Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Dunkirk from the German Perspective | Animated History" video.

  1. Why would Britain have had to surrender?
    16
  2.  @redeese9268  Subsequently, the Royal & Merchant Navies lifted a further 191,870 men, together with 310 artillery pieces, 2292 vehicles, and 1800 tons of stores, from ports in Western France, during Operations Aerial & Cycle.
    16
  3. Hitler didn't give the halt order. Von Rundstedt did, in order to rest & repair his armour for the second stage of the invasion of France. Hitler knew of the order, and chose not to over-rule, firstly because he believed from his WW1 experience that the Dunkirk area was unsuitable for tanks, but mainly because Goering had assured him that the Luftwaffe could destroy the Dunkirk pocket & the evacuation fleet unaided. 'Good faith' didn't come into it. If you want your enemy to come to terms, why would allowing their army to escape strengthen your position?
    5
  4. The relevance to Dunkirk being?
    4
  5. It is quite common for defeated generals to place the blame on the shoulders of someone no longer around to argue. The tanks on the Aa canal were halted by von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, in order to make them ready for the second stage of the invasion of France. There were a number of reasons, including Rundstedt's fear of a second 'Miracle of the Marne' the unsuitability of the terrain around Dunkirk for armour, the impending arrival of the (horse drawn) German infantry divisions, the fact that, in Rundstedt's mind, the allied troops in the pocket were 'trapped,' ( like most European generals, he saw the sea as a barrier, whereas the British saw it as a highway), and the fact that Goering had already persuaded Hitler that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
    4
  6. Yes dear, of course he did! Now, sit down and drink your medicine.
    3
  7. The Halt Order came from the commander of the Army Group, von Rundstedt, not from Hitler, and is documented in the Army Group's war diary.
    3
  8.  @francisebbecke2727  I know it is a lot to ask given your obvious prejudice, but could you please explain how allowing the British Army to escape would have made the London Government more likely to agree to a humiliating armistice. Wouldn't this have been more likely with a third of a million Britons in German PoW camps?
    3
  9.  @francisebbecke2727  Oh well, if your Landlord said that, then clearly it must be true. Of course there was a Halt Order. It was issued by Gerd von Rundstedt. You haven't, by the way, explained how allowing the BEF to evacuate would encourage the British to seek an armistice. I look forward to your response.
    3
  10.  @francisebbecke2727  The point of taking the BEF captive is obvious. Allowing it to escape (as, of course, he didn't) would have had a profound effect in Britain. Lord Halifax was a very influential figure, and his argument that Mussolini should be invited to act as a 'neutral' arbiter in armistice negotiations had considerable support. Had the BEF been captured, it is doubtful that the political establishment in the UK would have rallied behind Churchill, as it did. Churchill was able to portray Dynamo as a miracle, which converted a catastrophe into a mere setback. Moreover, he could, more pragmatically, point to the success of the Royal Navy, and claim (correctly) that an invasion of Britain by a country with no navy to speak of, in the face of the largest navy on earth, was impossible, and that the British Commonwealth and Empire was able to fight on, if necessary for years, if necessary, alone. Your argument makes no sense. If Hitler wanted the British to come to terms, then allowing their army to escape was precisely the wrong way to bring this about. Of course, at the time Hitler could not possibly have been aware of how inept the Luftwaffe was at hitting naval targets.
    3
  11.  @francisebbecke2727  Feel free to speculate if you wish. I prefer to stick to documented facts.
    3
  12. You mean the old German territories of Czechoslovakia, Poland, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, and France? Those old German territories?
    3
  13.  @andrewarmstrong8651  Actually, it is recorded in the war diary of von Rundstedt's Army Group 'A' for 24 May, which can be read. Von Rundstedt was concerned that there might be a repeat of the 'Miracle of the Marne' of WW1. His armour had travelled a considerable distance, and needed a period of self-maintenance before embarking on the second stage of the campaign. Moreover, the area around Dunkirk is very boggy & unsuitable for tanks, as was the risk to them in urban warfare. Finally, on 23 May, Goering had told Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' Hardly 'my opinion.'
    3
  14. Weren't over 120,000 French troops evacuated as well?
    3
  15.  @Niaragochar  It always puzzles me that people seem to think that the French & Belgian troops were sacrificing themselves nobly by fighting, briefly, for their own countries. There was no British territory at risk, the British sent their army to France and Belgium to fight to defend France & Belgium as part of a strategy devised by the French High Command. The strategy failed.
    2
  16.  @sichere  Can you really not read a map? Your fixation about Abbeville is bordering on the bizarre. Do you actually accept that anywhere at all in France is more than 60 miles from Dunkirk? You have posted a number of known facts which are not in dispute, other than your minor error about the date of the order to begin Dynamo, which was 26 May, at 1857 hours. A 25 pounder had a maximum range of 7.5 miles, although maximum range is not to be confused with effective range. 22 miles, as you claim ,' terminology' or not, is simply nonsense. I don't recall making any statement to the effect that 'if you think that the 51st sat on their hands from the 10th May until the Battle of Abbeville.' Please tell me where I posted this comment. I am simply trying to get you to grasp facts, but as you cannot even grasp the concept of distance, I am clearly pushing against a brick wall.
    2
  17. Simply not true. The Halt Order was issued by von Rundstedt, for sound military reasons. If Hitler actually made three peace offers, please tell us what the texts of these offers were, and what your source for this information is? Why exactly did Churchill want 'war at ALL costs!'
    2
  18.  @genewest7271  Von Rundstedt wasn't 'given' the order to stop. He was the Army Group commander, and gave the order himself, for sound military reasons. Still no source for your claim about Churchill, I notice.
    2
  19.  @rosesprog1722  Actually, no-one in Britain ever saw the Dunkirk evacuation as suggesting that Hitler wanted to make peace. Prior to Dunkirk, a clique led by Lord Halifax wanted to negotiate with Hitler, using Benito Mussolini as an 'independent' arbiter. If you get your information from movies, this might explain why you are in error. There was a simple measure Hitler could have taken in order to avoid war with France & Britain, which was to have refrained from invading Poland. Haven't you considered that?
    2
  20. Why is it lies. Von Runstedt issued the halt order. It is detailed in Army Group A's War Diary.
    2
  21. The Dunkirk movie was awful. How anyone can make a movie about Operation Dynamo without mentioning the Royal Navy is baffling. Still, the pretty pictures of the Spitfires pottering around were nice, though totally inaccurate historically.
    2
  22. Yes indeed. It is shameful how the British chose to continue resisting by lifting their ten divisions from France after 100 French & Belgian divisions had collapsed. As to 'refusing air support' the reality was that, however many squadrons the British sent, the French High Command demanded more.
    2
  23. He didn't. Von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, did, for sound military reasons.
    2
  24.  @francisebbecke2727  Von Rundstedt didn't just sign the order; he initiated it, because the tanks were in immediate need of a brief period of self-maintenance, the land around Dunkirk was unsuitable for armour, and heavy tank losses were likely in urban fighting. Furthermore, he feared the possibility of a second 'Miracle of the Marne' and was anxious to carry out the second stage of the invasion of France. Finally, Goering had already assured Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe, ( on 23 May ), and Hitler took him at his word.
    2
  25.  @francisebbecke2727  I thought you might at least try to present an argument. Oh, well.
    2
  26.  @francisebbecke2727  Why would Hitler object? He had served in the area in WW1, and knew how difficult the ground conditions were, he didn't want the tanks suffering serious losses in urban fighting, he, like von Rundstedt, didn't wish to risk a second Miracle of the Marne, and Goering had assured him that the Luftwaffe could destroy the pocket in any case, without the need for ground troops. The idiotic idea that he wanted the British to escape is just that. IDIOTIC.
    2
  27. Simply not true. The famous 'Halt Order' was issued by von Rundstedt. It can still be read in the Army Group war diary, should you so choose. Goering had already told Hitler that the annihilation of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'special job for the Luftwaffe' which, of course, then proceeded to demonstrate a remarkable inability to hit ships, even when slow moving or even anchored. The decision to evacuate was only made by the British War Office on 25 May, and the evacuation was completed on 4 June, the last lift being of French troops, of whom around 139,000 were lifted, so please explain how the troops could possibly have been on the beaches for two weeks. What is your source for 'British officers ripped of their badges as they were being shot at by the squaddies?' Presumably, it is made up, like the rest of your post.
    2
  28. You seem knowledgeable, so tell me where I may read for myself the precise terms offered? There is, I assume, a widely available source which clearly demonstrates what was on the table?
    2
  29. No. The time when the British navies lifted 338,000 men from Dunkirk (120, 000 of whom were French) and then began to land new troops in Cherbourg, only to be told that the French army was no longer able to offer organised resistance. I think that is what is meant.
    2
  30. Nonsense. If you want someone to come to terms, why let their field army escape? In any case, Hitler didn't stop the armour, von Rundstedt did. If you mean Churchill refused to, effectively, surrender, then you are correct.
    2
  31. He can't have been much of a history scholar if he didn't know that the order to stop the tanks came from von Rundstedt, not from Hitler.
    2
  32.  @ArjayMartin  Well, tell your anonymous friend to look up the War Diary of Army Group A for 24 May.
    2
  33. The British used tea. Far more effective.
    2
  34. No one 'let' the British get away, so don't let it trouble you further.
    2
  35.  @rosesprog1722  Whether Hitler expressed admiration for the British Empire on not is utterly irrelevant. The reality is that, if he wanted the British to agree to an armistice, he was more likely to achieve this aim with the BEF in prison camps than safely evacuated. As it appears you don't know what the 'Miracle of the Marne' in WW1 was, I won't bother explaining it. You do understand that von Rundstedt was waiting for German infantry, almost entirely horse drawn, to catch up and, if necessary, complete the defeat of the allied troops in the pocket, I suppose? You might believe that the final conquest of France was inevitable, with the benefit of hindsight, Von Rundstedt, and, indeed, many German generals at the time, did not have this advantage. Von Rundstedt, like every other German commander, was a land animal, and saw an army with back to the sea as trapped. The British, by contrast, saw the sea as a broad highway. In his mind, there was no need to waste his armoured vehicles in such an action.
    2
  36. Sorry, but they weren't saved by thousands of little ships, despite the nonsense peddled in that awful 'Dunkirk' film. They were saved by warships (around 200,000) and merchant navy personnel ships (around 120,000). The little ships mainly ferried troops from the beaches to the transports offshore.
    1
  37.  @GeoNoob  In point of fact, the Belgian army had capitulated on 28 May, and trhe British had to move a division (actually Mongomery's 3rd) across the allied line on the night of 27/28 May to block the gap after ther Belgian army began to collapse. The evacuation also lifted around 120,000 French troops, and the British actually began landing troops in Cherbourg after Dunkirk, as part of a 'Reconstituted BEF' until told by General Weygand that the French army was no longer capable of 'organised resistance.' 'You have no respect.' Certainly not for ignoramuses like you, with your lack of actual knowledge, and your need immediately to resort to obscenity, I don't.
    1
  38. Indeed. About three divisions, whose actions made possible the escape of over 120,000 of their compatriots. The world might also ask, as the French army had over 90 divisions in 1940, what the rest of them were doing.
    1
  39.  @phlm9038  Except that Germany didn't 'make peace' with France, but invaded and defeated her. He was never in a position to do the same where Britain was concerned.
    1
  40. There are many. None of which have any real relevance to Dunkirk.
    1
  41. Not really. 51 Highland Division surrendered on 12 June, eight days after Dynamo had concluded. The Royal Navy had sent a fleet of 67 merchantmen and 140 smaller vessels to lift 51HD, but fog prevented the ships entering St. Valery. A second attempt was to have been made on the following day, but the French general under whose command 51HD was serving surrendered.
    1
  42. Such as?
    1
  43. Did your grandfather have any views on the failure of the French High Command to defend the 'impassible' Ardennes, allowing the best French units, and the BEF, to be cut off? Did he express any opinion on what the 10 divisions of the BEF were supposed to do when the 100+ divisions of the French army were collapsing in disarray? Presumably, the manner in which the Royal, Merchant, and French, navies evacuated 338,000 men, whilst under heavy air attack much of the time, is demonstrative of their 'cowardice?' As for the Germans treating the French better than the British, odd that. I don't recall the British deporting thousands of Frenchmen to Britain to work as slave labour. Perhaps the history books missed that bit? The British evacuated over 100,000 French troops from Dunkirk, and were landing a new, 'reconstituted BEF' in Cherbourg under General Brooke, until Brooke was told by General Weygand that the French army was 'no longer able to offer organised resistance,' when they met on 14 June. Finally, it would presumably be inappropriate to refer to the thousands of Britons, Americans, and Canadians who gave their lives to give the French their own country back?
    1
  44. The cowards might be considered those who, when the British began landing divisions of the 'Reconstituted BEF' in the Cherbourg area on 7 June, told the commander, Alan Brooke, that the French army was no longer capable of offering organized resistance. The source of this information was one General Weygand. In point of fact, there were very few cowards involved at Dunkirk. The French (and British) rearguard fought bravely, and the Royal Navy & Mercantile Marine risked lives and ships to lift over 100,000 French troops from the pocket, as well as the 228,000 men of the BEF.
    1
  45. Firstly, because Kabul was shambolically unplanned. Admiral Ramsay's evacuation plan was brilliant. Secondly, because the Allies at Dunkirk systematically destroyed their equipment before abandoning it. Thirdly, because the British military did at least have the support of their government, and had not been abandoned by it. Fourthly, the Anglo-French were defeated by a modern military nation. The Americans (or, at least, their political leadership) were defeated by medieval tribesmen.
    1
  46.  @thundernuts0  Boney had it right when he said of the conflict between Britain and France 'can an elephant fight a whale?' No matter how strong Germany might have been at the time, without a serious navy, an invasion attempt on the UK was never a realistic possibility.
    1
  47. The Halt order was given by von Rundstedt, not by Hitler, in order to rest & service his armour for the second phase of the campaign. Hitler could have countermanded it but didn't, because Goering had assured him that the Luftwaffe could finish off the Dunkirk pocket unaided. You regard David Irving as an authoritative source? Why not Völkischer Beobachter?' So much more impartial. Presumably you are unaware that the French government whose troops helped provide a rearguard at Dunkirk, so that British and (120,000) French troops could be evacuated, was not the French government in control of the French fleet, or France itself, after 22 June? 'Mad Dog Churchill' took action deemed to be necessary for the continued survival of Great Britain.
    1
  48. Possibly a Strasbourg. Either way, utterly irrelevant to what actually happened.
    1
  49. What with? The entire British army, other than small forces in places like Egypt, had been committed to the BEF.
    1
  50. Just out of interest, are you aware that, commencing April 1917, there had been 'acts of collective indiscipline' (i.e., Strikes) in 68 of the 112 French divisions on the Western Front, following the catastrophe of the Nivelle Offensive. For a time, until Petain restored order, the only army defending France was that of the British Empire. In 1940, a French & British rearguard made possible the evacuation of 338,000 men from Dunkirk, over 100,000 of whom were French, and when the British attempted to land a 'Reconstituted BEF' in Cherbourg, they were told by General Weygand that the French army was no longer capable of 'organised resistance.' By the way, how many casualties did your enemies, the United States, Britain, & Canada, sustain in freeing your country from German occupation in 1944?
    1
  51.  @genesis2936  Do you understand sarcasm? Hitler did not let anyone escape. Von Rundstedt halted the tanks because they needed servicing for the second stage of the campaign, and Goering had already promised that the Luftwaffe would destroy the troops in the Dunkirk pocket. Hitler wasn't, by the way, much into 'appeasement.' Could you please explain how allowing the BEF to escape would have persuaded the British to make peace, when, presumably, locking it in German PoW camps would have had less effect?
    1
  52.  @sichere  51 Highland Division surrendered at St. Valery on 12 June, over a week after the Dunkirk evacuation had ended. Moreover, 51HD at the time was detached from the BEF and operating as part of the French 10th Army. St. Valery is 280 kms. from Dunkirk, by the way.
    1
  53.  @sichere  You can post as many documentaries as you like, but they won't bring St. Valery en Caux any nearer to Dunkirk. Simply check it on any map of France. Dieppe is 229 kms from Dunkirk, and St. Valery en Caux is 34 kms further along the coast from Dieppe. Even if you had mistaken en Caux for the 'other' St. Valery, sur Somme, that is 151 km, or 93 miles from Dunkirk. On 3 June, 51st Highland was at Abbeville, well south of Boulogne and nowhere near Dunkirk. The rest of your post, with references to shootings, etc., is simply nonsense. Why not just read the 51st Highland Division website for yourself?
    1
  54.  @sichere  What has 'Crow Flying' distance, right or wrong, got to do with anything? By road, Abbeville was, and is 153 kms., from Dunkirk using the modern A16 or D941, or 189 kms. on the A25. If Abbeville is less than 60 miles from Dunkirk, and St. Valery is also less than 60 miles from Dunkirk, how is it that St. Valery is 101 kms. south west (i.e., in the opposite direction from Dunkirk) of Abbeville? 51st were under the command of the IX Corps of the French 10th Army, and retreated with them across France via Varennes, Abbeville, and Erondelle, arriving at St. Valery late on 10 June. Read any book on the campaign; the facts are stated in all. The initial hope had been that Dieppe could be used for the evacuation. Part of the division, Arkforce, was placed in a defensive position at Fecamp, by the way, and avoided encirclement as a result.
    1
  55.  @sichere  Have you finally accepted that St. Valery & Abbeville are both not 'less than 60 miles from Dunkirk?' 'Artillery rounds take the shortest route and their range would be up to 20 miles.' Did either 51 HD or the Germans have a battleship with them? The range of a British 25 pounder was 13400 yards, and of a German 105mm field gun 11700 yards. Not that that is relevant, in any case. 'Ignoring the actions of the 51st is the same as suggesting the RAF did not influence the events at Dunkirk.' I don't think anyone is ignoring the actions of 51HD, but don't you think that making up false claims, as you seem determined to do, is rather disrespectful?
    1
  56.  @sichere  The Dunkirk defensive perimeter was determined on 27 May. It was 25miles long and approximately eight miles deep and it made the best use of the canal and waterways around Dunkirk to aid defence. In addition, low-lying areas such as Les Moeres on the eastern side of the perimeter were deliberately flooded to help impede the German advance. The French-held line ran from Mardyck – Spycker – Bergues. The British sector ran through the axis Bergues – Bulscamp – Furnes – Nieuport. There was no such thing as a Dunkirk defensive line as early as 21 May. If you wish to fantasise, please carry on.
    1
  57. How would Operation Sealion have succeeded? The Royal Navy was overwhelming supreme at sea, and had the bulk of the navy in Home Waters.
    1
  58. Which war or wars do you think Churchill actually mongered?
    1
  59. Quite right. After over 100 French & Belgian divisions collapsed, the British should have carried on with the BEF's ten divisions.
    1
  60.  @georgedelanoy9548  Quite true. The contributions of the Americans, British, and Canadians to the liberation of western Europe were completely unnecessary.
    1
  61.  @paganphil100  True. The British also tried to build a 'Reconstituted BEF' based on Cherbourg, until General Weygand told Alan Brooke, the commander, that the French army was no longer able to offer organised resistance. That was on 14 June.
    1
  62.  @jaewok5G  Hitler was not at war with either the Soviet Union nor the United States in 1940.
    1
  63.  @securityforce3789  How is he brainwashed about how three of the five beaches at D-Day were assaulted by British & Canadian troops? Two of every three men who landed on 6 June were British & Canadian, most of the aircraft were RAF, more than two thirds of the warships were British/Canadian and 3261 of 4127 landing craft were British manned.
    1
  64. How would letting the BEF go, potentially (and actually) to continue the fight, help to avoid a war on two fronts? Wouldn't 350,000 British troops (from the failed Dynamo, Cycle, & Aerial evacuations) in German prison camps have been more likely to bring the British to terms?
    1
  65. If you want to do the humane thing, then perhaps attacking other countries is not the best way to go about it?
    1
  66.  @gloria3098  51HD actually surrendered a full week after the Dunkirk evacuation had ended, and only then because the French Corps of which it had been a part ceased resistance. A RN evacuation fleet of 67 merchant ships and 140 smaller vessels had been sent to lift 51HD out, but had been unable to do this on the night of 11 June because of fog. The intention to attempt the lift on the night of 12 June was abandoned when the French Corps commander surrendered at 0800 that morning. General Fortune, left with no alternative, followed suit at 1000. 2137 troops from the Division, together with 1184 French troops, were lifted from the beaches at Veules. All this information is on the 51HD website. The claim that 51HD was sacrificed is at best a myth, and at worst an outright lie.
    1
  67. It was entertaining, but factually hugely inaccurate. The 'Spitfirefest' into which it degenerated was overwhelmingly false.
    1
  68. The British certainly were not complacent. The BEF was a very small force of ten divisions, and depended on a French army of ten times that size to supervise their operations.
    1
  69.  @jonesalex565  Seriously, if you want the British to come to terms, aren't you more likely to achieve that with around 200,000 of them in pow camps, rather than by letting the Royal Navy evacuate them? Try to think about it, please.
    1
  70.  @jonesalex565  What has Singapore in 1940 to do with Dunkirk in 1940?
    1
  71.  @jonesalex565  oh dear. Your 'few plucky Belgians' actually surrendered on 28 May, 1940, and a British division was forced to make a hazardous night march to plug the gap thus left in the Allied line. As I have said, the entire British army did not 'sit on a beach for two weeks' or anything like it. When did I say that the evacuation was carried out using dinghies? Over 100,000 men were lifted by destroyers, 88000 by personnel ships, around 90000 by other warships, and around 22000 by schuits. This was, by the way, over the period 26 May to 4 June. Who were 'rushed up to Scotland' and what 'lie' began?
    1
  72.  @jonesalex565  Between 27 May and 4 June, there were 41 British destroyers involved in the Dunkirk evacuation. How many were sunk by your 'stookers' which you believe could 'put a bomb down a gun turret' (whatever that means), in total, four. The Luftwaffe in 1940 was a tactical air force, trained in providing air support for ground troops in a land campaign. They had had no training at all in anti-shipping operations, and were, consequently, poor at the task. Their own commander, Oskar Dinort, wrote of the difficulties of hitting ships at sea, following an attack on 25 May when he led 40 aircraft from his Stuka-Geschwader 2 in an attack on a British naval squadron off Calais. He recorded that his aircraft dived from 12000 feet, but the reflection of the sun on the sea, and the violent course changes made by the warships, resulted in his own bomb exploding 300 feet from his target. None of his accompanying aircraft were any more successful, leading Dinort to conclude that they lacked the necessary expertise to achieve consistent success. His commander, Wolfram von Richthofen, in charge of Fliegerkorps VIII, subsequently told his own superiors that the Luftwaffe was not well enough trained to be able to provide adequate protection for the towed barges that were intended to carry out operation Sealion.
    1
  73.  @jonesalex565  Well, you clearly do know your 'history.' Or, at least, your own ill-informed/prejudiced/perverted version of it. Do you really believe that the defeat in Malaya meant that Britain was in imminent danger of invasion as a result? Of course not. In the summer of 1940, there was, at least theoretically, the possibility of an attempted invasion of Britain itself. Nothing remotely similar existed in early 1942.
    1
  74.  @jonesalex565  Oh! If you have seen it on TV, it must be true! Exactly why do you think the troops were sent to Scotland, even though, of course, they weren't? What purpose would be served by so doing? Do you perhaps consider Scotland to be the UK's equivalent of the Soviet gulags? Of course the troops thought they were failures. Some of the ones I interviewed in the early 1970s for my research said that in so many words. They were, in fact, surprised to be welcomed back as heroes. Most, by the way, had a brief period of leave before returning to their units.
    1
  75.  @jonesalex565  You seem to have resorted to raving. You haven't explained what purpose was served by sending almost 200,000 troops to Scotland, largely because they weren't. Would you like to provide your source for your ludicrous claim? There was no lie spun about the evacuation. Churchill called the events 'a colossal military disaster' and said ' "we must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations" in the House of Commons on 4 June, 1940. tHE 'Miracle' element was that the Royal & Merchant navies, in the face of (fortunately, ineptly inaccurate) Luftwaffe bombing, managed to lift more than ten times the number of troops thought possible when the evacuation began. I notice that you still seem to rely on TV rather than archives for your information. Isn't it odd, then, that that what you describe as 'only 20 years old' actually appeared in books by historians dating back to the late 1940s and 1950s? The various descriptions of the events have always been consaistent. I have a copy of the Official Royal Navy Staff History of Operation 'Dynamo' which has full details of every vessel involved and every event which took place throughout Dynamo. Would you like me to list a whole host of academic works, both British, French, & German, on the subject, all of which tell a consistent tale throughout? I am sure you wouldn't. Finally, what 'archives' were sealed by Theresa May?
    1
  76.  @jonesalex565  ' You're suggesting that it's always been widely known and publicly acknowledged that the Germans let us go at Dunkirk?' You were the one who suggested that, if I recall correctly. I know no credible historian who would argue that for a moment, largely because there is no evidence at all to support it. The best you will find are the usual suspects, fantasising nazi boys and anti-British Americans, and not even many of them. You spoke to people who were sent there? Oh good. I spoke to people who weren't. What is your source for your claim? What War Office records? Where were the men sent? Again, WHY? You are utterly unable to give any rational reason. How is it possible to look something up if no-one knows what it is? As to Churchill, don't you know? The answer is none of the above, as you really should know. The statements were made to the House of Commons at the time, were published in Hansard, the House of Commons record of proceedings, and appeared in the newspapers which, then as now, have access to Hansard.
    1
  77.  @jonesalex565  Of course the BEF weren't let go. I have been trying to get you to grasp this fact for some time, but you seem to be determined to align yourself with the neo-nazis and Limey haters who, without a scintilla of proof, insist upon chanting this nonsense like demented parakeets. I do admit, however, that your fantasy about the Scottish gulags for the Dunkirk failures is certainly a novel one! Where have I said that the Germans ran out of fuel? I have explained the reasons for the German failure, basically the von Rundstedt Halt order, the failure of the Luftwaffe, the skill of Admiral Ramsay's evacuation planning, and the resistance of the rearguard. Please present a source which demonstrates that orders were given by German High Command to let the British escape, and, when you haven't been able to do that, explain precisely why they would have benefitted in any way by letting it happen. I don't have to prove anything. The facts, and the history, are entirely on my side. You do seem to have some very odd problems, for which you have my sympathy.
    1
  78. As I am confident that you have neither the facilities nor the intention to look for this information for yourself, I thought you might like to know that, despite your assertion that 'This statement of Churchill was never public and the press were all on board. Find it in a paper....you won't.' the full text of the speech appeared in the 'Manchester Guardian' on 5 June, 1940. I haven't bothered looking elsewhere. It hardly seems worth it! Who knows? Perhaps your 200000 failed troops on their way to exile in Scotland might have bought a copy each as they headed for their internment camps?????
    1
  79.  @jonesalex565  Yes, I know I am right. About everything I have written so far. Of course the official statement didn't refer to being let go, because that was not what happened. I have told you the reasons for the successful evacuation of the BEF & the French from Dunkirk. If you are simply too stupid or too prejudiced to accept the obvious then I see no point in wasting further time on you when there are much more useful things I can be doing, and much more sensible people with whom I can be corresponding. Please don't waste more of both our time by replying with more idiocy, unless you can firstly answer my questions about your lunatic fantasy about the sending of the BEF to Scotland, or, even better, tell me an authentic German source which instructed the Wehrmacht to let the poor benighted British escape. You don't even need to translate it as I can read both German & French quite well. Alternatively, why not just go away and stop making yourself look foolish.
    1
  80.  @jonesalex565  So, no explanation of the reasons for the exile of the BEF to Scotland, or indeed answers to any of my other questions. No reference to any contemporary German, French, or British documents either. Just your conversation with a sapper. Presumably, if this man went to Scotland, then you simply assume that the other nearly 200,000 did as well, despite what the regimental diaries from the time all say. You refer to :- Running out of petrol Shiney water 2 weeks of sudden miscommunication with Hitler without explaining what you think you mean. Perhaps you might enlighten people? Or there again, perhaps not! Incidentally, if the British thought that they had been 'let go' why did they immediately begin landing a Second REF in Cherbourg, and only withdrew it after General Weygand, on 14 June, told the commander, Alan Brooke, that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance? Were they really so confident that the amiable Germans would let them go a second time? What 'debates' are these, to which you refer? I know of no such arguments being put forward by any credible historian working in this area, and I correspond regularly with many, now that regular face to face conversation is not possible. I admit that I do not normally read the extremist nonsense which appears from time to time (like yours, with no supporting evidence at all) from the neo-nazis and hitler lovers, but if you would care to recommend a recent presentation 'proving' that the British were 'let go' I would be happy to read it. Like you, I know that I will be waiting for a long time for such a document. What is the relevance of Hess to Dunkirk, by the way? Although I doubt it, I would be happy to believe that other people are reading this, although your amusing refusal to answer any question put to you might have deterred a few.
    1
  81.  @jonesalex565  You clearly cannot remember your earlier posts. You said that 200,000 men were sent to Scotland, although it now seems to have increased to 300,000. I said that, after a brief period of leave, all clearly documented in Regimental diaries, the men rejoined their regiments. I don't doubt that a number of Scots. went to Scotland, just as the Welsh went to Wales, or the Lancastrians to Lancashire, during their leave period, but to argue that they were all sent to Scotland as you seem to is simply ludicrous, and there is no evidence to support it. Yes, as I said earlier, the men I interviewed were surprised to find that they were regarded as heroes, when they had expected to be vilified, but there is no evidence to suggest a systematic effort to keep them away from the press. Unless you can produce some, and of course, as with the rest of your posts, you cannot. Just as you said Churchill's reference to evacuation did not appear in the newspapers, until I showed you that it did. 'Why did we invade again? Why don't you answer that?' If you mean the Second BEF, which wasn't an invasion, I didn't answer because I hadn't been asked. I suspect that you had never previously heard of the Second BEF. However, the reason was to show continued support for France, in the hope that France would continue to resist. When Weygand told Brooke of the hopelessness of the French situation, the force was withdrawn. The rest of your nonsense (two weeks on beaches, Luftwaffe bombers deliberately missing, (even though around 200 German aircraft were destroyed during Dynamo) irrelevant references to Hess & now to Sicily, and strange, meaningless references to 'shiny water' are unworthy of response.
    1
  82.  @jonesalex565  Where is your source for your comment about the sappers? Oh, of course, you don't have one. The only Allied invasion of France was in 1944. I have told you the reason for the 2nd BEF. Unfortunately, you seem unable to grasp it. I have never come across any reference by any German serviceman to the suggestion that they were not permitted to finish off the Dunkirk pocket, no suggestion that Hitler ever gave orders that the British should be allowed to escape. Nor, indeed, is there any such suggestion by any German historian that I have read, and I have read many. odd, that, don't you think? I notice that you haven't commented on the research and conclusions I posted earlier from Herr Epkenhans. I wonder why that might be? You are either seriously disturbed, a raving nazi fanatic, or simply astonishingly stupid. I will let anyone who has the misfortune to read your silliness decide for him/her self.
    1
  83. You mean when a largely British evacuation fleet lifted around 338,000 men from Dunkirk? one third of the men lifted were French.
    1
  84. You don't consider that the Royal & Merchant Navies might have had some involvement?
    1
  85.  @vivaan7653  No. It was a military decision, not a political one. Von Rundstedt wanted his armour, which had travelled a long way, to have a period of rest & self-maintenance. He was eager to proceed with the second stage of the campaign, and feared a repeat of the WW1 Miracle of the Marne. Hitler had been told on 23 May by Goering that the Luftwaffe could destroy the Dunkirk pocket unaided, and he believed him.
    1
  86.  @ArjayMartin  That seems to apply to you, not to me. I have read the War Diary, both in the original German and in English translation, and discussed the events surrounding Dunkirk with a number of French, German, and English colleagues who are also historians. I have yet to find anyone who believes the absurd notion that letting the British army escape would encourage the British to sign an armistice. The leaflet reference, by the way, is correct, in that it urged the British & French troops to surrender, which is rather a different matter.
    1
  87.  @ArjayMartin  'I'm not a historian though.' Anyone reading your posts would, I am sure, have deduced that some time ago. Himmler flew to the UK to try to broker peace? Good heavens, I never knew that. Moreover, neither did the British! The rest of your post is irrelevant gibberish, except for your reference to David Irving. He was never, as you claim, ' the darling of the industry,' He was briefly regarded as something as an expert on German military archives, but was never seen as anything more than a maverick, with excessively favourable opinions about anything German. Still, as you aren't an historian, you wouldn't know that, of course.
    1
  88.  @ArjayMartin  Do you actually know how diplomacy works? If Hitler seriously wanted peace, he would have made cautious approaches to one or more of the British embassies in neutral European countries or, even more probably, to the United States. He would not have sent his (by May, 1941, largely sidelined) deputy off in an aircraft to Scotland in an attempt to find the home of an obscure Scottish aristocrat. As Abe Lincoln, or possibly Mark Twain, once said 'It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.' Good advice, perhaps you should consider it.
    1
  89.  @ArjayMartin  He made an 'A Last Appeal to Reason' in a speech in the Reichstag on 19 July, 1940. That was in response to the British attacks on the French Fleet two weeks' earlier, which finally convinced Hitler that his gamble that the British would come to terms had failed. It wasn't a peace offer, as you would have known had you read it; it was in the form of an attempt to threaten the British government into submission by saying, in effect 'come to terms or we will crush you.' Needless to say, the British saw it for what it was, which was mere bluster. Without much of a navy, Hitler was never in a position to threaten an inland nation with the biggest navy on earth with invasion. You really should not make assumptions about what I know or don't know, as the extent of my knowledge of the period vastly exceeds your own.
    1
  90.  @ArjayMartin  Seriously, if you must post large chunks from wikipedia, at least take the reference numbers to other books out! Have you read Buchanan? I did, around ten years ago. The most notable thing about him is his failure to refer to any primary sources, and to use what I will generously refer to as 'half truths.' As to this ' In Buchanan's view, the "final offer" made by the German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop to the British Ambassador Sir Neville Henderson on the night of August 30, 1939 was not a ploy, as many historians argued, but a genuine German offer to avoid the war.' There was a much easier way to have avoided the Anglo-French declaration of war on 3 September, 1939, which was for Germany not to have invaded Poland on 1 September, 1939. Have you not considered that?
    1
  91.  @ArjayMartin  No, I really don't. The action against the French Fleet took place on 3 July, 1940. The Vichy government was not established until 10 July, 1940.
    1
  92.  @ArjayMartin  What is that meant to mean?
    1
  93.  @ArjayMartin  Are you really so clueless that you think the Vichy French & the Free French were the same thing? The armistice was signed on 22 June, but the Vichy government was not established until 10 July. The Free French were those who rejected the armistice, and chose to continue fighting in exile. Did you really not know that? Astonishing!!! The British government did not demand that the French navy break the Armistice (not the Peace Treaty, as there was no 'Peace Treaty') but presented a number of alternatives which would prevent the French fleet subsequently joining the war on the German side. One of these was to send the fleet to the French West Indies, possibly to be supervised by the United States. There was nothing in the armistice to prevent this, by the way. The French admiral at Mers el Kebir, for reasons which he never explained, chose not to inform his superiors of the full text of the British ultimatum.
    1
  94. No. The decision to halt the armour was made by von Rundstedt, in order to prepare for the second stage of the campaign, and to avoid the risk of another 'Miracle of the Marne.' Goering had already told Hitler that the Luftwaffe could deal with the Dunkirk pocket, and Hitler believed him. Hitler doesn't see to have considered appearing bloodthirsty as much of a problem.
    1
  95. You mean by fighting briefly for their own territory?
    1
  96. 120,000 French troops were evacuated from Dunkirk. Almost all aboard British ships.
    1
  97.  @adelaidesngan604  As a famous tennis player was wont to shout 'YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!!' I have the Naval Staff History of Operation Dynamo. It lists every ship which took part, British, French, Belgian, Norwegian, Dutch, & Polish, from cruisers to lifeboats, together with ther number of men carried by each. The actual numbers are as follows :- British :- 764. French :- 119. Belgian :- 45. Polish :- 1. Dutch :- 1. Norwegian :- 1.
    1
  98.  @adelaidesngan604  Nonsense. 14 French destroyers and torpedo boats evacuated 6646 men, 5 despatch vessels 1000, 2 minesweepers 2038, 5 submarine chasers 203, 13 minesweeping trawlers 2665, 7 patrol vessels 2501, 12 cargo ships 2290, 59 trawlers 4814. Total :- 22157. British ships :- 1 cruiser 1856, 41 destroyers 96197, 6 corvettes 1100, 1 sloop 436, 2 gunboats 3512, 36 minesweepers 46434, 52 trawlers 5396, 61 drifters 12370, 3 AA paddle steamers 4408, 7 MGBs 79, 6 MTBs 20, 3 armed boarding vessels 4848, 40 coasters 22698, 26 yachts 4681, 45 personnel ships 87810, 8 hospital ships 3006, 12 naval motor boats 96, 40 tugs 3164, 13 landing craft 118, 8 motor launches 579, 8 dockyard lighters 418, 7 hopper barges 2166, 8 auxiliary barges 1256, 25 sailing barges 886, 19 life boats 323, 202 'little ships' 5031. Total :- 312668. Out of interest, one British destroyer, HMS Malcolm, carried only 795 less men than 14 French destroyers and torpedo boats. Your post rather suggests that you don't even know what the role of the Little Ships even was. Sorry, mon vieux, but you are outclassed. Perhaps you should go away?
    1
  99. There were very few captured British tanks re-used in France. A small number of Matilda IIs were used in North Africa, but these were vehicles captured or abandoned in the theatre. I have seen a photo. of a Matilda chassis fitted with a German 37mm AA gun in France, but that is about all.
    1
  100.  @youraveragescotsman7119  I wish I could find the photo. It looked like a fairly basic conversion, in that the origin turret had been removed, and a 37mm gun, with shield, had been mounted instead. As so few of the BEF's Matilda IIs were captured in working order, it was probably a local field modification by someone with time on his hands!
    1
  101.  @youraveragescotsman7119  Found it! Look up 'World War II Warphotos - Matilda II' My memory was playing me tricks, however. It seems to have been a 50mm AT gun.
    1
  102. What makes you believe that a Britain with an army would be more likely to negotiate than a Britain with 300,000 men in German POW camps?
    1
  103. You think that the arrival of the BEF back from Dunkirk 'demoralised' people in Britain? Oh, dear! Incidentally, they weren't 'let go.'
    1
  104.  @carlosespecial269  It wasn't up to the military to make political judgments. von Rundstedt stopped his tanks when he did to prepare them for the next stage of the conquest of France. Hitler agreed because Goering had convinced him that the Luftwaffe alone could destroy the Dunkirk pocket.
    1
  105.  @carlosespecial269  The decision to allow the troops in the Dunkirk pocket would have been a political one. Which, of course, is why no decision was ever made by anyone to 'allow' the British & French to escape.
    1
  106. Hitler didn't 'allow' the troops in the Dunkirk pocket (1/3rd of whom were French, by the way) to escape because the halt order was issued by von Rundstedt. The next phase of the invasion of France was about to begin, and the German armour needed to rest and to service their vehicles. Certainly, Hitler could have countermanded the order, but didn't, firstly because of his WW1 experience, which led him to believe that the Dunkirk area was unsuitable for tanks, and secondly because he had been assured by Goering that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket and the evacuation fleet was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' Seriously, if Hitler wanted to force the British government into an armistice, wouldn't he have been in a better position with the BEF in prison camps, than with it safely on the other side of the Channel, protected by the Royal Navy? As to Hitler not wanting to go to war with Britain, actually it was more a case of not being able to wage war effectively against Britain, because the Germans, with a tiny navy and an air force untrained in anti-shipping techniques, had no realistic means of bringing such a war to a successful conclusion by getting their army across the Channel.
    1
  107. I assume these '12 peace attempts' are fully documented, and you can provide a credible source?
    1
  108. My father's Regiment was at le Paradis, fortunately before he joined it. Have you heard of how fair the nice Germans were at le Paradis?
    1
  109.  @jebgue3  As the British lifted 123,095 'Allied' troops from Dunkirk, how did that happen? Had they run out of bullets or something? As to no BEF involvement in counter attacks, presumably you haven't heard of Arras, or of the Division which made a night march from one side of the Allied line to the other after the Belgian army capitulated without warning? Since when, by the way, has 'c'est la guerre' applied to the murder of surrendered soldiers?
    1
  110. The Dunkirk evacuation lifted over 100,000 French troops out of the Dunkirk pocket.
    1
  111. You would be wrong. The Channel was a death trap. The Germans sent three U-boats into it in late 1939. They, and their crews, are still there. Moreover, WW2 submersibles generally spent most of their time avoiding escort vessels. Actively seeking to attack a destroyer flotilla was an excellent quick method of getting the boat sunk and the crew killed.
    1
  112. 'Unsung?' Oh, please! The Royal Navy was the true Wall of England (actually, Britain). The Royal Navy made invasion impossible.
    1
  113. Actually, Hitler took the advice of von Rundstedt, who issued the Halt Order.
    1
  114. Perhaps it would be churlish to point out that, of 338000 men lifted from Dunkirk, over 100000 were actually French.
    1
  115.  @rosesprog1722  What was?
    1
  116.  @rosesprog1722  Except that Hitler didn't issue the Halt order, the commander of Army Group A did. Von Rundstedt was eager to start the second phase of the invasion of France, and wanted to give his armour time to rest and repair, in order to avoid the risk of a second miracle of the Marne. Hitler simply agreed, not because he had decided to let the British escape, but because he knew from his time there in WW1 that the land around Dunkirk was unsuited to mechanised warfare, but mainly because the previous day Goering had told him that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket and any evacuation fleet was, as he put it 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
    1
  117. Hitler didn't issue the Halt Order. Von Rundstedt did. Goering had already told Hitler that the Luftwaffe could destroy the Dunkirk pocket, and Hitler believed him. What Kriegsmarine, by the way?
    1
  118.  @phlm9038  There was a small involvement, of a handful of S boats & U-boats, but after Norway the Kriegsmarine was so reduced in size and capability as to be irrelevant.
    1
  119. von Rundstedt wanted to rest his tanks and service them for the second part of the drive into France. What we now take for granted wasn't so clear-cut at the time, and many German senior officers feared a repeat of the 'Miracle of the Marne.'
    1
  120. The 51st was not abandoned. Admiral James sent a force of 67 merchantmen & 140 smaller vessels on 11 June, but thick fog prevented evacuation. A second attempt was to have been made on 12 June, but at 0730 General Fortune was informed that the local French commander had negotiated a surrender. This, by the way, was irrelevant to the evacuation of the BEF from Dunkirk, which had been completed almost a week earlier, and nor did it have any relevance to the subsequent Operation Aerial
    1
  121. One third of the men lifted from Dunkirk were French, and the British were trying to reestablish a presence in the Cherbourg area until told by General Weygand, on 14 June, that the French army was no longer capable of organised resistance.
    1