Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Knowledgia" channel.

  1.  @fantomasvsfantomas2288  How does allowing the British army to be evacuated from Dunkirk ' blackmail the British into some kind of agreement ?'
    1
  2. Actually, the question is why over 100 French & Belgian divisions collapsed so dramatically.
    1
  3.  @gaaava  Celebrating deliverance & final victory. More than France could do.
    1
  4.  @gaaava  Certainly. When have I said anything different? However, D-Day wouldn't have happened without the Royal Navy, and although final victory was achieved by the Americans, the Soviets, and the British, the French had a minimal role in it.
    1
  5. Nonsense. Dunkirk has never been claimed to have been a victory. It simply turned a catastrophe into a mere defeat.
    1
  6. If you want to discuss peace, you contact the British ambassador in Switzerland, Sweden, or the US. You might even approach FDR as a neutral arbitrator. What you would not do is have someone fly solo to Scotland, and then jump out of the aircraft in the approximate vicinity of the home of an obscure Scottish aristocrat who had no role in government.
    1
  7. The Allied treaty with Poland in 1939 promised support in the event of an attack on Poland by Germany, but made no such similar promise in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union. Read the details of the alliance terms for yourself if you don't believe me.
    1
  8.  @Karl_Burton  There is nothing to think about, as Mr. Corran is correct. Seriously, if you want your enemy to come to terms, is allowing their entire army to be evacuated really the best method of bringing it about?
    1
  9.  @Karl_Burton  They represented the entire regular field army in the United Kingdom at that time. Slaughter wasn't necessary in any case. Capturing them and holding them in PoW camps might have served the same purpose. Allowing them to escape was never an option, which is why it wasn't allowed.
    1
  10. The German Navy was able to contribute little or nothing to attempts to hinder Dynamo. At the time, there were a handful of operational submarines, and the surface fleet had been badly mauled during the Norwegian campaign. Von Rundstedt, not hitler, actually halted the tanks, for sensible military reasons. They required servicing prior to beginning the second phase of the campaign, which Rundstedt sought to commence as quickly as possible to avoid a second 'Miracle of the Marne,' the terrain around Dunkirk was not suited to tank warfare, and the (horse drawn) German infantry divisions were beginning to arrive. Add to that Goering's promise to hitler that the elimination of the allied forces in the Dunkirk area was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe,' and the reasons for the halt on the Aa canal made perfect sense at the time.
    1
  11. If the BEF, or most of it, had been captured, then Lord Halifax might well have prevailed in Cabinet and the British Government agreed to humiliating talks using Mussolini as an 'independent' arbiter. After the success of Dynamo, Lord Halifax rapidly became a busted flush.
    1
  12. He did nothing of the sort. I don't suppose you could provide a credible source where the dates and details of these proposals might be read?
    1
  13.  @herrmannwerrmann3854  Dr. Friedrich Stieve is your source? That just about says all that needs to be said. Moreover, a series of 'Give me what I want and I won't demand any more' statements, almost all issued before September, 1939, are neither relevant nor credible.
    1
  14. @UCQK93iTtyDw3DW1-SUm2jsg Firstly, I am not an RAF veteran. Why do you think I am? Secondly, I will accept any credible sources, but the one you have presented is not. Thirdly, I have a First in Modern History, specialising in WW2 at sea, and have a number of published articles and books to my name, particularly on the 1940-1941 period. Do go away.
    1
  15.  @herrmannwerrmann3854  When you run out of arguments, please don't post meaningless drivel as a substitute.
    1
  16. I believe that they had two patrol vessels in 1939, and acquired six MTBs from Thornycroft. I have read that one of the MTBs, M2, even made two unauthorised trips to Dunkirk during the evacuation, with a Thornycroft crew helped by Irish volunteers, but I haven't come across independent confirmation of this.
    1
  17.  @abellseaman4114  Indeed, most of the 120,000 or so French troops did return to France. You presumably haven't heard of the Apology convoy, of three armoured regiments supported by field, anti-tank, and anti-aircraft artillery regiments, which sailed on 22 August, 1940, and helped bring about the defeat of the Italian army in North Africa.
    1
  18. Rubbish. The British sent their entire field army, including a number of half-trained Territorial Divisions, to support France. The British were a sea power, with the largest navy in the world. As a result they were not a major land power, but relied on the experience & professionalism of the French, who were. From pre-war meetings the French high command knew precisely what to expect from Britain, which was a small but well equipped and entirely mechanised field army, which would be reinforced over time by conscription and by the arrival of troops from the Commonwealth & Empire. Basically, a repeat of WW1. Don't try to blame the British for the collapse of France. Of the nationalities you list, the Scots are British, and very small numbers of individuals from the others joined the British, usually as pilots. You missed the substantial Canadian contribution, which included a division of troops in 1940.
    1
  19. Hitler knew how difficult the territory around Dunkirk was for tanks from his experiences there in WW1, and had been persuaded by Goering that the Luftwaffe alone could destroy the Dunkirk pocket.
    1
  20.  @frankgesuele6298  Or, as von Rundstedt and other 'experts' feared, by wasting time and armour against the Dunkirk pocket, a second 'Miracle of the Marne' could have resulted.
    1
  21.  @frankgesuele6298  Only if it was a successful gamble. The assumption that France was certain to collapse can only be applied with the benefit of hindsight.
    1
  22.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  What stampede? When Gort & Blanchard agreed a plan to withdraw behind the line of the Lys on 26 May? When the British moved a division to seal the gap in the allied line when Belgium surrendered? When the British lifted 120,000 French troops out of Dunkirk? That stampede?
    1
  23.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  But it didn't need to be fought on French soil, if only the French High Command had not chosen to believe that the Ardennes was impenetrable.
    1
  24.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  This explains the collapse of the French military how, exactly? Especially as it has a tenuous relevance where the facts are concerned.
    1
  25.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  142 German divisions were opposed by 135 Allied divisions. The Allies were fighting a defensive action, and had well prepared defensive positions. The numerical disparity doesn't really have much credibility.
    1
  26.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  'Russians were crushed?' Whose troops were those in the middle of Berlin in May 1945 then? I fail to see the relevance of your post in any case.
    1
  27.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  I am trying to determine how that is relevant to the collapse of France in 1940.
    1
  28.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  If that was the French view, why not simply had over governance of the country to the Germans in 1939?
    1
  29.  ÖTTO MATTHIK  Very good. As my old Uni. Tutor used to say, 'When someone resorts to insults, they are admitting that they have lost the debate' Looks like old Professor Foot was right.
    1