Oliver Stone: I Got Your Hitler Context Right Here
by Kurt SchlichterOliver Stone’s latest desperate grasp at relevance is a new cable series that, among other things, promises to finally place der Furher into der context. Now, this is where I’m supposed to be outraged, but I’m just not feeling it. Ollie, I know you’d like us to believe that this isn’t just a pathetic stunt, that this brainstorm was inspired by some peyote-spawned fire demon’s whisperings inside your drug-addled cerebellum and that if we’re truly edgy we won’t dare ignore your remarkable vision. But I think you’re once again just trying to freak out the squares and this square, for one, is mighty bored.
Stone’s scripts for Midnight Express and Scarface blew our collective minds with staggering violence and raw language. Then he directed Platoon – an awesome film if you dig sophomore-level meditations on the duality of good and evil leavened with gunfire. JFK came along and demonstrated that Kennedy was murdered not by the commie misfit who actually did it, but a conspiracy made up of big business, the government, the military, the Trilateral Commission, the Knights Templar, Prince Olaf of South Ruritania, and everyone else on Earth except Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK himself – or was he in on it too? After that, Stone was ready to completely abandon the constraints imposed by concepts like “story,” “characters” and “coherence.” Natural Born Killers was the result, the perfect Oliver Stone film – all controversy, great visuals, and nothing that made anything remotely like sense.
For Stone, it’s still about shock, but he hasn’t inspired any awe in years. So, to even approach this series, called Secret History, as a serious effort to convey anything like a coherent idea is to miss the point. This show and his nakedly calculated attempt to incite a backlash are nothing but a waning artist’s sad attempt to seize the limelight one last time. And he has a back-up plan – his next movie is a cash-the-check sequel to the venerable Wall Street. I guess greed really is good – at least when Stone’s the one being greedy.
Does Stone really believe that Hitler somehow lacks “context,” or that “American corporations were involved [with the Nazis], from GM through IBM”? Sure, to the extent he believes in anything besides gobbling pharmaceuticals and ginning up publicity, but make no mistake: His Secret History will be neither. It will not be “history” in the sense of relating what actually transpired in the past. Nor is its tired leftist wisdom on how America was somehow to blame for the rise of the Nazis – as it is to blame for all evil throughout the ages – a “secret.” If you can’t wait to get a dose of it, just check out the Daily Kos comments or join the other half-dozen lonely lefty shut-ins who actually saw Howard Zinn’s recent celebrity-filled trash America fest.
The real Secret History that Stone won’t disclose involves the identity of the Americans who actually thought the Nazis had quite a lot to offer with their collectivist, anti-capitalist vision, their refusal to let things like democracy stop their agenda, and their fondness for eugenics. Here’s a hint: It starts with a “P” and ends with a “rogressives.”
So I would not be at all surprised if the Secret History ends up showing that Third Reich silver lining we short-sighted conservatives always seem to overlook. I expect the show will remind me of being stationed in Stuttgart in the late-Eighties/early-nineties and hitting the volksfestswith my Army buddies. There’d be a bunch of Germans at the long tables eating pretzels and pounding away on the Schaweben Brau and after the seventh or eighth stein-full they’d lean in to me, bleary-eyed, fingers wagging, and in slurred English say, “You know, you Americans don’t understand Hitler. He vas not all bad…” It was then that I understood why my ancestors left Deutschland.
But it’s not constructive to simply criticize, so for Mr. Stone’s benefit here is some help with the proper context for the poor, misunderstood Adolph Hitler:
Auschwitz.
Treblinka.
Dachau.
There’s your context, Ollie. You’re welcome.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
312 Comments
You don't address and disprove any of the points he brings up. Rather, you rattle off the names of concentration camps.
look Hitler might not be misunderstood but we really don't celebrate the entirity of the man. I mean he bought us the VW Beetle, was a vegetarian, um he had a dog. Oh yeah he finally married that girl. Um.
he um didn't burn the book that lead to the holy grail (you know the one Indiana Jones had)
he uh, was a painter.
I'm sure there are some other things, but you know I can't thnk of any because he hasn't been put into context.
Stone will only be putting himself into context.
you agree with Stone on this one?
It is s good think the internet allows anonymity, becuase there is no way you'd state something like that in public
"…you rattle off the names of concentration camps."
Yeah, those camps are a minor historical detail – is that what you are saying ?
What's "rattling" is your credibilty.
