Ever since Russia invaded Ukraine, on Thursday February 24th, one question has plagued countless numbers of people. It is a question I have been asked more than any other single question about the carnage being perpetrated by Putin’s Russian forces in Ukraine.
The question goes something like this: We condemn the United States and the Allies for not bombing Auschwitz, or at least for not bombing the railroad tracks, so now, how can we not demand that the United States and NATO bomb Russian forces in Ukraine?
If you follow the thinking, the question makes sense.
The motivation of these questioners is a deep seeded desire of good people to help those in desperate need.
Good people want to stop the murder and senseless deaths of innocent civilians. Good people want to stop the suffering that they are reading about and watching every day.
They do not want to turn the page. They do not want to change the channel. They want to actively stop the slaughter and maiming and destruction.
They are drawing the historical parallel between Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Putin.
And they hope that the argument they are presenting will achieve two purposes. They hope that it will activate decisions makers to make the bold decision to enter the fray. And they hope that it will if not solve, at least soothe, their personal internal dilemma of “not standing idly by while a person’s blood is shed”. (Lev 19:16)
The lessons of the history of the Holocaust are clear.
Good people do not want to be bystanders in the presence of evil. Good people feel for others, they know, in the very essence of their being, just how disturbing the images of the atrocities perpetrated by the Russians on Ukrainian civilians truly are. The sheer horror of the mass murders and destruction leaves good people quaking.
That now, 80 years after Hitler, this kind of murder is still possible and happening is, to them, unfathomable. And, they feel, it cannot, should not, be ignored.
It's not a simple question — it never was.
And this is how I answer: Historians have debated the big question for years. Would the bombing of Nazi gas chambers and crematoria and even train lines have made a difference? Would it have saved lives?
The Roosevelt administration argued that winning the war would save lives. That the sooner the war was won, the better the overall situation. That they should not divert energy and resources from winning the war to saving Jews from the Nazi murder machine.
The argument has its problems. The first, is that the RAF, the Royal Air Force, did bomb Auschwitz. They bombed Auschwitz III, also known as Buna. It was a ball bearing factory that made engines for the Nazi war effort.
The main factory of death was Auschwitz II, better known as Birkenau. Birkenau housed four gas chambers and four crematoria. Two sets of two. They were very large. A fifth and smaller gas chamber and crematorium were in Auschwitz I, which housed the administration.
There were no smart bombs. This was not precision bombing. So, some of the bombs landed close to Birkenau.
Bombing the camps would have caused many innocent deaths. Would it have been worth it? Over the years survivors have told me they would have gladly sacrificed their own lives if it meant the end of the gas chamber and crematoria of Birkenau. Had they been bombed, it would have been a statement that the Allies cared about saving lives.
But today things are different.
One difference is that today there are smart bombs with very precise GPS directional locators. So precise that they can be directed to literally hit an air vent.
The biggest difference is that during the Holocaust, World War II was in full swing. And the United States was already involved. The U.S. was running airstrikes against Nazi targets.
And yes, while hitting the gas chambers would have been a slight redirection of several missions, they were already in the war.
And there was no NATO during the war. NATO was created after World War II to stop the expansion of the Soviet Union.
Today, NATO, with the United States at its lead member, is watching from the sidelines. They are helping their friends in Ukraine. But they are still on the sidelines.
So, once again, these good people are asking: At what point does the moral imperative to intervene, to save lives, even if it means getting involved and potentially sparking another World War that could involve Russia, the United States, NATO, China, North Korea and Iran take precedence? When does that moral imperative kick in?
Undeniably, if NATO were to intercede, many more innocent people would die. That is a given even without the possibility of nuclear weaponry crossing the threshold of this war between Russia and Ukraine. If that were to happen, the world we live in would be altered dramatically.
I do not have confidence that Putin or North Korea or Iran would keep their fingers off the nuclear button if they were losing. A Doomsday scenario, not a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) scenario, would emerge.
While, yes, even in ethically charged moments we have to do our best to save as many lives as we can. But, ethically as well, we must also be mindful of making a decision that might cause even more damage — and horrific damage.
In the end: Most people realize how potentially catastrophic a misstep can be. And the good people that they are, they finally realize that they were thinking with their hearts, not with their heads.
Micah Halpern is a political and foreign affairs commentator. He founded "The Micah Report" and hosts "Thinking Out Loud with Micah Halpern," a weekly TV program, and "My Chopp," a daily radio spot. Follow him on Twitter @MicahHalpern. Read Micah Halpern's Reports — More Here.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.