Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush wrongly blames America for not bombing Auschwitz
American Thinker ^ | 01/13/08 | JR Dunn

Posted on 01/14/2008 10:02:11 AM PST by DFG

I take second place to no one in my admiration for George W. Bush. But there are times when he comes out with something so obtuse, so ill thought out, that it simply grates on the brain. Remarks of the "I have gazed into Putin's soul" variety. (I gazed into Putin's soul too. I needed two weeks of electroshock to straighten me out afterward.)

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Germany; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2020hindsight; allies; auschwitz; bush; bushvisit; cep; holocaust; secondguessing; wwii
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last
Bush is wrong if he thinks the US Army Air Corps could have effectively bombed Auschwitz before mid 1944. Any attempt would have killed a lot of Jewish prisoners. And then what about Dachau and the other death camps?
1 posted on 01/14/2008 10:02:14 AM PST by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DFG

this was the topic of several threads last week.


2 posted on 01/14/2008 10:03:29 AM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Methinks the President may have been retrojecting today’s near-pinpoint accuracy into an era when it did not exist.


3 posted on 01/14/2008 10:03:50 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale

Sorry, I missed the previous threads and did not search for it. The article I posted was dated 01/13/08.


4 posted on 01/14/2008 10:04:56 AM PST by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DFG
Bush is first and foremost a politician and politicians routinely talk out their @ss.

Don't pay any attention to it.

5 posted on 01/14/2008 10:05:20 AM PST by FReepaholic (This tagline could indicate global warming.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

He was saying it for the consumption of Israel and others. He knows its not real.


6 posted on 01/14/2008 10:06:03 AM PST by razzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Exactly. What a lame comment. It’s comments like this that tell me Bush means well but just isn’t quite up to the task.


7 posted on 01/14/2008 10:06:04 AM PST by DoughtyOne (< fence >< sound immigration policies >< /weasles >< /RINOs >< /Reagan wannabees that are liberal >)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

I believe the proposal that FDR rejected was to bomb the railways serving the death camps. He claimed that we needed the bombs elsewhere.


8 posted on 01/14/2008 10:07:02 AM PST by Poincare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG
But it has to sound good, that’s all that matters in politics anymore. Who cares if it’s feasible or reasonable. Look at near ALL environmental legislation in the last years. Does that make any sense?
9 posted on 01/14/2008 10:07:10 AM PST by Red6 (Come and take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Methinks the President may have been retrojecting today’s near-pinpoint accuracy into an era when it did not exist.

Perhaps so. A mission to deal with Auschwitz may well have been difficult for the capabilities available at the time ... though as I understand it, the reasoning was more nuanced than that: it wasn't so much a matter of capabilities, as it was a tactical considerations such as whether the necessary combat forces could be more profitably employed elsewhere; and whether ending the war more quickly would end up saving more lives.

Being a wartime president himself, I'm sure Mr. Bush has a pretty fair idea of the rationale underlying the decisions actually made. But in hindsight ... it's difficult to see why the war leaders didn't authorize a mission to destroy at least the rail lines leading to Auschwitz. As it is, the site was left unmolested even though by 1944 there was a lot of good intel about what was actually going on there.

10 posted on 01/14/2008 10:15:19 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DFG
What an evil boob Bushitler is. The only reason he makes reference to years of considered analysis is so he can lie. I mean if you know better then he certainly should know better, even if he was only a legacy Eli.

It's pretty clear.. Bush is lying now, wistfully musing how he could have killed people in the past.

I bet you voted for him twice too. I'm so sorry he betrayed you.


11 posted on 01/14/2008 10:18:21 AM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Mr. Bush wasn’t “up to the task” when it was his turn in Vietnam; he couldn’t even attend a few National Guard meetings at home, much less do any bombing that might have saved a few noncommunist Vietnamese. How easy it is to say “others” should have taken action that he himself would never have considered.


12 posted on 01/14/2008 10:18:57 AM PST by laconic (ence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Bush is who he is, a legacy Ivy Leaguer who got by on his last name and didn’t have to do much as Governor of Texas since most of the power in that state is held by the legislature and Lieutenant Governor, as President of the Texas Senate.


13 posted on 01/14/2008 10:20:30 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG

He said bomb the railroad tracks to Auschwitz, not the death camp itself. That could have been easily done.

GWB is right. Why are you defending a left wing stooge like FDR?


14 posted on 01/14/2008 10:24:23 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laconic

It was LBJ’s decision not to call up the National Guard.

Do we have to argue over this again?


15 posted on 01/14/2008 10:26:52 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

FDR could care less about some Jews dying in Auschwitz. He gets a pass because liberal historians love his socialistic policies.


16 posted on 01/14/2008 10:28:04 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: barryg

Definitely.


17 posted on 01/14/2008 10:29:21 AM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: razzle

“He was saying it for the consumption of Israel and others. He knows it’s not real.”

Gads. Do you realize what you just wrote?

You have just called Israel and “others” a bunch of idiots.

It is Bush who continues not to disappoint with his continuous stupidity.


18 posted on 01/14/2008 10:29:22 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DFG

Who cares what happened in 1944? It is the height of hypocrisy for Bush to castigate the U.S. THEN for not saving the Jews in Auschwitz, while he NOW espouses disastrous policies such as the “right of return” which would destroy the state of Israel. I think Mr. Bush needs to focus on his own reckless Secretary of State’s efforts to screw Israel NOW instead of worrying about history.


19 posted on 01/14/2008 10:29:23 AM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poincare

Why do I suspect that if FDR’s family members were endangered, he would somehow find an extra bomber or two to bomb the damn railroad tracks?

Why were we bombing Dresden instead, a non military target?


20 posted on 01/14/2008 10:29:30 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Poincare

B17’s or B24’s taking off from England or Libya (or maybe Sicily after mid 1943) to bomb Auschwitz in southern Poland could possibly have continued on to land in Russian terrority (shuttle mission). Several of those types of missions were flown with reduced bombloads. But they had heavy losses and our Russian “allies” were not very cooperative.

Also, the early Ploesti raids in Romania by B24’s from Libya killed a lot of American bomber crewmen and did very little damage to Ploesti. The Ploesti raids might have been a factor in FDR’s decision.


21 posted on 01/14/2008 10:29:41 AM PST by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
But in hindsight ... it's difficult to see why the war leaders didn't authorize a mission to destroy at least the rail lines leading to Auschwitz.

It would also have made the Germans aware that we knew what was going on there.

22 posted on 01/14/2008 10:30:26 AM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)

Bush is right . .and it takes some courage to indirectly criticize FDR and his handling of the Holocaust.

History IS important.


23 posted on 01/14/2008 10:31:01 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DFG

What did FDR know and when did he know it?


24 posted on 01/14/2008 10:34:04 AM PST by DBrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
"What a lame comment. It’s comments like this that tell me Bush means well but just isn’t quite up to the task."

Heh, heh.

There's more of that infernal "blame America" talk again!

25 posted on 01/14/2008 10:38:02 AM PST by Designer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: barryg

I wasn’t aware that I was defending FDR. I would blame Ike more than FDR if the US Army Air Corps had the ability to pull off such a mission before D-Day. Unfortunately, Ike listened too much to advice from British generals like Montgomery.


26 posted on 01/14/2008 10:41:58 AM PST by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: barryg

You have sidestepped my point for your purpose. There was no mention of FDR in my reply.


27 posted on 01/14/2008 10:43:16 AM PST by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DFG
Ask anyone what they would have done in any conflict and one gets a variety of thoughts based on a variety of circumstances. A bombing campaign probably wouldn’t have killed as many innocent victims as were cooked in the ovens.
28 posted on 01/14/2008 10:47:39 AM PST by tobyhill (The media lies so much the truth is the exception)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barryg

I think the point being made last week by people considerably smarter than I is that every bomb we used on non-strategic targets was one more day that our troops were under the gun.

Winning the war by securing the German surrender as quickly as possible seems the best way to save the Jews that remained in the camps. Bombing the railways leading to the camps does nothing to save the Jews en route (the Germans would have just sealed the cars and they would die there), or in camp.


29 posted on 01/14/2008 10:47:51 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

Yes, FDR should certainly have bombed all the death camps.


30 posted on 01/14/2008 10:50:24 AM PST by Harvey1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DFG

This request to bomb the Auschwitz railroad tracks was made repeatedly to FDR and was repeatedly ignored.

FDR’s State Department worked very hard not to save any of the Holocaust victims or to let them immigrate to the United States. I suggest you read up on the subject.

Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long outlines ways in which consulates can indefinitely postpone granting visas. “We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.”


31 posted on 01/14/2008 10:52:01 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: barryg

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/index.html

In line with its undeclared policy not to aid in the rescue of refugees, the War Department routinely turned down requests to bomb deportation railways. No studies were ever conducted to check the feasibility of such bombing raids.


32 posted on 01/14/2008 10:54:53 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

Bush is a disappointment to me. I took a little time to look into the whole “legacy/family name” thing, though, back in 2000. I had an old childhood friend who has an MBA from Harvard and asked if it was possible to get that based on family connections. It’s not.


33 posted on 01/14/2008 10:54:55 AM PST by Emmett McCarthy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: razzle

“He was saying it for the consumption of Israel and others. He knows its not real.” Yeah! He scared hell out of Israel by badmouthing them about their occupation of Palestine.

I had some admiration for Bush a few years ago. I have since lost it. Too many of his ideas run counter to U.S. sovereignty and independence. Too many globalist ideas and agendas.


34 posted on 01/14/2008 10:57:14 AM PST by dvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: barryg

The facts speak for themselves; there is no “argument” of which I’m aware.


35 posted on 01/14/2008 10:59:16 AM PST by laconic (ence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Harvey1

My point was that many of the death camps like Auschwitz and Sobibor were in Poland or the eastern part of Germany. The March 4, 1944 raid on Berlin was one of the longest 8th Air Force missions up until that time and bomber losses were high. Before D-Day, it would have been a suicide mission for our bomber crews if we had attempted to send to eastern Germany or Poland.


36 posted on 01/14/2008 11:01:57 AM PST by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DFG

President Bush is a hero for saying this. It’s a question many people have been asking for years. This writer goes to great lengths to provide excuses for why nothing was done when it was known full well what was going on.


37 posted on 01/14/2008 11:02:40 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dvan

It sounds like you should be a Ron Paul supporter? Or is your preference Pat Buchanan?


38 posted on 01/14/2008 11:03:03 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: dvan

Occupation of “palestine”? What Palestine?


39 posted on 01/14/2008 11:04:26 AM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: DFG

You are wrong about this. In fact, Auschwitz was once bombed ACCIDENTALLY when a nearby chemical factory was targeted.

The inmates at Auschwitz were overjoyed, they thought that FDR had finally listened to their prayers. Instead, FDR told the Air Force to never let it happen again.


40 posted on 01/14/2008 11:05:29 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: barryg
GWB is right. Why are you defending a left wing stooge like FDR?

What's really amazing to me is the number of FReepers on this thread who are mouthing, almost verbatim, the Moveon.org talking points....

Unless there's some deep sarcasm in their posts that I'm missing...

41 posted on 01/14/2008 11:05:50 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: barryg
FDR could care less about some Jews dying in Auschwitz. He gets a pass because liberal historians love his socialistic policies.

And you can bet if FDR was a Republican, all you'd ever hear from them is how he interned the Japanese.

42 posted on 01/14/2008 11:06:57 AM PST by dfwgator (11+7+15=3 Heismans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

They are just probably lazy and don’t want to do the research necessary to understand the situation. Lots of liberal sycophants who are historians will do anything they can to protect FDR’s legacy. Ironically, Jews tend to be the most loyal of FDR’s supporters.


43 posted on 01/14/2008 11:09:00 AM PST by barryg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: DFG
I would blame Ike more than FDR ...

IIRC, the decision not to attack Auschitz or its rail lines was made by FDR and Churchill.... For Churchill, at least, it was apparently a difficult decision. Probably less difficult for FDR, who apparently was less prone to worrying too much about the moral consequences of his decisions.

44 posted on 01/14/2008 11:09:36 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
"He put his life on the line when his country asked him to and didn't use it as a means to advance himself, the way John Kerry did."

Questioning the minds of our military leaders of WWII is simply not a good idea. We needed ALL of our resources to fight and win the war, and rescuing people simply wasn't on the military agenda at the time. Why question great military minds such a Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and call into question their strategies? PC has been woven so deeply into the fabric of American society today even the POTUS feels it's politically expedient to bash America.

Btw, the bombing accuracy during WWII was extraordinarliy eratic. In fact, it was so eratic that we routinely had to re-bomb the same places several times before hitting the target, if we hit it at all. The bomb delivery system was comprised of a man looking out his bombbay window and praying for some accuracy. Also, there is nothing easier to fix quickly than railroad tracks, just as the 'Bridge On the River Kwai' so poignently displays. The Nazis would simply have used their Jewish captives and Allied POWs to do the repairing, as the Japanese did so brutally in Burma.

So many times we bombarded Axis positions with everything we had in an effort to "soften up" the enemy before attacking. Time and again we found out that innacurate 'carpet bombing' had little effect on the enemy. One example that jumps into mind is the invasion of Normandy, where we threw everything but the kitchen sink at them before invading, only to discover that we barely scratched them with our bombing. In modern times we have come to view bombing as an effective weapon against the enemy, but during WWII that just wasn't the case. Finally, could we have spared the aircraft and the pilots that we would have lost to the Luftwaffe and various anti-aircraft guns while attempting to alleviate the plight of the Jews in the concentration camps? Nobody seems to think about this gravely important factor.

45 posted on 01/14/2008 11:09:44 AM PST by houstonman58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon Girl

There was no such thing as pin point bombing in WWII. Would it be okay with you if we had carpet bombed Auschwitz?
B17’s and B24’s dropped dumb iron bombs or incendiary bombs from 25,000 to 30,000 feet in those days and many bombs missed their targets. Bombing from a lower altitude to increase accuracy was suicidal. That would have destroyed the German facilities but would also have killed hundreds or thousands of Jewish prisoners.


46 posted on 01/14/2008 11:14:14 AM PST by DFG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: houstonman58
First off ... where did the lead-off quote come from? It's certainly not something I wrote...

Questioning the minds of our military leaders of WWII is simply not a good idea. We needed ALL of our resources to fight and win the war, and rescuing people simply wasn't on the military agenda at the time. Why question great military minds such a Patton, Eisenhower, MacArthur, and call into question their strategies? PC has been woven so deeply into the fabric of American society today even the POTUS feels it's politically expedient to bash America.

I certainly understand the tactical aspects you've pointed out, but overall this comment is profoundly short-sighted. It's always good to reassess and even question the decisions made by previous military leaders, so as to learn what mistakes they made, and how to avoid them in the future.

And in the case of something as unprecedentedly horrific as the what was happening in the death camps, I think that to avoid addressing that situation by hiding behind tactical reasoning is edging into morally questionable territory.

It'd be one thing if it were technically impossible -- but to know about it (as we did), and to be able to make the strike (as we could have, at some point after Normandy), and to fail to do so ... I think it was a mistake not to act.

47 posted on 01/14/2008 11:21:44 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: DFG
Excellent article. The author made every point I was intending to, the three main ones being (1) we didn't have bombers in practical range of the key railroads (much less the camps themselves) until 1944; (2) the technology of the day would have had anything dropped near the camps being dropped on the camps as well, and "well, they were probably going to die anyway" is a rather poor excuse for dropping bombs on helpless camp inmates; and (3) Auschwitz wasn't the only death camp and its gas chambers weren't the only means of murdering Jews and other "undesirables." The Nazis shot them in the beginning of the war, the complications arising therefrom being the reasons for the camps in the first place.

It hardly surprises me that Ed Asner narrated a gloomy accusation that the U.S. and our allies were complicit in the murder of 6 million people. That sort of twisting of history is absolutely obscene but it fits the narrative. No knowledgable historian will take it seriously but the anti-American jihadists will go nuts for it. The sort of cheap moral equivalency that equates a crime with the inability of someone else to stop it is precisely the depth to which the Left has descended intellectually. I note that the Soviet Union is never included in this sort of historical falsehood. Wonder why?

48 posted on 01/14/2008 11:27:05 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DFG
That would have destroyed the German facilities but would also have killed hundreds or thousands of Jewish prisoners.

Which would have amounted to much less than a day's work for the Germans at Auschwitz.

49 posted on 01/14/2008 11:27:21 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Billthedrill
and "well, they were probably going to die anyway" is a rather poor excuse for dropping bombs on helpless camp inmates

By war's end the Germans were killing up to 20,000 daily at Auschwitz. All you're saying here is, they'd have died anyway, but our hands are clean because the Germans did it.

One can legitimately question whether or not a raid would have been effective. But IF a bombing had shut down or significantly slowed the Germans' operation, then FAR more lives would have been preserved -- short-term, anyway -- than lost in the bombing.

50 posted on 01/14/2008 11:31:14 AM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-122 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson