DUNKIRK WHAT-IF!!!!!

Hello all,

As some of you may know i have been preforming detailed research into the counter-factual (what-if) history studies of Tarawa and Dunkirk. I finished the Tarawa rough draft and have moved onto Dunkirk.
The question. I am saying the victory lies in the hands of the British because they evacuated. The point of my project is to a) explain what actually happened b) explain how the victors could have lost c) ramifications had they done so.
Thus. My idea is mainly focusing around Hitler needing to keep the Panzers in the fight instead of pulling them out. But what else could have happened to ensure that the Brits were defeated (which is either significantly higher casualties or complete surrender). Then the ramifications. Would England pull-out. Would D-Day happen in GB? I don't know. This is just the start.
Thanks a bunch. I hope to open the debate with al of you shortly...

-solarfox

 

Ah, i also see there are some other posts regarding this subject, but please continue anyhow.

 

Remember Dunkirk was not the only evacuation of Allied troops in France, a simutaneous evacuration took place around Britany at the same time.

 

You make it sound like the BEF had any other choice?

Alongside the more famous 'Operation Dynamo' evacuation from Dunkirk (c.300,000+ men) these other transports are worth a shufti (and often neglected):
'Operation Cycle': Le Havre - c.11,000 men.
'Operation Aerial': from Cherbourg to the Spanish border - c.210,000 men.

This might interest you too:
HyperWar: The War in France and Flanders, 1939-1940 (UK Military Series)

Cheers,
Adam.

 

the channel weather could have been awful, now it was simply excellent for evacuation.

 

What if a selective Divine Wind had blow off the entire Royal Navy from the seas leaving the Kriegsmarine to reign supreme?

 

I disagree. The Allies lost at Dunkirk, they retreated across the channel.

It was a tactical victory for the Germans, a Strategic victory for the Allies.
Remindes me of the Battle of Jutland. The Germans won the battle, but never ventured from port again, so the British won a strategic victory.

 

Ah, sorry Firefox, I think I misinterpreted your statement.
Sadly I think it's rather stretching it to call it a Strategic victory, or any other kind of victory for the Allies. The eventual loss of the battle, along with thousands of men, vehicles, guns etc. can only realistically be seen as a disaster on nearly all levels. The evacuations, and the determined resistance/enemy hesitation that facilitated it were a remarkable achievement but it was plucked from a crushing defeat.

I see why you might call it a victory of sorts in the men living to fight another day in all theatres but without the RAF and the Navy it would likely have just been a significant link in a chain of events leading to annihilation. It took 4 more years of hard suffering & fighting to get men back into France again, a real Victory in 1940 would have meant they'd never have left, and Hitler's plans may have fallen at that Hurdle. Now that would be a victory over any other interpretation of the 1940 rout.

As Churchill himself said in the house of Commons:

Some nice links here, including the 'Never surrender' speech:
Dunkirk
Particularly liked this animated map:
BBC - History - Animations - Animated Map: The Fall of France (Dunkirk)

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Koay, i see where you all are coming from. I guess i meant to say, what could the Germans have done to ensure the brits didn't escape and what could the german high command have done to capture more of the troops. I think i was implying that it was a british victory because they had a significant number of men survive. I do think Churchill was right though.

 

Thanks for the links. They are incredibly helpful and will add to by general understanding of this project. I really want to do it right.

 

Well if we took the ultimate line and that the BEF was captured this would have been catastophic to the allies, it may have fortified Hitler's resolve to launch Seelowe.

But if we took this into statistics then here is an observation of what would have be lost.

14 to 16 Divisions= 230,000 men plus the already 40,000 British POW's from the French campaign thus a total of something like 270,000 full time regulars in German hands and not defending Britain.

Then we come to the lost supplies which would include something like

70,000+ vehicles
Several thousand artillery pieces.
At least half million weapons
One million tonnes of supplies and other equipment.
10,000 horses.

To raise and to train and equip those lost 14 to 16 divisions would take at least 6 months, to replace the lost vehicles, weapons, supplies and horses would take at least 18 months.

Britain in this state would no longer be able to defend herself, her other regular divisions would be hamstrung with a lack of mobility, defensive/offensive artillery, tanks, anti-tank guns, many of these would have to stripped from rear echelon units to fortify those units at the expected landing sites, also Britain would have no choice but to break out all those obsolete pre WWI weaponary.

I have read many who have considered what the loss of the BEF at Dunkerque and St Valery-en-Crux would entail and that is the eventual defeat of Britain, i conclude that Britain herself would be defeated.

