DISASTER AT DIEPPE -- Capt. Laurence Guy Alexander, medical officer for The 14th Canadian Army Tank Regiment (The Calgary Regiment), describes in his own words the horror of the Dieppe Raid, on today's Wartime Wednesdays. www.elinorflorence.com/blog/dieppe-medical-corps.
A riveting story, Elinor. There was so much wrong and so many to blame, it's hard to know where to begin. I read all of your posts, and this one i near the top.
I am not convinced that the use of "disaster" for Jubilee is correct.I am even not convinced that the use of "disaster" for a military operation in WWII is correct .
Would you care to enlarge re. the above comment, please? It sounds as if you are making an interesting point.
Dieppe has become something mythical in Canada,while the Canadian role in the defense of Honkkong is almost forgotten . At Hongkong, 2000 Canadian soldiers were lost (557 were KIA during the battle ,murdered by the Japanese) and returned ..when the war was over . At Dieppe,6000 Canadians were committed ,and 3000 returned (3000 were KIA,became POW) A total of some 10500 soldiers were committed at Dieppe,of which 7000 returned . If one is labelling Dieppe as a disaster,what about Hongkong ? And,Dieppe could have been worse,much worse : how to label Dieppe if no one returned ? Or 500 only ? I see 3 plus points for Dieppe 1) 10000 men succeeded to go to Dieppe 2) 7000 men landed at Dieppe 3) 7000 returned There were OTOH 2 minus points 1)The losses were higher than expected,but losses can not be used to label an operation as disaster/victory 2) The troops did not succeed to occupy Dieppe,but that was secondary and,what would be better : if the troops had occupied Dieppe,but only 1000 returned to Britain,or (as happened) if Dieppe was not occupied,but 70 % returned to Britain . All in all, I believe that the Allies were getting of cheaply,and that the plus outweighted the minus .
Other point, I find it questionable to go in the "blame direction" if there was a setback : it is almost,if some people are forgetting that there was an enemy who had something to say,and in most such cases, one should blame the enemy . The result of MG was ,as usual,the search for a scape-goat: it was Monty,it was Ike,...And the Germans ? On the German side, it was current practice : it was Hitler,the cold, .... And the Allies ? You need two to fight ,and explain a failure by a mistake from some one on your side,is not willing to accept that the enemy was better/stronger .
Thanks for that answer. I think you make a good point about the definition of the word 'disaster'. I need to check what were the aims of the Dieppe operation as how many of those aims were met might help to decide whether it was a disaster. I agree that disaster might be the wrong word. Stalingrad and Bagration were disasters for Germany and the loss of Burma and Malaya the same for the British. Was Dieppe in that category? Probably not.
Yep. Regarding Dieppe (and, for example) St Nazaire, we (i.e. the Uk and Canadians, etc) tend to beat ourselves up and to blame ourselves when the response of the enemy is obviously an important factor. The Germans responded quickly and effectively at Dieppe.
This attitude is not limited to the British,it is innate to all armies :when there was a setbac at Kasserine, the commanding general was blamed and fired ,but I am not sure that if Frienthal had not made mistakes,that there would be no setback .When there was a German breakthrough at Sedan,Gamelin was fired and replaced by Weygand .But,was Gamelin responsible for the breakthrough? And could Weygand prevent the breakthrough ?
I think we (Brits) have that attitude often to the fore. I.e. with Malaya and Singapore, we focus on the flaws of Percival, of the decision to send Prince of Wales, etc to the East and don't really give the Japs much credit. I agree with you in general.
You could also blame the type of terrain that they landed on especially the kind of effect it had on the tanks. There were many factors to blame for the catastrophe at Dieppe but one that should be really recognized is the terrain that they landed on. The beach with the rocks and shingle did no help whatsoever for the tanks
Please forgive me for asking. I'm just a little confused, but what do you mean by red herring? do you mean the fish? I'm just a little confused. :huh: Is it a reference to something that I should know something about?
Sheldrake means that blaming the terrain is erroneous. Only 5 of the tanks were immobilized because of chert build up, while 7 had been immobilized by German fire, the remaining 15 tanks made it off the beach and advanced on the town. Of those 15 tanks that participated in the attack on the town, 5 were disabled there, and 10 returned back to the beach.
We all get things wrong from time to time. One of the biggest reasons I frequent boards like this is to get such misconceptions corrected.