6 ms·

It does make sense that a soldier didn’t know. On the other hand, the American military knew of Auschwitz and Birkenau, had the opportunity to bomb and incapaci

by zahma 5y ago

It does make sense that a soldier didn’t know. On the other hand, the American military knew of Auschwitz and Birkenau, had the opportunity to bomb and incapacitate it, and didn’t apparently at the request of FDR to direct all munitions toward winning the war. His administration was implored by escapees and refugees. One of the greatest tragedies of many during the war.

bmmayer1 5y ago
Not necessarily. The international Red Cross was famously invited to tour Auschwitz[1] where they were given a carefully staged show of how well their prisoners were being treated. Plus prisoners would have been in danger. [1]https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/theresienstadt-red-cross-visit https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/theresiens...
- goto11 5y ago
  That was Theresienstadt, not Auschwitz. Theresienstadt was specifically staged as a "model camp" for propaganda purposes.
  - bmmayer1 5y ago
    You are right. My bad.
reaperducer 5y ago
had the opportunity to bomb and incapacitate it, and didn’t War is not a video game. Bombing an enemy concentration camp, especially with WWII-era weapons, would mean killing the people you're trying to save.
ghufran_syed 5y ago
Wouldn’t bombing the camp kill the prisoners? Or are you suggesting that they could have successfully bombed and “incapacitated” the camp without killing the prisoners? How exactly?
- bmmayer1 5y ago
  The Americans strafed the concentration camp my grandfather was working at in 1944 from air -- my grandpa still carries a scar from that. It was definitely not an easy decision to attack or not attack these camps.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  Destroying the gas chambers would probably save thousands.
  - jaclaz 5y ago
    Well, giving the accuracy of the bombings at the time it wasn't simply possible. Objectives (such as bridges) were often missed by hundreds of meters.
    - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
      I agree. Hence the scale of the bombings in WW2. But the camp operated multiple years. Maybe there was a price to pay but in the long run, maybe it would have been worth taking a chance. We will never now, it’s a maybe game.
    - Someone 5y ago
      Optimist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report: “Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 mi (8.0 km).” https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/hamburg/sources/docs/7/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/thea... has data for later years. It got better, but stayed bad. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/ https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/: “Bombing accuracy was terrible. The average circular error in 1943 was 1,200 feet, meaning that only 16 percent of the bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point”
    - 5y ago
FridayoLeary 5y ago
FDR's inactivity during the war, regarding the Jews is a very large, black stain on his legacy.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Animats 5y ago
Old issue. See [1] "The first proposal to bomb Auschwitz was made on 16 May 1944 by a Slovak rabbi." That was 3 weeks before D-Day (June 6, 1944). Eisenhower's policy was to defeat Germany, and not get distracted. He had planned to bypass Paris, which wasn't on the route to Berlin.[2] (De Gaulle went off-script and liberated Paris ahead of schedule, but that's another story.) Eisenhower was trying to hold an alliance with different goals together. All the allies were agreed on "defeat Germany", but there were other national goals. Britain was concerned about preserving its empire, for example. To hold the alliance together, Eisenhower focused on "win the war" above all else. The person this article is about was in the Red Army. "One of just 69 men in his 12,000-strong division to survive the war, Mr Dushman suffered serious injuries during the conflict". The USSR had about 20 million casualties in WWII. Never forget that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate [2] https://www.historynet.com/the-generals-who-brought-paris-back-to-life.htm https://www.historynet.com/the-generals-who-brought-paris-ba...
- FridayoLeary 5y ago
  The "Slovak Rabbi" was Michael Ber Weissmandel. If FDR and co. had demonstrated even a fraction of his determination to save his fellow Jews, many hundreds of thousands could have been saved. That "not getting distracted" is an absolutely terrible excuse. If FDR had acted, the almost 1 million Hungarian jews still living might not have perished.
rkk3 5y ago
It's questionable how much it would have inhibited their genocide capabilities, it almost certainly would have killed the people in the camps and it was only an option late in the war. Prioritizing strategic targets to end the war & regime faster is defensible.

by zahma 5y ago

bmmayer1 5y ago

Not necessarily. The international Red Cross was famously invited to tour Auschwitz[1] where they were given a carefully staged show of how well their prisoners were being treated. Plus prisoners would have been in danger. [1]https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/theresienstadt-red-cross-visit https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/theresiens...

goto11 5y ago
That was Theresienstadt, not Auschwitz. Theresienstadt was specifically staged as a "model camp" for propaganda purposes.
- bmmayer1 5y ago
  You are right. My bad.

reaperducer 5y ago

had the opportunity to bomb and incapacitate it, and didn’t War is not a video game. Bombing an enemy concentration camp, especially with WWII-era weapons, would mean killing the people you're trying to save.

ghufran_syed 5y ago

Wouldn’t bombing the camp kill the prisoners? Or are you suggesting that they could have successfully bombed and “incapacitated” the camp without killing the prisoners? How exactly?

bmmayer1 5y ago
The Americans strafed the concentration camp my grandfather was working at in 1944 from air -- my grandpa still carries a scar from that. It was definitely not an easy decision to attack or not attack these camps.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
Destroying the gas chambers would probably save thousands.
- jaclaz 5y ago
  Well, giving the accuracy of the bombings at the time it wasn't simply possible. Objectives (such as bridges) were often missed by hundreds of meters.
  - rad_gruchalski 5y ago
    I agree. Hence the scale of the bombings in WW2. But the camp operated multiple years. Maybe there was a price to pay but in the long run, maybe it would have been worth taking a chance. We will never now, it’s a maybe game.
  - Someone 5y ago
    Optimist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report: “Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 mi (8.0 km).” https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/theatres-of-war/western-europe/investigation/hamburg/sources/docs/7/ https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/thea... has data for later years. It got better, but stayed bad. https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/ https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/: “Bombing accuracy was terrible. The average circular error in 1943 was 1,200 feet, meaning that only 16 percent of the bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point”
  - 5y ago

FridayoLeary 5y ago

FDR's inactivity during the war, regarding the Jews is a very large, black stain on his legacy.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Animats 5y ago

Old issue. See [1] "The first proposal to bomb Auschwitz was made on 16 May 1944 by a Slovak rabbi." That was 3 weeks before D-Day (June 6, 1944). Eisenhower's policy was to defeat Germany, and not get distracted. He had planned to bypass Paris, which wasn't on the route to Berlin.[2] (De Gaulle went off-script and liberated Paris ahead of schedule, but that's another story.) Eisenhower was trying to hold an alliance with different goals together. All the allies were agreed on "defeat Germany", but there were other national goals. Britain was concerned about preserving its empire, for example. To hold the alliance together, Eisenhower focused on "win the war" above all else. The person this article is about was in the Red Army. "One of just 69 men in his 12,000-strong division to survive the war, Mr Dushman suffered serious injuries during the conflict". The USSR had about 20 million casualties in WWII. Never forget that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_bombing_debate [2] https://www.historynet.com/the-generals-who-brought-paris-back-to-life.htm https://www.historynet.com/the-generals-who-brought-paris-ba...

FridayoLeary 5y ago
The "Slovak Rabbi" was Michael Ber Weissmandel. If FDR and co. had demonstrated even a fraction of his determination to save his fellow Jews, many hundreds of thousands could have been saved. That "not getting distracted" is an absolutely terrible excuse. If FDR had acted, the almost 1 million Hungarian jews still living might not have perished.

rkk3 5y ago

It's questionable how much it would have inhibited their genocide capabilities, it almost certainly would have killed the people in the camps and it was only an option late in the war. Prioritizing strategic targets to end the war & regime faster is defensible.