Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Dunkirk

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by lyle85 (U7714360) on Saturday, 1st December 2007

  Would like to know some of your opinions on Dunkirk. Why didn't Hitler go for 'the kill', when it appeared he had the opportunity? What do you think would have been the consequences had this happened?

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 1st December 2007

  lyle,
  
  there are some threads here about the subject too if you seek in the archive.
  
  I read once a thread on a French forum of more than 300 messages some very elaborated: only alone about the "Haltbefehl" (halt order) of Hitler. And then we aren't yet at the possible "event" of "the kill".
  
  My humble opinion is that it would not have altered the sequenses of the war militarily, but perhaps it would have sparked a scenario like in France. The fierce Churchill not able to have his say? And that would have been a total! other history.
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Sunday, 9th December 2007

  hi, I am no expert on DUNKIRK, but I have a theory that could be plausible.
  The target at Dunkirk appeared to have been the oil and petrol installations.I believe the bombing of these caused a dense pall of smoke over the beaches preventing the Lufftwafer from making the 'kill'.I also expect that hitler would think that the troops on the beach could be rounded up at will at time once the installations had been dealt with,never imaging for one moment Britains ability to evacute those beaches.
  vera

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Sunday, 9th December 2007

  Vera,
  
  you are a clever woman. Will try to discuss your theories with the "historians". Especially your last theory I have already met in the "Haltbefehl"discussion.
  
  I said "woman" because I thought "Vera" was a hint for that...
  
  Warm regards,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 9th December 2007

  Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing, and on the surface it would appear that Hitler and his staff threw away their real chance at winning the war when they stopped the attack. However, it's important to realize that at that time, no one at OBKW realized how badly the French armies were foundering, nor were they aware that with the French collapsing on his flank, Lord Gort had no choice but to give up the fight on the continent and try to save what he could. That pretty well took the BEF out of the picture as well. We all know that now, but OBKW and Hitler didn't in 1940.
  
  Also, the German tactical air support had been fantastic and had provided the army with hitherto unheard-of aid in lightning attack. It began to appear to everyone that air force was more than an indispensable factor in combined arms assault, it might be capable of winning wars all by itself.
  
  So, keeping those things in mind:
  
  --------------------------------
  
  I've heard several reasons offered for Hitler's order to stop his armies when he did. The most plausible are:
  
  1. Rommel and Guderian - indeed, all the panzer units - had outrun their supporting infantry and neither Hitler nor von Rundstedt realized at that time how complete the defensive breakdown had been. German losses during the attacks had been substantial; the armoured units were badly in need of reinforcement, refurbishing, and resupply, and the men were desperately tired. To von Runstedt and his staff, it was time for the armoured units to dig in and regroup before the inevitable counter-attacks that they and Hitler were sure were coming.
  
  2. Hitler really didn't want to destroy the British Empire. He wanted a truce with Britain and his astounding success convinced him that this was a strong possibility. However, destroying the BEF and killing many of its men might anger the British people to the point where they'd fight on no matter what, and he didn't want that. So he held back to await developments (as a matter of fact, in this, he was very nearly right).
  
  3. We already know that Hitler and his commanders were really worried about the possibility that severe counter-attacks might cut off all the advance panzer units and destroy the German armies in detail. Von Rundstedt wanted to stop and dig in and so did his staff, despite the assurances from his field commanders that total victory was within their grasp. Now up steps Goering, who insists that his Luftwaffe can finish the job of destroying the BEF with risking the precious armour or ignoring the possibility of serious counter-attacks. Adding that to von Rundstet's concerns, stopping the forward units until their supplies and infantry could catch up to them seemed the prudent thing to do.
  
  2.

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 9th December 2007

  erratum.
  
  In the above missive, obviously it should read.... ''WithOUT risking the precious......'

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by AgProv2 (U538194) on Monday, 10th December 2007

  As I understand it, just before Dunkirk, British forces pulled off what could be described as the only local tactical victory of the Battle of France. At Arras, British armour caught the Panzer advance off-guard and fought long enough and hard enough to severely blunt the spearhead of the Blitzkrieg: a German panzer division suffered significant losses and was stopped dead. The only things that stopped this battle developing into a significant German defeat, rather than a temporary halt, was the fact that the French couldn't get their tanks into action to deliver a killing blow while the Germans were caught out. There were too few British tanks and they were of variable quality. Our very best tanks proved themselves more than a match for the Germans, but there simply weren't enough of them: the majority of British tanks taking part were basically souped-up World War One designs mounting nothing more effective than a couple of machine-guns.
  
  However, there is a school of thought that claims Hitler was so alarmed at seeing his advance Panzer forces running into trouble and determined, well-organised resistance, that he halted that particular line of attack, not knowing what else was waiting for them.
  
  This allowed British forces a clear line of retreat into Dunkirk with no immediate pursuit and allowed time to get our troops out before the Germans realised that we lacked the men, tanks and resources to follow through Arras.
  
  (Incidentally, Dunkirk was not viewed as a permanant withdrawal - more a regrouping. Even while it was going on we were still landing other troops elsewhere in France with the intention of carrying the war on, further west. If France had not surrendered, it's very possible we would have carried on sending further units into France to carry on the war, even after Dunkirk. Many of these men were extracted in smaller evacuations later, but the 52nd Highland Division was lost in its entirity at St Valery)

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by vera1950 (U9920163) on Thursday, 13th December 2007

  Hi Paul,
  thanks foryour post,I do hope you carry my argument to the historians because I feel,simplistic as it is, is as plausible as any other.
  These kinds of decisions are not always made with accuracy and strategic planning but are made on the ''hoof' so to speak.
  If hitler was thinking straight,which we know he often did not, then he would have gone for the kill,but I feel in his arrogant way he felt that hecould deal with those on the beaches at a time of his own choosing,but we can't ask him now can we. I often wonder what his reaction was when the troops had been evacuated-I hope he didn't have a cat to kick!
  I have just returned fro a nice few days in Belgium-MOESKROEN and BRUGGE-no war tourist this time though-just pleasure and shopping-beer ,fags and chocolate.
  Vera

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 13th December 2007

  Re: 8.
  Vera,
  yes I will feed it to the historians. Happy that you enjoyed, Brugge.
  Cheers, Paul.

  Link to this forum: Dunkirk

  Report message9

Back to top