Oliver Stone: 'Jewish-Dominated Media' Prevents Hitler from Being Portrayed 'in Context'

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

His speeches were carefully orchestrated - some of the later rallies were brilliant propaganda - awesome yet terrible. Goebbels was a genius.

When I went to Munich last year - we went on a beer tour around the city and apparently Hitler's first speech took place in the Hofbrauhaus beer hall. It's a little weird to go to a pub, knowing that you could easily be sitting somewhere where Hitler sat.

[_Simpson_ 250]

Hitler is indeed responsible for the atrocities of the 3rd Reich. However, Hitler and the 3rd Reich didn't come into power in a vaccuum - much of the rest of the world sat back and let it happen as Germany broke the Treaty of Versailles. You could say that we (the collective we) enabled Hitler.

I know the argument. Its fruitless because the underlying point will always trump the points that you and your peeps try to make the vocal point.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I know the argument. Its fruitless because the underlying point will always trump the points that you and your peeps try to make the vocal point.

How so? You can't accept that the world during the 1930s was as complex and interconnected as today?

[_Simpson_ 250]

How so? You can't accept that the world during the 1930s was as complex and interconnected as today?

What I do accept is that Hitlers actions can not be excused in any way, shape or manner!!!

You're trying to take Stone's misguided history lessons and give it credit... shame on you!

[Peikko 1,575]

What I do accept is that Hitlers actions can not be excused in any way, shape or manner!!!

You're trying to take Stone's misguided history lessons and give it credit... shame on you!

No one in this thread has tried to excuse his actions - can you not understand the difference between wanting to understand how things really played out and accepting black and white explantions because they are more confortable? Seriously, Stone is an ####, not because he understands that the war was more complex than people in the US generally wish to contemplate, but because he draws equally simplisit and necessarily wrong conclusions as to why that is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What I do accept is that Hitlers actions can not be excused in any way, shape or manner!!!

You're trying to take Stone's misguided history lessons and give it credit... shame on you!

I didn't address the Oliver Stone quote at all actually.

Hitler's actions cannot be excused - you'll get no argument from me on that.

What I did say was that Hitler did not come to power in a vacuum (meaning that other stuff was going on in the world while it was happening - and that the rest of the world was not unaware of what was happening in Germany). Unless the rest of the world disappeared into a black hole while it happened - this is a fact.

Soviet Russia signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis - if the Nazis hadn't started the eastern front, the USSR would have sat back, quite happily and watched Germany systematically destroy western Europe; which until they entered the war, is exactly what they did.

Neville Chamberlain has been accused of trying to appease Hitler and doing too little too late while the Germans broke the Treaty of Versailles.

Intellectuals in Europe and the USA supported Nazi and Soviet ideologies.

There's plenty more. It was a murky period of history.

No one in this thread has tried to excuse his actions - can you not understand the difference between wanting to understand how things really played out and accepting black and white explantions because they are more confortable? Seriously, Stone is an ####, not because he understands that the war was more complex than people in the US generally wish to contemplate, but because he draws equally simplisit and necessarily wrong conclusions as to why that is.

Yeah the "Jews in Hollywood" thing is whack.

[Atencio 43]

It always irks me how few people in the US know that Russia won the second world war. They crushed the German 6th army at Stalingrad and rolled the other German armies back to almost their own border while the UK and US were still giving nylons to the dames in London.

There is no comparison to what the American and British soldiers dealt with compared to the amount of men and weapons on the eastern front.

They got to Berlin and Hitler didn't shoot himself to avoid capture by the Americans - it was the Russians who were a few hundred yards away.

We let the Russians take Berlin. Western allies could have gotten there first but at what cost? 70,000 dead Soviet soldiers.

The allies lost a tiny number of troops in Europe compared to the tens of millions the Russians lost in breaking the German armies and rolling them all the way back to their own borders..

The Russians provided the fodder but the west supplied the materials especially in the early stages of the war. I don't think either the west or the Russians could have won without the other. At least until we had the atomic bomb.

[Captain Oates 911]

Hitler would deliberately arrive late for speeches at the beer halls so that everyone would be pissed up and would better respond to his rhetoric. No joke.

Bit like Congress when the south carolina lot arrives

[Atencio 43]

Soviet Russia signed a non-aggression pact with the Nazis - if the Nazis hadn't started the eastern front, the USSR would have sat back, quite happily and watched Germany systematically destroy western Europe; which until they entered the war, is exactly what they did.

It is a bit more complicated than that.

Stalin knew Hitler would turn on him. He was biding his time. If he allied himself with Britain he would have to defend Poland if Germany attacked. He was not ready.

If Stalin chose to make a treaty with Germany he would have time to build up his military plus have a buffer zone of Poland, Finland, and other of the eastern bloc countries.

Stalin neither trusted Hitler or Chamberlain so decided to do what he thought would give him the best chance of survival. Which way would have been the best for Stalin? I don't really know war production numbers between the invasion of Poland and start of Operation Barbarossa.

[Captain Oates 911]

We let the Russians take Berlin. Western allies could have gotten there first but at what cost? 70,000 dead Soviet soldiers.

Can't remember Kennedy telling the Berliners that...we let the Red Army take your city on purpose ? Nope that didn't happen - we were nowhere near. We were letting the Poles do all the dying to liberate western Europe. What ? Churchill allowing the communists to take territory ? No way

The Russians lost 250,000 casualties taking Berlin

You will be telling me next that the Americans let the North Vietnamese win so they could set up shirt factories to supply America ..

Conspiracy theory or what !

jeez people believe anything in the USA

[Atencio 43]

Or perhaps you mean that there were no prominant industrialists who demanded that Britain and the United States made trade treaties with Germany in return for an assurance that Germany would not attack these nations?

What treaties were these?

Not saying you are wrong but curious on what they were.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It is a bit more complicated than that.

Stalin knew Hitler would turn on him. He was biding his time. If he allied himself with Britain he would have to defend Poland if Germany attacked. He was not ready.

If Stalin chose to make a treaty with Germany he would have time to build up his military plus have a buffer zone of Poland, Finland, and other of the eastern bloc countries.

Stalin neither trusted Hitler or Chamberlain so decided to do what he thought would give him the best chance of survival. Which way would have been the best for Stalin? I don't really know war production numbers between the invasion of Poland and start of Operation Barbarossa.

Of course it isn't - it's not possible to condense the geopolitics of the 1930s into the space of a few paragraphs.

[Atencio 43]

Can't remember Kennedy telling the Berliners that...we let the Red Army take your city on purpose ? Nope that didn't happen - we were nowhere near. We were letting the Poles do all the dying to liberate western Europe. What ? Churchill allowing the communists to take territory ? No way

The Russians lost 250,000 casualties taking Berlin

You will be telling me next that the Americans let the North Vietnamese win so they could set up shirt factories to supply America ..

Conspiracy theory or what !

jeez people believe anything in the USA

Read your history before acting the fool. Churchill was totally pissed at Eisenhower for his decision to stop.

His quote on the action: ""If they also take Berlin, will not their impression that they have been the overwhelming contributor to the common victory be unduly imprinted in their minds, and may this not lead them into a mood which will raise grave and formidable difficulties in the future? I therefore consider that from a political standpoint we should march as far east into"

Field Marshall Montgomery, and Generals Patton and Bradley all wanted to keep going but were told to hold at Elbe river.

When he was apprised of the 83rd's success by General Bradley, commander of the 12th Army Group, Eisenhower asked, 'Brad, what do you think it might cost us to break through from the Elbe and take Berlin?' Bradley was sure that the drive from the bridgehead to the outskirts of Berlin would not be too costly, but he was convinced that the battle for the city itself would be brutal. And, like the SCAF, he was concerned about penetrating too deeply into the future Soviet zone of occupation and committing men to gain positions from which they would have to withdraw. 'I estimate that it might cost us 100,000 men,' he told Eisenhower, adding, 'It would be a pretty stiff price to pay for a prestige objective, especially when we know that we've got to pull back and let the other fellow take over.'

On 15 April Eisenhower's orders were transmitted by Bradley to the commander of the Ninth Army, Lieutenant General William Simpson. 'You must stop on the Elbe. You are not to advance any farther in the direction of Berlin. I'm sorry, Simp, but there it is.' Simpson was stunned, and, as he later recalled, 'heartbroken'. He passed the orders down to his Second Armored Division commander, General Hinds, who already had troops back on the eastern side of the Elbe, this time thanks to the 83rd's 'Truman Bridge'. Hinds was reportedly so flummoxed that he momentarily forgot his military discipline. 'No sir,' he exclaimed. 'That's not right. We're going to Berlin.' Simpson was deeply pained to have to throw water on his officer's enthusiasm. He told Hinds that he could keep some of his men in their eastern bank positions, but added that they were not to go any farther. 'This is the end of the war for us,' he said.

Also Mr. Smart Guy, this was a decision that many feel was made because the zones of occupation for Germany and the sectors of occupation for Berlin had been agreed upon by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. Why fight and lose lives in something you wouldn't keep anyway.

And if your so inclined read a more in-depth version in:

Eisenhower and Berlin, 1945: the decision to halt at the Elbe

Of course it isn't - it's not possible to condense the geopolitics of the 1930s into the space of a few paragraphs.

Yes, that is true. We could have a 10 page post easy on just this topic

[Captain Oates 911]

Read your history before acting the fool. Churchill was totally pissed at Eisenhower for his decision to stop.

His quote on the action: ""If they also take Berlin, will not their impression that they have been the overwhelming contributor to the common victory be unduly imprinted in their minds, and may this not lead them into a mood which will raise grave and formidable difficulties in the future? I therefore consider that from a political standpoint we should march as far east into"

Field Marshall Montgomery, and Generals Patton and Bradley all wanted to keep going but were told to hold at Elbe river.

When he was apprised of the 83rd's success by General Bradley, commander of the 12th Army Group, Eisenhower asked, 'Brad, what do you think it might cost us to break through from the Elbe and take Berlin?' Bradley was sure that the drive from the bridgehead to the outskirts of Berlin would not be too costly, but he was convinced that the battle for the city itself would be brutal. And, like the SCAF, he was concerned about penetrating too deeply into the future Soviet zone of occupation and committing men to gain positions from which they would have to withdraw. 'I estimate that it might cost us 100,000 men,' he told Eisenhower, adding, 'It would be a pretty stiff price to pay for a prestige objective, especially when we know that we've got to pull back and let the other fellow take over.'

On 15 April Eisenhower's orders were transmitted by Bradley to the commander of the Ninth Army, Lieutenant General William Simpson. 'You must stop on the Elbe. You are not to advance any farther in the direction of Berlin. I'm sorry, Simp, but there it is.' Simpson was stunned, and, as he later recalled, 'heartbroken'. He passed the orders down to his Second Armored Division commander, General Hinds, who already had troops back on the eastern side of the Elbe, this time thanks to the 83rd's 'Truman Bridge'. Hinds was reportedly so flummoxed that he momentarily forgot his military discipline. 'No sir,' he exclaimed. 'That's not right. We're going to Berlin.' Simpson was deeply pained to have to throw water on his officer's enthusiasm. He told Hinds that he could keep some of his men in their eastern bank positions, but added that they were not to go any farther. 'This is the end of the war for us,' he said.

Also Mr. Smart Guy, this was a decision that many feel was made because the zones of occupation for Germany and the sectors of occupation for Berlin had been agreed upon by the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union. Why fight and lose lives in something you wouldn't keep anyway.

And if your so inclined read a more in-depth version in:

Eisenhower and Berlin, 1945: the decision to halt at the Elbe

Yes, that is true. We could have a 10 page post easy on just this topic

Reading a book doesn't make it so - ever read genesis and the talking snake ?

Remind me again why Eisenhower stopped ?

praps he didn't want to fight the red army

very wise considering what they had done to the german armies

What a load of cobblers - it's like me saying I don't want to enter the olympic pole vault competition because it would be showing off...

So Berliners - the Americans DELIBERATELY allowed the red army to do what they did to you.

The Americans WANTED the Iron curtain from the Baltic to Trieste ! They wanted all Eastern Europe to go communist. It was a clever plan to er er er

Then they turned up later with Kennedy and said they supported you

Nope I don't buy that

[Atencio 43]

The Russians lost 250,000 casualties taking Berlin

I have seen it quoted that in the entire Berlin operation conducted by 3 fronts (1BF, 2BF, 1UF)? 78,291 Soviet soldiers died

I have seen it quoted that 600,000 Soviet soldiers died.

I was just giving the low number for arguments sake. That is still almost 1/4 the amount of U.S. soldiers that died in the whole war.

Reading a book doesn't make it so - ever read genesis and the talking snake ?

And believing a fool like you is.

Show me my quotes and references are inaccurate instead of just talking out of your rear