Bombing of Auschwitz

You're absolutely right!

 

Indeed. It is often forgotten that the SS was facing a lot of logistical problems whilst implementing the Final Solution. The extermination of European Jewry was not taking place as rapidly nor efficiently as planned.

The BBC magnificent documentary Auschwitz: the Nazis and the 'Final Solution' shows how much improvisation was introduced to cope with the killing demand. The Birkenau personnel was facing enormous difficulties with body-disposal. The first improvised and rustic gas chambers, the 'Little Red House' and the 'Little White House' were killing much rapidly than the Sonderkommandos could get rid of the corpses. There were no crematoria yet, and massive graves and bonfires were being used. Then, after a long period of advanced building, the massive gas chambers with their huge crematoria (as well as lifts) could reduce the stress on the personnel.

What's the point? The little houses, the first big gas chambers at Birkenau, were quickly built and they could have been easily re-built. However, the large chambers and their respective crematoria could not. Nor the whole Birkenau compound, which took almost two years to be completed. When it was, Belzec, Sóbibor, Chełmnoand Treblinka were shut down. Only Majdanek kept running. And why? Because with Birekenau Himmler finally had centralised the process at this massive annihilation factory: he had, at last, the means to carry out the 'Final Solution' in the scale he wanted. It was only then when he gave Eichmann green light to commence the deportation of 900.000 Hungarian Jews.

Certainly, a severe disruptive of all this killing factory's infrastructure would have forced Himmler to either stop the massive deportations or to distribute them along other camps, thus increasing the strain on German resources even more, as stated by Chocapic.

Indeed, though clearly visible:

I disagree. Why didn’t the Allies take the same position when bombing Caën or other non-German, though occupied, cities? Many French civilians died there and elsewhere during the fight, and the French knew that was part of the price of liberation. Or why didn’t the Allies care about how many slave workers did the bombings of factories killed? Also, the gas chambers and the krematoria were at one side of the camp, different than the barracks. Also, at daylight hours, the inmates of the concentration camp were working, right?

Well, but my whole point here is that what these people at Auschwitz, specially the Jews, needed was perhaps not to be rescued… maybe just a little bit of hope, a sign that someone actually cared!

After the St. Louis, the difficulties of emigration, collaboration in the deportations, neglect by their neighbours… can we say any one, besides some individuals (the US, the UK, the Latin American countries, the Red Cross, the Vatican…) showed active, open and official solidarity with the Holocaust victims? Was there any kind of generalised support for the persecuted people, like the miracle of Denmark? Maybe it’s hind-sight, XXI century ethical vision, but, isn’t symbolic gestures as important?

Yes, but such method was dropped precisely because it was not practical. It was destroying the ‘soldiers’ minds, as Von Bach-Zelewsky told Himmler. And, above all, it was not being efficient enough, wasn’t carrying out the 'Final Solution' in the scale, time or way planned. Birkenau was born from that necessity.

Nor do I.

I diagree. Not only the first statement (see the solidarity thing above), but also the second: Birkenau’s massive crematoria took well-over two years of meticulous planning, testing and building. Again, I suggest you all watching I mentioned above: Amazon.co.uk: Auschwitz - The Nazis And The Final Solution: DVD: Dominic Sutherland,Martina Balazova,Detlef Siebert

That, I think, would have been a practical positive consequence of the bombing. Since the resources, manpower and efforts used by Germany to carry out the Holocaust actually helped the Allies win the war, I think that such dispersal could have both reduced the number of people killed and distract even more resources on doing it: more stress on the railroads, SS personnel, security, not to mention the building of new extermination camps or the re-adaptation of concentration into extermination camps (as happened in Auschwitz, in a process of two years).

Well, yes, this is true.

But why was that? Because there were some other places in which the killing could be done more rapidly, efficiently and in larger quantities.

True. Neither would I dare come to any such conclusion. My sole intention when opening this thread was a civilised debate (which has been the case, and for which I really thank you, guys), so we can all learn and reflect some things.

I also agree that we can move on now.

 

I am enjoying this thread, lots of intelligent debate on a topic that would be a troll-fest on almost any other Forum. Well done to all and keep it up.

I must also add that the practice of posting a quote without knowing who said it makes following along quite difficult. You guys would make good use of the multi-quote function, it allows you to quote several posts at once, no muss, no fuss. Click this icon in all the posts you want to respond to (it will change color to ) and then fit the normal button. Delete the parts you don't want and it still keeps the "Originally Posted by" message around for clarity. Carry on...

Peppy >>> likes the format of a well formatted post

 

OK, Peppy! Thanks a lot! It was some doubt I had...

 

Not trying to bring up any "old" evidence....

Here´s just what the Allied knew

The American Experience | America and the Holocaust | Primary Sources

 

A great read Kai!

Unless this is an absolute fabrication, it shows Roosevelts apathy towards the treatment of European Jews by the Nazis.

 

This is what the Allied, Axis, and Neutral countries knew.
Guilt is in the air, for everyone.

Was anyone else's door open (who was not soon to be defeated by the powers being run away from)? Blind eye? Deaf ear? There are more places in the world, (as we are so often reminded) than the United States.

I believe it was no win (bombing camps), Hitler would have had a good laugh if the Allies achieved his bottom line for him, without blame for him, while the war machine kept turning.

Wouldn't all be lined up to denounce that now? (if it happened)

 

As early as (?)

Sept. 12, 1941 - A Bletchley Park report stated that "the killing of Jews on the Russian Front by the SS provided evidence of 'a policy of savage intimidation, if not ultimate extermination.' The intercepted messages confirm that Churchill knew in the early stages of the war that Hitler had embarked on a campaign of massacring Jews."

Hmmmm...

Code Breaking in World War II

 

What with? Heavy bombers - like at Peenemunde where slaves at Trassenheide were bombed? think of the peopaganda gift to Goebbels - luftgangsters killing our 'Jewish inmates of a work camp' or perhaps 'here's evidence that the 'Jewish world conspiracy' is at work favouring European Jews at the expense of Gentiles'.

Mosquitos? The only ones in range were in Italy - 40-odd night fighters and reconnaissance versions.

If a precision day raid by Mossies succeeded what would be the effect? Consider the purpose of the extermination-on-arrival practice from the point of view of the Jews who WEREN'T murdered. What were they for? Labour in Germany's war economy. Would the Germans have stopped murdering the 'useless mouths' because the principal means had been bombed? I doubt it since the removal of the people with no labour power was part of what made the labour power of those not murdered immediately usable - rations, accommodation and guards were not available so an ad hoc method would have been used, less 'efficient' certainly but the economic machine depended on slaves so a way would have been found to keep it going.

Token gesture; a bombing to show the world that the Allies 'cared'. Rather contemptible to make a futile effort for a headline methinks.

The photograph - was that the one taken in 1944 and developed in 1978?

On the whole I don't know what more the Allies could have done if they wanted to. Prejudice against Jews in the Allies' leadership, whilst despicable, seems to me to have no influence on the objective constraints listed above.

Bear in mind as well that some 'Jews' in Palestine (like the odious deserter Menachem Begin) were fighting a dirty war against the British and made at least one attempt to deal with Hitler. Perhaps any act to help Jews per se had the potential to rebound?

 

Saw a document on ostfront awhile ago and it showed the main railway lines going to the front in 1944. Auschwitz area was a very important railway yard area, with the camp "in the middle" of the yard. The southern part of front was covered by a railway line through Auschwitz area, the northern section through another making it two MAIN lines supplying the whole front, at least in the area of Western Poland after which they divided to smaller lines.

Unfortunately could not find anything maps etc in the net and the one good site was this:

Deutsche Reichsbahn - The German State Railway in WWII

Also the fact that important war machinery etc was built at the camp(s) means the railway lines would be going close-by.

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/2006December/Pics/Auschwitz-environs.png

Just wondered if anyone knows where to find a railway map of the German lines in the east 1944 and how many lines truly go through Auschwitz. I mean it would be no I target in that case even without the camp in my list if it was an important section and a possible bottle-neck for frontline supplies.

 

i'd like to add another motivation in favour of bombing the camp:

if the allies had bombed aschwitz then all the nazis involved in the industrial extermination process would have got a clear message from the allies: "we KNOW what you are doing and when it's all over you will be accountable for this"

On the contrary, the fact that no military action was ever taken against any extermination camp made many nazis think that the allies ignore what was going on. Many people working in death camps felt somehow safe, far away from war front, just waiting for the end of the war. they believed that dismatelling the camp a few weeks before the allies arrival would be enough to hide everything.

I heard this argument when i visited the camp, actually i never thought about it earlier.

Btw, I strongly suggest everyone to visit the aschwittz/birkenau camp. For european people it's very easy and cheap. just take a low cost flight to krakow (skyeurope).

Auschwitz is really impressive, the explanations are good and you learn about everyday life in the camp, including the life of the nazis there. But when you move to birkenau the effetct will be even worse, even though in birkenau there is hardly nothing left, just the railway and a few barracks (here is better to hire a guide). What really strucks you is the vastness of the camp, it's huge, enourmous. being there and figure out the death-factory fully working is something rather disturbing.

PS: when your visit is over ther's only one way to reconciliate yourself with mandkind: enjoying krakow nightlife!! girls there will make you forget all the horror you saw before

well, at least for one night........

 

I'm sure the inmates would enjoy the initiative immensely!

Gen. Ira Eaker or whoever would be the 8th Air Force Commander at the time would immediately be nominated another Righteous Among the Nations.

​

 

~~~~~no military action was ever taken against any extermination camp~~~~~

Really? I recall Primo Levi describling the arrival of the Red Army!

 

The nazis (and many other Germans and their allies) burnt their bridges with the human race in 1941 at the latest. They knew what they had coming to them.

 

ok guys, your remarks sounds all sensible.... So i'll try to be more specific:

- i repeat that i heard this argument at the camp (birkenau) from the guide. She reported that many inmates were looking forward a military action from the allies, whatever the cost could be.

- when i say "no military action was ever taken" i mean behind enemy lines, not just liberating the camp

- when i say "bombing the camp", i mean targeting the infamous railway or something like that, not levelling the camp. collateral effects for the inmates wolud be "relatively" limitated, pls consider that birkenau is enourmous.

- at the climax aschwitz/birkenau was able to kill thousands of jews a day (i read it in this thread too). the creamtorium were not enough, the death factory worked too fast! the bodies burned in open air.... grilled. So it's a paradox but the bombing would have reduced the death rate in the camp (i read it in this thread too)

- of course, the nazis could rebuild the railway in a few days, but maybe things would not have been the same for nazis working there. rebuilding a camp or building a new one would have meant divert precious resources from the war front and soften the curtain of secrecy around the "final solution". the nazis were very sensitive to this issue.

- if i well remember the allies gave to germany a few (mild) warnings... but the nazis simply denied everything. Anyway an "official" warning would never be heard from ordinary nazis involved (they didn't use to read the Guardian or NYtimes). A specific bombing would have been heard from many more.

- nazis dismantelled very carefully all the camps, there is nothing left in mathausen or dachau. auschwitz is the exception, they simply didn't have enough time because russians arrived too fast. So the nazis feared that the allies could find out the truth.

Once again, the point is that the nazis were sure that the allies had not evidence, maybe just a couple of stories from someone fled... nothing really serious. Targeting the camps would have changed this. maybe.

 

For this I think a daylight low-level Mosquito attack would have been needed - in late 1943 Bomber Command Main Force had great difficulty targeting the Peenemunde installations which were a relatively good H2S target, and on a moonlit night.....

 

Saw this on document and found it in the net as well:

17 Dec 1942: Britain condemns massacre of Jews

BBC ON THIS DAY | 17 | 1942: Britain condemns massacre of Jews

Mr Eden described how the German authorities, who have already stripped the Jews of their basic human rights, were now carrying out "Hitler's oft repeated intention to exterminate the Jewish people in Europe".

He described how hundreds of thousands of men, women and children were being transported from all German-occupied territory "in conditions of appalling horror and brutality" to Eastern Europe.