Dunkirk, victory or defeat? What is the historical consensus right now?

[Henri Winkelman]

Hello guys,

I know there have been a lot of topics about Dunkirk and what if scenario's. Lots of opinions have been expressed, almost always coloured with each point of view. British people tend to say it was a glorious evacuation, while the Germans (generally) will say it was not possible to reach Dunkirk faster and that it was still a defeat. For me a couple of questions remain:

1. Was the Brittish army able to defend the bridgehead around Dunkirk against the German troops? In other words, was the evacuation necessary in the first place?

2. Were the German spearheads involved in the fightings really able to destroy and capture such a big army?

3. Was there really a 'halt' order from Hitler or were other generals involved in that? How long did the Germans stop (if they even stopped) and how much did that cost them?

[BarKokhba]

I believe that Dunkirk was neither a victory or defeat for either side. It is in a third category; a strategic retreat/withdrawal. Similar to Washington's strategic withdrawal to Manhattan after his defeat at the Battle of Brooklyn, his army lived to fight another day, and win. Strategic retreats/withdrawals often look like defeats, but are often keys to overall victory.

[Henri Winkelman]

I believe that Dunkirk was neither a victory or defeat for either side. It is in a third category; a strategic retreat/withdrawal. Similar to Washington's strategic withdrawal to Manhattan after his defeat at the Battle of Brooklyn, his army lived to fight another day, and win. Strategic retreats/withdrawals often look like defeats, but are often keys to overall victory.

All right but the question remains if this strategic retreat was necessary, and if it was possible for the retreating army to defend itself against the Germans.

[Sheldrake]

Hello guys,

I know there have been a lot of topics about Dunkirk and what if scenario's. Lots of opinions have been expressed, almost always coloured with each point of view. British people tend to say it was a glorious evacuation, while the Germans (generally) will say it was not possible to reach Dunkirk faster and that it was still a defeat. For me a couple of questions remain:

1. Was the Brittish army able to defend the bridgehead around Dunkirk against the German troops? In other words, was the evacuation necessary in the first place?

2. Were the German spearheads involved in the fightings really able to destroy and capture such a big army?

3. Was there really a 'halt' order from Hitler or were other generals involved in that? How long did the Germans stop (if they even stopped) and how much did that cost them?

1. NO. The evacuation was essential to prevent the capture of the BEF and allow tens of thousands of French troops to be redeployed to the Somme defences. The Germans had the allies on the ropes. The Germans had (contested) air superiority over the coast and the allies could not sustain a force in a shallow beachhead reliant on one choked port. They could evacuate troops from the beaches and the mole, but not supply an army with fuel and artillery ammunition.

2. Without constant supplies of artillery ammunition the BEF and French troops would eventually have to surrender, even to a smaller force.

3. The question of the halt orders is still debated. There is no doubt that the German armour was ordered to halt at various times in late may, but on whose orders is still debated. No one can prove anything with counter factual history and we will never know whether the Germans could have overun Dunkirk and surrounded the BEF if they had not halted.

[Stiltzkin]

Strategic retreats/withdrawals often look like defeats, but are often keys to overall victory

Yes, especially when paying the price of 28,9 million military casualties, enabling the opening of a second front. In retrospect, in historiography you can formulate it accordingly with more pathos and heroism of course.

[Henri Winkelman]

1. NO. The evacuation was essential to prevent the capture of the BEF and allow tens of thousands of French troops to be redeployed to the Somme defences. The Germans had the allies on the ropes. The Germans had (contested) air superiority over the coast and the allies could not sustain a force in a shallow beachhead reliant on one choked port. They could evacuate troops from the beaches and the mole, but not supply an army with fuel and artillery ammunition.

I know about the air superiority, but the Brittish had sea superiority. Were there any Kriegsmarine vessels involved around Dunkirk? The redeployed French troops were captured again eventually so I don't see how that is very relevant.

2. Without constant supplies of artillery ammunition the BEF and French troops would eventually have to surrender, even to a smaller force.

I am not so sure about that. Brittish morale among the troops was usually high. This was a good army with good weaponry. During the war, there were much smaller armies which did not surrender to the Germans or fighted for months.

3. The question of the halt orders is still debated. There is no doubt that the German armour was ordered to halt at various times in late may, but on whose orders is still debated. No one can prove anything with counter factual history and we will never know whether the Germans could have overun Dunkirk and surrounded the BEF if they had not halted.

All right, from my own point of view it would have been very tough to capture the full British army in Dunkirk. Maybe the Germans could have captured a few thousand more, but that would have costed them troops in the south which were necessary to fight the other allied troops.

[Sheldrake]

1. NO. The evacuation was essential to prevent the capture of the BEF and allow tens of thousands of French troops to be redeployed to the Somme defences. The Germans had the allies on the ropes. The Germans had (contested) air superiority over the coast and the allies could not sustain a force in a shallow beachhead reliant on one choked port. They could evacuate troops from the beaches and the mole, but not supply an army with fuel and artillery ammunition.

