Bush: We should have bombed Auschwitz

[kengs333]

As if we didn't need more proof that GWB is an idiot. This is such a non-issue given the nature of strategic bombing at the time, what these people claim should have been done could not have been accomplished.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3331308.ece

Edited January 13, 2008 by kengs333

[Guest American Woman]

No one dislikes Bush more than I do, but his comment in no way idiotic. It's also far from being a "non-issue."

Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev, quoted Bush as saying the U.S. should have "bombed it." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush referred to the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, not the camp itself, where between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany.

The issue of bombing the Nazi death camps or the rail lines leading to them has been debated for years — and the lack of action was interpreted by some as a sign of Allied indifference.

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz toward the end of World War II from escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Some experts note only late in the war did the United States have the capability to bomb the infamous camp in occupied Poland, and also faced a moral dilemma since such an operation could kill thousands of prisoners. Even Jewish leaders at the time struggled with the issue and many concluded that loss of innocent lives under such circumstances was justifiable.

link

I don't think anyone could go to Auschwitz and not be affected. Sounds to me as if Bush was expressing regret that more wasn't done to save some of the lives that were lost there, and who wouldn't go there and feel that way?

Edited January 13, 2008 by American Woman

[Oleg Bach]

No one dislikes Bush more than I do, but his comment in no way idiotic. It's also far from being a "non-issue."

Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev, quoted Bush as saying the U.S. should have "bombed it." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush referred to the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, not the camp itself, where between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany.

The issue of bombing the Nazi death camps or the rail lines leading to them has been debated for years — and the lack of action was interpreted by some as a sign of Allied indifference.

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz toward the end of World War II from escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Some experts note only late in the war did the United States have the capability to bomb the infamous camp in occupied Poland, and also faced a moral dilemma since such an operation could kill thousands of prisoners. Even Jewish leaders at the time struggled with the issue and many concluded that loss of innocent lives under such circumstances was justifiable.

link

I don't think anyone could go to Auschwitz and not be affected. Sounds to me as if Bush was expressing regret that more wasn't done to save some of the lives that were lost there, and who wouldn't go there and feel that way?

No one should hate George W. How could you bother. Remember when he was over heard while talking to Blair and said "They have to stop doing that sh*t" - that is his base approach...You would never hear Mr.Bush say - "But why are they doing that sh*t, find out what the problem is and lets have a talk with them" - this overly simplistic approach shows that he really is not very inquisitive by nature - as far as bombing something - Maybe he's of the video game generation and is disconnected from the fact that there are real people involved.

His "shock and awh" game - was a prime example of technology seperating reality from fantacy. I really don't think that Bush means ill. He's just a person that is conditioned a certain way and does not realize what death and mayhem and suffer is. For a man who's biggest crisis personally was the embarrassment that came though drinking - and to fixate on his alcoholism - shows that he is no Winston Churchill - who drunk or sober could manage well.

As for the horrors of Auschwitz, maybe Bush who's grand father may have indulged in anti-semitism created a son and grand son much like the Queens grand son who dressed up in a Nazi uniform to go party in - That little incident made you wonder what the kids hear at home - Is George an anti-semite? He might just well be - we will eventually see the abandonment of Israel by the Amerians now that they have had their way with her and she is becoming a liablity. America never supported the Jewish state for the right reasons anyway - they just used them. Anti-semitism prevailed in Canada during ww2 as it did in America - Ironically those anglos that used the Jewish thinkers and orgainizers are ingrates..seeing the master bureacratic Jews did all their dirty work for them - I smell the betrayal of Israel in the future by America - Just hope that all works out...Maybe now - all parties involved in the feuds in the middle east will be reasonable - finally.

[Topaz]

No one dislikes Bush more than I do, but his comment in no way idiotic. It's also far from being a "non-issue."

Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev, quoted Bush as saying the U.S. should have "bombed it." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush referred to the train tracks leading to Auschwitz, not the camp itself, where between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany.

The issue of bombing the Nazi death camps or the rail lines leading to them has been debated for years — and the lack of action was interpreted by some as a sign of Allied indifference.

The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz toward the end of World War II from escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort.

Some experts note only late in the war did the United States have the capability to bomb the infamous camp in occupied Poland, and also faced a moral dilemma since such an operation could kill thousands of prisoners. Even Jewish leaders at the time struggled with the issue and many concluded that loss of innocent lives under such circumstances was justifiable.

link

I don't think anyone could go to Auschwitz and not be affected. Sounds to me as if Bush was expressing regret that more wasn't done to save some of the lives that were lost there, and who wouldn't go there and feel that way?

If that's true then why is he desperating trying to bomb Iran before leaving office. Does he realize how many MORE people he will be killed??? www.bourque.org He wants the Arabs allies to help him. Why doesn't he get their help and find OBL instead or go play in the sand while planning his library.

[Oleg Bach]

If that's true then why is he desperating trying to bomb Iran before leaving office. Does he realize how many MORE people he will be killed??? www.bourque.org He wants the Arabs allies to help him. Why doesn't he get their help and find OBL instead or go play in the sand while planning his library.

Bin Laden is either in Pakistan under the auspice of that little military dictator who plays the Americans for all he can get. Or - He simply went home to Saudi Arabia and is hiding under his uncles bed. The Bushites know where he is. They have a problem. Because secretly Bin Ladin is the favourite son of the Saudis - and the people who have been trading with the Saudis for the last 50 years..have a rule - family first - my son right or wrong. How could the current American administrators deal with Saudi Arabia appropriately and justly when buisness comes before the good of the American people and the world for that matter. I suppose you do not - as in all mafia familes mess with the children - and Bin Laden is the child -who has made his mark - having an adventure..He is legendary and totally approved of by the spoiled Saudis..so we have an impass..

I am sure that when this 911 disaster took place that the Saudis asked themselves one question. Will the American oil eilte tolerate the killing of their own citizens and would they be safe to have some fun? It's plain that the Saudis know that the Bushites don't give a damn for the average citizen. The Saudis are loyal to the extended family that is their nation - Their American counter parts are not loyal or protective of anyone - the Saudis know that - no one has addressed the terrorist financiers that facilitated the attack - The Saudis.

[Guest American Woman]

If that's true then why is he desperating trying to bomb Iran before leaving office. Does he realize how many MORE people he will be killed??? www.bourque.org He wants the Arabs allies to help him. Why doesn't he get their help and find OBL instead or go play in the sand while planning his library.

Wanting to "confront the problem" isn't synonymous with "desperately trying to bomb Iran" by any means. A leader of any nation has to confront problems worldwide; they can't sit by doing nothing. I don't believe he wants to bomb Iran, I think he wants the world to put pressure on Iran.

[Tawasakm]

It would seem to me that we can be a little too quick to judge at times. I am NOT a fan of George W Bush but can clearly see that in this instance he was giving his opinion on the course of action that would have saved more lives. He may be right or he may be wrong in his assessment but there are plenty (some included within the linked article) who agree and have valid reasons for doing so - such as taking out the rail lines leading in and perhaps trying to hit the actual death chambers.

Hard for me to know if that was really viable with the technology and resources they had available but I can't discredit Bush for holding such a view on the matter. The article also stated that his eyes welled with tears on two occasions - it is good to see such a human and compassionate response from him.

If we disagree with EVERYTHING he does then would that make us blind in effect?

[Carinthia]

It would seem to me that we can be a little too quick to judge at times. I am NOT a fan of George W Bush but can clearly see that in this instance he was giving his opinion on the course of action that would have saved more lives.

Have we forgotten that this is the man that has just finished killing 66,000 innocent Iragis? And all in the name of taking out one man, Saddam Hussien. Bush is as out of touch with reality as Hitler was.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Carinthia

[sharkman]

Have we forgotten that this is the man that has just finished killing 66,000 innocent Iragis? And all in the name of taking out one man, Saddam Hussien. Bush is as out of touch with reality as Hitler was.

Yes, with the one smallish point being that Bush didn't kill 6,000,000 innocent Jews as Hitler did (no idea how many innocent civilians were killed by Hitler in the course of sacking Europe and parts of Africa, but I'm pretty damn sure it was more than 66,000).

This, by far, is the stupidest Hitler comment I've ever read.

[bush_cheney2004]

Have we forgotten that this is the man that has just finished killing 66,000 innocent Iragis? And all in the name of taking out one man, Saddam Hussien. Bush is as out of touch with reality as Hitler was.

You mean it was OK to kill thousands of "guilty" Iraqis? Before Bush, it was quite acceptable to sanction and "kill" many thousands more in the name of "taking out" (euphemism for killing) Saddam Hussein and his "WMD". OK to kill Serbs to "take out" Milosevic in the name of "Human Rights". OK to kill still more "innocent" Iraqis for spoiled rich Kuwatis and their oil?

Hmmm...all OK until George W. Bush comes along.

And very much OK for Canadians to kill because the blame will be on America and their president. That's why nobody is interested in what Ottawa would say about bombing Auschwitz.

[Wilber]

Forget your animosity toward Bush for a second, he is probably right. According to the article, a lot of people were calling for it at the time. Churchill was even if favour. Bottom line is about the only way the allies could have had any impact on slowing down the death camps was to use air strikes. Who knows how many lives they may or may not have saved but the option list was really really short. Instead, we stood by and did nothing.

The point was made by a so called Holocaust historian that the Germans might have just shot them instead. If he is really a historian he would know that a big reason the death camps were set up in the first place was because they found shooting to be too slow and too expensive on such a huge scale.

[DogOnPorch]

As a bit of a side-note...the Soviets did nothing as well...and they were in a better position to actually do something about the death camps in Poland. When the Warsaw Revolt went into full swing, the Soviets took a break from their offensive (in order to refit and resupply, apparently) rather than help out with the revolt. When it was crushed, the offensive resumed.

----------------------------------------------------------

There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.

---Panzer General Heinz Guderian

[bush_cheney2004]

...The point was made by a so called Holocaust historian that the Germans might have just shot them instead. If he is really a historian he would know that a big reason the death camps were set up in the first place was because they found shooting to be too slow and too expensive on such a huge scale.

Indeed....anybody who just watched "The World at War" television serion in the early 1970's would have known that. The Holocaust has become an industry unto itself for many of these pretenders.

[Wilber]

As a bit of a side-note...the Soviets did nothing as well...and they were in a better position to actually do something about the death camps in Poland. When the Warsaw Revolt went into full swing, the Soviets took a break from their offensive (in order to refit and resupply, apparently) rather than help out with the revolt. When it was crushed, the offensive resumed.

----------------------------------------------------------

There are no desperate situations, there are only desperate people.

---Panzer General Heinz Guderian

Considering Stalin's history, hardly surprising.

[DogOnPorch]

Considering Stalin's history, hardly surprising.

Yes, indeed....and the Soviet generals did curse Stalin behind their backs for having to miss an ideal time to cross the Vistula in force. The Polish and remaining few Jewish partisans had rolled out the red carpet...so to speak... It was a bloody crossing later on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I was too heavy to be a jockey and too honest to be a producer, so I became a writer.

---Leon Uris

[M.Dancer]

Have we forgotten that this is the man that has just finished killing 66,000 innocent Iragis? And all in the name of taking out one man, Saddam Hussien. Bush is as out of touch with reality as Hitler was.

Did he just finish? Wow.....most thought he would have:

1)Finished a long time ago

2)Taken at least another week.

[DogOnPorch]

Indeed....anybody who just watched "The World at War" television serion in the early 1970's would have known that. The Holocaust has become an industry unto itself for many of these pretenders.

Good ol' Sir Lawrence Olivier. I still have 'World At War' on tape somewhere. Good history. YouTube has a few episodes...

Burma '42-'44 for example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrB44--ePBM

------------------------------------------------

I suppose you can say I became an odd-job man.

---Lord Louis Mountbatten

[Rue]

As if we didn't need more proof that GWB is an idiot. This is such a non-issue given the nature of strategic bombing at the time, what these people claim should have been done could not have been accomplished.

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3331308.ece

I support AmercGodesses comments and have this to say to you. The debate as to whether the railway lines leading to the death camps as well as the camps themselves should have been blown up is a credible debate.

Some feel the harm that continued was greater then any harm that would have happened by blowing up the camps or at least tracks.

You Sir once again make remarks based on what other then your need to insult someone to make you feel smug and superior? Bush showed compassion. His comments were not meant literally but as a genuine comment of grief and regret. No one took his comments as anything but a man showing genuine sadness and nothing he said was not openly questioned by Churchill, Eisenhower and many militrary generals after the war.

As for your comment the bombing could not have been accomplished you are absolutely and completely wrong and make a comment with no reference for your assumption repeating your continued exercise of uttering your subjective remarks with no basis for them.

All you have to do is read Keng. Its public record. The decision not to bomb was purely political-no leader wanted to be the one to kill innocent victims for a greater good and if you can not understand why that was a decision they would not make Keng its time you once in your life be quiet and read a history book.

If someone has genuine interest in why the allies did not bomb the camps and why Bush said what he said they can start with;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate

http://www1.yadvashem.org/about_holocaust/...ers/faq_29.html

http://www.feri.org/news/news_detail.cfm?QID=826

Keng's comments that the allies could not bomb the camps because they did not have the capacity is as usual without any basis. In fact the allies were bombing all around the camps. To simply add them to the list of what they were bombing was not the issue at all and for Keng to come on this forum, misrepresent history for his own need to insult and call someone an idiot who showed some genuine compassion is typical.

Bush may be a loser/idiot/fool etc., in many ways but the fact that he showed some genuine remorse is nothing to ridicule and no one but Keng seems to have.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Rue

[bush_cheney2004]

Good ol' Sir Lawrence Olivier. I still have 'World At War' on tape somewhere. Good history. YouTube has a few episodes...

Burma '42-'44 for example... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrB44--ePBM

Yep...it was outstanding with Olivier's narration and authentic footage...none of the hyped dramatization we see today. It was dark, somber, and very serious...even the music.

It's how I learned about the much dreaded "Typhus".

This tangent only goes to illustrate how far removed we get from primary sources for the sake of convenience as time marches on. As Rue points out, the debate over bombing such camps is hardly new or controversial in historical context, and demeaning as ammunition for anti-Bush lust.

Edited January 13, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[kengs333]

Keng's comments that the allies could not bomb the camps because they did not have the capacity is as usual without any basis. In fact the allies were bombing all around the camps. To simply add them to the list of what they were bombing was not the issue at all and for Keng to come on this forum, misrepresent history for his own need to insult and call someone an idiot who showed some genuine compassion is typical.

Where the heck did you learn how to read? Where did I say that they didn't "have the capacity"??? I stated that given the nature of strategic bombing at the time, what people now say should have been done couldn't have been done. If that was the case, then the whole allied bombing campaign wouldn't have occurred the way it did. You send over 50 B-24s to take out the gas chambers and guess what? The entire camp gets blown away. Then what? Or if you actually hit the rail lines, then what would happen? Slave labour would be taken from the camps and the damage repaired. If not, the inmates are moved without being fed to another location where they'll die anyway, and those destined for Auschwitz would be diverted or dealt with otherwise. The death camps were designed to facilitate a more "efficient" means of killing; this doesn't mean that the old method of shooting can't be resorted to.

Where did I "call someone an idiot" on this thread?

[bush_cheney2004]

...Where did I "call someone an idiot" on this thread?

Here: "As if we didn't need more proof that GWB is an idiot"

Duh!

Edited January 13, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[kengs333]

No one dislikes Bush more than I do, but his comment in no way idiotic. It's also far from being a "non-issue."

...

I don't think anyone could go to Auschwitz and not be affected. Sounds to me as if Bush was expressing regret that more wasn't done to save some of the lives that were lost there, and who wouldn't go there and feel that way?

There are a lot of could have and should haves about how the allies prosecuted the war. Everybody seems to like to play armchair Supreme Commander and they all have the right strategy figured out given what we now know with hindsight. The fact of the matter is that the best way to end ALL of the killing was to end the war as quickly as possible. That's what the allies tried to do. They may not have been perfect at doing it, but that's how it goes with war. These kinds of critiques of the Allied war effort really is an insult to all of those millions of men who fought and died to defeat the Nazi regime. It's sad that this issue still has to be used for political agendas by certain people. Not to mention the fact that the discussion again excludes mention of all of the other victims.

[kengs333]

Here: "As if we didn't need more proof that GWB is an idiot"

Duh!

That doesn't count.

[Higgly]

If the tracks had been bombed, the Nazis would have made the Jews walk. More proof that Bush hasn't a clue.

[bush_cheney2004]

That doesn't count.

No, when it comes to "GWB", you don't count.