Navy in World War II. Navy on the eve of World War II. The pacific fleet of the ussr during the great patriotic war
The first part of the work on the French fleet in World War II. Covers the period up to the British Operation Threat against Dakar. The second part, published in Russian for the first time, describes the operations of the French fleet in remote areas, Operation Torch, the self-flooding of the fleet in Toulon and the revival of the fleet. The reader will also be interested in the applications. The book is written in a very biased way.
© Translated by I.P. Shmeleva
Original Russian Text © E.A. Granovsky. Comments to the 1st part, 1997
Original Russian Text © M.E. Morozov. Comments to the 2nd part
Original Russian Text © E.A. Granovsky, M.E. Morozov. Compilation and design, 1997
FOREWORD
The victory over fascism in World War II was the result of coalition actions. France took its rightful place among the victorious powers. But her path to the camp of the anti-Hitler coalition was tortuous. The fleet shared all the ups and downs with the country. A book by the French military historian L. Garros is about its history.
The material presented to the attention of readers is divided into two parts. This issue includes chapters on the actions of the French Navy in 1939-1940: the Norwegian and French campaigns, the actions of the fleet in the war with Italy, and then the battles with the British in Mers el-Kebir and Dakar. The second part of this book describes the events of 1941-1945: the armed conflict with Siam, actions off the coast of Syria in 1941, the Madagascar operation, the events associated with the North African landing of the allies and the history of the Free French naval forces.
The book of L. Garros is quite peculiar in some aspects. After reading it, you will surely notice a number of features.
Firstly, this is the French "specificity" of this work, which is unusual for our reader. L. Garros has a high opinion of Marshal Petain, he considers General de Gaulle almost a traitor, the history of the French Navy in World War II is reduced to him, in fact, to the history of the Vichy fleet, for which the naval forces of Free France were the enemy.
Secondly, the absence of a number of well-known episodes is puzzling. There is not a word in the book about the participation of French ships in the search for German raiders and interception of the blockade breakers, the convoy activity of the fleet is poorly reflected, the destroyer raid on Gibraltar in September 1940 and some other operations are not described, the outstanding successes of the Ruby submarine mine layer are ignored. ... But there are a lot of fictional victories and savoring, perhaps courageous, but did not have any impact on the course of the war actions. Sometimes the author almost slides into an openly adventurous genre, for example, describing the adventures of officer Boileambert, who does not know where and with whom he spent the night.
Part 1
THE FRENCH NAVY IN 1939
When the war broke out in September 1939, the French fleet consisted of seven battleships, including two old battleships Paris and Courbet, three old, but modernized in 1935-36. battleships - "Brittany", "Provence" and "Lorraine", two new battleships "Strasbourg" and "Dunkirk".
There were two aircraft carriers: the aircraft carrier Bearn and the Commandan Test aircraft.
There were 19 cruisers, of which 7 were class 1 cruisers - Duquesne, Tourville, Suffren, Colbert, Foch, Duplex and Algerie; 12 cruisers of the 2nd class - "Duguet-Truin", "La Mott-Piquet", "Primoget", "La Tour d" Auvergne "(formerly" Pluto ")," Jeanne d "Arc", "Emile Bertin", " La Galissonniere, Jean de Vienne, Gloire, Marseilles, Montcalm, Georges Leig.
The torpedo flotillas were also impressive. They numbered: 32 leaders
Six ships of the Jaguar, Gepar, Egl, Vauquelen, Fantask types and two Mogador types each; 26 destroyers - 12 of the Burrasque type and 14 of the Adrua type, 12 destroyers of the Melpomenes type.
The 77 submarines included the cruising submarine Surkuf, 38 class 1 submarines, 32 class 2 boats and 6 minelayers.
COMBAT ACTIONS FROM SEPTEMBER 1939 TO MAY 1940,
In September 1939, the disposition of the French fleet was mainly directed against Italy, although it was not specified how it would behave.
The British believed that the French fleet should guard the Strait of Gibraltar, while their fleet was almost completely concentrated in the North Sea against the Kriegsmarine. On September 1, Italy made it clear that it would not take any hostile action, and the French disposition was changed: the Mediterranean Sea became a secondary theater of operations, which did not present any obstacles to navigation. Convoys bringing troops from North Africa to the North-Eastern Front and the Middle East moved unhindered. The Anglo-French superiority at sea over Germany was overwhelming, especially since the latter was not ready to wage a naval war.
The Kriegsmarine command hoped that hostilities would begin no earlier than 1944. Germany had only two battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, three "pocket" battleships, five light cruisers, 50 destroyers, 60 submarines, of which only half were ocean-going
The total displacement of the ships of her fleet was only 1/7 of that of the allies.
By agreement with the British Admiralty, the French fleet assumed responsibility for operations off the French shores of the North Sea, then in the area south of the English Channel, as well as in the Bay of Biscay and in the western Mediterranean.
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
As it became more and more clear that Italy would enter the war, the ships of the Atlantic Fleet at the end of April 1940 assembled in the Mediterranean. They stood at the roadstead of Mers-el-Kebir under the command of Vice-Admiral Zhansul:
1st Squadron (Vice Admiral Zhansul) - 1st Battleship Division: Dunkirk (Captain 1st Rank Segen) and Strasbourg (Captain 1st Rank Colline); 4th division of cruisers (commander - Rear Admiral Burraguet): "Georges Leig" (captain 1st rank Barno), "Gloire" (captain 1st rank Broussignac), "Montcalm" (captain 1st rank de Corbières).
2nd Light Squadron (Rear Admiral Lacroix) - 6th, 8th and 10th Leadership Divisions.
2nd Squadron (Rear Admiral Buzen) - 2nd Battleship Division: Provence (Captain 1st Rank Barrois), "Brittany" (Captain 1st Rank Le Pivin); 4th division leaders.
4th squadron (commander - Rear Admiral Marks) - 3rd division of cruisers: "Marseiez" (captain 1st rank Amon), "La Galissoniere" (captain 1st rank Dupre), "Jean de Vienne" (captain 1st rank Missoff ).
JUNE Truce
While the described hostilities were going on, the government and the general staff were increasingly inclined to the idea of the need to conclude a truce, since it was clear that further resistance was impossible. On June 10, the Admiralty evacuated its headquarters from Montenon to Er-et-Loire, 75 kilometers from Paris, and soon to Geritand, where there was a communications point; On June 17, following the incoming army, the admiralty moved to the castle of Dulamont near Marseille, on the 28th reached Nerac in the department of Lot-et-Garonne, and, finally, on July 6 it was in Vichy.
Starting on May 28, Admiral Darlan, foreseeing the worst, informed his subordinates that if hostilities ended in a truce, under which the enemy would demand the delivery of the fleet, he "did not intend to obey this order." Nothing could be clearer. This was expressed at the height of the evacuation from Dunkirk, when the British were feverishly embarking on ships. The fleet does not surrender. This was stated clearly, precisely, definitively.
At the same time, it was assumed that ships capable of continuing the fight would leave for England or even Canada. These were normal precautions in case the Germans requested the delivery of the fleet. Neither Prime Minister Paul Reynaud nor Marshal Petain thought for a moment to leave a fleet still capable of fighting to such a sad fate. Only a few ships were lost at Dunkirk - not too many for the sailors to lose the will to resist. The morale of the fleet was high, it did not consider itself defeated and did not intend to surrender. Subsequently, to one of his relatives, Admiral Darlan said: "If a truce is requested, I will end my career with a brilliant act of defiance." Later, his way of thinking changed. The Germans proposed as a condition of the armistice that the French fleet be interned at Spithead (England) or sunk. But in those days when the army's resistance was weakening and when it was clear that the winner would make his demands, and he could demand whatever he wanted, Darlan had a strong desire to keep the fleet. But how? Leave for Canada, America, England at the head of their squadrons?
ENGLAND AND THE FRENCH NAVY
By this term we mean all those operations that were deployed on July 3, 1940 against the French ships that took refuge in British ports, as well as those gathered in Mers el-Kebir and Alexandria.
England has always in its history attacked the naval forces of its enemies, friends and neutrals, which seemed to her too developed, and did not reckon with anyone's rights. The people, defending themselves in critical conditions, disdained international law. France always followed him, and in 1940, too
After the June armistice, French sailors were to be wary of the British. But they could not believe that the comradeship would be forgotten so quickly. England feared the transfer of Darlan's fleet to the enemy. If this fleet fell into the hands of the Germans, then the situation from critical would become disastrous for them. The assurances of Hitler, in the understanding of the British government, did not matter, and an alliance of France with Germany was quite possible. The British have lost their cool
Questions and answers. Part I: World War II. Member countries. Army, weapons. Lisitsyn Fedor Viktorovich
Navy in World War II
Navy in World War II
> About the English fleet somehow thoughtless, you are right, this is power. However, there was also an Italian / German fleet. Couldn't you have secured routes across the Mediterranean?
The German navy as an organized force "put out" in 1940 in Norway and EVERYTHING. 1/3 of the losses of the ship's personnel participating in the operation, continuous repairs of the survivors. After that, he could only make separate raids. Not able to perform operations. Yes, and he was based in Norway and Gibraltar in the hands of England. The Italian fleet consisted of good and new ships, but the quality of the command staff of the Italians is simply ATAS. THEY lost all battles, even in their ideal environment. Once, 4 British Light cruisers fired from an Italian squadron into a battleship, a dozen cruisers (light and heavy) and a whole shobla of destroyers ... Shame, shame. There was little sense from the Italian fleet, although the sailors were brave, they fought to the end and did what they could. There was also a problem with the guns (on the British cruiser Orion, 37 volleys were fired by covering (that is, the sight is accurate) without a single hit - that is, the shells fell scattered due to technical defects.
> For example, three days of mourning was declared after the sinking of the liner "Wilhelm Gustlov".
Alas, this is a beautiful legend launched by Swedish journalists. After 1943, Hitler banned nationwide mourning - Germany simply did not Crawl out of them. But, for example, in the USSR, official mourning was declared for the deceased ally - President Roosevelt. In April 1945 ... Among the victorious fireworks, there was time to express condolences and organize wreaths for the American embassy. It was. This is a worthy example of mourning
> By the beginning of the Soviet-Japanese war (August 1945), the Pacific Fleet included two cruisers, a leader, 12 destroyers and destroyers, 78 submarines, 17 patrol ships, 10 minelayers, 70 minesweepers, 52 submarine hunter boats, 150 torpedo boats and more than 1,500 aircraft
Yes - only they were all occupied (they did not risk large ships at all - they took part in the operations starting with minesigns - cruisers and destroyers were in the "armed reserve"
As a result, the reconnaissance group was sent to land on Hokkaido by submarines. The Japanese capitulated in time - the first party (29 people) was already preparing to enter the "Land of Divine Mulberries".
> "Neher was to release a passenger hospital ship in the middle of the night at sea, and even under a military flag. Ardent greetings to the head of the port."
Now G. Grass also found confirmation that the "Gustloff" had artillery - 4 sparks 30mm ("Kugeli", not 37mm) anti-aircraft guns. So Marinesco was COMPLETELY in his right to drown - which is confirmed.
> I heard, of course. I believe, however, that our forces were insufficient to attack the islands. And I am not the master.
And we would attack them slowly. At the same time, from the southern Kuril islands (which we took) to the northernmost Japanese island (where the first bridgehead was planned) 14 km in a straight line. And we received enough landing craft under Lend-Lease.
> There were actually submariners there with a gulkin's nose, and they were raw submariners.
936 people, of which about 150 are personnel (non-commissioned officers and instructors). Yes, the submariners were the best to save themselves - about 400 died. But for the Germans, and that was bread - there were TENS of submarines without crews. Plus three hundred anti-aircraft and anti-aircraft gunners, plus about 600 other combatants. That's okay. By the way, quite recently it turned out that Gustloff did manage to get artillery weapons.
Steuben is worse - there were practically only wounded. But here the fools themselves were walking at night on a hospital ship REGISTERED in the Red Cross without lights. Marinesko himself considered by the way that the cruiser Emden was attacking, which the liner really looked like (two pipes, a long and low superstructure, "butt" masts and, most importantly, posts for anti-aircraft guns in the dark, similar in silhouette to gun mounts. Here is "Steuben" yes - he died by mistake of identification. Gustloff was legally drowned, as well as "Goya" (5000 wounded and evacuated on a steamer with a load of explosives, from the L-3 torpedo "fuknulo" terribly).
> Which does not detract from the achievements of Marinesco. Although it was much more difficult for him to torpedo Steuben, and there was more exhaust from him.
You probably wanted to say from the Hipper - after a few hours he passed through the C-13 position (simultaneously sinking part of those fleeing from the Gustloff at full speed) - but Marinesco did not have a German schedule, how does he know that such a beast will go after? He did not have modern books. He just left and went after the attack on instructions to lie down in a reserve position, and then sink the "Steuben" which he sank with the stern, and the "Hipper" was missed (although it was an ideal target - the cruiser was damaged and could not give full speed, one destroyer in escort). We know this now, but Marinesco did not know that.