I know about the air superiority, but the Brittish had sea superiority. Were there any Kriegsmarine vessels involved around Dunkirk? The redeployed French troops were captured again eventually so I don't see how that is very relevant.

2. Without constant supplies of artillery ammunition the BEF and French troops would eventually have to surrender, even to a smaller force.

I am not so sure about that. Brittish morale among the troops was usually high. This was a good army with good weaponry. During the war, there were much smaller armies which did not surrender to the Germans or fighted for months.

3. The question of the halt orders is still debated. There is no doubt that the German armour was ordered to halt at various times in late may, but on whose orders is still debated. No one can prove anything with counter factual history and we will never know whether the Germans could have overun Dunkirk and surrounded the BEF if they had not halted.

All right, from my own point of view it would have been very tough to capture the full British army in Dunkirk. Maybe the Germans could have captured a few thousand more, but that would have costed them troops in the south which were necessary to fight the other allied troops.

Henri

You seem to be ignoring the realities of war. WW2 was waged with artillery ammunition for field, anti tank and anti aircraft guns, and fuel. Armies of the era needed depth in which to deploy the logistic tail in safety to support the combat arms. Each division needs 600 tons per day. The 350,000 allied soldiers were from about 20-30 divisions and needed around 12,000-18,000 tons of supplies a day.

The port of Dunkirk was blocked with the wrecks of ships. Without a port and secure communications the BEF could not fight for very long, however brave the individual soldiers might be. The improvised fleet off Dunkirk could not supply an army over a beach. It had no LSTs, LCTs, DUKW or any of the specialist ships that allowed the allies to mount Op Overlord in 1944. All it could do was only evacuate personnel, less for their vehicles and heavy weapons.

It is true that a modest force held out in Tobruk in 1941. But Tobruk was fortified and its besiegers exhausted and menaced by the presence of a relief force. In 1942 under circumstances closer to Dunkirk the Japanese and Germans were able to force substantial British forces to surrender in Singapore and Tobruk respectively.

Could the allies have held a larger area? Maybe if the Dutch and Belgians had not capitulated and carried on the fight in Holland proper and Western Flanders perhaps the war might have become a muddy stalemate. But that is with the advantage of hind sight and ignoring the fifth column scare stories. What if the French 7th Army had pressed ov er the Moerdijk and relieved Rotterdam demonstratign the utter failure of German airborne troops?

[Henri Winkelman]

Henri

You seem to be ignoring the realities of war. WW2 was waged with artillery ammunition for field, anti tank and anti aircraft guns, and fuel. Armies of the era needed depth in which to deploy the logistic tail in safety to support the combat arms. Each division needs 600 tons per day. The 350,000 allied soldiers were from about 20-30 divisions and needed around 12,000-18,000 tons of supplies a day.

The port of Dunkirk was blocked with the wrecks of ships. Without a port and secure communications the BEF could not fight for very long, however brave the individual soldiers might be. The improvised fleet off Dunkirk could not supply an army over a beach. It had no LSTs, LCTs, DUKW or any of the specialist ships that allowed the allies to mount Op Overlord in 1944. All it could do was only evacuate personnel, less for their vehicles and heavy weapons.

It is true that a modest force held out in Tobruk in 1941. But Tobruk was fortified and its besiegers exhausted and menaced by the presence of a relief force. In 1942 under circumstances closer to Dunkirk the Japanese and Germans were able to force substantial British forces to surrender in Singapore and Tobruk respectively.

Thanks for your response Sheldrake. Well, I know something about war and I have read a lot about it, but I'm not an expert about it. If you scroll through the Dunkirk topics on this forum, it's usually a discussion between pro-Brittish or pro-German guys. I am neither, though in my opinion it could have worked in two ways and it's no certainty that the Germans would have captured 300.000 man in just a few weeks. The Kesselslachts in Russia took weeks against very poor troops and the Germans had more troops available there. Huge amounts of tanks and artillery would have been necesarry to destroy the pocket, which were now used in other battle areas in France.

But your arguments about supplies are good, only one harbour was indeed a terrible supply position. On the other hand I am not so sure about German supplies either, I have read that they had not enough amunition to fight a much longer war.

Your examples about Tobruk and Singapore are interesting, I have to admit that.

Could the allies have held a larger area? Maybe if the Dutch and Belgians had not capitulated and carried on the fight in Holland proper and Western Flanders perhaps the war might have become a muddy stalemate. But that is with the advantage of hind sight and ignoring the fifth column scare stories. What if the French 7th Army had pressed over the Moerdijk and relieved Rotterdam demonstrating the utter failure of German airborne troops?

This is a very interesting scenario, and funnily I opened a topic about this just one week ago. I don't know if you mind, but maybe you want to write a response in that topic. You can find the topic here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=226574

[BarKokhba]

The soldiers on the beaches of Dunkirk were in total disarray, units confused, virtually no defensive perimeter established, minimal shelter and food available, many men lacking basic arms and ammo. They were a defeated force unable to mount any sort of organized defense. They were told to assemble there with no advanced planning, which is why the 'fishing boat navy' ended up participating in the rescue, as the British Navy was scattered on a hundred different missions at that time. QUESTION: Why didn't the German army destroy them on the beach?

