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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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:

Quote:

---

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

---

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“642335465 Holocaust movies”

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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/arti...an-claims.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_films

---

Soooo - this is the backup for these hyperbolic statements:

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Soooo - this is the backup for these hyperbolic statements: [....]

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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

---

Your list has "Cabaret" on it.

“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…

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullheadhq

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.

@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.

Got more on that? They understood oxygen then.

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.

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 (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.

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.

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.