WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH A DRUNKEN SAILOR?

McTag wrote:

Well, they had the maps and the guide books all printed, ready.....

Hmm, I saw those, too :wink:

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I don't say that an invasion would automatically have succeeded. But the prospect for success was very high in the summer of 1940, if once a German army could have been landed, and it needn't even have been a particularly large force.

I vividly remember those photos (I've had a quick look-around today: they are who-knows-where-now): 4,5x6 cm photos, taken from aboard some smallish ship, with the cliffs of Dover in the distance.

I've always wondered how these boats could have gone so far - regarding the photographic technics of those days (it might have been taken with a popular camera of those days, an Agfa Isolette perhaps), they must have been more than halfway across the Channel!

And re McTag's post above: the Germans had already maps and guides of e.g. London ... printed with (translated) German names ....

0 Replies

mctag wrote :

Quote:

Well, they had the maps and the guide books all printed, ready.....

from wiki :

Quote:

During 1942, Germany launched a series of air attacks against English cities of historical importance featured in the Baedeker Guide to Great Britain. These "Baedeker raids" were carried out as revenge for Royal Air Force bombing attacks against German cities, including Berlin.

During the years of World War II, the Nazi government commissioned publication of several travel guides of occupied regions of Europe. Among these were travel guides of Generalgouvernement (General Government, part of occupied Poland and Ukraine), and the Alsace region of occupied France annexed by the German Reich.

The Baedeker company's premises and files perished in a December 1943 air raid, but Baedeker's great grandson revived the company, restarting publication of tourist guides in 1948.

you can always count on BAEDEKER !

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

I saw an interesting documentary, when after Dunkirk and the fall of France and things were looking extremely bleak (Singapore had fallen too) Churchill made a rousing speech at Cabinet. It ended with all ministers thumping the table in support to continue the struggle whatever the cost. After that there was absolutely no support for a deal with Hitler.

But having said that, Churchill probably knew that he only had to hold out for a limited period until his friend Roosevelt brought the US into the war.

Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk evacuation) was between 26 May and 4 Jun 1940. Singapore fell on 15 February 1942 (i.e. over two months after the US had entered the war).

Setanta wrote:

To have accomplished an invasion, he would have needed only to establish superiority over the beaches, and to escort paratroops. As for the Royal Navy, it need only have been dealt with long enough for a landing force to have established a tête du pont, which could readily have been accomplished if closely coordinated with an airborne landing just prior to an amphibious invasion.

The Germans had committed all their available paratroops (1st parachute division) and airborne troops (22nd air landing division) in the attack on the Low Countries, where they suffered heavy casualties. Their commanders (Student and von Sponeck) were wounded and a number of the trainers from the parachute training school (who had been sent into battle too) were lost as well. The Dutch managed to send 1200 paratroopers and airborne infantrymen as POWs to Britain before the surrender. After the surrender the Germans sent at least a thousand surviving paratroopers to Norway to bolster the German defence of Narvik. More importantly, the Luftwaffe had lost about half of its entire force of transport planes over the Low Countries. These losses could not be replaced in time for an invasion of England in the summer of 1940.

At the same time, as you mentioned, the Kriegsmarine had been weakened by the Norwegian campaign, in which it lost the heavy cruiser Blücher, light cruiser Königsberg and a dozen or so destroyers. Heavy cruisers Lützow and Hipper and battleship Gneisenau were damaged and Prinz Eugen, Bismarck and Tirpitz had not yet been commissioned. The German navy could therefore not have shown up in force for the invasion. Landing craft were in short supply too.

These considerations would have made a German invasion of England in the summer of 1940 a hazardous campaign, but not, I agree, totally impossible.

0 Replies

Paaskynen wrote:

Steve 41oo wrote:
I saw an interesting documentary, when after Dunkirk and the fall of France and things were looking extremely bleak (Singapore had fallen too) Churchill made a rousing speech at Cabinet. It ended with all ministers thumping the table in support to continue the struggle whatever the cost. After that there was absolutely no support for a deal with Hitler.

But having said that, Churchill probably knew that he only had to hold out for a limited period until his friend Roosevelt brought the US into the war.

Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk evacuation) was between 26 May and 4 Jun 1940. Singapore fell on 15 February 1942 (i.e. over two months after the US had entered the war).

well spotted! A deliberate error for more observant students :wink: But leaving aside my stupid reference to Singapore, I think the point still stands that Churchill squashed all talk of a deal with Hitler at a time when the outlook for britain was particularly grim.

0 Replies

Paasky, i did not make clear, apparently, that i would only have considered an invasion attempt against England plausible if it had been planned in advance (and as i have pointed out, Hitler was constitutionally incapable both of such long-term thinking, and of facing the truth that he had got himself in to a long and difficult war), and i ought to have made clear, if it had been planned on rather than an invasion of Norway. The invasion of Norway was needless and stupid. The Allies and Germans both suffered heavily fighting over Narvik. Why? Because the Germans thought it would be easier and cheaper to bring Swedish iron ore over the railways from the mines of northern Sweden and then bring them down the coast and into the Baltic. That was a pretty stupid proposition. The real reason, or the only realistic reason which i can see, was that Hitler was bent on invading and holding all of Europe. The only reason i can see for his not having invaded Sweden was that it would have been a much tougher proposition than either Denmark or Norway, and he was getting what he wanted from the Swedes anyway.

0 Replies

Germany wasnt getting any iron ore from Sweden in winter, because the Baltic was frozen.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

mctag wrote :

Quote:
Well, they had the maps and the guide books all printed, ready.....

from wiki :

Quote:
During 1942, Germany launched a series of air attacks against English cities of historical importance featured in the Baedeker Guide to Great Britain. These "Baedeker raids" were carried out as revenge for Royal Air Force bombing attacks against German cities, including Berlin.

During the years of World War II, the Nazi government commissioned publication of several travel guides of occupied regions of Europe. Among these were travel guides of Generalgouvernement (General Government, part of occupied Poland and Ukraine), and the Alsace region of occupied France annexed by the German Reich.

The Baedeker company's premises and files perished in a December 1943 air raid, but Baedeker's great grandson revived the company, restarting publication of tourist guides in 1948.

you can always count on BAEDEKER !

Don't agree 100% with the Wiki entry.

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Germany wasnt getting any iron ore from Sweden in winter, because the Baltic was frozen.

The Baltic only ever rarely freezes over it's entire area (although it did in 1942). The Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Riga and the Gulf of Finland will freeze, but that's less than half of the surface area.

0 Replies

Quote:

The Baedeker company's premises and files perished in a December 1943 air raid...

The Baedeker raid to end all Baedeker raids eh?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The Baltic only ever rarely freezes over it's entire area (although it did in 1942). The Gulf of Bothnia, the Gulf of Riga and the Gulf of Finland will freeze, but that's less than half of the surface area.

True. But until recently - some funny reasons for that - at least for a couple of days up to several weeks nearly the complete shipping traffic stopped in winter (one reason for instance that I was never called -as reservist- in winter).

However, if Germany really had got the iron ore they wanted - there weren't enough railway waggons nor engines to transport it.
And those difficulties had only a bit to do with the war: this was problem was known since 1934 (when Germany got the largest amount of iron ore ever).
But not to the "highest planner[s]".

0 Replies

The Swedish iron ore port is/was Luleå (about 200 km from here). In any normal winter the harbour is inaccessible because of the sea ice (This winter it may have been open all year with the aid of ice breakers. During the 1940's winters were pretty harsh. To ensure continued delivery via Sweden the ore would have to have been transported by rail to more southern ports, which was infeasible due to the lack of locomotives and rail cars for such purpose.

Hitler's decision to invade Norway was in order to pre-empt a British invasion (which Churchill had contemplated, with aid to the Finns during the Winter War against the Soviets as an excuse, but the real target was to gain control of the Swedish ore fields. The Swedes and Norwegians did not receive the plan to relieve Finland via Narvik, Kiruna and Luleå positively and anyway, the Winter War ended before the plan could be executed.

German navy staff were also in favour of the invasion of Norway, because control of at least part of the Norwegian coast would avoid the situation of the previous war when the German fleet was locked in the North Sea by the Royal Navy. In addition, the invasion could not succeed without the commision of the entire surface fleet and that would prove their worth to Hitler, or so they figured.

Denmark was occupied just as a stepping stone to Norway.

What I never understood about the whole Norwegian campaign (apart from the incomprehensible incompetence on the side of the Allied commanders in the field; the affair of the missing ski straps for the French Chasseurs Alpins is notorious) was why Churchill decided to abandon Narvik after having won the battle at great cost (and laid waste to the city and the port facilities). I have been to Narvik; the whole region is one big mountain range almost without roads or flat areas, perfect for defence. The Germans would have been unable to use their tanks, or to move up troops in any great number except by sea, where the Royal Navy was superior, or by air, but the area is also quite inhospitable to airborne troops. The British could have held out in the area for a long time without committing very large troop concentrations. It would have served as a focus of Nordic resistance and would have drawn German resources away from other theatres of war (such as the possible invasion of Great Britain).

0 Replies

I can certainly agree that the Narvik campaign was a fiasco from start to finish. That was one the Allies should never have lost.

0 Replies

Topically, the Norwegians recently have found a sunk British (note Set, British not English) destroyer in a fiord, which was part of the Narvik action.

This week a service of remembrance was held at the spot, with attendance by representatives of both navies.

0 Replies

So, McT . . . that was a Keltic destroyer, crewed by the Welsh--as opposed to an English destroyer crewed by some second-hand Germans?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I can certainly agree that the Narvik campaign was a fiasco from start to finish. That was one the Allies should never have lost.

It was only us! And the Norwegians obviously. And a few elks were sympathetic but didnt actually do much.

0 Replies

McTag wrote:

Topically, the Norwegians recently have found a sunk British (note Set, British not English) destroyer in a fiord, which was part of the Narvik action.

This week a service of remembrance was held at the spot, with attendance by representatives of both navies.

Mr S was too quick for me.....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/07/secondworldwar.germany

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

Setanta wrote:
I can certainly agree that the Narvik campaign was a fiasco from start to finish. That was one the Allies should never have lost.
It was only us! And the Norwegians obviously. And a few elks were sympathetic but didnt actually do much.

Although not directly involved in the Narvik expedition, the French did send a mountain division. And, as Paasky pointed out, they arrived without their proper equipment.

There was a fascinating program on the tee-vee a couple of weeks ago about the Lebensborn Kinder of Norway. Children of German soldiers born to Norwegian mothers were, if identified, moved into special homes with special privileges, because the Germans viewed the Norwegians as "racially pure." This backfired, however, when the Germans were gone, and the children were roundly abused in their communities, and many of the younger ones were put into asylums for the mentally ill. Annifrid Lyngstad of the Swedish group ABBA was one of these Lebensborn, whose mother left Norway to raise her child in Sweden.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH A DRUNKEN SAILOR?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know