Winston Churchill - Did he deliberately sacrifice the Canadian 2'nd at Dieppe?

[james t kirk]

Was kind of bored the other night and was flicking across Netflix and came upon this less than flattering documentary about Winston Churchill. It was interesting and believable enough. I am well aware of Churchill's blunders in WW1 (Gallipoli, Churchill is not well like in Australia) and his massive ego (I'm the descendant of the Duke of Marlborough) and the way he publicaly and without merit labelled Neville Chamberlain as some sort of coward solely in order to advance his own political career. But I had never been aware just how many blunders Churchill made, especially at the start of WW2.

The historian - David Reynolds, postulates with Winston Churchill, more than anything, it was all about preserving the empire (and I'm well aware where Churchill stood with respect to India's independence, so the notion of "the sun never sets on the British Empire" does has merit with respect to Churchill's mindset on the issue.)

I had never given the war in the Mediterranean much thought to be honest. But David Reynolds clearly has. Reynolds asks the $64,000 question - "why would anyone who wanted to defeat Germany engage in a protracted military campaign in the Mediterranean? It doesn't make sense. (And he's got a point.) Reynolds makes the argument that in 1941 and 1942, Churchill was hell bent on the war in the Mediterranean. With the entry of the United States into WW2 in 1942, the Americans under Marshall just wanted to take out Germany in the shortest and simplest way possible - invade France and keep right on going to downtown Berlin. (It makes sense.) But Churchill wanted none of this because HIS thinking was really all about preserving the Empire and to do that, he needed control the Mediterranean, Egypt, the Suez, the Middle East and the Commonwealth countries around it.

But the Americans kept pressuring to invade France.

So Churchill gave them (deliberate?) Dieppe. Churchill knew that as planned, Dieppe didn't stand a chance, but that was what he wanted. He could stand back and say, "told you so, now let's get back to what I WANT" and maintain the war in the Mediterranean in order to preserve the Empire. (Though I won't come out and say it.)

I'm usually not a huge conspiracy theorist, but fuck me, I can almost buy into this one. Years ago, I met a couple of Dieppe veterans from the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry and they were all well advanced in age at that time, but I remember that they all claimed that the entire raid was a catastrophe from the get go and I clearly remember all of them blaming Mountbatten, except one guy who actually blamed Churchill, which the others scoffed at. Anyway, I hadn't much thought about it and then I saw this documentary and this British historian says it, without saying it. (And just to put it in perspective, I remember one of the veterans saying that, "have you ever been out on the water when it starts to rain and the rain drops make little circular splash rings in the water? That's what Dieppe was like, only it wasn't rain making the splash rings, it was bullets.)

Dunno. Fascinating documentary on its own though. The Dieppe theory starts around 36:00 and was startling to say the least.

 

[mandrill]

All fits in with known facts. The only issue is how deliberate the sacrifice was. The theory was always sold as Dieppe was a raid designed to try out techniques of amphibious landings. Of course, you could wargame that stuff and figure it just as well.

 

[dirkd101]

Dieppe was nothing more than a planned "raid" and Canada's participation was brought about by both political and military pressure to get in on the war. Although Churchill was a hands on guy and wanted to be in on everything, this was Mountbatten's baby and was poorly planned from the start, through training and the execution.

As far as blaming Churchill for prolonging or protracting the war by focusing on the Mediterranean so to preserve the Empire, this has a trace of truce, but is more fanciful thinking than anything else. The North African, Sicilian and Italian campaigns were necessary for the American's to get their feet wet, as it were. North Africa was also strategically important as well and had Hitler realized its importance, like his top generals did, we would have seen a different outcome to the war. Furthermore, if the American's had gotten their way and attacked France instead of North Africa, the war would have been prolonged for many more years than it was. The American's got their asses handed to them in North Africa, fighting a numerically inferior force, in both men and materiel. This campaign was a coming of age for the American's and it involved a steep and costly learning curve. As opposed to having gone for a landing in France instead, which had more divisions than anything that the Allieds could have put together that early in the war.

When the Allies finally landed in France on D-Day, the German's had a lot of troops tied up in Italy, and a number of them elite divisions. If this had not been the cas then German's could have been able to put far more troops in France and on the Eastern front. The outcome of D-Day would have been in doubt if this was so.

 

[oldjones]

Don't forget Churchill's time as a battalion commander during the Battle of the Somme in WW1. If anything was ever going to put you off taking the advice of 'seasoned' generals eager to get back onto the battlefields and re-fight the last war (the one they almost lost just twenty-some years before) it might be those memories of profitless mass-slaughter. Hardly any wonder he'd do anything he could to delay that inevitable confrontation until a) the US was in and blooded and b) supremacy was assured. Not to say Dieppe was consciously intended to discourage the over-eager among his advisors, but when you're facing a huge operation no one has ever attempted before, a trial-run can be awfully instructive.

 

[SkyRider]

The American's got their asses handed to them in North Africa, fighting a numerically inferior force, in both men and materiel.

The American Army in WW II was basically composed of civilian soldiers. Unlike the professional German army. After the war almost all the American soldiers went back to being bookkeepers and grade school teachers.

 

[kugel1]

HAve you seen David O'Keefe's documentary on the real reason for the raid? Quite compelling.

 

[Aardvark154]

Dieppe essentially taught the following which laid the framework for both operation TORCH and Operation NEPTUNE (D-Day):

* preliminary artillery support, including aerial bombardment;
* a sustained element of surprise;
* proper intelligence concerning enemy fortifications;
* avoidance of a direct frontal attack on a defended port city
* the need for proper re-embarkation craft.
* development of a range of specialist armoured vehicles particularly for engineers e.g. the Hobart's Funnies.
* learning the particulars of every landing beach and devising appropriate vehicles for said beaches.
* creation of fully integrated Tactical Air Forces to support major ground offensives.
* the realization that the bombardment that Dieppe showed would be necessary to seize a major port, would almost certainly render it useless. Hence
* prefabricated harbours towed to lightly defended beaches would be essential as part of a large-scale invasion.

 

[mandrill]

The American Army in WW II was basically composed of civilian soldiers. Unlike the professional German army. After the war almost all the American soldiers went back to being bookkeepers and grade school teachers.

The German army was conscripted as well. Just like the US Army.

 

[Insidious Von]

Winston Churchill was so haunted by the memory of Gallipoli that he had irritable bowel syndrome as Operation Overlord was about launch. While the Allies stormed the beaches of Normandy, Churchill was bound to the shitter with propulsive diarrhea.

 

[Insidious Von]

I tend to believe that Dieppe was all about capturing Enigma II, there is no other reason for wasting valuable manpower.

At the time the Nazis had turned the table once again on Allied shipping. German U-Boats were sinking ships at an alarming rate and the Tirpitz was still at large. With the success of Operation Anthropoid and Colossus coming on line in January 1943, the tide turned permanently against the Nazi's. With Heydrich gone, Nazi Intelligence fell into disarray. Certainly a troglodyte like Himmler (who replaced Heydrich) was completely clueless as to how to build a computer like Colossus, Heydrich would have figured it out.

I was watching the North America vs Finland game. Patrick Laine disturbs me, he looks too much like Heydrich.

 

[dirkd101]

The American Army in WW II was basically composed of civilian soldiers. Unlike the professional German army. After the war almost all the American soldiers went back to being bookkeepers and grade school teachers.

This absolutely correct and it was also a peacetime army that had gone to war at htis point and they had many deadwood generals that needed to be weeded out.

Dieppe essentially taught the following which laid the framework for both operation TORCH and Operation NEPTUNE (D-Day):

* preliminary artillery support, including aerial bombardment;
* a sustained element of surprise;
* proper intelligence concerning enemy fortifications;
* avoidance of a direct frontal attack on a defended port city
* the need for proper re-embarkation craft.
* development of a range of specialist armoured vehicles particularly for engineers e.g. the Hobart's Funnies.
* learning the particulars of every landing beach and devising appropriate vehicles for said beaches.
* creation of fully integrated Tactical Air Forces to support major ground offensives.
* the realization that the bombardment that Dieppe showed would be necessary to seize a major port, would almost certainly render it useless. Hence
* prefabricated harbours towed to lightly defended beaches would be essential as part of a large-scale invasion.

All of this was most definitely used in the planning of Neptune anyways. In Torch, the Allies made many of the same mistakes, including that of trying to take a port. The French made them pay dearly.

Another lesson garnered from Dieppe was the need for air superiority over the beaches. This was attained by the combined efforts of the RAF and USAAF, culminating in "Big Week", where they smashed what was left of the Luftwaffe.

 

[dirkd101]

I tend to believe that Dieppe was all about capturing Enigma II, there is no other reason for wasting valuable manpower.

At the time the Nazis had turned the table once again on Allied shipping. German U-Boats were sinking ships at an alarming rate and the Tirpitz was still at large. With the success of Operation Anthropoid and Colossus coming on line in January 1943, the tide turned permanently against the Nazi's. With Heydrich gone, Nazi Intelligence fell into disarray. Certainly a troglodyte like Himmler (who replaced Heydrich) was completely clueless as to how to build a computer like Colossus, Heydrich would have figured it out.

I was watching the North America vs Finland game. Patrick Laine disturbs me, he looks too much like Heydrich.

I know it hard to believe that something so disastrous could happen, without having a greater purpose attached to it, but that is the nature of war. A good read is "Tragedy at Dieppe", by Mark Zuehlke.

While there was an assignment for a unit to attain this, if memory serves me correct, it was a late add-on to the raid.

Let's not forget, Dieppe being a raid, one of many on a list to carry out, this was one of the first that wasn't done by strictly commandos, but rather by regular army troops, in force and supported by some commandos. At this point in the war, it was also to show the Russians that they were at least doing something on the Continent, even if only to tie German troops down, to keep them from the Eastern Front.

