|
Re: Why was Coventry 'coventriert'?
Hello again Tony, your answer muddles the issue but doesn’t alter my point. The question was “Why was Lubeck not a legitimate target?”, not “Do you approve of the tactics/weapons used to attack Lubeck?”
Help me here, I am stuck on this point that could fundamentally alter the way I (and perhaps others on the forum) think about the conduct of the war. Few of us have any rosy illusions that the air-war by this stage hadn’t outgrown the model on which the rules had been devised, but this is different: you say that the leader of Bomber Command knowingly launched a bombing raid on an ineligible target. Please separate the subject of ‘tactics used’ from the more sinister allegation that bombing Lubeck at all was a crime, as defined by the rules in force on the day, and show what gives Lubeck this singular status. It really would help.
Regards,
Bruce
|