An Allied Coverup - 69 years later

57 posts / 0 new
Last post
HeywoodFloyd
An Allied Coverup - 69 years later

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre

 

Quote:

Western response

The Western Allies had an implicit, if unwilling, hand in the cover-up in their endeavour not to antagonise a then-ally, the Soviet Union. The resulting Polish-Soviet crisis was beginning to threaten the vital alliance with the Soviet Union at a time when the Poles' importance to the Allies, essential in the first years of the war, was beginning to fade, due to the entry into the conflict of the military and industrial giants, the Soviet Union and the United States. In retrospective review of records, both British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill and US President, Franklin D. Roosevelt were increasingly torn between their commitments to their Polish ally, the uncompromising stance of Sikorski and the demands by Stalin and his diplomats.

In private, Churchill agreed that the atrocity was likely carried out by the Soviets. According to the notes taken by Count Raczyński, Churchill admitted on 15 April 1943 during a conversation with General Sikorski: "Alas, the German revelations are probably true. The Bolsheviks can be very cruel."[51] However, at the same time, on 24 April 1943 Churchill assured the Soviets: "We shall certainly oppose vigorously any 'investigation' by the International Red Cross or any other body in any territory under German authority. Such investigation would be a fraud and its conclusions reached by terrorism."[52] Unofficial or classified UK documents concluded that Soviet guilt was a "near certainty", but the alliance with the Soviets was deemed to be more important than moral issues; thus the official version supported the Soviet version, up to censoring the contradictory accounts.[42] Churchill's own post-war account of the Katyn affair is laconic. In his memoirs, he quotes the 1944 Soviet inquiry into the massacre, which predictably found that the Germans had committed the crime, and adds, "belief seems an act of faith."[53] In 1943, the Katyn Manifesto which blamed the Soviet Union, was published in London (in English) by the eccentric poet Count Geoffrey Potocki de Montalk. He was arrested by the Special Branch and imprisoned.[54]

In the United States, a similar line was taken, notwithstanding that two official intelligence reports into the Katyn massacre were produced that contradicted the official position. In 1944 Roosevelt assigned his special emissary to the Balkans, Navy Lieutenant Commander George Earle, to compile information on Katyn, which he did using contacts in Bulgaria and Romania. Earle concluded that the massacre was committed by the Soviet Union. Having consulted with Elmer Davis, the director of the Office of War Information, Roosevelt rejected the conclusion (officially), declared that he was convinced of Nazi Germany's responsibility, and ordered that Earle's report be suppressed. When Earle formally requested permission to publish his findings, the President issued a written order to desist. Earle was reassigned and spent the rest of the war in American Samoa.[1]

It would be a good thing for all of us if the UK and US publically repudiated their stances on their coverup of the events at Katyn and other locations throughout Eastern Europe. Sure I understand that sometimes the necessities of war make for some difficult decisions but......the war is long over.

Unionist

I'd go one step further. The UK and the US should establish commissions of inquiry aimed at cataloguing every single massacre that they themselves have committed throughout history. Once that's done, they should not only publicly repudiate and apologize for them all, but seek ways to offer reparations and otherwise make whole the victims and their descendants.

And once that process is completed - and not one minute before - I would fully support the establishment of a commission of inquiry to determine US and UK complicity (or just silence) with respect to massacres committed by others.

To proceed in any other order would be to sink to the depths of hypocrisy and denial.

 

HeywoodFloyd

Well, they have to start somewhere, right?

HeywoodFloyd

Your stance is perfectly reasonable. Nothing any progressive person could not get behind. I hope that you at least agree that the Katyn coverup should be, at some point, repudiated and that it shouldn't have happened.

Unionist

Yes, that's what I said. Start by publicly acknowledging their own massacres. In fact - a good place to start would be to acknowledge massacres carried out, say, within the last few months. Another good step would be to stop massacring people right now.

And if you're really set on their not being silent about massacres in Eastern Europe, maybe they should start publicly explaining why they have been silent about Russian massacres in (say) Chechnya.

You see, I have a serious problem with the U.S. Congress debating whether or not the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians 85 years ago - while they avidly carry out and support massacres and suppression of national rights today. Future historians will look upon such exercises with incomprehension and contempt. Why wait - let's do so right now.

al-Qa'bong

What's the point of this thread?  Is news of Katyn supposed to be some sort of revelation? 

HeywoodFloyd

Today is the anniversary of the event. I didn't know of the complicity of the Allies in the coverup until today and I'm sure that many others didn't either.

Unionist

Well, on the Katyn issue, I know little about what the U.S. and UK knew and didn't know - and I certainly wouldn't rely on this wikipedia entry, which makes astoundingly prejudicial statements like these:

Quote:
Unofficial or classified UK documents concluded that Soviet guilt was a "near certainty", but the alliance with the Soviets was deemed to be more important than moral issues;

So much is revealed by that sentence:

1. The author believes that the UK government cared one whit about "moral issues".

2. The author doesn't seem to consider that alliance with the Soviets - without which Hitlerite Germany would undoubtedly have prevailed - was in itself a "moral issue" of the first order.

Just those two premises make me feel that I should be looking elsewhere for a less coloured account.

As I said, however, I consider there are far more pressing duties facing the U.S. and the UK than acknowledging what they did and didn't know, and when, on this particular issue.

 

HeywoodFloyd

That quote came from quoted reference material. Now, if you want to dispute the original author of the work feel free but it isn't worth the effort for me to go digging.

al-Qa'bong

No digging is necessary, as unionist pointed out.  The bias in the wikipedia entry is obvious, although it doesn't really matter who wrote the article...it's wikipedia!

HeywoodFloyd

Perfect. So there was no coverup by the allies. Sounds good to me.

Unionist

Heywood, I have no doubt that Churchill, FDR, and Stalin knew terrible things about each other which they chose not to announce publicly for the sake of the Alliance. The horror of what happened in Katyn may well have been one of them. But you seemed to miss my point. What kind of "morality" treats this "coverup" as something of the slightest importance in 2010, given the coverup of the crimes of our own country, and others, which is under way as we speak?

It takes a certain unique genre of "morality" to weep about the crimes of the past (especially others' crimes) while committing the same and worse between sobs.

 

oldgoat

March 6 2011, will be the first anniversary of atrocities committed by our government and allied forces tomorrow.  Let's get a head start and begin the enquiry today.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Yes, that's what I said. Start by publicly acknowledging their own massacres. In fact - a good place to start would be to acknowledge massacres carried out, say, within the last few months. Another good step would be to stop massacring people right now.

And if you're really set on their not being silent about massacres in Eastern Europe, maybe they should start publicly explaining why they have been silent about Russian massacres in (say) Chechnya.

They've been silent about Chechnya for a number of reasons. For one, turning a blind eye to Russia's "war on terrorism" in Chechnya gives some amount of credibility to their own phony war on terror. Another is that former rebel leaders in Chechnya, Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab, were indoctrinated in terrorism in CIA-sponsored training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan. They were murdered by Russian commandos. Putin accused Clinton and the Bushs of aiding and abetting anti-Russian terrorism by the 2000's in a private meeting with western news journalists. The Republican Party policy committee accused the Clinton admin along with the Iranians of creating a militant Islamic base in Bosnia in the 1990's where Osama bin Laden is alleged to have operated then.

HeywoodFloyd

Unionist wrote:

It takes a certain unique genre of "morality" to weep about the crimes of the past (especially others' crimes) while committing the same and worse between sobs.

 

We apologize for crimes of the past frequently. Consider the residential schools apology, given when residential schools were closed. The apology to the internment camp victims and head tax victims (or their descendants), given when there are no interment camps or head taxes being charged.

I'm not one for weeping for the past but it is a useful tool to open people's eyes to current events by making them apologize for past wrongs.

Fidel

Ottawa can't even release their secret file on Tommy Douglas to the public. Glasnost for the Gladio allies will be a long time coming.

Unionist

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

We apologize for crimes of the past frequently. Consider the residential schools apology, given when residential schools were closed. The apology to the internment camp victims and head tax victims (or their descendants), given when there are no interment camps or head taxes being charged.

Yes, those were good and important gestures - most of all because they were injustices committed by us.

HeywoodFloyd

Unionist wrote:

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

We apologize for crimes of the past frequently. Consider the residential schools apology, given when residential schools were closed. The apology to the internment camp victims and head tax victims (or their descendants), given when there are no interment camps or head taxes being charged.

Yes, those were good and important gestures - most of all because they were injustices committed by us.

Just because WLMK isn't referenced as having been a part of the coverup, we were the Allies then and the coverup was perpetuated by our side.

Tommy_Paine

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

Today is the anniversary of the event. I didn't know of the complicity of the Allies in the coverup until today and I'm sure that many others didn't either.

 

I'm going by memory, and we know how maleable memory can be, but for what it's worth, I remember some documentary I was watching as either a young teen or pre-teen, and it mentioned this massacre.   My parents had a certain idea that it was a Soviet attrocity, blamed on the Nazi's, and that the Allies turned a blind eye for the sake of the war time alliance.  

My mom served in a cotton mill during the war, and my dad finished as a Master Sergeant in the 1st. RCR.   I am as sure as I can be that they didn't have any access to information that was "most secret". 

So, if there was any kind of cover up, it was a lackadaisical one at best.

contrarianna

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

....

I'm not one for weeping for the past but it is a useful tool to open people's eyes to current events by making them apologize for past wrongs.

I understand your position, but I suggest the reality is the exact opposite.

Rather than a "good start" it creates the illusion that "we" ( "we" actually perceived as a safe, historically distanced, "they") committed crimes in the bad old past which can be repudiated by our morally superior position today.

It taps into the general false melioirist illusion, almost imbibed with mothers milk, that society and human ethics are better now than before (with the exception of designated alien societies).

It also makes it easier by virtue of our time-improved ethics to diminish the reality of current crimes, making them seem insignificant or non-existent because "that is not who we are now".

And thus it also provides cover for cynical politicians to  take personal credit for issuing collective apologies for crimes and mistakes that they will never be held personally responsible for. It is a political win-win game and very popular; if the politician was actually seen as responsible for the crimes that they were apologizing for, no apology would never happen. (eg. Harper's apology for residential schools while furthering the destruction of aboriginal lives with tar sands policy).

That is not to say that the nations or organizations should not have a moral and legal responsibility for past transgressions.

al-Qa'bong

Quote:
Just because WLMK isn't referenced as having been a part of the coverup, we were the Allies then and the coverup was perpetuated by our side.

 

We weren't the Soviets' allies in March, 1940. We didn't become their allies until June 22, 1941, when the Germans invaded them, forcing the USSR onto our side.

al-Qa'bong

Roosevelt and Churchill weren't officially allies until about six months after Barbarossa began, once Hitler declared war on the USA folowing Pearl Harbour.

I still don't know what the point of this thread is supposed to be.  Was WLMK a commie sympathiser; therefore, the current Liberal Party of Canada is a pack of Reds?

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:
Just because WLMK isn't referenced as having been a part of the coverup, we were the Allies then and the coverup was perpetuated by our side.

 

We weren't the Soviets' allies in March, 1940. We didn't become their allies until June 22, 1941, when the Germans invaded them, forcing the USSR onto our side.

Roosevelt and Churchill didn't think the Sovs were ready for war and would make poor military allies. Or at least, that's what they say. British and American leaders fully expected the Nazis would occupy the Kremlin about six weeks from the start of barbarossa. Stalin begged the allies for a second front for two years. Russia stood alone against Nazi Germany while Hitler poured two-thirds of the military machine into the heart of Russia. My father volunteered and was sent to North Africa in 1939.

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:
Roosevelt and Churchill weren't officially allies until about six months after Barbarossa began, once Hitler declared war on the USA folowing Pearl Harbour.

 And the Americans didn't actually join the war in Europe until late '42. The Americans talked about attacking Germany in 1943 about the same time that it appeared the Red Army was turning tables on the Nazis at Leningrad and Stalingrad and could possibly liberate Europe by themselves.

Frmrsldr

HeywoodFloyd wrote:

I'm not one for weeping for the past but it is a useful tool to open people's eyes to current events by making them apologize for past wrongs.

It can also cynically be used by today's governments to buy cheap votes or popularity.

 

al-Qa'bong

Fidel wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:
Roosevelt and Churchill weren't officially allies until about six months after Barbarossa began, once Hitler declared war on the USA folowing Pearl Harbour.

 And the Americans didn't actually join the war in Europe until late '42. The Americans talked about attacking Germany in 1943 about the same time that it appeared the Red Army was turning tables on the Nazis at Leningrad and Stalingrad and could possibly liberate Europe by themselves.

 

Gosh, that certainly would explain why the Brits sent Canadians (a third cousin of mine died there fighting with the South Saskatchewan Regiment) to their doom at Dieppe to appease Uncle Joe's demands for action on a second front.

Fidel

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Fidel wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:
Roosevelt and Churchill weren't officially allies until about six months after Barbarossa began, once Hitler declared war on the USA folowing Pearl Harbour.

 And the Americans didn't actually join the war in Europe until late '42. The Americans talked about attacking Germany in 1943 about the same time that it appeared the Red Army was turning tables on the Nazis at Leningrad and Stalingrad and could possibly liberate Europe by themselves.

Gosh, that certainly would explain why the Brits sent Canadians (a third cousin of mine died there fighting with the South Saskatchewan Regiment) to their doom at Dieppe to appease Uncle Joe's demands for action on a second front

Yes the Dieppe raid was bad planning. The armada was supposed to sail to France by fog cover in early morning. Fog lifted, and they were spotted all over the place by German subs. Those in charge should have called it off.

My father started off in North Africa, then mainland Italy to Naples. I always remember dad telling me about Vesuvius spewing smoke and stuff while they were there. Dad said that the Sihks were fearless soldiers and were paid in tea and sugar. They were entrusted to guard the Shermans at night. Dad said they could tell the difference between Canadians and Yanks by how the Yanks tied their boot laces. He was confronted one night by two Sikhs on the way back from the mess tent. One held a big knife to his throat while the other checked his boots. "Okay Johnny", and off he went.

Stalin knew all about these screw ups and pleaded for a concerted second front by the allies. He referred to the allies mishaps as sideshows. There was a secret meeting with Roosevelt and Churchill, Tehran I think. Stalin pounded his fist on the table and demanded, I want a second front against these bastards!

Frmrsldr

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Gosh, that certainly would explain why the Brits sent Canadians (a third cousin of mine died there fighting with the South Saskatchewan Regiment) to their doom at Dieppe to appease Uncle Joe's demands for action on a second front

Fidel wrote:

Yes the Dieppe raid was bad planning. The armada was supposed to sail to France by fog cover in early morning. Fog lifted, and they were spotted all over the place by German subs. Those in charge should have called it off.

Stalin knew all about these screw ups and pleaded for a concerted second front by the allies. He referred to the allies mishaps as sideshows. There was a secret meeting with Roosevelt and Churchill, Tehran I think. Stalin pounded his fist on the table and demanded, I want a second front against these bastards!

[To my knowledge] Canadian and British governments and historians have never come clean on the obscene Dieppe fiasco.

Explanations of it being a large raid are just not feasible or credible. Were we that stupid?

I don't think so. Many smaller raids had been done on occupied France and Norway as early as 1940 that were extremely well planned and executed.

I think it was a "planned" failure for political reasons to make the excuse that "We weren't ready for a cross channel invasion in 1943", to get Stalin to shut up about opening a second front in Europe.

It was a failure on two counts: A lot of Canadians were needlessly injured, killed and taken prisoner and Stalin did not shut up about opening a second front in Europe.

Tommy_Paine

 

I'm not sure Dieppe was a planned failure.   Just a lot of things going wrong, like the compromise of surprise and the British weaseling out of giving air support, combined with perhaps an over eager and somewhat naive Canadian military leadership.

 

I think a better candidate for a kind of planned failure might be the attack on Verriers Ridge by the Black Watch.  Recent information has it that Guy Simonds was prevented/dissuaded from utilizing intelligence gathered through code breaking, which would have protected the Black Watch from what was pretty much a suicide mission.

 

 

Fidel

Tommy_Paine wrote:
I'm not sure Dieppe was a planned failure.   Just a lot of things going wrong, like the compromise of surprise and the British weaseling out of giving air support, combined with perhaps an over eager and somewhat naive Canadian military leadership.

According to Wikipedia, Louis Mountbatten(fake surname for fraudulent royals) personally pushed the Dieppe raid then, Roberts the Canadian commander was in charge of ground forces once they landed. The Brits were thought to be more battle harderned and officers more experienced than our guys then, and also during WW I. Brits sent a lot of brave Newfoundlanders and East Coasters to their deaths in senseless battles with Germans in WW I. And in Italy My dad and some guys from Highlanders and Loyal Eddies tried to free a big Newf trapped in his burning Sherman, I think it might have been near Ortona. The guy was so big his nickname was Giant McSomebody. I have the name and should prolly contact the family out there if no one else has. I don't know if I should because it wasn't a nice ending at all for their loved one. Dad told the same story a number of times about the big guy screaming his head off while they dug in the mud trying to get him out the back end of the tank buried in mud. I could tell it bothered my dad even then in the 1970's as he retold the incident to me as a lad. Apparently being the fair-haired boy I was able to extract more war stories from dad than my elder brothers. His stories would mostly end with, And stay the hell out of the army.

Fidel

Frmrsldr wrote:
[To my knowledge] Canadian and British governments and historians have never come clean on the obscene Dieppe fiasco.

Explanations of it being a large raid are just not feasible or credible. Were we that stupid?

From what I've read from various essays and documentaries, we were relying on British intelligence agents who were supposed to be all over Europe then. Nobody was as good at doing intel as the Brits then according to the Americans, and of course the British themselves. Did they not notice the sheer cliffs and beaches unsuitable for tanks and other heavy equipment? Did they not notice the massive concrete bunkers perched on high and setting our guys up for German machine gun nests raining bullets and artillery shells down on them as soon as they entered the water? I think you're right, FrmrSldr. I think the screw ups were deliberate. I think men were sacrificed. Someone said that truth in war is so precious that it requires protecting by a bodyguard of lies. I think some truths will never be known.

Caissa

Post #25 reminded me of a poem I read in elementary school.

That Was My Brother

http://www.vac-acc.gc.ca/general/sub.cfm?source=department/press/viewrel...

Bobolink Bobolink's picture

Fidel wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:
[To my knowledge] Canadian and British governments and historians have never come clean on the obscene Dieppe fiasco.

Explanations of it being a large raid are just not feasible or credible. Were we that stupid?

From what I've read from various essays and documentaries, we were relying on British intelligence agents who were supposed to be all over Europe then. Nobody was as good at doing intel as the Brits then according to the Americans, and of course the British themselves. Did they not notice the sheer cliffs and beaches unsuitable for tanks and other heavy equipment? Did they not notice the massive concrete bunkers perched on high and setting our guys up for German machine gun nests raining bullets and artillery shells down on them as soon as they entered the water? I think you're right, FrmrSldr. I think the screw ups were deliberate. I think men were sacrificed. Someone said that truth in war is so precious that it requires protecting by a bodyguard of lies. I think some truths will never be known.

 

If men were deliberately sacrificed, to what end? It should be remembered that British Commandos and American Rangers participated in the raid. No one had tried a large scale amphibious assault since the disaster at Galipoli 30 years before. Dieppe took place before Guadacanal and Tarawa which were also close run things.

 

There has been some modern study of the battle. I would direct you to Dieppe: A Colossal Blunder by J.L. Granetstein in the August/September 2009 issue of The Beaver. There have been previous scholarly works about this defeat from both American and Canadian sources as recently as 2006.

clandestiny

i read alot about WW2 and so on, and believed alot of things that today i KNOW to be untrue. Dieppe was carried out 'outside normal chain/command channels' or something, iow it was a private initiative that cost Canada alot, and our leaders have been part of the lie ever since (not that their loyalty to the pro fascist upper class twittery was ever in any question). It was the allies, churchill and truman, who were responsible for the 'iron curtain' which divided postwar europe, and cut germany in half, against Stalin's wishes. Stalin wanted USSR to be part of postwar reconstruction, Marshal plan etc, but by threatening him with nukes, used against Japanese cities after Japan's efforts to surrender were bltantly ignored- for that very reason possibly(?) the allies were assured the USSR would act defensive regards its clinging to territory. Thus, it turns out we were the bad guys the whole time throughout all the bs stemming from german defeat in 1918. It was we who funded the nazis after they were fading away in the election prior to hitler/schiklegrub's big win in 1933. Prescot bush, granny of george junyer bush, the hero of 911 etc, was hitler's financier! As far as Katyn massacre is concerned...who knows? After all, how the hell could the Iron Curtain be blamed on the innocent Stalin? That really takes the cake. 911 was kids play, in comparison (they just had to organise to mislead a buncha rightwing media goofs)

Bacchus

Invading Italy in 1943 was not a second front? How many soldiers in january 1943 were captured in Tunisia?

Fidel

All good comments, especially Bachus' excellent question. Clandestiny, too.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YauM5dHLn1s]Banking with Hitler[/url] BBC (Youtube) They mention Montagu Norman, former governor of the Bank of England and his connection with Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler's eventual finance minister. And they mention sordid details of the history of the Bank for International Settlements and their vicious role in wrecking the German economy post WW I along with the French occupation of Germany's industrial heartland. In the end it's always ordinary people who must pay.

Fotheringay-Phipps

Note to Heywood Floyd:

There is a monument to the victims of the Katyn Massacre in Toronto. It stands at the foot of Roncevalles Ave., which we used to call The Polish Corridor. It's a slab of bronze with a crack running through it, quite powerful in its impact and boasting some impressive typography on the narrow sides. I always got the impression that Katyn was more than an historical event to the Poles on Roncesvalles. It had become one of their foundational myths: Poland, beset on all sides, stabbed in the back by its former allies or aided (by Britain and France) in ways too feeble to make much difference. The story I heard was that Katyn was the grave of the best and brightest of Poland. In some ways, it seemed to have the same mythic impact for Polish Canadians as the Somme did for the English, the idea that a generation had its guts ripped out in one shattering act of violence. Maybe Babblers with a Polish background or knowledge could correct me or add to my thoughts.

Anyway, I remember when the monument went up it seemed important to Polish Canadians simply to have the event acknowledged. It was the emblematic station of their Via Dolorosa through the twentieth century. So by all means we should turn our attention to our own egregious sins, but sometimes people need to have their sufferings recognized, so that they make living sense and don't simply become items in a historical list.

 

 

 

Fidel

Bobolink wrote:

There has been some modern study of the battle. I would direct you to Dieppe: A Colossal Blunder by J.L. Granetstein in the August/September 2009 issue of The Beaver. There have been previous scholarly works about this defeat from both American and Canadian sources as recently as 2006.

According to Love, Hate and Propaganda(CBC), Mountbatten did try to cover it up. Canadian to German losses were 10 to 1. A French-Canadian said that reconaiissance photos revealed to Mountbatten that the beach couldnt have been much more heavily fortified and covered in barbed wire. It was a death sentence not a battle by any means. News reporters in Britain basically broadcast Mountbatten's pre-written communique that the Canadian attack was a complete success, and that they withdrew according to plan. Canadians at home didn't catch on for some time. The supposedly more experienced Brits condemned 900 Canadians to slaughter, and 2000 more were taken prisoner. And which was something for the Germans, because they did take allied POWs as long as they weren't Russian red army.

 

Bobolink Bobolink's picture

Fidel wrote:

Bobolink wrote:

There has been some modern study of the battle. I would direct you to Dieppe: A Colossal Blunder by J.L. Granetstein in the August/September 2009 issue of The Beaver. There have been previous scholarly works about this defeat from both American and Canadian sources as recently as 2006.

According to Love, Hate and Propaganda(CBC), Mountbatten did try to cover it up. Canadian to German losses were 10 to 1. A French-Canadian said that reconaiissance photos revealed to Mountbatten that the beach couldnt have been much more heavily fortified and covered in barbed wire. It was a death sentence not a battle by any means. News reporters in Britain basically broadcast Mountbatten's pre-written communique that the Canadian attack was a complete success, and that they withdrew according to plan. Canadians at home didn't catch on for some time. The supposedly more experienced Brits condemned 900 Canadians to slaughter, and 2000 more were taken prisoner. And which was something for the Germans, because they did take allied POWs as long as they weren't Russian red army.

 

 

You should at least call upon written resources instead of a TV show. I notice that you have a hate on for Lord Montbatten. Did you ever question why Clement Attlee selected him to be the last Viceroy of India?

al-Qa'bong

I read in one of the numerous books I have on Dieppe that General Bernard Montgomery was involved in the initial planning of the raid.  He thought the plan was terrible, but was shipped off to Africa to defeat the Afrika Korps before he could make any changes.

Why chalk up to conspiracy what is easier explained by traditional blockheaded British Staff planning?

Fidel

Bobolink wrote:

You should at least call upon written resources instead of a TV show. I notice that you have a hate on for Lord Montbatten. Did you ever question why Clement Attlee selected him to be the last Viceroy of India?

Oh they were quoting Canadian soldiers who were there at Dieppe. Mountbatten(made up name) was a real fuckup. And he was an overbearing old bastard whose hate for Irish Catholics was obvious at the time. It was a glorious end for the old bastard.

Frmrsldr

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I read in one of the numerous books I have on Dieppe that General Bernard Montgomery was involved in the initial planning of the raid.  He thought the plan was terrible, but was shipped off to Africa to defeat the Afrika Korps before he could make any changes.

Churchill warned WLMK against the Dieppe operation. Gen. Montgomery took the Canadian General, commander of the troops to be deployed, aside and warned him against the operation saying, "Don't go on a 'hunting' expedition with Louis [Mountbatten]".

Monty knew Mountbatten was a fuck up.

After Dieppe, Mountbatten was made Viceroy to India so that he could be 'horizontally demoted' (punished) and sent somewhere where he would no longer cause any more harm.

Bobolink Bobolink's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

al-Qa'bong wrote:

I read in one of the numerous books I have on Dieppe that General Bernard Montgomery was involved in the initial planning of the raid.  He thought the plan was terrible, but was shipped off to Africa to defeat the Afrika Korps before he could make any changes.

Churchill warned WLMK against the Dieppe operation. Gen. Montgomery took the Canadian General, commander of the troops to be deployed, aside and warned him against the operation saying, "Don't go on a 'hunting' expedition with Louis [Mountbatten]".

Monty knew Mountbatten was a fuck up.

After Dieppe, Mountbatten was made Viceroy to India so that he could be 'horizontally demoted' (punished) and sent somewhere where he would no longer cause any more harm.

 

Clement Attlee appointed Mountbatten Viceroy of India because they were both Labour parliamentarians. Mountbatten had been a Labour Party member his entire adult life and sat in the House of Lords as a Labour peer.

Bobolink Bobolink's picture

Fidel wrote:

Bobolink wrote:

You should at least call upon written resources instead of a TV show. I notice that you have a hate on for Lord Montbatten. Did you ever question why Clement Attlee selected him to be the last Viceroy of India?

Oh they were quoting Canadian soldiers who were there at Dieppe. Mountbatten(made up name) was a real fuckup. And he was an overbearing old bastard whose hate for Irish Catholics was obvious at the time. It was a glorious end for the old bastard.

 

Are you still fighting the Thirty Year's War?

Fidel

I think it was Churchill's fault Louis had anything to do with the military leading to the disaster at Dieppe. He said something like, We ll it looks like Louis pulled it off. Or something. And which he hadn't. It was a total disaster and should have been called off before it got started. He botched the job in India, too.

