Mark Allen M wrote:
What he said, but I wouldn't consider the Doolittle raid to be "fully successful" ... successful yes, not fully successful. IMHO
In what was do you think it wasn't 'fully successful'?
Clifford Bossie wrote:
It is hard to say if the Doolittle raid was "fully sucessful", but it did achieve the primary goal of boosting morale, while failing the secondary goal of providing bombers to China. ...
Was the delivery of bombers to China a serious objective? It's not one I was aware of.
The Inspector wrote:
I don't know if the British press printed a headline the day after the raid on the dams in 84 point type, but every front page of every newspaper in the U.S. carried some version of TOKIO HIT above the fold in the blackest or most vibrant red ink the paper owned in the biggest type set they had or could carve overnight.
They (the British papers) did. The photograph/s of the damaged dams was quickly widely released and was (is!) one of the iconic images from the war.
Quote:
The end objective was to boost morale on 'our' side and hopefully disenchant 'them guys', didn't work as the more you try to bomb me out of existence, the stiffer becomes my resolve to resist. That mental attitude as demonstrated by Russian soldiers who would fight to the death for the piece of dirt they were standing on flummoxed the Germans. Later the Germans adopted the same attitude when the German skies were black with Allied aircraft.
Not sure what that's got to do with the question... Are you referring to one of these raids? A general observation?
All three operations under discussion certainly had a greater or lesser propaganda element, but none were just part of the strategic bombing offensive per se.
So, what's the bit we
don't like to talk about?