Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2014 at 7:01am:


Yeah, but it probably took a lot of their energy away from other important things.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2014 at 11:56am:


The same sweatshop labour force could have been used to build more fighters, bombers and tanks. There was an opportunity cost to diverting this labour.

The important question is what it cost the British. Did the Germans lose more than the British? If so, and it set the Germans back, then the bombing raid was worth it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Chastise#After_the_raid

Quote:


Looks like the damage was quite extensive.

Even if the Germans quickly rebuilt or repaired the dams, the British could have continued bombing the dams over and over again, leaving the Germans without electricity for months and maybe years. Blame it on Arthur Harris and his fixation with area bombing for the RAF not attempting bombing raids on these dams again. If it forced the Germans to build anti-aircraft batteries around the dams, that was even better.

Hindsight is always an exact science though, isn't it!!
The allies obviously expected the raid to hurt the Germans in indirect ways.
Whether the cost was worth the effort-if history is still not 100% sure, over 70 years on-then it probably WAS worth trying.

I was reading the comments of a Vietnam vet on another board, on another war topic, and he made an interesting observation. It was that we are too focused these days on the fact a civilian might be hurt, but in his view, war always hurts those in the area, military or not, and we have to accept that.

I personally think (from my father's writings) that the atomic bombs were fully justified and very effective, they put a stop to the war in the Pacific, yet they killed plenty of civilians.

The dam busters-not as clear cut of course.
But maybe it was worth the try.

I remember reading somewhere that at the end of the war, the Germans were only months off developing their own atomic bombs. They would have got there earlier if their efforts & financing hadn't been diverted.
Don't know exactly how true that is, but it is an interesting thing to think about.

sherri wrote on Sep 24^th, 2014 at 8:52am:


I think the trouble was the British stopped bombing the dams. If they had kept on doing it, it would have left the Germans in the local area without power indefinitely. I reckon the loss of power would have cost the Germans more than whatever it cost the British to successfully bomb a dam. If it hurts the enemy more than it hurts you, it's worth it.

Lord Herbert wrote on Sep 24^th, 2014 at 9:13am:


Those Allied POWs were heroes and martyrs!

The blood was on the hands of the Germans. They should never have been using them as slave labour anyway.