Dunkirk

[Lang]

Just looked at Bruce's historic link.

The thing that is perpetrated throughout the Dunkirk story, probably beginning with morale boosting propaganda at the time, was the Germans defeated the allies with "overwhelming odds"

Any quick search on numbers will show the combined strength of the defending forces had considerably more men, tanks, trucks, artillery and aircraft than the Germans. It was shear audacity and risk taking by the Germans that won the day - Blitzkrieg. Rommel is just one divisional commander who outran his supply, ignored threats to his flanks and risked losing the lot by plunging deep into the opposing forces.

The speed and mobility of the assault totally bewildered the WW1 mentality of the French and British commanders.

The great unanswered question is why did the Germans give the allies a reprieve which enabled most of the British Army to be rescued?

Lang

[Mike Cecil]

So Lang, perhaps the more accurate phrase would be 'overwhelming force' rather than 'overwhelming odds'? An army doesn't need to be in superior numbers to exert 'overwhelming force' and through the audacious use of 'shock and awe', win the day - very much, I think, what the German Army did in the invasion of France. And George Patton did to a certain extent in the opposite direction four + years later: keep punching forward till the supply line holds you back.

I agree with you about the order for the advancing German units to halt/rest/regroup/ etc. Much debate, but no adequate explanation seems to have resulted. One of those mysteries of war.

Mike

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Lang

The great unanswered question is why did the Germans give the allies a reprieve which enabled most of the British Army to be rescued?

Lang

Why? It's because the German commanders were ordered to hesitate by their political master. The delay was to try one last time to get the British to 'see reason' and make a deal to join Germany as a lesser partner. Should that happen, an intact British army would be useful. It sounds wacky but there was enough support in the British parliament to make it a possibility. A possibility, that is, until Winston Churchill rightly dug his heels in. The same perceived support for a possible British/German deal by some British parliamentarians and The Duke of Windsor was also responsible for the setting up of a clandestine meeting with Rudolf Hess when he flew his Me110 into Scotland. Of course it was a trap, but it only worked because Germany thought it was possible. Read "Ten Days to Destiny" by John Costello.

[Mike K]

Originally Posted by Lang

The great unanswered question is why did the Germans give the allies a reprieve which enabled most of the British Army to be rescued?

Lang

According to the doco on TV a few weeks back, Goering promised Hitler the Luftwaffe would finish off the British at Dunkirk with prolonged bombing . The doco claimed , most historians have ignored what the RAF actually did - save the day . The TV doco was dispelling the furphy that the RAF was not seen above the beaches and the Luftwaffe had a free sky to do whatever .

They interviewed veterans , and the RAF was actually doing quite a lot behind the beaches , unseen by the guys trapped on the beach.

The doco praised the Spitfire in particular , its first encounter with German fighters was described. The Luftwaffe lost many aircraft , hundreds during the battle for France . The French air force put up a decent fight , it wasn't another Polish debacle.

[Lang]

Mike and Bruce you seem to make my point about unanswered reasons.

Bruce has the Germans deliberately stopping to allow a political arrangement, Mike has them getting no reprieve but the German Army standing back while the German Air Force took over the (unsuccessful) job of destroying them.

Neither theory looks strong to me.

We seem to forget the British Army fell back before the Germans as easily as the French. Both claim the other moved rearward exposing their flanks forcing them to move also.

What about the tarnished French Army putting up such a resistance on the defense perimeter they occupied the Germans long enough for an escape to be made. If the Germans were seriously held up, their artillery would have been fully occupied on the defenders not being used in some sort of random slaughter of milling people inside the perimeter.

Whatever the heroism involved in the evacuation and 3 days of "holiday" ,for whatever reason, the rescue would not have happened if the French had not continued to put up a wall to allow the British to escape.

Just another theory.

Lang

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Lang

Mike and Bruce you seem to make my point about unanswered reasons.

Bruce has the Germans deliberately stopping to allow a political arrangement, Mike has them getting no reprieve but the German Army standing back while the German Air Force took over the (unsuccessful) job of destroying them.

Neither theory looks strong to me.

We seem to forget the British Army fell back before the Germans as easily as the French. Both claim the other moved rearward exposing their flanks forcing them to move also.

What about the tarnished French Army putting up such a resistance on the defense perimeter they occupied the Germans long enough for an escape to be made. If the Germans were seriously held up, their artillery would have been fully occupied on the defenders not being used in some sort of random slaughter of milling people inside the perimeter.

Whatever the heroism involved in the evacuation and 3 days of "holiday" ,for whatever reason, the rescue would not have happened if the French had not continued to put up a wall to allow the British to escape.

Just another theory.

Lang

Read the book. The research and references (71 pages worth) make a pretty solid case.

[Lang]

Bruce, I have not read that book but several others of the period, all with different perspectives. References are easy as you just take the bits that fit your argument, even out of context, as anyone writing a paper for a university assignment will tell you. Look impressive though.

I have read two books on the Hess incident, one claims he was an authorised Hitler emissary and the other that he was an extremely strange fellow doing his own thing.

The "Halt to negotiate" theory loses ground in my view. If you are negotiating in good faith, even hoping for the others to come across to your side as you suggest, why would you continue to kill thousands of people by air attack during the so called reprieve period?

I think the most likely is - They are cornered like rats in a trap against the sea, with nowhere to go. We are only going to lose hundreds of our blokes in an assault why not just starve them out and terrify them with bombing until they come to their senses and give up. Whether this idea came from the field commander, Army Headquarters or Hitler personally doesn't really matter.

Lang

[Lang]

There does not seem to be too much conspiracy in this history.

Notice how the generals tried to blame Hitler. Rundstedt called the halt because of going for his tanks and supply problems. Hitler visited to see for himself and obviously was convinced by the generals - "Hitler endorsed the order..."

Manstein described it as Hitler's greatest mistake but Hitler gave all due diligence by coming to France, listening to his commander on the spot and endorsing Rundsted's order. Manstein and the others raged later at Hitler over riding generals' orders but when it suits him reverses his position.

The Air Force said they would do the job, giving the allies time to prepare and the French put up a wall to let the British escape.


Main article: Battle of Dunkirk
By 24 May, the Germans had captured the port of Boulogne and surrounded Calais.[30] The engineers of the 2nd Panzer Division under Generalmajor Rudolf Veiel built five bridges over the Canal Line and only one British battalion barred the way to Dunkirk.[40] On 23 May, Rundstedt had ordered the panzer units to halt, concerned about the vulnerability of his flanks and the question of supply to his forward troops.[41][42][43] He was also concerned that the marshy ground around Dunkirk would prove unsuitable for tanks and he wished to conserve them for later operations (in some units, tank losses were 30–50 percent).[44][45] Hitler was also apprehensive, and on a visit to Army Group A headquarters on 24 May, he endorsed the order.[44]

Air Marshal Hermann Göring urged Hitler to let the Luftwaffe (aided by Army Group B[46]) finish off the British, to the consternation of Halder, who noted in his diary that the Luftwaffe was dependent upon the weather and air crews were worn out after two weeks of battle.[47] Rundstedt issued another order, which was sent uncoded. It was picked up by the RAF Y service at 12:42: "By order of the Fuhrer ... attack north-west of Arras is to be limited to the general line Lens-Bethune-Aire-St Omer-Gravelines. The Canal will not be crossed."[48][49] Later that day, Hitler issued Directive 13, which called for the Luftwaffe to defeat the trapped Allied forces and stop their escape.[50] At 15:30 on 26 May, Hitler ordered the panzer groups to continue their advance, but most units took another 16 hours to attack.[51] The delay gave the Allies time to prepare defences vital for the evacuation and prevented the Germans from stopping the Allied retreat from Lille.[52]

The halt order has been the subject of much discussion by historians.[53][54] Guderian considered the failure to order a timely assault on Dunkirk to be one of the major German mistakes on the Western Front.[55] Rundstedt called it "one of the great turning points of the war",[56] and Manstein described it as "one of Hitler's most critical mistakes".[57] B. H. Liddell Hart interviewed many of the generals after the war and put together a picture of Hitler's strategic thinking on the matter. Hitler believed that once Britain's troops left continental Europe, they would never return.[58]

[Bruce Parker (RIP)]

Originally Posted by Lang

Bruce, I have not read that book but several others of the period, all with different perspectives. References are easy as you just take the bits that fit your argument, even out of context, as anyone writing a paper for a university assignment will tell you. Look impressive though.

I have read two books on the Hess incident, one claims he was an authorised Hitler emissary and the other that he was an extremely strange fellow doing his own thing.

The "Halt to negotiate" theory loses ground in my view. If you are negotiating in good faith, even hoping for the others to come across to your side as you suggest, why would you continue to kill thousands of people by air attack during the so called reprieve period?

I think the most likely is - They are cornered like rats in a trap against the sea, with nowhere to go. We are only going to lose hundreds of our blokes in an assault why not just starve them out and terrify them with bombing until they come to their senses and give up. Whether this idea came from the field commander, Army Headquarters or Hitler personally doesn't really matter.

Lang

I've read several accounts as well, and agree many are selective in promoting their version (ever figure out who Jack the Ripper really was? There's a significant number of options to choose from) but read the book and judge for yourself. I cant recall any other account that puts all the pieces together with reference to period documents, diaries, hansard, etc. If all that material exists yet could point to another conclusion I'd love to hear it.

[Lang]

All the drama and publicity of Dunkirk has submerged a smaller but much more dramatic fighting withdrawal from Boulogne at the same time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Boulogne_(1940)

Lang