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

[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.

[Andres]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Fragony]

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

[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.

[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.