Pope: Why didn’t Allies bomb railway lines to Auschwitz?

The Times of Israel / The Associated Press ^ | June 21, 2015

[2ndDivisionVet]

Francis laments that world powers did nothing to save Jewish, Christian, gays from Nazi death camps.

ROME — Pope Francis on Sunday denounced what he called the “great powers” of the world for failing to act when there was intelligence indicating Jews, Christians, homosexuals and others were being transported to death camps in Europe during World War II.

He also decried the deaths of Christians in concentration camps in Russia under the Stalin dictatorship, which followed the war....

[xone]

Because these targets weren't going to help win the war. Ergo, they weren't valid choices.

Even had they been strategic objectives, the targeting would have been invalid as they were not achievable during the war because of the systems involved. Not valid targets.

[af_vet_1981]

Because these targets weren't going to help win the war. Ergo, they weren't valid choices.

So the civilian victims, Jews and Gentiles, were targets who weren't going to help win the war and Ergo, they weren't valid choices.

You seem to agree that saving the Jews was simply not a priority for the Allies. Indeed you characterize it in even stronger terms, that it was not a valid choice. I don't think that will hold up in court.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five, Protestant verses forty four to forty five,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James

[af_vet_1981]

You wrote: The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.

So saying men who risked their lives to liberate Europe from the Nazis, wouldn't want to do so to save Jews isn't defamation of the character and courage of those men?

I did not write that; you wrote that as a false mischaracterization of my words. The only question worth asking yourself, between you and God, is why you did it, since I cannot read your mind or motives.

How many live to counter your words?

They are your words and your problem. You own it.

Does your statement impact their reputation in a negative way?

No, they were only following orders.

As for the Forum Rules: you didn't defame me with your wild talk. The Religious Forum has different rules that if they bother you you should take up with someone in charge.

The RF has different rules for different classes of users. It's not supposed to, but it obviously does.

As for defaming the character and reputation of the men who battled to free Europe from Nazi oppression, the shoe fits you.

False accusation on your foot

[xone]

Indeed you characterize it in even stronger terms, that it was not a valid choice. I don't think that will hold up in court.

The was no weapon or method of attack outside of an infantry based assault that could be used to meet an objective like yours. That type of attack came when it was able to be launched. The Allies did in fact liberate camps and free Jews risking their lives in the process which disproves your theory.

Your ignorance on this subject is palpable as is the Pope's. A court? The only court that mattered at the time was a Targeting Court and whomever brought a case like yours would have been sent back to school to relearn about objectives, systems, weapons and their effects.

To insinuate there was a method and it wasn't taken because the people who would be saved would be Jewish is another insult to the integrity of the men who did the fighting. But as has been shown, that is nothing new on this thread.

Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred (sic), or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

The men who liberated the camps likely won't be asked that question since while they may not have recognized Christ in the captives they did minister to them.

[af_vet_1981]

...
"Furthermore, aerial and paratroop raids of this kind must entail casualties on the part of the raiders and we did not feel justified in asking the War Department to undertake a measure which involved the sacrifice of American troops."

[af_vet_1981]

To insinuate there was a method and it wasn't taken because the people who would be saved would be Jewish is another insult to the integrity of the men who did the fighting. But as has been shown, that is nothing new on this thread.

More false accusation on your part

[xone]

#103 was yours was it not?

I did not write that; you wrote that as a false mischaracterization of my words

LOL, are you Pope Francis? No other way to characterize your words.

Does your statement impact their reputation in a negative way? No, they were only following orders.

Laying orders aside, that's not what you said. Now on orders, so only planners weren't willing to risk their lives or the lives of the fighters for Jews?

The RF has different rules for different classes of users. It's not supposed to, but it obviously does.

No cries of oppression or racism? Just whining.

As for defaming the character and reputation of the men who battled to free Europe from Nazi oppression, the shoe fits you. False accusation on your foot

Your words, keep talking, more will see them.

[xone]

More false accusation on your part

In response to a list at #62 as to why actions weren't taken you wrote:

You left out: 5. The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.

Looks like an insinuation to me.

in·sin·u·ate

inˈsinyəˌwāt/

verb

1. suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way.

[CodeToad]

The Pope is a liberal idiot. We did bomb every single rail line we could get to. Rail lines were easily rebuilt.

[okie01]

So the civilian victims, Jews and Gentiles, were targets who weren't going to help win the war and Ergo, they weren't valid choices.

You seem to agree that saving the Jews was simply not a priority for the Allies. Indeed you characterize it in even stronger terms, that it was not a valid choice. I don't think that will hold up in court.

You've got a bee under your blanket, don't you? Aside from wanting to accuse FDR and Churchill of anti-semitism, I can't imagine what it is.

But, as explained earlier, there was little or nothing practical that the Allies could do to save Jewish lives in the camps.

Accordingly, the best way to save as many lives as possible was to win the war first! Anything else risked an extended war...and an extended slaughter.

Thus, an invalid choice...

It's really not that hard to understand. Think about it.

[af_vet_1981]

LOL, are you Pope Francis? No other way to characterize your words.

There is another way to characterize my words. You falsely mischaracterized them. Your words, keep talking, more will see them.

Your words were used to falsely mischaracterize my words, and you even used false quotes to do it.

No cries of oppression or racism? Just whining.

That is an odd statement for you to introduce into evidence. Do you have an antagonism toward a certain group ? Are you acting it out against me for a perceived racial reason ?

[okie01]

"Furthermore, aerial and paratroop raids of this kind must entail casualties on the part of the raiders and we did not feel justified in asking the War Department to undertake a measure which involved the sacrifice of American troops."

You don't have much respect for context, do you? The dates cited are June-July 1944 -- immediately after the D-Day invasion, when the war in the West was very much undecided.

Under the circumstances, no commander in their right mind would have diverted any effort toward a vainglorious attempt to set prisoners free into what was still a hostile environment. No sane purpose would be served.

Tell me, what would you have done at this time, under the circumstances then prevailing.

Would you really have dispatched the 82n Airborne, fresh from Normandy and thus understrength, unescorted across the hostile skies of Germany in their unarmed and vulnerable C-47s, in order to bail out over Poland and storm Auschwitz?

What would you have expected to achieve? At what cost?

[xone]

That is an odd statement for you to introduce into evidence. Do you have an antagonism toward a certain group ? Are you acting it out against me for a perceived racial reason ?

Not at all odd considering your earlier: The RF has different rules for different classes of users. It's not supposed to, but it obviously does.

You whine, others complain about the rules for other self-serving reasons. As for this offering: "Do you have an antagonism toward a certain group ? Are you acting it out against me for a perceived racial reason ?

Are you a lefty or do you just act like one? Are you feeling micro-aggressed? I wonder what living vets from the ETO would feel about your libel.

[xone]

There is another way to characterize my words. You falsely mischaracterized them

Then please characterize your words from #103.

[af_vet_1981]

You don't have much respect for context, do you? The dates cited are June-July 1944 -- immediately after the D-Day invasion, when the war in the West was very much undecided.

Undecided ? How long the war would last was undecided after the successful landing in France, but not Germany's defeat. I consider the Russian victory at Stalingrad the turning point; after that it was a matter of time and casualties.

Tell me, what would you have done at this time, under the circumstances then prevailing.

I wrote about the history and now you want me to change the history ?There are no do-overs. The Allies were unwilling to take the casualties to rescue the civilian victims. They were not a priority. They had no strategic value to the decision makers. Had they been American POWs suffering horribly in camps they may have launched, but the Cabanatuan rescue did not take place until January, 1945. The Bataan Death March was in the Spring of '42 and no help came. Why would anyone expect the Allies to prioritize civilian victims over their own POWs, and the Germans made sure to treat the American and British POWs better than the Jews and other victims.

[af_vet_1981]

Then please characterize your words from #103.

In context, I proposed an extension to Okie's list, that he had left out number 5. The Allies did not want to risk their own men and material/troops/lives/board pieces, etc. in rescue attempts for the Jews, or the other civilian victims for that matter. Those civilians, Jews or otherwise, were regarded of no strategic value and many casualties were likely. Stalin had been strongly pushing the other Allies to put more skin in the game so to speak, while Russia was bleeding. Rescuing civilians in death camps was not a priority and did not happen until the end, incidentally, when most were already dead.

There is more to it than that.
1. As you point out, rail lines are readily repairable. Moreover, the German rail net was well developed, so that alternate routings were readily available.
2. The camps were in the East, in East Germany and Poland. Accordingly, many of them were beyond the operating radius of the bomber forces based in the UK.
3. Bombing accuracy was poor. The U.S. 8th Air Force B-17s and B-24s were lucky to hit large targets (such as steel mills) during the daytime. British Bomber Command operated at night...and was lucky to hit the city that had been targeted. Accordingly, if raids had been mounted on the camps themselves, it was likely that casualties among the prisoners would be high.
4. Finally, a bomb dropped on a rail line in East Germany was a bomb not dropped on a strategic target -- like a synthetic fuel plant, an oil refinery, a ball bearing plant, a steel mill, etc. The latter could bring an earlier end to the war; the other couldn't.
5. You left out: The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.

[xone]

and the Germans made sure to treat the American and British POWs better than the Jews and other victims.

A practical choice since the Allies had German POWs as well. As the Allies hadn't rounded up 'the Jews and other victims' yet there isn't a comparison to be made. However with the other 'lefty' power in the war the Germans were in lockstep.

Why would anyone expect the Allies to prioritize civilian victims over their own POWs

Good question, you seem to, why?

[af_vet_1981]

Good question, you seem to, why?

Where did I write that I expected the Allies to prioritize civilian victims over their own POWs ?

[xone]

You left out: The Allies did not want to risk their own lives, to lay down their lives, to save Jewish victims and refugees.

For this to be true, then no camps would have been liberated by the Allies. But they were. Thus your contention in #5 is not only incorrect and wrong it is libelous. Allied soldiers lives were willingly risked and lost in the liberation of Jews and other concentration camp inmates.

You and your Pope are wrong on this issue. While it didn't meet your unrealistic, unachievable timeframe it happened as soon as it was practicable.

[xone]

You didn’t, it is a question you posed in 155. Has been the thrust of your argument. You wanted to take another guy to court for saying they weren’t valid ‘Choices’. You appear to think they were or are you just arguing to appear stupid? Take some fish oil or is that micro-aggression again.