Hitler in Context? Hitler a Scapegoat?

David C. Stolinsky, MD
July 29, 2010

Film director Oliver Stone declares that “the Jewish-dominated media prevent Hitler from being portrayed in context,” and that Hitler was a “scapegoat.”
− News item

Oliver Stone directed “Platoon” and “Born on the Fourth of July,” which portrayed our troops in Vietnam in a largely negative light. Then he directed “JFK,” which alleged that President Kennedy was assassinated by right-wingers. In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald was an active pro-communist, but who needs facts when you have an agenda?

Then Stone visited and praised Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. Then he did the same for Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Now he hopes to direct a “documentary” showing Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a favorable light. Meanwhile, Stone directed “W,” which showed President George W. Bush as a confused son floundering around in unsuccessful attempts to please his father. Apparently Castro, Chavez and Ahmadinejad have no family or psychological problems − only our leaders do.

Speaking of psychological problems, Stone’s mother was Catholic, and his father was a Jewish stockbroker. One need not be Freud to suspect that Stone’s hatred of Jews, his hatred of capitalism, and his love for enemies of America stem from his hatred of his father. One might even suspect that his analysis of George W. Bush is a projection of his own feelings. Those who practice armchair psychology should not object when it is practiced on them.

Then, of course, we have “Wall Street” and its upcoming sequel, which (surprise!) show capitalism in an unfavorable light. Stone directs big-budget films, financed by money derived from the capitalism he condemns. If this is not hypocrisy, the word has no meaning.

But Stone felt the need to push himself from the entertainment section onto the front page. So in an interview with The Sunday Times of London, he succeeded in his effort to “top” his prior escapades. Stone went out of his way to turn the interview toward World War II and the Holocaust. He declared that the “Jewish-dominated media” prevent Hitler from being portrayed “in context.” Stone did not explain what “context” could conceivably justify aggressive war and genocide.

Stone added, “Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it’s been used cheaply.” And all this time, I thought the Jews were the scapegoats. Silly me. You see how enlightening it is to have a leftist world view?

Stone pontificated, “We can’t judge people as only ‘bad’ or ‘good.’” Really? He judges America as bad, and its enemies as good, whether they are Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He judges capitalism as bad, and socialism as good. He judges conservatives as bad, and “progressives” as good. He judges Jews as bad, and their enemies as good. In fact, he and his fellow leftists can be very judgmental. But they just can’t bring themselves to judge anti-American, anti-democratic despots. How revealing.

Continuing his love affair with communism, Stone asserted that Hitler “did far more damage to the Russians than [to] the Jewish people − 25 or 30 [million killed].” Stone neglected to say that Hitler set out to murder every Jew he could, and succeeded in murdering four out of five European Jews. For example, before World War II there were 3.5 million Jews in Poland, and after the war fewer than 120,000 remained.

But Hitler’s object was to enslave the Russians, not eliminate them from the face of the earth. Most Russian deaths were due to warfare, not to systematic, coldly mechanical genocide as was the case with the Jews.

And if one looks at death rates, the difference is even more obvious. At the start of the war there about 18 million Jews in the world, so six million dead represented one-third of all Jews, and about 80% of European Jews. In contrast, the population of the Soviet Union was 180 million in 1941, so the published total of 19.8 million military and civilian dead represents 11% of the population. The people of the Soviet Union suffered terribly, but Stone’s analysis, as usual, is biased.

Stone went on to claim that Israel has “f****d up American foreign policy for years.” He praised Ahmadinejad, who not only denies the Holocaust, but also threatens to repeat it by wiping Israel of the map. Even the U.N. now agrees that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, so this is hardly an empty threat. But it seems not to trouble Stone.

Stone described American policy regarding Iran as “horrible,” adding that “Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy, but we don’t know the full story.” We don’t know the “full story” on Jack the Ripper, either, but that does not prevent us from judging that murdering women necessarily makes him a bad guy. And even a less-than-full story enables us to judge that exterminating a nation and another six million Jews necessarily makes those who plan such a terrible crime bad guys.

Mel Gibson made his anti-Semitic rant while drunk. Stone was sober, as far as we know. Gibson blurted out his hateful remarks to a deputy sheriff who had stopped him on a highway at night. Stone made his hateful remarks at a planned interview with a major newspaper. By any reasonable standard, Stone is more culpable than Gibson.

Gibson apologized. Now Stone has as well. But Gibson made a religious film, and has made other rants since, so the media are unlikely to forgive him. Stone, in contrast, will soon be forgiven. The majority of those in Hollywood and the mainstream media share his leftist and anti-Israel opinions.

Years ago, there was a radio show called “Can You Top This?” A man told a joke sent in by a listener. A panel of comedians then told jokes on the same subject. If the listener’s joke got the biggest laugh, he got a prize. But the concept of “Can you top this?” applies elsewhere, and to subjects that are far from amusing.

Now Stone’s problem is what he can do that is still more outrageous and will get him back into the news. What can he do to further impress his leftist buddies? Salsa dance with Ahmadinejad? Make a film justifying Stalin’s Ukrainian famine? Patent a way to combine a Che Guevara T-shirt with a bed sheet, so it will be bought by both leftists and Klansmen?

Today, as at no time since the 1930s, anti-Semitism has become acceptable. Muslim extremists like Ahmadinejad openly declare their intention to eliminate Israel and Israelis. President Obama distances himself from Israel. Liberals and leftists − in politics, in academia, in the media, in religion − make no attempt to hide their antipathy toward Israel.

Why Jews, alone among all the peoples of the earth, do not deserve to have their own nation, one the size of New Jersey, is never explained − it is taken for granted. Oh yes, the Kazakhs, the Kirghiz, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Andorrans and the Liechtensteiners deserve their own nations. But the Jews? No way!

I actually have less anger at people like Pat Buchanan, who for decades has been anti-Israel and arguably anti-Semitic. He loves America, at least his version of it. I know where he stands. The full weight of contempt I reserve for people like Oliver Stone, who dare to vent their hatred only after anti-Semitism has become popular, so expressing now it is unlikely to damage his career. The full weight of scorn I reserve for those who masquerade as “liberals” and “progressives,” but who hold racist views. I have no use for them at all.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com