The loss of the BEF is more devastating than one thinks. The men who were in Operation Compass were the best of the British. I can't see Compass happening here.
Britain lost less 400k men total in the entire second world war, 600k in the first one that scarred the country for a generation
Well, since they weren't Soviets or Jews, those POWs wouldn't be worked or starved to death in vast amounts, so would be around inn1945 at Wars End. Dunkirk was not planned to be turned into a field of corpses, with the Nazis giving No Quarter.
If you could explain what this myth is? Are you referring to 'the little ships'? Or miracle at Dunkirk? Or what exactly? Because you do understand that Churchill was expected to raise morale even if he knew it was all a close run thing.
Well if it is about the Halt Order that was a 'myth' perpetrated by German Generals keen to buff their reputations post war. The halt order was a reasonable response th the state of the Panzer divisions, and their priority was finishing the French not going after a clearly trapped BEF.
Well, having read it, "Demolishing" seems a bit of a stretch. It basically asserts (without evidence, at least on the page shown) that Churchills government would have fallen if Dunkirk had not been evacuated. It asserts that "most Anglo-Saxon authors" agree on this, without example or quote. It then assumes that Churchill's government falling would have led to Britain leaving the war and speculates on whether Germany could have beaten the Soviets alone. It concludes that it is important not to overstate the effect of Dunkirk " which British historians are busy cultivating". The obvious nefarious purpose of said historians being to assign to Britain a central role in the defeat of Germany in WW2.
And the underlying assumption appears to be he would have been replaced by someone who would have been stupid enough to sign a treaty with Hitler and get Parliament to agree to it. And lets be candid the British firmly blamed the French for events, so I really don't see Churchill falling.
The document you posted?
Well I'm not sure Artostark's assessment of your limited quote really needs a source, but I would recommend 'Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory' by Julian Thompson, though I thought the halt order not originating with Hitler was essentially the consensus based on the evidence currently.
Considering how most of what Frieser has written are direct quotations from historians' judgements on this subject matter, your analysis is clearly suffering from arbitrary criticism.
Thompson cites this thesis directly from Frieser, so it's well clear about who is the most authoritative source.
He mentions that as one source, but he quotes a number of sources and the book does indeed state that the Halt Order did not originate with Hitler. But at this point I have no idea if that is your position as you have done done nothing but offer an evidence free, context free quote and failed to clearly state your own view. I don't believe that anyone here is arguing that the BEF couldn't be overrun, simply that its survival is far less 'miraculous' than the common mythology paints it as being. Again if you want another viewpoint on the reaction of the British after the OTL catastrophe in France try Operation Sealion by Leo McKinstry.
You have provided material absent evidence or context and refuse to lay out your own viewpoint. People can only respond to what you choose to provide based on their own reading on the subject. You can assert Frieser is a definitve source, but you've provided nothing that would support that claim.
The Halt Order originates with OKH theory was originally formulated by Frieser: it was him who originally tackled the Dunkirk miracle as mythologized by Churchill.
