Oliver Stone to put Hitler "in context"

[red states rule]

Ok folks, get ready for more liberal revisionism

And yes people like Rush rely on facts when they talk about history - libs like Stone rely on emotion




Oliver Stone's 'Secret History' to put Hitler 'in context'
TCA -- Director Oliver Stone's upcoming Showtime documentary miniseries "Secret History of America" promises to put mass murderers such as Stalin and Hitler "in context."

"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy -- these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history," Stone told reporters at the Television Critics Association's semi-annual press tour in Pasadena.

"Stalin has a complete other story," Stone said. "Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person. We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good.' Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... People in America don't know the connection between WWI and WWII ... I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated."


The controversial director's 10-part documentary series for Showtime promises to focus on events that "at the time went under-reported, but crucially shaped America's unique and complex history of the last 60 years." Subjects in "History" include President Harry Truman’s decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and the origins of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.

"You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate," Stone said during the show's trailer, which promised to put historical villains "in context." "I don't want to put out conventional History Channel product where it's easy to like it."

"He's not saying we're going to come out with a more positive view of Hitler," emphasized professor Peter Kuznick, the lead writer on the project. "But we're going to describe him as a historical phenomenon and not just somebody who appeared out of nowhere."

Stone said that conservative pundits will dislike the show.

"Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history and, as usual, we're going to get those kind of ignorant attacks," said Stone, who also also compared the experience of sympathizing with war criminals to making his "W" movie about George W. Bush. "I'm trying to understand somebody I thoroughly despised."

http://www.thrfeed.com/2010/01/oliver-stone-history-america.html

[Gaffer]

I'm not going to like it right along with Rush. Stalin fought hitler because hitler attacked russia. Stalin was a megalomaniac, so was hitler and mao. Joseph McCarthy went nuts trying to find commies, he was right, hollyword was full of them. They now run the msm and make documentaries like this.

Seems they want to tell us not all communist dictators are bad. It's just a small minority.

[HogTrash]

As it turned out, Senator Joe McCarthy was absolutlely correct about the communist threat culminating in Hollywood.

The man should be honored as a great American hero...Hopefully the history books will be revised to reflect that truth.

http://www.senatormccarthy.com/index.html

[Binky]

Well, I sure don't like it....This is going to make America look even worse to the world....You know people are going to believe all their eyes see and not look beyond..... This is another stab at ripping America to shreds......

I will not go and see it. They will NOT get a dime of my money.......

[Abbey Marie]

Sounds like another huge compost heap of moral relativism.

[Agnapostate]

Hitler is strongly vilified, and rightly so, but it's not as though there wasn't an American holocaust on which European settlement in the U.S. and other American countries was founded. :)

[HogTrash]

Hitler is strongly vilified, and rightly so, but it's not as though there wasn't an American holocaust on which European settlement in the U.S. and other American countries was founded. :)Hey aggy, do ya think you could post some more of those really scarey pictures of all them indian guys like you did in that other thread?

They were really scarey and quite effective...When I saw them I almost poopied my pants...No really!...Gee, you guys are really scarey aggy. :dance:

[Agnapostate]

Hey aggy, do ya think you could post some more of those really scarey pictures of all them indian guys like you did in that other thread?

What, these?

http://www.casa115.com/blog/zapatistas-thumb.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1245000/images/_1247207_supporters_ap150.jpg

You like Mayans, right? :slap:

[SassyLady]

Oliver Stone is very good at historical revisionism..........he certainly had me convinced that LBJ had Kennedy assassinated. I'm sure he'll be able to make it seem that America created Hitler and the war.......probably one of those false-flag operations that people talk about all the time.

[red states rule]

Sounds like another huge compost heap of moral relativism.

Looks like another "I hate America" piece by a far-lefty.

Do liberals have something against making "feel good" patriotic documentaries about America?

You know the same country that provided them the freedom to become wealthy in Hollywood. Freedoms they would not find in countries run by the dictators they admire and have their pictures taken with

[Luna Tick]

As it turned out, Senator Joe McCarthy was absolutlely correct about the communist threat culminating in Hollywood.

The man should be honored as a great American hero...Hopefully the history books will be revised to reflect that truth.

http://www.senatormccarthy.com/index.html

It's nice to know you support witch hunts. Senator McCarthy ruined careers over thought crimes. A person can have Marxist views without having collaborated with the Soviet Union. In the United States we (supposedly) have freedom of speech and freedom of thought. That means if someone believes in Marxist, anarchist, or other foolish political ideals, he has every right to do so. Simply having those views doesn't make the person guilty of treason. If they actually assist an enemy, they might be, but just holding an idea doesn't make them treasonous. And many people were caught up in the net who weren't even Marxist. Maybe they attended some dumb meeting in college, but never bought into the philosophy.

And, of course I'll be accused of being a Marxist simply for supporting people's rights to hold whatever views they want. In fact, I find Marxism to be an extremely foolish philosophy (and I actually understand what it is unlike too many members of this board). I find Marxism to be just as foolish as Christianity, but I don't support the oppression of people for supporting either of these absolutely asinine viewpoints.

And, on understanding Hitler in context -- people here could do well to read a little history and do just that. It's not the same thing as supporting what he did. I understand why people smuggle cocaine. That doesn't mean I support it. Read up on World War I, the Versailles Treaty, and Hitler's rise to power. It's fascinating history that explains Hitler's appeal. Simply understanding that context is not the same thing as endorsing what he did. However, it does provide valuable insight into demagogy and why a tyrant might win support. It remains to be seen whether Oliver Stone can create a film of historical value. I hope he does. He did an absolutely piss poor job with JFK. I would recommend reading Adolf Hitler by John Toland instead. Shut off your Rush Limbaugh radio shows and read history books instead. Don't waste your time with the Oliver Stone movie either unless it turns out that he actually does a good job this time.

[red states rule]

It's nice to know you support witch hunts. Senator McCarthy ruined careers over thought crimes. A person can have Marxist views without having collaborated with the Soviet Union. In the United States we (supposedly) have freedom of speech and freedom of thought. That means if someone believes in Marxist, anarchist, or other foolish political ideals, he has every right to do so. Simply having those views doesn't make the person guilty of treason. If they actually assist an enemy, they might be, but just holding an idea doesn't make them treasonous. And many people were caught up in the net who weren't even Marxist. Maybe they attended some dumb meeting in college, but never bought into the philosophy.

And, of course I'll be accused of being a Marxist simply for supporting people's rights to hold whatever views they want. In fact, I find Marxism to be an extremely foolish philosophy (and I actually understand what it is unlike too many members of this board). I find Marxism to be just as foolish as Christianity, but I don't support the oppression of people for supporting either of these absolutely asinine viewpoints.

And, on understanding Hitler in context -- people here could do well to read a little history and do just that. It's not the same thing as supporting what he did. I understand why people smuggle cocaine. That doesn't mean I support it. Read up on World War I, the Versailles Treaty, and Hitler's rise to power. It's fascinating history that explains Hitler's appeal. Simply understanding that context is not the same thing as endorsing what he did. However, it does provide valuable insight into demagogy and why a tyrant might win support. It remains to be seen whether Oliver Stone can create a film of historical value. I hope he does. He did an absolutely piss poor job with JFK. I would recommend reading Adolf Hitler by John Toland instead. Shut off your Rush Limbaugh radio shows and read history books instead. Don't waste your time with the Oliver Stone movie either unless it turns out that he actually does a good job this time.

I do not have to rely on anyone to tell me about Hitler. Stone and his liberal buddies have a long history on sucking up to dictators

It would not surprise me to try and excuse Hitler for his actions

If you want to see one of Hitler's policies watch the video

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wxj4SBXPRbc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Wxj4SBXPRbc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Luna Tick]

I'm going to wait and see what Oliver Stone does with his new film before I pronounce it to be worthless junk. Maybe he'll do a better job this time around. I don't know. I do know that JFK was an atrocious distortion of history, but I don't blame that on liberalism. I blame it on Stone's buying into silly conspiracy theories.

[namvet]

JFK was a comedy. maybe stone's broke which means he'll take on anything. Hitler ??? that's so :laugh2::coffee::laugh2:

[red states rule]

I'm going to wait and see what Oliver Stone does with his new film before I pronounce it to be worthless junk. Maybe he'll do a better job this time around. I don't know. I do know that JFK was an atrocious distortion of history, but I don't blame that on liberalism. I blame it on Stone's buying into silly conspiracy theories.

The same way people are willing to wait around for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to turn the economy around

Sorry, their past record should tell you what they will do - some people never get it

[Binky]

The same way people are willing to wait around for Obama, Reid, and Pelosi to turn the economy around

Sorry, their past record should tell you what they will do - some people never get it

Not only past records, but also those they've choosen to associate with....You know, like all those creepy people in OBs background, for instance....As the saying goes, "you are known by the company you keep." If ya slither around with snakes, chances are you'll be taken for one of them......In Stones case, he's known for making controversal crapola, so why should this one or any others be any different....

