Thread bumped and reopened for discussion…
WOW!
Reading this thread again is like seeing dinosaurs walking the Earth again. Oh, sweet old times!
On topic.
Battles are always a gamble. typically, the better trained, better disciplined, better led and the better prepared are the ones that win through. Not always the case though. There is also a certain amount of luck involved.
On the one hand, we have a plan to win and we do everything in our power to make the plan work for us. On the other hand, the opposition are doing everything in their power to screw up our plan and make their plan win through.
There was much uncertainty in th German High-Command, even with people like Rommel. The success of the Bliztkrieg shocked the Germans. France had a huge army which was expected to put up a great fight. It didn’t. The British had a professional army, well trained, well disciplined and well led. They were flanked and in danger of being cut-off, through no fault of their own.
The Germans stopped when advancing on Dunkirk to allow their infantry to catch up in order for it to support their armour. The reason they did this was because they were well aware of the vulnerability of armour without infantry support. The Germans - and Rommel inparticular - had developed the tactics of the sword and shield (the allies learned the lessons of this the hard way, particularly in the Western Desert Campaign). They had also developed the tactics of the Battle Group, in which infantry, armour and artillery (including the Junkas 87), operated in mutual support. It would be against everything that the they had trained to do, for the panzers to continue alone…they had learned the lessons of the past.
The Royal Navy did as they always do, and did it well.
My father Tom Chapman was with the welsh guards and left behind at Dunkirk. All he ever told me was that he got a train to spain and a boat from there. I thought he was one of few but now it appears a lot of people got out that way. - any first hand information?
As far as I can see he then went as a trainer to pirbright finishing up as RSM. Again he never talked of this. any first hand information?
I would prefer to hear from those who were there but recognise they are a dying breed so any handed down information would be gratefully accepted.
Bump.
My grandmother claimed her brother was last man off the beaches at Dunkirk. When I was boy I think I believed her, but with the wisdom of a few years I now think it highly unlikely.
That generation are all gone now. Shame, as I should have asked a lot of questions.
Saxon
The German forces were masters of finding a way through weak points and outflanking the Allies which caused the allied troops to have to withdraw or risk being cut off.
At Dunkirk the Allied troops had secure flanks and could dig in in ground very suited for defence.
The German Army was mostly horse drawn so although the panzer divisions could move fast their support and infantry divisions could not (Have read reports that the 7th Panzer Div only kept moving by filling up at french petrol stations). They needed the break to replenish and re-equip, you try six weeks of continuous hard driving with tracked vehicles and see how much maintenance they need.
The limited British counter attack at Arras did throw German invulnerability into question on both sides and made the Germans a bit more cautious (pity the attack did not go as fully planned those Matilda I’s must have looked a sight when attacking)
There were no German naval forces to challenge the RN and French Navy (although 6 British and 3 French destroyers were lost plus about 200 small boats)
The RAF although criticised for lack of support did assist in helping the evacuation.
http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21D57C4_9913_5321_BB9830F0BB762B4E.pdf
During the Dunkirk evacuation, RAF Fighter Command together with elements of Coastal
Command sought to protect the troops massed on the beaches below them. Between 26 May
and 4 June 1940, Fighter Command alone lost 106 aircraft and somewhere between 75-80
pilots in the efforts to defend the BEF. Although unrecognised and unappreciated by many on
the ground, the RAFs efforts were heralded by the Prime Minister when he said that There
was a victory inside this deliverance. It was gained by the Royal Air Force. By agreeing withthe Navy that their ships should arrive at Dunkirk around dusk and depart before dawn and
then applying maximum fighter coverage at those times, sufficient local control of the air was
achieved to prevent the Luftwaffe from interfering decisively with the evacuation.
You truly have to admire british history and propaganda. Its so effective even to this day most people believe their version of history. Mind you most people refuse to broach German history on the subject matter which is why its still so poorly understood. Rather than seek to understand how and why two different views of the same event can exist, they simply choose to believe or not believe what they want.
Churchill admitted privately that the whole BEF/Dunkirk fiasco was the worse military defeat in at least 4 centuries of British history. But they could never say that in public since their whole existance hung by a thread.
The Fact is from well before WW-II, Hitler had tried to engineer an arrangement for the British Empire to remain out of European affairs. Hitler believed that if done properly the British would realise they too where part of his ayran race and he could build an alliance against America, which he saw as the greatest threat to German culture.
Hitler clearly admired the British empire since they had carved an empire out of 40% of the worlds lands and slaughter tens of millions of people over the centuries in there imperialist wars of genicidal conquest… and still had every one convinced it was for the greater good . Now thats what I call effective propaganda!
I don’t know what the British or German histories regarding Dunkirk, or the Battle of France in general, are supposed to be or exactly how they differ…
Churchill admitted privately that the whole BEF/Dunkirk fiasco was the worse military defeat in at least 4 centuries of British history.
Nope. That would have been either Saratoga or Yorktown. Maybe New Orleans. Take your pick. I’m not well read enough on the American Revolution, yet. But I personally I think it was at Saratoga, NY. 
But they could never say that in public since their whole existance hung by a thread.
You’re acting as if someone disagrees with your last two sentences. In fact, the defeat at Dunkirk IS part of British history and Churchill, amongst the “Miracle” deliverance propaganda also clearly enunciated that “wars are not won by evacuations.” No one is turning Dunkirk into a victory for the British. It was merely survival to fight another day. Yet this merely highlights the Wehrmacht’s weaknesses in a time they looked invincible. The Kreigsmarine was too weak to dare challenge the Royal Navy; the Heer/SS forces around Dunkirk were too weak in infantry strength to slog it out in an urban battle with worn panzers and increasingly stiff French resistance in the Bocage. The latter is actually pretty blinding evidence that when the Heer lost their ability to rapidly out-maneuver their enemies, they got caught up in traditional infantry and artillery battles where they could be checked. At Dunkirk, they were now against a superior, entrenched force that was now concentrated and could not be merely outflanked. Nor could the French/BEF forces there be truly “cut off”. The Germans simply believed they could lay siege to a pocket of resistance as they had been doing in France all along, then move up sufficient forces to storm the beaches after the Allies were worn down and that the Luftwaffe isolated them from the sea lanes.
The Fact is from well before WW-II, Hitler had tried to engineer an arrangement for the British Empire to remain out of European affairs. Hitler believed that if done properly the British would realise they too where part of his ayran race and he could build an alliance against America, which he saw as the greatest threat to German culture.
Hitler clearly admired the British empire since they had carved an empire out of 40% of the worlds lands and slaughter tens of millions of people over the centuries in there imperialist wars of genicidal conquest… and still had every one convinced it was for the greater good . Now thats what I call effective propaganda!
Hitler made a lot of off-the-cuff statements that in no way can be interpreted as policy intentions. He was probably trying to divide the Entente more than achieve some highly unlikely, fantasist anti-American Anglo-German alliance. He may have admired parts of British culture, but that’s perhaps because he didn’t have a choice and knew he could never face down the Royal Navy. But acting as if Hitler was “allowing” the British to evacuate a couple hundred thousand of their soldiers and that this would in turn be viewed as sort of a “gift” is a bit of a fantasy.
And those dastardly, genocidal British! How dare they confuse us stupid Americans into believing that Hitler was such a bad guy, and the the greater good really rested with the Axis…
Nothing good ever came out of upstate New York!
The decisive moment at Dunkirk was before the british got to the port. It was at that point when Hitler stopped Von Kleist as it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
And two or three hundred thousand man do not represent a force that can not be destroyed in a pocket, bigger concentration of troops were wiped out in the eastern front,
Moreover, even if they managed to strenghten their position at Dunkirk, would that be stronger than Tobruk? And Tobruk fell, even though it was a real fortress and Rommel’s panzers were near the point of complete exhaustion. And part of the defenders were the excellent anzacs troops. Maybe the better soldiers of the commonwealth on those days.
Tobruk was no more of a fortress than Dunkirk, and was defended by incomparably weaker forces. And I would note that it only fell once - on the other occasion it held against everything the Afrika corps could throw at it for a considerable period of time.
Furthermore, your comparisons to the Eastern front (and indeed Tobruk - you forgot Singapore, a massively greater defeat than Dunkirk) completely miss the point. Encircled troops surrender when either their morale is destroyed or their supplies are cut off with no chance of evacuation.
The morale of the troops at Dunkirk was not a risk, as they were all either long-service regulars or Territorials - a much more stable type than conscripts. Furthermore the majority of SNCOs and senior officers will have fought in WW1.
Given that they were on the English Channel, the possibility of being cut off from supply was nonexistent - the Royal Navy was utterly dominant on it as demonstrated by the evacuation, and the RAF were able to provide effective air cover.
Ha! 
We don’t even consider Saratoga upstate. Only twats from the five boroughs of NYC consider everything beyond White Plains “upstate.” And they would strongly disagree, as they like our good tax dollar$ flowing into that metropolis…
Tobruk were a fortress Dunkirk not, or the british made the miracle of building it in 48 hours? doesn’t make any sense.
The defenders were weaker than in Dunkirk, right, but the german forces were even weaker in the same proportion and they fought in the bloody Gazalla Battle before that,
Russian morale destroyed ?, as I know they used to fight to the bitter end, I don´t think british soldiers could have matched that fighting spirit in France, maybe in England.
I don´t know any case of an army on a similar situation than BEF that no ended on unconditional capitulation.
It´s clear that Hitler let them go and thinking overnight about it, it was his best choice.
He wanted peace with Britain and doing so there was, at least, an slight possibility of reaching that agreement. After such a humiliating defeat, considering the british as a proud an courageous people, with RAF intact and the Royal Navy dominating the seas, no possibility at all. Maybe just and even stiffer resistance and determination.
Moreover, those troops were not a threat for Germany until 1943, when the war was lost for Germany anyways. So he was right, but maybe if he would have anticipated Dresden he would have taken a very different choice.
You’re making some erroneous comparisons and over-generalizations here. Around a million Russians surrendered under the shock of the German advance, so not all fought to the death although some did and most fought very hard in their own little “kessels.” British troops fought with tenacity in many places, as far away as Burma even. That wasn’t their problem, nor the Frenchies problem. The problem was that they were being outfought technically, not corporeally…
Secondly, the Brits (and French) didn’t need a “fortress,” they needed some prepared defenses and blocked city streets to fack up any panzers stupid enough to try a town without proper infantry support…
It´s clear that Hitler let them go and thinking overnight about it, it was his best choice.
He wanted a peace with Britain and doing so there was, at least, an slight possibility of reaching that agreement. After such a humiliating defeat, considering the british as a proud an courageous people, with RAF intact and the Royal Navy dominating the seas, no possibility at all. Maybe just and even stiffer resistance and determination.
Moreover, those troops were not a threat for Germany until 1943, when the war was lost for Germany anyways. So he was right, but maybe if he would have anticipated Dresden he would have taken a very different choice.
Well, Hitler must have been even more idiotic than many of his spineless generals even thought. Because trying to goad a nation into peace with you is generally a little easier if they have 200,000 or so less trained cadre to form the nucleus of a new army. What would Dresden have to do with anything? He would have magically willed his broken down panzers into a desperate street by street fight in terrain they’re not ideally suited for? Hitler, and his generals, knew full well that he risked the exact opposite if he sent in his forces ad hoc–the possibility of a stinging tactical defeat that would have heartened both the British and the French…
And the troops were not a threat to Germany proper until 1943 or even 44’. But a second front was a threat to his plans for Barbarossa…
Tobruk was by and large defended by field fortifications - trenches and artillery positions dug or blasted out of the desert, minefields and barbed wire. Nothing special - what was important was that it was well provided with supply dumps.
I said morale destroyed (c.f. the French army in 1940) OR run out of supplies. When surrounded, the Russians would generally fight until their supplies ran out and the breakout failed. At Dunkirk, due to the RN the British and French forces had no need to worry about supplies running out or having to break out - they had a secure exit route to their rear.
Read up on the Burma campaign. Lots of very similar examples there. Slim’s book is even actually quite a good read.
Yet as soon as the battle of France was over, after some (very) tentative peace feelers Hitler went straight into full blown “I am going to invade” rhetoric. If he was seriously considering an invasion, allowing the escape of the majority of the experienced troops in the British army was an enormous misjudgement. Under what appear to have been his plans, he would be fighting those same troops again about 3-4 months later.
Which he got anyway.
Well, British get used to surrender in France, Norway, Greece and also in Africa and Asia, so…
Do you really think possible that Hollywood scene with the british completely sorrounded in Dunkirk fighting to the bitter end and with the Atlantic as the only way to take to their heels? …and for how long? what is stupid is to think such a situation sustainable in the long run.
Yes, it would have had a cost por the germans, no doubt, another reason for Hitler to just let them go home.
A second front was not a threat in the decisive stage of Barbarrosa.
Burma? what does a jungle guerilla fighting has to do with blitzkrieg? And as far as I know the japanese only left the place in 1945.
A secure exit route? not even in peace times the english channel was a secure route, with the Luftwaffe bases very close and the wolfpacks, it would have been an exit route to hell.
But again, they had never reached the port with out Hitler permission.
If he had consider invasion…
He never considered any invasion of England, Hess didn’t go there as a tourist unless someone can be naive enough to believe that he was “crazy” and went there with out Hitler permission.
Looks like there is a second front in this thread
Of course. The Germans were tactically and technically far superior to the British at this stage and it took the British Army time to weed out their weak leadership, get proper equipment, and develop tactics. And it wasn’t the British who ultimately surrendered in Asia and Africa as I recall. The Germans also suffered set backs and tactical defeats such as losing much of their destroyer fleet off Norway and many of their paratroopers in a Pyrrhic victory on Crete…
Do you really think possible that Hollywood scene with the british completely sorrounded in Dunkirk fighting to the bitter end and with the Atlantic as the only way to take to their heels? …and for how long? what is stupid is to think such a situation sustainable in the long run.
For how long? A few days. I’m pretty sure they went to Dunkirk not to make a last stand, but to get as many out as possible and achieved a result which exceeded all expectations. And the BEF, along with the French Army we’re forgetting, DID put up stiff resistance and they certainly would have gone on as long as they were inflicting losses and holding the line while receiving supplies from the beaches. The panzer halt order lasted two days. Why didn’t the ground forces then just storm the beaches as there was in fact significant fighting outside the town throughout the evacuation…
Secondly, if your beloved Wehrmacht was so infallible, then why did it take them days and weeks longer than expected to crush a “demoralized” French Army fighting them in the hedgerows, even after Dunkirk? You’ll ignore this like you have the other three or so references to it I’ve made, so I’ll answer for you. Because they were facing the same problem the Americans would there in 1944. The thick berms hindered and funneled their superior speed and mobility into ambush points and was of little use against a concentrated, well supplied force possessing antitank weapons. The panzers were stopped, and the Germans had to engage in an infantry and artillery slog they had largely avoided thus far. But it was too little, too late for the French…
Yes, it would have had a cost por the germans, no doubt, another reason for Hitler to just let them go home.
A second front was not a threat in the decisive stage of Barbarrosa.
Oh, okay. I guess that worked out well for the Third Reich then.
From the BBC web site:
This afternoon Mr Churchill admitted to the House that when Operation Dynamo was launched on 26 May to rescue allied forces cornered by the advancing Germany Army, he expected about 20,000 or 30,000 would be saved.
But it looks like if, according to your version, Churchill, Alan Brooke, Lord Gort, Liddel Hart, Runsdetd, Von Kleist, Degrelle and many others are a bunch of idiots, they should have known better…
It didn’t work out because of the runaway british soldiers of Dunkirk, but mainly because of the american industrial power and money put in service of Stalin in the decisive moments of the operation.
Don’t you think?