Pope: World powers did nothing about Auschwitz

[unstoppable_II]

We could not even help the Marines caught in the Phillipines, how are we going to get into Fortress Europe to liberate concentration camps. It’s not all as easy as it sounds to some people.

Mega !

 

[gilliam]

We could not even help the Marines caught in the Phillipines, how are we going to get into Fortress Europe to liberate concentration camps. It’s not all as easy as it sounds to some people.

We had air supremacy over Europe in 1944

And we had radio and movie supremacy throughout the war. It would have only taken one speech from FDR to shed a light and expose the 3rd Reich for what it was and warn others to what was happening. He didn’t make the speech because it wasn’t a priority to him.

 

[gilliam]

Did he mention that Pope Pius did everything he could to save as many Jews as possible? I hope so.

He was talking about not putting your hope in governments with large military complexes; Pope Pius was not in that category.

 

[ARSpade]

We had air supremacy over Europe in 1944

And we had radio and movie supremacy throughout the war. It would have only taken one speech from FDR to shed a light and expose the 3rd Reich for what it was and warn others to what was happening. He didn’t make the speech because it wasn’t a priority to him.

We had air supremacy in 1944 and Market-Garden still occured. You’re not skipping Germany to drop troops into Poland. You’re just not.

Also, what was FDR going to do? Expose it to whom? Saying, “hey, everybody, FYI, the Nazis are bad and they do bad things” wasn’t telling the world anything it didn’t know.

 

[AnthonyJ]

The only purpose I can see for the Pope mentioning the Allies not doing enough to end the holocaust is if he connected it to current events such as the genocides being committed by terrorist organizations like ISIS and Boko Haram and the west doing hardly anything to stop them. Otherwise I don’t see why he is chastising countries whose leaders at the time of WWII are now long dead.

 

[gilliam]

The only purpose I can see for the Pope mentioning the Allies not doing enough to end the holocaust is if he connected it to current events such as the genocides being committed by terrorist organizations like ISIS and Boko Haram and the west doing hardly anything to stop them. Otherwise I don’t see why he is chastising countries whose leaders at the time of WWII are now long dead.

He was teaching that we should not put all our hope into those who hold the control over large military powers; they do not always do what is right (in fact often the military industrial complexes don’t do what is right.) It is a simple lesson really, but one that many people ignore.

 

[RACJ]

He was talking about not putting your hope in governments with large military complexes; Pope Pius was not in that category.

Well, he was speaking about young people losing faith in everything. I believe that it would have been appropriate to mention the RC Church, and maybe other notables (ten Booms, Wallenbergs, e.g.) to illustrate that many people were willing to risk everything to sve others.
Does it matter that some choose to reject the fact of the Pope Pius’ remarkable courage? Haters will always hate, but young people deserve to know the true history of the period. Rob

 

[Ridgerunner]

The only purpose I can see for the Pope mentioning the Allies not doing enough to end the holocaust is if he connected it to current events such as the genocides being committed by terrorist organizations like ISIS and Boko Haram and the west doing hardly anything to stop them. Otherwise I don’t see why he is chastising countries whose leaders at the time of WWII are now long dead.

And many is the churchman who argues that Israel ought to cease occupying the West Bank, which would inevitably lead to Hamas controling it (if Hamas can protect itself against an ISIS takeover). And many is the churchman who condemns Israel for defending itself against Hamas’ attacks from Gaza. They don’t condemn Egypt for doing the very same thing, however.

 

[philipl]

How many Nazi did Argentena allow safety?

 

[friardchips]

I suppose they were there on holiday just because they weren’t put to use that you think they should have been in view of 75 years of 20/20 hindsight.

Normally, if one has troops in a certain place, one uses them.

So? I suppose after being starved to skin-stretched-over-skeleton status, these prisoners were all trained, and armed, and ready to go.

They were soldiers. We had resources.

No. Judging from the author’s name, it is the most biased POS I’ve come across outside the internet, all the way down to the mathematical explanation of how the enigma worked and how its code was broken. The code breakers were all anti-Semitic bigots.

Were they? Do you know any books that aren’t biased on this as it interests me to know about it indepth?

What is truth? The term “outside the box” hadn’t been invented yet. I guess you’ll have to read it for yourself.

Maybe, maybe not. People did think outside the box sometimes, no doubt, throughout history. Some of the most amazing things were made outside of contemporary culture - which thinks of itself being outside of the box (which I don’t think it is) as it places no importance on history and anything of real depth.

Look. We apparently have two different ways of interpreting history. You seem to favor viewing it from a point of view.** I rather look at it as the study of actual events**. Therefore I consider this exchange closed for lack of progress, actual or potential.

In that case we view things the same. It is from the study of events that I have come to an opinion which I am holding back on giving (apart from on here ). I remain open. As I also think there were positives to take from what happened - courage - but also neglect. Sure, we were stretched, but as one famous writer suggested - it is not one person who makes something happen but rather a whole series of events in a chain to bring anything about. And this is most certainly the case within politics and the military. And the things that happened were not all the best decisions. People died from bad decisions. But because it is war these things are overlooked and if from the point-of-view of the allies we can’t and don’t pin blame on individuals - because it is war and someone has to make a decision. But had the intentions of certain strategies been not only “to win” but “to save” then certain things that did happen could have happened differently (not necessarily with successful outcomes for all of it) and movements could have been towards the saving of people. A bit like today. Certain leaders who I think try to do their best but don’t know how “to win”, ending up doing nothing, when sometimes, one has to make one’s mind up to simply “try and save, to try and help”. As I said to another poster, the caring intention can fuel a lot. The amount of time and energy and resources wasted in certain areas of the world merely so we would land-grab over the war years could have been used in other ways and for more honourable reasons.

 

[CaptFun]

Yes they did. They won the war. Closed it as a concentration camp. Ended Nazism (National Socialism).

Our reluctant Pope makes another unfortunate headline.

Remember this one?

cbsnews.com/news/francis-predicts-he-wont-be-pope-for-long-says-he-misses-pizza/

Francis predicts he won’t be pope for long, says he misses pizza

“I have the sensation that my pontificate will be brief: Four or five years,” Francis said in an interview with the Mexican broadcaster Televisa. “I don’t know. Or two or three. Well, two have already passed!”

Francis has previously said he thought he’d be pope for two to three years and that the precedent set by Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI’s resignation in 2013 shouldn’t be considered exceptional.

The problem for me is … not enough “news” is being made that includes Jesus and his teachings per my Pope preference. Maybe that is not Francis’ fault. He gets ignored far less than Benedict did. But the media seems ever at his elbow catching every careless
musing of his off-the-cuff non-Popelike opinions on everything but Jesus and Catholic teaching, spinning headlines in the worst possible ways it seems to me.

Toward the end of this SAME story Francis is paraphrased:

He criticized those advocating peace while manufacturing or selling arms.

Put the two together and Francis is being depicted by the media like the wild uncle who pops off and disturbs Thanksgiving Dinner with contradictory political non-sequiturs.

And I fell for it. I’m shouting at my computer screen :takethat:

“The great powers had photographs of the railway routes that the trains took to the concentration camps, like Auschwitz, to kill the Jews, and also the Christians, and also the Roma, also the homosexuals,” Francis said, citing the death camp in Poland. “Tell me, why didn’t they bomb” those railroad routes? — supposedly Pope Francis

I have to brainstorm THAT. Some brainstorm answers are silly while you mine for the good ones. But since the Pope asked (supposedly) … here goes:

Maybe they were Christian. And felt hypocritical even MAKING the bombs, which as everyone knows are weapons that must be manufactured?

Some of those “great powers” weren’t so “great”. They were led by socialists like Stalin (not one of those many Marxists you met in your life who are “good people”), Hitler (the National Socialist who BUILT Auschwitz, the camp), Roosevelt (whose pacifist country had such a little army at the time when Hitler and Stalin were carving up Poland “like a cake” to start the war … that he had to build LOTS of those defense plants that we NOW know are so “bad”).

England wimped out with the peacenik thing and Chamberlain’s piece of PEACE paper - that led to the unholy pact between National Socialist Germany and INTERNATIONAL Socialist Russia.

POLAND was not a World Power. But maybe they were saving the world from the climate change menace with their horsedrawn military. That’s imperative, and so morally superior to those fossil fuel driven megapowers that, nonetheless, crushed them. It’s almost hard to remember that Auschwitz was just a town with the Poles in charge. No need to bomb the tracks then.

Italy? Allies of Germany then I believe. Argentina? Not to be faulted. Not a World Power.
And perhaps to be revered for its “open doors to fleeing immigrants” after the War. Even if some of THOSE might have worked for the side that built Auschwitz. AND … did those things to those helpless prisoners. Well at least the Argentines didn’t capitally punish the guilty … like those “World Powers” did at Nuremburg.

:coolinoff: This brainstorm has me confused and wrung out. Please, Holy Father, speak more of Jesus … and/or leave the arcane re-running of last century’s history for a bit?

THANK you for the times when you DO speak up for “life” at a time when the World Powers of TODAY are doing nothing (to stop the taking of it).

And thanks for the heads up about your upcoming retirement (I guess)?

Or was that the media getting you wrong (again)? :banghead:

 

[John_Lazarus]

No. Judging from the author’s name, it is the most biased POS I’ve come across outside the internet, all the way down to the mathematical explanation of how the enigma worked and how its code was broken. The code breakers were all anti-Semitic bigots.

It’s biased because of his name?

And as for the anti-Semitic remark, are you saying that the code-breakers were, or that the author was saying that.

Sorry, I do not understand what you are saying here. Could you please clarify?

Thanks.

 

[Phil502]

We had air supremacy over Europe in 1944

And we had radio and movie supremacy throughout the war. It would have only taken one speech from FDR to shed a light and expose the 3rd Reich for what it was and warn others to what was happening. He didn’t make the speech because it wasn’t a priority to him.

So we had Air Supremacy, it didn’t end the war until 1945 did it? Carpet bombing railroad tracks does not sound like efficient use of American lives or capital. The tracks would get fixed by the prisoners anyway. Did you see the loss rates for flyers, especially bombers?

FDR’s speech “The Germans are really really bad and they are killing innocent people”…doesn’t sound like a news flash.

The only thing that was going to stop all this was to wage total war on Germany and that we did, plenty of guys died from the US doing it too. A heck of a lot more than from Argentina or Italy.

 

[meltzerboy]

So we had Air Supremacy, it didn’t end the war until 1945 did it? Carpet bombing railroad tracks does not sound like efficient use of American lives or capital. The tracks would get fixed by the prisoners anyway. Did you see the loss rates for flyers, especially bombers?

FDR’s speech “The Germans are really really bad and they are killing innocent people”…doesn’t sound like a news flash.

The only thing that was going to stop all this was to wage total war on Germany and that we did, plenty of guys died from the US doing it too. A heck of a lot more than from Argentina or Italy.

Of course Italy was not on the side of the Allies. If saving the Jews (and Catholics, JW’s, gays, gypsies, the physically and mentally disabled, etc.) was one of the FDR administration’s priorities, they might have bombed the railroad tracks. Unfortunately, I don’t think it was a priority during the War. Defeating the Germans and the Japanese was the only priority. Jews, gays, and other groups were expendable to most government leaders at that time in history.

 

[friardchips]

If we knew Jews were being sent to concentration camps, then we should have tried some plan/s to stop the Nazis from doing this, from the time we found out, as a priority.

Simple.

 

[Cider]

So we had Air Supremacy, it didn’t end the war until 1945 did it? Carpet bombing railroad tracks does not sound like efficient use of American lives or capital. The tracks would get fixed by the prisoners anyway. Did you see the loss rates for flyers, especially bombers?

FDR’s speech “The Germans are really really bad and they are killing innocent people”…doesn’t sound like a news flash.

