Should we have bombed Auschwitz in WWII?

Question

We had the blueprints, relatively early on, and would have been able to bomb the central administrative sector. However, bombs were not laser-guided.

I am doing a debate on this topic. What is the strongest argument that we should have bombed it?

I GOT STUCK WITH THIS TOPIC FOR A DEBATE AND HAVE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM THAT WE SHOULD HAVE BOMBED IT. IF YOU CAN'T HELP ME THEN DON'T SAY ANYTHING.

Answer 1

It's a tough thing to argue for. The strongest argument is probably that the genocide should have been stopped at any cost for simple humane reasons. If the operation of the camp could have been permanently stopped, it would have prevented a lot of people from being killed there who otherwise would have.
You could also say:
1. Inmates who died in the bombing would have suffered less than by being starved, tortured and worked to death.
2. Since the inmates were being used for slave labor to produce things needed for the war, it would have hampered the war effort to some extent.
3. The argument mentioned about railheads is good.
4. German SS officers would have been killed.

Answer 2

My argument FOR the bombing (I'm not for it, but I'll help you out). So that the Nazis will fear further attacks on camps. They didn't want their own prison guards to get killed. They had a very hard time getting guards in the first place because most Nazis were fighting in the war. If there were no guards, then they wouldn't be able to enact the final solution, so they would go out of there way to defend the camps by diverting resources. Also, Auschwitz was the main camp. If you destroy it, the railways which lead to other camps will not be accessible, so the prisoners there would be saved. This move would have bought the allies more time to liberate the prisoners and win the war because the killings would have been delayed drastically and the Nazis would have to send materials and troops to rebuild the entire camp. With resources absent at the front, the allies would easily win the war and save the lives of millions who could have been saved by bombing Auschwitz.

Answer 3

It wasn't bombed because the camp was deep inside Poland and the risk would have been considered too great. The aircraft available at the time would not have been able to fly the round trip from England to Poland and back. The range of a fully-loaded B-17 bomber was about 2000 miles. The distance from London to Warsaw is about 900 miles, one-way. These were the days before in-flight refueling. Unless the bombers were to go on some kind of one-way, suicide mission, bombing Auschwitz was impossible. The only, remotely, realistic thing to do would have been a commando-style raid. But then what? Even if the number of commandos needed (hundreds) could be mustered, equipped (tons), and somehow secretly infiltrated into Southern Poland (remember 900 miles from England), where do the hundreds of thousands of prisoners go? Home? Unlikely. East toward the Soviet Army? They would first need to get through hundreds of miles of German-occupied territory just to get to the Soviets. And the Russians aren't exactly pro-Jewish either. Simply left alone to fend for themselves? This would have been a very audacious and unrealistic mission. Seems to me that you got screwed in your assignment. Should the attempt have been made? If the means would have been available...absolutely! The prisoners were involved in the production of war material. The large number of enemy soldiers and officers present would have made for a juicy target. Destruction of the rail lines leading to the camps would have seriously disrupted logistics. But, considering 1940's technology, I can't see how it could be done.

Answer 4

I think we should have definatly bombed it. During the war I don't that we were fully aware of what was going on - a lot of Germans weren't! But had we known exactly what was happening I think we would have.

The amin reason that we should have is that it would have destroyed the camp meaning that they would have to spend time rebuilding it, this time would have saved lives as they killed many people a day.

I know that When Britian learned that nazis were going to execute everyone in a prisoner of war camp the RAF bombed it - the think was that they wouold all definatly be killed if they did nothing, so if they bombed it some would be killed but some would have achance of escape, and even a small hope of life is infinatly better than certain death.
Using this arguement I think u can justify bombing concentration camps.

Good luck in the debate!

Answer 5

To follow the line of reasoning you have been assigned is difficult. What should have been bombed, at Auschwitz, is all rail transport hubs, etc. The rail yards in Oswiecm (sp?) were vast and carried millions of tons of men and materiel for the German war effort, not just the unfortunates going to the camps at Auschwitz.
Further, had we bombed the camp, even if we could have done so in a precision like manner, the murder machine would have been rebuilt within a week.
I'd concentrate on the railroads and how they repeatedly diverted and/or halted or stalled "legitimate" traffic. One, if not THE, primary reason those camps were located there in the first place was the rail heads.

Answer 6

The city where my family lived in 1944, Caen (France-Normandy) was bombed to win the battle. 500 civilians were killed. The german army was entrenched out of the city, in farms...No nazi soldier was in the city.
To bomb the Auschwitz central administrative sector in 1944 is a grim joke.
The only way to stop Auschwitz was to use ground forces. The Red Army did that...By the way, where was the US Air Force in 1939-1940, when the Nazis began to build the ghettos in Poland? Where was the famous US marine corps, when they shot hundreds of Jews in Ukraine during the 1941 summer? Stop saying nonsenses about bombing Auschwitz. The Americans came too late, that's the only truth...

Answer 7

First off, it's not "we", it's "they". You had nothing to do with decisions made during World War II. Even if you lived during that time, you would have about one in 100,000,000 chance to participate in making that particular decision.

Second, you forget that the U.S. government at the time had a well-documented history of institutional anti-Semitism, as did the U.S. in general. Quite a few people in concentration camps ended there precisely because the U.S. government refused to admit Jewish refugees from Italy (and then Germany, and then Austria and Poland) in 1920s and 1930s, claiming that persecution of Jews was a figment of someone's overactive imagination. In fact, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (whose purpose was to curb immigration, including Jewish immigration, from Southern and Eastern Europe) in the U.S. was passed the same year Benito Mussolini became the prime minister of Italy... So the U.S. government at the time really didn't care if European Jews lived or died; in fact, many would prefer that they died...

Third, bombs are expensive and their delivery is risky; thus, they are allocated to targets whose destruction is deemed the most important for the quickest possible surrender of the enemy. In practice, this means bombs are dropped onto military targets (to destroy manpower, supplies, and weapons), industrial and infrascturture targets (to destroy industry and transportation necessary for the continuation of war), or large cities (to incite fear and panic). Bombing concentration camps would achieve none of these objectives.

Answer 8

Why would you bomb it? To kill hundreds or thousands of innocent POWs, or to remove all evidence that the Nazis were enacting the final solution, thereby giving credence to those who say it never happened?

What a dumb question. You bomb strategic targets. Not prisons.

Answer 9

No, definantly not. More civilians where in that area than of the actually Nazi people. Since America didnt have the technology back then I believe they made a good decision.

Answer 10

There is no reason to bomb it.

Why would anyone ask you such a question. It maybe that that the best answer is to question the credibility and motives of the one asking the question.