Do you think Germany's failure to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk was a major setback?

Did Dunkirk affect the WW2's out come?

  • Yes, major effect that changed war.

    Votes: 40 76.9%
  • No, was unimportant

    Votes: 12 23.1%

  • Total voters
    52

West German

Warlord
Joined
Oct 14, 2002
Messages
426
Location
In Berlin
Do you think it was important to the outcome of WW2. I don't think the war could have been any different because most heavy equipment was lost and troops with Lee-Enfield rifles are no match fot tanks.
 
The Dunkirk evacuation was an important psychological victory for Britain. It showed the British people that their army was still intact and was ready to defend them if Hitler invaded. So I voted yes, it did affect the outcome, although, as Churchill said, "Wars are not won by evacuations."
 
Originally posted by napoleon526
The Dunkirk evacuation was an important psychological victory for Britain. It showed the British people that their army was still intact and was ready to defend them if Hitler invaded. So I voted yes, it did affect the outcome, although, as Churchill said, "Wars are not won by evacuations."
What I think also. The evacuation at Dunkirk allowed most of the British army to escape, leading to D-Day. If the Germans had persisted and destroyed almost or most of the escaping the British forces, things would be a lot different today...
 
If the Germans had pushed ahead and destroyed the evacuation, I don't think the brits would have had much fight left in them after that happened.
 
Militarily it was a significant setback. Politically and psychologically it was critical to the coming air war. IMHO it was at that point that the British people "bought into" the war, and made it their own. Things got very grim for the UK over the next year. Without the memory of the shining moment in France, knees might have buckled. It was a near thing as it was.

J
 
It was an absolute nightmare for the Germans and was caused 100% by Hitler, yet another one of his ridiculous moves. During the Blitzkrieg Hitler ordered his generals to halt temporarily during the advance, the generals decided this was folly and would lose them the ever important momentum and basically ignored him and continued the push to great effect. Despite the fact they were proved absolutely right, Hitler was furious at being ignored. In order to reassert his authority and basically out of spite he ordered the generals to stop rather than sweep onto the retreating British army. As such precious time was lost and the British army was able to fall back across the channel at Dunkirk.

Had it not been for Hitlers arrogance and little temper tantrums Dunkirk would have been a bloodbath rather than a retreat.
 
I think Goring had a word in his ear and wanted his Luftwaffe to destroy them, claiming all the credit (I hate Goring!!!!).
Apparently they terrain around dunkirk is marshy and not suitable for armour, and Hitler's panzer divisions needed refitting and didn't want them in street fighting. The only German unit to attack the British and disobey Hitler was the 1st SS division- and they got some good results.
 
Originally posted by Kentonio
Yeah, Goring was a damn fool. :)

if Hitler have had 2 Goebbles and 2 Rommels instead of Goering and Himmler things would be different :)
 
I think the failure to destroy the BEF was a mistake but it didn't completely effect the outcome.
 
For the Krauts, it was a major disaster.

For humanity and the rest of the civilized world, it was a major triumph.

Please do not let your admiration for the German method of waging war interfere with your moral outrage over a regime that herded small children and sick people into gas chambers as a normal course of business.
 
Yes, it was the first major turning point of the war. It was the first time the Nazis hadn't completely won. The British could claim a victory in the depths of defeat, something we are quite good at. Propaganda-wise it was a God-send and morale is far too often underrated in my opinion. Wars are not just won on the battlefield. And the greatest threat Britain faced was not invasion but negotiated peace. Dunkirk meant that didn't happen. It saved Britain and ultimately saved the world.
 
I agree with the sentiments already stated, although I'd say that militarily it was not really that significant. Yes, failing to destroy the army at...uh...'Dunkerque'...was a textbook failure on Hitler's part, albeit an intentional one. Still, the force that escaped to Britain "to fight another day" was not a significant factor in later British military operations numerically. I voted "No".

The immediate reason for Hitler to destroy the BEF on the French beaches was to enable an invasion of the British Isles, but it was not that army that was stopping him from doing so, either at Dunkerque or later. The Battle of Britain was fought in the air, and the ultimate failure of Operation Sealion was the fault of the Kriegsmarine and Luftwaffe, not Wehrmacht. Had the German navy been able to transport the earmarked Wehrmacht units to Britain, the BEF units that had escaped back to Britain from Dunkerque were not enough to stop them. Even with these units, the British land forces in 1940 were wholly inadequate to defend the home Isles.

Dunkerque was an emotional propaganda coup for Britain and helped sustain the public through some lean war times, but in real military terms it didn't add up to much. This isn't to discredit or diminish the accomplishment of those fishermen who braved the war to save the British lads on the French beaches at all; only to say that even given their heroic efforts it would not have been enough to stem a German invasion had not the RAF (with foreign help!) and the Royal Navy not kept Hitler's legions on the Continent.
 
"Troops with Lee-Enfield rifles are no match for tanks," as you say... but tanks can't be driven without troops inside them.

Aside from that I think there would be as big a psychological effect of a massacre as there was from the successful escape.
 
If nothing else, Dunkirk allowed my Grandfather to fight also in North Africa, Scilly, Italy and police Germany post-war.

It is impossible to know what would have happened had the BEF not been rescued, but I think it would have immensely strengthened the hand of those in Britain that favoured coming to some agreement with Hitler.


As it was the evacuation was a triumph, which meant that the defense of Britain against a German invasion was much improved and that many of the rescued went on to fight in N.Africa and the other fronts to make a real contribution to winning the war. On the German side it is clear that Hitler chose to let the British go at Dunkirk as he believed it would mean they wouldn't be humilitated and their "honour" demand the continuation of the war. Just like the Kaiser, Hitler had some pretty strange mis-conceptions as regarding the British and the "success" at Dunkirk only inspired continued resistance.
 
A BEF destruction at Dunkirk means a surrender at Britain. This isn't far fetched since Guderian was 9 km away, 3 days before the BEF escaped but was forced to stop to let Goering finish it off and demonstrate the power of the Luftwaffe.

A surrender of Britain means that Germany isn't at war with anybody and has all the time in the world to prepare an invasion of the Soviet Union. Without a pesky western front, the Soviet Union stands no chance of getting crucial lend-lease supplies and a diversion of german troops. Soviet union is gone...what's next?
 
Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
On the German side it is clear that Hitler chose to let the British go at Dunkirk as he believed it would mean they wouldn't be humilitated and their "honour" demand the continuation of the war.

I have heard this before but I am not convinced. Is there any primary evidence? It seems to me to be a very limp retrospective excuse for having missed the opportunity to destroy the BEF. I believe that the German decision was made on military grounds.

My understanding is that it was the priority of the german high command to destroy the french army which they knew well constituted the majority of the enemy. The Germans did not know what reserves the French had. [In fact the French had very few reserves then and more importantly had no strategic mechanised counter thrust capability.] The Germans therefore regarded it as inprudent to devote a rapidly diminishing (due to break downs and minor damage rather than destroyed tanks) panzer force to finishing off the lesser British army and regarded it as wiser to destroy the greater French army. With hindsight; they were very probably strong enough to do both; but they did not know that then.

There were I believe five reasons for this military decision:

(a) concern about (non existent) possible French reserves
(b) failure to consider British withdrawal outside of ports
(c) over estimate of the effectiveness of bombing alone
(d) assumption that statistics on tanks reflected lost tanks
(e) failed to realise that rearguards at Calais would fight on
 
Top Bottom