Why no D day in 1943?

[ChristopherPerrien]

AFAIAC , the Dieppe raid was a planned abortion to discourage any further continental landings(i.e Round-Up).

Unbelievable!!!!!!

To quote the lion in the Wizard of Oz, "Ain't it the truth".

[Richard Anderson]

AFAIAC , the Dieppe raid was a planned abortion to discourage any further continental landings(i.e Round-Up) as suggested by American commanders. Those Canadians were sacrificed just to ensure a focus on the Med in 42-43 , and to discourage a "Continental" landing in that same time frame. Don't think Churchill and the British high command were beyond getting a few thousand "colonials", or even English commoners, killed to create an example. Witness the example of the Coventry Raids to give lie to how far British High Command would go.

Dieppe , IMO, was never meant to succeed. I have no sources that prove this , but it makes more sense than the "reality" as presented in history. Maybe one day something will surface to confirm it, that is not the case today.

Wow! Unbelievable!!!!!!

Uh, yeah, welcome to my life...

[Sheldrake]

AFAIAC , the Dieppe raid was a planned abortion to discourage any further continental landings(i.e Round-Up).

Unbelievable!!!!!!

To quote the lion in the Wizard of Oz, "Ain't it the truth".

Tin foil hats on.

That is the argument put forwards in "Unauthorized Action: Mountbatten and the Dieppe Raid" by Brian Loring Villa. It is fairer to look at the Dieppe as the result of interactions by various agencies, with different motives and objectives. Cock up rather than conspiracy and with commentary based on hind sight.

However, it is fair to say that without Dieppe it would have been harder to dissuade the advocates of a rush and hope strategy from a risky 1943 cross channel assault.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Christrophe,

You write, "Don't think Churchill and the British high command were beyond getting a few thousand "colonials", or even English commoners, killed to create an example."

Are you serious? The British were careful with white colonial manpower in WWII for fear of damaging imperial ties. Churchill said he would have been more inclined to fight in Greece in 1941 if the expeditionary force had been largely British rather than ANZAC. The Newfoundlanders were put into artillery regiments to prevent a repeat of their high infantry losses in WWI. The Rhodesians were broken up into platoons and distributed around British infantry regiments to prevent the prime white manpower of the colony being wiped out in a single action. The British even refused requests from South Africa to recruit from tiny Tristan da Cunha to protect its population. Over 1941-44 almost no recruitment was made of white Bermudans or Falkland Islanders to conserve their small populations. Dieppe was the first Canadian Army's first action of the war. It can hardly be said to have been overused by the British in the first three years of war!

Cheers,

Sid.

[magicdragon]

So many reasons just a few spring to mind: a) shipping losses in 1943 were operating a twice the level of 1944; b) nowhere near the same level of air superiority and less time to soften up transport infrastructure; c) the level of resistance activity and probably infiltration in key post probably nowhere near what was available in 1944; c) insufficient time for the UK/USA to build up the level of reserves necessary to fight the war of attrition which the enclave would require.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Hi Christrophe,

You write, "Don't think Churchill and the British high command were beyond getting a few thousand "colonials", or even English commoners, killed to create an example."

Are you serious? The British were careful with white colonial manpower in WWII for fear of damaging imperial ties. Churchill said he would have been more inclined to fight in Greece in 1941 if the expeditionary force had been largely British rather than ANZAC. The Newfoundlanders were put into artillery regiments to prevent a repeat of their high infantry losses in WWI. The Rhodesians were broken up into platoons and distributed around British infantry regiments to prevent the prime white manpower of the colony being wiped out in a single action. The British even refused requests from South Africa to recruit from tiny Tristan da Cunha to protect its population. Over 1941-44 almost no recruitment was made of white Bermudans or Falkland Islanders to conserve their small populations. Dieppe was the first Canadian Army's first action of the war. It can hardly be said to have been overused by the British in the first three years of war!

Cheers,

Sid.

Well Sid,

Seriously , I should have also included "Roosevelt" with "Churchill and the British high command"
and "Americans and neutrals" with ""colonials", or even English commoners" to be accurate. And also I should have included "casus belli" with "an example".


To confirm if I am serious, as to them getting people killed to further their aims/enforce a POV, if you dispute the word "Coventry" as an example, all I have to say is,

"Lusitania". That one , given the evidence, IMO, is pretty damning.

and this

more inclined to fight in Greece in 1941

Doesn't register to me. As all those "remnants" in Crete after the loss in Greece, seems to confirm there was quite an inclination and a fight in Greece. Also , Greece is similar in nature to Dieppe about the UK using "colonials' as "cannon fodder"

We are drifting off topic. And I no longer have much interest left in debating ALL-LIED strategy in WWII.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Christopher,

oh dear! I don't know whether you have ever looked at the rules of the forum, I think this section best covers your posts:

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

Dieppe, Coventry, the Lusitania and now some drivel about Greece! I would like to see some evidence that:

1. Coventry - not sure what you mean, the ship or the city? If the latter, perhaps you have some evidence to show that the British "high command" killed some of the "commoners" of Coventry to "create an example".

2. That Churchill and the British "high command" launched the Dieppe raid (and decided to sacrifice the Canadians) to "create an example".

3. "Lusitania" - different war, but what the hell! I'd love to see your evidence that the British conspired to have the Lusitania sunk! Did they tell the U-boat where to meet it? Or did they bomb it themselves and then blame the Germans!

4. As for Greece in 1941, why did the British send an Australian and a New Zealand Division to Greece? Perhaps because they were available? Perhaps because the Australian and New Zealand government agreed to them being despatched? Perhaps because they had promised the poor Greeks help, and when the call came they only had few forces available? Perhaps because they were trying desperately to demonstrate to the American Congress that Britain was worth backing through Lend-Lease. I'd love to see the evidence that you have to show that it was all a plan to "create an example" - and what sort of example as well.

You are certainly not drifting off the only topic that you ever seem to want to debate! I like what you did with the "ALL-LIED" - very mature contribution to the discussion but not sure that it "promotes the purpose of the forum".

Regards

Tom

[Carl Schwamberger]

Hi Richard,

Yes.

Some posters seem to think that, for example, the assorted Mediterranean Campaigns gained the Western Allies forces no dividend as a result of the experience that was useful in Normandy.

Cheers,

Sid.

I've been accused of that. My argument is the experience in the Mediterranean is over valued, at least for the US 1st Army. This was in part because a minority of the units used in Normandy had any combat experience in the Med, & most of those veteran units had only a few weeks actual operational experience. Ditto for the commanders & staff. ie: Mark Clark had far more experince planning and executing large scale amphibious landings, but the US Army role in Op Neptune was handed to Bradley. You can go down the line through 1st Army staff, the corps commanders & corps/div staff & find a large portion of the most experienced, either in combat or cross beach ops remained in Italy.


Then there is this

As to Normandy, even the Germans were not ready for the hedgerow battles. As to combat, studies have been done and we have discussed them here. IIRC, Optimally there is a window of between 30 and 120 days , where units are "at their best" in combat. After 180 days efficiency starts to fall. Now what armies were studied and where and when, I do not recall.

....

I've observed the same point in picking through unit combat histories, and eyewitness accounts. It does not take many weeks of ongoing combat to wash the green out of a non veteran unit. Results may vary depending on the quality of previous training, but for the US Army of 1943-45 if a division or a independent battalion was not up to speed in 30 to 45 days there was something wrong with its senior leaders or its previous training. This is not to say six months experience was not of additional value, but that the critical learning phase was in the first four to six weeks of battle. Given that is ongoing battle & not a few days with weeks or months of intervening non combat time as per the US 2d Armored Div, or the 82d AB Div.

Bottom line as I see it; getting a large mass of US ground combat units into battle produces a large veteran army. Vs say the seven combat experienced US divisions in the ETO in May 1944.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Christopher,

oh dear! I don't know whether you have ever looked at the rules of the forum, I think this section best covers your posts:

3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.

Dieppe, Coventry, the Lusitania and now some drivel about Greece! I would like to see some evidence that:

1. Coventry - not sure what you mean, the ship or the city? If the latter, perhaps you have some evidence to show that the British "high command" killed some of the "commoners" of Coventry to "create an example".
2. That Churchill and the British "high command" launched the Dieppe raid (and decided to sacrifice the Canadians) to "create an example".
3. "Lusitania" - different war, but what the hell! I'd love to see your evidence that the British conspired to have the Lusitania sunk! Did they tell the U-boat where to meet it? Or did they bomb it themselves and then blame the Germans!
4. As for Greece in 1941, why did the British send an Australian and a New Zealand Division to Greece? Perhaps because they were trying desperately to demonstrate to the American Congress that Britain was worth backing through Lend-Lease. I'd love to see the evidence that you have to show that it was all a plan to "create an example" - and what sort of example as well.
You are certainly not drifting off the only topic that you ever seem to want to debate! I like what you did with the "ALL-LIED" - very mature contribution to the discussion but not sure that it "promotes the purpose of the forum".
Regards
Tom

Hi Tom,

Well if you're now a "Mod", then I am a "Rocker". Always have been,

I didn't take this topic in these directions. Mine was a reply .

But here is short short stuff. "We", to wit, "me", have been down all these roads before in other topics where I brought up with "sourced" info and involving multiple people and debates on this forum over the years.

My Round-Up topic on this forum years ago while "going everywhere" and chaotic at times is about one of the best debates and for sources for this topic around and covers the bases, including some discussion of Dieppe IIRC. There is no need to go back and rehash all that stuff , It has been done before , here , by me , and a lot of other people . http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 9879&hilit

As to my earlier reply. And what you are spouting off now about,

1. Coventry; It is an ongoing debate to how much the need to protect Ultra lead to the devastating Coventry Raid. I don't fully agree with the worst of conspiracists about Coventry but then again Churchill brought up the "bodyguard of lies" thing so you gotta watch anything he may have had something to do with and more importantly understand his "whys" . I have not been involved in any long discussions of Coventry or I would posts some links. I only know some have been done here by others.

2. Dieppe; to look at Dieppe (seizing a PORT) and then letting it go ? Come on!? Nothing good could have come of it. It had planning a "worse case" sceranario" from the get-go. Even any success there, was going to be buried by what went wrong. Only stupid amateurs would have thought different and I don't think the British High Command was that. So you have to look for reasons that fit , not what was published.
There surely is more to Dieppe than just a connection with future ops that deserves study, I would be inclined, if I was so inclined , to look at how MountBatten(former Battenburg) vis the UK high Command looked at it as a means to restore or destroy? some more faith/prestige of the "Royal" family in light of Edward VII and also of old questions running back to Prince Louis. IDK.

3. Lusitania; I was drug into a new topic of this by David Thompson who split off a post on the same and it turned into a big Churchill and Lusitania topic discussion. It is here.http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... =lusitania and here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... =lusitania And maybe elsewhere

4. Greece 1941.Drivel? I have no idea . All I know is Sid brought up Greece as an example of the British Empire not using "Colonials" in suicide(high loss no return) missions (i.e. because it might have affect Empire morale) and yet that is exactly what they did in Greece, which puzzled me for his reference, and then again his inference of Dieppe as brought up about "colonials/commoners" not being sacrificed. I am still confused about Greece being brought up relative to Dieppe, Drivel or not, wasn't me.

I added the Lusitania as it is damning , of how Churchill approached "world war" and the lenghts he was willing to go to preserve the "Empire" in his own POV. In the back of that are some things relative to WWII and his collaboration with Roosevelt, to get "neutrals" killed to bring the US into the war. A major Item was the "Destroyers for Bases Deal" which made a certainty that US destroyers would eventually be attacked by U-boats. Guess what kinds of destroyers the US gave the UK ?(Wickes and Clemson Class) Guess what kinds of destroyers were the USS Greer and Reuben James? I am not one to think Churchill and Roosevelt or the commands under them did not "think that one through" or to excuse them as stupid or naive. They knew exactly what they were doing , it just ain't that way in the news reels.

It is the same as Roosevelt saying to Stimson "Maneuvering the Japanese into firing the first shot", which he did.

Why would the true history of the reasons and machinations behind the D-Day attack be any different? People, including the greatest of leaders are creatures of habit and personal/family/historic POV's and motivations. The real "whys" as to why things happened in history is not often the same as what you see on the 6 o'clock news or in the other media for the masses in a sound bite of things that tooks years or generations even to happen as they did by the people involved at the time.. Some is a given, some ain't. D-Day is not the given it has been presented in the history books, neither is a lot of the rest of WWII.

"All-Lied" was simply me paraphrasing "bodyguard of lies", such is the nature of war.

Regards , I'm done,
Chris

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Tom,

The Greece evacuation was raised by me in a post to Attrition:

"You write, "Don't think Churchill and the British high command were beyond getting a few thousand "colonials", or even English commoners, killed to create an example."

Are you serious? The British were careful with white colonial manpower in WWII for fear of damaging imperial ties. Churchill said he would have been more inclined to fight in Greece in 1941 if the expeditionary force had been largely British rather than ANZAC. The Newfoundlanders were put into artillery regiments to prevent a repeat of their high infantry losses in WWI. The Rhodesians were broken up into platoons and distributed around British infantry regiments to prevent the prime white manpower of the colony being wiped out in a single action. The British even refused requests from South Africa to recruit from tiny Tristan da Cunha to protect its population. Over 1941-44 almost no recruitment was made of white Bermudans or Falkland Islanders to conserve their small populations. Dieppe was the first Canadian Army's first action of the war. It can hardly be said to have been overused by the British in the first three years of war!"

Churchill said he would have been more inclined to contest the Peloponnese had the troops been British, but the only two major formations present were Australian and New Zealander. Indeed, virtually the entire active New Zealand Army was present. The old imperialist spent a good chunk of WWII looking over his shoulder at the consequences for the Empire if the Old Commonwealth suffered too many losses.

He was right to. South Africans initially volunteered only for service in the continent of Africa and Churchill couldn't compel them to do even that. Afrikaner volunteers were comparitively underrepresented as well. The SA armoured division had to be re-enlisted for service in Italy. In Canada the French Canadians were reluctant to accept conscription and were under represented in the European Theatre, though over-represented back home by 1943-45.

Attrition's idea that Churchill was both able to be profligate with colonial manpower and was enthusiastic in doing so is the reverse of the truth. Churchill was constricted by constitutional limitations in the Old Commonwealth and extremely sensitive to the consequences of excessive losses there.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Christophe,

1) Coventry. The targets for German raids were decided hours before launch. Just supposing the British had managed to decode German signals in time, what exactly were they supposed to do about it?

2) Dieppe. You write, "Nothing could have come of it." Precisely. It was a raid, not an invasion, and designed to see how practicable it was to seize a working port at the outset of any invasion. "Not very" was the lesson, and the Mulberry project was begun to bring over two floating ports instead. Just because something fails with heavy losses doesn't necessarily mean there was some conspiracy to bring about precisely that end!

3) Lusitania. Did the U-boat know there was weaponry on the Lusitania when it attacked sank her? No. And once it was sunk can one blame the British from covering up and capitalizing on the propaganda value? No! Nice job, well done!

4) Greece. Churchill sent a small expeditionary force largely of Australians and New Zealanders, to support the much larger Greek and Yugoslav armies. When the Yugoslavs collapsed and the Greeks were outflanked in Albania they had to be withdrawn south. The question was whether a stand should be made on the Peloponnese with residual Greek forces or a full withdrawal mounted. A full withdrawal was decided upon. Churchill said that he would have been more inclined to fight for the Peloponnese had all the troops been British.

Was Churchill ruthless? Damn right, but not necessarily in the ways you suppose.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Tom from Cornwall]

Hi Christopher,

Thanks for replying to my plea for your sources; I'm not claiming to be a mod (or a rocker!), just an interested historian who is avid to learn more and especially seek out new nuggets of evidence. So, in due diligence I should reply that:

1. Coventry; It is an ongoing debate to how much the need to protect Ultra lead to the devastating Coventry Raid. I don't fully agree with the worst of conspiracists about Coventry but then again Churchill brought up the "bodyguard of lies" thing so you gotta watch anything he may have had something to do with and more importantly understand his "whys" . I have not been involved in any long discussions of Coventry or I would posts some links. I only know some have been done here by others.

No evidence then.

2. Dieppe; to look at Dieppe (seizing a PORT) and then letting it go ? Come on!? Nothing good could have come of it. It had planning a "worse case" sceranario" from the get-go. Even any success there, was going to be buried by what went wrong. Only stupid amateurs would have thought different and I don't think the British High Command was that. So you have to look for reasons that fit , not what was published.
There surely is more to Dieppe than just a connection with future ops that deserves study, I would be inclined, if I was so inclined , to look at how MountBatten(former Battenburg) vis the UK high Command looked at it as a means to restore or destroy? some more faith/prestige of the "Royal" family in light of Edward VII and also of old questions running back to Prince Louis. IDK.

No evidence then.

3. Lusitania; I was drug into a new topic of this by David Thompson who split off a post on the same and it turned into a big Churchill and Lusitania topic discussion. It is here.http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... =lusitania and here http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... =lusitania And maybe elsewhere

No evidence then. Even though I waded through even more "drivel".

4. Greece 1941.Drivel? I have no idea . All I know is Sid brought up Greece as an example of the British Empire not using "Colonials" in suicide(high loss no return) missions (i.e. because it might have affect Empire morale) and yet that is exactly what they did in Greece, which puzzled me for his reference, and then again his inference of Dieppe as brought up about "colonials/commoners" not being sacrificed. I am still confused about Greece being brought up relative to Dieppe, Drivel or not, wasn't me.

No evidence then.

Why would the true history of the reasons and machinations behind the D-Day attack be any different? People, including the greatest of leaders are creatures of habit and personal/family/historic POV's and motivations. The real "whys" as to why things happened in history is not often the same as what you see on the 6 o'clock news or in the other media for the masses in a sound bite of things that tooks years or generations even to happen as they did by the people involved at the time.. Some is a given, some ain't. D-Day is not the given it has been presented in the history books, neither is a lot of the rest of WWII.

I quite agree that there is still much to learn about WW2, perhaps we just disagree on historical method. I would be more than happy if you started all your posts with "In my opinion..." just so that anyone idly searching for historical evidence about WW2 doesn't end up being persuaded that your posts are based on any newly discovered trove of primary sources.

Regards

Tom

[Tom from Cornwall]

Sid,

Thanks for the reply, but I had no problem with your reference to the British concern for the Imperial troops in Greece in 1941, I just wanted to see Christopher's evidence in support of his statement that:

Greece is similar in nature to Dieppe about the UK using "colonials' as "cannon fodder"

Regards

Tom

[ChristopherPerrien]

Sid,

Thanks for the reply, but I had no problem with your reference to the British concern for the Imperial troops in Greece in 1941, I just wanted to see Christopher's evidence in support of his statement that:

Greece is similar in nature to Dieppe about the UK using "colonials' as "cannon fodder"

Regards

Tom

You're the one who equated Greece with Dieppe, not me.

As to the Canadians at Dieppe, as I mentioned "colonials". It would have been of a more negative impact to have used English troops to suffer English casualties at the time. April 1942. Using Canadians at the time and have them suffer some casualties actually served a purpose to bring Canada more into the war by suffering casualties , rather than the nil chance of turning Canada against the Empire. The exact opposite of what was inferred earlier by whoever who post about the British being loath to use colonial troops using Greece as an example of when they did this when they actually did not. It was a "write off" with advantages.

It is also "strange" they used "green" troops. The Canadians had never been under fire. Stranger still they were not shipped to Africa, but I guess the Americans were coming, so no need.

There is also the fact they were not English, and were landing on France. Much the same as American troops landed during Torch. Not a good idea to antagonize French/Vichy feelings at the time. That at least makes sense.

But this is still all going off topic. I was not the one to bring up the tired British excuse of Dieppe to not invade Europe in 43, here in the first place either.

And again , y'all are asking the wrong person to debate Round-Up 43 in the nature required by this forum. Somebody else better stand up and run with this football, or a one-side debate can remain.

[Richard Anderson]

I quite agree that there is still much to learn about WW2, perhaps we just disagree on historical method. I would be more than happy if you started all your posts with "In my opinion..." just so that anyone idly searching for historical evidence about WW2 doesn't end up being persuaded that your posts are based on any newly discovered trove of primary sources.

All Hail the King of Snark!

Seriously dude, wear the crown with pride!