No, the allies should not have bombed Auschwitz. They would have been killing prisoners instead of saving them. The death toll of inmates would be far greater than that of Nazi's and S.S officers. However, the allies should have bombed the railway heading to Auschwitz to prevent further transportation of prisoners. The Nazi's would have had to spend a lot of time and resources to repair the railway, weakening them or setting up an earlier opening to liberate the camp.
Replacing a railway is easier than replacing buildings, it's almost not worth bombing them. But bombing the camp is dangerous for the innocent prisoners.
I think that the allies should not bomb the camp because there are other precautions that could have been taken instead of bombing. You could can easily save lives without bombing. By bombing the camp you still are killing the prisoners of Auschwitz instead of saving them. Why would you kill the people that you are trying to save? While others would see that bombing could be the solution why would you take innocent lives?
I think it would have been a waste of time and resources to bomb Auschwitz. The already existing prisoners would all most likely die (or be severely injured), which isn't exactly saving them. It's an attempted mercy killing at best. Yes, this would stop the Nazis from sending more prisoners there, but then they'd just send those people to a different camp. In all reality, it wouldn't save anyone; it'd just cause a slight change of plans. -Sarah Sylvester
No, the Allies should not have bombed Auschwitz. If they wanted to save lives, they could have done something other than bombing the camp. If they wanted to interfere with their operations there are other precautions they could have taken. The Allies may not have known what was going on but that should have made them more cautious in first place, who knows what you could be going into.
There are definitely much better ways to go about saving people! A mercy killing isn't really saving people, it's just ending their torture a bit sooner.
Bombings would of most likely not been successful. If the camp were to be bombed Nazis as well as innocent Jews. The bombings could of also led to an earlier liquidation of the camp if the Nazis felt that there was significant damage to the camp.
In order to liquidate a camp the size of Auschwitz, German reinforcements would be necessary to contain the masses, especially after the prisoners understood what was happening. Those reinforcements come by train, which would have been impossible without a functioning rail system.
The allies shouldn't have bombed Auschwitz in attempt to save the prisoners, they could have done other things to save the prisoners. I think they would have done more harm than anything.
Bombing railroads and supply lines is a completely valid tactic for dealing with the concentration camp. These camps are fortified and reinforced with Nazi soldiers, so a ground assault is less favorable when you consider Allied casualties. Those prisoners, no offense, have a sealed fate. The best we can do is stop any future deaths. As the Allies press on into German territory, camps were liquidated and the Jews were exterminated anyway. Bombing raids create an unpredictable assault and can potentially save more lives in the macro side of Auschwitz casualties. Collateral damage is unfortunate but inevitable.
This is a valid point. Many of these prisoners were beyond saving. At a certain point a sacrifice must be made to mitigate the damage caused by these camps.
No because the Allies didn't know how the out come would be. They didn't have good accuracy and they were scared to death toll would rise if Auschwitz. Also if they did bomb the death camp the German's could have used that against us in propaganda. And the Allies only bombed military targets to stop the war faster.
No they should not have. The Allies should have liberated Auschwitz to save the prisoners so less prisoners would have died were bombing the camp caused more of them to die. By bombing the camp, both the prisoners and the Nazis are being killed because no matter how well the military strategizes where to bomb the camp, some or all of the prisoners will die as a result of the bombing. Going in a liberating the camp without bombing would guarantee most of the prisoners survival.
I think if we could´ve got the intelligence as to where the nazi bunkers were in the camp and drop a couple bunker busters, that would be the best. If they could keep the jewish casualties to a minimum I do think that could help the liberation of the jewish
Yes we should have, but aimed to destroy the railroads and supply lines to shut the camp off from outside help. Yes some of the prisoners may be killed, but that is a unfortunate side effect but would save more lives in the end.
With enough information detailing the layout of the camp, I think bombing the camp with some form of accuracy would have been effective in slowing the killing operations that regularly occurred in Auschwitz. Bombing the railway lines heading towards the camp would have drastically slowed mass deportations, and no lives would be taken in the process. The harder decision is whether or not they should bomb the gas chambers inside of the camp. With the thousands of people who died there consistently, I believe that sacrificing a few lives for the sake of many more would be the best choice.
Bombing the camp would have been a better idea, had the bombing technology of the time allowed for such accuracy as to hit pinpoint locations. There was no guarantee that the bombs would land where intended. Bombing the railways and supply lines would have been the better solution, due to the target not taking much accuracy.
I agree with what you said about bombing the railway to Auschwitz slowing the deportations, but I disagree that no lives would have been taken. There would have been prisoners in the area of the railways and possibly getting off railcars that arrived to the camp.
It would have been a quick solution to shut down the camp, but with also killing thousands of surviving Jews. The Jews may already being killed, but there is that chance that they could survive and escape so I'm in between on my decision.
I think the Allies should not have bombed the Auschwitz gas chambers. This would have killed more people than it would have saved, especially initially. There were barracks near the gas chambers that housed Jews, mostly women and children, and they would have been killed in the blast. It might have been a good idea if the bombing planes had perfect accuracy, but that was not the case at this time. They had just developed the ability to carry bombs that far in July 1944.
The U.S. should have bombed the surrounding train tracks to stop incoming prisoners into the camps and to stop the death march from Aushwitz. From there, the Soviet forces could have gone in and liberated the remaining prisoners.
No, the allies should not have bombed Auschwitz. They would have been killing prisoners instead of saving them. The death toll of inmates would be far greater than that of Nazi's and S.S officers. However, the allies should have bombed the railway heading to Auschwitz to prevent further transportation of prisoners. The Nazi's would have had to spend a lot of time and resources to repair the railway, weakening them or setting up an earlier opening to liberate the camp.
ReplyDeleteI think stopping transportation like that is a MUCH better solution. Little to no death toll, and the camp wouldn't be able to ship in more prisoners
DeleteReplacing a railway is easier than replacing buildings, it's almost not worth bombing them. But bombing the camp is dangerous for the innocent prisoners.
Deletethis is a good strategy, but the jews died anyway so might as well take out the nazis while you can
DeleteBombing is always the solution no matter the context or collateral. Bombing is the final solution for the Nazi infection of Europe.
ReplyDeleteI think that the allies should not bomb the camp because there are other precautions that could have been taken instead of bombing. You could can easily save lives without bombing. By bombing the camp you still are killing the prisoners of Auschwitz instead of saving them. Why would you kill the people that you are trying to save? While others would see that bombing could be the solution why would you take innocent lives?
ReplyDeleteI agree.
DeleteI agree completely.
DeleteI think it would have been a waste of time and resources to bomb Auschwitz. The already existing prisoners would all most likely die (or be severely injured), which isn't exactly saving them. It's an attempted mercy killing at best. Yes, this would stop the Nazis from sending more prisoners there, but then they'd just send those people to a different camp. In all reality, it wouldn't save anyone; it'd just cause a slight change of plans. -Sarah Sylvester
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on this.
DeleteI agree and they wouldn't have done it because the camp wasn't a military target.
DeleteNo, the Allies should not have bombed Auschwitz. If they wanted to save lives, they could have done something other than bombing the camp. If they wanted to interfere with their operations there are other precautions they could have taken. The Allies may not have known what was going on but that should have made them more cautious in first place, who knows what you could be going into.
ReplyDeleteThere are definitely much better ways to go about saving people! A mercy killing isn't really saving people, it's just ending their torture a bit sooner.
DeleteI agree
DeleteI agree
DeleteBombings would of most likely not been successful. If the camp were to be bombed Nazis as well as innocent Jews. The bombings could of also led to an earlier liquidation of the camp if the Nazis felt that there was significant damage to the camp.
ReplyDeleteIn order to liquidate a camp the size of Auschwitz, German reinforcements would be necessary to contain the masses, especially after the prisoners understood what was happening. Those reinforcements come by train, which would have been impossible without a functioning rail system.
DeleteWell said Cameron, also you could lay booby traps for the reinforcements on the railways
DeleteThe allies shouldn't have bombed Auschwitz in attempt to save the prisoners, they could have done other things to save the prisoners. I think they would have done more harm than anything.
ReplyDeleteSame.
DeleteBombing railroads and supply lines is a completely valid tactic for dealing with the concentration camp. These camps are fortified and reinforced with Nazi soldiers, so a ground assault is less favorable when you consider Allied casualties. Those prisoners, no offense, have a sealed fate. The best we can do is stop any future deaths. As the Allies press on into German territory, camps were liquidated and the Jews were exterminated anyway. Bombing raids create an unpredictable assault and can potentially save more lives in the macro side of Auschwitz casualties. Collateral damage is unfortunate but inevitable.
ReplyDeletetru
DeleteI agree
DeleteYes, we should have bombed because it would've ended the camp and the people suffering.
ReplyDeleteThis is a valid point. Many of these prisoners were beyond saving. At a certain point a sacrifice must be made to mitigate the damage caused by these camps.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteNo because the Allies didn't know how the out come would be. They didn't have good accuracy and they were scared to death toll would rise if Auschwitz. Also if they did bomb the death camp the German's could have used that against us in propaganda. And the Allies only bombed military targets to stop the war faster.
ReplyDeleteI like your detail, and how you backed your opinion up.
DeleteNo they should not have. The Allies should have liberated Auschwitz to save the prisoners so less prisoners would have died were bombing the camp caused more of them to die. By bombing the camp, both the prisoners and the Nazis are being killed because no matter how well the military strategizes where to bomb the camp, some or all of the prisoners will die as a result of the bombing. Going in a liberating the camp without bombing would guarantee most of the prisoners survival.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you
DeleteI think if we could´ve got the intelligence as to where the nazi bunkers were in the camp and drop a couple bunker busters, that would be the best. If they could keep the jewish casualties to a minimum I do think that could help the liberation of the jewish
ReplyDeleteYes we should have, but aimed to destroy the railroads and supply lines to shut the camp off from outside help. Yes some of the prisoners may be killed, but that is a unfortunate side effect but would save more lives in the end.
ReplyDeleteNoted: Stupid
DeleteNo matter what they ended up doing, people were going to die anyways.
ReplyDeletetru
DeleteTo be honest, I have no idea. I see both sides as to why you should and why you shouldn't.
ReplyDeleteWith enough information detailing the layout of the camp, I think bombing the camp with some form of accuracy would have been effective in slowing the killing operations that regularly occurred in Auschwitz. Bombing the railway lines heading towards the camp would have drastically slowed mass deportations, and no lives would be taken in the process. The harder decision is whether or not they should bomb the gas chambers inside of the camp. With the thousands of people who died there consistently, I believe that sacrificing a few lives for the sake of many more would be the best choice.
ReplyDeleteGood explnation
DeleteBombing the camp would have been a better idea, had the bombing technology of the time allowed for such accuracy as to hit pinpoint locations. There was no guarantee that the bombs would land where intended. Bombing the railways and supply lines would have been the better solution, due to the target not taking much accuracy.
DeleteI agree sir
DeleteI agree with what you said about bombing the railway to Auschwitz slowing the deportations, but I disagree that no lives would have been taken. There would have been prisoners in the area of the railways and possibly getting off railcars that arrived to the camp.
DeleteIt would have been a quick solution to shut down the camp, but with also killing thousands of surviving Jews. The Jews may already being killed, but there is that chance that they could survive and escape so I'm in between on my decision.
ReplyDeletesame
DeleteI think the Allies should not have bombed the Auschwitz gas chambers. This would have killed more people than it would have saved, especially initially. There were barracks near the gas chambers that housed Jews, mostly women and children, and they would have been killed in the blast. It might have been a good idea if the bombing planes had perfect accuracy, but that was not the case at this time. They had just developed the ability to carry bombs that far in July 1944.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should have bombed the surrounding train tracks to stop incoming prisoners into the camps and to stop the death march from Aushwitz. From there, the Soviet forces could have gone in and liberated the remaining prisoners.
ReplyDelete