35 ms·
You have your bombing run at an angle to the rails, not parallel or perpendicular. Like the RAF did with Operation Black Buck in the Falklands. Anyway, what I
by Crito 11y ago
You have your bombing run at an angle to the rails, not parallel or perpendicular. Like the RAF did with Operation Black Buck in the Falklands.
Anyway, what I've usually heard is that they should have bombed the camps themselves, not the rail lines leading to them. That's not what I personally think, but that's what I've heard others talk about.
- olavk 11y agoBombing the camps would have killed the prisoners. Extermination camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau was built in connection with the concentration camp Auschwitz, so it would have been impossible to bomb without killing camp prisoners. Now something like Treblinka was purely a "killing factory" with no prisoners held for more than a few hours before they were killed. In that case bombing everything would probably have saved lives in retrospect, since any prisoners at the site would have been killed anyway, and destroying the facilities would have slowed down the extermination project. But while the allied knew mass killings was taking place, they didn't know enough about the locations and logistics to make that call.
- Crito 11y agoThe argument is (and again, it is not mine) that it would have been better to kill everyone currently in the camp, if it meant that the camp was taken out of commission for the future. The holocaust survivor I first heard this from was talking specifically of Auschwitz.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- olavk 11y agoI understand the sentiment, but deliberate bombing a prisoners camp (which btw. also have a number of your own captured soldiers) in order to destroy the facility? In any case a camp could quickly be rebuilt somewhere else, much more complex installations like airplane factories were moved around and continued to operate despite heavy bombing.