I am not a professional historian or very good writer, but I just wanted to post some of my thoughts on this. Perhaps the poster of the video or other viewers would like to comment on my thoughts on this subject.
And maybe the reply of the Allies to us today would have been that "we have declared war on the Nazis, and are already in armed conflict with them" as the full extent of what they could do for the Jews at the moment.
I do think that the Allies should have issued a declaration that they were aware of the Nazi atrocities. And that Germany was certain to lose the war, and that those who committed the Holocaust would be held personally responsible and prosecuted. I seem to remember (cont.)
(cont.) for the Allied inaction was simple disbelief. Roosevelt, Churchill, , the Pope, etc. and their advisers were all men of the late 19th and early 20th century mindset. The Nazi evil was so immense, and the concept of a state purposely dedicating industrial processes to the killing of an entire race, was something the world had never seen before. I am wondering if the very concept was so terrible, that the political leaders of the Allies just couldn't quite grasp it mentally. (cont.)
I think the debate over whether "bombing Auschwitz" would have helped is---and always will be--entirely speculative. It immediately falls into the "if, maybe" trap. "If" we would have done this, then "maybe" this would have resulted.
Hindsight is always 20-20. The story of the Holocaust is fully familiar to us today, but many of the details that would have nailed it's reality beyond all doubt were still fuzzy back in 1944.
I have often thought about this, and I think (cont.)
The analysis is interesting and well presented but I disagree.
1. The Poles held a large area of Warsaw which was not being bombed but supplied. Auschwitz was a tiny area.
2. I do not think the Allies separated Poles and Jews - Jews were citizens of the countries they came from.
3, Nowhere was bombing so far carried out on such a small target.
I agree with the Frankfurter story but against it is the liberation of Majdanek in July 1944 + requests for bombing after that date.
alanheath 7 months ago
that this was actually done (?)
I am not a professional historian or very good writer, but I just wanted to post some of my thoughts on this. Perhaps the poster of the video or other viewers would like to comment on my thoughts on this subject.
frantic1971 1 year ago
@frantic1971 yes it was
nathen2cool 1 year ago
And maybe the reply of the Allies to us today would have been that "we have declared war on the Nazis, and are already in armed conflict with them" as the full extent of what they could do for the Jews at the moment.
I do think that the Allies should have issued a declaration that they were aware of the Nazi atrocities. And that Germany was certain to lose the war, and that those who committed the Holocaust would be held personally responsible and prosecuted. I seem to remember (cont.)
frantic1971 1 year ago
(cont.) for the Allied inaction was simple disbelief. Roosevelt, Churchill, , the Pope, etc. and their advisers were all men of the late 19th and early 20th century mindset. The Nazi evil was so immense, and the concept of a state purposely dedicating industrial processes to the killing of an entire race, was something the world had never seen before. I am wondering if the very concept was so terrible, that the political leaders of the Allies just couldn't quite grasp it mentally. (cont.)
frantic1971 1 year ago
I think the debate over whether "bombing Auschwitz" would have helped is---and always will be--entirely speculative. It immediately falls into the "if, maybe" trap. "If" we would have done this, then "maybe" this would have resulted.
Hindsight is always 20-20. The story of the Holocaust is fully familiar to us today, but many of the details that would have nailed it's reality beyond all doubt were still fuzzy back in 1944.
I have often thought about this, and I think (cont.)
frantic1971 1 year ago