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

[kookbreaker]

The historic knowledge we have now about the war compared to 1974 alone can render a lot of such opinions obsolete.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

I am always a bit bemused by the logic inferred that by allowing the BEF to escape, a British surrender was made more likely.

Indeed, the whole point of wars is to destroy the enemy's armies (and hear the lamentations of their women etc.) which is after all why soldiers are given weapons in the first place.

Not only would Britain have been in a much worse position if the BEF had been captured, thereby increasing the likelihood of capitulation, but a quarter of a million hostages would be a powerful bargaining chip in bringing the British to take up their seats at the negotiating table.

"Allowing" your enemy to rescue virtually the entirety of their army from an encirclement from right under your nose is therefore a curious way of forcing them to surrender.

Indeed, to misquote Baggage, I am unable rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that would provoke such a suggestion.

 

[Garrison]

That's lack of vision. Winterbotham in his The Ultra Secret book in 1974 was probably right about Dunkirk when he wrote:

Why would you believe this when there is a mountain of evidence that contradicts it? The Germans at no point stopped attacking Dunkirk and the reason for not sending the Panzers back in after the halt was that the priority target was the remaining French forces, not a pocket of British soldiers that not even their own side thought could escape. The Panzer commanders eyes were on the prize of being the first into Paris, Dunkirk was for the infantry and the Luftwaffe to deal with.

 

[Garrison]

I am always a bit bemused by the logic inferred that by allowing the BEF to escape, a British surrender was made more likely.

Indeed, the whole point of wars is to destroy the enemy's armies (and hear the lamentations of their women etc.) which is after all why soldiers are given weapons in the first place.

Not only would Britain have been in a much worse position if the BEF had been captured, thereby increasing the likelihood of capitulation, but a quarter of a million hostages would be a powerful bargaining chip in bringing the British to take up their seats at the negotiating table.

"Allowing" your enemy to rescue virtually the entirety of their army from an encirclement from right under your nose is therefore a curious way of forcing them to surrender.

Indeed, to misquote Baggage, I am unable rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that would provoke such a suggestion.

it makes zero sense strategically. The political damage it would have done to Churchill might have been enough to tip the balance in favour of the peace faction.

Winterbotham seems to belong to that breed of writer who believed in the idea of the Wehrmacht as some sort of super soldiers who could only be defeated by their own mistakes. The sacrifice of so many British and French soldiers to hold the Dunkirk pocket is dismissed as inconsequential.

 

[Henri McPhee]

That's an interesting article which Mondial has found by the American pro- German diplomatic official Tyler Kent, who was imprisoned by the British. It seems to have been written by him as recently as 1982. It indicates to me the political problems Roosevelt had in getting the American public interested in a war on Germany, and the extent of Anti-Semitism in America at the time, and the desire to cut back public spending and increase unemployment in America:

https://codoh.com/library/document/2049/

After the Norwegian fiasco, Winston Churchill became prime minister. This he did primarily because he could boast of his American connections and was able to convince those hidden powers behind the scenes that he was the best bet to get America into the war. Embassy correspondence left no room for doubt that after Dunkirk the policy of the British was to hang on by the skin of their teeth until Roosevelt could get America into the war. He did his best in the Atlantic but Hitler declined to take the bait. The British had, perforce, to wait until Roosevelt could get us in by the back door at Pearl Harbor. On several occasions we find Churchill threatening Roosevelt with the prospect of British surrender or, at least, some compromise with the Germans unless America came to the rescue and soon. These messages are in sharp contrast to the public image of Churchill in his jump suit, cigar cocked in one corner of his mouth, prating that "We shall never surrender. We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the streets," etc. All that was for the public morale and we must all admit that Churchill was a fine actor. Perhaps he took lessons from Vic Oliver, his Jewish son-in-law who was a vaudeville comic.

 

[lobosrul5]

That's an interesting article which Mondial has found by the American pro- German diplomatic official Tyler Kent, who was imprisoned by the British. It seems to have been written by him as recently as 1982. It indicates to me the political problems Roosevelt had in getting the American public interested in a war on Germany, and the extent of Anti-Semitism in America at the time, and the desire to cut back public spending and increase unemployment in America:

fter the Norwegian fiasco, Winston Churchill became prime minister. This he did primarily because he could boast of his American connections and was able to convince those hidden powers behind the scenes that he was the best bet to get America into the war. Embassy correspondence left no room for doubt that after Dunkirk the policy of the British was to hang on by the skin of their teeth until Roosevelt could get America into the war. He did his best in the Atlantic but Hitler declined to take the bait. The British had, perforce, to wait until Roosevelt could get us in by the back door at Pearl Harbor. On several occasions we find Churchill threatening Roosevelt with the prospect of British surrender or, at least, some compromise with the Germans unless America came to the rescue and soon. These messages are in sharp contrast to the public image of Churchill in his jump suit, cigar cocked in one corner of his mouth, prating that "We shall never surrender. We shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight them in the streets," etc. All that was for the public morale and we must all admit that Churchill was a fine actor. Perhaps he took lessons from Vic Oliver, his Jewish son-in-law who was a vaudeville comic.

https://codoh.com/library/document/2049/

Now where is that laughing dog gif when you need it? Yes Roosevelt forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and then OSS agents went to Berlin, and impersonated Hitler so as to get them to declare war on us. Or was it all teh Jews?

 

[Border Reiver]

Now where is that laughing dog gif when you need it? Yes Roosevelt forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and then OSS agents went to Berlin, and impersonated Hitler so as to get them to declare war on us. Or was it all teh Jews?

If your source is codoh, then its "the Jews" all the way down.

 

[rjh01]

Now where is that laughing dog gif when you need it? Yes Roosevelt forced Japan to attack Pearl Harbor and then OSS agents went to Berlin, and impersonated Hitler so as to get them to declare war on us. Or was it all teh Jews?

That is not what is being said here. I know that Henri McPhee says some silly things sometimes, but please, do not attack what he says when it does not deserve to be attacked. It only makes you look silly and does not add to the debate.

 

[Aber]

That is not what is being said here. I know that Henri McPhee says some silly things sometimes, but please, do not attack what he says when it does not deserve to be attacked. It only makes you look silly and does not add to the debate.

Anything which includes Churchill getting into power because of:

able to convince those hidden powers behind the scenes

doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I know that Henri McPhee says some silly things sometimes, but please, do not attack what he says when it does not deserve to be attacked.

I disagree. I can forgive Henri his penchant for quoting irrelevant sources in support of a disastrously misinformed opinion which he has no intention of examining critically, because at worst it's quite entertaining. When, however, he starts quoting Nazi apologia, and very specifically material that suggests that being associated in any way with anyone Jewish is cause for suspicion, the whole thing becomes much more sinister.

Henri, you're lying down with dogs. Be careful you don't wake up with fleas.

Dave

 

[Garrison]

I disagree. I can forgive Henri his penchant for quoting irrelevant sources in support of a disastrously misinformed opinion which he has no intention of examining critically, because at worst it's quite entertaining. When, however, he starts quoting Nazi apologia, and very specifically material that suggests that being associated in any way with anyone Jewish is cause for suspicion, the whole thing becomes much more sinister.

Henri, you're lying down with dogs. Be careful you don't wake up with fleas.

Dave

Agreed, Henri should be fully aware that Mondial is a Nazi apologist. The best defence that can be offered for Henri is that, as with so much else, he has failed to properly understand his source. Also in classic Henri fashion the quote has precisely nothing to do with Dunkirk.

 

[Henri McPhee]

I'm fully aware that Tyler Kent was pro-German and pro-Nazi, like Mondial now.
What Tyler Kent wrote is relevant to Dunkirk, even though it may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth, or be something I agree about:

One thing that the embassy correspondence made abundantly clear was the truly desperate situation of the British after the Norwegian fiasco and on the eve of their tremendous defeat at Dunkirk whence the entire British army fled for their lives, leaving their weapons in the hands of the enemy. The British knew where they stood and told Roosevelt all about it. They knew that without direct military participation by America, they were finished in the war. All the pompous talk about "give us the tools and we'll finish the job" was pure Churchillian bluff and the British knew it.

But it provided Roosevelt with the propaganda weapon which enabled him to induce Congress to pass the "Lend-Lease" bill making the United States, in contravention of international law and our neutrality statutes, the "Arsenal of Democracy."

After the Norwegian fiasco, Winston Churchill became prime minister. This he did primarily because he could boast of his American connections and was able to convince those hidden powers behind the scenes that he was the best bet to get America into the war. Embassy correspondence left no room for doubt that after Dunkirk the policy of the British was to hang on by the skin of their teeth until Roosevelt could get America into the war. He did his best in the Atlantic but Hitler declined to take the bait.

 

[Garrison]

I'm fully aware that Tyler Kent was pro-German and pro-Nazi, like Mondial now.
What Tyler Kent wrote is relevant to Dunkirk, even though it may not be the pure unadulterated historical truth, or be something I agree about:

Your chosen quote is unadulterated nonsense, which is nothing unusual for your sources, but this time you've chosen to quote from a site that specializes in Holocaust Denial and Nazi apologism. And if you had spent 5 seconds doing any checking you would have found that the site in question is one of Mondial's favourite sources, he did not post it unwittingly.