How important was the Dunkirk evacuation ?

[SealTheRealDeal]

ITYM Dunkirk.

Drat, second time I've made that mistake. Stupid channel coast locations starting with D.

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.

To assume that WWII would go the exact same as OTL after this PoD, down to Britain sustaining the exact same casualties in the exact same engagements is an unsustainable degree of historical determinism. Now, the Mediterranean theatre may not be particularly affected, at least in the immediate time frame, but as I mentioned up thread, the manpower crisis Britain experienced in 1944 and 1945 iOTL will be much worse iTTL and possibly occur sooner. If the shock of losing that many men in one encirclement isn't enough to change how Britain fights WWII, then the manpower crisis surely will.

 

[jsb]

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

Since nether really exist in numbers in fighting condition at the time does it matter, we are just talking manpower and industrial resources to prepare and equip them the RN/RAF will have to buy the time so 10 days or 50 days is not very relevant when we are talking 6 months+?

 

[Catsmate]

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

True, and time to get the shipping organised. And I believe they were less ready for deployment in 1940.

 

[Deleted member 94680]

??? I quoted that line and referenced it.

You made it look like I was implying the speech was made at the time of the Dunkirk evacuation. I corrected the error.

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.

So things got worse?

That was a new disaster, not anticipated. in May - or there would not have been a Second BEF.

And still didn’t precipitate new calls for surrender or negotiations. Which is the point I’m making. Which I have not tried to avoid referencing.

Why would the fall of Egypt, thousands of km from Britain, and presumably months later, cause such a panic?

If you don’t understand this then you don’t understand the British mindset at all. Losing Egypt means losing the Suez Canal. Losing the Canal means the route to India is imperilled. The Empire is all about retaining India.

 

[Crowbar Six]

You are aware of the Indian Divisions that took part in the Italian Campaign I hope?

Yes I am aware, but the IGS made a decision not to use Indian troops in Northern Europe despite their exceptional performance in WW1. There were perceived issues when Indian troops were used on the Western Front in WW1 which is why they would not countenance their use in WW2.

 

[thaddeus]

I have a peculiar view that the way Dunkirk evacuation fails would matter, if the German army captures most or all of the forces, well they kind of expected that?

on the other hand the RN had massacred the German destroyers at Narvik and was able to conduct a successful evacuation from Dunkirk.

if the KM had better functioning torpedoes, https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1599&context=etd, and made a better showing at Norway and Dunkirk, then the calculation for UK is much different.

(also would not discount the fact that some British troops are going to be evacuated, while under this scenario none of the tens of thousands of French troops evacuated historically are going to be? that would have to have some effects on relations)

still think the outcome would be a Phoney Peace bookend to prior Phoney War

 

[Garrison]

In terms of preparedness to defend Britain it has to be borne in mind that the Wehrmacht was in no position to mount any sort of invasion in July or August. Even ignoring the not so small matter of shipping there were major shortages of supplies and munitions and the Luftwaffe had to reorganize and get set up along the French coast. In other words there was no way for the Germans to exploit Britain's moment of greatest weakness.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

I voted important but not essential

On June 5th 1940 Britain had 27 Infantry Divisions in various states of strength and training

The BEF at Dunkirk represented about 9 of those Divisions (the 51st Highland Division was the 10th and being detached and part of the French 10th Corps the only one lost OTL)

What it would have done is robbed the British army of a large % of its professional field and staff Officers and experienced NCO's as well as LOC and support specialists upon which the eventual 'continental' army was built upon.

What has to be remembered is that the majority of the troops who would eventually serve in the British army were in May 1940 not yet members of the armed forces or were still training to be soldiers.

What impact this would have had is that there would have been a steeper learning curve and very likely far reduced options for 'action' during 1940 and 41

This might actually be a good thing in hindsight as it might prevent 'adventurism' and a smarter use of manpower such as Greece etc as well as there being far fewer troops to squander as part of the Hong Kong Garrison (originally the plan was going to be that the garrison would be reduced before the offer of an understrength Canadian Brigade resulted in a complete turn around).

The Imperial leadership would have to be far more frugal in the expenditure of manpower

The impact on HMG is not going to be as severe as might be thought - late May when things looked very bleak they had already steeled themselves for the loss of the entire force in Belgium/North Eastern France - that the force was mostly extracted was a surprise to everyone who was not Admiral Ramsey (and I am sure he was a little bit surprised).

And the Rot that led to the entire debacle could hardly be laid at Winston's feet (okay he bears some responsibility for the 20 year of inaction but not the delay in rearming) - he being one of the back benchers famously berating the HMG of the day before the war about the sordid state of affairs and warning everyone who he could get to listen about this dangerous German chap who everyone was admiring at the time for effectively sorting Germany out.

 

[Coulsdon Eagle]

Yes I am aware, but the IGS made a decision not to use Indian troops in Northern Europe despite their exceptional performance in WW1. There were perceived issues when Indian troops were used on the Western Front in WW1 which is why they would not countenance their use in WW2.

My understanding is that the Indian Corps was redeployed to the Middle East in WW1 was because the vast amount of supplies they received came from India, so simplifying & shortening their LOCs.

I've heard tales the Indians didn't like the cold & wet - will, no-one did, but surprisingly many troops came from the mountainous regions (often cold) or from the coastal regions (monsoons). I can't imaging what the Gurkhas think coming from Nepal, that bone-dry arid desert...

 

[Cryhavoc101]

My understanding is that the Indian Corps was redeployed to the Middle East in WW1 was because the vast amount of supplies they received came from India, so simplifying & shortening their LOCs.

I've heard tales the Indians didn't like the cold & wet - will, no-one did, but surprisingly many troops came from the mountainous regions (often cold) or from the coastal regions (monsoons). I can't imaging what the Gurkhas think coming from Nepal, that bone-dry arid desert...

Yes

Lots of the pre war Indian army work was 'policing' the North West Frontier

We would identify this terrain as similar to Afghanistan both hot and then bloody freezing, in places arid and mountainous and in others very green and wet!

One of the First defeats of an Axis formation in WW2 (Sidi Barrani) was inflicted by troops including the 4th Indian Division who later joined their sister Division the 5th Division who was outnumbered in East Africa 10 to 1 so the odds were a more manageable 5 to 1 - ensuring victory in that theatre

 

[Mister Mister]

True, and time to get the shipping organised. And I believe they were less ready for deployment in 1940.

Canadian Army at the time was pretty much a joke, at least in comparison with loss of BEF... How much could they send in early summer 1940, one division?

 

[TDM]

Yes I am aware, but the IGS made a decision not to use Indian troops in Northern Europe despite their exceptional performance in WW1. There were perceived issues when Indian troops were used on the Western Front in WW1 which is why they would not countenance their use in WW2.

The perceived issues were seen in the context of OTL i.e. having other options than having to do that and it being trade off with those issues. The issues among other things being basically the more Indian troops were used outside of India (and to a lesser extent southern Asia) the higher the "price" the Indian nationalists would likely demand later (and reasonably so).

So it's not they won't countenance it in any circumstances, especially having to replace troops not recovered at Dunkirk, but that an ATL might well adjust that balance of factors.

 

[Catsmate]

Canadian Army at the time was pretty much a joke, at least in comparison with loss of BEF... How much could they send in early summer 1940, one division?

True, the Conscription Crisis wasn't as bad in Canada as in Ireland in the Great War but King wouldn't have wanted a repeat.
IIRR Britain wasn't interested in Canadian troops in Europe until near the Fall of France, with one brigade in the 2BEF.

 

[boredviewer1234]

I think the greatest impact would be on the colonies, with Britain fair weaker and Free France having lost so much in short amount of time, you would expect a lot of unrest and might see some new rebellions.

Now their are a lot of options to replace the men they lost, Britain could try to get a Arab recruitment drive by outright slashing the Palestine Mandates purpose as a state for Jews (Plus it was a issue garrisoning it in peace time).

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Independence for India the minute the War is over, owing to no Churchill and far higher Indian recruitment?

 

[TDM]

Independence for India the minute the War is over, owing to no Churchill and far higher Indian recruitment?

Maybe not the instant, but yeah

Of course OTL is happens pretty quickly anyway. And while it might be hindsight talking I think it was pretty clear which way India at least was going to go anyway!

 

[TDM]

I think the greatest impact would be on the colonies, with Britain fair weaker and Free France having lost so much in short amount of time, you would expect a lot of unrest and might see some new rebellions.

Now their are a lot of options to replace the men they lost, Britain could try to get a Arab recruitment drive by outright slashing the Palestine Mandates purpose as a state for Jews (Plus it was a issue garrisoning it in peace time).

I think it will depend on where the colonies are. many of them in the sights of the axis weren't really keen on swapping one colonial master for another.

Problem with the Arab mandate is that any British promises are going to have to be signed in royal blood to be believed (given post WW1 history). The Arabs were a great foil against the Turks in WW1 for all sorts of reason not quite so well placed for WW2. But actually maybe in N.Africa?

 

[Deleted member 94680]

Maybe not the instant, but yeah

Of course OTL is happens pretty quickly anyway. And while it might be hindsight talking I think it was pretty clear which way India at least was going to go anyway!

Maybe tongue in cheek but I kind of think Indian independence was delayed at least initially as there was hope that it could be held off for a decade or two/delayed until the natives see straight/passed off the other lot after the election depending on your viewpoint.

A firm declaration during the War (the free and democratic peoples of India are fighting for their place in the concert of nations... blah blah) would maybe make any ‘delay’ more palatable as long as it was believable. It would also, hopefully, prevent some (all?) of the mistakes born out of the rushed nature of OTL boundary commissions and the like.

 

[HJ Tulp]

I voted important but not essential

On June 5th 1940 Britain had 27 Infantry Divisions in various states of strength and training

The BEF at Dunkirk represented about 9 of those Divisions (the 51st Highland Division was the 10th and being detached and part of the French 10th Corps the only one lost OTL)

What it would have done is robbed the British army of a large % of its professional field and staff Officers and experienced NCO's as well as LOC and support specialists upon which the eventual 'continental' army was built upon.

What has to be remembered is that the majority of the troops who would eventually serve in the British army were in May 1940 not yet members of the armed forces or were still training to be soldiers.

What impact this would have had is that there would have been a steeper learning curve and very likely far reduced options for 'action' during 1940 and 41

This might actually be a good thing in hindsight as it might prevent 'adventurism' and a smarter use of manpower such as Greece etc as well as there being far fewer troops to squander as part of the Hong Kong Garrison (originally the plan was going to be that the garrison would be reduced before the offer of an understrength Canadian Brigade resulted in a complete turn around).

The Imperial leadership would have to be far more frugal in the expenditure of manpower

The impact on HMG is not going to be as severe as might be thought - late May when things looked very bleak they had already steeled themselves for the loss of the entire force in Belgium/North Eastern France - that the force was mostly extracted was a surprise to everyone who was not Admiral Ramsey (and I am sure he was a little bit surprised).

And the Rot that led to the entire debacle could hardly be laid at Winston's feet (okay he bears some responsibility for the 20 year of inaction but not the delay in rearming) - he being one of the back benchers famously berating the HMG of the day before the war about the sordid state of affairs and warning everyone who he could get to listen about this dangerous German chap who everyone was admiring at the time for effectively sorting Germany out.

Could be but there are bound to be some operations that can't be launched the were beneficial. How about the situation in Iraq and Syria?

Would the coup in Yugoslavia happen ITTL? An Axis and stable (or somewhat stable) Yugoslavia would be a boon for the Axis for sure.

 

[RedSword12]

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.

The end of German conscription as per the Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany's ability to fight a prolonged war of attrition. The low proportion of well-trained reserves in the optimal fighting age group hamstrung Nazi Germany's ability to replace losses with troops who were up to par with those who'd been lost. As losses rose and the best troops of the early years (who'd mostly been born in the low-birth-rate years of World War I and thus were in shorter supply) died off, the Germans faced increasingly the unenviable choice of using either older men in their late 30's and 40's who'd been conscripted and trained fully in the German Empire years, or younger, less-trained men.

Here's a good video on the topic: