D-Day: It could have happened in Jersey
Saturday 6th June 2009, 3:00PM BST.
Howard Baker at Fort Henry in Grouville Bay, one of the proposed invasion sites. Picture by Richard Wainwright (00707174)
THE full horror that the Allies were prepared to unleash on the Channel Islands in 1942 to regain a foothold in Europe has been revealed for the first time.
Two years before Operation Overlord led to D-Day in June 1944 and the liberation of Europe from the Nazis, Churchill, Stalin and Mountbatten hatched a plan to invade Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney.
Their aim was to regain a bridgehead for an assault on France and distract the German high command from its offensives in the east.
Until now, the hugely detailed plans – marked ‘most secret’ – for the invasion of the Channel Islands, which was codenamed Operation Constellation, have sat largely unstudied and unwritten about in the Public Records Office at Kew.
However, research by local historian Howard Baker has unearthed the full, shocking extent of the plans, which would have inevitably led to massive civilian casualties and the destruction of huge swathes of the Island.
• Full report in today’s Jersey Evening Post
Read the full story in the Jersey Evening Post. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are also available online.
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
JEP Jubilee Editions
Saturday 2 June: Guide to Celebrations
Wednesday 6 June: Souvenir of Events
View The Queen in Jersey supplement
Travel
To, from and around the Island
Airport Arrivals/Departures
Harbours Arrivals/Departures
Bus Information/Timetables
This is Jersey
Jersey Evening Post
Useful links
Hopefully OUR D day will come. But until then the invasion of foreigners and J cats continue and will carry on, now the states have had thier way.
Report abuse
Nice one fubar, I like your thinking. Presumably this will equally restrict all islanders from residing elsewhere?
Imagine what wonders that could do for the gene pool!
Report abuse
Fubar – You manage to combine bigotry, insensitivity, stupidity and good pub-philosophy in one unpleasant statement. Quite an achievement.
Report abuse
Fubar, you are a disgrace.
It is one thing to disrespect the living, but to invlove the dead in your pathetic gripes is beyond my understanding.
Report abuse
The front page story in the JEP gives the impression that the Mountbatten Plan operation ‘Condor’, the recapture of Jersey from the Nazis was nearly put into reality. This is far from the case.
Mountbatten was appointed in 1942 as head of a War Office planning department ‘combined operations’ which had been established previously by First World War hero Admiral Keys. Mountbatten’s staff first devised a plan in 1942 code named operation ‘Blazing’ where 8,000 troops were to be used on the Islands. Against considerable opposition from the RAF, Royal Navy and Army the plan was dropped and the then Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS) General Allen Brook (later Lord, Field Marshall) ordered a more detail plan to be drawn up for possible consideration.
The new plan Operation Constellation as described in the JEP article was then produced. Immediately after the plan was put to the heads of the Armed Services in May 1943 it was rejected within a few days. It was well known at the time that the German forces amounted to over 10,000 troops in Jersey , 13,000 in Guernsey and 3,800 in Alderney. Intelligence reports that they were well equipped and with coastal fortifications much as they can been seen now were well documented as was the fact that the Wehrmact troops were well equipped with substantial Navy and Air force support.
The Mountbatten plan was criticized by the CIGS for not making any provision for a reaction by German defence forces in the Islands and and that the Germans at that time would have had no difficulty in being reinforced or even very capable of mounting a counter attack from either Northern or Western France at that time. An initial successful military action was rightly considered unlikely and would have resulted in huge causalities, of that the British War time leadership were in no doubt.
The Islands invasion plans were not hugely detailed – as were the D-Day landings – and they most certainly have not just been revealed for the first time as is stated – reference ” The German Occupation, an official History” written in 1974. Also I well remember a talk given to me about the recapture plans as a child by my Grandfather, the wartime JEP News Editor William Troy MM.
Historian Howard Baker is quoted in your piece as saying: ” I don’t think they would have hesitated (to attack)”. He is quite wrong with that assertion, they did hesitate and reject. The point is the plans to recapture the Channel Islands in 1943 were seen by the war leaders as ”ill-advised and ill-considered” and simply one of many operational plans (others included the invasion of Norway) which were drawn up at a time of total war. It is also quite incorrect for JEP’s Andy Slbcy to write (second paragraph ) that Churchill and Stalin were included in “hatching a plan to invade the Islands” – there was simply no strategic advantage in the Allies recapturing the Channel Islands. Stalin would not of known of the plans and Churchill was one of many leaders to reject the plans.
Furthermore, it had been previously been agreed, prior to the drawing up of Mountbatten’s plans, by the Allied leadership at the Casablanca Conference in January of ’43 that there would be no “across channel invasion” until the following year. Any such an invasion would take place in Normandy following the invasion of Sicily (and obtaining a military foothold in Italy in ’43).
Propaganda material was however much needed for the Allied war effort in 1943 (hence the Dambusters Raid) and the recapture of the Islands was considered in that vane rather than any strategic advantage. Mountbatten’s plans were rejected out of hand even as a propaganda exercise.
In the words of one ex-Vitoria School boy who was present during the occupation: ” The thought of 100 bombers and 15,000 fighting over us was daunting. We in the Islands knew nothing of this, if we had we would have had sleepless nights”.
Thankfully the plans were no more than that, speculative operational plans and as history (not speculation) tell us the Channel Islands were liberated without loss of life. For that gratitude should be given to the British War time leadership.
Peter Troy, Freelance Writer and Broadcaster
Bergendal, Bon Air Lane, St Saviour Jersey CI
Report abuse
The article about “the full horror that the Allies were prepared to unlease on the Channel Islands” ends in saying that it is not clear why the plan was “mothballed”.
The reason is obvious – there was a better plan. To invade France and march onto Germanya lot quicker than invading Jersey first. During the war lots of plans were made only a few were carried out.
I have read quite a lot about the war – I recomend that your reporter, Mr Silbcy does so as well before they write more articles such as the one on Saturday; Jersey was never in any danger from attack by the British. The Germans were our enemy.
Report abuse
I knew Mountbatten’s driver,a tough no nonsense lady, who told me,over thirty years ago, quite plainly that Mountbatten was for grid sector carpet bombing Jersey and Guernsey. It was his idea and he was disappointed when it was over ruled, due to the horrendous loss of civilian life, which it would have entailed.That even a detailed plan was drawn up and is now proven to exist, makes one wonder why? It obviously wouldn’t have been good propaganda for the RAF to bomb and kill thousands of hostage British Crown subjects, whilst the German forces hunkered down in their numerous bomb proof bunkers and tunnels.Sheer madness.Thank god sanity prevailed and there were more pressing military strategic priorities for establishing bridgeheads in the invasions of Italy and Sicily.
Report abuse
No one was killed due to fighting to retake the Channel Islands, however how many may have died due to starvation from the British blockade? One year without much food surely would have taken its toil on the local population as well as the prisoners of the Nazis and slave workers?
Should Churchill have needed to take the islands to finish the war, does anyone doubt he would have bombed them into submission, regardless of any loss of life incurred?
Luckily the Channel Islands were of no consequence for victory, hence they got left to the end of the war, and luckily the Germans were well behaved compared to most other places.
Unfortunately for the residents of France and other countries they were not afforded the same, which was very kindly shown to the Channel Islands.
This is the reality of war, suffering and death of civilians on all sides. Those responsible rarely led from the front. War enables the military to try out their latest weapons of mass destruction on the enemy, as they must win at all costs, even if its means large numbers of civilian casualties in the process.
As far as I am concerned all weapons of mass destruction should be banned by international convention from the battle field. What need is there for landmines, white phosporous, chemical and biological agents, nuclear bombs, napalm etc. These are agents for the terrorising of civilian populations are they not? All this just shows how barbaric mankind is.
In my opinion the full horrors of war were reserved for Japan with the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of World War II. This is but a taster of what could in store for us should another major conflagration take place.
Report abuse
Adrian #8. Your lack of grasp of the real situation in WW2 is astonishing.Quite apart from the obvious non strategic position of the Channel islands, as compared to France,you apparently condemn the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My father, a volunteer, aged then only nineteen, experienced the worst in being surrounded for three weeks by 15,000 Japanese in the battle of the admin box in Burma.Look it up on google.One night the Japanese attacked the clearly marked Red Cross Hospital. They shot all the doctors and nurses and bayoneted the wounded patients in their beds. Their screams could be heard over the still night air,only 100 yards away, but those valiant defenders were ordered to keep position until daylight.They had no other choice.My father has suffered daily nightmares over many years and says he owes his life and countless others to the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.That is the reality of war.
Report abuse
There have been quite a few articles and books on the Occupation written by people who have chosen their source material shall we say somewhat selectively to support their personal opinions with regard to the Islands and their population at the time. Quite a bit of this licence has been possible due to the fact that official records of actions taken by those in authority in the civilian governments of the Islands at the time were of necessity sparce and selective, particularly where passive and active resistance to the Occupying forces was concerned.
