TCA -- Director Oliver Stone's upcoming Showtime documentary miniseries "Secret History of America" promises to put mass murderers such as Stalin and Hitler "in context."
"Stalin, Hitler, Mao, McCarthy -- these people have been vilified pretty thoroughly by history," Stone told reporters at the Television Critics Association's semi-annual press tour in Pasadena.
"Stalin has a complete other story," Stone said. "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.
Why yes, that's true, AFTER THEY WERE ALLIES IN BEGINNING OF THE WAR ITSELF, ALLIES IN TEARING POLAND APART, ALLIES BY TREATY OF SIGNED ALLIANCE NOT JUST PALS, AND WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ATTACKED . AFTER, OF COURSE, STALIN STARVED BETWEEN 7 AND 11 MILLION IN THE UKRAINE ALONE, PURPOSEFULLY, POLITICALLY
We can't judge people as only 'bad' or 'good.'
Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and its been used cheaply.
He's the product of a series of actions. It's cause and effect ... 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 to understand their point of view. 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, from GM through IBM. Hitler is just a man who could have easily been assassinated."
WW2 happened as the fault of the USA because we didn't assassinate Hitler? Are these the same people worried about a room at 58 degrees and waterboarding the planners of THIS WAR?
The controversial director's 10-part documentary series for Showtime promises to focus on events that "at the time went under-reported,....
How about the OVERWHELMING POPULARITY IN THE WEST OF APPEASEMENT, WHY IT BECAME POPULAR, WHO CONTRIBUTED CAMPAIGN $$ TO THOSE WHO BELIEVED IN IT, AND THE ELECTIONS IT WON?
but crucially shaped America's unique and complex history of the last 60 years." Subjects in "History" include President Harry Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on Japan and the origins of the Cold War with the Soviet Union.
How about the estimated 3-7 million Japanese lives it saved, the 250,000 American dead and up to 1,000,000 wounded in the planned invasion? The plans for civilian mass resistance to invasion with bamboo spears, the coup in Japan that failed by a slender reed AFTER the emperor announced surrender, or the actions of Stalin in East Germany when the west strove for some kinds of compromise from 1946-48? How about what our BEST PEOPLE made of Stalin ..all but one LIBERALS?
"You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate,
Empathy? Tell that one in Stone said during the show's trailer, which promised to put historical villains "in context." "I don't want to put out conventional History Channel product where it's easy to like it."
It's called HISTORY, douche-horn - that means FACTS not revisionism. Why not just take the view of the guys in Tehran? They view Hitler and Stalin with much more understanding of fault and cause?
"He's not saying we're going to come out with a more positive view of Hitler," emphasized professor Peter Kuznick, the lead writer on the project.
Let's remember THAT name in case it pops up somewhere else.
"But we're going to describe him as a historical phenomenon and not just somebody who appeared out of nowhere."
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," said Stone, who also also compared the experience of sympathizing with war criminals to making his "W" movie about George W. Bush. "I'm trying to understand somebody I thoroughly despised."
Stone also warned that the same military industrial complex forces that he's explored in movies such as "JFK" and in "Secret History," are now corrupting Barack Obama.
"You can understand why Obama is following in Bush's footsteps in Afghanistan," Stone 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."
The project will also show lesser-known positive aspects of American history and unsung heroes. Stone eventually hopes to send "Secret History" to schools as a teaching curriculum.
"It would be a very different counterweight to what they're learning," Stone said. "Nobody is going to force it down anybody's throat."
A critic also asked Stone "the Sarah Palin question" of what he likes to read.
"My father was a voracious New York Times reader," he said. "We consider that in The Middle. "
Middle? Walter Duranty? David Brooks', Bill Safire, and Bill Kristol are supposed to balance the reporting, while dueling with men and women like Krugman, Anthony Lewis, and the BDS suffering Dowd?
This is all about the dialectic.
History must adhere.
Brought to you today by:
The Ministry of Truth
34 comments:
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Stone's not alone. Cameron's planning to make an "uncompromising" movie out of Charles Pelligrino's "Last Train from Hiroshima", which hasn't been released yet. But if Cameron's optioned it that probably means it's theme is America Was Evil, which is particularly disgusting from Pelligrino, who lost friends on 9/11 and worked on the WTC site and refuted the troofers. So apparently they both think invading Japan would have been more fair, because then a lot of Americans would have died too? Or just declare a truce and let the Empire go back to raping China? After all, we have to put that "in context" too.
Animals.
I'm particularly interested in Stone's statement that he was able to "walk in Stalin's shoes and Hitler's shoes .."
Does this mean he has experimented by committing genocide on people? I mean, seriously, how could you walk in their shoes Stalin or Hitler, without having ordered the deaths of massive amounts of people, and still felt satisfied with yourself?
Oliver Stone takes hallucenogenics (this is true, I'm not making a joke here). His brain is addled.
It is pathetic that he is Jewish and making excuses for Hitler and Stalin who BOTH wanted to totally annihilate his people.
Some mornings I wake up and read the news, and I want to go back to bed. This is one of those mornings.
Thank God for work. I'll work, and I'll forget about Oliver Stone and the madness of today's world.
Oh good, I thought it was just me. Except I have to do tax stuff instead of work so it is going to be One Of Those Mornings all damn day.
30 years ago I knew someone who spouted this "walk in Hitler's shoes" crap. He was a degenerate satanist pervert. If Oliver finds a shoe in there that fits, he can wear it with my compliments.
One of the lessons these boys are forgetting is that it's nihilist moral equivalency crap like this that softens people up for the "purity" of Nazism. Or Islam.
Article says: "He's not saying we're going to come out with a more positive view of Hitler," emphasized professor Peter Kuznick, the lead writer on the project. "But we're going to describe him as a historical phenomenon and not just somebody who appeared out of nowhere."
I say: Oh really? That subject hasn't been dealt with before? The history of German anti-Semitism? Martin Luther, etc.? Who does fucking Peter Kusnick think he is? The world's first historian?
What a god damned douchebag.
The re-writing of history is not so subtle any more...
BTW-didn't several bho advisers and 'friends' state that they admired MAO!?
Thank you for this post -E...
C-CS
Stealing one of Hugh Fitzgerald's wonderfully precise references as it fits well as a response to this post.
"The Midwich Cuckoos."
HRW
See my post yesterday - "Imagine No Right or Wrong."
Epaminondas,
Thanks for letting us know about this upcoming piece of garbage.
Lets stay away from any theater that shows it, and demand that it not be shown in our schools.
Revere Rides Again,
If what you are saying about Cameron's upcoming movie is true, than I never want to see another James Cameron or Oliver Stone movie ever again.
Oliver Stone is such a big time traitor. He supported Hugo Chavez...and now he's supporting Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin by stating that they "weren't such bad guys".
Really? Why does this man have such hatred toward his own country? Would he PREFER the Axis Powers to retain control of Europe and Asia? Leave Soviet Russia alone even though it never left anyone else alone?
Well here you all go, while an option is not anything like a committment to make a movie, it is a way to make sure no one else can:
James Cameron Options The Last Train From Hiroshima
Avatar director James Cameron has optioned Charles Pellegrino's upcoming nonfiction novel "The Last Train From Hiroshima: The Survivors Look Back."
On the promo tour in Japan for Avatar in December, Cameron visited Tsutomu Yamaguchi, one of the last survivors of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII. Yamaguchi died Monday at the age of 93.
The following is a description of the book:
Drawing on the voices of atomic-bomb survivors and the new science of forensic archaeology, Charles Pellegrino describes the events and aftermath of two days in August when nuclear devices detonated over Japan changed life on Earth forever
Last Train from Hiroshima offers readers a stunning "you are there" time capsule, gracefully wrapped in elegant prose. Charles Pellegrino's scientific authority and close relationship with the A-bomb's survivors make his account the most gripping and authoritative ever written.
At the narrative's core are eyewitness accounts of those who experienced the atomic explosions firsthand—the Japanese civilians on the ground and the American flyers in the air. Thirty people are known to have fled Hiroshima for Nagasaki—where they arrived just in time to survive the second bomb. One of them, Tsutomu Yamaguchi, is the only person who experienced the full effects of the cataclysm at ground zero both times. The second time, the blast effects were diverted around the stairwell in which Yamaguchi had been standing, placing him and a few others in a shock coccoon that offered protection, while the entire building disappeared around them.
Pellegrino weaves spellbinding stories together within an illustrated narrative that challenges the "official report," showing exactly what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki—and why.
Eyewitness accounts should be in context with those of Japanese atrocities WHICH STILL REVERBERATE IN ASIA, and what we knew would occur in an invasion. More still, WHAT WE DID THERE AS OCCUPIERS AFTER A WAR WE DID NOT START.
Perhaps we need a truth squad to counter what would be for me Cameron jumping the shark
Hollywood is going to drown in its own vomit.
Epam, is the paragraph about "eyewitness accounts" yours or from the description? Reading that Pelligrino had written this was like a kick in the stomach. He always showed a sense of fairness before -- his books on the Titanic are excellent, and "Ghosts of Vesuvius" includes one of the best accounts of the mechanics of WTC Ground Zero that I've read. He is fascinated by and expert on the subject of such natural and manmade disasters. (Shock coccoons are a favorite topic -- he exonerated a NYC firehouse that had been accused of looting by describing how they work.) If he kept perspective of the Empire's actions, the catastrophe invasion would bring, and Japan's recovery (Hiroshima is now a stunning modern city) it could be a worthwhile book. But if he has unplugged his moral sense and gone the equivalency route it will be... a kick in the stomach.
If Stone had optioned it I'd despair of the outcome. Does Cameron have enough moral sense left to keep the proper context? Wish I could be more hopeful.
You I just had a small scare. I just noticed that in a few minutes something is coming on the Discovery Channel called Secret America and I thought for a moment that it might be this. luckily I was just confused. Its something entirely different.
I am interested in seeing his understanding of McCarthy. That man is so slandered he gets in a list with Stalin, Hitler, and Mao!!!!
Have ya'll read Coulter or Buckley's work on him? Have you seen "Point of Order"?
I personally think, after studying it, that HUAC was bad, but McCarthy's going after spies in the State Dept. Not a bad thing at all.
@rra - The quote is direct.
There many 'Hiroshima' books. There are many with direct testimony.
I have read four. The interviews are harrowing to say the least.
It is easy to infer the authors are all trying to sympathize with Leahy's views. But that is inside the head of the reader. Truman's advisers were all over the place. Just imagine HIS thoughts, though. 250,000 Americans had been killed already in the war up to that point - TOTAL. There had just been 50,000 casualties on Okinawa, Iwo Jima had caused the most KIA in Marine history. American estimates for casualties in an invasion of Kyushu and Honshu went up to 1 million. SOB's like Ernest King derided that and said we should go ahead anyway with naval power DESPITE THE BOMB. Leahy who was the most againt the bomb(who never believed it would work, BTW), told Truman the scientists saying GO simply wanted to justify the money they spent. Szilard and the scientists who begged for a demo shot, wanted to put the weapons and technology UNDER INTERNATIONAL CONTROL!! SecState Byrne wanted to shock the Japanese into surrender with mass casualties AND make sure the Russians got a message (his advisers- FDR MEN, ALL, all of whom -such as Averell Harriman - painted a bleak picture of what could be expected with Stalin)- that's just 3 of his inner group .. but somewhere in there Truman MUST have wondered what he could say to American parents if the casualty figures were just 50% right, and the truth - that he had had a weapon which could have saved their children's lives - had come out. And Stimson at the end of July submitted an official opinion that to shorten the war, minimize casualties, and even get the Japanese to surrender while keeping the emperor in a constitutional monarchy .. taken from US intelligence capture of info from Japan-Sweden communications ..the Japanese NEEDED to face the reality that the alternative would be complete destruction. In fact, Curtis Lemay's plans for 'normal' bombing called for the the complete elimination of ALL JAPANESE CITIES by spring 46. A campaign which would have killed far more Japanese, in addition to invasion.
Similar interviews with survivors of Nanking (Dec 1937) when similar numbers died at the hands of the Japanese in an open city and 20-80k women were raped will never be done.
The answer to the simple question 'WHY that is' would be quite interesting
It will be just as interesting to see how Cameron IF HE MAKES A MOVIE treats all this, especially given the invective surrounding the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian.
Culturist John,
Ann Coulter is okay, and she's done a fairly good job defending some people who have been demonized by the left. Unfortunately she's not the most reliable source. For one thing she's a big believer in creationist nonsense.
Culturist John -- You might like Try Blacklisted By History as well. Ignore the official reviews.
http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-History-Senator-McCarthy-Americas/dp/1400081068/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1263226263&sr=1-1
Damien,
I didn't know Coulter was a nonsensical believer in Creationism.
Do you have any links on that?
Pastorius,
Here's something By James Downard, from Talk Reason on her pseudosciencete creationist views, if you are interested. Its part one of a series articles on it. Note that is lengthy.
Secondary Addiction: Ann Coulter on Evolution
I don't understand that article. It is above my pay grade. Do you understand it, Damien?
Pastorius,
I understand it, but I might have some trouble explaining, in part because of its length. However in summery it basically talks about Ann Coulter's flawed thinking dealing with it the science of biology and evolution in general. Even if you have some trouble understanding some of the terminology it clearly shows that Ann Coulter is creationist and she doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to evolution.
I don't really have trouble understanding the terminology so much as I have trouble knowing whether what is being said is true.
Science is always in flux. Scientists often speak dogmatically about things which are later proven to be untrue. And, of course, our truths of today are only models of things that we can't really see anyway.
I'm not sure, based upon that article, that Coulter is so much being a fool, as she is simply saying, "Hey look, there are scientists who say, we don't know. If they don't know, then why should we believe that all steps in the evolutionary process are based upon natural selection?"
Look, I really don't care one way or the other. I don't think it is insane to believe God Created the Universe. I don't think it is insane to believe that God created Natural Selection and used it as a process by which to improve upon things. I don't think it is insane to not believe these things either.
I'm not sure that that article proves that Coulter is a fool.
Could you give me a specific example of how it does prove she's a fool.
If she is foolish on this subject, thus far, it has not been proven that she is a garden variety young Earth Creationist.
A belief in Intelligent Design is not, in and of itself, insane. It is a belief; a matter of faith. It is a bit off to claim it as a science. However, it is not off for scientists to point out that some answers are clearly beyond the ken of science at this point.
The whole history of science is insane. People often laugh at the use of leeches in the history of medicine, and yet we think nothing of the use of chemotherapy to treat cancer.
Believe me, in 50 years from now, chemotherapy is going to be considered as insane as leeches.
Think about it, fighting cancer by filling one's system with poison. That is barbarism. It happens to work, but it is barbarism.
Similarly, the Newtonian view of the Universe is child's play compared to Einstein. It works, on its level, but it is unsophisticated compared to the Theory of Relativity.
And, Newton's understanding (model of the way things work) is one that has not been rejected (nor should it be).
Now, let's go back and laugh at the Greeks. Oh boy, fire, earth, air, and water; the elements. And, all of Aristotle's blather about atoms. What the heck did he know?
Nothing.
What do we think we know?
Oh, we know a lot. We'll assure you of that.
LOL
Pastorius,
I never said Ann Coulter was insane, and I am someone who believes God my self, so I'm not an atheist. However, its impossible to believe that the Earth is not over four billion years old and the earliest ancestor of all life on Earth was not a simple single celled microbe without either rejecting or being ignorant of massive amounts of scientific data. God my have created the world, but he didn't do it the way a literal reading of Genesis would tell you.
Or any other creation myth I know off for that matter.
Damien,
From what I can tell from reading that article, Coulter does not reject those ideas. She apparently believes that living beings are too complex to have been created ONLY out of a process of natural selection. Instead, she seems to believe that design was either aided along the way, or that it is built into the system by a Creator.
Neither idea seems ignorant to me.
Even Richard Dawkins believes the process may have been aided, except he thinks it may have been aided by space aliens.
Question; who created the space aliens?
Pastorius,
I don't get that impression. If you read through the whole thing including parts two and three, you'll see where she's basically quoted as saying there is no evidence of evolution. I personally believe in theistic evolution, so I don't agree with people like Richard Dawkins, but it is not the same as saying evolution does not occur. I don't think there's anything you could do to prove the existence of God scientifically, but I believe he exist.
As for what Richard Dawkins says about aliens creating life on Earth, he claims that he was quoted out of context, and based on this interview it sounds like he was.
Clearing up ‘Expelled’: Richard Dawkins on Aliens, Intelligent Design and God
Oh, she believes there is no evolution. Ok, gotcha. Yeah, that seems pretty silly.
Post a Comment