[Video] Why did Hitler halt the Advance on Dunkirk?

[DoomBunny]

not 100 % sure, but I think Frieser mentioned in a sentence that intelligence didn't indicate any major threats. And as stated before many generals at almost all levels of command clearly disagreed with the halt-order and they "probably" read their intelligence reports. Frieser examined the orders and war diaries of that time.

See that's where I think the focus should be. The opinions of generals, even if stated at the time, don't prove anything. Men can be wrong, and their opinions, contemporary or not, are just that. They are influenced by personal circumstances, feelings, and characteristics. Moreover, different commanders will have a different intelligence picture. Basing a damning argument against the order on the opinions of those against it is rather ridiculous. Of course one will come out with an opinion that the order was wrong.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the argument, rather with the way the argument seems to have been formulated as conveyed by your video.

 

[gladius2metal]

The opinions of generals, even if stated at the time, don't prove anything.

well, I guess agree on that part, the point is I think Frieser did an excellent job and my impression was that he did everything on getting the best sources. Of course, if I didn't read him, I would be more skeptical too.

Men can be wrong, and their opinions, contemporary or not, are just that. They are influenced by personal circumstances, feelings, and characteristics..

yeah, but the same way are their orders and their orders, and the orders were examined, one I mentioned explicitly in the video. Although it was referred to as directive and avoided the word "order" in the original too, because well, it would be problematic due to the halt-order.

Moreover, different commanders will have a different intelligence picture.

yeah and the majority on all levels agreed in this case. I don't know if you studied History at university, but let me tell you one thing, I have read and heard way more established claims that were based on stuff that couldn't hold a candle to that stuff Frieser just presented on those few pages.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the argument, rather with the way the argument seems to have been formulated as conveyed by your video.

you should be aware of one thing: those videos are a short summaries and intended for general audiences, thus I only mention a few names (Rundstedt, Hitler, Guderian). I skipped the names: Brauchitsch, Halder, Kesselring, Richthofen, von Kleist, Sodenstern and probably a few others.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Frankly I wonder if they wanted britain to attempt a rescue with the idea that they would have to use the Royal Navy to do it, and doing so would allow Germany to strike at and weaken Britain's strongest defense in a situation where they would know exactly where to go to find said navy and inflict damage on it with the Luftwaffe.

If I had an air advantage, and I knew I'd have to destroy my enemy's navy to defeat them, that might be a situation I'd exploit to force my enemy's navy to be where I could strike them easily from the air. And in fact the Luftwaffe did a lot of damage to the Dunkirk flotilla, although probably not nearly as much as the Germans had hoped

Yes Rommel but there are a few things to consider.

The shipstriking capabilities of the Luftwaffe been right litmited at that time.Stukas could do it but they lacked AP bombs and there been practically no torpedos or torpedo planes available and nor been the pilots trained at that stuff.
On the other side any British Admiral sending the RN into the channel and risking it at this point would and should have been shot immediatly.For the British that army wasnt worth the RN.

So no not gonna happen. Back to the academy.

 

[BBBD316]

Has there ever been an attempt to recreate the situation via war games or simulation?

I know these would change as in all situations, hindsight will affect people now.

At the end of the day would complete annihilation or close to it actually effect the war?

 

[gladius2metal]

Has there ever been an attempt to recreate the situation via war games or simulation?

I know these would change as in all situations, hindsight will affect people now.

At the end of the day would complete annihilation or close to it actually effect the war?

nothing I know about, I only heard a few times that there as a "Sealion" test run after ww2.

The complete annihilation could have probably changed the number of people in Britain in favor of a diplomatic solution, due to the fact that the British army was even small with the successful evacuation at Dunkirk and a lot of POWs for the Germans. Furthermore, the psychological effect, which is extremely hard to measure and determine , because sometimes small factors can tip the balance or at least it seems so. Overy wrote a few lines on the morale of the British throughout the Battle of Britain and it changed considerably, but ultimately it is a combination of public morale, leadership morale, etc.

If the British decided to keep on fighting, I think not much of a difference, because the Royal Navy would still prevent Sealion even if the Battle of Britain would have been won (and I seriously doubt that. see https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-and-the-british-defense-organization.909958/ and https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ain-the-fighting-and-balance-of-force.911977/ )

But also the air battle over Dunkirk showed the British that they can inflict losses on the Luftwaffe and the Luftwaffe got a bloody nose, if that didn't happen... lots of psychological factors, the manpower isn't that important I think in terms of the Defence of the English Isles, but I don't know about North Africa and other parts of the Empire. So it could have tipped the scales there.

 

[BBBD316]

Well perhaps if the Germans had captured them, then offered to return them in peace talks???

 

[Finnish Dragon]

I suspect that Hitler and his advisers thought (and they miscalculated) that if France would fail then Britain would also sue for a peace. The "peace" between Germany and France was signed (dictated) in June 22 1940 at Compiegne in a certain railroad car. In late May 1940, the Germans wanted to knock out France as fast as possible. The forces at the Dunkirk pocket could not have intervened in that which did mean at they should either be evacuated or the pocket would be dealt with sooner or later.

Anyway, Hitler probably thought that he needed all available resources to force France to surrender. Mopping up the Dunkirk pocket would not help much in that business. It was much more important to eliminate all French resistance at Northern France and occupy the major French cities. The idea was to show to the French that the resistance in the long run was futile.

Ultimately, Hitler and his advisers probably assumed that Britain would sue for a peace if France would surrender ending the war in the west as I said in the beginning. However, if they would have been correct then the Dunkirk pocket would have become meaningless after the surrender of France and the peace with Britain. Ultimately, the Germans couldn´t see how Britain would have continued the war after the Fall of France and that was probably their biggest mistake.

 

[gladius2metal]

It was not a Dunkirk pocket, Dunkirk was the last proper port for a huge pocket. This also means it binds a lot of German troops that can't be deployed elsewhere, since the infantry was lagging behind they fast divisions couldn't be just replaced and move on. Thus, eliminating the last chance of rescue by taking Dunkirk would speed up the surrender of the troops or at least make an evacuation extremely difficult if not outright impossible.
Furthermore, the front line commanders wanted to attack, because they knew if the Allies would have time to reorganize their own losses would be greater, hence it wasn't a conservation of force.