Dunkirk Evacuation Ends ....65 Years Ago

[spidge]

Apologies if this has been discussed previously however I would be very interested in the opinion of the forums members......not the written history which was sometimes clouded by "pommie bashing".

As I have read.... 299 British warships and 420 other vessels evacuated 335,490 British & French troops from certain incarceration. (yes...Mr Miniver helped!!!)

What were the advantages?
What was the downside ...if any?
Was it morale building?
Would Britain have recovered had they been captured? etc......................


Geoff

[DirtyDick]

One advantage (for me) was that if the Dunkirk evacuation had not been a success I might not be here; my grandfather was with the BEF in France in 1940.

Downside was that France fell: in the short term this was very bad for the British (in the long term, it got the Americans to give support quicker than had it might have otherwise if a WW1-type stalemate had occurred).

It would have been a great problem had 200,000+ UK troops become POWs; not insurmountable, even though it was the bulk of the experienced Regular Army, for conscription was kicking in and in any case they had to leave behind all their heavy equipment, but very bad for morale and might have prompted politicians to accept peace in order to have them returned. (It would also have left a significant hole in British manpower later on in the War, when they were also fighting Japan and garrisoning conquered nations.)

It appeared to be treated as a triumph; rightly so given the opposition they faced and the bleak outlook at the time, although in no way can it be construed as a genuine victory. One could say it provided a jolt to the Army to improve its efficiency before going on to campaign elsewhere.

Not heard much about this with regard to "pommie bashing" - be interested to hear examples of this. "French bashing" with regard to their generals in 1940 - mais oui! That is commonplace in most accounts.

To an extent it is an early Tobruk or Singapore, but with a "happier" ending in that most of the troops were saved.

Cheers
Richard

(Always pleased to help a Kiwi. Are you sure you're not South African?)

[Kiwiwriter]

If the British Army had not been successfully evacuated from Dunkirk, the loss of manpower and morale would have been fatal. Dunkirk brought the entire British people into what had been a very "phoney" and distant war. They were in the finals now, and they knew it. The determination displayed carried over into "Spitfire Summer." Saving the army gave them the men they needed, if not the arms, to hold on. It also strengthened Churchill's position with his own party and cabinet members who sought to negotiate a peace with Hitler. Such a peace would have been no peace at all, and merely given Hitler what Germany planned for...to fight a series of short, aggressive victorious wars. The Germans would have had time to regroup, without being bombed nightly, and prepare to launch a well-organized invasion of Britain, against a weakened Britain, led by a defeatist government. I think the British would have lost the war.

[spidge]

Originally posted by DirtyDick@May 30 2005, 11:44 PM
One advantage (for me) was that if the Dunkirk evacuation had not been a success I might not be here; my grandfather was with the BEF in France in 1940.

Downside was that France fell: in the short term this was very bad for the British (in the long term, it got the Americans to give support quicker than had it might have otherwise if a WW1-type stalemate had occurred).

It would have been a great problem had 200,000+ UK troops become POWs; not insurmountable, even though it was the bulk of the experienced Regular Army, for conscription was kicking in and in any case they had to leave behind all their heavy equipment, but very bad for morale and might have prompted politicians to accept peace in order to have them returned. (It would also have left a significant hole in British manpower later on in the War, when they were also fighting Japan and garrisoning conquered nations.)

It appeared to be treated as a triumph; rightly so given the opposition they faced and the bleak outlook at the time, although in no way can it be construed as a genuine victory. One could say it provided a jolt to the Army to improve its efficiency before going on to campaign elsewhere.

[spidge]

Hi Richard,

The bashing I have read or heard was the inability and poor preparation of Britain's land forces to wage war. It was "generally" aimed at the polly's and the strategists.

"We will go over there and kick ar!!!!!!! and show them we mean business. The German war machine was not respected even after it had swept all in it's path.

The same result would have been achieved if the troops had stayed at home.

" No, still an Aussie living in Victoria.

Not sure about your flag though?

[attachmentid=779]


Regards

Geoff

[DirtyDick]

Hello Geoff,

I think the state of the British Army in 1939 left a lot to be desired: financial hardship between the wars; the arbitrary declaration by successive govts that there would not be a major war for ten years and the large number of officer WW1 veterans stifling recruitment and promotion of younger men all caused problems.

Strangely enough the Anglo-French forces actually outnumbered and outgunned the German Army by a considerable margin (and virtual supremacy at sea in 1939-40) but they did not do more with it. A good summary can be had in Blitzkrieg by Len Deighton (he of spy novel fame).

Cheers
Richard

(Ah, that must be the flag of New Zealand! )

[Kiwiwriter]

Actually, the British Army of 1939, while not as superbly professional as the British Army of 1914, was in better shape than one might think. It was entirely motorized, well-trained, and well-equipped (at least by 1918 standards). They could and did put up a tough fight against powerful German forces, retreating in fairly good order to Dunkirk. Lord Gort was no great strategist, but he held a Victoria Cross and was nobody's fool. He was phlegmatic enough to cope with the situation fairly calmly. I don't think too many other armies could have done the retreat to and evacuation from Dunkirk. The defeat was not of their making. They were caught in a brilliant trap laid by the Germans.

[spidge]

Hi Richard,

:angry: :angry: The Scot's on board will be spinning with that identification of their old flag!

Loved LD's Harry Palmer & Bernard Samson trilogies!

Have seen a short critique of Blitzkrieg however I do not have the luxury of enough time to read books. When I travel around the state/country by car I get LD's and others on "talking book" CD's which are marvellous. I will try and get a copy and read that instead of doing the crossword.

Back to your response:

I do not have a problem with the RN, it was ground forces I referred to and as someone else on the forum stated, AH did not inject enough forethought into Submarines. If he had.......it would have been a different story.

You have covered it well however in my opinion the British took for granted the ability of France to wage war against a superior foe. Across most of the areas of combat....Equipment and defence tactics were outdated, outmoded and overall outclassed by old men with old ideas.

Yes, according to a quote from this critique, while half of the French army was entrenched in the maginot line, they had insufficient transport capabilities to get to the fight once the germans had outflanked their position. (The USA was no better however, they had time to watch and learn).


Geoff

[DirtyDick]

Hello Geoff

I am actually part Scots and have a Scottish surname (I do not mention it when football is involved, though!).

I think man-for-man the British regular army was as good as ever, with long-serving soldiers, some of whom had experience of active service in Palestine and India. So too was the Lee Enfield with which it was equipped and various pieces of ordnance like tanks and artillery.

However, it was padded out with badly trained and equipped territorials -who were thought to have sufficient time to be fully trained and equipped whilst in France. The decision not to group together their tanks, but rather use them in small groups in support of the infantry, meant they were prone to being overwhelmed. Lastly, always at the back of the minds of the politicians was the need to retain sufficient aircraft in the UK.

The French were badly led and the prior concentration on defence does limit the options available to a defender once an attack is underway: where, when and how is chosen by the attacker. If it were not for the Channel, the UK would undoubtedly gone the same way in 1940.

I think the crux of the problem was the small size of the Army - it had had a difficult enough task to avoid defeat in 1914 because of this problem - and the French insistence on defence until the last moment: had they crossed into Germany during the invasion of Poland it might well have been a different story.

Cheers
Richard