New MI5 files about WW2 released today

perseus

perseus

Active member
A number of MI5 files were made public today including German WWII plans to invade Britain where Dover was to be the focal point of the invasion, but shock troops wearing enemy uniforms would have landed elsewhere along the south coast, as well as in Scotland and the south of Ireland. After the shock troops had captured the docks at Dover, the plan was for the main contingent of German troops to be brought over in barges and disembark at the docks.

Marina Lee, an agent in Norway was suspected of infiltrating the headquarters of General Claude Auchinleck in 1940 and getting hold of a key battle plan which she passed to the German commander.
British, French and Norwegian troops under General Auchinleck were later defeated at the Battle of Narvik and forced to withdraw from German-controlled Norway.

The man who wrote the screenplay for a James Bond film was himself suspected of being a communist agent, newly released Security Service files show.

See the highlighted links

Surprised that Ireland would have been involved. Would this have been a diversionary tactic?
 
I read this on the BBC news web site, looked like a great story, better than most of the spy fiction around.

For me I think Ireland was a back up plan, which could also be exploited to inderdict the Atlantic supply routes, so whilst not necessarily a prime objective, certainly strategic.
 
There is what is known as the 30, 50, 75 or 100 year rule. This rule dictates when certain information can be put out in the Public Domain. These documents are judged on how sensitive they could be and whether they might cause a problem to any one still living that was involved in some way with them.
 
If the Germans have ever landed (I consider this to have been impossible), then they would have both a laugh and a sob. The British Home Guard units there was utterly ridiculous. Quite several shot their own countrymen, both by accident and intentionally. However, the British were hardened and would have fought to death to defend their homeland. As Winston Churchill brilliantly puts: "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beacehs, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender." Striking, truly inspirational. His speech would have caused thousands to fight the Germans to death.
 
Korean Seaboy said:
If the Germans have ever landed (I consider this to have been impossible), then they would have both a laugh and a sob. The British Home Guard units there was utterly ridiculous. Quite several shot their own countrymen, both by accident and intentionally. However, the British were hardened and would have fought to death to defend their homeland. As Winston Churchill brilliantly puts: "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beacehs, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;we shall never surrender." Striking, truly inspirational. His speech would have caused thousands to fight the Germans to death.
Click to expand...

Not wanting to get too patriotic, but I know a few modern day armies, that are technologically advanced, and apparently amongst the!! can you think of any too?
I for one would not like to underestimate the defiance of an invaded country, to the invader - Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Korea, France, India, the list goes on - but there is one common theme - underestimate the populace at your peril and ignore them to your cost.
On a final point, Winstons words were meant not only for the UK, but also for the US, as for the Germans, they had their own demagogues to help them - but I do not think that Winston would've inflamed their passions enough to charge on regardlessly, that could be left to their own discipline and training. Ultimately the German invasion of UK was a pipedream, whilst the RN held sway over the channel, along with a still present RAF.
It is also worth bearing in mind that whilst the BEF was decimated, it had left a solid core behind to begin ramped up trg. Whilst everyone loves the images of Dad's Army with pitchforks taking on the lantern jawed Wehrmacht, it would also have been regular soldier v regular soldier, not too sure of the outcome, but it hards to face front and hold your ground, when you have to keep looking over your shoulder.
 
More Modern war-games suggest that the Germans would successfully land, but would be unable to penetrate too far inland due to logistical problems exacerbated by the Royal Navy. The sturdy defence in France would be repeated and without sufficient armour and fuel the position for the Germans would soon become hopeless. To call the RAF 'the few' undermines the importance of the full time Army and Navy in particular.

That the UK was being defended only by old men is a myth, the majority of the BEF returned from Dunkirk with battle experience. By the time the Germans had organised a hasty landing in September, they would have been able to prepare an adequete defence.
 
Last edited:
Still, the Home Guard was under-equipped and under-trained. The reference to inexperienced soldiers as "Home Guards" only suggests so
 
Of course, the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) was mostly saved at Dunkirk, and they have returned and properly defended their land, but they still would have had a difficult time with the Home Guard.
 
One should remember that most of the Home Guard were Veterans of many conflicts and most of them were WW1 veterans as well and would have given a good account of them selfs. Now I lived in Southern England during this period and it was not long before they were all armed with rifles and quite a range of other weapons. My friends dad who was not called up was issued with a Canadian rifle but for the life of me I can't remember the make of it. With the passing of time the Home Guard became a large well trained force of quite a few Divisions and they could have held there own on most battlefields
 
Korean Seaboy said:
Yes, the older members were quite competent, but those youths who have never seen a gun were quite incompetent
Click to expand...

Speaking from experience? Most of the Home Guard were the old blood, there were few young people in the Home Guard, most having enlisted or were in protected trades.

Even without this force, to supplement the regulars - you have still failed to consider the civilian population - truculent, cantankerous, proud and very independent, also resistant to invaders - similar to many countries around the world today - still we always forget this in the name of political expediency and military adventurism.
 
LeEnfield said:
One should remember that most of the Home Guard were Veterans of many conflicts and most of them were WW1 veterans as well and would have given a good account of them selfs. Now I lived in Southern England during this period and it was not long before they were all armed with rifles and quite a range of other weapons. My friends dad who was not called up was issued with a Canadian rifle but for the life of me I can't remember the make of it. With the passing of time the Home Guard became a large well trained force of quite a few Divisions and they could have held there own on most battlefields
Click to expand...

I think that is debatable given that the same could be said for the Volkssturm and when put to the test they really did not perform well at all I personally can not see any reason why the Home Guard would have performed any better.
 
perseus said:
British, French and Norwegian troops under General Auchinleck were later defeated at the Battle of Narvik and forced to withdraw from German-controlled Norway.
Click to expand...

The allies withdrew from Norway in June 1940 due to the German breakthrough on the front in France, and the Norwegian forces had to, in the end, capitulate as they were not powerful enough to fight alone. The battle lasted from the 9th of April - 8th of June 1940 and caused the Germans severe difficulties in the Norwegian campaign.
 
Most of the Army that went to Norway was the TA. Also before WW2 many young men joined the Forces as it was better than working on the farm. Not only did you get paid you got three meals a day and uniform to wear and to top this off you traveled the world. Compared with many civilian jobs the Army wasn't a to bad an option
 
perseus said:
Surprised that Ireland would have been involved. Would this have been a diversionary tactic?
Click to expand...

probably not in my opinion.free ireland was supposed to be neutral during WW II, but more than likely, due to all the bad feeling from the past 200 years or so...maybe not. (i couldnt resist...i am partly irish and english, so i guess the part of me that thinks is always fighting with myself...:D)
 
I is surprising that many people from the Republic of Ireland joined the British Forces and fought hard for Britain in WW2. It is a pity that the IRA still wont allow them to parade and remember their fallen in both World Wars south of the Border
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top