Bush: We should have bombed Auschwitz

[kengs333]

On that you are absolutely wrong. The air operations that would have been required to engage in bombing either or both the railway tracks and camps could have easily been added to the other air sortes and all historians are now unanimously agreed the concern was not one of military logistics or air support at all and never was.

Who said anything about "logistics"? Bombed railway tracks get repaired, trying to take out the gas chambers wipes out the whole camp.

The debate as to bombing the camps took into consideration everyone being tortured and dying in the camps not just Jews and so your transparent comment that this current discussion us unfair to other victims is pure b.s.

The article specifically mentions only the Jews as being saved by such a mission.

[kengs333]

How do you separate the two? Would you not be outraged enough to do anything you thought might work to prevent or at least mitigate to some degree what was going on there? As the article said, there were many who advocated bombing at the time. Bush didn't just dream it up.

We're talking about could it have happened and what would have been the results.

[Wilber]

We're talking about could it have happened and what would have been the results.

Horse Pucky

This is your original post.

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.

If this is your definition of objectivity what are you like when you are wound up? It was intended to be a Bush hate fest pure and simple.

The fact is there were people who advocated the use of bombing to try and interfere with the operation of the death camps. Churchill was one who signed off on it. Rail lines and other infrastructure were primary targets of Allied air power throughout the war but you maintain it would be a waist of time in the case of the death camps. What made them different? Who knows how successful it might have been but the point is, nothing was done and the gas chambers continued to run at full capacity. I find it really odd that you would call someone an idiot who is saying that we should have at least made an attempt.

[Guest American Woman]

The debate as to bombing the camps took into consideration everyone being tortured and dying in the camps not just Jews and so your transparent comment that this current discussion us unfair to other victims is pure b.s.

The article specifically mentions only the Jews as being saved by such a mission.

My post is the first response in this thread, and in my post the article I quoted says:

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.

between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany

That's "people," not "jews." This discussion isn't about your media source; it's about Bush's comment, and whether or not Auschwitz should have been bombed. And that debate, that concern, did take into consideration all of the victims, just as Rue said.

[kengs333]

The article specifically mentions only the Jews as being saved by such a mission.

My post is the first response in this thread, and in my post the article I quoted says:

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.

between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed by Nazi Germany

That's "people," not "jews." This discussion isn't about your media source; it's about Bush's comment, and whether or not Auschwitz should have been bombed. And that debate, that concern, did take into consideration all of the victims, just as Rue said.

"The article" refers to the article in my post--I'm not concerned with your "first response in this thread"--and in the third paragraph it reads:

Although some historians have disagreed, many others have argued that an Allied bombing of Auschwitz and other German concentration camps might have saved the lives of large numbers of Jews slaughtered in the camps.

[kengs333]

Horse Pucky

This is your original post.

Exactly, it refers to the nature of strategic bombing at the time. Yes, the allies could have bombed the rail lines; yes, they could have bombed the camp to smithereens; but it would not have accomplished what people now say could have been accomplished. It's always easy to talk about what could and should have been done in hindsight... Millions of people fought and died to end that war, and all people can do is criticize the fact that Auschwitz wasn't bombed as a symbolic gesture. Sorry, but isn't mobilizing a whole country's manpower and industrial resources not enough of a gesture of the commitment the Allies had towards liberating Europe???

[Wilber]

Millions of people fought and died to end that war, and all people can do is criticize the fact that Auschwitz wasn't bombed as a symbolic gesture.

Who is saying that all people can to is criticize and only you are saying it would be a symbolic gesture. That's your opinion, fair enough but it doesn't make it fact. There is a big difference between criticism and regret. Not being in their shoes, knowing only what they knew at the time, it wouldn't be fair to criticize those who were but that doesn't mean some things shouldn't have been done differently in hindsight. In that respect it is no different than hundreds of other events that happened during the war.

[moderateamericain]

Shows what you know about Canada at the time. Britain was at war, so was the Empire. American, however, was too cowardly to join in the fight against facism--I wonder why...?

I love it. This summarizes everything as to why America does not listen to anyone in the world anymore. We are cowards if we dont fight and Facist nazi pigs if we do fight. Can you make up your mind please? The fact of the matter is we can all sit back and be Arm chair generals and huff and puff and sneer all we want, it doesnt change the fact that America will send its boys to die where we choose and in our own good time. So Bush was moved by pictures of Auschwitz. Your going to spin that particular tradgedy into a bush bashing thread?

[Alexandra]

American? entered the war in 1941, not in 1939 when it began.

This statement about the entry of the U.S. into WWII is used by various Canadian college profs., notably types like Haroon Siddiqqi in the east and the Michael Byers in the west, in what seems to be an effort to induct students into their cleverly constructed web of ideological antipathies toward everything American prior to and since the Second World War. It is noted that Siddiqqui's first language is Urdu, not english, and he frequently makes the same mistake as Kengss in the use of American when referring to America! Just an observation.

For whatever reason you, Kengss, prefer to believe the types like Siddiqqi (who absolutely loathe the Americans), that the U.S. was hiding under a bush in 1939, do some research on your own, like some of us had to do; maybe start with reading the following link.

Roosevelt’s sympathies clearly lay with the British and French, but he was hamstrung by the Neutrality Acts and a strong isolationist bloc in American politics. Upon the outbreak hostilities in September 1939, FDR re-asserted American neutrality, noting, however, that he could not “ask that every American remain neutral in thought as well.” He did his best, then, to nudge the United States towards supporting Great Britain, supplying that nation with all aid “short of war.” This strategy had three main effects. First, it offered Britain both psychological encouragement and materiel aid, though often more of the former than the latter. Second, it bought the United States time to shore up its military preparedness, which was inadequate for a world war. Finally, it made the United States an active, if undeclared, participant in the war.

http://millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/...ays/biography/5

[bush_cheney2004]

....It is noted that Siddiqqui's first language is Urdu, not english, and he frequently makes the same mistake as Kengss in the use of American when referring to America! Just an observation.

Hmmmm...that is interesting. I thought the first was just a typo...the second perhaps an ESL artifact.

For whatever reason you, Kengss, prefer to believe the types like Siddiqqi (who absolutely loathe the Americans), that the U.S. was hiding under a bush in 1939, do some research on your own, like some of us had to do; maybe start with reading the following link.

Indeed...the Americans have nothing to regret based on their own body count, starting way before Pearl Harbor. Some even fought and died as "Canadians" in Eagle Squadrons.....I wonder if that included a backpack patch? LOL!

[Wilber]

Indeed...the Americans have nothing to regret based on their own body count, starting way before Pearl Harbor. Some even fought and died as "Canadians" in Eagle Squadrons.....I wonder if that included a backpack patch? LOL!

Indeed, just as an estimate 12,000 Canadians served in Vietnam as members of the US armed forces. A certain number of people will always follow their conscience or their desire for adventure regardless of what their governments do.

[kengs333]

I love it. This summarizes everything as to why America does not listen to anyone in the world anymore. We are cowards if we dont fight and Facist nazi pigs if we do fight. Can you make up your mind please? The fact of the matter is we can all sit back and be Arm chair generals and huff and puff and sneer all we want, it doesnt change the fact that America will send its boys to die where we choose and in our own good time. So Bush was moved by pictures of Auschwitz. Your going to spin that particular tradgedy into a bush bashing thread?

What do you mean "anymore"? That's why they didn't enter the war in 1939, and that's why they went to war in 2003. And that's just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to "not listening". It's the "not listening" that has made the rest of the world view the Americans the way they do; the Americans are not the victims in this respect.

[bush_cheney2004]

....It's the "not listening" that has made the rest of the world view the Americans the way they do; the Americans are not the victims in this respect.

No, instead the Americans are recipients of the largest migrations in history.....they come from all over the world, just like Canada, only Supersized. They are still coming to the land that does not listen.

[kengs333]

This statement about the entry of the U.S. into WWII is used by various Canadian college profs., notably types like Haroon Siddiqqi in the east and the Michael Byers in the west, in what seems to be an effort to induct students into their cleverly constructed web of ideological antipathies toward everything American prior to and since the Second World War. It is noted that Siddiqqui's first language is Urdu, not english, and he frequently makes the same mistake as Kengss in the use of American when referring to America! Just an observation.

For whatever reason you, Kengss, prefer to believe the types like Siddiqqi (who absolutely loathe the Americans), that the U.S. was hiding under a bush in 1939, do some research on your own, like some of us had to do; maybe start with reading the following link.

http://millercenter.virginia.edu/academic/...ays/biography/5

Hold on, here. This was an issue long before some muslim prof. decided to take an interest in it, and just because someone like him does so doesn't mean that every person who expresses a similar opinion about the matter is somehow one of his devotees. I've personally never read or heard anything that he's had to say, so I don't "believe types like [him]"--what happened is an indisputable fact of history. The Americans didn't enter the war in 1939 and that's all there is too it.

Making an issue out my typing "American" instead of "America" is stupid--stating "Siddiqqui... frequently makes the same mistake" and implying there's some kind of connection, is even more so.

[kengs333]

Indeed...the Americans have nothing to regret based on their own body count, starting way before Pearl Harbor. Some even fought and died as "Canadians" in Eagle Squadrons.....I wonder if that included a backpack patch? LOL!

