Hey guys maybe you can help me out with a project I have to do. Essentially I have to argue in depth what would have happened if Hitler had won at Dunkrik (Not if he could of, but if he did). I need to know what the side effects of this would be ( a possible invasion of British Isles or the UK signing a peace with Hitler.) Also I need to know If hitler still could have won the war if he was victorious at Dunkirk (i.e without the British army could hitler have beaten the Soviets or the US assuming both of these powers get dragged into the war). If any you guys can help me out with this that would be great.
No Miracle of Dunkrik
- Thread starter DjBaraca
- Start date
KCammy
Banned
You can rule this out.
Later on in the war, you could see Britain more willing to accept peace, being that bit more short on manpower. But signing a peacetreaty straight after that is a bit...
Then again, it is fucking Chamberlain.
Just a little nit-pick, but the Germans did win at Dunkirk. Sure, the Brits managed to evacuate many men, but it was still a loss, as they couldn't stop Hitler from overruning France, they lost alot of equipment, ect...
Yeah I know that and invasion is unlikely but I still have to argue why it wouldn't be successful. I also think Churchill had just got in power by this point
Nasseirimo what I am trying to argue is what if the Germans moved in and wiped out or captured the vast majority of the Allied army at Dunkrik. Thus having no miracle at Dunkrik
Well, it certianly hampers the British war effort, they might not have as much manpower to spare around the world. However, a German invasion is still not likely as the navy was the main obstacle for the Germans, not the Army. Im afraid im not sure how badly British moral would be affected, and part of me thinks that Britain might agree to conditionally surrender (return of POW's, maybe withdrawal from most of France), but im not quite sure. Im sure theres hundreds of board members more knowledgeable then me about the subject so im sure they can correct me.
mowque
Banned
How much really changes? Hitler still can't march to London. And the Royal Navy (And Royal Airforce) is still there. Hitler is still going to give up and attack Russia.
RookieHistorian
Banned
Wasn't Dunkirk a sort of middle finger from the British to the Germans? It may have been a German Tactical and Strategic victory, but it was a British Morale victory. It inspired the British people didn't it?
I suppose if the British, french, and belgian forces there had been captured or crushed, it might have been (to some british people) a sign that Britian didn't have the capability of fighting and winning against Germany. Some people might have started raising their voices and tried to get Britian to sign a peace.
This of course, is all a maybe. Obviously, Hitler wouldn't get the alliance he desired with Britian, but he would have only one enemy to worry about (for a while anyways). I do however, see this as potentially causing some problems for Italy. Benito wanted Egypt and British territory in africa didn't he?
I suppose if the British, french, and belgian forces there had been captured or crushed, it might have been (to some british people) a sign that Britian didn't have the capability of fighting and winning against Germany. Some people might have started raising their voices and tried to get Britian to sign a peace.
This of course, is all a maybe. Obviously, Hitler wouldn't get the alliance he desired with Britian, but he would have only one enemy to worry about (for a while anyways). I do however, see this as potentially causing some problems for Italy. Benito wanted Egypt and British territory in africa didn't he?
BlairWitch749
Banned
i don't see how losing 3000 artillery pieces and nearly all the field equipment of an army is giving the middle finger to the Germans
capturing the british army at dunkirk is devastating... you are talking about the overwhelming majority of their officer and nco's who had any experience at all... the british ability to wage war on land is absolutely crippled if the BEF is captured in tact
you could see the italians overrun egypt due to a lack of british forces available as reinforcements...it takes 12 months to build an effective infantry division... british strategic and tactical options would be basically zero with the loss of their field army...peace is not out of the question due to not being able to envision any kind of success on the ground
Cook
Banned
Churchill was P.M. as of the 10th of May 1940, which coincided with the commencement of the German offensive in North-West Europe. Dynamo started on the 26th May.
More importantly the B.E.F. constituted almost the entire British Professional Army. Lose them and you lose the nucleus of the future British army that fought in North Africa, Italy and finally returned to Europe.
When Operation Dynamo commenced it wasn’t expected to withdraw more than 40,000 men, ultimately 338,000 men were evacuated, almost the entire B.E.F. plus 100,000 French and Belgian soldiers.
Churchill probably would have wanted to continue the war, but without the professional army to form a basis for the greatly expanded army necessary just to defend the British Empire’s territories, without considering any offensive action, it is hard to see the belligerent British attitude lasting even through to the end of 1940, especially against German propaganda showing 200,000 British POWs as a bargaining chip for a negotiated peace.
I’m currently reading Major General Julian Thompson’s book on Dunkirk. Given the number of times the British were just extraordinarily lucky during the retreat and evacuation it really is a miracle they got the B.E.F. out.
Last edited:
So essentially if the BEF is wiped out at Dunkirk then the British are effectively screwed. Is their any way the Brits could hold out in Africa without Montgomery(He and Harlod Alexander were at Dunkirk), maybe Canada, ANZC, and South Africa, the British Reserves and the Indians could hold out and begin to form a new core of the army. Also would Hitler invade the Soviet Union earlier because of his success in crushing the Brits at Dunkirk.
The Brits still have divisions of the Indian Army available for service in Egypt though.
A disaster at Dunkirk would significantly strengthen the hand of those pushing for a peace deal in the Cabinet. In fact it may well be the case that Churchill would be forced to resign if he wasn't prepared to come to terms with the Germans. I can't imagine these terms being massively onerous, but we would be wanting our soldiers back and that would certainly form an important bargaining chip for Hitler.
Cook
Banned
Not just the senior commanders that would have been lost, of which Brooke, Montgomery and Alexander were just the most high profile, but all the officers, senior NCOs and junior NCOs necessary for an army. As Blair has said, it takes at least a year to form a division, but only if you have the experienced core personnel to form around. Otherwise you have inexperienced people making stupid mistakes, again and again and again.
It should be noted that if Britain sues for peace than Stalin is going to get very suspicious of Hitler. In OTL he assumed wrongly that Hitler wouldn't risk a two front war, and the Soviets were consequently quite unprepared in 1941. If Stalin believes Hitler is going to attack then he can either launch a preemptive strike or pull the bulk of his forces east of the Dneiper and form a strong defensive line there.
Some additional factors here:
(1) The British grip on those parts of it's empire that didn't want to be part of the empire would be weakened. India and Egypt to name just a couple, had strong nationalist movements or at least sentiment and a lot of people in those countries were biding their time, waiting for an opportunity to become independent (or in the case of Egypt and Iraq to make their theoretical independence real).
(2) It's possible that the perception of British weakness would bring other powers into the war against Britain. A few possibilities are:
- Japan (kicking off their conquests 18 months early)
- Spain (Going for Gibraltar)
- Turkey (Going after Northern Iraq and it's oil)
- Thailand (Going after disputed territory in Malaysia)
- Iran (Going after generous oil concessions extracted by the Brits)
- The Soviets (Invading Iran and threatening British oil interests there)
All of those countries had very good reasons not to go to war with the British in summer 1940, which is why they historically didn't, but they were all strongly tempted at one point or another in the war. The perception (and reality) of British weakness would lower the perceived risk, and raise the chances of these powers jumping in.
(1) The British grip on those parts of it's empire that didn't want to be part of the empire would be weakened. India and Egypt to name just a couple, had strong nationalist movements or at least sentiment and a lot of people in those countries were biding their time, waiting for an opportunity to become independent (or in the case of Egypt and Iraq to make their theoretical independence real).
(2) It's possible that the perception of British weakness would bring other powers into the war against Britain. A few possibilities are:
- Japan (kicking off their conquests 18 months early)
- Spain (Going for Gibraltar)
- Turkey (Going after Northern Iraq and it's oil)
- Thailand (Going after disputed territory in Malaysia)
- Iran (Going after generous oil concessions extracted by the Brits)
- The Soviets (Invading Iran and threatening British oil interests there)
All of those countries had very good reasons not to go to war with the British in summer 1940, which is why they historically didn't, but they were all strongly tempted at one point or another in the war. The perception (and reality) of British weakness would lower the perceived risk, and raise the chances of these powers jumping in.
While the BEF was a major part of the British army, it was not the full army. The 2nd BEF, which included 1. Armoured Division, Beauman Division, 52. Lowland Division and 1. Canadian Division, collectively known as the 2nd BEF, were evacuated with most of their equipment and in good order in Operation Ariel. About 100 000 second line troops were also evacuated.
Operation Cycle did not go as well, but most of 51. Highland Division and some French troops made it out.
If the Germans attack Dunkirk, lots of the British troops will fight very hard - as they usually did with their backs to the wall - and the German Panzer divisions will be roughed up quite a bit. This might delay Fall Rot enough for the French to put up more resistance and the French government to opt for fighting on from North Africa.
The troops at Dunkirk did not play much part in ww2 until 1942. The forces in the western desert was made up of 7. Armoured (created on spot with assets already in Egypt) and 1. Armoured (not part of Dunkirk) and Czechs, Poles, New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans and Indians, mostly. There were also plenty of 2nd line formations that the British has in Egypt but never used - the East African Division, the Belgian Kongo Brigade, the Arab Legion, the Sudanese Defence Force and so on.
While a loss of the BEF at Dunkirk might butterfly some things, like Operation Compass (however, there's no way the Italians can advance beyond El Alamein), I do not think it will influence the outcome of ww2 that much - the soldiers from the Empire and USA will have to shoulder more duties as there are fewer British soldiers to shoulder the same duties, but I do not think things will be that different.
Operation Cycle did not go as well, but most of 51. Highland Division and some French troops made it out.
If the Germans attack Dunkirk, lots of the British troops will fight very hard - as they usually did with their backs to the wall - and the German Panzer divisions will be roughed up quite a bit. This might delay Fall Rot enough for the French to put up more resistance and the French government to opt for fighting on from North Africa.
The troops at Dunkirk did not play much part in ww2 until 1942. The forces in the western desert was made up of 7. Armoured (created on spot with assets already in Egypt) and 1. Armoured (not part of Dunkirk) and Czechs, Poles, New Zealanders, Australians, South Africans and Indians, mostly. There were also plenty of 2nd line formations that the British has in Egypt but never used - the East African Division, the Belgian Kongo Brigade, the Arab Legion, the Sudanese Defence Force and so on.
While a loss of the BEF at Dunkirk might butterfly some things, like Operation Compass (however, there's no way the Italians can advance beyond El Alamein), I do not think it will influence the outcome of ww2 that much - the soldiers from the Empire and USA will have to shoulder more duties as there are fewer British soldiers to shoulder the same duties, but I do not think things will be that different.
With not much of a trained army to build on, the US might not have sent Britain the 500,000 or so rifles, other small arms, and artillery that they historically sent--essentially enough weapons to equip (poorly) 20-25 divisions. Historically there was an argument within the Roosevelt administration as to whether the Brits were viable enough to make use of those weapons, or whether they were a lost cause and the weapons would be better used to help build up the US army.
Historically aiding the Brits won out, but the US knew the issues involved in rebuilding divisions from scratch, and might well have decided to hoard weapons rather than risk them falling into German hands--something that we know in hindsight was unlikely, but Roosevelt and company didn't know.
If the US decided that Britain was a write-off, the implications would go far beyond just the infantry weapons. They might decide to keep aircraft slated to go to Britain, or at least the ones originally intended for France and signed over to the British. The overaged destroyers might also stay in the US navy.
Historically aiding the Brits won out, but the US knew the issues involved in rebuilding divisions from scratch, and might well have decided to hoard weapons rather than risk them falling into German hands--something that we know in hindsight was unlikely, but Roosevelt and company didn't know.
If the US decided that Britain was a write-off, the implications would go far beyond just the infantry weapons. They might decide to keep aircraft slated to go to Britain, or at least the ones originally intended for France and signed over to the British. The overaged destroyers might also stay in the US navy.
Another issue: Would the Ultra secret remain intact with 200,000 British soldiers in German hands? I don't know the answer to that. What precautions did the Brits take to make sure nobody with knowledge-direct or indirect of code-breaking could be captured?
For that matter, what about people with knowledge about British codes, about radar, about strategic industry. One (but by no means the main) of the problems the Germans faced in the Battle of Britain is that they didn't understand the British economy. They didn't consider the Brits priority potential enemies until late in the game (1937-38 I believe) and hadn't identified weak spots--unlike the situation with Poland and France. British POWs would provide a rich source for figuring out the British economy, assuming that German intelligence utilized it properly.
For that matter, what about people with knowledge about British codes, about radar, about strategic industry. One (but by no means the main) of the problems the Germans faced in the Battle of Britain is that they didn't understand the British economy. They didn't consider the Brits priority potential enemies until late in the game (1937-38 I believe) and hadn't identified weak spots--unlike the situation with Poland and France. British POWs would provide a rich source for figuring out the British economy, assuming that German intelligence utilized it properly.
Military, it would not change that much. The only thing that UK had to do after the fall of France and before the arrival of US forces is hold on, and to do that they only needed the Navy (RAF also helped). Once the US enters the war, british land forces are usefull but not essential. North Africa would still be a side show, and the british could hold on with their resources even without the BEF.
The main change could be, as said, political. If the shock of lossing so many soldiers forces a pace deal with the Reich, war could have been very different. Without UK at war, there is no US at war, and I can see a chance for the germans to beat the soviets one on one.
The main change could be, as said, political. If the shock of lossing so many soldiers forces a pace deal with the Reich, war could have been very different. Without UK at war, there is no US at war, and I can see a chance for the germans to beat the soviets one on one.
What's the scenario here? If it's that only 20-30,000 men actually get evacuated, surely the military are going to place a high priority on getting essential personnel out of the pocket. I can't see no-one getting out because the BEF was never in danger of being completely encircled without access to the Channel ports.