10-12-2019, 09:19 PM
(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.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.
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.
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 ?Only 6 camps were death camps.
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.
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?