Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz (1 Viewer)

Eeyore

Sour Pennies
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
14,464
Reaction score
4,412
Age
48
Location
Ersetu
Offline
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_israel_holocaust;_ylt=AgwWEQinec4uxNLZOL0QqttbbBAF

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 11, 6:07 AM ET

<!-- end storyhdr --> JERUSALEM - President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said...










Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that Auschwitz was not bombed because it was loaded with innocent people.
 

Broad St. Saint

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
3,636
Reaction score
1,235
Age
49
Offline
He's right. After all, the Nazis had no other death camps, nor could the German military-industrial-death complex have found alternative means to their evil ends.

/sarcasm off/
 

Mr. Sparkle

Disrespectful to dirt
Joined
Mar 5, 2002
Messages
11,466
Reaction score
9,150
Offline
Why is that so idiotic to say the Allies should've struck Auschwitz?

It was certainly an option on the table at the time.

from the article:
The Allies had detailed reports about Auschwitz during the war from Polish partisans and escaped prisoners. But they chose not to bomb the camp, the rail lines leading to it, or any of the other Nazi death camps, preferring instead to focus all resources on the broader military effort, a decision that became the subject of intense controversy years later.
Between 1.1 million and 1.5 million people were killed at the camp.

"We should have bombed it," Bush said, according to Shalev


You can make arguments either way, obviously, but its hardly a foolish idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4175045.stm

Bush says plenty of stupid things, but I dont see this as one of them (and its second hand, to boot).
 

RiverCitySaint

Nerf herder
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Messages
10,537
Reaction score
406
Age
47
Location
Buford, Georgia
Offline
I just wish the US President wasn't so trigger happy and think bombs re the answer to everything.
Hopefully the next one will not have such a warrior-like facade.
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,688
Reaction score
6,689
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
Why is that so idiotic to say the Allies should've struck Auschwitz?

It was certainly an option on the table at the time.

from the article:




You can make arguments either way, obviously, but its hardly a foolish idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4175045.stm

Bush says plenty of stupid things, but I dont see this as one of them (and its second hand, to boot).
Thanks for the link, Sparkle. I just read the article and it isn't as preposterous as I initially thought.

It was still not real smart, viable option.

The initial plan was to hit the rail lines leading into a camp to engender a rebellion. Well, for one, if the Allies had successfully bombed these rail lines, the Germans would have just hastened their killings, and secondly who says that these bombs would hit their mark? These bombs might have very well hit the victims. And if the Germans would have figured out what the Allies were doing, what would have prevented them from loading up trains with victims--in that sense any Allied bombing mission would have done the Germans' dirty work.

Yes, it was an option but not a very good one.
 
Last edited:

champ76

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
8,515
Reaction score
7,248
Offline
Why is that so idiotic to say the Allies should've struck Auschwitz?

It was certainly an option on the table at the time.

from the article:




You can make arguments either way, obviously, but its hardly a foolish idea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4175045.stm

Bush says plenty of stupid things, but I dont see this as one of them (and its second hand, to boot).
Thanks for the link. It's a silly sounding quote unless put into context as the BBC did in its article. From that article:

"But many - including survivors of the camp - say the Allies should have acted whatever the mission's chances of success."

Of course, this is simply another excuse for those with BDS to vent.
 

blackadder

...from a chicken, bugwit
VIP Contributor
Joined
Nov 8, 2003
Messages
26,522
Reaction score
17,130
Offline
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_israel_holocaust;_ylt=AgwWEQinec4uxNLZOL0QqttbbBAF

By ARON HELLER, Associated Press Writer Fri Jan 11, 6:07 AM ET

<!-- end storyhdr -->JERUSALEM - President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure that Auschwitz was not bombed because it was loaded with innocent people.
I think this is an attempt to suck up now based on his statements yesterday confirming to the Republican base that Israel occupys Palestine and that Palestinians have a case for reparations from Israel.

Now he's trying to make nice with sound bites.

Yes, Auschwitz was loaded with innocents and bombing techniques back then were notoriously imprecise. As I recall the U.S. had imperfect information on what was going on and had received conflicting reports.

I guess to err on the side of caution we should have just killed everybody there and worried about it later?

Bombing Auschwitz would not necessarily have had the desired effects. Other camps could have been expanded, people summarily shot, etc. etc.

Which is it? Is Roosevelt a hero, or a goat?

Anyway, this is an age old debate in Jewish community. Mentioning it is aimed directly at the senisbilities of his hosts, especially after he said some inflammatory things yesterday.
 
Last edited:

saintfan-n-alex

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Feb 16, 2005
Messages
9,506
Reaction score
2,916
Offline
he seems to want to bomb everyone - he also was a big death penalty gov in texas - odd mindset IMO
 
OP
OP
Eeyore

Eeyore

Sour Pennies
Joined
Aug 1, 1997
Messages
14,464
Reaction score
4,412
Age
48
Location
Ersetu
Offline
After years of seeing the near surgical precision of our modern bombing it is easy to forget that in years past bombers had to fly high to avoid flak and they didn't have laser guided bombs. They would just fly over an area and hope that when they dropped their bombs they hit the target and not something else. It wasn't quite the same as what we see today.
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,688
Reaction score
6,689
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
After years of seeing the near surgical precision of our modern bombing it is easy to forget that in years past bombers had to fly high to avoid flak and they didn't have laser guided bombs. They would just fly over an area and hope that when they dropped their bombs they hit the target and not something else. It wasn't quite the same as what we see today.
That's another good point. Like I stated, it was an option but arguably a real risky option.

I think if the Allies would have targeted the rail lines the Germans would have just loaded up victims to save poison gas and bullets. Those bombs might have also hit victims instead of intended targets.

Yes it was an option, but like so much of what Bush says, it wasn't a smart option.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Similar threads




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom