Roosevelt knew about holocaust and did nothing?

[Cantankerous]

Hi Sheldrake,

Certainly the so-called "Holocaust" was not the central event in WWII. However, it is such a distinctive and awful historical event that it has become a defining feature of it.

The problem with your chart of WWII deaths by country is that it fails completely to evidence the "Holocaust" because all its Jewish victims were citizens of other countries at the time and are subsumed in other countries' losses. For example, at least half Polish civilian losses were amongst the country's Jews, but the chart doesn't show that.

If the world's Jews were shown separately on the chart, about 50% of them would be shown as dead, which massively exceeds the next on the list, Poland with 18%. What is more, because over half these Polish deaths were of that nation's Jews, the differential is even more stark - Jews died at about 5 times the rate of Poles or anyone else in Europe, or anywhere else on the planet.

So, if not the central event in WWII, the "Holocaust" is certainly a very significant statistical outlier.

Cheers,

Sid.

Because the German and Austrian Jews had already lost their civil rights by the time that Hitler invaded Poland, Operation Barbarossa was destined to provide him deliberate cover for him to concoct the Holocaust by destroying East European Jews and Slavs. The Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) estimates that of the 2,770,000 non-Jewish Poles who died when Poland under Nazi control, 1,146,000 were killed in the Holocaust.

[gebhk]

Hi Sheldrake

What killed the other twelve million civilians - mainly from eastern Europe?

The answer, of course, is we will never know precisely. Often the basis for the 'official' stats is the first census after the war minus last census before the war and, hey presto, we have wartime losses. Some are refined by controlling for confounding factors such emigration, reduced wartime birthrate, boundary changes etc, but not always and rarely in the same way. The 'Jewish' losses are often calculated in the same way. We now take away the 'Jewish' loses +from the overall losses and we have, again hey presto, the non-Jewish losses. In many eastern European countries occupation, now under a new regime, continued for years after the war with further significant loss of population which was simply swept under the Nazi 'carpet'. How the Germans defined 'Jews' was not the same way as the home country would have defined them. How many of the Soviet victims were victims of war and how many of 'business as usual', courtesy of the NKVD? Unfortunately calculations based on exceedingly rough estimates produce even rougher results but with the spurious air of precision.

However - the simple answer to your basic question is, of course, that since time immemorial, the biggest killers in wartime by far, were the other two horsemen of the apocalypse - famine and pestilence. It is no coincidence that in the UK, during both world wars the death rate per capita hardly made an upward bump except for the years 1918-19, the years of the 'Spanish flu' of course. In the table you provided the case of India is instructive - clearly those 800K - 3.8 million (depending on whose estimate you choose) civilian victims did not die from enemy action.

I would suggest therefore, that while we will probably never know what the exact proportions were, in most countries, most civilian deaths would have been from disease made deadly by malnutrition, overwork and inadequate healthcare. Reduced birthrate would also have played a part.

[OpanaPointer]

You think it was the central event of a global war?

[gebhk]

You think it was the central event of a global war?

What was?

[OpanaPointer]

You think it was the central event of a global war?

What was?

de H O L O C A U S T.

[ljadw]

Neither of your answers are in anyway adequate to say the least.

As far as I am aware Hitler declared war on the USA 11 December 1941, Hence Roosevelt did absolute nothing until after Hitlers declaration, yet Roosevelt would of been fully aware of the persecution of the Jews as far back in 1933.

One would of thought if Roosevelt actually cared about the Jews that it would of been he who declared war on Germany.

Thus back to my original posting question "It seems like Roosevelt knew about the holocaust very early on yet really didn't do much about it, so I was wondering why he did nothing?"

Roosevelt did nothing ?
Lend lease was not nothing. If Roosevelt did not support Churchill after the french surrender, Hitler would have won the war. Churchill qould have been replaced by Halifax and a peace deal would have been signed with Hitler.
Roosevelt's support to Churchill was decisive for the Victory.

The last sentence is a big exaggeration .

[ljadw]

It seems like Roosevelt knew about holocaust very early on yet really didn't do much about it, so I was wondering why he did nothing?

Better would be the question :FDR knew,as the rest of the world, about the persecution of those that were called Jews,but did not much .Why ?
The answer is
1 He could not do much
2 He did not want to do much ,because he despised Jews and because there was a risk that what he did would hurt his non Jewish/anti Jewish voters and thus hurt his reelection chances .
Did he know about the Holocaust and could he do something about it ?
The extermination of the Jews started with the activities of the Einsatzgruppen in the USSR after the start of Barbarossa .
It is questionable that the WH was informed about this and it is questionable that FDR could have done something against it . It is also dubious that he would have done something if he could do something.
I like to see the proofs for the claim that FDR knew in July 1941 about the massacres in the USSR . If such proofs existed, they would have been published .
Here also the same answer
1 He could not do much
2He did not want to do much .

