Inglorious B's........

[redriver6]

well i see Christoph Waltz. (the ss col.) won an oscar...he was exceptionally evil in the movie..

 

[djscoo]

The nazi's were socialist...National Socialist Workers Party. Which is LEFT wing, not right. Politically, there wasn't much diffrence between Stalin and Hitler.

There is a difference between Socialism and National Socialism, National Socialism being a form of Fascism (i.e. far right-wing).

 

[HighGround22]

s . . . initially i didn't want to like brad pitt, because he seems like a pretty boy. a redford wanna-be.
but his work in . . . and Snatch were impossible to ignore . . . .

Now THAT (Snatch) was one hysterical movie! Changed my entire view of Pitt.

 

[Ken Stallings]

There is a difference between Socialism and National Socialism, National Socialism being a form of Fascism (i.e. far right-wing).

Not true.

Facism is a political system where people's rights are wholly subordinated to the state. It is neither restricted to conservative nor liberal. It can also even be moderate. The key is whether individuals have any freedom from the state, or is wholly subordinated to the state.

If you think the National Socialist Party was right-wing you need to read more about it. I suggest you read more about the leader of the Brown Shirts, (SA), Ernst Rohm. He was angry with Hitler once and that was over Hitler cozying up with the industrialists. Rohm wanted the SA to replace the German Army and lead a socialist overthrow of German establishments, including the military and private industries.

Instead, Hitler hung Rohm out to dry so that he could win total allegiance of the Germany military and also used the wealthy industrialists to help him paint a picture of a moderate German. It was merely a charade for Hitler to gain the supreme power he lusted for.

Ken

 

[djscoo]

National Socialism:
totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism , mass appeal, and dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk...

dunno, sounds like fascism to me.

Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace.

From this explanation, economically, I suppose the Nazi party was socialist. Looking at other indicators however, ultra-nationalism, embracing Roman culture and symbols, social stratification,suppression of social progressivism, suppression of counter-culture, I still see right-wing ideologies.

The point is, Hitler and Stalin were not politically similar.

 

[Ken Stallings]

Actually, I would argue they were very similar. And their mutual antagonism was entirely due to their similarity.

Remember, prior to the invasion of Poland, there was a real possibility that the British and French may have allied with Germany to run the Soviets out of Finland. Further, despite the writings in Mein Kamph, Stalin and Hitler brokered a treaty to divide Poland. Both dictators sized up the situation and determined they could play the peace angle for a period of time before readying their respective militaries to go after each other. Hitler flinched first and the alliance to defeat him was born.

From a practical consideration, Stalin and Hitler employed precisely the same agenda -- a craven quest for totality of personal power and development of a cult of personality.

Additionally, both employed brutal methods against segments of their local populace. Stalin embarked upon a purely genocidal campaign of forced industrialization which resulted in the sale of grain for capital to the point where millions were starved to death from induced famines.

Hitler's efforts against Jews is of course well documented.

Both employed ruthless purges. Both employed state police units to develop a power base built upon fear.

Both used state control of private business. Even in Italy the Fascist government did the same by nationalizing basic industries.

As I said, fascism is total submission of individual liberty to the government. Your first quote supported that.

However, fascism is not by any means restricted to right or left politics. Hugo Chavez is morphing to a dictator and his ultimate quest appears to be fascism under a left ideology.

Augusto Pinochet was a dictator seeking fascism under a right ideology.

As I wrote, fascism is a quest for state power over the citizenry with alienation of individual rights over the state.

Cheers,

Ken

 

[tigisfat]

Though they often run hand in hand, let us not confuse right wing and left wing with being liberal and conservative. I'm a very free-thinking person, some might say some sort of liberal for a number of reasons, but my views are so far to the right that you can't see them from here. :mixedsmi:


IB was an entertaining movie, but it's hard to say it's a really good movie. It was just fun and goofy. The acting of the 'jew hunter' (I hope that doesn't offend anyone, I couldn't remember his name) was INCREDIBLE to watch. You have to look past that it's a fictional and fun remake of WWII. My brother couldn't look past it.

 

[Panther_99FS]

Okay,
Let me see if I can digest this thread....

It went from "should I watch this movie :ques:"..
To... "socialism, national socialism, facsim, left & right wing".....:isadizzy:

 

[redriver6]

IB was an entertaining movie, but it's hard to say it's a really good movie. It was just fun and goofy. The acting of the 'jew hunter' (I hope that doesn't offend anyone, I couldn't remember his name) was INCREDIBLE to watch. You have to look past that it's a fictional and fun remake of WWII. My brother couldn't look past it.

i would have to say i agree with that...and check out 6:10 of this video

[YOUTUBE]6rr1q__f-vk[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Ken Stallings]

Okay,
Let me see if I can digest this thread....

It went from "should I watch this movie :ques:"..
To... "socialism, national socialism, facsim, left & right wing".....:isadizzy:

Well, Tarantino and Robert Rodriquez are great friends and Rodriquez made a bank robbery movie that turned into a vampire flick!

So can it really be surprising that a Tarantino movie thread turned into a poltiical science discussion?

Cheers,

Ken

 

[djscoo]

Though they often run hand in hand, let us not confuse right wing and left wing with being liberal and conservative.

Agreed...


Stalin's enemy was the rich, and the general population suffered as a result.
Hitler's enemy was the foreigner and the foreign influence or anyone who threatened his society. The general population didn't suffer, only those who were deemed "the enemy".

Stalin implemented short-sighted plans with the aims of improving production. The population suffered famines and forced labor.
Hitler implemented well thought out plans to improve Germany's financial situation. The general population saw the effects and were pleased.

Stalin pitted the rich against the poor, he used secret police to purge arbitrary enemies of the state. Anyone was at risk
Hitler pitted the conformists against the non-conformists. He used secret police to purge enemies of the state. It was clear to the population what constituted an arrest. Conformism was encouraged.


Both were evil, evil, evil dudes, no argument about that.

 

[boxcar]

...and check out 6:10 of this video

[YOUTUBE]6rr1q__f-vk[/YOUTUBE]

.
.
..... Hilarious!

Watched the whole video but the Inglorious B's comments starting @ 6:10 were tops!
.

 

[txnetcop]

chris, that made me laugh pretty good, because you are sooo right.

but i think what he was saying is, that bassturds wasn't even that good.

Yep he was terrible in Troy and should have stayed in his actor's trailer for IB
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[djscoo]

I'll add "Babel" to the list of great movies featuring Brad Pitt. It's a truly unique film.

 

[vora]

I liked IB very much. Waltz is acting Pitt into the ground IMHO (although I also like Brad Pitt as an actor).
I generally like Tarantino flicks because it shows how much this man LOVES cinema (and comics). His movies really show what a cinema nerd he is.

 

[cheezyflier]

i will agree with that about tarantino. he does have quite a knowledge of cinema and comics/animation.

 

[Bjoern]

Okay,
Let me see if I can digest this thread....

It went from "should I watch this movie :ques:"..
To... "socialism, national socialism, facsim, left & right wing".....:isadizzy:

I don't see any reason for worries (yet), P.

Hitler implemented well thought out plans to improve Germany's financial situation. The general population saw the effects and were pleased.

It was more a shot at economical autarky....with the goal of being able to entirely support a war from within the home country.
Financially, the Third Reich was a massive train wreck.