Comments by "TIKhistory" (@TheImperatorKnight) on "Dunkirk Myth vs. Reality - Operation Dynamo" video.
-
145
-
5
-
Ok, time to take things a little more seriously (only a little). Wouldn't want the fiery Barbarossa to call me an idiot afterall...
Think a lot of you need to reread the original post carefully. Lord Cypher got it right. "seen as victory" does not equal victory. Rather that the British tend to put a good face on what was otherwise a defeat.
jorelemes - I also made a documentary series on the North African Campaign, including the bit where Rommel annihilates the British 2nd Armoured Division, races off across Cyreniaca, captures three British Generals, and then surrounds and besieges Tobruk. The point is that the British lost a good chunk of land, but held onto one town (actually, the Australians did, with some British tank support) and yet that's seen as some sort of great British defiance. Again, victory from defeat. Just to point out, the 1941 siege was lifted during Operation Crusader. It was a victory for the British! And then Gazala happened...
Somaliland wasn't a victory, it was a defeat. The British force fell back successfully and withdrew. Again, hailed as a successful withdrawal. Putting a good face on what was otherwise a bad outcome. Just like at Dunkirk.
Barbarossa mentioned that the British beat the Zulu army at Rorke's Drift. No they didn't. The Zulu army was at Isandlwana. It was just the Zulu reserve force at Rorke's Drift. Again, major defeat at Isandlwana, so best lionize the defenders of Rorke's Drift to take the edge off the big bad main event.
Frost's 2nd Para at Arnhem (note, I didn't say Market Garden) are again praised for their defiance against overwhelming odds... despite the fact they lost. Same with the rest of 1st Airborne at Oosterbeek.
Rob Young - Please don't watch A Bridge Too Far. Not only is it inaccurate (John Frost, as he says in his memoirs, was there at production telling them that the events they were portraying didn't happen like that) but it also leads you to the wrong conclusions about why the whole operation was actually lost. Highly recommend Robin Neillands "The Battle for the Rhine: Arnhem and the Ardennes" for a more modern look at the battle. Although John Frost himself came to the same conclusion in his memoirs, as does Poulussen in his book.
Also, just to point out, I am "British".
4
-
Hey HappyandAtheist, I am "British"
Stock Image Freeaboo, the original comment was "Almost every defeat, last stand, or evacuation is seen as a victory for the British." I never said they were victories. Instead, what was implied was that they were - like Dunkirk, and like mentioned in the video - portrayed as a victory for the British.
To clarify, Dunkirk was a disaster. However, it's portrayed it as a win for the British because they were able to evacuate their army, which allowed them to keep fighting and thus win the war. Similarly, the examples I used originally were also shown in a similar light. E.g. the retreat from Gallipoli (not the entire battle, just the retreat) was later portrayed and studied as an example of a good way to retreat, so much so that, as I showed in an earlier comment, Urquhart used the lessons learnt from it when evacuating the 1st Airborne from the Oosterbeek/Arnhem area.
3
-
2