MovieChat Forums > Trumbo (2015) Discussion > So is this a pro-communist movie?

So is this a pro-communist movie?


Thoughts

reply

I doubt that's the way they will try to approach it. I think the best thing they can do is portray trumbo accurately in his thoughts and actions and also personality. If he was a communist but a nice person, a lot of people will see this as pro communist. I'm not familiar with trumbo, and I'm not even that familiar with how communism was in America in this time, but I can see them making him a sympathetic character without trying to make us agree with what he believes if that makes any sense.

reply

Peoples actions have to be analyzed in the context of the time period they lived. It's far too easy to sit in judgement when we've had 80 years of history to look back on. When a political/economic system doesn't seem to be working people start to investigate alternatives. That's the way it was in the great depression. By the time McCarthy started his witch hunt in 1950 most people who may have had a brief flirtation with communism had moved on. McCarthy's claims of massive communist infiltration of the government and of Hollywood were totally unfounded yet many people lost everything just for exercising their constitutional rights. Hopefully this movie will just tell things the way they were.

reply

There were lots of communists in important government positions. The US official to the Bretton Woods Conference, which regulated global trade and finance, was a Soviet spy. One of the American envoys sent to establish the UN was another. Hollywood was even more abundant with Communists. Dalton Trumbo bragged about preventing the adaptation of any books that revealed the atrocities of Stalinism - http://reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/hollywoods-missing-movies. Easy to praise communism today... Sad to see the land of the free and home of the brave become the land of the socially conditioned and home of the victimized.

reply

You forgot to mention that Alger Hiss was a communist who was extremely influential in setting up the allies' position at the Yalta conference where America and England gave away the iron curtain countries to the Soviet Union. I am surprised that Richard Nixon is not included in this movie and vilified for his role in the HUAC hearings and given a spearing for his role in bringing down Hiss. After all, Hollyweird fanatically hates Nixon beyond sanity and would seem never to miss an opportunity to drag him through the mud. They missed it here. I consider him one of our greatest presidents, certainly light years beyond B. Hussein Obummer as was, also, Ronald Reagan. I can't agree more with Mr. Viniciusdfranca. As far as I know, Ed Harris is the only Hollywood conservative in this movie. Good for him, I hope he kept them somewhat honest.

reply

Tricky Dick and Ronnie Raygun? Yeah, they both left us in GREAT shape, didn't they? The economy after each of their presidencies was in rescession. If you go back and look throughout the last 100+ years, you'll notice that's the legacy of pretty much every repugnantcan president. Except Harding, Coolidge and Hoover, of course.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

That conception can be appreciated. Do you appreciate that pretty much every major war of the last 100 years was entered into while the Democrats were in power?

Once both are accepted,then one might be on the cusp of identifying the 100+ years of welfarism and warfarism that has plagued the USA. They are connected at the hip. The year of 1913 was a terrible year for individualism. It set the table for where we are at now - troops stationed around the world, 2-3 wars (recognized or unrecognized) at any given time, prisons stuffed to the rafters with non-violent "criminals", 24/7 surveillance, monumental levels debt and unfunded liabilities, currency debasement, and the list goes on.

HUAC was founded to sniff out fascists. Then de facto fascists took control and sniffed out communists. A prime cautionary tale of why we should have been building DOWN the state and it's pieces of apparatus. It will be used by Statist and they come in all stripes. What you might think is benign in the hands of your favored Top Men is a dreadful weapon in the hands of your philosophical enemies. If that is how it seems, then perhaps you should refuse such weapons altogether.

I probably won't ever see this movie. I'm sure in the end it will play up how romantics were crucified and it will been done with a romantic sensibility. Within politics and media there's a battle between various kinds of romantics. People who search for, and of course find, Top Men to make the feel secure. They battle over the hearts and minds of scared people looking to balm their fears. They fill the streets with propaganda. But they are all one in the same in the end. Functionally there's little difference between an established communist culture and a fascist culture. The one main feature is the triangulation against a scapegoated minority and a method to dispatch them. All in the name of protection.

There were communists around. That would be no reason to support fascists. You don't win with either. Unfortunately, we have evolved into a corpora-fascistic country with a leftward/blue state sensibility and rightward/red state sensibility. They just came to an agreement to borrow yet more billions of dollars on top of all the rest to continue their smoke and mirror tricks. And a slightly more than half of the country who adore every thing their side of the One Party does.

reply

Really? Let's see: Iraq 2 and Afghanastan; Bush 2, Iraq 1; Bush 1, Viet Nam; Eisenhower, Korea was the United Nations. What, we were just going to sit out WWII? You think it might have been in our best interests to stop two totalitarian governments from running rampant? And the stalemate in Europe 25 years earlier affected the US even when we weren't over there. The Spanish American War and the Phililippine American war; McKinley. The Civil War; Lincoln. Seven of the last 10 presidents to lead us into war were not Democrats.

reply

Starting with pure lies always works wonders.
Wealth is born out of taxes, "welfarism" (a large democratic state in difference to a large lesser democratic state - like US at present) bring flexibility to the workforce and an ability to increase in educational standards improving income and having a positive impact on a country (why do you think the Swedish example is being erased to the ground by hostile US foreign policies?).

The prison industry is interconnected with the conservative party, maybe you should look that up (there are plenty of docu's that map this out well).

Nazi's were nationalsocialists, not fascists (the Italians were fascists just like the USA is today - even if the citizenry isn't or are unaware that the nation is at that point) there is huge difference as they are on different sides of the political spectrum while sharing a few traits and both having the capability to lead to cooperativism.
Socialism was one road to reach communism - a road that did not reach all the way in the given context, what USA fought with HUAC was not the notion of fascism (rule by plutocrats) it was the notion of rule by the people (for them extreme democrats - socialist and communist thought).

