Winston Churchill, a good friend to the Jews

[snopes]

There is an urban myth about Churchill that persists: while not antipathetic towards the Jews, he was fairly indifferent to their fate, or rather he didn't consider their fate the number one priority of the war. It is well to remember that the Holocaust became the moral justification for the war only retrospectively. At the time it was fought, the war was more about the Allies defeating an expansionist Germany in the interests of global security.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main...3/bogil108.xml

[Andrew of Ware]

Churchill immediately put into place plans to bomb the railway from Hungary. But why that strategy did not extend to bombing the rail tracks at Auschwitz remains unclear - they may have been out of range for British bombers, but not American.

It was extremely hard to bomb railway lines from a great height. The only bombs I know that could possibly do it were the 'Tallboy' bombs flown by the 'Dambusters' squadron. These were flown in specially adapted Lancaster bombers which (as the article says) could not reach Auschwitz. ('The Dambusters' book describes the great difficulty the 'Dambusters' had in even bombing a railway viaduct in France.)

I have also heard that whilst Churchill knew about the mass extermination of Jews he thought that the best way to stop the killing would be to defeat the Nazis. (In addition railway lines could be repaired fairly quickly, even if the bombs scored a direct hit on them.)

Also did Churchill know the full extent of the Holocaust in 1944? When Belsen was relieved by British troops a BBC reporter went in and sent back a description of the horrors. The BBC, at first, did not broadcast the report because not only was it too graphic but also they thought the reporter was exaggerating.

[Billy Beccles]

Originally Posted by Andrew of Ware

Also did Churchill know the full extent of the Holocaust in 1944? When Belsen was relieved by British troops a BBC reporter went in and sent back a description of the horrors. The BBC, at first, did not broadcast the report because not only was it too graphic but also they thought the reporter was exaggerating.

For your first point, Andrew, the obituary of Rudolf Vrba is instructive. The Swiss newspapers had the story in June 1944. I think it's reasonable to say Churchill knew pretty soon after.

The Vrba-Wetzler report continues to generate historical debate to this day. Many, including Vrba himself, have questioned whether the report was disseminated and acted upon as rapidly and as forcefully as it should have been. In an unanswerable "what if", Vrba continued to question to his last day whether more victims could have been saved had the allied and the Jewish leadership of the time pursued a more vigorous course of action in light of his report. This line of thought has at times made his ideas somewhat incongruent with the predominant Israeli historical narrative concerning the events of that time.

And on your second point, the reporter was Richard Dimbleby, and I have an idea that his first report was too emotional for the BBC, not too unbelievable. He had to record it again when he'd manged to sound ore dspassionate. I can't find for the moment the piece that gave me that impression. You can listen here to the first minute of his report.

(Dimbleby, for any Flanders and Swann enthusiasts passing through, is the mysterious Dimpleknee mentioned on At The Drop Of A Hat)

[Troberg]

It was extremely hard to bomb railway lines from a great height. The only bombs I know that could possibly do it were the 'Tallboy' bombs flown by the 'Dambusters' squadron. These were flown in specially adapted Lancaster bombers which (as the article says) could not reach Auschwitz. ('The Dambusters' book describes the great difficulty the 'Dambusters' had in even bombing a railway viaduct in France.)

Not only that, the Tallboys were expensive to make, as they were cast in high quality steel with a solid nose to allow them to penetrate deep into the ground befor detonation. It took a long time (about a month) for the solid steel head to cool enough to be safe for the molten explosives to be poured in, and after the explosives were poured into them, they took almost another month to cool off enough to be ready to use.

Only a few hundred were made, and they were used against high priority targets. I've even heard rumours that due to the cost, the crews were ordered to bring them back if the target for some reason could not be reached or found, instead of dropping them in the ocean.

Given all this, I'd doubt they would be used to take out a railway.

Edit: Some of the above is about the Grand Slam ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_bomb ). Sorry.

[JFB]

There's also the fact that, unlike supply and munitions trains--the traditional targets of railway bombing--the cargoes of concentration-camp trains can be marched on foot if a rail line is disabled.

I fail to see how any amount of bombing could have abated the Holocaust, other than by providing its victims a swifter death.

[Troberg]

There's also the fact that, unlike supply and munitions trains--the traditional targets of railway bombing--the cargoes of concentration-camp trains can be marched on foot if a rail line is disabled.

Good point. Even if a bridge was removed, a temporary solution for moving people on foot could quickly be arranged.

The best way to use the air force to help stop the holocaust would probably be:

1. Low level recon photography to show the world what was going on. Perhaps that could rally people to the war effort, ending the war earlier and forcing Germany to use its resources for war instead, as well as being used as propaganda against Germany.
2. Dropping troops to take and secure the camps ahead of the front proper, possibly supported by spearheads of tanks rushing through the lines, in order to stop the final coverup mass killings.

To actually resque people (except for providing undercover escape lines and so on) earlier in the war is a logistical impossibility. You just can't move that many people, most of them seriously weakened, across enemy territory.

[Squirt]

Although Auschwitz was in range of the American bombers, how much influence did Churchill have over US bombing policy? Also, the Schweinfurt long range raids resulted in such heavy casualties that I doubt American air force command was willing to make any other deep raids without a very significant military benefit. While disrupting the concentration camps would have had large immediate humanitarian results, it wouldn't have shortened the war at all. Knocking out u-boat pens or aircraft factories would probably save as many jewish lives, and more allied ones as well.

[Troberg]

While disrupting the concentration camps would have had large immediate humanitarian results

I doubt it, the jews would still be deep inside hostile territory, without any proper means of fighting back or escape.

Knocking out u-boat pens or aircraft factories would probably save as many jewish lives, and more allied ones as well.

I agree, finishing the war quickly was the only reasonable course of action.

The only way I can think of to close the camps would have been to get evidence out and inform the German people, but I strongly suspect that at the time, they would consider it faked propaganda.

[Squirt]

Originally Posted by Troberg

I doubt it, the jews would still be deep inside hostile territory, without any proper means of fighting back or escape.

You're right - Stopping the trains getting to Auschwitz might stop those people dying at Auschwitz, but there were other concentration camps, and I'm sure rerouting to Belsen or Treblinka wouldn't be tricky. It wouldn't save the people already there either.

There were occasions where allied bombers attacked prison camps and the people inside where able to escape, but that was for fairly small amounts of people and with the co-operation of local resistance groups.

[Meka]

Originally Posted by JFB

There's also the fact that, unlike supply and munitions trains--the traditional targets of railway bombing--the cargoes of concentration-camp trains can be marched on foot if a rail line is disabled.

I fail to see how any amount of bombing could have abated the Holocaust, other than by providing its victims a swifter death.

The British did mount Operation Jericho, in which the walls and guard barracks of the Amiens prison were bombed, allowing captured resistance fighters to escape. However, the bombers used were de Havilland Mosquitos, twin engine fighter-bombers, and would not have had the range to reach the majority of the camps, particularly the larger ones like Auschwitz. Larger aircraft like Lancasters or B-17s would not have had the accuracy needed for this kind of mission.

ETA: Spanked (sort of), but I should also point out that the Amiens prison was in France, and the attack was coordinated with the French resistance, so any escapees were, if still in enemy territory, quickly back in friendly hands. In addition, about 100 prisoners were killed in the raid by allied bombs.

[jason13]

Originally Posted by Squirt

You're right - Stopping the trains getting to Auschwitz might stop those people dying at Auschwitz, but there were other concentration camps, and I'm sure rerouting to Belsen or Treblinka wouldn't be tricky. It wouldn't save the people already there either.

Or the Germans could have done what they did in the USSR -- lined the Jews up next to a trench and shot them.

[RealityChuck]

Originally Posted by Squirt

Although Auschwitz was in range of the American bombers, how much influence did Churchill have over US bombing policy? Also, the Schweinfurt long range raids resulted in such heavy casualties that I doubt American air force command was willing to make any other deep raids without a very significant military benefit. While disrupting the concentration camps would have had large immediate humanitarian results, it wouldn't have shortened the war at all.

Wouldn't dropping bombs on Auschwitz being doing the Germans' work for them? And, as a bonus, the Nazis could show pictures of the bombing and blame the Allies for killing those poor defenseless well-treated people in the camps.

[Meka]

Originally Posted by RealityChuck

Wouldn't dropping bombs on Auschwitz being doing the Germans' work for them? And, as a bonus, the Nazis could show pictures of the bombing and blame the Allies for killing those poor defenseless well-treated people in the camps.

See the rest of the thread. Certainly, heavy bombers wouldn't have had the accuracy to target only specific buildings. Light bombers or fighter-bombers would have been able to, say, bomb the gas chambers/crematoria, or destroy the guards' quarters and blast a hole in the perimeter fence, with minimal casualties among the prisoners. However, they wouldn't have had the range to reach the camps.

Or would they? Auschwitz would probably have been out of range of a plane like the Mosquito (the most likely aircraft for a mission like this) but a look at this map of concentration camps shows a number of potential targets, including such major camps as Dachau and Buchenwald.

Food for thought, anyway.

[Meka]

Sorry for the double post, but I thought I'd throw in that the Allied air forces did, in fact, make a policy of destroying rail lines and locomotives, at least in the context of disrupting supply and troop movement. What effect this may have had on SS transports, I don't know, especially considering that (IIRC) trains to the camps supposedly got priority over everything else.

[Johnny Slick]

Originally Posted by Billy Beccles

For your first point, Andrew, the obituary of Rudolf Vrba is instructive. The Swiss newspapers had the story in June 1944. I think it's reasonable to say Churchill knew pretty soon after.



And on your second point, the reporter was Richard Dimbleby, and I have an idea that his first report was too emotional for the BBC, not too unbelievable. He had to record it again when he'd manged to sound ore dspassionate. I can't find for the moment the piece that gave me that impression. You can listen here to the first minute of his report.

(Dimbleby, for any Flanders and Swann enthusiasts passing through, is the mysterious Dimpleknee mentioned on At The Drop Of A Hat)

Oh yeah, WAY too emotional. You can almost hear the guy almost start to almost catch his throat!