> I imagined how a "heel" drove up to the boat pier DHL and Marinesco were handed a ba-alshaya (A3) certificate with baroque curls, Gothic letters and Hitler's personal signature, where it was reported that he (bingo!) Had become a personal enemy of the Reich I class
This is roughly how it was. In the Finnish port, a group of SWEDISH war correspondents and our political father drive up to Marinesko and present them with a Swedish newspaper - which describes in detail his feat and a statement that he is Hitler's personal enemy and sank 3,600 submariners - "according to a report from reliable sources." The story with "Gustloff" was promoted by the SWEDISH press. Our first publications about this are translations from there.
> And the Finnish ones? It seems that under the contract we owed it. What happened then with the port facilities in Riga, to my shame I don’t know, although I live here.
It's not about the bases - it's about the mines. The evacuation of the Germans in the Baltic was provided by about 100 base and "naval" minesweepers and almost 400 !!! auxiliary and boat. This is for December 1944. We could oppose this at the Finnish bases with our 2 large trawls (just Riga), 3-5 Finnish and about 30-40 boats. ALL. It is banal - even for a submarine brigade to leave at the same time, there were no minesweepers ... By that time, the Baltic was already so dirty that it was impossible to fight in it without trawling. The worst of all were the British - British planes placed mines from the air "wherever God sends" - at night, according to radar data - with a discrepancy of KILOMETERS ... Therefore, our fleet did not oppose the Germans with large ships - only with a PART of the submarine and a couple of detachments of boats. And the naval aviation was periodically pulled to the land front and the maximum that ONE time in 1944 was 120 aircraft (2/3 - fighters). But our specialists also found benefit in the German evacuation - these troops actually did not have time to actively fight after the evacuation, plus the Germans burned down the remnants of fuel in Pomerania (the evacuation cost the Germans about 500,000 tons of oil, from the last supply of 1,500,000 for the entire Reich) ... Coal was burned even more - about 700,000 - leaving the railroad transport bled. This is a significant plus.
> If it were not for the problems with fuel for the ships, the Kurlandia GA could have been completely exported to Germany.
If my grandmother had a buoy, she would work as a boatswain. The whole plot of the "evacuation comedy" is in the fuel
> As I understand it, fvl meant that the evacuated troops were of little combat capability, since all the fuel was consumed by the fleet. Arnswaalde managed to unblock
No, it's not about the troops - it's about the supply and maintenance of the troops - the fleet worked because the transport stopped - therefore, even strong blows - there was no one and had nothing to properly supply - and they could not have operational depth. The navy did not bleed the army, but the REARS - and without the rear, the army is ineffective. The success of the German army in 1939-1942 was based on operational mobility and abundant supplies (German tank division under normal conditions, it "ate" 700 tons of cargo per day - this standard is even higher than that of the "rich Americans" (520-540 tons). When all this at the end of 1944 and beginning of 1945 was covered with a basin (operations in Courland are only a small part of the general crisis of the German transport system carried out by the allies (both ours and the Anglo-Americans - strikes on the near and far "rear", along the supply lines were in 1943 at the head Our people even criticized (during the war) for strikes on large industrial facilities of the Allies - such as "chop off transport" - not strategic bombing, but raids on communications) - everything was covered with "wet." And the same solstice - became a simple tactical operation, without any depth and duration (as well as, say, Balaton, which got stuck in a "sack" just by the "separation from the rear" by only 18 kilometers - which made it possible to fend off the blow. because even if the "near rear" is working, then in the "deep rear" everything is in the ass). railroad... A win in one - a loss in another - we won in direct military matters (only a PART of them were evacuated) - we lost the ability to supply these troops in battle and keep them combat-ready. Dialectics.
> I suspect he (Stalin) greatly underestimated the role of the fleet, like our entire leadership.
The role of which fleet? Ours who showed himself to the Finnish (how many times did our battleships out of 1000 with a lot of shells hit the Finnish batteries?) Or the German - who carried out a Norwegian landing operation beyond the brink of a foul, but defeated the four times strongest fleet of the Metropolis?
> For this, a large land army is not needed-we need aviation and a navy.
ALREADY needed. As early as 1940 in England 30 divisions are indispensable. Over the winter, Britain has grown fat and already has about 60 divisional equivalents in the metropolis and close to it reach (Canada). By the way, with all this, "Sea Lion" 1941 is a much more realistic operation than "Sea Lion" 1940 ... At least Hitler already has WHAT to land and WHAT to at least suppress the British coastal defenses and to whom to distract the British fleet.
> Anyone. On the issue of the German landing in England - English, on the issue of supplying Sevastopol - our.
The funny thing is that in 1941 the British fleet is ALREADY weaker than in 1940. Part of the forces are firmly diverted to the Mediterranean, the H compound from Gibraltar can no longer be overtaken FAST (the Hunt for Bismarck showed that it takes about 2 days), the Eastern Fleet is being formed. In general, the version about 1941 Sea Lion had its own reasons, and it's lousy. But the combat capability of the German is HIGHER than in 1940 - the damaged steamers in Norway were corrected, the BDB with Siebel went in series, new battleships, the aviation still received the first torpedo bombers ... In general, the balance of forces in 1941 is better for the Germans than in 1940.
> What's incomprehensible? Just as they did not understand that the English fleet would easily disrupt the landing of the Germans, they also did not understand that our fleet was capable of supplying Sevastopol, despite enemy aircraft..
This is all clear to you, you are kind of smart. And then, in 1940, the British fleet disrupted the landing of the Germans in Norway - here's a snooze for you. Whether the ships of the Black Sea Fleet were able to supply Sevastopol in 1942 - they COULD NOT return. Convoy gathering all in a heap ala "Pedestal" and lose 3 out of 5 could. But even then with the PROBABILITY of success. We didn’t risk it, but we could. Yes, you could have won, but you can not. They were afraid (and justifiably) that it would turn out like with the "Krymchaks" - they were escorted to Sevastopol but did not have time to unload them - they were lost at the berths. "Georgia" is the same.
> Oh yes. Our fleet showed itself in the 41st. What's in Tallinn what's in Sevastopol.
Well, in fairness, there are examples in 1941 and a plus for our fleet - Odessa, Theodosia landing, Western faces, finally. Our fleet is in something like Italian in the same war - the smaller the ship, the better and more efficiently we fight. Such is the paradox.
> What data is there on the losses of our ships in the roadstead of Sevastopol on June 22, 1941 as a result of a raid by German aircraft. And is it true that it was an unexpected raid? (there was a dispute with one person, I would like to hear an authoritative opinion)
The German so-called raid on Sevastopol was the laying of minefields from the air. The losses are gigantic, given that only 9 German aircraft participated in the raid - a tugboat, a floating crane (25 people died) and the Bystry destroyer (blown up on July 1 - 24 people died, 80 were injured with something), the destroyer was never able to restore and during the repairs it was finished off by German aviation.
> But specifically on June 22, it turns out that only 2 ships were sunk - a tug and a floating crane. It is unlikely that this accounted for half of the ships that were at that moment in the port of Sevastopol. Thank you for the clarification.
Specifically, at 22-23 - yes. Plus, there were still casualties on the shore - out of the mines dropped, 3 fell on the city (3 people died), the German mines had a design unique for the Second World War - when they fell on land, they worked like 1-ton bombs - and when they fell into the water, they were placed as bottom mines ...
The performance for 9 cars (of which it was like 7 with mines) is simply amazing. We were really not ready to fight bottom mines, despite the fact that in Grazhdanskaya in 1919 on the northern Dvina we already had experience in using them and fighting them. All Ostekhbyuro mlyn are innocently repressed.
> How true is the opinion that the Americans won Midway largely by luck - the last forces stumbled upon aircraft carriers before the launch of Japanese strike groups?
This is practically the official point of view.
A randomly coordinated attack by independent groups of dive bombers is proof of this.
But on the other hand, the Americans just put the squeeze on the Japanese ... Making fewer mistakes than they did.
> The Japanese lost the battle themselves without drawing the right conclusions from the coral sea. The Japanese kept the aircraft carriers together, and therefore the accidental breakthrough of the dive bombers decided the matter. And the fighters were below, because they were exterminating the American dive bombers
Midway would have looked even more interesting had the Americans not made mistakes.
A joint attack by the base and carrier aircraft of all three groups would push the Japanese defenses much more interestingly. four nines Zero air patrol all one would not hold back SUCH armada. Even the torpedo bombers would be more than just victims, and the dive bombers of the coastal base would have achieved success.
> And I would be curious what would happen if the Americans used the B-17 purely as a scout. Zero is not very good against him, the Japanese anti-aircraft guns are also not so hot
Coordination of all attacks would be possible. But they didn’t guess yet - or rather, on the contrary, on the experience of Midway — they just guessed - after him, several B-17s with Espiritu Santo successfully flew for long-range detection during the Guadalcanal campaign.
But instead of this, they used the regular Catalins as a scout - which did not allow them to "hang" over the Japanese formation. Yes, and the torpedo capabilities of the catalin were prolonged (one night attack on the night before the battle, with one torpedo that got into the transport)
> 1. What do you think - thereDid the element of chance and luck work more, or the side that “made fewer mistakes” naturally won?
I used to think about luck - now I am more and more convinced about "fewer mistakes". The Americans EVERYTHING did what was in their power strategically - they learned the enemy's plans, concentrated their forces, strengthened the air group on the atoll as best they could and what they could, very competently took up a position for the aircraft carrier groups - from the least threatened direction in Japanese opinion, prepared the forces in advance (Pai's detachment with an escort "Long Island" for reconnaissance) in case something goes wrong at all and the Japanese, instead of or after the success with Midway, rush further, etc.
In general, having done everything they could in advance, they could afford to make mistakes already during the operation.
> If the amers lost to Midway (with the loss of 3 Yorktowns), how much would this affect the scale of their actions in the European theater of operations? I mean, it would have thwarted Operation Torch and everything that followed - Sicily, Italy, etc..?
Figs knows him - most likely nothing would have affected Torch - because they have already "invested" too much in him. But everything else would be interesting. A pair of combat-ready light aircraft carriers in the Atlantic (Ranger and Wasp) would most likely THEN have been deployed in a pandanus to the refurbished Saratoga on Tikhiy. Replacing the loss. But for the success of the landing in Sicily, the British and escorts would have been enough. But there would be no active actions on the Guadalcanal - they would wait for the Indy and Essexes to enter service. That is, in the Pacific Ocean, they would have lost several months of time in inactivity.
> Battleship booking is not combined (although I don’t know what you are investing in this) and not always spaced.
The belt after the First World War is almost always (the exceptions are the Germans), but those also have developed bevels and 80 mm glacis on the Scharnhorst (the reduced armor for 700 mm flies out along the waterline, and the Scharnhorst is protected better than Bismarck, the Americans (except for the South Dakota series - the best American battleship on protection) and the Japanese, well, these poor as church mice are simple) - and the same Italians on "Littorio" have THREE armor contours (4 consecutive layers of armor - 70mm + 270 + 40 + 30 ... distance from 0.7 to 2 meters of the belt.
> that minefields are such a powerful defense against the Japanese fleet.
Quite effective. Fortunately, the sea allowed. Although, by and large, ours even went too far - all 1941-45 our and Japanese ships were blown up on our mines.
In certain areas of the war in the Pacific, minefields have played their part. Where the depths allowed. And the failure to send the high-speed mine-loader "Terror" to Wake in 1941 is still considered one of the brilliant but unrealized capabilities of the American fleet.
> But this is not a magic wand, they could not have saved soviet fleet in the face of the total superiority of the Japanese.
And they were not going to save him - the task of the Pacific Fleet is to lay mines and die - or rather, retreat to the fortress area of Vladivostok under minefields and extensive artillery batteries and sit there under siege.
Aviation in our area is stronger than the Japanese (Lagg-3 is steeper than Hayabusa, the Japanese tested it in 1942, the Ishaks of the border troops and then in 1945 they drowned the largest vessel (it burned for three days).
The fleet will gnaw through these islands with 305-203mm batteries as it was believed for a long time, the Japanese army is weaker than ours. Strategic impasse. The Japanese understood this. It's one thing just mines - and another is a mine-artillery position and over 70 submarines.
> and what's so terrible for the Japanese empire? lock up, besiege and destroy. Well, tell me, why is that bad?
How much fuel will go away. At the same time, it is impossible to besiege from land without completely breaking OKDVA near Khabarovsk. This is not for you isolated Port Arur (held out for 11 months, of which 8 were heavily encumbered) and Qingdao (3-4 months of blockade and taxation). And most importantly, even having won at a high price - what does Japan get - a poor seaside?
And what does the USSR lose - we retreat to Chita and wait for the Japanese logistics to ruin?
> taking into account the star of the western front The USSR would have gone to the world like the Republic of Ingushetia before it.
And if you hadn't gone? The "plutocratic" USA here seemed to be much softer opponents.
> from the same fig as to fit in for the USSR.
states have been playing this game for 5,000 years. As soon as someone begins to seize new and new territories, everyone rushes to interfere with him in order to prevent his unlimited gain. The Japanese were simply wrong. Overestimating their strength (to create an impenetrable perimeter for the United States) and underestimating the strength of the United States (the Japanese believed that the United States, after the second wave of the depression in 1937, was on the verge of collapse (it was not for nothing that they began the second wave of operations in China in 1937, when the United States wiped out even when Japanese dive bombers sank American gunboat).
Nikolai Pavlovich made the same mistake before Krymskaya. Cardinally. It happens.
Sometimes they just make mistakes. The whole Hisagi no kaze plan (just kidding) is this mistake.
> Russia has won many, the United States has a more alarming history.
The United States is just out of the way. Conquest in the 19th century would have cost more than all the bonuses from it. Actually, therefore, Britain in the 1780s did not press down the colonists, and in 1815 they did not (fortunately for England, the situevina began to be recruited there abruptly - South America "freed" with British help and it was possible to GET INTO it, which they began to do.
If the United States had a land border with Europe, everything would be different. The only thing that is achieved with the help of a mine defensive position is to gain time. The bigger and better the position, the better the time.
The Germans, for example, in 1944-45, in fact, only paralyzed ANY actions of the Baltic Fleet with mines with ships larger than the gunboat west of Narva Bay.
Here's an example of buying time. Minami.
Russia in 1915 won the first Moonsund - three days - enough to disrupt the German operation - the Germans no longer had the fuel to develop the success.
From the book of Stratagems. About the Chinese art of living and surviving. TT. 12 the author von Senger Harro14.9. Nostradamus in World War II Ellik Howe in the book "The Black Game - British Subversive Operations against the Germans during the Second World War" in the second
From the book Beware, History! Myths and legends of our country the author Dymarsky Vitaly NaumovichThe Role of the Allies in World War II On May 9, Russia celebrates Victory Day - perhaps the only truly national public holiday - celebrated by our former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition a day earlier, on May 8. And, unfortunately, this
From the book History of the East. Volume 2 the author Vasiliev Leonid SergeevichJapan in World War II In the fall of 1939, when the war broke out and the West European countries began to suffer defeats one after another and became the object of occupation by Nazi Germany, Japan decided that its time had come. Tightening all the nuts inside the country
the authorJapan and the USSR in World War II The defeat of the Japanese troops in the area of Lake Hasan in 1938 and in Mongolia in 1939 dealt a serious blow to the propaganda myth about the "invincibility of the imperial army", about the "exclusiveness of the Japanese army." American historian
From the book The Psychology of War in the Twentieth Century. Historical experience of Russia [ Full version with attachments and illustrations] the author Senyavskaya Elena SpartakovnaFinns in World War II The Soviet-Finnish military confrontation is a very fertile material for studying the formation of the enemy image. There are several reasons for this. First of all, any phenomena are best understood by comparison. Opportunities for comparison in
From the book Questions and Answers. Part I: World War II. Member countries. Army, weapons. the author Lisitsyn Fedor ViktorovichAviation in World War II ***> I have heard the opinion that it was the French aviation that proved to be very good ... Uh-huh, approximately at the level of Soviet aviation, which "showed" itself in the summer of 1941 as it is ACCEPTED to be considered "bad". The loss of the Germans in 1000 cars downed and
From the book 10th SS Panzer Division "Frundsberg" the author Ponomarenko Roman OlegovichGermany in World War II Baryatinsky M. Medium tank Panzer IV // Bronekollektsiya, No. 6, 1999. - 32 p. Bernage J. German tank forces... Battle of Normandy June 5 - July 20, 1944. - M .: ACT, 2006 .-- 136 p. Bolyanovskiy A.
From the book World War II. 1939-1945. History of the great war the author Shefov Nikolay AlexandrovichThe Turning Point in World War II By the end of the fall of 1942, the German onslaught had fizzled out. At the same time, due to the pulling up of Soviet reserves and the rapid growth of military production in the east of the USSR, the number of troops and equipment at the front is leveling off. On the main
From the book Ukraine: History the author Subtelny Orest23. UKRAINE IN THE SECOND WORLD WAR Europe was heading towards World War II, and it seemed that Ukrainians as a whole had nothing to lose in the course of the radical shifts that it brought with them. A constant target of the excesses of Stalinism and the steadily increasing repression of the Poles,
From the book Battles won and lost. A new look at the major military campaigns of World War II by Baldwin Hanson From the book of 100 predictions of Nostradamus the author Agekyan Irina NikolaevnaON THE SECOND WORLD WAR Deep in Western Europe A small will be born to poor people, He will seduce a great multitude with His speeches. Influence is growing in the Kingdom of the East (c. 3, c.
From the book Why Jews Don't Like Stalin the author Rabinovich Yakov IosifovichThe participation of Jews in World War II A brief outline World War II (1939-1945) swept across Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania - a gigantic area of 22 million square kilometers, with 1 billion 700 million people, or more than three quarters of the population, sucked into its orbit
From the book of the USA the author Burova Irina IgorevnaUSA in World War II Observing the events in Europe, the USA did not flatter itself about the possibility of maintaining a long-term peace in it, but at the same time America, having returned to the old policy of isolationism, did not want to interfere in the development of European affairs. Back in August 1935
From the book Russia and South Africa: three centuries of ties the author Filatova Irina IvanovnaIn the second world war
From the book The Battle of Syria. From Babylon to ISIS the author Shirokorad Alexander Borisovich From the book The Defeat of Fascism. USSR and Anglo-American allies in World War II the author Olshtynsky Lennor Ivanovich2.3. 1943 The promised second front was again postponed The Battle of Kursk - a radical turning point in World War II Allied landing in Sicily, anti-fascist struggle in Italy Offensive operations of Soviet troops and allies in winter - spring 1943
This section provides information on the qualitative and numerical composition of the navies of the states that participated in the hostilities of the Second World War. In addition, data are provided on the fleets of some countries that officially took a neutral position, but actually provided assistance to one or another of the participants in the war. Unfinished or commissioned ships after the end of the war were not counted. The ships that were used for military purposes, but were flying the civilian flag, were also not taken into account. Ships transferred or received from one country to another (including under lend-lease agreements) were not taken into account, just as captured or restored ships were not taken into account. For a number of reasons, the data on the dead amphibious and small ships, as well as boats are given at the minimum values and in fact can be much higher. The same goes for midget submarines. When describing tactical and technical characteristics cited data on the time of the last modernization or rearmament.
