As Dunkirk going worse for Britain is a frequent POD for Axis victories to prevent a continuing war with the United Kingdom, what if Britain suffered a devastating blow at Dunkirk with countless losses and refused to surrender afterwards? How well would Britain be able to perform in the Battle of Britain with fewer men available to her? Would Churchill be thrown out as bombs fell on London?
WI: BEF crushed at Dunkirk AND Britain refuses to surrender
- Thread starter Tresckow
- Start date
How?
Unless the Germans launch Sealion having fewer ground forces available changes very little.
British were planning to fight on with or without the troops from Dunkirk. Given that the Luftwaffe sweeping enemy airforces from the skies was becoming a trend if the RAF manages its OTL performance which this PoD doesn't butterfly then Churchill won't be thrown out for keeping the country in the fight as it fights back against the German onslaught. Why would he be thrown out when IOTL he wasn't as bombs fell on London?
By every Fighter Command pilot flying his kite to the beaches of Dunkirk and doing this!
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
It's a frequent POD and it's an idiotic one.
Firstly, we can look at how much influence the British Army had on the Battle of Britain. Precisely zero. In order for Sealion to work, the RAF has to be neutralised, and the RN has to be neutralised. Since, OTL, the Luftwaffe couldn't manage the first step of that, how large or otherwise the disaster at Dunkirk was remains a complete irrelevance.
Given that bombs did indeed fall on London - rather a lot of them (and I can confirm given that I was born and grew up in the area hardest hit at a time when things that went bang were still falling) - and given that in OTL, there was nary a suggestion that Churchill be thrown out, I think we can safely say that it doesn't make a ha'porth of difference.
Britain isn't going to surrender. They could be weakened enough to accept an armistice.
Why? Because the Germans overstretch themselves and get blown to pieces? The UK isn't weakened by a "No Halt Order"-pod, it's strengthened.
David Flin
Gone Fishin'
How? Short of the RAF crashing into the sea and the RN wandering off to Canada for the duration, how exactly is Britain weakened sufficiently to enable Sealion to take place.
And, in the absence of a successful Sealion, why on earth would Britain consider an armistice?
And this presupposes that the Germans attack Dunkirk, which was:
(a) Not good tank terrain
(b) Using tanks and troops in need of rest, repair and recuperation.
(c) While France is still in the fight.
Point C is rather important, as diverting sufficient strength to roll up Dunkirk will give the French Army time to regather and reorganise, and leads to the probability that France never falls.
Garrison
Donor
If the BEF were overrun, and to be clear the Halt Order was a sensible move and not some strategic mistake, then Chamberlain will carry the blame and it may make it easier for Churchill to remove those who supported Chamberlain's policies and left the BEF understrength and underequipped.
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
The impact would not be on the British Isles. It would be felt in the Middle East where the troops & equipment sent during the BoB OTL would almost certainly be retained for home defence.
Could also butterfly away the 2nd BEF.
Could also butterfly away the 2nd BEF.
I love the idea of the BEF 'being rolled up' as if it was not a modern army with modern arms capable of inflicting heavy losses
You get the impression with these posts that the Germans would defeat them with out firing a shot when actually it would require some very heavy fighting while there was already some very heavy fighting going on.
The issue is that while we up timers can look at History books and tease out a potential scenario where some of the leading Panzer might have made it to Dunkirk without encountering much resistance the leaders of the day did have that luxury and had to deal with the reality's on the ground
Post war some of the Panzer commanders went on and on about 'if only Hitler had not been so stupid with the Halt Order! We would have won tsk!' - but I smell BS.
There was not just the BEF but also much of the 1st French Army - half of which was fighting around Lille and the exhausted Panzers and motorised forces had been on the go for weeks and were strung out and needed to be rested and given time to reorg and repair their vehicles in order to defeat the rest of France which was no certain thing then.
Pervitin can only get you so far!
No far better for the BEF and half of 1st French Army to be holed up in Dunkirk where follow on forces could deal with them the Germans had no idea that the British could evacuate most of the force.
As has been mentioned the British army put about 3 million men into uniform in WW2 - and that does not include the RN, RAF and commonwealth forces - the loss of the BEF or at least the part of the BEF 'trapped' in Dunkirk was about 200,000 men and while this would have certainly caused a lot of issues as it included much of the regular pre-war army there was still significant forces in the UK.
In June 1940 after Dunkirk there was 27 Divisions in various states of TO&E and levels of training as well as numerous Brigade sized forces - the BEF at Dunkirk represented 9 of those.
You get the impression with these posts that the Germans would defeat them with out firing a shot when actually it would require some very heavy fighting while there was already some very heavy fighting going on.
The issue is that while we up timers can look at History books and tease out a potential scenario where some of the leading Panzer might have made it to Dunkirk without encountering much resistance the leaders of the day did have that luxury and had to deal with the reality's on the ground
Post war some of the Panzer commanders went on and on about 'if only Hitler had not been so stupid with the Halt Order! We would have won tsk!' - but I smell BS.
There was not just the BEF but also much of the 1st French Army - half of which was fighting around Lille and the exhausted Panzers and motorised forces had been on the go for weeks and were strung out and needed to be rested and given time to reorg and repair their vehicles in order to defeat the rest of France which was no certain thing then.
Pervitin can only get you so far!
No far better for the BEF and half of 1st French Army to be holed up in Dunkirk where follow on forces could deal with them the Germans had no idea that the British could evacuate most of the force.
As has been mentioned the British army put about 3 million men into uniform in WW2 - and that does not include the RN, RAF and commonwealth forces - the loss of the BEF or at least the part of the BEF 'trapped' in Dunkirk was about 200,000 men and while this would have certainly caused a lot of issues as it included much of the regular pre-war army there was still significant forces in the UK.
In June 1940 after Dunkirk there was 27 Divisions in various states of TO&E and levels of training as well as numerous Brigade sized forces - the BEF at Dunkirk represented 9 of those.
To answer the OP. If (somehow) Germany takes ever single person at Dunkirk while losing next to no one, it still has very little effect.
GB is going to do what it did in the BoB and nothing at Dunkirk changes that.
You will not get a large moral boost without the “Miracle of Dunkirk” but that is not going to change much.
You probably see a bit more worry about “home defense” but that doesn’t change much.
You will see a decrease in troops deployed overseas in the short run. So you ,any not get the mess in Greece.
But in the long run not a lot will change.
This is a lot like a Peril Harbor POD. Not a lot changes in the long run.
GB is going to do what it did in the BoB and nothing at Dunkirk changes that.
You will not get a large moral boost without the “Miracle of Dunkirk” but that is not going to change much.
You probably see a bit more worry about “home defense” but that doesn’t change much.
You will see a decrease in troops deployed overseas in the short run. So you ,any not get the mess in Greece.
But in the long run not a lot will change.
This is a lot like a Peril Harbor POD. Not a lot changes in the long run.
The single biggest difference would be the number and type of munitions being purchased from the USA. I could also see more effort to rebuild the Army while using the RAF as a shield. The men lost are irreplaceable in the short term and does leave the army a little weaker than expected. The British literally would not surrender and the Empire means that the manpower lost can be replaced over time. India alone recruited some 2.5 million soldiers and every single one of them was a volunteer.
So if the British lose every single man of the army at Dunkirk you still have a very effective RAF, RN and also initially 2 divisions ready to fight along with numerous smaller units and also the men and material that got evacuated from other French Ports. All in all Dunkirk preserved the fighting man and morale. Those men became the nucleus of the remainder of the army.
After Dunkirk the British material deficiency was bad, it was improved rapidly and in some ways badly. For example the 2Lb AT gun and Tank gun was due to be replaced, the invasion scare was such that instead of retooling and making the 6lb AT gun and fitting it to tanks the 2lb gun was forced to continue. The paltry HE shell of the 2lb gun caused many casualties in the North Africa campaign.
