Dunkirk 65 years ago, tribute to the British people

[amicus]

http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/dunkirk.htm

Above -- British soldiers captured by the Germans at Dunkirk, France, in June 1940. (Photo credit: U.S. National Archives)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_3500000/3500865.stm

1940: Dunkirk rescue is over - Churchill defiant

The Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, has described the "miracle of deliverance" from Dunkirk and warned of an impending invasion.

His moving speech to Parliament came on the day the last allied soldier arrived home from France at the end of a 10-day operation to bring back hundreds of thousands of retreating allied troops trapped by the German Army.

Many French troops remained to hold the perimeter and were captured.

Major-General Harold Alexander inspected the shores of Dunkirk from a motorboat this morning to make sure no-one was left behind before boarding the last ship back to Britain.

The beach and sea were in chaos. There were bodies floating in the water and we were under constant attack from machine-gun fire, bombing, explosions sending shrapnel in every direction.

There were bodies floating in the water and we were under constant attack from machine-gun fire, bombing, explosions sending shrapnel in every direction.

People's War memories »

Battle-weary and hungry soldiers from the retreating British Expeditionary Force (BEF) as well as French and Belgian troops had spent many days waiting to board ships from the one remaining pier, the east mole.

Many thousands were taken straight off the beaches, struggling in shallow waters to board small vessels that transferred them to the waiting ships.

When those who survived the evacuation arrived exhausted in England they were welcomed as returning heroes and offered plenty of tea and sandwiches as they boarded special trains.

Commander-in-chief of the BEF, Lord Gort, arrived back in England on 1 June and was also been feted as a hero.

When his force was almost swallowed up by the Germans - after the French were driven south from Sedan and the Belgians surrendered - he took the vital decision to withdraw to Dunkirk where, according to the Times newspaper, four-fifths of his men were rescued.

This afternoon Mr Churchill admitted to the House that when Operation Dynamo was launched on 26 May to rescue allied forces cornered by the advancing Germany Army, he expected about 20,000 or 30,000 would be saved.

But thanks to the valour of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force, no less than 338,000 British and French troops were rescued and brought back across the Channel to fight another day.

Mr Churchill tempered his admiration for the success of Operation Dynamo with these words: "Wars are not won by evacuations".

He said there was no doubt in his mind that the last few weeks had been a "colossal military disaster".

The BEF had to leave behind all its heavy armour and equipment.

The French army was weakened, the Belgian army had surrendered, Channel ports, valuable mines and factories in France and Belgium had been taken over by the enemy.

He said the nation should brace itself for another blow. "We are told that Herr Hitler has a plan for invading the British Isles," he said.

Returning troops were vital if Britain were to resist such an invasion.

He ended his speech with a defiant message to Hitler's armies.

"We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. We shall never surrender."

Britain would "ride out the tyranny of war, if necessary for years, if necessary alone."

Mr Churchill paid special tribute to the Royal Air Force that had provided what protection it could for the ships and stranded soldiers .

The Royal Navy sent 220 light war ships and 650 other vessels under a hail of bombs and artillery fire.


Sept 29, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets divide up Poland.

In Oct - Nazis begin euthanasia on sick and disabled in Germany.

Nov 8, 1939 - Assassination attempt on Hitler fails.

Nov 30, 1939 - Soviets attack Finland.

Dec 14, 1939 - Soviet Union expelled from the League of Nations.

1940
Jan 8, 1940 - Rationing begins in Britain.

March 12, 1940 - Finland signs a peace treaty with Soviets.

March 16, 1940 - Germans bomb Scapa Flow naval base near Scotland.

April 9, 1940 - Nazis invade Denmark and Norway.

May 10, 1940 - Nazis invade France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands; Winston Churchill becomes British Prime Minister.

May 15, 1940 - Holland surrenders to the Nazis.

May 26, 1940 - Evacuation of Allied troops from Dunkirk begins.

May 28, 1940 - Belgium surrenders to the Nazis.

June 3, 1940 - Germans bomb Paris; Dunkirk evacuation ends.

June 10, 1940 - Norway surrenders to the Nazis; Italy declares war on Britain and France.

June 14, 1940 - Germans enter Paris.

June 16, 1940 - Marshal Pétain becomes French Prime Minister.

June 18, 1940 - Hitler and Mussolini meet in Munich; Soviets begin occupation of the Baltic States.

June 22, 1940 - France signs an armistice with the Nazis.

June 23, 1940 - Hitler tours Paris.

June 28, 1940 - Britain recognizes Gen. Charles de Gaulle as the Free French leader.

July 1, 1940 - German U-boats attack merchant ships in the Atlantic.

July 5, 1940 - French Vichy government breaks off relations with Britain.

July 10, 1940 - Battle of Britain begins.

July 23, 1940 - Soviets take Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Aug 3-19 - Italians occupy British Somaliland in East Africa.

Aug 13, 1940 - German bombing offensive against airfields and factories in England.

Aug 15, 1940 - Air battles and daylight raids over Britain.

Aug 17, 1940 - Hitler declares a blockade of the British Isles.

Aug 23/24 - First German air raids on Central London.

Aug 25/26 - First British air raid on Berlin.

Sept 3, 1940 - Hitler plans Operation Sealion (the invasion of Britain).

Sept 7, 1940 - German Blitz against England begins.

Sept 13, 1940 - Italians invade Egypt.

Sept 15, 1940 - Massive German air raids on London, Southampton, Bristol, Cardiff, Liverpool and Manchester.

Sept 16, 1940 - United States military conscription bill passed.

Sept 27, 1940 - Tripartite (Axis) Pact signed by Germany, Italy and Japan.

Oct 7, 1940 - German troops enter Romania.

Oct 12, 1940 - Germans postpone Operation Sealion until Spring of 1941.

Oct 28, 1940 - Italy invades Greece.

Nov 5, 1940 - Roosevelt re-elected as U.S. president.

Nov 10/11 - A torpedo bomber raid cripples the Italian fleet at Taranto, Italy.

Nov 14/15 - Germans bomb Coventry, England.

Nov 20, 1940 - Hungary joins the Axis Powers.

Nov 22, 1940 - Greeks defeat the Italian 9th Army.

Nov 23, 1940 - Romania joins the Axis Powers.

Dec 9/10 - British begin a western desert offensive in North Africa against the Italians.

Dec 29/30 - Massive German air raid on London.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

The History Channel televised a two hour special on Dunkirk a few days ago and this is the 65th Anniversary of that event.

A remembered tribute to the British people in a perilous time, a valiant effort as most of the British Army, the BEF and most of the heavy equipment were on the continent to defend the French.

Most of the tanks and guns, cannon and mortars were lost, but had the approximately 240,000 British soldiers been lost also, the future of western society may have been in jeopardy.

So a special ‘hats off!’ to the Brits…

(google search under ‘Dunkirk 1940 British evacuation’)


Amicus…

 

[Guest]

Amicus, thank you.

That's why we refer to the "Dunkirk spirit".

Lou

 

[Guest]

Must have been a scary time to be a Brit.

 

[TheEarl]

And what makes it even more amazing was that a good percentage of the rescue fleet were boats and sailors commandeered into the Royal Navy: fishing skiffs, dinghys, yachts, anything that could make it across the English channel and return with passengers aboard. Ordinary people in completely unsuitable boats sailing out to a war zone to perform the greatest rescue in military history.

The Earl

 

[oggbashan]

Little ships

in the last few days I have seen some of the little ships that went to Dunkirk 65 years ago as they made their way to and from Ramsgate for the re-enactment.

I wouldn't want to go a mile out to sea in some of them.

Dunkirk was a defeat. A glorious defeat, but a defeat it was. The perimeter was defended by French and British troops to the end. The evacuation saved many French and Belgian soldiers as well as British. Most were returned to France to be surrendered when France capitulated.

For most of the Dunkirk battle the Germans were outnumbered by the French and British. What the Germans had, that their opponents hadn't, was an effective ground attack aircraft, the Stuka, and air superiority on the battlefield. We British lost so many fighter aircraft trying to defend France that we were in real danger of having no pilots or aircraft left to defend England.

Shortly after D-Day in 1944 the Germans were in the same position as the British were at Dunkirk - hiding from aerial attack in overwhelming force.

Dunkirk was a magnificient achievement but as has been said before "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.' Wars are not won by evacuation under fire. Complete defeat might have been avoided but it was not a victory.

Og

 

[ishtat]

Dunkirk was a defeat. A glorious defeat, but a defeat it was. The perimeter was defended by French and British troops to the end. The evacuation saved many Fr
Shortly after D-Day in 1944 the Germans were in the same position as the British were at Dunkirk - hiding from aerial attack in overwhelming force.

