An alternative Battle of Dunkirk

[Boby]

Frieser is so biased that mostly of what he has written is simply unworthy of a serious historian.

[paulskordilis]

As Karl-Heinz Frieser points out in The Blitzkrieg Legend, had the Halt Orders of 15 May and 21 May not been issued, the issue of the Third and most famous Halt Order on 24 May 1940 would have been moot, given that the Wehrmacht would already have captured Dunkirk.

Frieser is totally wrong on this point : he is a retired Bundeswehr officer and can not afford,given the climate in Germany, to admit that Hitler was not a stupid military leader .
There is no proof at all that the WM could have captured Dunkirk before the evacuation, but there are a lot of indications for the opposite .

1. There is no evidence at all for your nonsense proposition about the authorship.
2.

At that point in time, the main body of the British and French divisions was still stuck
in the country’s interior about a hundred kilometers from salvation along the Channel
coast. Now, however, the German Panzers threatened to push to the Channel ports along
the coast behind the back of the British and French. The British command immediately
recognized the danger and tried to transfer troops from England to Calais and Boulogne in
order, from there, to block the way of the Germans to Dunkirk. It was hoped that this port
could be held open for an evacuation. The embarkation of the contingents that were to
come to the aid of the trapped Allies was delayed so much that this race became a matter
of hours. British military historian Kenneth Macksey arrived at the following result: “But
it would be the morning of the 22nd before Boulogne received its main garrison and so it
follows that, if Guderian or Reinhardt had been sent there immediately on the 21st at the
same rate as they travelled on the 20th, they would have found the port virtually
undefended. Likewise they could have had Calais for the asking since that port’s garrison
was not properly in position until the 22nd.”
141
The most important role was assigned to the 10th Panzer Division. At that time, it
would have been possible, without any problems, to push through to Dunkirk, which was
hardly defended. But, after the first halt order at Montcornet, the Panzers were now
stopped once again at Arras. Without this intervention, however, the famous halt order of
Dunkirk on 24 May would not have had any consequences because that port would
already have been in German hands.

Frieser, the Blitzkrieg Legend.

All you have is a claim from Frieser without any proof which you are repeating .
In Fall Rot, Robert Forckzyk writes that half of the German trucks and tanks were no longer operational ,when the first Halt Order was issued ,which means that only a small number of tanks could advance to Dunkirk,without the support of the infantry and artillery,and without this support tanks are powerless .

1. The Channel ports were virtually undefended on 21 May.
2. Forczyk is clearly talking about the situation on 24 May, when the Germans may or may not have captured Dunkirk. Without the Haltebefehl on either 15 or 21 May Haltebefehl, the infamous debate would have been moot, given that the Germans would have already been in the woefully underdefended ports.

[paulskordilis]

Frieser is so biased that mostly of what he has written is simply unworthy of a serious historian.

If you are going to prove any substantiated evidence for your propositions, feel free to do so. Or maybe it’s that you don’t have any?

[ljadw]

About Frieser :the recreation of the German army 10 years after the war was founded
A on the exaggerated claim of the danger from the East
B on the lie that only Hitler was responsible for the Holocaust and that the Wehrmacht had nothing to do with this
C on the lie that Hitler only was responsible for the defeat of Germany and that without his interference the competent military leaders would have lead Germany to victory .
Every one in Germany who was /is doubting one of these three points is ostracized and labeled as a communist, an extreme right person, a nazi, a fascist .
And it is obvious that Frieser, former officer of the Bundeswehr will not question the legend of the infallible Wehrmacht generals .

[ljadw]

As Karl-Heinz Frieser points out in The Blitzkrieg Legend, had the Halt Orders of 15 May and 21 May not been issued, the issue of the Third and most famous Halt Order on 24 May 1940 would have been moot, given that the Wehrmacht would already have captured Dunkirk.

Frieser is totally wrong on this point : he is a retired Bundeswehr officer and can not afford,given the climate in Germany, to admit that Hitler was not a stupid military leader .
There is no proof at all that the WM could have captured Dunkirk before the evacuation, but there are a lot of indications for the opposite .

1. There is no evidence at all for your nonsense proposition about the authorship.
2.

At that point in time, the main body of the British and French divisions was still stuck
in the country’s interior about a hundred kilometers from salvation along the Channel
coast. Now, however, the German Panzers threatened to push to the Channel ports along
the coast behind the back of the British and French. The British command immediately
recognized the danger and tried to transfer troops from England to Calais and Boulogne in
order, from there, to block the way of the Germans to Dunkirk. It was hoped that this port
could be held open for an evacuation. The embarkation of the contingents that were to
come to the aid of the trapped Allies was delayed so much that this race became a matter
of hours. British military historian Kenneth Macksey arrived at the following result: “But
it would be the morning of the 22nd before Boulogne received its main garrison and so it
follows that, if Guderian or Reinhardt had been sent there immediately on the 21st at the
same rate as they travelled on the 20th, they would have found the port virtually
undefended. Likewise they could have had Calais for the asking since that port’s garrison
was not properly in position until the 22nd.”
141
The most important role was assigned to the 10th Panzer Division. At that time, it
would have been possible, without any problems, to push through to Dunkirk, which was
hardly defended. But, after the first halt order at Montcornet, the Panzers were now
stopped once again at Arras. Without this intervention, however, the famous halt order of
Dunkirk on 24 May would not have had any consequences because that port would
already have been in German hands.

Frieser, the Blitzkrieg Legend.

All you have is a claim from Frieser without any proof which you are repeating .
In Fall Rot, Robert Forckzyk writes that half of the German trucks and tanks were no longer operational ,when the first Halt Order was issued ,which means that only a small number of tanks could advance to Dunkirk,without the support of the infantry and artillery,and without this support tanks are powerless .

1. The Channel ports were virtually undefended on 21 May.
2. Forczyk is clearly talking about the situation on 24 May, when the Germans may or may not have captured Dunkirk. Without the Haltebefehl on either 15 or 21 May Haltebefehl, the infamous debate would have been moot, given that the Germans would have already been in the woefully underdefended ports.

Virtually is not a serious argument .
It is also avoiding the decisive points,which are
1 How far were the Germans from the Channel ports on 21 May ?
2 How strong were the Germans on 21 May ?

[Boby]

Frieser is so biased that mostly of what he has written is simply unworthy of a serious historian.

If you are going to prove any substantiated evidence for your propositions, feel free to do so. Or maybe it’s that you don’t have any?

He is distorting the evidence to fit it in the PC interpretation of history. Any historian who does this is a charlatan, nothing more. His contribution to DRZW Volume 8 is a good example.

[paulskordilis]

Frieser is so biased that mostly of what he has written is simply unworthy of a serious historian.

If you are going to prove any substantiated evidence for your propositions, feel free to do so. Or maybe it’s that you don’t have any?

He is distorting the evidence to fit it in the PC interpretation of history. Any historian who does this is a charlatan, nothing more. His contribution to DRZW Volume 8 is a good example.

More probably, your interpretation of history is PC, as shown by your disregard for any historical evidence.

[paulskordilis]

Frieser is totally wrong on this point : he is a retired Bundeswehr officer and can not afford,given the climate in Germany, to admit that Hitler was not a stupid military leader .
There is no proof at all that the WM could have captured Dunkirk before the evacuation, but there are a lot of indications for the opposite .

1. There is no evidence at all for your nonsense proposition about the authorship.
2.

At that point in time, the main body of the British and French divisions was still stuck
in the country’s interior about a hundred kilometers from salvation along the Channel
coast. Now, however, the German Panzers threatened to push to the Channel ports along
the coast behind the back of the British and French. The British command immediately
recognized the danger and tried to transfer troops from England to Calais and Boulogne in
order, from there, to block the way of the Germans to Dunkirk. It was hoped that this port
could be held open for an evacuation. The embarkation of the contingents that were to
come to the aid of the trapped Allies was delayed so much that this race became a matter
of hours. British military historian Kenneth Macksey arrived at the following result: “But
it would be the morning of the 22nd before Boulogne received its main garrison and so it
follows that, if Guderian or Reinhardt had been sent there immediately on the 21st at the
same rate as they travelled on the 20th, they would have found the port virtually
undefended. Likewise they could have had Calais for the asking since that port’s garrison
was not properly in position until the 22nd.”
141
The most important role was assigned to the 10th Panzer Division. At that time, it
would have been possible, without any problems, to push through to Dunkirk, which was
hardly defended. But, after the first halt order at Montcornet, the Panzers were now
stopped once again at Arras. Without this intervention, however, the famous halt order of
Dunkirk on 24 May would not have had any consequences because that port would
already have been in German hands.

Frieser, the Blitzkrieg Legend.

All you have is a claim from Frieser without any proof which you are repeating .
In Fall Rot, Robert Forckzyk writes that half of the German trucks and tanks were no longer operational ,when the first Halt Order was issued ,which means that only a small number of tanks could advance to Dunkirk,without the support of the infantry and artillery,and without this support tanks are powerless .

1. The Channel ports were virtually undefended on 21 May.
2. Forczyk is clearly talking about the situation on 24 May, when the Germans may or may not have captured Dunkirk. Without the Haltebefehl on either 15 or 21 May Haltebefehl, the infamous debate would have been moot, given that the Germans would have already been in the woefully underdefended ports.

Virtually is not a serious argument .
It is also avoiding the decisive points,which are
1 How far were the Germans from the Channel ports on 21 May ?
2 How strong were the Germans on 21 May ?

1. The main body of the Anglo-French were 100km from the Channel Coast, and as Macksey points out, the Germans were sufficiently close to have swept into the undefended Channel ports on 21 May had they wished. Under a day’s drive, and far closer than the Anglo-French.
2. The farce at Arras virtually denuded the Allies of tanks, with only 37/225 Axis tanks lost. Without the Haltebefehl on 21 May, three days of fighting against the newly positioned Calais garrison etc. would have been entirely averted.

[Boby]

Frieser is so biased that mostly of what he has written is simply unworthy of a serious historian.

If you are going to prove any substantiated evidence for your propositions, feel free to do so. Or maybe it’s that you don’t have any?

He is distorting the evidence to fit it in the PC interpretation of history. Any historian who does this is a charlatan, nothing more. His contribution to DRZW Volume 8 is a good example.

More probably, your interpretation of history is PC, as shown by your disregard for any historical evidence.

You don't have any evidence, only quotes someone else.

Are you familiar with primary sources? Let's see.

[paulskordilis]

Frieser is so biased that mostly of what he has written is simply unworthy of a serious historian.

If you are going to prove any substantiated evidence for your propositions, feel free to do so. Or maybe it’s that you don’t have any?

He is distorting the evidence to fit it in the PC interpretation of history. Any historian who does this is a charlatan, nothing more. His contribution to DRZW Volume 8 is a good example.

More probably, your interpretation of history is PC, as shown by your disregard for any historical evidence.

You don't have any evidence, only quotes someone else.

Are you familiar with primary sources? Let's see.

1. You’re the one who doesn’t have any evidence. Secondly, Kenneth Macksey supports Frieser’s thesis in the Blitzkrieg Legend.
2. Unless you can clearly show how primary sources contradict Frieser’s thesis, your point is moot.

[ljadw]

I don't think that one can use as a serious source some one as Macksey who wrote a book full of adoration for Guderian, using as source the writings of Guderian and the writings of his henchman Liddell Hart .

[ljadw]

1. There is no evidence at all for your nonsense proposition about the authorship.
2.

Frieser, the Blitzkrieg Legend.

All you have is a claim from Frieser without any proof which you are repeating .
In Fall Rot, Robert Forckzyk writes that half of the German trucks and tanks were no longer operational ,when the first Halt Order was issued ,which means that only a small number of tanks could advance to Dunkirk,without the support of the infantry and artillery,and without this support tanks are powerless .

1. The Channel ports were virtually undefended on 21 May.
2. Forczyk is clearly talking about the situation on 24 May, when the Germans may or may not have captured Dunkirk. Without the Haltebefehl on either 15 or 21 May Haltebefehl, the infamous debate would have been moot, given that the Germans would have already been in the woefully underdefended ports.

Virtually is not a serious argument .
It is also avoiding the decisive points,which are
1 How far were the Germans from the Channel ports on 21 May ?
2 How strong were the Germans on 21 May ?

1. The main body of the Anglo-French were 100km from the Channel Coast, and as Macksey points out, the Germans were sufficiently close to have swept into the undefended Channel ports on 21 May had they wished. Under a day’s drive, and far closer than the Anglo-French.
2. The farce at Arras virtually denuded the Allies of tanks, with only 37/225 Axis tanks lost. Without the Haltebefehl on 21 May, three days of fighting against the newly positioned Calais garrison etc. would have been entirely averted.

As I expected, you try to avoid to answer my questions
The truth is that the French were still in Lille til 31 May 1940 and Lille is some 75 km from Dunkirk .
It is also not so that the Germans were close enough to sweep into Dunkirk on 21 May ,because : you have NO sources that indicate how strong were the Germans at Abbeville (150 km from Dunkirk ) and Arras (110 km from Dunkirk ) at the evening of 20 May .The only thing we may assume is that they were very weak .
And about Arras : this is totally irrelevant as the allies could engage during Fall Gelb the few German tanks without needing their own tanks .And the allies were not denuded of tanks : they lost 74 tanks only, the Germans 37 .
On 24 May there were parts of the 1st PzD and of the LSSAH between the coast and St Omer ( source : Frieser ) .All we know is that on 21 May these elements were farther away from Dunkirk and smaller .That is a fact that you must accept or you must prove the opposite = that on 21 May the Germans were closer to Dunkirk and stronger .

[Boby]

If you are going to prove any substantiated evidence for your propositions, feel free to do so. Or maybe it’s that you don’t have any?

He is distorting the evidence to fit it in the PC interpretation of history. Any historian who does this is a charlatan, nothing more. His contribution to DRZW Volume 8 is a good example.

More probably, your interpretation of history is PC, as shown by your disregard for any historical evidence.

You don't have any evidence, only quotes someone else.

Are you familiar with primary sources? Let's see.

1. You’re the one who doesn’t have any evidence. Secondly, Kenneth Macksey supports Frieser’s thesis in the Blitzkrieg Legend.
2. Unless you can clearly show how primary sources contradict Frieser’s thesis, your point is moot.

Blah blah blao

The fact is: Frieser is simply speculating, playing fantasy, and he presents this speculation as a historical fact, because it fits well in his rabidly anti-Hitler narrative. Thus, he is a charlatan. Also, he don't go further than quoting some KTB's and the old published literature. That's all and there is nothing new here.

[paulskordilis]

He is distorting the evidence to fit it in the PC interpretation of history. Any historian who does this is a charlatan, nothing more. His contribution to DRZW Volume 8 is a good example.

More probably, your interpretation of history is PC, as shown by your disregard for any historical evidence.

You don't have any evidence, only quotes someone else.

Are you familiar with primary sources? Let's see.

1. You’re the one who doesn’t have any evidence. Secondly, Kenneth Macksey supports Frieser’s thesis in the Blitzkrieg Legend.
2. Unless you can clearly show how primary sources contradict Frieser’s thesis, your point is moot.

Blah blah blao

The fact is: Frieser is simply speculating, playing fantasy, and he presents this speculation as a historical fact, because it fits well in his rabidly anti-Hitler narrative. Thus, he is a charlatan. Also, he don't go further than quoting some KTB's and the old published literature. That's all and there is nothing new here.

Blah blah blah. Far more likely, you are simply speculating and playing fantasy. Frieser being 'rabidly anti-Hitler' has no basis whatsoever in fact, and only serves to further expose you as a charlatan. There is absolutely nothing in the new published literature or KTBs which contradict Frieser. Not even self-styled 'popular historian' Holland's Germany Ascendant.

[paulskordilis]

I don't think that one can use as a serious source some one as Macksey who wrote a book full of adoration for Guderian, using as source the writings of Guderian and the writings of his henchman Liddell Hart .

If we are living in the same universe as the person who wrote The Myth of German Military Superiority: Why the Germans Lose At War, dream on.