Hungarian Jews sue USA for $40 Billion.

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.