Janet Levy, writing on North Korean Prison camps for the American Thinker notes:
First, wondering why the allies didn't bomb Nazi death camps is a classic case of misplaced compassion and proof thinking morally is no substitute for thinking rationally.
The question has been asked many times: "Why didn't the Allies bomb the death camps or at least the railway lines leading to Auschwitz?" According to classified papers released in 1978, American and British governments knew what was happening to the Jews in Europe and ignored the pleas of rabbis and others to destroy the Nazis' means of transporting Jews to their deaths. The Allies were already bombing within a mile of the camp at the time, and yet nothing was done to stop the daily incineration of 20,000 people at Auschwitz. Tragically, fighter pilots with excess, unused bombs from nearby bombing sorties dumped them into the North Sea to lighten their return trip.
Today, a similar situation exists in North Korea. Thanks to satellite images and eyewitness accounts, we know that approximately 200,000 men, women, and children are enduring enslavement, starvation, and torture in that country's gulags. Few survivors are ever released, and only one who was born and raised in a prison camp is known to have escaped. His name is Shin Dong-hyuk, and he is now a human rights activist.
First, wondering why the allies didn't bomb Nazi death camps is a classic case of misplaced compassion and proof thinking morally is no substitute for thinking rationally.
The United States alone had twelve million under arms to fight the Nazis and Japanese in two theaters. Ground combat was a virtual death sentence for those assigned to front line units. Daily bombing campaigns over Europe resulted in the loss of thousands of U.S. and British airmen. The war effort resulted in the greatest industrial output in history. Rationing and sacrifice at home sustained the total war effort.
Four hundred and five thousand U.S. combat deaths and millions maimed and crippled during World War II... to say that nothing was done to stop the daily incineration at Auschwitz is a cosmic insult to those who fought.
In Europe, Eisenhower had one concern: to win the war quickly, preserving as many U.S. lives as possible. Towards that end targets were picked for the greatest effect on the enemy's will and capacity to wage war. Why assume any other approach?
Targeting occupied Europe was a precise affair with detailed planning and choreography to ensure greatest mission success and crew survival. German fighters and flak were deadly. Imagine a pilot with bombs left over saying, "Well, we got the ball bearing plant at Schweinfurt, I'll just start freelancing and fly over Dachau and bomb the railroad"??
Sorry, doesn't work that way. Given the imprecision of bombing at the time, efforts to help concentration camp inmates would likely resulted in their deaths while doing little damage to the German war effort.
Certainly senior allied leaders knew about the Holocaust. They and their staffs, immersed in the realities of total war against a formidable enemy, made decisions they believed would end the conflict quickly.
Four hundred and five thousand U.S. combat deaths and millions maimed and crippled during World War II... to say that nothing was done to stop the daily incineration at Auschwitz is a cosmic insult to those who fought.
In Europe, Eisenhower had one concern: to win the war quickly, preserving as many U.S. lives as possible. Towards that end targets were picked for the greatest effect on the enemy's will and capacity to wage war. Why assume any other approach?
Targeting occupied Europe was a precise affair with detailed planning and choreography to ensure greatest mission success and crew survival. German fighters and flak were deadly. Imagine a pilot with bombs left over saying, "Well, we got the ball bearing plant at Schweinfurt, I'll just start freelancing and fly over Dachau and bomb the railroad"??
Sorry, doesn't work that way. Given the imprecision of bombing at the time, efforts to help concentration camp inmates would likely resulted in their deaths while doing little damage to the German war effort.
Certainly senior allied leaders knew about the Holocaust. They and their staffs, immersed in the realities of total war against a formidable enemy, made decisions they believed would end the conflict quickly.
Likewise the problems in ending the north Korea gulag are many and intractable.
Urging "awareness" on folks is nice but no real relief. Tyrants and despots seem remarkably immune to moral posturing. Sanctions haven't worked for 60 years and north Korea remains a buffer state for China and Russia against U.S. influence in northeast Asia. And those controlling the levers that move Kim Jong-Un seem nonplussed by the gulag.
Perhaps more meaningful action is necessary. For example, this post was written on an iMac made in China. Do I refuse to buy Apple because production is outsourced to supporters of the Kim regime? Or should I tell my representative to force Apple to move its facilities to more democratic climes?
That certainly clashes with my free market, small government impulses. At least congress can stop sending money to north Korea; about $1 billion in the last ten years or so, most of it blackmailed from wussies like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright.
Surprised? You shouldn't be. Look at the alternative, the perennial threat of war north Korea trots out like a show pony whenever a harvest fails and the regime needs oil to keep its primitive infrastructure going.
This is also a regime with a million man army and several nuclear devices. It has the twelve million residents of Seoul targeted with rockets and artillery. Regime change is problematic.
That's why hope and change should never be in the same sentence. Real change means bold decisions and risk taking, not just wishing it were so and ignoring the realities on the ground.
When liberation for twenty million north Koreans comes it will be by the barrel of a gun. Who's gun is anyones guess.
My guess is that is won't be a progressives'. We all know they hate guns. However, that won't stop them from basking in the glory, taking credit anyway...
Just like Obama's uncle who liberated Auschwitz.
File this under Dreams from my Red Uncle, since the Red Army liberated Auschwitz.
That certainly clashes with my free market, small government impulses. At least congress can stop sending money to north Korea; about $1 billion in the last ten years or so, most of it blackmailed from wussies like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Madeline Albright.
Surprised? You shouldn't be. Look at the alternative, the perennial threat of war north Korea trots out like a show pony whenever a harvest fails and the regime needs oil to keep its primitive infrastructure going.
This is also a regime with a million man army and several nuclear devices. It has the twelve million residents of Seoul targeted with rockets and artillery. Regime change is problematic.
That's why hope and change should never be in the same sentence. Real change means bold decisions and risk taking, not just wishing it were so and ignoring the realities on the ground.
When liberation for twenty million north Koreans comes it will be by the barrel of a gun. Who's gun is anyones guess.
My guess is that is won't be a progressives'. We all know they hate guns. However, that won't stop them from basking in the glory, taking credit anyway...
Just like Obama's uncle who liberated Auschwitz.
File this under Dreams from my Red Uncle, since the Red Army liberated Auschwitz.
