Bush: US should have acted on Auschwitz

[Jaga]

This is today news, from pres. Bush visit in Israel:

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_israel_holocaust

JERUSALEM - 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.

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.

...

[piwo]

admin said:

Even Jewish leaders at the time struggled with the issue and many concluded that loss of innocent lives under such circumstances was justifiable.
...

OF course, they were referring to others lives, not their's... Wars are full of such dilemma, and there are equal arguments for each side, and equal criticism no matter which course was taken. Wars are inherently messy things.

I find it interesting that most of our European colleagues (in France and Belgium) dismiss the US involvement in WWll, stating we were only bit players and it was in fact Europeans that fought the brunt of the battles and were responsible for the defeat of the Axis forces. But let there be a criticism of the war effort, and it is definitely ours.... The allies, ALL THE ALLIES AT MALTA bear the shame for how Poland was treated in the closing portion of the war and the disgraceful aftermath: all so as to placate Joe the butcher Stalin.

[leslie]

Piwo
I am not trying to excuse the British for their many failures to take action during WWII, and I am certainly glad you did not refer to the UK when the statements were made about the U>S> troops being bit players - far from it. Remember Utah Beach in the Normandy landings?. But we do feel that the US may not even have come in to help us if they hadn't been forced into war by Pearl Harbour.

Piwo says: """The allies, ALL THE ALLIES AT MALTA bear the shame for how Poland was treated in the closing portion of the war and the disgraceful aftermath: all so as to placate Joe the butcher Stalin."""

First a correction - it was Yalta, not Malta!!! I blame Churchill for being a wimp on that occasion. Roosevelt and Stalin got together, excluding Churchill and made the plans - these were presented as a fait accompli to Churchill who a) in the face of 2 to 1 and b), yes to placate Stalin, accepted the secret agreement.

Tell me any war that goes 100% to plan. The too long a time taken in us getting to Berlin was Eisenhower's doing as C in C! Montgomery wanted to break through with a big push in one concentrated area - he was vetoed by Eisenhower and as a result the advance went pathetically slowly with many setbacks.

Such is World War!!!

Leslie

[valpomike]

Piwo,

I am starting to like you more each day. You are correct with your remarks on WW II, and the help the U.S. gave to Poland.

Michael Dabrowski

[piwo]

Greetings Sir Leslie! Wonderful to chat again. And thank you for pointing out my typo: spell check does not find everything, especially when the wrong word is really a word! No, I would never single out the UK: all were culpable, all share the shame. And of course, British and US forces fought together in many places with great cooperation (at the field level anyway: generals are generals).

Fear is fear. It's real for the person who has the fear whether it is founded or unfounded, it is the same. Roosevelt was spoiling to get into this war for quite awhile, and was breaking rules of neutrality long before our involvement Just as GW Bush needed something to whip up some support for the Iraq effort, so did Roosevelt. He got what he needed: a horrific act against America that galvanized the people. Without their support, longterm involvement would not have been possible. This country was coming out of a depression, and it's people had no taste for something so far away, especially in light that it was already done once before, and a few years later, returned as if nothing had changed.

No, so long as Roosevelt was president, our involvement was merely a timing event. Just like the timing of any military matter, it must be done so with thought. I'm sure it didn't seem justified by Britain at the time, but as you say, nothing in war goes by plan, and Roosevelt needed his people behind this war if there was any hope in meaningful involvement, knowing what great sacrifices in terms of lives and material it would entail.

Anyway, that's the view of it from this side of the pond.

I pray all is well with you and your's.........

[valpomike]

To all,

What more should the U.S. have done? And why did we not do it?

Michael Dabrowski

[kaima]

The German news magazine Spiegel has an article addressing this question. Even if you don't read German, take a look at the page
einestages.spiegel.de/static/topicalbumbackground/1198/warum_die_alliierten_auschwitz_nicht_bombardierten.html
and the side articles will show you that the topic is far from neglected in Germany. They are addressing - discussing - the long past mistakes.

Kai

[valpomike]

To all,

G.W. Bush did say, he would have bombed Auschwitz, per the news. What would you do?

Michael Dabrowski

[hollister]

One of the reasons the Allies did not bring in air support during the Warsaw Uprising is that Stalin refused to allow the Allied planes to land for refueling. Without that ability, the missions would have been one way missions. If Stalin refused to allow Allied planes landing for refueling for the Uprising, he was not going to allow it for any bombing mission for rail lines or for Auschwitz.

[valpomike]

hollister,

Is this the only reason, or is there more, that you are not saying?

Do you all agree with this, or is there another side of this?

Michael Dabrowski