Could the Allies have bombed the camps?

[Cleopatra]

This is a controversial matter that creates many discussions every time is brought up but since we have many knowledgable people in this forum I am interested in your opinions.

I read the following today and the site the article mentions in inaccessible indeed. Shall we wait until we can see what is this all about?

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/print.php3?what=news&id=56424


Photographs taken by British pilots in 1944, at the height of the Holocaust, reveal the truth of the long-time Jewish claim that the Allies could have bombed the railroad tracks leading to the Nazi death camps - and even the gas chambers themselves.

The archives of some five million photos are being made available today on a new internet site (www.evidenceincamera.co.uk). Some pictures show a clearly-identifiable plume of smoke rising from a crematorium in Auschwitz, while others show smoke rising from burial pits where bodies that were unable to be taken to the crematoria were burned.

"One thing is certain," says Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum director Avner Shalev. "These photos show once again, in a most chilling manner, that which was known before: The Allies were able to reach the death camps, fly over them, photograph them - and bomb them."

British sources say that the tremendous amount of photographs that were taken made it difficult to analyze all of the relevant ones. The Allied intelligence services apparently chose the ones that were of immediate military importance.

Shalev adds that it was in mid-1944 when the destruction of 600,000 Hungarian Jews was at its peak. Yad Vashem archives already have pictures taken by American and South African pilots of the death camps, including some which show the smoke of dead Jews rising skyward. In many cases, an analysis of the time and date of the picture, together with information on the various transports of Jews that arrived at the camps, can produce an accurate picture of the precise origin of the transport eternalized in the photo.

Because of the tremendous interest generated by the site, it has been largely inaccessible since its launching this morning.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is a controversial matter that creates many discussions every time is brought up but since we have many knowledgable people in this forum I am interested in your opinions.



I didn't think that this question was even remotely controversial. I thought it was obvious that the camps could have been bombed.

Not so?

[Cleopatra]

Ok maybe I am prejudiced with the source. Arutz7 is a tad extremistic source.

I have participated in many discussion about that and there are people who believe that the camps were not among the priorities of the Allies since none could imagine what was going on in this camps and to what extension but still.

I have difficulty in shallowing the claim that none had idea about what was going on in the camps and if they couldn't bomb the camps why didn't they bomb the railway system?

[specious_reasons]

What would have been the military value in bombing the concentration camps?

Of course, this question only makes sense if the Allies were concentrating effort only on targets with military value. I don't know if this is true.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Ok maybe I am prejudiced with the source. Arutz7 is a tad extremistic source.

I have participated in many discussion about that and there are people who believe that the camps were not among the priorities of the Allies since none could imagine what was going on in this camps and to what extension but still.

I have difficulty in shallowing the claim that none had idea about what was going on in the camps and if they couldn't bomb the camps why didn't they bomb the railway system?

Today, with our technology, we cannot guarentee a really surgical strike. Imagine what people like AUP would be saying now if something had gone wrong with a strike on the camps.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Ed
Today, with our technology, we cannot guarentee a really surgical strike. Imagine what people like AUP would be saying now if something had gone wrong with a strike on the camps.

Hey you are too harsh on AUP now but he has humour :)

As for what specious _reasons says probably he is right. The allies wouldn't have to gain any benefits from scrutizing what was going on in the camps.

[Cleon]

Well, remember, the Allies weren't waging war against Germany because of the Holocaust; the only reason they would have targetted the camps is if there was some military value.

I do believe--though I could be wrong--that some of the munitions factories that camp prisoners worked in were targetted, but more because they produced munitions than because they were connected to the Holocaust.

I also remain skeptical that strategically bombing the camps would have done much to deter the Germans; rail lines can be repaired, fairly quickly actually. So could the gas chambers, which weren't exactly technological marvels (and even if they were--remember the Einzatzgruppen. Gas chambers were far from the only murder machines the Nazis used). In the grand scheme of things, an Allied assault on a camp would hold the Germans back for a few weeks at most.

It might have been possible for a surgical paratrooper force--with air support--to briefly take control of a camp and the surrounding area in a non-heavily-populated area, such as Sobibor. But the logistics would require major planning, and evacuation of the thousands of prisoners (to say nothing of the soldiers themselves) would be a logistical impossibility for a small force.

[ktesibios]

The Allies did in fact bomb the Auschwitz complex. As part of the bombing campaign against the German oil industry, two raids were directed at the IG Farben synthetic fuel plant at Monowitz (Auschwitz III) in August and September 1944.

This photo (http://www.yad-vashem.org.il/exhibitions/album_auschwitz/air_photo/air_photographs_964_15.html/) shows a stick of American bombs poised over the gas chamber/crematoria structures at Birkenau, on their way to hit the Farben plant.

The raids were preceded by several photoreconnaissance missions; apparently the photoanalysts never identified the nature of the Birkenau camp.

Reports of what was happening at the Auschwitz complex from two Jewish escapees and a Polish army officer who had escaped reached the US government in July 1944. This was probably too late to influence the planning of the bombing missions.

The Allies seem to have concluded ultimately that the best way to stop the genocide was to whup the Nazis as quickly as possible, and not to conduct missions that didn't directly advance this military aim.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

As for what specious _reasons says probably he is right. The allies wouldn't have to gain any benefits from scrutizing what was going on in the camps.

I was originally thinking that, even if the Allies knew what was happening in the camps, the need to bomb other military targets might outwiegh the desire to stop the transport and killing of people in concentration camps.

But., like I said, that assumes that only targets of military value were being chosen at the time.

Although, your interpretation makes as much sense: Once military intelligence determined each camp was not a military target, less scrutiny was applied to the goings-on there.

Excuse my ignorance, but didn't some concentration camps have some level of manufacturing? That might have made them potential targets worthy of additional scrutiny.

[headscratcher4]

A couple of thought occur.

First, I believe it is pretty well historically accepted that the allies could see the camps, and had a reasonably good idea what was going on...not the horror of the places per se, but that they knew that the Germans were "concentrating" Jews and other populations, and were likely killing many. I know/read how information of this kind reached Dulles in Geneva and was made known at allied HQ.

Second, this raises the question: was the inaction the result of: lack of military importance of the target? Latent Euro-American anti-semitisim? Some combination of both?

I suspect that it is some combination of both, but weighted to the side of not having a good military reason for taking out the train lines to the camps etc. I suppose, even given what the allies were told, it was difficult to believe it was happening (note the Dutch in the Balkans -- can't remember the name of the town, Srebernica? -- where they let the Serbs massacre thousands...). My point is that disbilief, bigotry, need all combined to allow the camps to keep functioning, IMO.

Finally, as an aside to the point about military value. I note that the allies probably had a pretty good idea (though this is speculation on my part) where the Russian POWs were being held and starved to death (remembering the Nazi's treated the Russian POWs little better than they did Jews, letting hundreds (over a million?) of thousands starve to death). We didn't bomb the lines into those camps either...though I suppose you could argue that making POWs hard to control might have been of military value.

Just thinking...

[Cleopatra]

The idea that there might be a 0.0000001 % of antisemitism involved in the decision not to bomb the camps brings tears to my eyes and I just refuse to believe it.

I find more acceptable the idea that people couldn't think of the horror, I can live with that idea but I refuse to accept that bigotry is involved.

This is the point that I have been aguing in various Jewish fora. Some people have accused me of being in denial but I don't think so.

Also, I am suspicious as to why the Israeli right brings that on air again and now. We all know that their plan is to scare the Jews in Europe so, maybe this is part of this plan too.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The idea that there might be a 0.0000001 % of antisemitism involved in the decision not to bomb the camps brings tears to my eyes and I just refuse to believe it.

Cleo, while I sympathize with your desire not to want to believe it.....

Remember the St. Louis. Remember all the refugees refused entry to Allied countries. Denying that anti-Semitism played a role in this is denying reality.

[headscratcher4]

Well, I believe anti-Semitism played some role in the thinking about the camps. And, when I say "anti-Semitism" I don't mean the rabid Nazi anti-Semitism, or even the primativist anti-Semitism of groups like the KKK in the US.

I mean that sort of upper-crust anti-Semitism so prevalent in Great Britain before (and after the war), and the sort of anti-Semitism that enabled American universities to put quotas on Jews. etc.

My point is that this kind of prejudice seems to have played a role in how you prioritize your targeting. Not that the camps would ever have likely been at the top of a targeting list, but that it could keep them toward the bottom

Now, saying that, I also firmly believe the ability of the allies to imagine what was going on...even when told ...was limited. Note, Eisenhower's reaction upon visiting a Concentration camp...Belsen I believe...he wanted everyone in the region to be forced to view what had occurred there. He ordered reporters to photograph and document everything. I also think he did a radio broadcast from the site describing what he'd seen. Clearly, he had little idea of the full nature of the final solution, even though he probably knew that camps and relocation centers for Jews and other Nazi enemies existed.

Finally, regardless of the reasoning, it is very easy to second-guess strategic choices 50 years on. Targeting decisions and how they fit with other strategic necessities are unique to the moment in many cases. I fear we see air bombardment like that in Iraq and think...that would be easy, just blow up some train lines and shot that death camp down. Nothing about the air war, or any part of the allied effort for that matter, was easy. Indeed, even absent any latent prejudice, a commitment to disrupting Nazi extermination efforts would have been very difficult to fulfill, and dangerous -- recalling that the worst camps were deep in the East -- the farthest point for many allied raids. Pilot safety, fuel availability, military utility, etc. along with other considerations -- including ignorance and prejudice -- played into those decisions as they did every military decision.

Further, the Germans were hell bent on extermination. Remember, the SS got priority for its trains, even at the cost of the army. The point is that a concerted effort against the camps would have run into the concerted effort of the Nazis to keep the camps going. Not a reason for not attacking, merely to point out that taking out a train line...or even if you could with precision, a gas chamber (assuming you could tell from recon that that is what it was), would have been met with German efforts to find new ways to kill.

[Graham]

Assuming the Allies had full and complete knowledge of the extent of the horror at the camps, which I think is doubtful - no matter how good the aerial photos are (remember that we are looking at them with the benefit of hindsight and decades of similar events, in the USSR for instance, - at the time it was an unprecedented situation) but assuming that they did, it still would have taken, IMO, a very hard will indeed to take the decision to bomb camps which, no matter what else they knew, they knew were chick-full of friendly civilian prisoners.

Whatever about shock and awe nowadys, the Allies in WW2 certainly hadn't the technology to hit gas chambers and miss dormitories - the friendly casulties from air raids on concentration camps would have been horrendous and the actual effect on the Nazi killing machine very likely minimal.

IMO, bombing raids on concentration camps would only have succeeded in doing the Nazis' work for them and providing them with a propaganda coup in the process.

Imagine what the Cleopatras of this world would be saying today if the net was filled with pictures of Jews killed by Allied bombs . . .

Graham

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Graham
Assuming the Allies had full and complete knowledge of the extent of the horror at the camps, which I think is doubtful - no matter how good the aerial photos are (remember that we are looking at them with the benefit of hindsight and decades of similar events, in the USSR for instance, - at the time it was an unprecedented situation) but assuming that they did, it still would have taken, IMO, a very hard will indeed to take the decision to bomb camps which, no matter what else they knew, they knew were chick-full of friendly civilian prisoners.

Whatever about shock and awe nowadys, the Allies in WW2 certainly hadn't the technology to hit gas chambers and miss dormitories - the friendly casulties from air raids on concentration camps would have been horrendous and the actual effect on the Nazi killing machine very likely minimal.

IMO, bombing raids on concentration camps would only have succeeded in doing the Nazis' work for them and providing them with a propaganda coup in the process.

Imagine what the Cleopatras of this world would be saying today if the net was filled with pictures of Jews killed by Allied bombs . . .

Graham

I don't see how hard this will has to be, after all allies bombed German cities into the Stone Age knowing very well they would be killing civilians. Even during the landing at Normandy there were plenty of French civilians casualties that would drive today's protesters up the walls with rage.

[jj]

Let me get this straight. Bombers, beyond their fighter cover in an area where air superiority is contested to say the least, with Norden bombsights, are supposed to engage in pinpoint bombing of structures within 100 feet of buildings where known friendlies are incarcerated?

GET REAL!

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Graham

Imagine what the Cleopatras of this world would be saying today if the net was filled with pictures of Jews killed by Allied bombs . . .

Graham

My grandmother arrived in Bergen Belsen in March of 1943 I can't help thinking if things would be different if the camps were bombed earlier.You shouldn't have said that Graham.

[c0rbin]

Graham, I get a chuckle from your avatar in light of this thread discussing WWII bombing.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


My grandmother arrived in Bergen Belsen in March of 1943 I can't help thinking if things would be different if the camps were bombed earlier.You shouldn't have said that Graham.

With the technology of the day, there is no assurance that any bombing raid would go as planned. It could have just as well left the death-facilities intact and blown up the barracks. The most likely result would be lots of damage to everything within a quarter-mile.

I don't think there is a simple answer here. I'm sorry about your Grandmother, but I wonder if the opposite would have been trading her for some other innocent. :( No, I don't have a solution. I didn't build the camp, nor did I operate it, nor was I even alive. I did have a half-brother who was a navigator then bombadier on a B29, and I know from him just how accurate they were NOT. (Well, I also know the appallingly low hit percentage of WWII bombs, which is also bad news in this context. "Smart Bombs" of even crummy varieties were not around until 'Nam', and they weren't very popular then, they required a fighter to play tag with missiles until the bombs hit in order to designate the target.)

No, I'm not saying I like any of the options, I'm saying that there would not appear to be any obvious answer here, any such raid would have been quite as likely to kill as save.

I suppose if we knew for sure what the turnover rate of the camps were (i.e. if we were to run a raid, hit the dorms as well by accident and kill all the prisoners, would that STILL, by eliminating the death chambers, save lives in total), there could be an informed decision, but I'd be glad not to be the one to have to make it.

[Cleopatra]

I know that it's a problem and I can see the practical difficulties in bombing a camp. There were many difficulties and maybe the important were the civilians in the cities and the war to be won but it's crucial to know why the allies didn't bomb the camps.

Was it only due to practical difficulties or was ideology involved?

Although I have been arguing for a couple of months with Capel Dodger mostly and with others about the extent of antisemitism in western countries in the eve of WWII I have difficulties to believe that this( antisemitism) played any role...