 

I'll throw in some of my rambling thoughts on this....
What if...Lord Gort had not begun evacuation preparations when he did? He had the forsight to begin preparations for the possibility of evacuation as early as May 18th or 19th, even when Churchill and Raynaud were pushing for a counterattack on the German left flank. He realized the gravity of the situation the BEF was in and knew that the Belgians on his left flank were on the brink and the French on his right were whipped.
If he didn't pull back when he did perhaps Bock makes it to Dunkirk and the BEF is cut off. Without air support and cutoff from supplies the BEF is forced to surrender.
Also,
What if...Von Rundstedt had not panicked when the panzer divisions sliced through the demoralized French and penetrated so deeply that they outpaced their infantry support. It was Von Rundstedt that recommended to Hitler that the panzers halt to allow the infantry to catch-up and perhaps the only time in the war Hitler listens to one of his Generals, he gives the order to halt the panzers.
Instead he lets the panzers go and they make it to the coast and to Dunkirk when it is virtually undefended. Again the BEF is cut off and forced to surrender.

 

It was my namesake that gave a gloomy report to Hitler that precipitated the halt order by Hitler, history is not kind to Hitler, the failure of the Heer to capture the BEF and the 1st French Army at Dunkerque was the fault of von Rundstedt. Just suppose that von Rundstedt had in fact gave a very optomistic report and Hitler gave the order to attack thus achieving total capture of the BEF and 1st French Army and all equipment and supplies.

I honestly believe that was the turning point of the war, to capture the bulk of Britain's regular army would have been the death knell of Britain, Germany would have invaded Britain.

 

The loss of materiel actually happened, so that's a given.
The loss of the men may still have had no effect on what the RAF and Navy could do to keep off any invasion, militarily the Battle of Britain could continue as it did in history.

The more dangerous effect would seem to my mind to be a political one, a total defeat without the evacuations and so many men going into captivity could have proved fatal to support for Churchill and the national will to continue the war.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

Yes of course the RN and RAF would have to be dealt with in this and you are correct Churchill would be under severe pressure to explain to the people of Britain of the to all intents and purposess the bulk of the Army, this would be a major blow to Britains morale, one main factor after thinking about this is.

Would the armament programmes of the RAF and RN be directly affected and i think they would, Britain would have to place the Army as the main priority, this means that after losing 270,000 men, the first act would have to be strip as many service personel from the RAF and RN to build cadre replacement divisions, again this is not as easy as it sounds. Valuable resources would have to be diverted to rebuild the Army back up to pre Dunkerque levels.

 

Remember about 200,000 men escaped during Operation Ariel and unlike Dunkerque, this retreat was much less desperate and was succesful in evacuated not only the men but much of their equipment as well. It would also be disputable that the Army would need to draw on RAF and RN personel since at this point of the war Britain had ample manpower reserves. For example the Home Guard contrary to popular belief consisted mainly of young men below the age of 30. Given the fact that an invasion force would have to be trained for assault there would be enough time to prepare the recruits for a limited defensive role.

By September 1940 deliveries of AT gun amounted to approximately 13 divisions, 4 division worth of 25-pdr guns and 8 divisions worth of light AA guns. Remember the RAF and RN doesn't have too completely destroy the invasion force at sea but to delay the force preventing a syncronized invasion.

 

In that situation it would be very foolish to strip the main line of defence, the RAF & Navy, to build an Army.
Alanbrooke, who was no fool, & did so much to rebuild the Army would not have considered it, had the resolve to fight been maintained then we start moving into the area of 'what if' that I'm uncomfortable with where no real answer or hypothesis can stand amongst pure speculation.
I would guess (now there's the rub) that Alanbrooke and co would rebuild an Army just as they did, only with even more difficulty than actually happened. I can't see the Battle of Britain's outcome changing though, if the political will to fight survived.

 

von Rundstedt, do you know where you read those things about the materials and how long it would take to rebuild.
"I have read many who have considered what the loss of the BEF at Dunkerque and St Valery-en-Crux would entail and that is the eventual defeat of Britain, i conclude that Britain herself would be defeated." Where were these sources. I would like to read these as well. I still think that is almost too believable that the Germans could have captured or killed scores more of the BEF than they did.
Even if the RN and RAF survived to fight the battle of britain, the BEF was the Armyy's pride and joy! A huge moral loss!

 

Dunkirk is the epitome of the British ability to turn a blatant defeat into a success story.

However the 'Dunkirk effect' (did I create a new term just there?) would haunt the British Army for years.

With the loss of so much equipment it meant that the factories would continnue to produce outdated equipment for years, just to fill the gap, rather than produce decent kit for the squaddies. The prime example is the 2pdr AT gun. IIRC the decision to continnue production was that they industry could produce four 2pdr's for every 6pdr. This due to the time consuming operation of reorganising the production line. This would in turn effect the armament of the tanks.

So the soldiers were saved, but it was not the sunshine story it is cracked up to be.

 

Read several half decent world war 2 books, should have those details or referrence to the losses

*Clarification* the 1 million tonnes would also be attributed to the capture of supplies from the St-Valery-en-Crux pocket.