Unternehmen Seelöwe...

MontyB

All-Blacks Supporter
The German invasion of Britain did it really have any chance of success?

I have often thought that had an invasion been attempted immediately following the evacuation of Dunkirk it would have had a very good chance of success however I have just got through reading a study carried out at Sandhurst in 1974 that came to the conclusion the Germans would have been able to land and establish a beachhead, but then found themselves cut off by the Royal Navy. Inevitably they would eventually run out of supplies and have no choice but to surrender.

Essentially I think the problems facing the Germans were predominantly:
1) Supply.

2) The overwhelming superiority of the Royal Navy over the Kriegsmarine.

3) The idea of using barges was flawed (it was anticipated that it would take upwards of 23 hours to get the first wave fully ashore)

4) The Luftwaffe would have been overstretched trying to keep the RAF at bay, provide support to ground forces, preventing British reinforcements moving up and holding off the Royal Navy.

5) The invasion force would have lacked heavy equipment for quite sometime after the initial landings as there was simply no way to land significant amounts of heavy vehicles or artillery until a port had been secured and made operational.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
 
For Sealion to be successfull,the following conditions had to be accomplished,if ONE was not,SL had NO chance
1)Air superiority above south -east England :this was not accomplished
2)Elimination of BC:this was not accomplished
3)Availability of a transport fleet :there was no transport fleet
4)Availability of a war fleet to protect the transport fleet :the KM was negligible
5)The capture,on the first day,of an intact port to discharge tanks,artillery,trucks,ammunition.....:this was impossible
6)the weather:the Germans would need several WEEKS of good weather for the build up:this was impossible in september .
as NONE of these conditions were possible,the chances for SL were nihil
 
Sea Lion probably could not have been attained in late 1940 or 1941 for that matter. The two greatest obstacles were the R.A.F and the R.N. And these two obstacles weren't lost on the Nazi high command or the Fuhrer for that matter.
There is actually much evidence which points to Sealion being nothing but a bluff or at least a threat mentioned in an angry tirade most common in Hitler's speeches. But what is known for sure is Hitler wasn't really interested in invading Great Britain by September 1940. His reason's could have been his desire to have Britain as a potential partner in carving up the world. The man certainly did live in a cloud coo coo land at times.
Hitler's weakest asset was his lack of understanding Grand Strategy. He could have starved Great Britain out by putting the full weight of the Wehrmacht into North Africa. By defeating the British in North Africa, capturing the Suez Canal and Malta and making the Mediteranean an Axis lake, the starvation of Great Britain would begin. Of course a much greater portion of the Kriegsmarine would need to be put into the Atlantic and U-boat production would need to be trebled.
Britains life lines would be cut off.
Germany would have an unending supply of oil and petrol.
Britain would probably sue for peace by late 1941.
There would be no need to declare war against the U.S.A. not that there was a need to do so in the first place.
With Britain out of north Africa, Turkey would more than likely join the Axis.
With Britain truly out of the war, Roosevelt an Anglophile would see reason and would not sign Lend-Lease.
Germany waits a full year before even contemplating an attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin still believes he has nothing to fear from Germany. He is more interested in attacking British India, now that Britain is truly on the ropes.
The Soviet Union finally does attack India. German observers see the T-34 tank for the first and suddenly have saucers for eyes.
A whole new approach to the panzer and armored warfare developes quickly in the Reich.
OK I'm getting ahead of myself and probably a little silly but you get the point.
 
IF Germany had managed to get through the RAF and RN and managed to land in any numbers and finally managed to capture London, forcing some sort of surrender or peace deal, I don't think that would have been the end of the matter.

The French showed that a mere ½ % of the population actively resisting, proved a nightmare for the occupation forces, tying up troops that could be put to better use elsewhere.

As someone once said, "Invading a country is the easy part, holding it is another thing altogether."
 
Last edited:
There are so ,many Ifs in all of this. Had the German Air Force ruled the skies in southern England then a German Airborne raid on some where like Manston then they could shuttled in a large number of troops by air [J52] where they could have fanned out and taken a port. With the port they could have brought in their heavier equipment. The RN would have sailed into a line of U Boats that would have taken its toll on the ships then there would be minefields and air raids to deal with.
The Army bless it left most of its equipment in France and there was not a lot of heavy stuff to repulse a landing.
By late September there had been a great build programme of defence lines in Southern England and the whole set up had changed with the imported weapons from the US.
Had Germany invaded right after the fall of France it would have been a close run thing as Wellington used to say
 
Sea Lion probably could not have been attained in late 1940 or 1941 for that matter. The two greatest obstacles were the R.A.F and the R.N. And these two obstacles weren't lost on the Nazi high command or the Fuhrer for that matter.
There is actually much evidence which points to Sealion being nothing but a bluff or at least a threat mentioned in an angry tirade most common in Hitler's speeches. But what is known for sure is Hitler wasn't really interested in invading Great Britain by September 1940. His reason's could have been his desire to have Britain as a potential partner in carving up the world. The man certainly did live in a cloud coo coo land at times.
Hitler's weakest asset was his lack of understanding Grand Strategy. He could have starved Great Britain out by putting the full weight of the Wehrmacht into North Africa. By defeating the British in North Africa, capturing the Suez Canal and Malta and making the Mediteranean an Axis lake, the starvation of Great Britain would begin. Of course a much greater portion of the Kriegsmarine would need to be put into the Atlantic and U-boat production would need to be trebled.
Britains life lines would be cut off.
Germany would have an unending supply of oil and petrol.
Britain would probably sue for peace by late 1941.
There would be no need to declare war against the U.S.A. not that there was a need to do so in the first place.
With Britain out of north Africa, Turkey would more than likely join the Axis.
With Britain truly out of the war, Roosevelt an Anglophile would see reason and would not sign Lend-Lease.
Germany waits a full year before even contemplating an attack on the Soviet Union. Stalin still believes he has nothing to fear from Germany. He is more interested in attacking British India, now that Britain is truly on the ropes.
The Soviet Union finally does attack India. German observers see the T-34 tank for the first and suddenly have saucers for eyes.
A whole new approach to the panzer and armored warfare developes quickly in the Reich.
OK I'm getting ahead of myself and probably a little silly but you get the point.
These only are old myths :the fact is that the importance of the Mediterranean,of North Africa,of the Middle East ,was NEGLIGIBLE .
There was NOTHING in the ME the Germans could use :they never could go to the oil fields,never could exploit the oil fields,never could transport the oil to Germany ,and,in 1940,there was no shortage on oil .
Britain :did NOT use the ME oil in WWII,it used the oil of the US and Central America .
 
The French showed that a mere ½ % of the population actively resisting, proved a nightmare for the occupation forces, tying up troops that could be put to better use elsewhere.

. "
The french resistance was a joke, the french people got "brave" only when allies were hours ahead or if they faced unarmed Germans.

France by and large collaborated with Germany so much as to earn the title of a true ally, french murdered Jews and complied peacefully with all the things Germans did, some blown tracks and a joke uprising in Paris do not count.

The only place where french resistance is accounted for seriously is history channel and such since it would be embarassing to tell the truth, France supported Nazi Germany and did not put any noteworthy fight, in 1940 or otherwise.
 
The french resistance was a joke, the french people got "brave" only when allies were hours ahead or if they faced unarmed Germans.

I suggest that you do a bit more research before making such a broad statement.

Andrée Peel, a highly decorated French resistance figure who helped save dozens of American and British airmen shot down over France during World War II, died on March 5 in the English village of Long Ashton, outside Bristol. She was 105.

Her death was announced by the Lampton House nursing home, where she had been living, The Associated Press said.

When France fell to Germany in the spring of 1940, Andrée Virot, the daughter of a civil engineer and a native of Brittany, was running a beauty salon in the Breton port of Brest.

She joined the resistance movement when German troops occupied Brest, and she began circulating an underground newspaper. Code-named Agent Rose, she soon became a key resistance figure in Brittany. She fed information to the Allies on German shipping and troop movements and on the results of Allied bombing in the region. She also guided British planes carrying intelligence agents to nighttime landings at secret airstrips marked by torchlight.

She was best remembered for playing an important role in the rescue of 102 Allied airmen, by her account, in a network that set up safe houses for fliers on the run from the Germans and then took the men to isolated sections of the Brest beaches, where they boarded boats transporting them to England.
When the Germans learned of her resistance work she fled to Paris, but she was arrested by the Gestapo shortly after the D-Day invasion on June 6, 1944.

She was beaten and tortured, then imprisoned at the Ravensbrück and Buchenwald concentration camps. She was about to be killed by a firing squad at Buchenwald when it was liberated by American troops in April 1945.
“I saved 102 pilots before being arrested, interrogated and tortured,”*the BBC quoted her as once having said. “I suffer still from that. I still have the pain.”
Returning to Paris after the war, she fulfilled a vow to make a pilgrimage to the Sacré-Coeur Basilica in Montmartre to give thanks for having survived, the British newspaperThe Telegraph reported.

She managed a restaurant in Paris and met her future husband, an English student named John Peel. They settled in the Bristol area, where Mrs. Peel practiced nonmedical healing techniques and provided nutritional advice. Her husband died in 2003. They had no children.

Mrs. Peel received many decorations from the French government for her resistance work, and she was awarded the Medal of Freedom by the United States and the King’s Commendation for Brave Conduct by Britain. During the war she received a personal letter of appreciation from Prime Minister*Winston Churchill.

Mrs. Peel told of her exploits in a 1999 memoir, “Miracles Do Happen!”
On Feb. 3 she celebrated her 105th birthday at her nursing home. Wearing 11 decorations for valor on her blouse, she was presented with a cake decorated with the French flag and sang the French national anthem.
“You don’t know what freedom is if you have never lost it,”*Mrs. Peel once told The Bristol Evening Post. “The only fear we had was of being tortured and of speaking under torture,” she added. “I rarely thought of my personal safety. I just acted and did what I believed was the right thing.”

Would you be prepared to suffer what she did? I doubt it.


France by and large collaborated with Germany so much as to earn the title of a true ally, french murdered Jews and complied peacefully with all the things Germans did, some blown tracks and a joke uprising in Paris do not count.

What part of ½ % of the population don't you understand? When I went to school 100% minus ½ % which means 99 ½ % is left over. Ergo 99 ½% of the population didn't join the resistance, and yes many did collaborate with the Germans.

The only place where french resistance is accounted for seriously is history channel and such since it would be embarassing to tell the truth, France supported Nazi Germany and did not put any noteworthy fight, in 1940 or otherwise.

I have an idea that in your town or city is a large building that contains things called books, its called a library, it should also include such things as books called "memoirs" by various people who took part in WW2, you can also cross reference with other memoirs. It might be an idea to visit the "library" it could help you do a bit of research.

I'm not a fan of the French, but I give credit where its due. Maybe you need to do the same.
 
Last edited:
1)the role of the French resistance is much overestimated (as the role of all resistance movements)
2)In France,as in most occupied countries,a tiny minoritu belonged to the resistance,an other tiny minority belonged to the collaboration,and,the overwhelming majority took the only sensible attitude :remaining outside of the fighting(what not means that they were collaborating)
3) The hatred of Panzercracker against the French is making him to dishonour the sacrifice of the French in 1940 :100000 French soldiers died in may/june 1940
4)For Panzercracker,every one who does not belong to the resistance is a coward/traitor,as to be expected from some one who never had the misfortune to have lived in an occupied country .
 
1)the role of the French resistance is much overestimated (as the role of all resistance movements)
2)In France,as in most occupied countries,a tiny minoritu belonged to the resistance,an other tiny minority belonged to the collaboration,and,the overwhelming majority took the only sensible attitude :remaining outside of the fighting(what not means that they were collaborating)
3) The hatred of Panzercracker against the French is making him to dishonour the sacrifice of the French in 1940 :100000 French soldiers died in may/june 1940
4)For Panzercracker,every one who does not belong to the resistance is a coward/traitor,as to be expected from some one who never had the misfortune to have lived in an occupied country .

I agree with most of your comments, except the first. Many operations were carried out by SOE and the US OSS in occupied France, Britain supplied weapons (the French favourite's was the Sten as it could be broken down into small pieces and the Lee Enfield with its 10 round magazine), explosives and other items. Lets not forget the price some villages paid because of resistance activity, where whole villages were destroyed and its inhabitants slaughtered by the SS. I cannot even imagine living under those conditions and the fear.

Resistance groups in Russia and Yugoslavia kept a huge amount of German troops tied up.

The French did however come into their own after D Day assisting the Allies, by destroying rail networks, communications and delaying German reinforcements.

Both the SOE and the OSS trained various groups. Quite a few Allied aircrew and escaped POW's owe their very lives to a mere handful of people. Andrée Peel mentioned in my previous post was only one person who risked death time and time again.

My father was in France well after D Day taking part in supply convoys. He was driving a truck through some French backwater when he saw a French farmer beating the crap out of an obviously starving horse, pulling an overloaded cart. My dad stopped and took the whip out of his hand, and asked "How would you like it if I beat the crap out of you." To which the farmer spat and said, "The Germans never interfered so why should you?"

I have visited and drove through France quite a few times and found the French in the north very anti British, while in the south they were friendly. While in the French Alps many many years ago, one chap slapped me on the back and asked how I liked the South of France. I answered in my school boy French that it is very beautiful, much to his amusment.

Many years ago in UK I was in a small bar I frequented wearing a sweat shirt with my regimental badge (RCT) over the left breast. An older Dutch chap who was with his wife came over to me and introduced himself saying he recognised my regimental badge. We began chatting and he stated he as a matter of fact, was a member of the Dutch resistance in the area of the Phillips Factory in Eindoven, he introduced his wife who played a small part in the resistance.

We chatted for hours. Both he and his wife stated that their biggest fear was being caught by the Gestapo and tortured, the fear they felt while waiting for an airdrop at night. While the Dutch resistance were not as well organised as the French, again a tiny handful of people fought back in anyway they could. I said (and meant it) "It is an honour to meet two extremely brave people." They laughed and suggested that I and others would do the same. I'm not so sure I have the kind of guts they have.

I get extremely annoyed when armchair generals try to degrade and undermine the courage and tenacity of people who put their lives on the line so others may live
 
Last edited:
The courage and tenacity of the members of the French Resistance are beyound all doubts,but,this is irrelevant ,the point is that the role /importance of the French resistance for the outcome of the war,is negligible .The Germans did not increase their forces in France because of the actions of the Resistance.
The claim that the partisans in Yougoslavia were tying a huge amount of German Forces,is wrong :there were in the summer of 1942 5 German divisions in Yugoslavia and Greece .The Partisans of Tito and the Czechniks were busy with killing each other .
 
The courage and tenacity of the members of the French Resistance are beyound all doubts,but,this is irrelevant

Courage is never irrelevant, not to those who took part or their families. Besides which "resisting" occupation forces is not all about mowing German troops down with machine guns or blowing railway lines or bridges, intelligence gathering can be more important then destroying a convoy of troops, or a train load of armour.

,the point is that the role /importance of the French resistance for the outcome of the war,is negligible.

Again, try telling that to those who took part or their families of those who gave their lives. Again I repeat, "resisting" occupation forces is not all about mowing German troops down with machine guns or blowing railway lines or bridges, intelligence gathering can be more important then destroying a convoy of troops, or a train load of armour.


The Germans did not increase their forces in France because of the actions of the Resistance.

If France was such a quiet back water as you claim, I wonder how many divisions should have been diverted to other campaigns.

The claim that the partisans in Yougoslavia were tying a huge amount of German Forces,is wrong :there were in the summer of 1942 5 German divisions in Yugoslavia and Greece .The Partisans of Tito and the Czechniks were busy with killing each other .

I agree about the various factions trying to kill each other, remember British troops had to go into Greece, much of the time under fire from both sides to find some solution.

However, Later in the conflict the Partisans were able to win the moral, as well as limited material support of the western*Allies, who until then had supported General Draža Mihailović's Chetnik Forces, but were finally convinced of their collaboration fighting by many military missions dispatched to both sides during the course of the war.

To gather intelligence, agents of the western Allies were infiltrated into both the Partisans and the Chetniks. The intelligence gathered by liaisons to the resistance groups was crucial to the success of supply missions and was the primary influence on Allied strategy in*Yugoslavia. The search for intelligence ultimately resulted in the demise of the Chetniks and their eclipse by Tito’s Partisans.

In 1942, though supplies were limited, token support was sent equally to each. The new year would bring a change. The Germans were executing Operation Schwarz (the Fifth anti-Partisan offensive), one of a series of offensives aimed at the resistance fighters, when F.W.D. Deakin was sent by the British to gather information. His reports contained two important observations. The first was that the Partisans were courageous and aggressive in battling the German 1st Mountain and 104th Light Division, had suffered significant casualties, and required support. The second observation was that the entire German 1st Mountain Division had traveled from Russia by railway through Chetnik-controlled territory. British intercepts (ULTRA) of German message traffic confirmed Chetnik timidity. All in all, intelligence reports resulted in increased Allied interest in Yugoslavia air operations and shifted policy.

In September 1943, at Churchill’s request, Brigadier General Fitzroy Maclean was parachuted to Tito’s headquarters near Drvar to serve as a permanent, formal liaison to the Partisans. While the Chetniks were still occasionally supplied, the Partisans received the bulk of all future support

It was a lamentable fact that virtually no supplies had been conveyed by sea to the 222,000 followers of Tito. These stalwarts were holding as many Germans in Yugoslavia as the combined Anglo-American forces were holding in Italy south of Rome. The Germans had been thrown into some confusion after the collapse of Italy and the Patriots had gained control of large stretches of the coast. We had not, however, seized the opportunity. The Germans had recovered and were driving the Partisans out bit by bit. The main reason for this was the artificial line of responsibility which ran through the Balkans.

Considering that the Partisans had given us such a generous measure of assistance at almost no cost to ourselves, it was of high importance to ensure that their resistance was maintained and not allowed to flag.
—Winston Churchill, 24 November 1943

With Allied air support (Operation Flotsam) and assistance from the Red Army, in the second half of 1944 the Partisans turned their attention to Serbia, which had seen relatively little fighting since the fall of the Republic of Užice in 1941. On 20 October, the Red Army and the Partisans liberated Belgrade in a joint operation known as the Belgrade Offensive. At the onset of winter, the Partisans effectively controlled the entire eastern half of Yugoslavia — Serbia, Vardar Macedonia and Montenegro, as well as the Dalmatian coast.
In 1945, the Partisans, numbering over 800,000 strong defeated the Independent State of Croatia and the Wehrmacht, achieving a hard-fought breakthrough in the Syrmian front in late winter, taking Sarajevoin early April, and the rest of Croatia and Slovenia through mid-May. After taking Rijeka and Istria, which were part of Italy before the war, they beat the Allies to Trieste by a day.

The "last battle of World War Two in Europe", the Battle of Poljana, was fought between the Partisans and retreating Wehrmacht and quisling forces at Poljana, near Prevalje in Carinthia, on 14–15 May 1945.
 
Last edited:
800.000 Partisans ? Of course,if you are believing the propaganda figures of Tito
And the Partisans defeating the Wehrmacht ? Of course,if you are believing the propaganda of Tito .
Never Partisans /resistance could defeat an army in regular warfare,Partisans/Resistance are citizens .
 
800.000 Partisans ? Of course,if you are believing the propaganda figures of Tito
And the Partisans defeating the Wehrmacht ? Of course,if you are believing the propaganda of Tito .
Never Partisans /resistance could defeat an army in regular warfare,Partisans/Resistance are citizens .

Ever heard of Northern Ireland, or Cyprus?

Regular Army units in most cases will never beat terrorists/freedom fighters/partisans on their home ground. In both cases mentioned above, peace only came about because of peace negotiations. A fact to remember, its vital for terrorists/freedom fighters/partisans to get aid from local people. In cases like the French resistance, aid came from Britain and the US.

British troops managed to stop terrorist attacks in Malaya because aid was denied terrorists by putting villagers inside secure locations, where the terrorists were unable to get to them.

Sorry sunbeam you really need to do a LOT more research or at least talk to people who were there.
 
Last edited:
Ever heard of Northern Ireland, or Cyprus?

Regular Army units in most cases will never beat terrorists/freedom fighters/partisans on their home ground. In both cases mentioned above, peace only came about because of peace negotiations. A fact to remember, its vital for terrorists/freedom fighters/partisans to get aid from local people. In cases like the French resistance, aid came from Britain and the US.

British troops managed to stop terrorist attacks in Malaya because aid was denied terrorists by putting villagers inside secure locations, where the terrorists were unable to get to them.

Sorry sunbeam you really need to do a LOT more research or at least talk to people who were there.
Britain easily could have eliminated the EOKA,but chosed to give up Cyprus.
The same was possible in Northern Ireland.
The same was done in South Africa .
"Peace only came about because of peace negociations" :wrong;there were no peace negociations in Malaya, in Cyprus :the winner never will negociate with the looser .
I love this one "secure locations":very PC,but a good translation would be concentration camps (as in Algeria,Cuba,South Africa)
 
The port of Antwerp was taken intact because of the resistance. Unfortunately, Montgomery failed to take advantage of that by failing to secure the waterway leading to the port. He would meet the defenders at Ahrnem.
Capturing a big port intact is a major advantage, if you can use it of course.
Throughout the war the Belgian resistence Group G caused the Germans to expend 20 million man-hours of labor to repair damages done by the underground. The resistence also destroyed a bridge over the Ambleve River as a train full of German soldiers crossed it killing all 600 aboard.
The German Army lost thousands of trains during the war due to acts of sabotage. You won't win the war with it but it sure helps.
 
That the port of Antwerp was taken intact because of the Belgian resistance,is what,after the war,the resistance was claiming ;a lot of people are of course ignoring that it was not that easy to destroy the port of Antwerp /
And,about the train at the Amblève with 600 Germans killed:this is an invention :you imagine the reaction of the Germans ? They would have killed thousands of civilians.And they did not ,thus the story is an invention .
 
Britain easily could have eliminated the EOKA,but chosed to give up Cyprus.

You think? I will type this slowly so you can understand. Regular troops will never ever beat terrorist's on home ground. The problem is peace keeping troops have to abide by certain rules. Britain never gave up Cyprus, there are still two air bases there. I know I served on one.


The same was possible in Northern Ireland.)

I am really trying not to be insulting here. What absolute bollocks. Obviously you have never served in Northern Ireland o even spoken to people who were there. Lets look at the options open to the British.

(1) Pull out of Northern Ireland. The loyalist would scream "You have left us in the crap". Then begins bombing campaign of British main land

(2) Stay in Northern Ireland with the Republicans screaming, "British Army, an Army of occupation." Carries on with bombing of British mainland

(3) Shoot the crap out of all sides, adapt SS and Gestapo tactics. Not acceptable to the rest of the world or indeed Britain. Both sides join forces to bomb the British mainland

Britain was in a no win situation. The ONLY solution was a negotiated peace deal, which by the way is still very fragile.


The same was done in South Africa .

Oh my (takes deep breaths). How did Britain finally beat the Boers?
The Boer War was a watershed event for the British Army, the Boers employed hit-and-run tactics that not only caused losses the British could not afford, they did not conform to the usual "gentlemanly" rules of war.

The British Army started off with 12,546 men in South Africa when the war began, but the number of officers and men actually employed from first to last, during the war, was officially given as 448,435, against 27,000 Boers!

It became clear to the British that they had to adopt new tactics to defeat the Boers. They needed to fight a series of battles over a long period of time covering wide areas of ground, this involved marching in long columns for days at a time across the vast plains or "veldt", often without proper uniforms or rations. The weather caused problems, with freezing temperatures and storms in the winter and very hot summers.

The Boer War, according to Rudyard Kipling, taught the British "no end of a lesson".. over 20,000 British Troops were laid to rest in the heat and dust of the South African veldt, with another 22,829 being wounded.

General Haig threw away thousands of British lives by his out of date tactics. Haig used the same type of tactics during WW1, full frontal attacks against well dug in Boers. He never did learn his lesson in South Africa. Haig was warned to change his tactics near the end of WW1 as Britain was running out of men.


"Peace only came about because of peace negociations" :wrong;there were no peace negociations in Malaya, in Cyprus :the winner never will negociate with the looser .
I love this one "secure locations":very PC,but a good translation would be concentration camps (as in Algeria,Cuba,South Africa)

Concentration camps? You really are an idiot, do you honestly think the British public or indeed the rest of the world would stand for concentrations camps, especially after WW2?. Also I never said the war in Malaya came to an end through negotiations. Read my post again. The secure villages in Malaya were not concentrations camps, they were secured by denying terrorists forcing aid from local villagers with threats of death. It was a "Hearts and Minds" campaign by British forces, a text book campaign still referred to today.

The Malayan Emergency as a guerrilla war fought between Commonwealth armed forces and the Malayan National Liberation Army (MNLA), the military arm of the Malayan Communist Party, from 1948 to 1960.

The initial government strategy was primarily to guard important economic targets such as mines and plantation estates. Subsequently, General Sir Harold Briggs, the British Army's Director of Operations in Malaya, developed an overall strategy known as the Briggs Plan. Its central tenet was that the best way to defeat an insurgency such as the government was facing was to cut the insurgents off from their supporters amongst the population.

The Briggs Plan was multi-faceted. However one aspect of it has become particularly well known: this was the forced relocation of some 500,000 rural Malayans, including 400,000 Chinese, from squatter communities on the fringes of the forests into guarded camps called New Villages. These villages were newly constructed in most cases, and were surrounded by barbed wire, police posts and floodlit areas, the purpose of which was both to keep the inhabitants in and the guerrillas out. People resented this at first, but some soon became content with the better living standards in the villages. They were given money and ownership of the land they lived on.

Removing a population which might be sympathetic to guerrillas was a counter-insurgency technique which the British had used before, notably against the Boer Commandos in the Second Boer War*(1899–1902), although in Malaya, the operation was more humanely and efficiently conducted.

At the start of the Emergency, the British had a total of 13 infantry battalions in Malaya, including seven partly formed*Gurkha*battalions, three British battalions, two battalions of the*Royal Malay Regiment*and a British*Royal Artillery*Regiment being utilised as infantry.*This force was too small to effectively meet the threat of the "communist terrorists" or "bandits", and more infantry battalions were needed in Malaya. The British brought in soldiers from units such as the Royal Marines and King's African Rifles. Another effort was a re-formation of the Special Air Service in 1950 as a specialised reconnaissance, raiding and counter-insurgency unit.

The Permanent Secretary of Defence for*Malaya, Sir Robert Grainger Ker Thompson, had served in the Chindits in Burma*during World War II. His vast experience in jungle warfare proved valuable during this period as he was able to build effective civil-military relations and was one of the chief architects of the counter-insurgency plan in Malaya.

In 1951, some British army units began a "hearts and minds*campaign" by giving medical and food aid to Malays and indigenous tribes. At the same time, they put pressure on MNLA by patrolling the jungle. The MNLA guerrillas were driven deeper into the jungle and denied resources. The MRLA extorted food from the Sakai and earned their enmity. Many of the captured guerrillas changed sides. In comparison, the MRLA never released any Britons alive.

In the end the conflict involved a maximum of 40,000 British and Commonwealth troops against a peak of about 7–8,000 communist guerrillas.

I personally served in the Far East from 1967 until 1970, although I was one of the Brycreem boys, I also took part in exercises "up country."
 
Last edited:
BritinAfrica just so you know, no one enjoys discussing with you if you act like a snotty little *****, wash your mouth, drop the banana and come down from a tree, once you stop talking to people like an insolent little monkey we can have a discussion.

Also the french resistance is a myth and a joke.
 
BritinAfrica just so you know, no one enjoys discussing with you if you act like a snotty little *****, wash your mouth, drop the banana and come down from a tree, once you stop talking to people like an insolent little monkey we can have a discussion.

Also the french resistance is a myth and a joke.

I don't give a toss if people enjoy discussing with me or not. I will discuss anything with anyone. People who annoy me are those who don't know what they are talking about...........like you.

As I said previously, I am no fan of the French, but I give credit where its due. Maybe you need to visit the history section of your local library and do a lot more research.

If you wish to discuss with me sensibly I will gladly do so. However, I detest people who try to minimise or put down the courage and determination of those who did what they did without the protection of the Geneva convention. Many of whom were tortured and then murdered, or ended up in concentration camps.

People like Yves Oppert.
Yves' mother died when he was 7, and he grew up in the home of his grandfather, who was the chief Ashkenazi rabbi of Paris. Yves became a successful businessman, owning a chain of department stores. He was an avid mountain climber and liked to play tennis and to race cars and motorcycles. As a young man, Yves did his military service in France's alpine corps.

1933-39: In 1934 Yves married Paulette Weill, and the couple had two daughters, Nadine in 1935 and Francelyn in 1939. He was called up by the French army and served for five months as a lieutenant when war threatened to break out in 1938 during the crisis over Czechoslovakia. Yves was mobilized again when France declared war on Germany in September of 1939.

1940-44: Yves was captured during the German invasion of France. He escaped, but stayed in France to fight. Making use of his store inventory in Saint-Etienne, he organized a quartermaster corps in unoccupied Vichy France that issued food, blankets, tents and clothing to the Free French Resistance. He helped hide Jewish children in convents and farms, and to hide Canadian and American paratroopers. Yves headed the resistance in Savoy. After the Allies landed in France in 1944, he was captured by the Germans.

Yves was tortured and killed in Etercy on June 24, 1944. He was 35 years old. He was posthumously awarded France's War Cross, Military Medal and Legion of Honor.

Then we have:-
Golda (Olga) Bancic
Olga was born to a large Jewish family living in the Bessarabia province when it was still part of the Russian Empire. In 1918 the province was annexed by Romania. When Olga was 12 years old, she was arrested for the first time for having participated in a strike at the mattress factory where she worked. Despite her youth, she was put in prison and beaten.

1933-39: Olga was an active and vocal member of the local workers' organization. She had been arrested and imprisoned so often that she simply considered it an occupational hazard. In 1938 she travelled to France where she worked with French leftists, helping to ferry arms to the Spanish Republicans in their fight against fascism. Just before the Germans invaded Poland in 1939, she gave birth to a little girl, Dolores.
1940-44: France fell to the German army in 1940. Olga found a French family to keep her daughter safe, and joined the armed resistance group, Franc-Tireurs et Partisans, to fight the Germans. She assembled bombs and helped transport explosives used to derail German troop and supply trains. On November 6, 1943, she was arrested during a Gestapo roundup. She was tortured but revealed no information. Even after she was condemned to death, they continued to interrogate and torture her.

Olga was transferred to a prison in Stuttgart where she was re-tried and again condemned to death. On May 10, 1944, her 32nd birthday, Olga was beheaded.

Are these people a myth or a joke? Or do you want to discuss sensibly?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top