Bush: We should have bombed Auschwitz

[kengs333]

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

Meaning what? He doesn't care for anything aside from his political agenda? Well, yeah. And there are 500,000+ dead Iraqis who "don't count" to testify to that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Meaning what? He doesn't care for anything aside from his political agenda? Well, yeah. And there are 500,000+ dead Iraqis who "don't count" to testify to that.

Correct, but you count even less than those dead corpses, past and present. Other members have exposed how much you don't know on this matter, yet you insist that somebody else is an idiot.

Oh, and just for fun, your "idiot" comment violates forum rules.

Edited January 13, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

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?

You should bone up a little on some of the pinpoint low level raids carried out by RAF Mosquito's. The Amiens prison raid, the The Hague and Copenhagen Gestapo headquarters etc. The movie 633 squadron was loosely based on some of their exploits and didn't do justice to the real thing.

No one is suggesting that bombing could stop the death camps but what if they had slowed down the rate of executions by just 10%? That could be half a million more people who would still be alive at the end of the war.

[Carinthia]

Those days were different times. The Geneva Convention was alive and well, albeit not followed to the T, then either. If the Americans had bombed the camps killing thousands of Jews, other nationalities and some of their own, I can't imagine how that would have gone down in history. You can be sure it would have been viewed as genocide for the rest of time, regardless of how it may have ended of the war sooner and with less loss of life. Nobody would have noticed that part.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Carinthia

[bush_cheney2004]

....If the Americans had bombed the camps killing thousands of Jews, other nationalities and some of their own, I can't imagine how that would have gone down in history.

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

[M.Dancer]

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

Who gets to the ovens quicker? 6 million jews walking or taking the train. What do you think hat would do for congestion on the roads? Those same roads that are needed for moving troops and suppliers now that the railroads are destroyed....

I think placing logistics in your own 'Not a Clue" file will be in order

[kengs333]

Correct, but you count even less than those dead corpses, past and present. Other members have exposed how much you don't know on this matter, yet you insist that somebody else is an idiot.

Oh, and just for fun, your "idiot" comment violates forum rules.

No, it wasn't directed to another forum member, which is what I thought Rue was referring to in the first place. IDIOT in reference to GWB is a statement of fact, not an insult.

[Wilber]

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

Me daddy was in that theater for the last two years of the war. RCAF attached to the RAF. The forgotten army. People who know about such things say Slim was one of the very best generals of WWII but most people have never heard of him.

[Carinthia]

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

True. Let me rephrase, anybody who had planes and bombs then. Happy now?

[bush_cheney2004]

No, it wasn't directed to another forum member, which is what I thought Rue was referring to in the first place. IDIOT in reference to GWB is a statement of fact, not an insult.

What you thought? I rest my case....who is the idiot? Forum rules apply to more than just members.

Edited January 13, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[kengs333]

Who gets to the ovens quicker? 6 million jews walking or taking the train. What do you think hat would do for congestion on the roads? Those same roads that are needed for moving troops and suppliers now that the railroads are destroyed....

I think placing logistics in your own 'Not a Clue" file will be in order

Railroads were targeted before and they were always repaired--by POWs and other slave labour. People talk about it as though it would have been a permanent solution, which it wouldn't have been. In the end, when the Germans began evacuating some POW and concentration camps and moving inmates around, they walked them through the countryside and back roads, killed the ones who couldn't keep up. There would have been minimal interference with the movement of supplies and troops.

[bush_cheney2004]

True. Let me rephrase, anybody who had planes and bombs then. Happy now?

My happiness is irrelevant...I only made the point to illustrate the obvious and instinctive approach taken by others when it comes to such worldly issues. America is routinely accused of dropping the ball whiles others sit on their ass doing the same thing. (e.g. See wonderful whine from General Dallaire over Rwanda). It's habitual, instinctive, and reflexive. Good thing America ignores it!

[kengs333]

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

Please don't accuse people about not knowing what they're talking about if you make these kinds of comments. The RAF only engaged in daylight bombing very early and late in the war and all of their strategic bombers were designed for night ops; sending them deep into Europe, even in mid-1944, wouldn't have been a bright idea.

[kengs333]

My happiness is irrelevant...I only made the point to illustrate the obvious and instinctive approach taken by others when it comes to such worldly issues. America is routinely accused of dropping the ball whiles others sit on their ass doing the same thing. (e.g. See wonderful whine from General Dallaire over Rwanda). It's habitual, instinctive, and reflexive. Good thing America ignores it!

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

[M.Dancer]

Railroads were targeted before and they were always repaired--by POWs and other slave labour. People talk about it as though it would have been a permanent solution, which it wouldn't have been. In the end, when the Germans began evacuating some POW and concentration camps and moving inmates around, they walked them through the countryside and back roads, killed the ones who couldn't keep up. There would have been minimal interference with the movement of supplies and troops.

With dead end logic like that their would have been no bombing at all cause it would have been repaired ....

....the remainder of the post isn't worth commenting on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Please don't accuse people about not knowing what they're talking about if you make these kinds of comments. The RAF only engaged in daylight bombing very early and late in the war and all of their strategic bombers were designed for night ops; sending them deep into Europe, even in mid-1944, wouldn't have been a bright idea.

Not entirely true and irrelevant. Lancasters were sent "deep" into Europe to bomb the Mohne, Sorpe, and Eder hydroelectric dams, for instance, in 1943. Why would railroad infrastucture and rolling stock only be an American responsibility? Precison daylight bombing was anything but precise.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

"American" was not attacked.....same as Canada. God Save the King.

[Wilber]

Please don't accuse people about not knowing what they're talking about if you make these kinds of comments. The RAF only engaged in daylight bombing very early and late in the war and all of their strategic bombers were designed for night ops; sending them deep into Europe, even in mid-1944, wouldn't have been a bright idea.

Raids might have been carried out from Russian bases. The RAF used a Russian base for one of their daylight attacks on Tirpitz.

[Higgly]

Who gets to the ovens quicker? 6 million jews walking or taking the train. What do you think hat would do for congestion on the roads? Those same roads that are needed for moving troops and suppliers now that the railroads are destroyed....

I think placing logistics in your own 'Not a Clue" file will be in order

What? You think they would have let them walk on the roads? Talk about "not a clue"!

[Guest American Woman]

....If the Americans had bombed the camps killing thousands of Jews, other nationalities and some of their own, I can't imagine how that would have gone down in history.

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

As quoted from the source I linked to: "A teary-eyed President Bush stopped in front of an aerial photo of Auschwitz on Friday at Israel's Holocaust memorial and said the U.S. should have sent bombers to prevent the extermination of Jews there."

The topic of this thread is Bush saying the U.S. should have sent bombers, so Carinthia's comment was relating to the topic. But, makes one wonder if Bush has ever heard of Lancaster, eh?

Edited January 13, 2008 by American Woman

[M.Dancer]

What? You think they would have let them walk on the roads? Talk about "not a clue"!

Let them? They foorced them march on the roads.

In the final months of the war, SS guards moved camp inmates by train or on forced marches, often called “death marches,” in an attempt to prevent the Allied liberation of large numbers of prisoners. As Allied forces moved across Europe in a series of offensives against Germany, they began to encounter and liberate concentration camp prisoners, as well as prisoners en route by forced march from one camp to another. The marches continued until May 7, 1945, the day the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally to the Allies. For the western Allies, World War II officially ended in Europe on the next day, May 8 (V-E Day), while Soviet forces announced their “Victory Day” on May 9, 1945.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=...duleId=10005143

Say thank you M.Dancer for improving my slack and idle mind

[bush_cheney2004]

As quoted from the source I linked to: "A teary-eyed President Bush stopped in front of an aerial photo of Auschwitz on Friday at Israel's Holocaust memorial and said the U.S. should have sent bombers to prevent the extermination of Jews there."

So what? Was the liberation of prisoners only an American concern and responsibility? Only American bombers and bombs? Then they whine when he does it...go figure.

[kengs333]

Not entirely true and irrelevant. Lancasters were sent "deep" into Europe to bomb the Mohne, Sorpe, and Eder hydroelectric dams, for instance, in 1943.

at NIGHT

Why would railroad infrastucture and rolling stock only be an American responsibility? Precison daylight bombing was anything but precise.

The American chose to do what they did, while the British did what they felt was best. Railroad infrastructure tends to pass through cities, where railyards and the like can also be found. The RAF tended to target cities, so draw your own conclusions. Whatever the case, rail lines were kept open through much of the war despite allied attempts to do otherwise.

[kengs333]

With dead end logic like that their would have been no bombing at all cause it would have been repaired ....

As opposed to NO logic whatsoever... Rail lines and industry are two totally different things. Rail lines are easily repaired; factories, refineries, etc. not so easily, if at all.

....the remainder of the post isn't worth commenting on.

Oh, well, why?--because it's true?

[kengs333]

"American" was not attacked.....same as Canada. God Save the King.

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...?