Hitler and the Holocaust

[Minimalist]

it's worth being aware that the allies KNEW ABOUT The Holocaust but choose do nothing.

I had this discussion with a Jewish friend one time. My position was "what could they have done, short of doing what they were already doing which was trying to win the war." He was claiming we should have "bombed the rail line."

When I pointed out that bombing a 4 foot wide rail line from 10,000 feet in a heavy bomber was a pretty silly exercise he said "well, they could have bombed the camp." I objected that such an act would likely kill far more prisoners than Germans to which he said "they were going to die anyway." And that is in most cases true....but we weren't going to kill them.

An attack on such a target required fighter bombers and perhaps by the Summer of 1944 we would have had P-38's in place which could reach, albeit by carrying few bombs and a lot of wing tanks. If they were intercepted by the Luftwaffe they would have had to drop the wing tanks and that would be the end of the mission. The odds of encountering German fighters in the middle of a war over Germany must be reckoned fairly high.

In any case, the Germans evacuated Auschwitz in November, 1944 themselves so the actual window of opportunity to do anything was fairly short.

[fr0d0]

No......... non committal is, in a sense, picking a side. You're saying it positively is non-committal on the matter without evidence that it is.

Okay, for sake of argument at least, let's say we can't say it's positively pro or anti... well what makes you think that we can say it's positively non-committal? It might be committed strongly one way or the other but we haven't been able to correctly deduce which way. So why say non-committal either? Why pick anything?

I think it's non committal because as much as I have studied it that's the conclusion I've reached. Should proof either way be presented I'll change my mind.

Evidence?!?!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I had this discussion with a Jewish friend one time. My position was "what could they have done, short of doing what they were already doing which was trying to win the war." He was claiming we should have "bombed the rail line."

The allies bombed and strafed rail lines all over Europe throughout the war,they were not overly difficult targets.. AND Bombing the CAMPS would have SAVED thousands of lives. (destroying the rail lines and the ovens)

In any case, the Germans evacuated Auschwitz in November, 1944 themselves so the actual window of opportunity to do anything was fairly short.

Germany had around Fifteen THOUSAND camps throughout its territory,Auschwitz in Poland was simply the biggest.

As l already mentioned, the Holocaust actually began in 1938 with Kristallnacht. The allies said NOTHING. Nor did they say boo when Germany reamed and annexed Austria in breach of The Treaty Versailles.Oh,the allied countries also closed their borders to Jewish refugees ,and kept them closed until 1944.

So please,don't try to take a nonexistent moral high ground.The allied countries did exactly what countries always do,especially in wars---they looked after their own interests. Besides, the victims were "only Jews". Today it's hard to understand just how widespread and how deep antisemitism was in almost EVERY Christian nation at that time.

[Minimalist]

The allies bombed and strafed rail lines all over Europe throughout the war,they were not overly difficult targets..

Yes, with proper tactical aircraft, British Mosquitos, American P-38s, etc. But in 1943 deep penetration heavy bombing raids into Germany without fighter escort were suspended because of unsustainable losses. It was the P-38 and its replacement the P-51 that were used in that role. At the time the Allied command said they could not reach. (And even with relentless assault on German transport systems they had no hesitation to continue to divert rail assets to the transport of Jews.)

AND Bombing the CAMPS would have SAVED thousands of lives. (destroying the rail lines and the ovens)

Apparently Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill were not willing to take that risk. It's very easy to second guess from a range of 65 years.

[downbeatplumb]

Personally I think Hitler was motivated by religion.

A: because his targets are consistant with religious bias.
B: he said he was.

But even if he wasn't the vast majority of the people who undertook the evil acts were catholics.

And to answer the real thrust of the thread, the reason people keep raising the subject of Hitlers belief is because theists state over and over again that he was an athiest.

I've personally seen this on a number of occasions and receive the 'no true scotsman' argument again and again.

'He couldnt have been a christian because he did bad things'

Idiots

[fr0d0]

I've only ever seen claims that Hitler was a Christian/ Catholic.

Read the sig dbp

[Violet]

Although I disagree with christianity being perfect... i give you a kudos because i got your point

[Tails Turrosaki]

I've only ever seen claims that Hitler was a Christian/ Catholic.

Read the sig dbp

Idiotic, overprotective fundies claim otherwise.

[Minimalist]

The vegetarians don't want Hitler in their club, either. Same with dog lovers. Anti-smoking advocates, and Wagnerian opera fans.

Still he was all those things....and a xtian.

[fr0d0]

That's *an* xtian Min

Hitler was a bloke