Green Room

Oliver Stone to protect Hitler from hateful conservatives

posted at 3:08 am on January 10, 2010 by

Talking point of the millennium.

Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history. He’s the product of a series of actions. People in America don’t know the connection between WWI and WWII. I’ve been able to walk in Stalin’s shoes and Hitler’s shoes. We’re going to educate our minds and liberalize them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions. Go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved. Hitler is a product of a series of events, just a man who could have been assassinated.”

Stone said that conservative pundits will dislike the show.

“Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history and, as usual, we’re going to get those kind of ignorant attacks,” he said.

Anyone who has seen JFK knows that Stone is a nut. However, he got a lot of grudging respect after bringing World Trade Center to the screens, and it wasn’t that bad of a flick. I’m sure a lot of initial reactions by conservatives to this utterly abominable project will be understandable outrage and astonishment, and many will hope it never sees the light of day.

…but it should. It should debut and be a media spectacle. Fox should squeeze every last juicy detail out of this. Think about it. Oliver Stone, in his capacity as a liberal, is going to defend Hitler. Frankly, when I first read this, my initial reaction was that it would thrill and titillate a number of Buchanan-loving paleoconservatives, and no doubt they’ll take to it like Ron Paul fans take to a “Defeat the Zionists” rally. However, if Stone really, really seeks to place people like Rush Limbaugh in a debate over the degree to which Hitler was a xenophobic psychopath, with the Left backing the architect of the Holocaust…put out the red carpet for him.

Now, I’m assuming that it will fall flat on its face in terms of spiking any kind of debate. Even though the “progressive” movement has long since ascended into the fantasy grove of kittens, rainbows, and cars that run on flatulence, it would be a stretch to expect them to rally behind easily the most common response to “Who was the most evil person of the 20th century?”. Then again…some of them look up to Mao. Still, what will likely happen is that it will get little attention, and if you bring it up to an average liberal, they won’t even have heard of it. However…is it beyond the pale to imagine Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal bringing this up? After all, to them, George W. Bush is a war criminal. Liberal intellectuals spent a decade drawing comparisons between Bush and Hitler. Drawing contrasts between them that they consider favorable to the latter? It’s not only plausible, it sounds like an assignment for a college class.

Perhaps this is the ultimate outing for liberals. Let’s see how many of them come out of the closet.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Bring it on, Ollie!

Cylor on January 10, 2010 at 3:15 AM

It’s about getting the history right. It is not about protecting Hitler. It’s about getting an accurate telling of history into the mainstream. The U.S. wanted war against Germany all along, and we wanted it against Japan later on. That’s just what happened. It’s about getting the truth like he said about the WW1-WW2 connection. Most people don’t even realize the part America played in agitating this.

The Dean on January 10, 2010 at 7:29 AM

…as usual, we’re going to get those kind of ignorant attacks,” he said.

Hey Ollie, who the hell made YOU the arbiter of what is ignorant?
I reject your reality and substitute my own.

dentalque on January 10, 2010 at 8:56 AM

Most people don’t even realize the part America played in agitating defeating this.

The Dean on January 10, 2010 at 7:29 AM

uknowmorethanme on January 10, 2010 at 9:28 AM

The Dean on January 10, 2010 at 7:29 AM

It’s about showing how Hitler is America’s fault just like Osama Bin Laden is America’s fault.

It’s a bunch of crap. Then again…FDR was a raging socialist.

uknowmorethanme on January 10, 2010 at 9:29 AM

So getting it “right” includes painting Hitler as a poor, perfect pussy cat? Are you sure you want to be on his ‘side’? There is no good about Hitler, and I don’t give a hoot if you see the US as agitating. Get real.

Noelie on January 10, 2010 at 9:32 AM

The Dean on January 10, 2010 at 7:29 AM

Delusional.

These people are brainwashed beyond even hoping for a thread that could connect them to reality.

Its a waste of time to even bother with such damaged brains.

Stone has finally jumped the shark in a way that only the weakest of mind could not accept as fact.
The progressive liberal left will soon be communicating in a secret language that only they understand.

Secret handshakes by November.

Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I read the ‘Rush isn’t going to like this history’ line not as a sign that Stone’s history would run so counter to reality and defend Hitler that Rush would have a heyday refuting it – but that Stone’s piece was going to solidly align Hitler with the kind of rhetoric and political principles Rush espouses.