That is the historical context Hitler should eb put in because the camps were HIS idea. HIS Final Solution, the total dissolution of the Jews along with Germany itself. God, crack a history book from time to time, troll.
I can put Adolf Hitler and Joe Stalin in context right here right now. Those to were just oposite sides of the same coin. Both were sociopaths that you would not trust to pump gas into your car, they ran nation states. One put a bullet in his own head and the other well they say he died in his sleep. Maybe the Russians had enough of him did him in. Either way both have been left to the junk heap of history. What went on in Russia from 1917 to the End of the Soviet era was nothing less than a Horror, Stone will soft sell it.
This is all about deconstructing WWII. The last place left and right agreed that America was the good guy in a battle against evil was WWII, and the leftists now understand that must destroyed in order to further their unholy goals.
It started with Tom Sizemore's "all for nothing" speech in "Saving Private Ryan," inexplicably, Eastwood furthered this thinking with his two Iwo Jima films, and now this.
In order to destroy a country you musr first capture its institutions and then destroy its icons.
Stone is simply picking up where others left off. The baton is his now.
And Cameron will pick it up after with his Hiroshima film.
We are in an ideological war. Nothing confusing about what Leftist Hollywood is doing once you come to terms with that.
Now, why do I expect Stone to gloss over, for example, Margaret Sanger or Joe Kennedy's admiration of Hitler and his policies? Do you think he'll paint the rise of the National Socialist German Worker's Party as some sort of Republican plot to take over the world?
Respectfully, how did Letters from Iwo Jima "deconstruct" WWII?
Oliver Stone hasn't been a relevant filmmaker in nearly 20 years. I suspect that he said what he said in order to get his name in the papers. And dutifully, the blogosphere reacted the way Stone thought it would. Ignore him and he'll go away.
Consider what Oliver Stone has been up to in the last few decades, some might say 'Conan the Barbarian' was the apex of his career.
the fact theat they will throw Truman, a democrat president who won WWII, under the bus, is all I need to know to see where they are going.
there is evil in the world, and the US has worked to defeat it. But the need to paint the world as some sort of Pandora (when they are in charge) means we need to destroy history.
"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." Eric Arthur Blair
You gotta be kidding me….
What's next for these leftists?? A Josef Mengele ride at Disney World??
You're right!! There were millions of people Hitler didn't kill after all!!!
You can find websites with photographs of Nazi concentration camps and death chambers. Even in the sanatized state they sit in today, they give me chills. The railroad stops where millions waited to be loaded into CATTLE cars to be taken to "camps" still exsist in much the same state today as they did 70+ years ago. That's all the "context" I need.
The one look at our troops in that film had us monstrously assassinating POW's.
Eastwood shows the Japan high command as monsters, but the rank-and-file as either brainwashed or victims shoved into a meatgrinder.
Our rank-and-file are shown as having no humanity, no herosim, no soul.
I like and respect Eastwood, and know he's a complicated guy, but his IWO JIMA films focussed unfairly on the worst. And both received accoldes from critics because of that, because while both show the great directors skill, neither is very good.
[...] Read the Full Article @Big Hollywood [...]
keep your hands and arms along with those of the person you are sewn to, in the car at all times.
see what context does? that must be what Stone is talking about.
I wonder if they'll put you on a train to get to the ride….
It may be just me, but I don't see how he could address any of the points Stone brings up, because he hasn't brought them up yet.
And again in my opinion, that's all the context the third reich needs. If you would like to put the deaths of over 6 million people in some other context, please feel free. I believe there's a comment section over on stormfront.org.
How do I get him out of my context?
I wonder if this series is actually going to make people think Hitler wasn't such a bad guy after. Hell if that works I want him to write my eulogy!!
Yes and he brought carpet-chewing into style also, where would civilization be without that??
After that, Stone was ready to completely abandon the constraints imposed by concepts like “story,” “characters”, "truth", "facts", and “coherence.
Just a little editing.
Ollie is just jealous of Chamberlain and Daladier. Is this a bit of Stone's neo-nazism coming to light?
Even though I did not see that movie yet – I did see Flags of our Fathers and thought it was wonderful, sad movie – I agree. I wouldn't toss Eastwood into the group of reprobates.
He'll give it a shot.
I do, but he doesn't. But that doesn't matter, because I still ignore.
Did he write Conan's lines for the first half of the movie?
I'd be up for that, as long as the leftists get free admission.
And that's all the context necessary. Hitler and his accolytes were evil monsters. Period.
"Vince", I won't embarrass you by asking you to post your elementary-school grades on reading comprehension.
You've done a fine job all by yourself.
It is rather sad to see anyone sink to this level. He reminds me of a spoiled little brat demanding every one pay attention to him.
It's cute when they're toddlers. But it becomes more obnoxious as they age. And down right sad, when they never grow up.
Anne Frank was all the context I need
All you ever need to know about Stalin and Hitler is in this podcast:
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php?page=hharchive
Dan Carlin's Hardcore History. Listen to Ghosts of the Ostfront parts 1 – IV no better reporting on the absolute inhuman horrors of WWII have ever been recorded.
Listen, it takes a strong stomach and a heard heart, but listen to the horrors that truly made up WWII and if you can generate any sympathy for either Hitler or Stalin what so ever you're a sick, disgusting individual. The grotesque and vile things these men ordered their troops to do in the name of The Fatherland and Mother Russia goes beyond the human pall, and to show any sympathy for either Hitler or Stalin is inhuman. Should Oliver Stone try to show us that "silver lining" of the Third Reich or the Workers Paradise he's lying, and he should be held up in humiliation as a reminder that every village has an idiot, but rational people don't listen to them.
I'm not throwing Eastwood in with that lot. I said I respect him and that I know he's a complicated guy, but FOUF is what it is: an unnecessarily cynical look at our military and country that intentionally (by focusing on the bad) attempts to shatter one of the most iconic images in American history.
The raising of that flag is not about what Eastwood focused on, it is about the heroic and selfless work the U.S. Marines did to clear that hunk of real estate.
Instead of focusing on American heroism in either film, he turns that moment into something ugly and cynical.
Take 2 beers and call me in the morning….
The scene with the American troops committing the war crime WAS unnecessary and out of left field, yes. Of course, many rank and file Japanese soldiers were victims shoved into a meatgrinder. The point about enemy soldiers in WWII not being monolithic monsters had also been made in Peterson's Das Boot. Eastwood wasn't really doing any "deconstructing" there.
Given the narrative structure of Letters from Iwo Jima, I'm not sure how you would have found space in the script to establish the humanity and soul of the American soldiers.
I was pretty disappointed in those films. I was under the impression that Clint Eastwood understands the enormous good our soldiers did. That he chose to twist those events into something Oliver Stone would be proud of felt like a gut punch.
I'm a fan of Clint Eastwood, always will be, but this was disappointing.
The point is that a four or five time Oscar winning director has to rely on shock quotes about a TV series in order to remain in the public eye. Circa Platoon, Talk Radio, Wall Street, Stone let his films do the talking. He hasn't had a commercial success in years, and studios no longer fund his projects, hence the move to cable television.
Freaking out over his quotes elevates his importance.
I think Flags would have been a much better movie if Eastwood had simply focused on Ira Hayes. The weird chronology jumps and sledgehammer narrative about war propoganda obscured what could have been a fascinating movie if Ira Hayes had been the focus.
Ira Hayes might disagree with your assessment.
I've been to Dachau. I think I'll skip Stone's "series" and clean lint out of my belly button.
I want Georgie Jessel to deliver mine !
Oliver Stone in context —
http://penetratinginsights.blogtownhall.com/2010/...
Stone and John Milius are credited for the screenplay. Along with Robert E. Howard, of course. I read or heard that the project began with Stone’s version and Milius brought the story more in line with the original Conan material.
In all fairness to its screenwriter (and in brutal fairness to the director), Natural Born Killers was a good idea for a movie with a fairly decent script. It was when Oliver Stone decided that he was a smarter writer than Tarantino that the film started to go down the tubes, into the unwatchable mess that is the final product. The script asks its audience to consider whether any of its characters are justified in doing what they're doing; the film dismisses that question as irrelevant.
Next, he'll do a Soros bio.
Hey, he was a wonderful dancer! (H/T Mel Brooks).
When I was a kid, my Dad used to play Johnny Cash albums over and over (and over and over…) so I've been familiar with Ira Hayes' story for some time. I also saw Tony Curtis as Ira Hayes in The Outsider.
And I don't think there's really any other way to describe what was done to Ira Hayes by others and by himself than something ugly and cynical. It was a tragic story. There just is no happy ending to that tale. I haven't read the book, but I assume Eastwood tried to stay as true to the source.
I liked Platoon, but I also realized the characters were composites of stereotypes, but I also think Eastwood wanted to go past that and tell a true story, broken souls and all.
And I also appreciated the way the narrator presented the story. That reminded me of battle veterans I personally know, and others I've heard about (my Great Grand Father for example). They don't like to talk about their experiences. My uncle won't even bring up the subject of Korea. My Grandfather told me his father almost never spoke of the Civil War. He just wouldn't talk about it.
So I thought following the book, and having the soldiers children find all this lost history and their father was right in the middle of it, very realistic.
I liked it. My opinion.
By the way I got my copy of Forgotten Heroes in the mail yesterday. I'm looking forward to the opportunity to watch it start to finish without interruptions from family.
And don't forget our public school systems, where Howard Zinn's leftist screed "A People's History of the US" goes into great detail about Hiroshima but ignores the Bataan Death March. Zinn spends a lot of time tearing down our efforts in WWII by casting it as the military-industrial complex making money off war.
When kids graduate they have been marinated in a bath of anti-Americanism that is relentless. No wonder they flock to "Avatar" and vote for Obama.
Those concentration camps within the scope of the article are CONTEXT.
The target audience of this article, i.e. conservatives, know that those camps were SECRET up until we invaded Germany and found them. All positive contributions by that evil empire are overshadowed by that heinous act. They were evil; pointing out that some U.S. companies naively invested in Germany before those camps where known about is taking things OUT of context.
No one but Germany is to blame for the Holocaust. That history will NOT revise, I don't care who directs it.
Hitler is just a decoy (to stir up controversy), McCarthy is just a decoy (to fake even-handedness). Stone's objective is to revise the history of Mao and Stalin into warm fuzziness. Wait and see .
Take a look at the atrocities committed by the Japanese in the invasion of China. They were not mindless drones "just following orders". The bloodlust and the lack of regard the they showed for the Chinese civilians was horrifying.
Oliver Stone: Reader for the Dead (apologies to Orson Scott Card)
My attempt at humor. Conan's lines for pretty much the first half of the movie was "ARGGGGGUUUULLLUUUGGGHHHHRRRUUUULLLLGGGGG….."
I am not sure what happened to Eastwood to make him turn left so fast. I mean, take a look at his Dirty Harry series. A cop who takes out the trash with his piece and gives hardened criminals no quarter. What happened to that genre that I loved so much? I'll tell you what happened, the ACLU happened.
He also didn't open the Ark of the Covenant, while we're on the subject–wait, maybe he should have done that one. Would have spared us this entire conversation.
Oliver Stone's proposed "Secret History" is exactly the kind of thing I would expect from a man of his intellectual depth. Meaning precisely what you think it means.
Huh? I'm not questioning the Holocaust, the camps or the evilness that is Hitler. I'm questioning the complicity of those outside of the Third Reich. Your ignorance is offensive.
read above.
The proper context is that Hitler got his idea for the Final Solution from the American Progressives and their eugenics plan. Somehow I don't think Ollie is going to go down that road.
If there are American (or otherwise) companies that contributed to his rise in power, then I want to know about. Crack open your ignorance from time to time, jerk.
What's frightening is that you're a rank-and-file idiot.
That's not my point.
But…but…I vas just following ze orders!
I have been to the Holocaust Museum in DC, where the only thing I could not watch was the video of Mengele's "experiments." To me, though, the most chilling experience ever was the trip I made to Dachau, about this time a year ago. What really brings it home, I think, is to stand on the grounds, where people were being beaten and killed, and to realize that this was going on when people you know today were already alive. That hits you in a way no Civil War battlefield can, and it gives you a very disturbing sensation in your spine–I'm getting it again just thinking about it. I think you have to go to Dachau or one of the other old camps to fully realize the magnitude of the evil.
Agreed.
It's not about questioning Hitler's actions. But, by not looking at things as black/white, you automatically go to "Hitler wasn't such a bad guy."
The only people that would ever say that are Holocaust deniers. They're a bunch of twits and it's not right for you to lump Stone in with that lot.
yeah I'm the offensive one
and the fact that I didn't "get" your poorly written post does not make me ignorant, but it might make you a poor writer.
The suggestion that Ollie's going to go all squishy over Adolf is just a head-fake. When he talks about putting Hitler "in context" that means he's going to spend three hours blaming the directors of I.G. Farben, General Motors, and the Bush family for Hitler's rise to power.
Then, how can he even question Stone, when he hasn't even seen what's exactly being put fourth? It's just a knee-jerk reaction to something he's never seen.
And, as far as suggesting I'm a Holocaust denier (which is what you're doing, basically), you have it all wrong.
This is going to sound terrible–I'm probably just too young–but who is Ira Hayes?
And on a side note, you're right about Korea; my grandfather served as well during the war and doesn't say much about it other than it smelled terrible.
Oh I understand your point. You seek to blame someone else for Hitler's rise to power. And you think Oliver Stone will give that to you.
No one was needed to enable Hitler's bloodthirsty nature. He was what he was. No one said, "Hey Adolf, you know what you should do? You should start exterminating entire races. Let's start with the Jews!"
It was his plan, and he carried it out.
"Vain," they were just fine. How has your limited scope on the world treated you? See, I can be an ass too.
Until, "we" invaded Germany. Oh, yeah, I guess Russia had NOTHING to do with that!
And, do we know how much those companies knew? Is it a fact, because you say it is?
If Oliver Stone can brainwash people into thinking Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, I am going to immediately go out and buy a copy of 1984 before it's too late.
I'm not saying anything of the kind. What Stone is doing is apologizing or explaining away Hitler's actions. Or he's attempting to mitigate those atrocities by blurring the line between good and bad.
This is moral relativism and the reason why child molestors are put in prison instead of a grave.
Why are you making this about humanizing Hitler? Who is humanizing him?
If you have a jerk beating up an innocent guy. And then there's a group of guys placing bets on the jerk. Exposing the group of guys placing the bets is not HUMANIZING the jerk.
You made assumptions. That's on you. Not me.
I don't believe I called you anything. I do not appreciate being accused of doing something I did not do. If that's your definition of a reasonable, logical, polite debate, I see this is going no where.
My statement simply says the Holocaust is all the context I NEED to form an OPINION on Hitler. Don't flatter yourself with thinking I'd waste time accusing you of being a denier.
The point the author makes is quite simple, considering Stone's past work, his acquaintances, and his out spoken opinions, its pretty easy to see where he's headed with all of this. And it ain't going to be pretty.
You don't explain away his actions by examining the situation in full. And it's not apologizing. But, that's how you view it. No one is ever going to consider a "kinder, gentler" Hitler. It's ridiculous to think that's even possible.
And, as far as child molesters, yeah, let's just incinerate every one of them each time they pop up. Because every last one of them were born that way, they knew exactly what they were doing and they're all guilty. Every last one of them.
Because, treating the symptoms and not examining the source of the problem is big waste of time and nobody really gives two licks when history repeats itself. Why get better, when you can "manage" the effects of the illness.
It's not about blaming someone else. It's about understanding how all the pieces come together. I haven't seen the series, so I can't have an informed an opinion about it. (I usually like to see something before I judge it.)
Do I think Stone will give that to me? Not likely. He's a big conspiracy theorist with an extensive drug history in my opinion.
the fact that you didn't bring up your real point untill after people call you out is not an assumption on my part. It is there for everyone to see.
"No one was needed." Hmmn. He needed to be elected. For starters.
Ira Hayes is one of the soldiers who raised the second flag on Iwo Jima. I believe the first flag was lowered so they could put a bigger flag up signaling the Marines had taken Mt. Suribachi. That second raising was caught on film and became one of the most iconic images for Americans for World War II. It was also the source for the US Marines Memorial in Washington.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iwo_jima#The_Battle_...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ira_Hayes
The picture was so famous, all the soldiers (still alive) in the photo were shipped back to the US to tour for war bonds, repeating the feat like trained rabbits.
I think three or four survived to participate. And they were consumed by guilt, leaving their fellow soldiers to fight and die, while they're living the high life of first class travel arrangements. Got too much for Hayes who eventually drank himself to death.
I haven't read the book, but I did hear an interview with the author. Upon his father's death, he and his siblings started cleaning out their father's bedroom, and they came upon all kinds of war souvenirs, including flags, uniforms, news papers, medals, and I think a journal. Up til that point they never really even knew much about their father in the war, much less he was part of such a famous event.
The son read through all the material, and contacted the families of the other flag raisers, to get their stories, and he compiled them into the book Flags of Our Fathers.
The story isn't so much about Iwo Jima, as much as begins there. It's the story of these young soldiers dealing with (and in Hayes case failing to) live with their fame and demons.
I highly recommend the movie. But its not a touching road show with Hope and Crosby.
As I recall, I found it both disaapointing and disconcerting that , at the time of the release of Flags of Our Fathers, Clint Eastwood commented about the propaganda about World War Two, implying that the United States wasn't fighting for something positive and noble.
What could the motivation be for showing the "more complex" Hitler, the Hitler that reacted to historical imperatives, the Hitler who wasn't completely bad?
Collectivist: Hitler had the strength and vision to reorganize German society in a coordinated, comprehensive, scientific way. He saw the state as the only power that could tame the unruly masses and produce a glorious future for Germany and all of the territories that would come under Germany's influence.
Collectivist: Unfortunately, divisions in German society and some defects in Hitler's world vision caused more human suffering than was necessary to that cause. His goals and methods were rational and effective, but some of his results were regrettable.
Collectivist: We should not tar Hitler's methods and major visions with those few unfortunate results. We have the capability today, as then, to use organized government to accomplish greater goals for society. We are wiser now, and we will do it better.
(Just to be clear, I hate the Collectivist -AMG)
You made an assumption that:
I agree with Stone (how can I or anyone who hasn't seen it?). Well, this isn't possible, because it hasn't aired yet.
In my original first sentence, I question the writer for not addressing anything that Stone said (so why is he writing this/forming opinions to begin with?) in the series. From the SOUNDS of it, it appears Stone would be buy trying to tie American company activity knowingly supporting a massacring mad-man. This would be the original "points" I'm referring to. Not your ASSUMPTION that this series is painting a sympathetic picture of Hitler.
So, instead of addressing the points of the series, the writer of this article rattles off names of concentration camps. From the SOUNDS of it, this series doesn't SOUND like it's about whether or not the Holocaust happened or questioning the evilness of Hitler. I'm questioning the writer's assumptions that this is what the series is about. He's assuming it's about Holocaust denial and then he names three camps.
He's making assumptions. You're making assumptions. I may not be the best writer, but I'm hardly poor.
So you think you can "cure" evil? Is that it? You think that by examining a child molestor you can predict who will hurt children before they do it?
"Because every last one of them were born that way, they knew exactly what they were doing and they're all guilty."
You are taking away the individual's personal accountability, that they are not in control of their actions. It's a disease and not the individual's fault. I wonder what your thoughts on homosexuality are. Are they born that way or is being gay a symptom of some sort of problem?
"Because, treating the symptoms and not examining the source of the problem"
Again you're suggesting some sort of disease or outside influence is to blame rather than the individual responsible. This wrong on so many levels.
"I haven't seen the series, so I can't have an informed an opinion about it. (I usually like to see something before I judge it.)"
Same here, but the things he's saying about it now are pretty telling, no?
"He's a big conspiracy theorist with an extensive drug history in my opinion."
Agreed, I knew you weren't completely insane…LOL
"A Josef Mengele ride at Disney World?? "
No Gulagland.
You're talking about his rise to power. There were many factors involved in that. One needs only to read all the information available already for that. Not Stone's slant on it.
But what I was referring to was his nature. He didn't need to be prodded into genocide, he was the architect of it.
John, I am very relieved to know that someone else out there was dissatisfied with FOOF.
I actually walked out on it, when it became apparent that it was going to be a 50-50 movie: 50% coverage of the battle, and 50% hand-wringing and self-flagellating over the dark "dog-n-pony" treatment of the Iwo Jima flag-raisers. I did not buy a ticket for that. Very disappointing. I was really looking forward to it.
Thx for the affirmation. – Cliff
Wow, I was not aware of that, though I did know that there was a second flag raising and that the survivors later went on tour. That's rough. But I guess it does speak to that feeling of camaraderie among soldiers, that they'd feel so much guilt over living the high life while their buddies were still at the front. I hope Mr. Hayes found a little bit of peace in the end; God knows he deserved it.
this guy lost me some where between "don't call me a denier" and "hitler had help"
i think what he is trying to say is that Hitler had a lot of backers for his horrible acts. I suppose he might enjoy the context that Stone is going to provide.
I however don't need to know the complexities of the man and how people enabled him to become a monster.
Please, don't anyone mistake me for this clod.
It is also interesting to note the Ira Hayes was a member of the Pima tribe. He apparently suffered from racism out side of the tribe and jealousy and disfellowship from within.
Truly a sad history of one of Americas heros.
Sounds like Mr. Stone can't see the forest for the trees.
Kurt,
That was awesome.
Thanks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.