Allies did nothing to stop Holocaust

[shrike]

Quote by: Pooeypants Erm, Israel has nuclear weapons...they're untouchable even if the US withdrew support.

The reactor was already built in 73 long time ago it didnt stoped the Arab countries to attack the Jewish state.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: shrike The reactor was already built in 73 long time ago it didnt stoped the Arab countries to attack the Jewish state.

A nuclear reactor is not the same as a nuclear bomb.

[PatrickHenry]

It interests me that the anti-Zionist Jews accuse the Zionists of what Sharon accuses the Allies of. That is ignoring the mass death of the Jews in Europe.

http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/pleasignored.html
Here's a quote from a letter:

from a Rabbi who was a first-hand witness of the holocaust. Note how Rabbi Weissmandel asks that the crematoria in Auschwitz be bombed from the air. How it is "sharply visible" - he clearly gave information that he hoped would be passed on to help Allied air crews bomb the murder camps. Rabbi Weissmandl also enclosed a map of the camps. Rabbi Weissmandel knew the bombing would delay the work of the Nazis, which is why he spefically asked for the Allies to bomb "persistently" all the roads leading from Eastern Hungary to Poland and the bridges in the neighborhood of Karpatarus. He advised the the Zionist leadership to "Drop all other business to get this done . . . Remember that one day of your idleness kills twelve thousand souls". Did they do this ? The overwhelming evidence suggests that the Zionists ignored this - and other pleas - to save the majority of Jews in Europe from the Holocaust, insteading they pursued the policy of building the dream of Zionism - the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine.

This is from a group of rabbis who say that Zionism (and its proponents) is the source of hatred for Jews in the modern day world.

So Sharon: stuff it back in your pants. Your forefather Zionists didn't care about those being massacred in the camps and incinerated. After all, it helped to make the Zionist State a reality!!

[shrike]

Quote by: Pooeypants A nuclear reactor is not the same as a nuclear bomb.

If there is atomic bomb in Israel it was built long time ago even before 6-day war and i say again it didnt stoped Arab countries to attack the Jewish state.

The Dimona reactor went on-line some time between 1962 and 1964, and with the plutonium produced there, perhaps together with some enriched uranium acquired through mysterious means (see Plumbat Operation), the Israel Defence Forces most probably had their first nuclear weapons ready before the Six-Day War. Although the Israeli government has always claimed it has been used for peaceful purposes, the United States overflew the site with U-2 aircraft to sample the air for radioactive by-products

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimona

The overwhelming evidence suggests that the Zionists ignored this - and other pleas - to save the majority of Jews in Europe from the Holocaust,

Please bring this evidence and please from some unbiased sites not what you usually quote here.
Its classical way of defence is to blame the victim and by that take the responsobility from the Allies who had all the Information and did nothing.

[MerlinsByte]

quote by Sharon “The sad and terrible conclusion is that no one cared that Jews were being killed,” Sharon said.

“At the time of the most terrible test, friends and benefactors didn’t lift a finger,” he said. “This is the Jewish lesson of the Holocaust.”

MerlinWrites: I support Israel even though comments like this only work against her. I'm talking about world opinion here. Also without the allies Israel would just be a peehole in the sand today, and Hitler's Germany and Japan would be the superpowers, I would think.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: shrike Quote: The overwhelming evidence suggests that the Zionists ignored this - and other pleas - to save the majority of Jews in Europe from the Holocaust, Please bring this evidence and please from some unbiased sites not what you usually quote here. Its classical way of defence is to blame the victim and by that take the responsobility from the Allies who had all the Information and did nothing.

I assume you mean my argument, shrike. You don't like my source, fine. But they ARE rabbis, and respected members of the Jewish community.
http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/index.htm
The Zionists were NOT the victims of the Nazis, JEWS were. And their tragedy was expiated by the Allies giving them the Zionist State. Sharon's got a lotta nerve to accuse the Allies when the Zionists of that day were ready and willing to use the heartbreak of the Holocaust for ulterior purposes.
http://www.fantompowa.net/Flame/kast...a_magazine.htm

[MerlinsByte]

Quote by: Pooeypants
A nuclear reactor is not the same as a nuclear bomb.

Condensed by Merlinsbyte (hyperlink at bottom for full page)

BBC NEWS
Wednesday, 23 August, 2000, 16:48 GMT 17:48 UK
Israel 'may have 200 nuclear weapons'

The photographs of the secret Israeli nuclear facility at Dimona in the Negev desert appear on the website of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).
The new images were obtained last month by Space Imaging Corporation's Ikonos satellite.
The FAS draws its conclusions from comparisons of the latest images with pictures of the Dimona facility taken by a US reconnaissance satellite in 1971.
"Based on plausible upper and lower bounds of the operating practices at the reactor, Israel could have thus produced enough plutonium for at least 100 nuclear weapons, but probably not significantly more than 200 weapons," the FAS said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/892941.stm
Israel could have incinerated her tormentors at anytime in the past, from the middle 1960s-2005. I believe she will destroy nations in the near future. The to be thermonuclear recipients will be Russia, China, as well as most if not all the Arab nations.This is the short list.

MB

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: shrike If there is atomic bomb in Israel it was built long time ago even before 6-day war and i say again it didnt stoped Arab countries to attack the Jewish state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimona

Were the invaders fully aware of the nuclear capabilities of Israel at the time?