Midas on January 10, 2010 at 9:45 AM

The Dean on January 10, 2010 at 7:29 AM

REally? The US wanted war with Germany all along?

That must explain why the US sat on the sideline for a few YEARS and watched it happen, steadfastly refusing to engage with Germany.

That’s some clever insight you’ve got there.

Midas on January 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

In the article, Stone puts McCarthy right in there with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. Stone’s not just a nutcase, he’s a lunatic bent on revising history in order to confirm his own hatred of America and freedom.

The only bad guys according to Stone are those who exposed communism for what it is and fought those who attacked us. In other words, McCarthy, Reagan, Busy, Cheney …

The even scarier part is that a lot of Obama’s appointees are in the same camp.

erp on January 10, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Yep. Now we have a movie about how the US was behind Hitler, the Nazis, the militant Japanese all along.

I’ve got it: Cheney secretly developed time travel, with the financial and industrial backing of the Illuminati. He sent GWB back in time, who was really Hitler (now all the name calling makes sense, huh? GWB WAS Hitler!). GWB/Hitler conspired to take over the world with the secret advice of the also time-travelled Karl Rove (in the guise of Goebbels) and built up the German military machine with a German front company for an american subsidiary of Halliburton. When the timing was right, the real Hitler (GWB) substituted a poor, brainwashed Austrian to take the fall, thereby cementing the New-World Order blueprint of the Bohemian Grove council for the next 70 years!

catmman on January 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM

It’s about showing how Hitler is America’s fault just like Osama Bin Laden is America’s fault.

It’s our fault. It’s ALWAYS our fault.

The US is the source of all evil in the world.

This is the leftist belief. And it first struck me after the Fort Hood shooting, when the media initially tried to float the idea that the shooter was murderously unhappy because the mean ol’ US Army wasn’t accepting enough of his “diversity”.

It’s our fault. It’s ALWAYS our fault.

tsj017 on January 10, 2010 at 11:07 AM

It’s about showing how Hitler is America’s fault just like Osama Bin Laden is America’s fault.

It’s our fault. It’s ALWAYS our fault.

The US is the source of all evil in the world.

This is the leftist belief. And it first struck me after the Fort Hood shooting, when the media initially tried to float the idea that the shooter was murderously unhappy because the mean ol’ US Army wasn’t accepting enough of his “diversity”.

It’s our fault. It’s ALWAYS our fault.

tsj017 on January 10, 2010 at 11:07 AM

This seems just like the immature mind of the whiny teenager.
Something is always the parents fault.
Coincidence?? I think not.

Itchee Dryback on January 10, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Just as most Americans don’t understand the relationship between WWI and WWII now, they won’t after the movie either. But then, these are the same people who ask their mom and dad or union steward who to vote for also.

“Will the circle, be unbroken, bye and bye Lord, bye and bye….”

Robert17 on January 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM

I’m waiting for these Hollywood Nitwits to say that WWI and WWI were started by the Jews and it’s all their fault.
And the Holocaust never happened.

I used to joke about that with people, that eventually it would be all our fault again. But I’m really scared that we’re heading down that hallway again.

History really does repeat itself.

mjk on January 10, 2010 at 11:23 AM

I’ve got it: Cheney secretly developed time travel, with the financial and industrial backing of the Illuminati. He sent GWB back in time, who was really Hitler (now all the name calling makes sense, huh? GWB WAS Hitler!). GWB/Hitler conspired to take over the world with the secret advice of the also time-travelled Karl Rove (in the guise of Goebbels) and built up the German military machine with a German front company for an american subsidiary of Halliburton. When the timing was right, the real Hitler (GWB) substituted a poor, brainwashed Austrian to take the fall, thereby cementing the New-World Order blueprint of the Bohemian Grove council for the next 70 years!

catmman on January 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM

You do know that your version of Stone’s screenplay is indeed far superior than anything that will come out of him? And that indeed if it was produced, the liberals would eat it up like hash laced brownies, right?

shibumi on January 10, 2010 at 11:49 AM

I have a degree in German, much of which involves some German history. The lead-up to WWII being a prominent part of German history, I of course heard the German side of things.

The thing that could have stopped Hitler was someone cottoning to the idea at the end of WWI not to let historical enemies dictate surrender terms to the defeated Axis. France and Germany had a very, very long rivalry. France got to play the vyctym after WWI and got everything they wanted in an absolutely buttr@ped Germany in the Versailles Treaty. Versailles should have been about ending the current war, not a settling of every

The Kaiser’s Germany got Germany into WWI, and towards the end of WWI, Germany had a revolution of its own that toppled the Kaiser’s government and established the Weimar Republic. This Weimar Republic had to pay beggaring reparations the Kaiser left them with, and the only way they saw to do it was to devalue the currency. Add to that the Great Depression, and a Deutschmark made better toilet paper than currency.

Now add to that one of those other repercussions of WWI, specifically the Kaiser’s plan to take the Russians out that involved a guy sent back to Russia in a sealed train. For those of you in Rio Linda, that guy’s name was Vladimir Illych Ulyanov, better known as Lenin. Lenin returned the favor by making the Weimar Republic lousy with Soviet proxies—not that he needed to send many, as the international Communist movement was pretty pumped after capturing the rule of Russia.

Add to that the popularity of fascist ideology worldwide. The best book in English I have seen on the subject is Liberal Fascism, and in a just world, that book would be assigned history reading in every college in the USA. One of the big appeals of Fascism is that it is a national movement—a big appeal in the era of internationalist Communism, which was often an excuse for allowing foreigners to influence your government.

So, between the Depression, the understandable paranoia about foreign agents, a newly-established government, and the popularity of Fascist ideas, maybe Germany could have handled it, but add the reparations and punishments of Versailles, and you had an electorate hungry to hear from someone who would unite the German people, implement fashionable Fascist ideas, get Germany out from under Versailles, and who isn’t gonna do all this in the name of a foreign government.

Those who voted NSDAP in 1933 or who gave money to the Nazis in 1933 couldn’t see 1945 from that point in history. All Oliver Stone could possibly make a movie about were people who didn’t consult Miss Cleo before giving to a popular German movement, or those companies who had substantial assets in Germany once the true nature of the Nazi Party came out, and were unwilling to abandon them or have them nationalized in retaliation for not playing along.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Versailles should have been about ending the current war, not a settling of every

to continue: not a settling of every grievance since the days of Charlemagne.

Sekhmet on January 10, 2010 at 12:01 PM

The U.S. wanted war against Germany all along, and we wanted it against Japan later on.

Put down the Ron Paul commemorative crack pipe, and go back to posting at DemocratUnderground/Stormfront, m’kay?

Crawford on January 10, 2010 at 12:43 PM

Am I missing something? Am I the only one who think it’s great news that a lefty director is going to present his sympathies for Hitler and Stalin no less in such a naked form? I’m sure on the other side of the isle heads are exploding right now. We should be glad this idiot is making us such a present.

Alexey on January 10, 2010 at 1:21 PM

The Dean on January 10, 2010 at 7:29 AM

I knew the rat couldn’t resist the cheese in this trap.

MadisonConservative on January 10, 2010 at 1:26 PM

The Hollywood suits in general know how far to push their derangement syndrome — i.e. they’ll blow money going over the line with tirades against Bush in particular and/or conservatives in general, but they’re not going to drop a fortune on this if the early rushes show a Stone script so deranged they even can figure out this is going to hurt more than help their cause.

If it’s as loopy as forecast, look for it to only make a brief appearance on the art house circuit before going straight to DVD, where to the left it will become as cherished a piece of Truth to Power as any of Chomsky or Zinn’s writings.

jon1979 on January 10, 2010 at 1:56 PM

How about this one: Hitler really was primarily a nationalist wishing to heal the disgrace of Versailles. (He was elected promising that Germany would never be humiliated again).

But his vision was corrupted under pressure by the corporate interests which backed him, most particularly the Union Banking Corporation, on whose board sat Prescott Bush. Combined with the effects of Parkinson’s, Hitler became the villian we all know today.

Takeaway: Hitler would never have become “Hitler” were it not for Prescott Bush.

eeyore on January 10, 2010 at 3:13 PM

“Liberal Fascism” is a great book.

percysunshine on January 10, 2010 at 3:22 PM

eeyore on January 10, 2010 at 3:13 PM

Two words negate that whole argument:

Mein Kampf

Sekhmet on January 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM

The thing that could have stopped Hitler was someone cottoning to the idea at the end of WWI not to let historical enemies dictate surrender terms to the defeated Axis. France and Germany had a very, very long rivalry. France got to play the vyctym after WWI and got everything they wanted in an absolutely buttr@ped Germany in the Versailles Treaty. Versailles should have been about ending the current war, not a settling of every

The mistake was in using diplomacy to end the war with Allied armies outside Germany.

“Got to play the victim”? Did your education ignore the von Schlieffen plan? Since 1905 the German Army decided that a Russian declaration of war would mean a German invasion of France. When the Kaiser suggested the French would probably stay neutral, von Moltke threatened to resign rather than try to alter the German mobilization orders that had 21 corps headed west and 2 headed east. In 1914 an Austrian violation of a Russian ultimatum led to a German invasion of Belgium and France. They sure were the victims.

Chris_Balsz on January 10, 2010 at 5:17 PM

Two words negate that whole argument:

Mein Kampf

Sekhmet on January 10, 2010 at 5:04 PM

That book was g*d*mn boring. But yeah, Hitler pretty much telegraphed his entire intentions for the world in that book.

mjk on January 10, 2010 at 5:44 PM

Stone won’t be telling the truth – he usually doesn’t.

Hitler was a SOCIALIST – a “National” socialist, as opposed to Stalin, the “international” socialist.

There’s nothing about a truthful telling of the Hitler story that would make Rush Limbaugh or any conservative “uncomfortable.”

BD57 on January 10, 2010 at 6:34 PM

Think about it. Oliver Stone, in his capacity as a liberal, is going to defend Hitler.

Outside of Hitler’s racial obsession, what is the real problem liberals have with his record?

Euthanasia, socialism (of the nationalist variety), suppression of religious and conservative views, centralization of power around the federal state at the expense of the locale and “state” governments, etc.

Before WWII Hitler was generally viewed favorably among the progressives. Of course, he was not their favorite fascist, to quote Cole Porter

You’re the top!
You’re the Great Houdini!
You’re the top!
You are Mussolini!

18-1 on January 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM

REally? The US wanted war with Germany all along?

That must explain why the US sat on the sideline for a few YEARS and watched it happen, steadfastly refusing to engage with Germany.

That’s some clever insight you’ve got there.

Midas on January 10, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Actually there is some truth to this. FDR had decided long before Pearl Harbor he wanted war with Hitler though it isn’t really clear what was the specific trigger as Hitler was openly trying to emulate him in a lot of his domestic policies.

The US, however, wasn’t on board with intervening in another European war. So you saw the odd situation in 1940 of FDR running as the peace candidate against Willkie while simultaneously attacking the German Navy in the Atlantic.

18-1 on January 10, 2010 at 9:18 PM

Pfffft – it doesn’t sound like he’s defending f*ck all.

Sounds like he’s just doing some exposing of interesting/horrifying connections to Hitler’s rise to power.

But of course, you clowns might as well wet your pants now over it before you see it. That makes so much sense.

Dave Rywall on January 10, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Pfffft – it doesn’t sound like he’s defending f*ck all.

Sounds like he’s just doing some exposing of interesting/horrifying connections to Hitler’s rise to power.

But of course, you clowns might as well wet your pants now over it before you see it. That makes so much sense.

Dave Rywall on January 10, 2010 at 9:33 PM

I said it before and I’ll say it again, you’d have to be stupid as all f*ck to not realise that people know about those “connections” already.

I suspect Oliver Stone meets that requirement.

mjk on January 10, 2010 at 10:07 PM

Sounds like he’s just doing some exposing of interesting/horrifying connections to Hitler’s rise to power.

Dave Rywall on January 10, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Uh huh…while at the same time he’s comparing people responsible for millions of deaths to a self-serving US Senator…and suggesting that Stalin wasn’t really a bad guy after all.

Liberals are the luckiest people in the world. I wish I could live my life in such intense delusion.

MadisonConservative on January 10, 2010 at 10:23 PM

I think it’s wonderful.

Liberals admire Che and Mao. So why don’t they admire Hitler? Is it because Hitler only killed 7 million instead of 70 million like Mao? They hate Hitler because he was an underachiever? Well, maybe this movie will place Hitler in his rightful place as hero to Liberals.

