Decision At Dunkirk

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
Ando
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 05 Sep 2002, 06:10
Location: Brisbane

Decision At Dunkirk

#1

Post by Ando » 01 Oct 2002, 01:32

In May 1940, the British Army in France was facing annihilation at the hands of powerful German armored formations. Yet with a victory within his grasp, Hitler ordered the tanks to a halt, enabling the British to make a dramatic escape accross the channel. Why did Hitler ignore the advice of his tank commanders and issue the now famous “Stop Order”? Did he, as some suggest, actually want the British to escape? What if he had listened to the advice of his tank commanders? How would this have effected the war on the western front?

Ando

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002, 22:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

#2

Post by Sam H. » 01 Oct 2002, 01:45

He should never have ordered his forces to stop. The panzer commanders on the scene could smell the blood of their kill and wanted to finish the BEF off.

Hilter, like a child chasing a dream and then backing away when the dream becomes reality, went after the allies with a knockout blow and backed away when he had them on the ropes.

If he had continued the drive, the BEF would have been eliminated, the British would have been hard pressed to field any substantial force for the defense of their island.

Sealion may even have been possible, but that's a diffrent what if.

The Germans still won a huge victory in the West. It just could have been a lot sweater if Hitler had listened to the commanders on the scene.

The same thing would happpen in 1941 in Russia.


User avatar
Ando
Member
Posts: 252
Joined: 05 Sep 2002, 06:10
Location: Brisbane

#3

Post by Ando » 01 Oct 2002, 01:54

How many extra Allies causalities and POWs are we looking at if the germans continued their advance to the beach?

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002, 22:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

#4

Post by Sam H. » 01 Oct 2002, 05:28

Easily another 250,000 to 300,000 British and French (mostly British)

338,226 were saved (113,000 French)... figure a full force attack by the Panzers, maybe 35,000-50,000 still manage to reach Britian. Most equipment was lost in either scenario. But Britian with 200,000 less troops in August 1940 will be hard pressed to field a army to repel an invasion.

The RAF just got a lot more important.

User avatar
Tim Smith
Member
Posts: 6177
Joined: 19 Aug 2002, 13:15
Location: UK

#5

Post by Tim Smith » 01 Oct 2002, 14:05

From a political point of view, trapping and capturing the entire BEF should have been a priority for the Germans in May 1940.

But at that time, Hitler still feared a miraculous French revival and a second Battle of the Marne which would result in stalemate. The British counterattack on Rommel's 7th Panzer Division at Arras had terrified Hitler because of Rommel's panicky communications that he was being attacked by hundreds of enemy tanks. If the BEF could attack like that, so could the French. After all, a disaster like that happened in the Great War, why not in 1940? Thus, in late May 1940, Hitler still viewed the French Army as the greatest threat. The BEF and the French 1st Army were isolated and could be contained and squeezed into submission, while the Panzers rested and regrouped to deal the final blow to France before she could recover from the defeats in Belgium and at Sedan.

In fact, the French army was wholly defensive by this time and never seriously considered attacking the Germans at this stage of the campaign. So the Germans could have thrown nearly everything at Dunkirk and got away with it.

With only 30,000 British troops rescued from Dunkirk, the British would have found it more difficult to repel a German invasion had the Germans established themselves in Kent. But this was never likely as the Luftwaffe had little chance of completely destroying the RAF - their Me109s were too few in number and without drop tanks had too short a range, and their bombers couldn't defend themselves effectively.

However, the loss of so many trained troops would have had an effect on Greek and the North African campaigns. The British may not have sent troops to Greece at all, having to save men to defend Egypt, and the British troops sent to Egypt later would have been less well trained.

User avatar
Sam H.
Member
Posts: 1975
Joined: 19 Sep 2002, 22:21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

#6

Post by Sam H. » 01 Oct 2002, 17:29

I also believe that the loss of so many troops in such a short time will hurt Churchill's standing with the British people.

Perhaps, with waivering support at home and the threat of invasion, Churchill may be brought to the peace table. Unlikely, but still possible.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”