An alternative Battle of Dunkirk

[paulskordilis]

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 .

1. The 'main body' of the Anglo-French divisions were 100 km from the Channel coastline on 21 May, so logically, most of them could not have been at Lille.
2. The Allies losing 74/74 tanks at Arras is a scale of destruction on par with how the pre-war Soviet tank formations ceased to exist in the first few weeks of Barbarossa.
3. The Germans had 188 tanks remaining on 21 May, so they were stronger. They could have reached Dunkirk on the same day without the 21 May Haltebefehl, so they were far closer than the Allies. I have no time to waste accepting your nonsense 'facts' and propositions. The burden is on *you* to prove the opposite, which is clearly proving to be an impossible task.

[ljadw]

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 .

1. The 'main body' of the Anglo-French divisions were 100 km from the Channel coastline on 21 May, so logically, most of them could not have been at Lille.
2. The Allies losing 74/74 tanks at Arras is a scale of destruction on par with how the pre-war Soviet tank formations ceased to exist in the first few weeks of Barbarossa.
3. The Germans had 188 tanks remaining on 21 May, so they were stronger. They could have reached Dunkirk on the same day without the 21 May Haltebefehl, so they were far closer than the Allies. I have no time to waste accepting your nonsense 'facts' and propositions. The burden is on *you* to prove the opposite, which is clearly proving to be an impossible task.

What is the ''main body '' ?
Number of tanks is not a proof that the Germans were stronger .
Arras is some 110 km from Dunkirk ,thus you have to prove that the 188 remaining German tanks could advance 110 km in one day , you have to prove that all of these remaining tanks were operational,and you have to prove that the supporting units also could advance 110 km ,because, as you don't know ,without the protection of the infantry and artillery,tanks are totally helpless .A tank division is a combined arms division .
And you have to prove that the British and French forces could not stop the advance of 188 tanks .
The distance Trier -Arras is some 400 km ,it took the Germans 11 days to cover this distance ,thus how could they do more than 100 km in one day ?.
To compare the allied tank losses to the Soviet tank losses in the first weeks of Barbarossa,proves that you have no understanding of what happened in the first weeks of Barbarossa .
And, what is your proof that the main body of the allied forces was 100 km away from the coast ?
I expect the proof that more than 500000 of the 1 million British,French and Belgian soldiers who were encircled,were 100 km away from Dunkirk . The majority of these 1 million men were not at the front ,but was retreating to the coast and to the French border .

[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 .

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.

A few years after the war, Liddell Hart asked Guderian ,who was responsible for the death of thousands of Britons,to write in Panzerleader that his successes were due to the writings of Liddell Hart before the war .And Guderian said yes ,although what Liddell Hart wrote before the war had no influence on what happened during the war .And Macksey is not better than Liddell Hart .
Liddell Hart asked the same on Frau Rommel, but she had the dignity to refuse .

[Boby]

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.

QED

[paulskordilis]

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.

QED

So you've demonstrated that your point is nonsense. I got it.

[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.

A few years after the war, Liddell Hart asked Guderian ,who was responsible for the death of thousands of Britons,to write in Panzerleader that his successes were due to the writings of Liddell Hart before the war .And Guderian said yes ,although what Liddell Hart wrote before the war had no influence on what happened during the war .And Macksey is not better than Liddell Hart .
Liddell Hart asked the same on Frau Rommel, but she had the dignity to refuse .

Liddell Hart has no bearing at all on what Macksey has or has not writte: once again, you are peddling a nonsensical strawman argument.

[paulskordilis]

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 .

1. The 'main body' of the Anglo-French divisions were 100 km from the Channel coastline on 21 May, so logically, most of them could not have been at Lille.
2. The Allies losing 74/74 tanks at Arras is a scale of destruction on par with how the pre-war Soviet tank formations ceased to exist in the first few weeks of Barbarossa.
3. The Germans had 188 tanks remaining on 21 May, so they were stronger. They could have reached Dunkirk on the same day without the 21 May Haltebefehl, so they were far closer than the Allies. I have no time to waste accepting your nonsense 'facts' and propositions. The burden is on *you* to prove the opposite, which is clearly proving to be an impossible task.

What is the ''main body '' ?
Number of tanks is not a proof that the Germans were stronger .
Arras is some 110 km from Dunkirk ,thus you have to prove that the 188 remaining German tanks could advance 110 km in one day , you have to prove that all of these remaining tanks were operational,and you have to prove that the supporting units also could advance 110 km ,because, as you don't know ,without the protection of the infantry and artillery,tanks are totally helpless .A tank division is a combined arms division .
And you have to prove that the British and French forces could not stop the advance of 188 tanks .
The distance Trier -Arras is some 400 km ,it took the Germans 11 days to cover this distance ,thus how could they do more than 100 km in one day ?.
To compare the allied tank losses to the Soviet tank losses in the first weeks of Barbarossa,proves that you have no understanding of what happened in the first weeks of Barbarossa .
And, what is your proof that the main body of the allied forces was 100 km away from the coast ?on British,French and Belgian soldiers who were encircled,were 100 km away from Dunkirk
I expect the proof that more than 500000 of the 1 milli. The majority of these 1 million men were not at the front ,but was retreating to the coast and to the French border .

1. Main Body=Bulk.
2. First you say that Arras-Dunkirk was 70km, and now its 110 km? The Germans were far ahead of the Allied divisions, and as for their operational strength, the Siege of Calais had not happened yet. Throughout the Westfeldzug, motorized infantry were well capable of keeping up with tanks: otherwise, Guderian's breakthrough at Sedan would have been impossible.Your entire proposition is false, since as Frieser has demonstrated, the Germans were not 100km from Dunkirk.
3. Losing 74/74 tanks at Arras is very much the definition of combat-ineffectiveness.
4.

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.

ibid.
If you have literally anything that contradicts Frieser's thesis, feel free. You clearly don't have any.

[paulskordilis]

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 .

1. The 'main body' of the Anglo-French divisions were 100 km from the Channel coastline on 21 May, so logically, most of them could not have been at Lille.
2. The Allies losing 74/74 tanks at Arras is a scale of destruction on par with how the pre-war Soviet tank formations ceased to exist in the first few weeks of Barbarossa.
3. The Germans had 188 tanks remaining on 21 May, so they were stronger. They could have reached Dunkirk on the same day without the 21 May Haltebefehl, so they were far closer than the Allies. I have no time to waste accepting your nonsense 'facts' and propositions. The burden is on *you* to prove the opposite, which is clearly proving to be an impossible task.

What is the ''main body '' ?
Number of tanks is not a proof that the Germans were stronger .
Arras is some 110 km from Dunkirk ,thus you have to prove that the 188 remaining German tanks could advance 110 km in one day , you have to prove that all of these remaining tanks were operational,and you have to prove that the supporting units also could advance 110 km ,because, as you don't know ,without the protection of the infantry and artillery,tanks are totally helpless .A tank division is a combined arms division .
And you have to prove that the British and French forces could not stop the advance of 188 tanks .
The distance Trier -Arras is some 400 km ,it took the Germans 11 days to cover this distance ,thus how could they do more than 100 km in one day ?.
To compare the allied tank losses to the Soviet tank losses in the first weeks of Barbarossa,proves that you have no understanding of what happened in the first weeks of Barbarossa .
And, what is your proof that the main body of the allied forces was 100 km away from the coast ? I expect the proof that more than 500000 of the 1 million British,French and Belgian soldiers who were encircled,were 100 km away from Dunkirk. The majority of these 1 million men were not at the front ,but was retreating to the coast and to the French border .

1. Main Body=Bulk.
2. First you say that Arras-Dunkirk was 70km, and now its 110 km? The Germans were far ahead of the Allied divisions, and as for their operational strength, the Siege of Calais had not happened yet. Throughout the Westfeldzug, motorized infantry were well capable of keeping up with tanks: otherwise, Guderian's breakthrough at Sedan would have been impossible.Your entire proposition is false, since as Frieser has demonstrated, the Germans were not 100km from Dunkirk.
3. Losing 74/74 tanks at Arras is very much the definition of combat-ineffectiveness.
4.

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.

ibid.
If you have literally anything that contradicts Frieser's thesis, feel free. You clearly don't have any. The burden of the proof is on you. The bulk of the French, who made up the majority of the Allied forces in the West, were attempting to re-create a new front from scratch in the South, not attempting to escape to save themselves like the BEF. Contrary to popular legend, the majority of the French were not in the Dunkirk kessel, and in fact fought bravely against hopeless odds in Case Red long after the Belgians had surrendered and the BEF evacuated themselves.

[Boby]

This pathetic troll is on ignore.

Ljadw, don't waste your time with him. Is an another jesk.

[paulskordilis]

This pathetic troll is on ignore.

Ljadw, don't waste your time with him. Is an another jesk.

How about actually substantiating your claims with evidence rather than simply trolling?

[Terry Duncan]

How about you people start following the rules about personal comments and insults? If this continues people can expect warnings or bans to result, it appears asking people to follow the rules only has about a 50% success rate. I really hope the response to this request is 100% compliance.

Terry