Skip to comments.
Pope: Why didn’t Allies bomb railway lines to Auschwitz?
The Times of Israel / The Associated Press ^
| June 21, 2015
Posted on 06/21/2015 9:56:50 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-204 next last
To: Reno89519
What has the Pope done to counter Islamic genocide of Christians and others?A few weeks ago, there was a thread here that said the Pope was being heretical by even acknowledging that Middle Eastern Christians are being persecuted for their faith, since they're heretics against the true church and therefore can't be considered Christian. There's a quote in there from Pope Pius XII from 1957: "To be Christian one must be Roman. One must recognize the oneness of Christs Church that is governed by one successor of the Prince of the Apostles who is the Bishop of Rome, Christs Vicar on earth
Introductory post: The Bergoglio-Denzinger on Francis ecumenism of blood
121
posted on
06/22/2015 1:39:27 PM PDT
by
Bubba Ho-Tep
("The rat always knows when he's in with weasels."--Tom Waits)
To: MCF
This man shows his ignorance on something that could be looked up on the Internet. It took thousands of men and hundreds of aircraft for one raid. To risk all of that to try and bomb individual rail lines, that were hard to hit at 20,000- 28,000 ft bombing altitude, and easily and quickly repaired is ludicrous
______________________________
Coincidentally, I watched a NatGeo program on this very subject this weekend. (”Anne Frank's Holocaust”)
Because of the reasons you stated about (not) bombing railways and camps, the allies decided the quickest way to end the genocide would be to end the occupations as quickly as they could.
122
posted on
06/22/2015 1:44:54 PM PDT
by
KittenClaws
( Normalcy Bias. Do you have it?)
To: Nervous Tick
>> Book title: Audacity of Pope.
LOL!
Amazon could sell that plus bammys ghostwritten screed as a two-pack.
That and twenty bucks will buy you a coffee at Starbucks.
123
posted on
06/22/2015 2:53:47 PM PDT
by
ronnietherocket3
(Mary is understood by the heart, not study of scripture.)
To: af_vet_1981
No; they were not risking their lives to save the Jews, which is the point. The point is moot because the decision-makers chose to win the war first.
In which case, saving the Jews wasn't a valid choice. Especially, since doing anything positive in this regard simply wasn't practical.
The decision-makers may -- or may not -- have been anti-semitic. But anti-semitism played no part in their decision.
124
posted on
06/22/2015 5:13:07 PM PDT
by
okie01
To: xone
"
Or maybe you are seeing the real Pope."
Can you see...The Real Me ~The Who from Quadrophenia 1973 [caution LOUD vimeo link]
125
posted on
06/22/2015 5:24:22 PM PDT
by
BlueDragon
(In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king)
To: KittenClaws
Because of the reasons you stated about (not) bombing railways and camps, the allies decided the quickest way to end the genocide would be to end the occupations as quickly as they could.
Exactly. You end the holocaust by liberating the camps. You put resources into getting the army into the position where it can liberate the camps.
There were a few camps that were on the flightpath of the bomber streams between the Initial Point (IP) where they turned on and warmed up their bomb cameras and the Aiming Point (AP) as they attacked various military and industrial targets. I've seen some of those films, taken over the course of multiple missions over various seasons. Maybe hindsight is 20/20, but it's pretty clear that more and more people were going into the camps but not actually leaving. With good photo evidence of things like mass graves (early on) and crematorium operations coinciding with barracks being empty, then occupied, then empty again.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
An old, tendentious point resurrected for the umpteenth time. Bombing with the precision we're used to today was impossible, bombing with the best precision available (fighter-bombers, dive bombers) took platforms that did not have the range to reach the target area. High-altitude, long-range "precision" bombing with the planes that could reach the target would have obliterated the people in the camps, after which the moral relativists who today sit safe behind their keyboards would be bleating that we were no better than the Germans.
The bottom line, however, is probably much colder than that. The camps weren't military targets, i.e. their destruction would not help the Allies prosecute the war, which at the time was still very much in doubt. It wasn't a matter of who was in the camps: Jews, Romani, political prisoners, prisoners of war, homosexuals. It was a matter of winning the thing, which was their only hope of deliverance in the end anyway. As that end approached, the Nazis made a great effort to kill off the witnesses and cover the evidence. Using assets intended to end the war to bomb the camps instead would not have stopped the killing of anyone, it would have prolonged it.
To: okie01
It seems you agree post 103 is true, and not actually moot, but rather irrelevant.
5. The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.
128
posted on
06/22/2015 6:14:34 PM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
To: BlueDragon
C'mon man! Don't drag the Who down by associating the papal clown with them.
129
posted on
06/22/2015 7:06:43 PM PDT
by
xone
Comment #130 Removed by Moderator
To: fso301
You might want to re-read WWII history on the Allied bombiing campaign....namely the Transportation Plan.
To: ealgeone
You might want to re-read WWII history on the Allied bombiing campaign....namely the Transportation Plan.For what purpose?
132
posted on
06/22/2015 8:03:01 PM PDT
by
fso301
To: fso301
Because we bombed the heck out of Germany’s rail and road system.
To: ronnietherocket3
so he wanted us to bomb but now comes out and says people who make weapons are not Christians.
Question: If the Vatican arms its Swiss guards with weapons, is it engaged in the arms trade? Or not? Francis, I’m so confused.
He is squandering all the respect that John Paul labored so hard to earn. Very very sad.
134
posted on
06/22/2015 8:40:16 PM PDT
by
cookcounty
("I was a Democrat until I learned to count" --Maine Gov. Paul LePage)
To: ealgeone
Because we bombed the heck out of Germanys rail and road system.And the German transport system functioned amazingly well right up until the end.
135
posted on
06/22/2015 8:41:20 PM PDT
by
fso301
To: af_vet_1981
It seems you agree post 103 is true, and not actually moot, but rather irrelevant. 5. The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.
Your point is a straw man -- a false choice. There was never a choice between a.) attacking strategic targets and winning the war or b.) attacking rail lines and saving Jews.
136
posted on
06/22/2015 9:31:10 PM PDT
by
okie01
To: okie01
Your point is a straw man -- a false choice. There was never a choice between a.) attacking strategic targets and winning the war or b.) attacking rail lines and saving Jews.False; the allies picked their targets and objectives; they were not cast in stone. The Jews, and other Gentile civilian victims, were simply not a priority to the Allies.
137
posted on
06/23/2015 5:49:51 AM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
To: xone; All
138
posted on
06/23/2015 9:58:41 AM PDT
by
af_vet_1981
(The bus came by and I got on, That's when it all began.)
To: af_vet_1981
The Jews, and other Gentile civilian victims, were simply not a priority to the Allies. Because these targets weren't going to help win the war. Ergo, they weren't valid choices.
139
posted on
06/23/2015 11:25:44 AM PDT
by
okie01
To: af_vet_1981
You wrote:
The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.
So saying men who risked their lives to liberate Europe from the Nazis, wouldn't want to do so to save Jews isn't defamation of the character and courage of those men? How many live to counter your words? Does your statement impact their reputation in a negative way?
def·a·ma·tion
noun
the action of damaging the good reputation of someone; slander or libel.
Defamation of character is the legal term for harming someone's reputation by making false statements. To prove defamation, a plaintiff must show: The statement reflected negatively on the plaintiff's reputation.
As for the Forum Rules: you didn't defame me with your wild talk. The Religious Forum has different rules that if they bother you you should take up with someone in charge.
As for defaming the character and reputation of the men who battled to free Europe from Nazi oppression, the shoe fits you.
140
posted on
06/23/2015 12:22:54 PM PDT
by
xone
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-204 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson