Why was Coventry 'coventriert'?

[Bruce Dennis]

Originally Posted by tcolvin

I'm sorry, Bruce, but I am obviously failing to engage fully in your concern.

I see.
Tony, it is nice occasionally to find someone is consistent, even if it leads to the odd difficulty. Allow me to explain my question again, and for the last time: I am not asking for what BC did, or what was wrong with their logic, or about the topography of the area, or anything else to do with the motivation of the C-in-C of BC. You said that Lübeck was not a legitimate target, and I ask what made it ineligible. It’s flammable structures do not make it an ineligible target. What the RAF chose to bomb it with cannot make it retrospectively an illegible target. It is not acceptable to quote the results of the raid to support your theory that a crime was committed when you are alleging that choosing the target was the original crime. Before the bombing, at the decision making stage, it was either (a) a legitimate target, in which case how it was bombed is the next subject, or (b) not a legitimate target, in which case any attack would be wrong. This is the point, and since it was central to your overall argument on the commission of a war crime, it is worth clearing up: show us the proof that BC had information establishing the ineligible status of this city before it was chosen as a target or accept that the head of the RAF was right to bomb it.

I will get off your back and drop the subject if you find your original statement impossible to justify.

I look forward to a clear answer on point, and hope it is not too difficult.

Regards,
Bruce