General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

doveton sturdee
Imperial War Museums
comments

Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "How did the British escape from Dunkirk?" video.

@jetaddicted Which Indians? There were around 600 Indian (Muslim) mule handlers, in four companies. Three companies were evacuated, although the fourth, on detached duty on the Maginot Line, was captured. Those who reached Britain were actually honoured with marches through a number of towns (the newspapers of the time confirm this), and Britain's, the toy firm, even produced models of them, for heaven's sake. Actually, when the Belgians surrendered, a British Division, commanded by Montgomery, as it happens, undertook a difficult night transfer to block the resulting gap in the allied line. I have never understood why people like you, with no actual knowledge, insist upon displaying you ignorance and prejudice in such a manner. Perhaps you might try to explain?
13
51HD was not abandoned. An evacuation fleet of 67 merchant ships and around 140 smaller vessels was sent to lift them, but was prevented by thick fog. A second attempt was planned but the French unit with which 51HD were serving, IX Corps, surrendered early on 12 June, obliging 51HD to do the same. This is all detailed, in full, on the 51ND Website.
9
Dynamo reduced a catastrophe to a mere defeat. For the Royal & Merchant Navies, it was a remarkable victory, and for Bertram Ramsay a triumph. What a pity that the recent 'Dunkirk' movie seemed almost to write the Royal Navy out of the story, in favour of the 'Little Ships' myth. What a pity, also, that the subsequent evacuation of 192,000 troops from French Atlantic ports, Operation Aerial, has, apparently, been lost to history.
7
@edgehodl4832 Perhaps you could deploy your vast military knowledge to enlighten us as to how, after around 100 Belgian & French divisions had either collapsed, or were collapsing, a BEF of 13 divisions could have reversed the situation?
6
@profesercreeper Odd then, that Gort's actions were the result of a meeting with General Blanchard, on Sunday 26 May. Both agreed that Weygand's plan for an offensive was unrealistic, and decided to withdraw the main allied line behind the Lys. When Belgium surrendered at 0400 on 28 May, a British Division was actually rushed into place to fill the resulting gap in the Allied line. Around 120,000 French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, by the way.
6
Really? You think that the remains of 13 divisions, after around 100 French and Belgian divisions had collapsed or were collapsing, should have fought it out uselessly? Easy to say 80 years after the event, from a comfy chair!
5
It would have been had Hitler issued it. He didn't, the commander of Army Group A, Von Rundstedt, did. He wished to have his armour serviced before beginning the second stage of the campaign, and because he feared a repeat of the 'Miracle of the Marne.' Goering had already told Hitler that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe' and Hitler believed him.
4
@edgehodl4832 How are battles from late 1941 onwards relevant to events of mid 1940? The importance of Dynamo (and, Aerial) was that the bulk of the British army was returned to the UK. Had the evacuation failed, then the Halifax faction might well have removed Churchill, and the Holy Fox might well have agreed to a humiliating peace treaty with Hitler. The apparent 'miracle' of Dunkirk, actually a triumph of improvisation largely by the Royal & Merchant Navies, secured Churchill's position, and reduced Halifax to a virtual irrelevance.
4
@stephenfreestone1746 'just another cut and run british success story' When the Belgian army capitulated, and the 90 or so divisions of the French army largely collapsed, what exactly would you suggest the 13 divisions of the BEF should have done?
4
Then everyone is as wrong as you are. Hitler didn't issue any Halt Order. Von Rundstedt did. You can even read the War Diary of Army Group A confirming it.
4
@JimmysEssay 'Britain started a war ran away and got their two bigger friends to finish the fight for them.' How did they do that? The Germans invaded the USSR in June, 1941, the Japanese attacked the US in December, 1941, and the Germans declared war on the US in the same month. You have an odd, detached, view of fact.
4
@markhitchcock4704 You can say it, but it wouldn't be true. The Halt Order was issued by Von Rundstedt, to allow his armour to be serviced and repaired before commencing the second stage of the campaign. Like many senior officers, he feared a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne of WW1. Hitler had already been assured by Goering that the destruction of the Allied pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe,' and was foolish enough to believe him. Surely, if you want your enemy to come to terms, wouldn't there be more chance of that were his field army to be caged in PoW camps, rather than safe behind an impenetrable sea barrier? If your lovable peacefully intentioned Hitler was not intent upon conquering the whole of Europe, did the invasions of Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium, all take place without his knowledge?
3
No it didn't. By August, 1940, the British already felt able to send the 'Apology' convoy to North Africa. This was a large troop convoy which included three Armoured regiments.
3
@2adamast As the French army was ten times the size of the British one, is it surprising that French casualties were higher? Would you wish to use a similar argument to compare naval or aircrew casualties? In point of face, of 338,000 men evacuated from Dunkirk, 123,095 were not British. Almost all were French, although a few were Belgian. French ships evacuated 22,160 French troops. Whose ships evacuated the rest, I wonder?
2
@2adamast Actually, during the Dunkirk evacuation, French deaths totalled around 16,000. Around 40,000 men of the French rearguard surrendered after the evacuation had ended. This decision of yours to introduce corpse counting, especially selective corpse counting, apparently to justify your perfidious Albion theory, is most unedifying, and I won't indulge you further.
2
The Canadians were part of the 'Reconstituted BEF' which began landing at Cherbourg on 7 June, but were withdrawn after Weygand told Alan Brooke, the commander, that the French army was no longer able to provide organised resistance.
2
Reality check. No, they didn't. Why on earth would they? If you want your enemy to come to terms, letting an entire field army escape to an island protected by the largest navy on earth is an odd way of bringing that about, don't you think?
2
They were not with the BEF at Dunkirk. They were with the French IX Corps, which surrendered on 12 June.
2
@AUCHTERMUCHTYZZ Left behind because they had been obliged to surrender when IX Corps did. The Royal Navy had sent an evacuation fleet of 67 merchantmen & 140 smaller vessels to St. Valery, intending to lift 51HD on the night of 12 June. General Marcel Ihler, of IX Corps, took the decision out of their hands.
2
@seraglioborneo2803 The British did begin landing troops in Cherbourg as early as 7 June, until Weygand told their commander, Alan Brooke, that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance.
2
Legend. The Luftwaffe was the most 'nazi' of the German armed forces. It failed badly at Dunkirk, despite Goering's promise to Hitler that the destruction of the pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe,' made on 23 May.
2
@sharonprice42 Potentially, but not actually. Of the 200,000 British troops on that beach, how many returned to Britain? 193,500.
2
@sharonprice42 What British equipment do you think the Germans used against the allies? A few trucks, actually.
2
'When the Americans came into the war they took charge of British and Canadian troops on D-DAY.' Really? The Allied Ground forces commander was British, the Air Force commander was British, and the Naval commander was British. 3261 0f 4127 were British manned, 892 of 1213 warships were RN or RCN, two thirds of 11,600 aircraft were RAF, and two thirds of the troops who landed from the landing craft were British/Canadian. The minesweeping in advance of D-Day was almost entirely carried out by RN & RCN ships, and the Escort & Support Groups which destroyed any U-boats which tried to intervene were RN or RCN. Oh, and of course the Intelligence Operation was dominated by Bletchley Park. In the East, the largest single land defeat sustained by the Japanese Army was Operation U-Go, in March-June, 1944. Inflicted by the Anglo-Indian XIV Army. The French liberated Paris, whilst the British liberated Brussels and Amsterdam, before reaching the Baltic and ensuring Denmark did not fall into the Soviet Sphere of influence.
2
@sharonprice42 I would ask you to provide a source, but, apart from your prejudices, you haven't got one. Most equipment left behind was destroyed, particularly armoured vehicles. Even AA guns or 2 pounder AT guns were of no value without sources of ammunition. Some trucks were captured in working order, but once again the spares problem was insurmountable. The British had a similar problem after Beda Foom. A number of M11s and M13s were captured intact, and used by an Australian Division Cavalry regiment, but for a month or two only.
2
@sharonprice42 Just the opposite. My posts are always fact based. What do you think I have made up/
2
@sharonprice42 By captured, I assume you mean 'destroyed.' The British sen onlly two Armoured Units with the BED, 1st Armoured Division & 1st Army Tank Brigade. Ist Armoured Division had 250 tanks, of which 110 were light Mark Vis, armed only with machine guns only, whist the remained were a mixture of cruisers, A9s, A10s & A13s. A small number were captured intact, but only one German unit ever used any, actually 9 A13s, as training vehicles in France & the Netherlands until mid 1941. 1st Army Tank Brigade consisted of two regiments, wquipped with a total of 12 Light tanks, 77 Matilda Is (armed with a machine gun) & 23 Matilda IIs, armed with a two pounder gun. These had been lost in action or destroyed by their crews, either at Arras or afterwards. Only one Matilda II is known to have been used by any German unit, after the turret was replaced by a German AA gun, on the French coast. If you have a source which tells you anything different, what is it? .303 Ammunition was useless to the Germans as it was incompatible with their own weapons. A similar comment applies to the AA & AT weapons. Trucks were of more use, nut only briefly until the lack of access to spare parts became too great. You keep posting exactly the same thing, time after time, without providing any evidence for your nonsense. You are becoming tedious.
2
Char B1.
2
@JimmysEssay 'Left behind French & Scottish soldiers?' 120,000 French troops were lifted from Dunkirk. The 51 Highland Division was surrendered at St. Valery after the larger force of which it had been part (IX Corps of 10th French Army) surrendered, before a large evacuation fleet, of 67 merchant ships and 140 smaller vessels, could lift them out. Look at the official 51 Highland Division if you like, instead of simply posting nonsense.
2
@JimmysEssay In point of fact, the U-Boats never came remotely near blockading Britain. Certainly nowhere as near as the Kaiser's boats did in 1917. Doenitz calculated that his boats needed to sink 600,000 tons per month. In fact, the U-boats rarely surpassed 300,000, and were often below 100,000 tons. Oh, and the Battle of the Atlantic. Between January, 1942, and the end of May, 1944, the causes of U-Boat losses were as follows :- RN/RCN surface vessels :- 135, RAF :- 126, US Navy aircraft :- 63, Miscellaneous losses :- 38, US & USCG surface ships 28, USAAF :- 15, and Allies :- 7. Check in 'The U-Boat Offensive, 1914-1945' by V. E. Tarrant, if you don't believe me. I assume, however, that your prejudices are far too deeply ingrained to be altered by mere facts.
2
@JimmysEssay You said 'Scottish soldiers.' The only significant group of Scots soldiers left behind were 51 Highland Division. Please don't be disingenuous. Presumably you don't know that the British began to re-land troops in Cherbourg on 7 June, until Weygand told their commander that the French army was 'no longer capable of organised resistance.' I assume you know who Weygand was? Most of the French troops were also re-landed at Cherbourg in order to re-join their army, although some chose to remain in Britain as part of the Free French forces.
2
@JimmysEssay 'you and CB overplay Britain played a huge part in beating Hitler.' I see. You have run out of argument (if, indeed, you ever had any) so you resort to vague generalisations. I wonder if you even know that, at D-Day, two in every men who landed on the beaches were British & Canadian, 892 of 1213 warships were Royal Navy, 3261 of 4217 landing craft were British crewed, and two thirds of 11,600 aircraft were RAF? Indeed, a very minor partner.
2
@JimmysEssay 'This is basic stuff mate.' Indeed, Britain and France declared war on Germany in support of an alliance with Poland, which was intended, unsuccessfully, to deter Germany from further expansion in Europe. Germany, of course, by July 1941 had invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and the Soviet Union, without declaring war on any of them. Generally, those countries learned that the arrival of tanks, troops, aircraft and in many cases einsatzgruppen represented the nazi equivalent of a declaration of war. Britain sent her main field army, of thirteen divisions, to support a combined Franco-Belgian army of over 100 divisions. The Belgian army then capitulated, and the French army largely collapsed. Britain, a small land power with the largest navy on earth, then used her navy to evacuate the BEF, and much of the French First Army Group, from the Dunkirk pocket, and attempted to re-land troops in Cherbourg, before being told that the French army was no longer able to resist further. After that, the British, largely again because of their navy, successfully ensured that a German invasion was never attempted, and provided a rallying point for opponents of nazism in Europe and beyond. Granted, it is difficult to see how Britain and her Commonwealth alone could have liberated occupied Europe, but the lunatic German attack on her former friend, the Soviet Union, entirely changed the situation, especially since the US, although neutral was providing aid for Britain and, after Barbarossa, the Soviet Union. After Pearl Harbor & the German declaration of war on the US (unusual, that, as Germany generally simply attacked without such a courtesy), Britain then led the campaign in the west. The Royal and Royal Canadian Navies eventually won the Battle of the Atlantic, the RN convoyed supplies to North Russia, with two of 78 convoys only suffering significant losses, the Royal Navy held control of the Mediterranean, prevented any major Japanese campaign in the Indian ocean, and was largely responsible for planning most of the Assault Landings in the west, such as Torch, Husky, Avalanche, & Overlord. This enabled the growing US Navy to concentrate almost entirely in the Pacific against Japan, although the most significant Japanese land defeat of WW2 was the repulse of their operation U-Go, which caused them 55,000 casualties. Only for about the last six or seven months of the war were US ground forces in the west greater in numbers than British & Commonwealth ones. Oh, & by the way, isn't it odd that a 'bit part player' provided the commanders of the Naval, Ground Forces, and Air Forces, during Operation Overlord? The reality is that Britain could not, alone, have defeated Germany, but there again neither could the United States. The Soviet Union might, possibly have done so, but as a post war Soviet historian wrote, 'The Soviet Union was largely responsible for the defeat of Hitlerism, but it largely did so using US trucks, eating US food, using US radios, and wearing British boots.' That is what almost every historian working in the field will actually tell you.
2
@JimmysEssay I don't waste my time on wikipedia, in point of fact. I have full access to an extensive military & political library. Of course the Allies didn't go to war for Poland. They agreed an alliance to draw a line in the sand, to tell Hitler that further aggression in Europe was not acceptable. Evidently, you don't know the terms of the alliance, by the way. The Allies agreed to declare war in the event of a German invasion of Poland, but specifically avoided any reference to the Soviets. Which people in Britain were 'desperate to go to war?' Furthermore, kindly explain what benefit a defensive war such as the one the Franco-British military expected to fight would have provided. You resort to vague generalisations when you run out of arguments. I doubt you would merit a poor Third.
2
@JimmysEssay .'If you think we went to war for altruistic reasons. really can’t help you.' When did I say, or suggest that? You can't maintain an argument by making things up, or by fantasising about conspiracy theories.
2
@JimmysEssay Oh dear! Widening the supposed argument into irrelevance. Aside from the fact that the British empire actually involved very little in the way of 'attacking' and far more of the flag following trade, perhaps you might explain why the British (and French, remember, you seem to have forgotten the French - perhaps your antipathy towards them isn't so extreme?) did agree an alliance with Poland. Have you read 'Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939, by Anita Prazmowska?' No? I thought not. I have. Part of the many books I read on Modern History and particularly the history of the Second World War, for my Degree.
2
Yes. The 13 British divisions should have fought to the end after around 100 Belgian & French divisions had collapsed.
2
Not quite. Even Fighter Command's historical website details the long periods during which there was no air cover. Estimates of RAF losses over Dunkirk vary between 106 & 177 of all types. The RAF Museum estimate just over 100 aircraft lost. The Museum account also states :- The measure of Fighter Command’s success, however, is not in the destruction of enemy aircraft but the extent to which it defended the evacuation. Initially, the RAF attempted to provide continuous air cover, but faced with large German formations it adapted its tactics and instead looked to provide air cover in strength — with patrols involving four squadrons — but not continuous air cover. The move from stronger patrols at less frequent intervals was not successful. The four squadron patrols were often unable to cooperate effectively over Dunkirk. The flying conditions over Dunkirk, with low-cloud and thick smoke, would have taxed pilots experienced in combat operations as part of larger formations. During DYNAMO, it was almost impossible for patrols involving more than two squadrons to maintain contact and fight together. By the time the patrol had reached the French coast the squadrons had become separated and the patrols broke up into single, or pairs of squadrons, with part of the patrol below the cloud cover whilst others, having initially been instructed to provide top cover, flew above it. The result was that there was ineffective support between the squadrons at different heights and the force structure of the patrol was wasted. The larger patrols also quickly became disorganised in combat, as the squadrons fragmented into sections, largely dissipating the effect of the patrol. Norman Hancock, a Pilot Officer in No. 1 Squadron, recalled that: ‘You went as a squadron towards your target. You were in appropriate formation but once you’d engaged the enemy then by and large people tended to split up. You might get the odd pair who stayed together, but by and large the squadron was split up and individually attacked targets. You didn’t stay as a solid machine of 12 aeroplanes pointing in the right direction. It didn’t work that way… everybody disappeared. … [After the first attack] there was no cohesion to the squadron.’ The patrols by four squadrons reduced the combat effectiveness of Fighter Command and it is evident that more frequent patrols, involving only two squadrons, would have been more effective. This was a lesson drawn and learnt from the air cover by the officer in charge, Air Vice-Marshal Keith Park, and he applied that lesson during the Battle of Britain despite the vociferous advocation of larger formations from elsewhere in Fighter Command. Following the move to larger formations there were only two clear days of weather for the Luftwaffe to launch full scale attacks. On the first day, 29 May, the evacuation suffered heavily and the Royal Navy temporarily suspended the use of its modern destroyers — a decision which based on the lift capacity of remaining ships would have left over 100,000 men to be captured. On the second day of clear weather, 1 June, daylight evacuations were suspended. One defence of the RAF’s air cover is that German artillery fire west of Dunkirk was at least as responsible for that decision. A detailed review of the decision behind the suspension indicates this is entirely false.
2
@2adamast The withdrawal was actually a joint plan between Gort and his French commander, General Blanchard, after Blanchard had been made aware, on 25 May, that Belgian collapse was imminent. They determined a new defensive line at a meeting on 26 May. When Belgium did capitulate at 0400 on 28 May, the gap in the allied line was hastily plugged by Montgomery's 3rd Division.
1
@2adamast You only seem to refer to the British retreating. What were the much larger French forces in the area doing? From 20 May, by the way, the operations of Allied forces were being supervised by Weygand, although no one told Gort that Gamelin had been replaced until 23rd. Weygand devised a plan for the BEF to move south on Amiens, to take station on the French left. At the time, seven of Gort's divisions were in action on the Escaut, and could not disengage without being followed up. Instead, Gort planned an attack around Arras, which was to have been supported by the French Cavalry Corps, and two divisions of French V Corps southwards from Douai. Most of this support did not materialise, and the attack, after initial success, was called off. The (impracticable) Weygand Plan was called off at the meeting between Gort & Blanchard on the morning of 26 May, when the arrangements for a joint withdrawal were determined. At the time, of 128 miles of the Allied front, 97 miles were held by the BEF. The Gort-Blanchard plan intended to reduce the 128 miles by 58 miles, although the imminent collapse of the Belgian army, was feared.
1
Completely mis-understanding the real role of the 'Little Ships,' more or less forgetting the Royal Navy, and rather exaggerating the actual role of Fighter Command, to name three, were not minor inaccuracies.
1
The Halt Order was not influenced at all by RAF action. It was issued by von Rundstedt in order to service and repair his armour, so that he could commence the second stage of his campaign, before there was any risk of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Indeed, far from being deterred by the intermittent activity of the RAF, on 23 May Goering had assured Hitler that the destruction of the allied troops around Dunkirk was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
1
Nonsense. Exactly how would Germany benefit by allowing Britain's only field army in Europe escape? Moreover, von Rundstedt, not Hitler, issued the Halt Order, for sensible, practical reasons.
1
Try 'The War at Sea, 1939 - 1945' by Captain Roskill. The total number of troops brought back to Britain by 'Small Craft' was 6,029, with a further 4,726 by lighters and barges. The Whitehall Histories, Naval Staff Histories, 'The Evacuation from Dunkirk' has a broadly similar number. Despite the legend, perpetrated in the recent disappointing movie, the Little ships were there to ferry troops from the open beaches to larger ships waiting offshore. A typical destroyer of the period rarely had more than a couple of whalers and a motor boat.
1
There were also long periods during which, as an inevitable result of Park's Squadron Patrol policy, there was no air cover.
1
The last British troops were evacuated on 25 June, from French Atlantic ports as part of Operation Aerial. The 'Reconstituted BEF' landed in Cherbourg from 7 June, and withdrawn after General Weygand had said that the French army was no longer able to offer organised resistance, is rarely mentioned as it doesn't meet the myth of 'Perfidious Albion' running away.
1
Apart from the 120,000 lifted at Dunkirk, you mean?
1
There were actually 689 British ships & boats involved. Of these, the 'Little Ships' consisted of 203 motor boats and launches, 25 sailing barges, 19 RNLI lifeboats, 56 lifeboats, and 16 wherries. These would, in total, probably only require 600 or so men, which could easily be supplied from RN shore bases. A small number of owners did take their own boats, but in the main would be required to sign documents making them temporary RN personnel.
1
@daveofyorkshire301 Actually, my information comes from, among others, 'Whitehall Histories: Naval Staff Histories. The Evacuation from Dunkirk..' The Naval Staff Histories were in the Public Record Office for some time prior to being published from 2000 onwards. They contain around 220 pages of detailed accounts, statistics, and analyses of the evacuation on a day by day basis, and list every vessel which took part, together with the number of men they lifted, and the fates of vessels which were lost. Edward & Mary, by the way, was not part of the flotilla, at least according to the Naval Staff History and to The Association of Dunkirk Little Ships. She, along with several other Hastings-based fishing boats, and the Hastings lifeboat 'Cyril & Lilian Bishop' went to Dover, but only the lifeboat was actually used. 'Cyril & Lilian Bishop' was under the command of Acting Petty Officer W.H. Adkin during the evacuation.
1
@seraglioborneo2803 Credit to you for your post. Many people seem to feel the need to resort to insults when corrected!
1
As best I recall, 51st HD weren't at Dunkirk. They were attached to the French IX Corps, which surrendered at St. Valery before the RN task force sent to evacuate 51HD was able to enter the port.
1
@sharonprice42 'A staggering amount of tanks, weapons, and amunition are allowed to fall into German hands to be used against the Allies later in the war.' French equipment, yes. But minimal amounts of British equipment, other than a handful of trucks with very limited life expectancy, given the non-availability of spares.
1
@sharonprice42 There were 13 British divisions in the BEF, compared to over 100 French & Belgian divisions. Once the Belgians capitulated and the French collapsed, what would you suggest the British should have done? Incidentally, the British began landing the 'Reconstituted BEF' in Cherbourg only days after Dunkirk, only to be told that the French Army was no longer capable of 'organised resistance' by General Weygand. Have you ever thought of getting your information from history books?
1
@sharonprice42 'It was a victory for the Germans, beating the Britain and France showed how much more powerful the Germans were and just how dependant they were on Russia and America.' In 1940, the Soviet Union were Germany's best friends, whilst the US were comfortably on the sidelines selling equipment at the market rate to the British. Until, of course, the US were reluctantly dragged in after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and the Germans, after declaring war, began sinking US merchant shipping in large numbers.
1
' @sharonprice42 '700 tanks captured 900 field guns 500 anti aircraft guns , 850 anti tank guns , 11000 machine guns .45.000 vehicles 25.000 motorbikes captured.' I assume you don't really believe this nonsense. Especially the idea that British equipment was used in anything other than minute numbers by the Germans. Where, by the way, and where did the spares come from?
1
@sharonprice42 'It was Britain that declared war on Germany and set out to take on and beat the Germans along with France.' No, France & Britain stated that a German invasion of Poland would result in them declaring war. The hope was that the threat would avert war by deterring hitler from any further aggression in Europe. Incidentally, how was it, if the British had lost 'all their military equipment' they were able to send a large troop/tank convoy to North Africa in August, 1940? Operation Apology.
1
@sharonprice42 'British also left over 500 tank at Dunkirk which the Germans upgraded and used against the Allies , a lot of the tanks were used against Russia.' Drivel. The Germans, briefly, used a few A13 cruisers, around 10 or so, until they broke down and could not be repaired due to lack of parts. Do you ever post anything at all based on facts?
1
@sharonprice42 'British were beaten by the Japanese in Malaya' Indeed, because the British at the time were busy fighting the Germans and Italians in Europe.
1
@sharonprice42 'Remember Britain declared war on Germany and lasted only a few weeks .' A few weeks? 3 September 1939, to 5 May, 1945. Quite a lot of weeks, actually.
1
@sharonprice42 'When they met again Britain was under the control of the Americans.' Hardly. The US did become the dominant partner, as would be expected of a country with over four times the population, but only for about the last seven months of the war in the west.
1
@sharonprice42 And then people like you would have been blaming the British for not supporting their French allies between September, 1939 & May, 1940.
1
Nonsense. People like Mosley were a busted flush well before Dunkirk. The Halt Order was given, by von Rundstedt for what he believed at the time were sound tactical reasons. Halifax might have contemplated a ceasefire, but he was never in any position to attempt to establish one.
1
Around 120,000 French troops were lifted from Dunkirk.
1
@phlm9038 Well, Vice Admiral Dover's records identified just over 123,000 'Allied' troops being lifted out of Dunkirk. As these were almost entirely French, apart from a small number of Belgians, if the British Evacuation Fleet didn't take them, who or what did?
1
@DavidOfWhitehills Thanks! I have seen TOG at Bovington, and a remarkably bizarre beast it is.
1
The Halt Order was not issued by Hitler, but by von Rundstedt in order to service and repair his armour, so that he could commence the second stage of his campaign, before there was any risk of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Halifax was not negotiating with anyone, although he wished to ask Mussolini to act as an 'independent' broker. After the success of Dunkirk, the Holy Fox was an irrelevance.
1
@richardcrow5827 You need to read the War Diary of Army Group A. The Germans had no issues with fuel or ammunition, which is why I didn't say that they did. What concerned von Rundstedt was the fact that his armour had covered a significant mileage. He, like many other senior commanders, was eager to begin the second phase. Hitler was at Army Group A's HQ at the time, but agreed with the judgement, firstly because he knew that the Dunkirk area was poor ground for armour, secondly because German infantry was arriving in support, thirdly because he saw an army backed against the sea as trapped, whereas the British saw the sea as an open escape door. Fourthly, but most importantly, Goering had told him, on 23 May, that the elimination of the trapped armies was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' 'Ths is not in any history books and has remained secret always.' Oh please! Halifax had been a consistent opponent of Churchill, and had sought to use Mussolini as an intermediary in any peace deal. After Dunkirk, Halifax was more or less an irrelevance, especially after the resignation of Chamberlain due to ill health, when he was the last remaining appeaser in the cabinet, until Churchill managed to dispose of him by making him British ambassador to the United States.
1
Churchill didn't claim Dunkirk as a victory, unless you believe that saying 'wars are not won by evacuations' is such a claim. Hitler didn't make the decision to halt the armour on the Aa canal, by the way. Von Rundstedt did.
1
@wuchti-1 In point of fact, the withdrawal to Dunkirk was agreed at a meeting between Gort & Blanchard on the morning of Sunday, 26 May. The two agreed that Weygand's planned attack was not feasible, and decided that the allies would withdraw behind the line of the Lys. On the evening of the same day, Lt-General Adam was ordered to organise the Dunkirk bridgehead.
1
St. Valery happened a week after the evacuation had ended. 51 Highland Div., had been on detached duty in the Maginot Line, and were part of IX Corps of French X Army. They were never part of the Dunkirk rearguard.
1
@ericbeaton7211 British units defending the perimeter included, among others, elements of the following regiments: the Loyals, Leicesters, Sherwood Foresters, Warwickshires, East Lancashires, Borders, Coldstream Guards, Duke of Wellington's, Green Howards, Durham Light Infantry, King's Own Scottish Borderers, Royal Ulster Rifles, Grenadier Guards, Berkshires, Suffolks, Bedfordshire and Herts, Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, East Surreys, Royal Fusiliers, South Lancashires and the Black Watch. These were withdrawn to Dunkirk on 2/3 June to an inner perimeter, and evacuated. For the last day, the perimeter was held by French troops. Your reference to St. Valery can only refer to 51HD. 7 & 8 Battalions of The Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders were part of 51HD's 154 Brigade, which formed part of Arkforce. Arkforce was detached from the division on 9/10 June in order to form a defensive position 19 miles east of Le Havre, to make possible the withdrawal of the rest of 51HD and French IX Corps. Heavily congested roads resulted in the late arrival of Arkforce, and enabled Rommel's 7 Panzer to get between it and the rest of IX Corps. As a result, and as it was not possible to reunite 154 Brigade with 51HD. it was ordered to withdraw to Le Havre., from where it was evacuated. There is a detailed account of these events in 'The Last Act' by Basil Karslake.
1
@Charlesputnam-bn9zy Presumably you aren't aware of the 'Reconstituted BEF' which began landing in Cherbourg on 7 June, until their commander, Alan Brooke, was told by General Weygand that the French army was 'no longer able to offer organised resistance?' Or that 51HD surrendered only because the French IX Corps, of which they were a part, surrendered on 12 June. An evacuation fleet was intended to lift them off on the night of 12 June, having been stopped by fog on the night of 11 June. Read about it for yourself on the division's website.
1
Doubtless you have a source for the claim? By the way, the 1933 'Treaty' if by that you mean the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, was in 1935, and dealt with the respective sizes of the British & German Navies. The Soviet Union, or the United States for that matter, were not involved. Still, I am sure you will provide complete evidence by citing your sources.
1
@davidtanslow3584 Sorry, mon brave, but the 'Anglo-German Treaty of 1935' was actually, the 'Anglo-German Naval Agreement' signed 18 June, 1935. It actually agreed that the German Navy would be restricted to 35% in size when compared to the Royal Navy. Armies, air forces, the Soviets, and the United States, did not feature. The clue is in the two words 'Naval Agreement' which you seem to have missed.
1
@davidtanslow3584 'If you have any logic to UK government dates and treaties and laws you will realise that the formalities normally come after the actual integration into the countries.' This doesn't make any sense. What you 'insist ' is irrelevant, given that it has no basis in fact. You fairly clearly aren't aware that Dynamo was not a betrayal but an operation to remove a substantial number of trapped allied troops in order to re-land them elsewhere in France. In this case, some 120,000 French troops were re-landed further west, and British troops began landing in Cherbourg as early as 7 June. The British self-evidently did not 'capitulate' although the French did, when the government of Paul Reynaud collapsed, an Armistice was signed, and the Vichy regime installed. Oh, and Hitler did not issue the Halt Order on the Aa Canal, von Rundstedt did, in order to rest his tank crews and service the vehicles before beginning the next phase of the campaign. Rundstedt was concerned that the French might yet be capable of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Hitler had already been told, by Goering, that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe,' and chose to believe him. It really doesn't matter what you 'state' as it is totally lacking in any credibility.
1
@davidtanslow3584 There is no such thing as 'The Anglo-German Treaty.' How, moreover, does a treaty relating to naval issues disadvantage two predominantly Land Powers? 'What other secrets are still to be uncovered?' You haven't uncovered this imaginary one yet!
1
@davidtanslow3584 Absolute nonsense. I haven't seen you present any evidence for any of this. Nor have you explained how increasing the German Navy would threaten the Soviet Union. Perhaps you would tell me how I will 'find out?' You haven't produced anything more concrete than 'Mercy me, aren't the British rascals?' so far. Show us this evidence of British collusion with the Germans against France before Dunkirk. All sorts of things are written all over the internet. Generally, they aren't true. Please don't waste you and my time further. You are clearly, as my mum used to say, a Nut Case.
1
@davidtanslow3584 Actually, you are the one trying and failing to re-write history, by referring to an imaginary 1933 Anglo German Treaty, which apparently also involved the United States, then consistently failing either to produce any evidence to support your nonsense, or even explain how an enlarged German fleet, which is what the Anglo-German Naval Agreement of 1935 actually involved, would threaten the Soviets. By sending Bismarck & Tirpitz to Stalingrad perhaps?! As to the secret plotting with Germany? Ramsay MacDonald & Stanley Baldwin? Seriously?? Did the Appeasement policies of Stan &, later, Neville, completely pass you by? You seem to use the term 'I say,' quite a lot. I suspect anyone reading your nonsense would give a damn what 'you say.'
1