Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

Pardon my ignorance here, as I'm not well-informed on any "large Jewish revolts," but I am going off the assumption that the majority of them were not trained soldiers, and therefore "we" had no reason to give them war-supplies. That'd be just a waste, if not more dangerous to the revolting party than a "knives and clubs" rebellion.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

Well, the French Resistance weren't exactly the trained elite either. The difference between the French Resistance and Jewish Revolts was that the FR was a single large organization with a continued battle. The Jewish Revolts were little organized quick uprisings.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

I know that around that same time, the RAF performed several raids with Mossies carrying highballs (smaller versions of the "bouncing bomb" by all accounts) to knock out walls and towers and such and allow prisoners in POW Camps to escape. While the inmates in Auschwitz might not have had the same chances as POWs in the west, wouldn't bombing the camp in such a way that the inmates could escape atleast give them some chance of survival rather than none?

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

The French Resistance was anything but an organisation.

It was at the best of times a uneasy alliance of various groups within France who were occasionally "controlled" (with much resentment) from without France by the FFI. Most of the "French Resistance", the maquis, were draft dodgers who fled into the forests and hills, and formed gangs, who often raided local villages for food, and very rarely attempted action against the Germans until the final days of the occupation in France.

By contrast the Jewish Uprisings, such as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, was organised well in the long term, close knit organisations with common purpose, who developed contacts and aid links with other resistance units, primarily the Armia Krawoja.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

If the camp was leveled, the Nazis would just send the prisoners/future prisoners to another camp.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

The point is if the Allies had bombed the power plants or the rail lines leading in or out of the camps it would have at minimum hampered German execution efforts and at best interfered with war production and taken away a large percentage of their slave labor work force.

I dont think Bush was referring to outright carpet bombing the prisoner barracks to put a end to their misery. I think he was saying soemthing more should have been done to interfere with German efforts.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

It's a hard call, but I'd basically say hell no because it would be killing the innocent. Logic dictates that we should have done it, though the Nazis may have continued Hitler's "Final Solution" another way, but emotions say no, because innocents would die, even though they may die anyway, but those deaths wouldn't be on our shoulders, which could have been used as propaganda against the Nazis (though the camps were kept secret at the time).

In my opinion, I wouldn't do it, but instead find another way. Maybe use a squad of troops and some armor (though the armor could cause civilian casualties as well). In fact, the whole thing could have caused casualties, but much less than if the camp was bombed. This has it's complications as well, though, which I'll explain later, but overall, it's a better plan than just bombing the place.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

I'd prefer bombing the rail lines and gas factories, we didn't have enough force to go in there and liberate them and feed them, so bombing wouldn't do much good. However, taking out the rail lines would severely curtail the influx of new prisoners.

EDIT: For those who don't know much about the Holocaust, check out Maus, by Art Spiegelman.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

Yes, because it would have decreased the death toll.

Re: Bush: 'We should have bombed' Auschwitz
 

Bombing would have killed more people at the end of the war, not saved them. Even with the thousands of tons of bombs being dropped on Germany's 'war factories' and various cities, production of war materiel hardly faltered. In fact, Germany reached maximum production capacity of the war during 1944. Different tactics on the ground could have saved a countless number of lives, much more than a bomb drop ever could.