Talk:Auschwitz bombing debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 9/9/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

	Auschwitz bombing debate is part of WikiProject Jewish history, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardized and up-to-date resource for all articles related to Jewish history. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, also consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Jewish history articles.
Project Jewish history To-do: edit purge watch Here are some tasks you can do: Requests: Occult writers and antisemitism Copyedit: International response to the Holocaust, History of the Jews during World War II, Antisemitism Cleanup: Xueta (quite a mess),Jewish assimilation Stubs: Category:Jewish history stubs, Category:Jewish biography stubs NPOV: Category:Hasmoneans Other: Review: Föhrenwald (expanded); Assess Sandy Koufax Translate: from German: Judensau
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 NPOV 2 Title 3 they were bombing factories right next to Auschwitz, in which the inmates worked 4 Suggestion of Source 5 Pilecki's organisation1940-43 6 They didn't bomb it because.... 7 Aerial Reconnaisance Picture Info Box

[edit] NPOV

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)

The book "The Myth of Rescue" by William Rubinstein makes the contrary case. --Zero^talk 14:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has a serious problem. The title of hte article is 'Why Auschwitz was not bombed'. The article states that Auschwitz was not bombed, and that the allies could have bombed it, but doesn't actually answer (or even attempt to answer) the question why. Raul654 01:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Title

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)

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)

That seems a satisfactory outcome. Thanks - and good luck with the article. Batmanand | Talk 09:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is a much better title. I'm still bewildered by the focus on Auschwitz alone... Fourdee 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] they were bombing factories right next to Auschwitz, in which the inmates worked

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)

[edit] Suggestion of Source

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. --Zero^talk 07:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Zero. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pilecki's organisation1940-43

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)

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)

[edit] They didn't bomb it because....

.... they knew there was no reason to do so. --41.242.207.217 (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

More on Auschwitz from the air: http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndaerial.html#ftnref17 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.207.217 (talk) 16:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Why were these extermination camps full of starving people who looked like they'd been living there for years? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.240.249.92 (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how your question is relevant to this topic of why the Allied did not bomb the camps. The "starving people" were most likely typhus victims. It wasn't bombed because the Allied did not feel the rumors were correct that they were "extermination" camps. The front page at least links to the air-photo.com website at the very bottom which makes that case with documents. Why isn't there a stub about this on the main page when there is a link to a website that explains that the Allied did not feel they were "extermination" camps?

http://www.air-photo.com/english/policies.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.46.132 (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aerial Reconnaisance Picture Info Box

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)