Characterizing warships as a weapon of war at sea, it should be noted that the purpose of such a war was to fight for sea communications, as a means for the largest, massive shipments. Depriving the enemy of the opportunity to use the sea for transport, at the same time using it extensively for the same purposes, is the path to victory in the war. For the conquest and use of supremacy at sea, just one strong navy is not enough; this also requires a large merchant and transport fleets, conveniently located bases and a state leadership with a naval mindset. Only the combination of all this provides sea power.
To fight the navy, you have to concentrate all your forces, and to protect merchant shipping, you have to separate them. The nature of military operations at sea always fluctuates between these two poles. It is the nature of military operations that determines the need for certain warships, the specifics of their weapons and tactics of use.
In preparing for war, the leading maritime states used various military naval doctrines, but none of them proved to be effective or correct. And already in the course of the war, with the exertion of all forces, it was necessary not only to correct them, but to radically change them for the planned military actions.
So, the British Navy, based on the outdated ships of the interwar period, put its main emphasis on large artillery ships. The German navy formed a massive submarine fleet. The Royal Italian Navy built high-speed light cruisers and destroyers, as well as small submarines with low technical characteristics... Trying to replace the tsarist fleet, the USSR accelerated the construction of ships of all classes of obsolete models, relying on the doctrine of coastal defense. The backbone of the US fleet was made up of heavy artillery ships and obsolete destroyers. France strengthened its fleet with light artillery ships with a limited cruising range. Battleships and aircraft carriers were built in Japan.
Fundamental changes in the structure of fleets have occurred with the massive introduction of radars and sonars, as well as the development of communications. The use of aircraft identification systems, artillery and anti-aircraft fire control, detection of underwater, surface and air targets, radio reconnaissance also changed the tactics of the fleets. Gone are major naval battles, and the war with the transport fleet has become a priority.
The development of weapons (the emergence of new types of carrier-based aircraft, unguided missiles, new types of torpedoes, mines, bombs, etc.) allowed the fleets to conduct independent operational and tactical military operations. Fleet from auxiliary forces ground forces became the main impact force... Aviation became an effective means of fighting the enemy's fleet as well as defending its own.
Considering the course of the war in conjunction with technical progress, the development of the fleets can be characterized as follows. At the initial stage of the war, the ever-growing German submarine fleet actually blocked the sea communications of Great Britain and its allies. To protect them, a significant number of anti-submarine ships were required, and their equipment with sonars turned submarines from hunters into targets. The need to protect large surface ships, convoys and ensure the conduct of future offensive operations demanded the massive construction of aircraft carriers. This characterizes the middle stage of the war. At the final stage, for carrying out massive amphibious operations both in Europe and in the Pacific Ocean, there was an urgent need for landing craft and support vessels.
All these tasks could be solved only by the United States, whose powerful economy during the war years turned the allies into debtors for many years, and the country into a superstate. It should be noted that the supply of ships under the Lend-Lease agreements took place within the framework of the rearmament of the United States, i.e. the allies were given outdated ships, with low performance characteristics or without proper equipment. This applied equally to all beneficiaries, incl. both the USSR and Great Britain.
It should also be mentioned that both the large US ships and the small ones differed from the ships of all other countries in the presence of comfortable living conditions for the crews. If in other countries, when building ships, priority was given to the number of weapons, ammunition, fuel reserves, then the American naval commanders put the comfort of the crew on a par with the requirements for the combat qualities of the ship.
(no transmitted / received)
Table continuation
The total number of navies of 42 countries (possessing navies or at least one ship) that took part in World War II was 16.3 thousand ships, of which, according to incomplete data, at least 2.6 thousand were killed. fleets included 55.3 thousand small ships, boats and landing craft, as well as 2.5 thousand submarines, excluding ultra-small submarines.
The five countries with the largest fleets were: USA, UK, USSR, Germany and Japan, which had 90% of warships from the total, 85% of submarines and 99% of small and landing craft.
Italy and France, possessing large fleets, as well as smaller Norway and the Netherlands, could not effectively dispose of their ships, flooding part of them and becoming the main suppliers of trophies to the enemy.
It is possible to determine the significance of the types of ships in military operations only taking into account the stages of the war. So at the initial stage of the war, the dominant role was played by submarines, blocking enemy communications. In the middle stage of the war, the main role was played by destroyers and anti-submarine ships, which suppressed the enemy's submarine fleets. In the final stage of the war, aircraft carriers with support ships and landing ships came out on top.
During the war, the merchant fleet with a tonnage of 34.4 million tons was sunk. At the same time, submarines accounted for 64%, aviation - 11%, surface ships - 6%, mines - 5%.
Of the total number of sunken warships of the fleets, approximately 45% of the merit of aviation, 30% of submarines, 19% of the share of surface ships.
Greek merchant fleet(Greek. Ελληνικός Εμπορικός Στόλος ) was a participant in World War II, along with the Greek Navy. The merchant fleet became a participant in the war about a year before Greece entered the war and continued its participation in the war after the liberation of Greece (October 1944), for another 11 months.
History professor Ilias Iliopoulos notes that the participation of the Greek merchant fleet in the war is in line with the thesis of the American naval theorist, Rear Admiral Alfred Mahan, that the naval power of a nation is the sum of the navy and merchant fleets. Iliopoulos notes that in ancient times the "great sea state" of Athens (Thucydides) was the sum of the potentials of the Athenian military and merchant fleet, and that Athens then had about 600 merchant ships.
Background
By the most conservative estimate, on the eve of the Second World War, the Greek merchant fleet was the ninth in the world in terms of tonnage and consisted of 577 steamers. Considering the fact that the top ten included the Axis countries - Germany, Italy and Japan - as well as the fleet of occupied France (see Vichy Regime), the importance of the Greek merchant fleet for the anti-fascist coalition was more than significant. Professor I. Iliopoulos writes that the Greek merchant fleet had 541 ships under the Greek flag with a total capacity of 1,666,859 GRTs and 124 steamers under foreign flags with a capacity of 454,318 GRTs. According to Iliopoulos, the Greek merchant fleet was in fourth place in the world, and the Greek dry cargo fleet in second.
