samboct
Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
|
Let me correct a few things here- but one of them will not be that Bush is an imbecile and shooting his mouth off while knowing appallingly little. I suspect this comment about bombing Auschwitz also sheds light on his viewpoint on invading Iraq.
1) The Air Force that would have gotten handed the job was the 15th, based in Italy, which really didn't get rolling until '44 anyhow when Eaker took over.. It was the 15th that bombed Vienna, not the 8th IIRC- although there might have been some shuttle bombing missions which went on to land in Russia, but there were few of these. Auschwitz from Foggia is a long flight. The comments about concentration camp victims hearing airplanes droning over were likely raids on Vienna. Ploesti (in Romania) was also a favorite target of the 15th- the largest oil refinery in Europe. Please note that the most successful bombing campaign in Europe was not against most factories, including aircraft production, but against oil production. Had the Allies focussed on oil production from the start of the strategic bombing campaign, it might have shaved some months off of the war. A lot of this success had to do with the nature of the target- high explosive was relatively ineffective against factory machinery which often survived the blast well, but fire melted everything. Oil refineries are much easier to set ablaze than most other factories (munitions excepted,)
2) Strategic bombers (B-17, B-24s) were not used to bomb isolated rail lines, although railroad terminals and concentrations were another matter. I think the distance from Italy was too far for medium bombers such as the B-26 but I could be wrong. Strategic bombers were not used against small targets in general, because the minimum formation was typically several hundred aircraft. (Smaller formations were more vulnerable.)
3) Odds are the aircraft that would have been used for the job would have been fighter bombers-P-38s or Mustangs- the Thunderbolt didn't have the range until much later in the war. On such a long flight, bomb loads would have been reduced, and it's quite possible that the only airplane that could have made it would have been the '38. Two attacks were possible- a dive bombing attack, or a level bombardment using droop snoots- an experimental version that was tested successfully over Antwerp in April '44 carying a 2,000 lb. bomb. I think there was an attack on Ploesti using droop snoots towards the end of '44, thus the P-38 had the range and could carry the bombload, as well as being possible to be flown in smaller numbers. However, dive bombing versions and pilots trained in this method were not widely available in early '44, nor were droop snoots. Aicraft availability climbed dramatically from early '44 where lots of airplanes were scarce, to '45 when the Luftwaffe was indeed beaten, and there were thousands of aircraft on airfields. Training pilots to do the attack on Auschwitz would not have been a trivial or quickly accomplished undertaking.
Fighters were primarily being used for escort duties of the strategic bombers. While non-technical people such as Elie Wiesel throw out the possibility of bombing railway lines which was certainly done in France and Germany, the reason these tactics were effective was that they were constant. The short ranges after airfields were established in France allowed large bomb loads and more than one sortie per day. This meant that railway lines could be disrupted. An isolated raid or two at Auschwitz would have accomplished little (as noted by a previous poster), it was too far away to mount the type of air cap that was being used in Germany and France. Nor were that many extra fighters available- certainly not in early '44 when the back of the Luftwaffe had NOT been broken, and the 8th was still taking heavy losses.
4) What exactly should the Allies have bombed at Auschwitz? The barracks? Cheap buildings, easily replaced and with nothing really nice to burn (like oil.). The gas chambers? A very small part of the camp. More expensive to replace, but impervious to anything other than a direct hit, and then little collateral damage. The crematoria? While one (both?) of the crematoria was eventually blown up by dynamite smuggled into the camp, again, a relatively small target and impervious to anything other than a direct hit. Hence, the nature of the target suggests a pinpoint strike at low level by relatively few aircraft. Except here's the range issue again.
5) Pinpoint strikes at low altitude were very tough to do, and were often considered suicide missions. Any valuable target was surrounded by machine guns and often larger flak guns. One of the best aircraft for the job would have been the Mosquito, and I don't think the US operated any in Italy. (IIRC, Italy was largely a US show.) Previous long distance low level Mosquito raids often had very high casualty rates- the Mossie was much safer up high and fast.
6) The commando idea- Well, if you were going to try and commando a lot of people out- you'd start with your own men in prison camps which were highly trained, valuable to the war effort, and directly under your command. That these raids weren't undertaken often, shows that this was generally a flight of fancy.
7) Prior to the Soviet invasion, the Germans had put lots of people in concentration camps such as Dachau. Extermination camps (as has been noted by earlier posters) were largely built in the East. However, organized mass murder didn't occur until June of 41 with the invasion of the USSR. The idea that there was good hard intelligence on these camps is laughable. There were lots of stories- but in wartime there are always lots of stories-most of which fizzle. (Anybody remember the werewolves threat- the idea that Nazis were in hiding after they surrendered and were going to attack one night en masse?) Hell, there were NYTimes articles on the front page that said that the Nazis were building death camps, but since this was wartime, much of this was put down to propaganda to dehmunize the enemy. Remember that when US troops actually entered these camps, they were shocked by what they found- the idea that there was widespread belief that these camps actually existed is just nonsense.
8) The Jewish population of France was largely wiped out during the war. The Jewish populations that did OK - effectively Norway- had strong popular support. The Gestapo relied on locals to turn in Jews- remember that Anne Frank's family got wiped this way. As an interesting aside, the other country that sheltered its Jews for quite a while was Italy-Mussolini stood up to Hitler on this matter. Parts of Germany weren't that bad either- there were still Jews living in Berlin at the end of the war. Italian Jews got murdered after Mussolini fell. For an interesting look at the census of Jews, I found Postwar, by Tony Judt to be worth reading. A lot of the establishment of Israel is owed to the Swiss, who after the war, wouldn't allow Jewish families to inherit the wealth of family members killed by the Nazis. This money would have helped rebuild Europe, but instead, the US picked up a lot of the tab- much more so than they originally planned on. Also, Europe postwar was starving and homeless. The Jews that survived the camps were very unwanted by that point, their homes were either destroyed, or occupied what was effectively legally by others as were their businesses. Massive guilt about this abounded, which meant that rather than rebuild, emigrating to the US or Palestine became an attractive option for Jews. A lot of the genesis of the Arab/Israeli conflict had its roots here.
Summary
"Bombing Auschwitz" is problematic for several reasons-
1) Equipment to do the job either didn't exist or wasn't available in the correct theater at the time.
2) Auschwitz was actually a tough target, not amenable to strategic bombardment- begging the moral question which would also have been highly problematic. US fliers were much happier bombing installations, rather than civilian targets, although lets' be clear- there were certainly raids on Berlin and numerous other cities where bombs were dropped on the center of the town based on radar images.
3) Attempting to disrupt rail transport was not feasible other than sporadically due to the extreme distances involved.
4) Intelligence was extremely limited. Bear in mind that in Nazi Germany, if you spoke out against the regime- you got disappeared quite readily. The results of the Wannsee conference were known to only a few- most 9in the military knew that asking about resettlement trains could get you shot or transferred. The Germans also fooled the Red Cross- Treblinka was an example of an extermination camp that the Red Cross visited, and didn't suspect that it was an extermination center. Give the Germans credit for hiding what they were doing very effectively.
Sam
< Message edited by samboct -- 1/14/2008 9:23:20 AM >
|
RE: Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread