JayJohn85
Banned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history?CMP=AFCYAH
Interesting comment below article lulz.
Hitler? A scapegoat. Stalin? I can empathise. Oliver Stone stirs up history
- Thread starter JayJohn85
- Start date
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/10/hitler-stalin-oliver-stone-history?CMP=AFCYAH
Interesting comment below article lulz.
Stalin's actions in the 30s greatly weakened the country particularly the Army (he liquidated much of the officer class so it was difficult to oppose Hitler's forces) and in agriculture (collectivisation reduced output) He was only able to resist Hitler by relocating industry in the East and using the vast area of the USSR to dissipate the German army.He was also ruthless enough to tolerate enormous losses.
Hitler was the result of many thing ...
Hitler was the result of many things, largely the whole notion of the facist economic and military model. People like to forget that, but it brought Germany back from the brink. The French really punished them and Wilson, in his failing health, failed to stop such sanctions.
The red flag on Hitler, that the Germany people failed to grasp, was when Hitler called for allegiance to himself, instead of the German nation and people. It's a huge difference. You never declare loyalty to a specific leader.
People wondered how Americans could defend some of their policies, and why more Americans didn't call W. a Hitler like the Germany Chancellor did (which really looked foolish). The difference is the American respect for the Office of the Presidency. There was never a call for loyalty to W. himself by anyone in the W. administration, and God knows the US media (other than Fox) showed little of it.
Stalin nearly destroyed his nation. Ironically, he took communism and made it much like facism, persecuting individual creeds and cultures as well. But worse than Hitler, he went after virtually all intellectuals and scientists, whereas Hitler's agendas only caught such as a religious or cultural belief.
All-in-all, I continue to love Oliver Stone's work. He is not afraid to get to the heart of the matter, in a way that is rather unbiased unlike Michael Moore. From Nixon to W., he has done an excellent job in portraying individuals as they were, why they came to be as they were, explaining those factors and external influences.
Hitler was the result of many things, largely the whole notion of the facist economic and military model. People like to forget that, but it brought Germany back from the brink. The French really punished them and Wilson, in his failing health, failed to stop such sanctions.
The red flag on Hitler, that the Germany people failed to grasp, was when Hitler called for allegiance to himself, instead of the German nation and people. It's a huge difference. You never declare loyalty to a specific leader.
People wondered how Americans could defend some of their policies, and why more Americans didn't call W. a Hitler like the Germany Chancellor did (which really looked foolish). The difference is the American respect for the Office of the Presidency. There was never a call for loyalty to W. himself by anyone in the W. administration, and God knows the US media (other than Fox) showed little of it.
Stalin nearly destroyed his nation. Ironically, he took communism and made it much like facism, persecuting individual creeds and cultures as well. But worse than Hitler, he went after virtually all intellectuals and scientists, whereas Hitler's agendas only caught such as a religious or cultural belief.
All-in-all, I continue to love Oliver Stone's work. He is not afraid to get to the heart of the matter, in a way that is rather unbiased unlike Michael Moore. From Nixon to W., he has done an excellent job in portraying individuals as they were, why they came to be as they were, explaining those factors and external influences.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Re: Hitler was the result of many thing ...
Good post. I agree with that for the most part. But on the "red flag" part, I'm not so sure about that. Remember the time period we're talking about. Allegiance to the leader and allegiance to the nation were not mutually exclusive, especially at that time. The chancellors aside, the German people were not so far removed from the time when Kaiser was still a powerful emperial position. And Hitler tended to speak of Germany, the German people and the (supposed) Aryan race a great deal. That's not saying that he wasn't a narcissistic, ego maniac. But I'm not sure that the red flag was really apparent to the German public until rather late in the game - and by then it was too late. And think about it, if you are somewhat used to a monarchy, as long as the monarch or supreme leader is more like Augustus, and not so much like Caligula or Nero... would you really complain? :dunno:
There is an interesting work of fiction, titled Fatherland, that I would recommend to anyone who finds this period to be interesting. It provides an alternate view of history, assuming that Germany was victorious in WWII. It's a very good read, IMO. It was made into some sort of movie in the
90's(?) that butchered the story... and was pretty terrible and silly.
But once you take some of the emotion out of discussions about Hitler and Stalin, there are some interesting concepts that can be discussed.
Good post. I agree with that for the most part. But on the "red flag" part, I'm not so sure about that. Remember the time period we're talking about. Allegiance to the leader and allegiance to the nation were not mutually exclusive, especially at that time. The chancellors aside, the German people were not so far removed from the time when Kaiser was still a powerful emperial position. And Hitler tended to speak of Germany, the German people and the (supposed) Aryan race a great deal. That's not saying that he wasn't a narcissistic, ego maniac. But I'm not sure that the red flag was really apparent to the German public until rather late in the game - and by then it was too late. And think about it, if you are somewhat used to a monarchy, as long as the monarch or supreme leader is more like Augustus, and not so much like Caligula or Nero... would you really complain? :dunno:
There is an interesting work of fiction, titled Fatherland, that I would recommend to anyone who finds this period to be interesting. It provides an alternate view of history, assuming that Germany was victorious in WWII. It's a very good read, IMO. It was made into some sort of movie in the
90's(?) that butchered the story... and was pretty terrible and silly.
But once you take some of the emotion out of discussions about Hitler and Stalin, there are some interesting concepts that can be discussed.
jasonk282
Banned
Re: Hitler was the result of many thing ...
They IMO are identical just politically different, both were monsters.
They IMO are identical just politically different, both were monsters.
Re: Hitler was the result of many thing ...
In England we swear allegiance to the Queen every time we play the national anthem. We also hold politicians, those who seek power, with suspicion and contempt, the Prime Minister included. You could draw a parallel with your view of Hitler but I doubt you'd say the two were anywhere near alike. The American model is different and perhaps that's all it is.
In England we swear allegiance to the Queen every time we play the national anthem. We also hold politicians, those who seek power, with suspicion and contempt, the Prime Minister included. You could draw a parallel with your view of Hitler but I doubt you'd say the two were anywhere near alike. The American model is different and perhaps that's all it is.
About Hitler, Stoe is right : He's a spacegoat.
He didn't came to power by a putsch. He and the nazi leaders were democratically elected.
Hindenburg did alla he could do to maintain Hitler away from the chair of Chancellor but in the end he had no other choice than nominating the guy ther people had voted for.
In the 30' and the very begining of the 40' most germans wre nazi or "nazi-friendly".
Hitler was just an incarnation in of what all germans had inside them (and probably aevery people in the world still have it inside them too) : fear of the stranger, need to accuse a small minority about everything that goes wrong.
About Stalin, Stone's right too : Without Stalin Hitler woulds have won the war. Stalin fought the nazi in russia even were all seems to be lost. Russiand paid a terrible price to war. But they forced the nazi to divide their forces to maintain war ont two places : England + Russia. If Russia had surrender, England would have been next and without England, D-Day would have never happened.
He didn't came to power by a putsch. He and the nazi leaders were democratically elected.
Hindenburg did alla he could do to maintain Hitler away from the chair of Chancellor but in the end he had no other choice than nominating the guy ther people had voted for.
In the 30' and the very begining of the 40' most germans wre nazi or "nazi-friendly".
Hitler was just an incarnation in of what all germans had inside them (and probably aevery people in the world still have it inside them too) : fear of the stranger, need to accuse a small minority about everything that goes wrong.
About Stalin, Stone's right too : Without Stalin Hitler woulds have won the war. Stalin fought the nazi in russia even were all seems to be lost. Russiand paid a terrible price to war. But they forced the nazi to divide their forces to maintain war ont two places : England + Russia. If Russia had surrender, England would have been next and without England, D-Day would have never happened.
My interpretation of Stone's words are (and I may be completely wrong here) is that Hitler the figure and to a certain extent Stalin have been the basis as to which all other atrocities since then have been judged - which he believes is the wrong way to go about judging history.
Which I can agree with. Events where many lose their lives need to be judged on their own accord and not by that which came before and holding up the actions of one person's reign against another's even though they are some of the most atrocious actions throughout history does not and should not be judged any less because of it.
I agree.
But, at the risk of 'brown nosing' (
) you do seem to be leaving out the significant effort the US made during that time.
Namreg
Banned
and hitler was a strategic idiot who allowed his supply lines to be overstretched and stalin took advantage of that. stalin and the russian winter.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
This is not revionist history, this is how it went down.
read if you'd like.
In 1916 germany while winning the war with france and england offered England a cease fire and peace deal to end the war.
England agreed, but it never was completed.
Zionist in Europe and the US new that if the war ended at that point thay would lose a great deal of power, control and money in Europe and probably be deported from germany and much of europe.
THe international zionist made a deal with england that they would get the USA to enter the war if England gave them palestine.
England agreed. Wilson sent the US to war and won it for England and france.
What followed was the treaty of Balfour and the treaty of Versailles.
http://www.redicecreations.com/winterwonderland/balfourversailles.html
THe germans felt betrayed and never forgot
They really couldnt have forgotten because for the next 14 years due mainly to Versailles Germany was in economic ruin.
The german people even children were literally starving to death on the streets.
It was really bad. And I think inhumane to make the civillians of Germany suffer in such a way, for so long.
Meanwhlile the Jewish were/had bought up everything they could in Germany.
They bought and controlled property, businesses and industry in germany. THey had control and got rich while the Germans suffered.
Thats not an opinion, that is fact.
THen in 33 Hitler came into power.
He was not a internationalist at least at first , he was a nationalist.
He wanted to see germany the way it was in the past.
So The first thing he did was call for the deportation of all jews from germany.
He and the german people blamed much of the poverty on them.
There was a deal for them to voluntarily leave or go to the island of madagascar.
Zionist again seeing a loss of power and $$$$$ then declared an international boycott on all german goods and rallied and protested on the streets of germany and the USA, basically atemptingto put germany back in a state of economic ruin.
Zionist declared "war" on Germany
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html
http://www.biblestudysite.com/judeawar.htm
The Zionist leaders new exactly what this would do.
So at that point Hitler said fuck it, and announced all Jews as enemies of the state and had them aressted and locked in prison camps.
Similar to the US locking up Japanese Americans.
Note that there is no photos prior to 1945 of POWs in german prison camps looking starved and emaciated. ITs possible that that is because close to the end of the war germany was broke, the camps went to hell and starvation and disease spread.
NoGerman leader, commander or soldier ever testified to a systematic killing
I guess thats up to the individual to decide what they think of that.
After Poland massacred thousands of German civillians (as well as Jews) hitler invaded poland in 1939.
England and France then declared war on Germany
Again the US entered, won it for them and the trials at Nuremburg.
So maybe it wasnt simply good vs. evil.
And maybe At least England and the USA's motives for declaring war on germany in both world wars werent actually as they say they are.
read if you'd like.
In 1916 germany while winning the war with france and england offered England a cease fire and peace deal to end the war.
England agreed, but it never was completed.
Zionist in Europe and the US new that if the war ended at that point thay would lose a great deal of power, control and money in Europe and probably be deported from germany and much of europe.
THe international zionist made a deal with england that they would get the USA to enter the war if England gave them palestine.
England agreed. Wilson sent the US to war and won it for England and france.
What followed was the treaty of Balfour and the treaty of Versailles.
http://www.redicecreations.com/winterwonderland/balfourversailles.html
THe germans felt betrayed and never forgot
They really couldnt have forgotten because for the next 14 years due mainly to Versailles Germany was in economic ruin.
The german people even children were literally starving to death on the streets.
It was really bad. And I think inhumane to make the civillians of Germany suffer in such a way, for so long.
Meanwhlile the Jewish were/had bought up everything they could in Germany.
They bought and controlled property, businesses and industry in germany. THey had control and got rich while the Germans suffered.
Thats not an opinion, that is fact.
THen in 33 Hitler came into power.
He was not a internationalist at least at first , he was a nationalist.
He wanted to see germany the way it was in the past.
So The first thing he did was call for the deportation of all jews from germany.
He and the german people blamed much of the poverty on them.
There was a deal for them to voluntarily leave or go to the island of madagascar.
Zionist again seeing a loss of power and $$$$$ then declared an international boycott on all german goods and rallied and protested on the streets of germany and the USA, basically atemptingto put germany back in a state of economic ruin.
Zionist declared "war" on Germany
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/jdecwar.html
http://www.biblestudysite.com/judeawar.htm
The Zionist leaders new exactly what this would do.
So at that point Hitler said fuck it, and announced all Jews as enemies of the state and had them aressted and locked in prison camps.
Similar to the US locking up Japanese Americans.
Note that there is no photos prior to 1945 of POWs in german prison camps looking starved and emaciated. ITs possible that that is because close to the end of the war germany was broke, the camps went to hell and starvation and disease spread.
NoGerman leader, commander or soldier ever testified to a systematic killing
I guess thats up to the individual to decide what they think of that.
After Poland massacred thousands of German civillians (as well as Jews) hitler invaded poland in 1939.
England and France then declared war on Germany
Again the US entered, won it for them and the trials at Nuremburg.
So maybe it wasnt simply good vs. evil.
And maybe At least England and the USA's motives for declaring war on germany in both world wars werent actually as they say they are.
Gee. Go figure. Oliver Stone seeking more attention.
Next thing you know he is going to make a film about the REAL invasion of Grenada!
Next thing you know he is going to make a film about the REAL invasion of Grenada!
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
Please take the foil hat off your head.
Hmm Drock going against me?
not the first time.
I have no foil hat, just researched both wars alot with an open mind.
I gotta go, come back later and see how much abuse I took.
But everything I wrote was historically true.
Believe what you want peope.
No opinions, just a different point of view than what the public schools teach.
You know, we fought the civil war to end slavery and WWII to save the jews.
You forgot the revolutionary war.
SgtMarine
Banned
Yeah sorta like that
Expect America and FDR did not mass murder 6 million of them. Where do you get your Zionist ideas from, Stormfront?
Umm, you think maybe that is because the camps were not liberated by the Allies until '45?
jasonk282
Banned
Of course not there has to be a conspirecy. Hell meester the Allies did not even get into Germny till almost the spring of 1945.
meesterperfect
Hiliary 2020
I dont have zionist ideas.Yeah sorta like that
I only know what stormfront is by similar accusations as yours, never seen the site.
The 6 million? I dont know, do you? does anybody?
I know there were 14-15 million jews in europe at the time, killing 40% of them seems high, plus how and where does one dispose of 6 million bodies?
I just like to know the truth.
I know the number 6 million was first said in Nuremburg by jews.
I know it was also stated in 1919 in this artlicle by the Governor of N.Y.
http://www.codoh.com/incon/incrucifix.html
I dont know if the germans systematically killed jews in those camps. I would think they killed some or many, but i dont know.
I know that history is written by the winners.
Why is it so hard for people to accept that maybe the magic number wasnt 6 million, maybe there was no holocaust (it needs a special name) or a systematic killing that we've been taught.
Maybe its just propaganda. Maybe its not all true. Maybe it is.
I also question historically why jews have been banished from european countrys for the past 1000 years? Simply because they dont believe jesus is the son of god?
And its sad that if someone questions it they are instantly callled racist or anti semetic, when they only seek the truth.
What I wrote above in my original post was all facts.
The individual can decide to see the big picture as to why both those wars happpened and who benefitted from both and maybe even connect it to the problems we have today with the muslims.
but please dont imply racism, i simply stated facts not taught in school.
Its possible, but unlikely.
The allies siezed many photos taken before 45 and many do exist.
in them the prisoners look well nourished.
its feasable that due to germany getting theier asses handed to them in 45 that tthe camps suffered and they let the prisoners starve and disease spread, as many germans and historians have said.
Again why is this so hard to consider? guilty consciouses? fear of being labeled? pity?
I'm not making this stuff up. you decide what you believe may or may not have happened. and why it did.
Similar threads
- Locked