Daggett on January 11, 2010 at 11:57 AM

Unfortunately, exposing Adolf Hitler’s demented, afflicted psychology to the Left has only made him more “embraceable” to and by the Left: now they “empathize” with Adolf.

I (again) encourage anyone and all to buy and read the book titled “Understanding Hitler” because if you thought Adolf was disturbed before you read it, you’ll be very, very sure he was disturbed after you’ve read it. Except you’ll see Adolf as an immensely disturbed human being fallen into deplorable psychology and not anything more mysterious than that.

If you’re a Liberal, though, you’re likely to find him more interesting what with his disgusting bodily function obsessions. Which might explain Oliver Stone’s fascination with him, I just don’t know…

The book is really worth reading, though, for the stable minded: “Understanding Hitler.” It’s a pscyhological profile of the immensely disturbed mind of Adolf and reveals more about his disturbed, quite sick behaviors…

What needs to be done, however, is a psychological profile of the POPULATION that submitted to Hitler’s disturbance. I think that’s where the ongoing mystery lies, as to how it was such a sick person as Hitler was so emotionally and “lovingly” admired and supported by a (or any) population.

Lourdes on January 11, 2010 at 2:51 PM

Outside of Hitler’s racial obsession, what is the real problem liberals have with his record?

Euthanasia, socialism (of the nationalist variety), suppression of religious and conservative views, centralization of power around the federal state at the expense of the locale and “state” governments, etc.

Before WWII Hitler was generally viewed favorably among the progressives. (…) 18-1 on January 10, 2010 at 9:08 PM

Yes, exactly. Hitler-as-phenomenon is not so much about Hitler but about the phenomenon, in my view, all said and done. I’ve written same about Obama but it’s also lost on the progressive-affected, just as it was as to Hitler’s “starburst”.

Lourdes on January 11, 2010 at 2:54 PM

EXCUSE ME, I meant to type:

EXPLAINING HITLER…
is title of book I was recommending in previous comments.

Lourdes on January 11, 2010 at 3:21 PM

This review is from:
Explaining Hitler: The Search for the Origins of His Evil by Ron Rosenbaum.

Highly recommended.

Explaining Hitler is a misleading title, for the focus is primarily on the Jewish academic community’s attempts to explain Hitler-to put it in grossly oversimplified terms, this is somewhat like the prey explaining the motivations of the predator. The result is that, while Hitler remains a mystery, the academic and personal biases of the explainers are revealed. To each person’s theories and comments Rosenbaum adds his own analysis, finding the flaws with precision.

Hitler explanation ranges from the deeply personal (abusive father, infection by a Jewish prostitute, mother’s painful death under the care of a Jewish physician) to the inevitable influence of historical forces (post-war inflation, depression). Rosenbaum discusses the personal in depth, including Hitler’s rumored Jewish ancestor and bizarre relationship with his half-niece Geli Raubal, the convolutions each theory takes, and the lack of facts or reliable information to support any of them. For example, Rosenbaum astutely points out the only real “proof” of the abusive father is Hitler’s own assertion and sarcastically suggests that there is reason not to trust Hitler’s word. One argument that immediately comes to mind that Rosenbaum only briefly alludes to later is that millions of people have abusive fathers, bad experiences with individual members of ethnic and other groups, and so forth, yet do not turn into war criminals responsible for the deaths of millions. In short, these theories might explain Hitler’s anti-Semitism, but not the results.

What is disturbing about so many of these explanations (some of which are advocated by such noted people as Simon Wiesenthal, who favors the Jewish prostitute theory), and more sophisticated ones that appear later in the book, such as George Steiner’s, is their insistence that a Jew or a group of Jews is responsible. In these theories, a Jewish ancestor, a Jewish prostitute, an Eastern Jew with a different appearance, or the Jewish “blackmail of transcendence” and “addiction to the ideal” is responsible for Hitler-implying Hitler is not responsible at all. Although the egotistical and monomaniacal Claude Lanzmann, maker of the documentary Shoah, is too self-centered and angry to clearly articulate the basis for his belief that Hitler explanation is inherently “obscene,” it could be because so much “explanation” has found a way to point a finger at the Jews, directly or indirectly, while minimizing Hitler. Perhaps for that reason, Lanzmann is interested only in how the Holocaust was accomplished, not with the motivations of Hitler or his followers. The major flaw is that Lanzmann has missed the point by dictating that his rule of “There is no why” must apply to all other individuals-and the irony of that.

As Rosenbaum repeatedly points out, no explanations for Hitler are acceptable that excuse him-that look to a bad experience with a Jew rather than to, for example, the influence of anti-Semitism surrounding him in Austria and Germany. Again, however, it can be said that anti-Semitic influence has surrounded many people (as Rosenbaum notes, pre-war France was more anti-Semitic than either Austria or Germany) who have not killed, let alone killed millions.

Rosenbaum’s approach is excellent, pairing individuals with complementary or opposing viewpoints, e.g., Lanzmann and Dr. Micheels, the theologian Emil Fackenheim and the atheist historian Yehuda Bauer in “The Temptation to Blame God.” Even revisionist David Irving is given a chapter. Rosenbaum saves what seems to be his preference for the last chapter-Lucy Dawidowicz’s belief that Hitler decided on The Final Solution as early as 1918, based on what he said and did not say over time, and on the “laughter” that is transferred from the Jewish victims to the Nazi victors. While this does not explain the origins of Hitler’s evil, it pinpoints the time frame and removes the notion that he was ambivalent or experienced a sense of moral ambiguity. Dawidowicz’s Hitler knows early on what he wants to do and lets insiders in on the “joke” he finds it to be. Presented in this way, Dawidowicz does seem to have come closest to the truth about Hitler. After all, how can one capable of ambivalence ultimately kill millions?

To me, one critical question is not why or how any one man became evil or chose an evil course of action, for the explanation could simply be that the capacity for evil in an individual may be higher than most of us are capable of realising or accepting. That is, everyday evil like John Wayne Gacy’s is accomplished in isolation and is therefore limited in scope. The intent and the desired scope given opportunity remain unknowns. The more frightening question is why and how so many chose to follow Hitler. I do not necessarily mean the German people, per se, but the thousands of bureaucrats, managers, and soldiers who physically carried out The Final Solution, knowing exactly what this entailed and what it signified. Hitler seized the opportunity offered by the political and social situation to institutionalize his personal evil. A single man may envision and desire genocide, but it takes followers and believers to carry it out. Explaining Hitler (or Stalin or Genghis Khan) is not enough to explain the scope of this particular human evil. Without followers, there are no leaders. And without followers, millions of Jews (and Cambodians and Indians and so forth) could not have died. The evil that is so hard to face goes well beyond Hitler to a place that no one could truly wish to discover.

Diane L. Schirf, 18 January 2004.

- – - – - –

As I wrote a few comments up ^^, I think the focus on “the Hitler phenomenon” or more appropriately, “horror”, is on the social situation that elevated such a person to such leadership, and then enabled such evil.

Stone is very likely to step way around touching that, because to touch that would be to get at the awful reality of just how evil manifests…

Lourdes on January 11, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Another writer who helped to expose the psychological imbalance in Hitler was Alice Miller. Some people will disagree with the analysis but the fact is that Hitler did blame the Jews for the situation in Germany.

What Alice Miller addressed was the way that he played out his life on the world stage. Some things were quite bizarre such as razing to the ground the village where his ancestors were born and raised. If there was a Jewish connection then it is probable that his grandfather or great-grandfather was Jewish as some have claimed. It would explain his extreme hatred of the Jews, as well as his desire to erase his own background.

Hitler was a corporal at the end of the first world war. I have no idea what impact that had on his psyche except that the loss to the Allies impacted him greatly.

Lord Keynes (the economist) was one of the first to recognize that the Treaty of Versailles had an impact on the German economy after the first world war and that the reparations demanded were a disaster. So I think that what was stated on that issue by another commenter is quite correct.

As far as Stone is concerned, he got it wrong about JFK and his movies are as boring as…. Also Stone has a habit of admiring such detestable creatures as Chavez and the piece of crap who controls Cuba… I do not think that he could put anything together that would in any way show the truth.

The thing about Prescott Bush sounds like absolute garbage and just not worth the time and effort to reply to such crap.

maggieo on January 11, 2010 at 7:13 PM