An important fact to state is that the civilian governments of Jersey and Guernsey faced a huge and unprecedented challenge in establishing and maintaining some semblence of local authority during the Occupation and there is no doubt that if the Germans had managed to remove the Island’s populations entirely(A constant threat throughout the Occupation, as was the case in Alderney), there would have been no check at all on some of the more unpleasant behaviour of the extremist elements in the Occupying Forces (Again as evidenced by events in Alderney).
In actual fact there were a number of retired British armed forces officers from the 1914-18 war in the Islands, who opted to stay and who along with the locals achieved a great deal of positive espionage and passive resistance firsts.
There is no doubt that the Islands were strategically of less importance from 1943 onwards as evidenced by the final D day plan when the attack bypassed the Islands altogether. This plan was typical of the much debated military genius of Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery whose invasion plan that was.People forget that when he was drafted in by Churchill to turn around the desert campaign in N Africa Monty was taken from a training command in the UK. He was a teacher in army tactics and as such was more up to date than some of the field generals he replaced.In fact the Americans failed to understand this because he tended to lecture them on tactics which with some of their generals went down like a lead balloon.Fortunately “Ike” was not one of these and was far more receptive to sound advice than some of his contemporaries.Monty understood the value of airpower and
that lines of supply were the weakness of an attacking force.It was this part of his invasion plan that led to the shortages experienced in the Islands between 1944-45.
Undoubtedly Mountbatten had a very difficult role especially between 1940-43.There was intense pressure to score some kind of military success initially to persuade the Americans we were a cause worth supporting, then to open a second front to help the hard pressed Russians, and thirdly to raise moral after a whole series of initial military reversals.There is no doubt that if ordered to do so Mountbatten would at the time have attacked the Channel Islands regardless of outcome, you only have to read his exploits elsewhere (HMS Kelly?) to see that it was in his nature to take on the seemingly impossible.Churchill on the other hand was more wary having had his own strategic disasters in the past.What is apparent is that they simply lacked the resources to mount such an action and that following Dunkirk, defence was the primary concern.
As to the role of retired army officers in the Islands, my grandfather Major J Manley OBE was in the ARP here in Jersey along with Major “Tiny” Morrison.What the Germans did not know was that in the 1914-18 War having been invalided out of active duty after the Second Battle of Ypres my Grandfather worked at Woolwich Arsenal and the Enfield Small Arms part of the Army’s main ordinance and weapons development factory having retrained as a mechanical engineer. He was an ordinance and weapons expert as well as a crackshot, and as ARP Wardens based in the Royal Square in St Helier he and Major Morrison were very active in observing the Occupying Forces close up, particularly their weaponry (Large and small). Initially they played on the gentlemanly approach of the old school German Officer class making it clear that they were “Watching ” their behaviour. This was less successful with the subsequent Gestapo/Nazi officers posted in to toughen things up 1942 onwards and indeed Major Morrison was eventually deported. My grandfather only avoided the same fate because he played up the dotty old officer role and local officials were able to claim he was important for the ARP role. He and Major Morrison had access to an official car in the early part of the occupation and utilised this to accurately map and identify the armourment at all the coastal fortifications as they were developed.They observed ship arrivals and departures and there is evidence they built up some connections at the airport which got them close to damaged bombers returning from Blitzing London.This enabled valuable information to be obtained about the bombs these planes carried. My grandfather’s diary records accessing bombs jettisoned on St Ouens Beach by damaged returning bombers prior to landing. Information was sent out by a variety of means, but local escapees were a useful channel.It cannot be emphasized enough that lack of communication and information was a major limiting factor. I have read articles written by some Island detractors about the Occupation in which they seem to assume the locals had access to information from outside the Islands which would have been major news at the time even to the code breakers at Bletchley! What locals did have as the war progressed (1942 onwards)was evidence that the Germans were capable of extreme cruelty to prisoners of certain nationalities but it is significant that alot of the maltreatment took place on the unoccupied Alderney, out of sight of people such as my grandfather.In fact as has been highlighted in other articles local Jewish residents fared better than their contemporaries in France and other European occupied territories. All the credit for that goes to all who maintained a watching brief by simply being present throughout a great deal of adversity.
Report abuse
Peter Troy – thank you for once again for your excellent historical contributions.
Must be a very quiet news day for the JEP, operation Constellation and the proposal (thankfully dismissed) to carpet bomb the Channel Islands is hardly breaking news.
Read about this years ago.
Report abuse
Perhaps we can bring these thread of comments back onto the theme of Saturday’s front page article. Do readers think that the JEP story was sensationalizing the issue of a British landing aimed at recapturing the Islands?
There is a danger that we become distracted by side issues of a side issue and go of at tangents as important as they are, they are not relevant to the article under discussion. The reality as I point out in my comments above are that Mountbatten’s plans were no more than a speculative war time plan that was not followed up. Perhaps we should here from the JEP editorial staff on this issue particularly on the content of the published piece.
Peter Troy St Saviour Jersey CI
Report abuse
Mr Troy, Thank you for your contributions to the discussions around what is clearly a very interesting and important chapter of Jersey’s wartime history. As the reporter who wrote Saturday’s article, I am happy to reassure you and others that there was never any suggestion that this was the first time the invasion plans had been referred to by either historians or journalists. My research led me to believe that Operation Constellation, and in particular, Operation Condor, had been mentioned, almost as an aside, many times, but not looked at in much detail. Certainly, I am not aware of the JEP giving details of the plan before to the extent that the invaders’ day-by-day goals were given and maps published. In any case, even if a relatively small number of Islanders did know of the plans, it is safe to say that the vast majority of our readers were unaware of what was being drawn up in 1942. On that basis I think I was perfectly justified in writing the story.
I don’t think anyone would argue that an invasion, had it been launched, would have led to much suffering and, in that sense, the Island would have experienced significant ‘horrors’. Drawing this to the public’s attention is not being sensationalist. I should also point out that Mountbatten is known to have been prepared to use the ‘means justifies the ends’ maxim in his war planning. You are clearly much better informed than me as to why the invasion never happened and I am grateful for the light your posting has been able to shed on the subject. I think such a public debate on a dark chapter of Jersey history, especially at such a poignant date, can do nothing but to inspire younger generations to learn more about Island history – something I am sure you would be pleased to encourage.
Report abuse
Richard are you saying it is right to use nuclear bombs on civilian populations, even if they are only the enemy?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Report abuse
Andy thank you for your contribution to what is turning out to be a detailed discussion on Occupation History.
As you will gather my key point is that Operation Constellation was never considered as a reality and what you reported on was one of many plans produced that did not get beyond an initial planning stage, Jersey people were not in danger from an Allied Invasion plan. Certainly, in my view, the JEP’s headline ‘ D-Day -it could have happened here’ (which I appreciate you did not write) is sensational.
Mountbatten’s credibility was not high amongst his fellow Military Leaders and his planning was often in need of reorganizing by more astute Generals. Shortly after the plans for the Invasion of the Channel Islands Mountbatten was appointed Supreme Commander of the South East Asia Theater – his head quarters were in Ceylon – some considerable distance from any front line activity.
One well documented story of planning issues is when Lt-General Slim (later Viscount, Field Marshal) launched an offensive into Burma, with lines of supply stretching almost to breaking point across hundreds of miles of trackless jungle. Despite planning difficulties that originated from Mountbatten’s HQ the offensive was successful but not before the plans were redrawn by Corps HQ. Details of which will soon be published in Jersey in the detailed ‘Memoirs of Brigadier T M Troy CBE (1922-07)’ a former Victoria school boy who left Jersey on what was to be the last ship to leave Jersey before the occupation. The Brigadier was for six months ADC to the General at the height of the Burma campaign.
Report abuse
Adrian,
Are you aware of the predicted military and civilian casualties that would have amounted if an invasion of Japan was conducted in 1945? If one were to see these figures it makes the atomic bomb casualties look like a drop in the ocean.
Report abuse
Adrian,I would never condone the use of nuclear bombs on a civilian population,nor the proposed use of carpet bombing of the Channel Islands, but their use against Japan, did save hundreds of thousands of lives, though at terrible cost to the civilian population.I don’t condone this but I only wanted to add the first hand experiences of men of the forgotten army in Burma, whose lives were saved by the bomb.As Peter Troy says, we should stick to the original thread. There have been some excellent posts since, including one from the author of the report.They have confirmed what I was told by Mounbatten’s former driver all those years ago.
Report abuse
Richard I am sorry for what your dad and all others had to witness or endure, where ever they were, and in whatever war they fought in.
My great grandfather was in the trenches, which I am sure you would agree was not very nice for anyone involved.
He recounted some events that were equally as bad. He saw much death and destruction and for what? A local dispute that got out of hand in the Balkans ended in WW1. Which was put on hold at Versailles, and which then evolved into WW2 and your dad’s experiences etc, and finally civilians getting vapourised by nuclear bombs to end WW2. Is this what civilisation boils down to? Trying to kill each other with ever increasingly appalling weapons of mass destruction?
Jub, yes by direct confrontation, however there were other means to get the desired results.
Also the Soviets were now involved, as of the 8th August 1945, and if the Americans were so concerned about losses themselves, and if they were so inclined, they could have left the Soviets sort it out, with their superior man power. However that would have meant the Americans would have lost control of Japan and its islands to an “ally.”
These were the points I was trying to make, anyway back on track.
As per D-day and the days afterwards. I will ask this question, does everyone think the Channel Islands should have been left for as long before they were liberated?
It needn’t necessary have meant an invasion, but once the Germans knew the score maybe a bit more jaw-jaw might have got the required results, without the need for a blockade, or needing to carpet bomb the place?
And yes this is a bit of sensationalism by the reporter as far as I am concerned.
Report abuse
Some great posts, all reminding us that the price of Freedom is vigilance,whenever some minority try to impose their will and lord it over others, rebellion ensues all down through history,whether it starts as people posting on here demanding Fair and open government and authentic representation,or streets running with blood,most people delude them selves “It won’t happen here” yet less than one lifetime ago German officers marched down King street,
could bust down your door and do as they liked including sending your loved ones to die hideously in concentration camps,complacency is a universal problem,so when you demand of those you voted for to get it right don’t hold back you are probably ensuring peace, for when folks have had enough.it all changes very quickly and then it’s all too late ,that which we have feared most is upon us…..
Report abuse
People need to remember that during war time normal procedures go out the window and civilian casualties may be deemed ‘acceptable’ for the greater war effort.
After Germany marched into France Churchill was worried the French navy would be taken over by the Germany giving them naval supremacy. He gave the French fleet an ultimatum to surrender their ships and when one squadron in north Africa would not he gave an order to attack and many thousands of French lives were lost. In effect Britain had attacked an ally. They were deemed casualties of war for the greater good of Britain’s war effort. Had Britain attacked the German occupiers of Jersey, then civilian casualties may have been deemed as such.
Report abuse
I am very interested to read the various correspondence generated by this article.In response to Peter Troy’s statement that some replies had got off the subject, the purpose of my contribution was to demonstrate that articles written with the benefit of hindsight from officially recorded information very often ignore the actual conditions and attitudes prevailing at the time, and there is a tendency for assessments to be made of decisions and actions at the time under scrutiny based on todays values and on information now on record which would not have been been available to all at the time.
In direct answer to the challenge would such an attack on Jersey have taken place had the order been given? my answer is “Undoubtedly yes” with the qualification that it would probably not have taken place in the manner put forward by Mountbatten in his draft plan.My reason for saying this is that locally gathered intelligence about the Island’s German defences was much more detailed than is officially acknowleged and as stated by Peter Troy, Mountbatten’s proposals(Of necessity) were subject to scrutiny by more experienced and senior military strategists.As it evolved this was one of many plans to make an attacking move that were overtaken by events not the least of which was Montgomery’s success against Rommel in North Africa.
Adrian asks the question was the delay in liberating the Islands 1944-45, which caused terrible suffering, necessary? my answer is that an invasion of mainland Europe from the sea on the scale successfully acheived on D day was something wholly unprecedented.The reason I mentioned the friction that emerged between some of the American generals (Patton in particular) and Montgomery (The strategic commander of all the Allied land forces during the landing, and incidently the only general with any real recorded success against German Forces in the field at the time)was to highlight the fact that was made in a very good TV documentary recently on the subject that Monty wanted to push on to Germany asap once the upperhand had been achieved. Unfortunately Ike was under political pressure from home and also from certain US generals to ensure American troops led by American Generals figured highly in any strategic advance.Yes politics reared it ugly head and the result was a split in effort resulting in the Battle of the Bulge counter attack which very nearly sank the Allied effort completely.This delayed Victory in Europe by at least a year and brought with it problems which diverted resources away from such issues as liberating the Channel Islands. I think also it was assumed following the formidable resistance of the crack Panzer troops the Allies unexpectedly encountered in Normandy that the German Garrisons in the Islands would fight to the finish, and indeed arguably that had been Rommel’s strategic intention to weaken the Allied effort at the beachhead,another plan that almost worked.
As for Adrian’s comments concerning the use of the atomic bombs against Japan, whilst I understand his opinion, my father Captain J.E. Manley (A contemporary of Brigadier Troy who also left the Island in a similar manner to join up)was directly involved in the aftermath of the dropping of these bombs.He was in General Slim’s 14th Army (The “forgotten”Army)and fought the Japanese in the Burmese jungle (He was at the Battle of Koheima).It was an experience that effected him for the rest of his life,(I have the Japanese swords to prove it).There was absolutely no love lost between the Japanese and their enemies, they were fanatical as was demonstrated by the suicide pilots deployed against Allied Ships.There is no doubt that if a land invasion of Japan had proved necessary every inch gained would have cost thousands of lives.Following the dropping of the bombs(Incidently it took two because the Japanese did not give up after the first one!)my father found himself along with one Sergeant in a Jeep, charged with accepting the surrender of the fully armed Japanese Prison Camp Officers and guards in Malaya.It was a devastating experience seeing the condition of the surviving prisoners and having to accept the formal surrender of the Japanese Officers responsible. Incidently many comitted suicide rather than surrender.The only redeeming feature was that those who remained had protected themselves and the prisoners from other local forces who would have moved in and killed all of them!I have pictures of my father taken at the Allied prison camp he eventually ended up in charge of which contained 10000 of these Japanese (Guarded incidently by pardoned Indian troops who had defected to the Japanese)In the background of one is the former Commandant of the notorious Changi jail and some of his staff! To his dying day (2006) my father found it hard to forgive the Americans for letting too many of these men escape justice. He always said that American guilt over the dropping of the bombs was responsible for that!As for the assertion that the Russians would have sorted out Japan I think given they lost over 20 million men fighting the Germans is a little fanciful!
As a footnote it was my great privalege as a schoolboy here in Jersey to actually meet Field Marshal Montgomery on a visit he made here in the early 1960′s. To my amasement he picked on me in my school uniform out of a crowd gathered in Howard Davis Park, and proceded to question me thoroughly about my school and what I was learning etc.Some years later I sent both my sons to Amesbury Prep School in Surrey and was amased to discover that not only was Monty’s son David (The current Viscount Alamein)an old boy of the School (And Chairman of the Board of Govenors) but that Monty had spent all his UK leaves during the War staying there with the headmaster and his wife (David’s Guardians). Monty’s own wife had died of septacemia from an insect bite pre the outbreak of War.Monty maintained his connection with the School right up to his death and regularly gave presentations to the pupils! Hows that for up to date History lessons!Confirmation that he was a teacher at heart.
Report abuse
Were it not for Hiroshima and Nagasaki would we have had a 3rd world war ?
Report abuse
‘Were it not for Hiroshima and Nagasaki would we have had a 3rd world war ?’
Or will we have a 3rd world war due to it with humanity now knowing how much destruction can be caused by dropping nuclear bombs, effectively forcing an enemy to surrender?
Report abuse
no more to be said.
Report abuse
Nick Manley writes that the Battle of the Bulge put back the end of the war by a year – since the Battle started on Christmas Day 1944 and the German attack was exausted by early January ’45 and the War ended in May clearly Nick’s point is not be the case.
Report abuse
Nick did you know that even though Hitler and Churchill were politicians, that they were both artists at heart? Just think if Hitler had been accepted at the art academy in Vienna we might have had a budding artist on our hands and no WW2?
As per Japan a containment policy could have secured their surrender.
No need to go in, just sit back and wait.
Or the US could have left the Soviets finish the job. They took no prisoners.
Having spoken to a German officer, in the 1970′s, who fought at Stalingrad he told me the Soviet forces were inexhaustable. Even an attrition rate of 13:1 in the Germans favour this still wasn’t enough to make a dent in their numbers.
Once the war was over in Europe the Soviets would have had enough men to deal with Japan.
I myself feel the real reason for the use of nuclear bombs was that the US was worried that should the Soviets extend their influence into Japan from Manchuria they wouldn’t budge them. Also the Soviets would have had access to all war secrets and experiments which the US would have been denied.
The US therefore acted first to secure control. I believe it was more strategic, rather than anything else. Hence the rush with the second bomb a few days later. More would have followed should it have been necessary.
I still think it was a mistake to use nuclear bombs. Yes take retribution on those responsible for war crimes or attrocities, but not old men, woman and children who had nothing to do with it.
The most inexcusible thing about nuclear weapons is that it affects subsequent generations not yet born by damaging the parents DNA.
Report abuse
Adrian,
You say the soviets should have been left to deal with the Japanese instead of using nuclear bombs. To me this implies you wouldn’t care for the hundreds of thousands soviets that would have died in the continued fighting? As long as they weren’t American of British dying that’s ok?
Report abuse
“Or the US could have left the Soviets finish the job. They took no prisoners.”
And created a situation like in Korea? Half divided into one insular poverty-ridden half and half into something vaguely decent? Or maybe Poland’s more your style where it was all backward and designated a nuke absorber in the event of war, and so doesn’t become one of the world’s strongest economic powers?
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?
Report abuse
No Jub I was remarking that should the Americans have been so worried about losses they had the option to let the Soviets deal with it or to set up a blockade. If the British were happy to blockade their own why would the US have any worries about doing the same to the enemy?
I myself think it is appalling that should someone want to drop a nuclear bomb on someone else, for whatever reason, many think this is ok because it is war you know.
I myself would have a rule whereby anyone declaring war on others would have to be first in line to do the fighting and the opposition would do the same. Once the top lot who instigated it were out the way, you would probably find the rest would come to their senses and cease this stupidity. I am sure this would make politicians more appealing to the electorate, who would know that these elected representitives were prepared to die for their country instead of passing the buck to others, who have no interest in this past time, but have to pay the ultimate sacrifice.
Hurf Durf I was only pointing out that should America have been unwilling to finish the job either on the ground, or with nulear bombs, or by setting up a blockade the Soviets would have resolved the issue.
You talk about North Korea and others and yes you have a point, however you omit to think about the same situations on the other side, e.g. helping Hitler gain power, supporting Saddam Hussein, supporting Osama Bin Laden, and others because the west thought they would do their dirty work for them. Are all these not equally as bad if not worse?
I would also ask do you think Guantanamo bay is a shining example of how so called democracies work? Has the Geneva Convention gone out the window now? As far as I am concerned yes it has.
Report abuse
Mmm! I apologise if I offended Peter Troy by generalising over the actual time delay caused to the ending WW2 by such unexpected events as the Battle of the Bulge. It was not my intention to imply that this surprising and initially successful counter attack by the Germans was responsible for delaying victory by exactly one calendar year, merely to refer to it as symptomatic of the kind of unexpected enemy defensive tactic encountered by the Allies which concentrated effort and resources away from less strategically important tasks such as dealing with the cut off, outmanouvered, heavily armed German Garrisons in the Channel Islands and more importantly freeing the Islanders. I am however slightly miffed that he should imply that all I have said is to be discounted as a result of that small generalisation!As someone keen to promote the memoirs of his distinguished relative, an officer in General Slim’s 14th Army (The “forgotten” army still fighting the Japanese in Burma after VE day)as was my father, I would have thought he would have been only too keen to point out that whilst victory in Europe did indeed come about in May 45, VJ day (Victory over Japan, the next Allied priority) did not come about until the signing of the surrender on the US Battleship Missouri on September 15th, 1945, and that was the true conclusion of WW2!(Still not a year but dam close!)
And Adrian, that only came about then because of the use of atom bombs.There is no doubt that if the planned conventional land invasion of Japan had gone ahead thousands on both sides including civilians and children would have died and the conclusion of WW2 would have taken much longer than a year after VE day!You say the Japanese could have been isolated in Japan but I have already told you that my father found himself literally one day in the jungles of Burma lying awake in a foxhole at night armed to the teeth awaiting a sneak attack by the japanese troops who surrounded them and the next (After the A bombs), going in to prison camps in Malaya disarming the fully armed Japanese guards whose last order from Tokyo was to fight to the last man!(Some were even still at it on remote Pacific Islands 45 years later!}They (The japanese prison guards) were far more concerned (as was my father on behalf of the Allied prisoners still in the camps) about the Communist resistance fighters backed by the Communist Chinese, former allies, who had a totally different agenda once the Japanese were defeated.That undoubtedly coloured the American decision (Made by the new and hurriedly installed US President Truman)to use the A bomb. I think it should also be borne in mind the full horrors of these weapons were not known at that time. (Even in the 1950′s people were still watching atomic tests wholly unprotected from far too close)
I understand your sentiment Adrian but sadly it seems War is the only way to get a conclusion when ideology clashes and opinions become entrenched.There is no doubt that a nuclear deterrent is a dreadful weapon but it does work (Up till now)Let’s hope it continues to do so as the alternative is too awful to contemplate.
As for D day strategy there is no doubt that Monty envisaged one Allied thrust to the heart of Germany once the beachead had been established and the Allied forces had moved inland France. It made sense to follow the Northern coastline which was not only the shortest route but also secured valuable coastal ports further north to guarntee ongoing strategic supply from the sea. The decision to move on a broad front undoubtedly slowed things up and almost caused disaster.Monty had had his military near death combat experience in the stalemated trenches of the 1914/18 War(As had Adolf Hitler)and he feared a broad advance following D day success would lead to a similar strategic situation developing. There is no doubt he and Patton had clashed over strategy and targets during Operation Husky, the Scicilian campaign of 1943 which resulted in the ultimate surrender of the Italians.Patton deliberately feigned communication difficulties and opted to attack Palermo in NW Scicilly in direct disobedience of General Alexander’s order to move to support Monty’s troops in the NE who were pressing on to mainland Italy.Operation Husky was probably the main reason of many why Mountbatten’s proposed invasion of the Channel Islands was never really considered as a serious strategic option.
Report abuse
I like how you managed to dismantle your own argument by comparing letting the USSR invade Japan to absorb the losses to backing Saddam and bin Laden and…Hitler? WTF? Where did he come from in this? So to use your logic, no, it wouldn’t make any sense to let the Soviets invade Japan because they would have mucked the country up for decades afterwards, like they did to everywhere else their insidious influence has infected.
As for Gitmo: who cares? So some third worlders got roughed up for being armed and on a battlefield. So what? It’s either that or they get sent to Egypt again like they were in the 90s. And then they will be properly tortured. And we can’t have that, can we?
Report abuse
Hurf Durf I suggest you read up on extraordinary rendition to see where I am coming from.
I am surprised by your comments ref Guantanamo bay. What is the point in having the Geneva Convention if it isn’t to be abided by? And what message does this send out to others?
As per my examples of those backed by the west, at some stage in their careers, this was as a balance to your example of North Korea. All sides have been as bad as each other at different time periods, non has the moral high ground.
You perceive the Soviets as all bad however what you forget is that they acted as a counter weight to the USA. This helped keep the peace more effectly than anything else, as either side knew to **** the other one off would end up with massive reprisals.
You only have to look at what is going on now to see that things are not looking good for world peace or the safety of mankind.
Report abuse
Nick
Thank you for your comments on my Late Uncle, Brigadier T M Troy CBE – indeed he did have a distinguished military career.
Report abuse
Clearly, nothing gets in the way of Adrian and socialism’s victoria siempre. You assume that a prison which is better than most mainland US correctional facilities is so terrible yet have shown no opposition to subcontracting them to Egypt which actual torture takes place, which is what will inevitably (and now is) happening, and also assume that the West isn’t morally better simply because you don’t support it – clear in your wholehearted support of the Soviet Union’s previous existence. No doubt you sobbed tears of bitterness in December 1991. As for what is going on now: there are fewer wars now than they were during the Cold War – the Politburo not there to arm Marxist third worlders and insurgents anyymore has been a major part of greater world stability in the post-Cold War era. If only the Chinese would stop subsidising North Korea. Then there’d be one less nutcase in the world.
Report abuse
Hurf Durf what are you on about here? Extraordinary rendition was used by the west as a method to soften alleged terrorists up before putting them in Guantanamo bay for more questioning there.
If the US had issues with people it should have held them in its own country instead of a third party’s country. However by doing as they did they have circumnavigated their own rules and regulations so why did they do it?
I have just put an alternative point of view on things, it obviously has hit a raw nerve with you. As per 1991 onwards I doubt the Balkans would agree with you about the 1990′s being good years after Communism. Maybe you have forgotten all the atrocities committed since 1991?
Report abuse
Extraordinary rendition was the process of picking up suspected persons cladestinely, and is worlds apart in terms of outrage to the relatively comfortable confines of Guantanamo Bay (which is legally inside US territory, as all US military bases are). In fact, I have more umbrage for the CIA Black Sites than I do for Gitmo, which is and will remain the least worst option in an issue which is ethically and legally messy but necessary.
As per Yugoslavia, it was the enforced reamalgamation of Yugoslavia by Tito’s Communists and the refusal to attempt of some kind of reconciliation after the atrocities of the Ustache regime and the cynical exploitation of nationalism among Balkan political leaders that led to explosion of civil strife and ethnic hatred in the 1990s. It’s also not something you can blame the West for (except for with its ending), and they’re all largely over right now. I’d have more respect for your alternative point of view if it was based on some sort of sanity.
Report abuse
Peter I look forward to the publication of your uncles’ memoirs with great interest as he was in a very good position to see that other great British General of WW2, General Slim, in action up close, and was part of a strategic command faced with huge challenges on a daily and at times hourly basis.It is a key part of WW2 sadly not as well documented as it should have been, sandwiched as it is timewise between Victory in Europe and the dropping of the Atomic Bombs.It is interesting that General Slim was, like Monty, a career soldier and brilliant military strategist who had risen through the ranks, and well deserved, like Monty, his promotion to Field Marshall. He was a natural leader of men, as was Monty, and it is interesting that both fortunately came to the fore when the “Chips were down”.Incidently I believe it was your uncle who was responsible for my conversation as a schoolboy with Monty going beyond just a handshake, as I seem to remember him in the background placating other dignatories who were agitatedly looking at their watches whilst Monty quizzed me about my school and what I was doing, quite an experience. The one thing that stuck in my mind was that Monty had a slight speach impediment (Similar to that of Jonathan Ross)and this made his manner immediately human and friendly. His eyes however were alert (Positively electric)and there was genuine interest in my answers to his questions.There was no doubt in the minds of all present that he was going to make them wait whilst he got his information!
Report abuse