“Stone? Goebbels, you keep that nutjob away from my life story! That ****ing cokehead hasn’t directed anything worth **** since Wall Street!”
Posted on 01/10/2010 5:06:27 PM PST by Steelfish
Oliver Stone Suggests Hitler Is 'Easy Scapegoat' Oliver Stone, the controversial film director, is facing another backlash after suggesting that Hitler was made an "easy scapegoat" by history.
By Nick Allen in Los Angeles 10 Jan 2010
Stone, who has previously been accused of promoting conspiracy theories and glorifying violence in his films, has made a new documentary series which he says will place historical figures including Hitler and Stalin "in context". In the trailer for "The Secret History of America" the director says: "You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate."
He told a press conference at the Television Critics Association in California that "we can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good'". "Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply. He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
It sounds like the Kerry Purple Heart in Vietnam story. I don’t think it was a real real Purple Heart the way we think they should be given out.
It does, but I know it was not a recycling of the Kerry story because it was told to me c. 1990.
Hmmm, How does he explain Stalin being Hitler's ally and helping him hide the building of the German war machine from the rest of Europe?
I can judge Oliver Stone as crazy as a loon.
If Stone has anything to do with it, there will be very little value to this history.
> In your opinion, what were his redeeming values and how are you defining redeeming?
“Redeeming” in this case would mean any traits that weren’t inherently evil.
IMO, Hitler had these “redeeming” traits:
1) he was an impressive public speaker
2) he was visionary
3) he could inspire followers to buy into his vision
4) he could assemble a capable team of acolytes to implement his vision
5) he was an astute politician, using the frailties of the human condition to his best advantage
The middle three traits are important leadership skills. When added to the last trait they describe nearly any successful politician ever. When added to the first skill, they describe every “great” politician ever.
(I use “great” in the Lord Acton sense of the word: “great men are almost always bad men.”)
Did Pat Buchanan write the screen play?
This is the end of Oliver Stone—To say anything good about Hitler is to end your career. Good riddance.
Thank you for the info.
Yes, you can always qualify some actions as being “good” that even evil people do, but their worldview is still evil, and, the action—though on the outside it may appear to be good—can not be because of the encompassing evil soul of the person doing the action.
I do not think any of Hitler’s actions (although appearing good—like kindness to animals) could be classified as anything but being entirely motivated by selfishness and sickness. He was an extremely sick, perverted person judging by the books I have read about him. His soul was very twisted and he was a man of extreme anger.
I do think it is God’s place to judge the soul and Stone should not pretend that someone who did such atrocities could do anything classified as good. Such evil only elicits deeds that are done for evil or twisted purposes—even if they look good to outside observers.
If feelings are more important than facts that is true. Most people think Hitler's actions were a more important barometer of his character than a Freudian psychological profile of his personality. I don't have to have empathy or hatred for Hitler to understand that he was a psychopath.
What you call “redeeming” traits, can not be called redeeming in the way that Hitler used them. He lacked character and goodness, so all his actions led to destruction and death—his speeches, his visions, his devoted followers, his political machinations. Things done for evil purposes can ultimately never be redeeming.
If Hitler had won the war, he would have proceeded to kill or enslave all the Slavs, including the Russians. That would have been his legacy.
What you call “redeeming” traits, can not be called redeeming in the way that Hitler used them. He lacked character and goodness, so all his actions led to destruction and death—his speeches, his visions, his devoted followers, his political machinations. Things done for evil purposes can ultimately never be redeeming.
that crossed my mind as well.
‘little value to history’
i completely agree. but i can’t help but wonder how many young people will lap his drivel up like a kitten laps milk,,they have no knowledge of history. hitler will end up being a misunderstood , tragic figure..sort of like the present day terrorists are portrayed. the young will jump on board.
sorry for the lousy formatting, my cap lock is not feeling well.
> What you call “redeeming” traits, can not be called redeeming in the way that Hitler used them.
Agreed. He used his talents to the furtherance of Evil.
So can anyone.
It is a mistake for us to paint Hitler as absolutely evil, as if we should be able to identify him as Evil on first sight. To do so is a gross over-simplification. Evil people do not come ready-equipped with horns and a pointy tail. And good people can be tricked into supporting Evil people as a result.
Hitler was charismatic. He had natural charm, and he is reported to have had a soft spot for children and animals. He could be very convincing.
He was definitely a complex character.
None of what I have just said subtracts from the fact that Hitler was an evil man — thoroughly evil. And none of it should be taken as an endorsement or as support of Hitler as a person.
He’s just considerably more complicated than simply “Evil”.
The same sorts of people who voted for Hitler would have been just as likely to vote for...?
(I’m not going to say it, you can fill in the blanks for yourself.)
*That* is the real danger of over-simplifying Evil: we cannot spot the real thing when it presents itself if we expect it to be obviously Evil.
> My great uncle who was in Patton’s 3rd Army and helped liberate Buchenwald would have a different view than yours
Possibly he would. That doesn’t invalidate my view, however.
Evil people, like Hitler, do not come pre-equipped with horns and a pointy tail. If they did, they would be easier to spot and they would fool fewer people.
Hitler had enough going for him to inspire otherwise-intelligent, otherwise-good people to fight and ultimately die for his Vision.
Therein lies the danger of oversimplification: Hitler was far more complex than simply “thoroughly Evil and with no redeeming qualities”. Of course he was!
He fooled an entire Nation.
*That* is the real danger of over-simplifying Evil: we cannot spot the real thing when it presents itself if we expect it to be obviously Evil.
When you decide which one of these diametrically opposed premises is the true one let us know. lol
“Stone? Goebbels, you keep that nutjob away from my life story! That ****ing cokehead hasn’t directed anything worth **** since Wall Street!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.