Oliver Stone vs Hitler & Stalin

Morlar

This could turn out to be something interesting & new compared to the usual wall to wall history channel fare. I have a feeling it would focus more on the 'military-industrial complex', 'US Corporations are the bad guys side of things though. I would be more interested in how Stalin is assessed considering he normally gets off extremely lightly.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/film-cinema/can-oliver-stone-show-us-the-human-side-of-hitler-2008560.html

Can Oliver Stone show us the human side of Hitler?
Director describes subject of his new project as 'easy scapegoat'


Oliver Stone, the director of JFK and W, wants to provide a 'more factual representation' of Adolf Hitler (pictured) and Josef Stalin. Photo. Getty Images


By Stephen Foley in New York

Monday January 11 2010

Oliver Stone has never been one to spot a historical controversy without steaming towards it, but the latest project from the film-maker behind JFK and W threatens to pitch him into more dangerously hot water than ever before.

The director is battening down the hatches already, saying he fully expects "ignorant attacks" on a new documentary series in which he is promising to "liberalise" Hitler and to finger US corporations for their role in the rise of National Socialism in Germany.

Launching Oliver Stone's Secret History of America, the director promised to lay bare the military-industrial complex his fictionalised movie JFK blamed for a conspiracy to kill one president, and which Stone now says is trapping Barack Obama into the errors of his predecessors.

"I don't want to put out a conventional History Channel product where it's easy to like it," the 63-year-old director said. "You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate.

"I've been able to walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes to understand their point of view. We're going to educate our minds and liberalise them and broaden them. We want to move beyond opinions ... go into the funding of the Nazi party. How many American corporations were involved, from GM through IBM? Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated."

Stone unveiled a trailer for his Secret History at the Television Critics Association's biannual press tour in Pasadena, California, and even his collaborators appeared nervous. As the director promised empathy with leaders who ordered mass murder, Peter Kuznick, the history professor drafted in as lead writer, leapt in to clarify: "He's not saying we're going to come out with a more positive view of Hitler. But we're going to describe him as a historical phenomenon and not just somebody who appeared out of nowhere." Stone promised not to judge historical figures as "bad" or "good" and countered: "Obviously, Rush Limbaugh is not going to like this history. As usual, we're going to get those kind of ignorant attacks."

After winning two Oscars for a series of films about the Vietnam War, Stone turned his revisionist history lens on US presidents, from a more complex "Tricky Dicky" in Nixon, to a privileged, disengaged George W Bush in W. And as a documentary maker, he has courted controversy before with plans for biopics of US bogeymen such as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.

Last year, he walked the red carpet with the socialist president at the Venice Film Festival for the premiere of the documentary South of the Border. He has also long pursued Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran in the hope of making a film about his life and presidency. Stone's forthcoming 10-part series ranges over subjects the director says have been "under-reported", taking in President Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan, and the origins and the end of the Cold War. Stalin, too, is getting a makeover, according to Stone.

"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy – these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history. Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person."

Hitler has been "an easy scapegoat" throughout history for forces that were bigger than one man, Stone says, and – warming to the theme in Pasadena – he said that the same complex of interests between corporations and the military were still at work today.

"You can understand why Obama is following in Bush's footsteps in Afghanistan," he said. "Obama is very much trapped, we believe, in that system. And so that's what we're going to try and show you: the way it works."

- Stephen Foley in New York

marcsignal

Should be interesting alright

Can't help feeling Oliver Stone will be villified for this, and consequently added to the ever increasing list of 'Big Anti-Semites' in the US.

It seems he's going to try to confirm what has long been suspected, that big US corporations had a major hand in Hitlers rise to power.

diverdriver

Sounds like he's hyping the documentary. You'll probably find that when you see it it will be more like the conventional European view of the subject rather than the often more black and white version now popular in current American view of history.

Not so controversial then as painted.

Tony EH

Oh dear, oh dear.......

This really will be the end of Ollie.

I can't wait to hear what the squeaky wheels will have to say about this.

BlaasForRafa

Morlar wrote: »

"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy – these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history. Stalin has a complete other story. Not to paint him as a hero, but to tell a more factual representation. He fought the German war machine more than any single person.
[/I]

Stalin was one of the biggest impediments to Russia beating the Germans, once he stopped interfering in frontline decisions and let Stavka get on with things the Soviets turned the corner and started winning. Once he started trusting his generals like Zhukov, Vatutin, Rokossovsky etc then the confidence level of Soviet forces shot up.

IIRC it was the BBC documentary series War in the East that outlined 2 attempts from Stalin to sue for peace with hitler in autumn 1941 where he was prepared to cede huge parts of Belorussia and Ukraine to the reich. So his resolve wasn't consistently strong. Also many of the blunders like advancing troops to the border just prior to barbarossa and blindly feeding troops into the Rzhev pocket were covered up postwar to spare Stalin and his regimes embarrasment.

Also I hope this documentary dosen't try to absolve Stalin of his war crimes and those perpetrated by soviet forces. At least quite a lot of Nazis paid for their crimes postwar, not a single soviet was tried for war crimes.

rich1874

Sounds very interesting, obviously people are going to take it or leave it, but it's always refreshing to see different aspects.

Also I hope this documentary dosen't try to absolve Stalin of his war crimes and those perpetrated by soviet forces. At least quite a lot of Nazis paid for their crimes postwar, not a single soviet was tried for war crimes

I don't think the point of the documentaries is to absolve anyone, just to shed light on the other factors that gave rise to the situations. As he said, 'we want to move beyond opinions'. For me, that says cold hard facts.

Morlar

rich1874 wrote: »

Sounds very interesting, obviously people are going to take it or leave it, but it's always refreshing to see different aspects.

I don't think the point of the documentaries is to absolve anyone, just to shed light on the other factors that gave rise to the situations. As he said, 'we want to move beyond opinions'. For me, that says cold hard facts.

I really think that depends on the documentary. You tend to notice that some cue up the ominous music & sinister slow motion whenever a certain figure of hate appears on screen, present information that is incomplete or out of context etc

Documentary makers can have an agenda of some sort. Usually I'd imagine it's no more than making money from stock footage with re-hashed narration with very little new or revealing making sure not to tick anyone off in the process.

I think re the stone one we would have to wait for the finished product but I think it's a good thing to have high profile hollywood movie makers try their hand at historical documentaries. Actors have been working in this field forever (anyone remember 'Kenneth Brannar is Josef Gurbills' one ? ) but a director with editorial control and financial backing can be a healthy thing.

The most interesting ww2 related documentaries I have seen recently were the battle field mysteries ones about the Michael Wittman death and then Crete and also mosquito raf night raids.

Tony EH

Morlar wrote: »

The most interesting ww2 related documentaries I have seen recently were the battle field mysteries ones about the Michael Wittman death...

So, what was the conclusion to that one? Rockets or Firefly?



Tony

Morlar

Tony EH wrote: »

So, what was the conclusion to that one? Rockets or Firefly?

Tony

Ze Canadians not the yeomanry or RAF.

Well worth checking out if it appears online.


They recreated the scene based on accounts, surveys of the area and the location of the remaining wall. The yeomanry were operating at the farthest limit of their operational range 1200 m if I recall correctly, the canadians were operating from only 1/3rd of that distance and at a better angle.

From the maps and diagrams and measurements Wittman went the completely incorrect path between the 2 forces.

He could not have chosen a more suicidal route though of course he was not to know that.

Discharged rockets were found in the vicinity. They showed a farmhouse which had relics from the tiger including the floor plate (it's shape fits this missing part here), among the relics was a single damaged rocket.



There was another quality documentary on tv about 6 months ago which asserted that it was also the canadians who took down the Red Baron.

That one used MG's fitted with 'dispersal spread array' time delay lasers and fired from each position on the day - using a reference aircraft flown at twilight to show up the laser hits - their overall conclusion was that it was canadians for that one too.

Morlar

This thread here may also be of interest:

http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/ww2-battlefields-today/17922-wittmann-question.html The photographs used in that thread were also used in the Wittman documentary.

Tony EH

Morlar wrote: »

Ze Canadians not the yeomanry or RAF.

Well worth checking out if it appears online.


They recreated the scene based on accounts, surveys of the area and the location of the remaining wall. The yeomanry were operating at the farthest limit of their operational range 1200 m if I recall correctly, the canadians were operating from only 1/3rd of that distance and at a better angle.

From the maps and diagrams and measurements Wittman went the completely incorrect path between the 2 forces.

He could not have chosen a more suicidal route though of course he was not to know that.

Discharged rockets were found in the vicinity. They showed a farmhouse which had relics from the tiger including the floor plate (it's shape fits this missing part here), among the relics was a single damaged rocket.



There was another quality documentary on tv about 6 months ago which asserted that it was also the canadians who took down the Red Baron.

That one used MG's fitted with 'dispersal spread array' time delay lasers and fired from each position on the day - using a reference aircraft flown at twilight to show up the laser hits - their overall conclusion was that it was canadians for that one too.

Yep. Think I saw the one about Von Richthofen. But that was a few years ago.

I'll have to have a look on the web for the one on Wittmann.