England under Hitler, by Comer Clarke, book review

[Anderson]

ENGLAND UNDER HITLER, by Comer Clarke

First published 1961. New English Library paperback edition 1st published in 1972



Years ago while at a second hand book shop I bought "England under Hitler" for a few dollars. I recently re-read it. The basic premise of the book is to reveal what might have happened in Britain if the Nazi Invasion of 1940 had gone ahead and been successful. It wasn't based on speculation as there were meticulous plans the Germans had drawn up which were discovered after the war. The author, Comer Clarke was a newspaper reporter who researched the story initially for publication in the "Sunday Pictorial" around 1960, but having more material than could be put into that article he decided to publish a book.

What I found particularly interesting is that Clarke did the leg work and hunted down former Nazi leaders who knew what was planned and managed to interview them. Often it was a short curt interview but important facts were confirmed. This gives the book an insight and an authority that history books written today seldom have. Clarke spoke to Doenitz in his home. Clarke phoned SS man Dr Franz Six who Heydrich has personally appointed to lead the S.D. in England. Clarke met with Otto Begus the SS officer selected to lead a team to capture the British Royal family.
These cameo interviews give the story credibility. Worth a read if you can find a copy.

Not sure if it was published after 1972, but used copies are out there on Amazon and elsewhere. Interestingly Dr Six was asked to give written evidence in the defence of Adolf Eichmann in his trial, though it is said the evidence helped the prosecution more. Clarke has also written a biography of Eichmann.

Had the invasion of Britain (and it seems the Germans were really only interested in conquering England) been successful, Dr Six may well have become the most hated man in England. Last words to Dr Six, "My job would have been to see that the orders of the German Government were carried out quickly and efficiently"
Clarke "What sort of orders? Would you have carried them out if you personally disagreed with them because they might cause suffering or injustice?"
Dr Six "It was not my job to question orders."

[AndyM35]

Sounds like a very interesting read Anderson, but no doubt not the easiest book to obtain. The cover art is quite interesting too. A very eye catching layout that would have been somewhat striking when first published. Thanks for posting this one.

Andy

[Watchdog]

I do like these books I must admit though I haven't read this one that I recall but for the sake of perspective:

There are several books that explore this hypothesis some are based on the interpretation and analysis of what is known of plans etc whilst others are historical fact based dramas. I find that they all read well but fail to take into account (because it is outside the scope of the "what if"? hypothesis) the fact that history now informs (and smart tacticians knew at the time) that any cross-channel invasion was doomed to fail. A basic "must have" for such an invasion would be air superiority - they failed to achieve that. Also, domination of the sea - not a hope
as the Royal Navy was more than a match for the KM and small fast vessels plus RAF launches being so nimble would have shredded the converted river barges which Hitler planned to use not to mention the prevailing sea conditions in the Channel (see what effect the weather had on thee Allied D-Day operations). The beaches of Southern England were far more effectively prepared (apart from anything else the artillery coverage was massive) than those of the Norman Coast and para-troops with virtually no chance of re-supply would have been decimated very quickly regardless of how good they might have been. This was no Eben Emael where they were not expected. Consider the pyhrric victory in Crete, so severe were the German losses (inflicted by an ad hoc force withdrawn from Greece rather than a prepared and ready home force) that Hitler refused to allow further use of para-troops. Had a landing taken place and the force was not destroyed on the beaches I seriously doubt that any viable force would have reached as far as Birmingham (and that is a generous allowance) then how would re-supply be effected without air superiority when the RAF had simply moved to bases further North?. It is a matter of subjection but the British public were very unlikely to have submitted (look at the passive resistance in the Channel Islands. In mainland UK I think it would have been a lot more aggressive. Would the populations of other island nations ("Insel Affen") such as New Zealand or Australia just submit?)

The concept of Nazi rule was ever a frightening "bogeyman" in British minds at the time but I cannot see how it could ever have happened in the relevant circumstances

Whilst serving in Germany I have personally discussed this situation with WWII German vets who told me how terrified they were at the idea of trying to cross the Channel in those ridiculous barges to have what they believed to be no chance at the other side if they made it that far. The order to cancel Op Sealion was (quietly) celebrated by the troops involved!

As I say, I do like these "what if" scenarios as they do provoke thought and debate and I will read this one if I can find it but I feel they should always be viewed in context.

Thanks for raising the subject

Regards

Mark

[Anderson]

All good points Mark. One of the interesting parts of the books is about the British resistance preparations, Channel Islands are covered as well.