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

[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.... 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.

[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.

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.

[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.

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...

The Holocaust was not "a minor event".

Tasteless

[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?

[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?