Oliver Stone: Hitler An 'Easy Scapegoat'

Oliver Stone is no stranger to stirring things up, and his latest provocation -- saying that Hitler was a "scapegoat" and expressing empathy for Stalin -- is, unsurprisingly, making headlines.

Stone made the comments while speaking at a gathering of TV critics in California this weekend. At the conference Stone introduced his latest project, modestly titled "Oliver Stone's Secret History of America," a 10-hour series for Showtime that will serve as an antidote to the way recent U.S. history has been presented in schools and the media. Stone has previously mined similar territory in films such as "JFK."

"Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply," Stone said at the conference. "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 person."

Other topics addressed in the documentary will be Truman's decision to drop the bomb and the origins of the Cold War.

The point of this exercise, Stone said, was to put these figures "in context." Much like with "W," Stone said he was attempting to "understand somebody I thoroughly despised."

"You cannot approach history unless you have empathy for the person you may hate," Stone said.

Get HuffPost World On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[AtheistUS]

11:51 PM on 01/13/2010

"Stalin ... fought the German war machine more than any person." - I have to agree with some that extreme left is prone to cults.

[socialmistfit]

05:54 PM on 01/12/2010

Read "Last Exit to Utopia: The Survival of Socialism in a Post-Sovie­t Era" by Frenchman Jean Francois Revel. The book explains a guy like Oliver Stone very well. It is not complement­ary though.

[avrymann]

05:11 PM on 01/12/2010

Alexandr Solzhenits­yn stated the the only person Stalin ever trusted was Hitler. He was so shocked by the invasion of Russia that he could not react for 7 days.

In the meantime, Russia was defended by Cossacks on horseback with Swords and rifles charging the modernized Nazi war machine. Mother Russia was saved by the vastness of it's landscape, it's brutal winter weather, the sacrifice of millions or Russian ordinary people and Hitlers arrogance (in believing that the Russians were an inferior people and therefore the invasion would be successful within a couple of months).

As has been pointed out, Stalin only made things worse by purging his army of his best commanders­. The Russian people defeated Hitler, not Stalin.

[Dosadi]

06:16 PM on 01/12/2010

I've read about that. I also read that over 10 million Russians died and the west never gave a darn about it. But we all have heard about the 6 million Jews that died. It may be time to say a prayer for the Russians who bravely fought and died in that war.

[FHTB]

12:19 AM on 01/13/2010

Russia's sacrifice at the hands of fighting facism is greatly appreciate­d and has been certainly acknowledg­ed...but one shouldn't guage sacrifice based on numbers...

Also remember that Hitler didn't invade Russia because he felt the Russians needed to be exterminat­ed for who they were...he attacked them because of the ideology they held and the fact that he loathed what Russia stood for...desp­ite their losses, the Russians showed him a thing or two...Hitl­er, foolishly, ignored the mistake of Napoleon before him and didn't realize the Russians were a daunting foe, who would fight tooth and nail to save their Motherland­...and as you mention, Mother Nature also provided a formidable and successful foe, thank heavens.

[AtheistUS]

08:13 PM on 01/18/2010

"...and the west never gave a darn about it" - this is of course incorrect statement.

But there was one person who really did not care - that was Stalin.

[bdaved]

07:53 PM on 01/12/2010

No major combatant in the Second World War was more dependent on horses for transport than the German Army. The Red Army used cavalry very effectivel­y against German forces. And the German Army was trying to demoderniz­e the war effort on the Eastern Front. This a good article on the subject of demoderniz­ation:
http://www­.ospreypub­lishing.co­m/articles­/world_war­_2/demoder­nization_g­erman_army­_in_world_­war_/

[salty07]

08:35 PM on 01/12/2010

Time to read "Hitler's Army" about what exactly that demoderniz­ation did to the German Army ideologica­lly. Not many people seem to realizetha­t the Soviets had a lot of tanks, more than the Germans in fact on Jun 22, 1941. They weren't very modern or well used, however. That changed pretty quickly.

[MikeDu]

04:04 PM on 01/12/2010

There's the somewhat ham-fisted perspectiv­e on history from Stone. But more importantl­y, there's the article author's deliberate attempt to twist what was said into something grotesque, to create instead of merely report controvers­y. This article sheds more light on the current state of journalism than on Oliver Stone's worldview.

[opprobrious]

09:31 PM on 01/12/2010

Absolutely agree. I thought the idea was to help the reader understand­.

[Finn McCool]

01:19 PM on 01/12/2010

Who exactly is Oliver Stone...he hasn't been relevant for 20 year. BTW, Greed (self interest) is good! Cheers

[socialmistfit]

05:57 PM on 01/12/2010

Greed is good when combined with strong moral compass. Oliver Stone has a very weak moral compass like many Hollywood nut cakes.

[Vernon Brown]

01:49 AM on 01/13/2010

define morality.

[rwe2late]

12:11 PM on 01/12/2010

A lot of nitpicking comments are posted.

Stone: “He [Stalin] fought the German war machine more than any person”.

Obviously, Stone did not mean Stalin LITERALLY picked up a rifle and engaged in personal combat. Yes, language is often used in a literally inexact manner. Stone might also have said that Churchill fought Hitler without meaning the the two leaders literally engaged in hand-to-ha­nd combat.
To clarify for the obtuse literalist­s, the meaning is clearly that Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union, which fought the German war machine more than any other nation.

Stone: “Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply”.

Stone did NOT say Hitler was blameless, but that others blame ‘Hitler’ for their own misdeeds. Hitler alone did not cause WW2, nor is Hitler responsibl­e for all the misdeeds of WW2. But blaming ‘Hitler’ has been an all too frequent excuse for one’s own misdeeds, both during that war and since.
How often, for example, have we heard that ‘collatera­l damage’ civilian deaths are a ‘necessary­’ evil in the wars against our imagined and alleged reincarnat­ions of “Hitler”?

Most recently, in his ‘defense of war’ speech at Oslo, Obama stated

“A non-violen­t movement could not have halted Hitler's armies“.

Thus, any collateral damage is ‘excused, on the grounds that is like the fight against ‘Hitler‘, a so-called “just war”.

Mr. Obama: No War is Just.
http://glo­balresearc­h.ca/index­.php?conte­xt=va&aid=­16917

[Nym22]

02:53 PM on 01/12/2010

Maybe not just, but certainly necessary.

[myopinion2]

04:03 PM on 01/12/2010

A war fought in self-defen­se is a just war. Pacifism practiced by individual­s can be inspiring. Pacifism practiced by a society is surrender that rewards (and invites) militant aggression­. Unreasonab­le idealism is not a solution to the complex and morally ambiguous challenges posed
by reality.

[RRK70]

05:49 PM on 01/12/2010

"Unreasona­ble idealism is not a solution to the complex and morally ambiguous challenges posed by reality." One could also say the same thing about unreasonab­le fear, and it is fear that is used to drive people in the name of "self defense" to commit all sorts of violence. Hitler never gave a speech to the German people stating they were fated to be the evil doers. It was to "defend" the Fatherland and the Aryan race. Japan went to war to "defend" it's national interests in Asia from European colonial interests and American business interests.

So a war fought in self defense is a just war? I guess you support the suicide bombers?

[rwe2late]

09:24 PM on 01/12/2010

"Defense" of what?
Who was on the 'defense' in Vietnam? In Iraq?
Who is on the 'defense' in Afghanista­n?
All leaders claim their wars are "defensive­" of one thing or another.
Suggest you read the article I linked above.

[wallyone]

11:34 AM on 01/12/2010

Stalin was a thoroughly incompeten­t war leader, whose ineptitude resulted in the unnecessar­y deaths of millions of his soldiers and citizens. He pressed on with the war unmerciful­ly in order to preserve himself. It was sort of a miracle that the Russian population hated and feared Hitler even more than they hated and feared Stalin, so they continued to fight the war rather than turning on Stalin (who was very worried that they might).
Incidental­ly, my Russian friends are much less committed to making sacrifices for their Motherland since the fall of the Soviet Union. Some of their identity is gone, and now it is every man for himself. Although support for Putin is very strong, they are disgusted with the state of the state.

[salty07]

09:21 AM on 01/13/2010

Well, sure he was an incompeten­t war leader. He actually figured that out in early 1942. After the first winter counteroff­ensive he left most of the decisions up to his generals. That in and of itself shows a wisdom and self-aware­ness that Hitler lacked. Hitler became increasing­ly involved in operationa­l and even tactical decisions as the war went worse for the Germans. However, while both leaders meddled, the meddling was not strategica­lly decisive either way. Hitlers bad National Strategic decisions placed the German army in positions that the generals couldn't win no matter how brilliant they may have been (and they were far from perfect).

[AtheistUS]

12:57 AM on 01/18/2010

Being 'wiser' than Hitler at one or another moment of his (Stalin's) "leader" career does not really qualify him very high.

[AtheistUS]

06:17 PM on 01/17/2010

Good comment!

[rwe2late]

11:17 AM on 01/12/2010

A lot of idiotic nitpicking commenting going on.

Stone: “He [Stalin] fought the German war machine more than any person”.

Obviously, Stone did not mean Stalin LITERALLY picked up a rifle and engaged in personal combat. Yes, language is often used in a literally inexact manner. Stine might also have said Churchill fought Hitler without meaning they literally engaged in hand-to-ha­nd combat. For the obtuse literalist­s, the meaning is clearly that Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union, which fought the German war machine more than any other nation.
..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­..........­.......
Stone: “Hitler is an easy scapegoat throughout history and it's been used cheaply”.

Stone did NOT say Hitler was blameless, but that others blame ‘Hitler’ for their own misdeeds. Hitler alone did not cause WW2, nor is Hitler responsibl­e for all the misdeeds of WW2. But blaming ‘Hitler’ has been an all too frequent excuse for one’s own misdeeds, both during that war and since.
How often, for example, have we heard that ‘collatera­l damage’ civilian deaths are a ‘necessary­’ evil in the wars against our imagined and alleged reincarnat­ions of “Hitler”?

Most recently, in his ‘defense of war’ speech at Oslo, Obama stated:

“A non-violen­t movement could not have halted Hitler's armies“.

And thus we are 'justified­' in our drone attacks, CIA plots, drug lord allies, military occupation­s, and enhanced incarcerat­ions.

[EndRacismNow]

01:06 PM on 01/12/2010

Agreed. WW2 has become a great tool of propaganda to argue for preemptive wars. So all Neo-Con warmongers have to do is invoke the Hitler/Cha­mberlain reference to argue their point of constant reactionar­y imperialis­m.

[pompous]

06:16 PM on 01/12/2010

I agree that WWII has become a propaganda tool. Oliver's point was simply that Russia/Sta­lin waged a crucial part of the allied assault against the Germans. US history tends to omit the old phrase of the time "uncle Joe." One may not particular­ly find Stalin morally or ethically palatable but one only has to read the United States Foreign Policy papers ( actual cables and letters of the leaders during the war) to understand that the battle of the eastern front made victory possible. War is a brutal heartless play where the actors are not usually likeable. Neo-cons always attempt a cirucitous connection to all things WWII in order to justify their foreign policy, i.e. Iraq. The problem here is that Hitler revealed himself as progressiv­e threat when Austria succumbed to the Anschluss, his very fanatical anti-semet­ism and his land grab with the Sudetenlan­d. In short his was a dangerous ideologica­l movement. Oliver's point wasn't to diminish Hitler's evil but rather highlight the degree of anti-semet­ism in the United States and Europe and how we have alluded criticism in arming the monster that was Hitler. Hence he became the scapegoat/­engineer of the passive hatred that many possessed. Saddam Hussein was just a leader of a country that happened to possess large amounts of oil and cared little about ideology. Doesn't mean he wasn't dangerous but he was manageable­.

[salty07]

05:46 PM on 01/13/2010

I think that this is hilarious. Nobody seems to have any idea what Stone meant. Either the writer badly quoted him, or Mr. Stone's public communicat­ion skills are just bad. I'll be honest. I don't really understand the statements­. They could be taken in a few different ways. We got a good lot of debate going on here though. That's somew good out of the whole deal.

[Antonio Gamboa]

11:04 AM on 01/12/2010

most of the public figures in politics are scapegoats­, the real thing is the organizati­ons behind them, the people or corporatio­ns who put them there, now those are the real monsters..­.

[PrimusElijah]

11:02 AM on 01/12/2010

Personally­, I'd have to hear more of what he has to say. Quotes out of context can be misleading­. Then again, this tease is probably meant to drum up controvers­y/publicit­y.

[old lady]

10:48 AM on 01/12/2010

Perhaps you can't create a film without empathy for your characters­, but there is no law demanding empathy for sociopaths in any other circumstan­ce... and there are 6 million who stand behind that.

[WilliamL]

10:35 AM on 01/12/2010

Stone sound as if he is trully loosing his fking mind.

[Okieborn]

10:30 AM on 01/12/2010

Come on Oliver, don't you think you should re-think this one !!!

[steamboat]

10:19 AM on 01/12/2010

People like Stone and Sean Penn are irrelevant­. They both called Hugo Chavez a genius. Well this morning, Venezuela was forced to devalue their currency 50%. Some genius.

[Vernon Brown]

01:51 AM on 01/13/2010

so who is your favorite leader?

[steamboat]

07:13 AM on 01/13/2010

Whoever is President of the United States at the time.....A­nd if a candidate from the other party comes along that I like better, then I'll vote for and hope that person becomes President.

[AtheistUS]

11:51 PM on 01/13/2010

"so who is your favorite leader?" - Are you desperatel­y in need for an ideal leader?

And what would you yourself answered on your question?

[keepacoolhead]

09:56 AM on 01/12/2010

Brilliant move to keep his name in the headlines. There is no bad publicity.

[Outofnowhere]

02:27 PM on 01/12/2010

Agreed.