Allies did nothing to stop Holocaust

[tinybear]

So said Israeli PM, Ariel Sharon. Do you agree with him?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870869/

[Pooeypants]

I find it ironical, his words will be mirror those of Palestinian leaders in the decades to come.

[tinybear]

I wonder if he has seen the movie Saving Private Ryan?

[Pooeypants]

That fine was too patriotic for me, and gave the impression the landing was an all American effort. I prefer grittier films, like A bridge too far. Anyway, we're digressing too much now.

[tinybear]

Well, he shouldn't be saying such things to piss off Israel's Allies. There aren't that many left you know.

[Plegmund]

I think what Sharon says is absurd. The full scale and nature of the Holocaust was not understood by the Allies until a late stage, but even if it had been the only way to stop it was to remove the Nazis. Diverting bombers to attack a railway line would hardly have made the Reich safe for jews.

However, the real point is not whether he's right, but what he means by it. He seems to be saying that Israel can't rely on the Americans to sort out its enemies for it. A veiled threat of unilateral Israeli action against Iran or Syria? A jerk on Bush's lead to make sure he doesn't stop with Iraq? What do you think?

[Pooeypants]

He has full approval of the United States, for that is enough for him. The US provides unconditional support and in the UN has vetoed all mandates and resolutions against Israel.

[tinybear]

I tend to agree with Plegmund. He is indicating both to the US and his own people that Israel thinks America is not doing enough and that Israel will 'go it alone', if need be, to eliminate her enemies.

[giuliano]

why is this so shocking? of course we don't care.

we let genocide roll on unabated in africa. nothing against the jewish holocaust, but let's keep our eyes on those occurring today!

what has sharon or israel done for those suffering genocide today? not much from what i can gather.

[Chris the Chees]

What a ridiculous statement from Sharon, I never did think that someone with such a militaristic, sectarian, extremist streak would be good for anyone. Making such absolute statements certainly is not good for the academic discipline of history.

[RickSp]

The Likud Party has been using the Holocaust to justify everything Israel does, including butchering Palestinians, for decades.

Sharon himself, is at best a thug. After the massacres at Shabra and Shatilla, identifying Sharon as a terrorist is not hyperbole. Regrettably Bush has been, for all intents and purposes, taking orders from Sharon in Middle Eastern policies. It also appears that an Israeli spy was been operating out of the notorious Office of Special Projects in Rumsfeld's Pentagon.

Regrettably, Israel under Sharon is just another rogue state.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tinybear So said Israeli PM, Ariel Sharon. Do you agree with him? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6870400/

Ariel Sharon is the Israeli military personnel representative, and he should rather stick within its parameters, instead of playing a politician.
Politics is not the stongest field he may "compete" with(in). I would say that politics is the Ariel Sharon's enemy #2.
#1 is being reserved for his mind, or so.

[shrike]

I think what Sharon says is absurd. The full scale and nature of the Holocaust was not understood by the Allies until a late stage, but even if it had been the only way to stop it was to remove the Nazis. Diverting bombers to attack a railway line would hardly have made the Reich safe for jews.

The allies had pretty good idea what happened to the Jews during WW2.And yes bombing railways would save thousand of human life because Nazis had no other way to transport the Jews before the retreat in final phase of war.

By now, the Allies had an almost embarrassing amount of detailed information concerning the extermination of the Jews. Much more was to follow in 1943 and 1944, particularly concerning Auschwitz. From there, a comprehensive report was received by the London office of the United States Office of Strategic Services (OSS – the forerunner of the CIA). The two-part report had been compiled on 10 and 12 August 1943 and was received in London on 28 January 1944. It contained comprehensive information on the murders committed at Auschwitz. Amongst other details, the report stated that 468,000 non-registered Jews had been gassed at the camp by September 1942. Between September 1942 and the beginning of June 1943, the camp received approximately 60,000 Jews from Greece, 50,000 from Slovakia and the Protectorate, 60,000 from the Netherlands, Belgium and France and 16,000 from Polish towns. At the beginning of August, 15,000 Jews had arrived from Sosnowiec and Bedzin. Of all of these people, about 2 percent were still alive. Of more than 14,000 Gypsies, 90% had been gassed. The report went on to describe the crematoria at Birkenau, and listed the names of the principal perpetrators: Höss, Schwarz, Aumeier, Mandel, Grabner, and Boger, amongst others. "History knows no parallel of such destruction of human life," the report said.

http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html

[ericsp23]

The allies had pretty good idea what happened to the Jews during WW2.And yes bombing railways would save thousand of human life because Nazis had no other way to transport the Jews before the retreat in final phase of war.

If the railways had been bombed they would likely have resorted to forced marches which I'm sure would be just as brutal as the train rides were. And towards the end, they probably would have just gone on a killing spree in the ghettoes.

[shrike]

If the railways had been bombed they would likely have resorted to forced marches which I'm sure would be just as brutal as the train rides were. And towards the end, they probably would have just gone on a killing spree in the ghettoes.

The allies were pretty close so the marches would not make it to death camps so many Jews could be saved and I don't think that Germans would spend the bullets on killing Jews where the allies so close it was of the main reasons why they started to transport the Jews east
Nevertheless the allies did nothing to stop the killing probably USA would never enter the war if was not attacked by Japan.

[Pooeypants]

So you're saying there was some kind of conspiracy against the Jews?

[ericsp23]

Could the allies have done more to help the Jews in WW2? Probably. But I think it is pointless for us, 60 years later, to talk about what might have happened if something was done differently.
I don't think it is fair to say that the allies did not care what was happening to the Jews or that they agreed with it. We were in the middle of the worst war in the history of the world. Millions of people were dying. Entire governments had been destroyed, and every country involved was fighting for its continued existence. I'm sure that the few people who knew about the Holocaust during the war were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews, but they had more important things to worry about.

[shrike]

Quote by: Pooeypants So you're saying there was some kind of conspiracy against the Jews?

I don't say anything i just that say allies knew and did nothing because they did not care. Like now the western world don't care what happening in Africa about all the famine and genocide that goes on there now and classic example of it what happened in Rwanda everybody knew and did nothing.

Holocaust during the war were sympathetic to the plight of the Jews, but they had more important things to worry about.

Exactly my point they just didnt care about some petty Jews

[ericsp23]

That is a very unfair way of looking at things. It's not that they didn't care. They were more concerned with preserving their own freedom.
Think of it this way. You're house is on fire and you are just able to get out alive, but not without being badly injured first. Unfortunately, you did not have time to save the family pet. How would you feel if someone called you a bad person for not going back in and saving the pet? Seems kind of unfair doesn't it?

[shrike]

That is a very unfair way of looking at things. It's not that they didn't care. They were more concerned with preserving their own freedom. Think of it this way. You're house is on fire and you are just able to get out alive, but not without being badly injured first. Unfortunately, you did not have time to save the family pet. How would you feel if someone called you a bad person for not going back in and saving the pet? Seems kind of unfair doesn't it?

Are saying that existence of US in any point of war was threatened by Germany. but nevertheless we talking now about late phase of war 44-45 when there was not threat not to UK and defiantly not to USA and most of the Jews were still alive so even bombing the railways would helped but they just did nothing and they did have possibilities to save many human beings and not only Jews.