OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it

Subject: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: GUEST,Riginslinger
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 09:54 PM

Thank you Oliver Stone:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/07/oliver-stone-hitler-treated-unfairly-by-jewish-controlled-media/60415/

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: bobad
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:04 PM

And it looks like he found a sucker to help him get free publicity for his upcoming movie.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:06 PM

Your link says: " know, I know, Oliver Stone (nee, sort of, Silverstein) is nuts. But he's nuts with an audience. And parts of his audience, no doubt, will be receptive to this line of anti-Semitic argument:

You obviously did not read the column. You are pathetic. And racist. And anti-Semitic. Does that bother you?

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:21 PM

Danged, Rigs....

Ahhhhh, I ain't into that cut an' post so I'll admit to havin' not read yer *whatever* (ain't a blue clicky so over my head pudderwise) but...

...ol' son... If my very cherished friend, Ebbie, says that what ever you linked was racists then ol' hillbilly gonna give you just a little observation here... Hate to say it, ol' buddy', but yer, ahhhh, goin' down some seriously messed up paths... So...

...step back from where ever yer gettin' this stuff from, take a deep breath and come on back to Earth... We miss you...

B~)

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: artbrooks
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:21 PM

I will tell my wife's relatives in the old country to lighten up on Herr Hitler. No wait - I can't. They're all dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:22 PM

Jaysus Dude! You have got to learn to read shit before you post a link to it.
I sincerely hope that this is not a "revealing" incident RE you.
Keerist, you can't possibly have meant to do this...did you?!?!?!?

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: olddude
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:23 PM

Ya know what. No one has time for this shit ...
and you know something else ... One death at the hands of a monster is too many .. debate numbers if you will. A monster is a monster .. the slaughter of the innocent can never be forgotten nor should it. WE should all wake up every morning and see the holocaust images on out bathroom mirror ... maybe then we will do something to stop other monsters from doing the same

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:26 PM

What oldude said. Sorry, but I am not sure that I can ever again respond to one of your posts. Unless you provide a damn good explanantion of what exactly your point was.
Buh-bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:31 PM

"Of the many potential storms that could be brewing over his Secret History, which will be broadcast by the cable channel Showtime later this year, Hitler promises to be the most incendiary.
Stone told the Television Critics Association that "we can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'. [Hitler] is the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect. People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII." '

I don't know whether this allegation is true or not but recognize an attention grabbing publicity preview when I see one

"Within hours of the comments being made, they had begun, in the predictable pattern of such things, to effervesce on the internet like yeast in dough."

guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 January 2010

Took it a bit longer to ferment here!

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:34 PM

yup ... what can I say. this kind of stuff really puts a repulsive stain on the Mudcat .

Way to go Ringworm .... yer true self is now exposed.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: J-boy
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:49 PM

I really hope this thread was an attempt at ironic humor.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Emma B
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:50 PM

Apologies, link to 6 month old comment above

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:57 PM

"People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII"

Sigh - those who will not learn from the lessons of history, condemn us all to repeat the bloody disastrous mess.

Of course the truly ignorant who have an agenda to push aren't really the slightest bit interested in knowing that it was the 'payback' demanded in order to cripple Germany so that "she would never be a world power again" that pushed Germany into the massive inflation & depression that primed the populace to be receptive to certain elements, which included Communists as well as those we all know about to want "Germany to rise again".

Certain bullies took better advantage of that than their political opponents.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 10:58 PM

It is perfectly true that Hitler was enabled.

So what? No-one rises to power without making deals with large commercial and political interests -- of some kind. The difference in what kind of deals, and who you choose to be your enablers.

The BIG difference is what happens when you achieve your power, and your true colors are free to show.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Beer
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:10 PM

"Thank you Oliver Stone"
This is all Riginslinger said. Then he posted the article. I don't know the poster and if his/her belief is in accordance with the article than I also condemn it. But did Riginslinger say it in a form of jest? If so than we should be tearing the article apart and not the poster.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:11 PM

The thing is Amos, once the snowball gains enough momentum, it is difficult to stop it. Many attempts were made on his life, even by his own followers - if he had gone, surely nobody wants to try to convince me that any of the anti-"whatevers" would have stopped?

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: GUEST,number 6
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:16 PM

sorry Beer ... "Thank you Oliver Stone" ... is posted under his title

... "Somebody finally had the balls to say it"

I think that along with the article says enough.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Beer
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:24 PM

Excellent point no 6. Reading all the post's I completely forgot the title.
ad.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:37 PM

I don't think the headline is supported by the text of the article, and I wonder if the headline may have been written by somebody else. The author's point is that American Jews have ensured that the Jewish victims of the Holocaust got good press coverage - the article says absolutely nothing about "Hitler being treated unfairly," which most of us would consider blasphemy. Here's the article:

Oliver Stone: Hitler Treated Unfairly by Jewish-Controlled Media

JUL 26 2010, 1:45 PM ET by Jeffrey Goldberg
I know, I know, Oliver Stone (nee, sort of, Silverstein) is nuts. But he's nuts with an audience. And parts of his audience, no doubt, will be receptive to this line of anti-Semitic argument:
The 10-part documentary [which Stone is planning] will address Stalin and Hitler "in context", he says. "Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support."

He also seeks to put his atrocities in proportion: "Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30m."

Why such a focus on the Holocaust then? "The Jewish domination of the media," he says. "There's a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has fucked up United States foreign policy for years."

---

This article from the Los angeles Times gives gives a more balanced and detailed explanation of Oliver Stone's remarks (which I still find objectionable).

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: mousethief
Date: 26 Jul 10 - 11:45 PM

Jaysoos. Hitler treated unfairly? Why don't you post a link to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion while you're at it? Holocaust denial/minimization is nothing new. But it's despicable and really has no place in civilized discourse.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:13 AM

First, do Americans learn about the treaty of Versaille, and about the vast Russian losses at school, or not? Stone appears to be suggesting that they don't - and he wants to remedy some of the omissions in the public's understanding of events surrounding WWII. As one of the commentators said on Emma's Guardian story, that was GCSE history when I was a kid. It's not really all that shocking.

Second, is Stone arguing that a Jewish controlled media in America, have effectively suppressed information about Russian losses during WWII in case they "compete" with the Jewish tragedy? I'll have to read that Times article, the quote's from Stone offered by the first link, are too chopped about to be sure of what he said.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 03:17 AM

While Stone asserts that the US media is Jewish controlled, and the AJC call that a myth, has anyone actually examined the facts?

What percentage of the US population is "Jewish" (and indeed how might one determine whether someone was "Jewish", is it a matter of descent, and if so then what percentage of ancestors, or maybe all children born to Jewish mothers - or should one consider religion, and if so then anyone notionally ascribing to Jewish religion, or those who attend religious ceremonies to a certain extent - or only the most observant)?

Once one has figured that conundrum out, then what percentage of "the media" are Jewish - or do we only count those influential in the media and if so how influential? Or is the measure financial control?

Or should we consider the lawyers and/or doctors? Bear in mind, I practised as a film and TV lawyer for many years.

It might be worth knowing, but there again it might not. It is clear however that sweeping generalisations achieve little.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: bobad
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 06:53 AM

To add to what Richard said you would also have to consider the fact that being Jewish and owning a newspaper makes one incapable of being fair and balanced in their reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 07:40 AM

I wish I knew why it's so difficult for some people to come up with a title for a thread that will give us a clue as to what the thread is actually about.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 08:00 AM

There now Wesley, you've had the balls to say it!

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: number 6
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:00 AM

I think all of us here in the Mudcat (Americans, Canadians, Brits) are very aware of the historical period in Germany between WWI and WW II. We are also very aware of the violent atrocities man has inflicted upon humanity ... the holocast, the murders performed by the Germans in Russia, the rape of Berlin by the Russians, the rape of Nanking, My Lai, the Spanish Inquistion and on and on. We have been made aware of these regardless of who is perceived of controlling the media.

What we don't need is Oliver Stone or any other ringworm providing us with their version of history and least of all we don't need any more finger pointing at religious groups, or race. As long as the finger pointing goes on the more atrocities upon humanity will go on.

