I just finished "The Last Ditch" by David Lampe (originally published in 1968) now in reprint. It's about the Nazi invasion plan for Great Britain and Great Britain's resistance plan in case the Nazis invaded. While this book is not directly related to survival, I'm guessing it might be interesting to some members.

Among other things it covers how the Nazis would control the locals (for instance, no transmitters or weapons or related items allowed under penalty of death); the British storage of gold - sent to Canada - and the stashing away of Art and collections of books; and, how the Brits created hideouts all over the place - mostly for the resistance to live in and store arms. The British used ordinary citizens to be the secret resistance movement, to hide transmitters, to stash arms and ammunition, etc. Imagine, trusting farmers, salesmen, and teachers to protect the country ... different times.

Well, anyhow, if you want to read it, check your local library - if they don't have it ask them to get it for you through interlibrary loan.

Alibris has a listing and prices seem reasonable:
http://www.alibris.co.uk/search/books/isbn/1853677302

It is an interesting subject, but one that, as you noted, isn't strictly survival oriented.

Not survival oriented also in the simple observation that such attempts at armed resistance are, almost without exception, doomed. Resistance groups have essentially three major functions: Armed resistance, support of external forces and spying.

The French and Polish resistance as interdiction forces were systematically wiped out by the Germans in a few weeks. Free of restraint the German simply resorted to reprisals. Every time a German was killed or something blown up they would march into the nearest town and kill a suitable number of inhabitants. No trials or need to determine who was to blame. Just line them up and shoot them. It didn't take long before the resistance fighters were loathed almost as much by their countrymen as the Germans. Hunted by the occupiers and hated by their own people resources grew short and numbers dwindled.

The only places an active armed resistance lasted was where the area itself was left unoccupied and/or contested by another nation. Armed resistance existed behind the lines in Indonesia, Russia and China. The distance any resistance can operate is dependent on how far back covert communications or information and supplies can be maintained. In Russia it was usually just a few hundred miles and in areas bypassed by troops. In the Pacific, where supply by submarine was possible over great distances, thousands of miles. But generally if the front lines shifted and one side or the other gained complete control resistance was quickly eliminated.

Support of allied forces, primarily repatriation of down fliers and lost troops lasted far longer but even this was limited to areas under relatively light supervision. Penalties for being caught helping an enemy soldier started at being shot but included execution of entire towns. Knowing this most natives practiced a strict hands-off policy.

Spying as resistance was rare and hazardous but was not impossible even within wartime Japan and Germany it lasted throughout the war. But results were inconsistent and people died to get even the smallest bits of information out.

None of those forms of resistance were possible without outside assistance. Even the most rudimentary spying demands that you have someone to give the information to. Most require extensive support efforts, contacts and equipment, to be useful. Almost all of the resistance in European occupied territories was routed through England and had it been captured resistance on the continent would have fallen apart.

To the extent the US could support resistance in England there might have been an organized resistance. But active armed resistance would have been largely out of the question once Churchill's groups had be hunted down. Best estimates say they would have only lasted a few weeks.

That isn't to say they wouldn't have made a difference while they lasted. The Germans were delayed in their attack on Russia by the unexpectedly bloody fight in Greece. Many historians think had the attack started even one week earlier the Russians would have folded before the winter set in.

The hypothetical invasion of England would have delayed German operations for months, making even the limited success they experienced in Russia doubtful, and might have precipitated an early entry of the US into the war. A completely different world.

Nazi reprisal tactics were - slightly - less brutal in countries they perceived as Nordic or Aryan. Hitler also seemed to have some shred of respect for the Brits. It makes for fun alternate history, though. So I'll have to get that book. But not every enemy is prepared to use Nazi or Soviet style tactics.

The Viet Cong weren't rendered ineffective until the Tet Offensive (which may have been North Vietnam's intent) when they tried to engage us in quasi-conventional combat, and the Vietnamese held up to the Japanese, too, with minimal outside aid. The Afghani's also have a pretty good track record against occupying powers, with and without substantial outside support.

Fear of popular resistance entered into the equations of Japanese war planners, who decided not to plan for invading the US. Along with much more compelling reasons, they rightly feared a "rifle behind every blade of grass" in civilian hands (quote usually mis-attributed to ADM Isoroku Yamamoto, IJN). Likewise, the Germans wisely chose not to mess with the motivated and well-armed Swiss.

Suppression of indigenous popular resistance is also very resource intensive; a handful of clever resisters can tie up a disproportionately large number of occupiers for rather a long time. The outcomes depend on the methods, the players, their objectives and the particular circumstances, but no military leader really wants to engage in asymmetrical warfare with an active popular resistance.

>The hypothetical invasion of England would have delayed German >operations for months, making even the limited success they >experienced in Russia doubtful, and might have precipitated an >early entry of the US into the war. A completely different >world.

Actually some historians believe the invasion of Russia was to show England resistance was futile.
It sounds laughable now, but after the disaster in the USSRs attempted invasion of Finland, Hitler had every reason to believe Russia would be a walk over.

Having to attempt an opposed water crossing (nothing is more difficult in war) over a terrible stretch of water, protected by a large, first rate navy, an RAF the Germans failed to defeat in the Battle of Britain and a people who were fighters. Hitler had every reason to believe invading England was impossible.
Course you can find historians to argue anything. And how come when they can point out why what happened was inevitable they can't predict the future?
Germany winning WW2 is by far the most popular alternate history subject. The books 'SSGB' 'Fatherland' and the film 'It Happened Here' come to mind; but there are plenty others.
The Sock

Had the UK been captured or had it surrendered in 1940, it is plausible to imagine the European conflict ending at that point. With the US not involved at that point, without the UK as a staging post, and allowing for the technology available at the time, I'm not convinced the retaking of Europe would have happened.

Happily, all just pure speculation.

PS if you like military history, Anthony Beevors 'Stalingrad' is a truly great book - and details a truly terrible battle that was pivotal in the passage of WWII

The effectiveness of resistence fighters directly correlates to the ROE of the invading country. If the ROE are lax, as they were in WWII, and there is an extensive use of terror tactics to suppress the public, then yes, resistence would be futile. HOWEVER, as we are experiencing now-if the occupying forces play by humane rules-no intentional targeting of civilians, no resorting to terror tactics (I dont want to get into the politics of it), then, the general populace will support them. If they know that there will be limited, if any, retaliation by the occupying army, then they REALLY have nothing to lose. In fact, they benefit from BOTH sides-if the resistence isnt also targeting the populace, then they are likely bribing locals with food, water, money, or resources. Likewise so would be the occupying army. So, your loyalty would lie with whoever pays the most. This is something we are constantly fighting with now-your average farmer in the mideast is poor-not developed country poor, but POOR. So, the promise of a month's supply of food is valuable to them-and they will switch loyalties so long as they continue to get the goods to survive.

War is hell, but it is also, always, a roll of the dice.

Donitz claimed that had he started out with 600 U-boats instead of the few he did he would have ruled the Atlantic and eliminated all US aid to England. He has a point. The Battle of the Atlantic was a close fought thing. Germany was hampered by the small number of U-boats they could muster. If a fraction of the cost of the surface fleet had been used to build U-boats, U-boats were cheap, it might have gone the other way.

Many historians note that Germans started winning the Battle of Britain when they gave up on the cities and concentrated on RAF airfields and RADAR. they only shifted back to the cities after Berlin was bombed and Hitler ordered it. This allowed the RAF to recover and trapped German fliers in a game of attrition trading airframes and flight crews for city blocks. A trade the Brits could afford to play for they had more city than the Germans airplanes.

I pointed out that had the Germans starter operations against Russia a week earlier there is good reason to think they would have captured Stalingrad and Moscow.

But things get complicated. The military allocations and possibilities multiply. But so do the diplomatic and industrial concerns.

The South Africans fought with the allies, but DeBeers allowed the German war machine to operate by selling them industrial diamonds. The allies asked them not to but didn't want o alienate their own suppliers. Throughout the war DeBeers, as perfect disinterested capitalists, sold to anyone with money. You were expected to arrange your own transport.

Very difficult to have a war machine without diamonds to machine the steel with. Most of the diamonds they needed were flown into Switzerland. Switzerland acting as diplomatic neutral ground, banker and back door to vital strategic materials was more valuable than as conquered territory. South African loyalties were split between Britain and Germany. There is some reason to believe that if England fell DeBeers would cut Germany off.

It also has to be noted that occupied England wouldn't deny the US of all suitable staging areas. Ireland, which remained nominally neutral, would do as a staging area in a pinch.

It has been pointed out that Hitler tended to make emotion based decisions that worked against Germany in the war. Presented with a fully functional jet fighter in 1942 he refused to finance the program because it was 'only useful in defense'. Two years later, after the Allied bombers had done a lot of damage he approved production of the Me-262. When they became operational in 1944 they cut through allied formations but it was too late. There were just too few with too little fuel to turn the tide.

War is like that. Personalities and emotions can work against you in subtle ways. You can win every battle and be defeated by bad timing and weather. Small amounts of materials like cobalt and industrial diamonds are vital. Cut off the supply and the war machine grinds to a halt. But it is all up in the air. I suspect that the best anyone can do is hang on and, as the man said, "embrace the horror".

Agree that Hitlers personal hoices in campaign worked against them (Stalingrad wasn't the original objective in that campaign - had they gone straight to the oilfields they would have done better maybe)

And Irelands neutrality and availability as a staging post was moot, imho

But this is purely speculation - 50yrs from now people will play these games about Iraq and A'stan as well

Art you are giving short shrift to the brave Yugoslavian resistence fighters of every political persuasion. They liberated their country, without allied ground forces, albeit they did recieve both US and British material assistance.

In Adolf Hitler's writing/rantings, i.e. Mein Kampf he regarded the British Empire as a useful subservient trading block with the German 3rd Reich. Adolf it would appear, would of much preferred a peaceful negotiation/settlement with the British Empire rather than the continuation of the War. Hence the phony war from 1939 to mid 1940 and the Hess negotiations in 1941 with the UK based Nazi sympathizers such as the fella in the photo below, who was known to have carried out the occasional Nazi party salute. Perhaps this was an attempt by Hitler to ensure that the 2 front war could be avoided. (The 2 front problem was mentioned in Mein Kampf and indicated that this would lead to extreme difficulties in the war planning, which would eventually prove to be correct and should be avoided at all costs as this was the major stumbling block the first time around when the Kaiser and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire alliance were defeated in 1918)



His main objectives was for the so called 'Teutonic Living Space' with the defeat/elimination of the Soviet Empire Communists and Bolsheviks and the Slav Nations (many folks welcomed the German Army in Belarus, Baltic states etc initially as an army of Liberation, until of course the SS turned up a little later). He also apparently much admired the United States of America, where considerable amounts of finance for the German re-armament based economy during the 1930s were made available. A Previous US President from Texas whose grand daddy was heavily implicated in providing financial aid to the 3rd Reich even after the USA declared war on Germany in 1941 just after the Pearl Harbour attack by the Japanese Empire. Interestingly though the Soviets had known well before time that the Pearl Harbour attack was well advanced in the planning stages that the Russian Armies east of the Urals were transported for the 1941 Winter Moscow Counter offensive against the German Armies encroaching on Moscow.

The war between the UK and Germany would most likely have ended in 1941 if not for these folks.


This woman (the sister in law of the fella shown above) was regarded by Adolf Hitler as the most dangerous woman in Europe.


A colorful character and mass murderer in much the same vein as Adolf Hitler, as it can be seen much admired American Gangsters and Bankers who went on to state 'They have sown the wind, they shall reap the whirlwind'.