Why Wasn't Auschwitz Bombed?

[BenBurch]

Setting aside the nonsense of Holocaust denial, this is really an interesting thread. You guys keep giving me thing to wiki and google and I've learned a lot of new things. Fascinating.

Welcome Aboard!

New guy has to buy the donuts on Friday.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Yes. That is one good side benefit of having to wade through all the conspiracy crap; a lot can be learned here.

I'll second that; I can't even begin to describe how much I've learned about the Apollo program simply from investigating moon-hoax claims, just to give one example.

 

[Corsair 115]

The Royal Navy lost seven destroyers in Norway, six destroyers at Dunkirk and a further ten destroyers in the North Sea and the Channel, all in the first half of 1940. In total between April and July 1940 the Royal Navy lost twenty four destroyers and the Royal Canadian Navy lost one.

Were all those losses the result of aerial attack? Or were some of those losses due to other causes, e.g. mines, submarines, etc.?

With the exception of Omaha Beach the landings were virtually unopposed.

Uh, excuse me, but Juno Beach was in no way "virtually unopposed." The first waves landing on Juno suffered casualty rates every bit as bad as what the Americans suffered on Omaha. One company lost half its number in the first few minutes of the assault — that doesn't sound "virtually unopposed" to me. Look at the casualty rate figures you yourself posted; Juno's numbers are very close to those from Omaha.

The main difference between Juno and Omaha was the geography. Once the Canadians were past the seawall on Juno they were into the town beyond, whereas on Omaha the cliffs helped keep the U.S. forces bottled up. If the geography at Juno had been as challenging as that on Omaha, then the casualty numbers on Juno Beach would have been much higher.

I wonder about the effectiveness of the GHQ line in stopping the German advance. This was a WWI-era static fortification concept, which that Wehrmacht had demonstrated it was able to decimate with ease. The regular British Army's only exposure to Blitzkrieg had ended in unmitigated disaster. I find it hard to believe the untrained, poorly equipped and poorly armed Home Guard would have faired any better.

On the other hand, for all the talk of the German military of the time being a mechanized force, it was primarily supplied by horse-drawn carts. Thousands of horses were to be transported across the Channel in order to keep the landing forces supplied once they moved inland.

 

[SDC]

I just read a book, J.Herf, "Reactionary Modernism," on the theme of the German extreme right between the wars and its often contradictory relationship to supporting modernity and technology, vs yearning for the (assumed) wonderful mists of primeval Germany where the ancient Teutons frolicked (etc etc). Fascinating theme. Discussing the Nazi period and the war, Herf produces powerful statistics precisely as to the failure of Nazi Germany to keep up with industrial productivity and technological innovation as compared to the US, the Soviets, and the UK alike.

Which reminds me of a fascinating post-conference conversation I had last year. I was speaking with an American professor of military history, a woman with years in the US military and I think intelligence community; she was expressing dismay over what she saw as the US military's fascination with and idealization of the Wehrmacht's operational skills as opposed to, for example, the Soviets. She said this idealization is very wrong headed but deeply ingrained (in the US military).

Fascinating conversation, but nothing to do with conspiracies. Where do military history conversations go 'round here?

 

[Nick Terry]

I just read a book, J.Herf, "Reactionary Modernism," on the theme of the German extreme right between the wars and its often contradictory relationship to supporting modernity and technology, vs yearning for the (assumed) wonderful mists of primeval Germany where the ancient Teutons frolicked (etc etc). Fascinating theme. Discussing the Nazi period and the war, Herf produces powerful statistics precisely as to the failure of Nazi Germany to keep up with industrial productivity and technological innovation as compared to the US, the Soviets, and the UK alike.

Which reminds me of a fascinating post-conference conversation I had last year. I was speaking with an American professor of military history, a woman with years in the US military and I think intelligence community; she was expressing dismay over what she saw as the US military's fascination with and idealization of the Wehrmacht's operational skills as opposed to, for example, the Soviets. She said this idealization is very wrong headed but deeply ingrained (in the US military).

Fascinating conversation, but nothing to do with conspiracies. Where do military history conversations go 'round here?

I guess in history, literature and arts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9

But while we're veering off-topic, allow me to mention a recent book by Ronald Smelser and someone else, entitled the Myth of the Eastern Front, which catalogues the very fascination you mention.

Fortunately, the US Army started forcing School of Advanced Military Studies students to read Soviet theorist Triandafilov in the 1980s. That means that by Gulf I, Schwarzkopf was a generation senior so he read von Mellenthin's Panzer Battles; his staff officers had been raised on the modified Soviet doctrine, so had imbibed Soviet theories of deep battle instead of the flashy media image of Blitzkrieg.

To get back to conspiracy theories, one of the results of the turn towards Soviet doctrine was to give Colonel David Glantz, an intelligence officer, a chance to study every Eastern Front battle from the Soviet perspective, and when he retired to write a bunch of books, one of which refuted a very popular CT among Hitler nostalgics and Holocaust deniers, namely the myth of the "preventitive war" launched by the Nazis to stop an imminent Soviet offensive in 1941, popularised by GRU defector Victor Suvorov.

Anyone who believes that Stalin intended to attack on July 10, 1941, with mechanised corps that were at 50% strength and had only been formed in March 1941 is, of course, a loon.

 

[gumboot]

I am going to disagree with you there. While the US supplied men and material for the invasion. Most of the logisitc issues, such as the Mulbery Harbours were solved by the British, as well as the intial geologic and beach mapping.

Solving those sorts of logistics problems were certainly important in that they made the invasion force more effective, however they were not vital - the Mulberry at Omaha was lost after a few days and the US 6th Army Group managed without one at all.

What was vital was the hundreds of thousands of vehicles, thousands of ships, ten thousand aircraft, and millions of tonnes of ammunition and supplies, the overwhelming majority of which came from US factories and was delivered to the front on US ships.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Just to help Nick Terry derail the thread , here's a link to one of Triandafillov's works: The Nature of the Operations of Modern Armies.

I plan to sit down and read through this sometime.

 

[gumboot]

Were all those losses the result of aerial attack? Or were some of those losses due to other causes, e.g. mines, submarines, etc.?

Primarily air attack - as I said the British destroyers were found to be highly vulnerable to air attack.

Uh, excuse me, but Juno Beach was in no way "virtually unopposed." The first waves landing on Juno suffered casualty rates every bit as bad as what the Americans suffered on Omaha. One company lost half its number in the first few minutes of the assault — that doesn't sound "virtually unopposed" to me. Look at the casualty rate figures you yourself posted; Juno's numbers are very close to those from Omaha.

Ugh. No you're quite right. That was a blaring error on my part. Casualties at Juno were actually worse than Omaha. And as you say, the major difference at Juno was what happened beyond the beach front. (I'm not sure it was entirely geography - another factor at Omaha was they were facing the best German unit on the entire line).

On the other hand, for all the talk of the German military of the time being a mechanized force, it was primarily supplied by horse-drawn carts. Thousands of horses were to be transported across the Channel in order to keep the landing forces supplied once they moved inland.

I wouldn't consider the Wehrmacht a mechanised force. It was primarily a light infantry force, supported by very light weight tanks. Given that a key part of their tactics was air superiority, they could be supplied by air (Something that wasn't possible for heavy armoured forces back then). I think the Ju-52 would have played a vital role in any successful operation.

 

[gumboot]

Sorry for the derails...

No more I promise.

 

[Corsair 115]

Sorry for the derails...

No more I promise.

But the derails are the most interesting part!

And, arguably, they do relate (if distantly) to the topic in that the are discussing the practical aspects which affect warfare, e.g. logistics, technical capabilities, etc. Those aspects certainly come into play when discussing why a military action may or may not have been undertaken.

 

[achtung circus]

Were all those losses the result of aerial attack? Or were some of those losses due to other causes, e.g. mines, submarines, etc.?

www.naval-history.net/index.htm]

More than you may ever wish to know but....Cruisers and destroyers in all theatres from all causes:

Mine: 9
Torpedo: 5
Gunfire: 2
Bombing: 13
Wrecked: 2
Collision: 1
Explosion: 1


November 13 - Destroyer BLANCHE, sunk by mine, Thames Estuary
November 21 - Destroyer GIPSY, sunk by mine off Harwich
December 12 - Destroyer DUCHESS, sunk in collision W of Scotland
January 19 - Destroyer GRENVILLE, sunk by mine, North Sea
January 21 - Destroyer EXMOUTH, sunk by U-boat torpedo, Moray Firth, off W Scotland
February 18 - Destroyer DARING, sunk by U-boat torpedo, off Duncansby Head, N Scotland
May 3 - Destroyer AFRIDI, sunk by aircraft bombs off Norway
May 15 - Destroyer VALENTINE, bombed, grounded and abandoned in River Scheldt, Begium
May 18 - Cruiser EFFINGHAM, Struck submerged rock and wrecked, Vestfiord, Norway
May 19 - Destroyer WHITLEY, damaged by bombs, beached between Nieuport and Ostend, Belgium
May 24 - Destroyer WESSEX, sunk by aircraft bombs off Calais, France
May 26 - Cruiser CURLEW, sunk by aircraft bombs off Ofotfiord, Norway
May 29 - Destroyer GRAFTON, sunk by E-boat torpedo off Dunkirk, France
May 29 - Destroyer GRENADE, sunk by aircraft bombs, in Dunkirk Harbour, France
May 29 - Destroyer WAKEFUL, sunk by E-boat torpedo off Dunkirk, France
June 1 - Destroyer BASILISK, sunk by aircraft bombs off Dunkirk, France
June 1 - Destroyer HAVANT, sunk by aircraft bombs off Dunkirk, France
June 1 - Destroyer KEITH, sunk by aircraft bombs off Dunkirk, France
June 8 - Destroyer ACASTA, sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, gunfire, returning from Norway
June 8 - Destroyer ARDENT, sunk by Scharnhorst and Gneisenau gunfire,
June 12 - Cruiser CALYPSO, sunk by U-boat torpedo, S of Crete
June 23 - Destroyer KHARTOUM, beached after damage by internal explosion caused by burst air vessel off Perim Harbour, Red Sea
July 5 - Destroyer WHIRLWIND, sunk by U-boat torpedo, SW of Ireland
July 11 - Destroyer ESCORT, sunk by U-boat torpedo, W Mediterranean
July 16 - Destroyer IMOGEN, damaged in collision, caught fire, abandoned of Duncansby Head, N Scotland
July 20 - Destroyer BRAZEN, sunk by aircraft off Dover, S England
July 27 - Destroyer CODRINGTON, bombed and sunk in Dover Harbour, S England
July 29 - Destroyer DELIGHT, bombed and sunk off Portland, S England
August 23 - Destroyer HOSTILE, mined and sunk off Cape Bon, Tunisia
September 1 - Destroyer ESK, sunk by mine, North Sea
September 1 - Destroyer IVANHOE, sunk by mine, North Sea
September 27 - Destroyer WREN, bombed and sunk off Aldeburgh, Suffolk, E England
October 19 - Destroyer VENETIA, sunk by mine, Thames Estuary, SE England
October 30 - Destroyer STURDY, wrecked, Tiree Island, W Scotland
December 17 - Destroyer ACHERON, sunk by mine off Isle of Wight, S England
December 22 - Destroyer HYPERION, sunk by mine off Pantellaria, SW of Sicily

 

[gumboot]

But the derails are the most interesting part!

And, arguably, they do relate (if distantly) to the topic in that the are discussing the practical aspects which affect warfare, e.g. logistics, technical capabilities, etc. Those aspects certainly come into play when discussing why a military action may or may not have been undertaken.

True. I think the strongest argument against bombing Auschwitz is that it would have put aircrew at grave risk for no strategic or tactical advantage.

 

[Travis]

I clicked on this thread wondering how I could possibly get a discussion about bombing Auschwitz to vear off into a discussion of Operation Sea Lion, or perhaps the merits of synchronized swimming in the Olympics, but you guys went and did one of them without me. As to the other, honestly, is it really a sport?

 

[MaGZ]

Dear MaGZ,
Please hop into a time machine and go back to the mid thirties in Germany and tell everyone that you are Jewish. If the Holocaust didn't happen, you will have nothing to worry about. Otherwise, I suggest you just shut up.

Jews were placed in concentration camps in Europe by the German government for exactly the same reasons Japanese, Germans and Italians were placed in American concentration camps in the western US: they were considered to be security risks to the government at a time of war.

Jews died in the camps due to disease and starvation. The Final Solution for the Jews was resettlement to the east after the victory of the Third Reich.

There was never a plan for genocide or extermination of Jews or anyone else.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Jews were placed in concentration camps in Europe by the German government for exactly the same reasons Japanese, Germans and Italians were placed in American concentration camps in the western US: they were considered to be security risks to the government at a time of war.

Jews died in the camps due to disease and starvation. The Final Solution for the Jews was resettlement to the east after the victory of the Third Reich.

There was never a plan for genocide or extermination of Jews or anyone else.

Response:

... The phrase "the Germans interned persons on the basis of being a real or suspected security threat" could be true -- if one were to acknowledge that every Jew was a suspected security threat simply by virtue of being Jewish.​

For example, a 1942 report from Himmler to Hitler lists three categories under "Bandenverdaechtige" -- suspected members of the opposition. Under "captured," there were 19,000. Under "executed," there were 14,000. And under "executed Jews," a third of a million. A photograph and a transcription of this document is available. By the way, that's a third of a million Jews executed by the Einsatzgruppen in just four months in late 1942.​

The claim that there were no significant differences is of course a lie. The Americans did not starve millions of people to death, did not force their imates to work under brutal conditions, and did not send them to gas chambers if they were "unfit" to work.​

(Source: The Nizkor Project)

It is incorrect to say that the Nazi's imprisoned Jews for the same reasons America imprisoned the Japanese, Germans, or Italians. It is also a lie to say there were no planned exterminations; the Nazi's own documents prove otherwise. There is a huge gulf between the two cases, and it is an outright misrepresentation to pretend otherwise.

ETA: Hyperlink in the quote - "Photograph", linking to http://www.fmv.ulg.ac.be/schmitz/Holocaust/report01.html - is broken. I have not found the photo elsewhere yet.

 

[Corsair 115]

I clicked on this thread wondering how I could possibly get a discussion about bombing Auschwitz to vear off into a discussion of Operation Sea Lion, or perhaps the merits of synchronized swimming in the Olympics...

The first connection isn't really that much of a stretch, but the second connection, well, that would indeed require quite a stretch...

 

[Dave Rogers]

I clicked on this thread wondering how I could possibly get a discussion about bombing Auschwitz to vear off into a discussion of Operation Sea Lion, or perhaps the merits of synchronized swimming in the Olympics, but you guys went and did one of them without me. As to the other, honestly, is it really a sport?

Sadly, the French 1996 Synchronised Swimming team decided to drop their holocaust-themed display for the Atlanta Olympics, otherwise the connection would have been easier to establish. It does raise the question, is there, or should there be, any subject which is truly taboo for the arts?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A07E3D71F39F935A35755C0A960958260

Dave

 

[SpitfireIX]

Jews were placed in concentration camps in Europe by the German government for exactly the same reasons Japanese, Germans and Italians were placed in American concentration camps in the western US: they were considered to be security risks to the government at a time of war.

Jews died in the camps due to disease and starvation. The Final Solution for the Jews was resettlement to the east after the victory of the Third Reich.

There was never a plan for genocide or extermination of Jews or anyone else.

Corrie ten Boom^WP, a Dutch Christian, was arrested and sent to the camps for hiding Jews. Her book, The Hiding Place, details countless atrocities, including the mass-murder of Jews, that she witnessed during her time in the camps. Did she lie about what she saw, MaGZ?

 

[MaGZ]

Corrie ten Boom^WP, a Dutch Christian, was arrested and sent to the camps for hiding Jews. Her book, The Hiding Place, details countless atrocities, including the mass-murder of Jews, that she witnessed during her time in the camps. Did she lie about what she saw, MaGZ?

If you are familiar with the book and its author then you can comment on its veracity.

Do you believe every book that supports the Holocaust claim?

 

[SpitfireIX]

If you are familiar with the book and its author then you can comment on its veracity.

I can say that everything I remember (it's been quite a while since I read it) fits with the overwhelming majority of the documentary evidence about the Holocaust.

However, I asked you. Did Corrie ten Boom lie about all the horrors she witnessed?

Do you believe every book that supports the Holocaust claim?

I haven't read "every book that supports the Holocaust claim"; only a small fraction. But I've never seen any real evidence that would lead me to doubt that the facts presented in the ones I have read are substantially accurate.