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

Oliver Stone 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.)

Quote:

---

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?

Oliver Stone is an idiot and a liberal nutcase.

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?

I wonder what Mel Gibson would say?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

I wonder what Mel Gibson would say?:inquisitive:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito

I wonder what Mel Gibson would say?:inquisitive:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horetore

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

---

I do not understand.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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 ~;)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

---

:yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.


: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.

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.

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.

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. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RVG

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuff

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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?

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:

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PJ

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Oliver Stone is an idiot and a liberal nutcase.

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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?