I've been meaning to respond to this for 3 weeks and haven't had the
time. (I'm waiting now for the dog to finish her grass-eating in the
yard so I can let her in. We're having an interesting week.)
Gautam Mukunda wrote:
>
> Famously, in the case of Enigma, Winston Churchill was willing to allow the
> bombing of the city of Coventry rather than reveal that Britain had broken
> the code. It's hard to think of a more appropriate example of just how
> important protecting sources and methods is.
This is a fallacy, actually. Quoting from _Ultra Goes to War_ by Ronald
Lewin:
Coventry, the ancient city of three spires, has been twice
crucified: once by the German air force, and once by those
who have spread a disturbing legend that the slaughter of its
citizens during the raid of November 1940 was a sacrifice --
a sacrifice because the raid was known about through Ultra
many hours or even days in advance, yet no warning was given
to the city's authorities, or to those responsible for its
defense, for fear of compromising Ultra's precious secret.
Since this allegation is totally untrue, it mocks those who
died or suffered.
To sum up the 5 pages following this paragraph:
* It was initially believed that the raid would be on London.
* It was believed that the raid would occur the night after it actually
happened.
* On the day preceding the raid, a document was written that indicated
that the likely target was London, or areas of Berkshire and Kent, but
that further information might indicate Coventry, Birmingham or
elsewhere.
* There may have been a phone call the afternoon of the day preceding
the raid that indicated Coventry was a target, but no evidence of this
survived the war, and while someone on the initiating end of the phone
call remembers such a call being placed, no one at the receiving end
remembered afterwards that such a call had been received.
* In any case, even if Coventry had been known to be the target, the air
defenses would have been inadequite anyway.
Just wanting to set the record straight,
Julia