If you look at the casualty figures for the First World War, the Americans suffered a disproportionately high number considering the short duration they were in the war, because they wouldn't "listen" to advice from the British, French, etc. who learned through bitter experience how to minimize casualties. (Let me guess, some anti-American muslim professor has made this point, too; so I must a devotee of his also...)

Do you honestly think that a few score volunteers the Eagle Squadron [singular] or the Flying Tigers, for that matter, is really all that significant? Americans certainly like to glorify and overblow their history, don't they?

Edited January 15, 2008 by kengs333

[bush_cheney2004]

If you look at the casualty figures for the First World War, the Americans suffered a disproportionately high number considering the short duration they were in the war, because they wouldn't "listen" to advice from the British, French, etc. who learned through bitter experience how to minimize casualties.

Yea, I guess they were just cowards that brought an end to another of your lost Empire's wars.

[kengs333]

Yea, I guess they were just cowards that brought an end to another of your lost Empire's wars.

The potential manpower that the Americans could bring to the table was a factor in Germany's decision to surrender; militarily, the Americans contributed not all that much. Who knows what would have become of the war had the Americans entered in 1914, but then again, the Americans still viewed the British as a sort of enemy. Which is why the American military maintained plans for a possible invasion of Canada until the 1930s.

[bush_cheney2004]

The potential manpower that the Americans could bring to the table was a factor in Germany's decision to surrender; militarily, the Americans contributed not all that much....

Oh sure...the war weary empires were going to just call it a day anyway. No need for fresh American troops or war materials. Hard to believe that nearly twice as many cowardly Americans died doing not all that much compared to brave Canadians.

[DogOnPorch]

...or the Flying Tigers, for that matter, is really all that significant?

The Flying Tigers AVG saw its first action several days after Pearl Harbor. As for significance, a tiny force of pilots managed to hold back the might of the Japanese Army Airforce (IJA) during a period of the war that only saw horrible news of defeat after defeat. Good for moral. But other than that the AVG amounted to a mercenary unit in the pay of the Nationalists... Claire Chennault's baby.

The AVG were replacements for the Soviet units operating in China using their latest fighters. The Russian I-16s and I-153s were no real match against the Ki-43 Oscars that were being introduced along side the A6M2 Zero. They were withdrawn.

The AVG was soon absorbed into the USAAC in the summer of '42.

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

Flying is hours and hours of boredom sprinkled with a few seconds of sheer terror.

---Greg 'Pappy' Boyington, AVG, VMF-214

[kengs333]

Oh sure...the war weary empires were going to just call it a day anyway. No need for fresh American troops or war materials. Hard to believe that nearly twice as many cowardly Americans died doing not all that much compared to brave Canadians.

Right, I already explained why so many were killed--needlessly. They wouldn't "listen". The Canadians fought in a number of major battles; they held the line at Second Ypres, fought at Courcelette, Hill 70, took Vimy Ridge, succeded where others failed at Paschendaele, spearheaded the victory in late 1918. The Canadians were generally considered the "elite" of the allied presence on the western front; the Germans certainly thought so--something they certainly didn't feel about the Americans, as oft stated in German memoirs and other documents. The Canadians innovated the use of artillery and machine guns, were expert tranch raiders and snipers. All of these things that they learned, the Americans ignored out of typical pompous arrogance. And paid for it in the end. I wouldn't take pride in that. Well, what do you expect from a people that celebrates grand failures like "The Lost Battalion".

[bush_cheney2004]

....I wouldn't take pride in that. Well, what do you expect from a people that celebrates grand failures like "The Lost Battalion".

Oh but they do....see Belleau Wood (Chateau-Thierry) late in the war. Seems that all those "elite" Canadians by themselves couldn't bring the war to an end much sooner. Alas, history would deny Canada credit for winning the war all by itself.

[White Doors]

Why is this America's make believe problem? Ever heard of a Lancaster?

or the Halifax?

[M.Dancer]

or the Halifax?

Of course it wasn't America's responsibility. It would have been an allied responsibility.

[White Doors]

WW1 and WW2 might not have been won without America. They certainly wouldn't have been won when they did - without them.

Anyone who denigrates their contributions has a fatal case of Anti-Americanism and is a sad sad person.

The fact that Canadians were great war makers has no correlation with America's contributions.

[kengs333]

Oh but they do....see Belleau Wood (Chateau-Thierry) late in the war. Seems that all those "elite" Canadians by themselves couldn't bring the war to an end much sooner. Alas, history would deny Canada credit for winning the war all by itself.

Yeah, that's great, five months before the war ended... Actually, the Canadian's participation in the spearhead attack during the last two months of the war did contribute significantly to the war's ending in 1918, not 1919. I never said it was a "single handed" effort; but the Canadian contribution is undeniable, and quite disproportionate to the size of the force that was fielded.