How important was the Dunkirk evacuation ?
- Thread starter SuperCalifraga
- Start date
As mentioned by others if the BEF was lost the mid to long term impact on the combat capabilities of the British Army would be significant, if as likely they remain in the war, would they for example be able to support an effective North African campaign while holding the forces "needed" to defend the UK?
Could, conversely a failure at Dunkirk, stimulate French resistance, continuing in Algeria? Where is Giard at this Point? Admiral Darlan would have a greater role earlier I think.
The Halifax desire to at least explore a white peace, fizzled out after the psychological morphine that Dunkirk provided to the UK.
Any Halifax cabinet which would try to pursue peace would blow up the national coalition with Labour and then would have the problem that Hitler wouldn't accept a white peace.
Deleted member 94680
Not at all true. As I’ve pointed out a couple of times above, the ‘defeat’ of Halifax by Churchill happened before the Dunkirk evacuation.
The Liberal Party under Archibald Sinclair, was strongly anti nazi. Ironically at the time, Lloyd George seemed to desire at least a dialogue, about peace.
Deleted member 94680
What? You mean British politics isn’t entirely directed, controlled and shaped by a single individual? That somehow a vast majority of MPs would affect the course of British decisions? I don't know, sounds unlikely...
Deleted member 94680
And? One old, discredited, backbench MP babbles on about Hitler being a lovely chap. So what?
Deleted member 94680
Unlikely. The situation was pretty dire when the Cabinet backed Churchill. There was no way they could know the “triumph” of Dunkirk would play out the way it did and yet they backed Churchill.
Deleted member 94680
Not in the slightest. I think you’re overestimating Lloyd-George’s position by 1940. He was a completely busted flush.
Wasn't Dunkirk only one of several successful evacuations (albeit the largest)? The BEF wouldn't have been completely taken, although the blow would be a heavy one.
But during those few weeks additional troops were moved from Britain to France.
That speech was made on 18 June, after the fall of Paris.
Of course not. But it would also be affected by loss of the BEF at Dunkirk.
It has been pointed out that before Dunkirk, when the loss of the BEF seemed unavoidable, Britain did not contemplate leaving the war. My point is that at that time, France had not collapsed. When France had collapsed OTL, that was after the successful evacuation at Dunkirk.
It would appear that neither blow (potential loss of the BEF; actual French collapse) would be enough by itself to cause Britain to give it up. But that does not prove that the two blows together would not be.
Plus there's the blow of the way that Russia and Germany have divvyed up Poland between them, making it look as if the Russians could also be on the Germans' side. Outside the inner coteries of Hitler and Stalin, there's not necessarily an automatic assumption that either of the two leaders will break their apparent arrangement and declare war on the other.
In the event that Dunkirk ( and the 2nd evacuation) fails, the top generals of later fame would also be going into the bag.
If we imagine that the sea routes are closed and LW dominates the skies, Monty, Brooke, Alexander, .... will all be either dead or POW's
That in itself will of course not lead to a peace, but maybe the conduct of the war with far less capable generals will make it so much more difficult through 1941 and 1942.
Of course we could see Percival as heading the COS etc. great achievements ahead!
If we imagine that the sea routes are closed and LW dominates the skies, Monty, Brooke, Alexander, .... will all be either dead or POW's
That in itself will of course not lead to a peace, but maybe the conduct of the war with far less capable generals will make it so much more difficult through 1941 and 1942.
Of course we could see Percival as heading the COS etc. great achievements ahead!