Nazi Book Reveals Detailed Plans For Invasion Of Britain

Telegraph:

It reveals that postcards identifying unmistakable landmarks including Brighton Pier, and Lands End, were given to Nazi troops to identify their targets in preparation for their blitz of the British Isles.

Read the whole story: Telegraph

Comments

[RGKahn]

08:47 PM on 09/17/2010

WOW!!! Now that is one history book that I want to buy. Not at that price though. A book publisher should make this available to the public. A view from the other side during a period of history that has not be explored before. It should offer great insight into the mindset of the Nazi leadership and military.

[unkn1]

01:15 PM on 09/16/2010

Len Deighton wrote a book "SS-GB" set in Nazi occupied England.

[RGKahn]

08:49 PM on 09/17/2010

That is a book of historical alternative history fiction. Good book. This has the plans and the reference material for the actual invasion of England.

[Montcalms Revenge]

10:04 AM on 09/16/2010

Um... all this "New Information" in this new book was already in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William L. Shirer published 1960... I love when authors\publishers trumpet something as new or contains "shocking revelations" when in reality it's old hat...

[mamacat]

06:25 PM on 09/18/2010

Shirer's book is marvelous. As an American journalist, he managed to get close to some of the purported troop build-up areas in the summer of 1940. When he saw that the reality of the lack of German preparedness for an invasion at the channel ports did not match up with their propaganda, he concluded that the invasion would not take place that year. Still, one should read many sources for a well-rounded picture of that era. The books by Churchill and Albert Speer are some of my favorites, and the many autobiographical accounts of the war are wonderful reading.

If Hitler had not been so irrational and full of hatred, he might not have made the mistakes that prevented him from winning the war, but if he had not been so irrational and full of hatred, he wouldn't have gone to war in the first place.

[AsISaid]

10:50 PM on 09/15/2010

Ironically, Churchill wanted the allies to invade Europe though the Balkans, ultimately to deny Russia its sphere of influence there. Stalin was opposed to this plan for obvious reasons.

FDR finally agreed with Stalin to create the second front in northern Europe with the invasion through France.

[Hermione Granger]

11:28 PM on 09/15/2010

I believe the prime minister was quite fearful of an invasion across the channel because of the atrocious experience he suffered in similar past attempts. The worst was during WWI at Gallipoli. At that time Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty and argued vociferously for a Navy driven invasion against the German allies, the Turks as a quick way to end the war. It turned out to be a disaster as the English, Aussies, and other troops never made it more than a short distance from the beach. The Dieppe raid in WWII was a much smaller but similar disaster.

[M Clement Hall]

08:20 AM on 09/17/2010

Churchill was full of dramatic but nutty ideas, like the Dardanelles, dropping poison gas on Iraqi dissidents, and the "soft underbelly of Europe." Fortunately in WW 2 Alan Brooke was able to a large extent to restrain him. But he was a great talker -- none better.

[JonBFertippton]

06:55 PM on 09/17/2010

re: M Clement Hall - Churchill's "nutty" ideas

The important thing is that Churchill had ideas, whether nutty or not. One of Churchill's ideas, or at least partially his, was the armored tank (I think the first British one was called Mathilde I - I might be wrong). First used in WWI, in late 1916 or 1917, it helped send the Germans' into retreat. The tank was the first weapon that proved effective in surmounting German trenches and barbed wire. It looked nutty at first but wasn't. Another of Churchill's nutty ideas was to fight on against the Germans after Dunkirk and proclaim that Britain would never surrender.

[RealityBaseCamp]

09:39 PM on 09/15/2010

"Nazi Book Reveals British Invasion Plans"

Hitler was behind the Beatles?? That explains the time they spent in Germany!

Call Glenn Beck!

[angrymanspokane]

05:34 PM on 09/17/2010

Funny!

[Jim Anderson]

08:13 PM on 09/15/2010

Oh, thought this was about the Tea Party.

[chedet]

08:39 PM on 09/15/2010

LOL!

[evangelicalchimp]

07:17 PM on 09/15/2010

about as surprising as "Santa checks weather before North Pole Departure"........next

[Hermione Granger]

11:30 PM on 09/15/2010

Yes, just a piece of history. Who could be interested in that? Please go look at crotch shots on the entertainment page and leave the books section for people who think.

[evangelicalchimp]

10:48 AM on 09/16/2010

uh.....having read a ton of history, this article seemed to state the obvious and was therefore kind of silly.....but if you think that my use of "Surprising" suggests a lack of interest I think you might have misunderstood my attempt at humor.......now you can go think some more...k?

[Dan Stewart]

06:36 PM on 09/15/2010

Puzzling: The Allied go to war against Hitler in 1939 (who, at the time, had killed few; had mainly bloodless victories, no death camps) to “save Poland,” only to turn all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe over to Stalin’s tender mercies five short years later (who we knew had killed millions of his own people, far more than Hitler in 1939).

If the mission was to save Europe from destruction and tyranny, it was accomplished in name only. Indeed, Europe was physically destroyed and existed for 50 years hence under oppression every bit as ruthless as anything Hitler could have served up.

(continued…)

[evangelicalchimp]

07:18 PM on 09/15/2010

go read some history before you choke on your own ignorance

[Dan Stewart]

11:12 PM on 09/15/2010

You sound kind of angry. Relax. We're talking about history, not your mother.

You could criticize my premises or my conclusions or anything in between, but to say that I am “ignorant” is only serves to evince your own ignorance or intransigence. Any reasonable observer after just one cursory read would conclude that I am not an ignorant man and what I wrote was not borne of ignorance. And, to boot, this is a subject upon which I’ve spent some time.

It goes to show just how wrong you can be about something – or, how you sometimes say such silly, ignorant things when you get obstinate.

[Dan Stewart]

11:14 PM on 09/15/2010

I would be instructive to know precisely which, if any, of my sentences you take issue?

• That the Allies went to war against Hitler in 1939 to “save Poland"?

• That in 1939 Hitler had killed relatively few people, that he had mainly bloodless victories against Austria, Czechoslovakia et al, and that there were no death camps?

• That, at war's end, Churchill and Roosevelt turned over all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe to Stalin, who we already knew had already killed millions of his own people?

• That all of Eastern Europe and parts of Central Europe existed for 50 years under a totalitarian Soviet Union?

• That Soviet tyranny was every bit as ruthless as anything Hitler could have served up? (Stalin and Mao both killed more people than did Hitler.)

With which of these statements do you disagree? That’s all I said! If you don’t disagree historically or factually with one of these statements, then what’s your problem?

If you do take issue with any one of the statements, then it is you, sir, who needs to “read some history.”

[AsISaid]

10:47 PM on 09/15/2010

Huh?

Did you get this from a textbook in the Texas public school system?

[Dan Stewart]

06:36 PM on 09/15/2010

(continued…)

It would have been a strategic coup for UK/France to enter into a non-aggression pact with Germany (before the Soviets did) and let Hitler have his Polish corridor, or all of Poland. (Reconstituted Poland had only existed from Versailles; also helpful for Germany/Russia to share a border, better to facilitate war.)

Then secretly push both Hitler and Stalin to attack one another – even supplying both sides with weapons and material – leaving the Nazis and Communists to weaken and ultimately destroy themselves in a mammoth fight to the death. (Think the greatest battles in human history: Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, etc.)

At the end, the Allies, healthy, organized and fully prepared for war, would loom large over the spent combatants (irrespective of who won) and could dictate terms like the real victors they would have been (à la Sun Tzu), thereby truly saving Europe destruction and securing its future from tyranny – neither of which was accomplished in WWII.

[evangelicalchimp]

07:19 PM on 09/15/2010

that "popping" sound is you pulling your head out of your A$$

[Dan Stewart]

11:31 PM on 09/15/2010

Thank you for an impressive and well-reasoned critique of my commentary. This is obviously a subject upon which you've expended much scholarly time.

( I'll bet you never expected that anyone in your life would ever say anything like that to you. Why? Because you've never had an impressive or well-reasoned critique of anything, and what's obvious is you've not spent much scholarly time on anything -- in reality, you're just a bitter slob with no money, no influence, and little future spouting off nonsense out of frustration. )

[evangelicalchimp]

11:51 PM on 09/15/2010

Golly....thanks.....It's always have a Master of Nothing speak the truth.........back to the Library Troglodite.........

[MisterCee]

08:40 PM on 09/15/2010

Hitler was someone who could never have been appeased. He had always planned on attacking Russia, he just wanted to do it when he was ready. Nazi's hated Communism and Hitler never would have left Stalin alone sharing a border.

[Dan Stewart]

11:20 PM on 09/15/2010

That's precisely my point, silly.

[heyamishgirl]

06:34 PM on 09/15/2010

Excellent. I've instituted Grammar-picky Wednesdays since we do so much copy review. Thank you for carrying the torch, too!

[heyamishgirl]

06:38 PM on 09/15/2010

Sorry--post ended on the wrong piece after I logged in. OOOPS!!

[gomezrules]

04:52 PM on 09/15/2010

Hitler in essence lost the war when he lost the Battle of Britain. Dunkirk before that allowed for hundreds of thousands of troops to be available for defending Britain who otherwise shouldn't have been. Everything Hitler did was based on a timetable, and a fairly accurate one that that, in that by not subjugating Britain, he could not head off the inevitable output of their industry. By not taking out Britain, Gibraltar and Malta hindered him greatly in the Med and his efforts in Africa. Also, by not defeating them, he had to devote forces to the west that otherwise might have helped him against the Soviets. By not defeating the Soviets by the end of 1941, he lost that aspect of the war as well, though time and circumstances would draw a different picture for a few years.

[Hnorc]

05:48 PM on 09/15/2010

Actually, he lost when he decided to invade the Soviet Union. An invasion of Britain might have been extremely bloody, but keep in mind, the US had not yet entered the war. But let's just be glad they lost :)

[Dan Stewart]

06:37 PM on 09/15/2010

It would have been better if the Allies never entered the war at all. See my remarks above.

[chedet]

08:41 PM on 09/15/2010

True. He lost because he made that big blunder of trying to invade Soviet Union. He went both sides which proves to be a fatal error on his part.

[peterg76]

06:20 PM on 09/15/2010

Britain brought the Nazis to a statemate. The Soviets defeated them.

[Dan Stewart]

06:42 PM on 09/15/2010

90% of all German troops killed died in Russia; 90% of Allied soldiers killed were Russian.

[Murphdogg]

04:08 PM on 09/15/2010

Not only did they not have the required air power to support the invasion, they had neither the equipment or expertise required for invasion of isles. That doesn't mean Hitler wouldn't have tried it, but it would have not had a likelihood of success.

[SlinkyTWF]

06:50 PM on 09/15/2010

That is an accurate statement. The invasion was planned using Rhine River barges, with no practical plan for logistical support of an invasion force strong enough to succeed. It would likely have been a disaster, with units landing, then being isolated by the RAF and RN, and starved into submission on or near the beaches. Of course, things might not have gone that way, but IMO, Operation Sealion was a non-starter, and even Hitler, for all his insanity, realized it and did not attempt it.

[HamletsMill]

07:24 PM on 09/15/2010

You are indeed 100% correct. Hitler was a hyper compulsive gambler. Amazingly, he started WWII WITHOUT EVEN A WELL THOUGHT OUT PLAN! It is a fact of history and it eventually led to fatal mistakes as massive forces gathered against after he provoked the entire world against Germany.

[StuffMoreStuff]

03:19 PM on 09/15/2010

Not that it really matters much since they were unable to attain the required air-superiority required for the invasion.