+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

  1. #1
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    In planning a trip to Krakow I started following Wikipedia links and ended up on the Auschwitz bombing debate page. I'd never thought about it before, but after reading about the topic for a while it seems that a lot of people feel that not bombing Auschwitz during the war was a mistake, negligent or even borderline malicious. According to the Wikipedia page both Churchill and Stalin felt that the land war should be prioritized. I agree and also wonder what good a bombing could have done anyway (it would have killed a lot of the prisoners they were trying to save) but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

  2. #2
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    806

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    Um, that's the deal.

    WWII bombing was incredibly inaccurate and indiscriminate. No way they could have bombed specific buildings. It was more like "we're going to drop N number of bombs over this rather large area (or at least, hoping to hit this rather large area, we may end up hitting this other area over there instead) and we hope to hit at least some of the targets in said area."
    I reserve the right to be bothered by things that don't faze you,
    and to cheerfully ignore things that bug the shit out of you.
    I am not you.

  3. #3
    Content Generator AllWalker's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Antipodea
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    Bomb it and then what?

    Suppose you manage to pull it off, killing the guards but sparing enough of the prisoners, then what happens? Do you evacuate them? If so, how? Do you leave them to fend for themselves? If so, how cruel.

    Bombing would only help put the prisoners out of their misery. Of you actually intend on saving them, either a ground assult on the compound, or winning the war, are your only options.
    Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    I have never previously heard of any argument to bomb Auschwitz, itself. I would tend to agree that it would not have been a particularly worthwhile endeavor. We did not bomb POW camps for the same reason.

    I have seen arguments that we should have bombed the rail lines leading to Auschwitz and the other camps. While it is possible that there might have been an attitude of "it's just Jews" behind the decision to not bomb the rail lines, I suspect that a strong argument could be made that that was not a worthwhile effort, either. To be useful to stop deportations, the lines would have to be bombed somewhere close to the camps, otherwise the trains would have simply been routed over Europe's fairly vast rail network to avoid the damage. However, the camps were all in Poland, which tended to be outside the typical range of U.S. bombers. Beyond that, rail lines are fairly easy to replace. (The U.S. tore up every marshalling yard in France for a few years, yet the Germans were able to keep their trains running at some reduced level throughout the war.) To mount a serious operation to send crews farther than they had previously flown for the purpose of knocking out rail lines that would be back in operation within a few weeks--perhaps days--probably did not look like a very wise move to the USAAF brass. (And the RAF used pattern bombing at night, meaning that their ability to actually tear up the rail lines was seriously compromised.)

  5. #5
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    By a Crystal Palace
    Posts
    194

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    The people suggesting this were probably thinking of an operation like Operation Jericho. The problem is that the prisoners freed by Jericho were resistance members (in one case privy to Operation Overlord) and had allies and ways to go to ground. Once free they could begin to undermine the Germans further, providing an additional military advantage.

    The jews were civilians, who would be freed unarmed in the middle of hostile territory with no help, no aid, no allies and in such numbers that going to ground would be almost impossible. There would be little military benefit to the raid - in fact it might simply result in the immediate executions of the other concentration camp residents and freeing up the troops to return to the front. Also, at what point did the allies know what was going on in the camps? By many accounts it wasn't fully revealed until the troops stormed the gates. If they did not know there were horrors going on, they'd have no motive.

    Finally there is a question of resources. If you have a limited number of bombs and planes to deliver them, you go for the targets that give you the most advantage for the lowest risk. Bombing Auschwitz would have provided little military advatange for a comparatively high risk.

  6. #6
    Oliphaunt
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    1,149

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    Quote Originally posted by tirial
    Also, at what point did the allies know what was going on in the camps? By many accounts it wasn't fully revealed until the troops stormed the gates. If they did not know there were horrors going on, they'd have no motive.
    I don't think they knew exactly what was happening until they arrived at the camps, but by all accounts they knew that something horrible was going on.

  7. #7
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Plattsburgh, NY
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    I don't think they knew exactly what was happening until they arrived at the camps, but by all accounts they knew that something horrible was going on.
    I remember seeing this book http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ several years back and was told to take it with a grain of salt. I never read it so I don't know if it really is a decent picture or even a vague one that might relate to the topic at hand, but someone around here must know, it was somewhat famous when it came out.

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    30

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    Quote Originally posted by Clayton_e
    Quote Originally posted by Harlequin
    I don't think they knew exactly what was happening until they arrived at the camps, but by all accounts they knew that something horrible was going on.
    I remember seeing this book http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/ several years back and was told to take it with a grain of salt. I never read it so I don't know if it really is a decent picture or even a vague one that might relate to the topic at hand, but someone around here must know, it was somewhat famous when it came out.
    The IBM connection does not have much traction. Their equipment was purchased to help in the German census, (one of the same things they were making money on in the U.S. and elsewhere and the reason that Mr. Hollerith had originally developed his card). At the time that their tabulators were being purchased in Germany, the Final Solution was several years in the future. Even granting a certain level of culpability to IBM when the Nazis began recording the "status" of their population, (e.g., Jews, handicapped, etc.), that hardly places them in the loop for knowing that Germnay was eventually going to go out and murder 12 million people.

    On the other hand, there was a Polish officer who got himself incarcerated at Auschwitz deliberately to spy on the Germans who sent out sufficient information through the network he established that the death camps were known to people at the very top, (Churchill, for example), no later than 1943.

    Searching to support my previous paragraph. I found this on Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwi...ge_of_the_camp

  9. #9
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Warsaw, PL
    Posts
    119

    Default Re: Should Auschwitz have been bombed?

    The Auschwitz in it's worst days in the 1944 (when Allies already knew - and believed - about genocide) killed as much as 6.000 people per day. If bombing could make it inoperational for three days, it would be net life-saving even if there was massive loss of life among prisoners. That's mathematical argument for bombing. From ethical point of view it can be argued for.

    The thing is, at the time, nobody really cared. There was nothing to gain - no strategic, tactical or even PR advantage. Why risk precious resources? It's just civilians. And Jewish civilians, that is. We have war to win. No time for even thinking about Auschwitz. We have strategic targets. Cities to bomb. Industry to bomb. Transport to bomb. Campaigns to plan. Resources to assign. Bomber crews to train. Bombers to build. Enemies to kill. However heartless does it sound - lives of those people were of lowest priority then. It was full-blown war, not humanitarian mission after all.

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts