If

[SgtRock]

Let it happen. Unless they're doing it to us-- or our allies-- then we don't have a dog in the fight.

So let them murder 6 millon Jews?

 

[apdst]

There is evidence to the contrary on both accounts. However, many complications were abound regarding intervention to prevent it.

Actually, there isn't any evidence that suggest that the Allies knew about the Holocaust, prior to Allied units finding the death camps, nor is there evidence to suggest that the average German knew what was going, either.

In reality, there is evidence to suggest quite the opposite.

 

[apdst]

So let them murder 6 millon Jews?

We didn't get involved to stop the Holocaust.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

We didn't get involved to stop the Holocaust.

We provided aide to Britain, the Soviet Union and China before we physically joined in later on. . . the Holocaust as it is now known didn't come to light until later on - when evidence of it was discovered first hand.

 

[apdst]

We provided aide to Britain, the Soviet Union and China before we physically joined in later on. . . the Holocaust as it is now known didn't come to light until later on - when evidence of it was discovered first hand.

To be more precise, evidence of, "The Holocaust", wasn't exposed until 1945, after Germany had been defeated, but before their official surrender.

 

[lpast]

Butt OUT and let Europe do something for themselves for a change....weve done ENOUGH for the world, spent a fortune and gave far too many lives....enough

 

[Dittohead not!]

To be more precise, evidence of, "The Holocaust", wasn't exposed until 1945, after Germany had been defeated, but before their official surrender.

There are still people who aren't convinced, but then, there are some people who are inconvincible.

 

[apdst]

There are still people who aren't convinced, but then, there are some people who are inconvincible.

There are no historical facts that suggest that anyone, outside of the Jewish community in Europe and the Nazi high command, knew that the death camps and concentration camps--yes, there's a difference--even existed.

There is tons of evidence that prove that Allied forces were totally unaware of the camps, until they stumbled upon them in 1945.

 

[apdst]

Butt OUT and let Europe do something for themselves for a change....weve done ENOUGH for the world, spent a fortune and gave far too many lives....enough

That would have been all fine-n-good, until the Germans perfected the Amerikabomber and had the range to strike the United States.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Can you imagine what it would be like if the US were facing a Europe united under the Nazi flag?:shock:

Imagine it: The free world on one side of the ocean, the world under whoever succeeded Hitler on the other. Talk about a cold war! How long would it have been before they tried to take over the rest of the world?

Facing down the Soviets was bad enough.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

And those battles would most likely have gone the allies way, the perfect time to jump in would have been after they attacked Russia, the Nazi's fatal mistake.

There's no way to know whether or not the war would have ended earlier if we had entered earlier since the entire war and German strategy may have changed - I would bet that we would lose more people though. That said, it wouldn't be "obvious" that we should enter the war because if the rise of the new Nazis happened in the same way as the old Nazis we would have no idea whether or not the Europeans or whoever needed our help.

 

[Kali]

There are no historical facts that suggest that anyone, outside of the Jewish community in Europe and the Nazi high command, knew that the death camps and concentration camps--yes, there's a difference--even existed.

There is tons of evidence that prove that Allied forces were totally unaware of the camps, until they stumbled upon them in 1945.

While I call B.S.?? In todays age of information? Not knowing would never be able to be used as some lame excuse. Everyone would know!

 

[What if...?]

No such international law existed during WW2.

Was it some code of combat or something? Like the "rules" the American revolutionaries "broke" by engaging in guerrilla warfare?

There are laws now though, right?

War, as it currently exists, is imo a ridiculous waste of lives and money. If some world leader is making an ass out of himself put him down.

Quick, cheap, and it deprives him of the honor of playing chess with other peoples lives.

No war rooms and drama. Constant fear. Exploding toilets. Poisoned food.

Why is it "better" for our treasure to be sprayed all over some farmers fields somewhere mixed with the blood of our best and bravest, than to simply put an end to the "source" of the problem?

 

[apdst]

While I call B.S.?? In todays age of information? Not knowing would never be able to be used as some lame excuse. Everyone would know!

You don't know that. There are plenty of events that happened in the Balkins, in the 90's that people still don't know about.

Hell, there are events that took place during WW2 that people are still ignorant of. This thread proves that. So, you'll excuse me if I reserve my confidence on the, "information age".

 

[apdst]

Was it some code of combat or something? Like the "rules" the American revolutionaries "broke" by engaging in guerrilla warfare?

Nope, it wasn't that, either. In reality, the Allied high command didn't want Hitler to be assissinated, because he was giving the whole show away. They knew that under his charge, Germany was doomed. If someone else took his place, it might be a different and deadly story.

There are laws now though, right?

There are now, yes.

War, as it currently exists, is imo a ridiculous waste of lives and money. If some world leader is making an ass out of himself put him down.

That would cause nothing but all out mayhem, because every leader in the world would be getting capped.

Why is it "better" for our treasure to be sprayed all over some farmers fields somewhere mixed with the blood of our best and bravest, than to simply put an end to the "source" of the problem?

Assissinating every cat that we don't like would cost the lives of even more ouf our best and brightest.

 

[apdst]

There's no way to know whether or not the war would have ended earlier if we had entered earlier since the entire war and German strategy may have changed - I would bet that we would lose more people though. That said, it wouldn't be "obvious" that we should enter the war because if the rise of the new Nazis happened in the same way as the old Nazis we would have no idea whether or not the Europeans or whoever needed our help.

If the Allies--Britian, France and The United States--had faced off with Germany in 1938, the war would have not only been shorter, but cost fewer lives.

 

[Goshin]

Was it some code of combat or something? Like the "rules" the American revolutionaries "broke" by engaging in guerrilla warfare?

There are laws now though, right?

War, as it currently exists, is imo a ridiculous waste of lives and money. If some world leader is making an ass out of himself put him down.

Quick, cheap, and it deprives him of the honor of playing chess with other peoples lives.

No war rooms and drama. Constant fear. Exploding toilets. Poisoned food.

Why is it "better" for our treasure to be sprayed all over some farmers fields somewhere mixed with the blood of our best and bravest, than to simply put an end to the "source" of the problem?

There are two schools of thought on this matter: one focuses on the man, one on the "tides of history".

One theory says it is the man, the dictator, the Hitler, who makes Nazi Germany (or whatever regime/nation) what it is.

Another theory says that when the tides of history, the forces of collective will, economic conditions, political trends, and so on, come together in such a manner, that some suitable leader will step forward to claim the mantle and ride the tide to conquest... the details might vary, but there would be war and atrocity all the same.

I'm not sure I entirely buy either argument... but if you assassinate one dictator, there's a very good chance that someone in his top-tier of advisors will simply step into his shoes and very likely continue similar policies for similar reasons.

In this sense, assassination is much less decisive than winning a war. Once you win a war the whole nation is no longer capable of fighting against you anymore... no one will be stepping into anyone's shoes with the same problems and resources inclining him to act the same.

 

[SgtRock]

Actually, there isn't any evidence that suggest that the Allies knew about the Holocaust, prior to Allied units finding the death camps, nor is there evidence to suggest that the average German knew what was going, either.

In reality, there is evidence to suggest quite the opposite.

The question being asked is "If it was Nazi Germany all over again, America should" In retrospect we know what happened in Nazi Germany. I understand that we did not know the holocaust was taking place when the US entered the war. Again what is the question being asked here apdst?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

If the Allies--Britian, France and The United States--had faced off with Germany in 1938, the war would have not only been shorter, but cost fewer lives.

Yeah, probably.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So let them murder 6 millon Jews?

They only murdered six million Jews because that's where the Allies stopped them. I would have allowed them to murder a lot more, just like we allowed the Hutus to murder a million Tutsis. I would have let them murder all of the Jews if it would have led to the early defeat of the Soviet Union and our unopposed supremacy over the entire planet.

Can you imagine what it would be like if the US were facing a Europe united under the Nazi flag?:shock:

You think that state of affairs would have been sustainable?

Facing down the Soviets was bad enough.

We could have prevented that. Patton was right.

War, as it currently exists, is imo a ridiculous waste of lives and money. If some world leader is making an ass out of himself put him down.

And when foreigners decide to assassinate our President, for the same reason?

 

[apdst]

The question being asked is "If it was Nazi Germany all over again, America should" In retrospect we know what happened in Nazi Germany. I understand that we did not know the holocaust was taking place when the US entered the war. Again what is the question being asked here apdst?

Depends on if we're using hindsight. Hindsight being 20/20, of course we would intervene on a situation the likes of which took place from '38-45. But, how can we know? We don't; we can only use past history as an indicator of what can happen, when a rogue regime goes unchallenged. It's the reason that the U.S. has become involved in every little chicken**** war since 1945, so as to prevent another scenario like the Nazis and Imperial Japan. Only difference, is nowadays, people insist that we should mind our own business, yet history tells a different story. We were purdy much minding our own business in the 30's and look what that got us.

 

[lewstherin]

They only murdered six million Jews because that's where the Allies stopped them. I would have allowed them to murder a lot more, just like we allowed the Hutus to murder a million Tutsis. I would have let them murder all of the Jews if it would have led to the early defeat of the Soviet Union and our unopposed supremacy over the entire planet.



You think that state of affairs would have been sustainable?



We could have prevented that. Patton was right.



And when foreigners decide to assassinate our President, for the same reason?

i'm 1/2 jewish and i call bull$h!t on the numbers. i mean, how long were auschwitz and treblinka even operational?
does anyone even comprehend the number of bodies per day during that short period that these institutions would've
had to churn out? 6 million is a physical impossibility with the limited operations within these camps.
i'm not denying that the nazis killed jews...i'm just saying that 6 million is totally an off the charts impossibility.

 

[apdst]

They only murdered six million Jews because that's where the Allies stopped them. I would have allowed them to murder a lot more, just like we allowed the Hutus to murder a million Tutsis. I would have let them murder all of the Jews if it would have led to the early defeat of the Soviet Union and our unopposed supremacy over the entire planet.

Yeah but, if the Nazis hadn't consumed so much time and resources killing Jews, they would have had a better chance of defeating the Soviets.

 

[Goshin]

i'm 1/2 jewish and i call bull$h!t on the numbers. i mean, how long were auschwitz and treblinka even operational?
does anyone even comprehend the number of bodies per day during that short period that these institutions would've
had to churn out? 6 million is a physical impossibility with the limited operations within these camps.
i'm not denying that the nazis killed jews...i'm just saying that 6 million is totally an off the charts impossibility.

We know, in detail, how they struggled to make the death camps as industrially-efficient as possible. I don't think it is at all impossible.

Do you have any supporting evidence for this assertion at all?

Holocaust Timeline: The Camps

 

[apdst]

i'm 1/2 jewish and i call bull$h!t on the numbers. i mean, how long were auschwitz and treblinka even operational?
does anyone even comprehend the number of bodies per day during that short period that these institutions would've
had to churn out? 6 million is a physical impossibility with the limited operations within these camps.
i'm not denying that the nazis killed jews...i'm just saying that 6 million is totally an off the charts impossibility.

1) The camps weren't the only places that the Nazis killed people. The Einsatzgruppen probably killed more people than the camps did.

2) The camps and the Einsatzgruppen weren't restricted to just killing Jews. They killed all, "undesirables", which is where the 6 million figure comes from.