Anyone who spiels anti American crapola should be ran out of America on a rail........If one doesn't like living here, then I can direct them to the nearest exit out......

[red states rule]

Not only past records, but also those they've choosen to associate with....You know, like all those creepy people in OBs background, for instance....As the saying goes, "you are known by the company you keep." If ya slither around with snakes, chances are you'll be taken for one of them......In Stones case, he's known for making controversal crapola, so why should this one or any others be any different....

Anyone who spiels anti American crapola should be ran out of America on a rail........If one doesn't like living here, then I can direct them to the nearest exit out......

Here is Oliver and one of his friends

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/2607/slide_2607_36647_large.jpg

[Binky]

Two fat fucks with the common cause of fucking us......

[red states rule]

Two fat fucks with the common cause of fucking us......

and we have Oliver with Castro

http://www.cwporter.com/oliverstonewithfidelcastro.jpg

I wonder if Oliver would have the freedom to make his lame films in Cuba and Venezuela?

[Abbey Marie]

I forgot to mention what utter arrogance for a this man to think that he alone can put history into proper context.

[Binky]

I forgot to mention what utter arrogance for a this man to think that he alone can put history into proper context.

Yeah, how fucking dare anyone to rewrite it....Tell it to the 10 million jews that were forced into gas chambers....................and then their bodies piled sky high and disposed of as tho' they were a bad batch of beef..... How fucking dare they rewrite history..... History needs to be kept alive so we can all learn from it and never repeat it again.....

[Binky]

and we have Oliver with Castro

http://www.cwporter.com/oliverstonewithfidelcastro.jpg

I wonder if Oliver would have the freedom to make his lame films in Cuba and Venezuela?


I'd spit at them.... but I'll do this instead :pee:

[Agnapostate]

I wonder if Oliver would have the freedom to make his lame films in Cuba and Venezuela?

I'd imagine that would be the case in the latter. After all, media outlets' advocacy of a violent coup against the democratically elected government that briefly succeeded earned the perpetrators a lack of license renewal years after the fact, while it would have earned them prison time and probable treason charges in the U.S.

[red states rule]

I'd imagine that would be the case in the latter. After all, media outlets' advocacy of a violent coup against the democratically elected government that briefly succeeded earned the perpetrators a lack of license renewal years after the fact, while it would have earned them prison time and probable treason charges in the U.S.

Enjoying your stay Tattoo?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1x_QbVDlLbI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1x_QbVDlLbI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Agnapostate]

It's all right. I didn't expect you to know anything about the topic either when your recycled talking points from WorldNetDaily serve you so well. :laugh:

[red states rule]

It's all right. I didn't expect you to know anything about the topic either when your recycled talking points from WorldNetDaily serve you so well. :laugh:

People like you also told the rest of us how Saddam won his last election in Iraq with 99% of the vote, and how much the people loved him

The liberal media even "covered" the election

Like with Saddam, Oliver could do his movies as long as the respective dictator approved the contents of the film

[AFbombloader]

January 22 on Fox there will be a documentary on this same subject. I suggest we all watch it and make up our own minds. That is is people can get over the fact that Glen Beck is the person behind it.

History is history, you cannot revise it.

AF:salute:

[red states rule]

January 22 on Fox there will be a documentary on this same subject. I suggest we all watch it and make up our own minds. That is is people can get over the fact that Glen Beck is the person behind it.

History is history, you cannot revise it.

AF:salute:

You can try to revise history if you are a liberal. They have done it many times

[Agnapostate]

People like you also told the rest of us how Saddam won his last election in Iraq with 99% of the vote, and how much the people loved him

The liberal media even "covered" the election

Like with Saddam, Oliver could do his movies as long as the respective dictator approved the contents of the film

I've never made any such comment. It's quite clear to me, however, that you have neither the ability nor the interest to rebut my comment, the reason being that you're a stupid troll who simply regurgitates rightist talking points without intelligent thought.

[red states rule]

I've never made any such comment. It's quite clear to me, however, that you have neither the ability nor the interest to rebut my comment, the reason being that you're a stupid troll who simply regurgitates rightist talking points without intelligent thought.

You want to ignore my point - fine

Arrogrant people like you tend to beleive dicatotrs are fine people - you do not have to live under their rule

[Agnapostate]

You want to ignore my point - fine

Arrogrant people like you tend to beleive dicatotrs are fine people - you do not have to live under their rule

You haven't made any "point," you idiot. I pointed out the fact that there were lesser restrictions on media outlets in Venezuela in the U.S., as acts that would have earned broadcasters imprisonment and probable treason charges here did not there, and you responded with a stupid off-topic comment about Saddam that ascribed a belief that I did not hold to me. :lame2:

[red states rule]

You haven't made any "point," you idiot. I pointed out the fact that there were lesser restrictions on media outlets in Venezuela in the U.S., as acts that would have earned broadcasters imprisonment and probable treason charges here did not there, and you responded with a stupid off-topic comment about Saddam that ascribed a belief that I did not hold to me. :lame2:

I pointed out how the liberal media "reported" how much the people loved Saddam - they hanged his ass for his crimes

The liberal media also builds up Castro and Chavez - while ignoring the people they kill and how they rule like a typcial dictator

The left has always considered dictators as their friends - and love to have their pictures taken with them

But they never seem to go and live under them

[Agnapostate]

I pointed out how the liberal media "reported" how much the people loved Saddam - they hanged his ass for his crimes

Please provide a link to a mainstream media report that falsely reported popular support for Saddam Hussein where none existed. I don't know why you'd bother mumbling about the "liberal media"; the far more problematic issue is corporate control of the media, as Chomsky and Herman illustrate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model).


The liberal media also builds up Castro and Chavez - while ignoring the people they kill and how they rule like a typcial dictator

While I'm not and never have been a fan of the internal Leninist conditions of Cuba, it remains the case that there have been advancements in conditions there that many surrounding countries lack despite having access to greater resources. As for Chavez, the lack of focus on his dictatorship and the people he kills might have something to do with the fact that he's a democratically elected head of state that enjoys widespread popular support.

Moreover, are you able to provide peer-reviewed empirical research that analyzes such a trend in media reports? Failing that, are you able to provide substantial evidence or transcripts of this trend? Are you able to provide any evidence of your claims of any sort? I ask for it because every pattern that I've seen indicates systematic bias against the figures you've mentioned in the U.S. mainstream media. For example, as noted by Bart Jones, numerous media broadcasters reported that Chavez supporters had shot and killed opponents during the prelude to the brief 2002 coup against his administration, despite the fact that this was heavily disputed and is probably not true:


Freelance reporter and Miami Herald contributor Phil Gunson told National Public Radio listeners in the United States that "the deaths and injuries appear to have been caused by snipers, apparently from the government's side, apparently from a roof of a building that's in the hands of government supporters, and also from the presidential guard." When a studio host asked about the government response to the accusation, Gunson replied, "Well, I spoke to somebody in the palace just a little while ago who told me that the version that they were being given there was that the killings had been carried out by the Metropolitan Police, which is in the hands of the opposition. That's certainly false from what I know." Chavez has "done precisely what he said he would never do," he added, "which is to have his security forces fire on the demonstrators in the streets."

Most of the rest of the commercial media took the same angle. CBS news reporter Anthony Mason told millions of viewers, "In the end, this is what triggered the overthrow of Hugo Chavez: Armed gangs loyal to the Venezuelan president fired on thousands of anti-government protesters." The St. Petersburg Times reported that "as protesters neared the palace, government troops opened fire with live rounds and tear gas, according to eyewitnesses." The paper quoted one Venezuelan journalist as saying, "It was an ambush." The New York Times said Chavez was "obligated to resign" after "at least 14 people were killed by gunmen identified as his supporters." The Miami Herald reported that "pro-Chavez soldiers and civilians opened fire on a massive street march to demand the president's resignation." Viewers of PBS's respected NewsHour heard a host undoubtedly relying on international news reports state that "Chavez order National Guard troops and civilian gunmen to fire on the nearly two hundred thousand protesters to stop them from reaching his palace."

More recently, there were repeated condemnations of Chavez's bid to seek the abolition of presidential term limits in Venezuela as "dictatorial" (despite the fact that it was an elimination of restrictions on democratic choice), with no reports of the fact that Chavez had survived a recall attempt while it was acknowledged that Bush would almost certainly not near the end of his second term...but there is no recall mechanism for the head of state in the more "democratic" country. By contrast, when Colombian president Alvaro Uribe (who is alleged to have ties to narcoterrorism and whose legislative supporters were caught in a massive corruption scandal), sought the same abolition of term limits, there was nary a peep of this in the U.S. media.


The left has always considered dictators as their friends - and love to have their pictures taken with them

There is no viable left in the U.S. to speak of, merely rightist and center-right political administrations. And plenty of those administrations have supported the most abominable dictators imaginable.


But they never seem to go and live under them

Are you in favor of migration to the countries ruled by every political administration that you support? Or is it possible that there are complications beyond mere support for domestic conditions, such as connections to friends and family in one's home country, connection to stable employment, and a lack of sufficient cultural and linguistic skills to thrive in another country when roots are already set down elsewhere?

[red states rule]

Here is See BS News and their coverage of the "election" in Iraq




Saddam Hussein Wins One-Man Race
Sole Candidate Declared The Winner By An 11 Million-To-0 Margin

(CBS) Iraq declared Saddam Hussein the winner Wednesday - by an 11 million-to-0 margin - in a war-shadowed referendum on his two-decade military rule, sending celebratory gunfire crackling from the streets and rooftops of Baghdad.

The 100 percent turnout, 100 percent 'yes' vote shows all Iraqis are poised to defend Saddam against American forces, the country's No. 2 man said.

"If they come, we will fight them in every village, and every house," said Izzat Ibrahim, vice chairman of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council, announcing results on what Iraq billed as a people's referendum on keeping Saddam in power another seven years.

"Every home will be a front, and every farmer, every shepherd, every Iraqi, will play his role," Ibrahim said. "All Iraqis are armed now, and by God's will we will triumph."

The White House had dismissed the one-man race in advance.

"Obviously, it's not a very serious day, not a very serious vote and nobody places any credibility on it," press secretary Ari Fleischer said in Washington.

Baghdad crackled with automatic weapon fire at the results, announced live on state TV. Men climbed to rooftops or leaned out balconies, firing into the air. At least one drove the streets shooting, one hand on the trigger and another on the wheel.

"This referendum and the 100 percent shows that all Iraqis are ready to defend their country and their leader," said Khaled Yusef, hopping up and down among a cluster of men dancing on a street corner.

The celebration came on a day President Bush signed a congressional resolution authorizing military force, if necessary, to ensure Iraq has no chemical, biological or nuclear weapons program.

At the United Nations, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan backed tougher ground rules for arms inspections in Iraq, and urged Baghdad to use this "last chance."

Iraqis were asked to vote 'yes' or 'no' Tuesday on whether Saddam should remain in office, typical of presidential votes in a region largely ruled by dictators.

Lawmakers were expected to go to Saddam late Wednesday or after to administer the oath of office for the new term. The 65-year-old Iraqi leader, mindful of security, has not appeared in public since December 2000.

State television showed file footage Wednesday of Iraqis dancing in the streets and children waving fists and shouting Saddam's name.

Spontaneous celebrations in the city of 5 million appeared few and small, however. The government had declared the day a holiday in advance. But many families stayed off the streets in the first hours, some apparently fearful of stray, albeit celebratory, bullets.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/16/attack/main525770.shtml





I guess you will dimiss CBS as a legit news source

You lose again son

[Agnapostate]

Here is See BS News and their coverage of the "election" in Iraq

I guess you will dimiss CBS as a legit news source

You lose again son

...

Your opinion is actually that this report was intended to hype Saddam as opposed to making his administration look completely idiotic and fraudulent? :slap:

[red states rule]

...

Your opinion is actually that this report was intended to hype Saddam as opposed to making his administration look completely idiotic and fraudulent? :slap:

Of course it was intended to show Saddam in a favorable light. They were opposed to the liberation of Iraq

As I said. the liberal media and most libs love dictators and show them in the best possible light

[Agnapostate]

Of course it was intended to show Saddam in a favorable light. They were opposed to the liberation of Iraq

As I said. the liberal media and most libs love dictators and show them in the best possible light

So apparently, illustrations of obvious vote rigging and fraudulent reporting of results constitute an attempt to portray an administration in a favorable light. Thanks for the tip; I'll remember that for a few of our elections here.

[red states rule]

So apparently, illustrations of obvious vote rigging and fraudulent reporting of results constitute an attempt to portray an administration in a favorable light. Thanks for the tip; I'll remember that for a few of our elections here.

You are a lost cause son. You asked for one news source and I gave it to you, ignore the biased reporting

I have news stories on how the liberal media has given glowing coverage of Chavez -but why bother? You would ignore them as well

[Agnapostate]

You are a lost cause son. You asked for one news source and I gave it to you, ignore the biased reporting

Actually, you really got me thinking. Al Gore should have been Bush's campaign manager. Turns out that his allegations that Georgie stole the election were actually attempts to give him some moral support. ;)


I have news stories on how the liberal media has given glowing coverage of Chavez -but why bother? You would ignore them as well

I'm sure. Try explaining why Chavez's anti-term limits bid was "dictatorial," while Uribe's was simply ignored, for starters.