[sitalkes]

One thing that mystifies me is how there were long battles fought at Stalingrad and Lenningrad where in the former, the Russians held onto a 200 yard deep bridgehead, and in the latter the Germans held onto a similarly small stretch of land. There were plans to create some sort of redoubt at Dunkirk using the large numbers of British and French troops available but there was too much confusion to put them into practice - communications in both armies were very poor at that time. I think the key to the Dunkirk story was morale and psychology - the British forces were in total rout and confusion and if the Germans had pressed the pursuit they could not have recovered sufficiently to mount a coherent defence. However they were sufficiently disciplined and trained such that it only took a day's respite to rally them and get them organised behind water barriers in defensible terrain. Result: a tactical defeat but a strategic victory for the British

I think the only Kriegsmarine involvement was some torpedo boats

[Sheldrake]

The soldiers on the beaches of Dunkirk were in total disarray, units confused, virtually no defensive perimeter established, minimal shelter and food available, many men lacking basic arms and ammo. They were a defeated force unable to mount any sort of organized defense. They were told to assemble there with no advanced planning, which is why the 'fishing boat navy' ended up participating in the rescue, as the British Navy was scattered on a hundred different missions at that time. QUESTION: Why didn't the German army destroy them on the beach?

That is a further point. Gort made the decision to pull his army back to Dunkirk for an evacuation a week before the evacuation formally started. By the time the BEF were in the Dunkirk perimeter they had already been committed to withdraw. Vehicles and guns were disabled and abandoned outside Furnes and Bergues. Morally the allies were beaten by 20th May. The Dutch and Belgian capitulations made defeat inevitable.

There is a tendency to over estimate British Army capabilities because of the result of the Battle of Britain and eventual victory. The BEF did not face the German schwehrpunkt in 1940. The British track record until 1942 was not good, losing many battles that, on paper, they might have won. BEF became known as = Back Every Friday. Contemporary records and memoirs reflect a lack of confidence in the British Army doctrine and culture. The British Army was sufficiently shaken by 1940 that it carried out radical structural reforms, such as the decentralised brigade and battle groups. Many of the brightest and best young Britons rejected institutions epitomized by "Colonel Blimp" and set up their own private armies - SAS Commandos etc. It is telling that the military authorities supported these alternative organisations that sapped many regular formations of talented junior leaders.

[antfreire]

Could the British hold on Dunkirk and fight the German juggernaut? Probably, and it would have been the greatest battle of the Western Front in WWII which eventually would have been lost by the British. Now. Was England going to sacrifice her army in foreign lands when everything seemed that it would be needed to defend her own soil from the German invasion? The scape from Dunkirk was one of the greatest strategical victories of WWII.

[BarKokhba]

So again: why weren't German forces ordered to fully attack the stranded allied force at Dunkirk? Victory there could have ended the war in Western Europe.

[Henri Winkelman]

One thing that mystifies me is how there were long battles fought at Stalingrad and Lenningrad where in the former, the Russians held onto a 200 yard deep bridgehead, and in the latter the Germans held onto a similarly small stretch of land. There were plans to create some sort of redoubt at Dunkirk using the large numbers of British and French troops available but there was too much confusion to put them into practice - communications in both armies were very poor at that time. I think the key to the Dunkirk story was morale and psychology - the British forces were in total rout and confusion and if the Germans had pressed the pursuit they could not have recovered sufficiently to mount a coherent defence. However they were sufficiently disciplined and trained such that it only took a day's respite to rally them and get them organised behind water barriers in defensible terrain. Result: a tactical defeat but a strategic victory for the British

I think the only Kriegsmarine involvement was some torpedo boats

Well this looks my opinion on the subject. Except that I don't know how much the Germans would (or should or could) have needed to press the pursuit and how costly that would have been for other fighting areas in France. When could the Germans have arrived in Dunkirk and how much time would it have taken to encircle the pocket with sufficient troops to destroy it?

[Henri Winkelman]

There is a tendency to over estimate British Army capabilities because of the result of the Battle of Britain and eventual victory. The BEF did not face the German schwehrpunkt in 1940. The British track record until 1942 was not good, losing many battles that, on paper, they might have won. BEF became known as = Back Every Friday. Contemporary records and memoirs reflect a lack of confidence in the British Army doctrine and culture. The British Army was sufficiently shaken by 1940 that it carried out radical structural reforms, such as the decentralised brigade and battle groups. Many of the brightest and best young Britons rejected institutions epitomized by "Colonel Blimp" and set up their own private armies - SAS Commandos etc. It is telling that the military authorities supported these alternative organisations that sapped many regular formations of talented junior leaders.

Good point, British results weren't that great until US supplies arrived.

I am not so sure about the lack of confidence in the army, you can probably find an equal amount of records which show a very positive-minded side of the story. Anecdotal evidence is always dangerous. Do you have examples of these records?