Dieppe Disaster

perseus

Active member
Just finished re-reading Brian Villa's book Unauthorised Action Mountbatten and the Dieppe raid again. Have there been any major development in historic interpretation since this book was written? Julien Thompson takes the opposite view that this raid was authorised (if not in writing)

It seems to me that Mountbatten, like Churchill was a bit of a loose cannon and the British and Canadian political leaders were eager to provide a show of force to deflect criticism of inaction in 1942. The military top brass (Alan Brooke, Portal, Pound) knew it would probably be a disaster but they had to do something to placate the Americans, Soviets and Canadian and British public opinion, to show how difficult and costly a more permanent invasion would be with the resources available at that time. By allowing Mountbatten to go ahead without signing anything the Canadians were effectively sacrificed without endangering their careers.

Could Mountbatten have asked Churchill to allow him to take the rap for a mission which was necessary politically, but in military terms was unwise; or was he simply a over-promoted, reckless, risk taking, careerist who went ahead anyway?

I'm still unclear what influence Montgomery had. In theory he refused to have anything to do with the revised plan (after the initial assault was cancelled a month earlier), but when he was involved then the book suggests it was him who decided on reduced bombardment and a frontal attack, a plan which Mountbatten couldn't change without re-authorisation which would have meant cancelling the raid. These were of course the two factors which guaranteed disaster. Are you thinking what I am?
 
Last edited:
I never could understand why they did this operation in the first place. Pure suicide, although the allies learned a lot.

I didn't knew Montgomery was involved. This was quite the opposite he did with the invasion of Normandy. Montgomery was a guy who only attacked when he was 200% sure of victory.

Hats of for those brave Canadians.
 
The book suggests they leant nothing that wasn't already in the manual, although it is particularly critical of Mountbatten. Incidentally very recent evidence suggests there was an enigma machine at Dieppe which was one of the targets.

This source also claims the opposite of the book that Monty wanted a pincer attack instead of a frontal attack. So this mission seems to be forever shrouded in confusion.
 
Last edited:
I've just been watching a documentary on this on TV. Prof. O'Keefe is certain he has solved the mystery, it was all a diversion to capture the code books and equipment.

However, according to orders this was literally supposed to be a 'pinch operation' to steal and take it all back. What possible use would this be? Surely the Germans would just change the codes immediately, and worse still every aspect of the cipher!

Perhaps better they failed!
Until recently, it was unclear why the Allied forces had followed through with the Dieppe Raid, which was a poorly planned assault. But a military historian, David O’Keefe, sifted through top-secret, British military documents until he discovered an answer that is like the plot of a spy novel, which makes sense, because Ian Fleming — WW II British Intelligence Officer and author of the James Bond books — was involved.

When O’Keefe confronted British Navel authorities with his evidence, they acknowledged that he had discovered the truth.

The Dieppe Raid was initiated as a diversion for a pinch operation; the raid provided cover for a commando unit’s infiltration into German Naval headquarters (intelligence indicated it was in Dieppe’s Hôtel Moderne) and to board specific boats within the inner harbor: the ultimate goal of the mission was to ‘appropriate’ German code-books and a code-machine. Ian Fleming was the head of the commando unit.
http://almostfalling.com/2012/08/17/the-dieppe-raid-uncovered/
 
Last edited:
Yeah I would suggest that would be an unlikely scenario, no matter how it worked out if the Germans suspected their codes had been taken that would have been changed and it is more than likely they would have been changed on a routine basis anyway.

Further to this the loss of cypher equipment would have led to a change in German equipment which would have affected work the allies were already doing.
 
Some friends of my father who were in Britain when the raid had taken place and later were in the Italian theatre, were very sceptical about the whole lessons business. One of these gentlemen (Stan Delaney) said they were just making excuses. It was pure BS. They were all covering up a stupid and senseless blunder with a retroactive excuse. According to this Stan Delaney, Mountbatten should have been put somewhere where he could cause any more disasters and Ham Roberts was a very good officer who shouldn't have been made to take the fall for such bad planning.
 
Possibly the only lesson they learned at Dieppe was that they need to spend a lot of time gathering data on potential landing sites although I am not sure a great deal of intelligence was needed to figure out that 40 ton tanks sink on wet sand.

My personal opinion is that Dieppe was part of Churchill's "we must be seen to be doing something and dumping troops on a beach in France is doing something" plan and to hell with the consequences and casualties.
 
Changing codes is one thing and that is done on a schedule anyways.
Equipment is something else.
Enigma was very advanced and quite complicated.
It was not easily replaced or redesigned.
We did learn to decipher traffic over time, but it was not a simple thing by any means.
Capture of commo equipment may have been a goal, but it seems overall a senseless slaughter to me.
 
1) The Canadians also wanted some action

2) In an action,people get killed


3)The Dieppe losses (not all Canadians) were marginal


4) I don'se why all the fuss about Dieppe :the Commonwealth units suffered bigger losses in Alamein,Cassino,Caen;MG,etc
 
I read somewhere that the Dieppe raid was cobbled together because of the constant pressure from Stalin to open a second front to take pressure off of Soviet forces, despite being told by the Western Allies they were not yet ready. I also read that some troops thought they ere taking part in an exercise and didn't know that they were to take part in an actual landing, some weren't even issued ammunition.
 
Last edited:
1) The Canadians also wanted some action

And you know this how?

2) In an action,people get killed

No sh!t Sherlock.

3)The Dieppe losses (not all Canadians) were marginal

It doesn't matter who died, men are dead, families lost sons, husbands and fathers.

4) I don'se why all the fuss about Dieppe :the Commonwealth units suffered bigger losses in Alamein,Cassino,Caen;MG,etc

You wouldn't say that if it was you getting to crap shot out of you, losses for no gain is a total waste of human life.
 
1) Churchill : THe Canadian authorities gave their approval

2)Under pressure from the Canadian government that the Canadian troops saw some action,the 2nd Canadian division was selected for the main force

Source : J.Thompson:the Dieppe Raid .

3) Dieppe was a success: 6000 men were transported to the coast,landed on the coast and remained there for several hours .

The problem was that the losses were higher than expected .

Raid on St Nazaire (Chariot) :611 men committed,losses 369,bigger % losses than in Dieppe :also a catastrophe ?
 
Last edited:
1) Churchill : THe Canadian authorities gave their approval

WHAT???

2)Under pressure from the Canadian government that the Canadian troops saw some action,the 2nd Canadian division was selected for the main force

Source : J.Thompson:the Dieppe Raid .

The government, NOT the troops themselves.

3) Dieppe was a success: 6000 men were transported to the coast,landed on the coast and remained there for several hours .

How was it a success when the element of surprise was lost, in nine hours, 907 Canadian soldiers were killed, 2,460 were wounded, and 1,946 Canadians were taken prisoner— including more prisoners than the army lost later in 11 months during the Northwest Europe campaign of 1944-1945. The RAF lost 106 planes and 81 airmen - the highest single day total of World War II. the RCAF lost 13 aircraft and 10 pilots. Yep thats some success.

The raid failed largely due to poor planning and higher leadership and bad luck. The Germans did not know of the pending raid, but they were alerted after Allied naval craft enroute to Dieppe clashed with a German convoy.

The problem was that the losses were higher than expected .

No sh!te Sherlock.

Raid on St Nazaire (Chariot) :611 men committed,losses 369,bigger % losses than in Dieppe :also a catastrophe ?

WTF has that got to do with Dieppe?
 
What's often missed is the element of luck and eventual success or failure. Those other cases had a measure of luck and success therefore they aren't criticised to the same extent, despite high casualties.
 
Changing codes is one thing and that is done on a schedule anyways.
Equipment is something else.
Enigma was very advanced and quite complicated.
It was not easily replaced or redesigned.
We did learn to decipher traffic over time, but it was not a simple thing by any means.
Capture of commo equipment may have been a goal, but it seems overall a senseless slaughter to me.

But replacements and upgrades to Enigma were well under way in terms of extra rotors and total replacement systems if the Germans had suspected that their codes and equipment had been compromised I am relatively certain that in the short term codes would have been changed and where possible newer machines rolled out.

I would also suspect that they would have re designated potentially compromised systems to low priority traffic and deception programs.
 
Of course,Dieppe was a success:in 1942,the British government took the decision (for a lot of reasons) to transport a brigade to France,to land these troops,and to keep them there as long as was possible . All this was done . No problem.

But,there was a problem :due to mistakes in planning and execution,the losses were higher than expected,and were not insignificant .

Why were the Canadians committed ?

a) because they complained that they had no action

b) because the Canadian government authorized the commitment of Canadian forces .

About the losses : may I remind some people that the losses in the Lorient raid were proportionally higher than those of Dieppe,and that nobody claimed that because of this the Lorient raid was a failure .
 
Raid on St Nazaire (Chariot) :611 men committed,losses 369,bigger % losses than in Dieppe :also a catastrophe ?
St. Nazaire Raid had high casualties, but they were expected considering most were on wood Motor Launches with large non self-sealing gasoline tanks on the decks. The Mission was to destroy the Normandie Dock(drydock) to force the KM Battleships to abandon the French coast. The Mission was accomplished.
 
Of course,Dieppe was a success:in 1942,the British government took the decision (for a lot of reasons) to transport a brigade to France,to land these troops,and to keep them there as long as was possible . All this was done . No problem.

Thank God you are not commanding troops, you'd get them slaughtered and claim you were successful. Even the Canadians stated the raid was a total unmitigated disaster, the loss of men and equipment for very little if any gain.

But,there was a problem :due to mistakes in planning and execution,the losses were higher than expected,and were not insignificant .

Yes mistakes that ended up as a total disaster.

Why were the Canadians committed ?

a) because they complained that they had no action

I doubt if the troops themselves would have complained about not going into action.

b) because the Canadian government authorized the commitment of Canadian forces .

The problem here is, the troops were not ready for such an operation.

About the losses : may I remind some people that the losses in the Lorient raid were proportionally higher than those of Dieppe,and that nobody claimed that because of this the Lorient raid was a failure .

Again you talk absolute rubbish as pointed out by George the Lorient raid was a success despite a high casualty rate and again as George pointed out, high casualties were expected.
 
Back
Top