Jump to content

President Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz


Gregory
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

I invite over here if somebody is interested in a little other discuss than militaria collecting. At the beginning read please the news at Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz.

 

How do you imagine from the perspective of today's knowledge the bombardment of Auschwitz death camp? I am asking because am unable to imagine such an operation in other way than Allied war crime against the Jews. What "good" for the Jews could be done by bombardment of Auschwitz?

 

WWII-era and the best in the world Norden M9 bomb sight was not a device for smart weapon able to track, guide and hit SS-ocuppied guard towers, buildings and other SS-ocuppied elements of the death camp infrastructure. The main victims of such bombardment would be only the Jews for whom today President George W. Bush would like to do something positive more than 60 years ago.

 

And what after bombardment? What after common German-Jewish massacre in Auschwitz? Where the Jewish survivors would run away in the heart of nazi occupied Europe? After a few days long "hunting" they would be executed up to the last person.

 

What good solution for the Jews would be bombardment of Auschwitz death camp by the USAAF in your opinion?

 

 

Best regards

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Robinson

I'm sure he was just expressing the opinion that the US was wrong not to have taken military action to try to halt the holocaust. It was no secret at the time that this was happening although I doubt anybody in US govt could have comprehended the enormity of it. Tactically, it would have been impossible with the weapons available in WW2 to have bombed the camps without inflicting casualites on the prisoners. But could we have done more? Absolutely.

 

I don't remember where I heard this but during the post war discussions re establishing a Jewish nation somebody proposed locating it in the US....in one of the then remote western states. Instead, Palestine was chosen and we're living with the consequences of that decision today. Granted, this was the biblical Holy land and from that perspective it made sense to locate Israel there.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I remember right I believe that logistics had a hell of a lot to do with it. US bombers could not reach the camps in Poland and return to England with their available fuel capacity and would have had to land in Russian held territory. Stalin would not allow it. He damn sure didn't care about Europes Jews. At the time sacrificing American airmen and aircraft to destory camps was not feasable for the war effort. You must remember that the Germans launched a massive attack in mid December 1944 that lasted till Janurary 1945 that damn near worked. Diverting bomber groups and personell was out of the question. While the camps were terrible places, the overall complexity and far reaching consequences were not really known at the time. American fighter aircraft were constantly destroying rail cars, engines and rail lines which had some effect but not much as the SS commandered transportation at the expense of Germany's war effort.

As far as Israel is concerned That was a defacto creation brought about by the British with the Balfore agreement made during WWI with prominent Jewish leaders. Palistine was being settled by European Jewish immigrants years before the Nazis took over in Germany. There was never an effort to resettle European Jews in mass in the US after WWII.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere I read that they (Allied Air Forces) were afraid to hit the people in the camps as well.

They sure knew about the camps as they appeared on recon photos, but I guess at that time they didn't know the full cruelty of the concentration camps.

 

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Robinson
If I remember right I believe that logistics had a hell of a lot to do with it. US bombers could not reach the camps in Poland and return to England with their available fuel capacity and would have had to land in Russian held territory. Stalin would not allow it. He damn sure didn't care about Europes Jews. At the time sacrificing American airmen and aircraft to destory camps was not feasable for the war effort. You must remember that the Germans launched a massive attack in mid December 1944 that lasted till Janurary 1945 that damn near worked. Diverting bomber groups and personell was out of the question. While the camps were terrible places, the overall complexity and far reaching consequences were not really known at the time. American fighter aircraft were constantly destroying rail cars, engines and rail lines which had some effect but not much as the SS commandered transportation at the expense of Germany's war effort.

As far as Israel is concerned That was a defacto creation brought about by the British with the Balfore agreement made during WWI with prominent Jewish leaders. Palistine was being settled by European Jewish immigrants years before the Nazis took over in Germany. There was never an effort to resettle European Jews in mass in the US after WWII.

Steve

 

 

Actually, they could have sent heavy bombers from bases in north Africa (without fighter escort but then that was the norm at that time). But even if the US had known the magnitude of the holocaust I don't see that dropping bombs on the camps from high altitude would have been a humane solution.

 

The idea of creating a Jewish state within the continental US was just a suggestion.....it didn't get much support.

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it is an endless debate whether the camps should have been bombed or not, but President Bush did make his remarks while speaking at the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem; hardly the place to state that bombing Auschwitz could have been a mistake, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never been to the Yad Vaschim memorial but I can imagine it is a powerful experience. Anyone would walk away wanting to say something that indicates their sad feelings. I believe that Bush made the comment in feeling the sadness and frustration of the senseless murder of so many innocent souls. I do not believe that any human with a conscience would not be moved by the stark evidence of mans ability to be cruel to his fellow man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that nobody in the US at the time understood the true magnitude of the Holocaust. Yes, we knew bad things were happening, but the genocide of millions?

 

Even knowing what we know today, you have to balance the benefits of diverting limited assets to bomb the camps against the fact that the war would probably go on longer. In the end, which would save more lives? I don't think we can answer that question today, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchu Warrior

Maybe no one really cared what happened to the Jews after all they may have been Gods chosen people but they surely were not the worlds most favorite people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Favorite or not favorite ..... they're still human beings and should have never been into that kind of sheer terror.

 

I know from my dealings with American Veterans that some of them felt guilty for not doing anything about the mass murders when they saw the camps.

It is my believe that a lot of USAAF men who saw the terror there at the end of the war or right after it felt similar.

 

Even knowing what we know today, you have to balance the benefits of diverting limited assets to bomb the camps against the fact that the war would probably go on longer. In the end, which would save more lives? I don't think we can answer that question today, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

 

I can agree with that, Bill.

 

Erwin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as it pains me to say this, there was a great deal of anti-Semitism even in the U.S. during WWII. Did this play in part to the decision to not bomb rail lines? We'll never really know and it's up to God to sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda. The fact remains, our country should have and could have done something but, chose to pursue other avenues of attack against military and civilian targets. Let's face it, history will always be written by the victor and the victors(Allies) are not going to paint themselves in a bad light. Having to cover for bad decisions made over 60 years ago is a tough spot for current leaders to find themselves in. Bush found out how hard that can be and how easy it is to be mis-understood in your remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Robinson
thanks guys for keeping this pretty civil. I saw this discussion on MCF and it was just a Bush bashing thread

 

DITTO!!!

 

At first there was a worry that this discussion would go the way of similar such discussions on other forum, in other words turn into a flaming session. I was the one who pushed for keeping it open since I felt we had mature adults on this site. Glad to see that I was right. thumbsup.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DITTO!!!

 

At first there was a worry that this discussion would go the way of similar such discussions on other forum, in other words turn into a flaming session. I was the one who pushed for keeping it open since I felt we had mature adults on this site. Glad to see that I was right. thumbsup.gif

I am very glad too. Simply we are normal men. I am preparing next longer post for this discussion.

 

Thank you very much for all your opinions! :)

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very glad too. Simply we are normal men. I am preparing next longer post for this discussion.

 

Thank you very much for all your opinions! :)

 

Greg

 

key word...men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks guys for keeping this pretty civil. I saw this discussion on MCF and it was just a Bush bashing thread

 

I just don't understand why it got like that on MCF. Whether you love Bush, hate him or are indifferent, what does he have to do with decisions concerning what happened at Auschwitz before he was even born and while his father was flying fighters in the PTO? This type of discussion needs to be dealt with purely from it's historical context and not by what the current President said when confronted with a hot potato question. I really think that this thread is currently going in the right direction... hopefully we can keep it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pres. Bush is not the most articulate president we have ever had. It's tough to know what he (or anyone else) means specifically by what they say. However, during WW II, there were some discussions on bombing the RAIL lines that led into Auschwitz, not the camp itself. You are all correct re: the lack of "surgical bombing precision" as many of us are familiar with today, but that was not the crux of the argument.

 

I have always understood that it was not tactically feasible, because the Allied bombing effort was entirely directed at forcing the unconditional surrender of Germany. Bombing its factories, major towns and cities (we'll not diverge into Dresden), sub pens, known rocket sites, and other tactical targets took all the coordination between the Allies. Even after the Rhine was crossed, even though Germany's defenses were not coordinated or organized, Germany was still defending the homeland.

 

It's difficult to remain objective, 60 years+ after the fact, about why Germany continued to resist, or why the Allies missed the bocage in Normandy, why/how Allied intel failed prior to the Bulge, or a host of other questions related to the war. We all know about hindsight.

 

Going off on a tangent - other info that Steve R. and others might find relevant re: Stalin - there was some combat between Allied (American and Brit) forces and the Russians in 1945. It was mostly air to air combat (WW II magazine discussed it several years ago) as well as concerns over ground to ground. Officially, the explanations had to do with a lack of communication frequencies (really!) and language concerns, but Stalin was already working on expanding the Soviet empire. One of the unofficial reasons for the Elbe River being a mutually agreed on "border" was so ALL Allied ground forces wouldn't engage in ground combat against each other or bypass combative German troops. Enough already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In every conflict, more could have be done to save lives. I'm surprised the losses of soldiers and innocent civilians in the current conflict doesn't bring him to tears. But then again, as a soldier I have to be politically neutral, but I'm still allowed to be surprised.

 

Well I'm ruining the goal of keeping it historical. So, yes, more could be done, but given the circumstances and knowledge available at the time I think the US did what was right given what they knew.

 

To be honest, it was a weird comment to make, I would have rather Cpl. Hitler been blown to smithereens in 1918, or got into art school.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tears Are Shed at the White House for a Marine’s Bravery in Iraq

 

On Thursday, President Bush gave Corporal Dunham, who was 22 when he died, the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, presenting it to his mother and father in a somber East Room ceremony attended by his relatives and friends.

... President Bush ... cited Corporal Dunham’s uncommon valor and said that he “gave his own life so that the men under his command might live.”

 

The president shed tears during the ceremony.

 

“He was the guy who signed on for an extra two months in Iraq so he could stay with his squad,” President Bush said. “As he explained it, he wanted to make sure that everyone makes it home alive. Corporal Dunham took that promise seriously and would give his own life to make it good.”

New York Times Jan. 12 2007

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tears Are Shed at the White House for a Marine’s Bravery in Iraq

 

On Thursday, President Bush gave Corporal Dunham, who was 22 when he died, the Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest military award, presenting it to his mother and father in a somber East Room ceremony attended by his relatives and friends.

... President Bush ... cited Corporal Dunham’s uncommon valor and said that he “gave his own life so that the men under his command might live.”

 

The president shed tears during the ceremony.

 

“He was the guy who signed on for an extra two months in Iraq so he could stay with his squad,” President Bush said. “As he explained it, he wanted to make sure that everyone makes it home alive. Corporal Dunham took that promise seriously and would give his own life to make it good.”

New York Times Jan. 12 2007

I know a couple Marines who worked at the White House with him. He knew them all by first name, and would stop and ask them how their wives and kids were doing, by name

 

An aid spoke off the record anonymously about him once, because he doesn't want his out of camera image spread. The man said Bush sometimes goes with the detail to tell parents their son has been killed, and sits there and cries with the parents

 

History will one day show him as a great president

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I invite over here if somebody is interested in a little other discuss than militaria collecting. At the beginning read please the news at Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz.

 

 

 

Greg

As the after battle reports show, and was well known by the allies at the time, rail lines could be repaired over night. The logistics would not allow the bombing of the rail lines to accomplish any effective damage to the camp for any length of time. If they bombed the camp, the Germans would simply build another, in record time. Always with any crime of this nature, history will always say, why did the civilized persons not do more? A pardox to be sure.

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As all veterans know, War is an organized clusterf**k. Some times all the planning works. Most of the time there are glitches, (lives lost for unfathomanable reasons). The American commanders in WWII did not use the Soviet method of sacrificing soldiers lives unnecessarily. I am damned glad of that simply because I had a father and several uncles fight in that conflict that came home and had families that have done themselves well and added to the everchanging fabric of this nation. With that concept in mind it is as I mentioned. G.W. Bush made a statement while emotionally involved in a museum and memorial to the suffering of a people that was totally unnecessary. I believe that is a commendable trait showing human compassion. I also realize that he is not a military historian in the sense that our fellow scholars and comrades are on this forum. G.W. commands a modern military today that can litterally strike anywhere in the world. That was not the case in WWII. Aircraft had limits. That is the major reason we fought hard battles across the Pacific loosing good men on previously unkown islands establishing bases to be able to bring the war home to Japan. Military personell died so that our airmen could get close enough to Japan to fight them. As I stated in an earlier post the logistics were not there to destroy the SS infrastructure delivering those poor souls to the slaughter. Knowing about something is not the ability to stop it.

I had the same thoughts as G.W. several years back when I assisted in bringing about a holocaust memorial at the Fenster Museum of Jewish Art in Tulsa, Oklahoma. At the opening ceremonies there was a "midrasha" program in the adjoining temple before viewing the displays of period artifacts. Not being Jewish I had no idea of the planned activities. I was fortunate to witness and hear a "Kadash" a prayer for the dead. This prayer was in the form of a mournful song to God that truely tugged at the heart. Especially knowing that there were many in attendance that had lost relatives and seen first hand the brutality by being prisoners at the time. At this event I had the same feelings as G.W. about wishing something had been done sooner to stop the carnage. In doing more research I found there were MANY mitagating factors that had to do with what happened. The main thing we as Americans did was to sacrifice our sons and our fortunes to the Allied invasion of Europe which brought about the destruction of the Nazi regime that was commiting these terrible crimes. No small task. I personally believe we did what we could to stop this travesty with what we had at the time. It is paramount to remember that the Nazi government was still fielding an army up to the end of the war. Victory was not a sure thing until it occured. In this light I understand what he said and why he said it. The reality was that it was not possible at the time.

Bush's statement was the reaction of a very normal human being. God bless him.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Friends,

 

First of all thank you very much for your interesting and posting in this topic the more so that what we discuss about is not simple question and concerns highly emotional old inter-Allied affairs.

 

I'm sure he was just expressing the opinion that the US was wrong not to have taken military action to try to halt the holocaust.

The question is what could be done within the framework of military action? Military action depends mainly on geopolitics and military technology and I hope that altogether we know that Auschwitz situated in Poland was too far for the US armed forces for their successful military intervention there both in technological and geopolitical aspects.

 

That is why this is so important question today to be careful and responsible for our words when somebody of the ex-Allies of WWII tells anything about possible help for exterminated Jews. I like President Bush but with all respect for him this time he did very bad thing against Western Allies of WWII and the Jewish reactions confirm it. President Bush generated media storm of people's incompetence, stupidity, aggression, magic/wishful thinking etc., etc. All these factors are directed against us ex-Allies not only the USAAF but also RAF, RCAF and to some extent Polish Air Force if we had fourth-greatest air force on the West then.

 

Jewish writer Uri Huppert's reaction is typical in above context. After President Bush's statement in Jerusalem Uri Huppert accused in the Polish TV the USAAF and RAF for their "idleness" during WWII and their "silent consent" for the holocaust. What "idleness" and what "silent consent"? Even today the B-2 bombers would be unable to stop killing the Jews in Auschwitz without capturing continental Europe. The level of Jewish emotions may be understandable of course after killing millions of them but why nobody of military historians and scientists explain the Jews today total impossibility of military operations against far isolated camps deep in the enemy territory?

 

Too many times modern Jews look at the holocaust and Auschwitz case study like at the Biblical passing through the Red Sea. This magic thinking is very strong and it is related to never-ending accusations towards the Allies that they did nothing to stop the holocaust because they had a magic weapon to do it. I do not know how does it look in the USA but in Europe it is possible to hear even such fantastic quasi-military visions where Auschwitz ought to be liberated by the Allied airborne troops. And what next -- magic passing through entire occupied Europe? Being in shock at Jerusalem President Bush joined unfortunately this magic manner of thinking. There is too small number of such wise Jews with their own holocaust experience as Professor Shewah Weiss, former Israeli Ambassador to Poland. He will never tell nonsense about Allied "idleness" and the USAAF's "silent consent" for the holocaust.

 

It was no secret at the time that this was happening although I doubt anybody in US govt could have comprehended the enormity of it. Tactically, it would have been impossible with the weapons available in WW2 to have bombed the camps without inflicting casualites on the prisoners. But could we have done more? Absolutely.

Yes, you are right Greg. That is why today we have to think a hundred times, especially the politicians, before we tell something to the Jews about possibilities of help for them during WWII. The name of this problem is not "USAAF", "rail lines" or "Auschwitz" but the name of this problem is well-known Western wording of 1939 "We will not be dying for Gdańsk (Danzig)". The problem is deeper of course and starts not in Auschwitz but in the Western silent consent for Hitler's Austrian and Czechoslovak annexation in 1938. This is simple rule of action and reaction though it must be called in that case the rule of action and lack of reaction.

 

Today it is inconvenient truth for the Western world. And teary-eyed President Bush forgot about it being in shock related to Yad Vashem collections and the proofs of holocaust. As the European living as close the places of holocaust as possible I understand President Bush of course but on the other hand he did in Jerusalem powerful black PR against all of us ex-Allies of the West and WWII. No technological possibilities up to this time for rescuing such isolated places of people extermination as the Balkan death camps of 1990s and there was no the same possibilities to do it for Auschwitz in 1940s. I am afraid that some Jewish circles do not want to hear about this simple truth.

 

If I remember right I believe that logistics had a hell of a lot to do with it. US bombers could not reach the camps in Poland and return to England with their available fuel capacity and would have had to land in Russian held territory. Stalin would not allow it. He damn sure didn't care about Europes Jews. At the time sacrificing American airmen and aircraft to destory camps was not feasable for the war effort. You must remember that the Germans launched a massive attack in mid December 1944 that lasted till Janurary 1945 that damn near worked. Diverting bomber groups and personell was out of the question. While the camps were terrible places, the overall complexity and far reaching consequences were not really known at the time. American fighter aircraft were constantly destroying rail cars, engines and rail lines which had some effect but not much as the SS commandered transportation at the expense of Germany's war effort.

Yes, you are right. But try to explain today these circumstances Jewish opinion leaders. This is the problem of our time.

 

Somewhere I read that they (Allied Air Forces) were afraid to hit the people in the camps as well. They sure knew about the camps as they appeared on recon photos, but I guess at that time they didn't know the full cruelty of the concentration camps.

The truth is a little other. Both UK government and the US administration were very well informed about the holocaust and its machine in the form of death camps among others. Since the beginning UK and USA were informed about it by the Polish Intelligence. There was Polish special agent Jan Karski who was responsible for delivering all reports on the holocaust to the US administration. He is famous person. After WWII he was Professor of history at Georgetown University so perhaps somebody of the American USMF forumers heard about him. There is a book dedicated to him -- "Karski: How One Man Tried to Stop the Holocaust".

For more information about Jan Karski look at the following links:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...754C0A9669C8B63

http://www.mishalov.com/Karski.html

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/...and-karski.html

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/karski.html

http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/karski.html

http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/Jan_Karski_.htm

http://www.polamjournal.com/Library/Biogra...ski/karski.html

 

 

to be continued

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it is an endless debate whether the camps should have been bombed or not, but President Bush did make his remarks while speaking at the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem; hardly the place to state that bombing Auschwitz could have been a mistake, etc.

Yes, you are right. This is endless debate but this is only our, ex-Allies, fault that this debate is impossible to stop and finish. There is so many USAAF and RAF historians and publicists. Why nobody wants to write special book for the Jews with one main message of such a book -- "No, we were unable to help and rescue you neither by the bombers nor the airborne troops". This is so simple. The book without emotions but containing only technical reality, aviation parameters, operational factors. So simple task nobody wants to do. Why?

 

I agree that nobody in the US at the time understood the true magnitude of the Holocaust. Yes, we knew bad things were happening, but the genocide of millions?

The truth is a little other as I explained our Belgian friend "Jeeper704". The US administration knew every one detail of holocaust that took place in nazi system in occupied Poland. Special section of the Polish Intelligence was delegated to work for the Americans.

 

Even knowing what we know today, you have to balance the benefits of diverting limited assets to bomb the camps against the fact that the war would probably go on longer. In the end, which would save more lives? I don't think we can answer that question today, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

Yes, very wise words none the less there are the people who dream about liberation of Auschwitz by all British, Canadian, Polish and US airborne units and you are unable to explain them that one-way ticket to Auschwitz for the Allied airborne troops means the end of WWII maybe in mid-1950s.

 

Maybe no one really cared what happened to the Jews after all they may have been Gods chosen people but they surely were not the worlds most favorite people.
As much as it pains me to say this, there was a great deal of anti-Semitism even in the U.S. during WWII. Did this play in part to the decision to not bomb rail lines? We'll never really know and it's up to God to sort out the truth from the lies and propaganda.

On the other hand however the US WWII era administration had Jewish VIP who financed the US participation in WWII. I mean Henry Morgenthau, the US Secretary of the Treasury. It would be hard to believe that he was not interested in rescuing the Jews from holocaust machine but he never worked with military technology miracles as expected today.

 

history will always be written by the victor and the victors (Allies) are not going to paint themselves in a bad light. Having to cover for bad decisions made over 60 years ago is a tough spot for current leaders to find themselves in. Bush found out how hard that can be and how easy it is to be mis-understood in your remarks.

Yes, I agree, very wise words.

 

Pres. Bush is not the most articulate president we have ever had. It's tough to know what he (or anyone else) means specifically by what they say.

There is one more problem in this unfortunate Yad Vashem case study during President Bush's stay at Jerusalem. I cannot understand why so experienced and wise person as the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice joined quasi-military surrealism and agreed that (quotation from the Associated Press) "We should have bombed it". That is one more case which well-known British Professor of history Norman Davies asks publicly -- who advises the American politicians in the field of 20th Century history? Davies told in the Polish Radio that some time ago he found in the US Congress official document where at the list of nazi Allies Poland was Number 1 and Davies was in fury then. He stated that he is ready to prepare free-of-charge special brochure for the US Congress "Who was who?" in WWII. Condoleezza Rice is an expert in various fields but not in military technology and this is not good diplomacy to tell only nice things highly expected by the other party.

 

As the after battle reports show, and was well known by the allies at the time, rail lines could be repaired over night. The logistics would not allow the bombing of the rail lines to accomplish any effective damage to the camp for any length of time. If they bombed the camp, the Germans would simply build another, in record time. Always with any crime of this nature, history will always say, why did the civilized persons not do more? A pardox to be sure.

Excellent post. Where are the teachers from ex-Allied countries who explain the Jews above mentioned truths? There is so great number of military historians -- why they do not write the books for the Jews where point by point, factor by factor, fact by fact it would be explained that the Allies were unable to bomb Auschwitz and other death camps without massacre of the Jews? Where are the historians of WWII era special operations who will explain the Jews fiasco of various sabotage operations planned in the ETO to show that even big army of sabotage agents would be unable to destroy day by day the rail lines to Auschwitz? If we are unable to explain it the Jews more than 60 years long our relations between the Jews and ex-Allies will be full of tensions and accusations permanently.

 

G.W. Bush made a statement while emotionally involved in a museum and memorial to the suffering of a people that was totally unnecessary. […] Bush's statement was the reaction of a very normal human being. God bless him.

I agree with you and I understand Bush of course but the price of his statement, the price of black PR against us, is very high because he stated it in scientific vacuum so to say. This "scientific vacuum" that contains nothing when it comes to credible technological, operational and geopolitical information for the Jews that the Allies were unable to do more by the means in their hands then.

 

 

Thank you very much all forumers for participation.

 

Best regards

 

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your comments about the earlier posts lead me to believe that you are a anti-semite that somehow wants to berate Jewish people and in turn President Bush for an obvious emotional remark.

I doubt very seriously that you have ever had any indepth discussion with any Jewish intellectuals or historians about the subject. All of your suppositions are based on a very one sided logic that the Jewish people are somehow to blame for the holocaust and are somehow guilty of of bringing it to the attention of succeeding generations. I have never read any disertations by Jewish authors that blame the allies for their fate.

I throughly disagree with your whole take on the subject and am wondering if you are trying to turn the discussion into a Bush bashing thread. think.gifthumbdown.gif

My opinions are just mine. But I am a highly educated individual that has studied the period history and political ramifications in depth, pre, during and post war.

I am a graduate of NorthEastern Oklahoma A&M College, Missouri Southern State University and Pittsburg State University.

Gregory I absolutely do not believe that your arguments hold any merit at all.

My regards Sir.

Steve Ray

AA,BA,MA,EDS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...