i was watching a documentory on tv when it showed auschwitz, where the allies knew what was happening, britain asked america to use the long range bombers to do a bombing run to destroy a railline near the camp that brought the jews in and if possible attempt to hit the gas chambers, but yet even when this request reached D.C they refused to, and yet a few months after the request denied they did a run on a factory being built only 4 miles from auschwitz, with a number of bombers.
WHY?
allied failure
Moderator: sniper1shot
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
-
John W. Howard
- Moderator
- Posts: 2282
- Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2002 10:55 pm
Do A Search
Hello Noobie:
We have been over this one several times. To have any lasting effect the Allies would have had to bomb the railroads to the death-camps day-in-day-out until the end of the war, taking aircraft away from what the Allies considered their primary war-winning arm of war: strategic bombers. The Germans were expert at repairing rail lines, virtually over-night in some cases. Trying to bomb near the camps, or inside of them would have only done the German's job for them. The bombers of the time were very inaccurate and would have killed hundreds. The Nazis were determined to exterminate the camp inmates, to the point of diverting crucial transport away from the war effort, in order to ship inmates to the camps etc. If they could not have gassed them, they would have shot them, starved them, or killed them in some other way. In short, nothing was going to stop the killing until Allied troops set foot inside the camps, and the Allies saw strategic bombing, rightly or wrongly, as one of the best ways to bring that about. Best wishes.
We have been over this one several times. To have any lasting effect the Allies would have had to bomb the railroads to the death-camps day-in-day-out until the end of the war, taking aircraft away from what the Allies considered their primary war-winning arm of war: strategic bombers. The Germans were expert at repairing rail lines, virtually over-night in some cases. Trying to bomb near the camps, or inside of them would have only done the German's job for them. The bombers of the time were very inaccurate and would have killed hundreds. The Nazis were determined to exterminate the camp inmates, to the point of diverting crucial transport away from the war effort, in order to ship inmates to the camps etc. If they could not have gassed them, they would have shot them, starved them, or killed them in some other way. In short, nothing was going to stop the killing until Allied troops set foot inside the camps, and the Allies saw strategic bombing, rightly or wrongly, as one of the best ways to bring that about. Best wishes.
John W. Howard
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
pull vital bombers out of the war effort, ok but it aint that hard to divert even 15 bombers, and could you please give me a link to show how inaccurate a b-17 bomber was, and killed hundreds, right ok but yet just how many did the nazis kill each day, 10,000 if im correct, most of which were in the gas chambers or burning them, very few were shot,
"in the soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than to advance"-stalin
"in the soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than to advance"-stalin
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi vob-noobie,
You must realise that what you now know about Auschwitz, etc., is much more than the Allies knew at the time. You cannot reasonably criticise them for their target prioritisation when you don't know what they knew and don't have the massive burden of responsibility they had for winning a war that was much wider than a "holocaust" the scale of which was difficult to grasp.
Yes, it would have been great if Auschwitz, etc., had been bombed and we NOW know it may have saved many lives. But things weren't so obvious then.
Cheers,
Sid.
You must realise that what you now know about Auschwitz, etc., is much more than the Allies knew at the time. You cannot reasonably criticise them for their target prioritisation when you don't know what they knew and don't have the massive burden of responsibility they had for winning a war that was much wider than a "holocaust" the scale of which was difficult to grasp.
Yes, it would have been great if Auschwitz, etc., had been bombed and we NOW know it may have saved many lives. But things weren't so obvious then.
Cheers,
Sid.
Von Noobie
The war was much deadlier and scarier to the participants than you may realize looking back from these political correct times.
And the dirty little secret is that the KZ were, thanks to Hitler's incredable insanity, tying up much rolling stock upon which the Whermact depended for troop movements and supplies.
Plus as Sid noted not as much was known then as is known now. And the Allied peoples were more than a little sceptical about atrocity claims - after the ridiculous propaganda their leaders had sanctioned in WWII they found that stuff a little hard to believe.
War is not about doing the 'right' thing. It is about surviving after the guns stop firing. The Allies were absolutely ruthless and focused upon winning. Had they not been....well, you figure it out.
That's why many of us want no part of politics. Those guys have to make decisions that I'd rather not even think about. Given the quality of the men who wish to be our leaders I think it is wise never to expect much from them - that way you'll not be disappointed.
cheers
Reb
The war was much deadlier and scarier to the participants than you may realize looking back from these political correct times.
And the dirty little secret is that the KZ were, thanks to Hitler's incredable insanity, tying up much rolling stock upon which the Whermact depended for troop movements and supplies.
Plus as Sid noted not as much was known then as is known now. And the Allied peoples were more than a little sceptical about atrocity claims - after the ridiculous propaganda their leaders had sanctioned in WWII they found that stuff a little hard to believe.
War is not about doing the 'right' thing. It is about surviving after the guns stop firing. The Allies were absolutely ruthless and focused upon winning. Had they not been....well, you figure it out.
That's why many of us want no part of politics. Those guys have to make decisions that I'd rather not even think about. Given the quality of the men who wish to be our leaders I think it is wise never to expect much from them - that way you'll not be disappointed.
cheers
Reb
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
ok then explain why a "unknown jew" from hungary drove in a car from poland to syria to meet with other high ranking jewish peaple, presant at the meeting was a britsh officer, he was informed that the germans wanted to trade 1,000,000 jews for 10,000 trucks, or they would be killed, he told them that the mojority would be gased ot burned, the allies did recon over auschwitz and noticed certain buildings that stood out from the rest, they figured these were the gas chambers and so called showers, they did start to figure out what was going on but failed to act, there for it was an allied faliure.
in the soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than to advance-stalin
in the soviet army it takes more courage to retreat than to advance-stalin
-
Alex Coles
- Associate
- Posts: 780
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 9:50 am
- Location: England
Noobie!
You clearly don't understand. Bombing nearby the camps would be pointless. Bomber Crew casualties would increase. Here is a situation :
Bombers bomb a convoy heading to Auschwitz.
Many Jews die, one German dies and a few survive.
This is found out by Germany and 10-100 Jews are executed by the death of one German soldier because they think the remaining Jews killed the soldier.
This way, more Jews would of died anyway
Yes, that was what Stalin said but do you think a soldier would retreat just to get killed by NKVD or officers? Wouldn't it be better to kill an enemy or two before death? You would of at least served your purpose then.
You clearly don't understand. Bombing nearby the camps would be pointless. Bomber Crew casualties would increase. Here is a situation :
Bombers bomb a convoy heading to Auschwitz.
Many Jews die, one German dies and a few survive.
This is found out by Germany and 10-100 Jews are executed by the death of one German soldier because they think the remaining Jews killed the soldier.
This way, more Jews would of died anyway
Yes, that was what Stalin said but do you think a soldier would retreat just to get killed by NKVD or officers? Wouldn't it be better to kill an enemy or two before death? You would of at least served your purpose then.
Alex
(Also known as 17 SS)
(Also known as 17 SS)
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
and you dont understand the fact that i do not mean bombing a train, just bomb the tracks, or the gas chambers, and the so called showers, not that hard.
sure some jews may die but at a rait of 10,000 jews dead a day mostly by the gas chambers and so called showers, it would not be possiblefor the germans to even give punishment to the jews, they were short on men as more were sent to the russian front, almost no one was shot as it was said to be to messy and a waste of bullets.
i estamate at the rait of 10,000 jews dead a day which atleast 2,000-2,500 have to be from auschwitz it could have been decreased down to around 200-500 a day at most, which in the long run would save manny manny lives.
and as for allied bomber casualties i dont see why the americans are complaining, they did the most dairing bombing raids in ww2 and yet you try to tell me they would see this as a danger to there bomber crews.
sure some jews may die but at a rait of 10,000 jews dead a day mostly by the gas chambers and so called showers, it would not be possiblefor the germans to even give punishment to the jews, they were short on men as more were sent to the russian front, almost no one was shot as it was said to be to messy and a waste of bullets.
i estamate at the rait of 10,000 jews dead a day which atleast 2,000-2,500 have to be from auschwitz it could have been decreased down to around 200-500 a day at most, which in the long run would save manny manny lives.
and as for allied bomber casualties i dont see why the americans are complaining, they did the most dairing bombing raids in ww2 and yet you try to tell me they would see this as a danger to there bomber crews.
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi von-noobie,
Firstly, your anecdote lacks any source or evidential support. It contains no names or dates against which it can be checked.
But let us presume it is true. The anecdote illustrates perfectly the problem the Allies had. Why should they place any credence on the word of "an unknown Jew" who had emerged from Axis Europe to demand material support for the German war effort? You want them to change their strategic priorities on such flimsy grounds?
Cheers,
Sid.
Firstly, your anecdote lacks any source or evidential support. It contains no names or dates against which it can be checked.
But let us presume it is true. The anecdote illustrates perfectly the problem the Allies had. Why should they place any credence on the word of "an unknown Jew" who had emerged from Axis Europe to demand material support for the German war effort? You want them to change their strategic priorities on such flimsy grounds?
Cheers,
Sid.
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am
Hi von-noobie,
TV documentaries are notoriously unreliable - they are prone to sensationalism for the sake of audience ratings and they never, without exception, include any details of readily pursuable written sources. It is best to keep to books, which usually give a bibliography, even if they lack footnotes.
Cheers,
Sid.
TV documentaries are notoriously unreliable - they are prone to sensationalism for the sake of audience ratings and they never, without exception, include any details of readily pursuable written sources. It is best to keep to books, which usually give a bibliography, even if they lack footnotes.
Cheers,
Sid.
-
Enrico Cernuschi
- Patron
- Posts: 1086
- Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2002 2:05 am
- Location: Pavia
I beg your pardon, gentlemen, but this thread seems quite a nonsense one.
1) The Anglosaxon actually bombed the death camps, like any other target of opportunity in Continental Europe. Princess Mafalda of Savoy was wounded by an USAAF raid and died at Buchenwald on 29 Aug. 1944.
The bombers were only doing their job, of course, but to be able to discriminate between a sad Jew dying under the SS whip and an happy one slaughtered by an Allied bomb is quite a difficoult exercise, I presume.
2) The legend of the strain causes by the Jew extermination to the German Railwaies. The Reichbahn carried any year more than 200 millions of passengers before the war. The total of the Jews during not less than five years was only 7 millions (and we can consider a furhter millions of others political internees) and it was, usually, a single ticket.
EC
1) The Anglosaxon actually bombed the death camps, like any other target of opportunity in Continental Europe. Princess Mafalda of Savoy was wounded by an USAAF raid and died at Buchenwald on 29 Aug. 1944.
The bombers were only doing their job, of course, but to be able to discriminate between a sad Jew dying under the SS whip and an happy one slaughtered by an Allied bomb is quite a difficoult exercise, I presume.
2) The legend of the strain causes by the Jew extermination to the German Railwaies. The Reichbahn carried any year more than 200 millions of passengers before the war. The total of the Jews during not less than five years was only 7 millions (and we can consider a furhter millions of others political internees) and it was, usually, a single ticket.
EC
Ciàpla adasi, stà léger.
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
-
von_noobie
- Associate
- Posts: 630
- Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 5:47 am
- Location: victoria
-
sid guttridge
- on "time out"
- Posts: 8055
- Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2002 4:54 am