[RussDill]

If the allies believed them to be concentration, work, or POW camps, it would seem incredibly immoral to bomb the rail lines to me. In a "normal" concentration camp, where do you think all the food comes in? The rail lines.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Was it only due to practical difficulties or was ideology involved?

You're never going to know the answer to that question.

[Luke T.]

Yad Vashem archives already have pictures taken by American and South African pilots of the death camps, including some which show the smoke of dead Jews rising skyward.

Photoanalyst: Yessir. That there is a plume of smoke that can only be made by dead Jews, sir. :rolleyes:

We had our own concentration camps right here in America. That surely must have colored how we interpreted the presence of concentration camps elsewhere.

[bignickel]

Thank you for posting JJ. That first post pretty much sums it up.

I would like to add that anyone reading Dr. Shermer's book "Why do people believe wierd things" can see some of the aerial recon photographs that were made of one of the camps.

Can you spot the huge signs on the ground that say "Jews killed in this building"?

Those who have EVIDENCE of what the Allies knew can present it. I'm all ears.


EDITED TO ADD: Our brave soldiers who were over there fighting against the fascists were in harm's way not because they wanted to, but because their country asked them to. Everyone of them ran the risk of taking a bullet and never coming home to their mothers, fathers, spouses, and children, all because they were there defending their country from tyranny.

TO then say 'they didn't do enough, they didn't do it fast enough, they didn't hit this target or that one' is the HEIGHT of INGRATITUDE. It is armchair generaling of the worst sort. I'd advise them to actually read something substantial about the war, instead of this revisionist claptrap.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I know that it's a problem and I can see the practical difficulties in bombing a camp. There were many difficulties and maybe the important were the civilians in the cities and the war to be won but it's crucial to know why the allies didn't bomb the camps.

Was it only due to practical difficulties or was ideology involved?



What evidence is there that the allies KNEW in any detail that this unprecedented extermination programme was going on. Still less that there was anything they could do about it?

In the link you quoted it states

.............. ""One thing is certain," says Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum director Avner Shalev. "These photos show once again, in a most chilling manner, that which was known before: The Allies were able to reach the death camps, fly over them, photograph them - and bomb them."...............................


Frankly this is damn silly. Photo reconnaissance was usually carried out by specially equipped planes which flew high and fast and were very difficult targets to hit. They were only lightly armed and couldn't carry out a ground attack.

The ability to take a picture of something doesn't mean that an attack is practical even if you know what function the target performs.

The idea that individual railway lines could be targeted is also rather foolish. The transport system was already a target but long range high altitude daylight bombers would not stand much chance of hitting something as small as a railway line leading to a camp, or doing much damage if they did.

[jj]

Originally posted by bignickel
Those who have EVIDENCE of what the Allies knew can present it. I'm all ears.


Agreed, but if we stipulate that evidence was known, known to be accurate, right, etc, we STILL had no technology that we could address the situation with that wasn't likely to do at least as much harm as good, at least by addressing it directly. Winning the war would might actually easier than selectively blowing up specific parts of a given death camp.

[LW]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
if they couldn't bomb the camps why didn't they bomb the railway system?

I don't know what went in the decision process, but in general railways were very hard to knock out for any significant time.

The experiences of Finnish bomber pilots gained from raids to Murmansk (Kirov) railway were:

(1) It is very difficult to hit a railway with a level bomber;

(2) It takes only a couple of hours to fix a direct bomb hit at tracks; and

(3) A better way to knock off a railroad track for longer periods is to wreck a train on it. Even then, it can be cleared within a day.

(4) The only way to knock a railroad out for a period longer than one or two days is to destroy a railroad bridge. A bridge is even more difficult to hit than railroad general, they usually can withstand one or two direct hits without significant damage, and are heavily defended. Also, depending on the enemy priorities, even bridges can be fixed in surprisingly short time if necessary.

Sure, Finnish pilots flew lighter aircraft with worse bombsights than the allies had, but the difference is not big enough to make railroad attacks very profitable. They would have to commit large numbers of aircraft for a long time to ensure that the railroad stays closed.

It is quite certain that 1943 allies couldn't have done that. I'm not certain about mid-late 1944.

[Shaun from Scotland]

The only way of destroying the facilities at Auschwitz would be to bomb it heavily and continue to bomb it heavily. In other words, throw massive resources into attacks that would not shorten the war by a single day.

The only way the Allies could help those people was to destroy the Nazi war machine.

They did.

Be grateful.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Nikk

What evidence is there that the allies KNEW in any detail that this unprecedented extermination programme was going on. Still less that there was anything they could do about it?

Why you ask me? I didn't suggest anything of that or you ask me because you think that I believe those things by default?

originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
The only way the Allies could help those people was to destroy the Nazi war machine.

They did.

Be grateful.


You must be joking.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

You must be joking.
Joking about what?? As a descendant of victims of Nazism are you not gratefull to the people that toppled it?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by The Fool

Joking about what?? As a descendant of victims of Nazism are you not gratefull to the people that toppled it?

Well, besides help found a new state for the Jews, supply arms and loans and help crush the resistance of the land's orignal owners, and veto any motions in the UN that they should pull their neck in a bit, what have the allies done lately?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Fool

Joking about what?? As a descendant of victims of Nazism are you not gratefull to the people that toppled it?


I will say this only once. I am reading your posts, you are not in my ignore list because I want to see what you are posting but I don't intend to get engaged in discussions with you anymore. I will save us both a lot of time.

ok? :)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



I will say this only once. I am reading your posts, you are not in my ignore list because I want to see what you are posting but I don't intend to get engaged in discussions with you anymore. I will save us both a lot of time.

ok? :)

I expect you're going to have to answer the question sooner or later. You might save yourself some time by answering it now.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I expect you're going to have to answer the question sooner or later. You might save yourself some time by answering it now.

A smart person who wouldn't suffer from serious deficiencies in reading comprehension wouldn't have posed this question, especially after reading what I wrote in this thread.

Your question shows exactly the length of your malice and of your ignorance when it comes to the industry that is called war especially when we are talking about the History of WWII.

Unless you have a new theory to launch according to which the Allies got involved in this War with the Germans because they wanted to save the Jews.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
The only way of destroying the facilities at Auschwitz would be to bomb it heavily and continue to bomb it heavily.
In other words, throw massive resources into attacks that would not shorten the war by a single day.

The only way the Allies could help those people was to destroy the Nazi war machine.

Agreed.

[Zep]

Just my little contribution:

1. The accuracy of bombing in 1944/45 was far higher than at the start of the war. At that time, British night bombers could reasonably expect to drop into a target circle of about 300 yards radius from the target point, from a height of about 20,000 feet, under ideal conditions. American day bombers acheived similar accuracy. The bombing accuracy decreased faster than the increase in altitude, such that bombing from 30,000 feet (as the B29's did over Japan) expanded the target circle to over half a mile radius, again under ideal conditions.

2. Any adverse factors such as crosswinds (and there may have been more than one), haze or cloud, aircraft instability or drift or movement at the point of release (not to mention enemy aircraft and flak attacks) and crew skill levels greatly expanded the target circle, i.e. reduced accuracy and thus concentration of force.

3. Using specialised bombsights and radically new techniques, the atomic mission crews were able to reduce their target circle to about 200 yards from over 30,000 feet - remarkable pinpoint accuracy for their day. However, on the Hiroshima mission, they still missed the designated aiming point by over 800 yards... This highlights the fact that, even though pinpoint accuracy can be achieved, rarely does it happen when the cards are on the table.

4. The Auschwitz/Birkenau complex was in southern Poland, a heck of a long way from most Western Allied lines in 1944, further from them than Berlin which itself was already considered a "long-distance target". As said above, to mount a raid on this target would mean big fuel loads which would have necessitated relatively light bomb-loads.

5. All up, the distance required to be flown, the relatively light bomb-load available, and especially the lack of accuracy from a relatively safe bombing height, would have quickly precluded the rail lines and crematoria at Auschwitz/Birkenau as a viable pinpoint target by conventional bombing methods of the day.

6. By comparison, a similar raid on Peenemunde, aimed at the V1/V2 works in an attempt to stall their development, missed the target by about a mile or so and struck the personnel housing area instead. Minimal serious damage was actually done to the factories. The Germans simply relocated the works to bombproof caves or areas they considered were out of Allied bomber reach, and carried on development. One of these areas was southern Poland...

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


A smart person who wouldn't suffer from serious deficiencies in reading comprehension wouldn't have posed this question, especially after reading what I wrote in this thread.

Your question shows exactly the length of your malice and of your ignorance when it comes to the industry that is called war especially when we are talking about the History of WWII.

Unless you have a new theory to launch according to which the Allies got involved in this War with the Germans because they wanted to save the Jews.

I consider myself to be fairly smart, well, not dribblingly senile just yet anyway, and I'd like to pose the question as well. In this thread you've asked why the allies didn't bomb the gas chambers and/ or the railway lines leading to them. You've received a number of answers, most of them informed and reasonable, with, I feel a preponderence of opinion leaning towards;
1. Bombs inaccurate, can't guarantee success
2. Railway lines can be quickly repaired so long-term gain minimal
3. Inefficient use of resources, bombers could do more good elsewhere
4. Planners not fully cogniscent of nature of specific camps

The merits of all of these can be argued, but I think they're probably fairly reasonable. What I don't understand is what your specific problem is with these answers.

[charley_bigtime]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Unless you have a new theory to launch according to which the Allies got involved in this War with the Germans because they wanted to save the Jews.

I don't think that was what SfS originally meant. Even if it was an extraordinarily flippant remark.

I think he meant that a net result of the defeat of the Nazis was that another who-knows-how-many jews didn't get knocked off.

But then again what do I know...I'm a poet not a reader of minds.

;)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


A smart person who wouldn't suffer from serious deficiencies in reading comprehension wouldn't have posed this question, especially after reading what I wrote in this thread.

Your question shows exactly the length of your malice and of your ignorance when it comes to the industry that is called war especially when we are talking about the History of WWII.

Unless you have a new theory to launch according to which the Allies got involved in this War with the Germans because they wanted to save the Jews.

I think you could do with a little brush-up about war yourself. You don't seem to understand that World War II wasn't some Boy Scout jaunt, shooting the Krauts just for the heck of it. The Allies were fighting for their lives.

We seem to forget this little fact. I mean, we won, and we were never going to lose, right? Well, that little fact wasn't appreciated back then. The Allies were concentrating on keeping the Axis from taking over Europe, nothing more. The prisoners could always be freed later (I don't know if the Allies were aware that Jews were being exterminated at the time).

If you have to point blame, try rewinding a little earlier, to when the Jews were seeking refuge in other countries, and turned back. But to say that the Allies should have bombed the camps to me is a little like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by charley_bigtime


I don't think that was what SfS originally meant. Even if it was an extraordinarily flippant remark.


Flippant to suggest we be grateful for the allies defeat of the Nazis?

[Cleopatra]

Mr. Manifesto, please instead of playing the same old cassette read what I wrote.

Nikk, Hypocolius and you asked me about something I didn't claim, in fact I made the opposite claim. Hypocolius is excluded but I want to know why you and Nikk posed with that style that question to me? Do you read what I write or you don't read anything and you believe that I accept certain things just because I am jewish?

The three of you should have posed your questions to :Headscracher, Cleon and aerocontrols who see something more in that. Why didn't you pose your questions to them? Why don't you try to address that idea? Have you read their posts?

One thing about the gratitude(sic).

I am grateful to the Greeks who joined the Allies and fought like crazy in this War, loosing practically everything. I am grateful to the Greek Christian citizens who risked their lives to save as many Jews as possible. I am grateful to Archibishop Damaskinos who gave false certifications of baptism to many jewish citizens and saved their lives and I am grateful to Aggelos Evert the chief of the Police who privided as many Jews as he could with false IDs and saved them from death. These events took place in Athens , my family unfortunately was living 700km away in Thessaloniki but this doesn't mean anything to me, I feel grateful that those people existed.

Last but not least --and Mr. Manifesto you won't like that-- I am grateful to Great Britain and especially to Winston Churchill who didn't let Greece to become a Communist Country and today Greece is not like Albania and the rest Balkan countries that were given as present to Stalin.

As for the subject , I repeat it because--regardless your brilliant ability in reading comprehension you missed it -- I think that the Allies knew what was going on in the Camps--they couldn't imagine the extend of the genocide but they knew.

They couldn't do anything more than they did.The important was to win the War.

Some people claim what headscratcher4 expressed in his message, an idea that I believe that it must be addressed because it seems like a conspiracy theory to me.

And let me finish with the usual: Get over it!

[Hypocolius]

Cleo, The only thing I was confused over was why you took off on one with so little apparent provocation, but maybe you have a history with those guys....

As to whether the allies knew what was going on. I don't know for sure, but I should imagine by the time the photos in question were taken they had pretty accurate information about what was going on. Whether or not they believed it, is of course a different matter. At the moment I'm reading a couple of supposedly true stories written by veterans of WW2. They were written immediately after the war, and the picture they paint of the Germans and Japanese is so ludicrously biased that I have serious doubts about the truthfulness of the books. I should imagine that war-time planners would have had similar doubts when hearing stories of gas chambers and crematoria as told by Polish Jews (or whoever). Their personal BS meters would probably have suggested to them that these tales might have grown in the telling. They weren't to know that Aushwitz was basically unexaggeratable.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Hypocolius
Cleo, The only thing I was confused over was why you took off on one with so little apparent provocation, but maybe you have a history with those guys....

You could say that I have a history but in the specific case they made a silly question about something I haven't claimed! The one is out of control lately and the other one does this systematically.

As to whether the allies knew what was going on. I don't know for sure, but I should imagine by the time the photos in question were taken they had pretty accurate information about what was going on. Whether or not they believed it, is of course a different matter. At the moment I'm reading a couple of supposedly true stories written by veterans of WW2. They were written immediately after the war, and the picture they paint of the Germans and Japanese is so ludicrously biased that I have serious doubts about the truthfulness of the books. I should imagine that war-time planners would have had similar doubts when hearing stories of gas chambers and crematoria as told by Polish Jews (or whoever). Their personal BS meters would probably have suggested to them that these tales might have grown in the telling. They weren't to know that Aushwitz was basically unexaggeratable.

I know. I know. Who could believe what was going on. Even if they knew they couldn't have imagined the extent and even if they have realized the extent of the genocide they couldn't do anything, the important was to win the war but in 2004 that things have gone wild it's essential to know and to debunk the idea that the camps weren't bombed because the Jews were considerd second class human beings. It is important to the jewish people.

On this idea some people are trying to build a policy.

Also, the question tortures me and I want to know. Aerocontrols said that we will never know with certainty. I am not certain about that.

[Mr Manifesto]

Am I the out-of-control one or the systematic one?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Am I the out-of-control one or the systematic one?

Argh!

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Argh!

Oh, so you're saying your the out-of-control one. Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Sorry it took me a while to figure it out.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Oh, so you're saying your the out-of-control one. Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Sorry it took me a while to figure it out.


Leaving me aside do you have anything to add to the topic? Do you intend to address the questions you posed to me "by mistake" to headscratcher, cleon and aerocontrols?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



Leaving me aside do you have anything to add to the topic? Do you intend to address the questions you posed to me "by mistake" to headscratcher, cleon and aerocontrols?

I would but this... Stupid, old cassette... Is stuck! I can't stop it playing!

Oh well.

BTW- you haven't answered my questions, yet. You aren't ducking the issue, are you?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Grammatron


I don't see how hard this will has to be, after all allies bombed German cities into the Stone Age knowing very well they would be killing civilians. Even during the landing at Normandy there were plenty of French civilians casualties that would drive today's protesters up the walls with rage.

I meant in the the sense that you would have to be pretty sure of your information to start bombing concentration camps full of civilians, for the purposes of saving lives.

I don't doubt that if there had been important military objectives at the same locations, the Allies would happily have bombed them into the ground, civilians and all . . . well, perhaps not happily . . .

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


My grandmother arrived in Bergen Belsen in March of 1943 I can't help thinking if things would be different if the camps were bombed earlier.You shouldn't have said that Graham.

I can say what I like, thanks, though it wasn't intended to be offensive.

It seems to me that if the Allies had made a habit of bombing concentration camps, then at the end of the war when people started asking awkward questions lilke "where did all these dead Jews come from" the answer would have been "They were killed by Allied bombs" and, while lots of people wouldn't have believed that answer, plenty of people would happily have done so - willfully even. Witness the glee with which people like, what was his name, that pseudo-communist troll that was around a while back - Huzington, I think - look at the way they latch onto any half-baked lie about the purges and famines and gulags in the Soviet Union.

Secondly, if the Allies had systematically bombed the camps, do you think the Nazis would:

(a) have stopped killing Jews (and gypsies, retarded people and the rest too, don't forget)

or

(b) have stopped doing it in big, obvious camps and started shooting them in their bedrooms instead and not bothering to cart them halfway across the country first.

(b) seems more likely to me, I'm afraid.

I am sorry about your grandmother though.

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Graham, I get a chuckle from your avatar in light of this thread discussing WWII bombing.



There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he would have to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. “That’s some catch, that Catch-22,” he observed. “It’s the best there is,” Doc Daneeka agreed.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Aerocontrols said that we will never know with certainty. I am not certain about that.

The more time that passes, the less accurate memories become, and the fewer witnesses remain. The fewer witnesses that remain, the more likely crackpot conspiracy theorists will be believed (just look at the holocaust deniers. Can you imagine them existing in 1946?) If we don't know this with certainty now, then I'm afraid that we never will.

[Jon_in_london]

I think there are a number of reasons why the camps werent bombed.

1- Aversion to dropping bombs on the civillian victims of the Nazis.
2- Lack of any military benefit
3- Loss of irreplaceable aircrew and aircraft, each one of which was desperately needed elsewhere.
4- Extreme range (most camps in poland) meaning that they were either out of range altogether or that the bomb load carried would be negligable (Most of the British bombing raids focused on cities like Hamburg and Cologne that were not too deep into Germany)
5- Poor accuracy. In the early year, night bombers would be lucky get their bombs within 100 miles of the right town. Mostly they just ended up bombing potatoes. Although at the end of the war, radio-navigation was so sophisticated that it was possible for raids of around 100 bombers to hit a factory-sized target, this wasnt fully realised and raids of 1000+ bombers on entire cities were still the norm later in the war.

I think trying to read anti-semtism into this is kind of unfair.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

You must be joking.

I am niether joking nor being flippant about one of the most important turning points in human history.

I find your comment absolutely extraordinary.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
The only way of destroying the facilities at Auschwitz would be to bomb it heavily and continue to bomb it heavily. In other words, throw massive resources into attacks that would not shorten the war by a single day.


Thats true.

It also a salient that some people dont seem to be able to distinguish between an unarmed, specialy modified recce plane, a fighter-bomber and a heavy bomber.

The first is unable to carry out any kind of attack, the second can hit pinpoint targets but has a very short range and the third can go a fair distance but isnt accurate and is very vulnerable to attack itself.

[Graham]

From the article in the OP

Some pictures show a clearly-identifiable plume of smoke rising from a crematorium in Auschwitz

Why would smoke rising from a crematorium surprise anybody anyway?

It seems to me that, unless you already knew what was going on at the camps and were looking for evidence, you would expect to see smoke rising from a crematorium and think nothing much of it.

I suppose if you saw a huge volume of smoke coming from a crematorium for a prolonged period, you could draw conclusions from that but I don't imagine the Allies photographed the same camps day after day.

That's even assuming you knew it was a crematorium and not just a garbage incinerator or some kind of factory.

Has anyone been able to access the actual photos?

Graham

[Jon_in_london]

LOOK!!! A PLUME OF SMOKE!!! LETS SACRIFICE 100 BOMBERS AND 1000 AIRCREW TO PUT IT OUT.

[Reginald]

War is a period of terrible decisions. Decisions that could seem right at the time, be considered the best possible, but in hindsight turn out to be bad.

You will find many of them, those that caused or allowed the death of one person...or many people. Some decisions saved the lives of many too. It's far far too easy to look back in history, knowing the whole story, every detail and pass or ask for judgment of these decisions.

The camps could have been bombed, the chambers destroyed, the Nazis still had plenty of bullets, the inmates would have been worked to death repairing the damage, nothing would have changed. Don't forget that they were an inventive people when it came to getting rid of others, they had tried many ways and found all of them sucessful...terribly successful.

One can sit back in the comfort of the year 2004 and say "Was Churchill right to allow the bombing of one of his own cities to happen without allowing the populace a chance to evacuate, just to protect the secret of our code breaking abilities?" "Was Truman right to drop the atomic bombs to save yet more bloodshed attacking the mainland of an enemy that had no will to surrender?" You can go on and on. I realise that the subject is highly emotive.....but how can we, people who have never (on the whole) had to make the kind of decision that people did at all levels in WW2, sit here and claim to be in any position to judge.

The things that happened, happened. To claim that the allies did not fight hard enough or in the correct way is somewhat distasteful. Sorry, and I am sure that 45,000,000+ allied and civilian casualties would be less than happy to hear it.

[Shaun from Scotland]

There is no doubt that at the high levels of command, the Allies knew what was going on in Auschwitz and across occupied Europe in general. But the decision not to attack them was based on sound military principles. There was no hidden agenda behind this.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
There is no doubt that at the high levels of command, the Allies knew what was going on in Auschwitz and across occupied Europe in general.

Well, there's no doubt they were told, but whether or not they believed it is another question. I don't think it was until late 1944, or early 1945 that the true extent of the camps was confirmed. Let me check my library tonight and I'll enlighten all tomorrow.

[The Don]

Cleopatra seems to argue by leaving elephant traps lying aroung and waiting for someone to step into one.

By coyly asking "do you think...." Cleopatra is effectively saying "I think that...."

I wholeheartedly agree with many of the immediately preceeding posts.

- Photographing a target is much easier than bombing it
- Bombing the camps would have been low on the list of military priorities
- Precision fighter-bomber strikes would have been near impossible at that range
- Bombing would have been ineffective at stopping the terrible activities of the camps unless htay had been regularly carpet bombed

By playing the antisematism card you are effectively excluding the millions of non-Jewish victims of the Nazi regime, the gentile Romanys, Poles, Czechs, Russians, French, Homosexuals etc. etc.

[Crossbow]

I can think of a few reasons why the Nazi death camps were not bombed.

First, they were defined as areas where non-combant areas and as such attacking them could be construed as a violation of the Rules of War since such an attack would likely kill many of the people that would be the object of liberation.

Second, they really had no military value, whereas there were plenty of other targets with military value.

Third, simply bombing them would not to too much good if one really wanted to stop the genocide. To actually stop this, one would have to attack, invade, occupy, and control Germany; aircraft are good on the attack aspect, but very poor at the other three aspects.

Sorry to sound so negative, but I really do not think that bombing the camps would have really stopped anything. Please keep in mind that the Nazis were already engaged in genocide before the camps were built, however, the camps made the genocide more efficient.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Suppose the Allies had bombed Auschwitz and destroyed the railway lines...

1/How long would it have taken to relay them, considering they are easy to repair and there is a massive pool of forced labour on the doorstep?

2/ If they had destroyed the crematoria and gas chambers how long would that take to rebuild? And why would the Germans not go back to shooting them in mass graves in the meantime?

3/ There were hunderdeds of concentration camps throughout occupied Europe. Where the allies to bomb them all?

[Luke T.]

It sounds to me that the people who claim the Allies knew exactly what was going on in the concentration camps and chose to ignore what was happening and not do anything about it are making a big mistake. They have taken a grain of Truth and blown it out of proportion to suit some agenda. But what happens in cases like this is that their exaggeration is exposed, and all other claims related to their cause are brought into question. And so we have revisionists who claim the 6,000,000 figure is also an exaggeration.

[LW]

Originally posted by Graham

(b) have stopped doing it in big, obvious camps and started shooting them in their bedrooms instead and not bothering to cart them halfway across the country first.


Well, an important reason for the Nazi decision to construct death camps was that they couldn't really shoot all Jews.

The SS death units shot a horrible number of Jews in Poland and Soviet Union. For example, the one police batallion that Browning writes about killed at least 10000 Jews during the time that it was active. However, that rate was still too slow for the Nazis to kill all Jews.

Also, the death units caused disturbance in the army rear areas. Many (if not most) of their men succumbed to alcoholism and were constantly drunk, causing all sorts of trouble.

The Nazi leadership wanted to hide the true extent of the genocide from the German people. Mass murders happened mostly in East in the occupied territories. Killing the Western European Jews without transportation would have acted against this goal.

Anyway, my belief is that shutting down the camps by air attacks was not possible in WWII settings.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by The Don
Cleopatra seems to argue by leaving elephant traps lying aroung and waiting for someone to step into one.

By coyly asking "do you think...." Cleopatra is effectively saying "I think that...."


Please, leave the mind reading aside, it is quite unnecessary since I always say openly what I think.

originally posted by Graham

I can say what I like, thanks, though it wasn't intended to be offensive.

Of course you can say what ever you like but you refered specifically to me by making a similar joke with the one Ed made against AUP although it's not the same at all. I and what you think I represent am personally implicated, Unique and what Ed thinks that he represent is not, this doesn't mean that he cares less but it's not the same.

It seems to me that if the Allies had made a habit of bombing concentration camps, then at the end of the war when people started asking awkward questions lilke "where did all these dead Jews come from" the answer would have been "They were killed by Allied bombs" and, while lots of people wouldn't have believed that answer, plenty of people would happily have done so - willfully even. Witness the glee with which people like, what was his name, that pseudo-communist troll that was around a while back - Huzington, I think - look at the way they latch onto any half-baked lie about the purges and famines and gulags in the Soviet Union.


You know when you are jewish you have to listen to every sort of lie,you are surrounded by lies regarding your existence, you even hear that 11/9 is a jewish conspiracy thing,you are kind of used to lies against you and also after 2000 of procecutions and terrible lies of this sort it's terribly difficult not to be suspicious.

I think that the answer to the issue is more simple. In a war I have never heard of bombings of POW's camps in order to save the prisoners. The main argument is that these were not just POW's camps but death camps and the Allies must have done something. I consider the whole concept wrong.

Death camps or not there was nothing to be done back then. I happen to know by eye witnesses that when the Americans and the Russians liberated the first camps , a chaos was created.

Graham, don't forget please that there are many things regarding the camps that raised suspicions and left room to the imagination. The results of the medical experiments on the prisoners and all the discussions they created is what comes to my mind right now for example.

Secondly, if the Allies had systematically bombed the camps, do you think the Nazis would:

I don't reply to those questions because I have already covered those issues in my previous posts at least twice.

I am sorry about your grandmother though.

I mentioned my grandmother to show you that for some people this discussion is beyond an agenda.

[Supercharts]

It seems to me that if the Allies thought bombing "camps" would be the right thing to do then there would be some evidence that the Allies bombed POW camps. Did the USAAF or RAF bomb POW camps in Germany during the war to 'free' their POWs? Did the Russians bomb camps to free russian POWs? Did the Nazi's bomb German POW camps in the U.K.?
If they did - and I know of no sources that said they did or did not - then the question of bombing concentration camps as an effective means of ending the war or holocaust could be argued based on fact.
I know that the US did not bomb POW camps in Korea or Vietnam.

[Cleopatra]

Yes this is what I tried to say Supercharts, bombing POWs' camps or let's say camps of civilians is not a war practice I am aware of.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Ed


Today, with our technology, we cannot guarentee a really surgical strike. . .

That's the reason we couldn't have struck the railways or the chambers themselves. Precision guided munitions didn't exist in WWII, it could be difficult enough just finding the right city. Each side dropped tons of bombs in raids and quite often missed their targets or hit the wrong target accidently. Any attempt to bomb a building inside the camp would have resulted in the camp being flattened.

[Chaos]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes this is what I tried to say Supercharts, bombing POWs' camps or let's say camps of civilians is not a war practice I am aware of.

I think there was one instance of bombers (I don´t know which kind) attacking a POW camp in German-occupied France to help in a mass break-out, but I do not know when or exactly where.

However, I think this is an entirely different matter.

- the POW camp inmates were Allied soldiers who were, to some extent, trained in escape and evasion, while the jewish civilians, especially former city inhabitants, would probably have been lost in the countryside.
- the camp was much closer to the Allied bases in Britain, so that the more accurate fighter-bombers could be used.


I honestly do not know wether or not the Allies wanted to do something to stop the mass murders of jews and others. But I think, in the end, what they wanted had no effect because it was technically impossible to effectively shut down the camps.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Supercharts
It seems to me that if the Allies thought bombing "camps" would be the right thing to do then there would be some evidence that the Allies bombed POW camps. Did the USAAF or RAF bomb POW camps in Germany during the war to 'free' their POWs? Did the Russians bomb camps to free russian POWs? Did the Nazi's bomb German POW camps in the U.K.?
If they did - and I know of no sources that said they did or did not - then the question of bombing concentration camps as an effective means of ending the war or holocaust could be argued based on fact.
I know that the US did not bomb POW camps in Korea or Vietnam.

Just to interject a bit here, Russian or more accurately USSR, didn't give a damn about their POWs. In fact anyone who surrendered was automatically deemed a traitor and was sent to the gulags after the war.

Also being a POW is vastly different than being in a concentration camp. POWs don't do any kind of labor, are expected to live through their imprisonment and are provided with food and aid from Red Cross. They also can correspond with their families.

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Just to interject a bit here, Russian or more accurately USSR, didn't give a damn about their POWs. In fact anyone who surrendered was automatically deemed a traitor and was sent to the gulags after the war.

Also being a POW is vastly different than being in a concentration camp. POWs don't do any kind of labor, are expected to live through their imprisonment and are provided with food and aid from Red Cross. They also can correspond with their families.

True. But the 'rules' are not always applied. Expiriments done on captured russians, utilization of pows for labor - eg. Building the railroad in Thiland the Japanese used Brits and Aussies. (I actually visited that area 2 years ago, saw the museum there etc.) The US POWs taken from Wake Island ended up laboring in Manchuria. etc.
And, as Stalin said:"It takes a brave man to be a coward in the Russian army". [Referring to being captured by the Germans and then being shot by the Russians. Stalin was like that...]
But back to my original point ... 'bombing' a camp - whether or not it's for civilians, POWs, whatever will not close the camps or free the POWs or civilians. Or, to directly confront Cleo's question - it doesn't matter if the Allies were pro-Jew or anti-Jew. The religion or culture of the captives doesn't enter into a discussion of bombing/not bombing camps. It isn't germaine to the Allies war strategy.
However I suspect that if the Allies did bomb the camps the Allies would be universally thought of as doing it because of anti-semitisim. [Discriminated against, pogroms, sent on rail cars, worked to death, gassed and then bombed? You have to be tough to be a Jew]

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Grammatron
POWs don't do any kind of labor, are expected to live through their imprisonment and are provided with food and aid from Red Cross.

Geneva Convention on treatment of Prisoners of War.

Scroll down to:

SECTION III

LABOUR OF PRISONERS OF WAR (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm)

I think you'll find that they do work, and can be forced to work.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by aerocontrols


Geneva Convention on treatment of Prisoners of War.

Scroll down to:



I think you'll find that they do work, and can be forced to work.

I stand corrected :)

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Chaos


I think there was one instance of bombers (I don´t know which kind) attacking a POW camp in German-occupied France to help in a mass break-out, but I do not know when or exactly where.


IIRC it was a prison holding Resistance movement members who were due to be executed fairly soon.

The raid was carried out by Mosquitos and was lead (or commanded at least) by Air Vice Marshall Basil Emry, whos book I read a while back but dont have with me in London.

/googles basil emry.

Edit: Actually thats Embry. Fascinating chap, was shot down over France in 1940, taken prisoner, escaped and walked all the way to Gibraltar!

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Mr. Manifesto, please instead of playing the same old cassette read what I wrote.

Nikk, Hypocolius and you asked me about something I didn't claim, in fact I made the opposite claim. Hypocolius is excluded but I want to know why you and Nikk posed with that style that question to me? Do you read what I write or you don't read anything and you believe that I accept certain things just because I am jewish?

The three of you should have posed your questions to :Headscracher, Cleon and aerocontrols who see something more in that. Why didn't you pose your questions to them? Why don't you try to address that idea? Have you read their posts?


My question was in fact more of a rhetorical question addressed to those holding the view ( as in the link ) that the allies had much information about german extermination plans rather than addressed to you specifically. Perhaps I should have been clearer. I also thought you probably had some extra references up your sleeve such as Koestler, Gilbert or those yank guys who published a collection of essays on whether the allies should have bombed Auschwitz.

It's interesting to note that in Koestler's article "On disbelieving atrocities" ( Jan 1944 ) in which he discusses the complete disbelief in the " killing.....of the total Jewish population of Europe" he never suggests that this is due to anti-semitism but rather to psychological mechanisms. He also does not suggest that there is anything the allies could do to stop it, other than win the war of course.

[Nikk]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Am I the out-of-control one or the systematic one?

Enquiring minds want to know;)

[NoZed Avenger]

/whistles for stop of play

Ok, a NoZed Avenger Kumbaya moment:

If I may interject, I think everyone and Cleo are mis-communicating here to some extent.

She can correct me, but my view of her position seems to be that:

(1) She believes that the Allies had some information concerning the camps -- not complete information or notice of the extent of the atrocities, but some -- prior to 1944-ish. (the exact time period being unclear)

(2) She does -not- believe that the Allies could have effectively bombed the camps for a number of reasons, some of which were expanded by other posters in a good summary of the logistical problems. She has said this expressly.

(3) She does -not- believe that the decision regarding bombing was made or not made on the basis of anti-semitism. She has also said this expressly.

(4) Her 'sharp' remarks have been aimed at the questioners, some of whom appear to think that Cleo believes that anti-semitism did in fact play a part, and some of whom merely question how much the Allies actually knew about the practices in the camp.

I -think- (this is merely my impression) that Cleo interpreted the questions, especially from posters that have gone dancing 'round the maypole with her on similar topics, as mis-reading her position as stated above.

Everyone take a breath. A few of the posters do appear to be mis-stating or misunderstanding Cleo's position. Some other posters appear to have more limited questions, but have been misunderstood by Cleo to some extent.

/whistles for resumption of play

[Cleopatra]

Nozed came with the conclusions above just by reading my posts, something that some people here just refuse to do ( which is actually their right) but they insist on quoting me and asking me to clarify things I haven't said--something that it's not their right.

What so ever. Leaving aside the idiocy some people enjoy in demonstrating this thread turned into a very good collection of arguments that debunk the particular conspiracy theory and this is the important.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Nozed came with the conclusions above just by reading my posts, something that some people here just refuse to do ( which is actually their right) but they insist on quoting me and asking me to clarify things I haven't said--something that it's not their right.

Although you cant really blame them from leaping to conclusions about what you were trying to say. When I read the thread title I thought "Oh no, another one of Cleopatra's everyones antisemetic thread, so Ill just stay away for a while"

Maybe you should also lighten up a bit doll. :)

[LW]

Originally posted by Agammamon

Precision guided munitions didn't exist in WWII, it could be difficult enough just finding the right city.

In general, you are correct. Though, there were a few successful precision bombing raids, like the British Mosquito raid that destroyed Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen. Though, if I remember correctly, even in that case one bomb accidentally hit a school.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by LW


In general, you are correct. Though, there were a few successful precision bombing raids, like the British Mosquito raid that destroyed Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen. Though, if I remember correctly, even in that case one bomb accidentally hit a school.

Yup.

I will refer you again to read "Mission Accomplished" by Sir Basil Embry.

But once again, these raids were in places like the low countries, not poland. Mosquitos didnt have the range to make it to poland.

[JamesM]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Geneva Convention on treatment of Prisoners of War.
It's possible I'm about to say something really ignorant (and definitely slightly irrelevant), but what convention was in effect during WWII? Was it the Hague Convention? Were POWs treated differently? I found a bit about POWs in it (well, in Hague Convention IV - is that the right one?), but nothing about making POWs engage in labour.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by JamesM

It's possible I'm about to say something really ignorant (and definitely slightly irrelevant), but what convention was in effect during WWII? Was it the Hague Convention? Were POWs treated differently? I found a bit about POWs in it (well, in Hague Convention IV - is that the right one?), but nothing about making POWs engage in labour.


I presume Hague II (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague02.htm) was the correct law.

Article 6
The State may utilize the labor of prisoners of war according to their rank and aptitude. Their tasks shall not be excessive, and shall have nothing to do with the military operations.

Prisoners may be authorized to work for the Public Service, for private persons, or on their own account.

Work done for the State shall be paid for according to the tariffs in force for soldiers of the national army employed on similar tasks.

When the work is for other branches of the Public Service or for private persons, the conditions shall be settled in agreement with the military authorities.

The wages of the prisoners shall go towards improving their position, and the balance shall be paid them at the time of their release, after deducting the cost of their maintenance.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london

Although you cant really blame them from leaping to conclusions about what you were trying to say. When I read the thread title I thought "Oh no, another one of Cleopatra's everyones antisemetic thread, so Ill just stay away for a while"

Of course I can blame them because I haven't hidden my origin and I post arguments in a rather civilized way. Those who are unable to debate my arguments remember that I am an Israeli and they try to derail the subject. As you said you might have though that this is another one of Cleopatra's threads ( although I have started only two so far about antisemitism one of which turned out to be one of the most informative and interesting threads in this forum-- like this one) but at least you read what I wrote.

I am more moderate than many people here that they are neither Isralies nor Jews.As I have said before IF I am biased I have a good reason what is theirs?

Maybe you should also lighten up a bit doll. :)

This is a good advice :)


The prisoners of the death camps were not subjected to the International Laws and they were not prisoners of War. The concentration camps opened before the war started. I used the term POWs improperly for brevity's sake mostly.

[CapelDodger]

from The Fool:
As a descendant of victims of Nazism are you not gratefull to the people that toppled it?
"Thankful" is the right term, not "grateful". Gratitude applies to things that are done for you, not to side-effects. The allies defeated the Nazis because they were their enemies, not because they were anybody else's. The US didn't even get involved until it was attacked by Japan and then Germany, so this was no mission to save the "Free World".

[CapelDodger]

Regarding why people were not convinced of the extermination policy, it was to most people unthinkable before it happened. There was also, in the UK, the example of the Great War, when horrendous anti-German propaganda based on fabricated atrocities was put out by the Government and media. When that became clear later people were left deeply cynical about this sort of report in time of war. It was not necessarily anti-semitic to think that reports from Jewish sources were exaggerated and intended to open up the US or Palestine to Jewish immigration. There was the same sort of reaction to Polish reports of the nightmare they were all going through.

from Hypocolius:
.. just look at the holocaust deniers. Can you imagine them existing in 1946?
My mother visited an exhibition on the Holocaust in Cardiff in 1948, and heard a woman say, on leaving, "Of course it's all propaganda ...", which left my mother outraged but is only a reflection of the cycnicism of the time. I felt that when I first heard the story when I was 9 or 10 but was stunned to discover later in life that there were still people denying it.

[Cleopatra]

For Hypocolius:

A Brief History of Holocaust Denial (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/denialbrief.html)

Some people complain that Jews are very vocal about their victims and they never mention the other people who died in those camps.

As far as I know none ever questioned the genocides that gypsies, or homosexuals suffered from the Nazis. The denial had to do only with the Jews and the denial started almost the day after the war ended.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
For Hypocolius:

A Brief History of Holocaust Denial (http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/denialbrief.html)

Some people complain that Jews are very vocal about their victims and they never mention the other people who died in those camps.

As far as I know none ever questioned the genocides that gypsies, or homosexuals suffered from the Nazis. The denial had to do only with the Jews and the denial started almost the day after the war ended.

If you look at the 'holocaust' museums, you find that they are centred on the crimes against the jews. This is not a major issue, however, it is more the examples of the such people as the representative of the Simon Weisenthal Centre, who rails against such outrages as the two ads, amongst thousands, that compared Bush to Hitler.

When will we hear about "The Producers"? Chirp, Chirp.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


If you look at the 'holocaust' museums, you find that they are centred on the crimes against the jews.

True. Personally I am against the "Disneyfication" of the Holocaust the way this trend is represented by the American Holocaust Museum in Washington. I prefer it the way we have done it in Greece--there is a room in the Museums of the Jewish Communities dedicated to the genocide. In the Museum of Thessaloniki in particular there is a detailed reference to those who ended up to the death camps without being Jews and they were packed to the same trains to the camps--but we are not Americans.

Also, I am against the way Yad Vassem presents the genocide. By the moment you enter it your heart stops beating and this is not the point in my humble opinion.

This is not a major issue, however, it is more the examples of the such people as the representative of the Simon Weisenthal Centre, who rails against such outrages as the two ads, amongst thousands, that compared Bush to Hitler.

I disagree with that because a central point in Holocaust denial is exactly that. Holocaust deniers do not just deny that the Holocaust happened. They deny the extent of the genocide, the way it was performed and its uniqueness in History.

When will we hear about "The Producers"? Chirp, Chirp.

I must see this film asap. I haven't seen it!!

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I must see this film asap. I haven't seen it!!

The Mell Brooks comedy?

Germany was having trouble, what a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore its former glory
Where oh where was he? Where could that man be?
We looked around, and then we found, the man for you and me,
And now it's ...

Springtime for Hitler and Germany,
Deutschland is happy and gay.
We're marching to a faster pace,
Look out, here comes the master race! ...

The first time I saw it I literally fell on the floor laughing. There is something about dancing Nazis that's just histerical.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Mycroft


The Mell Brooks comedy?

Germany was having trouble, what a sad, sad story
Needed a new leader to restore its former glory
Where oh where was he? Where could that man be?
We looked around, and then we found, the man for you and me,
And now it's ...

Springtime for Hitler and Germany,
Deutschland is happy and gay.
We're marching to a faster pace,
Look out, here comes the master race! ...

The first time I saw it I literally fell on the floor laughing. There is something about dancing Nazis that's just histerical.

Did you see the actual broadway production, or just the movie. There is nothing like the live show.

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by RussDill
Did you see the actual broadway production, or just the movie. There is nothing like the live show.

I wish!

My wife and I recently missed the opportunity when the show came to town so it's likely to be a while before it comes again.