Depends on the particular way it's inaccurate I guess
Oliver Stone - Hitler is an easy scapegoat.
- Thread starter Nick 0208 Ldn
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Depends on the particular way it's inaccurate I guess
Well do you have an example in mind?
Everyone's always in favour of saving Hitler's brain. But when you put it in the body of a great white shark, ooh, suddenly you've gone too far.
So much nonsense about feck all. I listened to the radio yest & the Historian who wrote the series that Stone directed said that the documentaries are about America & very little about Hitler. Stone used the term Scapegoat & all the journo's went off on their own agenda. They didnt want to print the full context of what Stone said & meant because it wouldnt have caused any stir!
What Stone said was, for people just to describe someone as evil is not making sense of why people do terrible things. There is a cycle throughout the history of the world that someone does some terrible things yet no-one understands why, instead he/she is just labelled "evil", and if someone has done something terrible in recent times, that person becomes labelled in the same breath as a Hitler type - so Hitler is being made the scategoat for terrible crimes against the human race & the lack of understanding of why someone does these things are never fully examined - they're just pigeon-holed!
And I totally agree with what he said!
What Stone said was, for people just to describe someone as evil is not making sense of why people do terrible things. There is a cycle throughout the history of the world that someone does some terrible things yet no-one understands why, instead he/she is just labelled "evil", and if someone has done something terrible in recent times, that person becomes labelled in the same breath as a Hitler type - so Hitler is being made the scategoat for terrible crimes against the human race & the lack of understanding of why someone does these things are never fully examined - they're just pigeon-holed!
And I totally agree with what he said!
Even handed analysis of Hitler is something we don't really see. It is politically correct to simply vilify Hitler without any thought about WHY he came to power and enthralled an entire nation to his will. To simply ignore everything but the Holocaust and to use that as a white wash to ignore any intelligent debate about his character, his actions and his rise to power.
To ignore this aspect of Hitler is to forget the most important in my opinion aspect of Hitler and the Nazi party. Wolves in sheep's clothing. They gained power through thuggery and assassination, but that was swept under the rug and what the people of Germany saw were good things. Reclaiming national pride, pulling Germany by its bootstraps out of the depression and terrible inflation resulting from Versailles.
He gained the confidence and support of the populous by doing good things for Germany, before he took that power and perpetrated one of the greatest crimes in history.
I grow tired of the media and what not labeling people Hitler apologists when they say anything about Hitler other than he was a maniac mass murderer who was responsible for starting the European part of WW2. That ignores WHY Hitler was in the position to do that, and I think that is more useful for people to know and understand that than the ultimate conclusion of Hitler.
If Stone can shed light on this for the public without getting lambasted as an apologist and revisionist I would impressed. Unfortunately I predict more of the same, Stone will be so caught up in appeasing political correctness that he will create a caricature of Hitler rather than any sort of meaningful analysis.
Here is an interesting tidbit on Hitler many people don't know. Due to his experience with chemical weapons during WW1 he was vehemently opposed to their use in WW2. It was feared by many that WW2 would see the use of chemical weapons on an unprecedented scale.
That can be a very insightful bit of information when you break Hitler down. A person with absolutely no regard would have authorized the use of chemical weapons, especially in the waning years of the war. I think it is information like this that is most troubling for people. It is easy for them to paint Hitler as an inhuman monster, but when you consider BETTER men than Hitler would have used chemical weapons to defend their homeland it isn't so black and white. By creating this mental composite of Hitler as this monster they can easily compartmentalize themselves from him. "He isn't human, I could NEVER be like him."
Hitler was a racist, It would seem to me that his evil stemmed from his racism. In that period, many if not MOST people were racist/prejudice. He said what people were thinking, the difference is he went beyond saying, he acted on his radical world view.
If you remove the "final solution" from Hitler's resume what do you have? The United States had concentration camps during WW2. All western countries had that underlying racism. He would have been little different than any other power hungry 18th/19th/20th century leader.
Hitler was the culmination of centuries of nationalism, racism and European militancy. He was following in the footsteps of Bismarck, Napoleon, the Habsburgs etc, and he took that world view one step further, he acted on his racism. If it wasn't Hitler it would have been someone else. There is absolutely no question in my mind. It may not have happened yet, and the world WOULD be a worse place because of it.
Adolf Hitler is the exact point of demarcation in history where racism went from being accepted, to being shunned.
I would say that my generation in the western world, the children of the baby boomers, born in the late 70's and beyond are the fruits of this change in global world view. The generation that fought WW2 were by and large prejudice, their children were for the most part still prejudice but it was trending away from it. Our generation I believe is the first generation in human history where the majority is not prejudice.
Adolf Hitler was probably the most influential person in the 20th century, and you could make an argument that in the western world he was the most influential individual since Constantine converted the Roman Empire. His actions changed the world on level nobody since Constantine has even remotely approached. The decline of nationalism, Hitler is responsible. The rise of interconnected global economies, Hitler is responsible. The decline of racism and prejudice, Hitler is responsible.
You may say, bullshit, but he was the catalyst that made great minds realize that to continue on our current course was going to result in annihilation. We were forced to look at ourselves because of Hitler and become a more accepting and understanding interconnected global community.
Back to the question of what made Hitler evil, I said that what Hitler was, was the next evolution of the typical European statesman. I believe this to be true, but I don't think just anyone in the same position would have taken that next step. However I do think that there was probably a shocking number of people then, and probably even now that would have had no compunctions about carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing. History in part proves my statement. Hitler is not unique, in fact the 20th century is riddled with dictators who did exactly what he did, although they did not carry it out on the same scale or manage to embroil the world in war while doing it.
Was Hitler a monster? Absolutely. Was he unique? No. The world today is a better place for having experienced Hitler, yes he caused untold suffering and anguish, but because of the role Hitler played in the 20th century the world is improved.
I once had a discussion with a friend over exactly that point, his problem was that it attributed this "improvement" to Hitler. I said something like "Is the forest fire not responsible for the fertile soil a new forest grows from?" Hitler was the fire that created the conditions for others to affect change on the world. Sometimes it takes something terrible to make people realize something radical has to happen. As a species we hit rock bottom with Hitler.
To ignore this aspect of Hitler is to forget the most important in my opinion aspect of Hitler and the Nazi party. Wolves in sheep's clothing. They gained power through thuggery and assassination, but that was swept under the rug and what the people of Germany saw were good things. Reclaiming national pride, pulling Germany by its bootstraps out of the depression and terrible inflation resulting from Versailles.
He gained the confidence and support of the populous by doing good things for Germany, before he took that power and perpetrated one of the greatest crimes in history.
I grow tired of the media and what not labeling people Hitler apologists when they say anything about Hitler other than he was a maniac mass murderer who was responsible for starting the European part of WW2. That ignores WHY Hitler was in the position to do that, and I think that is more useful for people to know and understand that than the ultimate conclusion of Hitler.
If Stone can shed light on this for the public without getting lambasted as an apologist and revisionist I would impressed. Unfortunately I predict more of the same, Stone will be so caught up in appeasing political correctness that he will create a caricature of Hitler rather than any sort of meaningful analysis.
Here is an interesting tidbit on Hitler many people don't know. Due to his experience with chemical weapons during WW1 he was vehemently opposed to their use in WW2. It was feared by many that WW2 would see the use of chemical weapons on an unprecedented scale.
That can be a very insightful bit of information when you break Hitler down. A person with absolutely no regard would have authorized the use of chemical weapons, especially in the waning years of the war. I think it is information like this that is most troubling for people. It is easy for them to paint Hitler as an inhuman monster, but when you consider BETTER men than Hitler would have used chemical weapons to defend their homeland it isn't so black and white. By creating this mental composite of Hitler as this monster they can easily compartmentalize themselves from him. "He isn't human, I could NEVER be like him."
Hitler was a racist, It would seem to me that his evil stemmed from his racism. In that period, many if not MOST people were racist/prejudice. He said what people were thinking, the difference is he went beyond saying, he acted on his radical world view.
If you remove the "final solution" from Hitler's resume what do you have? The United States had concentration camps during WW2. All western countries had that underlying racism. He would have been little different than any other power hungry 18th/19th/20th century leader.
Hitler was the culmination of centuries of nationalism, racism and European militancy. He was following in the footsteps of Bismarck, Napoleon, the Habsburgs etc, and he took that world view one step further, he acted on his racism. If it wasn't Hitler it would have been someone else. There is absolutely no question in my mind. It may not have happened yet, and the world WOULD be a worse place because of it.
Adolf Hitler is the exact point of demarcation in history where racism went from being accepted, to being shunned.
I would say that my generation in the western world, the children of the baby boomers, born in the late 70's and beyond are the fruits of this change in global world view. The generation that fought WW2 were by and large prejudice, their children were for the most part still prejudice but it was trending away from it. Our generation I believe is the first generation in human history where the majority is not prejudice.
Adolf Hitler was probably the most influential person in the 20th century, and you could make an argument that in the western world he was the most influential individual since Constantine converted the Roman Empire. His actions changed the world on level nobody since Constantine has even remotely approached. The decline of nationalism, Hitler is responsible. The rise of interconnected global economies, Hitler is responsible. The decline of racism and prejudice, Hitler is responsible.
You may say, bullshit, but he was the catalyst that made great minds realize that to continue on our current course was going to result in annihilation. We were forced to look at ourselves because of Hitler and become a more accepting and understanding interconnected global community.
Back to the question of what made Hitler evil, I said that what Hitler was, was the next evolution of the typical European statesman. I believe this to be true, but I don't think just anyone in the same position would have taken that next step. However I do think that there was probably a shocking number of people then, and probably even now that would have had no compunctions about carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing. History in part proves my statement. Hitler is not unique, in fact the 20th century is riddled with dictators who did exactly what he did, although they did not carry it out on the same scale or manage to embroil the world in war while doing it.
Was Hitler a monster? Absolutely. Was he unique? No. The world today is a better place for having experienced Hitler, yes he caused untold suffering and anguish, but because of the role Hitler played in the 20th century the world is improved.
I once had a discussion with a friend over exactly that point, his problem was that it attributed this "improvement" to Hitler. I said something like "Is the forest fire not responsible for the fertile soil a new forest grows from?" Hitler was the fire that created the conditions for others to affect change on the world. Sometimes it takes something terrible to make people realize something radical has to happen. As a species we hit rock bottom with Hitler.
That's a fantastic post Nucks.
Poor Hitler gets a rough deal eh?
Dee fecking dums
The "final solution" is a pretty big thing to just remove, wouldn't you say?
I've absolutely no time for this. Some people are rightly vilified, and Hitler is one of them. Yes, absolutely, it's important to look at how he came to power, and what can be done to ensure some lessons are learnt. But this 'Hitler wasn't all bad', 'Hitler is misunderstood', 'such and such was the real evil bastard' stuff is a load of bollocks
Dee fecking dums
The "final solution" is a pretty big thing to just remove, wouldn't you say?
I've absolutely no time for this. Some people are rightly vilified, and Hitler is one of them. Yes, absolutely, it's important to look at how he came to power, and what can be done to ensure some lessons are learnt. But this 'Hitler wasn't all bad', 'Hitler is misunderstood', 'such and such was the real evil bastard' stuff is a load of bollocks
It's not known whether or not Hitler even gave the order for the Final Solution.
As it happened on his watch - and if not ordered by him was still largely carried out as a result of his jingoistic speeches and actions - it is irrelevant whether he ordered it or not.
I've learned loads already. I learned that basically Brad doesn't like thinking about things.
I love to think about things
I dislike ignorant, retarded statements like "The world today is a better place for having experienced Hitler", and the whole concept of this thread in general
the real question is, is World today a better place for having experienced Jade Goody?
That's a Caf classic... Devilish, The King, DaPleasurNDaPain level
Take a bow spasmo
When I first read that I thought 'yep, there's certainly an argument to be made for that view' but on reflection it is a bit mental, isn't it?
It took you a second viewing to realize that was mental?
Everything should be viewed a second time
Hitler never started the war, Britain and France did.
Hitler > Chamberlain
Hitler > Chamberlain
Wow, I think you're disturbed
Hitler never started the war eh. Good for him. If only we'd never declared war, he'd have been inviting his local Polish and Jewish neighbours around for tea and biccies, and the world would have been a happier place
The Soviets would have crushed the Nazis.
True, but I think his first argument is that Hitler was not a monster because he didn't use chemical weapons in the war...that in itself is pretty friggin' retarded
It ignores many factors, including the lack of practical application of chemical weapons, the real threat of Allied retaliation. There were practical military reasons for him NOT to use chemical weapons. Yes, maybe he was affected by his experience, but there are many instances where the man showed no regard for human life.
Additionally, he writes that any monster would have used chemical weapons when the end is near.
IIRC, there were a number of cities, including parts of Paris and Berlin, that Hitler had either ordered or prepared for complete destruction (like Berlin was destroyed already). In the case of Paris, his orders weren't followed.
So yes, he didn't use chemicals weapons, but he prepared for the complete destruction of many cities and their population. Warsaw; that's enough evidence for someone with absolutely no regard for human life.
The French should have crushed them but they fecked up royally in 1940. The jerries rode their luck in the first year.
True
But without American supplies, the Soviets wouldn't have been nearly as successful...
He initiated a scorched earth policy similar to Stalin in 1941 when the Nazi's were invading Russia. I think it was called the Nero Order. And it wasn't to destroy their population, it's objective was to destroy anything and everything that could be used by the allies.
Hitler still thought he could win the war in 1945, he was the only one, mind.
Yes, the Nero Order
It is a mistake to think that transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, which have not been destroyed, or have only been temporarily put out of action, can be used again for our own ends when the lost territory has been recovered. The enemy will leave us nothing but scorched earth when he withdraws, without paying the slightest regard to the population. I therefore order:
All military transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, as well as anything else of value within Reich territory, which could in any way be used by the enemy immediately or within the foreseeable future for the prosecution of the war, will be destroyed
It is a mistake to think that transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, which have not been destroyed, or have only been temporarily put out of action, can be used again for our own ends when the lost territory has been recovered. The enemy will leave us nothing but scorched earth when he withdraws, without paying the slightest regard to the population. I therefore order:
All military transport and communication facilities, industrial establishments and supply depots, as well as anything else of value within Reich territory, which could in any way be used by the enemy immediately or within the foreseeable future for the prosecution of the war, will be destroyed
I think I remember Speer writing about that in his book. It was about destroying German infrastructure near the end of the war, and Speer refused to carry it out.
I think his destruction of Paris would be far more personal and far less about a scorched earth policy.
What a fecking brilliant post, Nucks. Are you a History major?
Maybe, it's been a while since I've studied any of it so my memory is sketchy at best.
Mine too
Got to admit I haven't read a book about WW2 is some time; a couple years at least. I use to be addicted to WW2 literature. Now its more Roman History, with a little bit of 19th Century history thrown in.
Hehe
I did some more research on the Soviets' role in WW2 after reading your discourses with Nucks in 'Photos which shook the world' thread, turns out a bit of embellishing was done by the Western world, from what I learned in history, the Soviets were rescued by the Allied forces. You actually displayed a good mastery of history in that thread. Did you have advanced study in history, or did you just pick up some books at the library?
I'm more interested in the late Cold War era, Detente, Containment, Afghanistan and all that lark, but the World War is fascinating stuff, and Nucks just put another perspective on it
In my opinion
Hitler was evil
Those who invented the treaty of Versailles were idiots
and the German people were desperate!
--------
The treaty of Versailles placed too much burden on Germany who ended in deep poverty. Hitler exploited the German people's desperation to reach his own ends. If the treaty of Versailles didn't took place then Hitler would still be evil BUT he wouldn't have had the golden occasion he had to rise in power. If Hitler didn't existed then someone else would have taken command and he would have probably lead Germany in a better way. If the Germans weren't desperate they would have laughed at his face.
Its similar to what is happening in my country. In the 70s a man launched a crusade against some African students coming to our country. He ended up alone, laughed at and arrested. Nowadays thanks to the idiotic dublin convention which forces immigrants (if they live the country they are arrested and sent back) to live in a small island with an already overpopulation problem, he is slowly gaining popularity.
Hitler was evil
Those who invented the treaty of Versailles were idiots
and the German people were desperate!
--------
The treaty of Versailles placed too much burden on Germany who ended in deep poverty. Hitler exploited the German people's desperation to reach his own ends. If the treaty of Versailles didn't took place then Hitler would still be evil BUT he wouldn't have had the golden occasion he had to rise in power. If Hitler didn't existed then someone else would have taken command and he would have probably lead Germany in a better way. If the Germans weren't desperate they would have laughed at his face.
Its similar to what is happening in my country. In the 70s a man launched a crusade against some African students coming to our country. He ended up alone, laughed at and arrested. Nowadays thanks to the idiotic dublin convention which forces immigrants (if they live the country they are arrested and sent back) to live in a small island with an already overpopulation problem, he is slowly gaining popularity.
What do you mean the Soviets were rescued by the Allied forces? They certainly weren't. The US sent a lot of supplies under the lend-lease agreement, but the Soviets were huge in production anyway (See Stalin's three 5 Year Plans, production shot through the roof). Certainly in the west we like to downplay the role of the USSR. I mean in GCSE history I was basically taught that Germany invaded Poland, then Britain invaded Germany and won the War, it's horribly simplistic.
I dare say the Soviet's would have won the war if it was a straight fight between themselves and the Nazis. Though you can certainly argue a case for the opposite being true.
That's very true, the Treaty of Versailles was hugely unfair and further gave Hitler the belief that the world was against Germany. Of course you cannot put it all down to the Treaty, but it certainly played a major part.
The rest of Europe ignoring Hitler when he broke the terms of the treaty didn't help much, either.
Who the feck said that?
Stone didnt say it nor did anyone on this thread. You've completely missed the meaning of the discussion!
How on earth could the Soviets have singlehandedly won the war when they barely survived Barbarossa. The amount of troops Germany had allocated on the western front, not to mention those Garrisoned in eastern Europe, and North Africa would have surely been enough to reach Moscow. Had Hitler even waited an extra year or two before launching Barbarossa in order to string along the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, he could have consolidated his assets better for a successful invasion of Stalin's area.
I've had a great dislike of Stone ever since his Doors-movie
Germany commited 90% of the Wehrmacht for Operation Barbarossa. If it wasn't for Stalins purges and his strict orders not to respond to German provocations along the border Germany would have never been able to get that far inside the Soviet Union.
The Red Army was huge and so was the Red Army Air Force. The Soviets had numerical superiority over Germany in tanks, artillery and aircraft. The Soviet tanks would become superior to the German tanks as the war progressed, they had better artillery, and no other air force destroyed as many Luftwaffe aircraft as the Soviet Air Force did. The Germans couldn't compete with the Soviets in output of equipment and reserves.
The inept Soviet leadership in the beginning, poor communication and poor tactics lead to huge Soviet losses in the beginning of the war. After the Winter War in 1939/40 against Finland reforms were started in the Red Army to make up for the severe blows the military had taken during the purges. These reforms were taking place at the time of the invasion. If Hitler had waited a couple of more years to launch Operation Barbarossa it would have ended in complete failure already from the start. Germany couldn't really have picked a better time to attack the Soviet Union.
When the Soviets got their act together they started annihilating entire German armies in highly sophisticated and succesful operations, the biggest being Operation Bagration when Army Group Centre was wiped off the map.
The notion that many people have that by capturing Moscow, Stalingrad or Leningrad the Germans would've won is quite simply laughable.
Taking Moscow wouldn't have made a huge difference. The Soviets had already moved their production facilities behind the Ural mountains. That means that they weren't planning on giving up until the war got to at least that point. Germany's Supply lines were horribly over-extended as well. Plus the russian winter.
I'd say there would had been more chance of Germany actually winning the war if Russia hadn't been involved in it somehow.
Though again, with time, the rest of the world would've eventually stopped the nazis.
That's a Caf classic... Devilish, The King, DaPleasurNDaPain level
Take a bow spasmo
Hitler was, to a large degree, a scapegoat though. Extremely convenient of the Allies to earmark Germany and Japan as chief culprits of war crimes when they themselves were carrying out mass murders.
Hitler was, to a large degree, a scapegoat though. Extremely convenient of the Allies to earmark Germany and Japan as chief culprits of war crimes when they themselves were carrying out mass murders.
All sides resorted to mass bombing of civilians. The allied side didn't systematically mass-murder people they'd already conquered and/or interred. Major difference.
I went into that film a huge Doors fan and left a bit disappointed. Although Val Kilmer did a pretty good job.
The dawn of collateral damage