There were probably some who wanted to try something targeted/infrastructural to avoid that, but there were also some advocates (including Jewish ones) who explicitly supported bombing the camps, including their occupants, because even if they died, it would be net-life-saving as future waves of trains would no longer have a place to go.

PBS's "Secrets of the Dead" series did an episode about this last year: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/bombing-auschwitz-wnrzgw/47...

The Americans strafed the concentration camp my grandfather was working at in 1944 from air -- my grandpa still carries a scar from that. It was definitely not an easy decision to attack or not attack these camps.

I think the general "hope" was to bomb the train tracks so that they couldn't keep bringing trainloads of people to the camps. This could be done without bombing barracks of people.

My grandfather used to tell me how one time he "flew" with his "bed" when he was there ;

How he woke up safe on his bed in the middle of the courtyard ; There were walls when he had gone to sleep before, but the walls weren't there anymore.

When I became older, I learned that fifty prisoners in his barrack had died this night.

Destroying the gas chambers would probably save thousands.

Well, giving the accuracy of the bombings at the time it wasn't simply possible.

Objectives (such as bridges) were often missed by hundreds of meters.

Optimist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butt_Report:

“Of those aircraft recorded as attacking their target, only one in three got within 5 mi (8.0 km).”

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/worldwar2/thea... has data for later years. It got better, but stayed bad.

https://www.airforcemag.com/article/1008daylight/:

“Bombing accuracy was terrible. The average circular error in 1943 was 1,200 feet, meaning that only 16 percent of the bombs fell within 1,000 feet of the aiming point”

I agree. Hence the scale of the bombings in WW2. But the camp operated multiple years. Maybe there was a price to pay but in the long run, maybe it would have been worth taking a chance. We will never now, it’s a maybe game.

We're Monday morning quarterbacking, but I wonder if destroying the railroad lines into the camps would've been effective. Less chance for a missed bomb to kill camp prisoners, lots of opportunity to hit the tracks.

I think the same trains or tracks that carried prisoners carried the (paltry) food for the camps, so I guess it's a trolley problem still.

Destroying rail lines is even harder and generally temporary. They're fairly easily repaired within a few days, given material and labor.

Babi Yar and the hundreds of similar tragedies show that the Germans had no trouble killing Jews using more conventional means.

It might have helped but it’s far from a certainty.

That’s right, and 200000 in Warsaw. It’s not certain, however, approximately 1.1 million people died in gas chambers. Let’s not forget about the atrocities of those who were not sent to the gas chamber. It’s all ifs and maybes but maybe the camp would have to be abandoned if mass gassing wasn’t possible.

Plenty of concentration camps didn't have gas chambers.

The tools of killing were bullets, disease, and starvation.

The Nazis ran out of many things, towards the end of the war. But never bullets.

Edit: I have no idea why people are doing the drive by downvote thing here? Maybe you think I'm denying that gas chambers were real?

No. I'm saying there were concentration camps without them, where prisoners were mass-murdered as I described above. That statement is not controversial.

I don't think destroying the gas chambers would have been enough to stop Auschwitz.

The best payoff would have been the train tracks running into the camps.

But how many planes would this have taken? How many would have been lost? No loss was affordable during most of the war; industrial production won it for the Allies as much as anything did.

There were no easy decisions to make.