To lessen the nations and federations military power is something positive, but seing as we got a global catasrophy homing in on humanity with rapid steps turning the military into an engineering unit (more or less) is the way to avoid a war and a catastroph.

Communism and fascism - There are huge differences, if you go by the powerstructure alone the powerelite is ALOT smaller in communism (in true communism it does't even exist in the same sense).
Communism (the classless society) does not build off scapegoats like fascism does, fascism is dependant on Hobbes concept of everyone's war on everyone and a "natural" unemployment that drives up dividation in the population.
They both fill the streets with propaganda, yes; in communism it's about the greatness of the nation or federation. In facism the propaganda is about always being in the right, lending greatness from nationalistic emotions onto corporations and creating increased consumption aswell as fear for a myriad of reasons.
As they have and do exist today I defintively do not want either, but there is a golden way in between where the gov. owns those things that are of importance (infrastructure, informationnets, regulatory works, education etc), seing to that everyone does get a somewhat good education lessening crime and violence.

The reason US has become fascist is because the population so far has let the the corporations and big banks write the laws and regulatory frameworks (increasing their representation close to power more and more) until a point where there basically is no democracy left, only debt attached to a majority of citizens. Slap on that enormous machines of surveillence to catch negative information on all citizens aswell and you get the picture (information collected by these enourmous surveillance machines has allready been used blackmailing amongst others politicians).

The democrats does manage the economy alot better (historically) than republicans (they do not create wars for the plutocrats) which means that they are the best bet out of the negative spiral of debt. What they (Sanders and Hillary) want to do after the next election is increase spending into infrastructure to create jobs and increase efficiency in the economy.

USA can borrow as much as they want as long as they sit on the gold reserves of Europe, they basically have the means of mutual reassured destruction within global economics.

I hope that cleared some things out, i do believe you are a troll and reported you as such as you began with ssuch a blatant lie, wrote this for anyone (and possibly you i i were wrong) that comes by and misstakes all of it to be correct.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

Very well put Shide, of course many will not understand the truths and believe the propaganda.

Nothing is as it seems so I wouldn't judge by what you think you see.

reply

Very well put Shide, of course many will not understand the truths and believe the propaganda.
Hey, my brainwash is better than your brainwash so nah nah na-nah nah...nah nah na-nah nah...

reply

As a person with a great interest in historical facts and one trained in historical interpretation, may I say that you are OVERWHELMINGLY INCORRECT in your assertion regarding Democrats and America's involvement in war.

Even the youngest and most amateur of history students could demolish your false claim with so little effort required, that I need not bother to counter your ridiculous opinion.

reply

I don't know who you adress but as usual history is written by the winner (if it isn't far post fact).

If you are interested in american history I would recommend the german comedian Volker Pispers who has a great show about contemporary american involvement in wars etc.

[EDIT] To clarify.
[EDIT 2] I am not:
I'm not an astroturfer (I've pointed a couple of handfulls out in total during me decade or so on IMDb).
I'm not a shill that gets payed to represent someone else.
I'm not using a sleeperaccount or otherwise fake or faked account.
I'm not on a bot account or similar.
I do not partake in conpiracies to manipulate social media.

The posts that have been made has only been access by me and admins/mods to my knowledge.

However I do block some people that act really badly I also block astroturfers, shills, sleeperaccounts (if they are used actively) and other s**t, often after long debates with said accounts.
Write down the same if you want to question my reasoning or morals before you start, thanks.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

Shame you won't see the movie. It's a good story, and well-acted.

I understand, though. Myself, I'm not religious, so I forego most films produced with a blatant religious message (though I did find The Passion of the Christ to be very interesting, and I think the Gospels are actually pretty good narrative objectively). I just don't want to be preached at; it would kill the experience. But I may have missed some good stories by closing my door to those films.

reply

OMG. Somebody on this board actually mentioned the movie!!!

_____________

"Maybe I should go alone"
- Quint, Jaws.

reply

Oh not this silliness again. The archives have been opened and the famous Pumpkin Papers were blueprints for fire hydrants! You actually believe a mid-level secretary shift world history at Yalta? Please, the Russians were pulling their weapons back to Moscow with horses, they had the highest casualties in the war, Stalin was basically holding onto power by the tips of his fingers, and you are crazy enough to think Hiss did anything? Wake up, this is planet earth.

reply

Oh not this silliness again. The archives have been opened and the famous Pumpkin Papers were blueprints for fire hydrants! You actually believe a mid-level secretary shift world history at Yalta? Please, the Russians were pulling their weapons back to Moscow with horses, they had the highest casualties in the war, Stalin was basically holding onto power by the tips of his fingers, and you are crazy enough to think Hiss did anything? Wake up, this is planet earth.


I don't know whether you're a leftover dupe of a now-defunct Communist movement, or simply a deliberate liar, but there's certainly no third possibility.

reply

It's Obama, you moron, Obama. Got it?

reply

How can it possibly be the "land of the free" and "home of the brave" when you speak of a time where America was segregated and people were jailed for holding contrary ideologies? Seems to me that you and your ilk are better at playing victim in one hand while being judge and jury with the other. The only symphony such hands can ever conduct are ones that lead to a crescendo of tyranny.

reply

You might as well say the same thing about jailed terrorists today. After all, simply planning to kill Americans is just freedom of speech, right?

Communism was (and remains today, in some respects) the most perilous threat to the United States and its citizens. Yes, McCarthy, HUAC and other lawmakers made mistakes, and they went too far sometimes, but they were carrying out just and necessary actions to prevent the infiltration of Soviet elements into American society.

If you want to see what Hollywood degenerates to when the communists aren't routed, take a look at what it is now. Many of the biggest stars are openly socialist, and pro-communist garbage such as what this movie will doubtless prove to be is churned out with regularity. The difference is that now, there is no communist superpower guiding their movements, so they no longer pose the same threat they once did.

If you're living in the United States today, you owe thanks to Joseph McCarthy and others like him.

reply

[deleted]

people still don't see how harmful populism is to democracy
I'm going to guess that a large proportion wouldn't distinguish between populism and democracy, making populism even more dangerous.

I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe

reply

Yes, communism is still a threat, and cultural propaganda pushes it at every opportunity. Still, the threat now is not the same as it was during the Cold War, because the American communists are not now working under the aegis of a foreign nation with missiles aimed at us.

Rather than literal destruction, they've moved on to structural change, like a weed pushing its way through a brick wall.

As long as people are taught nothing of value in schools, they will continue to buy into populist garbage, believing this zeitgeist to be their own unique opinions.

reply

As long as people are taught nothing of value in schools, they will continue to buy into populist garbage, believing this zeitgeist to be their own unique opinions.


That is hilariously ironic.

reply

Communism is only a threat to plutocrats (aristocrats and conservatives who believe in a stagnant socio-economic model where meritocracy is dead).
Hunting people for the ideology is however a threat both to any empire or democracy as seen in the past.

Fascism controls USA of today and the countdown to the next depression is allready underway, flags this time around will fly true.

It is a shame that those who reject paternalistic thought over themselves so eagerly wants it over others. When you think you know better than others or what others want by default you have lost the plot both as a capitalist and a democrat.

Regarding terrorists; who blew up building 7, which country did the hijackers get training in and by what agency? How come there was notice before the events, just as in London. Corruption of power occurs under all systems, what you have to figure out for yourself is where it occurs the most with most severe consequences.
How many deaths do you think is due to now having a single player system for healthcare in USA? - No doubt millions upon millions. How many lives could have been saved with a system that has a smaller army but higher taxes? How many lives would have been saved if it wasn't for those people pursuing world domination for USA?
Millions died under communism, but don't pretend that fewer dies under fascism, what is needed is the middle way.

If you want to see what Hollywood degenerates to when the communists aren't routed, take a look at what it is now.


Read this and stopped thinking you could actually be reasoned with. Maybe you should have a look at whom owns cinema today and what complex cooperates with Hollywood the most..?

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

I have no idea what you're talking about, generally. Some of your points are well-taken; we are, in America, slowly but surely approaching the status of a totalitarian state via subtle and prolonged erosion of personal liberties. We are at our best when we reject all forms of economic interventionism, excluding those few instances in which there is no free-market incentive to produce a quality product, but those can mostly be solved with the court system.

I'm not a fascist, and I hold no racist, xenophobic or unscientific beliefs. As for the September 11 attacks, those were carried out by Saudi, Emirian, Lebanese and Egyptian terrorists. There has been no evidence to suggest that any of the World Trade Center buildings were purposefully demolished by anyone but those individuals, nor has there been any reliable source to prove that any government official had foreknowledge of the events. In fact, given the general ineptitude with which we are governed, I think it improbable that a government incapable of managing basic economics could possibly mastermind and then conceal the origins of a massive terrorist attack. If they had, the hijackers probably would have all boarded Shriner cars and crashed them into lemonade stands.

reply

Frankly, the movie hardly offers any detailed insight of Trumbo's political stance/views, nor does it give much focus to the several factors that sparked the McCarthyism. The film takes very few scenes to set up the story: Dalton Trumbo happens to be a communist, so he gets persecuted and betrayed. The message of the film is that the repression and legal prosecution of an individual simply based on his personal views is a serious violation of human rights. And it's hard to disagree with that. By mainly focusing on Trumbo's post-blacklisting career, it also states that it's an unconceivable thing that an artist couldn't get credit for his work because of his politics: however you put it, his professional achievements must be judged separately from his life. The film gets both points through quite well and works.

Introducing the Lff screening that I saw, Bryan himself stated: "I don't know if he [Trumbo] was right or wrong, being in his shoes". That's question the film just isn't concerned about: it neither sides with the man's political views, nor does it condemn them. It just says that his treatment was unfair and immoral. Can anyone really deny that?

reply

The reason rights are eroding is socio-economic segregation, more socio-economic segregation is not what is needed to stop the oncoming depression (which most likely will come even if a democratic candidate takes the rains due to the congress and national debt). Equality under law canno't be achieved in a highly segregated society - this is not news and has been general knowledge since the 18th century.
What has lead us to where we are today is when forms of economic interventionism has been rejected - today we are literally past the 11th hour when it comes to saving a human habitat (something that should be slithgly important to retain profitmarginals, wouldn't you say?) and it's not progressive policymaking that opened up for negative possibilities to be explored.


...excluding those few instances in which there is no free-market incentive to produce a quality product...


This quote right here tells me you are either ignorant or not well wersed in the "sermon" you are holding, every single "free" market given time will develop into a monoopoly. Moreso, if there are no economic incentives to keep markets seperated the whole market system goes through oligopoly and then monopolisation. The only counterweight is democracy and technological developement, which is stifled in a huge extent by those who want to retain their marketshares (the automobile market, energy market and big pharma to mention a few examples).
Back to the point, what that means is that the valuable notion of competition in free markets always die if left unregulated - this is not something new and even Adam Smith knew it when he put down the foundation to what pretty much every single marketbased economy is using to control their economical spiral (interestrate is not as effective tool when it comes to high cycles).

You are a fascist - that is clear by your views, if you know it or now is another matter.
A fascist is not a racist by any stretch of the meaning, even though they are likely to have a "positive" correlation.

The terrorists that as far as we formally know flew the planes were trained in Jordan by some very well known agencies (if you actually want to educate yourself on this please do so because I'm not going to more than like this telling you where to start, trying to argue to someone who won't even consider the possibility that their position is wrong is as useful as wasting my time on this post in the vain hope you will look for yourself - do it in the spirit of scientific instersubjectivity if nothing else).
There are plenty of videos online from the London subway bombings testifying to that there was a big number individuals who had knowledge about what was going to happen as they evacuated well in time of the actual attack. Once you start to read up on all the ridiculous amount of coincidences that took place and ad onto that the newreporting pre-emtively reporting that Building 7 has been hit by a plane and destroyed aswell, you start to grasp the picture. You could also read up on what was stored in WTC and in the basement vaults of WTC 1&2. Or just visit the site created by family and engineers with direct connection to 9/11 for the fun of it: http://www.rememberbuilding7.com/ (there are plenty of videos that show and by word of mouth from those in direct contact with the site that contradicts the official narrative).

In fact, given the general ineptitude with which we are governed, I think it improbable that a government incapable of managing basic economics could possibly mastermind and then conceal the origins of a massive terrorist attack.


Another one of those lines that lets me know you are not a serious person behind an account.
Intelligent people have feared but still acted against the informal groups behind the state and the power wielded by those in powerpostions. Standing back or deluding yourself into nothingness is not an excuse to inaction.

[EDIT] Corrected grammar and sentence structure x2.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

It's a shame your post was a real in-one-ear-and-out-the-other experience for the guy you were talking to. At least he admitted he was utterly ignorant of what you are talking about and if I had to guess I'd say this post here was too intimidating and long for him to read and try and counter. But that's just my personal experience with people who share his views. They don't-like-a-the-books :P

reply

I have no idea what you're talking about, generally


That's extremely clear at this point. I also noticed you ignored further elaborations on the subject but it's obvious you're not interested in informing yourself of views that are counter to your own. That's called "confirmation bias" btw, and a lot of people do it. It's a human condition, not a liberal one, not a conservative one, not a communist one.

Why did you bring up and spend the majority of your post talking about 9/11, wtf does that have to do with your earlier accusations let alone the post you're responding to? lol...

reply

"Made mistakes", "went too far *sometimes*". Just? The shotgun approach of their agenda was anything BUT just, if you believe in the Constitution. The right is all for strangulation of personal freedom, such as the National Prohibition Act, which was responsible for the rise of organized crime. A jackbooted approach to national conformity to the right's agenda of subservience to big business and their hypocritical "christianity". Look at the economy after pretty much every republican president in the last 100+ years: recession, except after the axis of evil, a.k.a. Harding, Coolidge and Hoover.

This will be the high point of my day; it's all downhill from here.

reply

Your cooky generalizations and white-washing of the nastiest parts of our history is not convincing me of your ideology one bit. Also the majority of Hollywood is communist? LOL

reply

There is a huge difference between a terrorist who took lives and an American communist who just differs in opinion on how things could be done. Communism is just an economic policy that I don't believe works, not a threat. McCarthy can go *beep* himself.

reply

Communism is the idealism of the equal society, some try to draw it out in absurdum and apply the reasoning and characteristics of people living in states where conservative politics makes the norms onto those that would come out of an socio-economically equal society.
There have been tries to get there and today at this date Sweden is still being demolished because of getting relatively close, from within by the aristocrats and upper middle class led astray and from the outside by IMF and NSA (one former prime minister and foreign minister which accumulated the majority of Sweden's debt by strange macro economical actions has been exposed as working directly for the NSA by wikileaks).

The communism that has so far been applied does hold another way to achieve economic prosperity by another set of economic policies as rregan mentions.
The world has never seen actual communism, but tries that end up in plutocratic societies with iron triangles of power.

As with most things it's the golden middle way that so far has achieved the best economic results, though we now live in the age of fascism and missinformation with huge informal interest groups pulling the strings of politicians (including bureaucrats) and powerbrokers the same.
Easy fix:
•Remove the ability to corrupt - forbid politicians/bureaucrats to hold any highly payed or high positioned post within private business for 25 years or so after leaving office.
•Transparency.
•All contributions made public aswell as public employees full personal economies (including the whole first line family).
•For each lobbyist a politician meets it should have to meet with a none profit organisation without any ties to profitable organisations (better yet - no lobbyist or powerbrokers/former politicians allowed to roam free in the corridors of power at all.

All the western world has to do to rise again is to fight corruption and raise the ability (tolls and ability to choose public contracts by quality not price alone) to protect qualitative products and democratic values.
Or
Nation states could just seize the money/value in illegal tax schemes and similar projects, nationalise the banking system and again be the monopolising agent on creating national debt (how that is allowed to be partly/fully formally/informally privatised I'll never wrap my head around - rhetorically speaking).

[EDIT] Spelling and sentence structure.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

You haven't provided any evidence for your claim that there were "lots of communists in important government positions." There never was any evidence supporting this paranoid delusion, and many decent lives were ruined because of the ambitions and insecurity of some people in power who had this same axe to grind. Of course there were some Soviet spies in the US - as there are spies all over the world - but that doesn't at all amount to evidence for the conclusion there were were "lots" of Communists in important government positions.

As for celebrities who voiced support for Stalin and other dictators, they were few and far between - and they most often changed their mind when they learned of the atrocities committed by these people. You fail to acknowledge that most of the blacklisted people had no affinity for Stalin or the Soviet Union.

You also fail to account for the perspective of many people at the time, when poverty was rampant and many people turned to "socialism" or "communism" for their political ideologies without having any good idea what they were talking about - much like people today throw around ideas and political labels, thereby confusing the meanings of the concepts so much that they come to have little concrete meaning.

The Communism of the Soviet leaders never bore any resemblance to the processes of Socialism and Communism described by Marx, anyway. Those people took the vague descriptions of the processes of social change described by Marx in his theories and adopted them for use as helpful propaganda to serve their own purposes.

My real name is Jeff

reply

Harry Dexter White, American official at the 1944 Bretton Woods conference, that established the postwar economic order.
Alger Hiss, founded the United Nations as a U.S. State Department official.
Donald Hiss, Alger's brother, worked in the State Department.
Laurence Duggan, head of the South American desk at the United States Department of State.
Lauchlin Currie, White House economic adviser to President Franklin Roosevelt.
Charles Kramer, another economist who worked for U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Lee Pressman, counsel for the Congress of Industrial Organizations.
Julian Wadleigh, United States Department of State official.
Noel Field, employed at the U.S. Department of State.
Frank Coe, United States government official.
Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, an economist with the United States War Production Board.
William Ludwig Ullman, United States delegate to the United Nations Charter meeting at San Francisco and to the Bretton Woods Conference as Harry Dexter White's assistant.
Abraham George Silverman, US Treasury Department.
Victor Perlo, U.S. Treasury Department, did preparatory work for the International Trade Organization.

There are, of course, a LOT more that we know of and a LOT more that we still don't know.

reply

Yep, and there were all those spies in the Manhattan Project - Klaus Fuchs, Morris Cohen, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Theodore Hall, George Koval, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and many others.

They gave Stalin - one of the most evil mass murderers in history - nuclear weapons.

reply

So whom would be the evil foe if Russia wasn't there? Recall that "Russia" turned WWII around more or less by itself (no matter if you count it due to being run over, willigness to sacrifise alot of troops or bravery of the Russians going up against an enemy with superior supplies and weaponry). They brought peace, took most of the cost to then loose all the gold (and treasure) by USA coming into the war and snapping it up.
What could and should have been done was to save all available information (though this could easily have been corrupted by those winning the war/first in place or whatnot) and then formally divide it to those on the winning side according to losses retained (life over property), starting with earmarked money to fight off starvation and rebuild the nations. Then equal share for lives lost.
Any spare value would be used to remake a reserve in the countries on the loosing side to create economic stability.
It all depends on how much value it really was (formally known and informally hidden away after the war), how much it could cover.

Wanted to put thing in perspective and ending up ranting about making the end of the war just.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

The Soviets spent the first two years of the war as allies of Nazi Germany. They split Poland between them. The war would have gone much better for the allies if the Soviets hadn't spent the first two years of the war helping the Nazis.

When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in 1941, the Soviets were getting crushed. If the United States hadn't supplied them with vast amounts of everything - trucks, tanks, ground attack planes, fighter planes, food, ammunition, you name it - the Soviets would have been crushed by Nazi Germany. I'm not sure what gold and "treasure" you think the US snapped up. The US spent a great deal of money supplying the Soviets during the war and they never payed back a dime so far as I know.

The Soviets brought peace of a sort - the peace of total tyrannical rule.

reply

Attacking someone when not ready for war usually don't end well, and wasn't that a none attack pact... (if germany got to keep what they had taken and not attack further Russia would not attack germany).
They still went into the war (germany invaded because they got the information that Russia was planning to attack), and as a result of that and inferior weaponry they got steamrolled byt he military that steamrolled most other European countries.
It doesn't matter how after they engaged each other, the fact is that germany lost the war in Russia (just compare deathtolls - even WP should have that covered).

USA did supply Russia with supplies, quite alot of them (as far as i know), showing that USA did not need to let Pearl harbour happen to go into the war if they wanted to. They went in when they wanted, got what they wanted and that was it.
Well, officially i think it was 250 ton(nes) (which was alot more 100 years ago than it is now) from the salt mine and heaps of art and other treasure that were stored there, that aswell as being able to keep other nations gold "hostage" (when countries moved their gold reserves abroad to secure them). I'm not sure about this but i think most still is kept in USA and I would guess that has a great deal to do with USA's and its ally's successfull empire building. Well, holding it hostage until oil and several other markets were put under control (including opium and now last partly lithium).

If Soviet had gained the advantages that usually falls to the one winning a war (the spoils) it's certain we'd not have the same evolution in Europe and/or CCCP/Soviet that is for sure. It could have been better but probably would have been worse (as the regional normative power in the old stalinism and "leninism" often got moved further away from the citizens instead of closer as communism ideology dictates) relative to previous democratic rules. But it can't be known, maybe Soviet would have adopted Europes way moreso and landed in between - ending up creating an efficient wellfare state... (we canno't know for sure).
Recall the socio-economic segregation before the wars and the effect of higher taxes/consumption after WWII.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

So whom would be the evil foe if Russia wasn't there? Recall that "Russia" turned WWII around more or less by itself

Hmm, don't seem to remember them doing anything with Japan which I believe was half of WW2. They got to Berlin eventually but so did the allies from the west with far fewer casualties. I don't remember them doing anything at sea.

reply

@mkmdd2

Japan was not half of WWII, if you are intent on being dishonest and go solely on size of landgrabs feel free to knock yourself out. The size and strength of the military opponents you are/were facing is what matters, a small nation can be alot harder to take than a large one.

Pearl Harbour was USA's reason to go into the war in the end grabbing the propaganda win and huge amount of the spoils in relation to part in the war.
I don't think you can count Pearl Harbour as a pure falseflag attack, but since it's been exposed that some people in very key positions had knowledge about the attack in advance - enough time so that it could have been averted (if you want a source sniff one out yourself, they're getting fewer apart and not killing more of them by posting them on big forums is something i would do) i would label it as such.

Regarding what happened on the seas it was where USA had its strongpoint, guarding trade and supplies shipped.
I can't say i know the numbers of the war at sea (i've seen them but not recent enough to recall them), because I don't (and I don't mean with the credibility of wikipedia) - but considering Germany except for the submarines and airspace were pretty much landbased (in relation) and so was the military. The battle at sea was not key to other parties than the USA, UK (smaller island nations) refugees, trade and sea supply lines (not close to as key as military might on land).

I'm neither saying that USA did not lift a finger, but the military engagement in the majority of cases was protecting trade, protecting late refugees, supply lines (including assisting with military supplies overall).
If Russia hadn't gone to war most of Europe would likely be German, but if USA wouldn't have involved themselves Europe would still be Europe, though the political (read; informal influence) power now held by USA and its main ally would be under Russian control.
I'm not saying that would be better, but having the nation that won the war get the spoils is the right and fair thing (it's as simple as that).

Do i mean i want communism manifested as leninism/stalinism, no.
Does it mean i would like to see how Europe evolved if democracy (in modern context read; the wellfare state) had chance to prosper with influence from communism instead of fascism then yes. I would have liked to known how that would have turned out. Since the membership of EU a majority of countries have severely diminished their populations ownership and power through the states, that and the modelling of EU after USA in normative political issues speak volumes, just have a look at what hoops EU parlimentary members had to jump through to just read TTIP.

In a day of age where the oligoppolies of medicine mostly have been refocused onto treatments over cures, the energymarket against the powers of the status quo world evolved and the populations of Europe and other parts of the world finally starting to slowly move into action to save it, we might actually get to see what a large true democratic region looks like, one where the daily agenda is not as controlled by the few plutocrats as in today's "democracies".

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

vinicius-
Oh a screenwriter said he did that. Could he be bragging? He was a writer, protected by the 1st Amendment, and smart enough not to be shut up when "blacklisted"

Ladies and Gentlemen take my advice
Pull down your pants and slide on the ice.

reply

Bravo! Here, here!

reply

In our entire history we have never been the land of the free nor the home of the brave. That is something we aspire to. Only an idiot would spout such an absurd platitude.

reply

Then why so many Latin Americans and Asians still go to the USA? To suckle on the government's tits? No, we go because we want to earn our salaries based on production, not on labor laws - you thank God for senator Taft. You are an idiot. And, forgive me the pleonasm, a Democrat idiot. Wanna trade places and come to Brazil?

reply

Thanks for your rambling, arrogant response which, by the way, has nothing to do with my comment. Good going.

reply

Don't know who you directed yourself to but I'll bite.

@viniciusdfranca-838-344108

You should really have a look how global companies owned by some plutocrats harvest the resources of other nations (have a look at africa, the mdidle east or even south america) and don't leave more than huge problems behind (fossile fuel extraction, mining and tradepolicies to mention a few).
Brazil is corrupt, I will not blame any particular nation for it being so but the only remaining superpower (until China rises properly) has reach. Popular movies and docu's have been made about the corruption of Brazil, the point to keep in mind is that its leaders are corrupt.

To suckle on the government's tits?


If/when you pay taxes this is a natural give and take, you pay taxes and exspect others to do so to enjoy security which is brought by things like nationalised police, nationalised firefighters, nationalised healthcare, clean water (regulation against dumping toxins & chemicals) and public roads to mention just a few. So suckling on the gov. teat (which i think you were referencing) is actually accepting what is due so that you can focus on getting another job.
Yes, once you have privatised away the taxpayers value into plutocrats pockets so that illiteracy and idicoy spread with every underfunded or religious school there is you got a problem, but it's hardly solved by giving up and throwing in the towel - then it gets worse.

In short no educated person will feel good lacking purpose and no educated person will perfer accepting unemployment benefits when you can have more wealth and purpose if you work. Do not make yourself out to be so bloody naive that you would think that.

Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

Many people who had nothing to do with the Soviet Union were persecuted for their constitutionally protected personal beliefs. McCarthy & HUAC were mainly using the hysteria as a convenient vehicle to increase their own power.


"Boy that was really exciting. I bet you're a big Lee Marvin fan aren't ya."

reply

👍👍

reply

Hopefully!

"Cinema is the most beautiful fraud in the world."

reply

how about pro-you shouldn't label people that carelessly?

reply

The thing is that we now know from KGB archives that Sen. McCarthy was almost completely correct in his assertions on Soviet agents in the US government.
Everyone loves Robert Kennedy and few know he was a top staffer on the HUAC and publically and privately expressed his admiration of McCarthy.


The HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee), was different than McCarthy's committee in that dealt with the issue less black and white issues of ideological and organizational support for communism and the soviet tyranny among non government people.

So you get into the problem of range of people. From disgusting people apologizing and as a profession progandizing for the despicable, genocidal mass slavery system that was the Soviet Empire -- to people using their freedom of expression to engage in social critique of our own society, which is a healthy thing.

Look at Trumbo. He backed the Soviet-Nazi invasion of Poland and opposed any and all US support of Britain and France's attempt to fight that destruction of Poland and threat to all of central Europe in the Nazi-Soviet alliance brought.


consider what Trumbo did with "Johnnie Got His Gun." When it was in the Soviet interest for the US to stay out of the war during the time Hitler and Stalin were allies, Trumbo worked to get that isolationist work produced. As soon as Hitler attacked Russia, he reversed his position and himself buried the film adaptation

And Trumbo himself -- totally voluntarily -- named more names of people he considered unpatriotic to the FBI than Elia Kazan did under pressure!

Trumbo was not merely a socialist, not merely someone associated with communists, he was a die hard supporter of Stalin, who was the first or second biggrest mass murderer and tyrant the world has seen for hundred of years.

reply

[deleted]

Hmmm... Just seems to me they have a sense of history and don't fall for the historical revisionisms Hollywood fell for.
Playing the devil's advocate, Stalin is surely responsible for some of the largest mass murders in human history, but so is Kissinger and his then CIA director G. Bush Sr with the central/south american, middle east and south east asia policies that resulted in tens of millions of deaths, and still to this day.

I have no clue if this will be a good movie. I only know that movies such as "Johnny's got a gun"or "the bridge over river kwai" are both some of american cinema's high points in two different manners but with the same aim. And taxing this as isolationism is baffling when you see most US policies since the dawn of the 20th century. I love american culture, especially when it breeds creators like Trumbo or John Sayles, people able to question the system and history of their own country, because seriously, most major powers were built on crimes.
Why would we be able to celebrate such great work as Doctor Zjivago and not Johnny's got a gun? Those are just two sides of the same coin.

reply

Ah...moral equivalence & the 'CIA Bugaboo'; Uncle Joe orders the liquidation of class enemies by the millions & Kissinger/CIA---oooooh code words for EEEEEVUL!





Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

And Kissinger and the CIA policies result with millions getting murdered or hooked on hard drugs and a proliferation of firearms in the world, with effect still felt to this day and for a long time, sadly. And again, where did Trumbo celebrate Stalin and Hitler, please provide your sources.
I'm an avid reader of Koestler (his trilogy is amongst my fave literature, especially the third one) who maybe was the victim of some interference on one of his books becoming a hollywood anti red flick according to the questionable Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley in his partially biased Hollywood Party essay. I will the first one to denounce the horrors of Stalinism, as were all the communists in the know back in the 30ies, 40ies and 50ies. BUt again, Communism and Stalinism are two different things. It's quite easy to understand that.
Why was there a communist fad in Hollywood? Simply because the intellectuals of the 30ies saw the horrors and social violences that resulted from capitalism and war and sought alternative ways that promoted the human above the economy and the sharing of resources, still sound ideas IMHO. You don't need to be a communist party member to share the feeling. But back in the 30ies and 40ies, with the union struggles and the vertical violence of hierarchy, communist thoughts were not an ugly thing. There nevertheless probably was a few direct soviet agents in Hollywood with some very specific missions, but hey, Russia was already surrounded by US missile bases in reach of Moscow or other key cities and hadn't a tenth of the international mediatic propaganda power that the US had, nothing weird or surprising they were trying to infiltrate ideas. And lastly, Trumbo and his cohorts never did anything illegal and were absolved in 1960 by the very studios that condemned them by fear 12-13 years priorly, so I really don't get the reasoning behind current attacks. Unless just getting off by trolling lies about Trumbo celebrating Hitler and Stalin is the game played here ;)

reply

Why was there a communist fad in Hollywood? Simply because the intellectuals of the 30ies saw the horrors and social violences that resulted from capitalism and war and sought alternative ways that promoted the human above the economy and the sharing of resources, still sound ideas IMHO.


That's all you have to say.

reply

"responsible for some of the largest mass murders in human history"

Actually, objectively speaking, Stalin tops the list. He wasn't just "responsible', he directly ordered them.

reply

Absolutely, but is it a competiton? But when smart men like Kissinger deploy a global policy, they are fully aware of the consequences, make no mistake. And in the long run, who nows, he might now top Stalin in sheer amount, sadly.

reply

"Gotta wonder about people like Trumbo & others in H'wood that slavishly kissed the feet of Stalin (and other guys like Hoxha & Mengistu: not to worry, I have many in my own family too) knowing full well what a brute he was. They probably deserve a serious dose of Karma."

You couldn't be more wrong.

The evidence of the full extent of and overwhelming numbers of people who died and were imprisoned in the purges did not begin to become public knowledge until after Stalin's death in 1953. This was confirmed and denounced by Khrushchev after he took power and delivered his famous speech. Below I've included parts of an article written by Howard Fast, author of "Spartacus" and a devoted communist. who relates his experiences after realizing what few knew, the horrors of Stalin's regime.

"THE "secret" Khrushchev speech, admitting and detailing to the Soviets' Twentieth Party Congress the terrors of Stalin's rule, was published in The New York Times on June 5, 1956.
The next day the staff of the Daily Worker met. We had all read the speech. The somber terror of it was in our eyes and on our faces, and now the discussion was whether or not to print it in the Worker. In the course of that discussion, something happened that will remain with me until I die. It could only have happened then, at that time, for the truth we saw was brutal, cold, and terrible beyond description. Few of us were any longer young. Most of our adult lives had been given to this movement. All of us had made great sacrifices. Here were brilliant careers given up, success and wealth bypassed by some, respect and honor abandoned by others, all of us together in a tiny minority group that had been hounded and persecuted for a decade, all of us driven by and wedded to the splendid dream of brotherhood and justice, all of us knowing each other so well and so long. And in this group, compelled by an idea and realization that had fastened upon me, I rose in the course of the discussion and said,
"I wonder if there is any comrade here who can say now, out of what we know and have seen, that if our own Party leaders had the power of execution he or she would be alive today?"
They all looked at me, but no one broke the silence. We had come to the end of a road. and we knew by what grace we were alive. We knew it - and oh, what a terrible knowledge that was. Each one according to his talent and ability had given his life to the cause of mankind, the brotherhood of man - and we knew that for this the reward was death."

Fast was one of those like Dalton Trumbo who joined the Communist party during the war, 1943 to be exact, when the USA and Russia were allies and there were numerous charity efforts and public relations extolling the American people to support Russia, who truly bore the brunt of the Nazi onslaught and is more responsible for defeating them than any of the other allies. (no thanks to the insane Stalin though, who murdered so many millions among them the creme of the officer core in his army and navy).

At the time when they joined up, it was a patriotic thing to support Russia and why not if at the time they felt that the principals of Communism were what they believed in that they should not like any other American who wishes to join a political party join this one?

The change in policy towards Russia coincided with the end of WW2, but more importantly the death of FDR, who had he lived may have avoided all the cold war nonsense. FDR was a master politician who may have believed in the philosophy of keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. FDR had a good rapport with Stalin and would have eased the man's paranoia and could have kept him in check as he did prior to his death. FDR, knew that like himself, Stalin would not be around forever and FDR hoped to cultivate a better relationship with not just Stalin, but the Russian people.

The fact that almost overnight, Truman severely altered FDR's policies and now played hardball with Stalin, only served to encourage Stalin's paranoia and so it went.

How these men and women were to suddenly interpret the change in policy was not so easy and neither was it at the time apparent what Stalin was actually doing in his own country. The fact is that the evil of Stalin's regime did not become public knowledge until 13 years after Trumbo joined the Communist party. Had this been known of then, they would not have supported that maniac.

reply

I wish...most of my commie relatives used to regale me with what Mengistu or Hoxha would do to 'their enemies' & I'd better "watch myself" or else; As for uncle Joe, well, given an invitation to visit to Moscow to 'discuss how the party was doing' was usually known to be a 'one way ticket'.





Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

I'm very sorry for what you or your family might have gone through under the regimes of Mengistu or Hoxha. Living under threats of death is horrible beyond words.
But it has nothing at all to do with your incorrect assumptions about Trumbo, Fast and "others".

reply

No the sad thing is that THEY wanted to be the ones dealing out the punishment to the 'class enemies'.




Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

That's more unproven nonsense that you're spouting.

reply

You are MOST certainly Stalinistic in your lying assertions.

~ Native Angeleno

reply

Wow, way to go for spinning reality into a weird agenda :

And Trumbo himself -- totally voluntarily -- named more names of people he considered unpatriotic to the FBI than Elia Kazan did under pressure!


During the war, Trumbo received letters from individuals "denouncing Jews" and using Johnny to support their arguments for "an immediate negotiated peace" with Nazi Germany. What Trumbo did was report these correspondents to the FBI.
What is your goal with this course of spinning?

reply

[deleted]

OMG... Basic reading skills man! Trumbo denounced anti-semite hate mail senders to the FBI. Is rewriting history a hobby of yours or are you just a blind commie-basher?

reply

More like a freedom of conscience movie

reply

So when he followed Stalin's marching orders, like publishing anti-war schlock to keep the US from attacking Germany, that was just "freedom of conscience"? And when he and his fellow Commies changed their tune after Germany attacked the USSR, those were just coincidental attacks of freedom of conscience?

reply

US went into the war directly when they wanted. If nothing else, supplying russia with equipment and supplies illustrates that perfectly.

& @jstevens-967-140993
Communism is as dead as capitalism is, we're all heading down the same road.
What is dead is the way to get there through marxism and stalinism realised in bureacratic rule. All you have to do is look at the staggering inequality of today and you'll realise that the system can't take much more beating before it collapses, so either domestic changes are coming or another WW (with the result of WW2 i think WW3 isn't very likely due to losses made, on all accounts and the informationflow of today).


Ignorance is only a bliss if you haven't reached awareness.
My imdb posts are getting altered.

reply

No, you're a pro-Communist movie.

Native Angeleno

reply

No...The trailer is clearly pro-freedom, which includes allowing Americans who thought communism was a viable method of government to retain that opinion without prejudice. America has always claimed to be the land of the free, yet failed to live up to that motto. This movie, I hope, is addressing an instance in American history where such was true.

reply

[deleted]

He was playing for a team that wanted America to lose.


But but but but but... Cicero said BOOSH, CIA, KISSINGER EEEEVULLLL!>>>!!>!>!>



Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

reply

you can't liberalize* ideologies that threaten freedom if you want a free country

Yes you can. If you don't, you are one or the reason your country isn't free. If you do, there is the chance that your country might turn to communism, and some or all freedoms will be lost. But not by your hand.

I'm not saying this is ideal, just saying that if you want a free country it's stupid of you to destroy that possibility in order to preserve it. Especially since we are talking about peoples opinions being suppressed for freedoms sake. Might as well be giving them a piece of paper with the known ideologies people are allowed to support without prosecution. Reminds me of how Fidel did things.

If you are against something, you are allowed to speak up about it, and should be. If you are against communism, speak up, but allow communists to respond.
The same goes for any other ideology.

reply

Saying something "leads" to something is an irresolute argument. I can argue that unregulated capitalism "leads" to covert totalitarianism, in which the wealthiest buy up all aspects of control, subjecting the people to their every whim. I could even argue that we see that the Citizens United ruling allowed the corporate buyout of political candidates resulting in an extremely early, crowded Presidential field.

Trumbo was fighting on them team of freedom, not communism. McCarthyism gave the government power to marginalize any group they saw fit by labeling them communists whether they were or not. But today people can choose to be communists if they see fit. Yet, have the U.S. or U.K. become Stalinist Russia? Absolutely not. There was nothing truly to fear. They just used fear to scare people, divide people, and serve their own interests. It's the oldest political tactic in the book.

And if that doesn't get you, imagine if a powerful group didn't like what you did or said, and framed you with covert communists interest, ruining your life and career... would you think it was right? In that moment, you'd beg for guys like Trumbo.

Check out my Video Work on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/teriekwilliams)

reply

Trumbo was an avowed communist and a big fan of Stalin. He never fought for freedom, but for the reds - if you think there was freedom in the Soviet Bloc, well... Get your facts straight.

reply

Nothing in my statement said Trumbo was or was not a communist. I don't care if he is or not. In America, you have the right to be a fan of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, or who the hell ever.

There are avowed communists living in the United States right now. There are communist political parties and groups here right now. Is the U.S. a communist nation? Is Stalin's picture hanging in any government office? No. So all that blacklisting wasn't just un-American and unconstitutional, it was unnecessary.

Although I don't trust the American people with much, I do trust that communism is not in the collective character of this nation or it's citizens, and I have never had a fear of a communist, not a single one here or in Russia. And the truth is they didn't either. They were just playing chess with people's lives.

Check out my Video Work on Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/teriekwilliams)

reply

Please provide an actual Trumbo quote where he celebrates Stalin (or Hitler for the matter, hahaha). I've actually read the man's published books and fail to see anything of the sort.
The Soviet Bloc certainly wasn't about freedom. But the ideology behind communism certainly was. As with capitalism, it's the long run side effects and results of philosophical and economical theories applied as political policies that collide with the weakness of individuals.
Trumba was a communist in reaction to the social decline he saw around him, not as a mindless supporter of a team against another, it's quite obvious in all of his books.
And remember, it's not about "winning" but about being happy with happy people around you :)

reply