France and World War II (3 Viewers)

[theBaron]

There's a distinction to be made, though, between the concentration camps, which were for anyone deemed an enemy of the state (and actually started as little more than engines of blackmail-very early on, many prisoners were basically ransomed, after being arrested and beaten). It was later that the extermination camps, eg, Auschwitz, were established, for the expressed purpose of killing Jews.

It's all moot, of course, about when the camps were built, and to say whether or how many outside Germany knew. There were enough warning signs, inside Germany before 1933, and outside Germany between 1933 and 1939, but many people who were in a position to do something about it, and saw the signs, either did not understand them, or, in their view of the world, informed by their experiences and prejudices, chose to ignore them. That is the real lesson, to be vigilant and not to let a totalitarian, genocidal regime come to power again.

 

[Pierre]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

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.

Hi Rutledge,

Other interesting websites: http://www.helium.com/items/795046-should-the-allied-powers-in-world-war-ii-have-bombed-auschwitz, http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3868.pdf, http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p215_Gleason.html and http://www.savingthejews.com/html/excerpts.htm

Take care,
Roy

 

[Rutledge]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Hi Rutledge,

Other interesting websites: http://www.helium.com/items/795046-should-the-allied-powers-in-world-war-ii-have-bombed-auschwitz, http://www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft Word - 3868.pdf, http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v05/v05p215_Gleason.html and http://www.savingthejews.com/html/excerpts.htm

Take care,
Roy

Thanks Roy. I pulled the quote below from the original article you linked (assume you are familiar with Mr. Johnson):

"Paul Johnson concluded his discussion of the Allied role in the Holocaust on "a harsh and important point." The United States did not rescue Jews because such an endeavor interfered with the war; not to help the Jews was to help defeat Hitler. Similarly, for Hitler to persist in killing the Jews, he was sacrificing thousands of his own soldiers and SS men, tons of resources, and millions of able-bodied Jews, thus contributing to an Allied victory. Hence, the Holocaust was one of the factors which were [sic] losing Hitler the war. The British and American governments knew this," wrote Johnson. Although other factors certainly contributed to the Allied victory, such as production capabilities and superior leadership, Johnson was suggesting that the existence of a wartime mass-murder program significantly affected the outcome. [77]

Although it is impossible to discern to what extent the multitude of variables altered the outcome of the war, most realized that for every SS man guarding prisoners in a work camp, there was one less individual to build tanks or Uboats. For every train that shipped Jews to their deaths, supplies were not reaching the front on schedule. For every bullet pumped into the body of a Jew, an American soldier could keep on fighting. By the same token, every resource that the United States withheld from the refugee effort was diverted to the war. Simple mathematics dictate that the genocide proceeding under the guise of the war secured an Allied victory, but only in the military sphere."​

Obviously there are some differing opinions on this subject. Lets recall that there was no German version of a Pearl Harbor. Consequently we had no direct reason to join in the fray (besides maybe a sunk frigate or two), even though the UK/allies were pleading with us to do so. When we finally did, it was AFTER Germany declared war on us first. The Russians were also very irritated that the USA/allies waited so long before beginning "the second front" via d-day. I dont believe prejudice was a factor in either "delay".

Perhaps the US's more isolationist approach would work better in today's world? We have our mitts in so many things, and may be over extended. The US is a great country, but we cant save the entire planet (from itself).

Regardless, I think its unwise to assert the driving motivations behind actions taken many years ago. Only the individuals involved really know what happened, and anything else is pure conjecture.

Also, frankly I like the idea of the US as a largely benevolent force, and dont see the benefit of turning that upside down.

 

[Pierre]

Hi Jazzeum,

I just notice you deleted one of my post for "attempting to bait another member". To be honest, I don't recall what was my post but to avoid a repetition of it ("attempt to bait another member") would you send me a PM with some explanations, it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
Roy

 

[Pierre]

Re: Dispatches (at last!)

Thanks Roy. I pulled the quote below from the original article you linked (assume you are familiar with Mr. Johnson):

"Paul Johnson concluded his discussion of the Allied role in the Holocaust on "a harsh and important point." The United States did not rescue Jews because such an endeavor interfered with the war; not to help the Jews was to help defeat Hitler. Similarly, for Hitler to persist in killing the Jews, he was sacrificing thousands of his own soldiers and SS men, tons of resources, and millions of able-bodied Jews, thus contributing to an Allied victory. Hence, the Holocaust was one of the factors which were [sic] losing Hitler the war. The British and American governments knew this," wrote Johnson. Although other factors certainly contributed to the Allied victory, such as production capabilities and superior leadership, Johnson was suggesting that the existence of a wartime mass-murder program significantly affected the outcome. [77]

Although it is impossible to discern to what extent the multitude of variables altered the outcome of the war, most realized that for every SS man guarding prisoners in a work camp, there was one less individual to build tanks or Uboats. For every train that shipped Jews to their deaths, supplies were not reaching the front on schedule. For every bullet pumped into the body of a Jew, an American soldier could keep on fighting. By the same token, every resource that the United States withheld from the refugee effort was diverted to the war. Simple mathematics dictate that the genocide proceeding under the guise of the war secured an Allied victory, but only in the military sphere."​

Obviously there are some differing opinions on this subject. Lets recall that there was no German version of a Pearl Harbor. Consequently we had no direct reason to join in the fray (besides maybe a sunk frigate or two), even though the UK/allies were pleading with us to do so. When we finally did, it was AFTER Germany declared war on us first. The Russians were also very irritated that the USA/allies waited so long before beginning "the second front" via d-day. I dont believe prejudice was a factor in either "delay".

Perhaps the US's more isolationist approach would work better in today's world? We have our mitts in so many things, and may be over extended. The US is a great country, but we cant save the entire planet (from itself).

Regardless, I think its unwise to assert the driving motivations behind actions taken many years ago. Only the individuals involved really know what happened, and anything else is pure conjecture.

Also, frankly I like the idea of the US as a largely benevolent force, and dont see the benefit of turning that upside down.

You're welcome, Rutledge. Another interesting one: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/europe/november96/holocaust_11-20.html

Have a nice day,
Roy

 

[damian]

Wow and people say Pope Pius XII did not do enough to save people from the holocaust.

 

[Lewey Gun Vick]

My question is why did the French get an occupation zone in Germany after the war, since they didn't field that many troops in the whole scheme of things.

Vick

 

[Gazza]

Politics...France was an old colonial power and thus for the same reason it got a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

There was also a military reason; ensuring France occupied Germany would militarily weaken Germany. In 1870-71 France had lost to Germany; in 1914-18 the battlefields were in France (many German's saw the armistice as a betrayl rather than defeat) and so in 1945 having France occupy Germany had a significant psychological impact.

My question is why did the French get an occupation zone in Germany after the war, since they didn't field that many troops in the whole scheme of things.

Vick

 

[Combat]

My recollection is that during WWI the allies overplayed propaganda regarding German atrocities. The barbaric Hun and that sort of thing. As a result, many people were dubious of the claims being made during WWII regarding the Jews. Many of the Allied leaders were probably surprised by the extent of the atrocities committed once they began liberating the camps.

 

[thebritfarmer]

Whilst not related to the discussion I thought I would post this here as it is about WWII and has occured in France

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/11/ot-fallensoldier1111.html?ref=rss

Glad that he is finally been able to be laid to rest.