma, I don't know how many times in the past 12 years I have seen a Jewish character or actor in a movie talk about their grandma the Holocaust survivor or some such. Think of "the Holocaust Ring" in the recent hit comedy the Hangover. It is a convenient plot point in a script. But the effect and frequency of these mentions tend to put WWII in a light that shows it as only a slaughter of Jews which was finally ended with the intervention of Gary Cooper, John Wayne, George Patton and Tom Hanks.

I am not denying what the Nazi's did to the Jews in any way. It was terrible and certainly one of the worst war crimes in history. But Hitler's armies killed many more times than 6 million Russian and other civilians. As Stone is alleged to have said, a little "proportion" might be in order.

But if Mr. Stone were to make a documentary that proportionally talked about all the other victims of the Nazi's and downplayed the plight of the Jews, there would be two certain results. It would not come close to balancing all of the coverage of the Jewish part of the Holocaust and Mr. Stone would be called a "Holocaust denier" and worse.

I haven't really been a fan of Mr. Stone since "Midnight Express" but there is certainly room for a documentary about World War II war crimes which does NOT focus primarily on the holocaust.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 09:56 AM

Jack - What "Midnight Express" are you refering to? The only one I know about was directed by Alan Parker. The Turkish prison movie. Is there another one?

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:15 AM

Stone wrote the screenplay. I loved the film purely as an escape drama when I saw it many years ago. But there's no denying that it doesn't paint a pretty picture of Turks! Even Billy Hayes - who's autobiography it was adapted from - took issue with the adaptation on those grounds.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: number 6
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:17 AM

Oliver Stone was a scriptwriter for the movie Midnight Express ... and of course the movie was rather somewhat exaggerated (convenient for Hollywood purposes) from the factual account of Billy Hayes experience in a Turkish prison.

The Holocaust is a symbol of man's inhumanity to man ... and we should never tire of, or ignore the cry of "never again"

biLL

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 10:30 AM

I might as well take this moment to post the influential theme by Gorgio Moroder: Now there's a man who knows how to wear a pair of shades.. ;)

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:44 AM

No we should not ignore or forget "never again." On the other hand, it should equally be applied to all of the down trodden and not just focused on one group.

By the worst of the Zionists, "Never Again" is being used to justify war crimes. Certainly those war crimes are much smaller in scale. But there is some irony there. Should a child in Lebanon who has lost a limb to a cluster bomblet or a land mine should not be expected to pay the price for Nazi sins?

As I said, if Stone were to make a documentary focusing on Nazi war crimes against everyone else, it would be a story worthy telling.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:50 AM

Early on I charged that Rig never read the article he linked to. I still believe that I think that he responded to the title. Which says nothing about the article or the Holocaust itself. It says a great deal about Mr Riginslinger.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: number 6
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:53 AM

Every religious group (unfortunately) has it's extremists.

As I mentioned above ... the holocaust is a symbol of man's inhumanity to man, regardless of religion and ethnicity ... and "never again" is a cry for all of humanity.

biLL

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:54 AM

As an artistic point, I think that Oliver Stone's writing is what is exceptional. I think his directing is kind of ham handed and run of the mill at best. But the ideas are extremely engaging and provocative. I had forgotten for the moment that "Midnight Express" was not directed by Stone. But thinking back, that is probably a big factor in my liking it most of all his work.

I wonder at the body of work which might have been created had Stone stuck to writing and left the directing and editing to people who understood subtlety, cinematic storytelling and leaving the unnecessary exposition on the cutting room floor.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 11:58 AM

"As I mentioned above ... the holocaust is a symbol of man's inhumanity to man, regardless of religion and ethnicity ... and "never again" is a cry for all of humanity. "

I agree that it should be. But I believe that in recent past it has not worked out that way. I don't blame this on the people who are pushing their point of view. That is their right and in many ways their responsibility. I just agree with Stone in thinking that other atrocities are due some attention.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:16 PM

I have not ever seen the following theory expressed elsewhere, & can hardly believe that nobody else has thought of it; but so far as I know it is my own:~~

Someone above refers to the massacre of the 6 million Jews as 'a war crime'. It was not precisely that in fact, not being part of or connected to any military campaign; but was an enormity that was going on simultaneously with, but largely independent of, WWii. It is at least arguable that ~~

if the Nazis had not been in such a hurry to achieve their "Final Solution", with all it concomitant immense use of manpower resources, railway systems given over Europe-wide, largely to this sole purpose, and so forth; but had instead used all these resources for their war effort instead of frittering them away with such urgency on this less urgent project (i.e., from any objective pov, less urgent than actually winning the war, surely?) ~~

then they might well have won, and then been enabled to polish off the whole of European Jewry at their leisure. But by insisting on instant fulfilment of the terms agreed at Wannsee, they blew their chances of victory.

So it was, at least in part, the irrationality of the Nazis' hatred of the Jews' which would not let them possess themselves in patience until they had first of all achieved the victory and domination they craved, which enabled the Allies' ultimate victory, the stopping of the "Final Solution" in its tracks, and the saving of at least some remnant of the Jews of Europe.

What do others think of this theory?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:26 PM

Michael

Of course it was a "War Crime." The vast majority of the Jews killed were from conquered countries. Many were from Poland. Ann Frank's family was famously from Holland.

Defeating a country in war then rounding up a group of its citizens, enslaving and exterminating them is certainly a war crime.

As to the rest of your theory, I learned that the Jews, Homosexual, Roma and others were used by the Nazis as convenient "common enemies" to stir up blood lust and other factors which united the Nazi party and helped beat the drum for war. Could Hitler have got the German people to commit to total war without first attacking the Jews, Gypsies and Homosexuals?

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:39 PM

Good points, Jack; & good questions. But I still think my main point holds. Think of the logistics of running those long long trains of cattle trucks all the way from Hungary to POLAND; of staffing all those camps with able-bodied military-age young men & women. NOT EVEN AS IF THEY ONLY USED LOCAL EXTERMINATION CAMPS FOR LOCAL POPULATIONS [like Treblinka for Warsaw] AFTER ABOUT 1941: TRAINS RAN NORTH TO AUSCHWITZ FROM EVERYWHERE [sorry, not shouting: stuck shiftlock!]. I take the point re bloodlust, as I say; but it was surely, from any objective pov, a terrible waste of their resources which should [looking at it from their side] have been dedicated to their war effort?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:43 PM

"Early on I charged that Rig never read the article he linked to. I still believe that I think that he responded to the title. Which says nothing about the article or the Holocaust itself. It says a great deal about Mr Riginslinger. "

Ebbie,

The fact that you think rig didn't read the article says nothing about rig, it only says that you think he didn't read the article.

If we knew whether he had read it or not then the facts might say something about him, but as we don't know one way or the other, we have nothing to base any opinion of him on, so we have nothing saying anything about anybody.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:51 PM

"the irrationality of the Nazis' hatred of the Jews'"

First, I think Stone's attempt to put "Hitler in context" must surely address the anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe? The Nazi's and indeed Hitler's anti-Semitism, didn't arise in a petri dish.

Second, the so-called 'Sub-Humans' (Untermensch) that the Nazi's were interested in exterminating, included the Slavic races just as much as Jewish people (disabled, travelers etc.). But as JtS says, targeting the untermensch at home and in conquered lands, was just the first step in world purification.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:51 PM

Michael,

Perhaps it was a waste of resources, but many historians claim that the attack on the Soviets was what cost the Germans the war.

The usual "what if?" was "what if he had finished off England, consolidated, then turned eastward."

Obviously those trains and guards are a drop in the bucket compared to the resources sunk into the Eastern front.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 12:56 PM

"First, I think Stone's attempt to put "Hitler in context" must surely address the anti-Semitism that was rampant in Europe? "

I guess my point is that it does NOT have to address that. He could simply say that "That aspect has had plenty of analysis. Lets look at all of the others."

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:10 PM

Jack: Nobody is denying the unwisdom of Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, which, as you rightly say, most historians regard as his main error. But that doesn't invalidate my point that even that might have succeeded if all those wasted resources I rubricate had been devoted to that campaign instead ~~ & then what?

I appreciate it is all 'what·if'; but I think my 'what·if' is one to which insufficient attention has been given by historians. I ask again, have you ever come across the theory I expressed above elsewhere? Because I haven't. & I genuinely think it worth some consideration as a possible, plausible 'what·if'? That's all.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 01:52 PM

Lox, my opinion in the matter is not a stand-alone one. You evidently have not read his thinking on other - but tangentially related - subjects.

I do not retract my statement.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (ret.)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:24 PM

Oliver Stone is someone I haven't paid attention to in years, simply because he's a kook and a tedious artist. Regarding WWI, however, I have felt for a long time that the 'Great War' was the single most destructive and suicidal episode in the history of our civilization. I certainly believe the US should have stayed out - I'm with the Wobblies 100% on this one - but I'm afraid counterfactuals can't take us very far. We do not know and we can not know what might have happened if the US had stayed at home.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:34 PM

Ebbie,

It is true that Rig has posted a lot of rubbish about immigrants in the USA.

But its a big jump from there to hitler apologist, and I haven't read anything like that from him.

It would help if he'd clarify things.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Matthew Edwards
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 02:37 PM

RE: Oliver Stone: Somebody finally had balls to say it.

You don't need to have balls to talk a load of bollocks!

Matthew

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:20 PM

How dumb are you isolationists?

If the USA had stayed out of either WW1 or WWII there would have been two possible outcomes - Defeat of Germany - position, as before, or Victory for Germany - result - subsequent World War between Germany and USA (which, as the USA would have been isolated, might well have resulted in German victory.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:28 PM

WWI - US intervened and insured victory for the allies then went home and left a festering mess (Treaty of Versailles) which eventually became WWII.

WWII - the US intervened way to late, but when they did, stayed around to clean up the mess (Marshall plan) leading eventually to a prosperous, united, peaceful Europe and Japan.

If you think of it as one drawn out conflict, you can certainly say that The US did the right thing in the end.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:37 PM

>>if the Nazis had not been in such a hurry to achieve their "Final Solution", with all it concomitant immense use of manpower resources, railway systems given over Europe-wide, largely to this sole purpose, and so forth; but had instead used all these resources for their war effort instead of frittering them away with such urgency on this less urgent project (i.e., from any objective pov, less urgent than actually winning the war, surely?)<<<

MtheGM, This thread started with a discussion of proportion.   I just don't believe that it would have made any difference. If Hitler had sent every single soldier used to that purpose to the Eastern front, Idon't think that he would not have won or shorted a single battle or siege. He sent his best there and his best were worn down by Russian winters and wave upon wave of fresh Russian bodies and Allied material.

Its like saying that the Titanic might have survived if it only had one more coat of paint.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:00 PM

Jack ~~ coat of paint nothing. I just don't think you have reckoned on, or out, the logistics of those trains, men, resources::: ++++ EXPENDITURE for crying out loud. Have you reckoned what it took to organise & carry out the murder of 6 million people?! For gods sake, COUNT THEM ~~

6 million.

Just think of it ~~ Four times the population of Birmingham!

Coat of paint? Oh, puh-leeze.

~M~

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: GUEST,Rev. Goose 'Goof' Gander (ret.)
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 06:07 PM

How dumb are you interventionists? Germany after WWI would have been in no position to wage war against the United States, and I can't think of any reason why they would have wanted to to do so anyway. There was nothing noble in that war, and no compelling interest for the US to get involved. Impossible to know what would have happened, but it's reasonable to assume that without US intervention, there could have been a negotiated settlement, no punitive treaty, etc. and the conditions for the rise of Hitler would not have existed.

So you like intervention, Richard? Afghanistan must have you in stitches.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: artbrooks
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 08:06 PM

Were it not for President Wilson and his insisting on some level of sanity in the final product, the Treaty of Versailles would have been much more punitive. The French and British (especially the French) were all for carting off all of the remaining industrial materiel in Germany (rather than settling for most of it) and turning it into a horse-powered agrarian region.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 09:27 PM

My question is:

Aside from the whole Oliver Stone thing - why is that someone who is supposed to be speaking up and telling a Great Truth - is said to have "balls"?? What's it called when women speak up and tell Great Truths? They do y'know.

This whole "balls" terminology is sexist.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 12:28 AM

Well, yeah, Wesley, but what would you expect from someone who claims Hitler was treated unfairly?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 12:30 AM

Huge ovaries, I suppose.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Janie
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 12:41 AM

Had a friend who used to say, " Girl, you got eggs!"

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 01:33 AM

hahahhah

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 08:39 PM

"If Hitler had sent every single soldier used to that purpose to the Eastern front, I don't think that he would not have won or shorted a single battle or siege. He sent his best there and his best were worn down by Russian winters and wave upon wave of fresh Russian bodies and Allied material."

The stupid way he blindly wasted military resources, it would not have mattered how many resources were thrown into the cauldron. He stupidly refused to let experienced generals run battles in a rational way and look after their resources - he even wanted to destroy all Germany's infrastructure near the end 'to punish the German people for their failure' - he was a madman inexperienced in real military strategy and tactics, and cynically referred to by his own General Staff as 'that upstart Little Corporal'. That said, the amount of effort pigheadly expended in large scale murder - as well as refusing to feed the prisoners, or even let them work farms to grow their own food, did not help the German War effort in any material way.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Jul 10 - 09:47 PM

So, what makes Oliver Stone, a film maker, an expert in this field? Seems to me like the English prof who told me how to prune a Blue Spruce a certain way "because I have a Pee Haitch Dee."

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: LadyJean
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 12:36 AM

My mom was born in 1917, and grew up believing that, when the Germans marched into Belgium in 1914, they attacked civilians, and skewered babies with their bayonets.
That was British propaganda. But it went a long way towards selling the war to the U.S.
After all, that same propaganda had gone a long way towards selling the war to the British, the Australians, the Canadians etc.
The end result was a disaster.
(By the way, as of the 1970s, mom was aware that she was misinformed with regards to the Germans.)

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: mousethief
Date: 31 Jul 10 - 12:39 AM

That was British propaganda. But it went a long way towards selling the war to the U.S.

The US didn't go to war until it felt it was forced to. The "poor little Belgium" propaganda had little to do with it; it was years old by the time Wilson asked congress for a declaration.