re: For WWII buffs ... FDR and holocaust

quote:

---

Nazis couldn't have relocated the Jews in such numbers without the train system Bomb the tracks, no mass transportation of Jews, millions saved

---

Wrong. Nazi air power was far superior to that of the allies in 1942. We couldn't touch their rail lines. They were winning the war. We were losing.

You have to remember that after WWI US voters didn't like intervening in European wars. The military budget was cut to the bone.

Kind of like right now.

At no point, not was it even considered an option. Supposedly, they didn't know in 42 (bullshite) but like I said it was never an option they considered.

I've already been in one 20 page thread about this. Don't have time for one today.

quote:

---

1. They didn't know - understandable, most believe this

---

Cite your evidence then. Do most historians not support this notion or that that I explained earlier? Are you accusing historians of clinging to 5th grade history?

quote:

---

2. They would've exterminated 10 million people, most of which came in the final years, without transporting millions via the trains. There is a reason the camps were built. The job couldn't be done with bullets

---

Did I say trains weren't essential? God, again you show yourself far too emotional to maintain a logical discussion. How simple do you think it was for Allied air power to disrupt German eastern rail lines in 1942? Or even onward? Again, you don't understand the strategic complexities of WWII and that is very evident.

quote:

---

3. The allies could not divert resources

---

???? Again, you are making up strawmen.

quote:

---

4. Allies were unable to launch bombing campaigns in Eastern Europe

---

Once airfields were secured in North Africa, Italy, sure. Before that, it was exceedingly difficult. And bombing rail alone? Rail lines can quickly be repaired. Also you again presume that the premise is entirely accepted and of course you prioritize bombing rail lines in the east without consideration of feasibility and affect on winning the war.

I quite clearly recall you some time ago admitting that you cannot think and reason objectively about matters pertaining to the Holocaust because of how emotional you get. You are showing that to be quite true.

quote:

---

They knew, and there were measures to be taken. They couldn't have ended it all, but they could've saved MILLIONS

---

Well then cite your sources and provide your evidence of this.

quote:

---

FDR, didn't have room to condemn anyone, after throwing 150,000 Japanese-Americans' in internment camps

---

Apples and satsumas broski.
Not morally equivalent. Especially then. Not a major source of controversy, at the time, considering the totality of the War.

And if you'd like I'll defend internment for one simple reason.

Missing you in your idiotic Fox News thread Sammyalter.

quote:

---

I'll defend internment for one simple reason.

---

Her name was Saeko. Her grandparents were interred in Weld County, Colorado where they opened a very profitable farm that employed dozens, and where I met her in the Summer of 94. Yes, you could say that in a twisted way, Japanese Internment was good for Your Humble Pimpness.

quote:

---

Zach

---

quote:

---

Wrong. Nazi air power was far superior to that of the allies in 1942. We couldn't touch their rail lines. They were winning the war. We were losing.

---

As far as '42 goes, you're pretty much correct.

But in one specific case later in the war air power could have possibly made a difference. Auschwitz didn't get really ramped up into max killing until mid/late '44. By that time we were sending bombing raid right by it to other targets. The case can be made that destroying the rail lines leading to it might have saved some lives at that time. Although that's not to say that the Germans wouldn't have found some other way to get them there.

It was as fricked up a time as the planet has ever seen and it's easy to look back now and double guess every decision made back then and say 'what if'.

quote:

---

There were many Muslim nations and tribes that had heavy guns in North Africa in 1942. There were also French outposts who hated the British (and the US was coming in with the British) whom the French didn't like.

---

If you have Netflix check out a movie called Days of Glory. It's about a group of Moroccans that fought for the French in WWII. It uses subtitles but it's pretty interesting.

quote:

---

Were the Jews and Muslims already at each others throats back then before the end of the war? Serious question as I'm not all that familiar with their relations with each other at that time.

---

The author who was lecturing said that in 1942, when there was still not widespread public knowledge of the Holocaust in the US, the primary problem in North Africa was ..
French, British, American, Muslim and Jewish.
The US had never done a joint operation with the British...invading Africa. The French considered N. Africa their stuff and might fight the British. The French govt hated the Jews and the Jews in North Africa. The Muslims were told by the Germans that if the US/British won in N. Africa that a Jewish State would be established in Muslim land.

The French military in N. Africa apparently took the day off. So did the Muslims. So, the war was between Patton/Montgomery vs. Rommel.

The allies won. The ultimate goal of the N. Africa campaign was to launch an invasion of Italy. The most vulnerable European spot in 1942.

Chewy spot on, another example of hindsight being 20/20 in some respects, I agree the only thing to do was end it as fast as possible.