@ABWorsham4 probably still scared the starving civilians , carrying rifles and 2 bullets each, half to death at the time though .
Dunkirk
-
@Dylan:
Do you think that if they forgot about the battle of Britain and just pulled of operation sea lion, they could of won.
Definetly not, the invasion fleet would of been obliterated by both the guns of the royal navy and the aerial might of the RAF. No German general or Admiral would of been foolhardy enough to attempt such a thing, the Kreigsmarine was in no position to escort a large invasion fleet, to be honest I dont think the Germans would of even had enough ships or barges to attempt a sucessful amphibious invasion.
The main reason for the Battle of Britain was for the Luffwaffe to secure air superiority over Britain so the Royal Navy could be destroyed. Without the Royal Navy an invasion could possibly be a success. I dont think there was a serious plan for Sea Lion pre 1939, I think that Hitler assumed that once France had been taken the war would be over as Britain without help couldnt win the war in the forseeable future. Hitler just assumed Britian would make peace in order to keep its empire in tact, not fight until the bitter end no matter the cost, to be honest if another man other than Churchill had of been Prime Minister Britain may very well of made peace with Hitler. Despite continued hostilities in 1940 Hitler claimed to of already won the war despite the fact Britain was still in the fight.
Dunkirk as we know it would of still taken place more or less, perhaps more soldiers would of been stranded on the beaches.
I wonder if it would of been possible for the British to hold Dunkirk and reinforce their position and puch back the Germans, had the British had the proper equipment it may very well of been possible and with at least a holding action at Dunkirk perhaps the morale of the French troops remaining in France would of been suffecient to at least hold the Germans where they were.
-
The Germans lacked transports to cross the channel and never did acquire them. The Battle of Britain was being won by the Germans as they were not attacking London initially but the airfields and radar stations along the channel coast. It was getting desperate for the Brits, they were seriously thinking of pulling their air assest out of the south. Once that occured the channel could not be the killing zone for the RAF it would have been otherwise. Churchill gambled that if he ordered an attack on Berlin, Hitler would snap and order attacks against london and allow the air-defenses to catch their breath. A stoke of military brilliance or a war crime is a tough call, but it worked. The Germans did switch targets, bombing london just pissed off the brits even more and had zero military use for German, in fact, it had the opposite effect and cost germany the battle of britain and perhaps the war.
-
The Germans lacked transports to cross the channel and never did acquire them. The Battle of Britain was being won by the Germans as they were not attacking London initially but the airfields and radar stations along the channel coast. It was getting desperate for the Brits, they were seriously thinking of pulling their air assest out of the south. Once that occured the channel could not be the killing zone for the RAF it would have been otherwise. Churchill gambled that if he ordered an attack on Berlin, Hitler would snap and order attacks against london and allow the air-defenses to catch their breath. A stoke of military brilliance or a war crime is a tough call, but it worked. The Germans did switch targets, bombing london just pissed off the brits even more and had zero military use for German, in fact, it had the opposite effect and cost germany the battle of britain and perhaps the war.
Umm… okay
Anyways could they reuse them like going back and forth?
-
Yes they could, as long as the British navy did nothing for weeks nor the RAF for weeks and the channel unusually calm for weeks and the british army didn’t fight on the beaches or in the hills and did surrender rather than “well shall never surrender” routine and every german soldier, tank, plane and ship rolled a 1, so thats like 10 million 1’s in a row with dice. So yes, the odds are greater than zero but not by much there would be about 50 zeros past he decimal point then like maybe a few more zeros then a 1
-
Yes they could, as long as the British navy did nothing for weeks nor the RAF for weeks and the channel unusually calm for weeks and the british army didn’t fight on the beaches or in the hills and did surrender rather than “well shall never surrender” routine and every german soldier, tank, plane and ship rolled a 1, so thats like 10 million 1’s in a row with dice. So yes, the odds are greater than zero but not by much there would be about 50 zeros past he decimal point then like maybe a few more zeros then a 1
I agree, it would of been possible but even under fire from British land based guns the Transports and landing craft would of still copped heavy losses too unless the Luffwaffe silenced those guns first. Like I said in my previous posts the Germans never really took Operation Sea Lion seriously until after the fall of France, a lot of German generals especially those who were veterans of WW1 and the army of the Weimar republic thought that the invasion of France would fail and the Germans would lose the war right then and there. On paper they were right, they were outnumbered by the British and French in both troops and tanks, what spelled the death knell for allied forces was the failure of allied tactics and the inability to adapt to a changing battlefield not the static battlelines like WW1 they trained for (especially the French).
I dont think in even the Germans wildest dreams did they think the invasion of France would be such a stunning success. It would of been presumptous if not downright a waste of resources to build transports and landing craft for the invasion of Britain when the Battle for France was far from a certainty.
As much as i’d like to believe in Churchill’s rhetoric of “we shall never give up and never surrender” I think if the RAF was destroyed and the Royal Navy after it, Britain would of made peace whether Churchill wanted them to or not. Its a parliamentary system in Britain its up to all the elected members to make decisions not just one man. Given Britains proximity to France all British industry in England could of been wiped out following the destruction of the RAF leaving Britain hungry and defenceless. One of the great German generals said “The Battle of Britain was the most important of the war” if the Germans had of won they probably would of won the war, the British would of made peace before being utterly annihalated by the Luffwaffe and most likely allied themselves with Hitler, he would of expected nothing less.
-
Now having said all that, IMTO, I can’t help but think that IF the Luftwaffe had won the Battle of Britain and then IF they neutralized the RN to the point that the channel was generally under their control… Hitler might well have turned his direct attention to Sealion and ordered a serious effort to get an amphibious capability.
Probably too little, too late… but then again dictators aren’t always easy to say “no” to when they’re bent on delivering comeuppance to other world leaders.
#613
-
I think Dunkirk was lucky, but Britain could hold without it(though it would be hard to attack anywhere). I think Dieppe wasn’t a real invasion.
-
What do you think Calvin on Dunkirk? And, what’s your take on Dieppe: true invasion or suicide mission designed for intelligence gathering?
Dieppe was never supposed to be an invasion.
It was a large scale raid. Hit n’ Git.#733
-
For the English…Dieppe was a raid to test the german defenses on the French coasts.
For the Canadians, it’s a useless massacre.
Once again, English used Canadian soldiers to save their skin. -
For the English…Dieppe was a raid to test the german defenses on the French coasts.
For the Canadians, it’s a useless massacre.
Once again, English used Canadian soldiers to save their skin.You’re definitely not speaking for “the Canadians” with that anti-British viewpoint.
It was the Cdn Army that pushed to have 2 Div perform OP JUBILEE.#735
-
For the English…Dieppe was a raid to test the german defenses on the French coasts.
For the Canadians, it’s a useless massacre.
Once again, English used Canadian soldiers to save their skin.You’re definitely not speaking for “the Canadians” with that anti-British viewpoint.
It was the Cdn Army that pushed to have 2 Div perform OP JUBILEE.#735
+1
The British needed every soldier they could get whether they be Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, Indian, South African etc. Dieppe was a mistake but in the long run the lessons learned helped Operation Overlord aka D-Day be a success. The British simply did not through lives away because they werent British. If you look at WW1 how many British lives were lost simply because of incompetence in the higher echelons of command? My great uncle spent most of WW1 in prison because he refused to “go over the top” because he knew it was suicide, my other 6 great uncles didnt have his insubordinate attitude and they died because of the incompetence of their commanders.The two soldiers who took my Uncle back behind the lines to the MP’s thanked him for his actions because in his defiance of orders he not only saved his lives but their lives too.
Just for the record Dieppe was a failure but the battles of WW1 embody the old German proverb “The British fight like lions but are lead around by donkeys”.
-
You’re definitely not speaking for “the Canadians” with that anti-British viewpoint.
It was the Cdn Army that pushed to have 2 Div perform OP JUBILEE.Maybe not every canadians but a lot think that way.
Canadian soldier was probably the best soldier in WWII but not their commanders who was under was under british command!
You realy think they had the choice?
If you received and order from your superior…you’re going to say…no i’ m sorry!_The British needed every soldier they could get whether they be Australian, New Zealander, Canadian, Indian, South African etc. Dieppe was a mistake but in the long run the lessons learned helped Operation Overlord aka D-Day be a success. The British simply did not through lives away because they werent British. If you look at WW1 how many British lives were lost simply because of incompetence in the higher echelons of command? My great uncle spent most of WW1 in prison because he refused to “go over the top” because he knew it was suicide, my other 6 great uncles didnt have his insubordinate attitude and they died because of the incompetence of their commanders.
The two soldiers who took my Uncle back behind the lines to the MP’s thanked him for his actions because in his defiance of orders he not only saved his lives but their lives too.
Just for the record Dieppe was a failure but the battles of WW1 embody the old German proverb “The British fight like lions but are lead around by donkeys”._
I agree, most of WWII and WWI great battle was won by canadian,australian and new zealand soldier.
But Dieppe still the worst decision of british high commander in WWII. -
Maybe not every canadians but a lot think that way.
Only those who are misinformed.
Have you spoken to vets of OP JUBILEE or even current CF Members about whether they think the British sent Cdns to Dieppe so that the British wouldn’t have to go?You realy think they had the choice?
If you received and order from your superior…you’re going to say…no i’ m sorry!Actually yes they did have a choice.
No Canadians were sent into harm’s way without the explicit agreement by the Canadian Government in WW2. In the case of Dieppe the Cdn Govt was actively seeking to get into the fight and requested to participate in the raid.#736
-
I know more that a few Canadians who felt a bit used by the British in regards to the Dieppe landing. It was a fiasco. The intelligence gathered was of questionable benefit, the raid was planned poorly, the tanks bogged down on the stoney beachs and there was never any plan to hold ground. Blame had to be laid somewhere, it probably should have been blamed on Canadians who ultimately gave the go-ahead for a poorly planned raid. I suspect it was eagerness to punch above our weight that meant we said yes when it should have been no. The brits share the blame because ultimately it was their plan. The Brits always treat the colonials differently then ‘real brits’, but I suspect Canucks were treated MUCH better than say Indians. Winston’s ideas on the future of Indian and its people should be treated were from a different century.
So, do the people who hold/held these views dislike the brits, of course not, long live the queen! Misinformed? Perhaps a bit, but I would not question the loyalty of my mothers cousins who actually were on the beach, 1 died and 3 were held captive for the duration of the war and 1 made it back.
-
I know more that a few Canadians who felt a bit used by the British in regards to the Dieppe landing. It was a fiasco. The intelligence gathered was of questionable benefit, the raid was planned poorly, the tanks bogged down on the stoney beachs and there was never any plan to hold ground. Blame had to be laid somewhere, it probably should have been blamed on Canadians who ultimately gave the go-ahead for a poorly planned raid. I suspect it was eagerness to punch above our weight that meant we said yes when it should have been no. The brits share the blame because ultimately it was their plan. The Brits always treat the colonials differently then ‘real brits’, but I suspect Canucks were treated MUCH better than say Indians. Winston’s ideas on the future of Indian and its people should be treated were from a different century.
So, do the people who hold/held these views dislike the brits, of course not, long live the queen! Misinformed? Perhaps a bit, but I would not question the loyalty of my mothers cousins who actually were on the beach, 1 died and 3 were held captive for the duration of the war and 1 made it back.The vets that I’ve spoken to naturally didn’t have anything good to say about Dieppe.
But none of them implied that the British wouldn’t have launched it if their own were going in, which I believe is an accurate paraphrasing of Crusaderiv’s accusation.As for misinformed Canadians… well, I was casting my suspicions on much younger generations of “internet savvy” Canadians who couldn’t find Dieppe on a map but can find a conspiracy theory under every casualty.
So IMTO if someone’s ascribing sinister Imperialist motivations to the inept & amatuer planning of JUBILEE then I’d characterize that as misinformation.As for respect for those who were there…
it’s literally awesome the pause that hangs over a conversation when somebody says “he was at Dieppe, y’know”.
Never seen it not happen.
Almost like a miniature moment of silence.
I imagine a debacle like Hong Kong might cause a similar reaction but otherwise I’ve never seen it.
Truly PBI.#740-720
-
Only those who are misinformed.
Sorry it’s not my case…Actually yes they did have a choice.
No Canadians were sent into harm’s way without the explicit agreement by the Canadian Government in WW2. In the case of Dieppe the Cdn Govt was actively seeking to get into the fight and requested to participate in the raid.
Ya I know…that the ‘‘official reason’’ Canadian government wanna fight…
But they didn’t measure the consequences.
Don’t forget…there always a motivation behind a decision.As for misinformed Canadians… well, I was casting my suspicions on much younger generations of “internet savvy” Canadians who couldn’t find Dieppe on a map but can find a conspiracy theory under every casualty.
So IMTO if someone’s ascribing sinister Imperialist motivations to the inept & amatuer planning of JUBILEE then I’d characterize that as misinformation.
Again it’s not my case, I’m not just so credulous as some canadian.
Conspiracy? who’s talking about conspiracy? -
As for misinformed Canadians… well, I was casting my suspicions on much younger generations of “internet savvy” Canadians who couldn’t find Dieppe on a map but can find a conspiracy theory under every casualty.
So IMTO if someone’s ascribing sinister Imperialist motivations to the inept & amatuer planning of JUBILEE then I’d characterize that as misinformation.
Again it’s not my case, I’m not just so credulous as some canadian.
Conspiracy? who’s talking about conspiracy?No. Actually ascribing sinister motivations is your case.
You are. If it were a historical fact that Dieppe was launched for the purpose of “saving British skins” at the expense of the Canadians then it would require a conspiracy.
#721
-
Dunkirk was the stolen Victory…Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever…
-
@aequitas:
Dunkirk was the stolen Victory…Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever…
weirdest landing that was a do or die situation for the Allies.
-
@Dylan:
@aequitas:
Dunkirk was the stolen Victory…Dieppe just a disaster and D-Day just the weirdest Landing ever…
weirdest landing that was a do or die situation for the Allies.
I think do or die is a bit of a overstatement. They could of failed and still won the war, in my opinion D-Day mainly served the purpose of liberating Western Europe before the Soviets got to the English Channel. The Allies still had their beach head in Italy and even if the entire invasion force was annihalated it was only 150,000 men, thats less than what the British brought back from Dunkirk in operation dynamo. I know it seems a bit cold to say its only 150,000 casualties but in the grand scheme of a World War the allies would of recovered to try again else where, they still had all of the ships and equipment for another landing.
Suggested Topics
