Skip to comments.
Film on Hitler Sparks Outrage Among Jews in India
ABC News ^
| June 17, 2010
| ABC News
Posted on 06/18/2010 10:14:37 AM PDT by James C. Bennett
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: James C. Bennett
the film aims to give audiences a glimpse into Hitler's "insecurities, his charisma, his paranoia and his sheer genius,"Yeah he was a genius, he almost took over the entire European continent. That being said, he was still an asshole and needed killin.
2
posted on
06/18/2010 10:18:22 AM PDT
by
lovecraft
(Specialization is for insects.)
To: All
Anupam Kher
To: James C. Bennett
Would this have been a
Bollywood dance movie about Hitler?
I'm almost sorry this isn't getting made. Almost.
4
posted on
06/18/2010 10:21:26 AM PDT
by
agere_contra
(Obama did more damage to the Gulf economy in one day than Pemex/Ixtoc did in nine months)
To: James C. Bennett
Protests by India's small Jewish community have prompted a leading actor to pull out of a film on the last days of Adolf Hitler"They lose me right after the bunker scene."
5
posted on
06/18/2010 10:22:06 AM PDT
by
dfwgator
To: James C. Bennett
To: James C. Bennett
If his face was a little thinner, he could play COL Klink.
7
posted on
06/18/2010 10:27:51 AM PDT
by
Jonah Hex
("Never underestimate the hungover side of the Force.")
To: James C. Bennett
Indians and the people of most most colonial states have this love-hate affair with authoritarian leaders because they were led out of colonialism in the post WWII era by such leaders. Be it Jinnah, Nehru or the leaders of Indonesia, Taiwan, Phillipines, Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, the Koreas, and even Japan.
8
posted on
06/18/2010 10:32:13 AM PDT
by
Steelfish
(ui)
To: Steelfish; sukhoi-30mki; Cronos
I actually don’t think Gandhi or Nehru had much to do with India’s independence.
Britain was in utter ruin after WW-2, and in no shape to handle its largest overseas territory. Nehru was a subscriber to the Fabian Society movement, from his years as a student in England.
Perhaps Sukhoi-30mki and Cronos can elaborate on all this.
To: James C. Bennett
They’ll never top “Downfall”.
10
posted on
06/18/2010 10:46:33 AM PDT
by
PzLdr
("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
To: lovecraft
Hitler was a brilliant con artist like Charles Manson in that he was successfull at getting others to do his dirty work. Hitler and Manson were both brilliant manipulators.
To: PzLdr
Exactly. Best movie ever made about the final days in the bunker. Bruno Ganz was VERY believable!
To: PzLdr
I am one of the few folks that I know who actually saw “Downfall” in the theatres. It is, to date, the ONLY movie about Hitler worth watching. Ganz is incredible, as was the supporting cast.
13
posted on
06/18/2010 10:53:12 AM PDT
by
Clemenza
(Remember our Korean War Veterans)
To: Clemenza
14
posted on
06/18/2010 10:53:25 AM PDT
by
Clemenza
(Remember our Korean War Veterans)
To: Gen. Burkhalter
I have only seen that one scene. Over, and over, and over.
Never fails to get a laugh.
15
posted on
06/18/2010 10:53:32 AM PDT
by
Vermont Lt
(I lived in VT for four years. That was enough.)
To: Clemenza
I’ve watched it, too.
Undoubtedly, it’s one of the best movies ever made about Hitler.
To: James C. Bennett
Regardless of Britain’s status as an economic power, the authoritarian “cult of the individual” had and continues to have a strong pull in the psyche of colonial peoples. Nehru was schooled in British socialism
17
posted on
06/18/2010 10:59:17 AM PDT
by
Steelfish
(ui)
To: Steelfish
Indira Gandhi would make for a better example of that, although she did get voted out when limits were transgressed.
To: James C. Bennett; Steelfish; sukhoi-30mki; Cronos
well, yes and no. No, JCB, you're not completely right or wrong. Gandhi and Nehru had large parts to play in India's independence, but they were not the primary reasons for it. Neither was WWII. The British were masters at the colonial game -- they basically let Indians rule themselves but got paid to let them. The British fought the Sikhs, then got Sikh support agains the Marathas and Mughals, and they were never universally hated (unlike the French in their colonies).
The Brits made the mistake of not making India a dominion in the 1912s-1930s period. If they had, then India would be akin to Canada or Australia
Anyway, I digress. What REALLY convinced the British to leave, what was the final straw, the convincing argument, was the Indian Navy strike of 1946. The British ruled through the Indian Army, Navy, Police Force and Civil Service and in all of these the vast majority were Indians. The Brits KNEW that if the Navy said they would not support the Raj, then the Raj was finished. To the Brits credit, they knew when to leave and left quietly, and not lingering long after they were unwanted (like the French in Vietnam or Algeria or the Dutch in Indonesia).
19
posted on
06/18/2010 11:11:27 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
To: Steelfish
The cult of the individual isn’t limited to just colonial people (btw, what exactly is a “colonial people” — as technically, every country has been a colony at one point or the other, except Thailand and Japan)
20
posted on
06/18/2010 11:13:35 AM PDT
by
Cronos
(Origen(200AD)"The Church received from theApostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson