Talk:Auschwitz bombing debate

message: This article has just been started, which is why it's currently somewhat one-sided. This will be addressed in the coming days/weeks as the article develops. SlimVirgin (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul, it was started as a longer-term project and is going to require a lot more writing. I'll try to find the time soon to get it into at least minimal shape. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: The original title was "Why Auschwitz wasn't bombed"; the grammar Nazi in me moved it to "Why Auschwitz was not bombed"; and now it has been moved back. I feel somewhat uncomfortable with unnecessary abbreviations in article title names, and I want to know whether or not this is just me (if so, fair enough, I will relent) or whether others feel the same. A possible compromise is to rename the page "Auschwitz bombing controversy", or words to that effect. Batmanand | Talk 13:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the title to "Auschwitz bombing debate," as there seemed to be a consensus to change it during the AfD, and someone suggested this one. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems a satisfactory outcome. Thanks - and good luck with the article. Batmanand | Talk 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this is a much better title.  I'm still bewildered by the focus on Auschwitz alone...  Fourdee 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the new title is a really poor one. Aushwitz wasn't bombed so there's no debate --> the question is WHY it wasn't bombed. Allegations that not bombing death camps was premedidated against Jews is the appropriate title, but the best is simply why were the death camps not bombed.... and if one doesn't like the question: Reasons/excuses for not bombing death camps. Amoruso 02:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Some even hit the camp (and others too), and the guards had an anti-aircraft shelters and trenches. They would also accidentally strafe the death trains (like the famous Dachau one). Also, the Polish plan for the Auschwitz uprising included an air raid. --HanzoHattori 19:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  they were bombing factories right next to Auschwitz, in which the inmates worked 

message: This is a drive-by mention of a source that would benefit this article: Michael J. Cohen, "Churchill and Auschwitz: End of Debate?", Modern Judaism - Volume 26, Number 2, May 2006, pp. 127-140.  In this article Cohen claims to solve the question of why Churchill did not follow through on his initial positive reaction to the proposal to bomb Auschwitz.  --Zerotalk 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Zero. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion of Source 

message: Years before Vrba-Wetzler! To quote: From October 1940, ZOW sent reports to Warsaw, and beginning March 1941, Pilecki's reports were being forwarded via the Polish resistance to the British government in London. These reports were a principal source of intelligence on Auschwitz for the Western Allies. Pilecki hoped that either the Allies would drop arms or troops into the camp, or the Home Army would organize an assault on it from outside. --HanzoHattori 04:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What point are you making? Knowing that camp called Auschwitz existed is different from knowing about the gassings there, which were not occurring in 1940. Paul B 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pilecki's organisation1940-43 

message: .... they knew there was no reason to do so. --41.242.207.217 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's not relevant to the article but I thought it might still be good to explain that many of the concentration camp inmates were sent from one camp to another, so if they were mere skeletons that does not mean they must have starved for a long time at that exact camp, just look at the histories of some inmates.Galant Khan (talk) 23:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  They didn't bomb it because.... 

message: If there are no objections I'll change the reference to the picture being taken by a "Mosquito fighter bomber" to "Mosquito photo-reconnaissance aircraft", which is the actual type of aircraft that took the photo of Auschwitz.Starviking (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerial Reconnaisance Picture Info Box 

message: The image :File:Pilecki ausch f.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:RudolfVrba2.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Pilecki ausch f.jpg

message: What does unmittelbar getötet mean, why is there no translation for it? Bigger digger (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's no longer in the article but it means "immediately killed". Galant Khan (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  unmittelbar getötet (?) 

message: What has always puzzled me about most arguments in favor of bombing Auschwitz is that they never specifically state what exactly was to be accomplished by such bombings. Was it expected that the bombings would lead to escapes? Inmates escaped from death camps by the hundreds, but the Germans and their allies never had much of a problem rounding them back up again. Was it to actually stop the killing process? The Einsatzgruppen show that the real machinery of death is a willingness to murder, not gas chambers and crematoria. Was it to show the Nazi leadership that the Allies were serious about holding them responsible for their crimes? This had already been explicitly stated and, if any doubts remained, the systematic bombing of Germany day and night (at great cost) should have been proof enough of Allied earnestness and resolve. Was it simply the right thing to do from a moral standpoint? Well, this at least allows us, over sixty years after the fact, to pat ourselves on the back for being morally superior to our 1940s counterparts, but the tangible results of such a policy would have been negligible. How many Jews, ostensibly to be saved by the bombings, would be killed by the bombs? How many aircrew would be sacrificed so we in the present can feel better about ourselves and our countries? Plus, if you do bomb Auschwitz, what else doesn't get bombed that day? Would the war be lengthened because the moral effort to bomb Auschwitz limited the number of sorties that could have been flown against Germany's dwindling oil supplies or rail infrastructure? Wyman himself seems to admit that the only real result of such a campaign would be some sort of moral victory with few, if any, lives saved. I realize that this is not a forum, but I mention all of this because if there have been concrete proposals on bombing Auschwitz with specific objectives in mind, they should certainly be included in the article.172.190.3.121 (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  To what end? 

message: An edit in March added content to contradict the idea that bombing was supported at the time or feasible. It massively expanded the lead and added argumentative editorializing into the article. I'm loath to revert as this seems to be sourced content, but the tone and structure is all wrong. Fences&Windows 18:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article now a bit of a mess

message: Speaking as a reader rather than an editor, there doesn't seem to much in the article as to the debate itself. 
I think, the article needs to cover cerrtain points better than it does.
#When the debate started
#Whose on which side of the debate
#Who are the chief proponents
#How important the debate is to Holocaust history
#Is there are similar debate over any other camps
#How it fits in with the general question of "why didn't the Allies do something?"
Before it gets into the minutinae of the arguments, as to what could have been achieved by bombing and how it could have been done. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The omission in the debate so far is that the Soviets aren't mentioned at all, even though they were so close in 1944. I have just tidied up that para. Let me try:
#1993 - "At the dedication of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington in 1993, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel famously asked, "Why weren't the railways leading to Birkenau bombed by allied bombers? As long as I live I will not understand that"." and then 1998 - Wyman, David S. "Why Auschwitz wasn't bombed," in Gutman, Yisrael & Berenbaum, Michael. "Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp", Indiana University Press. 
#Outside of the debates in academia and in TV documentaries, all the real-world decision-makers have died.
#Not very, as no bombing took place; it can be a counterfactual conditional at best, but books written about it will sell
#No; the Vrba-Wetzler report only mentioned Auschwitz
#Since the 1943 Casablanca Conference the western allies could not negotiate with the Nazis. The air forces looked at it in 1944 and said no; the political will was there, in Churchill's mind anyway. Bombing the railways was therefore the only thing the allies could have done, but the Germans were also expert at quickly repairing bombed railways.86.42.195.97 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The debate 

message: While it would be nice to have something about the Soviet position, that can only be done on the basis of sources that report it.  The journal paper of Glantz which was offered as a source does not mention the camps, Jews, the Holocaust, or indeed anything directly concerning the subject of this article.  It is entirely concerned with the Soviet role in the Warsaw Uprising. Zerotalk 05:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely the lack of a Soviet aspect – why there was no Soviet policy on this – compounds the fact that very few people of relative unimportance suggested this bombing to the western allies?86.42.192.204 (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both the US and UK governments considered the question, so it is somewhat irrelevant who asked them.  I don't remember reading about anyone asking the Soviets or if they considered it.  Zerotalk 08:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a source that states that the Soviet Union didn't know anything at all about the Holocaust? This would improve the article and settle that aspect. Obviously in terms of simple physics and proximity the SU could have bombed the camps much more easily than the US / UK air forces. By mid-1944 the SU air force had already bombed Berlin which was much further from its bases than the death camps.86.42.195.219 (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

text: The Soviets were members of the United Nations in 1942, and so would at least have been aware of the 1942 Polish booklet addressed to the United Nations. The Auschwitz bombing debate focuses on what the UK and USA might have done in 1943-44. Doubtless some American academic will some day widen the scope to include the USSR, but until then...78.16.33.213 (talk) 10:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet position 

message: This paragraph is problematic, due to lack of sources or inaccessible sources.  It has dubious claims, such as "By 1943, however, Pilecki realized that no such plans existed."  (How could an Auschwitz inmate know what plans existed?)  Also, "the British authorities refused air support for an operation to help the inmates escape" needs a source and it also doesn't make much sense (what operation exactly was support refused for?).  Zerotalk 08:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph on  Witold Pilecki 

message: Children of the Flames contains a relevant quote from one of the Mengele twins(Olga Grossman if I'm not mistaken).  The quote was regarding the American planes they would see fly overhead and how she either wished or prayed that they would bomb the camp.  Unless I am missing something there are no quotes from Auschwitz prisoners in this article so IMO it should certainly be included.  Seems as if it would fit well with the information on the US planes taking photographs.  I'm new to this and also a little hesitant to edit something of controversy.  Any input or objections?  UselessToRemain (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twin quote: "I wished every day they would bomb it." 

message: it could be useful:
"AMERICA'S FAILURE TO BOMB AUSCHWITZ: A New Consensus Among Historians" by Dr. Rafael Medoff &Prof. Bat-Ami Zucker.
It reports the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress’s positions and other proponents: it seems to me that the claim in the WP article that the bombing was proposed "by a tiny handful of individuals on the periphery" is wrong.
And "despite the War Department’s claim that reaching Auschwitz would require diverting planes from elsewhere in Europe, U.S. bombers repeatedly attacked German oil factories close to the death camp throughout the summer" (chapter VII).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.140.2 (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  a new source 

message: Who is debating with whom? Auschwitz wasn't bombed and this article is on that. Buchenwald concentration camp was bombed by the US air force in August 1944, killing 388 and wounding over 2,000, but that doesn't get an article. Buchenwald was then liberated in 1945. Did that bombing make any difference? Sadly, no. This all comes across as a book selling exercise.86.42.200.153 (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Buchenwald concentration camp was in Germany and by far less people were killed there, the extermination camps were in Poland and Auschwitz is kind of the synonym for them due to the sheer extent of the killing. Which book do you think was supposed to be sold? Galant Khan (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Whose debate?

message: The assertion that some thought had not occurred to anyone prior to some specific date cannot be factual in any context.216.96.229.97 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea of bombing 

message: Re: John J. McCloy to bomb the camps. ... Akzin was not "a zionist activist in america". in fact, he was a junior employee of the war refugee board, of which john w. pehle was executive director, and akzin never accompanied pehle to a meeting with mccloy. secondly, pehle definitely did not "urge" mccloy to "bomb the camps". in fact, on june 24, 1944, pehle met with mccloy, passed on the recommendation, but made it abundantly clear that he did not endorse it. in fact, pehle "made it very clear to mr. mccloy that i was not, at this point at least, requesting the war department to take any action on this proposal other than to appropriately explore it. mccloy understood my position and said that he would check into the matter." source: fdr library, wrb files, box 35, hungary no. 5, reproduced in wymen, ed., "america and the holocaust", xii:104. whoever wrote the sentence above is obviously deliberately trying to deceive readers.  Text case lowered by Poeticbent talk 09:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Text reverted for wp:shouting

message: It said the debate was largely a post-war debate, which contradicts the main part of the article. And aerial photographs were only found after the war. Both sentences were marked as"citation needed" since October 2013, which I think risks discrediting the article. Please go ahead if you have sources, though at least the first sentence I think should not be in the intro given the information that follows in the main part. Galant Khan (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted two pieces of controversial information from intro 

message: Curiously, this article has not mentioned anti-antisemitism as a factor in why Auschwitz was not bombed. I've just watched the superb Auschwitz dvd and this was said about British refusal to save Jews from being sent from Hungary to Auschwitz in exchange for supplying the Nazis with trucks: "But during the discussion there was another, less idealistic reason suggested to refuse the Nazis' offer. Which was that to accept it might 'lead to an offer to unload an even greater number of Jews on our hands.'" (Transcript: http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/about/transcripts_5.html) I realise that accepting on English language Wikipedia that antisemitism existed among powerful British state officials as late as 1944 would undermine much post-WW II revisionism, but let's just do the historical record justice here. 188.141.10.11 (talk) 14:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Antisemitism as a factor?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Auschwitz bombing debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://en.auschwitz.org.pl/m/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=578&Itemid=8
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Auschwitz bombing debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://search.archives.gov/cs.html?url=http%3A//www.archives.gov/iwg/declassified-records/rg-226-oss/entry-210.pdf&charset=iso-8859-1&qt=auschwitz+hungary&col=1arch&n=11&la=en
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011192402/http://www.ushmm.org:80/research/collections/highlights/auschwitz/?content=2 to http://www.ushmm.org/research/collections/highlights/auschwitz/?content=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090506085022/https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v44i4a06p_0001.htm to https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v44i4a06p_0001.htm
*Added  tag to http://www.allworldwars.com/The%20Defeat%20of%20the%20German%20Air%20Force.htm
*Added  tag to http://watchfreemovie.uk/video/500/auschwitz-the-forgotten-evidence
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Stalin refused to use his huge air force to bomb the death camps in 1944-45. (86.133.84.214 (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin 

message: Never heard of a more retarded plan.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.176.131.174 (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bomb someone to save him 

message: Bauer's change of mind on this is notable and should be covered. A key article is here. From the conclusions: "not only were the Jews powerless, but the mighty US and its charismatic president would have been unable to rescue the millions of Jews murdered by the Nazis even had they tried—nor did they make serious efforts to save at least thousands of them." Zerotalk 05:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yehuda Bauer 

message: I've added the Times ref needed, and a link to the actual debate online. Clearly the "United Nations" knew what was going on, clearly they deplored it and clearly they could do nothing about it. The Jewish MPs who spoke were glad that the matter was discussed and agreed upon.78.17.32.83 (talk) 10:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm adding the BBC News radio coverage on 17 December, that was broadcast to Europe in several languages, and the responses of various churches etc.78.17.32.83 (talk) 10:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Commons December 1942

message: * Film in Germany 2020 - English Titel/Version: 1944: Should We Bomb Auschwitz? (BBC Two 29 September 2019 (59 Min), Director Tim Dunn, Script Mark Hayhurst; Oxford Film and Television (Production) - Wikipedia, germ. Edition  --User:Sehund, look and…] (sorry) 12:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: New Film

message: Change "The Holocaust: what the Allies knew" to "Allied intelligence on the Holocaust"
Change "Auschwitz: what the Allies knew" to "Allied intelligence on Auschwitz-Birkenau"
Change "Bombing Auschwitz: technical considerations" to "Chances of success" Originalcola (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Deauthorized. (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2021 

message: The section on Churchill should mention that more than half of the Warsaw airlift was dropped to the Germans, as this underlines how inaccurate aerial bombing was in 1944. Westerhaley (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TGHL ↗ 🍁 20:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2021 

message: The sections on "Background" and "Allied intelligence on Auschwitz-Birkenau" are way too long. The "Background" section doesn't even mention Auschwitz. They should be repleced with something shorter and their content, if not duplicated, could be moved to Karski's reports and to Auschwitz_concentration_camp#Camp_resistance,_flow_of_information, or perhaps become a self-standing article, Allied intelligence on Auschwitz-Birkenau. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 03:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background + Allied intelligence on Auschwitz-Birkenau 

message: All of this discussion ignores the fact that Poland was a Soviet theatre of operations.  The primary question should be why the Soviets didn't bomb the railroads or the camps. By April of 1944, the Soviet Dnieper offensive had driven to within about 200 miles of Auschwitz. This was well within the combat radius of Soviet bombers especially the thousands of Douglas A-20 Havocs and Mitchell B-25s the US had supplied the Soviet Union. Both aircraft had a combat radius of 1000 miles or more, and the Havocs and Mitchells were especially well-suit to precision attacks on buildings and rail lines. And for all we know these bombers in Soviet hands probably did attack the rail lines, even if their intent wasn't to isolate the camps. By August of 1944, the Soviets had reached the outskirts of Krakow, but did not push on to liberate Auschwitz or otherwise attempt to put it out of operation. The Soviets waited until January 1945 to liberate the camp.  A discussion that leaves out the Soviet forces closest to the camps and most suited for the liberating or decommissioning it is not even handed. 2600:8800:4684:BD00:980:9D5D:6870:67FF (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the Soviets 

message: I feel this section needs a lot more detail. Here is a block of text from the auchwitz page that might be added: "Wyman argued that, since the IG Farben plant at Auschwitz III had been bombed three times between August and December 1944 by the US Fifteenth Air Force in Italy, it would have been feasible for the other camps or railway lines to be bombed too. Bernard Wasserstein's Britain and the Jews of Europe (1979) and Martin Gilbert's Auschwitz and the Allies (1981) raised similar questions about British inaction.[267] Since the 1990s, other historians have argued that Allied bombing accuracy was not sufficient for Wyman's proposed attack, and that counterfactual history is an inherently problematic endeavor.[268]" Firestar47 (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chances of success