To Bomb, or Not to Bomb
a person's eyebrow but instead they made him blind.'
In our view, this summarizes Bush's policies in the Middle East
--Ali Reza Jalaeepour, Tehran political analyst
[In the] nightmare prospect of all-out civil war [in Iraq]. . .
It is very likely any president would use air power
to try to separate the sides. But whom do we target?
If there are no good guys, do we bomb some civilians
to save others?
--Vanishing Act, New York Times Magazine
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
--We Just Disagree, Dave Mason
___________
Secretary of State Rice later clarified that Bomber George was talking about the rail lines to the camp. Most likely our manichaean President hasn't a clue. He just knows that bombing is the answer to all that ails the world.
Auschwitz is a bona fide Axis of Evil moment. However, the Bush's and Walker's grew rich from their dealings with the Nazis, and in fact were only stopped from their felicitous partnerships under the Trading with the Enemy Act (How Bush's Grandfather Helped Hitler's Rise to Power.)
In this moment of tears and change, in a teary-eyed moment of expiation, grandson George W. Bush got to pontificate. Somehow, we are not quite moved.
Regarding bombing the rail lines, many believe as Holocaust scholar Michael Berenbaum does, "The Americans flubbed it. The bombing could have weakened the infrastructure and made it more difficult to kill with the efficacy with which they killed."
Ranger thinks the rail lines should have been attacked with allied-controlled partisan interdiction, or via OSS assets to organize such strikes. Unfortunately, Polish Resistance would not dedicate assets at that time to save Jewish lives.
The next option would be aerial bombing of the railway lines and crematorium. But the aerial delivery systems in 1944 did not possess the accuracy to permanently interdict the rail lines. Even in 1944 the Germans had adequate response to repair bomb damage to rail lines. The most that would have been accomplished would have been a slowing down of the pace of the genocide. Still, this would have been something.
The crematoriums themselves needed to be bombed, but this required precision bombing, and it is doubtful that could have been achieved realistically via aerial bombardment. Bombing would have led to untold loss of life, but one could argue those lives were hanging by a thread anyway. Any action would have been welcome.
The question is, why didn't we do it? U.S. State Department at that time should have immediately addressed the Jewish genocide in a diplomatic initiative exposing the German abomination to the entire world. One wonders why this wasn't done once the facts were undeniable in 1942. The extermination program was officially ignored by the allies.
This lack of diplomatic action is more damnable than the particular absence of the event of death camp bombing.
Labels: bomber george, bush on auschwitz
posted by rangeragainstwar at 10:26 AM
12 Comments:
the man's a bloodthirsty, incurious imbecile.
MB, i second that emotion. jim
MB,
Your three descriptors are consummate.
"bloodthirsty, incurious imbecile"
Typical for a child of privilege who has never been held accountable for any of his actions throughout his life.
As one profoundly ignorant in much of how these things work, I had a thought I'd like a response to. If, when we were in a head-long rush to contain Facism and Imperialisms march accross the planet, as well as the race to be the first to attain nueclear weaponry; combined with the questionable ability to even fly into Poland and Germany and central Europe with an effective air strike at this point in time....jeese....you think maybe the decission not to bomb these rail lines carrying no munitions and going nowhere strategic was made due to....hatred of the Jews? I think during the period under discussion, Daddy George was floating in the Pacific somewhere hoping a sub will show. Maybe he was plotting World Oil Economic take over even back then while he was floating along....I can't say. Do you think if Hitler et al had prevailed...we'd all be Gods Chillin' and live happily ever after? Maybe. Who knows?
The question of why the U.S. did nothing about the Holocaust cannot be understood unless you understand the reality of American racism against Jews in the early part of the 20th century. Jews were not allowed to join the "good" clubs, were not allowed to buy homes in many neighborhoods, were not allowed to eat in fine restaurants, were referred to by their first name when encountered in the street rather than as "Mr. Smith" or "Mr. Jones" (i.e., Mr. Last-Name)... on the totem pole of races, they were somewhere between blacks (who were referred to simply as "boy" if encountered on the street) and Irishmen (who were generally regarded as drunken but good-natured blockheads good for nothing but working in factories or as policemen).
