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

doveton sturdee
Knowledgia
comments

Comments by "doveton sturdee" (@dovetonsturdee7033) on "Why didn't The Germans attack at Dunkirk?" video.

@god6384 There wasn't any mercy. Von Rundstedt halted the armour to rest & refit if for the second stage of the campaign, and Hitler believed Goering when Goering told him that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'special job for the Luftwaffe.'
8
Sorry, but Belfast wasn't at Dunkirk.
7
Of course. Hitler was famed for his mercy and his liberal attitudes.
6
@deutsch-amerikanisch8281 I don't suppose you could direct us to the texts of these peace offers? No? I thought not. If you seek peace, you approach the British Ambassador in Sweden, Switzerland, or the US. You might even approach FDR. What wouldn't be seen as credible is sending someone on a lone flight to Scotland, in order to leap out somewhere near the country estate of a Scottish aristocrat with no significant relevance to the governance of the UK.
5
@garciagar64 Saxons haven't ruled England since 1066. The last English/British ruler not to be born in Britain was George II, in 1683.
3
Sorry, but almost no historians believe that Hitler allowed the BEF to escape in order to secure an armistice. No such 'historic records' as you claim actually exist. Moreover, if you wish your enemy to come to terms, aren't you likely to have a better chance of achieving that with the bulk of his army in PoW camps, rather than safely out of reach, protected by the largest navy on the planet? Lord Halifax at the time was actively seeking to use Mussolini as an 'independent' arbiter in any peace talks, and had considerable support within the cabinet. However, after Dynamo, his support evaporated. Not that this matters, because Hitler didn't issue the Halt Order, the commander of Army Group A, von Rundstedt, for sound military reasons. His armour had travelled a considerable distance, and needed a period of rest and self maintenance before embarking on the second stage of the French campaign. Von Rundstedt feared, as many German generals did, that there might be a repeat of the WW1 'Miracle of the Marne.' Hitler knew the country around Dunkirk from WW1, and believed it unsuitable for armour. Moreover, the day before the order was given, Goering had assured Hitler that the destruction of the troops in the Pocket, and any evacuation ships, was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
3
Simply not true. 51st Highland Division (or, to be precise, about half of it) surrendered a week after Dynamo, at St. Valery on the French Atlantic coast after IX Corps of French 10th Army, of which it was a part, surrendered before an evacuation fleet from Portsmouth could enter the harbour.
2
You must, or you wouldn't have posted.
2
@Fraichedachs They didn't think they had stopped. They simply didn't understand the flexibility of Sea Power, because the concept was alien to them. Committing his armour at Dunkirk would have been counter-productive for von Rundstedt, if it was mauled, and as a result meant that the French were able to rally strongly enough to prevent the conquest of the rest of their country. Moreover, Goering had assured Hitler that the destruction of the Allied forces could safely be left to the Luftwaffe. It was, simply, a huge miscalculation.
2
Would you care to make us aware of your source for this claim? I would be delighted to read the texts of these 43 offers. As would every other historian working in the field today.
2
If you are indeed Italian, perhaps you might give a little more attention to the performance of the Italian military in WW2?
2
So? Allowing the British army to be evacuated was the best means of persuading Britain to surrender? An interesting opinion!
2
Simply not correct. The only credible, documented, peace offer Hitler made was his 'Appeal to Reason' of 19 July, 1940, if saying, effectively, 'surrender or we bomb you' can be so described. Indeed, it can be considered as reprresenting Hitler's belated realisation that, as Britain had demonstrated at Mers el Kebir two weeks earlier, an armistice was not going to happen. If of course you know of an actual, credible, source where these 'many generous' peace proposals may be read, please provide it. Oh, and Hitler didn't issue the Halt Order, Von Rundstedt did, for sound military reasons. The first being that he needed to rest and service his armour before embarking on the second stage of the campaign. Like many other German generals, he feared a repeat of the 'Miracle of the Marne.' Secondly, he knew that the ground around Dunkirk was largely unsuitable for armour, and that his supporting, mainly horse drawn, infantry divisions were beginning to arrive. Hitler was happy to go along with the order of course. He was aware of ground conditions from his WW1 experience, but more importantly, Goering had told him, a day earlier, that the elimination of the surrounded allied troops was, in Goering's words 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' One wonders exactly how many lives would have been lost if Britain had signed a humiliating surrender/armistice along the lines of that imposed on France? Perhaps, had Germany been able fully to implement her policy of mass extermination of certain groups, deportation of large numbers of civilians for exploitation as slave labourers in the fatherland, and subordination of the economies of conquered states to her military needs, the number might have been significantly greater.
2
Absolute nonsense. Hitler, who had invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and France, did not want war? He had a remarkable way of demonstrating his pacifism.
2
Not really. The French navy which didn't want to surrender had already moved the ships to ports under British control.
2
The Germans did attack the Dunkirk pocket, using their Air Force. Goering had told Hitler that the destruction of the pocket was a job for the Luftwaffe, and Hitler believed him.
2
@remittanceman4685 Correct.
2
The Germans had a small number of merchanised armoured and infantry divisions, but the vast majority of the German army used the horse. Indeed, a typical German WW2 infantry division in 1940 was barely distinguishable from one of 1916.
2
@iroscoe Indeed. I have seen his rants on other sites, although I have not worked out what all these references to 'leaking' are meant to mean. I suppose that, when your nation failed as badly as France did in 1940, it is a so much easier to blame everyone else. I am surprised he didn't lambast Luxembourg for not doing more to defend France, however!
2
At the time of Dunkirk, the Soviet Union was had close, friendly, relationships with Germany. There was a possibility that, had most of the BEF been captured, a British Government led by Halifax might have accepted a humiliating, French style, armistice. Of course it was a turning point. Events 12 months later could not have been foreseen.
2
The last of the BEF were not actually evacuated until 25 June. 51 Highland were lost when the French force to which they were attached surrendered. Had they not done so, Admiral James' evacuation fleet was waiting offshore to lift them out.
2
@herrmannwerrmann3854 Most kind of you. I know precisely how much credibility to give to an article headed 'Hitler – the forgotten candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize,' which uses David Irving & William Joyce as sources, which claims that Poland attacked Germany, and which claims that 'Churchill wanted war. Churchill was a war criminal. Churchill did not want peace. He wanted the war to go on as long as possible,' when Churchill didn't even hold a government position of any sort between 1929 & September, 1939, when he joined the cabinet of a country already at war. Even ploughing through this demented nonsense, the only actual alleged peace proposal is a reference to Hitler's supposed 'Appeal to Reason' made after the British attack at Mers el Kebir made it obvious even to him that they were not going to fall in with his needs and agree an armistice. Even then, the Appeal, which basically said 'surrender or we bomb you' was less of a peace proposal than a threat. The other eleven to which you referred simply do not exist.
2
Invading Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium, and France might be considered an unusual way of trying to avoid war.
1
Actually, the Admiralty had been assembling a register of small vessels of between 30 & 100 feet in length since 14 May, for potential use as Harbour Defence Ships.
1
Indeed, the French 1st Army fought very gallantly. Which doesn't really explain the performance of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 8th & 9th armies.
1
@theflyingpig6361 Of course. Isn't your enemy more likely to come to terms if you have 300,000 troops in a prison camp, than if his troops have been miraculously lifted out of harm's way?
1
The BEF and around 120,000 French troops were not 'evacuated via various means but especially the small boats, mainly fishermen from SE England.' The vast majority were evacuated by the Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine.
1
Why would Hitler possibly want to let the British escape? Answer, he didn't. Von Rundstedt issued the halt order, and Goering had already told Hitler that the Luftwaffe would destroy the Dunkirk pocket.,
1
@b.baggins8893 The Germans missed their opportunity because of the land-centred understanding their commanders had of warfare. To von Rundstedt and his peers, an army with it's back to the sea was trapped, and could be finished off at leisure. To the British, with centuries of understanding of the role of sea power. An army on the coast had a wide-open escape route, courtesy of the Royal Navy.
1
No. Von Rundstedt halted the army, not Hitler, in order to prepare it for the next stage of the campaign. Goering had already told Hitler that the elimination of the trapped Allied troops was 'A special job for the Luftwaffe.'
1
@johnmcbluenose Documentaries on Dunkirk won't mention 51HD because at the time they were detached and serving in the Maginot Line. It just happened to be their turn, as other BEF divisions had been there previously. 51HD retreated across France, as part of a French Corps, and Admiral James (C-in-C, Portsmouth) sent 67 merchant ships and 140 smaller vessels to lift them from St. Valery. The lift was abandoned due to fog on the first night, and the French Corp Commander surrendered before a second attempt could be made, although 2137 British & 1184 French troops were lifted from the beaches at Veules. That happened a week after Dunkirk had ended, by the way. Churchill did not order that they be left behind. The reality was that they were unable to re-join the BEF. In total, a further 191,870 British troops were lifted from west coast French ports, ending on 25 June, by the way.
1
We know exactly why the Halt Order was issued, actually by Von Rundstedt, not by Hitler. Von Rundstedt wanted to have his armour rested and serviced in order to undertake the second stage of the campaign, fearing the danger of a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' As a traditional Continental soldier, he assumed that an army with its back to the sea was trapped. He saw the sea as a barrier, unlike the British, who saw it as an open door, given their naval supremacy at the time. Hitler agreed with him. He knew from his time there in WW1 that the area around Dunkirk was poor tank country, he knew that the slower moving German Infantry Divisions were beginning to arrive, and Goering had assured him that the elimination of the Allied forces in Dunkirk was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' There is no mystery. It amazes me that some people seek to create conspiracy theories out of the routine.
1
'The English had even begged for Frederick the Great to rule over them!' Where ever did you get that remarkable idea? Incidentally, no-one 'spared' the 'English.' Von Rundstedt stopped his armour to enable it to prepare for the second stage of the invasion of France. The (horse drawn) German infantry was beginning to arrive, the land around Dunkirk was poor tank country, and Goering had already assured Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'special job for the Luftwaffe.' How exactly could the U.S. with, in 1940, a tiny army, enter any arena?
1
You don't think that imprisoning the BEF in PoW camps might have had a more impressive effect on British morale? Incidentally, Hitler didn't let anyone go, he was simply foolish enough to believe promises made to him by Goering.
1
Yes indeed. It is always better to fight a war on two fronts than on one. See Kaiser Bill for details!
1
No, they don't. The Germans used, I believe, four A13 tanks, one Matilda mark II converted to a mobile AT gun, and a small number of trucks and bren carriers. The vast majority of British equipment was made useless by wrecking the engines.
1
Not for over two years, and only then when attacked.
1
@jbloun911 I must have misread the books. I always thought that the Germans invaded Belgium in 1914 & Poland in 1939. How could I have got it so wrong? Could you explain this 'saving' thing? That isn't in any of the books either.
1
@jbloun911 Common Sense? Britain was never in danger of invasion. Perhaps you might explain how a country with a tiny navy was ever going to invade an island protected by the largest navy on earth. By the time the US was dragged, unwillingly, into WW2 even the remote threat of invasion had long passed. Perhaps you could explain how the US saved anyone in 1940? Certainly, Churchill sought US support. Who wouldn't seek the support of the biggest manufacturing economy in the world? In WW1, by the way, Germany in 1917 was already on the verge of revolution and collapse as the civilian population was on the verge of starvation as a result of the Northern Blockade, and the fact that what food was available was reserved by Hindenburg for the military. Perhaps you should read about the 'Turnip Winter?' Finally, which books, and what 'common sense?' Presumably your version of it, which doesn't accord with the facts.
1
@jbloun911 When did I say that Churchill 'begged' for anything? He sought US support. He certainly didn't need US support to defeat any invasion, and to be frank didn't receive any in any case. Most history books actually acknowledge that the defeat of Hitler, on land, was more due to the Soviet army than to the Western Allies. They also acknowledge that the assault landings in the west ( Torch, Husky, Overlord, etc.) were largely British led, and that the US became the dominant partner in the last seven or so months of the war only. Have you actually read any books on the subject? By the way, have you heard of Operation U-Go, which resulted in 60,000 Japanese dead, and over 100,000 casualties, and was acknowledged by them as their heaviest defeat in a single battle to the end of 1944? I thought not, as it was in Burma. Finally, 'and get off our internet.' Your internet? Who invented the damned thing? Tim Berners-Lee. Born in London.
1
@jbloun911 Fortunately, I know a number of America based historians, and from my conversations with them I appreciate that someone like you is far from representative of the United States as a whole. If you did, the rest of the civilised world needs to learn Mandarin, and quickly. You do, however, represent a common trend among the less well informed, in that you seem to think that abuse is a valid substitute for debate. 再见 Zàijiàn
1
@jbloun911 'China is owned by Wall Street'. 'Ay, think so still, till experience change thy mind.' Doctor Faustus, by Christopher Marlowe. You actually think that the interests of Wall Street and the national interests of the United States have any common ground? How charmingly naive! Who is this 'we' by the way? Do you actually think that you have any influence on the way the United States is run? Are you the one to blame for the last few Presidents?
1
Hello Hermann. I thought you were dead? Isn't that exactly what you told Hitler the day before the halt order was issued. As you told him, wasn't the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket 'A special job for the Luftwaffe?'
1
In June 1940, Genial Uncle Joe was best mates with Adolf, and was supplying him with the raw materials required to maintain his war machine.
1
So, you think that the best way to persuade your enemy to make peace is to allow his only field army in Europe to be evacuated to an island defended by the largest navy on earth, rather than to capture his army, and hold it in PoW camps? An interesting idea, but one entirely unhindered by logic, I suggest.
1
I recall a comment made by a naval officer at the time. Hearing of the reference to the 'miracle,' he said, 'if it was a miracle, it was a miracle painted dark gray, and just over 300 feet long.' A RN destroyer of the period was around 320 feet long. There were 41 of them involved in the evacuation.
1
@berniefynn6623 You mean, apart from the 1 cruiser, 41 destroyers, 5 sloops, corvettes and gunboats, 36 minesweepers, 77 trawlers and drifters, and 20 Special Service Vessels,, MTBs, MGBs and boarding vessels, I suppose? Not to mention the large number of Merchant Navy transports, or the comandeered Dutch Skoots, or the small boats, almost all of which were crewed by RN personnel?
1
@berniefynn6623 Is all you know based on that ridiculous movie 'Dunkirk' of a couple of years ago? In point of fact, destroyers brought back 102,843 men, the cruiser 1856, the sloops etc. 8755, the minesweepers 48,472, trawlers & drifters 28,709, special service vessels etc., 9355. Skoots carried 22,698, personnel ships 96,606, and the 'Little Ships' 6029. The Little ships were used to ferry troops from the beaches to the larger ships offshore. The myth, and the movie, are both inaccurate. You should read the Naval Staff History, or any other of the many excellent and detailed accounts.
1
@berniefynn6623 That is why the Little Ships were sent, to ferry troops from the beaches to the transport ships. Moreover, the vast majority of troops were lifted from the East Mole, which larger ships could and did use. In point of fact, around 240,000 from the Mole, and around 98,000 from the beaches.
1
@berniefynn6623 Operation Dynamo began on 26 May at 1857, and ended on 4 June, at 1423. The panzers were actually stopped, by General Von Rundstedt, for a very good reason. He wished to have them serviced in order to commence the next stage of the campaign, before the French army might be able to stage a second 'Miracle of the Marne.' Goering, by the way, had already assured Hitler that the destruction of the trapped allied force was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
1
@berniefynn6623 Simply not correct. Rundstedt gave the order, and Hitler agreed with it. Rundstedt, as a traditional European soldier, regarded an army with it's back to the sea as trapped. The British, with their understanding of combined operations going back over 200 years, viewed the sea as a large highway. The weather varied. On 27 May, the Luftwaffe carried out 12 major attacks, dropping 15,000 HE and 30,000 incendiary bombs. 28 May was overcast, restricting aircraft operations, 29 was fine in the afternoon. 30 May was a foggy and rainy day, with aircraft unable to operate, 31 was bright and clear from late morning, as was 1 June & 2 June. Aircraft operations were only seriously restricted on two days.
1
@berniefynn6623 Nonsense again. RUNDSTEDT GAVE THE ORDER. It is recorded in the war diary of Army Group A. German air attacks on the harbour at Dunkirk began on 24 May, following Goering's assurances to Hitler on 23 May. Where do 'fighters' come into this at all?
1
Chivalry? Oh, please. Von Runstedt halted the armour in order to prepare for the second stage of the campaign. He really did not wish to be recorded in history as the German general who allowed the French to stage a second 'Miracle of the Marne.'
1
At the time of Sealion, the Soviet Union and Genial Uncle Joe were Adolf's best pals, supplying him with all sorts of nice raw materials for his war effort. Your comment, therefore, is irrelevant.
1
@toolatehello3345 Another Sealion 'would have.' This time one who doesn't know any details about the pilots who actually made up Fighter Command, and knows even less about the size and capability of the 1940 Royal Navy.
1
@toolatehello3345 Britain was on the point of losing? In June 1941? Oh dear?
1
Precisely. Goering assured Hitler that the elimination of the surrounded troops in the pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' Fortunately, he did not ask his Luftwaffe commanders about the prospect first.
1
I don't know how many times it needs writing, but 'HITLER DIDN'T STOP THE ARMOUR ON THE AA CANAL! Von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, however, did, in order to service and rest it before beginning the next stage of the campaign. Rundstedt, like several of his colleagues, feared a repetition of the 'Miracle of the Marne.' Moreover, as a traditional German commander, he regarded an army backed against the sea as trapped, because he simply did not appreciate the flexibility that Sea Power gave to the allies. Add to that the knowledge that the area around Dunkirk was difficult tank country, and the slower moving German infantry divisions were beginning to arrive, and the decision was a logical one. All this, by the way, is fully documented in the War Diary of Army Group A. Hitler, of course, knew what the ground around Dunkirk was like from his experiences there in WW1, but more importantly had been assured by Goering that the elimination of the trapped Allied forces was 'A special job for the Luftwaffe.' As to the absurd idea that Hitler let the BEF escape to encourage the British to come to terms, simply ask yourself this question :- Were the British more likely to sign a peace treaty if: 1). Their entire field army was caged in German PoW camps? or, 2). Their entire field army, together with around 120,000 French troops, had just been lifted to safety?
1
Hitler didn't give the Halt Order, von Rundstedt did. He wished his armour to have a brief period of rest and maintenance before the second stage of the campaign began, as he, and several other senior officers, feared a second Miracle of the Marne. Goering, on the day before the Halt Order, had told Hitler that the elimination of the Dunkirk pocket was a job for the Luftwaffe, and Hitler believed him. Churchill (who suggested the Gallipoli operation as an alternative to the unfolding carnage on the Western Front, but neither authorised it nor planned it by the way) held a number of government positions until 1929. Could you explain the reasoning which leads you to believe that Britain was more likely to come to terms with the bulk of the British army back in Britain behind the impenetrable shield of the Royal Navy than she would have been if the same army had been incarcerated in PoW camps?
1
27 March, 1940? Very good. Just as accurate as the rest of your comment.
1
They were not 'left abandoned.' Firstly, half of the Division was evacuated, the so-called 'Ark Force.' Secondly, the RN's Portsmouth Command sent a large evacuation fleet to St. Valery, but fog in the Channel prevented the lift attempt, which was re-scheduled for 24 hours later. Thirdly, the commander of IX Corps of French 10th Army, of which 51st Highland Division was a part, chose to surrender before the attempt could be made. Fourthly, the evacuation fleet still managed to pick up just over 2,000 men from Veules.
1
The Halt Order was issued by Von Rundstedt, not by Hitler, in order to service the armour and rest the crews before embarking on the second part of the French Campaign. Like many other senior commanders, he was concerned that the French might stage a repeat of the WW1 'Miracle of the Marne.' As a conventionally trained and educated German senior officer, he considered an army surrounded and backed against the sea to be trapped, whereas the British, with centuries of experience of naval power, saw the sea as a wide open highway. Moreover, as both Von Rundstedt and Hitler knew, the area around Dunkirk was difficult country for armour, and the (horse drawn) German infantry divisions, much better suited to it, were beginning to arrive. Finally, Goering had told Hitler that the elimination of the surrounded allied forces as, as he put it, 'A special job for the Luftwaffe,' and Hitler believed him. Consequently, the utter failure of the Luftwaffe to live up to Hermann's boasts, and the evacuation of 336,000 allied troops. Hitler was giving no-one 'a chance.' He simply made a wrong decision, and totally miscalculated the capabilities of the Royal and Merchant Navies.
1
Hitler declared war on the US, not vice versa.
1
Probably 'hoped' rather than 'thought.'
1
Tiger tanks did not exist at the time. Troops without means of re-supply, no organised command structure, and whose formations have disintegrated are little more than an armed mob.
1
So, allowing the British army to get back to Britain, instead of putting most of it in PoW camps, would actually encourage the British to come to terms? What convoluted thought processes lead you to that conclusion?
1
@NitishKumar-jm7ec The Luftwaffe attacked the Dunkirk pocket more or less continuously, apart from in bad weather, throughout Dynamo. The fact that they hadn't been trained in anti-shipping operations resulted in their failure. No one told them to stand down.
1
@NitishKumar-jm7ec But Hitler didn't halt the tanks. Von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, did. He wished to have them serviced before beginning the second stage of the campaign, and was worried about the danger of a second Miracle of the Marne. You can add to that the fact that the land around Dunkirk is poor tank country. Moreover, like most German commanders, he viewed a surrounded army backed against the sea as trapped, because he had no real grasp of sea power. The British, with their history of naval superiority, saw the sea not as a trap but as a wide open door. So it proved to be. Oh, and no, the Luftwaffe didn't arrive too late. They were simply not up to the task given to them.
1
@NitishKumar-jm7ec The chase, as you call it, had ended. The allies were trapped, as von Rundstedt saw it, in a pocket. The need now was to ensure that the armour was ready for the next phase of the campaign. The first Luftwaffe attacks on Dunkirk began on 25 May, increasing in volume on 26 May. On 27 May there were twelve major attacks, involving 300 bombers dropping 15,000 high explosive & 30,000 incendiary bombs. Operation Dynamo began late on 26 May. You do understand that the main target for the Luftwaffe was actually the evacuation fleet, I suppose?
1
@NitishKumar-jm7ec If you seek to be patronising, you have chosen the wrong target, unless you also have a First in Modern History and have your name on several books and articles on the subject of the naval history of WW2. As someone with access to the British, French, & German archives relating to the period, I don't need to waste time on Wikipedia. I would refer you instead to Lord Gort's Second Despatch, paragraph 39, which confirms the the allied retreat to the Belgian frontier defences took place on 22/23 May. Paragraph 43 confirms that the length of the front held by Franco-British forces on the morning of 26 May was 128 miles, but that the intention was to contract to a perimeter of 58 miles. This decision was made jointly with General Blanchard, who had concluded that the optimistic Weygand Plan was simply unrealistic. Gort, like Blanchard, was aware, or at least suspected, that the Belgian army was about to collapse (Paragraph 45) and on the evening of 26 May gave the responsibility for the establishment of the Dunkirk bridgehead to Lt.-Gen. Adam, commander of 3 Corps. Adam began this task in earnest early on 27 May. On 23 May, by the way, RN warships were still lifting troops from Boulogne, an operation which ended early on 24th. The Luftwaffe on 25 & 26 May had already attacked Dunkirk's port facilities. Significant evacuations only began on 28 May, although a small number had been lifted on 27 May. I would recommend the Naval Staff History, 'The Evacuation From Dunkirk - Operation Dynamo, 26 May - 4 June, 1940.' Full of precise details, and bearing out, in their entirety, my comments.
1
Goering told Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe' and Hitler was foolish enough to believe him.
1
The Halt Order was issued by Von Rundstedt, not by Hitler, in order to rest and re-equip his armour for the next stage of the campaign, and because the ground around Dunkirk was not suitable for tanks. The (horse drawn) German infantry divisions, much more suited to the task, were finally beginning to arrive.
1
@raymondmanderville505 You don't think that the Luftwaffe didn't try to 'butcher' them, but simply weren't very good at anti-shipping operations?
1
Don't be so sure. Of the 336,000 men lifted from Dunkirk, around 120,000 were French troops, most of whom returned to France more or less immediately, and the British also lifted 191,000 British troops from west coast French ports in Operation Ariel. As Britain was never in any real danger of invasion, given the total supremacy of the Royal Navy in Home Waters, there is no certainty of any British request for a peace.
1
Wouldn't there have been more likelihood of the British coming to terms if their army had been held to ransom in PoW camps than if it had been allowed to withdraw across the Channel?
1
@bernardodelatorre5243 The question asked was 'Why didn't the Germans attack at Dunkirk?' The fact is, they did. As Goering said to Hitler 'This is a special job for the Luftwaffe.' What has Operation Unthinkable got to do with 1940, and how on earth can you believe that 'Hitler was betrayed by Churchill?'
1
Why would Hitler do a deal which would see him dead within five years?
1
The French First Army did indeed fight very gallantly. The problem is that there were eight French armies in total on the Western Front.
1
Which Scottish troops were left behind? If you mean 51 Highland Division, they surrendered a week after Dunkirk had ended, on the French Atlantic coast at St. Valery. The had been part of IX Corps of the French 10 Army, and were not near Dunkirk. They were certainly not part of any rearguard. Moreover, half of the division (ArkForce) were successfully evacuated, and the rest might well have been if the commander of IX Corps had not surrendered as a large RN evacuation fleet was preparing to lift the troops out of St. Valery. Try reading 51 Highland Division's website instead of relying on myth. 135,000 Scots soldiers died in WW1, out of 886,000 British casualties on land. 57,000 Scots soldiers died in WW2, out of 384,000 British casualties on land.
1
No. Dynamo was brilliantly planned by Bertram Ramsay. The American military (and America's allies) were sold out by their President.
1
338,226, of which around 120,000 were French.
1
Would you care to provide evidence of those 'nearly two dozen' peace appeals? I have asked people expressing similar sentiments before, yet they seem curiously unwilling to respond.
1
@StevenRhistory I don't need to do anything, old chap. You are the one making the claim. Now, it seems, you are the one unable to substantiate it. The 'appeal to reason' was actually nothing more than a threat. Effectively, 'surrender or we bomb you.' If came about shortly after Mer-el-Kebir, when it finally dawned on hitler that his gamble that Britain would come to terms, and he had no actual means of invading. The appeal to reason is the only actual statement by hitler that can be substantiated, of course.
1
So, a totally unsubstantiated claim, then?
1
Indeed, Britain and France did declare war. Germany, however, simply invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Belgium and, later, the Soviet Union, without the courtesy of a formal declaration of war. Usually, the first the people of the invaded nations knew about it was the arrival of German bombers, tanks, troops, and, later, einsatzgruppen. When did Hitler twice propose a 'peace treaty?' Where might the details be read? Unless, of course, you mean the 'Appeal to Reason' which basically said 'surrender or we bomb you?'' However the world might be now, and it is not the result of WW2 & the Cold War, by the way, would you really suggest that a world which saw the mass extermination of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Jehovah's Witnesses, the physically and mentally disabled, and homosexuals, together with the mass deportation of slave labourers from occupied countries, might have been a better one?
1
How?
1
So, the British didn't lift 120,000 French troops out of Dunkirk?
1
@pierrefraisse8610 Good to see that the old myth is still alive and well. You should visit the British National Archives at Kew, and ask to see WO/106/1613, the file of documents and signals from the time. The British did, initially, assume that French troops would be evacuated aboard French ships, but this was, admittedly, a wrong assumption, as, by 29 May, French ships had only lifted 1,006 men. Indeed, by the time Dynamo ended, this total had only reached around 22,000. When the British became aware of the situation, their vice CIGS, John Dill, sent orders to Vice Admiral, Dover, Bertram Ramsay, with a copy to the senior British officer in Dunkirk, William Tennant, stating that 'The policy of HM Government is that both British & French troops be given equal opportunities for being evacuated in British ships and boats.' The signal may be read in the archives, and that, despite subsequent claims, is actually what happened.
1
@pierrefraisse8610 I doubt the people of the France of 1944 would agree with you, as the Americans, British, and Canadians expended large amounts of blood, treasure, and materials to free them from German occupation.
1
@pierrefraisse8610 Simply pointing out a fact or two, mon brave. Something you don't seem able to do, I suggest?
1
@pierrefraisse8610 Indeed, but the relevance to Dunkirk is tenuous, or, rather, non existent.
1
@pierrefraisse8610 I don't realise that you were 'odd.' I won't bother with you again, but hope that you can get help soon.
1
You mean that the British were forced to evacuated 219,000 British, and 120,000 French, troops, out of Dunkirk after the rest of around 100 divisions of Belgian and French troops had either capitulated or collapsed? Hardly the spirit of Verdun, was it?
1
Yes, I know. Propaganda intended to disrupt an alliance. The Germans did something similar to British troops in North Africa, suggesting that US troops in Britain were getting quite 'close' to British womenfolk. Base your opinions on propaganda, and you get a rather doubtful idea of history.
1
She was part of the RN's covering & patrolling forces, but did not participate in the actual evacuation.
1
So, how does leaving an undefeated Britain in the rear benefit an attack on the Soviet Union, precisely?
1
@UpfulWarrior Hitler was scathing about Kaiser Bill for trying to fight a war on two fronts. Subsequently, just to prove how bad an idea it was, he tried to fight one on three fronts.
1
Yes, we do. Von Rundstedt halted the German armour to prepare it for the second stage of the invasion of France, before the French might stage a second Miracle of the Marne. Goering had already assured Hitler that the surrounded Allied forces could be destroyed by the Luftwaffe, and Hitler was foolish enough to believe him.
1
Actually, IX Corps of the French 10th Army, to which 51st Highland Division was attached, was forming a defensive line along the Somme, and was attacked by the Germans after Dynamo had ended, beginning on 5 June. IX Corps withdrew across France towards Le Havre, and one of 51st's three brigades, 154, was detached to form part of 'Arkforce' intended to keep communications with Le Havre open. Unfortunately, German forces reached the Atlantic coast near St. Valery-en-Caux first, severing these communications. Arkforce was withdrawn through Le Havre, but a large evacuation of the other two brigades, planned by Admiral James for the night of 11-12 June, was prevented by fog, and a second attempt on 12-13 June was abandoned when the commander of IX Corps, General Ihler, surrendered on the morning of 12th, obliging Major-General Fortune to do the same. Some British and French troops (2,137 British & 1,184 French) were lifted from a nearby small port, Veules, but around 6,000 men of 51st HD were captured.
1
Except, of course, for the fact that von Rundstedt, not Hitler, stopped the armour, for what he believed were sound tactical reasons. Hitler had already been assured by Goering that the elimination of the trapped Allied armies was a job for the Luftwaffe, and chose to believe him.
1
One wonders why people feel the need to post such nonsense. Aside from the fact that the British didn't 'betray'the French, but evacuated from Dunkirk (taking 120,000 French troops with them) after the Belgian army had capitulated and the French army was in the early stages of collapse, British armour had already been lost at the Battle of Arras, when a counter-attack without much of the promised French support had failed. How would Germany have picked off 'the colonies and relevant resources at will' when the British had the largest navy in the world, and the small German navy had been largely eliminated in the Norwegian campaign?
1
How exactly would allowing the BEF to escape have convinced the British to come to terms?
1
But the Soviets had a non aggression pact with Germany in 1940.
1
Really? What was that then? 'Let us escape, and you will be dead in five years?' Not much of an undertaking, I suggest.
1
Von Rundstedt halted the tanks, not Hitler.
1
Probably because they weren't at Dunkirk, but were fighting a series of actions across France as part of the IX Corps of the French 10th Army, only arriving at St. Valery a week after Dynamo had ended.
1
Why?
1
I don't know how many times it needs writing, but 'HITLER DIDN'T STOP THE ARMOUR ON THE AA CANAL! Von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, however, did, in order to service and rest it before beginning the next stage of the campaign. Rundstedt, like several of his colleagues, feared a repetition of the 'Miracle of the Marne.' Moreover, as a traditional German commander, he regarded an army backed against the sea as trapped, because he simply did not appreciate the flexibility that Sea Power gave to the allies. Add to that the knowledge that the area around Dunkirk was difficult tank country, and the slower moving German infantry divisions were beginning to arrive, and the decision was a logical one. All this, by the way, is fully documented in the War Diary of Army Group A. Hitler, of course, knew what the ground around Dunkirk was like from his experiences there in WW1, but more importantly had been assured by Goering that the elimination of the trapped Allied forces was 'A special job for the Luftwaffe.' As to the absurd idea that Hitler let the BEF escape to encourage the British to come to terms, simply ask yourself this question :- Were the British more likely to sign a peace treaty if: 1). Their entire field army was caged in German PoW camps? or, 2). Their entire field army, together with around 120,000 French troops, had just been lifted to safety?
1
@MrDaiseymay If someone has to have been present in order to comment on anything which happened in history, then that rather causes difficulties for anything prior to around 1950. That is why people tend to refer to sources from the time, such as the document I referred to earlier, the War Diary of Army Group A, which survived the war and can be examined by anyone interested enough to discover what actually happened. In point of fact, those who have made the effort would confirm my statement, if asked. Furthermore, I quite enjoy educating the less well informed, even if, like you, they generally get somewhat choleric as a result.
1
@antoinemozart243 Sorry, but Goering gave his assurance to Hitler, 'This is a special job for the Luftwaffe.' on 23 May. Operation Dynamo commenced at 1857 on 26 May.
1
@antoinemozart243 But you wrote :- 'The intervention of Goering came too late , the British had begun the evacuation' which is simply not true.
1
That is an interesting idea. Question :- What is the best way to persuade your enemy to surrender? Answer :- Let his entire field army escape to safety across an impregnable defensive moat. Do you really think so?
1
@joseluisrosales4104 Which western countries? Hitler had invaded them all.
1
@garciagar64 I am perplexed. What is the relevance of any of that to my answer?
1
@garciagar64 You suggest old Adolf didn't know about the invasion of Poland until it had happened? Did he oversleep that morning or something?
1
'How else to explain how nearly 330,000 troops, cornered and with their backs to the sea, were able to escape certain disaster and go on to fight another day.?' The Royal & Merchant Navies, perhaps?
1
A 'fleet of Small Boats' didn't. The Royal Navy and the Mercantile Marine did. The small boats ferried troops from the beaches to the large ships offshore.
1
How does allowing your enemy's army to escape encourage them to come to terms?
1
There weren't any. There were a small number of Moslem mule handlers, almost all of whom were evacuated.
1
Hitler didn't stop the tanks, Von Rundstedt did. Hitler had already been told by Goering that the elimination of the trapped allied force was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.' If you really seek to make peace, do you :- 1). Make diplomatic approaches through British embassies in Spain, Sweden, or Switzerland. Possibly even approach the United States to act as a mediator. Or: 2). Let someone bail out of an aircraft over Scotland, in the hope that he might find the estate of a wealthy minor Scottish aristocrat, who might possibly have a tenuous connection with someone in the British government?
1
Absolutely! What a good idea. Fight a war on two fronts. Did you ever read Mein Kampf, where Hitler poured masses of vitriol on old Kaiser Bill for doing exactly the same?
1
Really? How? Using the 4,500 paratroopers which were all the Germans had left after their losses in Norway and the Netherlands? Carried in the 220 surviving transport aircraft which were all that were left in service in September 1940?
1
Precisely. Von Rundstedt wanted to rest & service his armour before beginning the second phase of the campaign, as he feared a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne. The area around Dunkirk was difficult for tanks, and Goering had already assured Hitler that the destruction of the Dunkirk pocket was a 'Special Job for the Luftwaffe.'
1
So? You believe that Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway all actually allowed themselves to be conquered and occupied, and Britain incurred vast costs in blood and treasure, as part of a Baldrick-like 'Cunning Plan.'
1
Churchill only came back into government after Britain had already declared war, and only became PM nine months later. How did anyone bribe him to get Britain into a war which had already started? Time Travel??
1
How was it so easy for a nation with a tiny navy & no assault ships at all to invade an island defended by the largest navy on earth? Answers on a postcard please to A. Hitler, with a copy to N. Bonaparte.
1
I am not sure how Chamberlain saved any lives at Dunkirk. Churchill was not in any government office between 1929 & 1939, and was very much a peripheral figure, with his warnings about Germany, at a time when appeasement was hugely popular in Britain & France.
1
@joshuamorrison8332 I haven't repeated anything at all. Where do you think I have agreed with you? What facts so we agree upon?
1
@joshuamorrison8332 Churchill did not become Prime Minister until May, 1940. Appeasement had ended well before that. Chamberlain played no part in what happened at Dunkirk, and I know precisely why the tanks were stopped on the Aa Canal. They obeyed Von Rundstedt's orders, as he wished to have them ready for the second stage of the campaign, and to ensure that the French could not pull off a repeat of the Miracle of the Marne.
1
@joshuamorrison8332 Please don't get so tediously aggressive. Didn't you write :- 'Chamberlain's desire for peace, while much derided in the history books, probably saved countless lives at Dunkirk,' Or have you forgotten? I didn't say you said Chamberlain played an active role. I simply said that he was irrelevant. There is no doubt at all about the Halt Order. It may be read in the War Diary of Army Group A, which was captured in 1945 and is readily available. Indeed, Hitler could have over-ridden it, but because of a number of factors, he chose to let it stand. These factors included :- 1). The need to service & repair the armour to prepare it for stage 2. 2). Hitler's knowledge from his time there in WW1 that the area was poor tank country. 3). The imminent arrival of the German infantry divisions, more suited to the task. 4). His (erroneous) assumption that an army backed against the sea was trapped. But, most of all, Goering's assurance to him, the day before the order was given, that the destruction of the surrounded allied forces was 'a special job for the Luftwaffe.'
1
It didn't work, then. Largely because there were very few U-boats at Dunkirk. Largely because the Channel was unsuited to the operations of WW2 submersibles.
1
'As for the British, they let France pay the price for the land war without giving it much support.' Much as the French let, or would have let, the British pay the price for the sea war without giving it much support. That was the accepted trade-off between the two allies. Mr. Phillips rather exposes the weakness of his argument when he compares the number of divisions in the BEF in 1940 with those of 1918. When the BEF went to France in 1914, it consisted of only six infantry divisions and one cavalry division. In WW2 the forces sent by the British were gradually to be increased by conscription, and by the arrival of additional divisions from Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand, as had happened in WW1. Allied strategy assumed a defensive posture at the beginning, which would become more offensive as these extra resources arrived. Obviously, because of the 1940 collapse, this was never possible. I am surprised Mr. Phillips is unaware of this. Assuming, of course, that he is actually unaware, rather than simply avoiding the fact.
1
I take it that you haven't heard of the 'Reconstituted BEF' or General Weygand's comment to General Brooke that the French Army was 'no longer capable of organised resistance?'
1
I don't think Hitler cared much about slaughter, but more realistically most of the surrounded troops were likely to have surrendered. The probability is that, like most of his generals, Hitler regarded a surrounded army backed against the sea as trapped, whereas, by contrast, the British, with hundreds of years of sea power behind them, saw the sea as a large open highway.
1
No, they weren't. The RN sent evacuation ships to St. Nazaire, but fog prevented a lift on the first night, and the French corps with which 51HD was serving surrendered the following morning. That, by the way, was well after Dunkirk had ended in any case.
1
@iroscoe No, it is a lot stupid. You can imagine the discussions between Hitler and his staff. 'How can we persuade the British to come to terms?' 'I know, let their entire army be evacuated back to Britain. That will teach them!'
1
The British armour had already been lost at the Battle of Arras, when a counter attack was attempted without much of the promised French support. Vehicles & artillery, both French & British, were destroyed at the last minute, immediately prior to evacuation.
1
Hitler, since coming to power, had reoccupied the Rhineland and incorporated Austria into Germany. He then, without declaring war on anyone, invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, and Belgium. Of course Britain & France declared war, in accordance with their agreements with Poland. This was, some would say belatedly, a line in the sand, and Hitler ignored it. By 1940, the world was quite clear how seriously Hitler took peace treaties. France was in the process of finding out. As to Britain being humiliated, hardly. The RN was more or less untouched, and had just organised the evacuation of over 300,000 allied troops from Dunkirk. Hitler, by the way, did not 'allow' the British to escape. Von Rundstedt stopped the armour in order to prepare it for the second stage of the invasion of France. Finally, if you see Germany as a military super power, compare the size of what, after Norway, was left of the tiny Kriegsmarine with the resources available to the Royal Navy, and then try to explain precisely how any sort of invasion was even remotely conceivable. If the Germans did not want war, they made a rather poor effort of showing it, don't you think?
1
Utter nonsense. There were, I believe, four companies of Indians with the BEF, in charge of mule transport units. None saw combat because they were not combat units, and almost all were successfully evacuated. If you want to write about the important role of Indian troops in North Africa, Italy, and Burma, then fair enough, but posting the kind of stupid comment you have done here simply exposes you, and their memory, to ridicule.
1
In terms of military casualties as a percentage of national population, the figure for Britain was higher than any allied nation except the Soviet Union. Obviously, you didn't know that, of course.
1
@joonamikkonen_ Sorry, but it is simple statement of fact :- United Kingdom :- Population in 1941:- 48,216,000. Military deaths by 1945, 383,700 = 0.795% United States :- Population in 1941 :- 133,417,000. Military deaths by 1945, 407,300 = 0.305% France :- Population in 1941 :- 40,400,000. Military deaths by 1945, 210,000 = 0.519% Incidentally, my post referred to statistics which may be confirmed on any site. Where in it did I suggest that the French were 'incompetent?' The only comment so far attacking any particular nation has been yours.
1
@joonamikkonen_ If you include French colonies, then the total population increases to 111,524, 472, as of 1939. The figures I quoted earlier of french military deaths, included French colonial soldiers. If you choose to base the % on the French empire as a whole, then the figure becomes 0.188% Poland, by the way : Population 34,849,000, Deaths 240,000 = 0.688%
1
PHL's answer is nonsense. The British & French had been planning their campaign for some time. Most of France was protected by the Maginot line, but this did not extend into Belgium. In the event of a German attack, the best French units, supported by the small but fully mechanised BEF, would move to support Belgium. The assumption was that a WW1 style western front would re-establish itself, the British and Commonwealth contribution would gradually increase with conscription and the arrival of Dominion & Empire troops, whilst the RN would establish a naval blockade of Germany along the lines of the one which starved her into submission in WW1. Unfortunately, the French High Command made wrong assumptions about the Ardennes. There was never the remotest possibility that the war would be fought on British soil, and the British did not 'ask' the French to declare war following the invasion of Poland. The French had a military alliance with Poland already in place.
1
They did.
1
For the same reason that everyone else disarmed. It isn't possible to maintain the kind of huge forces required in wartime during peacetime. Moreover, German rearmament only began after 1933.
1
What were these 'generous terms? Where might the texts of these many offers be read?
1
Didn't the British also evacuate around 120,000 French troops?
1
@jean-luchochart6960 Indeed, French boats did take part. 108 of them. They lifted 22,160 men. 45 Belgian boats lifted 3464 men, Two Dutch boats lifted 214 men, and one Norwegian freighter 3500 men. 689 British vessels lifted 308,888 men.
1
@jean-luchochart6960 I only work in terms of history as it was, rather than as it might have been in some alternative reality.
1
@jean-luchochart6960 As best I can recall, I haven't been critical of anyone. I have simply presented a series of facts. The reality was that both the British and French expected WW2 to follow a similar pattern to WW1, in that the British would run the war at sea, and would re-impose the blockade which had strangled Germany in WW1, whilst the French took the bulk of the (defensive) land war in the early stages, until the British & Commonwealth/Empire were able to accept more of the burden as overseas troops arrived in France, and conscription kicked in in the UK. At this point, the Allies would be able to pursue a more aggressive approach. Of course, events evolved rather differently.
1
@micksmith106 Rommel wasn't at home. He was commanding 7th Panzer Division. Von Rundstedt (not Hitler) held back Army Group A's armour to have it rested and serviced before beginning the second stage of the campaign. He, like many other German generals, feared that the French might stage a second Miracle of the Marne. Hitler had been assured by Goering that the Allied forces in the Dunkirk pocket could be overwhelmed by the Luftwaffe, and he was foolish enough to believe him. The German command may well have believed that the Allied forces were trapped and going nowhere. But there again, the German command didn't understand the flexibility that sea power provided.
1
@micksmith106 Rommel was celebrating his wife's birthday in 1944, not to the best of my knowledge on 24 May, 1940. Moreover, he was a junior Divisional commander at the time, with little input into the decisions of Field Marshals and fuhrers. The hitler of 1944 was far different from the hitler of 1940. He was at Von Rundstedt's HQ on 24 May, 1940, and agreed with von Rundstedt's decision, and his reasons for it, but he did not initiate the Halt Order.
1
@micksmith106 The War Diary of Army Group A still exists, and it confirms that von Rundstedt gave the order.
1
@micksmith106 The US National Archives has the War Diaries of German Army Groups from WW2. German military archives are kept at the Bundesarchiv in Freiburg.
1
@omegacentauri73 The Matilda II was a heavily armoured, slow moving, tank intended to operate in support of infantry. That is a definition of an Infantry tank. A Matilda II weighed 25 tons. The contemporary Cruiser Tank, the A10, weighed 15 tons, and the Mk VIb light tank weighed 5 tons.
1
@fantomasvsfantomas2288 How does allowing the British army to be evacuated from Dunkirk ' blackmail the British into some kind of agreement ?'
1
Actually, the question is why over 100 French & Belgian divisions collapsed so dramatically.
1
@gaaava Celebrating deliverance & final victory. More than France could do.
1
@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
Nonsense. Dunkirk has never been claimed to have been a victory. It simply turned a catastrophe into a mere defeat.
1
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
@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
@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
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
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
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
@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
@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
@herrmannwerrmann3854 When you run out of arguments, please don't post meaningless drivel as a substitute.
1
@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
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
@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
@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