Geez, gotta' love the arguments here. Typical of their variety...first claim that the "standard argument" has no evidence to support its claims; and then make alternate claims of "fact" that have even less evidence to actually support them. To whit:
The truth is that in 1944 the American and British military completed independent studies using air photos and spy reports about whether it was neccessary to bomb Birkenau, and although both studies disappeared after 1944, they must have concluded that no mass murders were occurring at Birkenau because bombing was not ordered by Roosevelt, Churchill, or the military.
I love this. DESPITE the fact that both studies no longer exist, the ONLY possible conclusion is that they concluded there were no mass murders occurring at Birkenau. Its not at all possible that they concluded there were mass murders taking place, but A) bombing it was too much of a risk, could kill prisoners, B) there were other targets that were more important, C) they planned to do it later, and never did, etc.
"They
must have concluded..." Yup, glad to see the heaps of verifiable evidence for the argument.
The truth is that although a few individual members of Jewish groups who had heard the mass-murder rumors, sent letters to other members of their groups to consider bombing, not one official Jewish organization anywhere in the world asked that Birkenau be bombed, because they knew from escaped inmates and spies, and from contacts with the highest levels of the U.S. and British governments, that mass murders were not occurring.
Again -- where is the evidence that Jewish organizations knew that mass murders were not occurring? Where are the quotes from someone acknowledging this, or the documents stating this?
Nowhere.
Instead, just like in the first argument, they simply argue that "such-and-such happened", and "ONLY the explanation we give (without any proof to support it) is reasonable or acceptable."
The truth is that Board member Henry Morgenthau knew of the unsubstantiated stories of Birkenau mass murders, but he acted like he did not believe them because he did not even discuss the possible bombing of Birkenau or any other camp during his many meetings with President Roosevelt.
I don't get
this argument at all. Surely there were
tons of potential actions and sites that were not discussed; that would not mean that they were not legitimate targets, or that the Germans were doing nothing wrong. The logic is fundamentally flawed. Or perhaps he discussed Birkenau, but did not discuss
bombing it. because of potential risk to prisoners...of course, we have no way to know, since the person making this claim has, once again, provided
absolutely no evidence to support their claim.
The truth is rail-lines and bridges together with the Birkenau
Cremation buildings could have been bombed with a minimum loss of life the same way two other areas were bombed. From June, 1942 to August, 1944, 12 groups of B-25 long-range bombers and P-38 Lightning fighter-bombers , flew long distances from airfields in Egypt to pin-point bomb at low elevations the Ploesti oil refinery 55 kilomters (35 miles) north of Bucharest, Rumania, and on August 24th, '44, the Gustloff-Werke armaments factory 150 m (500 ft) from Buchenwald detention camp in Germany, was destroyed by B-25 bombers without a single bomb hitting the Buchenwald camp.
Oooooh...let's see.
The Allies bombed and oil refinery, and an armaments factory; both critical strategic targets that significantly weakened the enemy's ability to fight back,
and where casualties were mostly German.
This is compared to the bombing of a
prison camp, where the casualties would be primarily prisoners; and where taking out the train tracks, for example, would simply result in making it harder for Germans to deliver food and other necessities to the camp.
In my admittedly limited knowledge of wartime tactics, the bombing of targets like prison camps would be done primarily
when forces are in place to follow up the bombing with an attempted liberation of the prisoners. Otherwise, it is pretty much a waste of time...what exactly do you accomplish, other than potentially putting prisoners at greater risk than they already are? Whereas the bombing of armaments factories and oil refineries are strategically important at
any stage of the battle, and yield a significant benefit.
A bunch of crap, piled on top of rubbish, garnished with manure.