Now, since memories of racism against blacks is stronger in today's America, imagine if someone in 1941 had said that we should go to war to prevent blacks from being exterminated by blond white Aryans in Europe... what, do you think, would have been the response of a majority of the American public?
Hint: A sizable number would have been volunteering to help.
In short, saving Europe's Jews could not be seen as a priority of the Roosevelt administration because the knowledge that Europe's Jews were in danger of extermination would have caused Hitler to be seen as a sympathetic figure in the United States. Indeed, anti-Jewish racism within the U.S. State Department led to mass denial of visas to Jews trying to escape Nazi death camps.
This attitude towards Jews persisted for some years after WWII. When I was a child in the 1960's, Jews were still referred to by their first name when encountered in the street whereas white adults were referred to as "Mr. Sheffield" or "Mr. Lanning" or whatever. This attitude towards Jews also directly led to the forming of the state of Israel. In 1946-1947, most of Europe's surviving Jews were still in the exact same concentration camps where Hitler had placed them -- only with the camps renamed to "relocation camps", and with the guns turned outwards to prevent the outside population from finishing Hitler's job. There was entreaty after entreaty to allow them to emigrate to the United States, where most of them wanted to go. Harry S. Truman, in the midst of a bitter re-election fight, instead pressured to British to allow them to go to Palestine, because the state of bigotry against Jews in the United States was such that he would have been tarred and feathered if he'd allowed them to come to the United States. The U.S. wanted nothing of kikes. Heimies. Money-grubbing yids. You know the slurs and slanders and the rest of the story from there.
Yes, badtux, anti-Semitism was rampant then, as now. I am speaking from the hinterlans, and not Manhattan or Miami. Forget "fine" restaurants; Jewish people were not welcome in restaurants or anywhere else, for that matter.
You say on the totem pole they placed between blacks and Irishmen. Their strata depended on who you spoke with. Certainly signs stating "No Jews or (take your pick of others)" were rampant. I know some highly decorated Jewish WW II veterans denied jobs upon return for which they were eminently qualified b/c of "no Jew" hiring prohibitions at the top corporations. I have seen their commendation papers from their higher-ups, and their instrumentality in aiding the U.S. war effort. It is tragic.
All ugly givens. You say "memories of racism against blacks is stronger in today's America"--I do not intend to get into a kicking contest over who is more maligned, but I would not say Jewish people have overcome racial or religious bias, here or anywhere else (save Israel.)
Money can obscure bias, and one could argue that Jewish people can buy acceptance more frequently than can blacks. Jewish emigrees have distinguished themselves in all arenas.
But that, too, is racist, as it presumes all Jews are wealthy, which is simply another ugly, racist myth.
Your argument about not publicizing Hitler's intention so as not to popularize him is one idea, but the anti-semitism ran deep in FDR's own persona and staff. And everywhere else, inc. the NYT, who buried the horror stories on the back pages. A deep and abiding disinterest, vs. deification of Hitler, is more probable.
Lisa, major figures in the American Jewish community including his close friend and economic advisor Alexander Sachs (yes, *that* Sachs, the co-founder of Goldman,Sachs) advised Roosevelt not to make an issue out of Hitler's treatment of Jews. The notion was, "we do not want to make this a war about Jews." They may have been wrong, and you are certainly right about attitudes in other places in the Roosevelt Administration, but the fact of the matter is that the Jewish community itself was divided about whether to make a big fuss over Hitler's treatment of Jews because of fear of the rampant racism in American society causing Hitler to become more popular.
Note that despite very large pockets of bigotry within the Roosevelt Administration (esp. at the State Department), there is no evidence that Roosevelt himself was anti-semitic in anything other than the sort of offhanded way that was common in the era. He certainly had no problem listening to Albert Einstein (Jewish) or appointing his friend Alexander Sachs (Jewish) to multiple positions in his administration or appointing a variety of Jewish people to a variety of other positions in his administration (e.g. Abe Fortas, Mordecai Ezekiel, Henry Morgenthau, Benjamin V. Cohen, and many, many others). To accuse FDR of bigotry against Jews is an offense against reality.
As for the notion that America's treatment of Jews has ever been as reprehensible as America's treatment of blacks, I ain't going there. It wasn't Jews who were hauled over here in chains and treated like animals/property. And there was not a single black member of FDR's administration, while multiple Jews were appointed to positions within the Roosevelt Administration despite common attitudes towards Jews in Roosevelt's America.'Nuff said.
And finally, while Jews today in America still sniff about discrimination, the fact of the matter is that they are the most affluent and best educated group of people in America. At this point in time any notion that a majority of the American people care whether a given person is Jewish or not is delusional. You can name black Fortune 500 CEO's on the fingers of one hand. You'd need to haul in your entire extended family to get enough fingers and toes to do the same with Jewish Fortune 500 CEO's, if anybody cared to do it (as far as I know, only Stormfront and their ilk care about that kind of thing nowdays). People don't get that kind of wealth and power if they're discriminated against. Sorry, I just ain't buyin' it. And neither does practically any other American nowdays.
That is why I used blacks as my example of racial discrimination. The memory of government-sanctioned bigotry against blacks is still alive (barely) in the American psyche, and blacks today are still quite obviously poor and downtrodden as a people (notable exceptions of course, but with black incomes averaging 1/4th of white incomes, you can't escape the overall reality). With Jews... not so much. It's just hard for the average American to see such a well-educated and powerfully positioned group of people as discriminated against in America, even if those of us old enough know that it was true within even recent historic times. For younger Americans... well, bigotry against Jews by Americans isn't in their history books, so they simply *do not know about it*, like so many other nasty parts of American history that have been sanitized out of existence by Orwell's Ministry of Truth here in Soviet America. I was attempting to bring that knowledge to younger Americans by using the analogy to blacks and Irishmen, but apparently failed. Sigh.
badtux,
I meant to imply FDR maintained nothing beyond the normal WASP anti-semitism, which is to say, it is virulent and endemic. Racism and bigotry is a long an honored tradition in America.
Jewish people were for FDR as for Nixon when he spoke of "our Jews". They are questionable, but may have needed skills. America is nothing if not pragmatic.
This post mentions the Holocaust in particular, and a generalized hatred and racism can be extrapolated from there. As to your mention of the slaves brought to America, that is not analogous to genocide. Something like the Tutsi-Hutu massacres in Rwanda would be a genocidal correlate.
While the quarters were abysmal, and the death rate high, the slavers were transporting a valuable cargo to America. A product (human) to be bought and sold.
The purpose of the Nazi death camps was one alone: extermination. With the ancillary profiteering accruing to the murderers (Nazis). That essential difference makes the two experiences non-analogous.
You say, "Jews today in America still sniff about discrimination. . .At this point in time any notion that a majority of the American people care whether a given person is Jewish or not is delusional."
I was born in the 60's, and am Jewish, from a working-class family. I know what it is like to be Jewish, female and poor. I put myself through college, sometimes working three jobs. I could fill a volume with the anti-semitism I alone have encountered in my life thus far.
So badtux, whether you "buy it" or not is immaterial; I know of what I speak. I am glad you have not had to encounter such ugliness of spirit.
As for who is more blighted in an ecumenical way, I am not going there either. If all of us are not free, none of us are.
This is Aloyishus from Florida checking in. The world record is clear this country has an inglorious background for its planned incompetence and callousness in dealing with the Nazis in 1940. I agree wholeheartedly with the Jan. 15, 2008 posting in RangerAgainstWar titled To Bomb or Not to Bomb.
Certainly a prompt bombing would have told Hitler and his Gang there was trouble ahead from the US if they proceeded w/their genocide plans. Instead, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his Gang gave Hitler the green light. That's also a matter of world record.
Viewer Bad Tux makes some solid points in his Jan. 15 comments on to Bomb or Not to Bomb. But he is confused and in error when he states "Roosevelt himself was anti-Semetic." Historians worldwide have long ago trashed that description of FDR. He was a bigot, pure and simple, like others in his administrations.
Viewer Bad Tux is also badly informed when he states racial discrimination in the US today against Jewish citizens is not as intense as it is against African Americans and other minority groups.
Bad Tux needs to pour a half cup of any brand Apple Cider Vinegar in an 8-ounce cup, mixed it w/warm or chilled water, and swallow the entire contents. That should clear his head, and hopefully, his logic on this subject.
Good day from Aloyishus in Florida.
So 16% of FDR's appointees being Jews despite only 8% of Americans being of Jewish descent at the time meant that FDR hated Jews... Alrighty, then!
One thing I have noticed is that one of the most affluent and influential groups in America, vastly over-represented in industry, science, government, and commerce in proportion to their number, still finds it a necessary part of their cultural identity to feel that everybody hates them. That is sad. Yossi Gurvitz has commented on this too (oh, but I forget, this makes him a "self-hating Jew", sigh). This is not 1940, there are not quotas for how many Jews are allowed to enter Harvard or Yale anymore, Jews are no longer prohibited from being top executives of major corporations anymore (indeed, if you wished to count the number of Jews who run Fortune 500 corporations, you'd need to pull in your extended family and use all their fingers and toes, something clearly not the case with blacks)... there simply is *no evidence* that Jews are a discriminated-against class in modern America. NO EVIDENCE. No income disparity evidence. No access to education evidence. No access to jobs evidence. *NONE*.
Vague assertions that "I felt discriminated against" are not evidence. Crap, I feel discriminated against sometimes too because I am a white Southerner with a thick Southern accent. I can with just as much validity say that native Southerners are discriminated against in American society. That does not make it true, though. I would need numbers, I would need empirical evidence, to make such a statement and have it be anything other than a personal opinion. Absent such evidence, I can make the statement "in my opinion, Southerners are discriminated against", but if I state it as fact rather than as an opinion, I am in fact lying.
Anyhow, that is how non-Jews in America see things today. They see no evidence of discrimination against Jews, so they don't think about discrimination against Jews, there are much bigger fish to fry where there *is* actual evidence of discrimination (the evidence of continued discrimination against blacks in hiring, for example, is recent and compelling -- the famous study where identical resumes, some with stereotypical black names and some with stereotypical white names, were mailed to Fortune 500 corporations and received more responses for the white resumes, has been replicated time after time after time). Thus if I am trying to tell the modern American what the state of discrimination was against Jews in 1940, I cannot use the modern Jewish experience as the basis for that comparison, because the notion that Jews are discriminated against in America today simply has no evidence to support it despite any cultural predisposition towards paranoia on the part of Jews that "everybody" is out to get them (note: I'm quoting Yossi Gurvitz again here, please take it up with him if you're offended). I have to use the example of a class of people *currently* being discriminated against in America and provably so via empirical evidence, such as African-Americans, to thus give modern Americans an idea of how Jews were treated in 1940's America and thus the atmosphere in which Roosevelt was making his decisions. And the fact of the matter was that racism against Jews was prevalent and virulent in 1930's and 1940's America. A large number of Americans supported Hitler's treatment of Germany's Jews to the point where Roosevelt's early protests of such treatment actually threatened to derail some of his New Deal legislation, and given this, FDR decided that turning WWII into a "War to Save Jews" would have been an *enormous* impediment to his ability to unite America behind the war effort. This was not just FDR's opinion. This was the opinion of many of his major Jewish advisors too. I suppose that makes them anti-Semitic too (sigh, that old "self hating Jew" thing again)...
MB,
Per your last comment: of course, the Jewish population is extremely talented and intelligent. This is due to G-d's love and devotion to his Chosen People. Just read the bible -- it's all there in print (so it must be true.)
Unfortunately, the unplanned murder of Jesus either through complicity or actuality upset the apple cart.
It always boils down to apples.
Post a Comment
<< Home