Hungarian Jews sue USA for $40 Billion.

Yeah that makes all the sense in the world... sue the people that saved their asses... who ever signs this class action suit should be left to the wolves...

EdelBrock wrote: Yeah that makes all the sense in the world... sue the people that saved their asses...

They're not suing the Soviet Union.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Yeah that makes all the sense in the world... sue the people that saved their asses...

They're not suing the Soviet Union.

What would they sue them for? 40 billion Bread and milk notes? Only one bread and quart of milk per person per transaction.... screw that.

they should be awarded the earning capacity of 400k jews for 60 years. but the money can only be spent on more bombs to make sure in the future bombs save lives.

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Yeah that makes all the sense in the world... sue the people that saved their asses...

They're not suing the Soviet Union.

What would they sue them for? 40 billion Bread and milk notes? Only one bread and quart of milk per person per transaction.... screw that.

Well, considering that the Soviets liberated Auschwitz, they probably wouldn't sue them for anything.

But the allies knew about the camp, and did nothing.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Yeah that makes all the sense in the world... sue the people that saved their asses...

They're not suing the Soviet Union.

What would they sue them for? 40 billion Bread and milk notes? Only one bread and quart of milk per person per transaction.... screw that.

Well, considering that the Soviets liberated Auschwitz, they probably wouldn't sue them for anything.

But the allies knew about the camp, and did nothing.

Ok so Destroying the Third Reich wasn't a joint venture? As if they could have liberated 'Auschwitz' without the Allies attacking other fronts....

I think there were other important things going on at the time... maybe a war with one of the strongest/technologically advanced enemies in history...

give me a fucking break.

Chris Nash wrote: Think how many allied servicemen and their families died in the Japanese concentration camps.Are thousands of families going to sue the US now for not bombing Japan sooner?

How about the French Resistance fighters' families suing all the 'Allied' nations for not liberating France quickly enough.

Maybe thousands of Italians should sue everyone for not persuading them to change sides quickly enough?

Maybe the families of every person involved in the war should sue their governments because they'd prefer not to have had anything to do with the whole thing in the first place?

That law suit has to be one of the most cash-orientated, insulting actions ever to be brought before a US court.

I sympathise with those who lost family members, but it was a war and in wars, very little goes exactly to plan.

Are the Israelis going to give payouts to the families of all the Palestinians they've slaughtered since the conflict began?

No. Didn't think so.

My sentiments exactly!

Downright silly.

Besides, they are not even human.

WHAT?

No, not cos they are Jews, they are HUNGARIANS, and a simple Google search reveals that most scientists believe Hungarians to be Martians.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

EdelBrock wrote: Yeah that makes all the sense in the world... sue the people that saved their asses...

They're not suing the Soviet Union.

What would they sue them for? 40 billion Bread and milk notes? Only one bread and quart of milk per person per transaction.... screw that.

Well, considering that the Soviets liberated Auschwitz, they probably wouldn't sue them for anything.

But the allies knew about the camp, and did nothing.

Weren't the Soviets one of the allies?

Yes, but weren't the Americans (and the Brits) the ones conducting the bombing raids?

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: And just how much was known about the concentration camps? Only the Western allies knew what was going on, and the Soviets were blissfully unaware?

You wanna know why this clown isn't suing the Russians? It's because Putin would tell this lawyer exactly which of his holes he could cram his lawsuit in.

Probably, but I wouldn't hold the Russian judicial system up as a model to be followed.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Why not sue the Brits? They were the first ones to get reports of just how bad things were in the camps, but they filed it away, not believing that the source was credible. Oh, and it was the Brits that would not allow European Jews into Palestine, not the US.

Right. We turned them away from New York.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Hell, why not sue the Austrians. Hitler was one of theirs. Or the Germans, they REALLY all just stood by, with their thumbs up their asses while the Nazis did this.

Honestly, I don't even know what their legal theory is, nor am I taking any position on it. I'm just taking exception to the notion that "we" saved their asses at Auschwitz.

Allies with the Russians? We "let" them take the full brunt of Hitler's war machine, while we sat back waiting for the Russians wear Hitler down. They were the ones who took the brunt of the casualties in that war, and they were the ones, whatever their political faults, who liberated Auschwitz.

Maybe everybody in the world can get pay some sort of settlement on the atrocities commited AGAINST their ancestors and to pay for this all will pay a lump some payment to cover the atrocities commited BY their ancestors. And the lawyers will get a third of the money... everybody will be taken care of and we can start over in 2008.

0_o wrote: Maybe everybody in the world can get some sort of settlement on the atrocities commited against their ancestors and pay a lump some payment to cover the atrocities commited by their ancestors. And the lawyers will get a third of the money.... everybody will be taken care of and start over in 2008.

Sounds good to me.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote:

Allies with the Russians? We "let" them take the full brunt of Hitler's war machine, while we sat back waiting for the Russians wear Hitler down. They were the ones who took the brunt of the casualties in that war, and they were the ones, whatever their political faults, who liberated Auschwitz.

Saying we "let" Russia take the full brunt of the German war machine is like saying the Russians "let" us deal with the Imperial Japanese. We all had our roles to play. And, I think B-17, B-24, Lanc and Mosquito crews and those that landed on Normandy would take great umbrage with the notion we sat back and played a waiting game against Germany. We didn't force Hitler to launch Barbarossa. That was his own deranged (and almost successful) idea.

note from Jeff: Sorry for the edit, but the thread was fouled up.

It was two years between Hitler's invasion of Russia-- our supposed ally-- and our invasion of Normandy. And even longer before we bombed the shit out of Germany. Yes, we sat back and waited for Stalin and Hitler to wear each other down. Perhaps not a bad strategy, but let's not pretend that we were standing tall, shoulder-to-shoulder with our Russian "allies" against Hitler.

We sat back and waited.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote:

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: It was two years between Hitler's invasion of Russia-- our supposed ally-- and our invasion of Normandy. And even longer before we bombed the shit out of Germany. Yes, we sat back and waited for Stalin and Hitler to wear each other down. Perhaps not a bad strategy, but let's not pretend that we were standing tall, shoulder-to-shoulder with our Russian "allies" against Hitler.

We sat back and waited.

Exactly what the Soviets did as the Nazis prepared to invade England...or as the Nazis invaded the rest of Europe...hell, they even made a deal with the Nazis to partition Poland...

So while the Soviets took on the Nazis, I imagine the Brits and the Yanks were fighting orangutans in North Africa and Italy, biding their time, the Brits having tea and crumpets, the Yanks with their coffee and donuts, waiting for their chance to dash in and take all the glory.

Yeah, that's the ticket...

Well, in fairness to Roosevelt, it's obvious he wanted to enter the war earlier, but the country was in an isolationist mood. When Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt had the opening he wanted-- some say the opening he allowed to happen.

So what were we doing when war broke out? Nothing. What was Joe Stalin doing? Nothing. After all, he had his deal with Hitler. What were the Brits doing? Appeasement.

North Africa and Italy notwithstanding, the heavy action was on the eastern front-- and the Americans and Brits weren't fighting there, and there was no western front, until after the Russians had pushed Hitler back.

Meanwhile, the French army...

Not that any of us were even a glint in our parents' eyes at the time...

Here's a radical idea.

Sue the Germans.

Better still, find ONE German who is clearly the product of Nazi research, and sue him. I vote Michael Schumacher.

No point suing Ralf, he's the one that failed, best just extract every penny from Baron von Cobblers himself......after all......what IS that gesture he made with his arm when he crossed the line to win his first GP at Spa in 1992, I'm SURE I've seen it a lot before, usually in black and white.

Doctor? wrote: Here's a radical idea.

Sue the Germans.

Er, war reparations from the war to end all wars are what brought Hitler to power in the first place.

Which is why we went with the Marshall Plan after the Second World War. We used to learn from past mistakes in those days.

True, damages aren't technically reparations, but no need to try a failed policy again. It's not as if this is the 2004 American election, after all.

Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: For not bombing train tracks leading to Auschwitz in WWII.

http://www.budapestsun.com/cikk.php?id=27879]

Hungarian Jews called to register for class action

by Anna Byström

February 13, 2008 08:00 am | Peter Wolz, who describes himself as an attorney for Jewish survivors of Auschwitz and their heirs, is appealing for Hungarian victims of the death camps and their heirs to contacts him over a possible class action.

Düsseldorf-based Wolz says he has already filed a class action for $40 billion against the US government at the Federal District court of Colombia, in Washington DC. The class action concerns the failure of the Allies to bomb the railway bridges between Hungary and Auschwitz during the Second World War. Wolz believes the bombing of the railway bridges could have saved more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews life during 1944. He put the number of Budapest Jews who escaped the Holocaust – people like financier George Soros and the late Congressman Tom Lantos – at about 120,000 only.
“The responsible Federal judge drew a summons, which was delivered to President George W Bush,” Wolz told The Budapest Sun via email. “In his reply the President declared, ‘The US accepts the well-pled allegations of the complaint as true,’” the attorney claimed. Wolz’s call for Hungarian survivors and heirs to register with his IPAS (international project group Auschwitz Sammelklagen (class action)), organization, for either further punitive class actions at US Federal Courts, or for settlement out of court, follows Bush’s visit to the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Israel this January.

Evil exists

Speaking at the site, the President was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “I wish as many people as possible would come to this place. It is a sobering reminder that evil exists, and a call that when evil exists. we must resist it.” Wolz, who says the President also said “We should have bombed Auschwitz,” at the memorial, insists that the US Air Force, which controlled the European skies in 1944, could easily have bombed the railways and the bridges bringing Hungarian Jews to Auschwitz. But the camp and its supply lines were taken off the final list of target proposals and never were bombed. “Auschwitz survivors and heirs of victims are called to register by post with I.P.A.S., Bahnstr 24, D-42781 Haan-Gruiten,” Wolz said.

this is silly, the allies did wot they thought was best at the time, they had no choice but to bomb those bridges, otherwise the war would of gone on for lot longer

DigiDiz wrote: this is silly, the allies did wot they thought was best at the time, they had no choice but to bomb those bridges, otherwise the war would of gone on for lot longer

Suddenly, I know just the girl for you...

more on the martians

"Not all the Los Alamos theories could be tested. Long popular within the Theoretical Division was, for example, a theory that the people of Hungary are Martians. The reasoning went like this: The Martians left their own planet several aeons ago and came to Earth; they landed in what is now Hungary; the tribes of Europe were so primitive and barbarian it was necessary for the Martians to conceal their evolutionary difference or be hacked to pieces. Through the years, the concealment had on the whole been successful, but the Martians had three characteristics too strong to hide: their wanderlust, which found its outlet in the Hungarian gypsy; their language (Hungarian is not related to any of the languages spoken in surrounding countries); and their unearthly intelligence. One had only to look around to see the evidence: Teller, Wigner, Szilard, von Neumann -- Hungarians all. Wigner had designed the first plutonium-production reactors. Szilard had been among the first to suggest that fission could be used to make a bomb. Von Neumann had developed the digital computer. Teller -- moody, tireless, and given to fits of laughter, bursts of anger -- worked long hours and was impatient with what he felt to be the excessively slow advancement of Project Panda, as the hydrogen-bomb development was known. ... Teller had a thick Martian accent. He also had a sense of humor that could penetrate bone."

Chris Nash wrote: Think how many allied servicemen and their families died in the Japanese concentration camps.Are thousands of families going to sue the US now for not bombing Japan sooner?

Nope.

How about the French Resistance fighters' families suing all the 'Allied' nations for not liberating France quickly enough?

Nope.

Maybe thousands of Italians should sue everyone for not persuading them to change sides quickly enough?

Doubt it.

Maybe the families of every person involved in the war should sue their governments because they'd prefer not to have had anything to do with the whole thing in the first place?

They'd be insane, surely?

That law suit has to be one of the most cash-orientated, insulting actions ever to be brought before a US court.

I sympathise with those who lost family members in WWII - my family did too, but it was a war and in wars, very little goes exactly to plan.

Are the Israelis going to give payouts to the families of all the Palestinians they've slaughtered since their conflict began?

No.

Didn't think so.

I agree with Edelbrock. They should shut the f**k up.

indeed!

should have, would have, could have. we all know what they say about hindsight.

yes, the allies probably should have bombed the tracks, but they didn't. chalk it up to one more sad moment in the history of war, (hopefully) learn from it, and move on.

Comrade Shampanyov wrote: Honestly, I don't even know what their legal theory is, nor am I taking any position on it. I'm just taking exception to the notion that "we" saved their asses at Auschwitz.

Allies with the Russians? We "let" them take the full brunt of Hitler's war machine, while we sat back waiting for the Russians wear Hitler down. They were the ones who took the brunt of the casualties in that war, and they were the ones, whatever their political faults, who liberated Auschwitz.

Had the US not entered the war, Europe would look alot different than it does today. Russia (or more correctly Stalin) was an opportunist. He only took stances in which he thought could benefit him and Russia. He was a part of the Axis in the begining only to aquire other countries in Soviet grasp and to create a buffer from a most likely eventual war with Germany. Stalin wanted more power and that is all he was concerned about. Granted the german-russian warfront was the most bloody (possibly in mankind's history), however Germany was fighting a two-front war.
To say we "sat back and let Russia take the brunt of the force" is misleading as there is not anytime in which the US was engaged with Germany once we entered the conflict. I suppose the four years that Americans and other Allies lost thier lives was just 'sitting back'.

We weren't allies with Russia, because Stalin wanted it that way. He had a pact with Japan that was to be resigned in '45. Japan needed Russia's oil badly, Americans were getting tired of the Japanese war and ready to pull out... he had a hell of a wild card.... one that got him China in return for his 'friendship'.

So return to the original topic, we saved thier asses, as Russia either would have fallen or Hitler would have walked away as there wasn't any force in Europe able to fight him in the south. Russia had no choice to get involved in the war... we did, however, and saved Europe (Eastern and Western) from falling to the Third Reich. So without US involvement, Auschwitz would not have been saved.

To the thread starter and everyone else:

Watch a programme on the history channel called "Auschwitz the forgotten evidence" it will tell you exactly WHY the allies did not bomb Auschwitz.

Must have seen it half a dozen times,basic crux is that the railway lines leading to the camp would/could have been repaired (again using slave labour)within a matter of hours and the latest days.

The Germans were experts at reparing bombed railway lines etc.

Churchill did at least launch some sort of feasibility study as to wether or not a bombing raid could be successful,unfortunately it was deemed to risky and the allies would not bomb the railway lines leading to the camp for fear of loss of life of the inmates.

The most disturbing about this is… anti-semitism is mainly based on the fact that they are more fond of money than anything else. And all these trials, say, do promote this point of view. Well, sadly in my opinion. Let’s face it. Anywhere in Europe, Jews are seen as “money grabbers” and “inner-enemies”. Right wing parties, from Finland to Portugal and from Greece to Ireland always claimed so and will do it until the end of time. The climax of it in the XXth century followed the famous collapse of Wall Street in 1929. Writing this, one may think that the Americans are to be sued, not because of the time they spent preparing the landing in Normandy or bomb the Polish railways network, but for their devotion to ultra rough capitalism that showed some signs of weakness in 1929. Imagine what has been the impact of this economic earthquake on the ones who already agreed with Hitler’s theories by the 20’s. This crisis was another example to show that Jewish bankers were too much powerful and that they made Europeans starve because of their cupidity…

Here, the SNCF, the national railways company, is sued by American Jews. The SNCF is charged to have fully help the Nazis to bring all the Jews to Germany. It is not very well seen here. And the debate is more or less the same than yours. On one hand, it is a fact that the SNCF brought Jews abroad by rail as it was the only railway company which has the right to steam through the country. And most of all, the SNCF still has the notes paid by the Nazis. On the other hand, the first railwayman (on one of the first convoys to leave) who decided to refuse to drive his train full of Jews in cars designed for cattle to Germany has been shot down at once or sent in the same train to Poland – can’t remember. Plenty of Jews are ready to witness that they had been saved by railwaymen or that they have been, at least, treated with dignity by people who could be shot just because they gave them water or food for the trip. The last point is that the SNCF has his own space in the Résistance. The life expectancy of a railwayman was one of the shortest by the time. A lot of them died. In fact, they are second best after the militaries. Betrayers, terrorists for the collaborating French, anonymous heroes for the others.

But let’s go back to the topic. I find quite astonishing that this complaint comes from Budapest. There lives the largest Jewish community in Europe. And a lot of them have the American citizenship…

You hardly expect generals and commanders-in-chief to be surgeons at a war at that time. The war was so brutal it was impossible to achieve all honorable goals at once.

After the war with more evidence and facts you can scrutinize every soldier's step and bring anybody to book. And that's what they've been trying - and successfully, mind you - for the last 50 years.

About the History.

I have noticed some points.

The bombings : The RAF and the USAAF showed great efficiency in bombing all Western Europe. History is written by winners and the Battle of England is nothing compared to the bombings to follow. If I had a sad Top 5 to make, mine would be Hiroshima (because it was the first atomic one otherwise the second would have been first), Dresden, Hamburg, Coventry and… Guernica (for it was the very first modern one, even if in Spain before WWII). So, why the mighty RAF and USAAF did not bomb Auschwitz ? Because it was simply out of range. A trip from England to Berlin and back by Lancaster was already a very long trip. The same for B-17 and B-24. Later, by the South, Rumania was the limit. Southern Poland. That not only meant a very far distance, but also cross most of the Nazi’s airspace. And without the help of fighter squadrons for the 2/3 of the mission – almost a suicidal one even with a weak Luftwaffe. Another problem was the accuracy of bombings. A box of heavy bombers was far too much for a bridge. Too many collateral casualties were to expect. This kind of mission was designed for light bombers. But I doubt that even with the help of “collaborating” neutral countries it was possible. Even from Southern Sweden, the trip is too long to Krakow. About the Soviets? They had not heavy bombers. Just Mosquito class bombers like Petlyakovs. They had 80% of the Nazi forces in front of them. That was not only dogfights in the skies but mainly on the ground with tanks, machine guns and knives… Both had no need for heavy bombers. The VVS (soviet air forces) mainly needed ground attack aircrafts and fighters.

Politics: The West and the East were on two different war dynamics. The British and the Americans could bomb German factories as the very same were completely out of range of the Soviet frontline. And the Soviet military industry itself was too far for German heavy bombers. The front was held by infantry, not by a natural defending line like the Channel or the North Sea. And to conclude, I wonder when Churchill invented the “iron curtain”. Churchill and Molotov. I would have liked to be with them when they met and decided how to cut the European continent in two parts… Long before the Americans officially joined in.

That's a good summation Jiphy. I'm alot more knowledgable on the war that happened in the Pacific than the one in Europe....

Was the horrific degree of atrocities of Auschwitz really known by the West in 1944? Slave labour camps are common in war.

The Soviets certainly thought the British and USA were delaying a Western front so the Soviet people would take the brunt of the Nazi ground forces, that the Soviets and Nazis would use up their resources and ground forces on each other.