| I have always thought long and hard on this and heard pro and anti views on how it could have been done and what the outcome would have been.
I do think that it could have been worse however not rated in death outcomes.
Leave them they die at best in the chambers or shot, at worst from diseases like typhus or just plain starvation.
Bombing of the camps would have caused more deaths. Even if the bombing had been precise and the inmates escaped, (if they were physically able) they would have been shot or just returned to their own camp or another nearby.
The bombing of nearby military targets near the camps would and was justified later however in 42/43 it had to be a token effort. The Nazis would have found another way or taken another option to continue their genocide.
Hindsight does come into the equation because we do not know what those other options would have been.
The only way to relieve their suffering was to defeat their tormentors and that was achieved in 1945. This also went for POW's in known Japanese prisoner of war camps.
__________________ Spidge,
------------------------------------------------------- My Avatar is the memorial to the 22 Commonwealth Coastwatchers at the Temakin Cemetery on Betio (Tarawa Atoll) who were beheaded by the Japanese on 15th October 1942. http://www.dva.gov.au/media/publicat...mem_beito.html
"You were given the choice between war and dishonor.
You chose dishonor and you will have war."
(Winston Churchill made this prophetic pronouncement in a House of Commons speech in 1938, just after Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich agreement with Hitler. Chamberlain returned from Germany with the signed agreement in hand, proclaiming that "peace in our time" had been achieved. Churchill attacked Chamberlain's "politics of appeasement" in this and many other speeches.)
What did the Australians do in ww2 and other conflicts? Check out this site:
http://www.diggerhistory.info/00-pag...ster-index.htm |