Researcher Dimitris Halon, based on German sources, writes that in 1938, a year before the start of World War II, the Greek merchant fleet was in third place in the world, after England and Norway, with 638 ships, with a total capacity of 1.9 million GRT. 96% of all ships in the Greek merchant fleet were dry cargo ships.
According to Rear Admiral Sotirios Grigoriadis, the Greek merchant fleet had 600 ocean steamers and 700 Mediterranean motor ships before the war. 90% of the ocean steamers were dry cargo ships. Grigoriadis confirms that the Greek pre-war fleet was ahead of the fleets of Sweden, the Soviet Union, Canada, Denmark and Spain, but notes that the Greek fleet did not exceed 3% of the world's fleet, while the first fleet in the world, the British, in 1939 had 26 , 11% of the world's fleet tonnage. However, over the course of several months of the war, the situation at sea for Britain deteriorated sharply. By mid-1940, the British Navy only had fuel for 2 months. By September 1941, the British merchant fleet had lost 25% of its ships. In this regard, the Greek merchant fleet acquired great importance for the Allies, and especially for Britain.
The War Trade Agreement, signed in January 1940 with the government of then neutral Greece, with the support of Greek shipowners and the Greek sailors' union, essentially placed one of the largest fleets in the world at the disposal of the British government and excluded the transportation of Axis cargo by Greek ships.
Related Videos
Prelude to World War
As a consequence, the Greek volunteers in Spain belonged mainly to 3 groups: the sailors of the Greek merchant fleet - the Greeks living in exile - the Greeks of the island of Cyprus, which was under British control. Greek merchant sailors made up a significant part of the Greek company of the Rigas Fereos International Brigades.
In addition to sending volunteers, the main task of the Greek Seafarers' Union, headquartered in Marseille, led by Kamburoglu, who was later shot by the Germans in France, was the uninterrupted supply of the Republicans. Due to the threat of submarines, cargo was more often delivered to the ports of Algeria, from where it was delivered by caiks to Spain. On the last shoulder, most of the Greek sailors were armed: 191. Many sailors volunteered for the Republican Army as soon as they arrived in Spain. Others, such as officers Papazoglu and Homer Serafimidis, joined the Republican Navy: 210.
A significant contribution of Greek sailors was the refusal to work on ships carrying cargo for Franco, in contrast to ships carrying cargo from the USSR, despite the fact that the latter were constantly under threat from Italian submarines and German and Italian aviation: 219.
The outbreak of World War II and the seafarers' union
With the outbreak of World War, the pro-communist Union of Greek Seafarers located in Marseille (ΝΕΕ, in 1943 was reorganized into the Federation of Greek Seafarers' Organizations, ΟΕΝΟ), not forgetting about “ class struggle", Gave the instruction" Keep ships on the move. "
After the surrender of France, the leadership of the Greek sailors' union moved to New York.
The period from the outbreak of World War II (September 1, 1939) to the outbreak of the Greco-Italian War (October 28, 1940)
During this period, many Greek merchant ships chartered by the Allies were sunk in the Atlantic, mostly by German submarines. Some Greek ships were confiscated in ports controlled by the Axis forces and their allies. The total losses of the Greek merchant fleet in this first period of the war reached 368,621 BRTs.
Already in the first month of the war, the commanders of German submarines received the following instruction on September 30, 1939: “... since the Greeks sold or chartered a large number of (merchant) ships to the British, the Greek ships should be considered enemy .... When attacking, the submarines must remain invisible .... " ... However, at that time, some commanders of German submarines still observed naval ethics.
Memorial to the German submarine U-35 in Ventry, Ireland
The Greek steamship Ioanna (950 BRT) was stopped on June 1, 1940 by the German submarine U-37, 180 miles from the Spanish port of Vigo. The crew was ordered to leave the steamer, which was then sunk. Captain Vasilios Laskos, himself a former submariner and who died in 1942 while commanding the Greek submarine "Katzonis (Υ-1)", together with his crew, sailed on boats in a stormy sea for 3 days until he was picked up by fishermen. Laskos and his crew headed to Lisbon, where a colony of 500 Greek merchant sailors had already formed, whose ships were sunk by German submarines. All of them were embarked on the Greek merchant ship Attica and taken to Greece.
A similar case is described in his book by the senior mechanic of the Greek steamer "Adamastos", Constantine Domvros. The steamer was stopped on July 1, 1940 in the North Atlantic by the German submarine U-14. The steamer was sunk. The crew was left in boats 500 miles from land, but were not shot.
Over time, such cases became less and less and the sinking of Greek merchant ships was accompanied by the death of their crews.
This period was also marked by the participation of Greek merchant ships in the Dunkirk evacuation. One of the Greek losses during the evacuation was the steamer Galaxias (4393 BRT), sunk by German aircraft in the French port of Dieppe at the beginning of the operation. The participation of Greek merchant ships in the Dunkiri evacuation found its way into Churchill's memoirs.
The period from the start of the Greco-Italian War (October 28, 1940) to the start of the German invasion of Greece (April 6, 1941)
Of the 47 mobilized passenger ships, 3 were converted into floating hospitals (Attika, Ellinis and Sokratis). Also used as hospitals were the cargo-and-passenger "Polikos", "Andros", "Ionia" and "Moskhanti" (the last two without the identification marks of the Red Cross.
During this period, the losses of the Greek merchant fleet were mainly the result of the activities of the Italian Navy (Regia Marina Italiana). These were cargo steamers and motor ships mobilized by the Greek government and used as transports. The losses also included Greek ships confiscated in Italian ports, immediately after the rejection of the Italian ultimatum by the Greek government and the outbreak of war. The total losses of this period, including the continuing losses of the Greek merchant fleet in the Atlantic, reached 135,162 BRTs.
The period from the beginning of the German invasion (April 6, 1941) to the complete occupation of Greece (May 31, 1941)
Greek cargo-passenger steamer Andros. Used as a floating hospital. Sunk by German aircraft on 04/25/1941.
In October 1940, the Greek army repelled the Italian attack and transferred the hostilities to the territory of Albania. This was the first victory of the anti-fascist coalition countries against the Axis forces. The Italian spring offensive on March 9-15, 1941 in Albania showed that the Italian army could not change the course of events, which made German intervention in order to save its ally inevitable.
At the request of the Greek government, by the end of March 1941, Great Britain sent 40 thousand of its soldiers to Greece. At the same time, the British occupied a second line of defense along the Aliakmon River, away from the front line in Albania and the potential theater of military operations on the Greek-Bulgarian border.
The German invasion, from Bulgaria allied to the Germans, began on April 6, 1941. The Germans could not immediately break through the line of the Greek defense on the Greek-Bulgarian border, but went to the Macedonian capital, the city of Thessaloniki, through the territory of Yugoslavia. A group of divisions in Eastern Macedonia was cut off from the main forces of the Greek army fighting against the Italians in Albania. German troops went into the rear of the Greek army in Albania. The road to Athens was open to German divisions.
Along with the losses of the Greek Navy, which lost 25 ships during this period, the losses of the Greek merchant fleet, within a month, reached 220,581 BRT, which was 18% of its potential. All losses, both to the Greek Navy and the Greek merchant fleet, were the result of the activities of the Luftwaffe.
Among other ships, Luftwaffe aircraft sank floating hospitals despite the Red Cross signs and their full illumination at night (Attica April 11, 1941, Esperos April 21, Ellinis April 21, Sokratis April 21, Polikos April 25th and Andros April 25th.
The main target of German aircraft was Piraeus (9 sunk ships), other Greek ports, but the entire water area of the Aegean Sea (88 sunk ships) was a zone of incessant attacks by German aircraft on warships and merchant ships.
The losses of the Greek merchant fleet associated with the battle for Crete (17 sunk ships) reached 39,700 BRT.
A large number of Greek merchant ships, with Greek military units and refugees, as well as British, Australian and New Zealand units, followed the ships of the Greek Navy to Egypt and Palestine.
The period from the beginning of the occupation (31.5.1941) to the end of the Second World War (15.8.1945)
Greek steamer Calypso Vergoti Sunk by a German submarine on June 29, 1941 in the Atlantic.
During this period, the Greek merchant fleet lost most of its potential. Greek merchant ships were sunk by Axis forces in all latitudes and longitudes of the globe. A large number of Greek ships confiscated by the Germans and Italians were sunk by the Allies. The losses of this period also include Greek ships confiscated by the Japanese in the ports of Japan and China. The total losses of the Greek merchant fleet during this period amounted to 535,280 BRT.
Among the many heroic acts of Greek merchant sailors of this period, two were noted in the course of supporting British forces in North Africa.
On February 2, 1943, the Greek merchant ship "Nikolaos G Kulukundis" (Captain G. Panorgios), despite the shelling of Italian and German aircraft and ships, managed to deliver a cargo of gasoline to Libya for the 8th british army... British Prime Minister Churchill visited the ship on 4 February to personally express his gratitude to the crew.
A similar act of the Greek ship "Elpis" (Captain N. Kuvalias) received official gratitude from the King of England.
During this period, Greek merchant ships took part in convoys to England and Murmansk, as reflected in Churchill's memoirs.
Along with the Greek corvettes "Tombasis" and "Kriezis", the ships of the Greek merchant fleet also accepted the allied landing in Normandy. The steamers Agios Spiridon (Captain G. Samothrakis) and Georgios P. (Captain D. Parisis) were flooded by crews in shallow water to create a breakwater. The steamers America (Captain S. Theophilatos) and Ellas (Captain G. Trilivas) continued to deliver troops and cargo to the Normandy coast.
It should be noted that the crews for the ships to be sunk were recruited from volunteers, after an appeal to two secretaries of the Greek sailors' union, one of whom was the communist Antonis Abatelos.
One of the losses recent years During the war there was the steamer "Pileus" (4965 BRT), torpedoed by the German submarine U-852 on March 13, 1944 off the coast of West Africa. For murder after torpedoing Greek sailors, the crew of U-852, after the war, was brought to trial.
By the end of the war, the number of Greek merchant ships sunk by German submarines had reached 124.
Losses
In total, during the war, the Greek merchant fleet lost 486 ships, with a total capacity of 1,400,000 GRT, which was 72% of its potential. About half of these losses occurred in the first 2 years of the war. By comparison, the British navy lost 63% of its potential. Against the background of total allied losses of 4,834 ships and a total of 19,700,000 BRTs, the Greek losses look particularly high. Of the 19,000 Greek merchant sailors who served on merchant ships during the war, 4,000 were killed, mostly by torpedoing their ships. 2,500 sailors were left disabled. 200 sailors who survived the sinking of their ships or captivity suffered serious or irreparable damage to their mental health.
Greek merchant fleet after the war
Museum ship Hellas Liberty in June 2010
Even during the war (1944) and at the request of the Greek government in exile, the US government provided 15 Liberty-class ships to the Greek shipowners M. Kulukundis K. Lemos and N. Rethymnis.
In recognition of the enormous contribution of the Greek merchant fleet to the victory of the Allies and the losses suffered by them, at the end of the war, the US government provided the Greek shipowners who lost their ships in the Atlantic, 100 Liberty on favorable terms. Each of the 100 ships was offered for $ 650,000, with a 25% prepayment and a 17-year loan with interest, guaranteed by the Greek government. In subsequent years, but already on current commercial terms, another 700 Liberty was acquired by Greek shipowners.
If, according to the original idea, Liberty was built as “ships for five years” and their massive demolition occurred in the 1960s, then the Greek shipowners operated these ships for another two decades. The last Liberty of Greek shipowners was decommissioned in 1985. To a certain extent, Liberty served as the starting point for the post-war take-off of the Greek merchant fleet (under the Greek and other flags), which has firmly “retained its leading position in the world merchant fleet” to this day.
In recognition of Liberty's contribution to the take-off of the Greek merchant fleet, in 2009, one of the last Liberty in the world was converted into a museum ship, the Hellas Liberty, and delivered to its permanent anchorage in the Greek port of Piraeus.
Greek sailors' union after the war
With the defeat of the Democratic Army, many merchant sailors found themselves in exile in Eastern Europe and the USSR. Antonis Abatelos, one of the two trade union secretaries noted by historiography at the Normandy landings, was sentenced to death in 1947 for organizing a strike in war time... The execution was overturned, thanks to Abatelos' fame in the world trade union movement and the efforts of his wife, an Englishwoman, Lady Betty Abatielu. Abatelos was released only 16 years later, in 1963.
One of the most famous officers of the merchant navy, Dimitris Tatakis, was tortured to death in January 1949 in a concentration camp on the island of Makronisos.
Veterans of the Greek merchant fleet note that the "first fleet in the world" owes its rise not only and not so much to Greek shipowners as to the labor and sacrifices of Greek sailors, both during the war and in the post-war years.