Dunkirk. The reasons for "miraculous escape".

World War II British Military
#21

Just thought I’d clear something up. After peace demands were issued to England early in October 1939, hope grew of a peaceful settlement to the conflict. This mood was especially relevent in Berlin.

The Fuhrer, however was preparing for the worst. On October 6 he issued Directive No. 6 for the Conduct of War, which outlined an invasion through Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland.

The next morning at eleven, seven of his military commanders reported to the Reich Chancellory. Before presenting the new directive Hitler read out a memorandum of his own composition which indicated that he was a student of military and political history. Germany and the West, he said, had been enemies since the splitting of the First German Reich in 1648 and this struggle “would have to be fought out one way or the other.” But he had no objection “to ending the war immediately, so long as the gains in Poland were accepted. His listeners were not asked for comment nor did they volunteer any. They were called upon only to endorse the German war aim:the destruction of the power and the ability of the Western powers ever again to be able to oppose the state consolidation and further development of the German people in Europe.”

This statement clearly spells out Hitler’s intentions to destroy the western powers, France and England if they opposed Germany.

Hitler acknowledged the objections to haste in launching the attack which was set at November 12 1939. But time was on the enemy’s side. Because of the russian treaty and the great victory in Poland, Germany was at last in a position-for thefirst time in many years-to make war on a single front. With the East secured, the Wehrmacht could throw all it’s forces against England and France. However it was a situation that could terminate abruptly. “By no treaty or pact can a lasting nuetrality of Soviet Russia be insured with certainty.” The greatest safeguard against any Soviet attack lay, “in a prompt demonstration of German strength.”

Once again Hitler signals his intention to destroy England and France, but also acknowledging the danger from the Soviet Union.

Hope this clears a few things up.

Source Adolf Hitler by John Toland.

Regards Digger.

#22

The reason why Britain appeared to be taking Germany’s side against the Soviet Union, was not some fiendish plot. In fact both Britain and France seriously considered declaring war on the Soviet Union over the invasion of Finland by the Soviet Union.

Both Hitler and Mussolini who were in conference at the time had no idea of British or French intentions.

Regards Digger.

#23

Digger,

Sorry, I did not quite get what is your conclusion for your last two posts.

What I see in your post is the following.

Hitler was awear that he would have to fight against Britain and France (“would have to be fought out one way or the other.”). And i do not deny it. I just said that. It is clear that Germany would have to use force to get out of it’s position after Versaille. Neither France nor UK needed strong Germany to deal with. Hence talks about strugle.

But Hitler was not seriously interested in crushing Britain to the point of colapse of the Empier. He thought that Germany would not benefit out of it, only USA. And that is what would have happened if British island was captured by Germans.

Therefore, Hitler did not seriously planned an invasion. All the bombing is to force UK on it’s knees and accept German dominance in Europe. And hopefully join an alliance.

Hitler had truly aligator intensions only towards the East, where the war’s purpose was mostly annihilation and only after control. In the west he wanted to dominate, but it was a domination over equal people and countries. He did not have any physiological hatred towards other west Europeans, like he had towards people on the East.

And you second quote from the book support my point of view (“to ending the war immediately, so long as the gains in Poland were accepted.”). If britain accept complete loss of influence in Europe, Hitler whould likely let them be a lone. For a while. :slight_smile: And France whould have to accept bit theretorial losses and influance losses. Essentially that was France had done.

So the way i see it, the actuall quotes you mention actually disprove your point.

Best regards
Igor Korenev

#24

I think if we talk of Sealion, this should go to another thread. All I will say at this point, Sealion was a reality, but Germany had so poorly planned such an invasion Hitler displayed little compunction in postponing it until after the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Hitler was very good at taking an each way bet, on one hand he says the defeat of England would only benefit Jew-America, but on the other hand he stated on more than one occasion before the invasion in the West, his intention was to destroy her.

Make no mistake, this was his intention and he knew there was little chance of Britain accepting peace terms let alone an Alliance.

Regards Digger

#25

Indeed he did, and destroying the British army at Dunkirk would have made it easier to get that wish, it would have strengthened the hand of the peace faction within the British cabinet

Sorry, have you read this one: http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/hi...at-dunkirk-why

sorry keep getting fault, 404 file not found.

And I hope you are not going to call Liddell Hart a neo-nazi.
Best regards
Igor Korenev

Its interesting you said that Igor, because Churchill had wanted him arrested for his links with various British fascist groups pre-war, but he eventually settled for MI5 keeping an eye on his movements and contacts :mrgreen:

#26

Sorry. Here is the link:
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/hitlers-grand-error-at-dunkirk-why

it would have strengthened the hand of the peace faction within the British cabinet

It might or it might not. This is debateable.

#27

to Redcoat:

Regarding Liddell Hart’s neo-nazism:
I hope you understand that you unvillingly accused Queen Elizabeth II of being neo-nazi too,
because she granted Sir Liddell Hart knighthood in 1966. Right? :wink: I am just following your logic, mate.

Best regards
Igor

#28

I’m just giving you the facts :wink:

Personally I couldn’t care less about queenie. She’s not my type :twisted:

#29

Redcoat, The Queen regardless of what you or me might think has substantial influance. And knighthood is a extinction sign (I hope I can say so in English). So it is not just the Queen business. And I do not think that there were any other nazi granted knighthood, were there?

So my point, is that Sir Liddell Hart’s personality and work was officially acknoledged by the British state. And that means something.

Regards
Igor

#30

I’m probably simplifying things but it easy to forget just what a superb operation Dunkirk was and how nobody in the German High Command would have believed it possible that so many soldiers could be evacuated as was eventually the case.

Germany did get a scare at Arras which seems to have made them think twice & among other things it appears they did need time to catch their breath once they reached the coast. I genuinely can’t believe Hitler would have allowed the BEF to escape had he thought for one second it would be evacuated as successfully as it was.

So while a lot of what has been said may well be true I am of the opinion that the German armour stopped because it was prudent to do so and because it never crossed anybody’s mind 300,000 + soldiers could or would get back to the UK.

#31

Thankyou and welcom to town3173. You are correct. hitler nor his generals or Goring thought the British would attempt a seaborne evacuation. Also remember it was Goring who convinced the Fuhrer the Luftwaffe could destroy the trapped British forces. Hitler agreed, though Milch advised the bombing would hardly be effective due to the bombs burying deep in the sand before exploding and also the Luftwaffe was not strong enough for the task.

I repeat Hitler ordered and agreed to the destruction of the BEF and indeed if Germany had succeeded there would have been little left to prevent an invasion of England.

Regards Digger.

#32

Their is one thing to be said about Dunkirk: MIRACLE.

#33

Thanks for the welcome Digger.

Regards

Rob

#34

Welcome Rob and enjoy the forum.
It’s a great community we have here.

#35

Thank you for the welcome. I found the site by accident while looking for some info on M42 jump suits & the 101st Airbourne. Its great to find people from all over the world with similar interests.

Thanks again.

Rob

#36

I never said Liddel Hart was a nazi, I merely pointed out he had links with a number of British fascist parties, and while his political viewpoints might be similar to some of the Nazis, there is no evidence that he ever betrayed his nation.

#37

Yes, he’s neo, and yes he has sometimes made intentional errors in his books. But in this case his research is backed by many other historians.

Without wanting to promote David Irving, one must remember that he is the only historian to whom some ex-nazis have agreed to speak.

You just have to remember that every historian has his/her own background, values and views, which affect their work. They all make (subconscious) mistakes, bend things, leave out stuff that doesn’t fit their conclusions…

I don’t mind if somebody claims “the moon is made of cheese” if he’s doing valuable research rest of the time ;-D …but having said that, I also acknowledge the need to “correct” straight-out lies and misinformation.

_

#38

Alephh, I agree completely.
Stamping someone as Neo-nazi, does not automaticaly turn all his sayings to be wrong. What if he says: Love your mom?
In fact, read wikipedia articles on fascism, nazism and neo-nazism and see how blure and ambigious these notions are. IMHO one should be carefull trowing this left and right.

Best regards
Igor

#39

Sorry, the correct word isn’t errors, its lies

Irving has been totally discredited as a historian, and while its true most historians carry a certain amount of bias with them, it has been proved in a British court that Irving deliberately lied in order to promote his neo-nazi agenda.

#40

Redcaot,

I do not know much about Irving (and have not read any of his books).
Please, tell me. You said that he is a neo-nazi. A neo-nazi is a new-nazi. So it is someone who shares nazi views. Someone “a socialist featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader”.

Do you mean that Mr.Irving a british socialist, who proclaims superiority of white race, and wants to expand British Empire, and agitates obedience to a strong leader?

Or how is it? Again, I am not defending Irving, simply because I know nothing about him.

Best regards
Igor Korenev