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

[HansMustermann]

Disclaimer: I'm not much of a WW2 historian. My interest in history starts to taper off slowly around the time when they start bringing guns to a knife fight. So much talking out the ass may occur.

But this is the thought that came to mind:

"Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight.

If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength.

Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War". chapter 11​

And it's not just theory. Leaving the enemy a chance to flee, no matter how disadvantageous, has actually been successfully used in history to gain victory. As a random example, by the Mongolians at the Battle of the Sajo River: they deliberately left a narrow escape route out of the encirclement (which led through a hail of arrows from the Mongolian archers) to encourage as much of the enemy army to break down early and try to flee.

So, back to Dunkirk... Seems to me like the encirclement of the Allied armies was less than complete, and it could work as well as a beachhead for the Allies. The German army meanwhile had serious logistics problems, and more of a problem than anyone anticipated dealing with the heavily armoured French and British tanks. In fact, the supply line of the southern section of the German army was severely over-extended.

By leaving the British enough breathing space to start the evacuation in earnest, it seems to me like essentially they caused the British to abandon the French to their fate, severely reducing the army the Germans had to fight. Plus, they left all their equipment behind, literally enough to equip whole divisions.

So was it that horrible a German idea? I'm not entirely sure any more. What do YOU think?

 

[dann]

So was it that horrible a German idea? I'm not entirely sure any more. What do YOU think?

No, the Endlösung was a horrible German idea!

 

[HansMustermann]

Yeah, well, there isn't much to debate about THAT one. Even the neonazis tend to not defend that one

 

[MRC_Hans]

Well, there are a number of factors, apart from those already mentioned:

- Hitler at this point of the conflict held Britain in high regard, considering then as good Aryans as the Germans.

- In fact Hitler was not much enthusiastic about attacking GB. He (probably rightly) expected such a campaign would be hard and very expensive.

- What he really wanted was to negotiate a truce with GB.

So it is possible that aside from the practical problems in making a final push for Dunkirk (long supply lines, much of his troops and panzer bogged down on narrow, congested roads, lack of air superiority), he might have though that having thousands of British troops trapped on the coast might give him a good negotiating position.

Hans

 

[Aber]

So was it that horrible a German idea? I'm not entirely sure any more. What do YOU think?

What idea?

The Germans were not expecting the Allies (including a large number of French soldiers)to escape.

They knew they had a large number of units encircled, but on low-lying ground with numerous drainage ditches and canals. This was not good terrain for Panzer divisions, which were suffering from mechanical issues with much reduced frontline strength. It required a methodical approach from infantry divisions which relied on horse powered logistics.

This terrain is why the Germans only surrendered Dunkirk on 9th May 1945.

 

[theprestige]

Who's saying Dunkirk was such a bad idea anyway? OP seems kind of like a strawman. In the sense that it seems to argue against a position nobody has actually taken.

 

[MRC_Hans]

I think he is saying the opposite: Was it that bad an idea?

Hans

 

[Seismosaurus]

"If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength."

Yes, as a general rule, leaving the enemy a way to retreat ensures that they will retreat rather than fighting to the last man. And by employing that as a tactic, one may win an individual battle more easily, since it is more easy to force the enemy to retreat than it is to destroy them utterly.

Sun Tzu was writing for a time when total wars were rarely fought. In his time war was more a matter of swapping the leadership over a few cities and then make a peace and it all settled down until the next time. His advice makes sense in that context; win today's battle more easily, capture that city you've wanted for a while, everyone goes back to farming.

But in the context of World War II, things are different. For one, your surrounded army doesn't have to fight to the last man - and most didn't. They can just surrender. Of course that sometimes doesn't work out well for them, depending on where and to whom the surrendering is being done, but it's an option.

But in World War II every soldier that retreats from a battle may help you win that battle, but he's also another guy you're going to have to fight in the next battle a few weeks or months later. The only effect that letting the British escape Dunkirk had (to whatever extent one can consider the Germans to have really 'let' them escape) was to allow the British to retain an army that they could then re-equip and return to fight you again. How many of the Dunkirk evacuees wound up storming the beaches on D Day? Quite a few, I'd bet.

So no. It was a colossal military blunder on the German's part.

Compare to Stalingrad. The Russians could have left the Germans an escape route. If they had, the army likely would have retreated no matter what Hitler had to say about it, sooner or later. And then months down the line, the Russians would have had to fight that army again. And then again when they let them retreat again, and so on, all the way back to Berlin.

Instead they surrounded and pressed them relentlessly, fighting them until they surrendered. And that was a blow the Germans never recovered from. It essentially ended them as an effective offensive force. You can't realistically see it as anything other than a colossal success for the Russian army.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

Disclaimer: I'm not much of a WW2 historian. My interest in history starts to taper off slowly around the time when they start bringing guns to a knife fight. So much talking out the ass may occur.

But this is the thought that came to mind:

"Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight.

If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength.

Soldiers when in desperate straits lose the sense of fear. If there is no place of refuge, they will stand firm. If they are in hostile country, they will show a stubborn front. If there is no help for it, they will fight hard."
-- Sun Tzu, "The Art Of War". chapter 11​

And it's not just theory. Leaving the enemy a chance to flee, no matter how disadvantageous, has actually been successfully used in history to gain victory. As a random example, by the Mongolians at the Battle of the Sajo River: they deliberately left a narrow escape route out of the encirclement (which led through a hail of arrows from the Mongolian archers) to encourage as much of the enemy army to break down early and try to flee.

So, back to Dunkirk... Seems to me like the encirclement of the Allied armies was less than complete, and it could work as well as a beachhead for the Allies. The German army meanwhile had serious logistics problems, and more of a problem than anyone anticipated dealing with the heavily armoured French and British tanks. In fact, the supply line of the southern section of the German army was severely over-extended.

By leaving the British enough breathing space to start the evacuation in earnest, it seems to me like essentially they caused the British to abandon the French to their fate, severely reducing the army the Germans had to fight. Plus, they left all their equipment behind, literally enough to equip whole divisions.

So was it that horrible a German idea? I'm not entirely sure any more. What do YOU think?

In retrospect, yes, it was a terrible idea.

Given the amount of blood and treasure Germany would be compelled to expend on the western front in WWII (by which we can include North Africa, the Mediterranean, Scandinavia, as well as NW Europe), then almost any sacrifice in 1940 would have been worth while to knock the British out of the war.

And frankly, if the BEF had been annihilated in 1940, its hard to see how Churchill could have won the argument against Halifax et al.

But without the benefit of hindsight, the German course of action was entirely sensible.

No one anticipated that more than 30-50k troops could have been brought off, the land around Dunkirk was totally unsuitable for armour, the small proportion of the German army that was mechanised was badly in need of a rest and a refit, and most of France and the larger part of the French army remained undefeated.

Given the above, to throw your precious and exhausted armour into a fight it was totally unsuited for, to fight a virtually defeated enemy, who was surrounded, and barring a miracle, had no hope of escape, would have been insanely reckless.

Not that Nazis weren't quite prone to acts of insane recklessness, but in the case of Dunkirk, their actions were sensible and prudent.

I don't think OKH/OKW can reasonably be criticised for it.

 

[Brainster]

Sun Tzu's argument here is not that you should leave your enemies room to escape. It is that you can rely on your own army better when they are in desperate situations from which there is no third alternative to winning and dying. Note that he goes on to say:

25. Thus, without waiting to be marshaled, the soldiers will be constantly on the qui vive; without waiting to be asked, they will do your will; without restrictions, they will be faithful; without giving orders, they can be trusted.

And leaving the opponent an apparent route to escape that you have booby-trapped (as in your Mongolians example) is a completely different thing from what happened at Dunkirk. There the enemy really did escape; it was not an illusion.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

"If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve. Officers and men alike will put forth their uttermost strength."

Yes, as a general rule, leaving the enemy a way to retreat ensures that they will retreat rather than fighting to the last man. And by employing that as a tactic, one may win an individual battle more easily, since it is more easy to force the enemy to retreat than it is to destroy them utterly.

Sun Tzu was writing for a time when total wars were rarely fought. In his time war was more a matter of swapping the leadership over a few cities and then make a peace and it all settled down until the next time. His advice makes sense in that context; win today's battle more easily, capture that city you've wanted for a while, everyone goes back to farming.

But in the context of World War II, things are different. For one, your surrounded army doesn't have to fight to the last man - and most didn't. They can just surrender. Of course that sometimes doesn't work out well for them, depending on where and to whom the surrendering is being done, but it's an option.

But in World War II every soldier that retreats from a battle may help you win that battle, but he's also another guy you're going to have to fight in the next battle a few weeks or months later. The only effect that letting the British escape Dunkirk had (to whatever extent one can consider the Germans to have really 'let' them escape) was to allow the British to retain an army that they could then re-equip and return to fight you again. How many of the Dunkirk evacuees wound up storming the beaches on D Day? Quite a few, I'd bet.

So no. It was a colossal military blunder on the German's part.

Compare to Stalingrad. The Russians could have left the Germans an escape route. If they had, the army likely would have retreated no matter what Hitler had to say about it, sooner or later. And then months down the line, the Russians would have had to fight that army again. And then again when they let them retreat again, and so on, all the way back to Berlin.

Instead they surrounded and pressed them relentlessly, fighting them until they surrendered. And that was a blow the Germans never recovered from. It essentially ended them as an effective offensive force. You can't realistically see it as anything other than a colossal success for the Russian army.

The Germans didn't "let the British escape".

As far as anyone at the time could discern, the BEF was cut-off and surrounded with no realistic chance of escape.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Once the Belgians surrendered the British had no option but to fall back to the coast. The entire northern flank of the line was wide open and had to fold back.
Once the BEF extended itself to re form a line to the north there was no chance of supporting any French action to break through to the south.
Gort had no option but to fall back to the coast and establish a defensive position.
If you look at the chaos and confusion in the French command and the lack of morale there was no hope of a thrust to the north.

 

[rjh01]

I suggest Hitler did not have many options. He could not use his army for reasons explained above. He would not want to use his navy. So that left his Air Force, which is what he used.

If he had tried to use the Navy the British Navy would have come out and it would be a WW2 version of Jutland.

 

[Andy_Ross]

No, it wouldn't have been any kind of Jutland. In that battle the sides were fairly evenly matched.

In WW2 the Germans had no effective surface fleet. If anything had 'come out' it would have been sunk in short order.

it was only the panzer formations that ran to the coast that were halted. Infantry divisions kept up their attack on the perimeter at Dunkirk and forced it back.
There was a lot of hard fighting by the French and British units defending the perimeter.

 

[Hubert Cumberdale]

I suggest Hitler did not have many options. He could not use his army for reasons explained above. He would not want to use his navy. So that left his Air Force, which is what he used.

If he had tried to use the Navy the British Navy would have come out and it would be a WW2 version of Jutland.

The Kriegsmarine at that point constituted a handful of destroyers and light cruisers. Everything else was either in dry dock, not yet built, or at the bottom of a Norwegian fjord.

Actually the whole of Army Group B, comprising the 6th and 18th Army were tasked with pinching out the Dunkirk pocket.

 

[Garrison]

The Germans didn't "let the British escape".

As far as anyone at the time could discern, the BEF was cut-off and surrounded with no realistic chance of escape.

People think the infamous 'halt order' amounted to a complete stop on the German attack on attacks on Dunkirk. it only applied to the panzer forces, the infantry formations and the Luftwaffe continued their operations right through the period of the 'halt'.

The reason for the halt order itself was to let German armour regroup, resupply and let its infantry support catch up so they could be turned on the remaining French forces, it had nothing to do with any intention of letting the British escape.

 

[Craig B]

People think the infamous 'halt order' amounted to a complete stop on the German attack on attacks on Dunkirk. it only applied to the panzer forces, the infantry formations and the Luftwaffe continued their operations right through the period of the 'halt'.

The reason for the halt order itself was to let German armour regroup, resupply and let its infantry support catch up so they could be turned on the remaining French forces, it had nothing to do with any intention of letting the British escape.

One would think that decisions about what has to be done to enable units to regroup, resupply etc, in the course of an offensive ought to me made directly by the commanders of the operation rather than by the C in C and Head of State. Whatever Hitler's reasons and motives, was he justified in imposing his judgement on his commanders in the field during the climax of an offensive operation?

 

[Andy_Ross]

In addition the area around Dunkirk was waterlogged. Areas of land were deliberately flooded to hamper the German advance, It was open country with restricted movement for tanks. They would have suffered if they had tried to advance on the beaches and town.

 

[Garrison]

One would think that decisions about what has to be done to enable units to regroup, resupply etc, in the course of an offensive ought to me made directly by the commanders of the operation rather than by the C in C and Head of State. Whatever Hitler's reasons and motives, was he justified in imposing his judgement on his commanders in the field during the climax of an offensive operation?

Except again this wasn't just something that Hitler did out of the blue, this notion that his commanders on the front line vehemently protested is a myth, in fact Hitler's order basically just ratified what the frontline commanders had already decided. The fact was the panzers did need time to regroup and resupply and at no point did the German attack on Dunkirk actually stop.

Also Dunkirk was not the climax of the operation, the point of the plan was to deliver a knock out blow to the French and to complete that objective needed the armoured spearhead fully prepared to turn away from Dunkirk and crush the remaining, still substantial, French forces.

The troops were rescued from Dunkirk because of the determined efforts of the Royal Navy, the RAF, the civilian boats, and the British and French soldiers who fought to hold the perimeter. it was their efforts that allowed the seemingly impossible feat of rescuing 300,000 men rather than 30,000.

 

[Andy_Ross]

0Indeed, the major part of the French Army never got in to action at all. The surrender came first. They had more or less collapsed anyway.

As an aside the french Air Force moved most of their fighter force to the south to 'keep it safe' They never flew a single sortie against the Germans.