"Dunkirk was a victory for morale but ultimately a ..." Topic

….humiliating military defeat

"For Britons, Dunkirk is one of the proudest moments of World War II. The evacuation of 338,226 troops and other personnel from the beaches of northern France – which took place between May 26 and June 4 1940 – was an act of stubborn defiance by a plucky island nation against Hitler's blitzkrieg. It was a victory snatched from the jaws of defeat.

Yet this was anything but a military success. Quite often we now forget the catastrophic defeat that led to "Operation Dynamo".

On May 10, 1940, the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) – totalling approximately 400,000 at the height of the campaign and commanded by Lord Gort – was deployed in Belgium, alongside its allies, as part of a defensive line against German invasion. But by May 13, German units had pierced French defences and crossed the River Meuse near Sedan, close to the Belgian border in northeast France. Within a week, German panzer divisions had reached the French coast south of Boulogne, trapping the BEF and the French 1st Army in a small pocket around the channel ports, cutting them off from the main Allied force…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

I think every Brit in 1940 realized that Dunkirk was a defeat. It was a defeat that steeled them to resist.

"For Britons, Dunkirk is one of the proudest moments of World War II"

It is?

For Britons, Dunkirk is one of the proudest moments of World War II"

It is?

You appear to be a Briton, so ask yourself.

I'm not in agreement with the emotive statement that Dunkirk itself was a humiliating defeat. What other outcome of the encirclement of that town could there possibly have been? The events leading up to that encirclement were certainly a defeat. Were those events humiliating? Humiliation is an emotion that has to be felt by those involved at the time, either in the armed forces involved, or in the civil population at home. If it wasn't felt at the time then you cannot invoke a feeling of humiliation some 80 years later. People there and then either felt humiliation or they didn't. Should be easy enough to ascertain from diaries and Mass Observation reports.

Whatever one wants to call it, I had to be done. And overall it was generally pretty well executed, all things being considered.

It was a defeat that steeled them to resist.

Yes, sometimes taking losses increases your morale, etc. E.g. a cornered wounded animal can very dangerous. More so then before …

Or you may be losing at Halftime … but the game is not over yet.

A line from one of my favorite movies:

Josey Wales: Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is.

🤠

Never heard anyone claim Dunkirk as a victory. The story of the little ships is held up as an example of heroism, and spirt.

But that is different from claiming victory.

Dunkirk was an accomplishment – not a victory.

The event itself represented a hope that Britain could (and would) continue to fight on despite the situation in France.

Saving so many soldiers from being captured meant that there would be a core of troops and officers that could carry on the fight later.

A classic case of "He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day".

That we were defeated perhaps was inevitable on the continent. The French Military resistance crumbled as they were not really able to counter Blitzkrieg and lets face it France was no unitary entity politically, only bits of France were really against the Germans.

Perhaps the Brits were over keen to help out a not altogether over enthusiastic ally. In that case Dunkirk was a perhaps in hindsight forced on us by a bad political judgement, easy to see now but not so easy at the time.

Dunkirk as StarCruiser stated was an accomplishment to be prod of and still is.

Near me one of the little ships is being restored.

adls.org.uk/lady-sylvia

Dunkirk, like Pearl Harbor, was a stunning tactical defeat for the Allies but a game changing strategic defeat for the Axis.

If you don't buy that go ask Hitler and Yamamoto their answer to that question! Cheers!

Perhaps the Brits were over keen to help out a not altogether over enthusiastic ally. In that case Dunkirk was a perhaps in hindsight forced on us by a bad political judgement, easy to see now but not so easy at the time.

Without an Alliance with France the UK would never had declared war on Germany. To realise how vital France was see the 1940 plan for a Union of both countries in order to continue the war.

Perhaps the Brits were over keen to help out a not altogether over enthusiastic ally.

You should read some history on what happened in Europe before war broke out.

@ deephorse

You appear to be a Briton, so ask yourself.

Yeah, I have, but the OP statement was that for Britons (i.e. all of them) Dunkirk is "one of the proudest moments of World War II". It's one thing to ask if for Britons Waterloo or Trafalgar were victories, because they were, but it's quite another to assert that all Britons are proud of a defeat.

It was a remarkable stroke of luck to be able to evacuate the manpower, but Dunkirk nonetheless severely compromised the effectiveness of British forces for almost the whole remainder of the war. Because it had lost all its heavy equipment, what came back from Dunkirk wasn't an operational army.

Obsolescent weapons had to be kept in production because the existing stash or parc had been almost lost. So the 2-pounder couldn't be stopped and capacity switched over to the 6-pounder, which in turn impinged later on the availability of the 17-pounder. Desert armies were still being defeated two years later because the loss of materiel at Dunkirk left them short of decent anti-tank. Conversely, Germany captured so much British equipment it became worthwhile to manufacture ammunition and spares.

Aside from rescuing the manpower, the only benefit I can see from the disastrous France campaign was that the Luftwaffe was misled by it into underestimating the Spitfire. Running in May 1940 on lower-octane French fuel and a fixed-pitch propeller, it was an indifferent adversary. With a Rotol prop and 100+ octane back home it was a different proposition.

Dunkirk did for the Commonwealth's kit what Singapore did for its manpower.

Mkenny,
much of France hurried to surrender or compromise rather quickly after a point. No total war as Briton was preparing for. Hence France was not an over keen ally in large areas. Vichy Franc was no real friend to us. They could have sent more assets but were not prepared to.

much of France hurried to surrender or compromise rather quickly after a point

The French had to submit their armistice proposals to the UK and the UK 'approved' them.
The French soldiers evacuated from Dunkirk to the UK went back to France to continue the war.
None of this alters my point that the French Army was the Army that was needed to take on Germany in a land war. Once the French made terms there was no way the UK could beat Germany on her own. (Caution for UK exceptionalists: I said no way the UK could defeat Germany not that there was no way could the UK survive a German attack) After 1940 the UK defaulted to her normal way of fighting major European power-find a continental ally with a big Army. Step forward the USSR and then the USA.

Had no such land ally been available I reckon Britain would have developed the atom bomb. Maybe not first, but before Germany.

mkenny + 1…

Amicalement
Armand

You appear to be a Briton, so ask yourself.

Yeah, I have, but the OP statement was that for Britons (i.e. all of them) Dunkirk is "one of the proudest moments of World War II". It's one thing to ask if for Britons Waterloo or Trafalgar were victories, because they were, but it's quite another to assert that all Britons are proud of a defeat.

And what conclusion did you come to once you'd asked yourself? There are many facets to Britain's defeat in France, and the subsequent evacuation from Dunkirk. Overall it was a disaster, and you cannot really be proud of a disaster. But I think it entirely reasonable to draw pride from some of the actions that British forces undertook.

I've just finished reading the first chapter of 'Ubique' by Richard Doherty. It's a book devoted to the Royal Artillery in WWII. Some of the actions that individual batteries, and even individual guns, took part in left me feeling nothing but pride in what those men achieved. As an example look up the 'battle' of Hondeghem.

I've also recently read about the defence of Calais. Whilst the how and why those men came to be there is chaotic, their self sacrifice, and that of the French with them, to buy some time for Dunkirk, once again made me feel proud.

Similarly, I can feel proud of what the Royal Navy achieved in evacuating the hundreds of thousands of men that they did, under the conditions that they did so. I haven't yet read much about the R.A.F.'s contribution, but my limited understanding is that they too performed well, fighting the Luftwaffe further inland than the beaches, and suffering losses accordingly.

So France 1940 is not a campaign that I can feel pride in, but I don't see any reason for the forces involved to feel humiliated either. As for how a nation feels, that is surely determined by their knowledge of the events, and how that information is presented to them. Patriotic headlines would be the order of the day, and the evacuation itself could be presented as a triumph against the odds. The real picture would take years to emerge, but by then the public's view was pretty much cemented in place.

much of France hurried to surrender or compromise rather quickly after a point. No total war as Briton was preparing for. Hence France was not an over keen ally in large areas. Vichy Franc was no real friend to us. They could have sent more assets but were not prepared to.

You don't seem to have asked yourself the question what choice did France, and subsequently Vichy France, have?

Same choice as Belgium, Norway, Greece at al had. To be willing to agree an armistice with the Nazis the leaders of France had to A. Think that they could trust the word of the Nazis – which by 1940 you would have to be a wilful idiot to do and B. Be willing to compromise and collaborate with the Nazis, which kind of makes you morally repugnant. I am not being anti French here but surrendering to the Nazis with the hope that they would keep their word and be nice was idiotic and that is even without the benefit of hindsight.

B. Be willing to compromise and collaborate with the Nazis, which kind of makes you morally repugnant.

Like a collaboration with Stalin you mean?
Stalin who invaded Poland alongside the Germans?
Good job 'we' would never stoop as low as the French.

mkenny – I did not mean to give any insults to 'the French' or claim any more superiority for 'us', my apologies if my brief post came across as such. I will attempt to be clearer using the example you gave as context.

In the 1930s France was a politically riven society, with some parts of the French right somewhat sympathetic to the anti democratic and anti Semitic rhetoric and policies of the Nazis. So in seeking an armistice with the Nazis some sections of French society saw the opportunity to reshape French society along authoritarian, anti democratic and anti Semitic lines. Seeing the military defeat of your own country as an opportunity to reshape it in collaboration with the Nazis I do find morally repugnant. I do not feel that this makes 'us' better than the French as a whole. I take an equally dim view of the British Union of Fascists – but do not judge all Britons by my view of Mosley.

As for Britain's alliance with the Soviet Union. I would fully agree that there was lots that was repugnant about Stalin's rule in Russia. However when Churchill agreed to an alliance with the Soviet Union I am certain that was not because he was seeking to introduce Stalinist polices into the UK. His thinking was more that if the Soviet Union fell to the Nazis that the UK probably would as well, which would mean a large part of the world would enter an abyss that it might never come out of. There is a lot about Churchills politics I really really disagree with, however on his call to fully support the Soviet Union to defeat the Nazis I think he got that one right.

So no, I don't think fully committing to fight alongside the Soviet Union against the Nazis makes 'us' better than 'the French'. However I also would not accept that there is a moral equivalence between this decision of the British Government and the decision of the French Government to collaborate with the Nazis to overthrow democracy in their own country, with an acceptance of all the odious Nazi policies that we are all aware of.

So you chastise the "idiotic" French for surrendering to the Nazis, but you fail to explain what they should have done instead.

I never called the French idiotic. I said that by 1940, anyone that believed you could trust any promise the Nazis made was an idiot. I think this is a fair statement. So yes, this does include the members of the French government who negotiated the armistice. This is hardly the same as calling the entire nation idiots.

Although I did not explicitly state what I thought the French should have done instead I thought my reference to what the Belgian and Norwegian etc governments decision when overrun by the Nazis was clear enough. No armistice, instruct their armed forces to evacuate and carry on with their allies that were still in the fight (of course far easier for the navy than army). Many nations conquered by the Nazis did this, the French government could (and I feel should) have done the same.

The fact that this policy was urged and led by a relatively junior army officer, who then became president of France and the most influential French politician of the second half of the twentieth century seems to vindicate this policy as the correct one, rather than that of the Vichy politicians and officers who were willing to deal with the Nazis.

I am genuinely interested, do you feel that the policy followed by the Vichy Government were better for France in the medium to long term rather than those urged by De Gaulle?

As for the politically riven France leading up to the 1940 campaign, there was, besides the authoritarian right and the democratic center, also a large pro-Soviet leftist faction. Since the USSR was itself collaborating with the Nazis in 1939-40, so were the French Communists and "fellow travelers". Later, after Germany invaded the USSR, they played a major role in the French Resistance.

From what I've read (and it's been a while), French leaders were not really eager to guarantee the independence of Poland (which they knew was likely to lead to another war with Germany), but were talked/bullied into it by the British. (No, I can't cite sources for this.)

France was in a dire situation in 1940. They had fought hard [albeit ineffectually] and suffered enormous losses. Between 50 and 90 thousand killed in a few weeks and around 1.8 million POWS.

By making a deal with the Nazis and keeping some kind of French state in existence they were able to shelter their people in a way Poland for example could not.

So – infamous though the Vichy collaboration was, I can see why they did what they did. There just were no good options in 1940.

The appeasement of the 1930s was rooted in a fear of communism. They wanted to keep Germany onside for this bigger picture.

The anti-Jewish policies were not a huge issue for the Western Leaders in the 1930s. Had they pushed for war to protect Jews from Nazi oppression, it would not have gained much traction. There was no mass murder program until 1941. While Churchill and Roosevelt would have known about the mass killings it doesn't seem to have been publicised much until the first death camps were liberated.

I am genuinely interested, do you feel that the policy followed by the Vichy Government were better for France in the medium to long term rather than those urged by De Gaulle?<\q>

Who, in June 1940, could possibly tell what the medium or long term held for anyone? Germany controlled most of Western Europe, and the USA and Soviet Union were yet to declare war on the Nazis. The Einsatzgruppen and death camps (outside of Reich territory) had yet to be established. Much as I dislike Petain's collaboration, what information did he have access to that would help him decide what would be best for the French people?

It's difficult, if not impossible, for us, now, to separate our hindsight from any decision making process that had to be done back then.