I read the pre-edited comment and wondered what you meant, Alles is klar.
History ought to be an objective study of the past and while the opinion of the actors is invaluable it is only a sub-set of the truth. That is why I used the word 'dispassionate' to signal the difference.
People involved in wars may be driven by passions but rest assured, in the background, there are people doing the calculations, not that they are always listened to. If they were then losses on one side would be maximised
and losses on the other minimised. It depends whose side you were on if that is good or bad.
Some years ago I was fortunate to spend some time with a German man, probably a contemporary of yours. He told me that he said to his mother, "Who are these devils that are raining such destruction on us?", and his mother said, "My son, we are doing the same to them." The 'devils', of course, were our own lads of RAF Bomber Command, doing their duty as they saw it - and suffering the appalling death rate of 44.4%, or some 56,000, which is comparable with modern estimate of German civilan casualties caused by the RAF.
Was the RAF effort worth it? The passionate view of the actors of the time, the bombed out or the aircrews, was no doubt 'yes', as long as we left out those 'lacking moral fibre', the post-traumatic stress disorder sufferers of the time. But taking the passionate view traps us in the past, never allowing us to learn the lesson from history and condems us to repeat the cycle.