Yes. The real butterflies would be later on when the British manpower crisis in 1944 becomes far more acute.
How important was the Dunkirk evacuation ?
- Thread starter SuperCalifraga
- Start date
If Operation Dynamo is complete failure the British Army will have lost 215,000 soldiers more than OTL. To put this in perspective:
Total number of British PoWs during WWII: 220,000.
Total death: 383,700.
This will not be a knock-out blow to the Allied war-effort but it will be crippling.
Total number of British PoWs during WWII: 220,000.
Total death: 383,700.
This will not be a knock-out blow to the Allied war-effort but it will be crippling.
Deleted member 94680
I know, the Second BEF. Hence why I referred to the Second BEF being evacuated.
I know. Hence “a few weeks later” in my post that you’ve avoided quoting. The point I was making was even as things got worse there was no call for surrender. Once the House had made its mind up - not basing that decision on the evacuation of 350,000 men but hoping for 45,000 - they were sticking the course.
We disagree.
My point is that is a misreading of the reading of the situation both tactical and historical from a British point of view. The main point was the Empire was safe and the Home Islands even more so.
See above. I disagree.
Now, if the loss of the BEF was followed by the Fall of France and the loss of Egypt...
I'm not so sure if it would be crippling. The losses in WW1 were a lot bigger. And the losses of Germany in both wars even bigger.
They would be crippling for the next year or two at least. Wasn't the Wehrmacht crippled after Stalingrad?
Total number of troops Operation Crusader: 118,000
Total number of Allied forces First Battle of El Alamein: 150,000
Total number of Allied forces Operation Torch: 109,000
215,000 troops is a lot and something's gotta give.
Actually the Germans were already crippled after the winter of 1941-42. Most divisions never got upto strength again. Losses at Barbarossa were much higher than the allied losses in the west. But they managed to launch Operation Blue nonetheless.
marathag
Banned
Luftwaffe wasn't that good to cut off sea routes.
Dunkirk evac fails from the Heer taking the Channel Ports, not air denial from LW or Sea denial by the KM
Garrison
Donor
It's a piece of postwar nonsense created by German Generals eager to polish their resumes, part of the 'if it wasn't for Hitler's stupid decisions...' mythology. The tenacious defence of the Dunkirk pocket by British and French troops didn't fit the narrative of the overwhelming power of Blitzkrieg promoted by the Germans and embraced by certain elements in Britain and France. After all if Blitzkrieg was some world shaking new tactic carried out by an ultra modern army then the military leadership of the Allies was exonerated from responsibility for the fall of France. Any other scenario leads to awkward questions about the performance of French and British Generals.
This quote from a German army report prepared for units training for Operation Sealion probably come closer to the truth of why Operation Dynamo succeeded:
mial42
Gone Fishin'
That being said, how does the loss of the BEF affect the rest of the war, assuming no peace? I'd assume that Axis would do better in North Africa in 1940-41 (but logistics seriously limits how far they can go), and Barbarossa probably wouldn't be significantly affected (although the Germans will definitely take casualties clearing the pocket). The real butterflies come with the clearing of North Africa and then the invasion of Southern Europe OTL: the US will need to gear up even quicker, because Britain just won't have the troops to contribute as they did OTL. Do these get delayed or weakened? If so, how does this affect the Eastern Front?
I'd expect post-war to see an even weaker Britain (materially and diplomatically), while the Soviet Union would be worse off materially due to additional losses, but have more of a sphere of influence in Europe (due to a slower and weaker ground war in the west). The US would also take more casualties, but still comes off very lightly compared to the other major combatants, and is even more dominant outside the USSR's sphere (with both Britain and France weaker than OTL, and West Germany probably smaller).
I'd expect post-war to see an even weaker Britain (materially and diplomatically), while the Soviet Union would be worse off materially due to additional losses, but have more of a sphere of influence in Europe (due to a slower and weaker ground war in the west). The US would also take more casualties, but still comes off very lightly compared to the other major combatants, and is even more dominant outside the USSR's sphere (with both Britain and France weaker than OTL, and West Germany probably smaller).
This. I could see a morale collapse if the entire BEF (and their historically rescued allies) were captured. But it'd be after Churchill was removed.
That implies no one who evacuated from Dunkirk died or was captured in any of the subsequent campaigns of WWII.
Which is the say that that's some severe double counting.
Last edited:
Sorry, should have made myself more clear: the British Army will have lost 215,000 more men than OTL at that point. The other numbers mentioned were to put things in perspective.
I think one of Professor Devereux's articles (in the 'Helm's Deep' series, I think) over on 'A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry' pointed out that if you're giving a good pre-battle speech you emphasise how tough the fighting to come may be, regardless of how difficult you expect it to actually be.
Garrison
Donor
Except this was a report prepared by one of the Corps that actually fought at Dunkirk for training purposes, not some stirring pre-battle speech and it tends to be backed up by the facts of the battle, which cannot be said for the 'Hitler let them escape' or 'if not for the halt order...' nonsense.
Yes after a little while, it's 12,000 miles after all, Not the ten days it would have taken the Canadian army to get here
In WWII, Germany was a complete dictatorship fighting another complete dictatorship for national survival. As the nominal threat of a direct invasion faded, UK national survival was not at stake. As a result, the political leadership of both Germany and the USSR could ignore casualties rates that western democracies nations could not.
In contrast, the UK was a democracy where individual lives mattered. Firing squads could not be used to stifle discontent in the population nor in the Armed Forces. Thus, after 970,000 WWI deaths, British strategic planners were playing on a very different field than Germany and the USSR and needed to plan accordingly.
The Germans also had a secret weapon in the form of demographics. Prior to WWI, the German birth rate in both Catholic and Protestant areas remained unusually high for an industrialized nation. Germany then maintained this high birth rate into the post WWI era despite the tremendous economic hardships. This gave them larger "classes" of conscripts for each year.
Last edited:
??? I quoted that line and referenced it.
From 26 May to 4 June, things got better, not worse, with the successful evacuation of the BEF frm Dunkirk. Then things got worse again, with the fall of France. That was a new disaster, not anticipated. in May - or there would not have been a Second BEF.
Why would the fall of Egypt, thousands of km from Britain, and presumably months later, cause such a panic?
You don't think that after losing France and 200K of troops a continued string of defeats culminating in the loss of Egypt and the Canal wouldn't cause a panic?
ITYM Dunkirk.
Umm, no. For a moment I thought you were right, but no: any OTL Dunkirk evacuee who became a casualty later will ITTL be replaced by someone who becomes an additional casualty.