PDA

View Full Version : Dunkirk. The reasons for "miraculous escape".



Egorka
01-08-2007, 07:32 AM
Hello!

I do not know much about the situation in Dunkirk, but I read somewhere that Hitler let Allied forces to escape on purpose. The german land forces were ordered to halt the attack. And this order was transmited on open unencripted radi ochannel.

The reason is that Hitler hoped to force Britain to make deal with Germany and he did not want to put UK in to position where they would have lost face.
In fact this "miraculous escape" boosted people moral a lot in UK.

Any facts you can share with me and others?


Best regards
Igor Korenev

Chevan
01-08-2007, 08:02 AM
Yes i heared the point that Hitler simply let Britains evacuated from Dunkirk in 1940.
In that early period war was n't so total and unhuman like it was later. As we know Britain declaredthe war to the Germany in september 1939, however Britains absolutly nothing did for the poles. It was "strange" war.
Perhaps in may 1940 it was the "good" gesture of Hitler for the Britains and world social oppinion.
Cheers.

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 08:36 AM
Some interesting point' guy's.
I must be honest and say that this is the first time i have heard about Dunkirk from this angle.

alephh
01-08-2007, 09:53 AM
Making alliance with England was something Hitler hinted/talked about several times.

It would have been pretty good combination for a world domination attempt: Royal Navy, German ground forces (Wehrmacht+Waffen-SS), RAF and Luftwaffe.


_

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 10:53 AM
Yeah, imagine how that would of changed the course of history.

Chevan
01-08-2007, 12:45 PM
It would have been pretty good combination for a world domination attempt: Royal Navy, German ground forces (Wehrmacht+Waffen-SS), RAF and Luftwaffe.



Yea it would be the brilliant alliance against ......... jews and USSR.
Just imagine guys, Hitler could the Hero of western civilization, Aushwitz would be called as therapeutic- working sanatorium ;) :D
Oh this stupid history, everything could be changed :)))))))))))))))

P.S. just kidding ....
Cheers.

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 12:48 PM
Good humour Chevan.
I know we joke about it; but just imagine..........

Chevan
01-08-2007, 01:20 PM
Good humour Chevan.
I know we joke about it; but just imagine..........
I have already imagine it enough :D
I will better save my mind ;)

pdf27
01-08-2007, 01:53 PM
Nothing to do with the fact that their Panzers were out of fuel, the rest of their troops were a hell of a long way behind and the part of the BEF trapped at Dunkirk was stronger than the attacking forces then?
That's rather like the way some people keep trying to make out that the Bismarck being scuttled rather than sunk by the RN somehow makes it being parked on the floor of the North Atlantic some sort of German victory.

Egorka
01-08-2007, 02:59 PM
Here is an article I found to be very interesting. Especially because it is reffering to Liddell Hart's oppinion.

http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/hitlers-grand-error-at-dunkirk-why

And here is a quote from the article:

“Hitler was in a very good humor, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been ‘a decided miracle,’ and gave us his opinion that the war would be finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.

“He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but ‘where there is planing, there are shavings flying.’ He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.

“He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept.”

An incredible tale, and yet, it fits with the admiration Hitler expressed for Britain in Mein Kampf. Hitler offered peace to the British twice during World War 2, and also, according to Liddell Hart, displayed uncharacteristic timidity in planning an invasion of England, once Churchill made it plain his nation would not agree for peace. A strange attitude for a leader to have in a war, true, but then, Hitler was a strange man with strange ideas, and a very complex personality.
General Blumentritt’s tale is confirmed by Leon Degrelle, of the Belgian Waffen-SS, who Hitler greatly admired, and occasionally confided in. During one discussion with his Fuhrer, Degrelle states: “We talked about England. I asked him bluntly: “Why on earth didn’t you finish the British off at Dunkirk? Everyone knew you could have wiped them out.” He answered: “Yes, I withheld my troops and let the British escape back to England. The humiliation of such a defeat would have made it difficult to try for peace with them afterwards.”

Some may protest Degrelle’s testimony, since he was one of the very few who attempted to defend Hitler at all after the war. But Liddell Hart argues that men like Blumentritt had no plausible reason to invent such a story, and in fact would have impressed their conquerors more by portraying themselves as the ones who attempted to preserve British security and survival. Instead, they told the story that the generals wanted to crush the British for good, and end the war, while Hitler’s dithering cost them a great, perhaps decisive, victory. If this is true, it certainly calls into question the idea that Hitler intended to conquer the whole world. I have argued, and the evidence here, from Hitler’s own mouth, seems to confirm that his goal was to establish German hegemony on the continent of Europe, and leave themselves free from outside (particularly British) interference. But each person has their own ideas on this subject. The Dunkirk story lends important new evidence to the discussion.

I guess there were several reasons for attack halt. Just like there several reasons for dropping A-bombs. Twice!


Best regards
Igor Korenev

VonWeyer
01-08-2007, 03:08 PM
An interesting article. Thanx.

Egorka
01-09-2007, 06:14 AM
to pdf27:
I do not know about making Bismark affair in to german victory, but Dunkirk was havily described as UK's victory ann hense notion of "Dunkirk spirit". And this is definately a propaganda move.

Firefly
01-09-2007, 06:53 AM
Of course the Dunkirk Spirit was a propaganda move. However, Britain would have had to come to an arrangement without the men saved at Dunkirk. It was probably Germany's biggest mistake to let these men go for even if they were unarmed they constituted a large force.

So in fact Hitler actually had a lot more chance taking Britain out of the war if he had pressed home the attack. He would have known this at the time as he was Mad but wasnt totally gone by 1940. So saying that the BEF was allowed to escape is just wrong.

VonWeyer
01-09-2007, 07:16 AM
Spot on Firefly. I agree.

redcoat
01-09-2007, 08:25 AM
Hello!

I do not know much about the situation in Dunkirk, but I read somewhere that Hitler let Allied forces to escape on purpose. The german land forces were ordered to halt the attack. And this order was transmited on open unencripted radi ochannel.

The reason is that Hitler hoped to force Britain to make deal with Germany and he did not want to put UK in to position where they would have lost face.
In fact this "miraculous escape" boosted people moral a lot in UK.

Any facts you can share with me and others?


Best regards
Igor Korenev

Its complete nonsense.

First of all, lets get rid of the greatest part of the myth, Hitler didn't order the panzers to halt.
The order was issued by the Army Group Commander in charge of that sector, General Von Rundstedt. Hitler merely confirmed the order when Rundstedt told him the reasoning behind it afterwards
Rundstedt was concerned about the state of the ground around Dunkirk, he didn't consider it suitable for panzers. His panzer forces were also badly in need of rest and repair.
Here's a quote that shows his thinking
"A critical time in the attack came just as my forces reached the channel. It was caused by the British counter-attack at Arras … for a short time it was feared that our armoured divisions could be cut off before the infantry divisions could come up to support them"
The attack at Arras had put enough doubt in Rundstedt's mind to cause him to play safe as his spear-head units headed towards Dunkirk.

It is also forgotten that after only two days of rest and repair they were ordered to continue the attack on the Dunkirk position, but by then the British and French had formed a strong defensive perimeter, and they managed to hold off the attacking German forces.

Also at around this time, the French forces further south were putting up a dogged resistance to the German forces, and this caused the German High Command to concentrate their attention on that, instead of the British and French forces 'trapped' at Dunkirk.

When they finally took Dunkirk, the Germans were totally stunned when they realised just how many Allied troops had escaped.

alephh
01-09-2007, 08:37 AM
Hitler actually had a lot more chance taking Britain out of the war if he had pressed home the attack. He would have known this at the time as he was Mad but wasnt totally gone by 1940.

I think you oversimplify things.

First: There is a huge difference between "taking britain out of the war" and "taking britain out of the war and making a working alliance".

It's just so much more difficult to join forces (later on) after one side has attacked, battled, wounded, killed, taken prisoners-of-war... compared just putting weapons down and suggesting treaty.

Hitler knew he didn't have enough raw materials (or time since war already started) to make a mighty fleet, he desperately needed a (european) naval power as a partner - Italians being whatever you want to call them ;-D


And it's very difficult to foresee how things turn out, for example:

1) Germans beat a lot of french divisions - France surrendered.
2) Germans beat a lot of soviet divisions - Soviet union fought on.

You never know how it's gonna play out.



_

alephh
01-09-2007, 09:35 AM
Hitler didn't order the panzers to halt. The order was issued by the Army Group Commander in charge of that sector, General Von Rundstedt. Hitler merely confirmed the order.

Yes, if you read just orders. But how much Hitler's friendly attitude towards britain affected Rundstedt's decision behind the sceces?

If your boss tells you "I admire britain", do you go on and annihilate them on the given chance, or does it affect your decision?

If one of Hitler's generals makes a decisions which is approved completely by Hitler - then I think it's fair that many historical sources use phrase "Hitler's order", since it was in line with Hitler's intensions.

And I wouldn't say "merely confirmed":

"Hitler did not hesitate to lend his authority to Rundstedt’s decision to rein in the tanks. At twelve-thirty the Führer’s headquarters telephoned the ‘halt order’: the tanks were to stand fast west of the canal line; there could be no talk of his going soft on the British."
- source: Hitler's War

Why did Hitler confirm the order to stop - because he wanted them to stop.


There is also speculation that Hitler wanted to make showcase (by using luftwaffe and SS elite brigade under Sepp Dietrich) out of the encircling the british forces in the area.


Even later (possible 1941) there are many examples about Hitler's attitude towards Britain:

"I long for nothing more fervently than that the British should come forward with peace proposals once we have dealt with Russia. This war with Britain can only result in us smashing each other’s cities to smithereens. ... I really cannot understand why the British won’t listen to the voice of reason. Now that we are expanding to the east, we have no need for their colonies. I find it all so much more practical that everything will be right on our doorstep : the Ukraine and Crimea are so fertile we can plant everything we need there, and the rest (coffee, tea, cocoa, etc.) we can obtain by barter from South America. It is all so simple and obvious. God grant that the British soon come to their senses."
- source: Hitler's War




_

redcoat
01-09-2007, 03:07 PM
I think you oversimplify things.

First: There is a huge difference between "taking britain out of the war" and "taking britain out of the war and making a working alliance".
It's just so much more difficult to join forces (later on) after one side has attacked, battled, wounded, killed, taken prisoners-of-war... compared just putting weapons down and suggesting treaty.
Hitler didn't really want an alliance with Britain. Why did he not offer terms to the British after the battle of France then, instead he merely demanded the British come to him to seek terms. He didn't want an alliance he wanted to dominate them


Hitler knew he didn't have enough raw materials (or time since war already started) to make a mighty fleet, he desperately needed a (european) naval power as a partner - Italians being whatever you want to call them ;-D
Hitlers over-riding ambition was to invade and destroy the Soviet Union, you don't need a fleet to do that

redcoat
01-09-2007, 03:41 PM
Yes, if you read just orders. But how much Hitler's friendly attitude towards britain affected Rundstedt's decision behind the sceces?

If your boss tells you "I admire britain", do you go on and annihilate them on the given chance, or does it affect your decision?
No.
Runstedt gave his reasons for the halt after the war. At no point did he state that it was because he thought that was what Hitler wanted.


If one of Hitler's generals makes a decisions which is approved completely by Hitler - then I think it's fair that many historical sources use phrase "Hitler's order", since it was in line with Hitler's intensions.

And I wouldn't say "merely confirmed":
I would.
Hitler agreed with Rundstedt's decision, it wasn't a case of Runstedt agreeing with Hitler


"Hitler did not hesitate to lend his authority to Rundstedt’s decision to rein in the tanks. At twelve-thirty the Führer’s headquarters telephoned the ‘halt order’: the tanks were to stand fast west of the canal line; there could be no talk of his going soft on the British."
- source: Hitler's War
You are quoting the words of David Irving, a well known neo-nazi.


Why did Hitler confirm the order to stop - because he wanted them to stop.
You don't know that.




There is also speculation that Hitler wanted to make showcase (by using luftwaffe and SS elite brigade under Sepp Dietrich) out of the encircling the british forces in the area.
There is also speculation by a small number of people that the world is flat :roll:



then later (possible 1941) there are many examples about Hitler's attitude towards Britain:

"I long for nothing more fervently than that the British should come forward with peace proposals once we have dealt with Russia. This war with Britain can only result in us smashing each other’s cities to smithereens. ... I really cannot understand why the British won’t listen to the voice of reason. Now that we are expanding to the east, we have no need for their colonies. I find it all so much more practical that everything will be right on our doorstep : the Ukraine and Crimea are so fertile we can plant everything we need there, and the rest (coffee, tea, cocoa, etc.) we can obtain by barter from South America. It is all so simple and obvious. God grant that the British soon come to their senses."
- source: Hitler's War
_
Again you are quoting Irving, a totally discredited historian, but even in this there is no direct evidence that Hitler stopped his forces to allow the British to escape.
If he wanted them to escape why did he re-commence the attack two days later, and why did he use the majority of his air force in attacking it when it could have been transferred to fight the French forces still resisting ?????

Egorka
01-09-2007, 04:05 PM
Hitler didn't really want an alliance with Britain. Why did he not offer terms to the British after the battle of France then, instead he merely demanded the British come to him to seek terms. He didn't want an alliance he wanted to dominate them
Of course Hitler wanted to dominate Britain. There is nothing wrong in it, unless you are brit. ;-) Following your logic Chirchill made an allians with Stalin because he was supporting his political views. Alliances are very often made out pragmatic interests and broke easily.

Try to think out of the narrow main stream, please. Hitler would rather have peace with UK than war. It is abvious.

Sorry, have you read this one: http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/hi...at-dunkirk-why
And I hope you are not going to call Liddell Hart a neo-nazi.


Best regards
Igor Korenev

Digger
01-10-2007, 12:12 AM
Just thought I'd clear something up. After peace demands were issued to England early in October 1939, hope grew of a peaceful settlement to the conflict. This mood was especially relevent in Berlin.

The Fuhrer, however was preparing for the worst. On October 6 he issued Directive No. 6 for the Conduct of War, which outlined an invasion through Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland.

The next morning at eleven, seven of his military commanders reported to the Reich Chancellory. Before presenting the new directive Hitler read out a memorandum of his own composition which indicated that he was a student of military and political history. Germany and the West, he said, had been enemies since the splitting of the First German Reich in 1648 and this struggle "would have to be fought out one way or the other." But he had no objection "to ending the war immediately, so long as the gains in Poland were accepted. His listeners were not asked for comment nor did they volunteer any. They were called upon only to endorse the German war aim:the destruction of the power and the ability of the Western powers ever again to be able to oppose the state consolidation and further development of the German people in Europe."

This statement clearly spells out Hitler's intentions to destroy the western powers, France and England if they opposed Germany.

Hitler acknowledged the objections to haste in launching the attack which was set at November 12 1939. But time was on the enemy's side. Because of the russian treaty and the great victory in Poland, Germany was at last in a position-for thefirst time in many years-to make war on a single front. With the East secured, the Wehrmacht could throw all it's forces against England and France. However it was a situation that could terminate abruptly. "By no treaty or pact can a lasting nuetrality of Soviet Russia be insured with certainty." The greatest safeguard against any Soviet attack lay, "in a prompt demonstration of German strength."

Once again Hitler signals his intention to destroy England and France, but also acknowledging the danger from the Soviet Union.

Hope this clears a few things up.

Source Adolf Hitler by John Toland.

Regards Digger.

Digger
01-10-2007, 12:18 AM
The reason why Britain appeared to be taking Germany's side against the Soviet Union, was not some fiendish plot. In fact both Britain and France seriously considered declaring war on the Soviet Union over the invasion of Finland by the Soviet Union.

Both Hitler and Mussolini who were in conference at the time had no idea of British or French intentions.

Regards Digger.

Egorka
01-10-2007, 02:15 AM
Digger,

Sorry, I did not quite get what is your conclusion for your last two posts.

What I see in your post is the following.

Hitler was awear that he would have to fight against Britain and France ("would have to be fought out one way or the other."). And i do not deny it. I just said that. It is clear that Germany would have to use force to get out of it's position after Versaille. Neither France nor UK needed strong Germany to deal with. Hence talks about strugle.

But Hitler was not seriously interested in crushing Britain to the point of colapse of the Empier. He thought that Germany would not benefit out of it, only USA. And that is what would have happened if British island was captured by Germans.

Therefore, Hitler did not seriously planned an invasion. All the bombing is to force UK on it's knees and accept German dominance in Europe. And hopefully join an alliance.

Hitler had truly aligator intensions only towards the East, where the war's purpose was mostly annihilation and only after control. In the west he wanted to dominate, but it was a domination over equal people and countries. He did not have any physiological hatred towards other west Europeans, like he had towards people on the East.

And you second quote from the book support my point of view ("to ending the war immediately, so long as the gains in Poland were accepted."). If britain accept complete loss of influence in Europe, Hitler whould likely let them be a lone. For a while. :-) And France whould have to accept bit theretorial losses and influance losses. Essentially that was France had done.

So the way i see it, the actuall quotes you mention actually disprove your point.


Best regards
Igor Korenev

Digger
01-10-2007, 02:35 AM
I think if we talk of Sealion, this should go to another thread. All I will say at this point, Sealion was a reality, but Germany had so poorly planned such an invasion Hitler displayed little compunction in postponing it until after the defeat of the Soviet Union.

Hitler was very good at taking an each way bet, on one hand he says the defeat of England would only benefit Jew-America, but on the other hand he stated on more than one occasion before the invasion in the West, his intention was to destroy her.

Make no mistake, this was his intention and he knew there was little chance of Britain accepting peace terms let alone an Alliance.

Regards Digger

redcoat
01-10-2007, 05:48 AM
Hitler would rather have peace with UK than war. It is abvious.Indeed he did, and destroying the British army at Dunkirk would have made it easier to get that wish, it would have strengthened the hand of the peace faction within the British cabinet




Sorry, have you read this one: http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/hi...at-dunkirk-why
sorry keep getting fault, 404 file not found.



And I hope you are not going to call Liddell Hart a neo-nazi.
Best regards
Igor Korenev
Its interesting you said that Igor, because Churchill had wanted him arrested for his links with various British fascist groups pre-war, but he eventually settled for MI5 keeping an eye on his movements and contacts :mrgreen:

Egorka
01-10-2007, 08:41 AM
Sorry. Here is the link:
http://www.virtuemag.org/articles/hitlers-grand-error-at-dunkirk-why


it would have strengthened the hand of the peace faction within the British cabinet
It might or it might not. This is debateable.

Egorka
01-10-2007, 03:33 PM
to Redcoat:

Regarding Liddell Hart's neo-nazism:
I hope you understand that you unvillingly accused Queen Elizabeth II of being neo-nazi too,
because she granted Sir Liddell Hart knighthood in 1966. Right? ;-) I am just following your logic, mate.

Best regards
Igor

redcoat
01-10-2007, 05:26 PM
to Redcoat:

Regarding Liddell Hart's neo-nazism:
I hope you understand that you unvillingly accused Queen Elizabeth II of being neo-nazi too,
because she granted Sir Liddell Hart knighthood in 1966. Right? ;-) I am just following your logic, mate.

Best regards
IgorI'm just giving you the facts ;)

Personally I couldn't care less about queenie. She's not my type :twisted:

Egorka
01-11-2007, 01:57 AM
Redcoat, The Queen regardless of what you or me might think has substantial influance. And knighthood is a extinction sign (I hope I can say so in English). So it is not just the Queen business. And I do not think that there were any other nazi granted knighthood, were there?

So my point, is that Sir Liddell Hart's personality and work was officially acknoledged by the British state. And that means something.

Regards
Igor

town3173
01-11-2007, 09:11 AM
I’m probably simplifying things but it easy to forget just what a superb operation Dunkirk was and how nobody in the German High Command would have believed it possible that so many soldiers could be evacuated as was eventually the case.

Germany did get a scare at Arras which seems to have made them think twice & among other things it appears they did need time to catch their breath once they reached the coast. I genuinely can’t believe Hitler would have allowed the BEF to escape had he thought for one second it would be evacuated as successfully as it was.

So while a lot of what has been said may well be true I am of the opinion that the German armour stopped because it was prudent to do so and because it never crossed anybody’s mind 300,000 + soldiers could or would get back to the UK.

Digger
01-11-2007, 09:30 AM
Thankyou and welcom to town3173. You are correct. hitler nor his generals or Goring thought the British would attempt a seaborne evacuation. Also remember it was Goring who convinced the Fuhrer the Luftwaffe could destroy the trapped British forces. Hitler agreed, though Milch advised the bombing would hardly be effective due to the bombs burying deep in the sand before exploding and also the Luftwaffe was not strong enough for the task.

I repeat Hitler ordered and agreed to the destruction of the BEF and indeed if Germany had succeeded there would have been little left to prevent an invasion of England.

Regards Digger.

VonWeyer
01-11-2007, 09:39 AM
Their is one thing to be said about Dunkirk: MIRACLE.

town3173
01-11-2007, 09:44 AM
Thanks for the welcome Digger.

Regards

Rob

VonWeyer
01-11-2007, 09:54 AM
Welcome Rob and enjoy the forum.
It's a great community we have here.

town3173
01-11-2007, 11:19 AM
Welcome Rob and enjoy the forum.
It's a great community we have here.

Thank you for the welcome. I found the site by accident while looking for some info on M42 jump suits & the 101st Airbourne. Its great to find people from all over the world with similar interests.

Thanks again.

Rob

redcoat
01-11-2007, 12:21 PM
Redcoat, The Queen regardless of what you or me might think has substantial influance. And knighthood is a extinction sign (I hope I can say so in English). So it is not just the Queen business. And I do not think that there were any other nazi granted knighthood, were there?
Regards
Igor
I never said Liddel Hart was a nazi, I merely pointed out he had links with a number of British fascist parties, and while his political viewpoints might be similar to some of the Nazis, there is no evidence that he ever betrayed his nation.

alephh
01-11-2007, 12:36 PM
You are quoting the words of David Irving, a well known neo-nazi.

Yes, he's neo, and yes he has sometimes made intentional errors in his books. But in this case his research is backed by many other historians.

Without wanting to promote David Irving, one must remember that he is the only historian to whom some ex-nazis have agreed to speak.

You just have to remember that every historian has his/her own background, values and views, which affect their work. They all make (subconscious) mistakes, bend things, leave out stuff that doesn't fit their conclusions...

I don't mind if somebody claims "the moon is made of cheese" if he's doing valuable research rest of the time ;-D ...but having said that, I also acknowledge the need to "correct" straight-out lies and misinformation.


_

Egorka
01-12-2007, 05:21 AM
Alephh, I agree completely.
Stamping someone as Neo-nazi, does not automaticaly turn all his sayings to be wrong. What if he says: Love your mom?
In fact, read wikipedia articles on fascism, nazism and neo-nazism and see how blure and ambigious these notions are. IMHO one should be carefull trowing this left and right.

Best regards
Igor

redcoat
01-12-2007, 05:47 PM
Yes, he's neo, and yes he has sometimes made intentional errors in his books. _
Sorry, the correct word isn't errors, its lies

Irving has been totally discredited as a historian, and while its true most historians carry a certain amount of bias with them, it has been proved in a British court that Irving deliberately lied in order to promote his neo-nazi agenda.

Egorka
01-13-2007, 04:24 PM
Redcaot,

I do not know much about Irving (and have not read any of his books).
Please, tell me. You said that he is a neo-nazi. A neo-nazi is a new-nazi. So it is someone who shares nazi views. Someone "a socialist featuring racism and expansionism and obedience to a strong leader".

Do you mean that Mr.Irving a british socialist, who proclaims superiority of white race, and wants to expand British Empire, and agitates obedience to a strong leader?

Or how is it? Again, I am not defending Irving, simply because I know nothing about him.

Best regards
Igor Korenev

redcoat
01-13-2007, 07:25 PM
Redcaot,

Or how is it? Again, I am not defending Irving, simply because I know nothing about him.

Best regards
Igor Korenev
Here's some background info on him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Irving

Excerpts from the judges summing up at the libel case in 2000 that Irving brought against a historian who had called him a holocaust denier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/irving/article/0,,181049,00.html

Here's the view of Professor Richard J. Evans, Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University on Irvings worth as a historian,

“ Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian".

Egorka
01-14-2007, 04:54 PM
Redcoat,

This is nice, but I want to hear comment about his neo-naziness.

Does he satisfy definition by being british socialist, who proclaims superiority of white race, and wants to expand British Empire, and agitates obedience to a strong leader?

alephh
01-15-2007, 01:40 AM
Irving has been totally discredited as a historian... it has been proved in a British court that Irving deliberately lied in order to promote his neo-nazi agenda.

That's true, he has lied and distorted.

But to say totally discredited...

In an April 20, 1996 review in The Daily Telegraph of Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, Prominent British historian Sir John Keegan wrote that Irving "knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War", and claimed that Hitler's War was "indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round." In an article in The Daily Telegraph of 12 April 2000, Keegan spoke of his experience of the trial, writing that Irving had an "all-consuming knowledge of a vast body of material" and exhibited "many of the qualities of the most creative historians," that his skill as an archivist could not be contested, and that he was "certainly never dull."
- source: wikipedia

That doesn't sound like Irving is totally useless, making up stuff.

He's still the only (or almost the only) source in this world for certain WWII history research subjects - like for example about what happened to Hitler's private letters to Eva Braun - how many historians offer information about this, and how many do that online.

And I would like to know, if any historian or history book can stand a trial and attack by lawyers (there's always sources left out, bias, etc (especially when a team spent years researching a book it's bound to found out errors)). For example, Ian Kershaw has chosen not to use many books in his research, and heaven's sake, the man used to be medievalist, but then jumped to german history. Point being: no-one can research everything, so everyone can be proven to be selective, and thus distorting things.

And if Irving is totally descredited by doing what he did, then isn't Bush totally discredited doing exactly the same? Point being: world isn't fair.


And what did Deborah Lipstadt (who sued Irving) said about arresting Irving:

The author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
+
When you ask Professor Deborah Lipstadt for her thoughts on David Irving's forthcoming trial, the very last thing you expect her to say is:
"Let the guy go home. He has spent enough time in prison."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm


Of course, the source is bbc, and since bbc has, in recent years, turn more and more anti-american, and Deborah Lipstadt is american - one can claim that bbc is not relieable source and they are distorting information by being selective (how else can you explain that Bush says Iraq war is going ok, and bbc saying there's pretty much civil war -- somebody must be lying).

So you may want to use another source like:
http://www.jewishpress.com/page.do/18100/I'm_Not_Celebrating_The_Irving_Verdict.html


And then there are Jews like Lenni Brenner, who has written many books about the warm bond between Jews and Nazis: For openers, Brenner showed how the Zionists had a long history of shameless cooperation with the Nazis, especially after the dictator Adolph Hitler had came to power in 1933. The Zionists were also in bed, to some extent, with the other members of what later became known as WWII's "Axis of Evil," that included Benito Mussolini's Italy, and Tojo Hideki's Japan.
http://www.amazon.com/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569802351

...But when Irving writes about the same thing, it's "lie". Funny old world. ;-D


I'm just hoping Irving focuses on researching history, and not making nutcase statements about Jewish conspiracy.


_

redcoat
01-15-2007, 06:48 AM
That's true, he has lied and distorted.

But to say totally discredited...

In an April 20, 1996 review in The Daily Telegraph of Goebbels: Mastermind of the Third Reich, Prominent British historian Sir John Keegan wrote that Irving "knows more than anyone alive about the German side of the Second World War", and claimed that Hitler's War was "indispensable to anyone seeking to understand the war in the round." In an article in The Daily Telegraph of 12 April 2000, Keegan spoke of his experience of the trial, writing that Irving had an "all-consuming knowledge of a vast body of material" and exhibited "many of the qualities of the most creative historians," that his skill as an archivist could not be contested, and that he was "certainly never dull."
- source: wikipedia

That doesn't sound like Irving is totally useless, making up stuff.
The problem was, Keegan hadn't researched the information that Irving was 'unearthing', because what Irving was studying was a very specialised area, and Keegan at that time was unaware that Irving was being selective and dishonest in his work


He's still the only (or almost the only) source in this world for certain WWII history research subjects - like for example about what happened to Hitler's private letters to Eva Braun - how many historians offer information about this, and how many do that online.
That's the problem, we cannot trust his research, therefore that makes it worthless


And I would like to know, if any historian or history book can stand a trial and attack by lawyers (there's always sources left out, bias, etc (especially when a team spent years researching a book it's bound to found out errors)). For example, Ian Kershaw has chosen not to use many books in his research, and heaven's sake, the man used to be medievalist, but then jumped to german history. Point being: no-one can research everything, so everyone can be proven to be selective, and thus distorting things.
He wrote things that he knew to be false. That's not distorting things, that's lying


And if Irving is totally discredited by doing what he did, then isn't Bush totally discredited doing exactly the same? Point being: world isn't fair.
Bush is a politician, people don't expect the same level of honesty from a politician as a historian, but even saying that, Bush has been discredited in the eyes of many people.



And what did Deborah Lipstadt (who sued Irving) said about arresting Irving:

The author and academic Deborah Lipstadt, who Irving unsuccessfully sued for libel in the UK in 2000 over claims that he was a Holocaust denier, said she was dismayed.

"I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship..."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
+
When you ask Professor Deborah Lipstadt for her thoughts on David Irving's forthcoming trial, the very last thing you expect her to say is:
"Let the guy go home. He has spent enough time in prison."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4578534.stm
It was actually Irving who was suing Libstedt for calling him a holocaust denier, it seems that Irving doesn't believe in the right to free speech.
So really he shouldn't have been too upset when he got thrown in jail for being a holocaust denier.

However, Libstedt is a believer in the right to free speech, so she thought it wrong (as did a number of other Jewish spokespeople) that Irving was jailed for dening the holocaust.

redcoat
01-15-2007, 07:15 AM
And then there are Jews like Lenni Brenner, who has written many books about the warm bond between Jews and Nazis: [i]For openers, Brenner showed how the Zionists had a long history of shameless cooperation with the Nazis, especially after the dictator Adolph Hitler had came to power in 1933. The Zionists were also in bed, to some extent, with the other members of what later became known as WWII's "Axis of Evil," that included Benito Mussolini's Italy, and Tojo Hideki's Japan.
Lenni Brenner was born into a Jewish family, but at an early age he renounced his faith and became a left wing Marxist . His works are highly anti-Zionist, but even he accepts that the holocaust happened, and that the figure of around 6 million Jews murdered is about the correct figure

[But when Irving writes about the same thing, it's "lie". Funny old world. ;-D
Only because its been proven that he does lie.


The only 'funny old world' part of this story is that there are people still prepared to defend him :roll:

Egorka
01-15-2007, 07:36 AM
I think this thread is getting a bit away from the main subject.

Therefore here is my point shortly:
There were many arguments for distruction of the retreating forces and many arguments against it.
One of the big arguments against destruction, IMHO, was Hitlers hope for a deal with UK.

.

redcoat
01-15-2007, 03:02 PM
I think this thread is getting a bit away from the main subject.

Therefore here is my point shortly:
There were many arguments for distruction of the retreating forces and many arguments against it.
One of the big arguments against destruction, IMHO, was Hitlers hope for a deal with UK.

.
I really don't buy this argument, it would make far more sense to destroy the British army. This would both reduce the ability of the British to continue the war, and give the Germans hundreds of thousands of hostages (POW's) to blackmail the British with.

Egorka
01-15-2007, 03:22 PM
Redcoat.

The armies were destroyed. Practicaly all of the equipment was left behind. Only lifes were spared.
I recon that those armies military abilities were close to null after Dunkirk. Plus Germeny did not have to take care of prisoners.

But more important, IMHO, is the question:
Have the Germans ever used west allied POW as hostages in WW2?
I mean on reasonably large scale. Individuals do not count in this case.

.

2nd of foot
01-15-2007, 06:01 PM
The point you are forgetting or are not aware of is that Britain had a regular army. The BEF was made up of regular and territorial (part time) soldiers. The equipment could be replaced without a lot of bother, experienced soldiers and NCO could not. The remains of the BEF provided the backbone and the training for the conscripted army to come. Many soldiers and Cpls formed the new officers so that the conscripted officers had someone to look to and guide them.
The loss of the BEF would mean that the British could not re-enforce NAfrica without draining soldiers from other places.
The Germans at that time could not continue the attack as they had out striped their supplies and had been given a warning that the body may be wounded but could still fight back. The RAF could also support from home bases unlike the Germans. You should also consider that the French put up a very strong defence of the area so that the BEF could be evacuated.
The Germans did not let the BEF off, but they latter came up with some good reasons why they did not press home the attack. Look at the French war diaries and see who was fighting and when.

alephh
01-15-2007, 11:40 PM
That's the problem, we cannot trust his research, therefore that makes it worthless

But if his research gives new names and places, they can be verified - so he's helping many historians. That's what I have been saying from the beginning: you cannot blindly follow anyone.

And it's a bit funny that historians use his work - and if he's only 'author', then shouldn't historians using his research also be called only authors, not historians?

Ian Kershaw pretty much builds on Irving. If Irving is fictional writer, then why is Kershaw's work praised as rock-solid history?

If many Hitler/Third Reich historians rely on Irving, shouldn't them all be called totally disrecided liars, according your statement? This of course means, that there only are fantasy books about third reich ,-D


Bush is a politician, people don't expect the same level of honesty from a politician as a historian, but even saying that, Bush has been discredited in the eyes of many people.

Decisions Irving makes affects directly to one people, decisions Bush makes affects directly to millions - shouldn't there be million times more legal battles to prove every word of Bush?



_

redcoat
01-16-2007, 05:45 AM
Redcoat.

The armies were destroyed. Practicaly all of the equipment was left behind. Only lifes were spared.
Weapons can be replaced in days, weeks, and months, it takes far longer to build the skills needed for an effective army.


I recon that those armies military abilities were close to null after Dunkirk.
For a couple of weeks maybe, but after that they were the building blocks for the army that returned to France in 1944



But more important, IMHO, is the question:
Have the Germans ever used west allied POW as hostages in WW2?
I mean on reasonably large scale. Individuals do not count in this case.

.
The answer is Yes
After the fall of France, the Germans held on to nearly a million French POW's, which they used to blackmail Petain's Vichy government with.

redcoat
01-16-2007, 06:02 AM
But if his research gives new names and places, they can be verified - so he's helping many historians. That's what I have been saying from the beginning: you cannot blindly follow anyone.
Historians can use the sources that Irving has found in his research, if they've checked them first, but what you can't do is use Irvings books as sources. They have too many lies in them to be of any use


If many Hitler/Third Reich historians rely on Irving, shouldn't them all be called totally disrecided liars, according your statement? This of course means, that there only are fantasy books about third reich ,-D
No self respecting historian relies on Irving anymore. He's been found out as a lying scumbag.




Decisions Irving makes affects directly to one people, decisions Bush makes affects directly to millions - shouldn't there be million times more legal battles to prove every word of Bush?
.
The court case in which it was proved Irving was a lier was one he had started himself

Egorka
01-16-2007, 06:20 AM
redcoat
Regarding the usage of allied forces as hostages... I think you exagurate it. I am not 100% sure, but Germany ws rather respectull (if this is possible to say in this context) to the western allied POWs.

I do not buy that Germans would start killing or starving them if they were captured.

And ones again. It is one of the profound point in the theory of negotiation, that you should present your arguments in such a way that the oponent would feel like his dignity is preserved. This goes anywhere. From salary negotiation at work to big politic.

2nd of foot
01-16-2007, 07:19 AM
When quoting historians and Irving you should take not of the date. At the start he was lorded, as it would appear that he had uncovered new relevant information. But it later turned out that he had made it up, exaggerated the information and quoted sources that did not exist. After this point no proper historian will reference him.


Irving, surmised Professor Evans, had deliberately distorted and wilfully mistranslated documents, consciously used discredited testimony and falsified historical statistics.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4449948.stm

Any one quoting Irving as factual is going to lose an argument.

Egorka
01-16-2007, 08:50 AM
Could you, guys, please stop discussing Mr. Irving in this thread? MAke your own therad! ;)

redcoat
01-16-2007, 04:13 PM
redcoat
Regarding the usage of allied forces as hostages... I think you exagurate it. I am not 100% sure, but Germany ws rather respectull (if this is possible to say in this context) to the western allied POWs.

I do not buy that Germans would start killing or starving them if they were captured.
I never said they would kill or mistreat the hostages, just the fact they were captives would increase the political pressure on the British government to seek a peaceful end to the war.


And ones again. It is one of the profound point in the theory of negotiation, that you should present your arguments in such a way that the oponent would feel like his dignity is preserved. This goes anywhere. From salary negotiation at work to big politic.
Another important part of negotiation is the use of bargaining to reach agreement, many thousands of POW's would be an ideal barganing position for the Germans.
The capture of all these troops would also effect how the British would see the situation, it would emphasise the magnitude of the defeat, and make more of them willing to seek a peace deal with Hitler.

Egorka
01-17-2007, 12:20 AM
Redcoat, but then it would look like that Britain caved in big time.

Anyway, do you mean that this kind of thinking we discuss he could not possibly affected the course of action at Dunkirk. Do I understand you right?

.

alephh
01-17-2007, 01:39 AM
The armies were destroyed. Practicaly all of the equipment was left behind. Only lifes were spared.
Weapons can be replaced in days, weeks, and months, it takes far longer to build the skills needed for an effective army.

At some decree, this is comparable to the Stalingrad situation: had the men immediately broke out of the siege, they may have been saved, but without their (heavy) equipment.

While it's not too fast to produce large amounts of military equipment (it takes months even if military production is already running), it generally still takes longer to train skillful army.

But if you only have men, or, if you only have equipment -- you're in trouble :-D

In the rushed evacuation from Europe, the British Expeditionary Force left much of its heavy equipment behind on or around the beaches of Dunkirk. Included among this were 40,000 assorted vehicles (including tanks), 400 anti-tank guns and most of its artillery pieces. Lighter equipment was also lost and many troops returned even without their rifles. One soldier wrote in his diary, "we arrived armed only with shoulders, we didn't even have cigarettes."
-Wikipedia

There wasn't too much equipmen in Britain at the time. One example is that it was not until 1943 when Home Army had proper equipment (a bit late to face a nazi invasion).


Any one quoting Irving as factual is going to lose an argument.

So, following that logic, if I quote from Irving that Luftwaffe bombed Britain, that's not true and it never happened? ;-D

Good source on some matters where Irving is unreliable is at:
http://www.holocaust-history.org/irving-wrong/
(for some reason site is not working at the moment, but I insert the link anyways).


_

redcoat
01-17-2007, 05:43 AM
Redcoat, but then it would look like that Britain caved in big time.
But it would look even worse if the British had agreed to a treaty when they had rescued the vast majority of their army, that really would look like they had sold out their Allies


If Hitler had wanted the British soldiers to escape why didn't he tell his High Command, so they could cancel the attack on the beach-head which had re-started after only two days stoppage ???



Anyway, do you mean that this kind of thinking we discuss he could not possibly affected the course of action at Dunkirk. Do I understand you right?

.
He affected it by agreeing with von Rundstedt. The only way he could have affected it otherwise, would have been to over-rule his commander and order the attack to continue, but he saw no need too, because to the German High Command the British were trapped and going nowhere.

To a land people like the Germans, the coast seemed a barrier trapping the British and French against it. To a sea nation like Britain, it was a ten-lane motorway ;)
:cool:

redcoat
01-17-2007, 06:10 AM
[quote]
So, following that logic, if I quote from Irving that Luftwaffe bombed Britain, that's not true and it never happened? ;-D

Following your logic, being a racist neo-nazi, who's happy to lie in order to further his agenda, doesn't make you a bad historian :roll:

Egorka
01-17-2007, 06:11 AM
Redcoat and others:

I think we keep trowing the same arguments to each other all the time... I am not sure if we can get more usefull info out of this dicussion.

As for me, I agree that many of your points make sence and I learned a bit from you. Thanks!
I do not think that you really proved youe point, but neither have I.

In my opinion, the potentially interesting would to find out
1. How much the german tank forces were "tired" before the stop signal.
2. What portion of the Luftwaffe was involved in the attack.

Rember, life is a complex thing. ;)

.

Digger
01-18-2007, 03:43 AM
Egorka. Some of your answers to this topic will be found under the thread, Most Successful British Tank. Go to the posting in regards to the Battle of Arras and follow the links.

Regards Digger.

alephh
01-18-2007, 06:57 AM
Following your logic, being a racist neo-nazi, who's happy to lie in order to further his agenda, doesn't make you a bad historian :roll:

No, it doesn't. If you keep on finding new documents, getting to interview people who have witnessed history and refuse to talk to most historians, keeping your archives open to other researchers, etc.

Several historians claim that U.S. troops didn't have order to fire at children during Korean war dispite there are documents to prove it (like mentioned at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/coldwar/korea_usa_05.shtml). Why didn't some historians include those documents? Because they have agenda. Does that make them bad historians? Im my opinion: no. American historians generally have strong agenda not to trash America, russian historians generally have strong agenda not to trash Russia, and so on.

There are just amazing number of similar cases in history. They are not bad historians, they just have agenda. It's human nature. They are not totally discredited - "rarely" they lie on every single phrase. They do need more checking - something spotless politically correct 'never-leave-my-office' historians could sometimes use too.

Every historian has his/her agenda which makes them prone to bend, twist, select, distort, lie. Some are more prone to that than others. Some of these agendas are more objectionable than others - Irving's agenda being the worst kind.

Many, if not most, historians who have written a book about Hitler have never talked to people who actually spent time with Hitler. I think that's unbeliable prejudicious and intolerant, but doesn't make them bad historians. I don't know how much time you have spent researching history, but for example, many manuscripts (like diaries, biographies) are very very much different than books made out of them (especially 1950s, 1960s, 1970s) because of 'censor-like' editing etc - so in theory, any historian writing something based on books is very likely writing fiction at some point - but it doesn't make them bad historians to have agenda like "I do not waste my time to talking to people who actually witnessed history personally."

Some people have very noble agendas, some have very crappy. There's freedom to believe in whatever one likes - may that be communism, national socialism, democracy, plutocracy, two party system, one party system...

And the same ("happy to lie in order to further his agenda") can be said about pretty much every politician and president in every country in the history of the world - but that doesn't make them bad politicians.


Everybody lies, everybody has right to opinion (no matter how stupid) - Irving lies more than average, Irving has views which are widely despised - but even the judge who ruled against him admitted Irving is excellent at researching historical archives - something I find quite useful to 'historian'.



_

Gen. Sandworm
01-18-2007, 07:48 AM
Could you, guys, please stop discussing Mr. Irving in this thread? MAke your own therad! ;)

Agreed this has nothing to do with Dunkirk. Open another.

Egorka
01-18-2007, 08:58 AM
Alephh,

Please make a separate thread. I promis to participate. Thanks! ;)

Nickdfresh
01-20-2007, 06:58 PM
alephh

Several historians claim that U.S. troops didn't have order to fire at children during Korean war dispite there are documents to prove it (like mentioned at http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwa..._usa_05.shtml). Why didn't some historians include those documents? Because they have agenda.

Your link is dead, and I think this statement is a complete misnomer.

No historian in his/her right mind denies that US troops shot at Korean civilians during the first days of the conflict. They may debate the context and rationales for such brutal acts, but comparing the arguments of context over Irving's (what amounts too) a giant ***-covering of the German National Socialist Party because of his infatuation for Hitler, is complete bonk. There was even a snippet in a 1950s film starring actor Robert Mitchum as a US Army Col. reluctantly calling in artillery on Korean refugees in order to interdict NKA infiltrators...

And this analogy is far, far too forgiving to that weasel Irving...

I'll start an Irving thread sometime (when I want to really aggravate myself by reading a lot of semantic bullshit).

Digger
01-20-2007, 07:16 PM
Guys, please get back to Dunkirk thread.

I will open something in General WWII History

Regards Digger

Nickdfresh
01-21-2007, 07:59 AM
I have to say that some of the conspiratorial views expressed in this thread are a bit silly. Hitler liked the British so much he let their Army escape? Very doubtful. Firstly, with no research done on this subject, I've always thought the lack of German infantry support to the panzers coupled with Goering's assertions that air power alone could cut-off, and pound, the British and French into submission. But the RAF fought more effectively in an air cover role than expected. To say Hitler sort of "threw" the battle is like saying Hitler wanted the Allies to be successful at D-Day because he was sleeping and delayed the release of the panzer divisions. Or that he wanted to lose in the Soviet Union, because he invaded in summer, and not spring, and failed to provide adequate winter clothing and supplies for his divisions...

Though sometimes it is overstated, Hitler is a very fallible commander. The "Austrian Corporal" made numerous errors, and this was clearly one of his biggest. Not to mention that Goering was addicted to drugs by this point...

Egorka
01-21-2007, 02:21 PM
I have to say that some of the conspiratorial views expressed in this thread are a bit silly.
I know that you use word "conspirational" in a demining way here. I think you should get used to the fact, that most of the people on this Globe do not see the world through american glasses. It does not make them conspiracists, my friend.


Hitler liked the British so much he let their Army escape?Man! Are you serious? You are a grown up and you keep saying this rubbish. I am sorry to sound thst hash. Hitler did not like British! OK? It is not about him feeling fluffy and all warm at heart. It is about him being down to earth pragmatic. So out of the practical points he might have slowed the pressure on the allies.

I personally never claimed that that was the only reason. It was one of many practical conciderations.

By the way, saying that it is not possible would be just as rubish as saying that that was the only reason for the stop signal.

Peace and love! ;)

Nickdfresh
01-21-2007, 08:57 PM
I know that you use word "conspirational" in a demining way here. I think you should get used to the fact, that most of the people on this Globe do not see the world through american glasses. It does not make them conspiracists, my friend.

Man! Are you serious? You are a grown up and you keep saying this rubbish. I am sorry to sound thst hash. Hitler did not like British! OK? It is not about him feeling fluffy and all warm at heart. It is about him being down to earth pragmatic. So out of the practical points he might have slowed the pressure on the allies.

I personally never claimed that that was the only reason. It was one of many practical conciderations.

By the way, saying that it is not possible would be just as rubish as saying that that was the only reason for the stop signal.

Peace and love! ;)


I use the word "conspiratorial," because some believe there is an underlying "order" or "rationale" for every historical event, as if all outcomes or possibilities can be neatly predicted like a mathematical equation. One that fits well into their political paradigm. They cannot. In fact, history seems to me to be a form of chaos rumbling forward. Very few outcomes of causal events are so thoroughly, or neatly, predicted. This is not an "American" way of looking at things, as indeed many Americans are guilty of such views, for I've debated many of them for their conspiratorial view of the world...

Cheers man...

Egorka
01-22-2007, 01:53 AM
Nickdfresh:


I use the word "conspiratorial," because some believe there is an underlying "order" or "rationale" for every historical event, as if all outcomes or possibilities can be neatly predicted like a mathematical equation.
Man, you completely misunderstood me. Sorry for not being clear enough. This is exactly my point, that life is not explicable by just one fact or reason. That is normaly a propaganda way to simplify situation and present the events in black-white color.

That is why I started this thread, because I think that Hitler wished peace with England (on his own terms of course) and therefore his rathional thinking was affected by this irrational idea.

It is like when objective circumstances may push you into taking a certain decission, but as a contious human being you do something else. Something irrational from the common sence point of view. Out of moral reasons one may chose to do something that harmful to him self - sacrifise, for example.

For God's sake, have you ever been in love? Then you know. ;)

There were given a few practical reasons that were promting for the stop of the attack. Many of them make a lot of sence and also light the situation better. But we should remember that the irrational idea of Hitler and others may very likely to be the final strow that convinced him.

Nickdfresh
01-22-2007, 08:24 PM
Nickdfresh:


Man, you completely misunderstood me.....

You have got that backwards pal.

What you are saying is that Hitler could have just crushed the BEF, and French forces, at Dunkirk on a whim, but deliberately chose not too so he could send his future children to British universities.

This despite the historical record being that the Wehrmacht was overextended, the Allies were just beginning to learn how to fight, and defend themselves against, combined arms warfare --and Hitler had made a gross miscalculation in regards to the Luftwaffe's ability to interdict any rescue effort, and to essentially pound the Brits into submission without a full on assault with infantry the German Army did not have in that sector.

I surmise the much more likely scenario is that Hitler believes the German air force will sink the meager evacuation fleet, and demoralized British Tommies will run low on ammo and food, and begin surrendering in droves.

But go on thinking there was some Aryan bias and Hitler wanted the British forces to be tucked in snugly to their beds, so he could make the Brits part of the Axis if you like.

Don't let evidence or reality stop you...

I love you.

Egorka
01-23-2007, 02:04 AM
Nickdfresh, I just want to answer you by quoting this:


I love you! I like sex. Is nice.

Borat Sagdiev, a jurnalist from glorious Kazahstan

Digger
01-23-2007, 04:47 AM
Egorka that's the best comeback I've seen on many a thread:D :D ;)

Regards Digger

Egorka
01-23-2007, 06:00 AM
Thanks, pal.

Nickdfresh
01-23-2007, 09:33 PM
Oh the irony...

Egorka
01-24-2007, 03:12 AM
Nickdfresh:

You know, our discussion reminds me a sceene form the movie "A Few Good Men" 1992 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104257/). It is a famous one where Jack Nicholson's charecter exclames: "You wan the truth? You CAN NOT handle the truth!". But I am reffering to an other sceene. There is one, where the lowyer (Tom Cruise) questions the millitary doctor from the Base. They roughly have this dialog:


Lawyer: "Is it possible that a serious health condition could cause death?"
Doctor: "Possibly. There would still be symptoms though."
Lawyer: "What kind of symptoms? Chest pains?"
Doctor: "Yes"
Lawyer: "Shortness of breath?"
Doctor: "Yes"
Lawyer: "Fatigue?"
Doctor: "Of course"
Lawyer: "Doctor, is this your signature?"
Doctor: "Yes it is."
Lawyer: "This in an order for Private Santiago to be put on restricted duty. Would you read your hand written remarks at the bottom of the page, please, sir."
Doctor: "Initial testing negative. Patient complains of chest pains, shortness of breath, and fatigue. Restricted from running distances over five miles for one week."
Lawyer: "Commander, isn't it possible that Santiago had a serious health condition, and it was that condition, and not some mysterious poison, that caused the accelerated chemical reaction?"
Doctor: "No. I personally give the men a physical examination every three months."
Lawyer: "And that's why it had to be, poison, right, Commander? 'Cause Lord knows, if you put a man with a serious coronary condition back on duty with a clean bill of health, and that man died from a heart related incident, you'd have a lot to answer for, wouldn't you, doctor?"


If you seen the film you would know.

Do yuo recognise the situation? ;)

Nickdfresh
01-24-2007, 04:37 AM
No, I must need more coffee or something...

I'm sure you'll explain it or something though...

Egorka
01-24-2007, 04:51 AM
But you know the film, right?

GermanSoldier
01-24-2007, 02:42 PM
I think it was so cool how the british navy got the British and French soldiers out of their.

Nickdfresh
02-20-2009, 06:03 PM
Thread bumped and reopened for discussion...

Egorka
02-21-2009, 05:34 AM
WOW!
Reading this thread again is like seeing dinosaurs walking the Earth again. Oh, sweet old times!

32Bravo
02-28-2009, 02:34 PM
On topic.

Battles are always a gamble. typically, the better trained, better disciplined, better led and the better prepared are the ones that win through. Not always the case though. There is also a certain amount of luck involved.

On the one hand, we have a plan to win and we do everything in our power to make the plan work for us. On the other hand, the opposition are doing everything in their power to screw up our plan and make their plan win through.

There was much uncertainty in th German High-Command, even with people like Rommel. The success of the Bliztkrieg shocked the Germans. France had a huge army which was expected to put up a great fight. It didn't. The British had a professional army, well trained, well disciplined and well led. They were flanked and in danger of being cut-off, through no fault of their own.

The Germans stopped when advancing on Dunkirk to allow their infantry to catch up in order for it to support their armour. The reason they did this was because they were well aware of the vulnerability of armour without infantry support. The Germans - and Rommel inparticular - had developed the tactics of the sword and shield (the allies learned the lessons of this the hard way, particularly in the Western Desert Campaign). They had also developed the tactics of the Battle Group, in which infantry, armour and artillery (including the Junkas 87), operated in mutual support. It would be against everything that the they had trained to do, for the panzers to continue alone...they had learned the lessons of the past.

The Royal Navy did as they always do, and did it well.

malchap
08-13-2009, 02:49 AM
My father Tom Chapman was with the welsh guards and left behind at Dunkirk. All he ever told me was that he got a train to spain and a boat from there. I thought he was one of few but now it appears a lot of people got out that way. - any first hand information?

As far as I can see he then went as a trainer to pirbright finishing up as RSM. Again he never talked of this. any first hand information?

I would prefer to hear from those who were there but recognise they are a dying breed so any handed down information would be gratefully accepted.

Nickdfresh
05-20-2010, 08:42 PM
Bump.

Saxon
05-23-2010, 01:40 PM
My grandmother claimed her brother was last man off the beaches at Dunkirk. When I was boy I think I believed her, but with the wisdom of a few years I now think it highly unlikely.

That generation are all gone now. Shame, as I should have asked a lot of questions.


Saxon

leccy
05-24-2010, 06:25 AM
The German forces were masters of finding a way through weak points and outflanking the Allies which caused the allied troops to have to withdraw or risk being cut off.

At Dunkirk the Allied troops had secure flanks and could dig in in ground very suited for defence.

The German Army was mostly horse drawn so although the panzer divisions could move fast their support and infantry divisions could not (Have read reports that the 7th Panzer Div only kept moving by filling up at french petrol stations). They needed the break to replenish and re-equip, you try six weeks of continuous hard driving with tracked vehicles and see how much maintenance they need.

The limited British counter attack at Arras did throw German invulnerability into question on both sides and made the Germans a bit more cautious (pity the attack did not go as fully planned those Matilda I's must have looked a sight when attacking)

There were no German naval forces to challenge the RN and French Navy (although 6 British and 3 French destroyers were lost plus about 200 small boats)

The RAF although criticised for lack of support did assist in helping the evacuation.


http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/F21D57C4_9913_5321_BB9830F0BB762B4E.pdf

During the Dunkirk evacuation, RAF Fighter Command together with elements of Coastal
Command sought to protect the troops massed on the beaches below them. Between 26 May
and 4 June 1940, Fighter Command alone lost 106 aircraft and somewhere between 75-80
pilots in the efforts to defend the BEF. Although unrecognised and unappreciated by many on
the ground, the RAFs efforts were heralded by the Prime Minister when he said that There
was a victory inside this deliverance. It was gained by the Royal Air Force. By agreeing withthe Navy that their ships should arrive at Dunkirk around dusk and depart before dawn and
then applying maximum fighter coverage at those times, sufficient local control of the air was
achieved to prevent the Luftwaffe from interfering decisively with the evacuation.

ubc
05-26-2010, 10:49 PM
You truly have to admire british history and propaganda. Its so effective even to this day most people believe their version of history. Mind you most people refuse to broach German history on the subject matter which is why its still so poorly understood. Rather than seek to understand how and why two different views of the same event can exist, they simply choose to believe or not believe what they want.

Churchill admitted privately that the whole BEF/Dunkirk fiasco was the worse military defeat in at least 4 centuries of British history. But they could never say that in public since their whole existance hung by a thread.

The Fact is from well before WW-II, Hitler had tried to engineer an arrangement for the British Empire to remain out of European affairs. Hitler believed that if done properly the British would realise they too where part of his ayran race and he could build an alliance against America, which he saw as the greatest threat to German culture.

Hitler clearly admired the British empire since they had carved an empire out of 40% of the worlds lands and slaughter tens of millions of people over the centuries in there imperialist wars of genicidal conquest.... and still had every one convinced it was for the greater good . Now thats what I call effective propaganda!

Nickdfresh
05-27-2010, 09:48 AM
You truly have to admire british history and propaganda. Its so effective even to this day most people believe their version of history. Mind you most people refuse to broach German history on the subject matter which is why its still so poorly understood. Rather than seek to understand how and why two different views of the same event can exist, they simply choose to believe or not believe what they want.

I don't know what the British or German histories regarding Dunkirk, or the Battle of France in general, are supposed to be or exactly how they differ...


Churchill admitted privately that the whole BEF/Dunkirk fiasco was the worse military defeat in at least 4 centuries of British history.

Nope. That would have been either Saratoga or Yorktown. Maybe New Orleans. Take your pick. I'm not well read enough on the American Revolution, yet. But I personally I think it was at Saratoga, NY. :)


But they could never say that in public since their whole existance hung by a thread.

You're acting as if someone disagrees with your last two sentences. In fact, the defeat at Dunkirk IS part of British history and Churchill, amongst the "Miracle" deliverance propaganda also clearly enunciated that "wars are not won by evacuations." No one is turning Dunkirk into a victory for the British. It was merely survival to fight another day. Yet this merely highlights the Wehrmacht's weaknesses in a time they looked invincible. The Kreigsmarine was too weak to dare challenge the Royal Navy; the Heer/SS forces around Dunkirk were too weak in infantry strength to slog it out in an urban battle with worn panzers and increasingly stiff French resistance in the Bocage. The latter is actually pretty blinding evidence that when the Heer lost their ability to rapidly out-maneuver their enemies, they got caught up in traditional infantry and artillery battles where they could be checked. At Dunkirk, they were now against a superior, entrenched force that was now concentrated and could not be merely outflanked. Nor could the French/BEF forces there be truly "cut off". The Germans simply believed they could lay siege to a pocket of resistance as they had been doing in France all along, then move up sufficient forces to storm the beaches after the Allies were worn down and that the Luftwaffe isolated them from the sea lanes.


The Fact is from well before WW-II, Hitler had tried to engineer an arrangement for the British Empire to remain out of European affairs. Hitler believed that if done properly the British would realise they too where part of his ayran race and he could build an alliance against America, which he saw as the greatest threat to German culture.

Hitler clearly admired the British empire since they had carved an empire out of 40% of the worlds lands and slaughter tens of millions of people over the centuries in there imperialist wars of genicidal conquest.... and still had every one convinced it was for the greater good . Now thats what I call effective propaganda!

Hitler made a lot of off-the-cuff statements that in no way can be interpreted as policy intentions. He was probably trying to divide the Entente more than achieve some highly unlikely, fantasist anti-American Anglo-German alliance. He may have admired parts of British culture, but that's perhaps because he didn't have a choice and knew he could never face down the Royal Navy. But acting as if Hitler was "allowing" the British to evacuate a couple hundred thousand of their soldiers and that this would in turn be viewed as sort of a "gift" is a bit of a fantasy.

And those dastardly, genocidal British! How dare they confuse us stupid Americans into believing that Hitler was such a bad guy, and the the greater good really rested with the Axis...

pdf27
05-27-2010, 11:32 AM
Nope. That would have been either Saratoga or Yorktown. Maybe New Orleans. Take your pick. I'm not well read enough on the American Revolution, yet. But I personally I think it was at Saratoga, NY. :)
Nothing good ever came out of upstate New York!

kurt
05-27-2010, 11:57 AM
I don't know what the British or German histories regarding Dunkirk, or the Battle of France in general, are supposed to be or exactly how they differ...



Nope. That would have been either Saratoga or Yorktown. Maybe New Orleans. Take your pick. I'm not well read enough on the American Revolution, yet. But I personally I think it was at Saratoga, NY. :)



You're acting as if someone disagrees with your last two sentences. In fact, the defeat at Dunkirk IS part of British history and Churchill, amongst the "Miracle" deliverance propaganda also clearly enunciated that "wars are not won by evacuations." No one is turning Dunkirk into a victory for the British. It was merely survival to fight another day. Yet this merely highlights the Wehrmacht's weaknesses in a time they looked invincible. The Kreigsmarine was too weak to dare challenge the Royal Navy; the Heer/SS forces around Dunkirk were too weak in infantry strength to slog it out in an urban battle with worn panzers and increasingly stiff French resistance in the Bocage. The latter is actually pretty blinding evidence that when the Heer lost their ability to rapidly out-maneuver their enemies, they got caught up in traditional infantry and artillery battles where they could be checked. At Dunkirk, they were now against a superior, entrenched force that was now concentrated and could not be merely outflanked. Nor could the French/BEF forces there be truly "cut off". The Germans simply believed they could lay siege to a pocket of resistance as they had been doing in France all along, then move up sufficient forces to storm the beaches after the Allies were worn down and that the Luftwaffe isolated them from the sea lanes.



Hitler made a lot of off-the-cuff statements that in no way can be interpreted as policy intentions. He was probably trying to divide the Entente more than achieve some highly unlikely, fantasist anti-American Anglo-German alliance. He may have admired parts of British culture, but that's perhaps because he didn't have a choice and knew he could never face down the Royal Navy. But acting as if Hitler was "allowing" the British to evacuate a couple hundred thousand of their soldiers and that this would in turn be viewed as sort of a "gift" is a bit of a fantasy.

And those dastardly, genocidal British! How dare they confuse us stupid Americans into believing that Hitler was such a bad guy, and the the greater good really rested with the Axis...

The decisive moment at Dunkirk was before the british got to the port. It was at that point when Hitler stopped Von Kleist as it has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
And two or three hundred thousand man do not represent a force that can not be destroyed in a pocket, bigger concentration of troops were wiped out in the eastern front,
Moreover, even if they managed to strenghten their position at Dunkirk, would that be stronger than Tobruk? And Tobruk fell, even though it was a real fortress and Rommel's panzers were near the point of complete exhaustion. And part of the defenders were the excellent anzacs troops. Maybe the better soldiers of the commonwealth on those days.

pdf27
05-27-2010, 01:09 PM
Moreover, even if they managed to strenghten their position at Dunkirk, would that be stronger than Tobruk? And Tobruk fell, even though it was a real fortress and Rommel's panzers were near the point of complete exhaustion. And part of the defenders were the excellent anzacs troops. Maybe the better soldiers of the commonwealth on those days.
Tobruk was no more of a fortress than Dunkirk, and was defended by incomparably weaker forces. And I would note that it only fell once - on the other occasion it held against everything the Afrika corps could throw at it for a considerable period of time.

Furthermore, your comparisons to the Eastern front (and indeed Tobruk - you forgot Singapore, a massively greater defeat than Dunkirk) completely miss the point. Encircled troops surrender when either their morale is destroyed or their supplies are cut off with no chance of evacuation.
The morale of the troops at Dunkirk was not a risk, as they were all either long-service regulars or Territorials - a much more stable type than conscripts. Furthermore the majority of SNCOs and senior officers will have fought in WW1.
Given that they were on the English Channel, the possibility of being cut off from supply was nonexistent - the Royal Navy was utterly dominant on it as demonstrated by the evacuation, and the RAF were able to provide effective air cover.

Nickdfresh
05-27-2010, 01:53 PM
Nothing good ever came out of upstate New York!

Ha! :D We don't even consider Saratoga upstate. Only twats from the five boroughs of NYC consider everything beyond White Plains "upstate." And they would strongly disagree, as they like our good tax dollar$ flowing into that metropolis...

kurt
05-27-2010, 02:00 PM
Tobruk was no more of a fortress than Dunkirk, and was defended by incomparably weaker forces. And I would note that it only fell once - on the other occasion it held against everything the Afrika corps could throw at it for a considerable period of time.

Furthermore, your comparisons to the Eastern front (and indeed Tobruk - you forgot Singapore, a massively greater defeat than Dunkirk) completely miss the point. Encircled troops surrender when either their morale is destroyed or their supplies are cut off with no chance of evacuation.
The morale of the troops at Dunkirk was not a risk, as they were all either long-service regulars or Territorials - a much more stable type than conscripts. Furthermore the majority of SNCOs and senior officers will have fought in WW1.
Given that they were on the English Channel, the possibility of being cut off from supply was nonexistent - the Royal Navy was utterly dominant on it as demonstrated by the evacuation, and the RAF were able to provide effective air cover.

Tobruk were a fortress Dunkirk not, or the british made the miracle of building it in 48 hours? doesn't make any sense.
The defenders were weaker than in Dunkirk, right, but the german forces were even weaker in the same proportion and they fought in the bloody Gazalla Battle before that,
Russian morale destroyed ?, as I know they used to fight to the bitter end, I don´t think british soldiers could have matched that fighting spirit in France, maybe in England.
I don´t know any case of an army on a similar situation than BEF that no ended on unconditional capitulation.
It´s clear that Hitler let them go and thinking overnight about it, it was his best choice.
He wanted peace with Britain and doing so there was, at least, an slight possibility of reaching that agreement. After such a humiliating defeat, considering the british as a proud an courageous people, with RAF intact and the Royal Navy dominating the seas, no possibility at all. Maybe just and even stiffer resistance and determination.
Moreover, those troops were not a threat for Germany until 1943, when the war was lost for Germany anyways. So he was right, but maybe if he would have anticipated Dresden he would have taken a very different choice.

Nickdfresh
05-27-2010, 02:26 PM
Tobruk were a fortress Dunkirk not, or the british made the miracle of building it in 48 hours? doesn't make any sense.
The defenders were weaker than in Dunkirk, right, but the german forces were even weaker in the same proportion and they fought in the bloody Gazalla Battle before that,
Russian morale destroyed ?, as I know they used to fight to the bitter end, I don´t think british soldiers could have matched that fighting spirit in France, maybe in England.
I don´t know any case of an army on a similar situation than BEF that no ended on unconditional capitulation.

You're making some erroneous comparisons and over-generalizations here. Around a million Russians surrendered under the shock of the German advance, so not all fought to the death although some did and most fought very hard in their own little "kessels." British troops fought with tenacity in many places, as far away as Burma even. That wasn't their problem, nor the Frenchies problem. The problem was that they were being outfought technically, not corporeally...

Secondly, the Brits (and French) didn't need a "fortress," they needed some prepared defenses and blocked city streets to fack up any panzers stupid enough to try a town without proper infantry support...


It´s clear that Hitler let them go and thinking overnight about it, it was his best choice.
He wanted a peace with Britain and doing so there was, at least, an slight possibility of reaching that agreement. After such a humiliating defeat, considering the british as a proud an courageous people, with RAF intact and the Royal Navy dominating the seas, no possibility at all. Maybe just and even stiffer resistance and determination.
Moreover, those troops were not a threat for Germany until 1943, when the war was lost for Germany anyways. So he was right, but maybe if he would have anticipated Dresden he would have taken a very different choice.

Well, Hitler must have been even more idiotic than many of his spineless generals even thought. Because trying to goad a nation into peace with you is generally a little easier if they have 200,000 or so less trained cadre to form the nucleus of a new army. What would Dresden have to do with anything? He would have magically willed his broken down panzers into a desperate street by street fight in terrain they're not ideally suited for? Hitler, and his generals, knew full well that he risked the exact opposite if he sent in his forces ad hoc--the possibility of a stinging tactical defeat that would have heartened both the British and the French...

And the troops were not a threat to Germany proper until 1943 or even 44'. But a second front was a threat to his plans for Barbarossa...

pdf27
05-27-2010, 02:42 PM
Tobruk were a fortress Dunkirk not, or the british made the miracle of building it in 48 hours? doesn't make any sense.
Tobruk was by and large defended by field fortifications - trenches and artillery positions dug or blasted out of the desert, minefields and barbed wire. Nothing special - what was important was that it was well provided with supply dumps.


Russian morale destroyed ?, as I know they used to fight to the bitter end, I don´t think british soldiers could have matched that fighting spirit in France, maybe in England.
I said morale destroyed (c.f. the French army in 1940) OR run out of supplies. When surrounded, the Russians would generally fight until their supplies ran out and the breakout failed. At Dunkirk, due to the RN the British and French forces had no need to worry about supplies running out or having to break out - they had a secure exit route to their rear.


I don´t know any case of an army on a similar situation than BEF that no ended on unconditional capitulation.
Read up on the Burma campaign. Lots of very similar examples there. Slim's book is even actually quite a good read.


It´s clear that Hitler let them go and thinking overnight about it, it was his best choice.
He wanted peace with Britain and doing so there was, at least, an slight possibility of reaching that agreement.
Yet as soon as the battle of France was over, after some (very) tentative peace feelers Hitler went straight into full blown "I am going to invade" rhetoric. If he was seriously considering an invasion, allowing the escape of the majority of the experienced troops in the British army was an enormous misjudgement. Under what appear to have been his plans, he would be fighting those same troops again about 3-4 months later.


After such a humiliating defeat, considering the british as a proud an courageous people, with RAF intact and the Royal Navy dominating the seas, no possibility at all. Maybe just and even stiffer resistance and determination.
Which he got anyway.

kurt
05-27-2010, 02:47 PM
You're making some erroneous comparisons and over-generalizations here. Around a million Russians surrendered under the shock of the German advance, so not all fought to the death although some did and most fought very hard in their own little "kessels." British troops fought with tenacity in many places, as far away as Burma even. That wasn't their problem, nor the Frenchies problem. The problem was that they were being outfought technically, not corporeally...

Secondly, the Brits (and French) didn't need a "fortress," they needed some prepared defenses and blocked city streets to fack up any panzers stupid enough to try a town without proper infantry support...



Well, Hitler must have been even more idiotic than many of his spineless generals even thought. Because trying to goad a nation into peace with you is generally a little easier if they have 200,000 or so less trained cadre to form the nucleus of a new army. What would Dresden have to do with anything? He would have magically willed his broken down panzers into a desperate street by street fight in terrain they're not ideally suited for? Hitler, and his generals, knew full well that he risked the exact opposite if he sent in his forces ad hoc--the possibility of a stinging tactical defeat that would have heartened both the British and the French...

And the troops were not a threat to Germany proper until 1943 or even 44'. But a second front was a threat to his plans for Barbarossa...

Well, British get used to surrender in France, Norway, Greece and also in Africa and Asia, so....
Do you really think possible that Hollywood scene with the british completely sorrounded in Dunkirk fighting to the bitter end and with the Atlantic as the only way to take to their heels? ...and for how long? what is stupid is to think such a situation sustainable in the long run.
Yes, it would have had a cost por the germans, no doubt, another reason for Hitler to just let them go home.
A second front was not a threat in the decisive stage of Barbarrosa.

kurt
05-27-2010, 04:29 PM
Tobruk was by and large defended by field fortifications - trenches and artillery positions dug or blasted out of the desert, minefields and barbed wire. Nothing special - what was important was that it was well provided with supply dumps.


I said morale destroyed (c.f. the French army in 1940) OR run out of supplies. When surrounded, the Russians would generally fight until their supplies ran out and the breakout failed. At Dunkirk, due to the RN the British and French forces had no need to worry about supplies running out or having to break out - they had a secure exit route to their rear.


Read up on the Burma campaign. Lots of very similar examples there. Slim's book is even actually quite a good read.


Yet as soon as the battle of France was over, after some (very) tentative peace feelers Hitler went straight into full blown "I am going to invade" rhetoric. If he was seriously considering an invasion, allowing the escape of the majority of the experienced troops in the British army was an enormous misjudgement. Under what appear to have been his plans, he would be fighting those same troops again about 3-4 months later.


Which he got anyway.

Burma? what does a jungle guerilla fighting has to do with blitzkrieg? And as far as I know the japanese only left the place in 1945.
A secure exit route? not even in peace times the english channel was a secure route, with the Luftwaffe bases very close and the wolfpacks, it would have been an exit route to hell.
But again, they had never reached the port with out Hitler permission.
If he had consider invasion.....
He never considered any invasion of England, Hess didn't go there as a tourist unless someone can be naive enough to believe that he was "crazy" and went there with out Hitler permission.

Looks like there is a second front in this thread

Nickdfresh
05-27-2010, 04:41 PM
Well, British get used to surrender in France, Norway, Greece and also in Africa and Asia, so....

Of course. The Germans were tactically and technically far superior to the British at this stage and it took the British Army time to weed out their weak leadership, get proper equipment, and develop tactics. And it wasn't the British who ultimately surrendered in Asia and Africa as I recall. The Germans also suffered set backs and tactical defeats such as losing much of their destroyer fleet off Norway and many of their paratroopers in a Pyrrhic victory on Crete...


Do you really think possible that Hollywood scene with the british completely sorrounded in Dunkirk fighting to the bitter end and with the Atlantic as the only way to take to their heels? ...and for how long? what is stupid is to think such a situation sustainable in the long run.

For how long? A few days. I'm pretty sure they went to Dunkirk not to make a last stand, but to get as many out as possible and achieved a result which exceeded all expectations. And the BEF, along with the French Army we're forgetting, DID put up stiff resistance and they certainly would have gone on as long as they were inflicting losses and holding the line while receiving supplies from the beaches. The panzer halt order lasted two days. Why didn't the ground forces then just storm the beaches as there was in fact significant fighting outside the town throughout the evacuation...

Secondly, if your beloved Wehrmacht was so infallible, then why did it take them days and weeks longer than expected to crush a "demoralized" French Army fighting them in the hedgerows, even after Dunkirk? You'll ignore this like you have the other three or so references to it I've made, so I'll answer for you. Because they were facing the same problem the Americans would there in 1944. The thick berms hindered and funneled their superior speed and mobility into ambush points and was of little use against a concentrated, well supplied force possessing antitank weapons. The panzers were stopped, and the Germans had to engage in an infantry and artillery slog they had largely avoided thus far. But it was too little, too late for the French...


Yes, it would have had a cost por the germans, no doubt, another reason for Hitler to just let them go home.
A second front was not a threat in the decisive stage of Barbarrosa.

Oh, okay. I guess that worked out well for the Third Reich then. :)

kurt
05-27-2010, 05:27 PM
Of course. The Germans were tactically and technically far superior to the British at this stage and it took the British Army time to weed out their weak leadership, get proper equipment, and develop tactics. And it wasn't the British who ultimately surrendered in Asia and Africa as I recall. The Germans also suffered set backs and tactical defeats such as losing much of their destroyer fleet off Norway and many of their paratroopers in a Pyrrhic victory on Crete...



For how long? A few days. I'm pretty sure they went to Dunkirk not to make a last stand, but to get as many out as possible and achieved a result which exceeded all expectations. And the BEF, along with the French Army we're forgetting, DID put up stiff resistance and they certainly would have gone on as long as they were inflicting losses and holding the line while receiving supplies from the beaches. The panzer halt order lasted two days. Why didn't the ground forces then just storm the beaches as there was in fact significant fighting outside the town throughout the evacuation...

Secondly, if your beloved Wehrmacht was so infallible, then why did it take them days and weeks longer than expected to crush a "demoralized" French Army fighting them in the hedgerows, even after Dunkirk? You'll ignore this like you have the other three or so references to it I've made, so I'll answer for you. Because they were facing the same problem the Americans would there in 1944. The thick berms hindered and funneled their superior speed and mobility into ambush points and was of little use against a concentrated, well supplied force possessing antitank weapons. The panzers were stopped, and the Germans had to engage in an infantry and artillery slog they had largely avoided thus far. But it was too little, too late for the French...



Oh, okay. I guess that worked out well for the Third Reich then. :)

From the BBC web site:

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 it looks like if, according to your version, Churchill, Alan Brooke, Lord Gort, Liddel Hart, Runsdetd, Von Kleist, Degrelle and many others are a bunch of idiots, they should have known better...


It didn't work out because of the runaway british soldiers of Dunkirk, but mainly because of the american industrial power and money put in service of Stalin in the decisive moments of the operation.
Don't you think?

Nickdfresh
05-27-2010, 05:58 PM
From the BBC web site:

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.

I believe it was more like 40,000.


But it looks like if, according to your version, Churchill, Alan Brooke, Lord Gort, Liddel Hart, Runsdetd, Von Kleist, Degrelle and many others are a bunch of idiots, they should have known better...

I never said they were idiots and you're treading a bit closely to strawman territory there (well, Churchill did make some idiotic decisions :) )...

Nobody, including the German high command who were anxious over the operation--especially Sickle Cut, predicted such a swift fall of France either. Was everyone then an idiot? You're turning the chaos of war into some neat orderly exercise of mere decisions. It's very hard to predict outcomes neatly..


It didn't work out but not because of the runaway british soldiers of Dunkirk, but mainly because of the american industrial power and money put in service of Stalin in the decisive moments of the operation.
Don't you think?

I think that's a bit simplistic. "Runaway British soldiers?" You mean like retreating? Because even though my military training is basically that of a REMF NCO, I'm pretty sure when you're being defeated you might want to "runaway"--or retreat--in order to fight another day. The Russians, Mao's PLA, the Wehrmacht--they all ran away at times. Were the Germans fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front quitters and runaways too? And many of the British fought well, including in the counterattack conducted by an understrength British division at Arras--supported by Matilda IIs--that caused the Germans to temporarily "run away" and they inflicted and took heavy casualties. But like the efforts in the Bocage, it was too little too late. The German conquest of France, though shocking and rapid, was not a cakewalk.

Yes, American industrial power and the Red Army were major factors. But Americans didn't make the T-34 (unfortunately). And the Americans were mass producing many scientific innovations created or advanced in Britain such as the proximity fuse and radar, and it was both the U.S. and Britain that defeated the Luftwaffe and inhibited German war production...

kurt
05-27-2010, 06:22 PM
I believe it was more like 40,000.



I never said they were idiots and you're treading a bit closely to strawman territory there (well, Churchill did make some idiotic decisions :) )...

Nobody, including the German high command who were anxious over the operation--especially Sickle Cut, predicted such a swift fall of France either. Was everyone then an idiot? You're turning the chaos of war into some neat orderly exercise of mere decisions. It's very hard to predict outcomes neatly..



I think that's a bit simplistic. "Runaway British soldiers?" You mean like retreating? Because even though my military training is basically that of a REMF NCO, I'm pretty sure when you're being defeated you might want to "runaway"--or retreat--in order to fight another day. The Russians, Mao's PLA, the Wehrmacht--they all ran away at times. Were the Germans fighting the Soviets on the Eastern Front quitters and runaways too? And many of the British fought well, including in the counterattack conducted by an understrength British division at Arras--supported by Matilda IIs--that caused the Germans to temporarily "run away" and they inflicted and took heavy casualties. But like the efforts in the Bocage, it was too little too late. The German conquest of France, though shocking and rapid, was not a cakewalk.

Yes, American industrial power and the Red Army were major factors. But Americans didn't make the T-34 (unfortunately). And the Americans were mass producing many scientific innovations created or advanced in Britain such as the proximity fuse and radar, and it was both the U.S. and Britain that defeated the Luftwaffe and inhibited German war production...

I can not find in your recount the BEF soldiers, ;)
I think the war was lost for Germany as early as 1942, Stalingrad.

I apologize, runaway sounds more appropriate for a bride ,

pdf27
05-28-2010, 12:37 AM
Ha! :D We don't even consider Saratoga upstate. Only twats from the five boroughs of NYC consider everything beyond White Plains "upstate." And they would strongly disagree, as they like our good tax dollar$ flowing into that metropolis...
My dad did his PhD at Columbia. It's one of his favourite sayings (he's English BTW). But seriously, what have you guys got - the American Revolution and Mormonism isn't a good record, although I'll grant you chicken wings.


Burma? what does a jungle guerilla fighting has to do with blitzkrieg? And as far as I know the japanese only left the place in 1945.
You seriously need to read up on the campaigns of the British Empire 14th Army in Burma. It was high intensity warfare for the most part, with only the Chindit campaigns resembling in any way Guerrilla warfare. I was specifically referring to the battles of Kohima and in the Arakan, where very large British forces were encircled. Due to the presence of air resupply however, they were able to continue fighting until relieved. Awfully similar to the Dunkirk situation.
As for the Japanese leaving the place in 1945 - true, but it was with the 14th Army pushing them out and their army virtually destroyed. They retained a toehold in the east of the country, largely because 14th Army had largely been withdrawn and was being prepared for the seabourne invasion of Malaya.


A secure exit route? not even in peace times the english channel was a secure route, with the Luftwaffe bases very close and the wolfpacks, it would have been an exit route to hell.
Hardly - the Luftwaffe were pretty much incompetent that early in the war when it came to attacking shipping (see the evacuation of Crete - the RN had no air cover whatsoever and despite this the Luftwaffe were unable to inflict sufficient casualties on the RN to stop them doing what they wanted to. As for U-boats, they very rarely operated in the channel - waters were too shallow for safety and it was heavily mined. At no point in the war did they even use it for transit, it was considered that dangerous - U-boats travelling from occupied French bases to Germany would go around the north coast of Scotland.
As for how dangerous the UK considered the channel, even after the fall of France they routinely ran convoys of merchant ships down the channel to the port of London (the early fighting in the Battle of Britain was above these convoys), and they took pretty minimal casualties in the Dunkirk evacuation (all the warships lost were WW1-vintage - the modern destroyers were kept with the Home Fleet on anti-invasion duties).


If he had consider invasion.....
He never considered any invasion of England, Hess didn't go there as a tourist unless someone can be naive enough to believe that he was "crazy" and went there with out Hitler permission.
Uh huh. Which is why the Germans were willing to completely disrupt internal industrial production by moving almost all their Rhine barges to the north coast of France, commit nearly the entire Luftwaffe and what was left of the Kriegsmarine to training for an invasion, etc. If it wasn't intentional then it was the biggest bluff in history - and he bluffed his entire general staff as well.

As England, in spite of her hopeless military situation, still shows no signs of willingness to come to terms, I have decided to prepare, and if necessary to carry out, a landing operation against her. The aim of this operation is to eliminate the English Motherland as a base from which the war against Germany can be continued, and, if necessary, to occupy the country completely.
Yep, Hitler definately never even considered invasion. Nope, definately not. Never even crossed his mind.

Rising Sun*
05-28-2010, 09:15 AM
Perhaps some credit could be given to the British for snatching salvation from the jaws of defeat.

Hitler wasn't responsible for the evacuation of the British and some French forces. Failing to press the attack on Dunkirk was part of the reason for the survival of the main elements of the BEF, but it was the evacuation which was the essential reason for its survival and Hitler had every opportunity to stop that; made steady attempts to stop it from the air; and failed.

Unlike Stalingrad and Tobruk, there was a huge advantage to the British in evacuating Dunkirk where that was not an advantageous option in the sieges of Stanlingrad and Tobruk.


Just before midnight on June 2 1940, the Channel ferry St Helier slipped from the mole at Dunkirk, and headed for England with the last of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF). Captain William Tennant RN, Beachmaster and the man responsible for the naval organisation of the evacuation, signalled Vice-Admiral Bertram Ramsay, Flag Officer Dover: "BEF evacuated." Then he and Major General Harold Alexander toured the area in a launch, Alexander shouting through a megaphone: "Is anyone there?" No one answered. They boarded a destroyer, with German bullets whistling around them.

Earlier that night, Alexander had watched the soldiers, illuminated by massive fires and with shells raining down, filing slowly along the mole, the wooden breakwater protecting the harbour at Dunkirk. "The men at no time showed fear or restlessness," he said later. "They were patient, brave and obedient, and when finally ordered to embark they did so in perfectly disciplined groups, properly armed and equipped."

Throughout the previous day, Alexander's immaculate appearance and quiet good manners had raised the morale of all who saw him as he moved among troops waiting for nightfall, and for the ships to arrive. In every mind was the question: "What if the Germans overwhelm the rearguards before darkness brings salvation?" A soldier's general, Alexander was absolutely the right choice to command the final evacuation of the BEF, and instil confidence.

Some 20,000 French were taken off that night in addition to the British troops. The next night, 63 vessels of all kinds, British and French, took off a further 26,000 French troops in a final lift. At 4.30am, as the grey light pierced the heavy pall of smoke hanging over Dunkirk, HMS Shikari, one of the Royal Navy's oldest destroyers, cast off from the East Mole, her decks crammed with French soldiers.

The man behind this, the largest seaborne evacuation ever attempted, was a brilliant and forceful leader. Vice-Adml Ramsay had begun planning for the evacuation as early as May 20. His was the guiding mind that put into place all the meticulous arrangements, involving
some 900 vessels, between May 26 and June 4 1940.

Researching my book about Dunkirk brought home to me just what an astonishing and unorthodox feat it was. In the course of my career in the Royal Marines, I've carried out a number of amphibious landings, but the evacuation from Dunkirk was an amphibious operation in reverse, without any proper landing craft.

Its necessity, however, is beyond doubt. Only three weeks before, the Germans had invaded France, Belgium and Holland, an event for which the French and British Allies had spent some 10 months preparing. Having rushed forward into Belgium to meet the German onslaught, the Allies believed all was going according to the script. Then the enemy played a wild card: nine Panzer divisions crossed the Meuse in the area of Sedan, and advanced through the Ardennes.

A mere 11 days later, German tanks had reached the Channel coast. The Maginot Line on which the French had staked their hopes had been outflanked. The BEF and French armies of the north were now cut off from the rest of France. With the French and Belgian armies retreating on each side, there was only one recourse for the BEF: withdrawal to Dunkirk.

Dunkirk harbour was the biggest on the Channel coast. Surrounded by marshes that could be flooded, it was easily defended. To the east, gently shelving sandy beaches extended for nearly 20 miles, which meant that embarking troops was difficult: even small craft could not approach within about 100 yards of the waterline, so soldiers had to wade out to them. Larger vessels had to anchor well offshore; craft ferrying troops out had a long turn-round time. There were no jetties and no piers anywhere along the 20-mile stretch.

The harbour was under almost continual attack by the Luftwaffe, so Capt Tennant decided that all evacuation must be from the beaches. He soon realised that this was far too slow, and ordered a destroyer to come alongside the East Mole of the harbour. This was quickly followed by six more. As a result of Tennant's bold decision, Ramsay switched the main effort from the beaches to the East Mole; this was connected to the beaches by a causeway, allowing soldiers to march directly from the beaches to the ships alongside the mole. The numbers of troops being evacuated rose sharply.

On that same day, May 28, the first of the "little ships" appeared. Their main task was to ferry troops from the beaches to the destroyers and ferries offshore. Without the "little ships" – whose epic voyage was retraced by a flotilla across the Channel yesterday – only a fraction of the troops would have been transported from the beaches. Ramsay was behind the decision that the "little ships" be sent across to assist after Tennant had signalled to Dover ''for every available craft''.

And as the evacuation proceeded, the RAF tore into the Luftwaffe, shooting down 132 enemy aircraft for the cost of 99 fighters. Without the RAF, many more ships would have been sunk, and few of the BEF would have got away.

Originally, it was thought that some 45,000 soldiers might be rescued. Eventually, 338,226 were taken away in what Churchill described as a "miracle of deliverance". Thanks to Ramsay's planning, the power and skill of the Royal Navy, and the gallantry of the Royal and Merchant Navy ships' companies, and, of course, the crews of the "little ships". There was a cost. Of 38 destroyers, six were sunk and 26 damaged. Of 46 ferries, nine were sunk and 11 damaged.

The evacuation from Dunkirk was undoubtedly the final phase in a defeat. But, had this culminated in the BEF's surrender and capture, it is inconceivable that Britain would have fought on. The Germans might not have invaded our Island, but instead, as Hitler always hoped, Britain would have been forced to agree peace terms. The escape of the BEF followed by the failure of the Luftwaffe to win the Battle of Britain bought a precious commodity: time, allowing the British to absorb the lessons of the campaign in France and Flanders, to re-equip and
retrain her Army.

In 1939, the United States Army was ranked 17th in size in the world after Romania. It is therefore out of the question that America could have played any part in stopping the expansion of Germany had Britain capitulated. Without Britain, and her Empire and Commonwealth, continuing to resist, Hitler could have won the war, even after the invasion of Russia. The evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk truly was a retreat to ultimate victory over Nazi Germany.

'Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory' by Major General Julian Thompson (Pan Macmillan)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/world-war-2/7776529/Dunkirk-the-miracle-of-deliverance.html

ubc
05-28-2010, 03:59 PM
A} Nope. That would have been either Saratoga or Yorktown. Maybe New Orleans. Take your pick. I'm not well read enough on the American Revolution, yet. But I personally I think it was at Saratoga, NY. :)
A} Nick we are not discussing what you think but what Churchill remarked to his back benchers about Dunkirk. One is important from the POV of history the other is only important in this forum since you run things.




B} Hitler made a lot of off-the-cuff statements that in no way can be interpreted as policy intentions. He was probably trying to divide the Entente more than achieve some highly unlikely, fantasist anti-American Anglo-German alliance. He may have admired parts of British culture, but that's perhaps because he didn't have a choice and knew he could never face down the Royal Navy. But acting as if Hitler was "allowing" the British to evacuate a couple hundred thousand of their soldiers and that this would in turn be viewed as sort of a "gift" is a bit of a fantasy.

B} Nick no offence but you clearly don't understand Hitler. What he demanded he got almost all the time. The generals and admirals were forbiden from making any plans or building any forces towards war with the UK. Most such work that was done, was done in secret with out his knowledge. Admiral Raeder faced a Hitler who believed his navy was nothing more than a force to protect coastal Germany and control the Baltic. It took years for Raeder to convince Hitler of the need for larger surface forces , but he cleverly convinced Hitler it was to fight the French not the British. Thats why all the german warships to a sharp turn in development in the late 1930s mimicing French designs. Infact if you look at what German entered into the war with , it was mostly a baltic control force with the beginings of a battlefleet. Again since Hitler got what he demanded , the quite considerable german warship building industry, was completely retooled at the start of the war to produce as many Uboats as possible.The only other ships built other than a handful of Torpedoboot and Zerstörer , was hundreds of minesweepers , MTB and thousands small patrol boats....which is pretty much what Hitler demanded from the start in 1933.

Hitler genuinly believed that he could muster most of Europe in to a grand alliance against communism and American lead Jewry. He believed this was a struggle for racial and cultural survival. He also believed he could convince, cajoul, bully and/or threaten the British out of the war. The entire UBoat war, Dunkirk, Sealion and BoB , these were all apart of his 'fright wars' to achieve that goal. This needs to be the underpinning of any such WW-II discussion.




C] And those dastardly, genocidal British! How dare they confuse us stupid Americans into believing that Hitler was such a bad guy, and the the greater good really rested with the Axis...

C] Well he very nearly failed in this effort. BTW in war, there is no good or bad , just us against them. Trying to turn war into good and bad is a propaganda exercise for the 'hearts and minds' of the voters etc. Its all a load of bullocks.

If Hitler had been in the 19th century none of this would matter to any one since his behaviour was not that different from most 19 century dictators.

kurt
05-28-2010, 04:44 PM
My dad did his PhD at Columbia. It's one of his favourite sayings (he's English BTW). But seriously, what have you guys got - the American Revolution and Mormonism isn't a good record, although I'll grant you chicken wings.


You seriously need to read up on the campaigns of the British Empire 14th Army in Burma. It was high intensity warfare for the most part, with only the Chindit campaigns resembling in any way Guerrilla warfare. I was specifically referring to the battles of Kohima and in the Arakan, where very large British forces were encircled. Due to the presence of air resupply however, they were able to continue fighting until relieved. Awfully similar to the Dunkirk situation.
As for the Japanese leaving the place in 1945 - true, but it was with the 14th Army pushing them out and their army virtually destroyed. They retained a toehold in the east of the country, largely because 14th Army had largely been withdrawn and was being prepared for the seabourne invasion of Malaya.


Hardly - the Luftwaffe were pretty much incompetent that early in the war when it came to attacking shipping (see the evacuation of Crete - the RN had no air cover whatsoever and despite this the Luftwaffe were unable to inflict sufficient casualties on the RN to stop them doing what they wanted to. As for U-boats, they very rarely operated in the channel - waters were too shallow for safety and it was heavily mined. At no point in the war did they even use it for transit, it was considered that dangerous - U-boats travelling from occupied French bases to Germany would go around the north coast of Scotland.
As for how dangerous the UK considered the channel, even after the fall of France they routinely ran convoys of merchant ships down the channel to the port of London (the early fighting in the Battle of Britain was above these convoys), and they took pretty minimal casualties in the Dunkirk evacuation (all the warships lost were WW1-vintage - the modern destroyers were kept with the Home Fleet on anti-invasion duties).


Uh huh. Which is why the Germans were willing to completely disrupt internal industrial production by moving almost all their Rhine barges to the north coast of France, commit nearly the entire Luftwaffe and what was left of the Kriegsmarine to training for an invasion, etc. If it wasn't intentional then it was the biggest bluff in history - and he bluffed his entire general staff as well.

Yep, Hitler definately never even considered invasion. Nope, definately not. Never even crossed his mind.

This is a fragment of Hitler speech at the Reichstag almost two months after the Dunkirk fiasco:

In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/10/a4081510.shtml

And besides there were conversations in Spain and Portugal with the intention of reach a peace treaty with Britain, so it is clear Hitler didn't want to fight with the UK.

Here is an interesting quote from The Independent ( British newspaper):

Adrian Hamilton: 'A great escape? Dunkirk was actually a humiliation for British forces'
His father was there....
It was the cheering, not the battle, for which Dunkirk was remembered. In strictly military terms, the "miracle of Dunkirk" was not the evacuation but Hitler's decision to hold his forces back from the kill for a precious three days in which the British and French were able to gather in their forces and regroup around the beaches. Hitler later implied that he'd done it almost as an act of charity, in the hope that the British would now come to terms with him, as several members of Churchill's newly formed War Cabinet were advising him to do.

Another fragment:
His biggest surprise was the reception that the defeated and bedraggled troops got on landing in Margate. "There were thousands of people cheering us," he later recorded in his memoirs. "I felt desperately humiliated that we had done so little and yet were being greeted as heroes."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/"

I understand is hard to accept that Hitler permitted the evacuation of BEF, but there is no doubt about the certainty of this assertion.

Regards,

mkenny
05-28-2010, 06:20 PM
so it is clear Hitler didn't want to fight with the UK.

That is why he invaded Poland-to prevent war with Britain?
He also invaded France Belgium and Holland to prevent war with Britain?
In much the same way his demands on Czechoslovakia were his last demands in Europe?
The man was a pathological liar and would say and do anything to get his way.
He never had any intention of making 'peace' with Britain other than the 'peace' granted to a defeated broken enemy.
Your problem is you can never forgive the British for bringing this maniac and his 3rd Reich to its eventual ruin




I understand is hard to accept that Hitler permitted the evacuation of BEF, but there is no doubt about the certainty of this assertion.


I am sure you are greatly upset that your heroes were not able to finish off the BEF and we understand your desire to re-write History to explain this failing. Those of us who live in the real world smile when we read your fiction.
This is the typical tactic of the true believer. No German military failure can be admitted. Every reverse is the result of some unforseen event and nothing can be admited that in any way detracts from the mtyh.
I hope you and your dream are happy together.

mkenny
05-28-2010, 06:32 PM
Here is an interesting quote from The Independent ( British newspaper):

Adrian Hamilton: 'A great escape? Dunkirk was actually a humiliation for British forces'
His father was there....
It was the cheering, not the battle, for which Dunkirk was remembered. In strictly military terms, the "miracle of Dunkirk" was not the evacuation but Hitler's decision to hold his forces back from the kill for a precious three days in which the British and French were able to gather in their forces and regroup around the beaches. Hitler later implied that he'd done it almost as an act of charity, in the hope that the British would now come to terms with him, as several members of Churchill's newly formed War Cabinet were advising him to do.

Why not add the bit you left out?
The very next paragraph says:


Modern historians tend to dismiss this, preferring to see in the decision the advice of the senior German commanders, worried that their advance had overstretched their lines of supply, their minds switched to defeating the main French forces to the south and their concern that boggy Dunkirk was no ground for tanks. To the Germans, an army penned in by the sea was an army with its back to the wall – there for the destruction from the air. For the British, the sea is a route out and a route home.

Is there any reason why you could not keep that bit in when you did your cut-and-paste, other than to distort reality?

Nickdfresh
05-28-2010, 07:19 PM
My dad did his PhD at Columbia. It's one of his favourite sayings (he's English BTW). But seriously, what have you guys got - the American Revolution and Mormonism isn't a good record, although I'll grant you chicken wings.

...

Buffalo was one of the richest U.S. cities at the turn of the previous century. But through severe mismanagement and horrible leadership and the obsolescence foisted upon us by the Welland Canal, she slipped into the rust belt mold of other American post-industrial cities. Much of the beautiful architecture of the older buildings sort of hints at the glory of the past. But what do we have now? Well, I guess we have potential. We have have a beautiful and very underdeveloped waterfront where beaches, boat harbors, and piers that hint at a rustic, New Englandy like summer getaway that are in turn split up by dilapidated and mostly derelict factories. We have a growing, bustling university system with state of the art biomedical research, proximity to Canada and the Northeastern corridor, a bunch of shitty, croniest politicians that should be shot, and a prime location for Global Warming to be a seaside resort near Lake Erie when the rest of you bastards are under water... :)

In short, what we have is a relatively quiet provincial city that's a good place to have a family and still have access to a bit of culture and nightlife. But I guess the more interesting things to a ***** engineer would be that we supply a large portion of electric power to the U.S. and Canada. Some of the Manhattan Project research was done here as well as significant contributions to the aerospace industry prior to Bell pulling out. Most of the P-40 ____hawks were built here in, and almost all of the P-39/63 Cobras were also built here. Not least of which would have been a significant contribution to the Soviet Red Air Force far outweighing almost anything else sent in terms of resources. So, we helped give the world Nuclear weapons, and gave the Red Air Force one of their favorite fighters. I guess that's something more than cultists and the Revolution. BTW, the latter really didn't affect my particular stomping grounds. Or I should say that combat was limited to Fort Niagara, an old French outpost that was a base to Loyalist Rangers. The War of 1812 is a bit more relevant, and for the most part that was pretty forgettable as Buffalo was burned to the ground in retaliation for the burning of Toronto, although, there were some successes near Lewiston, NY and Western (not Upstate) New York was largely a base for U.S. troops operating in Southern Ontario...

Nickdfresh
05-28-2010, 07:50 PM
This is a fragment of Hitler speech at the Reichstag almost two months after the Dunkirk fiasco:

In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my own conscience to appeal once more to reason and common sense, in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal since I am not the vanquished begging favours, but the victor speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/10/a4081510.shtml

And besides there were conversations in Spain and Portugal with the intention of reach a peace treaty with Britain, so it is clear Hitler didn't want to fight with the UK.

Hitler was sort of full of shit. It would have been very interesting to see the terms Hitler would have wanted, but the example of Vichy France probably wasn't all that appealing to the British gov't...


Here is an interesting quote from The Independent ( British newspaper):

Adrian Hamilton: 'A great escape? Dunkirk was actually a humiliation for British forces'
His father was there....
It was the cheering, not the battle, for which Dunkirk was remembered. In strictly military terms, the "miracle of Dunkirk" was not the evacuation but Hitler's decision to hold his forces back from the kill for a precious three days in which the British and French were able to gather in their forces and regroup around the beaches. Hitler later implied that he'd done it almost as an act of charity, in the hope that the British would now come to terms with him, as several members of Churchill's newly formed War Cabinet were advising him to do.


I read this article too. You're selectively quoting it to prove some point. I think he went on to mention that the ground around Dunkirk was infested swampland and canals. Not exactly prime panzer territory. I pulled out some John Keegan last night and I don't feel like posting it verbatim. But it should be noted that the "Panzer Halt!" order of May 26 was not the first one. In fact, Hitler had ordered a full stop on May 17th out of the consternation of his more conservative generals that the infantry and horse drawn supply carts of the Heer were falling behind in the corridor of the axis of advance. The May 26th full stop order was the second one. And Keegan states that Hitler had good reason to stop the panzers as the area around Dunkirk was wetlands and canals completely unsuited to tanks. Keegan does say that the stop order was premature, and had it been issued later, the Heer might have cut off more BEF units than they did. But in fact a full assault was ordered two days later as the infantry were brought up and the Luftwaffe relentlessly pummeled the beaches. It was heroic resistance by the French and British rear guards that held them at bay, as well as the geography that hindered movement under fire...


Another fragment:
His biggest surprise was the reception that the defeated and bedraggled troops got on landing in Margate. "There were thousands of people cheering us," he later recorded in his memoirs. "I felt desperately humiliated that we had done so little and yet were being greeted as heroes."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/"


So? Of course it was a double edged sword. No one likes to be evacuated after a defeat. But they were alive and able to defend their homeland...


I understand is hard to accept that Hitler permitted the evacuation of BEF, but there is no doubt about the certainty of this assertion.

Regards,

Well, what was he "permitting" on May 17th? The date of the first halt order...

And if Hitler was trying to impress the British with how magnanimous he was, why were dozens of British and Canadian soldiers massacred after the Battle? Why did many BEF soldiers taken into captivity claim they were mistreated, or treated far worse than their French comrades? Hitler didn't "let them go." He was too foolish to realize that they were leaving...

Nickdfresh
05-28-2010, 08:03 PM
Why not add the bit you left out?
The very next paragraph says:


Modern historians tend to dismiss this, preferring to see in the decision the advice of the senior German commanders, worried that their advance had overstretched their lines of supply, their minds switched to defeating the main French forces to the south and their concern that boggy Dunkirk was no ground for tanks. To the Germans, an army penned in by the sea was an army with its back to the wall – there for the destruction from the air. For the British, the sea is a route out and a route home.

Is there any reason why you could not keep that bit in when you did your cut-and-paste, other than to distort reality?

And did I forget previously to mention the mighty panzers of the Heer/SS relied on horse drawn carts? I think I did. This is always a fact that pisses off revisionist panzer-Fanbois. That the juggernaut of the German military machine still relied on pack animals. In France, relatively compacted prime tank country, the Germans could get away with this. They would pay for it on the steppes of Russia...

kurt
05-28-2010, 09:59 PM
Why not add the bit you left out?
The very next paragraph says:


Modern historians tend to dismiss this, preferring to see in the decision the advice of the senior German commanders, worried that their advance had overstretched their lines of supply, their minds switched to defeating the main French forces to the south and their concern that boggy Dunkirk was no ground for tanks. To the Germans, an army penned in by the sea was an army with its back to the wall – there for the destruction from the air. For the British, the sea is a route out and a route home.

Is there any reason why you could not keep that bit in when you did your cut-and-paste, other than to distort reality?

Read the thread from the begining, distort what?
Churchill distort it? Alan Brook, Gort, Hart, all of them ?
Runstedt denied have given any advice on this matter,
Von Kluge, Degrelle, all of them distort reality?

What is the argument? the place was not suited for tanks? sure, like the ardennes forrest? not suitable for panzers they say....
Did you do something different than cut and paste?
Yes, I cut and paste true facts that seems badly hurt you.

kurt
05-28-2010, 10:07 PM
And did I forget previously to mention the mighty panzers of the Heer/SS relied on horse drawn carts? I think I did. This is always a fact that pisses off revisionist panzer-Fanbois. That the juggernaut of the German military machine still relied on pack animals. In France, relatively compacted prime tank country, the Germans could get away with this. They would pay for it on the steppes of Russia...

That horse drawn cars defeated the british and french armies together in 4 weeks, not even the Maginot defenses were useful to help it, but for sure the Dunkirk "fortress" would have stopped them. Sounds very clever

Nickdfresh
05-28-2010, 10:09 PM
Read the thread from the begining, distort what?
Churchill distort it? Alan Brook, Gort, Hart, all of them ?
Runstedt denied have given any advice on this matter,
Von Kluge, Degrelle, all of them distort reality?

And your sources for all this?


What is the argument? the place was not suited for tanks? sure, like the ardennes forrest? not suitable for panzers they say....

The difference being it was the French who thought that the Ardennes were not suitable for armor, not the Germans. Please give us an example of an army using armor effectively in marshland...


Did you do something different than cut and paste?
Yes, I cut and paste true facts that seems badly hurt you.

He did. He provided a wider context whereas you selectively culled anything that contradicts your narrow arguments...

Nickdfresh
05-28-2010, 10:13 PM
That horse drawn cars defeated the british and french armies together in 4 weeks, not even the Maginot defenses were useful to help it, but for sure the Dunkirk "fortress" would have stopped them. Sounds very cleaver

Six weeks actually. I'm pretty sure the horse drawn carts weren't actually in combat. What would the Maginot Line have to do with anything? The Germans never really solved that and the Line only was surrendered after the armistice...

mkenny
05-28-2010, 10:13 PM
Read the thread from the begining, distort what?

You missed out part of your cut and paste that DIRECTLY contradicted your claim. Therefore you knowingly altered a fact to suit your fan-boy mentality.




Runstedt denied have given any advice on this matter,
Von Kluge, Degrelle, all of them distort reality?
Victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan.




Yes, I cut and paste true facts that seems badly hurt you.

You are dishonest. You edit the facts to fit your warped view. You seem unable to accept the fact your mighty heroes were unable to capture the BEF and to cover this great mistake you resort to fabrication.
To show you the ramifications of this error study the following photos.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/monty0001.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Berlinparade.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Berlinb0001.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Berlin_Victory_Parade7thAD.jpg

mkenny
05-28-2010, 10:17 PM
That horse drawn cars defeated the british and french armies together in 4 weeks, not even the Maginot defenses were useful to help it, but for sure the Dunkirk "fortress" would have stopped them. Sounds very cleaver

A bit like watching a football match were team B beat team A by 6 goals to 3. The half time score was 3-0 but you keep talking about the first half and ignore the final score. Live in your fantasy.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/BerlinVictory0001sml.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/BerlinVictorypa0001.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Berlinvictorya.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Sborka-003-5.jpg

kurt
05-28-2010, 10:43 PM
He invaded Poland not Britain, and why Britain didn't declare war to the URSS when they invaded Poland too??
I must remember you that Britain and France declared war to Germany, not the opposite.
Checoslovaquia? a country invented in Versailles treaty? well they paid a wage to Churchill, I remember know.

The most valuable thing in the world is the truth; so valuable that it has often been barricaded by a bodyguard of lies."
Winston Churchil
then, who was the pathological lier?

And finally, it looks like if it was directed to you....

"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 145)

this is your heroe,

kurt
05-28-2010, 11:10 PM
You missed out part of your cut and paste that DIRECTLY contradicted your claim. Therefore you knowingly altered a fact to suit your fan-boy mentality.




Victory has many fathers, defeat is an orphan.





You are dishonest. You edit the facts to fit your warped view. You seem unable to accept the fact your mighty heroes were unable to capture the BEF and to cover this great mistake you resort to fabrication.
To show you the ramifications of this error study the following photos.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/monty0001.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Berlinparade.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Berlinb0001.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/Berlin_Victory_Parade7thAD.jpg
It looks like defeat has many fathers too, starting with Churchill.
You are dishonest, where are the british quotes on Dunkirk???

I can't see your point with this pictures: a drunk, a clown and a british parade to celebrate the russian's victory? quite a riddle.
you were only useful for cheering up the russians and the americans, your husbands, protectors and eventually, your masters

Leibstandarte
05-28-2010, 11:22 PM
Hitler offered peace to Britain many times throughout the war and it was always declined. It is obvious who wanted war, the question is... in the end, who won? Soviet Russia is gone, Britain, France, and the US are collapsing due to immigration and poor governments. It really is a shame.

pdf27
05-29-2010, 03:22 AM
Buffalo was one of the richest U.S. cities at the turn of the previous century....
Chip on the shoulder, much? :D


And did I forget previously to mention the mighty panzers of the Heer/SS relied on horse drawn carts? I think I did. This is always a fact that pisses off revisionist panzer-Fanbois. That the juggernaut of the German military machine still relied on pack animals. In France, relatively compacted prime tank country, the Germans could get away with this. They would pay for it on the steppes of Russia...
The only fully mechanised army of 1939 in the world... was the BEF. That's one of the reasons the BEF survived the German attack relatively intact, while the French Army largely disintegrated - they could hold it together in a retreat because their logistics could keep up.


That horse drawn cars defeated the british and french armies together in 4 weeks, not even the Maginot defenses were useful to help it, but for sure the Dunkirk "fortress" would have stopped them. Sounds very clever
The Maginot line DID stop the Germans - unfortunately for the French, that wasn't terribly useful as the Germans went around the edge of it.

Rising Sun*
05-29-2010, 05:04 AM
I can't see your point with this pictures: a drunk, a clown and a british parade to celebrate the russian's victory? quite a riddle.you were only useful for cheering up the russians and the americans, your husbands, protectors and eventually, your masters

Really?

Where were the Americans and Soviets in the first couple of years of the war while Britain and its Commonwealth alone fought the Germans?

And after that, work out the steady contribution of the British Merchant Marine, RN and RAF to the war against Germany and aid to the Soviets, along with British and Commonwealth land forces.

Your comment displays an ill-informed antagonism towards and contempt for Britain which infects your unbalanced views about Dunkirk.

Try to be more balanced in your assessments.

Nickdfresh
05-29-2010, 06:38 AM
Chip on the shoulder, much? :D

Absolutely. :) But all in good fun. If you ever make it back this way again, and you have time, the first round is on me...


The only fully mechanised army of 1939 in the world... was the BEF. That's one of the reasons the BEF survived the German attack relatively intact, while the French Army largely disintegrated - they could hold it together in a retreat because their logistics could keep up.

True. Even the French were somewhat mechanized in part. Unfortunately they sent the bulk of that force north springing the German trap for them in Belgium.


The Maginot line DID stop the Germans - unfortunately for the French, that wasn't terribly useful as the Germans went around the edge of it.

We could on and on with the lack of French foresight. The line and its defense in depth (unlike Eben Emael) did hold the Germans, and unfortunately, 400,000 immobilized Frenchmen. The Military Channel actually is playing the classic "World at War" series and they had the program on this very subject last evening. There was something about 1939 being the coldest winter in several decades and that causing construction of the line to cease and preventing its extension to the Belgian border. It should be said that the French military never considered the line to be "impregnable," it was only to hold the German Army while France mobilized. Some French officers wanted to mass French armor into a massive counter-punch and ignore any German advances into the Low countries. Whether it would have ultimately defeated the German attack or not given the inept French strategy of methodical battle, Gamelin saw this as politically unacceptable...

Nickdfresh
05-29-2010, 06:45 AM
Hitler offered peace to Britain many times throughout the war and it was always declined. It is obvious who wanted war, the question is... in the end, who won? Soviet Russia is gone, Britain, France, and the US are collapsing due to immigration and poor governments. It really is a shame.

Okay, so if Hitler wanted peace with Britain so badly, why did he excommunicate Rudolf Hess for trying to negotiate one? Hitler also wanted peace with Soviet Russia, and an armistice with France. How did that work out for Hitler's new friends?

Who won the War? I think the Allies did. I don't think we're collapsing, but our problems go far beyond immigrants and poor gov't...

pdf27
05-29-2010, 07:03 AM
Absolutely. :) But all in good fun. If you ever make it back this way again, and you have time, the first round is on me...
I'll be around for 3 weeks over Christmas (northern NJ/PA border), no idea what I'll be doing then though - probably lots of wedding related stuff I suspect.

Rising Sun*
05-29-2010, 07:49 AM
Hitler offered peace to Britain many times throughout the war and it was always declined.

Details?

To what extent was this backed up with peaceful gestures, such as not bombing Britain and not attacking British warships and not attacking British land forces?


It is obvious who wanted war,

Do you mean that it's obvious that Britain wanted war because it allegedly declined Hitler's alleged offers of peace?


the question is... in the end, who won?

Certainly not Germany.


Soviet Russia is gone

Which has nothing to do with WWII and a lot to do with America, Britain and France as nuclear powers confronting the Soviet political and war machine post-war and exhausting it.


Britain, France, and the US are collapsing due to immigration and poor governments. It really is a shame.
That is silly.

Greece is collapsing to some extent due to decades of poor governments. America, Britain and France are not.

Immigration may be an issue in many nations but it is not causing the collapse of any of the nations you mentioned. Indeed, without immigration over several centuries America would not be the powerhouse it is.

mkenny
05-29-2010, 07:58 AM
"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 145)

this is your heroe,

If you Google the quote the first thing you notice is the huge number of Far Right Hate Groups who use it. This quote is also a staple of David Icke and those loons who believe the world is manipulated by shape-shifting Lizards! You are in good company my friend, the world of lies, hate and fabrication.

In short it is a quote Said to have been made by Churchill that only appears in the book by Hughes.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emrys_Hughes

Hughes, Emrys
Winston Churchill in War and Peace
Glasgow, Unity Publishing, 1950. A critical book by one of Churchill’s foes from the Labour Party. 240 pages, paperback . Worth reading for a different view.

Here is a sample of the nutters who use this quote:

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=8104

http://www.savethemales.ca/001071.html

Glad you liked my pics, here are some more:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/berlin_1945_war_is_over.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/berlin8.jpg
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/berlin2.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e312/schwere/second%20one/berlin7u.jpg

kurt
05-29-2010, 08:26 AM
Does it matter who use this quote or if it is true or false?
Where are your arguments to assert this is false?, false like this one on Irak people:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Maybe wiky is another far right hate group,

I can see you have a crush on the russians, fan boy

mkenny
05-29-2010, 08:48 AM
Does it matter who use this quote or if it is true or false?

Lies were the staple of the thuggish Nazi Party. Glad to see you following in their footsteps.



I can see you have a crush on the russians, fan boy

I think a fan boy is someone from a Latin Country using a German name to post. You would have been classed as sub-human by your heroes.

Rising Sun*
05-29-2010, 08:51 AM
Does it matter who use this quote or if it is true or false?

As to who uses it: No.

As to whether it is true or false: Obviously, yes.


]Where are your arguments to assert this is false?

As you're the one using the quote in support of your argument, the burden of proof is upon you. It is impossible to prove that something which does not exist is false as there is no evidence for it, so there is no point asking someone to prove that something which does not exist does not exist.


like this one on Irak people:

Let's keep this to Dunkirk and things related to it.


I can see you have a crush on the russians, fan boy

Let's not turn this into a flame war and that, as a formal mod warning, goes for all posters in this thread.

Rising Sun*
05-29-2010, 09:19 AM
One factor that has been ignored in the discussion so far is that the French and British defences and operations were brought undone by the surrender of the Belgians, who failed to hold the line against the Germans and by surrendering opened a gap in the French / Belgian / British line of defence.

This came about because of the probably unconstitutional assumption of power by King Leopold III, who was also in command of his country's military forces, to capitulate against the advice of his ministers.

In its own way it equals Hitler's assumption of political and military powers.

So, if Leopold III had not done a Hitler, would the Dunkirk situation have occurred as it did and would the Germans have faced a stiffer fight than they did after Belgium's surrender?

Why is so much attention being devoted in this thread by some to Churchill's and Britain's deficiencies while completely ignoring Leopold's and Belgium's initial and crucial contribution to them?

mkenny
05-29-2010, 02:52 PM
The most valuable thing in the world is the truth; so valuable that it has often been barricaded by a bodyguard of lies."
Winston Churchil
then, who was the pathological liar?

Well let us see who is telling lies.................


"You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." (Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 145)
this is your hero,

When taking quotes from Holocaust Denier sites, Loony 'World Conspiracy' sites and right wing nut job sites you should ALWAYS, ALWAYS check the source.
In this case I did. The book where the quote is claimed to appear is online here:

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/BritishBulldog.pdf

and page 145 , suprise, suprise, says something completely different:


"Evidence of the first factor appears in a statement which Churchill made to the eminent American businessman General Robert E. Wood. Wood had lunch with Churchill in the latter's apartment in London in November, 1936, and at that time Churchill remarked to Wood: "Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her."."

As I said earlier this quote is used extensively on right-wing denier sites and IT IS A COMPLETE FABRICATION.



Where are your arguments to assert this is false?

See above. Now tell me again, who do you say was a liar?

Nickdfresh
05-29-2010, 04:31 PM
Does it matter who use this quote or if it is true or false?
Where are your arguments to assert this is false?, false like this one on Irak people:

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Maybe wiky is another far right hate group,

I can see you have a crush on the russians, fan boy

Crap off topic posts and ad hominem will get you nowhere here...

ubc
05-29-2010, 06:19 PM
That is why he invaded Poland-to prevent war with Britain?
He also invaded France Belgium and Holland to prevent war with Britain?
In much the same way his demands on Czechoslovakia were his last demands in Europe?
The man was a pathological liar and would say and do anything to get his way.
He never had any intention of making 'peace' with Britain other than the 'peace' granted to a defeated broken enemy.
Your problem is you can never forgive the British for bringing this maniac and his 3rd Reich to its eventual ruin





I am sure you are greatly upset that your heroes were not able to finish off the BEF and we understand your desire to re-write History to explain this failing. Those of us who live in the real world smile when we read your fiction.
This is the typical tactic of the true believer. No German military failure can be admitted. Every reverse is the result of some unforseen event and nothing can be admited that in any way detracts from the mtyh.
I hope you and your dream are happy together.


M Kenny, your understanding of prewar European history is appauling. If rewriting history means including the history of the other side, then I say bring it on. Otherwize all you have is the history of the victor, which is no history at all.

Anglo American histories of the war are ONLY valuable when they are dealing with their own actions and at most their understanding of the other sides actions and motivations etc. Any actions by the other side can ONLY be understood from POV of their own histories. You should NEVER EVER take the word of a one sides history over the word of the other side , when dealing with the othersides actions.

If you are not doing atleast this much, your words will NEVER represent those of us who live in the real world.

mkenny
05-29-2010, 06:27 PM
M Kenny, your understanding of prewar European history is appauling.

As is your spelling.



If rewriting history means including the history of the other side, then I say bring it on. Otherwize all you have is the history of the victor, which is no history at all.

Oh I don't know. To the victor belongs the spoils.



Anglo American histories of the war are ONLY valuable when they are dealing with their own actions and at most their understanding of the other sides actions and motivations etc. Any actions by the other side can ONLY be understood from POV of their own histories. You should NEVER EVER take the word of a one sides history over the word of the other side , when dealing with the othersides actions.

If you are not doing atleast this much, your words will NEVER represent those of us who live in the real world.

As I showed above I am always interested in getting to the source.
Perhaps you can explain how you know I confine myself to 'Anglo-American' sources? Do you have a spy-cam in my house and can read my book titles.?

kurt
05-29-2010, 07:12 PM
Lies were the staple of the thuggish Nazi Party. Glad to see you following in their footsteps.




I think a fan boy is someone from a Latin Country using a German name to post. You would have been classed as sub-human by your heroes.

I'm a german ethnic, and 3 out of 5 of the members of my grandfather's family died in Dresden, but I'm proud of my citizenship as a latinoamerican, besides there are many spanish descendants here, they were highly considered by Hitler for their excellent behavior in the eastern front.

For me a fan boy is someone who collects russian male pictures in his locker

mkenny
05-29-2010, 07:16 PM
Any comment on the fabricated Churchill quote you used?

kurt
05-29-2010, 07:33 PM
I will try to keep this discussion in the historical frame so,

I will refer to this man for the last time as long as I know he is not the subject of this thread:

I also found a very interesting portrait of Churchill, I investigate the autor looking for some relation with right wing groups and all I’ve found is an American professor at the Buffalo State College, and journalist of Chicago University,

I strongly recommend you this reading:
Here is the conclusion:
There is a way of looking at Winston Churchill that is very tempting: that he was a deeply flawed creature, who was summoned at a critical moment to do battle with a uniquely appalling evil, and whose very flaws contributed to a glorious victory — in a way, like Merlin, in C.S. Lewis's great Christian novel, That Hideous Strength.[169] Such a judgment would, I believe, be superficial. A candid examination of his career, I suggest, yields a different conclusion: that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.Ralph Raico
http://mises.org/daily/2973

Back to Dunkirk:

Some friend here ask me for a wetland where panzer operation had succeded, do some reading about this:

Guderian ordered the use of armored forces and ensured success in the much more unfavorable terrain at lake Ilmen during Barbarossa.

And another British General Quote:

“We shall have lost all our trained soldiers by the next few days-unless a miracle appears to help us”
Gen. Sir Edmund Ironside, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, 25 May 1940.

But I don't believe in miracles, although everyone has it's right to have it's own beliefs . But nowadays there are inquisitors everywhere.

kurt
05-29-2010, 07:42 PM
Any comment on the fabricated Churchill quote you used?



I checked your link and according to that book that quote is false, but It would have been honest from you to tell us what he wrote just after that quote,

"Germany is getting too strong and we must smash her." But Churchill was surely sufficiently well acquainted with Hitler's notorious Anglomania and his almost servile admiration of British imperialism to realize that Hitler was not likely to challenge England unless directly provoked. He wished collaboration with England rather than antagonism.

Nickdfresh
05-30-2010, 12:10 AM
M Kenny, your understanding of prewar European history is appauling. If rewriting history means including the history of the other side, then I say bring it on. Otherwize all you have is the history of the victor, which is no history at all.

Anglo American histories of the war are ONLY valuable when they are dealing with their own actions and at most their understanding of the other sides actions and motivations etc. Any actions by the other side can ONLY be understood from POV of their own histories. You should NEVER EVER take the word of a one sides history over the word of the other side , when dealing with the othersides actions.

If you are not doing atleast this much, your words will NEVER represent those of us who live in the real world.

You keep saying this. But what are the alternate "histories?" How can you call his understanding of history "appalling" without providing specific examples?

ubc
05-30-2010, 12:54 AM
Oh I don't know. To the victor belongs the spoils.




As I showed above I am always interested in getting to the source.
Perhaps you can explain how you know I confine myself to 'Anglo-American' sources? Do you have a spy-cam in my house and can read my book titles.?

History is independant of victors or vanquished. If you haven't learned that , there is not much hope.

I can gauge your responce by the ease with which to dismiss the impact Hitler had on Germany, the Wehrmacht and the whole European war. The ease with which you assume the CW version of Dunkirk is the right one???? In history there is no right and wrong side, there are always two sides to every event. You have to seek them both out to completely understand such an event. Not just pay lipservice to one side. A good historian would know this.

mkenny
05-30-2010, 03:18 AM
History is independant of victors or vanquished. If you haven't learned that , there is not much hope.

You are right. Maybe I should talk in riddles (like you) and then people might think I am clever (like you?)


I can gauge your responce by the ease with which to dismiss the impact Hitler had on Germany, the Wehrmacht and the whole European war. The ease with which you assume the CW version of Dunkirk is the right one????
I was thinking that I could gauge your response by the ease with which you assume the 'unbeatable Wehrmacht' version of history.

In history there is no right and wrong side, there are always two sides to every event. You have to seek them both out to completely understand such an event. Not just pay lipservice to one side. A good historian would know this.

Somehow I think it is much easier for you. Just find a version that reflects well on the German Army and ignore anything that has negative implications.

Perhaps you have further ramblings you wish to add?

Nickdfresh
05-30-2010, 11:24 AM
One factor that has been ignored in the discussion so far is that the French and British defences and operations were brought undone by the surrender of the Belgians, who failed to hold the line against the Germans and by surrendering opened a gap in the French / Belgian / British line of defence.

...

To an extent. But also to an extent, Franco-British operations were somewhat undermined by their own dependence on Belgium and their failure to anticipate the German plan (even though they were somewhat aware of a good deal of it--including Sickle Cut!). Gamelin was under a good deal of pressure--for he knew he was risking seriously overextending his forces and getting the best armed, most mechanized portion of them cut off in Belgium and/or the low countries--but not doing so would have been as politically unacceptable as the U.S. standing by and allowing Canada to be attacked or Germany standing by while someone invaded Austria today.

There were calls from within the French military to pursue less altruistic but more militarily sound strategy of fortifying the frontiers of France by either extending the Maginot Line to the sea and fortifying the border with Belgium, of creating smaller fortifications and awaiting the forces of the German breakthrough to coalesce. Once this line was pierced, then they would send the massed French mechanized forces to counter and smash any breakthrough. But this was heretical to the traditional French military thinking of the day..

It also should be noted that the fall of Fort Eben Emael via an expert German special operations attack in less than a day was considered somewhat shocking that completely threw off the Belgian timetable for mobilization. It was anticipated the Fort would hold for at least three days...

Nickdfresh
05-30-2010, 11:30 AM
I will try to keep this discussion in the historical frame so,

I will refer to this man for the last time as long as I know he is not the subject of this thread:

I also found a very interesting portrait of Churchill, I investigate the autor looking for some relation with right wing groups and all I’ve found is an American professor at the Buffalo State College, and journalist of Chicago University,

I strongly recommend you this reading:
Here is the conclusion:
There is a way of looking at Winston Churchill that is very tempting: that he was a deeply flawed creature, who was summoned at a critical moment to do battle with a uniquely appalling evil, and whose very flaws contributed to a glorious victory — in a way, like Merlin, in C.S. Lewis's great Christian novel, That Hideous Strength.[169] Such a judgment would, I believe, be superficial. A candid examination of his career, I suggest, yields a different conclusion: that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.Ralph Raico
http://mises.org/daily/2973

Um, I went to Buffalo State and took several history courses there. Their history dept. is designed to prepare high school teachers and is hardly a bastion of intellectual scholarship...


Back to Dunkirk:

Some friend here ask me for a wetland where panzer operation had succeded, do some reading about this:

Guderian ordered the use of armored forces and ensured success in the much more unfavorable terrain at lake Ilmen during Barbarossa.

And another British General Quote:

“We shall have lost all our trained soldiers by the next few days-unless a miracle appears to help us”
Gen. Sir Edmund Ironside, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, 25 May 1940.

But I don't believe in miracles, although everyone has it's right to have it's own beliefs . But nowadays there are inquisitors everywhere.

What's interesting is your constant attack on PM Winston Churchill's credibility yet complete faith in nearly every one of the Fuhrer's pronouncements at face value. Some might find that a bit troubling and would be perplexed that anyone would give more credibility to a mass murder who resorted to cowardly semantics of "evacuation" regarding his own atrocities..

Nickdfresh
05-30-2010, 11:54 AM
History is independant of victors or vanquished. If you haven't learned that , there is not much hope.

I can gauge your responce by the ease with which to dismiss the impact Hitler had on Germany, the Wehrmacht and the whole European war. The ease with which you assume the CW version of Dunkirk is the right one???? In history there is no right and wrong side, there are always two sides to every event. You have to seek them both out to completely understand such an event. Not just pay lipservice to one side. A good historian would know this.

I agree to an extent, and want the German point-of-view written. The problem here is that this isn't a case of "victor's writing the history." It's more of a case of German generals writing a fanciful after action report and absolving themselves for the blame of the BEF slipping away, and trying to pin it all on Hitler's "stop order" as well as contemporary hack historians and neo-fascists pointing out selective quotes of Hitler's speeches where he's trying to cover his own arse for a military blunder. Many of the German commanders you've named thus far, including Bock, had previously called for panzer halt! orders in order to consolidate gains, resupply and repair the panzers, and to allow the infantry to catch up and guard the axis of advance against Allied counterattacks in the panzer "'walls' or "panzer corridor"(Keegon). The truth is that few, if any, German Heer commanders considered an evacuation at Dunkirk likely as they had little conceptualization of amphibious operations..

Secondly, John Keegan writes that:


"The Germans had collectively grown nervous that day - although Guderian, commanding the 2nd and 10th Panzer Divisions, champed at the bit by every means to get forward. But Hitler, recorded Halder, 'is anxious about our own success, doesn't want to risk anything and therefore would be happiest to have us halt.' Halder himself was concerned with the line of 'walls' of the developing 'Panzer Corridor' with his infantry, which was lagging behind the tanks...Nevertheless (despite much evidence of two key French armies collapsing) the German high command, prompted by Hitler's anxieties, on 17 May imposed a halt on the advance." (John Keegan, The Second World War pg. 76)

So, what magnanimous act was Hitler trying to show the Allies on 17 May? His Panzer Halt order of 26 May was no different, especially considering the modest success the French "Weygand Line" was beginning to have in the south where the French fortified their towns and fought hard, much harder than they had done previously. Their problem was that no French mobile reserve existed to counter any German breakthroughs. Saying 'Hitler just let the British go at Dunkirk' because he wanted peace is nothing more than a Post hoc ergo propter hoc argument and ignores a good deal of his other demonstrated military incompetency...

Firefly
05-30-2010, 04:12 PM
I know that this Sounds ever so simplistic but I don't think the Germans really thought that they would ever do so well as they had. Poland had shown them what could be, but Im sure in their hearts they didn't really envisage the success that they had. In other words their own success made them cautious. I think that they possibly gave the Allies too much respect.

If Dunkirk had come after something like the Balkans then Im not sure the BEF would have escaped.

Nickdfresh
03-20-2011, 12:18 PM
I know that this Sounds ever so simplistic but I don't think the Germans really thought that they would ever do so well as they had. Poland had shown them what could be, but Im sure in their hearts they didn't really envisage the success that they had. In other words their own success made them cautious. I think that they possibly gave the Allies too much respect.

If Dunkirk had come after something like the Balkans then Im not sure the BEF would have escaped.

I think the consensus is that the Germans saw Fall Gelb and Rot as an all-or-nothing proposition that was either going to be spectacularly successful or result in a costly long war if the French recovered quick enough. But the German planners not named Guderian, Rommel, Halder, and Manstein certainly did not envision the speedy collapse...