Dunkirk was a magnificient achievement but as has been said before "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.' Wars are not won by evacuation under fire. Complete defeat might have been avoided but it was not a victory.

Og

Sometimes perhaps we see things so much from our own point of view we tend to forget that the Western Front from Dunkirk to D Day and everything in between was a tiddling sideshow .

The second world war was won by the Russian Army.To give an idea of scale Zhukov (incomparably the war's greatest General ) commanded more armour at the Battle of Kursk in July 1943 than was used in all the other battles of the war added together. Another scary statistic is that for every man lost on the western front the Russians lost just under 200. The Russians main weapons were the T34 tank and the Russian infantryman both home grown.

Whether we like it or not the fact is the Red Army should be acknowledged for what they achieved.

 

[TheEarl]

Sometimes perhaps we see things so much from our own point of view we tend to forget that the Western Front from Dunkirk to D Day and everything in between was a tiddling sideshow .

The second world war was won by the Russian Army.To give an idea of scale Zhukov (incomparably the war's greatest General ) commanded more armour at the Battle of Kursk in July 1943 than was used in all the other battles of the war added together. Another scary statistic is that for every man lost on the western front the Russians lost just under 200. The Russians main weapons were the T34 tank and the Russian infantryman both home grown.

Whether we like it or not the fact is the Red Army should be acknowledged for what they achieved.

Hear hear. Amicus and I have already had this discussion over whether the Allies could have survived without America and without Russia. My opinion was that without America we would've won over a longer period, but without the German invasion of Russia in 1940, Operation Sealion would've succeeded.

Prosit!

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

in the last few days I have seen some of the little ships that went to Dunkirk 65 years ago as they made their way to and from Ramsgate for the re-enactment.

I wouldn't want to go a mile out to sea in some of them.

Dunkirk was a defeat. A glorious defeat, but a defeat it was. The perimeter was defended by French and British troops to the end. The evacuation saved many French and Belgian soldiers as well as British. Most were returned to France to be surrendered when France capitulated.

For most of the Dunkirk battle the Germans were outnumbered by the French and British. What the Germans had, that their opponents hadn't, was an effective ground attack aircraft, the Stuka, and air superiority on the battlefield. We British lost so many fighter aircraft trying to defend France that we were in real danger of having no pilots or aircraft left to defend England.

Shortly after D-Day in 1944 the Germans were in the same position as the British were at Dunkirk - hiding from aerial attack in overwhelming force.

Dunkirk was a magnificient achievement but as has been said before "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.' Wars are not won by evacuation under fire. Complete defeat might have been avoided but it was not a victory.

Og

In measuring victory and defeat, there are two paralell considerations. Tactical and Strategic.

Dunkirk was a tactical defeat. Stukas and air superirority made it bad, but in fact, it could have, should have, been much worse. The germans had another advantage, armor. Excellent tanks, working in large groups. Had the Armor not been halted, but allowed to finish the drive, there would have been no miracle at Dunkirk.

In strategic terms, Dunkirk was not a defeat for Britan. If we accept as fact that the Western Front had already collapsed beyond retrieving, which I do, then the strategic goals of the opposed forces at Dunkirk can be summed up as:

British: Get our army home
German: Destroy, capture or eliminate as an effective fighting force the BEF and attached french/belgian troops.

The BEF survived. Granted it was much weakend by loss of equiptment, but in the coming months, when Operation Sea Lion was being planned for, the bulk of troops avilable to the British for defense of the channel coast were units of the BEF rescued from Dunkirk.

Tactically and strategically, the battles that lead up to the Evacuation were outstanding German victories. But Dunkirk itself, as an action was a stragetic defeat of the Germans, hidden by a crushing tactical victory.

If you examine the ensuing actions, the drain on trained soldiers the catastrophic defeats in Malaya and the far east put upon the commonwealth and how thinly the line was held at places like Tobruk and El alemain, you cannot help but recognize that the troops rescued from Dunkirk made a huge difference in other theaters, other battles.

I think of Dunkirk very much in the same vein as I think of the experiences of the British General Howe during the American revolution. He won all the battles, but time and again, he failed to follow up and destroy Washington's army in the field. Tactical victory, after tactical victory upon the field. Yet the strategic victory eluded him and eventually lead to the British giving up the American colonies.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Sometimes perhaps we see things so much from our own point of view we tend to forget that the Western Front from Dunkirk to D Day and everything in between was a tiddling sideshow .

The second world war was won by the Russian Army.To give an idea of scale Zhukov (incomparably the war's greatest General ) commanded more armour at the Battle of Kursk in July 1943 than was used in all the other battles of the war added together. Another scary statistic is that for every man lost on the western front the Russians lost just under 200. The Russians main weapons were the T34 tank and the Russian infantryman both home grown.

Whether we like it or not the fact is the Red Army should be acknowledged for what they achieved.

Bull Puckeys.

Moscow would have fallen, the red army would have been wiped out and Stalin would have been dictator of a truncated Russia, west of the Urals without the British.

Don't believe it? Consider this. Operation Barbarosa was started over a month and a half late. The russian winter saved Moscow, saved the russians from all out defeat. But if it weren't for the Brits, the russina winter would have come too late.

Hitler was forced to postpone Barbarosa, not because of Sea Lion, but because he had to divert troops to Greece. Why? Because the Brits were there, helping the Greeks complete their drubbing ot the Italians. And what difference did it make? hitler couldn't allow the British to have a foothold on the mainland from which to stage.

Germany was not defeated by the Russians, nor the Brits, nor the Americans. Hitler was defeated by the allies and it took contributions from all of them to do it.

US men, material and resources would have been useless, if not for the ability to stage them in England. A cross chanel invasion was pushing the very edge of what was logistically possible in the 1940's. Can you imagine trying to stage a cross atlantic invasion? Especially in the face of German U-boats and unquestioned air superiroity over the target landing zones.

England would have starved, without US support. Winning the Battle of Britan would have been meaningless if they lost the battle of the Atlantic.

Ever heard of the Murmansk run? Probably not. But it was the vital onvoy link, through which american and British material flowed to the Russians, enabling them to hold on.

I could go on. Had not the ANZACS and South Africans been avialable to British comanders in North Africa, Rommel would have taken Suez and cut the Brithish life line to India. Without the Maltese, control of the Med would have become an accomplished Axis fact. Without the Indians, it's quite likely the CBI theatre would have been Dominated by the japanese, China knocked out of the war. Without the Brazilian navy and bases, it's quite possible the mid and South atlantic would have been just as treacherous as the Atlantic routes. Had South American countries not been sending Rubber, metal and other vital natural resources to the US, our industial potential would have never been realized. Had the Chinese not kept Millions of Japanese troops tied down, those troops could easily have been thrown against Russia, by way of Manchuria. Let us not forget the troops that eventually halted the Germans were siberian troops Stalin could only call upon because the threat of a japanese attack was minial. Were it nor for the Canadians, virtually emptying their arsenals and using their fleet early on to supply England, US intervention might well have come too late.

Assigning the Lion's share to any one nation, much less contending any one nation could have won on their own is rediculous. It shows a complete lack of understanding of the battles fought and the implications of battles fought worlds away from the front.

An old maxim is that Amatures study tactics, professionals study logistics. A simple point. Had Britan capitualted, had there been no western front, no atlantic wall to guard, no greek intervention to put down, no north african campaign to fight how many more troops, planes, tanks and supplies would Hitler have had to fling into the opening of operation Barbarosa? Where would erwin rommel have been practicing his tactical genius? Where would Kesselring have been providing the air coverage of his planes?

 

[R. Richard]

Germany was not defeated by the Russians, nor the Brits, nor the Americans. Hitler was defeated by the allies and it took contributions from all of them to do it.

All true Colly. However the biggest single contribution to Germany's defeat was made by Adolph Hitler and the German High Command. The Germans did not want Heinz Guderian's panzers to finish the destruction of the BEF. There were various excuses made, but it was very much a political decision. Guderian was an outsider and not well liked by the High Command. Thus, the German Air Force was to finish the BEF.

The rest is history.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

All true Colly. However the biggest single contribution to Germany's defeat was made by Adolph Hitler and the German High Command. The Germans did not want Heinz Guderian's panzers to finish the destruction of the BEF. There were various excuses made, but it was very much a political decision. Guderian was an outsider and not well liked by the High Command. Thus, the German Air Force was to finish the BEF.

The rest is history.

You cannot overrate the damage Hitler did to his own cause. In fact, many historians think without his interference, the germans might still have won despite all else.

 

[TheEarl]

You cannot overrate the damage Hitler did to his own cause. In fact, many historians think without his interference, the germans might still have won despite all else.

Agreed with you on the war almost certainly being lost without one of the protagonists, but can't agree with you here. Hitler, for all of his paranoid blunders later in his career, was a political mastermind and gained huge swathes of territory without a shot being fired. He took Germany from a vassal state of France to being a Greater Germany that included the Sudetenland, Austria and most of the territory lost at the treaty of Versailles. He rebuilt the German army, Navy and Air Force, none of which they were allowed to have under the terms of Versailles, without a single protest from the world at large. He rebuilt the German industrial capacity from literal bankruptcy and hyperinflation. His Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact neutralised the only nation that could possibly back up Britain's blustering and save Poland. Without him, Germany would've been in no position to wage a war, let alone win one.

Hitler's infereing may have lost the war, but he was the man who gave them the chance to win it.

The Earl

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Agreed with you on the war almost certainly being lost without one of the protagonists, but can't agree with you here. Hitler, for all of his paranoid blunders later in his career, was a political mastermind and gained huge swathes of territory without a shot being fired. He took Germany from a vassal state of France to being a Greater Germany that included the Sudetenland, Austria and most of the territory lost at the treaty of Versailles. He rebuilt the German army, Navy and Air Force, none of which they were allowed to have under the terms of Versailles, without a single protest from the world at large. He rebuilt the German industrial capacity from literal bankruptcy and hyperinflation. His Nazi-Soviet non-aggression pact neutralised the only nation that could possibly back up Britain's blustering and save Poland. Without him, Germany would've been in no position to wage a war, let alone win one.

Hitler's infereing may have lost the war, but he was the man who gave them the chance to win it.

The Earl

It is in the context of his mistakes,not his triumphs where that judgement comes into play. I do not mean to down play his successes, they were many and showed an uncanny grasp of the minds of his enemies.

He was, however, in the end a corporal with no staff traing. A gifted amatuer, but one who made hideous blunders that really cost his army the chance to win later n the war.

 

[amicus]

Colleen Thomas...."...Bull Puckeys..."


That brought a big smile to my face, thank you Colly, and for your comments also.


Sept 29, 1939 - Nazis and Soviets divide up Poland.

Nov 30, 1939 - Soviets attack Finland.

Dec 14, 1939 - Soviet Union expelled from the League of Nations.

March 12, 1940 - Finland signs a peace treaty with Soviets.

June 18, 1940 - Hitler and Mussolini meet in Munich; Soviets begin occupation of the Baltic States.

July 23, 1940 - Soviets take Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.



There were three 'thug' dictatorships in Europe during the 1930's, Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini.

One can express sympathy for the Russian people following the Communist take-over in 1917 as 'Mother Russia' became a graveyard for human atrocities unheard of since the time of the Mongol Hordes that pillaged and plundered vast areas of Eastern Europe.

One can even have some small appreciation for the Red Army and Zhukov's strategic retreat and the defense of Stalingrad.

But one has to remember that the Soviet Union, under Communism, remained basically a 'horse and buggy' communal agricultural society that could barely produce enough to feed their own people, let alone conduct a war.

Without the supplies provided by the United States on the Murmansk run the Soviets would not have been able to hold on and mount a winter counter-attack against the Germans.

Colly is right, the USSR might have survived as a much smaller nation, providing the Japanese were stopped before they completely occupied China and then gobbled the remaining Soviet territory.

In the retreat from Nazi troops during Barbarosa, the Soviets employed the tactic of destroying anything that might be useful, regardless that it starved and stranded their own people.

The Germans in that march, also raped pillaged and plundered the Russian countryside, leaving the Russian people helpless.

With the Russian counter attack, when if finally reached Germany territory, the same atrocities were committed again in revenge against the German people.

What should be understood is the National Socialism, 'Nazism' bears a strong similarity to "Communism" also state socialism, where-in the 'state' holds all rights and the individual, none.

There is no point in 'refighting' world war two; this thread was merely a tribute to the Brits to recall a magnificent effort under daunting circumstances.

But I can not stand aside as the Soviets are glorified and given any credit, other than being a buffer to the Nazi's until the Western Allies could retake Western Europe.

In my opinion, Patton was correct, the allied forces should have marched on Moscow, used atomic weapons if necessary and stopped the obscenity of Communism before it had the opportunity to threaten a world wide nuclear conflict.

Think of the millions of lives that would have been spared. No Korea, no Vietnam, no Russian arms in Communist China or in the Middle East.

Had the Soviets been eliminated in 1945, the world would have been thirty years closer to human freedom and the Soviets just a dark stain on the pages of history.

amicus...