(10-10-2019, 03:55 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: How many millions of lives could have been saved?

Probably none.

They probably would have just left them locked in the train cars to starve to death or die of dehydration.

(10-11-2019, 12:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 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?

Because it wasn't a real question.

There's literally NO WAY you meant that as a serious question.

You were proving my point:  if they couldn't send them to the death camps, they would have had no reason to even put them on trains.  They would have kept them in the ghettos because they would have had no way to get them to a mass murder them.

Do some research on the Holocaust and see why the trains and railways were such a vital part of the "Final Solution" and you'll grasp what this entire thread was about.

(10-11-2019, 12:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Probably none.

They probably would have just left them locked in the train cars to starve to death or die of dehydration.

Are you serious?!  Please tell me that you did not just post that.

You think the Germans would have killed 6 million Jews by just letting them die in train cars?!

You think they could cover that up like they did in the concentration camps?  

Do you realize how inefficient and difficult that would have been?

There's no possible way you could have meant that seriously.

(10-11-2019, 01:16 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Because it wasn't a real question.

There's literally NO WAY you meant that as a serious question.

You were proving my point:  if they couldn't send them to the death camps, they would have had no reason to even put them on trains.  They would have kept them in the ghettos because they would have had no way to get them to a mass murder them.

Do some research on the Holocaust and see why the trains and railways were such a vital part of the "Final Solution" and you'll grasp what this entire thread was about.

Are you serious?!  Please tell me that you did not just post that.

You think the Germans would have killed 6 million Jews by just letting them die in train cars?!

You think they could cover that up like they did in the concentration camps?  

Do you realize how inefficient and difficult that would have been?

There's no possible way you could have meant that seriously.

they just would have found another way...   No use getting worked up over 70 year old what ifs.

(10-11-2019, 01:56 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: they just would have found another way...   No use getting worked up over 70 year old what ifs.

Doubt they could have found another way.  Definitely not killing at that rate.

Not getting worked up, but, like I said, I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Holocaust, and it brings up interesting talking points, which is what a message board is for.

(10-11-2019, 02:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Doubt they could have found another way.  Definitely not killing at that rate.

Not getting worked up, but, like I said, I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Holocaust, and it brings up interesting talking points, which is what a message board is for.

And you’ve been given a detailed explanation to your question.

(10-11-2019, 02:53 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: And you’ve been given a detailed explanation to your question.

Um......  no.

And which question do you mean because a few have rose from the original question of why didn't they bomb the tracks, and I have countered answers like "because they could have rebuilt them quickly"?

(10-11-2019, 01:16 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Do some research on the Holocaust and see why the trains and railways were such a vital part of the "Final Solution" and you'll grasp what this entire thread was about.

Actually you are the one who needs to do some research.

Apparently you believe that there have never been any other cases of "ethnic cleansing" or mass murder other than in gas chambers at concentration camps.

Believe me there are other ways to get it done.

(10-11-2019, 02:01 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Doubt they could have found another way.  Definitely not killing at that rate.

Not getting worked up, but, like I said, I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Holocaust, and it brings up interesting talking points, which is what a message board is for.

dude you get instantly worked up about anything anytime someone doesn't seem to agree with you 100% in here.

just read how you react to people.

(10-11-2019, 03:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually you are the one who needs to do some research.

Apparently you believe that there have never been any other cases of "ethnic cleansing" or mass murder other than in gas chambers at concentration camps.

Believe me there are other ways to get it done.

Name another way they could have killed 6 million Jews.  

Name another mass murdering that took place on such a massive scale.

 

(10-11-2019, 05:31 PM)XenoMorph Wrote: dude you get instantly worked up about anything anytime someone doesn't seem to agree with you 100% in here.

just read how you react to people.

I don't get worked up unless people throw out insults and/or claims with no facts or logic.

(10-11-2019, 03:02 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Um......  no.

And which question do you mean because a few have rose from the original question of why didn't they bomb the tracks, and I have countered answers like "because they could have rebuilt them quickly"?

Bengalzona gave you a detailed seven paragraph response explaining strategic and tactical bombing and why what you suggested didn’t occur was because other targets had higher priority. It came down to one word: priority. It’s as simple as that.

I suggest you focus on that answer. Rather than the BS you’ve chosen to focus on.

(10-12-2019, 03:06 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Bengalzona gave you a detailed seven paragraph response explaining strategic and tactical bombing and why what you suggested didn’t occur was because other targets had higher priority. It came down to one word: priority. It’s as simple as that.

I suggest you focus on that answer. Rather than the BS you’ve chosen to focus on.

"BS"?

It's hilarious that you just resort to personal attacks instead of discussion, like adults do.

What bs have I specifically focused on?

Bengalzona's reasons were legit, but still not perfect.  Millions of lives could have been saved and, like I said, there's the photo from the bomber's open hatch that shows the railroad tracks.

You also pointed out one of the problems that I've mentioned: priority.  They didn't prioritize saving millions of Jews in what wouldn't have set them back in the main goal of winning the war and bombing other targets.

(10-12-2019, 01:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: "BS"?

It's hilarious that you just resort to personal attacks instead of discussion, like adults do.

What personal attack?

Quote:What bs have I specifically focused on?

Once again you’ve allowed Fred to get you all worked up while completely ignoring the single most informative answer you’re going to receive about the topic. It’s obvious you believe Fred’s responses are BS and me calling them BS is in no way, shape, or form a personal attack upon you.

Quote:Bengalzona's reasons were legit, but still not perfect.  Millions of lives could have been saved and, like I said, there's the photo from the bomber's open hatch that shows the railroad tracks.

You also pointed out one of the problems that I've mentioned: priority.  They didn't prioritize saving millions of Jews in what wouldn't have set them back in the main goal of winning the war and bombing other targets.

As if there are perfect answers to military problems.

The number one priority during military planning is the mission. The Allies’ primary mission was destroying the enemy. The strategic and tactical bombing campaigns were focused on destroying the enemy, or factories manufacturing their equipment and munitions, or controlling key pieces of terrain. The military planners prioritized the targets which would allow them to destroy the enemy. What you suggest may have temporarily disrupted logistics and maybe the composition of enemy forces which would be of limited tactical advantage and little to no strategic value. Military planners aren’t going to risk limited resources such as men, planes, fuel, and munitions on targets of limited tactical and strategic importance when there are more important targets which need to be destroyed. Targets like . . . enemy forces.

(10-12-2019, 01:43 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: "BS"?

It's hilarious that you just resort to personal attacks instead of discussion, like adults do.

What bs have I specifically focused on?

Bengalzona's reasons were legit, but still not perfect.  Millions of lives could have been saved and, like I said, there's the photo from the bomber's open hatch that shows the railroad tracks.

You also pointed out one of the problems that I've mentioned: priority.  They didn't prioritize saving millions of Jews in what wouldn't have set them back in the main goal of winning the war and bombing other targets.

Brad this was state ran industrialized murder on a scale never before seen by man. It wasn't just Auschwitz ! There were what a dozen death camps ? Perhaps more I don't know ?

They're not going to put any long term dent in it by bombing RR tracks once or twice. To have any real effect they'd have to divert a bunch of resources that could have been spent on targets that would end the killing much quicker.

(10-12-2019, 02:58 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Brad this was state ran industrialized murder on a scale never before seen by man. It wasn't just Auschwitz ! There were what a dozen death camps ? Perhaps more I don't know ?

They're not going to put any long term dent in it by bombing RR tracks once or twice. To have any real effect they'd have to divert a bunch of resources that could have been spent on targets that would end the killing much quicker.

Assuming we could even imagine the atrocities, which I don’t know if we did or not, had we not focused solely on defeating the enemy and ended up losing, who knows how worse it may have turned out? It’s extremely sad what happened, but will never know how bad things could have become. Public opinion hindsight is 20/20 after war. We did everything we thought we could and then some.

(10-12-2019, 02:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What personal attack?

You don't think "BS you've chosen to focus on" and your hinting that Fred has ever had any effect on me, which you came out and admitted in this post, are personal attacks?

(10-12-2019, 02:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Once again you’ve allowed Fred to get you all worked up while completely ignoring the single most informative answer you’re going to receive about the topic. It’s obvious you believe Fred’s responses are BS and me calling them BS is in no way, shape, or form a personal attack upon you. 

False.  I just call out Fred on bogus posts.  Saying that he gets me all worked up fits your preconceived opinion about me. 

(10-12-2019, 02:26 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: As if there are perfect answers to military problems. 

The number one priority during military planning is the mission. The Allies’ primary mission was destroying the enemy.  The strategic and tactical bombing campaigns were focused on destroying the enemy, or factories manufacturing their equipment and munitions, or controlling key pieces of terrain.  The military planners prioritized the targets which would allow them to destroy the enemy. What you suggest may have temporarily disrupted logistics and maybe the composition of enemy forces which would be of limited tactical advantage and little to no strategic value. Military planners aren’t going to risk limited resources such as men, planes, fuel, and munitions on targets of limited tactical and strategic importance when there are more important targets which need to be destroyed. Targets like . . . enemy forces.

It wouldn't have taken a terribly large amount of time to plan a mission to bomb the tracks, especially since there is a photo from one plane's bomb hatch that shows the tracks below.

Historians continue to search for answers, which you see on a simple Google search, yet you seem to think you know the answer.

My college history professor, who taught a class on the Holocaust, didn't have the answer, but you do?

You act like it would have taken a large amount of resources to bomb some railroad tracks.  The Germans would have had to fix them, occupying supplies and men, or they could have bombed them so badly that they couldn't be fixed, saving millions of lives.

(10-12-2019, 02:58 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Brad this was state ran industrialized murder on a scale never before seen by man. It wasn't just Auschwitz ! There were what a dozen death camps ? Perhaps more I don't know ?

They're not going to put any long term dent in it by bombing RR tracks once or twice. To have any real effect they'd have to divert a bunch of resources that could have been spent on targets that would end the killing much quicker.

Only 6 camps were death camps.  

Bombing them also wouldn't have been an easy fix, especially if the land was badly destroyed.

(10-12-2019, 04:53 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Assuming we could even imagine the atrocities, which I don’t know if we did or not, had we not focused solely on defeating the enemy and ended up losing, who knows how worse it may have turned out? It’s extremely sad what happened, but will never know how bad things could have become. Public opinion hindsight is 20/20 after war. We did everything we thought we could and then some.

We knew by 1941 (or 42 at the latest) because the Polish government was in exile in England and told of everything.

If everything was done, why do historians still question why bombing the tracks didn't happen?

(10-12-2019, 09:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You don't think "BS you've chosen to focus on" and your hinting that Fred has ever had any effect on me, which you came out and admitted in this post, are personal attacks?



False.  I just call out Fred on bogus posts.  Saying that he gets me all worked up fits your preconceived opinion about me. 

It wouldn't have taken a terribly large amount of time to plan a mission to bomb the tracks, especially since there is a photo from one plane's bomb hatch that shows the tracks below.

Historians continue to search for answers, which you see on a simple Google search, yet you seem to think you know the answer.

My college history professor, who taught a class on the Holocaust, didn't have the answer, but you do?

You act like it would have taken a large amount of resources to bomb some railroad tracks.  The Germans would have had to fix them, occupying supplies and men, or they could have bombed them so badly that they couldn't be fixed, saving millions of lives.



Only 6 camps were death camps.  

Bombing them also wouldn't have been an easy fix, especially if the land was badly destroyed.



We knew by 1941 (or 42 at the latest) because the Polish government was in exile in England and told of everything.

If everything was done, why do historians still question why bombing the tracks didn't happen?

College professors can be wrong Brad. Why are you getting so worked up? What will it change? People have theories and opinions that don’t always match each other. I doubt that any of us really know, but I would like to think we did our best. 

(10-12-2019, 09:32 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: College professors can be wrong Brad. Why are you getting so worked up? What will it change? People have theories and opinions that don’t always match each other. I doubt that any of us really know, but I would like to think we did our best. 

They can be wrong but, when he's very well-educated, teaches it as a profession, and it's backed up by experts that can be found in a Google search, I feel pretty confident that he's right.

(10-12-2019, 09:19 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You don't think "BS you've chosen to focus on" and your hinting that Fred has ever had any effect on me, which you came out and admitted in this post, are personal attacks?

You chose to focus on “bogus” posts instead of the informative posts. I don’t see how recognizing that fact is an attack upon you.

Quote:False.  I just call out Fred on bogus posts.  Saying that he gets me all worked up fits your preconceived opinion about me. 

Bogus. BS. What’s the difference? All I suggested was maybe you focus on Zona’s post instead of fred’s.

I don’t have preconceived opinions about your interactions with Fred. I have fully conceived notions based upon years of reading.

Quote:It wouldn't have taken a terribly large amount of time to plan a mission to bomb the tracks, especially since there is a photo from one plane's bomb hatch that shows the tracks below.

Time is a planning consideration, but this is a question regarding target priority.

Quote:Historians continue to search for answers, which you see on a simple Google search, yet you seem to think you know the answer.

My college history professor, who taught a class on the Holocaust, didn't have the answer, but you do?

Well, if you’re going to ignore Zona, doubt me, and call out fred’s bogus posts then I suggest you discuss this with your professor rather than a message board full of people less knowledgeable than your professor.

Quote:You act like it would have taken a large amount of resources to bomb some railroad tracks.  The Germans would have had to fix them, occupying supplies and men, or they could have bombed them so badly that they couldn't be fixed, saving millions of lives.


Only 6 camps were death camps.  

Bombing them also wouldn't have been an easy fix, especially if the land was badly destroyed.


We knew by 1941 (or 42 at the latest) because the Polish government was in exile in England and told of everything.

It would take German civilians less time to repair the train tracks in their own country than it would take the US to manufacture a new bomber, train a new crew, and ship the necessary fuel and munitions to a forward deployed theater.

Quote:If everything was done, why do historians still question why bombing the tracks didn't happen?

Historians. Not military planners.

(10-12-2019, 10:26 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: They can be wrong but, when he's very well-educated, teaches it as a profession, and it's backed up by experts that can be found in a Google search, I feel pretty confident that he's right.

You wrote your professor doesn’t know. So he’s right about not knowing? Fair enough. So if the expert doesn’t know, sure as shit won’t find the answer here.

/thread

Lock it up, Harley.

Lock it up! Lock it up! Lock it up!

(10-12-2019, 11:20 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You chose to focus on “bogus” posts instead of the informative posts. I don’t see how recognizing that fact is an attack upon you.

Bengalzona's was informative on the types of bombers and things like that but didn't offer much in terms of why we didn't bomb the tracks.  

In fact, he offers that there were smaller planes that could have done it but were instead focused on tanks and the actual supply trains themselves.

(10-12-2019, 11:27 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You wrote your professor doesn’t know. So he’s right about not knowing? Fair enough. So if the expert doesn’t know, sure as shit won’t find the answer here.

/thread

Lock it up, Harley.

Lock it up! Lock it up! Lock it up!

I figured some people might do some research to look into it to see if they could find things that I couldn't.  That wouldn't fit your narrative, though.

The posts about using military equipment to end the war, rather than save lives, is a decent answer, but I also just found out where people in our own government were antisemitic: [url=And last but certainly not least, antisemitism. The US Department of War and Department of State were filled with antisemites, particularly at the highest levels. Jewish concerns fell on deaf ears.][/url]

Quote:And last but certainly not least, antisemitism. The US Department of War and Department of State were filled with antisemites, particularly at the highest levels. Jewish concerns fell on deaf ears.

And then there's also this:

Quote:With that said, it’s probable that directly bombing a few confirmed death camp locations (the allies knew Auschwitz was a mass killing site at least eight months before its liberation) would have saved lives overall, and not meaningfully prolonged the war.

That points to the fact that I've been saying and that's that it's not like we'd be redirecting our entire air force to the destruction of the tracks and it wouldn't have taken many planes or resources to bomb them.

It would, however, take men and resources away from the Germans in order to repair them.

(10-07-2019, 08:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: 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.

This site says that the allies knew about the Germans' attempt to exterminate the Jews as early as 1942.

Quote:In December 1942, UK Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden told the British parliament, in a statement on behalf of the UK, the US and the Soviet governments, that the Nazis were in the process of exterminating the Jews. Eden said that a similar statement was also being read out in Moscow and Washington at the same time.

That also contradicts most people's claims in this thread that the allies were unaware.