andyofborg Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 If you have evidence that the allies knew about the death camps, I am more than willing and in fact would be grateful for the sources so I can check them out. After all knowledge which is immune from being refuted is not worthy of the title is it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust#Who_knew_about_the_killings.3F The allies were well aware of what was happening. being realistic there was very little they could actually do for much of the time and even when they could do something there were perceived to be higher priority uses for the resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 anyway, returning to the topic had there not been a western military intervention in libya it seems likely that the libyan government would have overwhelmed the very poorly armed rebels and killed thousands of civilians in the rebel cities for almost 1000 years, western military theory has been built around on minimising civilian casualties. unfortunately no one can give an absolute guarantee to any civilian in a combat zone. the western leaders were faced with two choices: a) intervene and accept that there will be accidental civilian casualties b) don't intervene and the winning force will likely kill, rape and torture a lot of the losing side's civilians either way, people die there isn't a right answer only a less wrong one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_Holocaust#Who_knew_about_the_killings.3F The allies were well aware of what was happening. being realistic there was very little they could actually do for much of the time and even when they could do something there were perceived to be higher priority uses for the resources. Interesting I didn't know that Thanks Andy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 As above and I don't think Gadaffi would have spent Billions of our money bombing the rebels,it would've been business as usual by now. How can Gadaffi spend our money? And what do you mean by "business as usual" - Gaddafi wiping out the rebels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 If Gaddafi treat the people of Libya like human beings then we wouldn't be there. I haven't read the story as yet but it seems it's all in the hands of Gaddafi. It seems on this one NATO was damned if it didn't and now clearly damned for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I think my library is more than adequate to be honest. Reliant as it is on actual events and a rational appraisal the facts. If you have evidence that the allies knew about the death camps, I am more than willing and in fact would be grateful for the sources so I can check them out. After all knowledge which is immune from being refuted is not worthy of the title is it? http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=8 You need a better library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowan22 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=371&Itemid=8 You need a better library. Maybe! disturbing stuff. But I think the article makes it quite plain that intelligence at the time felt that bombing the camps was unfeasible. And at such a late stage of the War when proof of the atrocities became irrefutable. That the best hope of saving internees was a swift allied progress and victory. Made more expedient by not diverting military resources, and so hastening the final defeat of the Nazis. Quote: "The Department also asserted that the bombing was unfeasible because it would involve the diversion of air power required to win battles elsewhere. The Department went on to point out the technical difficulties involved, and even asserted that bombing could cause German reprisals. The Department held that the most effective aid for the victims of persecution would be a quick Allied victory over the Third Reich and the other Axis countries and that this was the goal towards which all available means should be used". But still I didn't know they had any knowledge of the situation at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 I guess that's the same (sick) excuse you use when Israel murders civilians... And this thread is not about jews so why are you moaning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 But still I didn't know they had any knowledge of the situation at all. More stuff here - being fairly widely reported that Jews were being slaughtered in 1942. http://www.deathcamps.org/reinhard/allies.html What, if anything, could have been done is open to interpretation - my view is not a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 anyway, returning to the topic had there not been a western military intervention in libya it seems likely that the libyan government would have overwhelmed the very poorly armed rebels and killed thousands of civilians in the rebel cities either way, people die there isn't a right answer only a less wrong one On that last point, I completely agree. But Benghazi (where a total civilian massacre was threatened) was averted. These dead families lived 1000km from Benghazi. UNSCR 1977 included the phrase (IIRC) "protect civilians by all means possible". This is not a mandate for regime change. At least the politicians aren't pretending they're not seeking it unlike Blair and Iraq ("this isn't about regime change it's about disarmament"). The Libyan army is not a huge challenge. NATO should not be targetting their airstrikes based on tweets from people allegedly on the ground. Arguably they should not be targetting airstrikes near heavily built up urban areas full of civilians. That much is obvious to me. The cost of 'collateral damage' in Libya is going to be very, very high. More extreme precautions are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.