Here is an article I found to be very interesting. Especially because it is reffering to Liddell Hart’s oppinion.
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/hitlers-grand-error-at-dunkirk-why
And here is a quote from the article:
“Hitler was in a very good humor, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been ‘a decided miracle,’ and gave us his opinion that the war would be finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.
“He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying.’ He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.
“He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept.”
An incredible tale, and yet, it fits with the admiration Hitler expressed for Britain in Mein Kampf. Hitler offered peace to the British twice during World War 2, and also, according to Liddell Hart, displayed uncharacteristic timidity in planning an invasion of England, once Churchill made it plain his nation would not agree for peace. A strange attitude for a leader to have in a war, true, but then, Hitler was a strange man with strange ideas, and a very complex personality.
General Blumentritt’s tale is confirmed by Leon Degrelle, of the Belgian Waffen-SS, who Hitler greatly admired, and occasionally confided in. During one discussion with his Fuhrer, Degrelle states: “We talked about England. I asked him bluntly: “Why on earth didn’t you finish the British off at Dunkirk? Everyone knew you could have wiped them out.” He answered: “Yes, I withheld my troops and let the British escape back to England. The humiliation of such a defeat would have made it difficult to try for peace with them afterwards.”
Some may protest Degrelle’s testimony, since he was one of the very few who attempted to defend Hitler at all after the war. But Liddell Hart argues that men like Blumentritt had no plausible reason to invent such a story, and in fact would have impressed their conquerors more by portraying themselves as the ones who attempted to preserve British security and survival. Instead, they told the story that the generals wanted to crush the British for good, and end the war, while Hitler’s dithering cost them a great, perhaps decisive, victory. If this is true, it certainly calls into question the idea that Hitler intended to conquer the whole world. I have argued, and the evidence here, from Hitler’s own mouth, seems to confirm that his goal was to establish German hegemony on the continent of Europe, and leave themselves free from outside (particularly British) interference. But each person has their own ideas on this subject. The Dunkirk story lends important new evidence to the discussion.
I guess there were several reasons for attack halt. Just like there several reasons for dropping A-bombs. Twice!
Best regards
Igor Korenev
