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

[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"?

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[Skullheadhq]

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

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