[bishop]

did the allies even know what they were doing to the jews until we stumbled upon the first death camp?

[Paavo]

Quote by: bishop did the allies even know what they were doing to the jews until we stumbled upon the first death camp?

The Allied forces never stumbled upon a "death camp," they were all liberated by the Soviets.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...jor_camps.html
http://www.holocaustcenterbuff.com/cc_directory.html

[MerlinsByte]

Merlin writes ; hmmmm someones history is wrong.


Quote by: bishop
did the allies even know what they were doing to the jews until we stumbled upon the first death camp?



Quote; The Allied forces never stumbled upon a "death camp," they were all liberated by the Soviets.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...ajor_camps.html

Merlins paste;

The infamous concentration camp at Dachau was liberated by the US Seventh Army on April 29, 1945 just one week before the end of World War II in Europe. According to the official report by the US Army, there were 31,432 survivors in the main camp on that day, including 2,539 Jews. There was a typhus epidemic in the camp and 2,226 of the survivors died in the month of May after the liberation. 196 more died in the month of June.

MB




The Allied forces never stumbled upon a "death camp," they were all liberated by the Soviets.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...ajor_camps.html

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

[Paavo]

I got the words "Allied" and "US" mixed up, the soviets were a part of the Allies of course.

[giuliano]

the allies knew what has happening in general terms at least....

Jan Karski on: U.S. Knowledge of German Atrocities Then in 1943 the British and the Americans had their own intelligence officers over in Europe. Allen Dulles was sitting at the time in Zurich, in Switzerland. Western leaders knew what was happening. The problem is that they were all preoccupied with military victory. Strategy was crushing the German military and industrial power. Ending the war as fast as possible, with as few losses as possible. No side issues were to interfere.

[bishop]

thanks for the correction paavo (and welcome back).. i guess i have two other questions then, to get more specific...

1. were we aware of the camps before d-day?
2. if we didn't control the region, could we (allies) have even liberated the camps before we actually did?
3. should we have diverted our attention away from the war effort to liberate the camps?

[Suburbanite]

it doesnt really matter. it wasnt America's responsibility to save the Jews or anyone else's except the Jews.

[Paavo]

thanks for the correction paavo (and welcome back).. i guess i have two other questions then, to get more specific...

Well, technically I didn't correct anything, as I messed up the words in my head (probably because you used the word "we," and you're not Russian, hehe) -- and thanks for the welcome. :)

1. were we aware of the camps before d-day?

I'm not too familiar with the dates and such, but there were "rumors" about gassings, electrocutions, killings by pit-burnings etc etc of Jews that came to the attention of western military leaders -- but they dismissed them as too outlandish to be taken seriously. And in retrospect, it's hard to blame them, as every other alleged method of mass-killing of Jews -- except poison gassing -- were debunked quickly after the war was over.

2. if we didn't control the region, could we (allies) have even liberated the camps before we actually did?

I can't see how that would be possible.

3. should we have diverted our attention away from the war effort to liberate the camps?

Liberating the camps was a part of the war, that's obvious to me. So, again, it's more a question of "could we've" instead of "should we've," IMO.

[Paavo]

The way this is written is bothering me (from the article-quote by giuliano);

The problem is that they were all preoccupied with military victory.

Makes it sound like the WAR was a pesky little detail compared to the holocaust!

Ending the war as fast as possible, with as few losses as possible. No side issues were to interfere.

Well no shit, it's a war, not some game they were playing.
And no matter how much it's blown out of proportion, the holocaust remains a "side issue" for all non-Jews of the world.
That statement might sound cruel, but young people nowadays have not a clue of the numbers of casualties of the second world war in other contexts than the holocaust, and to me that's just plain wrong.
In history books, massacres like the ones in Katyn forrest or Dresden are more or less completely overlooked, while making the holocaust look like the main thing in that vast and world-widely destructive war.
People like Sharon are doing more damage -- with comments like this -- to the Jewish people than any snotty teenaged skinhead spraying svastikas on Jewish tombstones.

(EDIT: I realize the things said I quoted above aren't by Sharon, I was refering to the start of this thread)

[bishop]

i agree.. if i heard of stories about what the nazis did, i'd have a hard time believing it without seeing it. what they did was so inhuman that it's inconsciable. although there were strong anti-semites here in america (walt disney and henry ford in particular), i don't believe that was the mindset of the roosevelt administration nor the allied generals (eisenhower or patton). hell.. we (the americans) ordered the germans to clean up the death camps once they were located and confirmed. we put the nuremberg trials together, specifically to try the nazis on war crimes.

it's the peak of cynnicism to suggest, using carefully tailored bits of history (revising history per se), that america was ambivalent to the holocaust. that said, we couldn't have even done much even if we did know because we didn't control the territory. and, frankly, sacking hitler and his war machine was a higher priority than liberating the camps.

[Matt W]

At the end of the day, who honestly cares? It's an interesting abstract argument - but the people who could have changed this are long dead. Why bother raking it up? What's the purpose? To spread suspicion & ill-feeling? 'Cause that's what it looks like to me.

[bishop]

some people are interested in understanding history homeboy.. especially realizing that what we read in one history book is often much different than what another says.