Dunkirk evacuation

[MRC_Hans]

It was a British victory by any measure.

Dunkirk? Come on. It was a defeat, but with the effects somewhat diminished by the bold and daring rescue mission.

Hans

 

[ahhell]

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.

Heroic defeats are often as or more celebrated victories. The Battle of Thermoplylae has spawned more fiction than the Battle of Salamis which was a Greek victory and probably more important in the long run.

Also, saying Dunkirk was a British Victory is as silly as the quote in OP. It was a valiant defeat and fighting retreat that allowed the Brits to keep fighting sure, but not a victory.

 

[Tolls]

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....

Not convinced.
British diplomacy was pretty much based on not letting a single power in Europe become dominant. A dominant Germany, with a now crippled France and Russia, would have meant a Germany that could now face outwards, which was one of their stated intentions. One of the reasons they were building a big fleet.

Also, saying Dunkirk was a British Victory is as silly as the quote in OP. It was a valiant defeat and fighting retreat that allowed the Brits to keep fighting sure, but not a victory.

Quite.
It was a case of avoiding a catastrophe.
But the post-Dunkirk propaganda has has stuck in the national consciousness.

 

[Garrison]

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

The argument runs that Britain bankrupted itself economically, had to hand over massively valuable technologies (cavity magnetron, jet engines) for a pittance and that the US used it's aid to undermine the British Empire. Had Britain come to reasonable terms after the fall of France it could have been spared all of that.

It's complete ********* of course, because it assumes that Hitler would honour whatever deal he made. In the long term if Germany wins in the east the UK becomes a vassal state of Nazi Germany. If Germany loses then Britain faces a communist Europe and who knows what happens then?

 

[Garrison]

Heroic defeats are often as or more celebrated victories. The Battle of Thermoplylae has spawned more fiction than the Battle of Salamis which was a Greek victory and probably more important in the long run.

Quite true, the charge of the light brigade is famous, the charge of the heavy brigade all but forgotten even though they happened on the very same day.

Also, saying Dunkirk was a British Victory is as silly as the quote in OP. It was a valiant defeat and fighting retreat that allowed the Brits to keep fighting sure, but not a victory.

It was the idea of the 'Dunkirk spirit' that really took hold, the story of the 'little ships' and the sense that the nation came together to make a stand.

 

[Garrette]

It may be nitpickery, but it is the sort of nitpickery that matters in keeping morale and winning at politics.

The Battle of France was a loss for the British. The Battle of Dunkirk was a victory, not a defeat. Its objective was to save the expeditionary force, and that objective was achieved.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The Battle of Dunkirk was a victory, not a defeat. Its objective was to save the expeditionary force, and that objective was achieved.

I would say that it was neither a victory nor a defeat, as it wasn't strictly speaking a battle.

Dave

 

[ddt]

It may be nitpickery, but it is the sort of nitpickery that matters in keeping morale and winning at politics.

The Battle of France was a loss for the British. The Battle of Dunkirk was a victory, not a defeat. Its objective was to save the expeditionary force, and that objective was achieved.

That is, they saved the men. All the material had to be left behind on the continent.

 

[Tolls]

It was the pursuit after the battle.

 

[Dave Rogers]

That is, they saved the men. All the material had to be left behind on the continent.

Bearing in mind the quality of a lot of the BEF's equipment, it may well have turned out to be less of a loss than it seemed at the time.

Dave

 

[TraneWreck]

Not convinced.
British diplomacy was pretty much based on not letting a single power in Europe become dominant. A dominant Germany, with a now crippled France and Russia, would have meant a Germany that could now face outwards, which was one of their stated intentions. One of the reasons they were building a big fleet.

Fair, for sure, it is imagineering.

As a counterpoint, imagine how much damage an aggressive Imperial Germany could do and still fall short of Hitler + Stalin.

 

[Hans]

Tactical defeat strategic victory

 

[dropzone]

Bearing in mind the quality of a lot of the BEF's equipment, it may well have turned out to be less of a loss than it seemed at the time.

Indeed. How much of it was re-used by the Germans? They barely used the many Enfield rifles they captured. British tanks? The Czechs made better ones. Brit trucks? I'm biased, having watched my brother scrape his knuckles raw wrenching a TR-4, but really? Mules and horses start every morning. Also unlike the German brands of the time.

 

[Klimax]

Indeed. How much of it was re-used by the Germans? They barely used the many Enfield rifles they captured. British tanks? The Czechs made better ones. Brit trucks? I'm biased, having watched my brother scrape his knuckles raw wrenching a TR-4, but really? Mules and horses start every morning. Also unlike the German brands of the time.

The only exception might be Matilda II.

 

[Tolls]

The only exception might be Matilda II.

Apart from the speed.
The Germans went for speed over armour/hitting power at that point, so the Matilda would have been viewed as too slow.

 

[Aber]

Indeed. How much of it was re-used by the Germans? Brit trucks? I'm biased, having watched my brother scrape his knuckles raw wrenching a TR-4, but really?

Especially after the retreating British started the engines, drained the oil, and let them run until they seized up.

 

[Klimax]

Apart from the speed.
The Germans went for speed over armour/hitting power at that point, so the Matilda would have been viewed as too slow.

They liked them enough in North Africa to try to use them. With "interesting" results...

BTW: Matilda also could use Little John Adapter. That's worth something.

 

[McHrozni]

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

Presumably UK would be able to get an acceptable peace deal with Germany at that point. Hitler wasn't keen on fighting UK, his real goal was Russia and he was aware Kriegsmarine was no match for the Royal navy, so it is possible UK would not suffer terribly from the peace. It would have to forego the Versailles peace treaty and what that offered, but this happened anyway. It would be dealt a major blow to prestige, but it would retain much more hard power. Prestige didn't save the empire, but hard power might have.
A German victory in Russia would overextend the fledgling empire to the point it wouldn't be a threat to UK for a long time. Russia is too large and had a too large population to easily control or cull, it would be a generation before Germany would be able to get more resources from Russia than it put in in terms of manpower and blood.

Without fighting a war in Europe it is possible it would be either better able to resist Japan or maybe would've been able to stay out of that war altogether. It is possible - by not means certain, but possible - it would be able to hold on to it's maritime empire for considerably longer than it did in this scenario.

I'm not saying that the above would be a good turn of events, indeed it would be horrible, but this is the line of reasoning they're following, I think.

McHrozni

 

[Craig B]

Presumably UK would be able to get an acceptable peace deal with Germany at that point.

Was Hitler capable of such restraint by that point? If he had been, he would have treated France with greater consideration when it capitulated. But instead he plundered that rich country mercilessly and imposed on it his insane racial obsessions.

 

[Beady]

Was Hitler capable of such restraint by that point? If he had been, he would have treated France with greater consideration when it capitulated. But instead he plundered that rich country mercilessly and imposed on it his insane racial obsessions.

Hitler saw the British as natural allies. I believe this was because he considered them as racial cousins to the Germans.

This signature is intended to irritate people.