Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?

[Penn44]

Payday is coming up, and that means it's book ordering time.

As of May 2013, what are the recommended reading books on why didn't the Allies bomb Auschwitz?

Penn44

.

[Lynn R]

Most of the discussion on the question has been in periodicals rather than books.
There's a decent history of the debate given in this Master's thesis. (I don't know how easy it would be to find some of his sources now.)

One thing of note in this fully documented thesis is that the escapees' report sent from the War Refugee Board representative in Switzerland was dated as sent July 6, 1944 and stamped received by the State and War Departments on July 8 and July 16 respectively, not the mid-June period claimed earlier in this thread.

[Penn44]

Most of the discussion on the question has been in periodicals rather than books.

Thanks.

Penn44

.

[wm]

That's not how they did it in Auschwitz, except in the basement chamber in the Auschwitz main camp (maybe, I'm not sure).

That's correct, I forgot it was in the cellar of the barrack eleven. But still it wasn't sealed and its blind windows were merely covered with dirt.

Did they 'need' to? Maybe not with carbon monoxide in the AR camps, but with cyanide gas the minimum lethal dose is extremely low.

Not quite. It's a pesticide (still produced not far away from where i live) - it would be unfortunate if its users die in large numbers. One or two breaths of it is quite harmless, although not recommended...

[wm]

and the diversion of vital Mosqito attack aircraft

There wasn't any vital attacks to be made by the Mosquitoes at that time. The highest priority had the operation Crossbow - the pointless attacks of the entire strategic forces against "wonder" weapons launch sites.

Some say the bombing of the gas chambers would divert vital resources and it would be a political not military decision. But in fact exactly at the same time, and for months the Allied Air Force were diverted for non-military, political reasons.

It was a political decision made against strenuous objections of Spaatz and Tedder who saw futility of the attacks on those small, usually mobile targets, and preferred attacks against the wonder weapons logistics, they required much smaller force and probably would be successful.

[wm]

And it didn't have to be Mosquitoes. B-17s had the low level, precision attack capabilities, too. They used it against the heavily defended Ploiești in 1943.
Mustangs could carry bombs too, although a successful attack would require more Mustangs than B-17s or Mosquitoes.

[Lynn R]

Absurd - there's no comparison between Ploiesti and the target sizes at Auschwitz. There's a difference between precision flying and precision or pinpoint bombing.

[wm]

In Birkenau the width of the target was about 100 meters, the separation between the target and camp was 150 meters. In Ploiești the targets were more or less the same size, this is why the B-24s (it seems the B-17s weren't used there because of their shorter range) were attacking at tree top levels.

The low-level attack on Ploiești:

ploesti.jpg (54.75 KiB) Viewed 765 times

from http://olive-drab.com/od_history_ww2_st ... loesti.php

[Lynn R]

The flying to Ploiesti was intended to be precise, low-level flying in order to mitigate the area's defenses. The bombing did not have to be precise as any misses would still fall within the considerable footprint of the facilities. One bomb group's run was 13 miles long. There were no areas the bombers needed to avoid hitting, unlike an Auschwitz bomb run. The Ploiesti raid had mediocre results (at most 60% of the facilities' productivity incapacitated in the target area) but with tremendous loss of aircraft and men. Of the 165 bombers that took off, 73 were lost, 55 others suffered major damage, almost 500 aircrew were killed or wounded and over 100 became POWs. It was both the beginning and the end of low-level bomb runs for the US air crews.

Ploiesti wound, if anything, be an argument against a similar run on Auschwitz.

[kolibri282]

[quote]Personally I think the question has no positive purpose. It's a manipulation along the lines of Ben-Gurion's Eichmann show trial.[quote]

I wonder why you continue to contirbute to this forum is you've heard it all before and you see no positive purpose in the
subject of this discussion. I would have thought it tedious to hear the same arguments and comments over and over that you've heard a thousand times before.
I find the whole thing rather difficult as to dis-engage yourself from the horror of the Holocaust and the miserable deaths
dealt out to the victims is not easy as this subject is very emotive. Looking objectively and with no feelings at the reasons for not bombing a camp of Birkenau's ilk is hard to understand if you focus on the death and violence.
All history will be seen in hindsight that is why it's called history as I understand it. It will not be easy to remove the
historical knowledge we all know and have learned since the events. To think as a WW2 commander is no easy task.
There appears to be a million arguments why we
didn't bomb the camp as there are for why we should have,the one thing
that is clear to me is depending on how you feel about the Allies,Jews,Nazis etc that will guide your conclusions and understanding.
No-one is going to agree on this for a million reasons,
One group will say we should have another will say we shouldn't.Who's right and who's wrong? It's up to the
individual to decide. History isn't conclusive in this this case and if you dig enoough you're find more questions than answers
there's plenty of theories,but no real solid answer yet.

[David Thompson]

kolibri282 - Our threads are designed to provide informed discussion about the subject, not another poster. Please keep that in mind.

[Lynn R]

History isn't conclusive in this this case

Yes, history IS conclusive. History is the facts of what happened. Misrepresenting what happened is called revisionism.

The "what if" game is played in another section of this forum.

[LWD]

Pardon the OT. Feel free to deleat.

.... Misrepresenting what happened is called revisionism.....

No that's a later day "defintion" that is not all that well accepted. Revisionism is a long and honorable tradition in history where history is reinterpreted based on new or unapreciated facts. That the term is sometimes applied to those seeking to distort history by ignoring some facts and twisting the interpretations of others out of all reason is unfortunate. There are better terms for them but they may not pass the politeness test of this board. Distortionist is a term I perfer for what it's worth.

[kolibri282]

How can there be any conclusiveness in this particular case when
the historical interpretation is wide open to a wide range of answers?
I don't believe the answers are anywhere straightforward and they
cover a huge area of possibilities. There are very few solid facts about this
subject . Is it deliberately trying to misinterpret the truth because we have very
few historic facts to investigate? In many aspects of this topic we have to come
to our own personal conclusions that suit us personally,there is no alternative until
solid evidence is presented that cannot be misinterpreted or deliberately twisted
to suit whoever for whatever reason.
There has been a huge question mark over this whole tragic event for decades and
historians as well as many other readers of history still can't agree as to the reason why
Birkenau wasn't bombed.
I agree this topic would be in the "what if"
category if you personally believed you had the answer, if you have no satisfactory answer it
can only remain in the "what if" category until solid facts can be obtained.
This whole topic is open to speculation and will remain so for the foreseeable
future.
I'm sure if I look hard enough I can find books and papers on this subject which claim
they have the answer and I'm quite sure if I looked hard enough I could also find
just as many that disagreed with that answer and would also produce why they
believe it to be the case.

[Lynn R]

Real historical interpretation is based on facts, not emotional argument. There are plenty of facts but those who don't like the facts resort to broad, emotional argument...and they typically have an agenda to push.

Unless new documents or other evidence from the time are found, the facts are what they are.

LWD: Yes, that distinction is much better.