It’s an difficult moral choice. You kill the people there with the bombs but shut down the gas chamber.
“It’s an difficult moral choice. You kill the people there with the bombs but shut down the gas chamber.”
They could have just bombed the rail lines, even.
They didn’t because the trains bringing Jews to their deaths weren’t carrying ammo to the front.
‘You kill the people there with the bombs but shut down the gas chamber.”
Not if you bomb the gas chamber alone. Not to mention the german controlled areas. Of course we didnt have that level of precision at that time but the only purpose of this story is to make Bush look bad.
Actually, it would have probably been more humane in the long run if some of the prisoners were killed by bombs along with the destruction of the camps. At least they would not have had to suffer the long, agonizing torture of starvation, humiliation and cruelty. Auschwitz brings up the reminder of the story about he rabbis who put "God on trial." It supposedly occurred just before the liberation of the camp in which they debated for days about His existence and tried to convinced themselves that He couldn't exist with so much experience of hell around them. However, each day ended in the call for evening prayer and (I think I'm getting this right) on the seventh day they finally heard news about the allies (Russians) breaking through the German lines. They were all rescued a couple of weeks later.
My understanding is that most proponents of bombing the camps argue for destroying the rail lines to the camps. Now that still leaves the issues of precision, and it wouldn’t take long to lay new track. Furthermore, those already in route might well have died or been killed if they couldn’t get through.
Bottom line, the hindsight should be left alone in this case.
Yup. That’s a tough one. I suppose they had it on their target list with low priority, preferring real military targets with 100% NAZI casualties.