I'm not trying to cause a riot here but I have a question I would like answered. I dont have an agenda on this but I'm genuinely curious - We all know about the Luftwaffe bombing Rotterdam and Warsaw and that the bombings were indiscriminate, but Coventry is often mentioned as a war crime and I'm not sure why. Please hear me out, I'm not looking to offend, merely to ask for answers. Coventry was an important arms production city so it was an obvious target. In 1940 precision bombing was a myth (and I still believe that throughout the war it wasnt regularly feasible) so it was only possible for the Luftwaffe to undertake Area Bombing as Bomber Command did. So I suppose I'm asking, why is Coventry looked at differently by people to Hamburg. Both Raids were Area Bombing. Who knew that the weather in Hamburg would produce conditions conducive to the creation of a firestorm? My point is that both raids produced horrific results, yet Coventry is the one that is always brought up as proof of a war crime yet werent both raids similar? I realise that this is a sensitive issue and my argument is nothing to do with Bomber Command and its methods, far from it. I just want to know if its wrong of me to look at these raids in the same light and if so why? Also its not a defence of the Luftwaffe and its methods.
Ger, as an historian I see the term 'crime' associated with this type of warfare unhelpful. Hitler and the Nazi regime had declared this a Total War, and would use any method to win it. In many ways we did the same thing. The bombing of Coventry isn't any more or less worse than the bombing of Hamburg - they were both targets in a war in which everyone and everywhere was a target in a way that it had never been in warfare before or since.
Rightly or Wrongly I always think that Coventry is thrown up when the blitz is mentioned because they (Churchill and his government) knew Coventry was going to be bombed but they did nothing because they didn't want the Germans to realise they had cracked a code or intercepted a signal that it was going to be bombed. Ger when you say Hamburg do you mean Dresden? I always seem to think Dresden is the most talked about/mentioned German city to be bombed during the war? Just my opinion mind for whats its worth. Regards Andy
I agree with Paul. Coventry is always mentioned but I never saw it as a war crime. Why is not London mentioned?
Ger when you say Hamburg do you mean Dresden? I always seem to think Dresden is the most talked about/mentioned German city to be bombed during the war? Just my opinion mind for whats its worth. Regards Andy Because of the firestorm, Andy. Bombing of Hamburg in World War II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paul, thats my point. The term "crime" is unhelpful. And thats why I'm asking. I completely understand how people can get upset when talking about Coventry and I am in no way trying to "paper over" the suffering that people endured in that city. But from a historical point of view I am trying to form an opinion that is consistent and neutral.
I would say that both were 'crimes' in the context of the Geneva Convention (spoken as a layman, not a lawyer, I should add) as civilian targets were deliberately engaged. In 1940, such tactics were new (at least in terms of scale) and newsworthy. All that happened between Coventry and Hamburg is that the Germans had changed the rules of war. Bomber Command had to learn to play the game by the new rules, or lose.
Rightly or Wrongly I always think that Coventry is thrown up when the blitz is mentioned because they (Churchill and his government) knew Coventry was going to be bombed but they did nothing because they didn't want the Germans to realise they had cracked a code or intercepted a signal that it was going to be bombed. Ger when you say Hamburg do you mean Dresden? I always seem to think Dresden is the most talked about/mentioned German city to be bombed during the war? Just my opinion mind for whats its worth. Regards Andy Andy, I dont to bring Dresden up. Bomber Command is always hit over the head with the Stick known as Dresden. Hamburg was a horrific raid as was Coventry but in my mind both raids were approved without a Terror aspect. The results of both were unexpected. To bring up Dresden merely brings up the apologist argument that it was too late in the war and was merely done to show the Soviets the merits of Strategic Air Power. Hamburg is more of a related comparison I feel.
Wasn't there a firestorm in Dresden? Yes. But Hamburg was earlier and therefore closer in timescale to Coventry.
I once read that the scientist R Jones had worked out that the Germans were aiming radio Beams from Cleaves and somewhere else,the 2 beams met at their intended target ie Coventry. If the Luftwaffe flew close to the beams the dots or dashes would get louder. Standing in the shell of Coventry Cathedral last year i certainly could'nt help thinking that the bombing of Coventry was a crime,did'nt the Luftwaffe start well ahead of us in the Spanish Civil War? For the Luftwaffe Coventry was just another town to be devastated in a long line. I realise some Germans may be bitter about the raids by Bomber Command,but they need to look back at what their Luftwaffe did in the early years of the second world war.
Something else I think people forget is that the raid on Coventry represented what the Luftwaffe was capable of inflicting at that point in time. I'm pretty certain that if at any point they had been capable of putting 1,000 bombers into the air they would have used them on Coventry, London, Portsmouth...
A couple of stiring images of Coventry taken by the Daily Mail A hundred and seventy two victims from the November 1941 Coventry raid were buried in a communal grave Coventery Cathedral in November 1940 after the devasting raid on the fourteenth
For the Luftwaffe Coventry was just another town to be devastated in a long line. I realise some Germans may be bitter about the raids by Bomber Command,but they need to look back at what their Luftwaffe did in the early years of the second world war. Pike, one sec here. Maybe that was the case but how did Hamburg look to the Allies? It would have been exactly the same. Just another German town to be destroyed. Whats the difference? That they started it? I dont disagree with that, but why should Coventry be treated any differently in the context of Strategic Bombing? Both sides recognised that cities with heavy industry needed to be attacked. Coventry was a city with an industrial heritage dating back to the 19th Century. As such, the houses were built very close to the factories and very tightly packed too to accommodate more workers (Patrick Bishop refers to this in his book "Bomber Boys"). Just as Hamburg was a medieval town and it was well known that incendaries would be more effective, so the Luftwaffe would have known that bombing Covnetry's factories would mean that the workers would suffer too.
Yes Gotthard,i agree,Hamburg,Darmstadt,Essen,all would have been seen as just another raid,on just another town. Don't get me wrong,i'm not anti German,its my favourite country to visit,but standing in Coventry Cathedrals shell made a big impression on me,and if the Luftwaffe could have achieved in 1941 what the Allies and Bomber Command managed to achieve from 1943,i would'nt be sitting here now and the history of World War 2 would'nt be up for debate.
A difficult subject I fear. From a non-expert point of view (mine) I can only imagine that, in the 1940 period, when 2 armies were in a virtual stalemate across the Channel (excluding the Desert War) aerial operations were probably the most effective way of continuing offensive operations and attacking war material producing factories, inevitably located close to major civilian occupied areas. Bomber technology was such at the time that 'precision' bombing was not feasible, especially at night, although new guidance systems were being trialled. Coventry was a great success as far as the Germans were concerned, probably the best planned and most concentrated bombing op of the war so far, and apparently helped by meteorlogical conditions on the night and (has already been mentioned) the decision not to broadcast radio intercepts and decoding of Enigma traffic for security reasons. If it had been a RAF op on a German city at that time it would have been heralded as a major success. War crime? I think not. As for Dresden (not Hamburg). By that time in the war the RAF and USAF had many 'heavies' - which the Germans never had (as far as I know all German bombers were what we would describe as 'mediums'), and the combined effect of 1000 bomber RAF raids and round the clock bombing (USAF) was devestating on a whole new scale. If there was one air raid that might class as a war crime I would suggest it should be Dresden, but you have to put it into the perspective of the prosecution of the conflict and the 'total war' concept. I personally do not think that any aerial bombardment should be considered as a war crime. In the total war situation depriving war work civilians of housing and sleep might be considered a legitimate objective. It might be distasteful today but how would it have been seen during the war years? Perhaps a couple of our WW2 veterans might like to comment. Mike
Mike, thanks for the post. I am trying to stay away from the Dresden issue if at all possible due to the overwhelmingly negative debate it tends to engender ( I Dont disagree with you by the way!) but I'm hoping that it wont end up as a "Should Dresden have been bombed" debate!
Perhaps strangely, I've never noted references to the bombing of Coventry as a 'War Crime' It was however widely reported and became a symbol of German determination to bomb the UK into submission. The whole of the industrial midlands was subject to severe bombing but this was so far as possible not reported for intelligence and morale reasons. Coventry was a relatively small city and the city centre damage was substantial and undeniable. I think also that its post-war significance has been increased by the damage to the cathedral and the decision to leave the remains as a memorial. Losses to bombing of major cathedrals seem to have been quite unusual and the survival of St Pauls and Cologne despite devastation all around highlight this. If the damaged building (and it was originally only a large mediaeval church) had been rebuilt in the same style as was generally done in Europe, we might not be talking about it now but the fact that the modernists won and Basil Spence's monstrosity was set alongside the old church means that it remains an open wound. Yet another case where the damage caused by post-war architects was probably greater than that caused by the Luftwaffe
I would say that both were 'crimes' in the context of the Geneva Convention (spoken as a layman, not a lawyer, I should add) as civilian targets were deliberately engaged. In 1940, such tactics were new (at least in terms of scale) and newsworthy. All that happened between Coventry and Hamburg is that the Germans had changed the rules of war. Bomber Command had to learn to play the game by the new rules, or lose. My understanding is, that under the then terms of the Geneva convention aerial bombardment of a defended city was lawful. This was drafted in relation to artillery barrage and had not been altered to take into account the use of aircraft for bombing purposes. As far as being a war crime was concerned was not whether civilians were targetted or not but whether the city was defended or not. So the bombing of London, Coventry (?), Hamburg or Dresden was not a war crime at the time. However, the Luftwaffe attack on Belgrade after it was declared an open city could have been considered as a war crime. Lee