The website linked is slow to load but a wealth of information. If Sea Lion had been remotely conceivable it had to be launched within 2 months and the RAF wiped out in that time. The RN also needed to be removed as a threat. Both of those are in ASB territory due to the reality's of amphibious landings against contested beaches.
For the Sea Mammal to be possible the Germans need to have spent the 30's building new barges for the Rhine capable of carrying and landing trucks and tanks. Also able to cross the channel and unload on a beach or Quay. What the Germans need is the LCM(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landi...s_LCM-3_at_Battleship_Cove,_Fall_River_MA.jpg) and they need at least a thousand of them. Why 1000 well it's a nice big number and also the minimum to carry 2 armoured divisions over but not to bring any of the support supplies etc. BTW D-Day used over 4,000 landing craft and followed them in with larger ships and a pair of Harbours. Literally D-Day was the finest co-ordination of military arm's up to that point.
So if the British lose every single man of the army at Dunkirk you still have a very effective RAF, RN and also initially 2 divisions ready to fight along with numerous smaller units and also the men and material that got evacuated from other French Ports. All in all Dunkirk preserved the fighting man and morale. Those men became the nucleus of the remainder of the army.
After Dunkirk the British material deficiency was bad, it was improved rapidly and in some ways badly. For example the 2Lb AT gun and Tank gun was due to be replaced, the invasion scare was such that instead of retooling and making the 6lb AT gun and fitting it to tanks the 2lb gun was forced to continue. The paltry HE shell of the 2lb gun caused many casualties in the North Africa campaign.
The website linked is slow to load but a wealth of information. If Sea Lion had been remotely conceivable it had to be launched within 2 months and the RAF wiped out in that time. The RN also needed to be removed as a threat. Both of those are in ASB territory due to the reality's of amphibious landings against contested beaches.
For the Sea Mammal to be possible the Germans need to have spent the 30's building new barges for the Rhine capable of carrying and landing trucks and tanks. Also able to cross the channel and unload on a beach or Quay. What the Germans need is the LCM(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landi...s_LCM-3_at_Battleship_Cove,_Fall_River_MA.jpg) and they need at least a thousand of them. Why 1000 well it's a nice big number and also the minimum to carry 2 armoured divisions over but not to bring any of the support supplies etc. BTW D-Day used over 4,000 landing craft and followed them in with larger ships and a pair of Harbours. Literally D-Day was the finest co-ordination of military arm's up to that point.
Even with the BEF in the bag at Dunkirk there are still over 100,000 British troops fighting in France that were successfully withdrawn a month later and the troops in Norway that were in the process of being withdrawn to add to the armies building in the UK.
This has been disproven countless times. The troops that were ordered to halt were worn out and would have taken massive casualties while likely being unable to crush Dunkirk. And the Germans still have to deal with the French, if they take heavy losses fighting 350,000+ troops in terrain not made for tanks they may not be able to pull off Fall Rot.
The British expected Dunkirk to be a disaster, and were planning to fight on. The whole "Halifax was one disaster away from overthrowing Churchill and getting Britain to sign an armistice" narrative has been proven wrong again and again.
gabrielbateman1980
Banned
Later Halt Order, not the earlier Halt Order. Provide a source for all of your assertions.
Again, provide a source for your generalising narrative.
You LITERALLY copy pasted "your" response here.
Plagiarism is a major no-no.
It is also a one-bite offense. You just had yours
Kicked for a week.
Fuzzy Dunlop
Banned
The BoB would go as the same as OTL . . . as it was one of the most stupidest military campaigns ever.
As for a more 'a devastating blow' at Dunkirk? . . . again it would go as in OTL.
Although it would be a sharp kick for the morale of the UK's public but since Britain had been fully mobilizing since war was declared in 1939 (basic training around 3 months????, stand corrected if wrong) there would be thousands of men entering into the defense of the UK every week.
The one thing that was missing was all BEF's firearms which were left on the beach.
If the UK can make and import (from Canada & the US) enough firearms to resupply the new recruits then it's game over.
Ref: "Invasion 1940" by Derek Robinson