Why Wasn't Auschwitz Bombed?

[timhau]

No, MaGZ is referring mostly to the behavior of Soviet soldiers in Germany at the end of the war.

No, actually he's arguing -- again -- that the Nazis weren't any worse than the (Western?) Allies, since the latter weren't perfect boy scouts all through the war.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Question: why would those in charge of the camps take the time to put tattoos on the prisoners if they were to be killed?

And why were those in the picture not exterminated?

Maybe some here will start to think about this and ask why did they survive if there really was a Holocaust.

Okay, let's not let MaGZ's misrepresentations and incorrect conclusions take root here. MaGZ is correct in one detail: Many people slated to be executed were in fact not tattooed. That's actually true. But it doesn't mean what he wants to make it out to mean.

BenBurch's post demonstrates that a tattooed inmate from Auschwitz was witness to the events that occurred. That tattoo places him at the scene. It doesn't matter why he wasn't slated for execution; it's possible he survived because he had a skill the Nazi's wanted to exploit. It's also possible that they simply hadn't worked their way through all his friends, family, and camp comrades to get to him yet. It doesn't matter. The importance of that man's tattoo is the fact that it proves he was there. So MaGZ is accidentally correct when he says "tattoos don't prove the holocaust". Directly, they don't. But they establish the credibility of the eyewitnesses, who can then provide testimony about what they and others around them saw and experienced.

Anyway, if you stop and think about MaGZ's logic, he's trying to say the survival of an eyewitness proves the account the person is an eyewitness to never happened. Does that really compute?

Again, let's non't let MaGZ misrepresent here. Tattoos are not proof of executions; what they are proof of is eyewitnesses. And those eyewitnesses directly contradict MaGZ's statement "... if there really was a Holocaust". There was. Nevermind all the other proof that exists, the Reich Security office documents, the voluminous work of Eisenhower, the records of the executioners themselves plus the Nuremberg testimony and evidence roll (itself rather extensive; recall that one of the goals of Nuremberg was to establish the events primarily with Nazi documentation, the rationale being that witness testimony in the future would be perceived to be biased)... ignore all that for the moment. The witnesses testimony by itself establishes strongly enough that the Holocaust occured.

So, why did they survive if there really was a Holocaust? Because the Nazi's either wanted to use them or simply hadn't gotten around to exterminating them. But those tattooed people's survival doesn't falsify the Holocaust narrative. It never did.

---------

ETA: Oh. Sources. Sorry.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/tattoos1.html

Prisoners selected for immediate extermination were virtually never issued numbers...

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10007056

Only those prisoners selected for work were issued serial numbers; those prisoners sent directly to the gas chambers were not registered and received no tattoos.

Again, to lurkers, newbies, et. al., the facts are pretty well established, but a seasoned conspiracy peddler can manipulate them to show what they want. As Shakespeare wrote, "the Devil can cite scripture for his purpose". The practice of tattooing concentration camp inmates does not contradict, negate, or repudiate the fact that many were executed.

 

[robinson]

The only reason Dresden became infamous was because of the freak occurrence of a firestorm which caused an unusually high number of casualties. Remove that, and casualties would have been no worse than similar raids on other German cities.

The raids saw 1,300 heavy bombers drop over 3,900 tons of high-explosive bombs and incendiary devices in four raids, destroying 13 square miles (34 km²) of the city, the baroque capital of the German state of Saxony, and causing a firestorm that consumed the city centre.

The number of bombers and tonnage bombs in the lead are taken from a USAF document written in 1953 and classified secret until 1978: Angell, Joseph W. Historical Analysis of the 14-15 February 1945 Bombings of Dresden, USAF Historical Division Research Studies Institute Air University, 1953, retrieved January 7, 2008.

 

[westprog]

All documented victims were SS camp guards; some were killed by irate inmates using improvised weapons. Indictments of US soldiers responsible quashed by Patton.

All victims were SS, but my understanding is that many of the guards had run off, and that responsibility for the camp had been given to Waffen-SS troops. The camps weren't run by Waffen-SS (who however had plenty of their own deeds to account for in all theatres). Exactly how many of those shot were guards, and how many Waffen-SS remains unclear.

 

[twinstead]

The war could have gone either way.

Why do you consider Hitler to have been a madman or militarily incompetent?

The decision to break the non aggression pact with the Soviets was the work of an incompetent. The two-front war doomed Germany.

And of course you don't think he was a madman--bigots like you think he was doing the world a favor by getting rid of all those nasty Jews, right?

 

[1337m4n]

So, Magz, do you have even one shred of hard evidence that 100% of Holocaust survivors are liars and that 99.9% of the world's historians are wrong?

If there was no Holocaust, I would like for you to show me where the six million Jews and seven million others went.

 

[SpitfireIX]

So, Magz, do you have even one shred of hard evidence that 100% of Holocaust survivors are liars and that 99.9% 100% of the world's historians are wrong?

If there was no Holocaust, I would like for you to show me where the six million Jews and seven million others went.

Fixed that for you. Anyone who thinks the Holocaust didn't happen isn't worthy to be called a historian (okay maybe David Irving is, but even he's debatable).

 

[MRC_Hans]

You might be forgetting that the people who wrote this are probably about 19 years old and have grown up with missiles that can be flown through a window. They have no idea that there was a time before laser-guidance.

ETA: You might also ask them what the WWII definition of pinpoint bombing was. Chances are it's different from the WWII bomber pilot's idea. If he got it within 200 yards that was good enough for him.

A survey was made ca 1943, using pre, post, and during mission photos to determine the precision of bombings. I can look up the exact figures, but it was something to the tune of less than 20% of the bombs falling within a MILE of the target. Then thet invented marking and pathfinder groups, but even as late as late 1944, the precision was still abysmal.

You have to remember, navigation was from astral navigation, dead reconing, visual landscape recognition, some very tricky radar systems, and some even trickier radio beam guiding systems, all in the face of fierce enemy opposition. Bomb aiming was done visually with a mechanical bomb-sight computer that required you to fly traight and and level for several minutes over the target, under heavy flak and/or fighter attack.

There were special missions with greater precision, but they were reserved for special targets of high strategic importance.

As already mentioned, while noble, the freeing of KZ prisoners had zero strategic value.

Hans

 

[SpitfireIX]

All victims were SS, but my understanding is that many of the guards had run off, and that responsibility for the camp had been given to Waffen-SS troops. The camps weren't run by Waffen-SS (who however had plenty of their own deeds to account for in all theatres). Exactly how many of those shot were guards, and how many Waffen-SS remains unclear.

Good observation. I found an excellent web page on the Dachau Massacre. It's worth noting that the unit commander stopped the killing as soon as he became aware of it; the site has a still from a film of him firing his own pistol in the air and holding up his left hand to get his troops to cease firing.

Although by no means conclusive, one of the accounts provided states that the SS men, having been stood against a wall in front of a machine gun, incorrectly assumed they were about to be shot and surged forward; the private manning the gun then panicked and opened fire.

However, there are other accounts of murders of SS prisoners apart from that incident, and there is also conclusive evidence that an American medic refused to treat the wounded SS men (his indictment was one that Patton quashed).

Finally, in understanding the mentality of the American soldiers who perpetrated these acts, one should bear in mind that on their way to the camp, they passed a train full of dead prisoners from another camp; the prisoners' having died while the train was delayed by attacks on the railroad. This does not, of course, excuse their acts, but it is clearly a mitigating factor.

 

[sebbiel]

My grandfather was in Aushwitz as a prisoner. He was a Pole, but he saw also Jewish prisoners too. Luckilly he survived the war, thought he died a few years later. And there are many more people who saw holocaust with their own eyes. So anyone saying there was no holocaust is simply insane... And that's very sad that there are people trying to achieve their goals (fame?) by spreading lies about such horrible and tremendous massacre.

 

[twinstead]

My grandfather was in Aushwitz as a prisoner. He was a Pole, but he saw also Jewish prisoners too. Luckilly he survived the war, thought he died a few years later. And there are many more people who saw holocaust with their own eyes. So anyone saying there was no holocaust is simply insane... And that's very sad that there are people trying to achieve their goals (fame?) by spreading lies about such horrible and tremendous massacre.

It's all about demonizing the Jews. Some people would no doubt deny that the sky is blue if it meant somehow showing the Jews in a bad light.

 

[westprog]

Good observation. I found an excellent web page on the Dachau Massacre. It's worth noting that the unit commander stopped the killing as soon as he became aware of it; the site has a still from a film of him firing his own pistol in the air and holding up his left hand to get his troops to cease firing.

I've seen that. And all credit to him.

Finally, in understanding the mentality of the American soldiers who perpetrated these acts, one should bear in mind that on their way to the camp, they passed a train full of dead prisoners from another camp; the prisoners' having died while the train was delayed by attacks on the railroad. This does not, of course, excuse their acts, but it is clearly a mitigating factor.

Ironically, I've read that that train had been shot up by an American ground attack aircraft. Which is sort of where we came in. Attacks on the rail system might well have slowed up delivery to the camps, but there would be side effects.

I can imagine that a lot of people might say "So what? They had it coming." However, there's a connection between Patton binning the prosecutions for the Dachau killings, and My Lai. If you break the rules of war, it's a slippery slope.

 

[gumboot]

The Allies did commit war crimes in WWII, but you knew this.

They were the victors, so they were never tried.

Allied soldiers in WW2 committed war crimes. Some were tried. Some were not. Axis soldiers in WW2 committed war crimes. Some were tried. Some were not. What's the problem?

 

[gumboot]

Wasn’t the Jews themselves who where complaining after the war why the camps were not bombed, or at least the rail lines to the camps?

It just shows there is no way to please the Jews.

I actually found this post funny. Okay it's not funny because of whom said it, and we know they're serious. But coming from anyone else I'd find this funny.

 

[twinstead]

Yup. There's just no pleasin' them Jews...

 

[gumboot]

Not after Stalingrad. The writing was on the wall after that. One could even argue the writing was on the wall before that.

I think the writing was on the wall on December 7th 1941. The moment United States industrial might was brought in behind the war effort the outcome was inevitable.

Leadership wins engagements
Tactics win battles
Strategy wins campaigns
Logistics wins wars

 

[gumboot]

By the way, am I hallucinating, or is MaGZ claiming the Holocaust didn't happen and using the fact that there were survivors as evidence?

 

[twinstead]

By the way, am I hallucinating, or is MaGZ claiming the Holocaust didn't happen and using the fact that there were survivors as evidence?

I found that interesting as well. I guess survivors in his mind just mean the job wasn't done well enough...

 

[SpitfireIX]

. . . If you break the rules of war, it's a slippery slope.

I once saw an interview with a P-51 pilot. He stated that while escorting B-17s on a raid, he spotted a German fighter machine-gunning bomber crewmen who had bailed out, while they were hanging helpless underneath their parachute canopies. The P-51 pilot of course jumped the German, and shot him down. The German bailed out, and the P-51 pilot machine-gunned him. Would you say that was the start of a slippery slope? There may not be a clear-cut answer in this case.

 

[westprog]

Allied soldiers in WW2 committed war crimes. Some were tried. Some were not. Axis soldiers in WW2 committed war crimes. Some were tried. Some were not. What's the problem?

If Magz is claiming that there was, to some extent, a double standard in prosecuting war crimes, then he's probably right. In particular, Soviet troops were far more likely to be punished for being taken prisoner than for shooting prisoners. Any victorious armies will view crimes perpetrated on its own more severely than those perpetrated by its own.

However, that's a side issue. While there was a degree of hypocrisy in, say, prosecuting the Germans for shooting POW's, there was no mistake in prosecuting the leading Nazis for genocide. They were carrying it out, and the Allies weren't.