France and World War II (2 Viewers)

[redhugh]

Well, they can't be faulted for having lousy neighbors. Nobody did well against the Nazi's in the beginning, including the US. Unfortunately for France their geography dictates that if they lose a battle, they lose a war.

Less seriously and on a humourous note (and no reference intended to WW1 or 2) there was General Webb's assessment of the French Forces in the last of the mohicans

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

But those same mothers were okay that their sons either helped transport (or said nothing) as the French jews end up in the unmarked graves of the concentration camps...

Again to be fair, the Allied nations turned away shiploads of Jews trying to flee, so would we really have been any kinder to our ethnic minorities if our positions had been switched and we were occupied by the Nazis? Not likely - we all know deep down that many in our countries would have been silent and/or complicit if the government in power started rounding up blacks, Asians, Catholics or ***s for extermination.

Contrary to modern revisionist history, the Allies did NOT fight WW2 in order to liberate the concentration camps or save the Jews, that was a low priority, mainly because the world didn't know what was really going on in them until the war was already over.

 

[Blowtorch]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

again, scratching memory, but to add Can. Sam.'s good point,

I'm pretty sure FDR & Churchill knew about the exterminations at least by '43. I also recall that it got leaked to the press & the NYTimes even thought so little of it that the tiny article they wrote was buried deep in the paper.

 

[Capitolron]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Again to be fair, the Allied nations turned away shiploads of Jews trying to flee, so would we really have been any kinder to our ethnic minorities if our positions had been switched and we were occupied by the Nazis? Not likely - we all know deep down that many in our countries would have been silent and/or complicit if the government in power started rounding up blacks, Asians, Catholics or ***s for extermination.

I probally shouldn't take the bait on this one - but, ......

This is the biggest load of rubbish (self censored) that I have heard on this forum.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

I probally shouldn't take the bait on this one - but, ......

This is the biggest load of rubbish (self censored) that I have heard on this forum.

I thought you'd appreciate it Ron. I'm just trying to stick up for your friends, the French.

 

[Pierre]

I probally shouldn't take the bait on this one - but, ......

This is the biggest load of rubbish (self censored) that I have heard on this forum.

Hi Ron-

Please, could you explain your opinion? Thanks.

Roy

 

[UKReb]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Again to be fair, the Allied nations turned away shiploads of Jews trying to flee, so would we really have been any kinder to our ethnic minorities if our positions had been switched and we were occupied by the Nazis? Not likely - we all know deep down that many in our countries would have been silent and/or complicit if the government in power started rounding up blacks, Asians, Catholics or ***s for extermination.

Contrary to modern revisionist history, the Allies did NOT fight WW2 in order to liberate the concentration camps or save the Jews, that was a low priority, mainly because the world didn't know what was really going on in them until the war was already over.

Ron

Not sure whether you disagree with all or just part of CS's post but his statements in parts are correct (I am however, struggling to agree with his vision of our actions if our countries had been occupied by the Nazis)

The facts we do know are:

First just to set the scene and worth remembering is that Time Magazine's Man of the Year 1938 was Adolph Hitler.

In June 1939 the SS St Louis carrying over 1000 German Jewish Refugees was refused permission to dock in the US on Roosevelt's direct orders-the US Government did not believe the spokesman for the refugees when he pleaded with them that all German Jews were being exterminated. The report passed to Roosevelt stated ......"Jews always exaggerate everything". The ship was also refused entry into Canada and Cuba, finally returning to Europe where practically all of her cargo ended up in Auschwitz.

Likewise the Brits who refused the refugee ship Sturma to dock in Palestine. She was carrying 750 Jewish men women and children and after being forbidden to land her cargo was sent back to the Black Sea where she mysteriously but very conveniently for the British blew up with no survivors.

The Allies definitely knew by 1942 that the European Jews were indeed being rounded up and exterminated. Hitler himself during a rally which was filmed that same year clearly stated that "War in Europe would result in the annihilation of the Jews" The London Times May 16th 1942 carried a report that over 1,000,000 Jews had been massacred and another somewhat sketchy report of Mobile Gas Chambers. The French collaborated wholeheartedly with the Nazis in rounding up all the French Jews during the occupation and were fully aware of their final destination but were more than happy to ignore that so they could move into the vacant houses left by the Jewish families.
By 1944 the evidence of concentration camps was now blatant and the Allies could no longer pretend that they thought they were merely labor camps. But when the leader of the Hungarians requested that the train lines into Poland- that were still being used to transport Jews to the Polish death camps- be destroyed by allied aircraft- nothing was done. Churchill passed the request to the RAF who passed it to the USAF who shelved it. Saving the Jews was most definitely not an Allied priority.

After the war Ariel Sharon stood at the gates of Auschwitz and said "Millions of Jews had been systematically murdered and the world stood by and did nothing"

Writing this post I am reminded of another quote- by Burke I believe- who stated "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Reb

 

[theBaron]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

...Saving the Jews was most definitely not an Allied priority...

I think that could be clarified by saying the Allies felt the most effective way to save the Jews was to destroy the Third Reich as quickly as possible. I've read that somewhere, but I'll have to track down the citation.

 

[Louis Badolato]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Ron

Not sure whether you disagree with all or just part of CS's post but his statements in parts are correct (I am however, struggling to agree with his vision of our actions if our countries had been occupied by the Nazis)

The facts we do know are:

First just to set the scene and worth remembering is that Time Magazine's Man of the Year 1938 was Adolph Hitler.

In June 1939 the SS St Louis carrying over 1000 German Jewish Refugees was refused permission to dock in the US on Roosevelt's direct orders-the US Government did not believe the spokesman for the refugees when he pleaded with them that all German Jews were being exterminated. The report passed to Roosevelt stated ......"Jews always exaggerate everything". The ship was also refused entry into Canada and Cuba, finally returning to Europe where practically all of her cargo ended up in Auschwitz.

Likewise the Brits who refused the refugee ship Sturma to dock in Palestine. She was carrying 750 Jewish men women and children and after being forbidden to land her cargo was sent back to the Black Sea where she mysteriously but very conveniently for the British blew up with no survivors.

The Allies definitely knew by 1942 that the European Jews were indeed being rounded up and exterminated. Hitler himself during a rally which was filmed that same year clearly stated that "War in Europe would result in the annihilation of the Jews" The London Times May 16th 1942 carried a report that over 1,000,000 Jews had been massacred and another somewhat sketchy report of Mobile Gas Chambers. The French collaborated wholeheartedly with the Nazis in rounding up all the French Jews during the occupation and were fully aware of their final destination but were more than happy to ignore that so they could move into the vacant houses left by the Jewish families.
By 1944 the evidence of concentration camps was now blatant and the Allies could no longer pretend that they thought they were merely labor camps. But when the leader of the Hungarians requested that the train lines into Poland- that were still being used to transport Jews to the Polish death camps- be destroyed by allied aircraft- nothing was done. Churchill passed the request to the RAF who passed it to the USAF who shelved it. Saving the Jews was most definitely not an Allied priority.

After the war Ariel Sharon stood at the gates of Auschwitz and said "Millions of Jews had been systematically murdered and the world stood by and did nothing"

Writing this post I am reminded of another quote- by Burke I believe- who stated "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"

Reb

I had always heard that the Allies knew but did nothing, but had no idea of the level of complicity. I am appalled. Clearly the politicians in power (sadly including both Roosevelt and Churchill, men I had always admired) were either prejudiced or dishonorable. I hope those responsible for the SS St. Louis and the Sturma rot in hell for condemning those innocents to death at the hands of the Nazis. I am sick to my stomach right now.

 

[fmethorst]

I don't think we can honestly say how we would have reacted to being subjegated by the Nazi regime since this is a purely hypothetical exercise. I like to think I would have the fortitude to do the "right thing" but I don't know for sure. I certainly don't harbor excessive racism that I am aware of (Everyone is a little bit of a racist due to our inate tribalism) so this already positions me better than many in Europe during that period. It is quite astonishing that despite high levels of miscegenation there could still be such deep rooted hatred. The Danes are the only occupied people that I am aware of that made an active effort to protect and save their Jews. Eastern European countries were very complicit and had a tradition of pogroms against their Jewish inhabitants. Let's not forget that of those Jews that were fortunate enough to survive the Holocaust many returned to their homes only to find them occupied by their former neighbors.

Interesting article on the Channel Island Jews

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/channelislands.html

 

[Rutledge]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

I think that could be clarified by saying the Allies felt the most effective way to save the Jews was to destroy the Third Reich as quickly as possible. I've read that somewhere, but I'll have to track down the citation.

Quite right Brad.

The Concentration Camps were not up and running by 1939, were they? Certainly, the world as yet had no idea as to the depravity of the third reich. Thus, the ship was probably turned away as a matter of normal immigration policy.

Bombing railroad tracks from 10,000 feet is no easy feat. The tracks can be easily repaired, and if timing is unfortunate, the trains themselves could have been hit with prisoners inside.

Also, we did not have unlimited bombing capability. We had to select among what were surely too numerous targets. Those places directly responsible for producing goods for Germany's war effort, (munitions factories, fuel depots) were of the highest priority, and most worth risking lives and resources, relative to ending the war effort. To charge that US leadership was prejudiced or dishonorable because of the decisions they made is a way beyond the pale, Id say.

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

(I am however, struggling to agree with his vision of our actions if our countries had been occupied by the Nazis)Reb

Reb, I am basing this, for example, on the fact that people in Canada and the US were more than happy to rat out their Japanese neighbours and smiled as they lost their property and were rounded up by the government of the day to be put in our own little domestic camp system. Yes, people were legitimately afraid of spies, but I think a heavy dose of racism was probably involved too on the part of citizens and the government.

Europe, especially parts of eastern Europe and Russia were complicit in the Holocaust because there was a long history of struggle against the Jews in those countries but every allied country at the time had a similar ethnic group in it which a certain segment of the population would like to get rid of. I doubt the Nazis would have been heavily resisted if they went after those particular groups.

Even today I think there are people who believe we should round up all the Muslims in Western countries and deport them (as the Germans originally promised - they did not have extermination on the agenda at first).

 

[lancer]

There were at least a dozen concentration camps in service prior to WW2 as opposed to death camps which began with Auschwitz in 1940. -- lancer

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Quite right Brad.

The Concentration Camps were not up and running by 1939, were they? Certainly, the world as yet had no idea as to the depravity of the third reich. Thus, the ship was probably turned away as a matter of normal immigration policy.

Bombing railroad tracks from 10,000 feet is no easy feat. The tracks can be easily repaired, and if timing is unfortunate, the trains themselves could have been hit with prisoners inside.

Also, we did not have unlimited bombing capability. We had to select among what were surely too numerous targets. Those places directly responsible for producing goods for Germany's war effort, (munitions factories, fuel depots) were of the highest priority, and most worth risking lives and resources, relative to ending the war effort. To charge that US leadership was prejudiced or dishonorable because of the decisions they made is a way beyond the pale, Id say.

I sort of have to agree. I do think more could have probably been done to stop the Holocaust but I don't really blame the leadership of the Allies because they didn't fully know what was going on. Plus at the time they were losing thousands of soldiers every month, so reports of possible attrocities in the concentration camps were just another horror in a list of horros they were briefed on on a daily basis. Their job was to protect their own boys, destroy the enemy army and win the war. That's in part why the UN peacekeepers were created afterwords - to be humanitarian policemen as well as soldiers in order to stop genocides in the future. Of course they dropped the ball on this in Rwanda.

I first mentioned this point not to demonize the Allied leadership, but to point out that World War 2 was basically a war waged over territory, not some great moral crusade to save the Jewish race as properly portrayed nowdays. That's why I shook my head at the Band of Brothers episode about the Holocaust entitled "Why We Fight", where they liberate a concentration camp at the very end of the war. A much more accurate title for the episode would have been:
"A Nice Moral Revisionist Justification for why we FOUGHT, Now that the War is Over".

Does any of that reduce the significanse of the war for stopping evil? Not in the slightest - if the Allies hadn't destroyed the Nazi regime millions more would have been exterminated. But it's important to have an accurate understanding of the true Allied motivations at the time for fighting the war - which was basically to punish Germany for invading its neighbours, to liberate occupied Europe, and to stop Germany from becoming the pre-eminent superpower in the world.

 

[Pierre]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

I think that could be clarified by saying the Allies felt the most effective way to save the Jews was to destroy the Third Reich as quickly as possible. I've read that somewhere, but I'll have to track down the citation.

Hi Brad-

I think you may be interested by the following: http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_5.html

Regards,
Roy

 

[Canadian Samurai]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

I probally shouldn't take the bait on this one - but, ......

This is the biggest load of rubbish (self censored) that I have heard on this forum.

We're all still waiting Ron to hear your educated insights about the rubbish I supposedly posted. Remember that in the 1940s, ethnic, cultural and religious minorities were treated in a very different way than they are today. Under the right conditions the Nazi party could have risen to power in any of the industrialized countries. We must always be on guard so history never repeats.

 

[Blowtorch]

Photos. Film. That's what you need to galvanize public opinion about atrocities. Look at what happened over the silly photos of Abu Ghraib vs. text only reports of truly hardcore CIA outsourced interrogations/torture conducted in Poland, Bulgaria & Egypt. No wonder the CIA burns all those tapes.

 

[Rutledge]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Hi Brad-

I think you may be interested by the following: http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/94/hhr94_5.html

Regards,
Roy

A very long document. And one person's personal opinion.

"After the Fact" analysis and review of war tactics and strategy is normal and expected. However extending on to assessing motivation around the actions taken (or not), and then assigning moral cowardice codes or questions of humaneness, is reaching farther than one has a right or is justified, IMO.

 

[UKReb]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Quite right Brad.

The Concentration Camps were not up and running by 1939, were they? Certainly, the world as yet had no idea as to the depravity of the third reich. Thus, the ship was probably turned away as a matter of normal immigration policy.

Bombing railroad tracks from 10,000 feet is no easy feat. The tracks can be easily repaired, and if timing is unfortunate, the trains themselves could have been hit with prisoners inside.

Also, we did not have unlimited bombing capability. We had to select among what were surely too numerous targets. Those places directly responsible for producing goods for Germany's war effort, (munitions factories, fuel depots) were of the highest priority, and most worth risking lives and resources, relative to ending the war effort. To charge that US leadership was prejudiced or dishonorable because of the decisions they made is a way beyond the pale, Id say.

The Concentration camps in Germany began construction shortly after Hitler started his rise to power and continued being built throughout the '30's.

Dachau-1933
Sachsanhaussen-1936
Buchenwald-1937
Flossenberg-1938
Ravensbruck-1939

That's just a few of the more infamous as there were many others. The first victims of what would become known as the Holocaust were all Germans, Hitler's political enemies, the old, the disabled, the mentally ill and other such "undesirables". Then came Kristallnacht in November 1938 that was widely reported across the world by various Western reporters who were based in Germany at the time and definitely signalled the beginning of the Jewish extermination. The Final Solution was trialled and tested on German Jewish citizens.

Whether the SS St Louis incident was merely US immigration policy or not is very much debatable. One has to put all the facts into context, the whole incident was a German propaganda exercise. Hitler allowed the ship to leave Hamburg with it's cargo of wealthy (they all had to pay exorbiant fares to the Nazi government before embarking) German Jews bound for Havana. Goebbels had already agitated the Cubans through the German Embassy by telling them that the scum of the earth were heading their way, criminals, rapists and other undesirables. Subsequently, when the ship docked in Havana they were not allowed to disembark, the ship made it's way to Florida but was ordered to heave to by the US Coastguard after firing a shot across her bows.

Negotiations began with the US Government, Roosevelt was intially willing to relax the immigration limits and except a few of the passengers primarily the children. But he faced a backlash from a large group of Southern Democrats led by Cordell Hull that if he accepted these refugees they would not support FDR in the 1940 Presidential election??????

Now was that because of exercising tight control of the US immigration policy or something more?- I honestly don't know! however, what is fact is that Hitler's propaganda exercise was proven as far as he was concerned. It proved that in spite of the protestations of the Allied leaders they did not want to receive Jews as refugees into their respective countries anymore than he did.

Reb

 

[Rutledge]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

The Concentration camps in Germany began construction shortly after Hitler started his rise to power and continued being built throughout the '30's.

Dachau-1933
Sachsanhaussen-1936
Buchenwald-1937
Flossenberg-1938
Ravensbruck-1939

That's just a few of the more infamous as there were many others. The first victims of what would become known as the Holocaust were all Germans, Hitler's political enemies, the old, the disabled, the mentally ill and other such "undesirables". Then came Kristallnacht in November 1938 that was widely reported across the world by various Western reporters who were based in Germany at the time and definitely signalled the beginning of the Jewish extermination. The Final Solution was trialled and tested on German Jewish citizens.

Whether the SS St Louis incident was merely US immigration policy or not is very much debatable. One has to put all the facts into context, the whole incident was a German propaganda exercise. Hitler allowed the ship to leave Hamburg with it's cargo of wealthy (they all had to pay exorbiant fares to the Nazi government before embarking) German Jews bound for Havana. Goebbels had already agitated the Cubans through the German Embassy by telling them that the scum of the earth were heading their way, criminals, rapists and other undesirables. Subsequently, when the ship docked in Havana they were not allowed to disembark, the ship made it's way to Florida but was ordered to heave to by the US Coastguard after firing a shot across her bows.

Negotiations began with the US Government, Roosevelt was intially willing to relax the immigration limits and except a few of the passengers primarily the children. But he faced a backlash from a large group of Southern Democrats led by Cordell Hull that if he accepted these refugees they would not support FDR in the 1940 Presidential election??????

Now was that because of exercising tight control of the US immigration policy or something more?- I honestly don't know! however, what is fact is that Hitler's propaganda exercise was proven as far as he was concerned. It proved that in spite of the protestations of the Allied leaders they did not want to receive Jews as refugees into their respective countries anymore than he did.

Reb

It seems you are well versed in the matter. And still, its impossible to truly know the motives or true sentiments of the people making the decisions.

It seems to me, as the camps were not functioning as true "death factories" in 1939, and the world had never before seen such abominations, or even imagined them, surely one can understand why people at the time might not have comprehended their full diabolical heft. After all, what is obvious in hindsight is often not so clear at the time.