@suprise:
What if the Island of Peenemunde was never bombed would it have made a difference in their Technology development
It would possibly have made some sort of difference, but I doubt it would have made a significant difference; by “significant”, I mean “having the potential to alter the course of WWII in a major way.”
Consider a variation of the question: did the V1 and V2 programs, which actually did produce weapons which were used in combat, cause WWII to turn out differently than would have been the case if those programs hadn’t existed? I don’t think they did. The V1s and V2s did kill an appreciable number of people in Britain, did cause an appreciable amount of damage there, and did require the Allies to devote resources (such as reconnaissance and bombing campaigns against Peenemunde) that otherwise could otherwise have been used elsewhere, but the V1s and V2s came nowhere near to having the war-winning effect that Hitler hoped they would.
If Germany’s A-bomb program had started five to ten years earlier and had had major resources (roughly on the scale of the Manhattan project) allocated to it, then the V2 project would have had the potential to alter the course of WWII, depending on how many A-bombs Germany managed to manufacture. Which leads to a question that’s hard to answer: while a single German A-bomb, used as a V-2 warhead, could have destroyed the centre of London at one blow, how many A-bombs would Germany have needed to persuade the Allies, i.e. the US, the UK and the USSR and everyone else who was fighting the Axis, to surrender? Remember that the US, for all of its massive efforts, had only produced three A-bombs by the war’s end…and the first one of those was expended in the Alamagordo test rather than being used in combat.