Was Dieppe (Aug18) a failure that helped the Allies postpone...

15 posts / 0 new

Mon, 2017-08-21 21:47

Rikardo

Was Dieppe (Aug18) a failure that helped the Allies postpone the Second Front that Russia had been pleading for since 1941? Was it deliberate ? Instead of a Western Front against Germany in France the Allies invaded Italy, not much of a threat to anyone, but an enemy. Germany had to intervene there, so that may have helped Russia. The Second Front didn't come until Normandy in 1944, a year before Germany's surrender and accelerated the murderous bombing of German (and French) cities and their civilians.

No doubts at all about the valour of our Canadian soldiers. I've been thanked in the streets of Dieppe..

Tue, 2017-08-22 04:44

Webgear

I haven’t study Dieppe that much over the years, however I will give you my opinion based off my knowledge of 1942. A few points to consider from your opening post which I think are inaccurate.

1. There was already a second front on going at the time against the European Axis Powers which was the North Africa Campaign. You also have to remember the allies were also fighting the Japanese in the Pacific theatre.

2. There were limited resources for all these theatre of war. The British were still recovering from Dunkirk. Manpower wasn’t the issue, it was equipment.

3. Dieppe was considered a raid, it was not the start of the second front. This was never the intention.

4. Russia had wasted considerable resources against the Finland in 1940 and was also recovering for that campaign and fighting her former allies on the Eastern Front.

5. The allies were also conducting small raids (less than 100 soldiers at a time) into Europe since 1940, this tied down several Axis divisions.

Why the raid was conducted, varies according to the source or the historian. I believe it was conducted for several reasons.

1. Testing of new equipment such as tanks, assault landing craft.

2. The development of tactics. To determine if Europe could be assault by the sea and air. Germany just received horrendous causalities by invading Crete a year earlier conducting a similar style of attack.

3. Gathering of Military Intelligence. The raid hit several German installations.

4. To build public morale back home. At this the Canadian Army wasn’t in the fight for the most part, a majority of the Troops had been conducting training since 1939 in England.

Was Dieppe deliberate? Yes, it was deliberate operation. The delay on the northern European Front wasn’t meant to inflict more causality on the Russians by allowing the Germans to win on the eastern front.

Tue, 2017-08-22 11:10

Rikardo

Thank you for your informative response to my posting. Just two points: Russia had been pleading for a second front since 41/42. The Allies had the resources to attack Italy. There's no real support for the idea of a deliberate failure at Dieppe. But Russian history books still question the reasons for the delay of the opening of the second Western Front Last year's commemoration (75 years) of the unilateral (June'41) German attack on Russia was virtually boycotted by western nations. George W. Bush was there in 2005 the mark the 60 years since Victory.

Wed, 2017-08-23 08:34

Webgear

How would you invade Italy in 1941/42? There was no launching point into Italy at this time, North Africa was held mainly by the Italians and the Germans.

The Russians may have been pleading however there were limited chances of a second front to to do so.

Vast amounts of resources were already sent to Soviet Unit to support thier efforts, the number of British and American tanks in Russia is quite surprising if you have a chance to look at the numbers. The Russians would have collasped if it wasn't the allies resupply efforts.

The Russians were still making numerous tactic mistakes they costing them in troops and equipment in1941/42.

Wed, 2017-08-23 10:09

Rikardo

Thanks again. Its true that the USA sent much material to the Russians (USSR). Did that make the differance at Stalingrad and later victories? Difficult to prove. VP Truman had earlier actually said (fearing Communism) that the US should help the Germans if the Russians were winning (or the Russians if Germany was ahead)). Hitler was at least an anti-communist bulwark againt the Soviets. The Allied invasion of Italy was Sept'43 just when Stalin was urging an invasion of Vichy France (which finally came 10 months later).

When a monument to victims of Anti-communism (Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia,

Soviet Union-WWII)?

Wed, 2017-08-23 10:41

Webgear

Yes, Soviet Union in WWII. Not as big as the Cold War Soviet Union. Same in principle but not in size. I will stick to using Russia from now on.

I think the supplies from the Allies helped and kept the Russians in the war. Without the supplies Russia would have likely fell in 1942 or 1943. You have to remember the allies support them both with equipment and intelligence. The victory at the Battle of Kursk was due to the Russians knowing of the Axis advance weeks before it happened.

The Allied invasion only could occur when they secured North Africa when happen in the spring of 1943.

I agree there was a fearing of Communism in the Allies Leadership but at the same time you have to remember that the Russians were no angles, there were aligned with Germany in the invasion of Poland.
Had Russian not invaded, Poland could have stopped the Germans or forced a ceasefire until Britain and France were in place to help the Polish Forces.

Wed, 2017-08-23 22:38

Rikardo

Hi, Certainly the Rissians did profit , in 1939, from Germany's brutal invasion and take over of much of Poland, much of which had been the in the German Kaiser's empire before 1914. The Russians took back more or less what they'd lost in the 1917 peace treaty that got them out of WWI (which Lenin and many wanted but not the government that replaced the Czar). And they probably killed all those Polish officers at Katyn but not the large Jewish minority in Poland. That was the Nazis.

Poland was no match for the Wehrmacht although they faught bravely hoping that France would attack from the west. Hitler knew that wouldn't happen although France did have a strong army and most of the Wehrmach was in Poland. France did declare war giving Hitler a good reason to invade them in 1940. Thanks for you comments.

Thu, 2017-08-24 01:09

Webgear

I believe the Germans and Russians had planned to divide Poland before the invasion. The Russian military was well situated and prepared to invade Poland well before Germany invaded.

No doubts they killed those Polish Officers, the numbers of Jews killed remain to be debated.

The Polish Army was a match of Germany Army, by mid September the Polish Army had stopped the Germany advance. It was doing pretty well despite initial being cut off.

Here is a good video about the invasion of Poland. It is well balanced and pretty detailed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMJc43wUPLM&t=552s

I use these videos for education purposes. Young people these don't read anymore, videos are the best way to teach them.

France declared war on Germany in 1939, attacking in the spring of 1940 was bounded to happen.

Thu, 2017-08-24 01:18

Webgear

Thanks for the interesting discussion thus far.

Thu, 2017-08-24 01:41

#10

Webgear

"Blitzkrieg" - What most people get Wrong - Myth vs "Reality"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCNw2e-Zehw

Thu, 2017-08-24 11:12

(Reply to #10) #11

Sean in Ottawa

Webgear wrote:

I believe the Germans and Russians had planned to divide Poland before the invasion. The Russian military was well situated and prepared to invade Poland well before Germany invaded.

No doubts they killed those Polish Officers, the numbers of Jews killed remain to be debated.

The Polish Army was a match of Germany Army, by mid September the Polish Army had stopped the Germany advance. It was doing pretty well despite initial being cut off.

Here is a good video about the invasion of Poland. It is well balanced and pretty detailed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMJc43wUPLM&t=552s

I use these videos for education purposes. Young people these don't read anymore, videos are the best way to teach them.

France declared war on Germany in 1939, attacking in the spring of 1940 was bounded to happen.

Was a match?

Germany had 11 tank divisions compared to Poland’s 1;

Germany had 40 infantry divisions compared to Poland’s 30;

Germany four motorised divisions compared to none in Poland;

Germany had one cavalry brigade compared to Poland’s eleven.

The Germans had 850 bombers and dive-bombers (the JU-87) and 400 fighters. The Polish Air Force numbered 210 bombers and 150 fighters – though many of these were obsolete and clearly no match for the modern Luftwaffe that destroyed the Polish Air Force within two days of the first attack.

The Polish Navy consisted of four destroyers, five submarines, two gunboats, a mine-layer and six mine sweepers. The Germans had 4 Battleships, 3 pocket Battleships, 2 heavy cruisers, 6 light cruisers, 22 destroyers, 20 torpedo boats.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/world-war-two-and-eas...

The Germans also had over 50 -u-boats.

And we have not got into WW1 tactics vs WW2 tactics.

Wiki puts it differently and appears to be well sourced but the numerical advantages are stark.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland

Then consdier the German experience from the Spanish Civil War.

I would suggest that this was a gross mismatch even prior to the invasion from the East by the USSR.

The Poles were capable (and did) of offering resistence but to suggest this was a match is a strange statement -- even taking the USSR out of the equation.

Thu, 2017-08-24 11:49

#12

Webgear

Yes, the Germans had more divisions but not all were attacking Poland. There a large number of divisions on the western front encase there was an attack from the France and British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_order_of_battle_for_Operation_Fall_...

Remember the attacker should have at least a 3:1 advantage at minimum when attack, this wasn’t the case.

The fall of Poland is not the military myth that everyone believes it is. The Polish Army was putting up a very stiff resistance and was even beating the Germans back in a few spots, if the British and France Armies could have engaged from the west, the Germans would have been in great trouble.

I guess in short, I should have been a bit clearer in my response about Poland.

Thanks for your feedback.

Thu, 2017-08-24 18:44

#13

Rikardo

Webgear wrote.

The fall of Poland is not the military myth that everyone believes it is. The Polish Army was putting up a very stiff resistance and was even beating the Germans back in a few spots, if the British and France Armies could have engaged from the west, the Germans would have been in great trouble.

The great US historian W Shirer wrote that the Wehrmacht generals were afraid of an attack from the West. French histories of WWII tend to skip the period after their Declaration of War (Sept3l Hitler knew they wouldn't attack. Many reasons. I read a book on 1939 which discussed them. Hope that Hitler would never attack West (not in Mein Kampf) . Horrible memories of WWI. Sympathy for Finland. Some French blame the British..De Gaulle was ready to attack. What a terrible year!

. Some French

Fri, 2017-08-25 12:04

#14

Webgear

I am not sure who was to blame for the defeat of France, I think it was a number of bad mistakes, poor leaders and some good luck for the Germans. That is another whole can of worms to discuss.

Fri, 2017-08-25 21:16

#15

Rikardo

Thanks for your comments and best wishes to you... "Human Smoke" by Nicholas Baker is good on WWII

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1948985.Human_Smoke