NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently doing history coursework on the above topic. any responses would be a fair bit of help.

cheers

DISASTER!
Equipment for about 300.000 men, some 30 division's worth, gone...
TRIUMPH!
To retrieve the men out of the iron jaws of Hitler's War Machine was a gift of Heaven.

It was a disaster, the only triumph was that we weren't slaughtered as badly as we could have been.

Generally a disaster, but missed opportunity for the Nazis too.

Entirely dependant upon the aims one percieves in Dunkirk. Granted, the loss of equipment, logistical support and armour detratced from the British war effort, however the evacuation itself was conducted as an operation borne out of desperation, and in evacuating nigh on 300,000 Britsih troops, one may contend that it extended the war, if not svaed it, facilitating the North African campaign of 1940-42, and affording us the means to endure until US presence became oberbearing upon the Nazi state.

Entirely dependant upon the aims one percieves in Dunkirk. Granted, the loss of equipment, logistical support and armour detratced from the British war effort, however the evacuation itself was conducted as an operation borne out of desperation, and in evacuating nigh on 300,000 Britsih troops, one may contend that it extended the war, if not svaed it, facilitating the North African campaign of 1940-42, and affording us the means to endure until US presence became oberbearing upon the Nazi state.

Well then, a tactic defeat, a strategic victory.
I'm sure Hitler would have preferred the outcome the other way around ;)

Disaster. Had it been anyone but Hitler in charge, Dunkirk would have a slaughterhouse for the BEF.

Like someone said above, it all depends on what aspect you are commenting on.

Operation Dynamo (Dunkirk its self) was a success in my opinion, given the situation and the limited planning time, there was no way to get the BEF's physical assets off the beach. For all intensive purposes they managed to clear the beaches/ports in what was a (relativity) well organized effort.

The what if situation that always appears, is what would have happened if Germany pushed harder on the Dunkirk, and to a lesser extent the Calais pockets. This would probably have led to a slaughter on the beaches.

When commenting on the operation itself, there is no justification to call it a Disaster, the allied defeat in France was a result of various factors during the Battle of France as a whole, not Operation Dynamo.

The fundament fact is Dynamo completed its objectives.

Oddly enough, I'm studying this for my history module at university in a course on the British Home Front. Dunkirk, like many others have said, can be viewed in several different ways:

Militarily, it was essentially a disaster. Massive amounts of equipment left behind, all vehicles, most armaments, supplies etc, which would reverberate through the army for months to come as they prepared to defend Britain from invasion. However, the evacuation did at least bring back more than 300,000 British and allied troops, which is something at least.

On a propaganda and civilian front, it was oddly enough seen both as a disaster and a triumph. Yes, the BEF had returned home in tatters, defeated, but they weren't treated as such. In Mark Connelly's text We can take it! Britain and the memory of the Second World War, it is shown that the majority of the public saw Dunkirk as a very British defeat, something to almost be perversely proud of. They had taken a beating, but had come back mainly intact troop-wise. The retreat, boosted and shaped of course by the BBC and the government, and the people themselves, fit in with the idea of the British underdog, the fight against the odds, something the British population could be proud of. The BEF had been driven back to Britain, but undefeated in the public mind, and its a perception that even years of revisionism has failed to destroy.

So, it was a military failure, but oddly a public 'victory' in a way. David Lows cartoon, 'Very well then, alone', with the British tommy standing on the White Cliffs shaking a fist at German bombers is perhaps the best way to see this view; Britain alone, wounded, but defiant.

Hear hear!

Disaster. Had it been anyone but Hitler in charge, Dunkirk would have a slaughterhouse for the BEF.
which is way it was nethier-no triumph or complete disaster. Had BEF been owned, there would be no army in Britian. But the RAF was still there i guess, and thats what mainly stopped Nazi invasion. Britian would have been greatly demoralized, meaning Hitler's plan to turn Britian into an ally against the Soviet Union might have worked.

. . .David Lows cartoon, 'Very well then, alone', with the British tommy standig on the White Cliffs shaking a fist at German bombers is perhaps the best way to see this view; Britain alone, wounded, but defiant.
Churcill's stubborness would have might my previous thought very unlikey.

Churcill's stubborness would have might my previous thought very unlikey.

Indeed. We owe a great debt to that great man for organising, browbeating and rallying the British government into a coalition, however difficult it was or however much of a flawed personality he was. However, there were limits to even what Mr Churchill could do. 'The Peoples War' is the perfect moniker for the British experience in the Second World War, after all. It was the people who stood firm, as the great man said himself, it was their war and their victory.

*Bump*

Agree with what's already been said, essentially.

It was, ultimately, a retreat from the continent, having lost.

However, evacuating 300,000 + men was a triumph.

I believe it was a huge triumph. Call me a hippie, but preserving lots of human lives is always a good thing.

I think it was neither a triumph nor a disaster as there were no outstanding feats or losses the war up to this point had been a string of disasters which Dunkirk finally broke

From a British command perspective: the Royal navy has always pulled troops from Europe and mounting another evacuation (even in the small time frame) would be achievable even with constant aerial attack the losses that were sustained were enormous but acceptable in the time frame and what had been asked of the Royal navy though now the war was guaranteed to last for many more years and follow a long struggle to regain the continent

from the Nazi command perspective: it was still a victory Hitler had achieved what he wanted to do and now all he thought he had to do was wait for Britain to surrender.

the Dunkirk evacuation could have even been useful to the Germans if Britain had surrendered as a large force was needed to keep the empire under control thus out of enemies hands

From the British public perspective: at first it was seen as a triumph but as the celebrations cleared many realised that this was now a war for survival and the question remained of if France fell in a matter of months what would become of Britain?

This was of course still of great joy to the public as many families fearing the death of there sons could now sleep easy but that sleep would be too the sound of death for years to come

Overall, I must call it a disaster for both sides. No one really won anything.

The Brits were not ready for a war, they were overrun and had to flee. They didn't tell the French, who always sorta assumed they could count on the BEF for their counter offensive.

Even on a pretty disorderly retreat, the British at times were still overtaken by German troops, so chaos ensued on the way to Dunkirk.

But once they were there, for some reason the Germans didn't finish them off, but waited instead. Either they just didn't believe the British would flee, or Hitler thought in his silly little mind still about this racial alliance to destroy Russia together with Britain, in which case it would've been better to let the BEF leave intact.

But the Brits weren't interested, and so, way too late, a badly conceived air offensive was launched. The Germans lost a lot of planes, but didn't really manage to destroy the docks and the installations on the beach.

And by the way...the French actually asked whether their troops, some of which had also been caught in the city, could be ferried along the cost to Britanny - and the Brits told them to bugger off. Not too long after, the British also attacked the French fleet and destroyed it in North Africa. That IMHO is not one of the more glorious examples of "British Honour".

i wouldn't be surprised to find that it didn't help cement Hitler's generals' confidence in him.

A big disaster that could have been a lot worse.

Hitler never wanted to go to war against Britain. And so he pretty much allowed the British to leave Dunkirk thinking that as a result of his kindness Britiain might pull out of the war. In the end his assumption was wrong. He should have allowed his ground forces to attack the British in Dunkirk in the most Brutal possible way.


Because in the end kindness gets you nowhere and Hitler of all people should have known that.

Overall, I must call it a disaster for both sides. No one really won anything.

The Brits were not ready for a war, they were overrun and had to flee. They didn't tell the French, who always sorta assumed they could count on the BEF for their counter offensive.

Even on a pretty disorderly retreat, the British at times were still overtaken by German troops, so chaos ensued on the way to Dunkirk.

But once they were there, for some reason the Germans didn't finish them off, but waited instead. Either they just didn't believe the British would flee, or Hitler thought in his silly little mind still about this racial alliance to destroy Russia together with Britain, in which case it would've been better to let the BEF leave intact.

But the Brits weren't interested, and so, way too late, a badly conceived air offensive was launched. The Germans lost a lot of planes, but didn't really manage to destroy the docks and the installations on the beach.

And by the way...the French actually asked whether their troops, some of which had also been caught in the city, could be ferried along the cost to Britanny - and the Brits told them to bugger off. Not too long after, the British also attacked the French fleet and destroyed it in North Africa. That IMHO is not one of the more glorious examples of "British Honour".


About why the German held off... it was because Hitler's good mate Goering (head of Luftwaffe) told him his pilots could bomb the British forces to dust given the opportunity, and Hitler wanted him to have a go. There were plenty of German tanks that could have basically rolled on a few miles and been on the beaches, but were told to stop to give Goering his chance. He turned oput to be wrong. Luckily for us...

Whilst I know little of the incident Neu Leonstein refers to about ferrying troops to Brittany, I can respond to the destruction of the French fleet. Despite numerous messages to the French commanders and those under their command to either aid the British in their fight against the Nazis, flee to a neutral country or scuttle their vessels in the ports, the French commanders refused to do anything other than obey the puppet government of the Nazis set up in Vichy.

It was not a decision made lightly, nor one that was pleasing, but it had to be done. If the Germans had used the French fleet to aid their own, the Royal Navy would have been swamped, probably destroyed with thw addition of the larger French capital vessels. Churchill and the Royal Navy did what they had to do to ensure the safety of Britain when an ally refused to break away from a puppet, pro-Nazi government.

About why the German held off... it was because Hitler's good mate Goering (head of Luftwaffe) told him his pilots could bomb the British forces to dust given the opportunity, and Hitler wanted him to have a go.
I agree to a degree, but not fully. Hitler always had his own little schemes and plans, and he wasn't honest with anyone really - when he let Göring (whom he didn't like all that much to start with, and positively loathed later on) have his way, I have my suspicion he had other motives as well.

And it is true that the war with England was making a lot of top Nazis very unhappy, because they felt that the British, as Germanic People themselves, would make great Allies in the war against all the evil things the Nazis tended to imagine.

Despite numerous messages to the French commanders and those under their command to either aid the British in their fight against the Nazis, flee to a neutral country or scuttle their vessels in the ports, the French commanders refused to do anything other than obey the puppet government of the Nazis set up in Vichy.
I think it is too simplistic to simply call Vichy in 1940 a puppet government. Petain was a respected general, and not really a Nazi-Sympathiser at all. The Vichy Government was legitimate, and I can understand if the commanding Admirals would not simply turn from it - especially since there was a lot of ill-feeling in France because of the flight of the BEF when France would have needed help.
Try as I might to see it differently, although it may have been the strategically right decision, to many it must have seemed like the British simply abandoned their allies and tried to save their own arses.

In a tactical sense: Dunkirk was a success. The British wanted to achieve a mission, the evacuation of as many troops from Dunkirk as possible, and they did it.

Stratecigally, Dunkirk, along with the German defeat months later, sealed Germany's fate. Those men were the raw material from which an Army would be forged to eventually win.

It wasn't the huge triumph that the propaganda made it out to be.

As for Mers el-Kebir, if the British hadn't destroyed those ships, they'd have been working for the Axis, either as Vichy French, or nicked by Italy or Germany. One of the biggest problems the Axis had in Africa was supply, because certain comedians in the RAF, and RN took to sinking German supply ships operating from Italy.

You might say that the Vichy in North Africa did eventually join with de Gaulle, but they only did that after Operation Torch, and they didn't have much of a choice then.