But, you still have to ask the question, the Brits knew that there was a large civilian population on such a small island, so why conduct such a devestating raid? The Allies could have simply started a blockade of the island, and waited for the island to surrender due to lack of provisions!
1/ It didn't work with the Channel Islands - in fact, quite the reverse, the Germans both stripped the islands of food for their OWN use reducing the civilian population ration allowance to one of the lowest in Occupied Europe; Islanders could and WERE sent - including children - to mainland detention/concentration camps
for stealing single potatoes!....and THEN
in extremis the German garrison organised and mounted their OWN very successful commando raid on the Allied-liberated French coast to get supplies in March 1945!
2/ Look at the losses the Allies took reducing the French Channel coast
Festungen! And THAT was with the "advantage" of a land approach to each!!!
3/ To reduce Heligoland would have meant an expensive amphibious op....and look at the losses that the Walcheren operation actually cost, for instance...IIRC the Commandos took very high losses there...
4/ and not least -
the Brits knew that there was a large civilian population on such a small island
...exactly WHO were these civilians? GERMAN civilians I.E
enemy noncombatants. I hate to labour the point, but "war is hell", and the HRLW
did allow for civilian losses in attacking military targets embedded in the civilian population - the "Law of Military necessity". Proportional collateral civilian casualties were permitted,
especially on a target like Heligoland
with its defensive works/military installations etc.
In other words - there was
absolutely nothing preventing enemy installations being attacked there
Do you leave an enemy NOT attacked during a war if it represents a threat in some way to you?
