The problem with losing most of the 1st BEF will be felt later in the war when the British started running out of men in 1944.
What if the evacuation of Dunkirk had failed?
- Thread starter Xx_Pro_State_Exam_xX
- Start date
Giant Man Eating Rabbits
Banned
I presume then they'd go with OTL and start rearranging battalions/regiments and numbers to compensate for this.
Or start cutting back on RN recruitment numbers as the Battle of the Atlantic was in the process of being won in 1944.
There are also other possibilities, like sending less men to Greece and Crete (or maybe not at all and keeping focus on NA and wrapping that up before Hitler sends the DAK). Or maybe buttterflies occur during the battle of France leading to more losses for the Germans or maybe more french joining the free french.
I.e. 'halfing' the complement of every company/battalion/regiment might give more 'regiments' ... but still not more men.
... what might make certain 'gains' of the Nazis much easier than IOTL ...
... what sounds - tbh - more like wishfull thinking than some educated guessing ... what alternate history by'n large is or should be.
Band in China
Banned
Guy was rude, didn't have good points, and was either lying about claims or too lazy to back up their (wrong) claims.
True, but if the UK manages to secure NA in 1941 that may lead to french NA joining the free french and the mediterrenean being opened up for shipping, which would be a major gain for the allies. It's not very likely due to logistical considerations, but if Hitler delays the DAK it's not impossible.
I agree it's not very likely, but there were some solid reasons for the germans to halt the advance at Dunkirk and not press head on. Continuing the advance may lead to bigger losses in the panzer divisions and more time needed for preparing the continuing battle of France (or the battle itself) which means the french can prepare better and put up more of a fight... what sounds - tbh - more like wishfull thinking than some educated guessing ... what alternate history by'n large is or should be.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Operation Paul per se is historical fact. It was an extension of the plan to mine Norwegian waters (Operation Wilfred) by mining the Swedish waters around the port of Lulea. Wilfred (and the potential follow up plan R4 to occupy Norwegian and Swedish ore mines) which was overtaken by events when the Germans invaded Norway . Operation Paul relied on Swordfish laying mines in Swedish waters from the carriers off Norway.
It was never implemented but the conspiracy theorists try to use it to blame Churchill for the loss of the Glorious which they suggest was part of the Operation Paul plan (even though when it was sunk her deck was basically full of land based Hurricanes and Gladiators). Essentially the story tries to portray Churchill as monomaniac focussing on risky operations that would extend the war at expense of thousands of British lives. It's extremely tenuous but doesn't stop some people from repeating it.
To be fair, everyone on the Allied side was prepared to violate Norwegian neutrality and many were prepared to do the same to Sweden too. But Germany beat them to it and that made the Swedish element of the plan redundant. In the context of the discussion I suspect our Ursine overlord carried out a pre-emptive strike on reasonable grounds.
Last edited:
I agree - my point of view is that IF the Dunkirk evacuation doesn't happen then the Nazi might not need to invade. There is surely a scenario whereby a failure at Dunkirk leads to the removal of a weakened Churchill by an emboldened "peace" faction within the UK government and a UK populace unwilling to sacrifice more men for nothing.
BTW : I KNOW what was said by the Cabinet at the time. That position can change like the wind . IF the BEF is lost there is a chance that hope might be lost with them and the rhetoric of Churchill appear not stirring and inspirational but the ramblings of a bewildered old drunk detached from reality. That "reality" ( despite what we now know) being the unbeaten 1939 European invasion championship winning Nazi hordes less than 30 miles away & the 12 million strong Luftwaffe about to turn London into Rotterdam. We have to make peace and save the empire and stop Kent and Sussex becoming as Passchendaele . How will we "fight them on the beaches" with an army that doesn't have enough rifles or trained men? The man is mad and probably pi$$ed.
That doesn't seem a massive leap tbh.
PS Idon't believe for one moment the Nazi can actually invade the UK in reality or in fantasy. They lack the boats and the planes and the vehicles ( and probably the men & bullets) to do so.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Yes a collapse of British will to resist is possible and to some degree was what was behind Halifax's questioning of Churchill on hypotheticals "If Hitler offered such and such then what should we do?". Churchill already signed off on Halifax preparing an approach to Mussolini for terms but he did not favour a direct approach (Roosevelt as an intermediary was suggested) but he did caveat that preparation with the fact that it was a matter for the War Cabinet as a whole to consider. Halifax assumed that preparing an approach meant that Churchill supported one when in truth it was probably done to stop Halifax from causing a crisis by resigning (which he admitted later he considered).
But if you hate Churchill then why not overlook the nuances and believe the faked Italian letters that came out a couple of decades after the war.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Sorry that was a general not specific reply! I didn't mean that as a direct response to your post but a general retort to those who would try to label Churchill; as more bad than good. He had his flaws but we could never have negotiated WW2 with Chamberlain continuing and Halifax as his successor. And Atlee , as he proved after the war, was not an inspiring leader but more of a behind the scenes fixer.
thaddeus
Donor
it seems, at least for a time, there would be no need to launch any Battle of Britain? beyond the Channel warfare.
would the British attack on the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir happen under this scenario? the rationale would still be there but the British would be lacking a certain credibility or cachet gained from the Dunkirk evacuation.
if and how that would affect Vichy-Nazi cooperation, alongside what seems a better German position overall than historical? there could be some agreement reached, the mooted Paris Protocols had some basing for the Germans and under force in 1942 they obtained commercial ships (that could be an outline.)
how do the Soviets react to a Dunkirk failed evacuation, if it seems Germany has an open calendar for 1941? it seems to me they would not try any territorial demands, but rather try to stall any German invasion East with greater shipments of food and oil?
Derek Pullem
Donor
Would Germany ever return them? They never returned the almost 2 million French POW to Vichy France. I think that Germany would hold them as a bargaining chip to ensure UK did not diverge from the Nazi position in Europe.
I guess I can imagine a situation in which all or some of them were returned as part of an armistice or peace treaty or in exchange for shiploads of rubber.
This is the sort of thing any peace negotiations would fall apart on. Britain wants it's troops back because it knows the peace is likely temporary and needs to train its new armies. Germany wants to keep them as a lever to keep Britain from stabbing it in the back when they attack the Soviets.
thaddeus
Donor
what kind of hypothetical deal could be struck between Germany and the UK? it does not seem possible that the Nazi regime would (immediately at least) withdraw from all the occupied countries like the Low Countries and Norway?
my understanding Nazi Germany had zero interest in the return of any African colonies, as a practical matter they would/could be quickly lost again?
1 al returned to Germany
2 France army minimized
3 German dominance of central Europe
4 British non aggression pact
5 Malta and some colonies to Italy
6 trade agreements and German patents returned to Germany from ww1
7 Versailles treaty canceled.
2 France army minimized
3 German dominance of central Europe
4 British non aggression pact
5 Malta and some colonies to Italy
6 trade agreements and German patents returned to Germany from ww1
7 Versailles treaty canceled.
4 Effectively void almost as soon as the POW's are returned to the UK. Britain won't sign without them being returned quickly either.
5 Technical difficulties will delay the transfer of Malta long enough it never happens. The Italians are welcome to Somaliland and Southern Sudan though. They're not getting Kenya or Aden.
Last edited: