Skip to main content

Why Didn't the Allies Bomb Auschwitz?

Train tracks converge at the entrance to the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Train tracks converge at the entrance to the Nazi death camp, Auschwitz-Birkenau. In this photo, taken in 1945, the tracks are strewn with snow-covered personal effects that belonged to the camp's inmates.
(Image: © Alamy)

In the spring of 1944, Allied forces received disturbing intelligence about horrific atrocities taking place at Auschwitz-Birkenau in southern Poland, a place now known as one of the Nazis' most brutal extermination camps. 

Two escaped Jewish prisoners revealed first-hand knowledge of the horrors they experienced, and the Allies faced a terrible choice at a pivotal moment during the war, when their military resources were already strained to the breaking point.

Should they deploy aircraft to bomb the death camp, despite a substantial risk of killing trapped prisoners? Or were the military cost and potential loss of life too great, when the outcome of World War II itself hung in the balance? In a new PBS documentary, "Secrets of the Dead: Bombing Auschwitz," historians probe the deliberations of Allied leaders: Should they perform a moral but militarily fruitless action, or concentrate their might on crushing the Nazi war machine for good?

Related: Photos: The Flying Bombs of Nazi Germany

Established in 1940 near the town of Oświęcim, Poland, as a concentration camp for Polish political prisoners, Auschwitz's inmate numbers skyrocketed as the war progressed. In August 1944, Auschwitz held around 400,000 people: 205,000 were Jews and 195,000 were non-Jews — Poles, Soviet POWs, Roma and other ethnic groups, according to the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum. (By the war's end an estimated 1.1 million people had died there.)  

When Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler escaped Auschwitz in April 1944, they brought with them the first eyewitness testimony describing gas chambers and the Nazis' use of mass murder at an unthinkable scale. Their detailed account to Slovakia's Jewish underground, first known as the Vrba-Wetzler report, was later distributed as The Auschwitz Protocol, according to PBS.

From May through July of 1944, copies of the report were sent to neutral Switzerland's War Refugee Board; to the War Refugee Board headquarters in Washington, D.C.; and to leaders of the Allied forces, including the American assistant secretary of war, John McCloy. Winston Churchill, the British prime minister, was so troubled by the report that he issued a memo recommending a bombing raid on the death camp.

But ultimately, no bombers were sent to Auschwitz. Though Allied raids were already targeting the German chemical plant IG Farben, which was located just 4 miles (6 kilometers) from the death camp and even used Auschwitz prisoners for labor, several factors led the Allies to reject Auschwitz as a potential target, said Tami Davis Biddle, a professor of history and national security strategy at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

Sketch of the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers and crematoria from the English-language version of the Vrba-Wetzler report, published November 1944.

Sketch of the Auschwitz-Birkenau gas chambers and crematoria from the English-language version of the Vrba-Wetzler report, published November 1944. (Image credit: Executive Office of the United States War Refugee Board)

An uncertain outcome

One reason can be traced to widespread anti-Semitism in the U.S. and the U.K. during WWII, fanned by a highly effective Nazi propaganda campaign suggesting that Jews were manipulating the Allied war machine, Biddle told Live Science.

"Politicians got nervous if it looked like they were making special efforts on behalf of the Jews," Biddle said. In fact, many figures in American leadership — Jewish and non-Jewish alike — agreed at the time that maintaining public support of the war effort required downplaying emphasis on Jewish interests, said Michael Berenbaum, a professor of Jewish studies at American Jewish University in Los Angeles.

"There was a fear that Americans would support the war effort less if they thought it was war about the Jews," Berenbaum told Live Science.

There was also the question of how accurately Auschwitz could be bombed from the air. Allied military officers had some aerial photos of the camp, and the Auschwitz Protocol provided more intel about the buildings, so bombers could pick targets that would cause fewer casualties. But aerial bombing during WWII was notoriously inaccurate; so-called precision bombing, as we know it today, was impossible, and a raid could have killed far more prisoners than it saved, Biddle said.

"You would need to drop 220 bombs on each of the four crematoria at Auschwitz-Birkenau to have a 90% chance of one of them hitting each crematorium," Biddle said. 

Aerial photographs such as this one, taken above Auschwitz on April 4,1944, gave the Allies limited information about the layout and distribution of buildings.

Aerial photographs such as this one, taken above Auschwitz on April 4,1944, gave the Allies limited information about the layout and distribution of buildings. (Image credit: Alamy)

Related: Understanding the 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors

What's more, assigning bombers to an Auschwitz raid would divert military resources away from the front lines, Biddle said. 

"We look back on World War II and we tend to think, well, it was probably obvious that we were going to win. It wasn't," Biddle said. The window in 1944 in which it was possible to strike at Auschwitz was also one of the most intense periods of fighting on the European continent; Allied forces were scrambling to move armies eastward, shut down German rocket-launching sites and prevent a resurgence of the Luftwaffe — the German air force.

"The military was very jealous of its resources. It's pretty much fighting for its life in 1944," Biddle said. "On the one hand, there's the case for diverting resources to go hit this target. On the other hand, there's this sense that we've just got to defeat the Germans no matter what, and focus everything on the military defeat."

Even if the Allies had bombed Auschwitz, it wouldn't have been a "magic bullet" that saved millions of lives, Berenbaum said. By the time the Allies had what they needed to proceed with a raid, it would have been too late for most of the Holocaust's 11 million victims. Most of the death camps had already been shut down by the retreating Nazis; at that point, about 90% of the people murdered by the Third Reich had already been killed, Berenbaum said. 

Nevertheless, there's no denying that bombing Auschwitz would have sent a resounding message that such terrible atrocities would not go unanswered.

"I wish we had done it," Biddle said. "I wish that we could look back on our record of the war and say, we understood how awful this was, and we want to make a moral statement." 

"Secrets of the Dead: Bombing Auschwitz" premieres Jan. 21 at 9 p.m. on PBS (check local listings), pbs.org/secrets and the PBS Video app to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day and the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.

Originally published on Live Science.

How It Works Banner

Want more science? Get a subscription of our sister publication "How It Works" magazine, for the latest amazing science news.  (Image credit: Future plc)
  • Steve Orlowski
    The Americans and the British did high altitude bombing. Not very accurate. It's doubtful if it would have accomplished anything. However, the Soviets were approximately 100 miles away during the last 6 months of Aushwitz's operations. The Soviets had Illushin Stormovik ground attack planes. They could have easily stopped operations at Aushwitz with minimal collateral damage to the prisoners.
    Reply
  • tony
    We should have at the very least bombed the rail lines leading to the camps.
    Reply
  • corn29
    Steve Orlowski said:
    The Americans and the British did high altitude bombing. Not very accurate. It's doubtful if it would have accomplished anything.

    ALL bombing in WWII was inaccurate.

    That's one of the major premises of the the article.

    Go back and find the sentence which mentioned how many bombs required to achieve 90% chance of success.

    Moreover every platform had its limitations... the 15th Air Force at the time was elsewhere in Europe trying to take out the ability for the Nazis to re-supply their war machine.

    Medium and low altitude bombing missions required too much of an escort at the time to make bombing Auschwitz a viable target from a purely a strategic perspective.

    What the allies could have done, is say, bomb the train tracks into the camps. But, as the article also mentions there was no political appetite to do so because of Antisemitism back home. You should go back and read that part again too.

    Steve Orlowski said:
    Illushin Stormovik ground attack planes. They could have easily stopped operations at Aushwitz (sic) with minimal collateral damage to the prisoners.

    Completely RIDICULOUS statement. The Il-2 was a close support aircraft NOT a bomber.

    It only carried anti-tank and crude cluster bombs. That's NOT going to bring Auschwitz down. It would set it on fire but that's about it.

    The IL-2 was considered an inaccurate platform -- even by WWII standards. The only reason it got any notoriety is because how many of them were produced... NOT that it was a capable platform.
    Reply
  • Truthseeker007
    Or maybe Prescott Bush shouldn't have helped to fund Hitler in the first place and or the bankers. Does Rothschild ring a bell? And what about IBM? Take a look at what they did for Hitler.
    Reply
  • Neil Bailey
    admin said:
    A new PBS documentary probes the deliberation behind the historic decision.

    Why Didn't the Allies Bomb Auschwitz? : Read more
    Alright somthe alloeds have. Ow bombed Auschwitz successfully,no wonder what,there is now allied control of the resultants, which would be horrific.Not Easy dicission to make,considering the potential outcome.
    Reply
  • Noeh209
    Truthseeker007 said:
    Or maybe Prescott Bush shouldn't have helped to fund Hitler in the first place and or the bankers. Does Rothschild ring a bell? And what about IBM? Take a look at what they did for Hitler.


    Finally someone that actually knows they true history and not the fake history that was taught in school. You beat me to the punch wifi lagging so registering for a account took me a bit. Great grand pappy bush and his fellow german/u.k. cabal friend came up with the perfect master plan to get rich by purposely sparking a second world war business was booming and they built they empire. So of course bombing wasn't accurate 🤔 I wonder why. follow the money oh that's right conspiracy theories are acts of terrorism now and will not be tolerated foreign or domestic (with us or against us) 🤣 they will not negociate either just fly they family out of the US for they safety because of the last name
    Bushes and Binladens sitting in a tree laughing and bullshiting cause they had planned on paying for 2 wars and only had to pay for 1 cause the other was free.
    Reply
  • Truthseeker007
    Noeh209 said:
    Finally someone that actually knows they true history and not the fake history that was taught in school. You beat me to the punch wifi lagging so registering for a account took me a bit. Great grand pappy bush and his fellow german/u.k. cabal friend came up with the perfect master plan to get rich by purposely sparking a second world war business was booming and they built they empire. So of course bombing wasn't accurate 🤔 I wonder why. follow the money oh that's right conspiracy theories are acts of terrorism now and will not be tolerated foreign or domestic (with us or against us) 🤣 they will not negociate either just fly they family out of the US for they safety because of the last name
    Bushes and Binladens sitting in a tree laughing and bullshiting cause they had planned on paying for 2 wars and only had to pay for 1 cause the other was free.

    Thanks! They definitely won't teach it in school that is for sure. I am glad there is also someone else here that don't think I am crazy for pointing it out.lol! Speaking of the Bush's and Binladens. Do you remember right after 911 the Binladens that were here in the US were conveniently flown out of the US. Not to mention Osama Bin Laden was trained in the US and was a CIA asset and used as the boogie man for years. But yea the Bush family has involved with the war machine for a long time not to mention you know who was in charge of the CIA in the 80s. No other then daddy Bush. I would be willing to bet the Bush's were somehow connected to the JFK assassination. But yea there is a lot to be learned more about what really happened in Germany with the NAZI's and Hitler. And I am sure it isn't what we are taught in places they call schools in the US.
    Reply
  • GeoXXX
    Noeh209 said:
    Finally someone that actually knows they true history and not the fake history that was taught in school. You beat me to the punch wifi lagging so registering for a account took me a bit. Great grand pappy bush and his fellow german/u.k. cabal friend came up with the perfect master plan to get rich by purposely sparking a second world war business was booming and they built they empire. So of course bombing wasn't accurate 🤔 I wonder why. follow the money oh that's right conspiracy theories are acts of terrorism now and will not be tolerated foreign or domestic (with us or against us) 🤣 they will not negociate either just fly they family out of the US for they safety because of the last name
    Bushes and Binladens sitting in a tree laughing and bullshiting cause they had planned on paying for 2 wars and only had to pay for 1 cause the other was free.

    Funny how you two completely forget good ol’ Joe Kennedy! Wrong party eh?
    Reply
  • James DeMeo
    One of the most central reasons for nixing the plan to bomb Auschwitz was that it was a one-way mission, the bombers would not carry enough fuel to turn around afterwards and return to any Allied base. They would have to land in nearby Soviet territory, and Stalin refused to give permission for it. That was the end of discussions at high levels in the American military and by Roosevelt. The idea of bombing the trains would do nothing to stop the slaughter, as the Nazis would simply revert to machine-gun executions rather than poison gas. PBS is a notably Left-wing outfit, and so it would not surprise me if they did not include that fact, about Soviet refusals. And as another commenter stated, the Soviets had their own excellent short-range bombers that could have bombed the crematoria with greater accuracy and more easily. Neither are mentioned in the article, however, so I assume it isn't in the PBS video. There is a tendency underway by modern film-makers, almost all of whom are Leftist scribblers, falsifying 20th Century history. Especially the PBS outfit in WGBH (Boston?) has a series of toxic lying "documentaries" about American history.
    Reply
  • Truthseeker007
    James DeMeo said:
    One of the most central reasons for nixing the plan to bomb Auschwitz was that it was a one-way mission, the bombers would not carry enough fuel to turn around afterwards and return to any Allied base. They would have to land in nearby Soviet territory, and Stalin refused to give permission for it. That was the end of discussions at high levels in the American military and by Roosevelt. The idea of bombing the trains would do nothing to stop the slaughter, as the Nazis would simply revert to machine-gun executions rather than poison gas. PBS is a notably Left-wing outfit, and so it would not surprise me if they did not include that fact, about Soviet refusals. And as another commenter stated, the Soviets had their own excellent short-range bombers that could have bombed the crematoria with greater accuracy and more easily. Neither are mentioned in the article, however, so I assume it isn't in the PBS video. There is a tendency underway by modern film-makers, almost all of whom are Leftist scribblers, falsifying 20th Century history. Especially the PBS outfit in WGBH (Boston?) has a series of toxic lying "documentaries" about American history.

    Yea lots of propaganda to sift through that is for sure. I do think you made some good points on that.
    Reply