Radosh on Oliver Stone’s Anti-Semitism

July 26th, 2010 at 5:05 pm | 2 Comments |

| Print

Ronald Radosh draws attention to a new Oliver Stone documentary in which the filmmaker hopes to place Stalin and Hitler “in context”.

Oliver Stone is at it again. I previously wrote about him months ago. Stone, ask now in London to do publicity for his agitprop film on Hugo Chavez, took the opportunity to do some advance publicity for his forthcoming Showtime TV series, The Secret History of America. In his new gem, he will show us how Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were all unappreciated in their own time, since they were “vilified” and he wants to show — particularly in the case of  Stalin — how he “has a complete other story.”

Well, if  Stone wants to really let us know that it is not just Fidel and Hugo Chavez he loves, but all previous monsters in the 20th century past, he is certainly free to do so. But in his new interview with Camilla Long in the London Sunday Times, he certainly ups the ante.  Added to his list of the misunderstood is Iran’s leadership. First, he informs Long that although “Iran isn’t necessarily the good guy,” the fact is that “we don’t know the full story!” Since Stone was given access exclusively to Ahmadinejad when he visited Iran, we can be certain we won’t have to wait long to see the results.

Stone gets exercised when critics like me (whom you’ll recall he personally rebuked a short time ago — you can read my response here) expose his ignorance of history and his treatment of it as a vehicle for left-wing propaganda.  It is no wonder that Castro “had been pleased” with the three documentaries Stone made about him, as was Hugo Chavez.

When Long gently asks him whether he is presenting a balanced picture, Stone replies, “The internet’s fully free [in Venezuela]. You can say what the hell you like.” He conveniently ignores last week’s news that Chavez has arrested two Venezuelans who dared to write a few words on Twitter that he found demeaning. And like those in the old Soviet Union who always said when someone was arrested, “If only Stalin knew of this injustice, this would not be happening,” Stone says there is a “section of the Chavista party that is over the top,” and which “inherited shit” from the pre-Chavez government. (Any repression is always the fault of the old “bourgeois” regime.)

Then, Stone finally gets to the forthcoming documentary on our supposed secret history. Stalin and Hitler will be put “in context,” he says, as if historians have not been doing just that for a long, long time. What he means by that, however, is that if Hitler was a Frankenstein, so were “German industrialists, the Americans and the British,” all of whom, he hints, gave Hitler his support.

Next, Stone insists that Jewish deaths must be put “in proportion.” …

Click here to read more.

Recent Posts by FrumForum News

2 Comments so far ↓

  • Slide

    How dare you proclaim, as if by fact, that Oliver Stone is anti-Semitic? Radosh doesn’t describe him as so in the article? You might infer that he believes that by why does the headline of this post feel it necessary to smear someone with such little evidence to back it up. Did we not learn ANYTHING from the Sherrod case? So I guess it is ok to Brietbart someone if it is about supposed antisemitism?

    From what I got out of the article, Radosh doesn’t like that Stone wants to get to the reasoning behind great historical figures like Stalin and Hitler. Radosh does not have a clue as to what the end result will be now does he? He hasn’t seen the movie. Hasn’t seen the script. Why clutter the mind with facts right?

    Quite frankly I am so sick and tired of the constant name calling. It is a sickening and disgusting tactic to call someone a racist or an anti-Semite without knowing a whole lot more about the person

    Reprehensible. But ultimately self-defeating. When you start calling EVERYONE antisemitic then it sorta loses its impact. I think we are at that point quite frankly. That dog just doesn’t hunt anymore.

  • drdredel


    Next, Stone insists that Jewish deaths must be put “in proportion.” After all, “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30 [million killed].

    “Why such a focus on the Holocaust then? “The Jewish domination of the media,” he says. “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”

    I’m pretty sure you can extrapolate that these utterances were made by an anti-Semite. Unless you think he’s complimenting the Jewish domination of the media? Or the lobby that stays on top of every comment?

    Also… it seems pretty self evident (to me, anyway) that conflating the number of Russians killed during the war, simply as a consequence of war, and the number of people that were systematically exterminated in the camps (the number is actually 11 million, not 6… 6 were the Jews, the other 5 were a mix of Pols, gays, political undesirables, Gypsies, etc) is incredibly thoughtless (and stupid). He may as well add that the laws of nature have killed billions of people since we came down from the trees… why all the attention on the Nazies?!

    Anyway… I agree that throwing around claims of anti-thisOrThat without provocation is a terrible thing, but if these quotes are accurate, I see the shoe as fitting pretty nicely, here.