RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz

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

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

Message

HypnoticDan -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/14/2008 9:30:42 PM)
Wait wait wait, hold up, wait. Let me see if I got this straight. If Bush had his way he would have sent a fleet of B-52s to drop heavy munitions on a compound of a few dozen guards and several thousand gypsies, jews, homosexuals, and other "undesirables"? I can see the card now: "Thanks for saving us the trouble! A. H. & Friends"

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/14/2008 11:05:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent You need to read more, perhaps, Caitlyn. Very intelligent response. [;)] What you know, is what other people insist was well known by top leadership ... and nothing more. You can read until your hair falls out ... and you are still not reading anything, directly from the source at the top. Just wait a minute, Caitlyn, while I raise Churchill from his grave and have him give you the answer.........mind you, I suspect this won't be sufficient...."he's been dead 60 years, what does he know?".

samboct -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/15/2008 6:07:33 AM)
Hypnotic- Turns out that was Roosevelt's point..... Sam

caitlyn -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/15/2008 9:49:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Just wait a minute, Caitlyn, while I raise Churchill from his grave and have him give you the answer.........mind you, I suspect this won't be sufficient...."he's been dead 60 years, what does he know?". No, had Mr. Churchill taken a public stance, or if he could now, that would be sufficient. You, and one other, seem to be wanting to make my statement in to some sort of denial that they knew. Thats not the case at all. All I stated, is that we really don't know, from their own mouth, or pen, exactly what was know, or what conclusions were reached at the time. Given that, a certain element of guess-work becomes involved. We know the material was presented. That's a matter of public record. What we are unsure of is, a) how the material was presented, b) what conclusions were reached (and by default also presented) by the people presenting the material, c) what conclusions were reached by the final authority, as they viewed the material (and heard the conclusions reached by those presenting), d) how much questionable information the presenters, had presented in the past, which just has to be a factor. I get the point that you are "convinced" ... but it's easy for you to be convinced, because you aren't the one making the decision. At some point, the absolute fact that virtually every person in high authority on the Allied side, seems to have gone down the exact same path on this issue, must count for something.

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/15/2008 2:19:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent Just wait a minute, Caitlyn, while I raise Churchill from his grave and have him give you the answer.........mind you, I suspect this won't be sufficient...."he's been dead 60 years, what does he know?". No, had Mr. Churchill taken a public stance, or if he could now, that would be sufficient. You, and one other, seem to be wanting to make my statement in to some sort of denial that they knew. Thats not the case at all. All I stated, is that we really don't know, from their own mouth, or pen, exactly what was know, or what conclusions were reached at the time. Given that, a certain element of guess-work becomes involved. We know the material was presented. That's a matter of public record. What we are unsure of is, a) how the material was presented, b) what conclusions were reached (and by default also presented) by the people presenting the material, c) what conclusions were reached by the final authority, as they viewed the material (and heard the conclusions reached by those presenting), d) how much questionable information the presenters, had presented in the past, which just has to be a factor. I get the point that you are "convinced" ... but it's easy for you to be convinced, because you aren't the one making the decision. At some point, the absolute fact that virtually every person in high authority on the Allied side, seems to have gone down the exact same path on this issue, must count for something. I appreciate your focus on primary sources and empirical evidence, of course, but not your lofty position amounting to "I study history, I'll tell you all about research". Churchill speaking of the Nazi regime before the House of Commons in 1942: the most bestial, the most squalid and the most senseless of all their offences, namely, the mass deportation of Jews from France, with the pitiful horrors attendant upon the calculated and final scattering of families. This tragedy fills me with astonishment as well as with indignation, and it illustrates as nothing else can the utter degradation of the Nazi nature and theme, and degradation of all who lend themselves to its unnatural and perverted passions. You'll appreciate he understood that something was afoot. Churchill to Eden on viewing a map of Auschwitz (including gas chambers), smuggled out by two escapees, and brought to London by Jewish leaders: Get anything out of the Air Force you can, and invoke me if necessary. It's fair to say he was calling for action from our Air Force.

Politesub53 -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/15/2008 3:13:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn All well known information ... but doesn't really answer the question, or speak to the point. What we don't know, is what waves of information, this stuff washed in on ... how much was real, and how much was, less so. Obviously Mr. Churchill didn't look at all 65K bits of intelligence. It is not clear exactly what was presented to him, because he never formally discussed it. Obviously those after the fact, will want to paint a specific picture. I don't see a line of ex-agents, lining up to say they knew about these camps, and kept it to themselves. That there is no formal stance, is the only point. The rest is armchair quarterbacking. Not true Caitlyn. As NG states, Churchill did know and demanded the RAF act. This was also stated in a book by Churchills official biographer. The RAF asked the USAF for assistance as our bombers didnt have enough range. This is from Encyclopedia Brittanica. "Jewish Agency officials appealed to British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who told his foreign secretary Anthony Eden on July 7, “Get anything out of the Air Force you can and invoke me if necessary.” Yet the British never carried through with the bombing. Requests were also made to American officials to bomb Auschwitz. Similarly they were asked to come to the aid of the Poles in the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 by bombing the city. Yet the Americans denied the requests to bomb Auschwitz, citing several reasons: military resources could not be diverted from the war effort (as they were to support the non-Jewish Poles); bombing Auschwitz might prove ineffective; and bombing might provoke even more vindictive German action. On the other hand, the Americans did not claim that Auschwitz was outside the range of the most effective American bombers.

samboct -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/16/2008 7:50:05 AM)
I think Roosevelt and Churchill got told the same thing- not technically feasible for the reasons I've outlined in my previous posts. Churchill was also notorious for trying to think outside the box and came up with some wacko ideas. (I think the sawdust ship idea was backed by him IIRC from reading his WWII history.) Do you think the World Jewish Congress would have been happy with that answer? I kinda doubt it, which is why we have this nonsensical debate running today. This debate is akin to wondering what a 747 could do, if it saw the Titanic hit an iceberg. Leaders of countries don't like to admit they're powerless in the face of a heartbreaking situation, but that's exactly what happened here. Ordering what might have been a futile raid would have decreased morale of the airmen who'd taken some of the heaviest casualties of the war (prior to '45, the air service was the riskiest branch of the Allied military- although the German U-boat service had the highest casualty rates overall.) and it would have called for a lot of planning and resources- long distance penetrations always did. Given the information that they had at the time, ifs very hard to argue that both Roosevelt and Churchill's staff made anything other than a prudent decision. Sam

caitlyn -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/16/2008 12:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent I appreciate your focus on primary sources and empirical evidence, of course, but not your lofty position amounting to "I study history, I'll tell you all about research". Well, first it was the read more line ... now it's putting things in quotes that were never actually said. The thread isn't, and never has been, about what they knew or didn't know ... it was about the potential bombing of concentration camps. My point was/is that public stances were not taken by high authority, on the bombing of concentration camps. This is clearly going nowhere. I have always enjoyed discussion with you, but this time, I'm left thinking ... Who are you, and want have you done with NorthernGent? [;)]

Stephann -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/16/2008 1:23:24 PM)
Something gone unnoticed, and worth a thought, is the nature of intelligence. If a concentration camp was bombed by anyone (US or British) it would have demonstrated an intelligence leak on the part of the Germans. Part of the use of intelligence, is acting in a fashion that doesn't give away the fact that you know what you do. For example: During WWII, the Germans used supply submarines called 'Milch cows' to resupply their U-boats. When the Allies were able to start cracking the codes used by the Germans, they could learn the exact locations of things (such as the Milch.) Yet, if every Milch is just approached and sunk, the Germans would clearly realize their codes have been compromised and completely change coding systems. So, the decision to act, or not act on intelligence isn't just based on if it "seems like a good idea." The risk of making it obvious to your enemy that you have spies deep inside could mean the difference between winning, or losing the war. Besides, if Auschwitz had been bombed, it wouldn't just be the Germans who would have suffered. The inmates would also have died, and new concentration camps would simply have been opened. Stephan

