On the "not bombing Auschwitz"

Submitted by Devasahayam (United States), Jun 16, 2008 at 10:41

The idea that bombing of Auschwitz (or, more accurately, the railtracks leading to the camp) would have saved any lives is a fallacy based on using 1950's fighter-bombers--when in reality, actual combat aircraft in 1939 (and even 1943) consisted of:

• heavy level-bombers (such as Liberator, Flying Fort, Lanc) -- slow (especially compared to fighters) and not very manoeuvrable
• medium level-bombers (Mitchell, Marauder, ...) -- lower in range than heavies, still slower and much less maneouvrable than fighters
• dive-bombers (Dauntless, Lysander, ...) -- absolutely pathetic against fighters (see footage of Battle Of Britain of Stukas against Spitfire and Hurries)
• fighters -- would need modification to carry bombs, which would have impacted their speed and manoeuvrability

Plus, another assumption of having a "clean field" with no enemy (mostly German Luftwaffe) aircraft opposing--rather unrealistic.

Given the extreme cruelty of the Nazis, it is not inconceivable that they would have made prisoners march to death-camps on foot (which would have killed many through exertion and exposure) or forced them to repair the lines.

The best-case number for prisoners' lives saved by bombing camps/railtracks turns out to be---ZERO!

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".