The only thing that was going to stop all this was to wage total war on Germany and that we did, plenty of guys died from the US doing it too. A heck of a lot more than from Argentina or Italy.

Well yes, since Italy’s Mussolini was in bed with Hitler.

 

[ucfengr]

Of course Italy was not on the side of the Allies. If saving the Jews (and Catholics, JW’s, gays, gypsies, the physically and mentally disabled, etc.) was one of the FDR administration’s priorities, they might have bombed the railroad tracks. Unfortunately, I don’t think it was a priority during the War. Defeating the Germans and the Japanese was the only priority. Jews, gays, and other groups were expendable to most government leaders at that time in history.

I’m not sure how bombing railroad tracks would have saved the Jews, etc. more quickly than winning the war did. The reason the Jews, etc. were in danger was because the Nazis were in power over much of Europe. Four years of strategic bombing by both the Brits and the Americans didn’t do anything to change that. It was getting troops over the Rhine and Oder rivers that finally stopped Nazi murdering.

 

[ARSpade]

If we knew Jews were being sent to concentration camps, then we should have tried some plan/s to stop the Nazis from doing this, from the time we found out, as a priority.

Simple.

The priority was ending the war.

That kinda ended the killing for everybody, not just one group.

Also, once again, there was also no other way to stop the Nazis from killing Jews, or anybody else, without ending the war. None. Unless you have some idea that people haven’t come across yet.

Just for more “bombin’ the railyards” stuff.

Straight line distance from London to Auschwitz is 1300 miles.

Combat radius with a loaded B-17G (which didn’t appear until late '43, prior you had shorter legs) is 1k miles.
Combat radius of a P-51D Mustang is about 825 miles. Unless you don’t want fighter escort, in which case you’re suicidal Also didn’t appear until late 43.
Combat radius of a B-24 is up around 1050 miles.

And those are ideal numbers. Doesn’t count assembly of a formation, formation flying (burns a lot of gas), combat action, and wind, and nobody really flies in a straight line.
So, yeah, from 8th Air Force Bases you’re not getting close. And you’re not even getting close with fighter escort.

You could, of course, lower the bomb load on the bombers and eek out more range, but then you’re increasing the probability you won’t hit the target.

And remember, the camps opened up pretty early. Auschwitz started killing people wholesale in late 1941. Up until early 1944 US bombers were getting slaughtered hitting targets they could at least even reach.

 

[friardchips]

The priority was ending the war.

That kinda ended the killing for everybody, not just one group.

Also, once again, there was also no other way to stop the Nazis from killing Jews, or anybody else, without ending the war. None. Unless you have some idea that people haven’t come across yet.

Experts have come across - historians uncover a lot. We could have made attempts to save the Jews and this would have engineered a different course for how the overall war was to be won. War is made up of individual battles. And if forces, some, had the sole purpose of attacking Germany, to save Jews, then certain battles would have replaced others. We made some bad decisions and men died as there were things that could have been done better. And there were resources wasted over political manoeuvring in some areas that could have been redirected elsewhere. To say: “Well, we win the war, and the Jews will end up being saved” is not a logical algorithm, because, as did almost happen, nearly all would be wiped out by that time, depending on how long that time was to be - unknown. Now if someone had said: “If we do something now we might save innocent lives” then the chances of most Jews being wiped out would be severely decreased. Because all efforts would be made to ensure hitler’s plan would not be realised to the degree that it was. Through effort. No focussed effort for rescue: increased likelihood of extermination; focussed efforts for rescue of Jews: decreased likelihood of extermination.

 

[friardchips]

And remember, the camps opened up pretty early. Auschwitz started killing people wholesale in late 1941. Up until early 1944 US bombers were getting slaughtered hitting targets they could at least even reach.

We had forces deployed to Northern France, quite early. They were not used. We were very tentative. We could have deployed greater force to that area with the sole intention of bearing down on Germany. This would have been a massively reduced distance for allied planes.

Either way, we didn’t set out to free the Jews, and only where there is a will is there is a way.