Dieppe

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002 01:38
Location: Toronto

Dieppe

Post by admfisher » 07 Jul 2002 17:46

I am now finishing another book on Dieppe, called Green Beach.
It is about the SSR who were detailed to cover the RDF man Jack Maurice Nissenthall.
The job for him was to exam the German radar on the cliffs above Dieppe. The SSR, South Saskachatwen Regt. men that were with Nissenthall were to make sure he came home or was not taken alive.

The other day the bookstore owner said he had a book for me that is written by a British spy who was sent over to spy on the Germans. He was to get there confidence by his betraying Dieppe.
Strange sounding isn't it.
I have to get this book, but he claims to have watched the operation with some Germans from a safe distance.

With the different sides to this argument which is true?
In Green Beach they say the bombers were called off because they thought they would only make to much a mess of the streets for the tanks. Same reason for no heavy Naval gunfire.

In other stories the bombers are called dispite the wants of the Canadain commanders.
The Naval gunfire was wanted also. But it was the Admiralty under Churchills orders not to give the big gun support.
Churchill apparantly did not want this to succeed because it would drain resources from his current operations.
Others say the raid, not invasion was only to be onshore for a short time, destroy local objectives and gather intell.

What is the the truth behind this mess. The price was higher than the first day on D-Day or comparable. This is even worse when one accounts the small size of force against that of the D-Day forces.

User avatar
ozs86
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 03 Jul 2002 18:01
Location: Istanbul

Post by ozs86 » 07 Jul 2002 19:38

hey i got a book called combined operations 1940-42 it is 1942 press and it talks quite a lot about dieppe also i have an issue of signal that talks about dieppe as well...

User avatar
Christian Ankerstjerne
Forum Staff
Posts: 14010
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 14:07
Location: Denmark

Post by Christian Ankerstjerne » 07 Jul 2002 19:55

In my oppinion, Dieppe was not as such an invasion attempt, as it was a training ground. It was really a way of getting as much intel as possible, and someone had to be sacirficed. I guess the Canadians where those who could be afforded to be lost (not only as soldiers, but also as an ally if they were to 'find out' that they had been sacrificed.)

I read an interresting article about it some time ago - beats me where, though :|

Christian

User avatar
Lawrence Tandy
Member
Posts: 1738
Joined: 18 May 2002 07:41
Location: B.C, Canada

Post by Lawrence Tandy » 07 Jul 2002 22:44

I doubt in 1942 that Churchill could ill afford to lose the Canadians as soldiers or as an ally. Even with the U.S. in the war, Canada produce a great deal of war goods for Britain, not to mention training some 70,000 commonwealth-allied pilots. Also, her troops were quite capable, as they proved later in the war in such places as Sicily, Italy and Western Europe.
I think it was more the fact that alot of Canadian Soldiers were sitting in England, and the Canadians were demanding to be put into action.

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002 01:38
Location: Toronto

Dieppe

Post by admfisher » 08 Jul 2002 06:10

The points that are clear to me are:

Faulty planning:
Never tried before with this craft or tanks.

Poor leadership from the Canadain Generals, Churchill and Mountbatten.
These men did not want a secound front, and the Canadain Generals were galled into action.

Poor Support
Lesson learned.

Poor Location
Lesson learned

Overall it pains me as a Canadian to see Dieppe referred to as a excersise. Know of the particapants that landed could of felt this way. But without it we learned the lessons needed.

This will lead to me next post.

User avatar
David E M
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 22 May 2002 07:52
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by David E M » 10 Jul 2002 10:30

Admfisher,

G'Day, the book you refer to is called "The Paladin" by Brian Garfield, it is a Novel.
The main character is Christopher Creighton.

The real Christopher Creighton has written a book called "OP JB"
(operation James Bond) a really facinating story - published as non-fiction isbn 0-671-85565-4.

I suggest reading "Paladin" first and then the other.

Then you will have to decide if it's true. :?

Cheers.

User avatar
admfisher
Member
Posts: 645
Joined: 30 Mar 2002 01:38
Location: Toronto

spy

Post by admfisher » 12 Jul 2002 00:14

Thanks I will look for these books the one I was refering to was the OPJB one.

Grant

b_c_ries
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 27 Mar 2002 04:25
Location: California USA

Post by b_c_ries » 15 Jul 2002 00:54

When analyzing what happened at Dieppe the larger Strategic picture must be considered, this operation caused the Germans to squander valuable resources in anticipation of further invasion attempts in 1942 when they were needed on the Russian front. A few extra divisions in Stalingrad during September and October could have caused Stalingrad to fall prior to operation Uranus. Lack of resources caused the German defeat at Stalingrad and caused them move panzer divisions into the city when they could have been outside ready to counter attack when the Soviets attacked. The German allies protecting the flanks of the sixth army didn't even have effective anti-tank weapons. The British had excellent long term strategic planning and while the Dieppe raid appears to be a failure as an individual battle it was a strategic success just like the defense of Crete.
If 70 grains of IMR 4064 in a 7.92x57 case behind a 197 gr. fmj is too much then 85 grains should be just right.

kelty90
Member
Posts: 171
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 14:04
Location: Hampshire, England

Post by kelty90 » 15 Jul 2002 09:44

One question just begs to be asks...Why did the Germans not once raid the UK?. Not one "commando" type raid let alone a large Dieppe style raid with tanks. I should imagine that a large raid or two would have tied up a considerable quantity of British and Allied troops.
So, why no raids???

User avatar
kobold
Member
Posts: 2166
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 00:55
Location: north east England

Post by kobold » 15 Jul 2002 11:55

kelty90 wrote:One question just begs to be asks...Why did the Germans not once raid the UK?. Not one "commando" type raid let alone a large Dieppe style raid with tanks. I should imagine that a large raid or two would have tied up a considerable quantity of British and Allied troops.
So, why no raids???
I seem to recall a few years ago, reading about some german soldiers bodies being washed ashore and ound on a beach during ww2 somewhere along the south coast of england, and at the time (in the 1970's i think I read this), the idea that it had been some sort of raid or "pracitce " was mentioned. I can't remember the source though sorry. I think the "official" word was they were the crew of an e boat or something, but the article mentioned they were wearing army not navy uniforms...



dave

User avatar
David E M
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 22 May 2002 07:52
Location: Melbourne Australia

Post by David E M » 15 Jul 2002 14:16

Hello Kelty,

My dad told me a similar story, but I think this is a corruption of the American practise landing that went terribly wrong.
I forget how many drowned ( 600 or so ). They were then buried in secret in a huge concrete bunker.
I remember in the late '70s earlier 80s the farmer whose land they were buried on found the bunker ( he apparently didn't know about it ).
There was an article in the paper about it, sorry, don't know any more.
Cheers.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”