I've been long frustrated by the fact that any discussion of the attack on Coventry always revolves around Churchill's defenders having to explain that he did not in fact have advance knowledge of the raid. Why does the other side never have to explain themselves?
Let's say there had been advance knowledge of the raid and Coventry's defenses had been significantly strengthened. How exactly would that have alerted the Germans to the fact that their codes had been broken? Assume the Germans had suffered heavy losses in the raid. Post-mission debriefing would have first focused on things like altitude, course heading and air speed. Variables which when changed can produce very different results over an identically defended target. The Germans might have concluded that the RAF's night fighter capability was much better than they thought. If they did conclude that the city's anti-aircraft defenses had been strengthened since the previous raid, it seems reasonable that they might have first thought that it was because there was something new in the city (industry, military command post?) worth defending. Why believe the Germans would automatically assume that their codes had been compromised? The conspiracy theorists never have to explain themselves. They can just make charge after charge and watch the other side scramble to defend itself. Until they are forced to fight on their own ground the truth can never win. Richard Overy has a new book on the Air War coming out next week. I look forward to reading what he has to say about Coventry. Jason Wise -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/churchillchat. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