Harold Wilson certainly didn't trust "Louis of Battenberg" [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4789060.stm]The Plot against Harold Wilson[/url] The Royals ties to fascism are infamous by now. Yes there are "dark forces" in Ingerland, and they should have been kicked out of the country a long time ago. Use the force, England. - Obi Juan Fidel

Bobolink Bobolink's picture

Fidel wrote:

I think it was Churchill's fault Louis had anything to do with the military leading to the disaster at Dieppe. He said something like, We ll it looks like Louis pulled it off. Or something. And which he hadn't. It was a total disaster and should have been called off before it got started. He botched the job in India, too.

Harold Wilson certainly didn't trust "Louis of Battenberg" [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4789060.stm]The Plot against Harold Wilson[/url] The Royals ties to fascism are infamous by now. Yes there are "dark forces" in Ingerland, and they should have been kicked out of the country a long time ago. Use the force, England. - Obi Juan Fidel

 

I should learn not to argue with you. We do not share the same planet.

Fidel

Bobolink wrote:

Fidel wrote:

I think it was Churchill's fault Louis had anything to do with the military leading to the disaster at Dieppe. He said something like, We ll it looks like Louis pulled it off. Or something. And which he hadn't. It was a total disaster and should have been called off before it got started. He botched the job in India, too.

Harold Wilson certainly didn't trust "Louis of Battenberg" [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4789060.stm]The Plot against Harold Wilson[/url] The Royals ties to fascism are infamous by now. Yes there are "dark forces" in Ingerland, and they should have been kicked out of the country a long time ago. Use the force, England. - Obi Juan Fidel

I should learn not to argue with you. We do not share the same planet.

Yes, I sometimes wonder if the odd anti-citizen of one of Hugh Everett's other worlds does pop in to babble now and then. I think the "Windsors" and all their genetic baggage shouldve been kicked the hell out of England centuries ago. Theyre the biggest welfare bums who ever lived and ranking right up there with the rest of the scum of the earth.

Frmrsldr

Bobolink wrote:

Clement Attlee appointed Mountbatten Viceroy of India because they were both Labour parliamentarians. Mountbatten had been a Labour Party member his entire adult life and sat in the House of Lords as a Labour peer.

As I mentioned earlier, the Dieppe operation was political. Its purpose (by design) was to show Stalin that it was not possible to open up the "Second Front" in the West through Allied landings in France.

Churchill knew that Mountbatten was a fuck up. Thus to 'guarantee' Dieppe's failure, Churchill assigned Louis the task of commanding the operation.

Remarkably, Churchill (hint, hint) warned WLMK not to commit Canadian troops to the Dieppe operation, and Monty warned the Canadian commander not to participate in it.

Dieppe took place in 1943. Mountbatten was made Viceroy and sent to India in either late 1943 or early 1944, I believe.

That would have been a decision made by Churchill. Churchill made that decision as a result of the political stir caused by the Dieppe fiasco.

al-Qa'bong

Yeah, and my Grandma's cousin was killed there.

Fidel

That's an excellent point about the illusion of futility for a second front, FrmrSldr. Sorry Joe, but we're going to have to hold off until it's apparent who's winning on the Russian front. Some days there were sometimes as many as 6000 a day slaughtered at Stalingrad alone, and hundreds of thousands buried in rubble from arial blitz. My father told us about taking two or three breaks in Italy while American forces caught up.

Bobolink Bobolink's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

 

Dieppe took place in 1943. Mountbatten was made Viceroy and sent to India in either late 1943 or early 1944, I believe.

 

 

The Dieppe raid occurred on  August 19, 1942. A few months later, the amphibious invasion of Tarawa would prove almost as disastrous. The Allies were still learning amphibious warefare. In October 1943, Winston Churchill appointed Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten as Supreme Allied Commander South East Asia, a post he held until SEAC was disbanded in 1946. Mountbatten would become known for his sucessful campaign against the Japanese occupiers of Burma. He took the surrendfer of the Japanes forces there. Mountbatten served as Viceroy of India from February 12, 1947 intil August 19, 1947 a period of just over six months at a time when Winston Churchill was out of office and Clement Attlee was prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

Pages