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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Husar]

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

If that's a valid question I'm going to try and prove I learned something on the .org:
I think it's "non sequitur" as in "does not follow" since you cannot logically say that Z is invalid just because Y applies.

This is an interesting topic, I find it hard to make a moral judgement on the Holocaust in comparison to the rest of WW2 because on one hand it wasn't a necessary slaughter, it was just born out of the lunacy of the ones who thought it up, as rory said they probably made a net loss, they just wanted to kill the jews because in their minds the jews had these and these bad traits and were controlling the world etc. On the other hand I don't think organized and industrialised killing is any worse in itself than slaughtering a lot of villagers with a mob of warriors or whatever, both are murder and both are horrible in their own way, some argue gas makes it worse, others could argue that being scalped or torn apart by a rusty blade isn't fun either, in the end I think you cannot say one is worse than the other.

And of course it was at the same time intertwined with WW2 and not, WW2 did not spawn the holocaust as the first concentration camps etc were being built shortly after Hitler came to power, on the other hand the war allowed for a great expansion of the holocaust because of the jews in the newly captured territories. Then there is the point of the war being necessary if Hitler really wanted to exterminate all jews, he'd have to conquer the world, I doubt the USA for example had handed him their jews to kill. But at that point we're arguing about the mind of a someone who had become an insane megalomaniac already.

That it was a major event for those who were in it is an important point, some of them are still alive to tell the story, it's hard to find someone who can give an account of the Mongol horde raping and pillaging in his village so the horror is lost, the same level of technology that allowed the nazis to kill so many jews in an industrial fashion also allowed them and others to keep very detailed records of it, I guess if we had video material of the events that inspired the Song of the Nibelungs, we wouldn't give it to our kids so they could make a school play out of it, I haven't seen a school play about the Iraq war or Kosovo either and most would probably call it very tasteless. that's the impact of history and technology, the video already changed the world before YouTube came along if you ask me, as they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words", and a video consists of thousands of pictures...well, that and it's recent history as I mentioned so I don't really see the surprise in the holocaust being more prominent than many other cruel events.

I also think WW2 dwarfs WW1 in public discussion, movie making, video games etc. even though WW1 was a very horrible, big war as well, but I haven't seen anyone complain about that.

[rory_20_uk]

Concentration camps pre-date WW2, but not extermination camps. I believe that initially the plan was to expel all Jews from Europe. WW2 rendered this impossible as well as allowing more extreme methods to be employed.

[Skullheadhq]

I also think WW2 dwarfs WW1 in public discussion, movie making, video games etc. even though WW1 was a very horrible, big war as well, but I haven't seen anyone complain about that.

WWI shooter.

Objective:
-Put on Gas Mask
-Shoot with artillery
-Surive for 2 months while doing nothing
-Mission COMPLETED!

Next Mission: September-December 1915...

I don't think a WWI shooter would be very succesful. There are some quality movies about WWI, but that's from Chaplin's time and IMHO WWI is much more interesting than WWII, only if the outcome of the war was not clear until the armistice. The war in the west was literally raging to the last minute with no clear victor.

But you make valid points. But I'd like to add that what Hitler is now Napoleon was in the 1800's and Genghis Khan in the 1400's and Atilla in the 500's.

[rvg]

But I'd like to add that what Hitler is now Napoleon was in the 1800's and Genghis Khan in the 1400's and Atilla in the 500's.

I couldn't disagree more. Napoleon, Genghiz Khan and Atilla were Warlords, and their conquests were very rational for a military point of view. Hitler was driven primarily by hate, thus his military strategy was irrational, even if he had some of the most brilliant tacticians at his disposal. Not to mention that he thought he knew how to wage a proper war, when he obviously had no clue.

[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.

[HoreTore]

But I'd like to add that what Hitler is now Napoleon was in the 1800's and Genghis Khan in the 1400's and Atilla in the 500's.

Say whaaaat? Napeleon was at the head of a revolution that led to the eventual downfall of every european hereditary dictator, and was spreading civil rights everywhere he went.

Or in order words, the exact opposite of Hitler.

[Skullheadhq]

Napeleon was at the head of a revolution that led to the eventual downfall of every european hereditary dictator.

Napeleon? Never heard of him? I think you meant Napoleon :D

led to the eventual downfall of every european hereditary dictator.

downfall of every european hereditary dictator.

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.

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.

[Brenus]

“the French as resistance fighters, not as collaborators for example”: Would be true without “Lacombe Lucien” movie…

“Yeah but it wasn't just Germany it was everyone.” Every one organising convoys ending in extermination camps?

Sorry, but the Final Solution is a specificity of the Nazi in the methods and in the Ideology.
Then, the Holocaust was single out because it was completely ignored at the end of WW2. The deportees were even not first to be repatriated.
Even Ben Gourion who can’t be suspected of anti-Semitism, had problem in accepting the Holocaust as specific.

The importance of this unique process, the understanding of this “exception” came later because as many in this forum, people wanted just to see as a result of the war and not as a result of a policy.
Nuremberg had to invent the charge of Genocide. If Napoleon, Tamerlan, Gengis Khan, and all the Great Conquerors were “Genocidors”, it would have been very easy to charge and sentence the Nazi.

I would say the denying of the Eastern Countries suffering and slaughtered was more than the Extermination was exaggerated for political purposes mainly.
Even today: Shimon Peres, Israeli President, visiting Jasenovac, declared that the Nazi Germans pushed the Nazi Croats… Sorry but no. The cruelty of the Utase didn’t come because the Germans. It was there and didn’t need to be pushed…
Again, it is a try to push on Germany the guilt and, by the same token, to put the Eastern Countries on the good side as victims.

“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.” Like what? New explanation for the Crystal night, Long knives night, brutality as political tool, racism (in full sense) as foundation of an ideology, extermination as goal?

“All the while the rest of Europe simply stood there, pretending it didn't know what was going on.” Err, they were at war if you remember…

“642335465 Holocaust movies” Didn’t notice there are so much of them… Just top of your head, give me ten, specifically on the Holocaust…

“The systematic gassing of Haitians by Napoleon” Can you give me links for that, for personal interest. Gassing before the industrial Revolution…

“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…