Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: msnpatriot
believe the reason they didn’t was because of the early commitment in 1942/43 to bomb the Luftwaffe factories and destroy them in the air. They decided that it wouldn’t be possible to invade France if this goal wasn’t achieved. And in 43/44 there wasn’t enough aircraft to divert to any other purpose.

The more rational proponents of the arguement generally view the camps and rails as secondary rather than primary targets. The idea that the camps should have been bombed at the expense of true military targets is silly.

60 posted on 01/11/2008 9:00:13 AM PST by SJackson (If 45 million children had lived, they'd be defending America, filling jobs, paying SS-Z. Miller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies ]


To: SJackson

Another thing that factored in—during World War I, the Allies wildly exaggerated atrocities committed by the Central Powers. There *were* documented atrocities (whole villages razed and hundreds of civilians killed) but not to the level that the Allied governments and news media of the day reported. When this came out after the war, people became very skeptical of reports like that.

In the end, though, you’re probably right—the Allies simply decided to concentrate on what they saw as military targets, and the concentration camps would’ve only been considered as such in regard to how they helped the German war effort with slave labor production facilities. Besides, were the USAAF and RAF bombing Poland, even in 1945? They could’ve hit camps in Germany like Buchenwald easily, but Auschwitz and the Polish death camps were in the Soviet area of operations.

}:-)4


63 posted on 01/11/2008 10:34:25 AM PST by Moose4 (Wasting away again in Michaelnifongville.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson