Dunkirk evacuation

[Ranb]

I was reading about the movie Dunkirk at the IMDB here; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/trivia
One of the trivia items reads;

The evacuation is often seen as a terrible defeat for the British as it resulted in them continuing a war that destroyed their empire and turned the UK into an American satellite.

What does this mean? What if the British army been destroyed on the beach by the Germans. Would this have kept them out of the war with Germany taking over Europe and possibly Asia while allowing the British Empire to continue to exist as it did before?

What am I missing from this line of reasoning?

Ranb

 

[Beady]

Beats the hell out of me. My MIL was a WRAF during the war, and she still thinks it was a victory.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[BStrong]

I was reading about the movie Dunkirk at the IMDB here; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/trivia
One of the trivia items reads;

What does this mean? What if the British army been destroyed on the beach by the Germans. Would this have kept them out of the war with Germany taking over Europe and possibly Asia while allowing the British Empire to continue to exist as it did before?

What am I missing from this line of reasoning?

Ranb

Somebody had the chance to insert a little of their own propaganda into the IMDB.

Not much different than certain folks that assert that America went off the deep end in 1776 and had we stayed as a colony we wouldn't have all these terrible American habits.

 

[Giz]

I was reading about the movie Dunkirk at the IMDB here; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/trivia
One of the trivia items reads;

What does this mean? What if the British army been destroyed on the beach by the Germans. Would this have kept them out of the war with Germany taking over Europe and possibly Asia while allowing the British Empire to continue to exist as it did before?

What am I missing from this line of reasoning?

Ranb

In England it's seen as a remarkable achievement (the "Little ships" and "Dunkirk spirit") and was a rallying cry, perhaps akin to "remember the Alamo!".

 

[lionking]

It was a British victory by any measure.

 

[Jim_MDP]

Though I never even looked at it until the thread here about its' closing, it's too bad they shut down their forum.

I'd bet a fair amount that there were at least a couple threads asking the author to explain that comment.

 

[Aepervius]

It was a British victory by any measure.

If anything it was an allied "victory" (it was a defeat, a retreat, but one where the army forces could be saved for a later battle) where they cooperated to get the evacuation done. Part of the reason why it went so smoothly was Hitler ordering a stop to gather the troop, and part of the delaying action by what was left of the french troops (hadn't they fought until 31st May in the battle of Lille, the German would have fallen on Dunkirk much sooner).

 

[Dave Rogers]

It was a British victory by any measure.

I like Spike Milligan's recounting of the comment on it by one of the evacuated soldiers:

"It was a **** up, son. A highly successful **** up."

Dave

 

[Beady]

OTOH, I've seen arguments that England was the only true loser of the war as a whole. This is based on post-war economies and political developments.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[TraneWreck]

If anything it was an allied "victory" (it was a defeat, a retreat, but one where the army forces could be saved for a later battle) where they cooperated to get the evacuation done. Part of the reason why it went so smoothly was Hitler ordering a stop to gather the troop, and part of the delaying action by what was left of the french troops (hadn't they fought until 31st May in the battle of Lille, the German would have fallen on Dunkirk much sooner).

Yes, I think this is good analysis.

I've always found it somewhat strange that it was celebrated. It obviously paved the way for resistance and ultimately, victory, but it was survival, not conquest.

I suppose it's a bit like the Alamo in the US: represents resilience in the face of overwhelming odds and allowed for larger victory.

As to the OP, very strange. Hard to make sense of that line.

I've read somewhat convincing arguments that Britain should have stayed out of WWI - Germany wins quickly, some sort of negotiated arrangement on the Continent is livable, you avoid the horrors of WWII. But I can't really see a coherent argument for sitting out WWII.

 

[Giz]

I've read somewhat convincing arguments that Britain should have stayed out of WWI - Germany wins quickly, some sort of negotiated arrangement on the Continent is livable, you avoid the horrors of WWII. But I can't really see a coherent argument for sitting out WWII.

Even staying out of WW1 is a stretch... Imperial Germany wasn't as bad as Nazi Germany but it was still definitely the 'bad' guy in WW1. If Britain had abstained from fighting, leading to a German victory, then Britain would have been in a very parlous spot.

 

[TraneWreck]

Even staying out of WW1 is a stretch... Imperial Germany wasn't as bad as Nazi Germany but it was still definitely the 'bad' guy in WW1. If Britain had abstained from fighting, leading to a German victory, then Britain would have been in a very parlous spot.

Sure. It's an argument that only makes sense knowing what was to come.

You could have coexisted with Imperial Germany, and avoiding most of WWI is a benefit in its own right, but the real value lies in no Hitler, no Holocaust, arguably no Soviet Union....

 

[Spindrift]

What am I missing from this line of reasoning?

The joke.

 

[fuelair]

Yes, I think this is good analysis.

I've always found it somewhat strange that it was celebrated. It obviously paved the way for resistance and ultimately, victory, but it was survival, not conquest.

I suppose it's a bit like the Alamo in the US: represents resilience in the face of overwhelming odds and allowed for larger victory.

As to the OP, very strange. Hard to make sense of that line.

I've read somewhat convincing arguments that Britain should have stayed out of WWI - Germany wins quickly, some sort of negotiated arrangement on the Continent is livable, you avoid the horrors of WWII. But I can't really see a coherent argument for sitting out WWII.

But, without time travel and manipulation of various adjustments we will never really know what would have worked best.

 

[TraneWreck]

But, without time travel and manipulation of various adjustments we will never really know what would have worked best.

Indeed. Still interesting to consider.

 

[Mark F]

I was reading about the movie Dunkirk at the IMDB here; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/trivia
One of the trivia items reads;

What does this mean? What if the British army been destroyed on the beach by the Germans. Would this have kept them out of the war with Germany taking over Europe and possibly Asia while allowing the British Empire to continue to exist as it did before?

What am I missing from this line of reasoning?

Ranb

I suspect the line of reasoning is that if the BEF had been destroyed on the beach the British could not have continued the fight and would have been forced to sue for peace. This would have left them in a better economic circumstance and probably with most of the empire intact. By 1945 Britain was bankrupt from the cost of the war.

 

[TraneWreck]

You know, now that I think about it, I have seen some arguments that if Britain and the US never involved themselves in Europe in WWII, Hitler and Stalin would have ground each other into dust, anyway.

I'm not convinced. I don't see a scenario where Germany doesn't make life very difficult for Britain.

 

[crescent]

I was reading about the movie Dunkirk at the IMDB here; http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5013056/trivia
One of the trivia items reads;

What does this mean? What if the British army been destroyed on the beach by the Germans. Would this have kept them out of the war with Germany taking over Europe and possibly Asia while allowing the British Empire to continue to exist as it did before?

What am I missing from this line of reasoning?

Ranb

Yes, I think this is good analysis.

I've always found it somewhat strange that it was celebrated. It obviously paved the way for resistance and ultimately, victory, but it was survival, not conquest.

I suppose it's a bit like the Alamo in the US: represents resilience in the face of overwhelming odds and allowed for larger victory.

As to the OP, very strange. Hard to make sense of that line.

I've read somewhat convincing arguments that Britain should have stayed out of WWI - Germany wins quickly, some sort of negotiated arrangement on the Continent is livable, you avoid the horrors of WWII. But I can't really see a coherent argument for sitting out WWII.

I suspect the line of reasoning is that if the BEF had been destroyed on the beach the British could not have continued the fight and would have been forced to sue for peace. This would have left them in a better economic circumstance and probably with most of the empire intact. By 1945 Britain was bankrupt from the cost of the war.

You know, now that I think about it, I have seen some arguments that if Britain and the US never involved themselves in Europe in WWII, Hitler and Stalin would have ground each other into dust, anyway.

I'm not convinced. I don't see a scenario where Germany doesn't make life very difficult for Britain.

Yeah- I think the text quoted in the OP probably just came from a Nazi apologist wanting to make an indirect argument in favor of Nazi victory. That's just a hunch on my part, though.

 

[Giordano]

I think that there no better analysis of the meaning of Dunkirk than that provided by Churchill himself in his "We shall fight them on the beaches" speech. He does a very cold and analytical analysis of the actual events, expresses relief that so much of the expeditionary force was rescued, yet is forthright as to wars not being won by retreats and that the events in Continental Europe that required the retreat were indeed a serious military defeat. And then, of course, he spoke of the future with a mix of how difficult it would be, but in confidence of the Allies ultimate success.

 

[Giordano]

Yeah- I think the text quoted in the OP probably just came from a Nazi apologist wanting to make an indirect argument in favor of Nazi victory. That's just a hunch on my part, though.

I agree. The idea that Britain, once defeated militarily, would have benefited from a forced incorporation under the Nazis, is a fascist fantasy.