Dunkirk... was it that bad a German idea?

[Senex]

The whole war was a bad German idea

The good guys would still have won in the end even if the Germans had the ability for a do over in Dunkirk.

 

[theprestige]

That would be me.

Hitler did not want to go to war with the British in the late 1930’s. He knew that such a war would be very difficult and expensive.

Instead, Hitler had the weird expectation that the British would not to fight Germany while he was leading Germany on a fight to destroy the USSR. Hitler did not really expect that the British would help him to fight the USSR, but Hitler did at least expect that the British would not actively do anything to impede his war with the USSR.

But of course, Hitler’s actions wound up forging a serious alliance between the British, the USSR and the USA, and there was no way that Germany could deal with all of those enemies simultaneously.

In my opinion, even if things worked out the way Hitler expected, then he would have gone to war the British after the USSR was knocked down and Hitler had a chance to further expand his military resources.

What part of this post is about Dunkirk?

 

[Craig B]

What part of this post is about Dunkirk?

If you think it infringes the rules, report it to the Mods.

 

[Tolls]

What part of this post is about Dunkirk?

It is explaining Hitler's views on Britain as a pointer to his decision to agree to a halt. The "bad decision" is that it was based on a faulty view, ie that Britain would not just sit back and let Germany get on with it because they secretly admired them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

It is explaining Hitler's views on Britain as a pointer to his decision to agree to a halt. The "bad decision" is that it was based on a faulty view, ie that Britain would not just sit back and let Germany get on with it because they secretly admired them.

I don't buy the idea that Hitler deliberately let the BEF escape so as to stay better friends with Britain. A third of a million British soldiers in POW camps could have been a useful bargaining chip, and reports of good treatment of them a valuable propaganda tool. And I also don't believe that Runstedt, who actually gave the stop order before Hitler approved it, would have thought along those lines. ISTM that everybody, more or less, believed that evacuating more than a tiny fraction of the BEF was impossible, and it was just a simple matter of reducing a trapped pocket of men, for which infantry is generally a lot more useful than tanks.

Dave

 

[Tolls]

I don't buy the idea that Hitler deliberately let the BEF escape so as to stay better friends with Britain.

Oh, just to clarify, neither do I.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Regarding POWs. Germany held a lot of French POWs, they were used as a tool to keep the Vichy government in line.

 

[theprestige]

If you think it infringes the rules, report it to the Mods.

I don't think it infringes the rules. I just don't see how it relates to the specific question I asked about Dunkirk, which the post quoted, as if to respond.

 

[theprestige]

It is explaining Hitler's views on Britain as a pointer to his decision to agree to a halt. The "bad decision" is that it was based on a faulty view, ie that Britain would not just sit back and let Germany get on with it because they secretly admired them.

Except that it was a good decision for practical reasons which were understood and endorsed by the German military commanders responsible for the fighting. Whether or not Hitler saw an additional diplomatic advantage in the long term, and whether or not Hitler's vision was correct, those practical military reasons still applied, and still made the German decision at Dunkirk a good decision based on the information available at the time.

That's the way I see it, anyway. I'm still trying to figure out who Hans Mustermann is trying to refute. As far as I can tell, nobody is actually making the argument his OP is directed against.

 

[Tolls]

Except that it was a good decision for practical reasons which were understood and endorsed by the German military commanders responsible for the fighting. Whether or not Hitler saw an additional diplomatic advantage in the long term, and whether or not Hitler's vision was correct, those practical military reasons still applied, and still made the German decision at Dunkirk a good decision based on the information available at the time.

Well, yes, but this "Hitler agreed to it because friendly Britain blah blah" is something that comes up quite a lot in discussions of Dunkirk. So it's no great surprise to see it here in response to your question. That is (if I understood Crossbow correctly) that he (Crossbow) was one of the people who thought that it was a bad idea, based on Hitlers misunderstanding of the British position.

That's the way I see it, anyway. I'm still trying to figure out who Hans Mustermann is trying to refute. As far as I can tell, nobody is actually making the argument his OP is directed against.

The "Germans cocked up at Dunkirk" argument is fairly common on less historically astute forums.

 

[theprestige]

The "Germans cocked up at Dunkirk" argument is fairly common on less historically astute forums.

One of the worst things about this forum is the common practice of importing vague strawmen from other venues, to get a rush from rebutting them without doing the hard work of actually engaging them.

"They" say (elsewhere) something like X, which I can't be bothered to cite here, but which we can all agree is stupid, right? Who's with me?

Who "they" actually are, and what they actually say, are somehow irrelevant. Getting to see the real claim, and actually debating with a real person who holds that position, is not desirable, apparently.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What about the possibility that to give the order to attack in that situation is difficult due to it's tastelessness? Maybe their emotional capital was expended?

It's certainly a novel argument to suggest that the actions of Nazi Germany were limited by aesthetic considerations. Very few, I think, would argue that the state lacked the emotional capital to kill the helpless, given its egregious later record in doing so.

Dave

 

[BobTheCoward]

It's certainly a novel argument to suggest that the actions of Nazi Germany were limited by aesthetic considerations. Very few, I think, would argue that the state lacked the emotional capital to kill the helpless, given its egregious later record in doing so.

Dave

Killing the helpless seems to have taken a ton of work employing years of dehumanization and many efforts to minimize people's role in the acts.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Killing the helpless seems to have taken a ton of work employing years of dehumanization and many efforts to minimize people's role in the acts.

But they managed to do all that. And, for a soldier, finishing off the enemy's army is infinitely more morally defensible.

Dave

 

[theprestige]

But they managed to do all that. And, for a soldier, finishing off the enemy's army is infinitely more morally defensible.

Not to mention aesthetically pleasing, in the context of the art of war.

Dave

Thanks for this. I always have trouble figuring out who I'm replying to.

 

[BobTheCoward]

But they managed to do all that. And, for a soldier, finishing off the enemy's army is infinitely more morally defensible.

Dave

It is. But was there the will at that moment to do it? I'm sure we have all been boxing matches where we know one boxer needs a knockout to win in the last round but doesn't attempt to do it.

 

[Crossbow]

What part of this post is about Dunkirk?

You asked a question and I gave you my answer.

My reasons for the Germans being so terribly mistaken at Dunkirk were provided in that answer.

 

[theprestige]

You asked a question and I gave you my answer.

My reasons for the Germans being so terribly mistaken at Dunkirk were provided in that answer.

They weren't mistaken at Dunkirk, though. Hitler might have been mistaken about the overall attitude of Great Britain across the entire changing course of the war. But the German decision at Dunkirk (which you didn't actually discuss) appears to have been well informed and rational.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What exactly is the point of debate, that good or bad calls were made about dunkirk? You can lose even if you don't make any mistakes.

If you are looking for german mistakes in this period of the war, ending the attack on the RAF and attacking civilian populations was a much bigger mistake.

 

[Crossbow]

They weren't mistaken at Dunkirk, though. Hitler might have been mistaken about the overall attitude of Great Britain across the entire changing course of the war. But the German decision at Dunkirk (which you didn't actually discuss) appears to have been well informed and rational.

Even if the Germans were not mistaken in their failure to destroy an large enemy army when provided a good opportunity to do so, then the Germans were still mistaken in trying to wage a vast war that they could never hope to win.

This sounds a bit like the criminal who is sorry that he is going to jail, but that same criminal is not at all sorry for doing the crime that was responsible for sending him to jail.