Now ... I'm out of this stinking thread.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: olddude
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:10 AM

Thread stinks too much for me to continue but one observation ... the poster has the word "guest" in it. Did rig post this or did someone spam him?   I find it hard to believe he would say this

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: bobad
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 10:02 AM

Good point od - I guess only the mods know for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 10:52 AM

Good point. I hope it was not Rig.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 01:53 PM

Not that I have much hope that it was not he. He is on record as saying something to the effect that his least favorite word is "diversity". I suspect that Rig's idea of an ideal world would be one where everyone looked like him.

Step up to the plate, Riginslinger.

Subject: RE: BS: Somebody finally had the balls to say it
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 04:01 PM

First, do Americans learn about the treaty of Versaille, and about the vast Russian losses at school, or not? Stone appears to be suggesting that they don't - and he wants to remedy some of the omissions in the public's understanding of events surrounding WWII.

yes in 1974 tenth grade world history and again in college World Civ II and US History II. but then I had great teachers who taught outside the textbooks.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Joe Offer
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:13 PM

Well, as far as I can tell, the post comes from Riginslinger, or at least from somebody who has posted an awful lot of messages under the name "Riginslinger." If I had reason to doubt the identity of the thread originator, I'd delete the thread in an instant because it really stinks.
Some recent Mudcat posts in this and other threads have the same anti-Semitic tone that smooth-talking bigots used against Jews before World War II - and to me, it's frightening.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: PoppaGator
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:21 PM

Aside from what is listed on various school curricula, my observation is that the average American has NOT learned much about the Russian/Soviet role in WWII.

Cold War revisionism certainly existed, not as a flat-out "whitewashing" or omission of any salient facts, but by a fairly studied de-emphasis of various embarrasssing details, particularly in regard to the USA's former ally which suddenly became the number-one enemy before the ink had dried on the peace treaties.

The more inquisitive and studious among us were able to learn about the European war's eastern front, and about the huge numbers of Soviet casualites (civilian and otherwise), but you could remain ignorant of all that and still pass the typical high-school or even college course.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:33 PM

Goodness, PoppaG, that is alarming.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:49 PM

Alarming indeed since the films exist of people being lined up in front of mass grave trenches and shot.

Unreal.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Mark Ross
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:50 PM

In one way Stone is correct, America's entry into WWI was our biggest mistake, probably the seminal event of the 20th C. Without our help the war would have ended in a truce a year earlier than it did, and a half a million would not have died. There would have been no Versailles treaty, Hitler would not have come to power, there would have been no Vietnam, and no Middle East mess like we have now. His linking it to "Jewish" media is wrong, but he does have a point to make.

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Art Thieme
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 05:52 PM

No.6 and Joe Offer have made several right on observations in this discussion. This would be yet another atrocious rendering of revisionist history. It's sickening.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:13 PM

Remember, too, that Hitler didn't put only Jews into work camps and death camps -- he tried to wipe out Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, people with mental or physical problems...the list goes on.

Linn

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:23 PM

"America's entry into WWI was our biggest mistake, probably the seminal event of the 20th C. Without our help the war would have ended in a truce a year earlier than it did, and a half a million would not have died. There would have been no Versailles treaty, Hitler would not have come to power, there would have been no Vietnam, and no Middle East mess like we have now"

Interesting theory... but the USA was helping from the sidelines (much as it did in WWII) - making money - while pretending to be not involved. The 'open war' policy was intended to frighten the US out, but inevitably, US ships would have been sunk in greater numbers, until public opinion would have forced the matter. If you look at what really happened, there just would have been more US ships sunk before the US entered the war.

"the war would have ended in a truce a year earlier than it did"

Now that's interesting - look at the contemporary authors who wrote stories about how the war would have lingered for generations - even movies were made of such novels - the Russians were out of it - the most popular idea was that a sort of Korean situation would emerge, and that the war would spread in an even more vicious way to the colonies overseas, even though they would have been hampered by a lack of local resources. Why am I confident about this? Look at familiar historical precedents like the Hundred Years War, 30 years war, etc which the historians were looking at - they dragged on until one side was crushed.

"no Versailles treaty"

The biggest mistake was the insistent demands that 'Germany should pay until she was crushed, so that she should never rise again". That did happen, and none of the eager loud mouth bullies who wanted that "Germany should be crushed so that she could never again be a world power" could see the consequences - which WERE foreseen at the end of WWII and steps taken in both Japan and Germany to avoid the same error. The rest was partly inevitable.

Vietnam was only caused by pigheadedness that they should not have independence - great financial loss would ensue - so they had to be crushed too, and the Axis had been. The circumstances were different, and this involved a foreign invasion, not a repulsion of one against 'the west'. Of course Communism stuck its d*ck in - why not, as it would cause just as much hassle as when the US stuck its d*ck into Afghanistan to piss off Russia.

The Middle East is debatable and probably inevitable - there were even attempts to set up a 'safe homeland' setting aside areas in Australia (but sane people know that there was really only one area on earth that would be acceptable as a 'long term solution') - but the US once again stuck its d*ck in to piss off Britain... why, I have no need to say as there are enough hard line conspiracy theorists who will happily chew your ear with their own versions.

"half a million would not have died"

Well, taking into account how War speeds up technological development, bigger and better weapons would have evolved faster - read the novels I mentioned earlier. War was already then being driven by those who wish to make profit from selling the products of more advanced military technology, which is still going on today, more deaths would have occurred.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 09:28 PM

"he tried to wipe out Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, people with mental or physical problem"

And also any political opponents, as well as many proponents of any Religion other than the State. Remember that although he wrote about 'the final solution' - he started on the others long before actually introducing it. Taking into account how strongly that one group is often pushed as the only target of the murdering rampage, one can only wonder whether conspiratorial claims about there being media manipulation might have some substance.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: mousethief
Date: 27 Jul 10 - 11:26 PM

The US media is controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Is he Jewish? From what I could gather online he's Catholic, although someone suggested "Mammonist".

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Mark Ross
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:21 AM

The Allies(without the US) and the Huns were at a stalemate in the spring of '17. American money did support the British and French, but there was also American money invested with the other side. The battlelines hadn't moved in months when we went "Over There". It was American manpower that turned the tide. But the fighting went on for another 18 months, instead of only 6.

As to the Middle East, it was part of the Ottoman Empire which kept peace amongst the different factions in that part of the world. It was broken up into the divisions we now have because the victors wanted spheres of influence in that area (the French in Syria, the British in Palestine and Iraq) that would give them control of the natural resources.

Vietnam; The Viet Minh threw out the Japanese, when the French came back they armed the Japanese POW's and used them as a police force to suppress the revolt. Ho Chi Minh went to the Peace Conference in Paris to ask President Wilson to aid his people in their quest for independence. He was ignored.

The atom bomb would not have been used on Japan.

All these events were the direct result of our going "Over There".

Look, the list could go on, our entry into WWI was our biggest mistake of the last hundred years.

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:25 AM

The battlelines hadn't moved in months when we went "Over There".

The battle lines hadn't moved more than 1000 yards for four years. The Germans certainly wouldn't have sued for peace in 1917 if the US didn't enter the war, and neither the French nor British were going to stop until Germany was done in. There's no way that the US entering the war made Germany hold out longer than it otherwise would have. That's nuts.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Janie
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 12:48 AM

Nothing to add to the discussion, just want to thank those of you who have apparently read pretty extensively, and followed up with actually thinking about it for sharing your perspectives, different as they may be.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 03:15 AM

Not only is it nuts, the pretext by Ross of expediency to denigrate responsibility and morality is sickening.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 07:20 AM

"It was American manpower that turned the tide."

Ha! Typical Bloody Yank! :-P

It was Aussie lives that were spent in making most of the critical breakthroughs which moved the front lines in critical spots - the Aussies were used extravagantly by the British as shock troops - it was an Aussie General who insisted that they be brought under Aussie command - not to forget the NZ troops who fought with them, hence the perpetual coupling of 'ANZAC' which started in Gallipoli ...

The US troops were useful and needed to relieve the exhausted ANZACs, and were appreciated - but it is really pulling a long bow to claim that they were 'critically indispensable'...

Ross is correct that the breakup of the Ottoman Empire contributed to the M.E. carnage - but the British contributed greatly to that by allowing T E Lawrence to let the Arabs think that they would get independence after the WWI - the British screwed them, then conned the Jewish Influential Intelligentsia that they 'would have a homeland' during WWII. The US then pissed in the pot and 'discouraged' the British from staying.

Ross agrees with me basically on Vietnam.

"The atom bomb would not have been used on Japan."

This statement is just pure fantasy - sorta like 'Steam Punk' - mighta, coulda, shoulda.... :-)

Japan was 'on the right side' in WWI - but thought that they were THE greatest world power - and by the 1930s - they were in China - a few brave US guys formed 'The Flying Tigers', but the USA refused to do anything, although as Japan got more aggressive, eventually vital supplies were held back by the US. Japan was not to be stopped except by being utterly crushed, as their invisible magic sky fairies had told them that they were invincible and were the best people to rule the world.

It was Jewish scientists, working in Germany that came up with the basic concepts that led to nuclear weapons - and the British and the US needed 'to get there first' and Germany was definitely planning to use them and to send them at first by long range bombers to the USA, then was working on long range ICBM style weapons to take them there. It was only possible to NOT have nuclear weapons if history had taken a 'steampunk' alternate style path.

As the weapons were ready, the decision was taken in light of the fanatical opposition by the Japanese - it was feared that should mainland landings take place, the massive losses already experienced on the islands would pale into insignificance. Thus a rapid end was possible. If nuclear weapons had not been available, it was planned to burn every Japanese structure - mostly highly inflammable - and indeed a start to this had been made - the results would have made a bombed out Germany look like a verdant paradise...

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: GUEST,Suibhne Astray
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 08:21 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1wfoMKd_M4

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: olddude
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 09:45 AM

One final comment as I regret visiting this thread. Rigs always had political views that differ from many others. That is ok, it is fine to not like the democratic party and fine not to like the republican party and fine to argue about spending and policies .. Only through difference can we find a middle ground that works for everyone. At no time did I think he bought into the hate messages and I am pretty shocked at this ... For your sake, like Bobart said. Step back and take a hard look .. it is ok to have opinions on politics but this is going down a path that you don't want to follow. It only lessens oneself .. please rethink like Bob said and don't do this stuff again. You been here to long .. argue as you wish about the gov .. but this kinda stuff is destructive to everyone and more so to yourself

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: mousethief
Date: 28 Jul 10 - 04:32 PM

What the Americans did on the ground wasn't nearly as important as the mere fact of their determining to send 2 million people over. They didn't manage to do much on the ground because the Germans realized the war of attrition was lost once the other side got 2 million fresh soldiers. It was the threat of what they could do on the ground that forced the Germans to beg for an armistice; that was what made Ludendorff despair.

Subject: RE: OliverStone: Somebody finally had balls to say it
From: Lox
Date: 29 Jul 10 - 04:54 AM

The idea of Hitler being some kind of victim of a smear campaign is just plain Bizarre and not really worth a serious answer.

When most people in the west talk about the holocaust, they limit their disgust to the horror of the 6,000,000 who died.

Many people think that the 6,000,000 who died in death camps were all Jews.

The engineered deliberate murder of Millions of Jews was a horrific stain on humanity.

But if you tell a Russian that the war was all about the allies unitig to save the Jews from the final solution, they will understandably find this upsetting as for Russians the war was all about driving the Nazis out of Russia and eastern europe.

Hitler didn't have a special place in his dark heart for Jews, it could just as easily have been another demographic that he chose to exterminate first.

As it was, he murdered a number of Russians so large that I cannot comprehend how he managed to do it.

Every individual death, Jewish or otherwise, was an atrocity in its own right.

Equally, no individual is capable, without the use of a nuclear arsenal, of causing 40 million deaths over 2 continents.

So to point out that circumstances, and collaborative powers combined to make it possible for such large scale killing to happen is a realistic and fair point to make.

Sadly, such a discussion may now be impossible as a result of headlines like the one above this article.

I don't see rig expressing or supporting a stance that is remotely sympathetic to hitler or a stance that is in any way revisionist.

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.

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.