To bomb or not to bomb, that is the question?

In history there are always a host of exquisitely painful moral dilemmas.  To be honest, I usually rush past them because I find that my mind, or what passes for it, usually seizes up if I attempt to answer them.  One of the most hideously difficult ones is the question as to whether or not we should have bombed Auschwitz during the war.

The Daily Mail has an excellent summary of the problem.  

A Professor of Jewish Studies has claimed that the Allied forces should have gone ahead with plans to bomb Auschwitz during World War II, as a symbol of moral outrage.

Speaking in the BBC Two documentary 1944: Should we Bomb Auschwitz? Professor Michael Berenbaum of The American Jewish University in LA, said that a strike should have gone ahead despite the inevitable death toll, arguing: 'Moral protest in the wake of genocide is much better than nothing. Much, much better than nothing.'

As far as I understand it, due to the range, the technical problem was that the Air Force would have to use traditional heavy/medium bombers whose accuracy was hopeless.  Unfortunately, the Mosquito which would have been able to slot a bomb down the chimney of the gas-chambers (not really, but you take my point!) lacked the ability to fly that far.

A raid by traditional bombers would have slaughtered thousands of prisoners.  Of course, in the chaos perhaps thousands might have made their escape but to where?  And would it have put a brake on the mass slaughter when the Germans realised that we knew exactly what they were doing?  'No answer' came the mournful reply!

An agonising decision and I thank God I was not one of those forced to answer it!

 

 

Comments

[Glesga]

David, the outcome was the best. If the Germans had known the allies knew their game then the survivors would have been less.

[Whyaxye]

Couldn't the heavy bombers have been used to hit the railways leading to it? Carpet bombing of areas with bridges and marshalling yards

[Bob]

Professor Berenbaum is entitled to his opinion, though there's an appearance he has personal reasons for his argument.

The post is a reminder of the bombing of Japan. The 1943 Quebec Agreement between the US, UK and Canada required that all three countries agree before an A bomb could be used. The controversies and complications of that decision are less theoretical than the bombing of Auschwitz.

[Penseivat]

"Couldn't the heavy bombers have been used to hit the railways leading to it?"
That is one of the reasons for the Dresden bombing. As well as being the centre of optics, such as for bomb sights, it was the gateway to the eastern parts of Germany and helped to halt, not only movement of arms to the eastern front, but to halt the movement of prisoners earmarked for concentration camps.

[AussieD]

If you want to start a many sided conversation about bombing Auschwitz just ask a group of my co-religionists. The opinions are wide ranging.

If a decision had been made to do so then what of the other 19 main ones? And the sub-camps attached to them of course.

To see the complexity have a look at

https://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/26/world/nazi-death-camps/index.html

I tend to lean towards Jimmy's opinion but then none of my known relatives were in any of them

[Michael F Adams]

When the Hungarian railways were bombed, the NAZIs just made prisoners walk overland to the camps, or to convenient deep ditches hidden in the forests. I used to believe that the gas chambers ought to have been bombed, until I learned just how determined the Germans were in their mass-murder plans. Winning the war was the surest way to stop the murders.

Yes, what I have learned in the past year or so has made the Dresden bombing seem much more reasonable. I knew one of the survivors of the Dresden bombing, who wrote a short book about it. Her view made it sound like an unjustifiable atrocity. Knowing about the railway marshalling yards puts the whole matter in a different light. [The part about the optics for the bomb sights is less convincing, since by early 1944 the NAZI gasoline supply was much diminished.]

Diplomatic protests also appear to have has little to no effect. Pope Pius XII condemned the ill treatment of Jews, and the NAZI responded by deporting Catholics of Jewish background to Auschwitz. The NAZI were simply the second most devoted followers of JJ Rousseau, who made it very plain that the problems of the world were all the fault of the bourgeoisie. Yes, the Soviets were more effective in eliminating the "class enemies." However, the NAZI did their best/worst.

[Pat]

A moral protest that costs many lives and saves none, whilst diverting resources needed to win is a nonsense.
We seem to live in an age where meaningless gestures are regarded as important, practical results being of no consequence.

[Glyn Palmer]

I always believed the bombing of Dresden was a deliberate demonstration to Stalin of the range and power of the Anglo-American Bomber Fleets.