I watched The Diary of Anne Frank at Thomas More today for the second time because one of my professors was speaking after the play.

I've always been obsessed with WWII (and wars in general) and I recently had a thought: why didn't they ever bomb the railroad tracks that took Jews to concentration camps? Seems to me that it would pretty much kill the Nazi's transporting of the Jews to mass murder them.

My old professor even brought up that point today and mentioned that there's a picture of from a plane over Germany during that time looking down from the bomb hatches and you can see the railroad tracks.

Does anyone know why they didn't bomb the tracks?

Many of the camps were in the soviet sphere of influence.

Sent from my LG-Q710PL using Tapatalk

Railroad tracks were a pretty small target for the technology they had back then.

I assume they did all they could to disrupt transportation behind the lines. Not just for concentration camps but for all types of fuel and supplies.

(10-07-2019, 02:11 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Railroad tracks were a pretty small target for the technology they had back then.

I assume they did all they could to disrupt transportation behind the lines.  Not just for concentration camps but for all types of fuel and supplies.

But with many planes dropping a lot of bombs, it's a pretty safe bet that they could have at least destroyed some of it, especially if the planes flew lower.  They bombed aircraft carriers, which, while much wider than railroad tracks, shows that it could be done.  Especially if they launched a line of planes and had them all release at the same time because some bombs were obviously bound to hit the rails or the explosions would be large enough to damage the tracks.

The only information that I could find sounds like we didn't want to waste war resources on bombing the tracks, which seems like a pretty bogus excuse:

Quote:In reality, McCloy's position was based on the Roosevelt administration’s standing policy that military resources should not be used for "rescuing victims of enemy oppression."

That seems like a cop-out.

It wouldn't have taken many resources to drop some bombs and they could have done it in areas not heavily occupied by Germans (or at least in areas where the German planes weren't really near).  I realize that it was the depression and resources were scarce, but it would have been big in saving lives and in just stopping the Germans.

My old professor saying that the plane having a picture from above showing the tracks makes it even more puzzling for me. 

The allied forces seemed shock at the level of the atrocities they discovered when liberating these camps after the war. Not sure how much info our military leaders had during the war regarding the mass exterminations.

Or maybe they figured that bombing railroad tracks would not save anyone. Instead it would just change where they were murdered. If the Nazi's could not ship the victims to camps they probably would have just killed them in some other fashion.

(10-07-2019, 03:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The allied forces seemed shock at the level of the atrocities they discovered when liberating these camps after the war.  Not sure how much info our military leaders had during the war regarding the mass exterminations.

Or maybe they figured that bombing railroad tracks would not save anyone.  Instead it would just change where they were murdered.  If the Nazi's could not ship the victims to camps they probably would have just killed them in some other fashion.

This site states that the powers of the US, UK, and even Russia knew about the crimes at least two-and-a-half years earlier than is generally assumed:

Quote:The Allied Powers were aware of the scale of the Jewish Holocaust two-and-a-half years earlier than is generally assumed, and had even prepared war crimes indictments against Adolf Hitler and his top Nazi commanders.

Newly accessed material from the United Nations – not seen for around 70 years – shows that as early as December 1942, the US, UK and Soviet governments were aware that at least two million Jews had been murdered and a further five million were at risk of being killed, and were preparing charges. Despite this, the Allied Powers did very little to try and rescue or provide sanctuary to those in mortal danger.

It makes you wonder if they knew even earlier than that.

Also, if they knew that Jews were being transferred from the ghettos to these concentration camps, what did they think was happening?  How was there even room for more Jews if they weren't being mass murdered?

I think the main goal was to stop the Nazi war machine. that took our full effort and concentration

(10-07-2019, 03:57 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: I think the main goal was to stop the Nazi war machine. that took our full effort and concentration

This.

We could not liberate the camps until we took out the Nazi's.

Bombing railroad tracks would probably just have meant they were killed somewhere else.

There were different types of bombing going on: strategic bombing, tactical bombing and close air support. Strategic bombing was the huge formations of B17's, B-29's, Lancasters, etc. dropping massive payloads on factories and cities (what we generally think of when we think of WWII bombing). There was also tactical bombing, smaller formations of B-24's, B-25's, Betty's, etc. bombing smaller targets. Close air support was usually conducted by small and fast attack planes (Mosquito, Il-2 Sturmovik, A-20, Stuka's, etc.) or sometimes fighter aircraft fitted with bombs and/or rockets for the role.

Each type of bombing had different priority targets. The strategic bombers were designed to fly deep into enemy territory at high altitudes carrying huge payloads. Their primary targets were the enemy's war industries and strategic supply reserves and networks. As part of the supply networks, they would bomb rail lines. But because of the high altitudes they were at, the small size of individual rail lines, and the large payloads they were carrying, they concentrated on bombing railways centers and marshaling yards (things they could spot from that high).

Tactical bombers had similar missions, but within a more limited range. Because of the size of their formations (necessary for defense), using a formation to target a single rail line was seen as overkill and a waste. While we had a lot of resources, we also had to ship them over an ocean. So, we couldn't really afford a lot of waste. A lot of times, tactical bombers would be used against rail yards or rail bridges.

The job of attacking individual rail lines was usually left to the close air support aircraft. They would fly in small squadrons (sometimes only two) and strafe and/or bomb smaller targets. But the prime mission of these aircraft was attacking enemy tank and artillery units. Rail lines were a secondary mission. This was particularly true among the Soviet air force. And when they did attack, the attack planes were looking for trains on the tracks to hit rather than the line itself. The reason for that is because armies on the offensive generally like to seize existing tracks when and where they can in order to use them to ship their own supplies.

There was also the question of intelligence information. Reports of abuses of prisoners had been received by the allies for several years. But our soldiers were pretty darn surprised when they actually came upon the camps and saw what had been going on. And that was in the spring of 1945, shortly before the war in Europe ended. They just did not know the extent to how bad things were until they saw it on the ground. Also, the train shipments were infrequent and they did not have good intel on where trains where heading and with what cargo. Additionally, the SS were pretty close-mouthed even among the German people about when concentration camp prisoners were being shipped. Most of them were shipped in rural areas and secondary rail lines to avoid questions.

As Storer noted above, most of the concentration and death camps were in the east. Our strategic bombers had the range to get to them, but they wouldn't have been able to pinpoint them. Also, dropping that many bombs for one rail line in the country surely would have been considered excessive. To boot, they didn't even know the concentration camp prisoners would be shuffled on any particular line.

I'd like to think that, if we had known sooner and if we would have had better intell on the ground, we would have tried to shut down the lines. But as a military man, I sense that even if those conditions did exist, they still would have stuck to their priority targets in order to win the war faster.

(10-07-2019, 03:50 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: This site states that the powers of the US, UK, and even Russia knew about the crimes at least two-and-a-half years earlier than is generally assumed:


It makes you wonder if they knew even earlier than that.

Also, if they knew that Jews were being transferred from the ghettos to these concentration camps, what did they think was happening?  How was there even room for more Jews if they weren't being mass murdered?

It is possible some higher ups knew more about the concentration camps. Personally, I doubt it. But I suppose it was possible. But a couple of things.

First, I doubt that any would have believed such reports. At least not on the scale they were occurring. While the world had seen massacres before, they had never seen something like this on such an organized and industrialized scale. It was institutionalized.

Second, even if they did know, they didn't share it. The U.S., U.K., and the Soviet troops and commanders knew nothing about it. They were in shock when they experienced it.

(10-07-2019, 03:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The allied forces seemed shock at the level of the atrocities they discovered when liberating these camps after the war.  Not sure how much info our military leaders had during the war regarding the mass exterminations.

Or maybe they figured that bombing railroad tracks would not save anyone.  Instead it would just change where they were murdered.  If the Nazi's could not ship the victims to camps they probably would have just killed them in some other fashion.

This.  It's not like they were going to say, "Oh well" and set them free.  

(10-07-2019, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

We could not liberate the camps until we took out the Nazi's.

Bombing railroad tracks would probably just have meant they were killed somewhere else.

Most of the tracks that were bombed were hastily reconstructed by the Nazis using concentration camp prisoners as slave labor.

Considering their treatment as slave laborers, it is hard to say whether those types of work details saved anyones' lives or not. At least not beyond temporarily.

(10-10-2019, 12:24 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Most of the tracks that were bombed were hastily reconstructed by the Nazis using concentration camp prisoners as slave labor.

Considering their treatment as slave laborers, it is hard to say whether those types of work details saved anyones' lives or not. At least not beyond temporarily.

Yep, even if we did bomb the tracks they'd have them rebuilt in a matter of days. It's a much sounder policy to make all efforts at beating the Nazi war machine than it is to get out in the weeds on this mission and that. Especially when said missions deep behind enemy lines and out of our operational area are most likely going to have very, very little impact on the atrocities.

The pilots, men, planes, fuel, gas, effort and so on will stop the Nazi's much quicker being spent where it matters most.

(10-07-2019, 04:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

We could not liberate the camps until we took out the Nazi's.

Bombing railroad tracks would probably just have meant they were killed somewhere else.

Where?  And how?  

The concentration camps were created for mass murders (and some forced labour or just to keep them all in one place) and it's not like it could just be done anywhere.

Auschwitz II could kill 12,000 people a day, which didn't require many men or many resources.

(10-10-2019, 01:09 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Yep, even if we did bomb the tracks they'd have them rebuilt in a matter of days. It's a much sounder policy to make all efforts at beating the Nazi war machine than it is to get out in the weeds on this mission and that. Especially when said missions deep behind enemy lines and out of our operational area are most likely going to have very, very little impact on the atrocities.

The pilots, men, planes, fuel, gas, effort and so on will stop the Nazi's much quicker being spent where it matters most.

It's not like we'd just bomb a small section, five guys show up, lay some new track, and it's done.  

For one, the land would have been have holes in it that would have made it uneven and impossible to do, even if it were that easy.

Two, that requires more men and more materials, which weren't exactly in abundance.

(10-10-2019, 02:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Where?  And how?  

The concentration camps were created for mass murders (and some forced labour or just to keep them all in one place) and it's not like it could just be done anywhere.

Auschwitz II could kill 12,000 people a day, which didn't require many men or many resources.

It's not like we'd just bomb a small section, five guys show up, lay some new track, and it's done.  

For one, the land would have been have holes in it that would have made it uneven and impossible to do, even if it were that easy.

Two, that requires more men and more materials, which weren't exactly in abundance.

Brad for 1. to be of any real consequence they'd have to bomb fairly close to the camps, if they bomb 100, 200 miles away they'd just take alternate tracks and go around the bombed out section, so. 

2. To have any real impact they'd have to use up considerable tactical or a good bit of strategic bombing on a fairly regular basis. You can't just bomb it once and it's done for months. 

3. They'd have to detour fighters to cover said bombing pulling them off other missions. You think the Germans would just let bombers fly around with impunity ?

All this would pull considerable air power away from German tank and plane factory bombing.  It would pull fighter cover away from that and/or air cover for our troops.

It sounds good in theory but when put into practice in anything but a fairly full scale long term operation the results would be very limited. And the resources spent could save a lot more people, faster,  by focusing on ending the war as quick as possible through dropping the bombs where it hurts most.

(10-10-2019, 02:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Where?  And how?  

Okay then, what do YOU think the Nazi's would have done with loads of prisoners if the tracks were bombed?

Let them go?

Put them up in hotels?

(10-10-2019, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then, what do YOU think the Nazi's would have done with loads of prisoners if the tracks were bombed?

Let them go?

Put them up in hotels?

Way to avoid the questions and just try and make a joke out of it instead of answering.

Way too typical.

Maybe just leave them in ghettos until they could try and repair the tracks?  Maybe we bomb more tracks by then.  

The death camps were created for the mass murdering of Jews, so how do they do it without the camps?  Just line up every Jew and shoot them one by one?  That would have taken a lot of bullets, lots of soldiers, and a lot of time.

I do appreciate the response (or lack thereof), though, because you make it obvious that I have good points 

(10-10-2019, 03:18 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Brad for 1. to be of any real consequence they'd have to bomb fairly close to the camps, if they bomb 100, 200 miles away they'd just take alternate tracks and go around the bombed out section, so. 

2. To have any real impact they'd have to use up considerable tactical or a good bit of strategic bombing on a fairly regular basis. You can't just bomb it once and it's done for months. 

3. They'd have to detour fighters to cover said bombing pulling them off other missions. You think the Germans would just let bombers fly around with impunity ?

All this would pull considerable air power away from German tank and plane factory bombing.  It would pull fighter cover away from that and/or air cover for our troops.

It sounds good in theory but when put into practice in anything but a fairly full scale long term operation the results would be very limited. And the resources spent could save a lot more people, faster,  by focusing on ending the war as quick as possible through dropping the bombs where it hurts most.

1  How do you know how connected all of the tracks were back then?  How many alternate routes could just go around a bombed section?

2  Like I said, it would cause big craters in the ground, which wouldn't make it an easy repair.  It would also keep the Germans occupied with men and supplies.  

3  German planes can't cover everywhere.  

It's not like it would require that many planes or bombs.

How many millions of lives could have been saved?

(10-10-2019, 03:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Okay then, what do YOU think the Nazi's would have done with loads of prisoners if the tracks were bombed?

Let them go?

Put them up in hotels?

There's also a reason why the killings increased so much when the Germans discovered Zyklon B and that's because it was an efficient and cheap way to kill a large number of Jews in a short time.

(10-10-2019, 03:58 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: There's also a reason why the killings increased so much when the Germans discovered Zyklon B and that's because it was an efficient and cheap way to kill a large number of Jews in a short time.

There is also a reason you did not answer the question I asked.

If we bombed the tracks then what would the Nazi's have done with the prisoners headed to concentration camps?