Pictures from Google Image Search

Holocaust, U.S. War Effort and The

The Oxford Companion to American Military History | 2000 | | © The Oxford Companion to American Military History 2000, originally published by Oxford University Press 2000. (Hide copyright information) Copyright

Holocaust, U.S. War Effort and The. The Holocaust, Nazi Germany's systematic destruction of the European Jews, began in June 1941 and ended with the defeat of Germany in May 1945. The U.S. government was aware of Germany's program of extermination by November 1942, but for fourteen months thereafter the State Department, with the knowledge and acquiescence of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, made virtually no attempt to rescue Jews. Only in January 1944 did Roosevelt act, and then only when confronted with pressure from many members of Congress, as well as documentation presented by the Treasure Department proving that the State Department had for the most part been following a policy of active obstruction of rescue. Faced with incipient scandal, the president established a government rescue agency called the War Refugee Board. It ultimately helped to save the lives of about 200,000 European Jews. The British government, whose policy on the Holocaust had paralleled that of the State Department, declined to form a rescue agency and never altered its program of inaction.

Throughout World War II, the U.S. military considered proposals to rescue Jews as outside the scope of its mission. As early as April 1943, responding to inquiries from the Anglo‐American Bermuda Conference on Refugees, the War Department made clear its unwillingness to support even minor rescue efforts. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) urged rejection of a proposal to move 3,000 Jewish refugees from danger in Spain to safety in North Africa, pointing to the shortage of shipping, the added administrative burden the refugees would put on the military government in North Africa, and the possibility that Arab resentment might require military action to keep order.

In December 1943, the JCS refused a State Department request for military help in moving 4,000 Jews to southern Italy from the Adriatic island of Rab before the Germans seized the island. The chiefs explained that Allied forces in Italy were already overloaded with refugees (mostly non‐Jewish Yugoslavs) and action to help those on Rab “might create a precedent which would lead to other demands and an influx of additional refugees.” Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., recently appointed undersecretary of state and one of the very few State Department officials interested in rescuing Jews, declared that if this response accurately reflected military policy, the United States might as well “shut up shop” on its efforts to rescue any more refugees from Axis Europe. Stettinius recommended that President Roosevelt inform the military that rescue was “extremely important … in fact sufficiently important to require unusual effort on their part and to be set aside only for important military operational reasons.” Nothing came of his suggestion.

The military's noninvolvement in rescue might have changed in early 1944 when Roosevelt formed the War Refugee Board. The president's executive order specified that the State, Treasury, and War Departments each had a special responsibility to help the new agency in its rescue endeavors. War Department officials, concerned that this could mean military forces might be diverted to rescue missions, decided, secretly, in February 1944 not to participate in rescue operations despite the executive order.

By late spring 1944, the massive killing operations at Auschwitz, in Poland, were known to the Allied governments, and Allied air forces had the range to strike the gas chambers as well as the railroads leading to them. Yet no effort was made to bomb those locations, despite several requests for action. Such proposals began to reach the United States from occupied Europe in June 1944, as the deportation of the 760,000 Jews in Hungary went forward.

The first request was turned down by the War Department in late June on the ground that “it could be executed only by diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations.” In reality, the decision was not based on any analysis of air force operations. The War Department did not consult the commanders of the Italy‐based U.S. 15th Air Force, which was in the best position to conduct the proposed strikes. Instead, when the War Refugee Board forwarded the initial bombing request to them, War Department officials measured it against their February 1944 policy of noninvolvement. On that basis they decided against the proposal, without investigating its feasibility. Obviously, they could not inform the board of the real reason for rejection. Instead, they used the best argument available: that the operation would divert considerable military power from essential war plans. With this, the pattern was set. All succeeding requests were rejected on the same grounds as the first.

In fact, bombing the gas chambers at Auschwitz could have been accomplished with little diversion of airpower. Because the complex included a major industrial area adjacent to the camp, Auschwitz itself was a military target—the primary objective a synthetic oil refinery. The Germans has seven other synthetic oil plants in the region, all based on the coal resources of Upper Silesia and all within forty‐five miles of Auschwitz. From July through November 1944, more than 2,800 American heavy bombers pounded the eight oil installations. En route to their targets, all of these aircraft flew along or over key deportation railways. On two occasions (20 August and 13 September) large fleets of American heavy bombers struck the industrial area at Auschwitz itself, less than five miles from the four large gas chambers. Yet the War Department stated in a letter of 14 August 1944 that the bombing was not possible because such actions “could be executed only by the diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations elsewhere.”

The last of the attempts to persuade the War Department to bomb Auschwitz came in November 1944. War Refugee Board director John Pehle wrote a strong letter urging destruction of the gas chambers and pointing out the military advantages in simultaneously bombing industrial sites at Auschwitz (the board was not aware of the earlier raids on Auschwitz industries). Once again Pehle's appeal was rejected on grounds that airpower should not be diverted from vital “industrial target systems.”

In late November 1944, SS chief Heinrich Himmler ordered the killing machinery at Auschwitz destroyed. On 18 and 26 December 1944, American bombers again pounded the Auschwitz industries. The Soviet army captured the camp 27 January 1945.

As Red Army forces advanced across Eastern Europe in 1944 and 1945, they overran several Nazi concentration camps, including those at Lublin and Auschwitz. In April and May 1945, American and British soldiers came upon the concentration camps in Western Europe—Dachau, Bergen‐Belsen, Buchenwald, and others. The liberation of these camps has been cited as proof of the Allied governments' and the armies' concern for the helpless Jews and other victims trapped there.

It is important to keep in mind that these liberations were completely unintentional—an unexpected byproduct of military advances, not the result of military planning. The camps were not assigned as objectives; in reality, the Allied troops came upon them entirely by chance. These facts are clearly reflected in two aspects of the responses to the camps by the American and British armies. First, the officers and men were totally surprised at what they found. There was also shock at the extent of the Nazi depravity. To make certain the Germans could never claim doubt about what had been found, the troops forced local civilians to view the camps and help bury the dead. Second, the armies came without provisions or emergency equipment appropriate to the acute needs of concentration camp survivors. The troops' efforts to help were indeed compassionate, but their attempts to keep the surviving inmates alive had to be improvised. About one‐third of those found in the camps died within a month.

The U.S. military's final connection with the Holocaust came about after the defeat of Germany. One result of World War II was that more than 8 million displaced persons (DPs) were stranded in Germany and Austria when the war ended, including former slave laborers and concentration camp inmates, prisoners of war, Eastern Europeans fleeing the Russians, and others. The Allied military forces, in a highly successful operation, managed to repatriate about 7 million DPs by September 1945. Of the more than 1 million who remained, about 100,000 were Jewish survivors of the Holocaust.

Nonrepatriable DPs were to have been cared for jointly by the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and the Allied military forces. As it turned out, UNRRA was unable to meet its responsibilities, so the military had to fill the vacuum in an assignment for which it had not been trained. The consequence was a continuing disaster for the Jewish survivors. The U.S. Army had very little sympathy for or understanding of the difficult problems of these people, who had been most damaged by the Nazis. Most were kept in inadequate camps (some were former concentration camps) and provided with rations similar to those they had received from the Nazis.

In July 1945, responding to pressure from American Jewish leaders, President Harry S. Truman agreed to send Earl G. Harrison, former U.S. commissioner of immigration and dean of the University of Pennsylvania Law School, to investigate the situation in the DP camps. Harrison found the plight of the Jews to be “far worse than that of other groups.” He denounced “the continuance of barbed‐wire fences, armed guards, and prohibition against leaving the camp except by passes,” and declared that “as matters now stand, we appear to be treating the Jews as the Nazis treated them except that we do not exterminate them.” In early August 1945, the War Department instructed General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, to do everything possible to improve the situation. Eisenhower issued several directives, and by late 1945 conditions for Jewish DPs were generally better, although many military officials in the field continued to show little inclination to implement the new policy adequately.
[See also Genocide; Hitler, Adolf; World War II: Military and Diplomatic Course.]

Bibliography

Martin Gilbert , Auschwitz and the Allies, 1981.
Leonard Dinnerstein , America and the Survivors of the Holocaust, 1982.
David S. Wyman , The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust 1941–1945, 1984.
Robert H. Abzug , Inside the Vicious Heart: Americans and the Liberation of Nazi Concentration Camps, 1985.
David S. Wyman, ed., Bombing Auschwitz and the Auschwitz Escapees' Report, Vol. 12 in the series America and the Holocaust, 1990.
Kai Bird , The Chairman: John J. McCloy, 1992.

David S. Wyman

Cite this article
Pick a style below, and copy the text for your bibliography.

  • MLA
  • Chicago
  • APA

John Whiteclay Chambers II. "Holocaust, U.S. War Effort and The." The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford University Press. 2000. Encyclopedia.com. 30 Nov. 2009 <http://www.encyclopedia.com>.

John Whiteclay Chambers II. "Holocaust, U.S. War Effort and The." The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford University Press. 2000. Encyclopedia.com. (November 30, 2009). http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-HolocaustUSWarEffortandTh.html

John Whiteclay Chambers II. "Holocaust, U.S. War Effort and The." The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford University Press. 2000. Retrieved November 30, 2009 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O126-HolocaustUSWarEffortandTh.html

Learn more about citation styles

Related newspaper, magazine, and trade journal articles from HighBeam Research

(Including press releases, facts, information, and biographies)

FINE Gael mayors dot the political map this morning after capitalising on the party's local election gains.
Newspaper article from: Irish Independent (Dublin, Republic of Ireland); 6/16/2009; 700+ words ; Fine Gael mayors take control of new political map FINE Gael mayors dot the political map this morning...Cllr Healy as the WUAG members walked out. Fine Gael councillors were last night elected mayor...
Fine Gael looks certain to extend its lead over FF
Newspaper article from: The Irish Times; 5/27/2009; ; 669 words ; ...Council will be on whether Fine Gael will improve on its performance...to be joined by sitting Fine Gael Cllr Aileen Pyne and...under challenges from Fine Gael and Independent Tim Collins...a right scrap with Fine Gael likely to hold its two seats...
Why Garret the Good was bad for Fine Gael.(COMMENT)
Magazine article from: Irish Independent (Dublin, Republic of Ireland); 1/12/2007; 700+ words ; ...it was an absolute calamity for Fine Gael. Fine Gael might have imagined back in those...be wasted. But if this is what Fine Gael voters are reduced to, it...choice at election time and Fine Gael's continuing identity crisis means...
Tyrell Provides Irish Political Party Fine Gael With Streaming Solution From ViewCast.
PR Newswire; 4/14/2009; 700+ words ; Fine Gael Webcasts Live Coverage from...We're delighted that Fine Gael is using the ViewCast Niagara...access an IP network. About Fine Gael Fine Gael is one of Ireland...the benefits of growth. Fine Gael bases its outlook on key principles...
MAY 17 ELECTION: Charlie sees red over Fine Gael plans; EACH PROMISE HAS BEEN BETTER THAN THE LAST. WHAT THEY HAVEN'T TOLD US IS THAT THERE IS A:6.5 BILLION BLACK HOLE IN THEIR FIGURES.(News)
Newspaper article from: The Mirror (London, England); 4/29/2002; 700+ words ; ...Minister CHARLIE McCREEVY is scathing of Fine Gael's economic policies. REMEMBER...taxes of the 1980s? Well, Fine Gael in government would return Ireland...our key priorities. It is time for Fine Gael to come clean. They must immediately...
Napper TANDY: Fine Gael's American Contributors
Newspaper article from: Irish Voice; 8/8/2000; ; 680 words ; ...08-2000 Napper TANDY: Fine Gael's American Contributors...case, it looks like Fine Gael will be sending back nearly...fara, you would see that Fine Gael has reported no activity...is for Friends of Fine Gael -- are you guys still raising...
WILL someone please tell Fine Gael the election is over? After the voters gave Mr Cowen and his mates a devastating political mugging, Fine Gael spent much of the past week trying to convince us that the Fianna Fail/Green coalition is a crappy government.
Newspaper article from: Sunday Independent (Dublin, Republic of Ireland); 6/14/2009; 700+ words ; ...WILL someone please tell Fine Gael the election is over? After...political mugging, Fine Gael spent much of the past week...problem is -- everything Fine Gael says about Fianna Fail...Fianna Fail says about Fine Gael is true. They were fine...
Fine Gael backs off personal attack ploy on posters.(NEWS)
Magazine article from: Irish Independent (Dublin, Republic of Ireland); 1/17/2007; 700+ words ; ...Sheahan and Gene McKenna FINE Gael has chickened out of personally...s record on crime. Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny has decided...It doesn't. He said Fine Gael had been busy producing...the Greens? Or is Fine Gael just throwing shapes to...
Fine Gael: A True Irish Nationalist Party
Newspaper article from: Irish Voice; 2/27/2001; ; 700+ words ; ...Jimmy Irish Voice 02-27-2001 Fine Gael: A True Irish Nationalist Party JIMMY...after he was elected leader of Fine Gael earlier this month, Michael Noonan...a misunderstanding about where Fine Gael stand on Northern Ireland. I am worried...
ENDA'S SECRET WOOING OF SF; Trevor Sargent claims Fine Gael leader asked him to sound out Gerry Adams over a Dail voting pact after last general election.(News)
Newspaper article from: The Daily Mail (London, England); 6/3/2009; 700+ words ; ...Aiden Corkery Political Reporter FINE Gael leader Enda Kenny was last night...government that would have included Fine Gael, Labour, the PDs and the Independents...formed, Mr Sargent had even chided Fine Gael in the Dail for not approaching Sinn...

Related entries from encyclopedias, dictionaries, and thesauruses

Fine Gael
Book article from: A Dictionary of Contemporary World History Fine Gael Ireland's second political party, originally...National Guard, and the National Centre. Fine Gael is the successor of the ‘pro...the Fianna Fáil governments , Fine Gael was the main party in the coalition governments...
Liam Cosgrave
Encyclopedia entry from: Encyclopedia of World Biography ...opposition groups that took the name of Fine Gael (Tribe of Gaels). That party was...entered politics and was elected a Fine Gael deputy to D á il Eireann...1965 he became the leader of the Fine Gael Party. This was a period when both...
Garret Fitzgerald
Encyclopedia entry from: Encyclopedia of World Biography ...talented younger figures in the opposition Fine Gael (Tribe of Gaels) Party. That party...governed in the Free State era. Fine Gael was the opposition for all but two...minister of external affairs in a Fine Gael-Labour coalition government headed...
interparty government
Book article from: The Oxford Companion to Irish History ...In February 1948 a coalition of Fine Gael , Labour , National Labour , Clann...government’ comprising Fine Gael, Labour, and Clann na Talmhan took...coalitions were alliances between Fine Gael and Labour: the ‘National...
Bruton, John
Book article from: A Dictionary of Contemporary World History ...quickly became opposition spokesman for Fine Gael (Agriculture 1972–3...succeeded Alan Dukes as leader of Fine Gael. Although his party lost the 1994...Ireland . In the 1997 elections, Fine Gael gained nine seats, but his coalition...

Find thousands of answers for hundreds of subjects at Smart QandA .

All answers verified by trusted sources at Encyclopedia.com

Try Smart QandA now!

For students and teachers!

Encyclopedia.com provides students and teachers facts, information, and biographies from verified, citable sources, including:

Encyclopedia.com provides students and teachers facts, information, and biographies from verified, citable sources, including: