Author Topic: Why were extermination camps not bombed? (Read 556 times)

SunTracker · « **on:** March 03, 2004, 03:47:05 AM »

Why were extermination camps not bombed?

B-17s definately had the range, as is evident from the England-to-Russia bombing missions that took place in 1944.

In April of 1944, two jews escaped from a death camp (Auschwitz I think) and sent a message to the West detailing what was going on at these camps.

Plus, there were many aerial photos of death camps taken by the U.S. and England.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #1 on:** March 03, 2004, 03:56:19 AM »

Because it would prolly be pointless. The camps were very easy to restore to operation as were the rail lines leading to them. For example at the end of the war they burned most bodies in open pits rather than ovens, so even if you bombed the complicaed ovens you wouldnt slow them down much. Gas chambers were easy to rebuild too. If they were bombed, 50 years later people would be asking why the camps were bombed and why so many were killed by the allies and why it was all diverted for nothing gained.

If B17/B24 were used they would kill thousands of inmates. This problem could be avoided by using miquitos but again what would they bomb?

The fastest way to save camp inmates and end their suffering was to defeat Nazi Germany on the battlefield and liberate the camps, everything else is just a result of 50 years of dreaming of hoping it could have ended sooner.

Creamo · « **Reply #2 on:** March 03, 2004, 04:06:00 AM »

Pry be hard on the prisoners I would think.

Bombs were full of TNT. It's mean stuff.

SunTracker · « **Reply #3 on:** March 03, 2004, 04:39:39 AM »

Actually they didnt keep many prisoners at the true extermination camps. Off the train, into the gas chamber, then into the creamatorium.

Yeah, I guess the Germans would have just shot the Jews if their facilities were destroyed.

Dowding · « **Reply #4 on:** March 03, 2004, 04:46:16 AM »

The only way to save the people deemed undesirable by the Nazis was to use 20/20 hindsight. With hindsight, when Dachau was set-up in the mid-thirties, and all the SA leadership shot to death, and all the Jewish businesses confiscated by the Nazis, and when homosexuals, communists and vagrants were being tortured to death and shot, and when the Judiciary was short-circuited giving the gestapo judge and jury powers and 'pre-crime' like law enforcement, and when the Presidency was left open after von Hindenburg died so Hitler could mess around with the constitution without having being declared President and having to uphold it... at each of those points something should have been done. Unfortunately, no one really took Hitler seriously and those that did were ignored.

The Nazi rise to power is effectively a demonstration on how to steal a country in 100+ easy moves.

-tronski- · « **Reply #5 on:** March 03, 2004, 05:02:35 AM »

Even if you did blow a big hole in the side of Auschwitz where would they all go before some einsatzgruppen (or the like) rounded them up and shot them out of hand?

...perhaps if the camp was about to liberated then maybe...

otherwise what dowding said...only the final solution not coming in to being would've saved anyone in those camps...

Tronsky

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #6 on:** March 03, 2004, 05:17:53 AM »

I agree with dowding, focusing on prevention of such systematic abuses at their core and beggining is far more productive than dreaming of miraculous saving actions late in the process. Like they said after the war, "never again." Of course they didnt mean it but its a far better concept.

SirLoin · « **Reply #7 on:** March 03, 2004, 05:48:48 AM »

I'm glad Auschwitz wasn't bombed...It still stands as an example of how horrible the human race can be when we are "just following orders"

Ghosth · « **Reply #8 on:** March 03, 2004, 08:10:42 AM »

Prison camps are essentially barbed wire.

The rest comes later after they are secured.

Level bombers can't do it because they'd wipe out everything in a 5 mile area.

Daytime precision bombing from b17's at 30k is a contratiction in terms. They were lucky to hit the right square mile section.

OK so a20's, or B26's, whatever bombed the fence.

All guards walk over, & form line outside the fence. Anyone who steps outside is shot. Then they f
Force the prisoners to rebuild the fence.

What is gained?

The only way to do any real good is to actually liberate the camp. And because there could be thousands of starving people, you BETTER have good supply lines to that point when you go in.

Saurdaukar · « **Reply #9 on:** March 03, 2004, 08:18:31 AM »

Because you'd be killing more Jews than Nazis.

SunTracker · « **Reply #10 on:** March 03, 2004, 08:35:33 AM »

There was a very elaborate infrastructure in place- rail lines, train stations, gas chambers, crematoriums, and even the factories that made Zyklon B, that all came together for death camps to work.

Now if these structures are taken away, it is true that the Germans could resort to the old ways of execution. But that has its 'advantages'- Jewish uprisings, soldiers refusing, transportation problems, etc. This leads to a less efficient way of killing. Plus many German officers were worried about disposing of the bodies. They did not want any evidence left behind.

But it might not have been worth the effort (like others have said). Flying thousands of miles over enemy territory to bomb a target that does not directly effect the German war machine could be a deadly mistake for the USAAC. But I do think it would have saved some lives.