Not only did the allies not have unlimited resources during WW2 they only had barely enough to do the job.
R.A.F. bomber crew were decimated over europe, so it wasn’t a case of “Lets divert some missions to a non war winning scenario because it’ll make us feel better about ourselves”, but a case of what we’ve got we’ll use on missions to finish the war as early as possible.
The R.A.F. suffered appalling casualties on a scale reminiscent of ground troops in WW1.
It is so easy for arm chair generals sitting in the comfort of their own homes to tell us how the war SHOULD have been fought with all the advantages of hindsight, but not so easy for the people fighting and dieing in the war at the actual time.
(For example,knowing that we would win, which at the time was totally not guaranteed)
What was not being done was attempts at precision bombing, because quite simply the technology was not up to it, and precision raids tended to (i) not work and (ii) take high casualties as well as put at risk the wasting resource of highly skilled air crews.
And I believe the question is being entirely misframed.
Yes, we won the fucking war mate. And that was by no means a foregone conclusion as my compatriot Lust noted.
While probably within the normal range of snideness to which I am resigned in this forum, your comment regarding “the relative card” seems to fall within the range of “personal attack,” while your sarcasm just quoted is certainly one.
Just back off.
On the other hand, wmfellows, ignoring the odd out-of-place comment goes a bit further to keep the discussion going than calling attention to it.
[ /Modding ]
Internment camps were concentration camps by any reasonable definition extending back to the first use of the word in the British/Boer War and continuing through Dachau.
They were not extermination camps, but they were concentration camps.
Well Tom as it was his past smears that led to my being smeared here as a Nazi sympathiser and Holocaust denier, and the fine timing of him taking interest in this thread, I should think that my ignoring said comments only goes to encourage.
Wait, so were factories targeted during the timeframe or not?
“On 14 February 1942, Directive No. 22 was issued to Bomber Command. Bombing was to be “focused on the morale of the enemy civil population and in particular of the industrial workers.” Factories were no longer targets.[126]”
“ref the new bombing directive: I suppose it is clear the aiming points will be the built up areas, and not, for instance, the dockyards or aircraft factories where these are mentioned in Appendix A. This must be made quite clear if it is not already understood.”[7][3][8]"
As cited earlier, there’s no reason that a hypothetical bombing run on one of the major camps would be more dangerous or more complicated than any other run, the question is always should we, not could we - unless there’s some reason I haven’t seen that means we technically couldn’t have.
Howso?
By the latter half of 1944? I’d dispute that. In any case, the fact remains that we allowed the camps to operate unhindered, and as part of the larger question of Allied action in the Holocaust our record still isn’t exemplary, as noted above, particularly in areas like taking in Jewish refugees.
Dseid has already cited the facts under discussion. Both the P-38 and the Mosquito were viable aircraft and small strike teams would not have materially affected the course of the war. Both saw use in precision attacks and could easily have taken out specific targets in close confines.
I totally agree, and in actual fact Mosquitos launched a precision attack on a Gestapo prison to help prisoners escape.
But it all comes back to a very limited amount of resources.
Release political prisoners ?
Or stop reinforcements from going to the front and possibly disrupting your on coming attack ?
Its never easy, and the emotionally pleasing solution may not be the best solution when it comes to destroying the Nazi regime.
I would think that more lives were saved by finishing the war as early as possible then by potentially releasing concentration camp prisoners (half starved and unfit as they were) into remote areas almost completely controlled by the Germans.
How long would they have remained at liberty or have just died from starvation?
A matter of conjecture only.
IIRC Mosquitoes were instrumental in several jailbreaks and many precision attacks.
It also isn’t binary. For instance:
The allies did both, including staging propaganda attacks with the mozzies by attacking Nazi rallies and embarrassing Goebbels, and such. Surely also showing the Nazis that they were not going to be able to run factory-style death camps would have fit in without costing us the war.
But it doesn’t have to be either-or. We could have waged war without an appreciable drop in firepower while also hitting the major death camps and disrupting their operations.
And your argument works both ways. If we put pressure on their logistical supply lines, they’d have to choose to devote resources to fixing the gas chambers/ovens, or building new rifles (or whatever).
Of course the Final Solution wasn’t a practical use of resources, leaving aside its monstrous immorality. And yet, even when Germany was being bludgeoned on all fronts in the last year of the war, they still devoted significant resources, in personnel and particularly in limited rail capacity, to carry it out. One of the main reasons why the Nazis lost the war was a poor use of the limited resources, especially human, which they had at their disposal vis-a-vis the Allies.
I think it’s a somewhat interesting question if bombing the crematoria & gas chambers at Auschwitz et al. would have actually marginally shortened the war, by forcing the Nazis to devote more resources to get the same job done. In my opinion, I think they would’ve still found a way to kill all those who were eventually killed in the camps - it just would’ve cost them more resources to do so if they were the subject of a bombing campaign directed at the camps. However, I don’t think that more of those who perished in the camps would’ve eventually survived the war in the end. They were still doomed, P-38s or no.
The problem here is that it is not a few tons of bombs. It’s flights of bombers. You’d have to divert the bombers and escort fighters through previously undamaged AA defenses, to attack a target not directly concerned with ending the war. Bombing rails isn’t all that effective, bombing crematoria would be even more tangental than bombing cities. I’m going to say that the generals, if they even considered such a thing, would have decided the risk of casualties through the fresh AA defenses, would not have been worth it. (Face it, even generals get focused on things. Towards the end of the war, I’m going to guess they were as worn as anyone else.)
Oh, you’d probably fly into coverage of fresh airbases, too.
Yeah, it’s technically possible, but the arguments against it are relatively solid, just on the basis of expected USAF and RAF losses alone.
Edit: I rather suspect, all things considered, a couple railway bombings were designed to try to interfere with the camps. It’s just railway bombings weren’t that effective. Took us something like two years to take out one bridge in Vietnam that just kept surviving. Bombing the crematoria directly? Really calls for a kind of precision that wasn’t possible. Not to mention it gives the Germans a nice bit of propaganda. “Even the Allies wish to kill the Jews.” or “The monsters would rather let crazed jews free than fight our brave soldiers.” Either way.
On the P-38 bombing issue… I’d have to really look at things to see if it were practical. Does anyone have a map of the forces at any time when bombing the camps would be in range? Say, at about the same time they were setting political prisoners free?
Any Allied bombing runs at Auschwitz in 1944 would most likely have been run out of Foggia, and Google Maps Distance Calculator gives me a straight-line distance between Foggia itself and Oświęcim of approximately 618 miles, which would’ve been just within the listed combat range of the P-38L model (entered service in mid-'44).
So I think it would’ve been technically feasible to hit Auschwitz with P-38L’s based out of Foggia. That still leaves aside the potential opportunity cost, though. It happened on the other side of the world, but P-38 pilots were responsible for taking out one major high value target that had a major effect on the course of the Pacific War. In Europe, Spitfires (rather than Lightnings) took out this guy as well.
As brutal as it seems, even if the Allies had any appreciable knowledge of the atrocities, they were unlikely to expend military resources on what was essentially non-military targets.
Propaganda is an essential element of warfare. It is often considered a military objective. The concentration camps, largely, had no “propaganda” factor.
Sure they did. They represented a major ideological and material investment for the Nazis, a shocking and revolting secret that stunned the world once they were made public, and an example of what the vanquished could expect if the Nazis won.
It hardly would have taken a propaganda genius to come up with a PR offensive.
I don’t see how you draw a parallel between attacking Afghanistan and your proposed attacks on NAZI concentration camps if they had contained Christians with relatives in America. We didn’t target any prisoners of any type in Afghanistan. It was a simple act of war-- one nation against another.