At a skim, none of that seems to support your position. Could you quote relevant bits?
Well, I think it's justified, but it's justified if
you actually make a GNU distribution of Linux ... the
same way that I think that "Red Hat Linux" is fine, or
"SuSE Linux" or "Debian Linux", because if you actually
make your own distribution of Linux, you get to name the
thing, but calling Linux in general "GNU Linux" I think
is just ridiculous.[34]
[34] ^ Moore, J.T.S. (Produced, Written, and Directed) (2001). Revolution OS (DVD).
Every damned other thing in there seems to argue precisely the opposite.
I defy you to find anything Stallman said (as opposed to characterizations by others, which could easily be deliberate or accidental mischaracterizations) that implies a position that a system without GNU code (or with insignificant amounts) running Linux should be called GNU/Linux. If such exists, then I will agree with you that Stallman once held the absurd position you attribute to him.
Edited to add:
"It came up in the documentary because there had been a huge firestorm over RMS saying everyone should call it GNU/Linux."
I agree that there was a huge firestorm over RMS saying everyone should call it GNU/Linux. I disagree with what that "it" refers to.
Also, LOC is a really poor metric for comparing the importance of a piece of software for a system. Many applications have far more LOC than the entire OS itself, and you wouldn't call that app more essential than the OS.
GNOME, incidentally, is GNU[1]. Coreutils is not the sole contribution of the GNU project to a (typical desktop or server) Linux system.
[1]: Certainly currently - I am less confident it started that way, but the G seems to stand for GNU so that's some evidence that it did.
Also, Linux isn't GNU, but it is GPL.
People get annoyed at the RMS self-promotion, or GNU promotion, but that stuff is important.