Comments on: Dubya: FDR shoulda bombed Auschwitz

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:18:49 +0000

What can I say? Joe and I get all emo.

By: Roach

Roach — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:19:41 +0000

I wrote about this on my blog. Bombing was a basic impossibility until near the end of the war. Bush is slandering his country with this stupid suggestion that “we didn’t do enough” to stop the Holocaust. We were fighting to win a war, first of all. Second, we lost half a million guys. What more could we do?

I’ve been to Auschwitz too, and I read about it extensively. I didn’t cry. It was just like I’d seen in pictures, but the weather was nice, the sun was shining, and that nightmare place looked little different than an old overgrown warehouse district.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 23:18:11 +0000

Bush is always unprepared and misinformed and pretty much stupefied by the failures that follow his decisions. It’s kind of the feature that defines his presidency: from the crappy economy to the failed war on terror.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:38:13 +0000

Man, believe me – I do get it. I found the Holocaust exhibit at the USAF Museum overwhelming, and I’m certain I’d walk out weeping if I visited Auschwitz. (Jesus, I cried when Sam died in I Am Legend.) But essentially, if you believe our own government reports from 1944, we’re talking about diverting resources from a quite-occupied war effort that may well have ended up prolonging the war. And for what? To make it a little harder to get people into the camp? Does anyone really think that the Nazis wouldn’t have just force-marched them? The Japanese did it to American soldiers, after all. And they weren’t necessarily trying to kill us.

And again – it’s not like you could send a single high-altitude bomber in, drop a precision munition on the rail lines, and be done with it, even if the site is relatively remote. Air missions were incredibly low-survivability, and to make this one even have a chance you’re going to need multiple bombers plus all the associated support and escort craft, who are all now unable to directly support combat missions or capability reduction missions.

I think what’s most disturbing to me is the fact that he was unprepared, and had a discussion with Condi about why the US didn’t bomb the site in public, essentially. Do your homework, man, or at least hold the Q&A with your SoS until when you’re back on Air Force One. A simple “it’s tragic/unfortunate/too-bad we couldn’t do anything about it sooner” would have passed without comment from anyone.

I suppose it’s a good thing he had the conversation with Condi, who while incompetent at her job is quite educated on historical matters, instead of Dana Perino. And I’m still giving him the benefit of the doubt that he said what Condi said he said, and not what Shalev said he said.

By: Joseph

Joseph — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 22:15:30 +0000

I lived in Germany for almost three years. In Munich, actually- right down the street from Dachau.

And every time someone came to visit they wanted to see the concentration camp.

I must have visited Dachau 5 times. And yes- it was a horrible place. Very disturbing, but less-so each time I visited.

But right before I left Europe and moved back to the states I visited Poland and took a side trip to see Auschwitz.

There really was no comparison between the two.

For starters- it was in the middle of nowhere. Over an hour taxi ride through the woods. Whereas Dachau was right in the city.

But it was the size of the Auschwitz that was really overwhelming.

I don’t think any person left the tour without tears streaming down their face.

They had a room filled from ceiling to floor with nothing but eyeglasses taken from people who were killed there. And another room filling with just shoes.

It really showed you the scope of the killing that occured at Auschwitz.

And while I have no desire to defend George Bush- I do kind of understand how he felt after he visited the place.