 

[SkyRider]

Another lesson garnered from Dieppe was the need for air superiority over the beaches. This was attained by the combined efforts of the RAF and USAAF, culminating in "Big Week", where they smashed what was left of the Luftwaffe.

Complete air superiority was a "must have".

Couple of other factors are:
General Patton's ruse. The Nazis think Calais was the landing point.
The absence pf Rommel.

 

[james t kirk]

Dieppe was nothing more than a planned "raid" and Canada's participation was brought about by both political and military pressure to get in on the war. Although Churchill was a hands on guy and wanted to be in on everything, this was Mountbatten's baby and was poorly planned from the start, through training and the execution.

As far as blaming Churchill for prolonging or protracting the war by focusing on the Mediterranean so to preserve the Empire, this has a trace of truce, but is more fanciful thinking than anything else. The North African, Sicilian and Italian campaigns were necessary for the American's to get their feet wet, as it were. North Africa was also strategically important as well and had Hitler realized its importance, like his top generals did, we would have seen a different outcome to the war. Furthermore, if the American's had gotten their way and attacked France instead of North Africa, the war would have been prolonged for many more years than it was. The American's got their asses handed to them in North Africa, fighting a numerically inferior force, in both men and materiel. This campaign was a coming of age for the American's and it involved a steep and costly learning curve. As opposed to having gone for a landing in France instead, which had more divisions than anything that the Allieds could have put together that early in the war.

When the Allies finally landed in France on D-Day, the German's had a lot of troops tied up in Italy, and a number of them elite divisions. If this had not been the cas then German's could have been able to put far more troops in France and on the Eastern front. The outcome of D-Day would have been in doubt if this was so.

I can appreciate that North Africa was a learning ground for the Americans, however, I don't see why it it had to spread all over the Mediterranean and for so long. Besides, by the time Dieppe happened, North Africa was sewn up for the allies. After North Africa, the Americans wanted to invade Europe from the west. It appears Churchill didn't want that, at least not at that time.

I severely doubt that if after North Africa the Allies invaded France that the war would have dragged out for many more years. Quite simply, the Russians were coming. The Russians had their sights set on one thing - Berlin and they were simply going to head straight for the heart of the matter. If the Allies had NOT invaded France when they did, the Russians would have "liberated" Paris and everything west to the Channel.

Invading France was inevitable.

The documentary makes the argument that Churchill was terrified of British casualties in WW2 on the same scale as WW1 (which makes sense). So when it came time for a suicide mission at Dieppe - he chose the Canadians.

 

[james t kirk]

HAve you seen David O'Keefe's documentary on the real reason for the raid? Quite compelling.

No, I have not, but I will look it up.

 

[james t kirk]

Dieppe essentially taught the following which laid the framework for both operation TORCH and Operation NEPTUNE (D-Day):

* preliminary artillery support, including aerial bombardment;
* a sustained element of surprise;
* proper intelligence concerning enemy fortifications;
* avoidance of a direct frontal attack on a defended port city
* the need for proper re-embarkation craft.
* development of a range of specialist armoured vehicles particularly for engineers e.g. the Hobart's Funnies.
* learning the particulars of every landing beach and devising appropriate vehicles for said beaches.
* creation of fully integrated Tactical Air Forces to support major ground offensives.
* the realization that the bombardment that Dieppe showed would be necessary to seize a major port, would almost certainly render it useless. Hence
* prefabricated harbours towed to lightly defended beaches would be essential as part of a large-scale invasion.

Sure, so your argument is sacrifice a few thousand Canadian lives to see how it goes?

None of your points are REASONS as to why Dieppe even happened. They are the spin that they put on it after the disaster.

 

[james t kirk]

Winston Churchill was so haunted by the memory of Gallipoli that he had irritable bowel syndrome as Operation Overlord was about launch. While the Allies stormed the beaches of Normandy, Churchill was bound to the shitter with propulsive diarrhea.

Yes he was (and should have been) haunted by Gallipoli. It was a colossal disaster for which the Australians paid a very high price. (No wonder they can't stand him.)

 

[Aardvark154]

Sure, so your argument is sacrifice a few thousand Canadian lives to see how it goes?

That in war mistakes are made, indeed that there is rank stupidity does not mean that those actions involved deliberate malice.

Perhaps more important are whether the same mistakes are repeatedly made, or are those mistakes learned from.

 

[Aardvark154]

Yes he was (and should have been) haunted by Gallipoli. It was a colossal disaster for which the Australians paid a very high price. (No wonder they can't stand him.)

Many of those mistakes were down the chain from Churchill's level of strategic planning.

 

[SkyRider]

That in war mistakes are made, indeed that there is rank stupidity does not mean that those actions involved deliberate malice.

Mistakes were also made on D-Day. I think many paratroopers missed their target. Their parachutes snagged on trees where they summarily shot by Germans.

Prior to mid-1942, defeat was the norm so Dieppe was just one of many defeats. Here is a short list of the defeats.
France
Denmark
Dunkirk
Pearl Harbor
Philippines
Hong Kong
Singapore

BTW: The Australians in WW I refused to shoot their own soldiers at dawn for "cowardice".