• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oliver Stone: Hitler an easy scapegoat

Hitler killed a lot of liberals. He hated them. Rush hates liberals, too.

I would bet that rush could be the winner in the book of world records as someone who has denounced liberals as much as he.

Rush would not even have a show if it were not for liberals.:)

Don't you mean liberals in the historical sense and not the American sense? If so, then Rush Limbaugh is also a liberal.
 
Well Oliver Stone is right in a way.

He was an easy scapegoat for the allies after the war. For one he and Nazi Germany was blamed for a massacre of Polish officers in Poland and decades later we find out it was the Russians who did it. I would wager there are many such cases we are not aware of to this day.

And lets not forget, that Hitlers ideas and views on many subjects was promoted and practised in Allied countries long before Hilter ever came to power in Germany. What Hitler in principle did was take it to another level but the basics was practised in many countries, everything from eugenics to "jewish quotas" over to barring certain minorities (Jews included) from public office or even certain private jobs.

So yes Oliver Stone is some what correct and I look forward to see what he will make of this movie.
 
Don't you mean liberals in the historical sense and not the American sense? If so, then Rush Limbaugh is also a liberal.

Wow:shock: Yeah, rush must be a freaking liberal then.:shock:
 
Oh he was an easy scapegoat.
Well that makes sense.

Was it because of the millions of people that he executed for not fitting his "perfect" Aryan human being model, or was it because of his evil mustache?

Perhaps both?

There are many great enemies of the human race. Many mass murders. Why is Hitler singled out so very often?

Stone is not incorrect in his statement. Hitler is VERY overused because he decided upon a course of action that most of the world does not agree with. If you look, however, in the history books of two very different nations there will be many people that the majority of the country considers a horrible person much like or exceding Hitler. Hitler is only used due to the fact that he is recognized by the entire world for what he did. Hitler was a visionary. Granted, his vision was not only impossible but also considered totally wrong by most cultures. But this does not change the fact that he is one of the greatest leaders in history and an extremely intelligent man. Many people could be considered worse than Hitler. He is nothing but a familiar symbol.

That is why.
 
Well Oliver Stone is right in a way.

He was an easy scapegoat for the allies after the war. For one he and Nazi Germany was blamed for a massacre of Polish officers in Poland and decades later we find out it was the Russians who did it. I would wager there are many such cases we are not aware of to this day.

And lets not forget, that Hitlers ideas and views on many subjects was promoted and practised in Allied countries long before Hilter ever came to power in Germany. What Hitler in principle did was take it to another level but the basics was practised in many countries, everything from eugenics to "jewish quotas" over to barring certain minorities (Jews included) from public office or even certain private jobs.

So yes Oliver Stone is some what correct and I look forward to see what he will make of this movie.

Using that same logic wouldn't every enemy of every victor in every war be just as easy a scapegoat as Hitler? Wouldn't every oppressor or dictator be just as easy to blame and flame as Hitler? :confused:
 
Using that same logic wouldn't every enemy of every victor in every war be just as easy a scapegoat as Hitler? Wouldn't every oppressor or dictator be just as easy to blame and flame as Hitler? :confused:

Not for WW2 it would not. There was one victor and one defeated in WW2. Hell even among the Axis they blamed Hitler. Like it or not Hitler is the uber villain and easy to blame since he did do many bad things so what is a few more.

Take Italy. Even to this day the accepted idea is that it was the Nazi's that put in force many of the anti-Jewish and other minorities rules in Italy. It was the Nazi's not the Italians who sent the Italian Jews to the gas chamber. Well the truth is quite different. Italians were involved and the policies (not the gas chamber part) were in place before for several minorities before Italy joined the Axis. Italy back then was highly racist.

Scapegoating of enemies or supposed enemies is quite common in history. As the saying goes, the victor writes the history books.

Take the American Indians. They have always been seen as savages and brutal and not people defending their lands against invaders. Why? because the history books, movies and so on, are written and done by the victors. Another example is the Jews. For centuries they were scape goated by the Church and governments of Europe because they were easy targets. There are plenty of examples of rulers loaning a ton of money from Jews, then only to turn on them so he did not have to pay them back. The Romans used scapegoating through out there history.. that land was full of barbarians, they must be suppressed and so on.

So scapegoating is very common even today.
 
Scapegoats refers to the innocent. Hitler was a villain who got what he deserved. Or was he just a patsy, like Lee Harvey Oswald?:roll:
 
Not for WW2 it would not. There was one victor and one defeated in WW2. .

Not true. There were two distinct victors. The US and the Soviets and Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler.
 
Not true. There were two distinct victors. The US and the Soviets and Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler.

stalin wasnt as bad as hitler, he wasnt as discriminatory, it was basically anyone he didnt like died, hitler focussed on certain minorities
 
It's your fault for making specious comparisons though.

What comparisons? I said he would be at the forefront of people like you who haven't read a single book in their lives but somehow have an opinion on everything.
 
Ive racked my brain trying to think how Hitler will be shown in 'context'.

Hearing him speak about the path from WWI to WWII....perhaps this will be his game.

It can be said that the rabid hypernationalism bought on by the sanctions in Versaille treaty which crippled both the German elite and the common German alike allowed Hitler to gain the support of his people.To go this route wont Stone have to establish WWI Germany as a victim or an unwilling participant? This is patently false. If anything they pushed Austria-Hungary into a conflict that was guaranteed to topple the dominos of the various allies into a full blown continental war,remember the 'blank cheque'? He could also point to the fact that Hitler originally was only going to deport the Jews away and that he was somehow convinced by those around him that extermination was the best course of action.Not buying this either. The subordinates of Hitler adored him and strived to satisfy his wants and needs.What he wanted and what he obviously felt Germany needed was for the Jews to be gone one way or the other. This was his platform from the very beginning.
 
Not true. There were two distinct victors. The US and the Soviets and Stalin was as bad or worse than Hitler.

LOL the hell there was.. Stop this revisionist crap. The Soviets were part of the Allies and key member. Without them the Allies would never have won. It was not the Allies and the Soviets, it was the Allies full stop and that included the UK, France, Poland at the start and later on the Soviets added and even later the US. There was other nations also btw.. governments in exile and so on, but the big wigs were the UK, France, USSR and the US.

But yes Stalin was just as bad.. well in my view worse actually, than Hitler, but that does not change the fact that Hilter was used as a scapegoat by all the Allies.

The Soviets blamed him and Nazi Germany for massacares they did for example. The Soviets killed the polish officers and blamed the Germans. The Soviets used KGB troops to kill normal troops who fled and blamed often the Germans for the deaths.

The US and UK blamed Hitler and his cronies for the disappearance of art across Europe and then decades later they suddenly turn up in US or UK "ownership". While I have no doubt the Nazi's stole a buttload of art, it is also very evident that allied troops "liberated" some of that and took it home. The western Allies blamed the Germans for bombing their cities.. yes that was true, but they still got the blame when the Allies went and killed 10s of thousands in deliberately set fire storms in German cities. Sure it was war, but the Germans got the blame for their own fate, and the people who actually made the call to use such a diabolical weapon got off scot free.

Or the modern myth that has been promoted since the war, that it was Hitler that basically started the eugenics programs with forced sterilizations, and targeted Jews or people looking like Jews for discrimination. No he did not, far from it. That came from the US and Sweden pretty much, but he gets all the blame despite the practices being used all the way up to the late 1970s among "Allied nations". We all cringe at the fact that handicapped and other undesirables were forced sterilized and even killed in Germany, but very few know that this was happening in the US, Sweden and other places long before Hitler even got to power.

Sorry but Hitler gets blamed for many things, much of it fully justified, but some of it was in no way his fault or that of Nazi Germany.
 
stalin wasnt as bad as hitler, he wasnt as discriminatory, it was basically anyone he didnt like died, hitler focussed on certain minorities

So did Stalin. He forced moved regional minorities to different parts of the USSR (usually from fertile areas to crappy areas) so that the area could become more "soviet". An estimated 1.5 million people were forced to move elsewhere after the war by Stalin.

He had gulags, which were concentration camps without the gas chamber and one can easily argue that more died in those than in Hitlers camps.

Stalin was as bad if not worse than Hitler.. Hitler did not force troops forward by having death squads come up behind them so they had a choice.. attack and die or retreat and die.
 
Last edited:
"Men have always admired those who do evil brilliantly"
 
So did Stalin. He forced moved regional minorities to different parts of the USSR (usually from fertile areas to crappy areas) so that the area could become more "soviet". An estimated 1.5 million people were forced to move elsewhere after the war by Stalin.

He had gulags, which were concentration camps without the gas chamber and one can easily argue that more died in those than in Hitlers camps.

Stalin was as bad if not worse than Hitler.. Hitler did not force troops forward by having death squads come up behind them so they had a choice.. attack and die or retreat and die.

So one minute you say Hitler deserves to bear the blame...then you say Stalin is worse? Which is your actual view? :confused:
 
"Men have always admired those who do evil brilliantly"

:shock:
"Evil" is used to define a course of action that our morals or religion dictates as inappropiate. What Hitler and Stalin did was not evil. It was just a course of action. Do not say any man is evil. Evil and wrong are points of view and regardless of how many people might see things that way as long as one person disagrees then the point of view is not universal and your opinion is not fact.
 
LOL the hell there was.. Stop this revisionist crap. The Soviets were part of the Allies and key member. Without them the Allies would never have won. It was not the Allies and the Soviets, it was the Allies full stop and that included the UK, France, Poland at the start and later on the Soviets added and even later the US. There was other nations also btw.. governments in exile and so on, but the big wigs were the UK, France, USSR and the US.

But yes Stalin was just as bad.. well in my view worse actually, than Hitler, but that does not change the fact that Hilter was used as a scapegoat by all the Allies.

The Soviets blamed him and Nazi Germany for massacares they did for example. The Soviets killed the polish officers and blamed the Germans. The Soviets used KGB troops to kill normal troops who fled and blamed often the Germans for the deaths.

The US and UK blamed Hitler and his cronies for the disappearance of art across Europe and then decades later they suddenly turn up in US or UK "ownership". While I have no doubt the Nazi's stole a buttload of art, it is also very evident that allied troops "liberated" some of that and took it home. The western Allies blamed the Germans for bombing their cities.. yes that was true, but they still got the blame when the Allies went and killed 10s of thousands in deliberately set fire storms in German cities. Sure it was war, but the Germans got the blame for their own fate, and the people who actually made the call to use such a diabolical weapon got off scot free.

Or the modern myth that has been promoted since the war, that it was Hitler that basically started the eugenics programs with forced sterilizations, and targeted Jews or people looking like Jews for discrimination. No he did not, far from it. That came from the US and Sweden pretty much, but he gets all the blame despite the practices being used all the way up to the late 1970s among "Allied nations". We all cringe at the fact that handicapped and other undesirables were forced sterilized and even killed in Germany, but very few know that this was happening in the US, Sweden and other places long before Hitler even got to power.

Sorry but Hitler gets blamed for many things, much of it fully justified, but some of it was in no way his fault or that of Nazi Germany.

:rofl
"Stop this revisionist crap."? I won't even touch that one.

But The USSR may have been a key Allied member but it wasnt for the entire duration of the war and is therefore a seprate victor because it came to its own peace agreement with Germany seperate from the Allies.
 
"Scapegoat" is a term meaning "One that is made to bear the blame of others."

You left part of it out. "one that is made to bear the blame of others, often innocent". If you can prove to me that Hitler was innocent, do it.

Otherwise I would conclude that you are being a sophist.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapegoat[/ame]
 
Last edited:
LOL the hell there was.. Stop this revisionist crap. The Soviets were part of the Allies and key member. Without them the Allies would never have won. It was not the Allies and the Soviets, it was the Allies full stop and that included the UK, France, Poland at the start and later on the Soviets added and even later the US. There was other nations also btw.. governments in exile and so on, but the big wigs were the UK, France, USSR and the US.

But yes Stalin was just as bad.. well in my view worse actually, than Hitler, but that does not change the fact that Hilter was used as a scapegoat by all the Allies.

The Soviets blamed him and Nazi Germany for massacares they did for example. The Soviets killed the polish officers and blamed the Germans. The Soviets used KGB troops to kill normal troops who fled and blamed often the Germans for the deaths.

The US and UK blamed Hitler and his cronies for the disappearance of art across Europe and then decades later they suddenly turn up in US or UK "ownership". While I have no doubt the Nazi's stole a buttload of art, it is also very evident that allied troops "liberated" some of that and took it home. The western Allies blamed the Germans for bombing their cities.. yes that was true, but they still got the blame when the Allies went and killed 10s of thousands in deliberately set fire storms in German cities. Sure it was war, but the Germans got the blame for their own fate, and the people who actually made the call to use such a diabolical weapon got off scot free.

Or the modern myth that has been promoted since the war, that it was Hitler that basically started the eugenics programs with forced sterilizations, and targeted Jews or people looking like Jews for discrimination. No he did not, far from it. That came from the US and Sweden pretty much, but he gets all the blame despite the practices being used all the way up to the late 1970s among "Allied nations". We all cringe at the fact that handicapped and other undesirables were forced sterilized and even killed in Germany, but very few know that this was happening in the US, Sweden and other places long before Hitler even got to power.

Sorry but Hitler gets blamed for many things, much of it fully justified, but some of it was in no way his fault or that of Nazi Germany.

Somehow you think the Soviets and the US were one. Just because we fought the same enemy did not make it so. There were two distinct theatres of war. After the Germans were defeated many thought we should continue the war against the Soviets. We had our victory and they had theirs. The Soviets could have beaten Germany without our particpation, but we could not without theirs. During the war we were never friends with the Soviets. We used them like they used us.
 
You left part of it out. "one that is made to bear the blame of others, often innocent". If you can prove to me that Hitler was innocent, do it.

Otherwise I would conclude that you are being a sophist.

"Often". "Often" meaning usually but not always. Therefore he doesnt need to be innocent to fit your definition.
 
Somehow you think the Soviets and the US were one. Just because we fought the same enemy did not make it so. There were two distinct theatres of war. After the Germans were defeated many thought we should continue the war against the Soviets. We had our victory and they had theirs. The Soviets could have beaten Germany without our particpation, but we could not without theirs. During the war we were never friends with the Soviets. We used them like they used us.

Your point is incorrect. Though we fought on different fronts we were still allied in the war and therefore a united force fighting on two fronts.
 
Back
Top Bottom