By ‘we’ I mean the Allied air forces in World War II.
Apologies if this has been already debated to death, a search found nothing recent. Years and years ago a Jewish Holocaust survivor, who survived Auschwitz, gave a talk at my college and invited questions. One of the questions I asked him was “Should the Allies have bombed Auschwitz”, and without even thinking he replied “Yes”. He went on to say that the failure to do so was more jarring when he saw that the Allies could bomb nearby targets but weren’t bombing Auschwitz. He might have been referring to the bombing runs on nearby oil refineries in July 1944, or the later bombings of an industrial complex next to Auschwitz III.
Of course, World War II technology wouldn’t have given us precision strikes against the Nazi instruments of death, and would have undoubtedly killed many innocent prisoners - this happened when the Allies bombed an industrial complex next to Buchenwald, and still killed and wounded hundreds of prisoners. The assumption is that their sacrifices in the bombing run - men, women and children who were likely doomed to die at their captors hands - would have bought the rest of the Nazi victims more time as the concentration camps were rebuilt followed the destruction.
So, did the Allies do enough to help stop the Holocaust? Did we abandon the Jews, or were we right in our approach to the war and application of ordnance?
I expect the answer is “we didn’t really care”. I’ve heard it pointed out in the past that we didn’t even try to bomb the railroads leading to the camps. IMHO, our modern horror over the behavior of the Nazis is in part a means of papering over the fact that we were headed in pretty much the same direction as them; they just got to the logical endpoint of the path we were on first. We had concentration camps for Japanese-Americans, we had forced sterilization of “inferior” people, we had racism and antisemitism; we just didn’t get to the point they did with those things.
"In August[1944], Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy wrote to Leon Kubowitzki of the World Jewish Congress, noting that the War Refugee Board had asked if it was possible to bomb Auschwitz. McCloy responded:
After a study it became apparent that such an operation could be executed only by the diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations elsewhere and would in any case be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources. There has been considerable opinion to the effect that such an effort, even if practicable, might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans."-“Why the Allies Didn’t Bomb the Death Camps: Part III” by Michael Berenbaum
Knowing the way the German Propaganda Apparatus worked in WWII, you can bet the Germans would dress the bombing-raid victims in Allied (or, more likely, Russian) uniforms, let the press in, and turn it into “Look at the evil/incompetent Allies, bombing their own (or their own Allies) prisoners! Those Schweihund!”
Also, bombing missions in WWII were incredibly dangerous. Between the Flak and the Luftwaffe, unbelievable numbers of Allied bombers got shot down and lots of aircrew got killed or captured. Now, it’s one thing to say to people “Dear Mrs Smith, We Regret To Inform You…” when the target is something “important” like a refinery or an arms factory. But it’s quite another when it’s a prison camp or something that lacks a perceived military value.
Incidentally, the Allies did bomb prisons on at least one occasion- the British used Mosquito fighter-bombers to perform a precision strike on a Gestapo Headquarters in France to spring a Maquisard leader.
What possible purpose would have bombing Auschwitz served?
Why would concentration camp inmates, Jews, Gypsies, other “undesirables” prefer to die by Allied - British and American - bombs?
Why would devoting scarce military resources to pointlessly killing prisoners (that from an Allied intelligence point of view could have been a variety of people, not just Jews) be an improvement over destroying Nazi industrial infrastructure supporting their (Nazi) war effort? Bombs expended on camps, bombers lost to German fighters, etc. in camp attacks would be bombs and bombers not dedicated to destroying rail centres, munitions factories, other war material fabrication.
As there were plenty of opportunities to work prisoners to death in factories being bombed if this had been done.
This is an utterly fallacious line of thought. Given limited information and resources, the most rational approach for the allies was to devote all resources to degrading and destroying Nazi war machinery. Camp bombing would be as egregiously stupid and wasteful as the Dresden bombing. A waste of resources.
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but you expressed an opinion. What’s to refute?
In any event, you’ve got to know your opinion is not a particularly common one. How about some facts to back it up? At least make some sort of effort to convince us that your explanation is more likely than the one put forward by wmfellows.
You might want to check some actual facts on that. I know it’s common to accuse the allies of war crimes in bombing the “non-military” Dresden, but are you aware that the “historian” who originated that story is David Irving and that his version of events is part of his whole “Hitler wasn’t such a bad guy after all” shtick?
If you’re interested, the section of that Wiki page dealing with his Dresden book will give you a better grasp of why you shouldn’t just repeat everything you hear without checking the facts first.
Of course not; “America Rah Rah! Saviors of the world!” is the common one. That doesn’t make it correct.
I thought those were all common knowledge. Theinternment in camps of Japanese Americans in WWII is so obscure it needs a cite? The compulsory sterilization of thousands of Americans? Or is it racism and antisemitism you want to pretend didn’t exist in America?
No but… well my comment had nothing whatsoever to do with either this Irving person or the odd strawman of argument I … never even hinted at.
Well, mate, … I shan’t repeat anything I just hear if you should promise to actually respond to what was written as opposed to kneejerking up to hitting your bloody nose.
I can most certainly assure you I have never heard of Irving (well I suppose I must have, although doesn’t ring a bell) nor did my comment have anything to do with war crimes.
My comment was about efficaciousness of a very British driven view at the time of utility of city bombing.
Do you never get tired of this little schtick.
OP said “ALLIES” not AMERICANS. Your argument is as bloody navel gazing as the straw man you pulled out of the closet. Give it a fucking rest. America, America, America… Jaysus.
Unless you have any actual evidence that ‘racism’ rather than real military necessity was involved, give it a bloody rest.
Using Dresden as an example is a pretty poor choice, then. In terms of allied losses (and let’s not forget the USAAF’s large contribution) the Dresden raids were a success. Plenty of other raids cost the RAF and/or USAAF a lot more than that one.
A chief reason that Arthur “Bomber” Harris went to city bombings (like Dresden) was that cities were the smallest target his bombers could reasonably hit. This was pre-GPS, and even toward the end of the war, bombers had only the most rudimentary radar. Many bombers failed to get within miles of their target, and they were of course dropping unguided bombs from high altitudes, meaning that even if they found their target they usually missed it. They had to fly at night to reduce casualties (even further reducing accuracy and navigation). In short, the best the Allies could have hoped to do was carpet bomb an entire camp (which they probably would have missed, even if they could have found it at night). They certainly couldn’t have *aimed *at the gas chambers, or anything productive like that. And they would have suffered heavy losses, as was common even with nighttime raids. Better to aim at defeating the German war machine, as was mentioned above.
A reasonable discussion of the subject.
Would bombing the camps, or at least the train lines, have saved many more victims lives than the mission would have killed? Yes. Working prisoners to death in factories was a much less efficient means of killing than the crematoria were. Rebuilding the crematoria would have cost the Germans much in valuable resources and taken much time.
Was it feasible to do so? Of course. And could have even been done as secondary targets on other runs.
The reality is that “policy” was to not divert any war resources to any “refugee” issues and therefore it was not possible to do so. The Allied powers just felt that halting or slowing down the death camps were not part of their job.
Well, again let me refer you to my note above: respond to what I said, not to your bizarre straw men.
Dresden was a bloody fucking off-handed reference. (And God Forbid anyone not mention AMERICA!!!111!!! in a WWII conversation, it’s just so under-mentioned and analysed).
As far as whether or not “-isms” were involved in it not being part of their job - well I wouldn’t state it as severely as Der Trihs but I would suspect that it would have become part of their job if they were British nationals being rounded up and exterminated, for example, or even Middle Class Christians who had family in America.
Jews, Romani, etc. were “others” to those in power, and therefore not their concern.