samboct -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/17/2008 9:54:53 AM)
"The thread isn't, and never has been, about what they knew or didn't know ... it was about the potential bombing of concentration camps. My point was/is that public stances were not taken by high authority, on the bombing of concentration camps." Actually Caitlyn, I think the thread is about Bush's comment where he second guessed previous people in the job- AGAIN! This remark has all the hallmarks of a Bush decision- ignore what smarter, saner heads have done before, and go in shooting. Clearly his daddy had a good reason for not deposing Saddam Hussein in gulf war I- simply because there was no good alternative- which we are now finding out to an ever spiralling price tag. Here Bush is second guessing Roosevelt and Churchill who both probably got told that bombing Auschwitz wasn't technically feasible, and might accomplish little- Roosevelt's comment on the subject to I think McCloy or perhaps Morgenthau- but again, Bush's comment ignores their thought process and again suggests going in with guns blazing. It hasn't worked in Iraq, and it probably wouldn't have worked back then either. It also shows that Bush is a moron, he hasn't learned from his past mistakes, since he's clearly comfortable repeating them. Stephan's comment about secrecy also has a point- the escapers from Auschwitz even changed their name to protect those that they left behind. It's very hard to second guess the intelligence community- they like thinking of themselves as important, but often their plans are so fanciful or convoluted that they accomplish little in real terms. Most of the targets of WWII were pretty easy to figure out where the info came from, although there were some Mosquito raids on Gestapo prisons (yes, the movies on the subject have a basis in reality.) that clearly required a lot of intelligence work. Thread digression- the most effective Nazi intelligence came from a Swiss insurance executive who fed the Germans the sailing times of convoys (hey, stuff has to be insured, and the Swiss had money.) On the US side, there was a rogue Captain- Daniel V. Gallery, who's pretty adept at spinning a tale. He was commanding an escort carrier on patrol duty in the North Atlantic and came up with the idea of capturing a German sub. He ran this idea across his superiors who nixed it. Gallery being a headstrong SOB, went ahead and did it anyhow- and wondered why he wasn't feted as a hero. (The sub in question is U-505 and can be seen in the Chicago Institute of Technology- I still haven't gotten there yet.) The reason was simple- and it has to do with the Enigma codes that the Polish mathematicians cracked at Bletchley Park-since we were reading some of the German radio traffic, we were terrified they were going to figure it out- and if they knew we'd captured a sub, they'd have changed the codes (and the machine) in a heartbeat- hence the whole incident was hushed up. Sam

Politesub53 -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/17/2008 10:36:07 AM)
Sam you are correct, the U505 was captured in 1944. The Britsh had already captured the U110 and the German cypher machine and code books in 1941. Rather than tow the boat into harbour they sunk it to keep it secret. Churchill didnt even tell Roosevelt about it until early in 1942.

Justme696 -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/17/2008 12:35:49 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. \|Thje cremetoria,, the few in the camp had to less capacity..the corpses were burned on several places and in ovens in the woods. Actually Auschwitz was a collection of places....if they would have bombed it....they propably made a new whole in the ground and used it as offen. And besides that....Hitler would have thanked the USA.. find it weird for Bush to say such

Feric -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/18/2008 12:57:46 PM)
As a matter of fact, quite a few people knew about the KZs (concentration camps). One of Winston Spencer Churchill's friends infiltrated a camp as early as 1936, and actually returned with photographs which Churchill distributed to members of Parliament to try to persuade them to take action against Hitler. The isolationists, who were in power at the time, ignored him. Foreign correspondent William Shirer, in Berlin for CBS Radio, had reported on the camps early in 1935. Shirer also had many reliable sources who reported what was happening, including (in 1938) the systematic mass-murders of asylum inhabitants and other mental defectives. The KZs were horrific, but they were hardly secret.

Justme696 -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/18/2008 1:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity 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. The Russians (afther the war) had 30.000 American soldiers in camps (comming from German prissons). Most died later. The classified papers were released this year (or end last year). Would you have bombed them too?

NorthernGent -> RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1/19/2008 2:37:27 AM)
General reply: Even though the British had a map of Auschwitz (smuggled out by two escapees), they could not pinpoint the gas chambers.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.515625E-02