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?
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: