Wars and Conflicts聽 permalink
Belsen - C4 Last night
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.聽
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Absolutely compelling and moving docudrama, about a part of the liberation of the camps I knew nothing about. I suppose naively, I thought as soon as the British Army arrived everything was ok and the dying stopped.
Great work by the Army and intern doctors to turn the whole situation around, though I am surprised that they all went on to great careers; usually the powers that be manage to drop it on such heroes from a high place.
All the more poingnant, when my wife told me that her father was in the British Army and was in the Belsen relief operation. He never would talk much about it...... -
Message 2
Posted by HO_CHI_MINSTER (U3392683) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
How they held back from beating the sh*t out of the German guards i do not know.
-
Message 3
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
he would never talk about it..聽
I worked with a man who had been amongst the first in to Belsen and after working with him for twenty years, it was only when some young fascist denied the truth of it that the business came out. He also said that the German people who lived around that area who denied knowledge of Belsen were liars. Two things stuck in his mind, the all covering white dust from the ovens and the awful stench that spread over the surrounding areas.
LFD. -
Message 4
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
A first class piece of TV. I am still reeling at the thought of the guards being sent back to their own front. Not only the sabbotaging the new installtions for the decontamination 'facility,' surely it was their report that then sent a bomb raid on the hospital.
Was the commandant later charged at Nurenberg? I may have misheard that part. My admiration for the team that tried to cope in circumstances beyond imagination is unbounded. I am not surprised that they all remained close afterwards; with whom else could they share the emotional aftermath of such an experience?
Well done, Ch4; a classic in presentation and editing in it's stark simplicity. As was said, it was such an extreme experience that only by numbing emotion could the medics function and bring some kind of order to unspeakable chaos. And how much worse it was for those people who suffered the camps is impossible to imagine.
P. -
Message 5
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Really, well did they mention that the Jews were held there for another two years or more?
Did they mention the poor conditions they had to endure and the thieving they had to do to survive?
Did they mention that it was still unsafe for any of the Jews to go back to their own countries?
Did they mention that Britain and the US were complicit in the Holocaust by not destroying these camps when they knew about them and in refusing to take any Jewish refugees even in 1943?
Just wondering as it is Channel 4 and they are not well disposed towards Jews usually.
Most of the Holocaust survivors had to be persuaded by their families to talk about it later, much later. Very few people who were in the camps will talk about even now.
Not one single programme about the Holocaust appeared on US TV until the Sixties.
Thank God for Israel. -
Message 6
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
No they didn't mention that stuff, because that was not what the programme was about.
-
Message 7
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Did they mention that Britain and the US were complicit in the Holocaust by not destroying these camps聽
I'm struggling to see how this could do any good? Bombing the camps would mean death for the inmates at the hands of the RAF/USAF instead of the Nazis and they were hardly hi-tech affairs and could have been repaired very quickly. -
Message 8
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
"Did they mention that Britain and the US were complicit in the Holocaust by not destroying these camps when they knew about them and in refusing to take any Jewish refugees even in 1943?"
Did they mention that on November 6, 1944 - i.e. months before the British army liberated Belsen - two Jewish fanatics assassinated Lord Moyne, the British resident minister in Cairo, and his driver? Or that Zionist terrorists in Palestine were murdering British servicemen while Britain was still fighting Nazism? Given that this terrorist campaign continued and intensified after the war, it's hardly surprising that the British government wasn't keen to throw fuel on the flames through allowing mass immigration into Palestine by Jews who, as you point out, were natives of other countries - mostly in eastern Europe. -
Message 9
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Cloudj,
The Jews in the camps and the free Jews fighting in Poland and Russia had managed to get envoys through to the FOs of the UK and US in 1942 and 1943.
Two of these carried the 'Auschwitz Protocols'.
Another carried Top Secret Eyes Only messages for the Free Polish Government, the UK Prime Minister, and the President of the United States.
Those messages were delivered before the Bermuda Conference and after.
Guess what these envoys were pledding, begging, desperately seeking for the UN forces to do?
In the Camp Revolts of 1943-44 a Death Camp in Russia was damaged badly enough that the Nazis shut it down. Such was the overstretched and lack of resources by that time that the Nazis even offered to release Jews to Istanbul in exchange for hevay trucks. It did not happen, but is indicative of your opinion being incompatible with the situation as it existed on the ground. -
Message 10
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
BLimp,
You mean two Irgun terrorists assassinated the raving antisemite Moyne. The same organisation that was attacking British occupying forces since they knew full well Brtiains complicity andthe continuing blocking of refugee flight to Palestine was deliberate and led to the deaths of at least 200 000 Jews.
After the Vicotry in Europe there were num,erous pogroms and masacrs of Jews by Poles and the REd Army. Nothing was done to prevent that.
This will give some meat to the bones of your propaganda.
I do not condone not agree with their actions. -
Message 11
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Scotty,
Funny sort of 'liberation' then wouldn't you say? -
Message 12
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
It is unfortunate that most who raise the questions above did not switch on to see this remakable docu-drama.
It was about a group of people faced with an horrendous task and doing what they could in the circumstances.
What went before, was going on elsewhere and what happened afterwards is not relevant to those medics' remarkable part in coping with their awful present.
History is an edgeless jigsaw at best with each of us building bits of the design we have to hand. Ch 4 did a great job with theirs last night.
P. -
Message 13
Posted by Killfacer (U8855584) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
to blame thousands of dead jews for the killing of a couple of blokes is unreasonable. Colonel Blimp, just becuase you have some knowledge of a couple of acts of terrorism which you think make you clever doesnt meen its a good reason. I personally agree though, to bomb the concentration camps would of done very little and even if they had we would be having a conversation about why the RAF are mass murdering jew haters who wanted to bomb belsen (which they arnt).
I can see where you coming from, but you wanna watch what you say, i personally dont take offense at what you said (i'm not a jew) but im sure some people would. -
Message 14
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Yes maybe you are right - just let them die eh?
-
Message 15
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Scotty,
That is exactly what the British government chose to let happen for years in the Death Camps and afterwards too. Even worse was the behaviour of the International Red Cross.
I do understand why the UK acted as it did and do not choose to take an Irgun/Lehi style line on the British. I am British and proud of it and my Grandfather was seriously injured in France, dying of cancer later, and my Great Uncle, a British Assimilated-Jew, was assassinated by the Germans probably under direct orders from Joe Goebbels.
However the behaviour of British Forces in Palestine 1945-47, given what the Jews had just gone through, was completely unforgiveable. -
Message 16
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Maybe you should try and find out what Dr Ada Bimko, who had survived Auchwitz (alone of all her family I believe) thought of the British Army efforts. That she took part in, indeed was a vital part of.
-
Message 17
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
I DO appreciate some of your sentiments Point, and I won't comment on Allied aslyum policy as I don't know enough about it, but those who suggest that somehow Bomber Command could have stopped the executions for more than a short time are living in la la land. There was practically NO precision bombing in those days, despite what "Target For Tonight" and various other sundry Allied propaganda might tell you. So bombing the camps would have killed thousands of prisoners, and then they would have to do it a few weeks later, repeat until the end of the war. Lots of prisoners would have been killed, directly by the allies.
Even Oboe equipped Mosquitoes or the best of the 8th AAF could not bomb with surgical precision, even in perfect conditions. -
Message 18
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Scotty,
Those facts were well-known to Continental Jewry being murdered by the million in the Death Camps.
They still wanted them bombed immediatley and heavily. They really wanted that to happen. But, you know, one of main reasons given for not doing so at the time was that it would be a waste of money.
Memoranda were issued to that effect and still exist.
The Allies did eventually bomb Auschwitz but A-3, the factory component making synthetic fuels and rubber, they flew over Auschwitz-Birkenau to do so. -
Message 19
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
HO_CHI_MINSTER
How they held back from beating the sh*t out of the German guards i do not know聽
A 鈥 Many of them weren鈥檛 German.
B 鈥 They did more than that, they summarily executed them after they buried the bodies.
I know this as the man who participated in the executions was my old man鈥檚 RSM, I spoke to him many times about it.
Pointofnoreturn
Excellent use of the 鈥楢nti-Semitism鈥 Card. It鈥檚 people like you that dilute the term and make problems with the real problem, with anti-Semitism.
Did they mention that Britain and the US were complicit in the Holocaust by not destroying these camps when they knew about them and in refusing to take any Jewish refugees even in 1943?聽
We were fighting a War, not to relieve Jews but to defeat Nazism. The Holocaust was a minor aspect of the war. Bombing the camps would have taken up valuable war resources that could be put to better use elsewhere, and the bombing could not have sped to end of the war up.
As we saw with the bombing of various facilities, the Axis could re-build them in no-time, so to bomb them would have been pointless.
Most of the Holocaust survivors had to be persuaded by their families to talk about it later, much later. Very few people who were in the camps will talk about even now.聽
Exactly the same for the Soldiers who fought in the war.
Guess what these envoys were pledding, begging, desperately seeking for the UN forces to do?聽
The UN didn鈥檛 exist till after the war, so prey tell, what are you on about?
To suggest the US/UK is complicit in the holocaust would be laughable if it wasn鈥檛 such a sick comment. Seriously, grow up. -
Message 20
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Memoranda were issued to that effect and still exist.聽
Where? Please show us?
Did they say Money or War materials.
I'm seeing a lot of hype, sot a lot of substance from what you type? -
Message 21
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Mani,
I will happily tell you that the memo is listed in the book by Walter Laqueur called 'The Terrible Secret'.
I will give you the exact wording when I have a chance to note it down and the originator and the date of issue.
It was a 'cost analysis if you like. Cost of bombs compared to a Jewish life. -
Message 22
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Mani,
it is not a 'use of the antisemitism card' to note that Lord Moyne was assassinated by the Lehi (a breakaway branch of the terrorist Irgun) because it was their peception that he was an antisemite. He was responsilbe for thousands of Jews dying needlessly.
But maybe Jewish lives are a commodity to be traded by the West? Certainly it still feels like that now.
A look at the Wikipedia article on Moyne ** and the discussion behind it** will show that this is disputed but that the consensual view of historians is that he was an antisemite but not to the extermination degree like the Nazis who gave it a bit of a bad name, for a while at least.
The facts are that the UN (coined by Roosevelt during the War and in use before the formation of the United Nations Organisation) could have destroyed the camps and there were instances were the Jews themselves did enough damage to shut one down. We were not short of resources by that time and the Nazis were struggling severely to even feed their own by this stage.
The Axis were over-stretched and militarily the end was hastening. They were losing on all fronts. The trucks for Jews deal is real and noted by all historians as one other example. Then add that A3 was bombed by aircraft that*** flew*** over A-Birkenau. They knew where and what was happening there since aerial shots of the whole were used in evidence at Nuremburg.
Beating the Soviets to Berlin was the priority and it was already a case of organisating against the Soviets by 1943. Hence the attempts to turn around Allied policy by the US State Department and British FO, to assassinate Hitler unseat his faction in Germany, split the Nazis, then ally with Germany turning the front around and taking out the Soviet Union.
As I said above I understand their policy I just think that the lives of the Jews and the other inmates were worth more than that in the calculations.
Of course by this time the propaganda arguments that the Nazis used that this was a war fought for the Jews and their puppets and that still appears in fascist propaganda today was of no consequence to those still dying in the camps. I would not add to their delusions of hate further.
I do resent your attempts at equivalence between soldiers fighting and those being murdered on an industrial scale. Many Jews fought in that War too but the horror of the camps was something that Jews who survived did not go on about.
The idea of guilt tripping the UN is not the point, as antisemites today will often claim.
My point is that we should not feel completely cosy with our policy and much more could easily have been done to save Jewish lives but that this impacted upon British Foreign Policy and economic concerns.
Primarily Oil.
So take it that I find your posting ignorant and patronising since you obviously do not have as great an understanding as you like to think. I am in my Forties and feel all grown up already thank you. -
Message 23
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
However the behaviour of British Forces in Palestine 1945-47, given what the Jews had just gone through, was completely unforgiveable.聽
What exactly was so unforgivable about the British forces behavior? -
Message 24
Posted by Scottish Librarian (U1772828) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
As usual Mani is the only one on this board talking sense...where have DL and Thomas B gone? Those were the days...
-
Message 25
Posted by 2295wynberglad (U7761102) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
Oh, Come on!!! Bomb the camps what good would that have done. Do the job for the gerrys. Never.
But why did they let the camp Guards go? I knew some of the R.A.M.C. Boys who were there, and was my self looked after by Q.A.nurses in 1955 who had seen belsen. They did a fantistic job under rotten conditions. What was not known is that some squadies did take revenge on a few of the local SS. Yes a tough time for all, but lets face facts. They did a great job.
Could I have done it? I think I would have gone mad.
2295.Wynberglad -
Message 26
Posted by colonelblimp (U1705702) on Tuesday, 16th October 2007
"to blame thousands of dead jews for the killing of a couple of blokes is unreasonable. Colonel Blimp, just becuase you have some knowledge of a couple of acts of terrorism which you think make you clever doesnt meen its a good reason. I personally agree though, to bomb the concentration camps would of done very little and even if they had we would be having a conversation about why the RAF are mass murdering jew haters who wanted to bomb belsen (which they arnt).
I can see where you coming from, but you wanna watch what you say, i personally dont take offense at what you said (i'm not a jew) but im sure some people would."
I couldn't care less whether people take offence or not, frankly, nor whether they think I'm "clever" because I quote facts they don't like. If you think I "blamed thousands of dead Jews for the killing of a couple of blokes [sic]", you seem to have had trouble reading the post. The people committing mass murder against the Jews were the Nazis. Britain was fighting the Nazis. Certain Jews, rather than fighting the Nazis themselves, decided to wage a terrorist campaign against British soldiers and, in the particular case I mentioned, to murder a British minister. Britain had a responsibility to the inhabitants of Palestine, including the large Arab population, which would not have been best served (and in the end, wasn't) by capitulating to the minority of Jewish terrorists and permitting mass immigration of people of Jewish heritage from eastern Europe, at the expense of the people already living there - who had had nothing to do with the concentration camps. Murdering friends and relations of men who are risking their own lives in order to liberate the people you claim to be concerned about is, in any case, unlikely to arouse their sympathy towards your cause. -
Message 27
Posted by RedGuzzi750 (U7604797) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Ive just finished "Tail End Charlies", and I can't believe it would have done any good to bomb the camps. Just can't accept that I'm afraid.
Bomber Commands' reputation was unfairly soiled by post-war revisionists enough, without having that on thier conscience too. -
Message 28
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
But maybe Jewish lives are a commodity to be traded by the West? Certainly it still feels like that now. 聽
An interesting meaningless sound bite which has zero relevance to this discussion, but please explain why?
The facts are that the UN (coined by Roosevelt during the War and in use before the formation of the United Nations Organisation) could have destroyed the camps and there were instances were the Jews themselves did enough damage to shut one down. We were not short of resources by that time and the Nazis were struggling severely to even feed their own by this stage. 聽
The FACT is the UN didn鈥檛 exist. End of Story. Regardless of what was discussed at the Tehran conference. What went on to become the UN is not the same entity as the Allies.
Indeed, we could have, bombed some of the camps, others we could not have. But the point that you have conveniently ignored is simple. We were fighting a war against Nazism, not for Judaism. However many lives could have been saved from the camps is irrelevant when compared to the lives cost by extending the war, by concentrating valuable (Not abundant) war resources to a non-military matter.
Then add that A3 was bombed by aircraft that*** flew*** over A-Birkenau聽 This means nothing? All this means is that Birkenau was within range? What is a priority in regards to a war, bombing a camp or a facility providing war materials? Your attitude is blinkered and short sighted. We were fighting a war, it was not a humanitarian mission.
Beating the Soviets to Berlin was the priority聽
You couldn鈥檛 be further from the truth. The task of taking Berlin had long since been given to the Soviets. The casualties involved were such that we were not prepared to take them. What came to be the Morgenthau Plan was well established.
Hence the attempts to turn around Allied policy by the US State Department and British FO, to assassinate Hitler unseat his faction in Germany, split the Nazis, then ally with Germany turning the front around and taking out the Soviet Union. 聽
I鈥檓 sorry, but what are you talking about? Our policy was to do the opposite!!!! What you suggest was wanted by the SS, however, the Allies did not.
As I said above I understand their policy I just think that the lives of the Jews and the other inmates were worth more than that in the calculations. 聽
At a high level, war is simply that. The lives of soldiers and bringing the war to a faster end took and should have taken priority. It has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, but the practicality of how to run a war.
I do resent your attempts at equivalence between soldiers fighting and those being murdered on an industrial scale. Many Jews fought in that War too but the horror of the camps was something that Jews who survived did not go on about. 聽
I will be honest and say I couldn鈥檛 care less what you resent. I have stated a fact, if you like it or not doesn鈥檛 really matter. I have fought in wars, I know what those soldiers went through, I suspect you haven鈥檛 and couldn鈥檛 have even a slight idea what war is like. At no point have I said Jews did not fight in the war 鈥 the did, on both sides.
My point is that we should not feel completely cosy with our policy and much more could easily have been done to save Jewish lives but that this impacted upon British Foreign Policy and economic concerns聽
And my point is that we were fighting a war that was not to save Jewish lives. As much as you may not like the truth, the holocaust is a small element of the war, not a major one. Militarily, it is utterly irrelevant. Harsh? Yes, but War is not nice.
So take it that I find your posting ignorant and patronising since you obviously do not have as great an understanding as you like to think聽
Well, yes, I have a great understanding of how a war is carried out, you have none. I find your posting having little substance and too many sound bites, it ignores the obvious and relies on the emotion that you have for the predicament of Jews at the time, it also contains many basic errors of the Allied policies. You have no idea of my understanding as you have ignored the obvious as it goes against what you say. -
Message 29
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
back,
the racism like, siegheils directed at survivors as just one example.
There are plenty of incidents from this shameful period of British Mandate history including a comprehensive listings of nastiness on Wikipedia.
Including the Irgun (terrorist) reprisals such as the execution of two British Sergeants in England who were particularly vile in Palestine towards the Jews (including survivors).
Instead of interrogating me why not try looking at the history? -
Message 30
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Oh really,
If that ad hominum attack is sense please explain this historical evidence,
Cabinet papers in the National Archive.
I will not give Mani any more he can do his own spadework. A 'little Corporal' (not literally) in the British MoD had also decided that bombs were to expensive to waste on saving Jewish lives.
Expalin then the Bermuda Conference,
and total lack of even diplomatic efforts to save the live of European Jewry. The impotence of the WRP and so on and so on ad naseum
Basically none of the United Nations were too bothered and had written reports off as 'Jewish propaganda' not without precedent as suchlike was invented by the British in WW1, see 'bayonetting Belgian babies'.
To be frank even the Yishuv found it difficult to believe - at first. This was an event unprecedented in human history.
One that Israel (the theological Nation and the state) is dedicated to preventing happening again. Hence, 'Never Again'. -
Message 31
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Still ignoring the obvious I see...
-
Message 32
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Mani,
are you R. Fisk in disguise or something. WHy the Fisking? Cannot tolerate a Jewish point of view or what? OK, I respond thusly.
The term 'United Nations' or UN was in already in use to refer to the Allies before the formation of the UNO. A simple fact yet to penetrate.
I have nowhere said we should have fought the War 'for Judaism' but several times mentioned that the War was fought on other priorities and that I understand those. Economic mostly, but also that we were 'the good guys' defending civilisation. And so we were, on the whole.
Another Fisk-like Twisting of words to the point of misrepresentation. So mere propaganda. For whom we might wonder?
Now the War was in no way about fighting for just the Jews from all the Nations of Europe, clearly.
But Anthony Eden, in his speech on the 麻豆约拍 in November 1942, made it clear that this abomination of the Holocaust
was known about and threatened the Germans with retribution. This was a major reason for fighting the Nazis, that is, to save civilisation and humanity from the Nazis version of it being imposed. The death of humanity in fact.
If we the civilised Nations of the World were not about preventing things like the Nazis Holocaust, what was the point, what difference did it make?
I think those are valid questions and not being 'emotive'. Why are you so hard and cold?
So no compassion from the likes of Mani nor moreto the point included in the British and US policy decisions of that time.
It's only Jews so what, what are we going to do with them anyway? Lord Moynes attitude leaps out of your posting.
As for the Berlin issue yeah like tell that to Paton and Eisenhower. Really no references for these assertions either?
But I did not claim these attitudes were through an activated antisemitism, as such, but indifference to the plight of the Jews. Antisemites would have found it very convenient though and used those points in the discussions around these issues. As is recorded and heavily referenced in Laqueurs book and many others.
Perhaps the entire contents of the Weiner Library to is Jewish exaggeration?
'I will be honest and say I couldn鈥檛 care less what you resent. I have stated a fact, if you like it or not doesn鈥檛 really matter'
and
'As much as you may not like the truth, the holocaust is a small element of the war, not a major one. Militarily, it is utterly irrelevant. Harsh? Yes, but War is not nice'.
says it all doesn't it?
The Holocaust = 7 million Jewish lives, plus at least 2 million others, the disabled, all religious and political enemies of the Third Reich and up to 5 million Soviet PoWs beaten, starved to death, gassed and even medically experimented upon. No, not nice at all.
Total military casualties on all sides (excluding the Soviets who were treated as expendable too), under 2 million.
Physical courage is one thing what I cannot tolerate is pretending it equates to moral and intellectual courage. Yours stikes me as mere Blimpish bluster.
And some people wonder why Jews find it difficult to trust gentiles with their safety and security anymore? -
Message 33
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
2295,
The Allies (United Nations) were repeatedly asked to bomb the camps as policy by those being murdered in their millions.
Who has said that the medical staff did not try their best in difficult circumstances? -
Message 34
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Blimp,
You repeat blatant falsehoods.
The British Administration did not capitulate to Jewish terrorists but to Arab violence as had already occured before the War funded in part by the Nazis and went this went back to the Twenties.
They never permitted mass immigration. They prevented it up to and including putting survivors into concentration camps in Cyprus. Nice.
The people there were the Nazis main allies in the Middle East as the hanging out of Nazi flags and propaganda material in the Thirties amply illustrated.
Their leader Haj Amin Al Husseini (Arafats 'uncle') and his clan the Husseinis were in charge of Palestinian Nationalism (they founded it) were instigsators and oversaw the Final Solution. Terezin Death Camp, the founding htof the Mulism Kosovan SS divisions and so on.
So the real history is that Palestinian arabs both their elite and the populous actually did play an active part in the Holocaust. -
Message 35
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Mani,
It is obvious to me now that you simply do not care what happened in the Holocaust. -
Message 36
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Scotty,
it was not Bomber Commands decision to take.
Whehter in your opinion it would have done any good there is plenty or evidence that contradicts that opinion.
And the victims, actual escapees, begged the UN to do it. -
Message 37
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Mani,
are you R. Fisk in disguise or something. WHy the Fisking? Cannot tolerate a Jewish point of view or what? OK, I respond thusly. 聽
At best; Pathetic. Is that the best you can come back with? 鈥淎nti-smite!!!! Anti-Semite!!!!鈥 As I鈥檝e said before the problem with the real problem of anti-Semitism is people like you.
The term 'United Nations' or UN was in already in use to refer to the Allies before the formation of the UNO. A simple fact yet to penetrate.聽 Indeed it was, but by whome, by all? No. Deal with it. Look at what happened at the Tehran conference.
But Anthony Eden, in his speech on the 麻豆约拍 in November 1942, made it clear that this abomination of the Holocaust
was known about and threatened the Germans with retribution. This was a major reason for fighting the Nazis, that is, to save civilisation and humanity from the Nazis version of it being imposed. The death of humanity in fact.聽
Utter drivel. It was a minor part in fighting the Nazi鈥檚. Maybe you need to look at the UK鈥檚 long standing foreign policy towards the continent in order to establish why we were fighting? We were already at war. Fact. We had established already that we were fighting till the end, the holocaust had nothing to do with our declaration of war, and continued fighting. You may find that difficult to accept, but it鈥檚 a fact.
If we the civilised Nations of the World were not about preventing things like the Nazis Holocaust, what was the point, what difference did it make?聽
Why are you so hard and cold?聽 Because we are discussing a War. Something you have zero experience of. Do you think they are warm and jolly experiences? No, they are cold and hard events where cold and hard decisions are made for the greater good, not the good of a minority. Again, if you have a problem with that, it鈥檚 pretty tough, it鈥檚 the reality.
It's only Jews so what, what are we going to do with them anyway? Lord Moynes attitude leaps out of your posting.聽 You love these pointless sound bites don鈥檛 you? Save it for people who can鈥檛 see past your drivel.
As for the Berlin issue yeah like tell that to Paton and Eisenhower. Really no references for these assertions either? 聽 You鈥檝e answered your own question. Patton was an egotistical field commander, he did not dictate policy, you clearly stated 鈥淎llied policy by the US State Department and British FO鈥 Do you see the difference? If not I can explain it more clearly. Or maybe you could tell me what position Patton held in the US state department?
'As much as you may not like the truth, the holocaust is a small element of the war, not a major one. Militarily, it is utterly irrelevant. Harsh? Yes, but War is not nice'.
says it all doesn't it?
The Holocaust = 7 million Jewish lives, plus at least 2 million others, the disabled, all religious and political enemies of the Third Reich and up to 5 million Soviet PoWs beaten, starved to death, gassed and even medically experimented upon. No, not nice at all
Total military casualties on all sides (excluding the Soviets who were treated as expendable too), under 2 million. .聽
As irrelevant as this is to fighting a war, and again, by issuing an utterly incorrect casualty list, it show鈥檚 your utter lack of comprehension of a war, but I鈥檒l try and correct you.
A 鈥 What you have said still doesn鈥檛 alter the fact that the Holocaust was a small element of a world conflict.
B 鈥 Your figures, the Yad Vashem says six million Jews.Other victims of the Holocaust, another 5 million in total.
Your military casualty list show鈥檚 your ignorance. Total WW2 military casualties were in excess of 25 million in total. The Germans alone over 5 million, the soviets 10 million. According to your figures, it would make the total commonwealth deaths to be half of the total (According to the commonwealth graves commission). The fact that you even say 鈥楥asulties鈥 and not 鈥楧eaths鈥 says even more. The casualties are far more. You couldn鈥檛 have highlighted your ignorance any more.
So, WW2 鈥 total deaths 72 million, Holocast less than 6. As maths isn鈥檛 your strong point, I can do it for you if you wish?
As you seem to love 鈥榃ikipedia鈥 I have added it here as reference.
Physical courage is one thing what I cannot tolerate is pretending it equates to moral and intellectual courage. Yours stikes me as mere Blimpish bluster.聽 I couldn鈥檛 give a damn what you think, you have shown your levels of intelligence already on this thread. Fighting in battle takes more than physical courage, but you wouldn鈥檛 know about that would you? Blimpish bluster? My commendations say a bit more.
It is obvious to me now that you simply do not care what happened in the Holocaust.聽
I am dealing in facts, you caqn't handle it, that's your problem. At no point have I stated my opinion on the holocaust, so it isn't obvious in the slightest. I'm talking about the bigger picture of the second world war, you are blinkered to this.
Try dealing in facts and cut down on the emotion, it's really preventing you from looking at this with any prospective. -
Message 38
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Total WW2 military casualties were in excess of 25 million in total聽
Correction, should say Deaths, not casualties. -
Message 39
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Hi pointofnoreturn.
The interrogation hasnt started yet.
Trust me you'll know if or when I think I need to start. -
Message 40
Posted by pedrokelly (U1360661) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Mani,
It is obvious to me now that you simply do not care what happened in the Holocaust.聽
Mani may wish to answer your daft, silly, small minded comment above, or else he may decide to ignore both you and your stupidity and show himself to be the bigger man, as I think he is, by ignoring you completely.
Whatever, I do not think such a vile comment as you have made should be allowed to pass without some response.
I am more of a viewer to ths site than a user, but from what I have seen Mani is one of the more articulate, intelligent and knowledgable posters here. For you to make such an allegation based on nothing more than you not accepting what he explains to you say's it all about both you, and your views.
You may or may not decide to reply to me, I don't care, I will not reply to you. -
Message 41
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
pedrokelly,
Another ad hom, how interesting.
So Manis 'stupid use' of 'misapplication of antisemitism' which is a lie to cover up his posting which is an attempt at minimising the Holocaust, I should ignore?
Ignore the Holocaust and another point of view that differs from your friend. I base mine on his posts attacking me points by not discussing those nor by actaully bringing new information but merely contradictionary invective. -
Message 42
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Pointofnoreturn
When your maths is out by a factor of 12, do you expect that I won't correct you?
Do you expect that your accusations of anti-Semitism despite not suggesting anything close to it will go unaddressed?
As terrible as the Holocaust was, it is small when shown against the world conflict that had been going on for years.
You find it hard to accept that, so be it. -
Message 43
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
'I couldn鈥檛 give a damn what you think, you have shown your levels of intelligence already on this thread. Fighting in battle takes more than physical courage, but you wouldn鈥檛 know about that would you? Blimpish bluster? My commendations say a bit more.'
Yup, you hate me (emotively) for disagreeing with your lurid invective and ignoring my points by making repeated ad homs. Such make your points logically invalid.
Hence you have attempted to distort my central argument and ignore my initial questions.
I'll accept Wiki figures, for now, but you should note that it still does not make the size of murders-deaths in the camps irrelevant as you seemingly continue to wish to minimise the impact of the Holocaust.
Like all official Jewish sources for public consumption Yad Vashem uses the deliberate under-estimates. Figure from the occupired countries show it was closer to 7 million Jews.
Even at 6 million it is impossible for the mind to comprehend.
By the way if you expect me to cave in to this childish bullying tactic, think again.
All these figures, military too, creep up over time. -
Message 44
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Mani,
and where did I call you an antisemite exactly?
Yet again, though, you seek to minimise the Holocaust?
Others can draw their own conclusions.
So had a lok at the National Archives where the decisions of Cabinet are published? Thought not. -
Message 45
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
back,
I hope you found the vile racism directed towards Jews in Palestine from 1945-47 - including racist beatings of survivors of the Death camps and Slave factories- by the British Forces- including ful knoweldge nad no t a little encouragement their commanders- interesting.
I assume you already knew about the concentration camps they put the illegal Jewish immigrants in.
But War is hell, eh? -
Message 46
Posted by highchurchman (U7711917) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
But war is hell eh?聽
I bet the Palestinians and the Lebanese think so! -
Message 47
Posted by Mani (U1821129) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
"Yup, you hate me (emotively) for disagreeing with your lurid invective and ignoring my points by making repeated ad homs. Such make your points logically invalid."
I don't hate you, I don't know you - Grow up.
I think you are ignorant of reality, I think you are blinded in regards to the bigger picture of the War, and the minor ellement which is the holocast.
I haven't ignored any of your pointas, I have corrected you on many of them, such as your utter incompetance with simple figures.
"ou seemingly continue to wish to minimise the impact of the Holocaust."
I haven't. I'm stating as a fact, and provided figures that back up my stance that the Holocaust was a small part of a world conflict. If you think it is more than that, then you are delusional.
"Like all official Jewish sources for public consumption Yad Vashem uses the deliberate under-estimates"
And what pf the Non-Jewish source I provided which says exactly the same? Or are you conveniently ignoring that?
"By the way if you expect me to cave in to this childish bullying tactic, think again." I couldn't care less to be honest. You have shown your attitude and lack of knowledge. I don't need to bully you, I don't wish to. You show yourself up, that's enough.
"All these figures, military too, creep up over time."
Actually, they don't. The CGC's figures don't change. -
Message 48
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Mani,
by all means continue to rage at your windmills I am not intimidated. -
Message 49
Posted by Rootless Cosmopolitan (U5638156) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
'I bet the Palestinians and the Lebanese think so'
Really they are innocent little peace-lovers, no?
Blimp beat you to the deliberate antisemitic interjection kindly crawl back... -
Message 50
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 17th October 2007
Hi Pointofnoreturn, Mani etc
This is a deeply emotive subject and members with differing perspectives may feel they have more at stake in defending those opinions than on the more esoteric topics discussed here. However can I ask you all to please bear in mind that the boards are for constructive debate.
I don't think it is anyone's aim to intimidate other members here nor is anyone persuing an anti-semetic agenda. You may not agree with each other but please avoid making accusations as that will only inflame feelings.
Cheers
Andrew
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or 聽to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
麻豆约拍 iD
麻豆约拍 navigation
麻豆约拍 links
麻豆约拍 漏 2014 The 麻豆约拍 is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.