Had this posted on a facebook page; Mythologies-Main-V1_0-15_12_2021.pdf (dropbox.com) I found it very interesting. Regardless of the facts being totally correct or not, I doubt that those who hold the position that the 51st HD were sacrificed, will be likely to change to their point of view.
article here The 51st Highland Division was about to be forced to surrender, for they had been left behind by Churchill to help the French Army fight on as the Panzer divisions poured into the heart of France. What happened between January and June is instructive. There is a misunderstanding that Churchill alone sacrificed the 51st to allow the rest of the BEF to escape, but the fact is that three weeks before Churchill entered 10 Downing Street, the division’s fate was sealed by the order to move its three brigades to reinforce the French divisions much further to the east from where the bulk of the BEF was stationed. The 51st was then placed under the command of the French Third Army as it prepared to defend against Hitler’s Panzers. The sacrifice of the 51st Highland Division and the 'other side of Dunkirk'
Already mentionned here : 51st Highland Division Abbeville/St Valery Mind you, the file title suggests it may have been updated. History is what history is. On the otherhand, history is also whatever you want to believe or have been told to believe. This particular issue does tickle me a little because, instead of using the 51st Division story at St.Valery as a source of Scottish pride, the Scottish nationalists have decided to depict their boys as hapless pawns. More votes in playing the victim card than the heroes salute....
Indeed, Barclay's tweets explain the process: https://twitter.com/GordonJBarclay/status/1471113902129913857
The British can spin the most embarrasing military disaster into a heroic victory when it suits them. Remember Dunkirk? They were all heroes. PS. Also, you mustn't forget, that for most Britishers, the BEF never lost a battle. It was the Belgians and the French that lost and the poor Tommy was compelled to retreat because of them.
Yes...and the German 6th Army held out bravely and steadfastly at Stalingrad until it had completely ceased to exist.... Compared to this, Dunkirk was an unparalleled triumph P.S.: In Germany, the Romanians and Italians were blamed for the mess afterwards...seems to be a universal principle to point the finger at others regards Olli
Few BEF veterans actually liked talking about it...but in general, the majority of the regular units held their own, as did the French and Belgians. The front was only as strong as the weakest points though. The BEF didn't retreat from the Dijl because of pressure on their sector.
Which rather proves my point. The difference between 'Dunkirk' and 'St Valery' was the matelots and the conditions - not the performance of the ground troops. In both cases, the British Army personnel found themselves cut off from their LoCs by German manouver and retreated to a point on the coast hoping to be picked up. One group end up as 'heroes' the other 'victims' of a bizarre political conspiracy. How would we think of 'Dunkirk' and the BEF if the matelots only got off a handful but rescued the entire 51st Division from St Valery? As regards your point about the regular units holding their own on the Dyle Line, yes and no. Look at what the German effort against them was - compared to elsewhere - and it becomes evident they were holding their own against very little pressure. Again, swap the scenarios, put the BEF into the line on the Meuse vice the French 9th Army and the French reservists onto the Dyle. I am under no illusion that the BEF would have done ay better on the Meuse or the French reservists any worse on the Dyle. The 'weakest points' had little to do with the caliber of the defenders and everything to do with the German effort against them.
And I'm not suggesting anybody go any further down that rabbit hole beyond the initial 5 second thought. I make no general criticism here of the performance of the BEF troops from divisional commander downwards. For the greater part, the individual Tommy, right up to the divisional commander, did their jobs as required and did them well. They fought the enemy that presented itself and moved as they were commanded by those above. I apply that equally to the 9(+) divisions of Gort's force and Fortune, Evans, Beauman divisions and the three 'labour' divisions and other LoC troops etc etc etc. My criticism, for what it's worth, lies with those above who decided what lessons should be learned from the BEF experience (in particular the ones falling over themselves to blame allies and sell their own stars) and towards post-event narrators, authors and storytellers who re-imagined the whole episode to be something it wasn't. The former maintained the delusion that the British Army was as good as the Wehrmacht on the battlefield - when it was manifestly inferior in military thought, approach, doctrine and organization. The latter just means that today, still, our collective understanding of the period falls well short of historical reality.