The real reason Hitler never destroyed the BEF at dunkirk?

[graham23s]

was it because he knew there would be no potential for a truce with britain and the empire he admired so much or to spare his troops?
what do you guys think?

Cheers

Graham

[ChristopherPerrien]

Goering said he could prevent an evacuation with the Luftwaffe, So I am guessing Hitler had hoped for a mass surrender, leading to have a captured BEF as a bargaining chip when negociating an armistice with Britian

[Daniel L]

what do you guys think?

That's an old myth. The reason they got away was that Hitler wanted to spare the German armour for the coming battles in France.

Best regards/ Daniel

[redcoat]

I'm puzzled by the statement that is often made that 'Hitler spared the BEF, so that the British would agree to a peace treaty'
It makes no sense at all to me.
To my way of thinking. The British would be far more willing to consider a peace treaty if the majority of their trained troops were either captured or killed, rather than less.

My view is that Hitler thought the British army was finished, and that he could safely let it 'wither on the vine' while his forces dealt with the French.
He didn't understand that to the British and their navy, the Channel wasn't an obstacle but a highway.

[tonyh]

There are different reasons why Hitler didn't go for an all out strike against Dunkirk. The wish the "appease" Britain is not a myth. It was central to Hitler's opinion on the British sense of "fair play". He believed that if he showed a good gesture to Britain, then Britain would show a good gesture in return. In other words, if he refrained from destroying the BEF, Britain might "come to their senses" and back out of the war. Their army would be left intact, although minus their equipment and the British sense of pride could be contained, thus making them more compliant. Hitler didn't reckon on Churchill's grip on the British war sensibilites however and in the end "played" the British wrong.

Also, the order to halt the armour was an effort not to outrun supply lines. A problem that bugged Hitler about the 7th Armoured Div under Rommel during the earlier part of the Campaign, who was constantly running away with himself. This had drawn some criticism from other division commanders and also the 7th Armoured had suffered a lot of casualties in their self apointed spearhead approach. Hitler was concerned to avoid such casualties in future engagements.

He also simply didn't see the need to destroy the remnants of the BEF. He was convinced that after France fell, which seemed a certainty, that Britain wouldn't go on. There just wouldn't have been a point to it, in his view and when Britain saw that he wanted no truck with Britain or her Empire, why would they bother? Göring's stuka's could harass the British troops and hurry the evacuation and thus the British would be evacuated from the Continent, leaving the French, who were usually quicker to surrender than the BEF's forces strangely enough, the only opposing force.

Tony

[ljadw]

Tonyth,I do not think that your statement that the French "were usually quicker to surrender than the British" is a fair one.It were the French that made Dynamo possible containing the Germans (198000 British-60 % of the BEF ,the others escaping from the French westcoast in operation ?-and 140000 others ,mainly French escaping to the UK ),sadly I have no figures of the French that had to surrender at the end of Dynamo ,but I think we can safely assume that the great majority of the allied forces surrounded at Dunkirk were French. After Dunkirk,there was no deroute of the French army:the French fought valiantly (without allies!) and the Germans suffered in Fall Rot enormous losses(weekly 33000 against 16000 in Fall Weiss), I am sure that David Lehman,the expert on French Army questions could add much more informations.

[phylo_roadking]

I'm puzzled by the statement that is often made that 'Hitler spared the BEF, so that the British would agree to a peace treaty'
It makes no sense at all to me.

There are different reasons why Hitler didn't go for an all out strike against Dunkirk. The wish the "appease" Britain is not a myth. It was central to Hitler's opinion on the British sense of "fair play". He believed that if he showed a good gesture to Britain, then Britain would show a good gesture in return. In other words, if he refrained from destroying the BEF, Britain might "come to their senses" and back out of the war. Their army would be left intact, although minus their equipment and the British sense of pride could be contained, thus making them more compliant. Hitler didn't reckon on Churchill's grip on the British war sensibilites however and in the end "played" the British wrong.

Unfortunately - the "myth" that this was indeed Hitler's intention is given that lie by it first being made public AFTER Dunkirk! He alluded to it directly in his several "diplomatic overtures" - or what HE regarded as overtures - to the British from the middle of June to the middle of July....I.E. WELL after the British propaganda effort had begun playing up the "Miracle of the little ships" and the "retreat to victory" ideas It's clear that TIMEWISE he was caught well left-footed by the sucessful withdrawal from France - and trying to play it up as being the result of HIS generosity!!!

Tonyth,I do not think that your statement that the French "were usually quicker to surrender than the British" is a fair one.It were the French that made Dynamo possible containing the Germans (198000 British-60 % of the BEF ,the others escaping from the French westcoast in operation ?-and 140000 others ,mainly French escaping to the UK ),sadly I have no figures of the French that had to surrender at the end of Dynamo ,but I think we can safely assume that the great majority of the allied forces surrounded at Dunkirk were French. After Dunkirk,there was no deroute of the French army:the French fought valiantly (without allies!) and the Germans suffered in Fall Rot enormous losses(weekly 33000 against 16000 in Fall Weiss), I am sure that David Lehman,the expert on French Army questions could add much more informations.

Try and pick up a copy of Hugh Sebag-Montefiore's Dunkirk it's the most detailed of the "general" coverages of events from the end of the first week of May to the end of british involvement in France in early June. And has the figures you need in spades!

[ljadw]

Phylo Roadking:thanks for the information

[tonyh]

Tonyth,I do not think that your statement that the French "were usually quicker to surrender than the British" is a fair one.

Maybe it's an unfair comment. But it was 6 years ago. I wouldn't state it in such a fashion today.

On Hitler's "letting the BEF go", my position hasn't really changed. I don't think it's that easy to simply dismiss Hitler's Anglophile tendencies, or the fact that he was desperate to have Britain back out of the war. He wanted nothing from Britain except for them to simply butt out. I still think there is truth to idea that Hitler was happy to spare the BEF, in a misguided effort to ease the British path to peaceful negotiation.

Maybe, there is also some truth to the overplaying of Hitler's insistance that he let the British escape ex post facto, too. But that's open to conjecture. However, Hitler had made his admiration for Britain and the british clear long before Dunkirk, or the war. He also made it clear that he wanted peace with Britain.

Perhaps Hitler didn't actually want the BEF to escape across the Channel, but there maybe is some credence to the idea that he didn't want to completely destroy them either. Perhaps the BEF forces were to be used as a bargaining chip in peace negotiations with the British.

Either way, the issue remains far from concluded and probably always will.


Tony

[paul.i.w]

There's an extract from a forthcoming book about WW2 by Andrew Roberts that looks at this issue, and the role of von Runstedt.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5902 ... f-war.html

Paul

[phylo_roadking]

However, Hitler had made his admiration for Britain and the british clear long before Dunkirk, or the war. He also made it clear that he wanted peace with Britain.

Peace as an opposite to being at war with them, yes. Peace as a long-term mutual goal, as an end in itself...that's something else

[tonyh]

However, Hitler had made his admiration for Britain and the british clear long before Dunkirk, or the war. He also made it clear that he wanted peace with Britain.

Peace as an opposite to being at war with them, yes. Peace as a long-term mutual goal, as an end in itself...that's something else

Hitler not only advocated peace with the British Empire, he was in favor of an alliance.


Tony

[bf109 emil]

TonyH wrote

On Hitler's "letting the BEF go", my position hasn't really changed

Hitler let them go...no i think he couldn't prevent them from going...and I think had he sent armour against the defensive lines set up to protect Dunkirk, his flimsy hulled Panzer II and Panzer III would have been slaughtered...hence Göring vowed to destroy the BEF on the Beaches...only problem is the bomb did little or no damage after hitting and sinking into sand before exploding and his first good taste of war without air supremacy hit home and the evacuation he couldn't stop...to say Hitler let the BEF go is amusing...

[tonyh]

Hitler not only stopped his panzers, he stopped his army. In addition, the Pz.Kpfw.III was far from "flimsy", given the standards of the time.

The Göring nonsense that keeps getting thrown around is just that, nonsense. Nobody would have considered that an arial attack alone, by a tactical airforce would be suficient to completely destroy the BEF on the beaches.



Tony

[bf109 emil]

Hitler not only stopped his panzers, he stopped his army. In addition, the Pz.Kpfw.III was far from "flimsy", given the standards of the time.

The Göring nonsense that keeps getting thrown around is just that, nonsense. Nobody would have considered that an arial attack alone, by a tactical airforce would be suficient to completely destroy the BEF on the beaches.
Tony

I agree, but up until that time, the LW had never faced a challenge nor had it not ever had air supremacy...it wasn't just the beaches, but had they control of the air had they had for the first 8 months, British shipping and transports would have been hard pressed to try and even make an attempt at rescue...

and I hear what you say, about the Panzer III, but Germany never had these in abundance in France, most where Panzer II or Check tanks IIRC...why risk having armor destroyed and your advance through France, knowing the French out numbered you in tanks and quality of tanks in a battle that was soon to be engaged when and if air power would negate the removal of troops and the BEF destroyed and forced to surrender by air strikes...Göring promised and up until that time, what or why would Hitler have assumed it couldn't be done by the LW as the spit over Dunkirk was the first real challenged up ntil that time the main foe had been the hurricane