View Single Post
  #6  
Old 23 November 2015, 01:43 AM
crescent crescent is offline
 
 
Join Date: 13 August 2008
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,518
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Psihala View Post
Its still nonsensical. Unless most of the guards are taken out, too, the prisoners are still going to be at a disadvantage. Even assuming many or most of the prisoners have been set free, they're still in enemy territory with little or nothing to get them past what would surely be now alerted forces.

~Psihala
Sure - but there were a few mass breakouts anyway. One at Sobibor, one at Treblinka, and an attempt at Birkenau, Prisoners breaking out of camps would be at a huge disadvantage, but might have some chance. Prisoners staying in the camps faced certain death.

At any rate, what I always heard was not the camps were to be bombed, but that the rail switchyards that served a few of the largest the camps were to be bombed in order to prevent the prisoners from being moved deeper into Axis controlled territory before the camps were liberated. This was not done for a variety of reasons - some thought that such a mission was just too low of a priority relative to the risk. Some thought that such a mission would be a waste compared to bombing industrial targets. Some thought that it was not an appropriate mission for the western allies to do in an area that would be liberated an controlled by the Soviet Union. Some were simply still not convinced that the camps were actual extermination camps. Remember, this is just a few years after the Western powers turned away Jewish refugees. There were plenty of anti-semites in allied command who felt no urge to help the Jews in any way.
Reply With Quote