[DavidFrankenberg]

Neither of your answers are in anyway adequate to say the least.

As far as I am aware Hitler declared war on the USA 11 December 1941, Hence Roosevelt did absolute nothing until after Hitlers declaration, yet Roosevelt would of been fully aware of the persecution of the Jews as far back in 1933.

One would of thought if Roosevelt actually cared about the Jews that it would of been he who declared war on Germany.

Thus back to my original posting question "It seems like Roosevelt knew about the holocaust very early on yet really didn't do much about it, so I was wondering why he did nothing?"

Roosevelt did nothing ?
Lend lease was not nothing. If Roosevelt did not support Churchill after the french surrender, Hitler would have won the war. Churchill qould have been replaced by Halifax and a peace deal would have been signed with Hitler.
Roosevelt's support to Churchill was decisive for the Victory.

The last sentence is a big exaggeration .

Be serious please.

[ljadw]

It is a big exaggeration to say that without the support of the US,Germany would/could have won WW2 .
Besides : there would be no peace deal with Britain,as Hitler never could be certain that Halifax, or Hoare, or another British PM would adhere to the deal .
There were in June 1940 only two possibilities :
A unconditional surrender of Britain followed by the occupation of Britain, but even in this case the Empire could continue the war .
B unconditional surrender of Germany followed by the occupation of Germany .
A would not mean that Germany would have won the war .

[LineDoggie]

It is a big exaggeration to say that without the support of the US,Germany would/could have won WW2 .
Besides : there would be no peace deal with Britain,as Hitler never could be certain that Halifax, or Hoare, or another British PM would adhere to the deal .
There were in June 1940 only two possibilities :
A unconditional surrender of Britain followed by the occupation of Britain, but even in this case the Empire could continue the war .
B unconditional surrender of Germany followed by the occupation of Germany .
A would not mean that Germany would have won the war .

The United States of America was the WORLDS industrial Giant then, no other nation could match its production capability. Yamamoto knew it and warned his government they could never match US mobilized industry


Lend Lease not only Armed, Fed, Clothed, and provided Medicines to the US Military and the US CivPop but to

UK
USSR
Free French
Nationalist China
Netherlands
Canada
Brazil
Mexico
Bolivia
Chile
Colombia
Cuba
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Peru
Venezuela
El Salvador
Ecuador
Paraguay
Uruguay
Haiti
Nicaragua
Honduras

Everything from M4 Sherman Tanks to 1/2'' Sockets
Blankets to Boots, Waterproof Field telephone cable to gold braid for soviet uniforms, LCI's to Finish Machine tooling.

Foodstuffs to Medicines, Efficiency experts in Manufacturing to funding production in Canada of Carriers and Weapons

Without the US how was the UK going to defeat Germany or even Japan?

and if you don't defeat Germany/Japan you cannot claim to win since they retain control over occupied nations

[ljadw]

Between June 1940 and June 1941 Britain fought alone, without any help from the USSR and without an important help from the US (LL became important only in 1942 ) and still Germany failed to force Britain to give up .
And the question is not if Britain could defeat Germany without a substantial aid from the US,but if Germany could defeat Britain if Britain received no support from the US .
Germany would lose against a coalition of Britain and the US,with the USSR being neutral or defeated .
Germany would also lose against a coalition of Britain and the USSR ,with the US remaining neutral .
In WW1 ,US remained neutral til April 1917,but still Germany was not able to defeat the Entente .
And, if US remained neutral in the Pacific against Japan, Britain would not be forced to fight against Japan .
To say that the support from FDR was decisive is a big exaggeration,as nothing was decisive in WW2 .

[LineDoggie]

Midway was decisive
El Alamein was decisive
Stalingrad was decisive

[OpanaPointer]

The last sentence is a big exaggeration .

Very true.

https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/re ... index.html

1/2 million buttons and eight sets of salt and pepper shakers for the Free French Air Forces. >77,000 cells in that series of tables, I know I did the pick and shovel work.

[ljadw]

Midway was decisive
El Alamein was decisive
Stalingrad was decisive

NO .
Without these victories, the Allies would still have won WW2 .

[wm]

For the record:
- no death camp could have been reached by bombers ever,
- except 1944 - when Auschwitz was actually within the range of strategic bombers,
- by that time, 85 percent of all Jews were killed, and all death camps (except Auschwitz) decommissioned,
- strategic bombers, being inherently inaccurate, could have created a massacre of the prisoners but couldn't stop Auschwitz.

But there was an exception; the Soviets were at the gates of Auschwitz since the end of July 1944 (~100 miles, ~390 miles since March 1944); see the distances:

europe_map_1944.jpg

If we need scapegoats, the only ones responsible for the Auschwitz debacle were Jewish leaders. They reacted way too late, ineptly, in uncoordinated manners, and wasted opportunities such as that above.