Dunkirk. The reasons for "miraculous escape".

I believe it was more like 40,000.

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…

I never said they were idiots and you’re treading a bit closely to strawman territory there (well, Churchill did make some idiotic decisions :slight_smile: )…

Nobody, including the German high command who were anxious over the operation–especially Sickle Cut, predicted such a swift fall of France either. Was everyone then an idiot? You’re turning the chaos of war into some neat orderly exercise of mere decisions. It’s very hard to predict outcomes neatly…

It didn’t work out but not 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?

I think that’s a bit simplistic. “Runaway British soldiers?” You mean like retreating? Because even though my military training is basically that of a REMF NCO, I’m pretty sure when you’re being defeated you might want to “runaway”–or retreat–in order to fight another day. The Russians, Mao’s PLA, the Wehrmacht–they all ran away at times. Were the Germans fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front quitters and runaways too? And many of the British fought well, including in the counterattack conducted by an understrength British division at Arras–supported by Matilda IIs–that caused the Germans to temporarily “run away” and they inflicted and took heavy casualties. But like the efforts in the Bocage, it was too little too late. The German conquest of France, though shocking and rapid, was not a cakewalk.

Yes, American industrial power and the Red Army were major factors. But Americans didn’t make the T-34 (unfortunately). And the Americans were mass producing many scientific innovations created or advanced in Britain such as the proximity fuse and radar, and it was both the U.S. and Britain that defeated the Luftwaffe and inhibited German war production…

I can not find in your recount the BEF soldiers, :wink:
I think the war was lost for Germany as early as 1942, Stalingrad.

I apologize, runaway sounds more appropriate for a bride ,

My dad did his PhD at Columbia. It’s one of his favourite sayings (he’s English BTW). But seriously, what have you guys got - the American Revolution and Mormonism isn’t a good record, although I’ll grant you chicken wings.

You seriously need to read up on the campaigns of the British Empire 14th Army in Burma. It was high intensity warfare for the most part, with only the Chindit campaigns resembling in any way Guerrilla warfare. I was specifically referring to the battles of Kohima and in the Arakan, where very large British forces were encircled. Due to the presence of air resupply however, they were able to continue fighting until relieved. Awfully similar to the Dunkirk situation.
As for the Japanese leaving the place in 1945 - true, but it was with the 14th Army pushing them out and their army virtually destroyed. They retained a toehold in the east of the country, largely because 14th Army had largely been withdrawn and was being prepared for the seabourne invasion of Malaya.

Hardly - the Luftwaffe were pretty much incompetent that early in the war when it came to attacking shipping (see the evacuation of Crete - the RN had no air cover whatsoever and despite this the Luftwaffe were unable to inflict sufficient casualties on the RN to stop them doing what they wanted to. As for U-boats, they very rarely operated in the channel - waters were too shallow for safety and it was heavily mined. At no point in the war did they even use it for transit, it was considered that dangerous - U-boats travelling from occupied French bases to Germany would go around the north coast of Scotland.
As for how dangerous the UK considered the channel, even after the fall of France they routinely ran convoys of merchant ships down the channel to the port of London (the early fighting in the Battle of Britain was above these convoys), and they took pretty minimal casualties in the Dunkirk evacuation (all the warships lost were WW1-vintage - the modern destroyers were kept with the Home Fleet on anti-invasion duties).

Uh huh. Which is why the Germans were willing to completely disrupt internal industrial production by moving almost all their Rhine barges to the north coast of France, commit nearly the entire Luftwaffe and what was left of the Kriegsmarine to training for an invasion, etc. If it wasn’t intentional then it was the biggest bluff in history - and he bluffed his entire general staff as well.

Yep, Hitler definately never even considered invasion. Nope, definately not. Never even crossed his mind.

Perhaps some credit could be given to the British for snatching salvation from the jaws of defeat.

Hitler wasn’t responsible for the evacuation of the British and some French forces. Failing to press the attack on Dunkirk was part of the reason for the survival of the main elements of the BEF, but it was the evacuation which was the essential reason for its survival and Hitler had every opportunity to stop that; made steady attempts to stop it from the air; and failed.

Unlike Stalingrad and Tobruk, there was a huge advantage to the British in evacuating Dunkirk where that was not an advantageous option in the sieges of Stanlingrad and Tobruk.

Just before midnight on June 2 1940, the Channel ferry St Helier slipped from the mole at Dunkirk, and headed for England with the last of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Captain William Tennant RN, Beachmaster and the man responsible for the naval organisation of the evacuation, signalled Vice-Admiral Bertram Ramsay, Flag Officer Dover: “BEF evacuated.” Then he and Major General Harold Alexander toured the area in a launch, Alexander shouting through a megaphone: “Is anyone there?” No one answered. They boarded a destroyer, with German bullets whistling around them.

Earlier that night, Alexander had watched the soldiers, illuminated by massive fires and with shells raining down, filing slowly along the mole, the wooden breakwater protecting the harbour at Dunkirk. “The men at no time showed fear or restlessness,” he said later. “They were patient, brave and obedient, and when finally ordered to embark they did so in perfectly disciplined groups, properly armed and equipped.”

Throughout the previous day, Alexander’s immaculate appearance and quiet good manners had raised the morale of all who saw him as he moved among troops waiting for nightfall, and for the ships to arrive. In every mind was the question: “What if the Germans overwhelm the rearguards before darkness brings salvation?” A soldier’s general, Alexander was absolutely the right choice to command the final evacuation of the BEF, and instil confidence.

Some 20,000 French were taken off that night in addition to the British troops. The next night, 63 vessels of all kinds, British and French, took off a further 26,000 French troops in a final lift. At 4.30am, as the grey light pierced the heavy pall of smoke hanging over Dunkirk, HMS Shikari, one of the Royal Navy’s oldest destroyers, cast off from the East Mole, her decks crammed with French soldiers.

The man behind this, the largest seaborne evacuation ever attempted, was a brilliant and forceful leader. Vice-Adml Ramsay had begun planning for the evacuation as early as May 20. His was the guiding mind that put into place all the meticulous arrangements, involving
some 900 vessels, between May 26 and June 4 1940.

Researching my book about Dunkirk brought home to me just what an astonishing and unorthodox feat it was. In the course of my career in the Royal Marines, I’ve carried out a number of amphibious landings, but the evacuation from Dunkirk was an amphibious operation in reverse, without any proper landing craft.

Its necessity, however, is beyond doubt. Only three weeks before, the Germans had invaded France, Belgium and Holland, an event for which the French and British Allies had spent some 10 months preparing. Having rushed forward into Belgium to meet the German onslaught, the Allies believed all was going according to the script. Then the enemy played a wild card: nine Panzer divisions crossed the Meuse in the area of Sedan, and advanced through the Ardennes.

A mere 11 days later, German tanks had reached the Channel coast. The Maginot Line on which the French had staked their hopes had been outflanked. The BEF and French armies of the north were now cut off from the rest of France. With the French and Belgian armies retreating on each side, there was only one recourse for the BEF: withdrawal to Dunkirk.

Dunkirk harbour was the biggest on the Channel coast. Surrounded by marshes that could be flooded, it was easily defended. To the east, gently shelving sandy beaches extended for nearly 20 miles, which meant that embarking troops was difficult: even small craft could not approach within about 100 yards of the waterline, so soldiers had to wade out to them. Larger vessels had to anchor well offshore; craft ferrying troops out had a long turn-round time. There were no jetties and no piers anywhere along the 20-mile stretch.

The harbour was under almost continual attack by the Luftwaffe, so Capt Tennant decided that all evacuation must be from the beaches. He soon realised that this was far too slow, and ordered a destroyer to come alongside the East Mole of the harbour. This was quickly followed by six more. As a result of Tennant’s bold decision, Ramsay switched the main effort from the beaches to the East Mole; this was connected to the beaches by a causeway, allowing soldiers to march directly from the beaches to the ships alongside the mole. The numbers of troops being evacuated rose sharply.

On that same day, May 28, the first of the “little ships” appeared. Their main task was to ferry troops from the beaches to the destroyers and ferries offshore. Without the “little ships” – whose epic voyage was retraced by a flotilla across the Channel yesterday – only a fraction of the troops would have been transported from the beaches. Ramsay was behind the decision that the “little ships” be sent across to assist after Tennant had signalled to Dover ‘‘for every available craft’’.

And as the evacuation proceeded, the RAF tore into the Luftwaffe, shooting down 132 enemy aircraft for the cost of 99 fighters. Without the RAF, many more ships would have been sunk, and few of the BEF would have got away.

Originally, it was thought that some 45,000 soldiers might be rescued. Eventually, 338,226 were taken away in what Churchill described as a “miracle of deliverance”. Thanks to Ramsay’s planning, the power and skill of the Royal Navy, and the gallantry of the Royal and Merchant Navy ships’ companies, and, of course, the crews of the “little ships”. There was a cost. Of 38 destroyers, six were sunk and 26 damaged. Of 46 ferries, nine were sunk and 11 damaged.

The evacuation from Dunkirk was undoubtedly the final phase in a defeat. But, had this culminated in the BEF’s surrender and capture, it is inconceivable that Britain would have fought on. The Germans might not have invaded our Island, but instead, as Hitler always hoped, Britain would have been forced to agree peace terms. The escape of the BEF followed by the failure of the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain bought a precious commodity: time, allowing the British to absorb the lessons of the campaign in France and Flanders, to re-equip and
retrain her Army.

In 1939, the United States Army was ranked 17th in size in the world after Romania. It is therefore out of the question that America could have played any part in stopping the expansion of Germany had Britain capitulated. Without Britain, and her Empire and Commonwealth, continuing to resist, Hitler could have won the war, even after the invasion of Russia. The evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk truly was a retreat to ultimate victory over Nazi Germany.

‘Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory’ by Major General Julian Thompson (Pan Macmillan)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7776529/Dunkirk-the-miracle-of-deliverance.html

A} Nick we are not discussing what you think but what Churchill remarked to his back benchers about Dunkirk. One is important from the POV of history the other is only important in this forum since you run things.

B} Nick no offence but you clearly don’t understand Hitler. What he demanded he got almost all the time. The generals and admirals were forbiden from making any plans or building any forces towards war with the UK. Most such work that was done, was done in secret with out his knowledge. Admiral Raeder faced a Hitler who believed his navy was nothing more than a force to protect coastal Germany and control the Baltic. It took years for Raeder to convince Hitler of the need for larger surface forces , but he cleverly convinced Hitler it was to fight the French not the British. Thats why all the german warships to a sharp turn in development in the late 1930s mimicing French designs. Infact if you look at what German entered into the war with , it was mostly a baltic control force with the beginings of a battlefleet. Again since Hitler got what he demanded , the quite considerable german warship building industry, was completely retooled at the start of the war to produce as many Uboats as possible.The only other ships built other than a handful of Torpedoboot and Zerstörer , was hundreds of minesweepers , MTB and thousands small patrol boats…which is pretty much what Hitler demanded from the start in 1933.

Hitler genuinly believed that he could muster most of Europe in to a grand alliance against communism and American lead Jewry. He believed this was a struggle for racial and cultural survival. He also believed he could convince, cajoul, bully and/or threaten the British out of the war. The entire UBoat war, Dunkirk, Sealion and BoB , these were all apart of his ‘fright wars’ to achieve that goal. This needs to be the underpinning of any such WW-II discussion.

C] Well he very nearly failed in this effort. BTW in war, there is no good or bad , just us against them. Trying to turn war into good and bad is a propaganda exercise for the ‘hearts and minds’ of the voters etc. Its all a load of bullocks.

If Hitler had been in the 19th century none of this would matter to any one since his behaviour was not that different from most 19 century dictators.

This is a fragment of Hitler speech at the Reichstag almost two months after the Dunkirk fiasco:

In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/10/a4081510.shtml

And besides there were conversations in Spain and Portugal with the intention of reach a peace treaty with Britain, so it is clear Hitler didn’t want to fight with the UK.

Here is an interesting quote from The Independent ( British newspaper):

Adrian Hamilton: ‘A great escape? Dunkirk was actually a humiliation for British forces’
His father was there…
It was the cheering, not the battle, for which Dunkirk was remembered. In strictly military terms, the “miracle of Dunkirk” was not the evacuation but Hitler’s decision to hold his forces back from the kill for a precious three days in which the British and French were able to gather in their forces and regroup around the beaches. Hitler later implied that he’d done it almost as an act of charity, in the hope that the British would now come to terms with him, as several members of Churchill’s newly formed War Cabinet were advising him to do.

Another fragment:
His biggest surprise was the reception that the defeated and bedraggled troops got on landing in Margate. “There were thousands of people cheering us,” he later recorded in his memoirs. “I felt desperately humiliated that we had done so little and yet were being greeted as heroes.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/"

I understand is hard to accept that Hitler permitted the evacuation of BEF, but there is no doubt about the certainty of this assertion.

Regards,

That is why he invaded Poland-to prevent war with Britain?
He also invaded France Belgium and Holland to prevent war with Britain?
In much the same way his demands on Czechoslovakia were his last demands in Europe?
The man was a pathological liar and would say and do anything to get his way.
He never had any intention of making ‘peace’ with Britain other than the ‘peace’ granted to a defeated broken enemy.
Your problem is you can never forgive the British for bringing this maniac and his 3rd Reich to its eventual ruin

I am sure you are greatly upset that your heroes were not able to finish off the BEF and we understand your desire to re-write History to explain this failing. Those of us who live in the real world smile when we read your fiction.
This is the typical tactic of the true believer. No German military failure can be admitted. Every reverse is the result of some unforseen event and nothing can be admited that in any way detracts from the mtyh.
I hope you and your dream are happy together.

Why not add the bit you left out?
The very next paragraph says:

[b]Modern historians tend to dismiss this, preferring to see in the decision the advice of the senior German commanders, worried that their advance had overstretched their lines of supply, their minds switched to defeating the main French forces to the south and their concern that boggy Dunkirk was no ground for tanks. To the Germans, an army penned in by the sea was an army with its back to the wall – there for the destruction from the air. For the British, the sea is a route out and a route home. [/b]

Is there any reason why you could not keep that bit in when you did your cut-and-paste, other than to distort reality?

Buffalo was one of the richest U.S. cities at the turn of the previous century. But through severe mismanagement and horrible leadership and the obsolescence foisted upon us by the Welland Canal, she slipped into the rust belt mold of other American post-industrial cities. Much of the beautiful architecture of the older buildings sort of hints at the glory of the past. But what do we have now? Well, I guess we have potential. We have have a beautiful and very underdeveloped waterfront where beaches, boat harbors, and piers that hint at a rustic, New Englandy like summer getaway that are in turn split up by dilapidated and mostly derelict factories. We have a growing, bustling university system with state of the art biomedical research, proximity to Canada and the Northeastern corridor, a bunch of shitty, croniest politicians that should be shot, and a prime location for Global Warming to be a seaside resort near Lake Erie when the rest of you bastards are under water… :slight_smile:

In short, what we have is a relatively quiet provincial city that’s a good place to have a family and still have access to a bit of culture and nightlife. But I guess the more interesting things to a ***** engineer would be that we supply a large portion of electric power to the U.S. and Canada. Some of the Manhattan Project research was done here as well as significant contributions to the aerospace industry prior to Bell pulling out. Most of the P-40 ____hawks were built here in, and almost all of the P-39/63 Cobras were also built here. Not least of which would have been a significant contribution to the Soviet Red Air Force far outweighing almost anything else sent in terms of resources. So, we helped give the world Nuclear weapons, and gave the Red Air Force one of their favorite fighters. I guess that’s something more than cultists and the Revolution. BTW, the latter really didn’t affect my particular stomping grounds. Or I should say that combat was limited to Fort Niagara, an old French outpost that was a base to Loyalist Rangers. The War of 1812 is a bit more relevant, and for the most part that was pretty forgettable as Buffalo was burned to the ground in retaliation for the burning of Toronto, although, there were some successes near Lewiston, NY and Western (not Upstate) New York was largely a base for U.S. troops operating in Southern Ontario…

Hitler was sort of full of shit. It would have been very interesting to see the terms Hitler would have wanted, but the example of Vichy France probably wasn’t all that appealing to the British gov’t…

Here is an interesting quote from The Independent ( British newspaper):

Adrian Hamilton: ‘A great escape? Dunkirk was actually a humiliation for British forces’
His father was there…
It was the cheering, not the battle, for which Dunkirk was remembered. In strictly military terms, the “miracle of Dunkirk” was not the evacuation but Hitler’s decision to hold his forces back from the kill for a precious three days in which the British and French were able to gather in their forces and regroup around the beaches. Hitler later implied that he’d done it almost as an act of charity, in the hope that the British would now come to terms with him, as several members of Churchill’s newly formed War Cabinet were advising him to do.

I read this article too. You’re selectively quoting it to prove some point. I think he went on to mention that the ground around Dunkirk was infested swampland and canals. Not exactly prime panzer territory. I pulled out some John Keegan last night and I don’t feel like posting it verbatim. But it should be noted that the “Panzer Halt!” order of May 26 was not the first one. In fact, Hitler had ordered a full stop on May 17th out of the consternation of his more conservative generals that the infantry and horse drawn supply carts of the Heer were falling behind in the corridor of the axis of advance. The May 26th full stop order was the second one. And Keegan states that Hitler had good reason to stop the panzers as the area around Dunkirk was wetlands and canals completely unsuited to tanks. Keegan does say that the stop order was premature, and had it been issued later, the Heer might have cut off more BEF units than they did. But in fact a full assault was ordered two days later as the infantry were brought up and the Luftwaffe relentlessly pummeled the beaches. It was heroic resistance by the French and British rear guards that held them at bay, as well as the geography that hindered movement under fire…

Another fragment:
His biggest surprise was the reception that the defeated and bedraggled troops got on landing in Margate. “There were thousands of people cheering us,” he later recorded in his memoirs. “I felt desperately humiliated that we had done so little and yet were being greeted as heroes.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/"

So? Of course it was a double edged sword. No one likes to be evacuated after a defeat. But they were alive and able to defend their homeland…

I understand is hard to accept that Hitler permitted the evacuation of BEF, but there is no doubt about the certainty of this assertion.

Regards,

Well, what was he “permitting” on May 17th? The date of the first halt order…

And if Hitler was trying to impress the British with how magnanimous he was, why were dozens of British and Canadian soldiers massacred after the Battle? Why did many BEF soldiers taken into captivity claim they were mistreated, or treated far worse than their French comrades? Hitler didn’t “let them go.” He was too foolish to realize that they were leaving…

And did I forget previously to mention the mighty panzers of the Heer/SS relied on horse drawn carts? I think I did. This is always a fact that pisses off revisionist panzer-Fanbois. That the juggernaut of the German military machine still relied on pack animals. In France, relatively compacted prime tank country, the Germans could get away with this. They would pay for it on the steppes of Russia…

Read the thread from the begining, distort what?
Churchill distort it? Alan Brook, Gort, Hart, all of them ?
Runstedt denied have given any advice on this matter,
Von Kluge, Degrelle, all of them distort reality?

What is the argument? the place was not suited for tanks? sure, like the ardennes forrest? not suitable for panzers they say…
Did you do something different than cut and paste?
Yes, I cut and paste true facts that seems badly hurt you.

That horse drawn cars defeated the british and french armies together in 4 weeks, not even the Maginot defenses were useful to help it, but for sure the Dunkirk “fortress” would have stopped them. Sounds very clever

And your sources for all this?

What is the argument? the place was not suited for tanks? sure, like the ardennes forrest? not suitable for panzers they say…

The difference being it was the French who thought that the Ardennes were not suitable for armor, not the Germans. Please give us an example of an army using armor effectively in marshland…

Did you do something different than cut and paste?
Yes, I cut and paste true facts that seems badly hurt you.

He did. He provided a wider context whereas you selectively culled anything that contradicts your narrow arguments…

Six weeks actually. I’m pretty sure the horse drawn carts weren’t actually in combat. What would the Maginot Line have to do with anything? The Germans never really solved that and the Line only was surrendered after the armistice…

You missed out part of your cut and paste that DIRECTLY contradicted your claim. Therefore you knowingly altered a fact to suit your fan-boy mentality.

Victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan.

You are dishonest. You edit the facts to fit your warped view. You seem unable to accept the fact your mighty heroes were unable to capture the BEF and to cover this great mistake you resort to fabrication.
To show you the ramifications of this error study the following photos.

A bit like watching a football match were team B beat team A by 6 goals to 3. The half time score was 3-0 but you keep talking about the first half and ignore the final score. Live in your fantasy.


He invaded Poland not Britain, and why Britain didn’t declare war to the URSS when they invaded Poland too??
I must remember you that Britain and France declared war to Germany, not the opposite.
Checoslovaquia? a country invented in Versailles treaty? well they paid a wage to Churchill, I remember know.

The most valuable thing in the world is the truth; so valuable that it has often been barricaded by a bodyguard of lies."
Winston Churchil
then, who was the pathological lier?

And finally, it looks like if it was directed to you…

“You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest.” (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 145)

this is your heroe,

It looks like defeat has many fathers too, starting with Churchill.
You are dishonest, where are the british quotes on Dunkirk???

I can’t see your point with this pictures: a drunk, a clown and a british parade to celebrate the russian’s victory? quite a riddle.
you were only useful for cheering up the russians and the americans, your husbands, protectors and eventually, your masters

Hitler offered peace to Britain many times throughout the war and it was always declined. It is obvious who wanted war, the question is… in the end, who won? Soviet Russia is gone, Britain, France, and the US are collapsing due to immigration and poor governments. It really is a shame.