Oliver Stone: Holocaust Blown Way Out of Proportion by Jewish Dominated Media

[PanzerJaeger]

Oliver Stone (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/oliver-stone-jewish-domin_n_659795.html) recently did an interview with the Sunday Times where he made a lot of controversial statements. (I'm not willing to pay for the story, but if anyone else has access to the original please post it.)



Oliver Stone says that Hitler caused more damage to the Russian people than to Jewish people, but that the American focus on the Holocaust stems from the "Jewish domination of the media."

The director made the controversial claim in an interview with London's Sunday Times (behind a paywall).

"Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein," Stone said (via The Telegraph). "German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support...

"Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than [to] the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed]."

The reason few people know this, according to Stone?

"The Jewish domination of the media," he said. "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 f***** up United States foreign policy for years."

Earlier this year, Stone described Hitler as "an easy scapegoat."

I'd like to focus on his point about the Holocaust, because I actually think it is correct. I also do not think it is anti-Semitic to admit that Jewish people have a lot of influence in the media and that they would naturally be more inclined to highlight their own experience during WW2.

Compared to other state-sanctioned massive losses of life during the Second World War, the Holocaust was a relatively minor event, yet it gets its own special designation, countless movies and other media devoted to it, and an industry based on profiting from the event.

More importantly, this special treatment has vastly distorted the average person's understanding of the conflict. Frankly, the Holocaust did not play an important role in the actions of any of the major players. I don't know how many people I've heard refer to the main reason, or one of the main reasons, for American involvement in the conflict as "saving the Jews".

Is there anything inherently unbalanced about the portrayal of the Holocaust in popular history/culture?

[rvg]

Oliver Stone is an idiot and a liberal nutcase.

[HoreTore]

I agree that the Soviet Union took the worst punishment in WW2, and that the eastern front was hell on earth for both sides there.

I do not, however, believe that the holocaust is "overplayed" in any way by a "jewish lobby".

The holocaust and its industrial extermination is what made WW2, without it then it was just like WW1. Anti-communism is much more likely to be the reason why the horrors of the eastern front has been downplayed, plus the fact that Stalin tried his best to hide any and all suffering in his country and tried to look as powerful as he could. Western Russia is also a place without any patriotic Americans, and the american audience loves a patriotic american hero in their war movies. A communist fighting in Stalins name isn't the same as Easy Company.

Besides, there are a lot more movies about Vietnam than WW2, is there any way to blame that one on the Jooooos too?

[Hosakawa Tito]

I wonder what Mel Gibson would say?:inquisitive:

[rvg]

I wonder what Mel Gibson would say?:inquisitive:

He'd say: "Holocaust? What holocaust?"

[Ronin]

I wonder what Mel Gibson would say?:inquisitive:

He'd tell you to SMILE!!!:furious3:

[PanzerJaeger]

Oliver Stone is an idiot and a liberal nutcase.

I generally agree. However, the thread was more about the specific point he made than what you think about Oliver Stone.



The holocaust and its industrial extermination is what made WW2, without it then it was just like WW1.

I do not understand.


Besides, there are a lot more movies about Vietnam than WW2, is there any way to blame that one on the Jooooos too?

I seriously doubt that. In any event, it is not so much WW2 movies versus Vietnam, but the volume of Holocaust specific movies that have been made.

[rvg]

I generally agree. However, the thread was more about the specific point he made than what you think about Oliver Stone.

Well, he lost me at jewish controlled media. I do not subscribe to that tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense, so whatever argument he could have made afterwards is lost on me.

I will say this much: even thought the Soviets took the brunt of the war, and the most casualties, and pretty much saved the rest of the world in the process, the Holocaust was a pure campaign of extermination. That is what makes it so vile in comparison. Hitler thought he could get away with it the same way Turks did in WWI.

[HoreTore]

I do not understand. .

It's 01:00, cut me some slack.... :clown: What I meant was that the holocaust is what defines both Hitler and WW2. We've seen the militarism and slaughter several times before, but we've never seen extermination at that scale.


I seriously doubt that. In any event, it is not so much WW2 movies versus Vietnam, but the volume of Holocaust specific movies that have been made.

I believe this has much more to do with anti-communism than any jewish mafia.

A movie needs a hero and a villain, and from an American point of view, the eastern front is a battle between two villains, and that doesn't make a good movie. I can garantuee you, that if an american or british battalion was sent to Russia to help Stalin, we would've seen a LOT more movies about that side of the conflict.

An American hero sells more tickets than a foreign hero, just like a Norwegian hero sells more tickets in Norway than a foreign hero. And the story that sells the most tickets gets turned into a movie. Capitalism at wok ~;)

[drone]

The Soviets took the brunt of it in WWII. Civilians in occupied territory were subjected to a planned starvation campaign. Soviet POWs were subjected to medical experimentation, and worked to death in slave labor factories. I wouldn't say that the Holocaust has been blown out of proportion, but rather that the atrocities against the Soviets minimized and overshadowed.


I believe this has much more to do with anti-communism than any jewish mafia.
:yes:

[Jolt]

The Soviets took the brunt of it in WWII. Civilians in occupied territory were subjected to a planned starvation campaign. Soviet POWs were subjected to medical experimentation, and worked to death in slave labor factories. I wouldn't say that the Holocaust has been blown out of proportion, but rather that the atrocities against the Soviets minimized and overshadowed.


:yes:

I'd thought I'd come here to make a cinical remark on how stupid Oliver Stone would be but turns out I agreed with everything in the OP but the last phrase.

[Fragony]

Seperate events that happened at the same time, I believe about 1.5 million Dutch died in WW2 with 100.000 or so being jews. But they weren't out to get us that was war, holocaust is something different.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with oliver stone on this one. Human history is one big series of genocides and ethnic cleansings. If anything, the holocaust helped us to understand how pointless it is and how much easier and more sensible it is to just live together.

Sure alot of people died, but alot of people die these days. Wars are bloodier, there are more people to kill and more people to do the killing. Numbers will rise, but Hitler wasn't the first guy to attempt and succeed in wiping out large swathes of similar populations.

Hitler was a jerk, but I'm not sure why he was terrible and napoleon, ghengis khan, tamerlane, etc are every historians sweethearts. Give it time and Hitler was just a cruel and interesting leader, or else every big whig in history was the worst person ever.

The Jewish influence in media in addition to the close proximity of the atrocities make the Holocaust as big of a deal as it is today. It is a big deal, but it would be nice to get a more objective viewpoint of Hitler and the NSDAP than we tend to get. There is clearly a better way, but those men are dead now and their history is interesting and best served cold.

[PanzerJaeger]

This thread was ostensibly meant to discuss whether the Holocaust is overblown in respect to its actual effects compared to other events during the war and in its historical significance. And if so, why?

I think you've made your point, Megas. ~:)


Well, he lost me at jewish controlled media. I do not subscribe to that tinfoil hat conspiracy nonsense, so whatever argument he could have made afterwards is lost on me.

I think that depends on what he meant by 'Jewish controlled'. If he meant some sort of round table of Jews sitting around plotting to hype the Holocaust a la the Council of Zion, then I agree that such an idea is crazy. However, if he means that the Jews have a disproportionate amount of control over the media compared to their numbers, and are thus able to emphasize events that are important to their history - even subconsciously - he may have a point.

I think it is hard to argue that the Holocaust has not taken on a historical significance far beyond the actual events of which it was comprised.


Hitler was a jerk, but I'm not sure why he was terrible and napoleon, ghengis khan, tamerlane, etc are every historians sweethearts. Give it time and Hitler was just a cruel and interesting leader, or else every big whig in history was the worst person ever.

This is a good point. Hitler is no more or less amoral than thousands of leaders throughout history that have plotted the destruction of unwanted subgroups. He simply had a more modern apparatus to accomplish his goals. In fact, some of the first accounts of ethnic cleansing occur in the Torah itself, committed by the Jews at the will of their god.

Yet he is the evil of all evils. You would think that if anti-communist sentiment had anything to do with the media's representation of events, Stalin and Mao would take the top spots. However, they play a distant second fiddle. There is something else at work here, and I think Mr. Stone is correct in his attribution.

[Fragony]

I think it's such a trauma because it was such a cruel reality-check. Europe thought it had reached a certain point of civilisation at the end of the 19th century, the age of optimism. Two wake up calls, the grinder that was WW1 and a full genocide in the second.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I think that depends on what he meant by 'Jewish controlled'. If he meant some sort of round table of Jews sitting around plotting to hype the Holocaust a la the Council of Zion, then I agree that such an idea is crazy. However, if he means that the Jews have a disproportionate amount of control over the media compared to their numbers, and are thus able to emphasize events that are important to their history - even subconsciously - he may have a point.

This paragraph demonstrates the basic assumption that always confuses me in these kind of discussions. Someone please tell me how exactly you define "the Jews"? Are we talking about Israeli citizens, various nationals of a certain genetic heritage (and how much such material qualifies) various nationals who self-identify as such, or various nationals of a certain religious persuasion (and which branches qualify)?

Why are these people (apparently uniquely among human groupings) so completely focussed on a single, agreed agenda?

[rory_20_uk]

Well, it is only senior rabbis who can answer that question, and will check one's family tree to ensure that you're "pure"... Rather like what the Nazis did, but the other way around. Completely different though as otherwise I'm being anti-semetic.

Yes, the Torah / Bible might list many episodes of genocide, but that's OK as it was merely the Chosen People clearing dross out for a place to live. I imagine that would be "Lebensraum" in German. Oh, but Hitler called Eastern Europe that, so it's completely different, otherwise I'm being anti-semetic.

The industrial deaths of Jews was great, but I do think that it tends to blot out all the other episodes of mass killings that were committed, especially on the Eastern Front and in Asia.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Meanwhile, naturally in Sweden http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138797 Because it's Sweden this is not a hatecrime but vandalism, a hatecrime is spitting out your chewing-gum near a mosk.

Maybe the ZIONIST MEDIA has a point milking the holocaust, if they do that never noticed it.

[Meneldil]

Seperate events that happened at the same time, I believe about 1.5 million Dutch died in WW2 with 100.000 or so being jews. But they weren't out to get us that was war, holocaust is something different.

It's more like 300k with 110k being jews ^^



Hitler was a jerk, but I'm not sure why he was terrible and napoleon, ghengis khan, tamerlane, etc are every historians sweethearts. Give it time and Hitler was just a cruel and interesting leader, or else every big whig in history was the worst person ever.


Let me have a guess here :

"Because neither Napoleon nor Genghis Khan intended to enslave half of the world population and exterminate the other half"? I guess that's something to take into account. Or maybe not *shrugs*
Furthermore, there are more books about Hitler than about Genghis or Tamerlane. I don't really see what's your point here.



The Jewish influence in media in addition to the close proximity of the atrocities make the Holocaust as big of a deal as it is today. It is a big deal, but it would be nice to get a more objective viewpoint of Hitler and the NSDAP than we tend to get. There is clearly a better way, but those men are dead now and their history is interesting and best served cold.
There are hundred of books that focuse on Hitler as a whole and not on only on his role in the Holocaust/Genocide. The fact that you don't know about them isn't caused by "ze evil zionist media" but simply because well, you've never heard of them *shrugs* I point you to Ian Kershaw for example.


I think it is hard to argue that the Holocaust has not taken on a historical significance far beyond the actual events of which it was comprised.
I don't think it is.
The WWII genocide (of which the Holocaust makes up the biggest part) is the ultimate point 0 in the History of mankind. The world's most enlightened nation, that has produced countless number of thinkers, philosophs and scientists suddenly decided to exterminate a significant part of the european population by using modern industrialized methods that would make slaughterhouses look like fancy hotels. All the while the rest of Europe simply stood there, pretending it didn't know what was going on.
If you think that's not anything special or worthy of being remembered, well I don't know what to say. Now, what we can argue about, is that yes, there's a disctinctive focus on the Holocaust, and not on the Genocide as a whole. On the top of my head, I can only remember a few documentaries about the fate of gypsies, homosexuals and slavs sent to death camps. Or even about the bravery and sacrifices made by the soviet soldiers, who will saddly never receive the credit they rightfully deserve. That is indeed a shame.

[Andres]

I can agree that the suffering of the Russians during WW II doesn't get the attention it deserves in the West. It's a valid point, but something tells me that Stone's motivation to make that statement is not making a sincere plea for more historical research on an (to us, westerners) unknown part of history.

Me thinks he grabbed an opportunity to spout some good old fashioned "Jewish Conspiracy" nonsense. The same kind of nonsense that led to that Holocaust that wasn't too bad according to him.

Also, the fact that people on the Eastern front suffered does not make the Holocaust less terrible.

:thumbsdown:



Compared to other state-sanctioned massive losses of life during the Second World War, the Holocaust was a relatively minor event

Compared to the infinity of the Universe, humanity is a minor event... :no:

The Holocaust was not "a minor event".

Tasteless :thumbsdown:

[Skullheadhq]

Maybe the ZIONIST MEDIA has a point milking the holocaust, if they do that never noticed it.

Oh, then you missed the 642335465 Holocaust movies they showed last night. It's all made to make us feel bad. Israel lives on pity, do you think we'd swallow all of Israel's **** without the holocaust?
How many movies have you seen about the British concentration camps in South Africa? The genocide of the Indians in South-America? The Dutch concentration camps in Indonesia? The Japanese concentration camps in Indonesia? The systematic gassing of Haitians by Napoleon? And the list goes on and on.

For example, the concentration camps of the British where they exterminated the females and children of the Boers had a significant impact on the Second Boer War, the Holocaust didn't have any impact on the result of WWII, and why do we see so much Holocaust movies instead of Boer Wars movies?

There are only two sorts of WWII movies: 642335465 Holocaust movies and 23345436 D-Day movies, this is sad, because WWII was more than that.


Oliver Stone is an idiot and a liberal nutcase.
X is Y so argument Z is invalid. How are these arguments called?

[InsaneApache]

I'm fairly certain it was a major event for those unfortunate enough to get caught up in it.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't know Stone's motivation, but I agree that scholarship is probably not leading the list.


The WWII genocide (of which the Holocaust makes up the biggest part) is the ultimate point 0 in the History of mankind. The world's most enlightened nation, that has produced countless number of thinkers, philosophs and scientists suddenly decided to exterminate a significant part of the european population by using modern industrialized methods that would make slaughterhouses look like fancy hotels. All the while the rest of Europe simply stood there, pretending it didn't know what was going on.

There have been mny other acts against minorities over the years, often against the Jews. One that sticks in the mind was in Romania where the victims were suspended on meathooks and piano wire. The youngest was 4.

Germany the world's most enlightened nation? That's certainly up for debate.

But what is the quickest and the least mechanised genocide to date? Or did the UN not get around to deciding whether it was a genocide or not?

Uganda / Ruwanda. 500,000 give or take killed with, in the main, knives.

there was no world war on - so what excuse did the rest of the world have?
Both countries were weak and so intervention would have been comparatively easy.

And STILL the world did nothing.

Do we remember it at all? Or does it not matter as, well, they're poor and we expect no better of Africa?

~:smoking:

[Andres]

But what is the quickest and the least mechanised genocide to date? Or did the UN not get around to deciding whether it was a genocide or not?

Uganda / Ruwanda. 500,000 give or take killed with, in the main, knives.

there was no world war on - so what excuse did the rest of the world have?
Both countries were weak and so intervention would have been comparatively easy.

And STILL the world did nothing.

Do we remember it at all? Or does it not matter as, well, they're poor and we expect no better of Africa?

~:smoking:


Nobody care(d)(s) about Congo either...

Linky. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War)

[Skullheadhq]

I'm fairly certain it was a major event for those unfortunate enough to get caught up in it.

The fact that I broke my arm during football was a major event for me, but it didn't matter in the big picture, my team became champion nonetheless.

[Andres]

The fact that I broke my arm during football was a major event for me, but it didn't matter in the big picture..

Are you seriously comparing your arm fracture to the death camps of WW II?

Are you saying that the Holocaust didn't matter "in the big picture"?

:thumbsdown:

[rory_20_uk]

Depends on the picture. there's a black hole the size of this solar system in the centre of the galaxy. It probably absorbs mass equal to our planet every few hours.

The earth has been here for billions of years. In that time scale, humans are barely worth a mention - it's nothing, then mainly single cell life and a small blip of miscellaneous at the end.

~:smoking:

[Skullheadhq]

Are you saying that the Holocaust didn't matter "in the big picture"?

:thumbsdown:

Uhm yeah, how would it have made a difference to the result of WWII?

[HoreTore]

Also, the fact that people on the Eastern front suffered does not make the Holocaust less terrible.

The real fun is, of course, the fact that the Holocaust was a big part of the eastern campaign, lots of jews lived in Ukraine and the Baltic. One of the most infamous events of the holocaust, Babi Yar, took place on the eastern front.

[Meneldil]

Depends on the picture. there's a black hole the size of this solar system in the centre of the galaxy. It probably absorbs mass equal to our planet every few hours.

The earth has been here for billions of years. In that time scale, humans are barely worth a mention - it's nothing, then mainly single cell life and a small blip of miscellaneous at the end.

~:smoking:

Why don't you just lay down here and stop breathing then? Your life just doesn't matter in the end.


Oh, then you missed the 642335465 Holocaust movies they showed last night. It's all made to make us feel bad. Israel lives on pity, do you think we'd swallow all of Israel's **** without the holocaust?
I don't "swallow" anything from Israel (neither do I swallow anything from Palestinian btw), but that doesn't mean I feel the need to downplay the WWII genocide.


Germany the world's most enlightened nation? That's certainly up for debate.
I fear it's not. In the early 20th, both the UK and France were far behin cultural-production wise.


Do we remember it at all? Or does it not matter as, well, they're poor and we expect no better of Africa?
Well, saddly, that's it.
Africa has been plagued by ethnical conflicts since the dawn of time and it probably will keep being that way for a while.
On the other hand, after the 18th century, Europe went through this whole "modernity" thingy. While traditional slaughters and genocides are just remnants of past ethnic cleansings, the nazi genocide is a twisted outcome of modernity : nationalized, rationalized, bureaucratic and scientific extermination of racially different population after they've been forced to produce goods for the superior race.
Compared to that, sad to say, but the Armenian Genocide or the Rwanda Genocide are merely a bunch of people killing eachothers, as it has happened a hundred of times in history.



For example, the concentration camps of the British where they exterminated the females and children of the Boers had a significant impact on the Second Boer War, the Holocaust didn't have any impact on the result of WWII, and why do we see so much Holocaust movies instead of Boer Wars movies?
You're aware I hope that one of the main reasons why Hitler started the war was to solve the jewish problem in Europe? You're aware that USSR was widely regarded as the ultimate opponent because it was regarded as the first step of the jewish world domination? You're aware the reason why the soviets lost so many men isn't necessarily because the fights were more violent (they were) but because the genocide started there, in the plains of Ukraine?

How could you even say that the genocide isn't revelant regarding the outcome of the war, when it's one of the reasons why the war started in the first place?

[Andres]

The relativists in this thread surely wouldn't mind if they got tortured to dead after I took all their possessions. After all, according to them, it all doesn't matter anyway.

Relativism is funny.

[Skullheadhq]

I don't "swallow" anything from Israel (neither do I swallow anything from Palestinian btw), but that doesn't mean I feel the need to downplay the WWII genocide.
The holocaust had zero (0,0) strategical value whatsoever, claiming it did is rediculous. Nothing would change to WWII would there be no holocaust.

@Andres: So it did have strategical value?

[rory_20_uk]

Why don't you just lay down here and stop breathing then? Your life just doesn't matter in the end.

Matter to who? Matters a lot to me. Few things matter more. The most notable is my son.

Things only matter if one chooses to assign value to them.

It seems odd to assign absolute value to one event and almost no value to any similar events that have occurred anywhere else.

~:smoking:

[Andres]

It seems odd to assign absolute value to one event and almost no value to any similar events that have occurred anywhere else.

~:smoking:

Fair point. However the fact that Attrocity A and Attrocity B don't get attention, doesn't mean that Attrocity C that gets all the attention, was not terrible.

What Stone tries to do, imo, is minimalising the Holocaust and in the process he adds some conspiracy nonsense. It's just a veiled, yet not very subtle, way to say "I hate Jews".

Oliver Stone hates Jews, but doesn't have the guts to simply say so, because that would reveal that he's nothing less than an anti semite.

[rory_20_uk]

Erm, Jews aren't a race.

There are black jews and Palestinians aren't Jews.

I've concentrated on this tangent as there's no mileage in Stone whatsoever. He's an unpleasant creature with a warped agenda.

~:smoking:

[Ser Clegane]

The holocaust had zero (0,0) strategical value whatsoever

Assuming that it did not have strategic value (just for the sake of it - I certainly do not agree with your assessment, but let's pretend) - why would that mean that it did not mean anything "in the big picture"?
There is a bit more to "the big picture" than military strategy.

[Skullheadhq]

Assuming that it did not have strategic value (just for the sake of it - I certainly do not agree with your assessment, but let's pretend) - why would that mean that it did not mean anything "in the big picture"?

It didn't influence, let's say, the battle of Kursk or battle of Tunis or major offensives (or minor) after or before 1942 (the year the holocaust was set into motion). It was sad that people died but for WWII it stops there.

[Ser Clegane]

It didn't influence, let's say, the battle of Kursk or battle of Tunis or major offensives (or minor) after or before 1942 (the year the holocaust was set into motion). It was sad that people died but for WWII it stops there.

So, again, you limit "the big picture" to military strategy. Why is that? Why would the (partially "successful") attempt to eradicate a whole (rather large) group of people not qualify as relevant to "the big picture" even if you assume that it had to military relevance?

[Skullheadhq]

So, again, you limit "the big picture" to military strategy. Why is that? Why would the (partially "successful") attempt to eradicate a whole (rather large) group of people not qualify as relevant to "the big picture" even if you assume that it had to military relevance?

Well, I'd like to hear what you say so I can stop guessing where you're hinting to.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think the only reason the Holocaust is so shocking is that is it a relatively recent event. Ethnic cleansing might have been common in the past, but the Holocaust was unique in the past couple of hundred years of (western?) European history. Since the development of humanism and the enlightenment etc, genocide really hasn't gone down well in this part of the world, the last time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_of_Glencoe) the British tried it on their own soil it became a national disgrace.

So when the Holocaust came it was obviously a shock to see the old ethnic cleansing combined with modern technology. The efficient, bureaucratic approach is in a way more horrific than the old style genocides, like Joshua leading the armies of Israel to smite the Canaanites. Genocide of any kind is horrific but the Nazi approach was so cold, it makes it seem more... chilling.

Of course, in the wider scheme of things, its also true that the Holocuast was not much more than a sideshow compared to the major issues of WWII. A lot of the ethnic cleansing on the eastern front was led by the native populations there. The big issues of the time were the different reactions to the various changes taking place in society. Fascism was one response to the issue of class struggle, along with communism and international capitalism, and so the big ideologies fought it out.

[Andres]

@Andres: So it did have strategical value?

What Ser said.

+ resources used to kill Jews, could not be used elsewhere;
+ German Jews would have fought for Germany (like they did in WW I);
+ many talented German scientists were Jewish (Einstein was Jewish), obviously, their talents were not used for the Nazi regime;
+ transporting Jews to the death camps was a priority for the Nazi regime.

I'm not an historian, but I'm sure that our fellow forum members with more knowledge than me about the subject, will be able to elaborate on those points and will probably add some more.

What's the point you're trying to make, btw? That the Holocaust is completely irrelevant when studying about WW II?

[Fragony]

Fair point. However the fact that Attrocity A and Attrocity B don't get attention, doesn't mean that Attrocity C that gets all the attention, was not terrible.

What Stone tries to do, imo, is minimalising the Holocaust and in the process he adds some conspiracy nonsense. It's just a veiled, yet not very subtle, way to say "I hate Jews".

Oliver Stone hates Jews, but doesn't have the guts to simply say so, because that would reveal that he's nothing less than an anti semite.

Not necessary, bit of a reflex that, I'll take that over those who solemny condemn all violene-but ‹insert USA or Israel bashing>types all the time. Freedom of opinion no, even if he hates jews so what really

I think Skull is making the same destinction I do, WW2 and the holocaust being two events that happened at the same time. WW2 is german army and allies, holocaust was European, no way around it.

[Skullheadhq]

What's the point you're trying to make, btw? That the Holocaust is completely irrelevant when studying about WW II?

And do you think that the Holocaust was the single most important thing in WWII and that the war around it is of secondary importance? Because this is how it is teached in schools and being showed in movies.


I think Skull is making the same destinction I do, WW2 and the holocaust being two events that happened at the same time. WW2 is german army and allies, holocaust was European, no way around it.
Exactly, thank you!

[rory_20_uk]

Germans did also gain:

Slave labour camps massively reduced labour costs
Items stolen off the Jews helped finance the war effort.
Science was forwarded without concern about morality.

But I am sure they were a net looser. The loss of scientists alone was a massive blow and a boon to the allies.

the holocaust in the form it took was a direct consequence of WW2 and I don't think that the two can be so easily separated.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Yeah but it wasn't just Germany it was everyone.

[PanzerJaeger]

The relativists in this thread surely wouldn't mind if they got tortured to dead after I took all their possessions. After all, according to them, it all doesn't matter anyway.

Relativism is funny.

This thread was meant for thoughtful discussion, not for you to launch various snide attacks on other posters who have a different while you admittedly have very little information about the events involved.

I think we can all agree that the Holocaust was bad. It was more than that - horrible, awful, despicable.. whatever.

However, there have been a multitude of other ethnic cleansings in human history, many of them occurred during WW2 on a larger scale than the Holocaust. What is its true historical significance, nearly 70 years removed from the event? Why does the Holocaust get so much attention and even its own special name? Some have suggested it was the method of the killing; others seem to think that it was the place. Mr. Stone believes it is because Jews have a lot of influence in the media.


This paragraph demonstrates the basic assumption that always confuses me in these kind of discussions. Someone please tell me how exactly you define "the Jews"? Are we talking about Israeli citizens, various nationals of a certain genetic heritage (and how much such material qualifies) various nationals who self-identify as such, or various nationals of a certain religious persuasion (and which branches qualify)?

I am referring to self-identified, usually ethnic Jews.


Why are these people (apparently uniquely among human groupings) so completely focussed on a single, agreed agenda?

I don't know what Mr. Stone believes, but I think the focus has been a more subconscious, almost protective, reaction to what happened to them.


I don't think it is.
The WWII genocide (of which the Holocaust makes up the biggest part) is the ultimate point 0 in the History of mankind.

I could not disagree more, unless we were to agree that there were hundreds, even thousands, of ultimate point 0's in the History of mankind. There was nothing particularly new or different about the Holocaust, other than possibly the mechanics of it.

[rory_20_uk]

Events need to be like stories. We need a Baddie and a Goodie. Real life is almost never this simple. Who is to be the Baddie?

The great thing about this is the Nazis were utterly defeated and rendered illegal as a political force. So, we can blame them for everything and make them Baddies. As a consequence everyone else can be on the goodie side - the French as resistance fighters, not as collaborators for example.

~:smoking:

[Skullheadhq]

the French as resistance fighters, not as collaborators for example.

Years ago Henri Amouroux wrote an intersting book: Quarante millions de Petainistes and La grande histoire des français sous l'occupation. Interesting material.

[Vuk]

lmao, I could have sworn that I read before that Oliver Stone is a Jew. :P

[rvg]

lmao, I could have sworn that I read before that Oliver Stone is a Jew. :P

Maybe he went the way of Bobby Fischer.

[Husar]

X is Y so argument Z is invalid. How are these arguments called?

If that's a valid question I'm going to try and prove I learned something on the .org:
I think it's "non sequitur" as in "does not follow" since you cannot logically say that Z is invalid just because Y applies.

This is an interesting topic, I find it hard to make a moral judgement on the Holocaust in comparison to the rest of WW2 because on one hand it wasn't a necessary slaughter, it was just born out of the lunacy of the ones who thought it up, as rory said they probably made a net loss, they just wanted to kill the jews because in their minds the jews had these and these bad traits and were controlling the world etc. On the other hand I don't think organized and industrialised killing is any worse in itself than slaughtering a lot of villagers with a mob of warriors or whatever, both are murder and both are horrible in their own way, some argue gas makes it worse, others could argue that being scalped or torn apart by a rusty blade isn't fun either, in the end I think you cannot say one is worse than the other.

And of course it was at the same time intertwined with WW2 and not, WW2 did not spawn the holocaust as the first concentration camps etc were being built shortly after Hitler came to power, on the other hand the war allowed for a great expansion of the holocaust because of the jews in the newly captured territories. Then there is the point of the war being necessary if Hitler really wanted to exterminate all jews, he'd have to conquer the world, I doubt the USA for example had handed him their jews to kill. But at that point we're arguing about the mind of a someone who had become an insane megalomaniac already.

That it was a major event for those who were in it is an important point, some of them are still alive to tell the story, it's hard to find someone who can give an account of the Mongol horde raping and pillaging in his village so the horror is lost, the same level of technology that allowed the nazis to kill so many jews in an industrial fashion also allowed them and others to keep very detailed records of it, I guess if we had video material of the events that inspired the Song of the Nibelungs, we wouldn't give it to our kids so they could make a school play out of it, I haven't seen a school play about the Iraq war or Kosovo either and most would probably call it very tasteless. that's the impact of history and technology, the video already changed the world before YouTube came along if you ask me, as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a video consists of thousands of pictures...well, that and it's recent history as I mentioned so I don't really see the surprise in the holocaust being more prominent than many other cruel events.

I also think WW2 dwarfs WW1 in public discussion, movie making, video games etc. even though WW1 was a very horrible, big war as well, but I haven't seen anyone complain about that. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

Concentration camps pre-date WW2, but not extermination camps. I believe that initially the plan was to expel all Jews from Europe. WW2 rendered this impossible as well as allowing more extreme methods to be employed.

~:smoking:

[Skullheadhq]

I also think WW2 dwarfs WW1 in public discussion, movie making, video games etc. even though WW1 was a very horrible, big war as well, but I haven't seen anyone complain about that. :shrug:

WWI shooter.

Objective:
-Put on Gas Mask
-Shoot with artillery
-Surive for 2 months while doing nothing
-Mission COMPLETED!

Next Mission: September-December 1915...

I don't think a WWI shooter would be very succesful. There are some quality movies about WWI, but that's from Chaplin's time and IMHO WWI is much more interesting than WWII, only if the outcome of the war was not clear until the armistice. The war in the west was literally raging to the last minute with no clear victor.

But you make valid points. But I'd like to add that what Hitler is now Napoleon was in the 1800's and Genghis Khan in the 1400's and Atilla in the 500's.

[rvg]

But I'd like to add that what Hitler is now Napoleon was in the 1800's and Genghis Khan in the 1400's and Atilla in the 500's.

I couldn't disagree more. Napoleon, Genghiz Khan and Atilla were Warlords, and their conquests were very rational for a military point of view. Hitler was driven primarily by hate, thus his military strategy was irrational, even if he had some of the most brilliant tacticians at his disposal. Not to mention that he thought he knew how to wage a proper war, when he obviously had no clue.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Oliver stone (born of a Jewish father and Catholic mother and raised Episcopalian) has since retracted most of his comments. The one point he did not retract, and which I believe is his central "issue" here, is the influence of the "Jewish Lobby" on U.S. foreign policy. Stone, like many, is not so much anti-jew as he is anti-Israel.

The anti-Israel position fits in very nicely with his leftist politics and continual focus on Western oppression/exploitation/etc. of non-whites. His movies have clearly depicted the U.S. as being mis-guided/criminally wrong in Vietnam, have suggested that the Kennedy assassination was an inside job favoring the military industrial complex, and has consistently atacked corporatism/capitalism as an evil.

As an aside, he has always seemed to me to be capable of creating films that were 85% wonderful. Unfortunately, he then writes a ham-fisted preachy ending to pound his point home -- apparently he has little confidence that we've been able to pick up the "lesson" he's already been depicting for 120 minutes. I mean, did any of you need the Sheen voice-over to tell you what Platoon meant? Or did you "somehow" manage to figure out Stone's "take" on Vietnam without it. Sheesh.

[rvg]

The one point he did not retract, and which I believe is his central "issue" here, is the influence of the "Jewish Lobby" on U.S. foreign policy. Stone, like many, is not so much anti-jew as he is anti-Israel.

Then he should have been talking about pro-Israel lobby instead of the Jewish one. The thing he might be forgetting is that pro-Israel lobby consists mostly of Evangelicals rather than Jews and is funded mostly by the Evangelicals.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Then he should have been talking about pro-Israel lobby instead of the Jewish one. The thing he might be forgetting is that pro-Israel lobby consists mostly of Evangelicals rather than Jews and is funded mostly by the Evangelicals.

It is far too easy for most of us to toss out "monlithic" terms (Jews, Democrats, Conservatives) when only a particular slice of that group is behind the policy/issue we abhor. Stone made just such a mistake....and is paying for it.

[HoreTore]

But I'd like to add that what Hitler is now Napoleon was in the 1800's and Genghis Khan in the 1400's and Atilla in the 500's.

Say whaaaat? Napeleon was at the head of a revolution that led to the eventual downfall of every european hereditary dictator, and was spreading civil rights everywhere he went.

Or in order words, the exact opposite of Hitler.

[Skullheadhq]

Napeleon was at the head of a revolution that led to the eventual downfall of every european hereditary dictator.
Napeleon? Never heard of him? I think you meant Napoleon :D

led to the eventual downfall of every european hereditary dictator.

downfall of every european hereditary dictator.
Ah, that explains why he installed his family members as kings and queens (the heriditary dictator) everywhere (Holland, Italy etc.). And no, Napoleon defeated Austria in 4 (!) wars and yet the Habsburgers remained on the throne. Prussia was made a puppet, but yet the Hohenzollerns remained on the throne. He created the dutchy of Warsaw (Duke is a 'heriditary dictator'), so no.

And I never meant that he is the same in every way as Napoleon or Atilla. Just the part where people feared and hated his name for a century.

[Brenus]

“the French as resistance fighters, not as collaborators for example”: Would be true without “Lacombe Lucien” movie…

“Yeah but it wasn't just Germany it was everyone.” Every one organising convoys ending in extermination camps?

Sorry, but the Final Solution is a specificity of the Nazi in the methods and in the Ideology.
Then, the Holocaust was single out because it was completely ignored at the end of WW2. The deportees were even not first to be repatriated.
Even Ben Gourion who can’t be suspected of anti-Semitism, had problem in accepting the Holocaust as specific.

The importance of this unique process, the understanding of this “exception” came later because as many in this forum, people wanted just to see as a result of the war and not as a result of a policy.
Nuremberg had to invent the charge of Genocide. If Napoleon, Tamerlan, Gengis Khan, and all the Great Conquerors were “Genocidors”, it would have been very easy to charge and sentence the Nazi.

I would say the denying of the Eastern Countries suffering and slaughtered was more than the Extermination was exaggerated for political purposes mainly.
Even today: Shimon Peres, Israeli President, visiting Jasenovac, declared that the Nazi Germans pushed the Nazi Croats… Sorry but no. The cruelty of the Utase didn’t come because the Germans. It was there and didn’t need to be pushed…
Again, it is a try to push on Germany the guilt and, by the same token, to put the Eastern Countries on the good side as victims.

“It is a big deal, but it would be nice to get a more objective viewpoint of Hitler and the NSDAP than we tend to get.” Like what? New explanation for the Crystal night, Long knives night, brutality as political tool, racism (in full sense) as foundation of an ideology, extermination as goal?

“All the while the rest of Europe simply stood there, pretending it didn't know what was going on.” Err, they were at war if you remember…

“642335465 Holocaust movies” Didn’t notice there are so much of them… Just top of your head, give me ten, specifically on the Holocaust…

“The systematic gassing of Haitians by Napoleon” Can you give me links for that, for personal interest. Gassing before the industrial Revolution…

“they exterminated the females and children of the Boers had a significant impact on the Second Boer War” Nope. It was not a extermination, planned as in Sobibor or Birkenau but a plain lacking of hygienic principles and moral principal together…

[Ser Clegane]

Well, I'd like to hear what you say so I can stop guessing where you're hinting to.

I am "hinting" at the fact that for the nazi regime the Holocaust was part of the "big picture" just as the war was part of the "big picture". Both were tools of the same ideology and simply cannot be separated. Your focus on strategic importance in the war seems to completely ignore that wars are not fought for the sake of it but for a purpose. Claiming that large scale genocide did not mean anything in the "big picture" suggests a lack of understanding of the context on your end - the hyperbole around how the media bombards you with movies etc. on the Holocaust does not alleviate that impression.

[Brenus]

And I never meant that he is the same in every way as Napoleon or Atilla. Just the part where people feared and hated his name for a century. You should compare My Kampf and the Code Civil. You will discover things...

[InsaneApache]

I am "hinting" at the fact that for the nazi regime the Holocaust was part of the "big picture" just as the war was part of the "big picture". Both were tools of the same ideology and simply cannot be separated. Your focus on strategic importance in the war seems to completely ignore that wars are not fought for the sake of it but for a purpose. Claiming that large scale genocide did not mean anything in the "big picture" suggests a lack of understanding of the context on your end - the hyperbole around how the media bombards you with movies etc. on the Holocaust does not alleviate that impression.

:bow:


You should compare My Kampf and the Code Civil. You will discover things...

:bow:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I am "hinting" at the fact that for the nazi regime the Holocaust was part of the "big picture" just as the war was part of the "big picture". Both were tools of the same ideology and simply cannot be separated. Your focus on strategic importance in the war seems to completely ignore that wars are not fought for the sake of it but for a purpose. Claiming that large scale genocide did not mean anything in the "big picture" suggests a lack of understanding of the context on your end - the hyperbole around how the media bombards you with movies etc. on the Holocaust does not alleviate that impression.

Heh, telling Hitler and Himmler that you didn't think the "final solution" was all that important to the Nazi war effort would have been an excellent way to get shot. Railroads needed to supply both fronts with critical supplies and troops were instead being used to keep the concentration camps supplied with victims.

Reading some of these replies reinforces the sadness that history can, and probably will, repeat itself.

[Fragony]

I am "hinting" at the fact that for the nazi regime the Holocaust was part of the "big picture" just as the war was part of the "big picture". Both were tools of the same ideology and simply cannot be separated. Your focus on strategic importance in the war seems to completely ignore that wars are not fought for the sake of it but for a purpose. Claiming that large scale genocide did not mean anything in the "big picture" suggests a lack of understanding of the context on your end - the hyperbole around how the media bombards you with movies etc. on the Holocaust does not alleviate that impression.

Just about every historian sees WW2 as WW1.5, Hitler didn't invade his neighbours because he wanted to kill jews. Jews were already persecuted before the invasion. Perfectly possible to see it as seperate events.

[Brenus]

Hitler didn't invade his neighbours because he wanted to kill jews.. Hitler invaded his neighbours as he saw them as inferiors in his Racist Ideology and the Natural Right for Germany to expend at the East and to enslave their population after having killed their elits.
So the killing of Jews was certainely in the agenda...

[Fragony]

Hitler didn't invade his neighbours because he wanted to kill jews.. Hitler invaded his neighbours as he saw them as inferiors in his Racist Ideology and the Natural Right for Germany to expend at the East and to enslave their population after having killed their elits.
So the killing of Jews was certainely in the agenda...

The Netherlands also inferior? The final solution emerged later, initially he just wanted them gone. Some even go as far that Hitler didn't care all that much about the jews and that it was an ordinary robbery to fill the warchest. When the treaty at Versailles was signed people already sighed that all they did was laying the foundations for the inevitable part deux. Without Hitler no holocaust, but no WW2?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm, without Hitler would the ideology behind Lebensraum be put into practice?
Thus without Hitler would Germany have annexed its neighbours (Austria, Czech Republic etc.) leading to the conflict over Poland?

Because that is what prompted Germany to invade the Netherlands: to wipe out the French military. Netherlands, Denmark, Norway etc. were all collateral damage as it were; or a nice bonus on the side depending on how you look at it.

[Fragony]

The Netherlands was invaded to serve as base to attack England, not France. It's worth asking wether or not WW2 was inevitable, the holocaust is of no importance for that question.

[Skullheadhq]

“642335465 Holocaust movies”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films


“The systematic gassing of Haitians by Napoleon” Can you give me links for that, for personal interest. Gassing before the industrial Revolution…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crime_of_Napoleon
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038453/The-French-Fuhrer-Genocidal-Napoleon-barbaric-Hitler-historian-claims.html


“they exterminated the females and children of the Boers had a significant impact on the Second Boer War” Nope. It was not a extermination, planned as in Sobibor or Birkenau but a plain lacking of hygienic principles and moral principal together…

No, the women and children were starved to death just so the men would surrender to save them, the men didn't.


TWhen the treaty at Versailles was signed people already sighed that all they did was laying the foundations for the inevitable part deux.
"This is not peace, this is an armistice for 20 years" - Ferdinand Foch, 1918.
Missed it by a year.

[Ser Clegane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films
Soooo - this is the backup for these hyperbolic statements:

Oh, then you missed the 642335465 Holocaust movies they showed last night. It's all made to make us feel bad. Israel lives on pity, do you think we'd swallow all of Israel's **** without the holocaust?

[...]

There are only two sorts of WWII movies: 642335465 Holocaust movies and 23345436 D-Day movies, this is sad, because WWII was more than that.

and you refer to one (according to your link) highly disputed book by one historian as the source for "Napoleon = Hitler"

:thumbsup:

[Skullheadhq]

Soooo - this is the backup for these hyperbolic statements: [....]
Name one other event that has as much movies. Just one. (WWII excluded)



and you refer to one (according to your link) highly disputed book by one historian as the source for "Napoleon = Hitler"

:thumbsup:

I just said it 2 times before, so I'll repeat it: Napoleon is like Hitler and Genghis Khan in the aspect that he was feared for the next 100 years, not in other aspects. It would be impossible to compare Genghis and Hitler in any other aspect. But yet the allegations that Napoleon gassed Haitians are interesting at least.

[Fragony]

Name one other event that has as much movies. Just one. (WWII excluded)

More people could read and write so there are simply more story's to tell. Can only have so many individual story's over a battle. I am going to look into the Haiti stuff, it wouldn't surprise me all that much.

@Brenus, gas (as a weapon) was already used at the siege of Breda by the Spanish, they used it to clear tunnels.

[Ser Clegane]

Name one other event that has as much movies. Just one. (WWII excluded)
How many other contemporary events of a similar scale come to mind? How many events that were located in countries that have the movie-making industry and the target audience?

Considering this the coverage that the Holocaust receives seems to be well in line with other similar events (WW2, Vietnam, Hiroshima/Nagasaki), however, you are blowing it completely out of proportion by trying to create the (wrong) impression that every time you turn on the TV you have to watch a Holocaust movie.

[Andres]

Name one other event that has as much movies. Just one. (WWII excluded)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Vietnam_War_films

[Fragony]

Considering this the coverage that the Holocaust receives seems to be well in line with other similar events (WW2, Vietnam, Hiroshima/Nagasaki), however, you are blowing it completely out of proportion by trying to create the (wrong) impression that every time you turn on the TV you have to watch a Holocaust movie.

That simply isn't true but it can't be denied it is often brought up for political gain, ironically often by leftist/islamic organisations.

[Slyspy]

People are complaining that an event which touched every nation in Europe, plus the movie making powerhouse of the US, gets too much film coverage? And then using that to show that the Holocaust gets more mention in the cultural record than, say, the massacre of the Polish elite, the the terrible Japanese camps or the millions dead in Stalinist Russia! Laughable. How many Polish officers lived side by side with the natives in every European country? How many Berlin/Paris/Amsterdam/Rome/London families in the 30's and 40's had Russian peasants living next door? How many people have grandparents who can remember the events of the Napoleanic wars or the sad mess that was the Boer War? How many people in the post war world looked at Nazi Germany and saw themselves reflected?

[Skullheadhq]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Vietnam_War_films

I opened it and the first thing I saw was "Forrest Gump", yeaah right...

[HoreTore]

The Netherlands also inferior? The final solution emerged later, initially he just wanted them gone. Some even go as far that Hitler didn't care all that much about the jews and that it was an ordinary robbery to fill the warchest. When the treaty at Versailles was signed people already sighed that all they did was laying the foundations for the inevitable part deux. Without Hitler no holocaust, but no WW2?

The netherlands were attacked because they were in between Germany and France and Britain, who attacked Germany because Germany attacked to the east.

Don't confuse the final solution and Lebensraum; the final solution came later in the war, correct, but Lebensraum, the idea that the russians should be enslaved to make room for German overlords, is an idea that started in the 13th century.


Ah, that explains why he installed his family members as kings and queens (the heriditary dictator) everywhere (Holland, Italy etc.). And no, Napoleon defeated Austria in 4 (!) wars and yet the Habsburgers remained on the throne. Prussia was made a puppet, but yet the Hohenzollerns remained on the throne. He created the dutchy of Warsaw (Duke is a 'heriditary dictator'), so no.

....Which would explain why I said he "was the leader of the movement that would (....)". The moevemtn referred to is of course the French revolution, and yes, it was the French revolution and its ideas that led to the downfall of the European monarchs. And Napoleons Code Civil did help make that true, regardless of the fact that he created hereditary positions for himself and his family.

And yes, he was hated and feared by monarchists all over Europe for sure; but he was loved by everyone who loved freedom and progress.

[Andres]

I opened it and the first thing I saw was "Forrest Gump", yeaah right...

Your list has "Cabaret" on it.

[Brenus]

“The Netherlands also inferior?” No, the Dutch were not in the list of inferiors. However, nor France or England but they were the ones on the road. Hitler wanted to avoid fighting on two fronts so the neutralisation of France and England was his first priority as the two countries decided finally that the invasion (East) of Poland was the step too much.

“The Netherlands was invaded to serve as base to attack England, not France”
Holland like Belgium was the bait for the French Mechanised Army and BEF and just this.

“Without Hitler no holocaust, but no WW2?” Probably a WW2 as we know now that from 1919, Germany started to avoid all her commitments regarding the Treaty. Secret training in USSR, training of army etc…

Skullheadhq, I suggest you should read the links you provide, e.g. The Dairy of Ann Frank is not an Holocaust movies (nor the Juggler and Exodus) as many of them. They all speak of the Holocaust but they don’t describe it…

Same with Napoleon gassing the slaves I am afraid. The annoyance with philosophers is they are not Historians, so they tend to evacuate all what is not going in their direction.
And why a French general would have use such a method when they had one used and proven efficient one as showed in Vendée and Britany: Gal Turreau (I have no prisoner to be blame for. I killed them all…. They all finish under the free sword of the Revolution).
I suggest you to read the Decret of 1st of August 1793 (which is very closed of what the British will do in South Africa/Transvaal) and the 12 “colonnes Infernales” that break definitively the Royalist up-raising…

“But yet the allegations that Napoleon gassed Haitians are interesting at least.”
Well it would if Napoleon had put a foot in Haiti… Can’t be in Italy, Egypt, Spain, Russia, Germany, Austria etc AND Haiti…

“No, the women and children were starved to death just so the men would surrender to save them, the men didn't.” Err, yes it was a monstrosity but no more than a contra-insurgency usual tactic that was use e.g. Vietnam, Algeria or Vendée. You deprive the enemy of his support (guerrilla is in the population like a fish in the river, so dry the river) managed with brutality and incompetence.
The total death tall (27,000 according to a pro-Boers site) is one day of Treblinka, just to put things in perspectives.

“Name one other event that has as much movies”
Well, according you extended definition, all movies speaking the Conquest of the West are about the Genocide of the Natives…

“gas (as a weapon) was already used at the siege of Breda by the Spanish, they used it to clear tunnels.”
Interesting. How they did and which gas? In tunnel, it understandable and easy as all miners know, you have deadly explosive gas (grisou) or even simply methane…

“I opened it and the first thing I saw was "Forrest Gump", yeaah right...” You should have done this for your link…

[Fragony]

Don't know what gas they used. Tunneling was pretty common because of the soft soil, defending part also made them and put 'listeners' there. My neighbour actually found one under his house, pretty cool.

And no, just no. The Netherlands was invaded because of England, Hitler actually planned an invasion using paratroopers but lost too many airplanes.

[Skullheadhq]

And no, just no. The Netherlands was invaded because of England, Hitler actually planned an invasion using paratroopers but lost too many airplanes.

The Netherlands was probably attacked because the French counted on a repeat of the 1905 von Schlieffen plan. The French line needed to be stretched to the max, which would need Holland on the Allies' side. Because of this Guderian could force multiple breakthroughs.

[Fragony]

The Netherlands was probably attacked because the French counted on a repeat of the 1905 von Schlieffen plan. The French line needed to be stretched to the max, which would need Holland on the Allies' side. Because of this Guderian could force multiple breakthroughs.

Nope. Hitler didn't expect the costs of invading the Netherlands, it was the first time paratroopers were used. Bit of an experiment that costed 1/3 of the German Luftwaffe, the invasion of England had to wait.

[Tellos Athenaios]

@Brennus & Fragony: Gas is used as weapon as far back as Antiquity, in sieges. And it is trivial to get (lethal) gas down the shafts: simply burn carbon-based compounds and you will probably get carbon-mono-oxide, which is highly dangerous. However, if the attacker did intend to attack with gas the usual approach was to burn sulphur or sulphur-compounds: sulphur (and compounds) are readily available and when it burns the gasses it produces are quite toxic: people would die of a combination of asphyxiation and burns (in the lungs for instance) resulting from contact with sulphuric acid.

[Fragony]

Got more on that? They understood oxygen then.

[Brenus]

Oh, I guess they use some kind of chemical war in specific case.
However, it needs confine space, so I do understand and even imagine for tunnel (in case of siege). But it was not as main weapons but as countermeasures to specific threats. There is no Ypres before Industrial mass production was available.
Sulphur burns oxygen. It used when you open a keg of vine to stop the oxidation when you finished to take a limited quantity and close the plug of it.

The problem faced by not industrial nations would be the production, collection and storage.

[Don Corleone]

Earlier in the thread, there was a sub-current raging over whether lack of proper attention to Soviet heroism (well, the Russian people) and losses they incurred, as well as the atrocities committed on the Russian people were signs of anti-communism or great positioning by a Jewish-dominated media cabal.

May I remind everyone that Operation Barbarossa commenced on June 22, 1941 and prior to that, the Soviets (i.e. the Russians) were German ALLIES, and were participating in the massacre of Poles and other smaller Slavic peoples (Ukraine, Belorus, etc) right up until the point they couldn't anymore, because Hitler turned on them?

Basically, I don't think the West ever forgot or forgave Stalin for this oft-overlooked wrinkle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact) (can't seem to embed links into text anymore with the new system... help please?)

EDIT BY CA - Fixed it for you. There shouldn't be any difference between this system and any older ones.

[lars573]

Calling the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact an alliance between the Soviets and the Germans is a BIIIIIIIG stretch. At most the agreed to stay out of each others way for 5 years. And both were planing to attack the other at some point.

[Don Corleone]

It allowed the Germans to focus on a one-front war. It enabled things like the Blitz, and the 30 days of bombings of London, of the overrun of France and the Netherlands. Whether the Soviets sent troops planes or armor is irrelevant. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a betrayal. All so that Stalin could run some mass-extermination and land-grabs of his own.

The Russian people fought valiantly, and should be honored for their countless sacrafices, their bravado and their heroism. But they were fighting their way out of a hell that their own leader put them in. I think most folks in the West take that into account and thereby limit their sympathies for Russian sufferings and their reverence for Russian military contributions. It's usually easier to feel better for a guy who gets mugged on his way home from work than it is for the guy who got mugged when he was selling dime-bags out on the corner.

[Brenus]

“The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was a betrayal” Who Stalin did betray? Poland who had the same agreement with Hitler few years before? The French and the English who refuse any Alliance, as they were “officially” anti-communist?

The post war anti-communism was as well a factor in ignoring the Red Army victory and the real suffering of the Russian.
The political gain in doing this was as well for the western Allies to take credit of the victory, and somehow, to clean German Eastern Allies of their involvement within the nazi War Machine.
So, naturally, the extermination of the Jews became a central point of our history, as we hadn’t much to say in the Western Front.

I know it is a bit over simplify and should be developed, but I have to go to work…

[Tellos Athenaios]

Got more on that? They understood oxygen then.

They did, but they also understood very well that the primary danger in those shafts (apart from collapsing support beams and the like) was that you got in so far from the exit point that there was too little oxygen. Thus something as simple as a torch could lead to lethal amounts of carbon monoxide.

Anyway a specific, targeted attack with sulphur for you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos Now, I have inferred that this would be the “usual” approach from the fact that sulphur and sulphur compounds are readily available (heck, even setting fire to rotting animals would do the trick: perhaps not lethal but quite nasty all the same). Similarly to that among the things you could do would be to burn various plants (e.g. taxus) to get other unhealthy fumes.


In January 2009, researchers claimed they had found evidence that the Persian Empire used poisonous gases on Dura against the Roman defenders during the siege. Excavations at Dura have discovered the remains of 20 Roman soldiers at the base of the city walls. An archaeologist at the University of Leicester suggested that bitumen and sulphur crystals were ignited to create poisonous gas, which was then funnelled through the tunnel with the use of underground chimneys and bellows.[16] The Roman soldiers had been constructing a countermine, and Sassanian forces are believed to have released the gas when their mine was breached by the Roman countermine. A lone Sassanian soldier was also discovered among the bodies and is believed to be the individual responsible for releasing the gas before the fumes overcame him as well.

[Skullheadhq]

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact a betrayel, who was betrayed?

[lars573]

Stalin. He really though the Germans would stick to it.

[PanzerJaeger]

Don makes a salient point. Until Barbarossa, the USSR was all too happy to split Eastern Europe with the Nazis and engage in its own expansionary binge at the expense of its smaller neighbors. Not only did Russia annex Eastern Poland, but also Lithuania, Estonia, Bessarabia, and Latvia - not to mention grabbing as much of Finland as possible. Those facts put the "suffering of the Russian people" on the same psychological level as the suffering of the respective German and Japanese populaces, i.e. not particularly important to the masses; and could certainly influence how they have been portrayed in the media (although I believe they've gotten off easy).

[Brenus]

Irrelevant. USSR did annexe and had it expansion plan.

But to claim that USSR betrayed France and England is showing at least a lack of knowledge about the Political Game between the 2 World Wars.
Poland had a treaty with Nazi Germany against USSR few years before, and France and England were hoping to channel Hitler aggression to the East.

And no, Stalin had no trust left for Hitler, but he knew his armies were not much for the Germans (as showed by the simulations, twice the Germans played by Zukov won) and was hoping to buy time.
He needed 2 years more to rebuild an Army he destroyed with his paranoia and apparently acknowledge the fact the Red Army was in bad shape. The disaster of the 1st Finish war was kind of agreement of this assessment.
Now, I am not sure his really acknowledge is responsibility in this but this is another story…

The suffering of the Germans and Japanese population was more took in account in our movies than the Russian one.
Take books and you will see chapter treating the destruction and the suffering of these population, including the massive rape campaign in Berlin, ignoring most of the time that the Russian raped their own female soldiers as well (all right, the second fact was hidden by the Russians themselves).
Enola Gay was even a song…
When did we saw a movie about the Russian Civilians suffering? Defiance. 1 year ago?

[Fragony]

It are jews in Defiance, the Russians aren't exactly are portrayed in the most favourable way. Good movie by the way.

[PanzerJaeger]

Irrelevant. USSR did annexe and had it expansion plan.

I think you're getting too wrapped up in his language and missing the broader point. He seemed to be saying that the Russians were not innocent victims of the Nazis like the Jews were, which is wholly correct.

[Brenus]

Oh!!! Right... If he see it this way, yeah, of course

[Don Corleone]

In the interest of full disclosure, both are true. I was indeed trying to say that the Russians weren't innocent, blameless victims in the whole mess, and therefore hadn't risen to that rarefied air of unfettered sympathy.

But I was also laboring under an erroneous belief that at some level, there were coordinated efforts among the members of the League of Nations to deal with Germany, and that the Soviet Union was party to those. The US itself was in a dramatically isolationist phase and wasn't engaged on the international stage very strongly, but I thought the former Allied Powers were trying to work towards a unified solution for dealing with Hilter, and I believed the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement to be a backroom deal that betrayed those efforts.

This view is rather limited and probably inaccurate. The Soviet Union had declared itself to be an island in an ocean of capitalism, and had made no bones about using any means of espionage and subterfuge to hamper Western capitalist nations available to it, including funding British workers strikes and launching coups in Britain and France in the 30's.

An expectation that the Stalin would set all that aside and could be counted on as a partner to counter Nazi aggression in 1938 & 1939 would be extremely naive, and therefore I'd like to retract the use of the term "betrayal" and instead substitute "manipulation and self-interested calculation".

[Skullheadhq]

An expectation that the Stalin would set all that aside and could be counted on as a partner to counter Nazi aggression in 1938 & 1939 would be extremely naive, and therefore I'd like to retract the use of the term "betrayal" and instead substitute "manipulation and self-interested calculation".

And France and Britain didn't do that, when they tried to pitch Germany and the Soviet Union against eachother?

PS: Historical discussions go in the monastery.