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

[Insidious Von]

Gallipoli was a horrific disaster and a meat grinder on the level of Verdun. Rusty put his own money into the making of The Water Diviner, a film he made for Australians and New Zelanders first. It didn't do that well in North America, but it's well worth watching.

 

[spankingman]

As a former member of the ROYAL HAMILTON LIGHT INFANTRY (RHLI) in the 60's 70's I can recall listening in the Mess to the stories of the men who returned from The Battle of Dieppe August 19 1942. They all said they did their duty and would do it again but they all felt it was a blunder and they were used for cannon fodder. Sadly there are only 2"Riley's " left from that day.

Semper Paratus Gentlemen.You were and are THE GREATEST GENERATION. Thank you for your service
Col. Labbat POW
Jack McFarland POW
Stan Darch POW
Ed Newman
Rev. John Foote Winner of the VC POW
Denis Whittaker
Ken Pearson
Fred Englebrecht
and many many more.

 

[Insidious Von]

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.

Not quite Tiberius. At the time of Dieppe, Rommel was still winning his battles in North Africa and Von Rundstedt's drive into South Russia appeared to be unstoppable. El Alaimen and Stalingrad happened within a two month span in late 42, early 43. Stalin took a calculated gamble that the Japanese were to preoccupied with growing American power in the Pacific to attempt to take Vladivostok again. So he transported Zhukov's Siberian Divisions across Russia, knowing that Old Man Winter would stop the Germans in Stalingrad. So while the Germans starved and froze in Stalingrad, Stalin amassed 2000 tanks and 600,000 men for the counter-attack.

 

[Gino4]

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.

The Allies did try out before Dieppe and the two tryouts were complete disasters.
These disasters continued right up to Anzio in Italy which almost turned into a complete mess
for the Allies.
Overall any amphibious assault throughout history has been very tricky indeed,but
they did get better at it especially in the Pacific,through trail and error.

 

[jazzbox]

Some recent research has indicated that Dieppe was a ruse to cover a commando raid aimed at stealing the new Enigma machine (the "Enigma Pinch" theory). The raid was in part organized by Ian Fleming. The Germans were correct in assessing the landing as far too small to be an invasion and far too large to be a proper raid. It left them scratching their heads... as we are today. Strategically, it made sense to secure the Med by invading north Africa and then attacking the weakest link (Italy) and Churchill was correct in that the Italian fascist regime folded like a deck of cards..

 

[bishop]

If it was to get the enigma machine then it was worth it. Once the allies broke enigma it was all downhill for Germany.

 

[dirkd101]

JTK, I suggest you read the book on Dieppe that I've pointed to, "Tragedy at Dieppe", by Mark Zuehlke and "An Army at Dawn", by Rick Atkinson. These books go into great detail about everything that you are talking about and would make you wonder at the guy in the documentary that you've seen.

One issue facing the Allies at that point in the war was landing craft. They just simply did not have enough, for an invasion force that was required to land in France. Also, as stated, by pushing up the Italian boot, they tied up many German divisions, some elite ones, that could have been put to better use in Russia and sealing off France from the Allies. One has to think about the war chronologically when looking at it now, not just dissecting it and questioning why it went down the way it did. The materiel available to the Allies, like the Sherman tank, wasn't there at all early on, as they used their old tanks and therefore when it made its debut, it wasn't there in the numbers present come D-Day. Also, to have air superiority, the Allies didn't have the fighter capability needed to do so until the appearance of the P-51 Mustang. Up until that time the Eighth Airforce got the hell shot out of them before and after they flew through the flak fields on their way to the target.

So it's one thing to say that they should have done this or that sooner, but to look at what was available to them then and when the materiel that was valuable in winning the war was finally available. Coupled with the numbers of German troops that they would have been facing, during Torch the Germans had more divisions in France than the Allies could muster, and these were battle hardened troops, with far superior materiel than that of the Allies. I would also add that the American brass, their Generalship, was an issue, as there were a lot of Generals who were lacking in the field of military command, in how it pertains to tactics and fighting a war.

Pure folly had the American's gotten their way and France was invaded. No doubt a failed landing, thus prolonging the war in Europe. If memory serves me correct, the American's thought about going on their own and doing it anyways. Thankfully they listened to their English cousins.

 

[SkyRider]

Semper Paratus Gentlemen.You were and are THE GREATEST GENERATION. Thank you for your service

I second that. Met many WW II and several WW I veterans growing as a young child in Northern Ontario. Indeed the greatest generation (my parents' generation).

(It was also through these veterans that I learned about Sikh valour and loyalty on the battlefield. We will never see their kind again.)

 

[basketcase]

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

I watched the doc from the guy claiming that it was all Bond's show (sorry, Flemming) but I found it very lacking. From the history books I've read the SOE types didn't get involved until very late in the planning.

To me it was part wanting a full scale test run but mainly trying to show the Russians that the rest of the allies weren't just sitting on their butts. As to why it was the Canadians, Burtons books from a while back goes into the pressure that the Canadian brass and politicians put on trying to get Canadian troops involved in the war.

And logistically the Channel Coast would make supply easier than the Mediterranean. They got away with it in North Africa since the German supply lines were just as stretched.

 

[basketcase]

...
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 the time even the Commandos were morphing from small pinprick raiding teams to more of an elite infantry unit.

 

[basketcase]

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

One of the problems with Galippoli was the Generals on the scene chose to limit their advance to what was in the plan despite the heights above many of the beaches were not initially occupied by Turkish troops. If they had advanced it might still have been as bloody as much of the rest of the war but at least the Turks wouldn't have held the high ground.

So yes, not all Churchill's decisions but the rigidity of the whole British military system.

 

[SkyRider]

Not to hijack the thread but just to mention that Canadian lives were also uselessly wasted in the Battle of Hong Kong. Ok back to France.

 

[mandrill]

JTK, I suggest you read the book on Dieppe that I've pointed to, "Tragedy at Dieppe", by Mark Zuehlke and "An Army at Dawn", by Rick Atkinson. These books go into great detail about everything that you are talking about and would make you wonder at the guy in the documentary that you've seen.

One issue facing the Allies at that point in the war was landing craft. They just simply did not have enough, for an invasion force that was required to land in France. Also, as stated, by pushing up the Italian boot, they tied up many German divisions, some elite ones, that could have been put to better use in Russia and sealing off France from the Allies. One has to think about the war chronologically when looking at it now, not just dissecting it and questioning why it went down the way it did. The materiel available to the Allies, like the Sherman tank, wasn't there at all early on, as they used their old tanks and therefore when it made its debut, it wasn't there in the numbers present come D-Day. Also, to have air superiority, the Allies didn't have the fighter capability needed to do so until the appearance of the P-51 Mustang. Up until that time the Eighth Airforce got the hell shot out of them before and after they flew through the flak fields on their way to the target.

So it's one thing to say that they should have done this or that sooner, but to look at what was available to them then and when the materiel that was valuable in winning the war was finally available. Coupled with the numbers of German troops that they would have been facing, during Torch the Germans had more divisions in France than the Allies could muster, and these were battle hardened troops, with far superior materiel than that of the Allies. I would also add that the American brass, their Generalship, was an issue, as there were a lot of Generals who were lacking in the field of military command, in how it pertains to tactics and fighting a war.

Pure folly had the American's gotten their way and France was invaded. No doubt a failed landing, thus prolonging the war in Europe. If memory serves me correct, the American's thought about going on their own and doing it anyways. Thankfully they listened to their English cousins.

A 1943 invasion likely would not have been successful, simply because the massive, well trained US Army was not available in 1943 in anywhere near enough numbers. OTOH, there are some countervailing arguments. The Germans had also not garrisoned France heavuly in 1943. The Atlantic Wall had not been started. The Panther tank would not have been available. The German fighter force was attritted heavily by the 8th USAAF in spring 1944. But the Allies would likely have easily had air superiority over France in 1943 despite this.

 

[james t kirk]

JTK, I suggest you read the book on Dieppe that I've pointed to, "Tragedy at Dieppe", by Mark Zuehlke and "An Army at Dawn", by Rick Atkinson. These books go into great detail about everything that you are talking about and would make you wonder at the guy in the documentary that you've seen.

One issue facing the Allies at that point in the war was landing craft. They just simply did not have enough, for an invasion force that was required to land in France. Also, as stated, by pushing up the Italian boot, they tied up many German divisions, some elite ones, that could have been put to better use in Russia and sealing off France from the Allies. One has to think about the war chronologically when looking at it now, not just dissecting it and questioning why it went down the way it did. The materiel available to the Allies, like the Sherman tank, wasn't there at all early on, as they used their old tanks and therefore when it made its debut, it wasn't there in the numbers present come D-Day. Also, to have air superiority, the Allies didn't have the fighter capability needed to do so until the appearance of the P-51 Mustang. Up until that time the Eighth Airforce got the hell shot out of them before and after they flew through the flak fields on their way to the target.

So it's one thing to say that they should have done this or that sooner, but to look at what was available to them then and when the materiel that was valuable in winning the war was finally available. Coupled with the numbers of German troops that they would have been facing, during Torch the Germans had more divisions in France than the Allies could muster, and these were battle hardened troops, with far superior materiel than that of the Allies. I would also add that the American brass, their Generalship, was an issue, as there were a lot of Generals who were lacking in the field of military command, in how it pertains to tactics and fighting a war.

Pure folly had the American's gotten their way and France was invaded. No doubt a failed landing, thus prolonging the war in Europe. If memory serves me correct, the American's thought about going on their own and doing it anyways. Thankfully they listened to their English cousins.

So it begs the question, if the allies were so woefully unprepared and unable to invade Europe through France, then why launch Dieppe at all?

If you are unable to win, is not the most prudent strategy not to fight?

It's all after the fact I grant you, however, one does wonder what Churchill was thinking?

 

[dirkd101]

A 1943 invasion likely would not have been successful, simply because the massive, well trained US Army was not available in 1943 in anywhere near enough numbers. OTOH, there are some countervailing arguments. The Germans had also not garrisoned France heavuly in 1943. The Atlantic Wall had not been started. The Panther tank would not have been available. The German fighter force was attritted heavily by the 8th USAAF in spring 1944. But the Allies would likely have easily had air superiority over France in 1943 despite this.

The Generalship of the US army in '43 was suspect. They lacked good generals, who exhibited a good grasp of fighting a war and understood tactics. While the Germans had not garrisoned it as heavily, they were far more experienced and had better materiel, ie; their tanks, the Tiger Mark IV I believe, was far better than anything the Allies had and they understood how to use them. The German's also had better troops, leadership ie; Generals and officer corps, that had the American's been opposed by German's, instead of French forces in North Africa, on the landings, they would have had worse setbacks. It was duly noted that had they faced seasoned troops, their losses would have been worse, so France in '43 was not in the realm of possibilities for success.
With regards to the Luftwaffe being attrited by '44, in "43 they ruled the skies over France and the best the Allies had, could not sustain any sort of effort over France for very long. German fighters were working near their bases, while the RAF were not and in flying from their bases in England, could not stay over the target for very long. Dieppe showed this failure to control the air over the beaches by the RAF at the time. In the planning for D-Day, this was noted, that air superiority was essential to the success of the plan, as the failure to control the skies over Dieppe was well noted as a failure and a contributing factor in the failure of the plan.

Not only was it noted that they needed to have mastery in the skies, but also on the waves, bringing to bear the navy as fire support, which was another contributing factor to Dieppe's downfall.

 

[dirkd101]

So it begs the question, if the allies were so woefully unprepared and unable to invade Europe through France, then why launch Dieppe at all?

If you are unable to win, is not the most prudent strategy not to fight?

It's all after the fact I grant you, however, one does wonder what Churchill was thinking?

Dieppe was nothing more than a planned raid, in a series of raids that were to show Russia that they were in deed doing something on the Continent, if anything to keep the Germans off balance. The first raids being in Norway and subsequent raids being planned for the Continent itself. In this, the Germans would tie up more troops in France, never knowing if it was a raid, or an invasion force.

Raids weren't about winning, but rather to keep the enemy on its heels. Sure, you wanted the raid to be successful, but they weren't about taking ground.

What Churchill was thinking, I've no idea, as I've never read anything on Churchill, as it relates to Dieppe. Speculation would be that he liked Mountbatten's plan, as he was one for this sort of thing. Here's a man who would have landed with the first waves on D-Day, so this type of warfare, Special Operations Branch was right up his alley.

 

[trm]

Britain and the US were under tremendous pressure from Stalin to open a second front in Europe to take pressure off Russia. The invasion of Italy caused the German army to move a substantial number of troops from the Russian Front. Amphibious landings are difficult and the number of ships and landing craft were not available in 1943. The US was learning how to conduct amphibious landings in the Pacific, and the first ones like Guadalcanal were "learning experiences" with heavy casualties.

 

[basketcase]

So it begs the question, if the allies were so woefully unprepared and unable to invade Europe through France, then why launch Dieppe at all?...

Because the Russians were demanding the Allies help them out with a real contribution?
Because the Canadian brass and politicians were screaming for our troops to get involved?
Because the threat from a European invasion would force Hitler too keep more troops away from Sicily/Italy?

 

[Keebler Elf]

There's a doc on Netflix called Hitler's Soft Underbelly that goes over the decision to fight in the Mediterranean.

 

[james t kirk]

There's a doc on Netflix called Hitler's Soft Underbelly that goes over the decision to fight in the Mediterranean.

That is the one I watched and I found it on youtube and posted in Post No. 1 of this thread.

The premise of the documentary was that yes Churchill wanted to defeat Hitler, but he wanted to do it AND preserve the empire at the same time. The Americans were pushing him to invade France and steam roll into Germany, but he wanted to do it his way and so Dieppe was offered up as proof to the Americans that invading France at that juncture was folly.

I find it most interesting that the troops committed to the raid were primarily Canadian and not British.

Reminds me of Braveheart when Edward I says, "send in the Irish"

Canadians were expendable. Just a bunch of farmers from the colonies.