RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz

RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:31:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist He was correct, there are still very few jews in europe to this very day. What constitutes "very few" in your mind? England and France have sizable Jewish populations.

Leatherist -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum There's a book called, "What We Knew" by Professor Eric Johnson. 'Doesn't matter. There's nothing the Americans could have done about it, assuming the will existed. Even if they just bombed the rail lines or reduced the crematoria to rubble-Hitler was so bent on eliminating them all that he was still diverting important resources to transport and kill jews-up to the bitter end. Even at the cost of his own civilians and military. If they hadn't of died there-it would have been the old way-with a bullet in the head in a field someplace.

trappedinamuseum -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:34:57 PM)
This could just be semantics, but genocide refers to the extermination of a single population, culture, group etc. The Holocaust targeted more than just those of the Jewish population; millions of the Romany, Polish, and other kinds of people were murdered as well. Is that considered genocide, or mass murder? Also, Hitler wasn't as efficient as you think. True, there are few people of Jewish descent in Europe, but, many were deported or left after the Nuremburg laws were put into place and before the "extermination" policy. They weren't exterminated; they just left.

Leatherist -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:35:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist He was correct, there are still very few jews in europe to this very day. What constitutes "very few" in your mind? England and France have sizable Jewish populations. Middle europe, poland. Checkoslovakia. Parts of eastern russia. That was where the main brunt fell.

Leatherist -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:36:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum This could just be semantics, but genocide refers to the extermination of a single population, culture, group etc. The Holocaust targeted more than just those of the Jewish population; millions of the Romany, Polish, and other kinds of people were murdered as well. Is that considered genocide, or mass murder? Also, Hitler wasn't as efficient as you think. True, there are few people of Jewish descent in Europe, but, many were deported or left after the Nuremburg laws were put into place and before the "extermination" policy. They weren't exterminated; they just left. And they were able to come back. I was pointing out the efficiency with which those who did not have the time or resources to flee were dealt with.

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum There's a book called, "What We Knew" by Professor Eric Johnson. 'Doesn't matter. There's nothing the Americans could have done about it, assuming the will existed. Even if they just bombed the rail lines or reduced the crematoria to rubble-Hitler was so bent on eliminating them all that he was still diverting important resources to transport and kill jews-up to the bitter end. Even at the cost of his own civilians and military. If they hadn't of died there-it would have been the old way-with a bullet in the head in a field someplace. It's well documented that it was known in Britain, and, as our secret services are closely linked, I'd be surprised if the US authorities weren't aware. German resistance groups passed info and photos on to the British. The invasion didn't happen until 1944 for a very good reason - logistically, it wasn't possible.

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:39:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist Middle europe, poland. Checkoslovakia. Parts of eastern russia. Well, yeah, that's true enough, but the above doesn't constitute Europe. Anyway, would you stay in a place where all you can get to eat is dumplings and cabbage soup?

Leatherist -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:40:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum There's a book called, "What We Knew" by Professor Eric Johnson. 'Doesn't matter. There's nothing the Americans could have done about it, assuming the will existed. Even if they just bombed the rail lines or reduced the crematoria to rubble-Hitler was so bent on eliminating them all that he was still diverting important resources to transport and kill jews-up to the bitter end. Even at the cost of his own civilians and military. If they hadn't of died there-it would have been the old way-with a bullet in the head in a field someplace. It's well documented that it was known in Britain, and, as our secret services are closely linked, I'd be surprised if the US authorities weren't aware. German resistance groups passed info and photos on to the British. The invasion didn't happen until 1944 for a very good reason - logistically, it wasn't possible. I realize that and agree. The military on the allied side had bigger fish to fry-the German Reich. Why bomb a concentration camp when you needed to take out ball bearing production? Especially with the huge losses being taken by bomber groups over those targets-makes no sense.

Leatherist -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:42:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist Middle europe, poland. Checkoslovakia. Parts of eastern russia. Well, yeah, that's true enough, but the above doesn't constitute Europe. Anyway, would you stay in a place where all you can get to eat is dumplings and cabbage soup? I've simply read the history. It's documented, not much to argue with when you can just look at census records.

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:43:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum True, there are few people of Jewish descent in Europe, Not true. England and France have sizeable Jewish populations, and I believe the German Jewish population has increased dramatically in the last 15 years. quote: ORIGINAL: trappedinamuseum but, many were deported or left after the Nuremburg laws were put into place and before the "extermination" policy. They weren't exterminated; they just left. They didn't simply "leave". They were not wanted by the Eastern Europeans. Many of the Jews who survived the holocaust and left for Israel, didn't want to go; they were Czech/Hungarian/Slovak etc first, Jewish second - they were forced to leave.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 12:54:31 PM)
The theory is that the allies did not feel it was strategically neccesary to divert military resources to take out 1 camp when winning the war would end the camp's operation anyway. The first real claim that the allies knew about Auschwitz was in late August 1944. The D-Day invasion had just been completed and the allies were making good progress on the western front. The Soviets were putting pressure on Warsaw in the east. So the allies believed that crushing Hitler was more important. Now the government's official position at the time was that bombing that camp would be too risky and had a low chance of success. But in late 1944, Hitler basically lost all air supremacy. His air force had been severely depleated. And the allies were choking his oil supplies. It is unlikely the Nazis had any ability to stop an allied bombing campaign of Auschwitz. So I dont buy that excuse.

Leatherist -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 1:10:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 The theory is that the allies did not feel it was strategically neccesary to divert military resources to take out 1 camp when winning the war would end the camp's operation anyway. The first real claim that the allies knew about Auschwitz was in late August 1944. The D-Day invasion had just been completed and the allies were making good progress on the western front. The Soviets were putting pressure on Warsaw in the east. So the allies believed that crushing Hitler was more important. Now the government's official position at the time was that bombing that camp would be too risky and had a low chance of success. But in late 1944, Hitler basically lost all air supremacy. His air force had been severely depleated. And the allies were choking his oil supplies. It is unlikely the Nazis had any ability to stop an allied bombing campaign of Auschwitz. So I dont buy that excuse. Yes. I think it just didn't really matter to them at the time. Of course, it's terribly important NOW-with the jewish state of Israel looking at us with a jaundiced eye.

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 1:21:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Now the government's official position at the time was that bombing that camp would be too risky and had a low chance of success. But in late 1944, Hitler basically lost all air supremacy. His air force had been severely depleated. And the allies were choking his oil supplies. It is unlikely the Nazis had any ability to stop an allied bombing campaign of Auschwitz. So I dont buy that excuse. OK so the allies bombed Auschwitz. What about Buchenwald, Daschau, Ravensbruck and the rest? http://www.mtsu.edu/~baustin/holocamp.html Bombing Auschwitz and not all the others would be meaningless and many of the camps weren't known to the allies even if (and they probably did) know what was going on. In the meantime, the main aim of winning the war would have been diverted and the Soviets were advancing west rather quickly. The main aim of the allies was to meet the Soviets as far to the eat as possible.

Moloch -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 3:13:13 PM)
Who cares if bush said that? The man is right!!! I dont think any one here can TRULY imagine what it means to be STARVED while being worked to death. I would much rather die in a bomb blast.

Level -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/11/2008 3:23:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Leatherist Like, karma is a bitch. It always comes back around eventually-no matter how powerful you THINK you are. Arrogance often equals idiocy. Truer words were never spoken.

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/12/2008 4:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch Who cares if bush said that? The man is right!!! I dont think any one here can TRULY imagine what it means to be STARVED while being worked to death. I would much rather die in a bomb blast. I think you'd have to be in the situation to make an informed choice; I'd imagine the survival instinct would kick in and you'd cling on to any hope, which would make being worked senseless a more attractive option than having your head taken off your shoulders by a bomb.

meatcleaver -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/12/2008 5:01:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch Who cares if bush said that? The man is right!!! I dont think any one here can TRULY imagine what it means to be STARVED while being worked to death. I would much rather die in a bomb blast. I'm with NG. Given the choice between being blown up or given the inaccuracy of bombing, maimed and left wounded and in agony, you would probably choose the hope of escape, no matter how improbable. Let's be honest, many victims went quietly to their death because of the capacity of human bengs to hope beyond hope that they will survive. But then, maybe you are super human and not one of your average 'feet of clay' normal human beings. Oh, and Bush was just talking his normal gibberish. I don't know why people believe politicians when they wear their emotions on their sleeve, especially when they are quite happy to order the bombing of innocent people themselves.

xBullx -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/12/2008 5:07:43 AM)
-fast reply- Most perceived experts on anything live within the realm of hindsight ........... Bull It is said that often times the historians claims as to "what we knew" was the prognosticators speculations .......... Bull Where are all the experts when the job has yet to be accomplished? ......... Bull Just a few words to ponder on.

caitlyn -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/12/2008 5:54:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xBullx Most perceived experts on anything live within the realm of hindsight ........... Bull It is said that often times the historians claims as to "what we knew" was the prognosticators speculations .......... Bull Where are all the experts when the job has yet to be accomplished? ......... Bull I agree completely. Can anyone here, categorically state that Churchill, FDR, Stalin, Ike, etc ... took a documented stance (documented by them, as opposed to someone selling a book), on any of the intelligence we now know existed at the time?

Sanity -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/12/2008 6:03:26 AM)
It was a death factory, of course we should have bombed it - just like we bombed their every other factory. quote: ORIGINAL: Moloch Who cares if bush said that? The man is right!!! I dont think any one here can TRULY imagine what it means to be STARVED while being worked to death. I would much rather die in a bomb blast.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625