Bush: We should have bombed Auschwitz

[kengs333]

Unless you're either paranoid or an idiot why would you be concerned?

No, I'm just curious. You claimed that someone was an idiot "here" and then claimed that there wasn't an attack. Sounds to me like you don't have the balls to just come out an say it. Yet, you don't mind wishing a nuclear war to start in the Middle East. Wow, you're so "productive"...

[kengs333]

This doesn't make any common sense....the Canadians continued to die with such tactics long after June 1916. Who should have learned first if that be the objective of lessons learned?

No, if you know anything about the Canadian involvement in subsequent battles, you'd know that this assertion is false. The Canadians were noted for minimizing casualties at Vimy Ridge, for instance, by using innovative techniques in the artillery preperation and in the use of machine guns.

Sorry, but you can't win a penis measuring contest based on proportions.

We're not talking about measuring something like that, and I'm not sure why you would want to bring up such a thing, either... But of course you wouldn't want to talk proportions, because it shows what Canada accomplished given its small size.

You mean the Canadians (and Newfoundlanders) were in theatre much longer than the Americans but sustained fewer casualties...you know...being all that elite and a bag of chips.

No, proportionally they sustained much higher, but yes I suppose had the Americans been around for 3.5 years, they would have probably sustained a higher rate.

[kengs333]

the battle started July 1st and was preceded by days of artillery bombardments.

Canadians didn't join the battle till late August.

The artillery bombardment is part of the battle. The issue is about the lessons learned from the Somme in general, not Canada's participation.

[kengs333]

Semantics. In the end, the column turned and presented itself to fire and offered as many muskets as could bear.

Not really, because it tended to put the French at a disadvantage.

[kengs333]

OK...but then you die. America had no real beef with Germany until the Lusitania sinking and Zimmerman telegram. Wilson had to save himself from a failed policy with Mexico, and American banks had financed the French and British far more than the Germans.

Next time, I say we back Germany just to change things up a bit.

Actually, it looks as though it's should be the other way around, but Germany has learned its lesson about using war as an extension of foreign policy.

[DogOnPorch]

The French fought in column, not lines. Their piles were higher. Or is that larger?

'Flying' columns, lol. As well, the French did fight in lines, just they were three rank lines where the British used a two rank line that was more efficient apparently and allowed smaller regiments higher firepower. You sound like an old wargamer. Are you?

http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/Sales...st_Battles1.JPG

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

Get forward, damn your eyes!

---General Sir Thomas Picton: Waterloo

[Rue]

I don't think that Japan would have gotten involved as they still would probably have gone to war with the United States, which now would be able to focus all of its resources in the Pacific.

I think we should stop after the comments " I don't think".

That said you have stated numerous opinions now about historic incidents with not one shred of evidence to base your opinions. For example, the above remark appears absurd. How do you know what the Japanese agenda was as to Russia? What basis other then you making it up as you go along do you use for such a conclusion? Are you capable of providing any historic material or references for your claims or at this point are you just saying what-ever comes to mind at any given moment?

I find it hard to believe if you are an expert on World War Two, you are now an expert on Japanese foreign policy during World War Two. Do you read Japanese? Right.

Here's a hint, Japan's dispute with Russia was on-going and all credible historic references indicate there would be been yet another armed confrontation with or without World War Two. Start by reading any book on Japanese-Russian disputes ANY one. As for your other comments, they are unreferenced and you don't even make an effort to show any reasoning for them so they are in my opinion unworthy of a response from anyone. Until you make an effort to provide some sort of basis for what you remark, all you do is make noise.

[buffycat]

I haven't commented here, for a few reasons I won't get into.

But - really what purpose would have been served in bombing the camps? Honestly?

This is just more BS which doesn't matter anymore. It's propaganda raising the old spectre of hatred - something not in short supply these days (just directed at a new group).

With this reasoning perhaps someone should bomb gitmo!!

[Wilber]

You sound like an old wargamer. Are you?

Nope, just interested in that stuff. Been a bit of a fan of the Duke since reading Elizabeth Longfords biography years ago.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, if you know anything about the Canadian involvement in subsequent battles, you'd know that this assertion is false. The Canadians were noted for minimizing casualties at Vimy Ridge, for instance, by using innovative techniques in the artillery preperation and in the use of machine guns.

"Innovative" implies that at some point prior to that more casualties were taken, hence a learning curve over years. That the Americans didn't learn this in mere months does not make them stupid.

We're not talking about measuring something like that, and I'm not sure why you would want to bring up such a thing, either... But of course you wouldn't want to talk proportions, because it shows what Canada accomplished given its small size.

Hmmm...all I know is that the war didn't end until the larger number of American penises showed up and started dying. Your efforts to minimize the American contribution ignores this fact.

No, proportionally they sustained much higher, but yes I suppose had the Americans been around for 3.5 years, they would have probably sustained a higher rate.

