Perhaps you should see the film before actually drawing any conclusions? We don’t “celebrate” Pearl harbor, but yet there are many films about it…
Much would be dependent upon your definition of the word “Celebrate” . As for Dunkirk, There is just cause to celebrate, the salvation of a few hundred thousand fighting men, who will live to fight another Day is a very good cause for celebration, and it is a fair stretch to call that a defeat. Perhaps you should see the film before making comments on it. Pearl Harbor was an undeclared act of Piratical mass murder. While there was no dancing in the Streets, we can celebrate the fact that the Pirates didn’t deliver the the Blow they had wished to, and that so many were saved of the injured, and trapped. Once the Allies completed their work, then the World’s populations could, and did celebrate a very well earned set of victories.
I was not making a commitment on the movie, rather the event itself being held in such high esteem. The fact is it was a total defeat and it is true that the retreat helped save the majority of the British land force. And I suppose if one wants to say it was a magnificent retreat, certainly one could argue it was on if the best.
As to the premise that the allies celebrated subsequent victories, it has nothing to do with the British defeat at Dunkirk. In fact, outside of North Africa, in what major land battles did the British play a pivotal role? They were late on DDay held up by light resistance at the beach. More later…
The escape of French, and British Soldiers from Dunkirk was not a defeat. Such a label might be appropriate had those hundreds of thousands of Soldiers been stranded, and left to be either captured or killed. Your assertions of it being a defeat are more just your own opinion, which I do not share. I do see a recurring negativity in your posts, and such a trend might be taken as Trolling. Just some food for thought.
It wasn’t a “total defeat”. Otherwise the British would have been annihilated as the Germans were at the Stalingrad Kessel. If the Heer had broken out of the Stalingrad pocket, do you not think the Third Reich would have celebrated this as a miraculous escape?
You’ve pretty much just summarized everything that’s been said about the ‘evacuation’, including none other than Churchill that said “wars are not won on evacuations”. It guaranteed that Britain could rebuild its shattered forces much faster and showed the fundamental naval and air weaknesses of the Third Reich and buoyed the British as the only nation left standing against Hitler. It also may have influenced Hitler to commence his disastrous Barbarossa planning. So yes, it was a significant event that deserves some celebration as the British only thought they’d get out around a tenth of the final number…
As to the premise that the allies celebrated subsequent victories, it has nothing to do with the British defeat at Dunkirk. In fact, outside of North Africa, in what major land battles did the British play a pivotal role? They were late on DDay held up by light resistance at the beach. More later…
Well for starters, the British faced the vast majority of German armor in Normandy while the Americans were penned in by fortified hedgerows. Monty’s feint allowed Operation Cobra to break out and crush the German occupation of France…
Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.
The British met very light resistance upon landing at Normandy. It was their slow response and lack of organization and initiative that afforded the Germans time to organize a strong counter attack. This is a pattern the hapless British army repeated time and time again through out the course of the war. I knew a former GI who landed at Omaha and proceeded to walk through France, Holland and Germany. He said the British were always late and slow to respond in combat situations. One night, after he and his men had been in continuous contact with the Germans for two weeks, they had finally gotten some rest and were dug in their fox holes waiting on the British who were late as usual. It was two or three in the morning and they were dug in their fox holes sleeping when the British arrived playing bagpipes. The Germans heard the pipes too and opened up with their artillery. From that point forward he had no respect for the British.
Again, where did the British play a pivotal role in the land war in Europe? What major battles are attributed to the British? Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best. So the British at Dunkirk did not live fight another day, at least not with any real effectiveness. It is a simple fact the the British army contributed far less than they are given credit and I would guess that would be in most if not all theaters in which they fought.
[QUOTE=Eastwind;198058]Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.
Perhaps in your opinion it was a loss, and a defeat, but opinions do not make it so.
Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.
The British met very light resistance upon landing at Normandy. It was their slow response and lack of organization and initiative that afforded the Germans time to organize a strong counter attack. This is a pattern the hapless British army repeated time and time again through out the course of the war. I knew a former GI who landed at Omaha and proceeded to walk through France, Holland and Germany. He said the British were always late and slow to respond in combat situations. One night, after he and his men had been in continuous contact with the Germans for two weeks, they had finally gotten some rest and were dug in their fox holes waiting on the British who were late as usual. It was two or three in the morning and they were dug in their fox holes sleeping when the British arrived playing bagpipes. The Germans heard the pipes too and opened up with their artillery. From that point forward he had no respect for the British.
Again, where did the British play a pivotal role in the land war in Europe? What major battles are attributed to the British? Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best. So the British at Dunkirk did not live fight another day, at least not with any real effectiveness. It is a simple fact the the British army contributed far less than they are given credit and I would guess that would be in most if not all theaters in which they fought.
It looks like the “moderator” is political correct and will not publish my reply as it may not align with their point of view. To the moderator I say is your position so tenuous it will not withstand debate?
Post this Mr Moderator:
Dunkirk was neither a victory or a stalemate. It was a loss, a defeat. We’re there some positive aspects to the loss, yes, some and that does not change the fact that it was a defeat. Your quote from Churchill says it all.
The British met very light resistance upon landing at Normandy. It was their slow response and lack of organization and initiative that afforded the Germans time to organize a strong counter attack. This is a pattern the hapless British army repeated time and time again through out the course of the war. I knew a former GI who landed at Omaha and proceeded to walk through France, Holland and Germany. He said the British were always late and slow to respond in combat situations. One night, after he and his men had been in continuous contact with the Germans for two weeks, they had finally gotten some rest and were dug in their fox holes waiting on the British who were late as usual. It was two or three in the morning and they were dug in their fox holes sleeping when the British arrived playing bagpipes. The Germans heard the pipes too and opened up with their artillery. From that point forward he had no respect for the British.
Again, where did the British play a pivotal role in the land war in Europe? What major battles are attributed to the British? Their contribution on DDay was absent or minimal at best. So the British at Dunkirk did not live fight another day, at least not with any real effectiveness. It is a simple fact the the British army contributed far less than they are given credit and I would guess that would be in most if not all theaters in which they fought.
So anyone who would substantially disagree with you is a troll? Since when is one’s opinion based on the facts at hand, trolling? If you disagree then state your position in a rational manner.
I am pretty sure that I am being ghosted at this point. This is pc gone amock. I wonder are you academics?
Again Dunkirk was not a Victory or a Stalemate, it was a loss. Now if you wish to say it was not as big a loss as it might have been, I understand. After the Germans punched a hole in the American lines during the battle of the bulge, the American rallied, fought back and unfortunately let 200,000 German soldiers escape. Was this considering a victory for the Germans? I could go on but there is no way to view Dunkirk as any thing other than a defeat.
And please no more person attacks. I don’t call you a troll because your view may not be akin to my own. All you do is weaken your position when you resort to such tactics.
[QUOTE=Eastwind;198063]So anyone who would substantially disagree with you is a troll? Since when is one’s opinion based on the facts at hand, trolling? If you disagree then state your position in a rational manner.
If you are posting in reply to me Mr Eastwind, My reference to Trolling was not a reprimand, or a label. It was to inform you that your posting style could be taken that way. You demand that your assertions ,and opinions be taken at face value without citation, but reject another poster’s comments out of hand. and now you cry foul as well. Your social interactions are perhaps less than polished, so some neighborly advice was given. Accept it as it was meant. This site is not a Debating Society, it is a place where people can discuss amicably, the various topics available. This is all here for the members enjoyment, that includes you. I’ve been here a long time, and enjoy the things I see here for the most part. So relax, and enjoy yourself too.
Why are you making this personal? Your repeated use of the word “you” is a strong indication that this has become personal. Why? It is not personal. We are having a conversation. If you disagree, state your position. Why am I mistaken, show me, do not lecture me as to how I should post. Where are the facts of your rebuttal?
I have many friends with whom I disagree and we are friends because it is not personal. We discuss ideas. Present your case.
Here let’s bring this home: Dunkirk was indicative of the British ground effort in Europe. It is not negative to recite the facts. For example, just one of many, the Brits were late getting off the beach June 6th and this afforded the enemy time to organize a potent counter attack. In the big picture, where did the Brits make significant contributions to the land war? What major battles did they win? I have acknowledged that is was good that they got their troops off the beach at Dunkirk. But to what end? I can not see Dunkirk as anything less that a defeat. One in which they failed to seize their objective. If I am mistaken, show me where I have missed the mark.
I am guessing that you are addressing me, Mr. Eastwind, and at this point I would suggest that you are taking this all far too seriously. I did say that this is not a Debating society, so repeatedly attempting to steer this towards being a debate will be fruitless. If all you seek is to force a viewpoint, or foster a contentious timber in this Thread, you do yourself no service. chill, and enjoy, that’s all anyone has to do here.
Just for your own edification,Moderators have no part in what you as a member choose to post. There is no Moderator, or Admin approval required prior to a post being published to the membership, and guests.
Quite right!
The lousy, weak, and cowardly Brits did bugger all for all of WWII.
Mostly they just sat in their island home, sipping tea and munching on buttered crumpets dripping with honey, while waiting for the USA to save them from the Nazi hordes assaulting their land.
Oh, except for the first couple of years while the British were the only ones fighting the Nazis, on land, in the air, and on the seas.
Still, apart from that, which kept the Nazis at bay while Stalin and Hitler carved up Europe and the Americans kept out of the war while Ford and GM and sundry other American capitalists profited marvellously from supplying both sides in the European War until the Japanese stuffed it up by attacking America and depriving American capitalists of their profits from Manchuria etc, the Brits did bugger all after December 1941, apart from the odd bit of annoyance to the Axis powers by sinking their ships, bombing and eventually invading their homelands, and otherwise doing nothing of consequence to bring about the downfall of the Axis powers.
Upon reflection, I can’t see why you or anyone else would bother with paying any attention to Britain’s brief (1939-45) compared with America’s long (effectively 1942-45) involvement in WWII, never mind the trivial contribution by the Soviets.
Indeed! everyone knows that one never mixes Butter with honey on a Crumpet. Bad Form I say!
May be bad form, but MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM - Forbidden honey butter crumpet!
Which, of course, the Brits had tons of during their easy war with no civilian rationing etc as they kept all their armed forces at home while everyone else fought on their behalf. ;):rolleyes:
Would you like to describe how the land war in Europe would have developed successfully in favour of America as the sole belligerent invading the Continent, starting with the invasion of Sicily, with no contribution from British land, sea and air forces?
Perhaps you could also expand on how the Allied air superiority necessary for the success of D Day and subsequent operations could have been achieved and maintained without any contribution from the RAF?
Similarly, for the RN on the water.
The Battle of Britain, which was a turning point which preserved Britain from German invasion and allowed the USA and other Allies to launch the Allied invasion of Western Europe.
You seem to be under the serious misapprehension that WWII started with D Day; that only America did anything on and after D Day; and that everything that mattered from then on was done by US land forces in Western Europe.
It’s not necessary to go beyond the preceding statement to show how little you know.