why Allies did not bumb Wetzlar?

any clue? Thanks

They didn't want to drive up collector prices.

Maybe they didn't get to it in time? Maybe it was too far and not worth it? Maybe they tried and missed? Who knows?

Perhaps because they couldn't <i>focus</i> on the target? :-)

Patton wanted to give them time to figure out how to cover two Leica bodies in mother-of-pearl to match his pistols?

Don't confuse the Allies with the Japanese who had a "Three Alls Policy" (kill all, loot all, burn all) in their invasion of China.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Japanese_War_(1937-1945)

Why didn't the Allies bomb Wetzlar?

 

Because there was no strategic importance to that location and there was no known military production, at least of any significance. Otherwise, it would have been.

"Patton wanted to give them time to figure out how to cover two Leica bodies in mother-of-pearl to match his pistols?"

 

Only a Louisianna pimp would have two cameras covered with mother of pearl! Patton woulda used ivory! Get it right.

Because it would be bad PR back home in the USA to bomb the transit camp at Wetzlar, where allied prisoner passed thru. It probably would sit too well in the UK, bombing RAF prisoners being processed either. Normally in war one avoids purposely killing ones own prisoners, it is bad for morale.

It probably would<b>'nt</b> sit

What I've always wondered is why we didn't bomb the tracks to Auschwitz and Dachau.

>Fred C , mar 19, 2006; 08:35 p.m.

 

>Don't confuse the Allies with the Japanese who had a "Three Alls Policy" (kill all, loot all,

burn all) in their invasion of China.

 

Somebody here is obviously confused.

Maybe because their "bumbers" were bosted and thus couldn't droop any bumbs?...

They needed E.Leitz manufactured optical bombsights to accurately bomb Wetzlar, but alas they couldn't get their hands on any, as there was a war going on.

Yeah, but the socalled Jon is not confused, just dumb!

I think Patton was too busy taking pictures with his Leica. There's a new book coming out with his Leica shots of the battlefield and more.

They did, according to Wikki - the cathedral was damaged by aerial bombing

 

As to the question of why the concentration camps were not bombed, Wikki has a brief

summary which might be of interest

I don't know what else was produced in Wetzlar. I would guess that when our strategic bombing really got underway, mid to late 43, that optical gear was not a big deal compared to steel, oil, transportation, and weapons's production, especially aircraft. The Brit's bombed at night and were lucky if bombs fell within a large city's limits. Not disparaging their courage and sacrifice. Bomber Command lost an inordinate numer of aircrews. The technology was not up to night all weather precision bombing. American daylight bombing was not much more accurate. Bombing became very effective when we concentrated on petroleum and transportation. As Speer said, the main effect of the bombing campaign was to tie up about a million German troops into anti-aircraft duties, when they could have been used in the army. The Allied bombing campaign also force the German fighter defenses into the sky where they became prey for the long range P-51 Mustangs. I am a retired Air Force officer who served in Korea, and often wonder about the morality of bombing civilian targets. Even General LeMay, my hero, felt that he would have been tried as a war criminal if the Allies had lost the war. On his own initiative, he lauched the fire bomb raids against Japanese cities, which were more deadly than the atomic bombs. He did so because the US had gone to great expense to design and build the B-29. Plus if his concept had failed, he was willing to take the fall to protect more senior officers like Hap Arnold. LeMay put his life on the line as the leader of many B-17 raids in Europe. A man who had the courage of his convictions. Which brings us to "W". No, I won't go there. You can't polish a turd.

Sorry, my old age is showing. I served in Vietnam, not in Korea.

Uh, Korea?

 

--Lannie

Oops, Kerry. MY old age is showing: I didn't read your earlier post.

 

--Lannie

<i>Wikki has a brief summary which might be of interest</i><BR>

I didn't find it.

<i>Don't confuse the Allies with the Japanese who had a "Three Alls Policy" (kill all, loot all, burn all) in their invasion of China.</i>

<p>

That's a hoot. I guess it explains the half a million incendiary bombs that were dropped on Tokyo at night, burning 100,000 civilians alive. One of the pilots said he could smell flesh burning at 5000 feet.

<p>

The damage the Allies wrought on German and Japanese cities was completely unprecendented. Destruction of the entire infrastructure of these countries was central to the Allies' strategy. Curtis LeMay himself said that we had lost, he and other U.S. military leaders would have been tried as war criminals.

Maybe Wetzlar should have been bombed.

 

Zeiss plants were decimated but despite that and being split up they soon were able to introduce SLRs and IIAs and IIIAs. Took Leitz till 1954 to catch up on the rangefinders and the SLRs... well lets not go there. They eventually got it right. Ask Doug Herr.

 

C.

<What I've always wondered is why we didn't bomb the tracks to Auschwitz and Dachau.>

 

Putting aside the question of whether Allied leaders knew the extent of what was happening in the camps, I believe a strategic decision was made that the best way to save the most lives, military and civilian alike, was to focus all available resources on winning the war as quickly as possible.

 

This strategic decision may now be seen by some commentators as controversial, but it must have seemed like obvious common sense at the time. Diverting bombers from runs on high-value military targets in order to bomb the tracks, which were probably both hard to hit and easy to repair, would have had the effect of lengthening the war (or so the reasoning went). This, in turn, would likely have increased the total number of deaths, military and civilian alike -- not to mention that if the Nazis had been unable to transport their victims to the camps, they seemed to have a knack for finding other ways to kill them.

 

We can argue about the justifiability of specific Allied acts during the war, but I think we can safely assign all the blame for what went on in the camps to the Nazi perpetrators. (And I'm not suggesting for a second that anyone on this forum believes otherwise.)