Ya think?

[jbg]

No, I'm just curious. You claimed that someone was an idiot "here" and then claimed that there wasn't an attack. Sounds to me like you don't have the balls to just come out an say it. Yet, you don't mind wishing a nuclear war to start in the Middle East. Wow, you're so "productive"...

There are no doubt idiots on the Board. I will note that someone doesn't become leader of perhaps the world's greatest demoncracy by being one though.

[jbg]

But - really what purpose would have been served in bombing the camps? Honestly?

The actual bombing target would have been the rail lines leading to the camps.

The Holocaust Deniers have a shred of truth on their side. Most Jews died of overwork, starvation and disease in the camps, and not in the gas chambers. However, as Hitler realized he was going down the tubes he accelerated the Holocaust, drawing resources from fighing. Jews were being herded into the camps and were dieing at an incredible rate of speed. Anything that slowed the influx of Jews into the camps would have saved lives.

[kengs333]

The actual bombing target would have been the rail lines leading to the camps.

But that's not what people say should have been done. They wanted the appropriate buildings destroyed as well. Rail lines would be repaired--by the inmates themselves.

The Holocaust Deniers have a shred of truth on their side. Most Jews died of overwork, starvation and disease in the camps, and not in the gas chambers. However, as Hitler realized he was going down the tubes he accelerated the Holocaust, drawing resources from fighing. Jews were being herded into the camps and were dieing at an incredible rate of speed. Anything that slowed the influx of Jews into the camps would have saved lives.

What about the non-Jews. Half of the people known to have died at Auschwitz were Christians.

[DogOnPorch]

What about the non-Jews. Half of the people known to have died at Auschwitz were Christians.

Are you sure about those statistics?

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

All I've done all my life is just tried to better the game for our players and for those people watching.

---Bobby Hull

[M.Dancer]

Are you sure about those statistics?

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

All I've done all my life is just tried to better the game for our players and for those people watching.

---Bobby Hull

..so now he starts considering homosexuals christian....

[M.Dancer]

But that's not what people say should have been done. They wanted the appropriate buildings destroyed as well. Rail lines would be repaired--by the inmates themselves.

What about the non-Jews. Half of the people known to have died at Auschwitz were Christians.

Of course he is...he's an expert, he told me himself.....but he tends to be more expert on being worng as he is this time.

[kengs333]

Of course he is...he's an expert, he told me himself.....but he tends to be more expert on being worng as he is this time.

It's believed that approximately 400,000 people were registered at Auschwitz, of which there are records of about 70,000. Of these 70,000, about half were designated Christians--most were Polish Catholics. This is based on records that the Russians released several years ago, most of the others were supposedly destroyed by the Nazis. As for the people who were exterminated upon arrival, it's argued that most were Jews and this was likely the case, although the lack of records makes it difficult to confirm this.

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE:What about the non-Jews. Half of the people known to have died at Auschwitz were Christians.

Are you sure about those statistics?

This is a good site to read about non-Jewish victims---> Five Million Forgotten. A note from the site:

Information for this article was taken from "The Forgotten

Holocaust", by Richard C. Lukas, The University Press of Kentucky

and "The Jews and the Poles in World War II" by Stefan Korbonski,

Hippocrene Books.

This site is protected by copyright, but permission is hereby given for copying and distribution by students and educators for non-profit endeavors.

(I'm posting the material from the site for educational purposes, so I'm assuming I'm not breaking any copyright laws, but I will PM Charles Anthony and Greg for the final verdict.)

While there is no argument that Hitler abhorred the Jews and caused almost six million to be ruthlessly killed, often non-Jewish victims are tragically forgotten from Holocaust remembrances. Eleven million precious human lives were lost during the Holocaust. Five million of these were non-Jewish. Three million were Polish Christians and Catholics.

Non-Jews of Polish descent suffered over 100,000 deaths at Auschwitz.

Polish Christians were actually the first victims of the notorious German death camp. For the first 21 months after it began in 1940, Auschwitz was inhabited almost exclusively by Polish non-Jews. The first ethnic Pole died in June 1940 and the first Jew died in October 1942.

My minister when I was young was a non-Jewish Holocaust survivor. His wife didn't survive. All of the people in the camp they were in were lined up one day and every other person was shot. His wife, standing next to him, was one of "every other person" that was shot. I remember being confused as to how he could be a survivor, and his wife a victim, when they weren't Jewish. This was my first awareness that non-Jews were Holocaust victims too. It's really only now that I'm finding out to what extent.

Edited January 19, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

It's believed that approximately 400,000 people were registered at Auschwitz, of which there are records of about 70,000. Of these 70,000, about half were designated Christians--most were Polish Catholics. This is based on records that the Russians released several years ago, most of the others were supposedly destroyed by the Nazis. As for the people who were exterminated upon arrival, it's argued that most were Jews and this was likely the case, although the lack of records makes it difficult to confirm this.

The records of the names are those who they did not kill...slave workers. Transit records show many many more...upwards over a million jews who went to that camp and did not return.

The exact number of victims at Auschwitz is impossible to fix with certainty. Since Germans destroyed a number of records, immediate efforts to count the dead depended on the testimony of witnesses and the defendants on trial at Nuremberg. While under interrogation Rudolf Höß, commandant of Auschwitz concentration camp from 1940 to 1943,[9] said that two and a half million Jews had been killed in gas chambers and about half a million died "naturally".[10] Later he wrote "I regard two and a half million far too high. Even Auschwitz had limits to its destructive possibilities",[11]. The Auschwitz Death Book, recently uncovered in Soviet archives, is an example of logged records (pertaining only to registered inmates), but other examples of collected figures are scarce.[citation needed]

Communist Soviet and Polish authorities maintained a figure "between 2.5 and 4 million",[12]. The figure "4,000,000" was used on the original Auschwitz memorial plaques. The plaques did not specify the ethnicities of victims.

In 1983 , French scholar George Wellers was one of the first to use German data on deportations to estimate the number killed at Auschwitz, arriving at 1.613 million dead, including 1.44 million Jews and 146,000 Catholic Poles. A larger study started around the same time by Franciszek Piper used time tables of train arrivals combined with deportation records to calculate 1.1 million Jewish deaths and 140,000-150,000 ethnic Polish victims, along with 23,000 Roma & Sinti (Gypsies). This number has met with "significant, though not complete" agreement among scholars.

According to Harmon and Drobnicki,[12] relevant estimates are in range between 800,000 and five million people. List of estimates in millions: 0.8-0.9,[13] 1,[14] 1-2.5,[15] 1.1[16][17][18] 1.1-1.5,[19] 1.13,[20] 1.2-2.5,[21] 1.5-3.5,[22] 1.6,[23][24] 2,[25] 2.3,[26] 2.5,[27][28] 2.5-4,[29][30][31][32] 2.8-4,[33] 3 (only Polish victims),[34] over 3,[35] 3.5,[36] 3.5-4.5,[37] 4-5.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_con...camp#Death_toll

[kengs333]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_con...camp#Death_toll

Right, as the article states, the Death Book that the Russians released records the identities of 70,000 inmates, half of which are listed as being non-Jews. The estimated firgure of recorded inmates at Auschwitz was 400,000, and I assume that the fact that half were believed to be non-Jews is based on the surviving 70,000 records. Not disputing that a large number of the non-documented people that were killed upon arrival could have been Jews, but it's clear that what happened at Auschwitz has to be remembered for something that affected all different kinds of people.

[jbg]

This is a good site to read about non-Jewish victims---> Five Million Forgotten. A note from the site:

While there is no argument that Hitler abhorred the Jews and caused almost six million to be ruthlessly killed, often non-Jewish victims are tragically forgotten from Holocaust remembrances. Eleven million precious human lives were lost during the Holocaust. Five million of these were non-Jewish. Three million were Polish Christians and Catholics.

I have no dispute that Hitler's appetite was not limited to Jewish corpses. Jews were the only group targeted for a "final solution". The rest were killed for the sake of death. Therein lies the difference.

[kengs333]

I have no dispute that Hitler's appetite was not limited to Jewish corpses. Jews were the only group targeted for a "final solution". The rest were killed for the sake of death. Therein lies the difference.

I really don't see the difference. The objective was to eliminate anyone that the Nazis felt were "sub-human" and regardless of how specific groups were targeted, the end result for all was going to be death. Therein lies the similarity. Yet people still like to draw distinctions, and I think it's this fact that makes some people a little cynical about the whole issue.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no dispute that Hitler's appetite was not limited to Jewish corpses. Jews were the only group targeted for a "final solution". The rest were killed for the sake of death. Therein lies the difference.

From my previous link:

On August 22, 1939, a few days before the official start of World War II, Hitler authorized his commanders, with these infamous words, to kill "without pity or mercy, all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space [lebensraum] we need".

Heinrich Himmler echoed Hitler's decree: "All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles."

The Polish people were classified by the Nazis according to their racial characteristics. The ones who appeared Aryan were deported to Lodz for further racial examination. Most of the others were sent to the Reich to work in labor camps for the benefit of the Germans. The rest were sent to Auschwitz to die.

Sounds as if the Poles were "targeted for a 'final solution'" too. I don't see the difference between their deaths and the Jewish deaths.

[jbg]

Sounds as if the Poles were "targeted for a 'final solution'" too. I don't see the difference between their deaths and the Jewish deaths.

The lack of follow-up.

[M.Dancer]

Sounds as if the Poles were "targeted for a 'final solution'" too. I don't see the difference between their deaths and the Jewish deaths.

A concerted effort.