Discussion in 'NW Europe' started by 17thDYRCH, Aug 16, 2010.
Almost to the letter what mine said as well when we visited in June 2012.
All of the academic debates, theories, justifications and mythology all seem to fade to insignificance once you stand on that bloody beach for the first time.
The French-Canadian view:
I'm a new member and until now my main military interest has been WW1 naval history - which lead me to the Zeebrugge Raid of 1918.
This thread has left me wanting to know more; however my knowledge of the events at Dieppe is very limited. The thread provides a tremendous amount of detailed information and analysis; but as a novice I am finding it difficult to fully appreciate what is being discussed.
Could members suggest texts which I could use as a starting point?
Another rebuttal to the official story line. Arguing that the planned military failure was actually a successful operation in that it achieved the political objectives set for Jubilee.
I'd start with the Canaisan archive mateiral of wartime reports. . http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dhh-dhp/his/rep-rap/cmhqr-rqgmc-eng.asp
Look at Colonel Stacey's preliminary report written within a month of the action.
and the other lenghty statements.
The report produced after Op Ovelrord is significant as well
One useful set of documents are the conference papers from the Assault Landings Conference held by ETOUSA in May -June 1943- nine months after Dieppe. These originally secret papers include a briefing on the Dieppe Raid and the lessons learned. by Hughes Hallett and Roberts and remarks by Haydon and the Combined Operations staff. The briefings explain to to the US Army, new to the ETO the British thinking about the problem of a cross channel assault in the light of the expereince of Dieppe. If the "official Line" about Op Jubilee was wrong and everything which followed was a cover-up it would have been both stupid and highly risky to train the Allies in tactics based on would have been known to be false lessons.
Thanks for the tips - I've have somewhere to start from now
With four days to go to the 72nd anniversary, here is an aspect of the raid I never knew. These four showed considerable resolve.
Operations in France
M.I.9 - Partners in Evasion.
Four young French Canadians, all of whom had volunteered for the army soon after Canada entered the war in 1939, came to serve with M.I.9 by way of the raid on Dieppe by Allied forces in August 1942. The raid resulted in more than 3,000 Canadian casualties. Almost 1,000 of them were subsequently taken prisoner of war (POW) by the Germans.
Conrad LaFleur, Robert Vanier, Guy Joly and Lucien Dumais were part of this group of POWs. They all managed to escape from the Germans and get back to England. Incredibly, all four men then decided to return to France as secret agents with M.I.9, helping others to escape.
The secret service career of one of these unusual Dieppe Veterans Lucien Dumais – is a good example of just what these people were doing behind enemy lines and the risks they took to help others. Lucien Dumais of Montreal was a tough, 38-year-old sergeant of the Fusiliers Mont-Royal when he was captured by the Germans at Dieppe. After escaping and returning to England, he underwent four months of combat training with the British First Army in North Africa. Upon his return to England, dissatisfied with the routine of Army camp life, he volunteered for service with M.I.9. And so his path crossed with that of another Canadian whose craving for action and adventure led him to join the secret service.
Tall, dark-haired Raymond LaBrosse was 18 when he first went overseas in 1940 as a signalman with the Royal Canadian Corps of Signals. The British secret service agencies were chronically short of good wireless radio operators, especially those fluent in French. LaBrosse was approached by M.I.9 and subsequently became their first Canadian agent. His first mission into German-occupied France, however, ended abruptly when the network was infiltrated by the Gestapo and LaBrosse was forced to flee the country. He was eager to get back to France and renew his efforts.
Dumais later wrote a book about his experience: The Man Who Went Back
Roll Call List
This is more than questionable : the results could have been better/the losses lower,but generally one could be satisfied .
Not following your point. Are you stating the Dieppe Raid to be a success?
Well,if one is looking at the aim of Jubilee,and at the results, I don't think one can say that Jubilee was a disaster .The losses were higher than expected,but,losses can not be used to determine if an operation was a success/failure .
10500 men were committed for Jubilee (mostly but NOT ALL Canadians) ,and the losses (WIA included) were some 4300 = 40 %:I don't see that losses of 40 % can be used to claim that an operation was a disaster.
The aim of Jubilee ? The plan was t conduct a major division size raid (in fact it was a brigade size raid) on a German held port at the French chanel coast :this was done and to hold it for the duration of at least 2 tides :here there was a problem :the troops did not succeed to hold it for the expected duration.
but OTOH,the majority of the men returned,and,would that not ofset the failure to hold the port for the expected duration ?
Whatever, IMHO, it is a big,very big exaggeration to label Jubilee as a disaster .
You hold a high standard for what qualifies as a fiasco.
Your initial premise that the raid was conducted is questionable. With 4,300 casualties, virtually no attackers getting off the beaches and almost none of the objectives being met, it might be more accurate to say it was "attempted". Other than being pinned down on the beaches, the attacking force never really "held" anything of consequence during the limited time ashore.
The losses have always been regarded as grossly excessive for the results achieved.
While Dieppe has become something mythical in Canada, the Canadian role in the defense of Hongkong is mostly forgetten .
Some 2000 Canadian soldiers became casualties during and after the battle of Hongkong ,of whom 557 were KIA,were murdered by the Japanese:none returned before the end of the world .But no one is saying that this was a disaster,no one is saying that there were no results but excessive casualties .
At Dieppe,,2850 Canadians were lost (WIA not included) on a total of some 6000: most returned .
I think we should let the use of "disaster" to journalists and their cousins,the politicians, people wholesale dealers of such words .
I also do not think that there were any allied disasters in WWII (possible exception being the battle of France in 1940).
And,for Dieppe,you are forgetting that most men returned .
What would be better?
a)Dieppe being held for at least 2 tides,but no one returning
b)The beaches being held for a few hours,but most men returning .
The most important mission (but not mentioned) was to bring back as much men as possible .
I will be patient with you. Please reread Jedburgh22 post #86 and the youtube clip posted by Wills from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation interviewing Monty.
And, may I ask you the following question? Have you ever been to Dieppe?
Churchill, for one, called it a disaster and here in Canada it has not been treated as anything but a debacle. The mistreatment of those men by the Japanese during and after the battle has overshadowed the action itself. The fact that the Canadian contingent (2 battalions) was part of a much larger Commonwealth force and did not have full command and control made it less controversial.
We are experiencing a time difference. I have not checked your profile to find out what part of the world you call home.
To answer> a) Dieppe being held for at least 2 tides, but no one returning>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suicide mission- let's get the Canadians.
b) The most important mission ( but not mentioned) was to bring back as much men as possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sheer absolute lunacy.
I am a Canadian. I have been there. I have spoken to Dieppe veterans. I have visited the cemetery. Any arguments stating this Dieppe was worth the effort is complete and utter horse excrement.
I disagree with post 86
A reporter for the Deutsche Alleghenies Zeitung, who was visiting a nearby Luftwaffe air base, wrote of the Allied assault: “As executed, the venture mocked all rules of military logic and strategy.”
Shown below are 916 additional reasons why it was in fact a fiasco. In March 1944, most of the bombers returned from a raid on Nuremberg but the 94 lost from the total of 795 qualified it as the most disastrous raid by Bomber Command. That "most" of the troops returned from Dieppe is a simplistic and biased criteria by which to judge the outcome of the raid. Those who were there would take extreme exception to anyone calling it a success.
Separate names with a comma.