• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Churchill allowing Coventry to be bombed.

Big Les

Philosopher
B
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Messages
5,057
Location
UK
Conspiracy theories aren't just for Youtube you know. Now you can see a play about one -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/7282424.stm

Although the Times just accepts it as fact and focuses on the rights and wrongs of the sacrifice implied by the theory. I'm still researching this one, but the Beeb assessment seems fair - that it's a CT (albeit relatively plausible given the situation - wartime and with Enigma decoding to keep secret) that's hotly disputed by historians.

ETA - Looks like we've covered this one before, but it would be great if we could summarise the evidence for and against in this thread given this new airing of the theory:

Based on a post by Darat in that thread, this looks like an excellent start:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=107
 
Last edited:
Its easy to say this but if Coventry had been saved one night, and the Germans had changed their codes, it would still have been bombed to the extent it was, and our ability to decipher enigma would have been lost.
 
Except that Enigma decodings had already been acted upon during the Battle of Britain, regardless of that risk. It may have been a different time, but I don't think Churchill would have been happy about letting an entire city go up in smoke. AFAICT this is rather like the 9/11 CTs in that the argument is LIHOP versus (arguable) incompetence. With hindsight there was evidence that Coventry and other cities in the Midlands were targets, but at the time they failed to connect that with the major raid that had been picked up on.

Did Churchill make the wrong call? Yes (in retrospect). Was there some social bias going on that helped downplay the Midlands and emphasise London? Possibly. Did Churchill know for sure that Coventry was the target, and deliberately ignore that fact? No and no.
 
Well, thinking about it, if it WAS a LIHOP.....would it really matter?

IIRC, during the BoB, the RAF was in deep [Rule 10], supply-wise. If it did come down to putting the available resources in a position to protect more people, would that really be a bad thing?
 
This is a well-known conspiracy theory, and as usual doesn't hold water. In fact it seems to have been neither LIHOP nor incompetence. The Luftwaffe and the RAF were fighting a complex technical war, in which the Luftwaffe happened for a short time to have the edge. Churchill suspected that the target was actually London. Even if it had been known that it was Coventry, how do you evacuate a city in 24 hours?

For a good discussion and rebuttal, see:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=107

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
This is a well-known conspiracy theory, and as usual doesn't hold water. In fact it seems to have been neither LIHOP nor incompetence. The Luftwaffe and the RAF were fighting a complex technical war, in which the Luftwaffe happened for a short time to have the edge. Churchill suspected that the target was actually London. Even if it had been known that it was Coventry, how do you evacuate a city in 24 hours?

For a good discussion and rebuttal, see:

http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=107

Dave
Click to expand...

Er, Dave? Check out my OP for that link ;)

It's probably redundant, but I decided to write a blog postabout it. The more rebuttals out there the better, right?

The National Archives actually have one page of the pertinent docs visible online. I can see why people think it's damning, but it was written after the fact for pete's sake.
 
Last edited:
Big Les said:
Er, Dave? Check out my OP for that link ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry, shouldn't post before coffee time. :o

Yeah, I agree with the principle that debunkings of these theories need to be brought to attention whenever the theories surface. The main point I wanted to make is that there isn't even a case for incompetence here. There was a war on, and sometimes the Luftwaffe got the edge. I simply can't see what Churchill, or indeed anyone else, could have done differently. The suggestion that Coventry could have been evacuated in 24 hours, which was about the upper bound on any warning that could have been received, is simply insane.

Dave
 
At that time, there were no mosquito night fighters.
To try intercepting heinkels with spitfires / hurricanes / defiants at night, would be to expect a great deal from the pilots.
 
Apollo20 said:
Let's not forget Tonypandy!
Click to expand...

http://www.agor.org.uk/cwm/themes/events/tonypandy.asp

When the rioting had ended, the Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, sent troops into the area to keep the peace. They stayed there for weeks and consequently, Winston Churchill was unpopular in the area for many years.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonypandy_Riot

Churchill did send troops, which was exceptional on the UK mainland, and an action for which he was widely criticised at the time and for years afterwards. He did not actually deploy them: instead he deployed large numbers of metropolitan police officers. Stories about troops firing on miners are untrue, but do reflect the deep anger at troops being present at all.
Click to expand...

So Churchill sent in the army to back up the police when law and order had broken down, and didn't actually use them to restore law and order anyway. He used his judgement and the powers at his disposal to restore law and order, and, it appears, did so with a reasonable level of restraint. That's what the Home Secretary is supposed to do.

And even if it does prove that Churchill wasn't a plaster saint, even so, the evidence is that the Coventry LIHOP theory has no foundation.

Dave
 
peteweaver said:
At that time, there were no mosquito night fighters.
To try intercepting heinkels with spitfires / hurricanes / defiants at night, would be to expect a great deal from the pilots.
Click to expand...

Actually, there's a possible argument of incompetence there, in that Dowding had concentrated on day fighter defence and ignored night fighter development, on the grounds that intercepting night bombers was impossible. It's been argued that this was a factor in his being relieved of command as the Battle of Britain fizzled out, although he was overdue for retirement at the time.

Dave
 
This one is actually recounted as if it's true history, in an episode of Babylon 5. The account is put into the mouth of the hero character, John Sheridan, who is supposed to be a bit of a military history buff. I can't remember which episode it was.

I wonder if that dramatic and forceful account strengthened the impression that the story was actually true?

Rolfe.
 
Last edited:
It can't have helped. It's the kind of thing that sticks in your mind and has you repeating as half-remembered factoid in the pub years later.

The Christopher Hitchens article referenced here seems to have been the "Loose Change" of this particular CT. I can't find the full text of it.
 
I don't know whether this is true or not but there were circumstances where lives were lost or commanders not given information because it was gained by the breaking of the Enigma code. There was a need to balance it which resulted in tough calls: you could possibly act on the information and the enemy might believe it was just dumb luck that you were in the right place at the right time, but that doesn't work in all circumstances especially where it is repeated.

This is really not that unique. It's more complicated than that though. A lot of the time the codebreaker might not be in direct contact with commanders and it's classified, so even though the information exists it never makes it from one part of the government to the other.

IMHO, a more chilling example is where double-agents who were supposedly spying on the Allies, but actually working for the Allies gave the real positions of troops or times of operations. Obviously this was not what was usually done because the real point is disinformation. However, legitimate information had to be given to build credability. This would be especially the case before a big deception on a major stratigic move. By giving accurate info on some small troop movements or convoys they would build up a lot of credibility and then be assured they would be listened to when they gave info on a major operation - which would of course, be false.

I've read about this but I will have to find some references. It's too late now.
 
The info I can find is that refined uranium (natural isotopic concentration - mostly U-238) takes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 years to reach secular equilibrium with all daughters all the way down to polonium-210.

You asked for U-235, so I assume you basically mean highly enriched uranium. I'll try to find you that info but it's not apparently in any of my books on the matter. It would be substantially less though. Maybe a few thousand years?
 
DRBUZZ0 said:
I don't know whether this is true or not but there were circumstances where lives were lost or commanders not given information because it was gained by the breaking of the Enigma code. There was a need to balance it which resulted in tough calls: you could possibly act on the information and the enemy might believe it was just dumb luck that you were in the right place at the right time, but that doesn't work in all circumstances especially where it is repeated.
Click to expand...

Which lead to one of the most enduring myths to come from WW2. To cover the seeming success of British interceptors locating targets at night, the world was told about the breakthrough that proved carrot consumption was linked to much imporved night vision. And that British pilots were consuming them by the bushel load

The truth was RADAR, that became refined enough that British pilots could be guided close enough to incomming bombers, they could see the glow of instrument lights throug their canopys.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So Churchill sent in the army to back up the police when law and order had broken down, and didn't actually use them to restore law and order anyway.
Click to expand...
I think that's Apollo20's point --- Churchill never sent troops to fire on the miners, and everyone present at Tonypandy knows it, and yet the myth that he did was prevalent and enduring.

In her book The Daughter of Time (in which she tries to prove that Richard III is innocent, but that's another story) Josephine Tey suggests that "Tonypandy" should be adopted as a word for historical bunk. "Oh," one might say, "that's a load of complete Tonypandy".

'Cos apart from anything else, it sounds like it should mean that. It's a phonaestheme.
 
Last edited:
MG1962 said:
Which lead to one of the most enduring myths to come from WW2. To cover the seeming success of British interceptors locating targets at night, the world was told about the breakthrough that proved carrot consumption was linked to much imporved night vision. And that British pilots were consuming them by the bushel load
Click to expand...


The carrot-night vision urban legend actually has its roots in German folklore which is why the British spread the myth in the first place about RAF carrot consumption - because they knew Germans already believed it.

It's also not without basis in fact - lack of Vitamin A does indeed cause poor vision (including night vision) and carrots are a good source of Vitamin A (though of course not the only one).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom