During last war, living in the still unoccupied France, rumours spread that truck loads of German soldiers showing signs of burns were seen going accross France. The rumour was that Hitler's army tried to invade Britain but was met by flame throwers installed on the beaches.
This had not appeared in the French press, censored by the Wermacht. but rumours circulated along the then still unoccupied France. The matter,it was said, has been kept secret in England for some security reason or other. However no historian has mentioned such an episode.
Others explained that the soldiers showing signs of burns could have been soldiers evacuated from the Russian front. The burns were frost burns. Unoccupied France was quite far from the Russian front.
Which is which?
If the first rumour is in fact the true version, then history is omitting the fact that the Hitler tried in fact to invade England. Is this possible? If so, is there any reason to keep this secret.
2006-11-23 01:18:34 · 11 answers · asked by Francis Cikku 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
many things that took place in WWII are still guarded as secrets
2006-11-23 01:38:06 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There was German soldiers that were washed up on a beach in England and yes they did have severe burns according to the rumor and Germans did go through France like you said with burns.I personally think the rumor was true because it was kept quiet and normally when things are kept quiet like that it's true although the incident hasn't been confirmed publicly.
Another rumor was that the Germans were practicing getting into a ship just in case an air raid occurred so they could escape when one of the ships caught alight.
2006-11-23 16:43:20 · answer #2 · answered by HHH 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes however the Nazi forces used developed it first. However Hitler never acctually attacked Britain. His plan was to bomb England to its needs and then simply walk in. Britain was much too strong to simply just land and invade. The flame thrower is acctually a very old weapon and i have not dobt that some1 during that time had the ability to use it. Frost burns are possible however there is a big difference between the two.
2006-11-23 09:22:37 · answer #3 · answered by Elite 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, but not flamethrowers in the sense you are thinking. In anticipation of a possible German landing. England placed large pipes from a central gas pumping station and ran them into the sea just off of the beaches at the narrowest point of the English Channel (adjacent to Pas-de-Calais, do you notice the irony here?). The plan being to burn any landing craft the Germans might use, and the smoke off of the burning crude oil pumped into the water and set aflame would:
1. Prohibit clear view of landing operations from sea denying naval commanders the ability to accurately assess battle changes, and to change landing force tactics and missions.
2. Hamper ability of reconnaisance flights to watch the movement of British as well as their own troops.
This was only one of many things the British had done to secure their beachheads.
2006-11-23 22:38:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not believe the GERMANS tried to invade Britian by land. As for flame throwers. They are handheld & operated. If the so;diers were burned then they were in close contact to the person with the flame thrower. The Gas tank is strapped to the back of the person carring it. Therte is a hose attached with a nozzel. the operator presses a small valve on the nozzle & fame shoots out. The throur is usally used to flush outpeople in holes.
2006-11-23 09:30:26 · answer #5 · answered by BUTCH 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Flame throwers were used by many countries in world war 2.
However, the German forces never attempted to invade Britain. Plans were drawn up and some initial attempts to construct landing craft were made but no attack was ever launched.
2006-11-23 09:25:53 · answer #6 · answered by Vanguard 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No invasion but their were boobytrap devices that employed a trip wire attached to a static flamethrowers. These were deployed by all sides during the war especially near emplaced bunkers and such.
2006-11-23 10:17:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
the brits had some flame throwers set up for coast defense, SFAIK they were never used.
Many possible sources of burns- especially in an army which lives on fuel and fuel stores are regularly attacked by enemy aircraft- as if chances of accident were not enough.
2006-11-23 09:36:47 · answer #8 · answered by cp_scipiom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Scores of airforce and Navy men were burnt in damaged craft. I am not sure about the Mitishmitt, but the US Mustang had fuel lines going beside the cockpit. Bullets that missed the pilot often caused very bad burns.
2006-11-23 09:31:40 · answer #9 · answered by wizebloke 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Either is possible. I'd be inclined to believe the Russian Front story.
2006-11-23 09:22:00 · answer #10 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