<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Roundup	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/</link>
	<description>A blog about political change, among other things</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:56:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard Aubrey		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2644162</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Aubrey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2644162</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[neo.   From time to time, I forget to say, about a particular discussion, &quot;I watched the hearings.  Want to start over?&quot;   Not fair, I know.  I should say so at the beginning.
Point is, here, I&#039;ve done my homework for every suggested tactic.  Maybe somebody can suggest a tactic for something which, as a practical matter, might work.  After which they can explain why the forces used for that were better used for that than for ending the war sooner.
Sure, you could send maybe six hundred bombers toward the camps on the hope that a few might survive flying completely over the Reich and manage to drop their bombs in the vicinity of Auschwitz.  But the whole force is gone and not available for further attacks on Germany.  And the hope that a few might survive is nuts anyway. And no Jewish lives would be saved.
Give me something that might work and spare me the dark insinuations  that it was not done because the Allies hated Jews.
There would be no meat to this discussion without the dark insinuation.  And the insinuation fails without a practical means of carrying out the operation and without a judgment that there would, in actuality, be lives saved.
After all, we didn&#039;t send a division of paratroopers toward Berchtesgaden in 1943 because they&#039;d all be dead, along with the transport aircraft, long before getting well into Germany.  And no use for further efforts.  Doesn&#039;t mean FDR and Churchill wanted to extend the war.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>neo.   From time to time, I forget to say, about a particular discussion, &#8220;I watched the hearings.  Want to start over?&#8221;   Not fair, I know.  I should say so at the beginning.<br />
Point is, here, I&#8217;ve done my homework for every suggested tactic.  Maybe somebody can suggest a tactic for something which, as a practical matter, might work.  After which they can explain why the forces used for that were better used for that than for ending the war sooner.<br />
Sure, you could send maybe six hundred bombers toward the camps on the hope that a few might survive flying completely over the Reich and manage to drop their bombs in the vicinity of Auschwitz.  But the whole force is gone and not available for further attacks on Germany.  And the hope that a few might survive is nuts anyway. And no Jewish lives would be saved.<br />
Give me something that might work and spare me the dark insinuations  that it was not done because the Allies hated Jews.<br />
There would be no meat to this discussion without the dark insinuation.  And the insinuation fails without a practical means of carrying out the operation and without a judgment that there would, in actuality, be lives saved.<br />
After all, we didn&#8217;t send a division of paratroopers toward Berchtesgaden in 1943 because they&#8217;d all be dead, along with the transport aircraft, long before getting well into Germany.  And no use for further efforts.  Doesn&#8217;t mean FDR and Churchill wanted to extend the war.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neo		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2644145</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 19:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2644145</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Richard Aubrey:

Some people say &quot;warned,&quot; some say &quot;informed&quot; or &quot;described&quot; or &quot;gave details of&quot; or any number of other phrases.

And many people believe the tactics would have worked, although many do not.  You are in the latter camp.  It doesn&#039;t mean you&#039;re right, and as I said before we&#039;ll never know for sure.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard Aubrey:</p>
<p>Some people say &#8220;warned,&#8221; some say &#8220;informed&#8221; or &#8220;described&#8221; or &#8220;gave details of&#8221; or any number of other phrases.</p>
<p>And many people believe the tactics would have worked, although many do not.  You are in the latter camp.  It doesn&#8217;t mean you&#8217;re right, and as I said before we&#8217;ll never know for sure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard Aubrey		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2644120</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Aubrey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 16:18:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2644120</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Neo  Why not &quot;told about&quot;?  And, surely, at least one tactic which would likely have worked could be hypothesized.  Just one.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neo  Why not &#8220;told about&#8221;?  And, surely, at least one tactic which would likely have worked could be hypothesized.  Just one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neo		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2644087</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:17:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2644087</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Richard Aubrey:

There is nothing dishonest about the term.  The people who have used it specified what they wanted done and believed it was possible to do it.

You may indeed disagree, but that has nothing to do with whether they lied or were dishonest.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Richard Aubrey:</p>
<p>There is nothing dishonest about the term.  The people who have used it specified what they wanted done and believed it was possible to do it.</p>
<p>You may indeed disagree, but that has nothing to do with whether they lied or were dishonest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Miguel cervantes		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2644083</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Miguel cervantes]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 13:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2644083</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Karski wasnt the only one
https://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,289792,auschwitz-whistleblower-pilecki-escaping-camp-74-years-ago-now.html]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Karski wasnt the only one<br />
<a href="https://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,289792,auschwitz-whistleblower-pilecki-escaping-camp-74-years-ago-now.html" rel="nofollow ugc">https://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,289792,auschwitz-whistleblower-pilecki-escaping-camp-74-years-ago-now.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard Aubrey		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2644082</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Aubrey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:53:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2644082</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[To expand on a particular annoyance about the Allies and the Holocaust:

Metaphor alert!!!   If I am standing in the street, watching my house burn, hearing the fire engines coming and somebody comes up to me and says, &quot;Hey, buddy.  Your house is on fire.&quot;

He is not &quot;warning&quot; me.  &quot;warn&quot; implies three items:  1.  I didn&#039;t already know it.  2.  There&#039;s something I might be able to do about it, or, 3, I might, given the warning, be able to get out of the way of whatever it is.

IMO, the term &quot;warn&quot; is used in this context to dishonestly imply number two.  Once the Allies learned about the Holocaust--which is to say were &quot;warned&quot;--there is, implicitly, something they should have done.  That&#039;s the purpose of using the verb, &quot;to warn&quot;.  To dishonestly convince the unwary that the Allies deliberately avoided doing something--always unspecified or if specified, impossible--to end the Holocaust sooner than they did.  For nefarious reasons, is left unsaid but deliberately implied.

The discussion(s) above have covered the practical issues, like timing and military concerns.  My concern here is the deliberate and dishonest use of the term &quot;warn&quot;.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To expand on a particular annoyance about the Allies and the Holocaust:</p>
<p>Metaphor alert!!!   If I am standing in the street, watching my house burn, hearing the fire engines coming and somebody comes up to me and says, &#8220;Hey, buddy.  Your house is on fire.&#8221;</p>
<p>He is not &#8220;warning&#8221; me.  &#8220;warn&#8221; implies three items:  1.  I didn&#8217;t already know it.  2.  There&#8217;s something I might be able to do about it, or, 3, I might, given the warning, be able to get out of the way of whatever it is.</p>
<p>IMO, the term &#8220;warn&#8221; is used in this context to dishonestly imply number two.  Once the Allies learned about the Holocaust&#8211;which is to say were &#8220;warned&#8221;&#8211;there is, implicitly, something they should have done.  That&#8217;s the purpose of using the verb, &#8220;to warn&#8221;.  To dishonestly convince the unwary that the Allies deliberately avoided doing something&#8211;always unspecified or if specified, impossible&#8211;to end the Holocaust sooner than they did.  For nefarious reasons, is left unsaid but deliberately implied.</p>
<p>The discussion(s) above have covered the practical issues, like timing and military concerns.  My concern here is the deliberate and dishonest use of the term &#8220;warn&#8221;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Richard Aubrey		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2644026</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Aubrey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 23:48:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2644026</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Neo . I see that. You will note the war was fully on. So what, at that point , could be done besides trying not to lose the war?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neo . I see that. You will note the war was fully on. So what, at that point , could be done besides trying not to lose the war?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neo		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2643995</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2643995</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[MBunge:

No, the refusal of countries to take Jews had nothing to do with Hitler&#039;s Final Solution decision.  For one thing, the number of Jews in Germany was very very small by that time because there weren&#039;t that  many to begin with (less than 1% of the population) and 2/3 had already emigrated during the 1930s, before the Final Solution.  Most of the Jews killed were in other European countries, with Poland leading the way.  Hitler planned to kill all the Jews in the world, period.  If all Jews had been allowed into the US it would have been fine because the Nazis never conquered the US, but most Jews DID take refuge in other European countries, thinking they were safe (Anne Frank&#039;s family is a good example, they originally were from Germany). The Nazis took over each country quite quickly and the Jews were trapped in the European countries where they had taken refuge, in addition to the Jews who already had lived in those countries.

Just to take one example, the French - many of whom collaborated  with the Nazis - surrendered Jews who had taken refuge there from other countries first.

&lt;a href=&quot;https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/france&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow ugc&quot;&gt;See this&lt;/a&gt;:

&lt;blockquote&gt;During the interwar period, France was one of the more liberal countries in welcoming Jewish immigrants, many of them from eastern Europe. After World War I, thousands of Jews viewed France as a European land of equality and opportunity and helped to make its capital, Paris, a thriving center of Jewish cultural life.

In the 1930s, however, unnerved by a significant influx of refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and the Spanish Civil War, the leaders of the French Third Republic (1870-1940) began to reassess this “open-door” policy. By 1939 French authorities had imposed strict limitations on immigration and set up a number of internment and detention camps for refugees, such as Gurs and Rivesaltes, in southern France.

When the Third Republic collapsed under German attack in the early summer of 1940, there were approximately 350,000 Jews in France. Less than half of them were French citizens. Many of these individuals were refugees who had fled Nazi persecution in the Third Reich; Jews and other endangered persons fleeing oppression in German-occupied Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands soon joined them in the summer of 1940.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Later, the collaborationist government helped the round ups, but:

&lt;blockquote&gt;A significant percentage of these victims were foreign or stateless Jews, sacrificed by the Vichy government in a vain attempt to spare France&#039;s indigenous Jewish population. The final destination of these deportees was Auschwitz, where the SS murdered the vast majority by means of poison gas shortly after their arrival.&lt;/blockquote&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>MBunge:</p>
<p>No, the refusal of countries to take Jews had nothing to do with Hitler&#8217;s Final Solution decision.  For one thing, the number of Jews in Germany was very very small by that time because there weren&#8217;t that  many to begin with (less than 1% of the population) and 2/3 had already emigrated during the 1930s, before the Final Solution.  Most of the Jews killed were in other European countries, with Poland leading the way.  Hitler planned to kill all the Jews in the world, period.  If all Jews had been allowed into the US it would have been fine because the Nazis never conquered the US, but most Jews DID take refuge in other European countries, thinking they were safe (Anne Frank&#8217;s family is a good example, they originally were from Germany). The Nazis took over each country quite quickly and the Jews were trapped in the European countries where they had taken refuge, in addition to the Jews who already had lived in those countries.</p>
<p>Just to take one example, the French &#8211; many of whom collaborated  with the Nazis &#8211; surrendered Jews who had taken refuge there from other countries first.</p>
<p><a href="https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/france" rel="nofollow ugc">See this</a>:</p>
<blockquote><p>During the interwar period, France was one of the more liberal countries in welcoming Jewish immigrants, many of them from eastern Europe. After World War I, thousands of Jews viewed France as a European land of equality and opportunity and helped to make its capital, Paris, a thriving center of Jewish cultural life.</p>
<p>In the 1930s, however, unnerved by a significant influx of refugees fleeing Nazi Germany and the Spanish Civil War, the leaders of the French Third Republic (1870-1940) began to reassess this “open-door” policy. By 1939 French authorities had imposed strict limitations on immigration and set up a number of internment and detention camps for refugees, such as Gurs and Rivesaltes, in southern France.</p>
<p>When the Third Republic collapsed under German attack in the early summer of 1940, there were approximately 350,000 Jews in France. Less than half of them were French citizens. Many of these individuals were refugees who had fled Nazi persecution in the Third Reich; Jews and other endangered persons fleeing oppression in German-occupied Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands soon joined them in the summer of 1940.</p></blockquote>
<p>Later, the collaborationist government helped the round ups, but:</p>
<blockquote><p>A significant percentage of these victims were foreign or stateless Jews, sacrificed by the Vichy government in a vain attempt to spare France&#8217;s indigenous Jewish population. The final destination of these deportees was Auschwitz, where the SS murdered the vast majority by means of poison gas shortly after their arrival.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: neo		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2643994</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[neo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 20:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2643994</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Mike K; Richard Aubrey:

&lt;a href=&quot;https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-riegner-telegram&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow ugc&quot;&gt;When and how&lt;/a&gt; the Allies learned about the Holocaust.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mike K; Richard Aubrey:</p>
<p><a href="https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-riegner-telegram" rel="nofollow ugc">When and how</a> the Allies learned about the Holocaust.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Christopher B		</title>
		<link>https://thenewneo.com/2022/09/19/roundup-60/#comment-2643993</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christopher B]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2022 19:57:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.thenewneo.com/?p=120604#comment-2643993</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I doubt that I could do a better job than Mr Aubrey at outlining why the Allied &#039;failure&#039; to attack the death camps is a red herring.  It should be relatively uncontroversial to recognize the fastest way to stop all Jews from being killed was to liberate Nazi captured territory, occupy Germany, and defeat Hitler.  That also being in the best interest of all the Allies in WWII, I am reasonably certain the Allied leadership resolved to do it in the most expeditious way possible within their powers, allowing for the fact that the Nazis also got a vote in when the war ended and the inevitable misjudgments made in any human endeavor.  To the degree that specific missions to eliminate death camps or hamper the execution machinery would have diverted resources from operations that ended the war sooner rather than later, they likely would have been futile in accomplishing their objective given the Nazi determination to keep the camps running.  Conversely, many attacks directed at general German infrastructure would have had the effect of interdicting the operation of the camps so the distinction in the outcome of any particular attack is not a clear as people like to make it.  Debating whether or not the Allies had the technical capability approaches the enumeration of celestial beings performing rhythmic motions on the tip of a sewing implement, and certainly does not even approach the kind of proof that should be required by any reasonable person to a claim that the decision by Allied leadership to forgo direct attacks on the camps or other Holocaust infrastructure was motivated by something other than determination to use all possible resources in direct confrontation with the Nazi war machine.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I doubt that I could do a better job than Mr Aubrey at outlining why the Allied &#8216;failure&#8217; to attack the death camps is a red herring.  It should be relatively uncontroversial to recognize the fastest way to stop all Jews from being killed was to liberate Nazi captured territory, occupy Germany, and defeat Hitler.  That also being in the best interest of all the Allies in WWII, I am reasonably certain the Allied leadership resolved to do it in the most expeditious way possible within their powers, allowing for the fact that the Nazis also got a vote in when the war ended and the inevitable misjudgments made in any human endeavor.  To the degree that specific missions to eliminate death camps or hamper the execution machinery would have diverted resources from operations that ended the war sooner rather than later, they likely would have been futile in accomplishing their objective given the Nazi determination to keep the camps running.  Conversely, many attacks directed at general German infrastructure would have had the effect of interdicting the operation of the camps so the distinction in the outcome of any particular attack is not a clear as people like to make it.  Debating whether or not the Allies had the technical capability approaches the enumeration of celestial beings performing rhythmic motions on the tip of a sewing implement, and certainly does not even approach the kind of proof that should be required by any reasonable person to a claim that the decision by Allied leadership to forgo direct attacks on the camps or other Holocaust infrastructure was motivated by something other than determination to use all possible resources in direct confrontation with the Nazi war machine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
