My great uncle was at Dunkirk and he always said that he and all of his pals were exceedingly grateful of the sacrifice made by the French army which enabled the evacuation to take place. Those guys had been outmanoeuvred, outfought, had poor leadership and equipment but they stood their ground and fought to the end. There was no shortage of bravery in the French military.
My grandfather was a French in his seventeen when those events occurred. Living in the northern France but too young to be incorporated in the army, he was told by authorities to embark to England. He walked his way to Dunkirk, but when he reached the brits line, they yelled at him to turn back. Being trapped between the German and the brits, he ended being wounded in the leg by a British bullet, stayed hidden in a barn for two days before being rescued. Later in the war he would be deported with "Compulsory Work Service" to work on a steel factory in Germany, would survive the incendiary bombing of the factory by Americans. Finally got back to France at the end of the war, the body covered with burns and losing some fingers. He would become a successful business man and never had any hard feelings against German, British or Americans.
I'm surprised that this video says that the French are usually said to have been ineffectual or bad during this operation. My mother served the British military and my father the Americans during WWII. My mother's uncle was one of the people sailing one of the "little boats". They always told me thold that it was due to the heroic, self sacrificing stand that the French took to protect the evacuation of troops that Dunkirk was turned from defeat to future victory. If history has forgotten this sacrifice, I'm sorry. I guarantee you that my family never has.
TRUE THE FRENCH TRIED AND ALSO DONT FORGET BRITISH TROOPS WERE ALSO THERE STILL FIGHTING i WROTE TO A BRITISH POW WHEN I WAS STILL AT SCHOO L IN 1940. LATER I WAS IN BAOR TRAINING FRAULEINS TO TAKE OVER COMMUNICATIONS I ALSO WENT TO DACHAU IN THE US ZONE TO VISIT THE PLACE WHERE TWO BRITISH FEMALE AGENTS WERE TORTURED AND KILLED AND I GET SO TIRED OF PEOPLE MAKING STATEMENTS WHEN THEY KNEW DAMNED ALL ABOUT IT PERSONALLY
Mate I know I'm late too this comment and video to that. But I've never once thought the French where useless or part of the problem at dunkirk, where is he getting this information from?
Dynamic Slash Well basically, every video about French army or France during WWII gets its fair share of " LOL FrANcE SuRrEndEr", "FrEnCh aRe CowArDs" etc. You don't have to go very far. The people commenting around here are rather polite and well educated but can still find some of this kind of comments under this very vid. It's something that have become inavoidable since 2003 to a point it have become some kind of online guerilla warfare rather than "traditional Franco-British bashing". And, sadly, some armchair historians have come to believe the French soldiers were very bad because of the French failure in the Ardennes or because of some reports of some French ill-disciplined troops in contrast of the professional BEF. But they often forget that they are comparing 13 divisions of professional voluntary British soldiers to 117 divisions of French conscripts with close to no military experience. As Goebbels used to say : "Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth."
@@mitsumichi5325 Yep. It was further compounded in just how ineffectual the French Command structure was at dealing with the changing tide of warfare. There were committed to a style of warfare that had been left behind. Also the lack of capable and experienced officers was also very telling. However all this aside, it still does not take away from the bravery and discipline of the French troops who continued to fight. I also cite the French spirit in the famous French Resistance. Many of those unsung heroes and heroines show the tenacity of the French people. I am glad in this video he addressed the fact that without the French army holding the lines, they never would have made it off the beaches. Also the major reason for the halt order of the panzers is actually more or less an order of necessity. Many of the German panzers were in bad need of repairs and overhauls. I mean you can only fight for six months straight with the same equipment and not expect it to be worn down and broken. Hence why the Germans halted. The other reason for the halting was that the panzers were out running their supply and infantry. As many people point out, if the French had a proper coordinated tank battalion, the dangerously overly extended German panzers could have been cut to pieces. As the Panzer III had not come into large service before the fall of France. The bulk of German Panzer divisions were largely comprised of Panzer I and IIs. Anyway that's my two cents on this one.
For those who criticize the French for surrendering, look up the Siege of Lille. As MHV stated, "Without the French holding the rearguard the evacuation would probably have turned out quite differently." And by differently, he means disastrously for the allies.
you should critize the french for surrendering, if they organised their soldiers better there was every chance they could have held, the french army was about as powerful as germany, yet the idiots couldnt hold out, that should be critizised, a lot of people died on dday needlesly because of the weak french army ! why should i look up some battle were the french obviously did reasonably well ? its irelivent, the french shouldnt have lost so easily !
The French were actually divided on that question, many would have continued the fight, and some did even when there was Nothing left. But people need to understand this. After Dunkirk, the French army is a complete mess, and there is no French Air Force anymore, 1200 planes were destroyed during the first two weeks of battle, and they fought quite well, but French Air Force and R.A.F combined were outnumbered, about 2500 planes for the allies vs 3000 for the Luftwaffe. Yes, the German high command had a better war philosophy and understood that Victory would be a lot easier by controling the air, and they produced a whole lot more planes than the allies. After Operation Dynamo, the French Army continued the fight two long weeks, without any tactical success, everytime the French armored corpses tried to keep positions they were punished by Air Strike... There was no winning the war at this moment, 2 000 000 soldiers were already prisonners, Paris was captured, a lot of people were starting to ask for peace, and Italy declared war to France (and never succeded at crossing the alpes). Of course France could have tried to resist a little more trying to buy some time in hope the British eventually decide to send another expeditional corpse, wich could have take month, and remember U.S.A never seemed to be concerned at this moment., the Brits were France's only ally. So, resist and sacrify maybe millions of men like they did 20 years before, and finally having to accept unevitable defeat... When you fail to conduct a good strategy, and put yourself in a situation of desaster, there is only two choice, death or surrender. Principle of "last stand" or "death in honor" have a very different meaning when talking about a whole country, in 1945 Hitler choosed death and millions of his people followed him.... French were right.
Dal Roy: In fact they didn't tell anyone from the beginning, Lord Gort decided on his own to start the evacuation, even Churchill wasn't aware of it at the beginning. The French General Weygand was planning to try a counter Attack to the South by joining all allied forces to break the siege. When he asked to meet Lord Gort, he was answered negatively... It's the French Admiral Abrial, who decided to defend the City of Dunkirk with about a third of the French troops to protect the evacuation a long as possible and save as many men as they could in hope some French could be saved.
Yeah and a lot of these surviving GI's did far more rape in far less time than the germans during 4 years... telle us a lot. I can give you the sources, if you want...
My great-grandfather was evacuated in Dunkirk as a French soldier and then he stayed in England until the D Day where he came back to Normandy to fight with the Canadians in Juno Beach. He survived and told us that going through the dead bodies of his friends was worse than going through hell
Two points: - Goering convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe was more than capable of annihilating the men trapped in the pocket, which, like most things Goering said, wasn't true. - The German armor was at the very end of its logistical line after the dash through France in the first few weeks of the invasion, and was lacking infantry support. In hindsight it's easy to say not immediately attacking was a huge mistake, but Von Rundstedt's fears were not completely irrational
"the very end", it was clearly at the very end near Moscow, in France they were probably not even near the end of the line, of course it was farther than they have gone before, but far from anywhere were it was a real problem. A panzer division has divisional infantry in it! The whole idea of a Panzer Division is that it is a self-sufficient unit with infantry, artillery, engineers, etc. see here: ua-cam.com/video/rk-T-iNSdaw/v-deo.html
After the botched counter attack at Battle of Arras the Germans were somewhat hesitant to commit haphazardly. The armored spearhead was ahead of the rest, despite Panzer divisions being self-sufficient, and they did feel the need to consolidate strength. As for 'logistical lines': obviously it was not comparable to Moscow nor am I claiming that. Still, after weeks of endless fighting and advances, the Panzers were in dire need of repairs. Supplies needed to be brought to the front. I'll look up specific references if you wish.
They were already at Calais, moving to Dunkirk wouldn't make much of a difference. Rundstedt did want to halt, but OKH disregarded it and ordered to go on at which point Hitler interfered. OKH had the view of the overall strategic situation and they based their decision upon it, even front commanders such as Guderian urged to go on. As far as I remembered, Rundstedt (a good commander otherwise) was suffering a minor nervous breakdown due to the war strain at that point so his decision couldn't be rational by default.
The Matlida II's were not necessarily the issue. OKW was perfectly fine to tangle with heavy armor at Stonne and at Hannut. Rommel was also able to stop the attack after it had made a penentration and restore the situation with combined arms in a matter of hours. A localised counterattack that wasn't even succesful in its intended objective should never have dictated such operational decisions, especially since it was business as normal again within a day. What more likely seems to be the problem is the emotional shift in the high command (all the way up to uncle Adolf). Initially the campaign in the West was regarded with great dread and trepidation: hundreds of thousands of casualties were expected and the left hook through Sedan was not trusted as a strategic solution to the problem. Once it turned out to be way more succesful than anyone dared to dream the mood shifted to barely-controlled euphoria mixed with the sneaking suspicion that the French were setting up an ambush. This means that once a little friction was encountered, it was overinterpreted by nearly everyone involved. Basically it was the military equivalent of Borderline Personality Disorder. As for the Göring issue: that is mostly interesting in that it ties in to the larger issue of the Nazi's fearing that the Heer would be the one to run away with the victory over the ultimate enemies. Hitler's halt order was a result of that same issue. Hitler always looked at war from a political angle (which underlaid most of his poor strategic decisions) and the point was that for propaganda's sake, the Nazi party had to be shown as the ones handling the reins on this victory. With most of the SS. Verfügungstruppen stuck with Heeresgruppe B, the Luftwaffe was one of the few 'Nazi party vehicles' that could deliver the knockout blow. At the end of the day, showing both the 'snivelling Prussians' and the rest of the world who was boss and who was the one who delivered them the victory was just as - if not more - important than humiliating the French and British.
The French were not cowards, but rather the Government was toothless. Saying the French were cowards is extremely narrow minded and disrespectful, not to mention its further perpetuating the myth that the French are only good at surrendering, which if you look at their extremely long and colorful military history is simply not true.
I come from Southend-on-Sea. There was a high turnout of volunteers from there. My Uncle is a fisherman and often told me stories of the men who went, and back in the 90's I got to meet one of them who said it was his duty to go, and only fair, as he wasn't allowed to join the navy during the war as he was providing food for the country. Also many of the other little ships were lifeboats (similar to the us coastguard) where most of the boats left with their own crews, which is pretty amazing considering it's always been an all volunteer charity. I think 19 boats went and 16 worked directly between the beaches and destroyers. So although a lot of the boats were commandeered the fact that hundreds of civilians were prepared to do their bit is remarkable, even if it wasn't all of them.
My father was a veteran of the Dunkirk evacuation. With the artillery, he had to destroy his gun to prevent its use by the Germans. He kept a breech-pin as a souvenir (which I now have). My nephew has a wall barometer my dad "liberated" from a bombed out inn. My father also said that with all the strafing and bombing of the beach his nerves started to go until he took out a picture of his parents and little sister. He was evacuated late in the operation.
Sometimes the story is necessary. Reality is dark and bitter, but a myth can be inspiring beyond all measure. Hope is perhaps the most powerful weapon you can give a defeated enemy.
How was a cowardly retreat from the English army transformed into a heroic act? The French army was left to its own devices by the unexpected retreat of the English.
Roberto 1958: When you have no choice, retreat is a better option than surrender. It leaves you free to fight and win at a later date (which is what happened).
Because the British were shocked France had no backup plan if the maginot fell so had to do something or be annihilated. Not the fault of the French soldiers and not to take anything away from them, rather the fault of the leadership. Also people seem to think all the brits fled, we left behind men at calais to draw some of the Germans away and left British men behind on the beach as well as taking French and Belgians to the UK.
One often-overlooked reason for the success of Operation Dynamo was the freakish weather. Eye-witnesses described the sea for a crucial three-day period as looking like a sheet of polished steel. Had the wind got up - even moderately - things would've been far more difficult, and far fewer men would've been rescued.
Hannah Miyamoto In the end yes this is true. However, wars are also not won without an army to fight! Sometimes you have to retreat to regroup and fight another day.
Well, in truth, Sea Lion was impossible as long as the Home Fleet and Fighter Command were around. The Germans could have landed a force in England, and they could have caused great damage and loss of life, but they could have never kept their army supplied. Eventually, the fuel, ammunition and even food would run out, and the invaders would have been forced to surrender. However, the loss of the entire professional Army in France would have been demoralizing to many Britons, if not the P.M.
The main problem with Allies during the first stages of war was that, they didn't feel allies at all. Britain and France started this passive resistance, then Belgium... It finally came to the point, where everyone were on their own... Sad but true :-/
Hannah Miyamoto ...but thanks to the evacuation they survived...we got our army back...that was enough given the circumstances...to live to fight another day...it was an amazing feat!
You should tackle the myth of France's surrendering armies. Because while some did not fight and ran away, those were the reservists that were put right on the spot where the German armored spearhead was attacking. The majority of the professional army was in Belgium and was busy containing the German attack on the North.
"And millions joined the Vichy French and Waffen SS. "Source: your ass. The LVF, which wasn't incorporated into the SS until very late in the war, never amounted to much more than 7000 men, and the Vichy armed forces, which were non-belligerent, were forced by armistice treaty to amount to no more than 100 000 men and even then it was basically disbanded in 1942 with a large part joining the Free French.
It is ironic that Americans do not remember that the US Army made an ignominious retreat, actually a rout, during the Korean War. The American soldiers abandoned their fighting lines and positions and ran when the North Koreans pushed hard. If I recall correctly an entire American Artillery unit was captured without firing a shot. Their officers and enlisted surrendered. And it happened due to the same malady: untrained soldiers. In the French case it was 30 to 40 years old reservists that had mediocre leadership and in the American case it was garrison troops with incompetent leadership. Fortunately for the US and South Korea, while the company grade officers were not up for the job, their field grade officers were WWII veterans and they were able to rally their troops around Pusan and hold the North Koreans from capturing the whole country. Unfortunately for France, their field grade officers were for the most part, too busy with their own internal quarrels to pay attention to what the Germans were doing. To the point that the entire French Officer Corps can be declared incompetents. The amount of "I did nothing wrong" memoirs written after the war indicates that they knew that the had dropped the ball when it mattered the most. You can have the best trained and superbly equipped soldier in the world, but if his commanding officer is an idiot, he will accomplish nothing but die stupidly.
I have not read wikipedia but two separate books on the battle of France and it seems that the consensus was that Hitler was scared of a flanking attack. He ordered a halt and the OKW overrode it because they felt that they had the Allies where they wanted. Hitler found out and gave a no nonsense order. So far the rumor that he wanted Goering to give the coup de grace, is just that a rumor. Hitler was in constant struggle with the OKW during the early war years.
The Germans were not invincible. In fact during the Invasion of the Low Countries and France they lost SIX battles. Prove that you can lose a battle and still win the campaign. The battles that Germany lost were not important enough to stop the German over all victory, but they did prove that the mighty German army was not unbeatable. The Germans lost one battle to the Dutch and four to the French and one to the British. These being the battles of Rotterdam when German paratroops tried to capture the Dutch Royal family and failed and the battles of Hannut and Gembloux in Belgian where the French halted the Panzer armies in central Belgium Through the panzers failed to break through at Hannut and Gembloux the French were later forced to retire as the German breakthrough from the Ardennes at Sedan threatened their rear. "The effect on the German light tanks was catastrophic. Virtually every French weapon from 25mm upward penetrated the 7-13mm of the Panzer I. Although the Panzer II fared somewhat better, especially those that had been up-armoured since the Polish Campaign, their losses were high. Such was the sheer frustration of the crews of these light Panzers in [the] face of heavier armoured French machines that some resorted to desperate expedients. One account speaks of a German Panzer commander attempting to climb on a Hotchkiss H-35 with a hammer, presumably to smash the machine's periscopes, but falling off and being crushed by the tank's tracks. Certainly by day's end, Prioux had reason to claim that his tanks had come off best. The battlefield around Hannut was littered with knocked-out tanks-the bulk of which were German Panzers-with by far and away the bulk of them being Panzer Is and IIs.[93]" The fourth battle was Brest, which the Germans failed to capture, the port only came into German possession after the armistice. The Five was the First battle of Stonne, when a French counter-attacked drove the Germans off the heights amongst very heavy fighting against the Crossdeutschland. But the Germans retook the heights in the 2nd battle of Stonne. The sixth was a British victory at Gastuche in Belgium where the Durham's beat back every German attempt to cross the Dyle in this sector and where Second Lieutenant Dick Annand won the first British Victoria Cross of the war
The French, British and Dutch and Norwegians all won battles against them on their own but it would take the whole of the Allies to bring them to total defeat. The victories of the French, Dutch, Norwegians and British may have been small affairs but they should what the armies of those countries could have done had the politicians had funded the armed forces probably and had they been probably led from the outset
I am not going to spend the entire evening arguing with you, I am in the middle of watching something, I have given you examples of German defeats,, you can take it what ever way you like but none of that will change the fact that the Germans DID LOSE battles to the French, (Glembloux , Hannut, First battle of the Sonne), the Dutch (Rotterdam) the British (Gathuche) and the Norwegians (Oslofjord). These were small battles that did not altar the campaign but they PROVED that the Germans was not invincible and that he DID NOT WIN EVERY BATTLE, if he was invincible what was he doing losing those battles and the BATTLE OF BRITAIN. The Germans won mostly because they had gained air superiority, whenever they came up against stiff resistance they just whistled up the Stukas.
You come on her insulting me, asking whether I have any sense of reality, when I could be asking you the same question. INVINCIBLE, MEANS NEVER LOSING EVER, it means just that, Look it up. The Germans won MOST OF THE TIME, but NOT ALL OF THE TIME, if they were invincible they would have WON EVERY time, including the Battle of Britain. Try and do some research, and you will find out that the Germans lost a battle as early as 1939, in the first year of the war to the British, when the Germans lost this battle the war was not even a year old. look it up and try and find out which battle it was, I will not tell I will leave you to research it.
never stated that the Germans never lost any battles,-------------------Then why are you arguing because that is all I have said. I made a simple statement , based on those battles, trying to point out that you can win a battle and still lose the campaign and in the right conditions, with the right kind of leadership the Germans could be defeated, if only temporarily and you have to make an issue over nothing. By the way, the battle Germany lost in 1939 was the Battle of the River Platte
As an US citizen, it really rubs me wrong how the French soldier is the scape goat for many things going wrong in WWI as well as WWII. The French military was more professional at the onset of both of the wars as well as having much better artillery and much better at using it . This is not to say that the Brits and even the US did not learn to be good soldiers, it's just that the French had to have a good , big, professional standing army due to their geographical location. So my French colleagues, I say Viva La France.
I beg to differ with you in that the most professional Army was the Regular part of the BEF. Superb soldiers but in too small a numbers. The french Army showed its courage at Verdun but had a poor officer class and poor political backing. Hard to measure where the US Army were in WW1 as the best of the German Army never faced them, as like the British Army they were buried in the mud of 1917.
As a US citizen you cannot appreciate the history between Britain and France, think two bickering brothers! I personally don't like the French because of the battle of Hastings 1066, in fact if you include the Battle of Mers-el-Kébir in 1940 we've had action against the French every century since.
If people who don't know about the French rearguard think they're patriots and geniuses for saying "hur dur french Surrenderer" they should probably reevaluate their knowledge of WWII
Jackiezyon alongside British and commonwealth soldiers. It’s interesting that the French complain their rearguard is written out of history whilst writing out the brits who stayed
Ayee Hayche No one has written out the contribution of the British that stayed. In fact Charles de Gaulle thanked the Scottish troops that stayed on. Its a fact that much of the fighting in both World Wars were done by the French on their soil. As it should be.
As a Brit I still can't understand why Dunkirk is romanticised and glorified in British history and psyche. At the end of the day it was a crushing defeat that left our French allies abandoned. Also, from some of the memoirs of people who were there said that many British units performed shabbily and poorly, often retiring without much of a fight, including some prestigious units like the guards. If it had been WWI soldiers, I think they would have put up a stiffer resistance. Donold Dean (VC) has an excellent memoirs about WWI and WWII including Dunkirk, check it out. But anyway, yes, it was a defeat for God's sake! Just fortunate the Germans stalled and some brave French and British units formed a defensive ring around Dunkirk till the last.
Back to front analysis. The French were surrendering - it was only a matter of time. Not sure how Britain could abandon a country that was not willing to fight on. Indeed the 100,000 French troops evacuated mostly returned to F after the surrender.
@@tcroft2165 ... I sworn to myself not to argue anymore in the UA-cam comment section... HOWEVER, you are interpreting events that happened 80 years ago with today's mind, which is incompatible for understanding History. What happened, was that the army that everybody thought was the best army in the world had been crushed in a couple of weeks. How do you think people in the US would react if in a matter of 3 weeks the whole US armed forces were crushed by the Chinese and that Washington DC were occupied?
The armed forces of various other European countries were ordered or already fled themselves abroad to fight on if they could. F had more opportunity than any to use its troops but they woulnd't (largely) fight on
The French lost around 100 000 men in the six weeks or so of fighting, The French fought hard to stop the Germans in the Battle for France. Anyone who has been to Dunkirk knows the MANY little bridges and cannels that ring Dunkirk, so if you are falling back on the port iin Retreat, Blowing and/or holding the bridges would bring the fight down to a infantry action, where the Brits and French could hold and slow down the German advance. And this what they did.
My father always told me that the "little ships" were mainly used to ferry soldiers between the shore and bigger ships off shore. This makes sense, and it would've meant that the ships could be better able to defend against aircraft attack. I'm not saying "this is certain" as it's from a secondhand account of secondary sources, but it makes sense.
Your father was right. A typical WW2 RN destroyer had only four boats, two whalers, one large and one small motor boat. To get troops off the gently sloping beaches would have taken ages, especially since most destroyers transported 800 men on each trip. Not that this would have been apparent from the movie, which didn't seem to know that the Royal Navy was actually present at all. In point of fact, by the way, more men were lifted from the Mole than from the beaches.
Almost every defeat, last stand, or evacuation is seen as a victory for the British. Arnhem, Somaliland, Isandlwana/Rorke's Drift, retreating from Galipoli, and holding onto Tobruk (with Tobruk, losing most of the land beforehand but holding onto one town is somehow seen as a success).
Speaking as a Brit who grew up with a healthy interest in history, I would have to disagree with you on both Arnhem and Gallipoli - both are pretty much universally seen as huge military disasters and are taught as such here in Britain. The men who fought and died in both battles are very much lionized for their bravery in the face of defeat, but they are not celebrated as victories by any stretch of the imagination. Likewise while Rorke's Drift is romanticised in the extreme, it is prefaced by the universally accepted disaster and embarrassment that was Isandlwana. Tobruk also doesn't get much press in popular British culture either, so it's an odd one to see you list there actually. The Somme offensive (along with much of the first world war in its entirety) is also seen as an utterly tragic failure as well, though to be fair you did omit that from your list. While I'll admit Britain has done a surprising job of portraying itself as being the underdog at points in history where we were arguably the most powerful nation on earth, the failures and defeats get more coverage here than you would apparently believe judging by your post. In fact there is a pervasive attitude among many in this country that our army during both world wars (more so the leadership, rather than the honest tommies on the ground) was a bit of a joke, renowned for making huge blunders on a regular basis. The Navy has its share of popularly-known defeats as well, including the sinking of both the HMS Hood and the HMS Prince of Wales, and the RAF's reputation in World War 2 remains slightly tarnished by the area bombing campaign which remains controversial in this country to this very day. Other well-remembered screw-ups include the Norwegian campaign in 1940, and the Japanese occupation of Singapore. In fact there are even some successes that don't get the press they deserve, such as the Burma campaign under William Slim (sometimes referred to as the Forgotten War).
TIK - Absolute rubbish. I am British and we have never regarded events such as Arnhem and Islandlwana as a victory. Unfortunately for you we did and do regard Rorke's Drift as a victory for one simple reason - we defeated the Zulu army. Before commenting on historical events do try and learn some history.
Civilians did run their own boats. Of the 800 odd little ships that served during the evacuation, roughly 30% of them were commandeered by civilian fisherman. Many more of the boats had their civilian crews but had a RN Officer acting as captain for the operation. One of the best examples: www.leigh-on-sea.net/leigh_dunkirk.html The the myth of the myth of dunkirk is seemingly becoming extremely popular with French and German anglophobes.
yeah its a film, honestly why do people go and see such shit, its obviously just trivial entertainment, if you want reali information dont go for low grade woman and children entertainment, your a man, you shouldnt be watching that shit, youve been blessed with a superior brain and all you can do with it is watch the same shit women and children watch ? man, your a discrace.
mcpartridgeboy - How do you know that it is shit? You haven't seen the film and nor has anyone else.so please do explain how you have such superior knowledge.
A little fact everyone seems to be missing is, by the time the Germans reached Dunkirk they had significantly out ran their supply convoys, the panzers were running on fumes, they were low on ammunition and practically everything else. If the allies in Dunkirk had known this and countered attacked Hitler's invasion of France could have become quite the disaster. Many believe, and so do l, the real reason the Germans stopped was because they simply couldn't go any further. p.s. attacking entrenched troops in a fortified position is much more difficult than fighting them in the open.
It is also worth to know that besides the French troops that acted as rearguard in and around Dunkirk itself (among which around 40000 were left on the beaches to be captured), Many French and colonial Troops (around 40000) also bitterly held 7 German divisions at the siege of Lille long enough to allow the BEF to disengage and evacuate at Dunkirk. They fought so bravely that Waeger, the German General commanding the 27th Korps, allowed them to parade in the streets while they presented arms to the French soldiers after they surrendered (the last time was in 1916 after the battle of Fort de Vaux). When Hitler heard about that, he was furious and fired Waegar. After the battle, many of the North-African prisonners were needlessly executed by the Germans... (probably by SS ?) It would be nice to not forget them either. Sources : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Lille_(1940) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#Evacuation Pictures : a142.idata.over-blog.com/5/06/00/92/lille1.jpg a398.idata.over-blog.com/5/06/00/92/lille2.jpg 68.media.tumblr.com/8a94652a2443c2cce8a4f2ea07c71435/tumblr_nu4w8hus3J1tii3ypo1_500.jpg
My great-grandfather on the paternal side was supposed to be sent to Dunkirk but it didn't happens and was sent to the Somme front, he's been imprisoned as a pow in Germany and came back in France in 1945-46 with a bad case of tuberculosis, a weak body due to forced labor and poor conditions of detention. He died only few years after coming back and didn't really talked to his wife or daughters about it. The only thing he said about all of this was that he losed many friends at Dunkirk, in Somme and in Germany camps and maybe it would had been better for him to die on the field, but he was grateful to be able to see his loved ones before dying. (He had written all of their names and birth places in letters telling my great grandmother to keep them, he didn't want them to be forgotten).
I heard that the Belgians, by mistake, also had an important role in the successful evacuation of Dunkirk. When the Belgian King Leopold III surrendered the Belgian Army on May 28 the order to surrender did not reached the Belgian army at the fortress Tancrémont-Pepinster at the edge of Liége. These forces under command of captain Abel Devos kept fighting for one day and half more. The Germans redirected forces from Dunkirk to there. That has given the opportunity for two French divisions (around 20,000 men) to reach to port for evacuations. Those Belgian soldiers saved many lives. By mistake, but nevertheless the did.
Here is a fun fact about Dunkirk some or many people may not know. The British comedy "Are You Being Served" featured a British actor, Arthur Brough, who played Mr. Grainger, was an actual British soldier who was at Dunkirk. He was my favorite personality on that show. Sadly he died during the sixth season, a season he was not in.
I'm glad for the mention of the French there, but equally there is a modern myth starting to take hold that the French "were the only reason that Dunkirk survived and fought an amazing last stand to let the British escape and thus France should be credited with everything for protecting and saving the British". This is of course absolute nonsense. It's equally as bad as those who like to pretend the French weren't there at all. It reeks of the same sort of lines of people that like to try and claim Napoleon "won" Waterloo in hysterical pro-France narrative. Hopefully everyone can see sense and realise that both Britain and France were there. Both fought, both partook in making Dunkirk the sucessful evacuation it was, and lets hope there's much less "all this side" type myths starting. Real life in history is NEVER that simple.
Retrosicotte I'm French so here's my opinion. no french has ever said that we "won" the battle of waterloo, we simply like to point out that we won against the British division and lost only because of the intervention of the Prussian cavalry further more most British have this delusional idea that we think that we liberated France on our own which is stupid, we simply look at the fact that the various Resistence movements seriously impacted the mobilisation efforts of the Nazis during the liberation.
@Nicholas Shaddick Actually i encountered a lot of them across the internet. I even met some who stubornly insisted that England won the "Hundred years war"... And strangely, many of them had a common denominator : Lindybeige...
Retrosicotte time for some uncomfortable truths from both sides that most would prefer to have been forgotten. Yes, 120,000 French soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk, however 80,000 of them, two-thirds, returned to Vichy and Occupied France after the peace treaty with Germany. This means that 80,000 British and Free French forces were needlessly captured. On the other side we have events like Mel's El Kirbir ,an admittedly rocky flair point between the allies. Many of those in the French fleet thought that the British had come to combine their fleets against Germany, and, thanks to intransigence on both sides, 3000 French sailors were killed. In war no country is Innocent, no one is an unconditional hero, and their are no perfect solutions. France and Britain will always argue and annoy each other, and this debate will outlast our lifetime, as it has lasted for the last 2000 years. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.
I don’t want to diminish the merit of North African troops who did very well in WWII for sure but unlike what is suggested in this video the French rearguard that slowed down German at Dunkirk wasn’t made of North African troops. I might miss some of them but as far as I know the units involved in this stubborn resistance were 12thDIM, 60th DI, 68th DI, 21st DI, 32nd DI. The 8th Zouaves is indeed a part of the 12thDIM. However 8th Zouaves was based in Mourmelon and unlike other Zouaves units wasn’t made of colonial troops. Moreover a Zouaves unit is around 2000 soldiers so a small part of the French troops in Dunkirk. The 2nd North African Division mentioned in this video fought actually in Lille where they held gallantly German assault between 25th to 30th of May.
Isn't it wonderful what one can learn from real historical teaching when the proper time is invested in research and that the true sources of information can be consulted and reviewed. This is a fair and excellent addressing of the mythology that has grown up around what was and still is a very astounding historical event. - Well done sir.
Tyler La Pointe It really wasn't the Russians who broke the Luftwaffe though. It was the American and British who practically destroyed most of German Industry, followed by both US/UK and Soviet Airforces beating the fighters and bombers that couldn't get easily replaced
Tyler La Pointe - What an extraordinarily ignorant comment. Have you heard, for example, of the Battle of Britain? Do you know the result of that battle?
There are a great many parallels between World Wars One and Two. In the early stages of World War One, the British seriously considered plans to evacuate through the Channel ports. As the French lines stiffened during the Battle of the Marne, the British threw themselves headlong into the fight and the "Old Contemptibles" prewar army of experienced soldiers was essentially annihilated. This left Lord Kitchener with a very difficult challenge in building up a large British Expeditionary Force that was lacking in an experienced cadre. In World War Two, Operation Dynamo prevented a repeat of that disaster, thereby allowing an experienced cadre to train the armies that would later fight in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and eventually France again in 1944. Bismarck's Dunkirk video is highly recommended.
I understand the panzers were halted outside Dunkirk because they had left infantry and logistical support far behind and that counterattacks from British Matilda 2 tanks and a French force had led to fears that the allies would cut the panzers off. obviously at the time, the Germans would not have known the strength of allied forces or their dispositions.
General von Kluge told von Rundstedt that his troops "would welcome an opportunity to halt and close up tomorrow". General von Kleist complained to von Rundstedt about his losses of armor- which were overstated and consisted primarily of breakdowns, and not combat losses. All three men were undoubtedly concerned to some extent about the possibility of a French counterattack, but the armored division commanders wished to advance, as did Guderian. One good look at a situation map for the morning of 24 May will show just how critical a position the Allies were in.
Had Hitler crushed the British at Dunkirk, the British would have either sued for peace or at a minimum would have been unable to defend North Africa or Greece. The Mediterranean would not have been as much of a soft underbelly
Barbarossa Uhh Over 300,000 veteran troups escaped. Without the morale boost and the experienced veterans to train new recruits and fight in North Africa I don't think the U.K. could have had El Alamein
Yes by crushed I meant prevented the escaped, and killed or captured all the troops of the BEF as well as the free French and Belgians (and others) who escaped. Of course he defeated the Allies at Dunkirk but the missed opportunity to obliterate the BEF was a blunder that the UK would capitalize on in the near, mid, and long term as the war progressed
I think if they had lost the additional 300k men they could have done very little to prevent anything the Germans and to a lesser extent the Italians wanted to do in North Africa. Suez Canal would have been lost and the Germans could have gone into Arabia with little resistance
I think overall Dunkirk was about as good as Britain could hope for. Our losses, overall, were fairly small, manageable, and it gave an excellent opening to the coming war at home. Now the average person knew there was genuine threat, and the Little Ships could be inflated by propaganda to show how every Brit did their part to help our boys. While the Little Ships were exaggerated, I think it's a powerful message of unity in Britain, even today. Dunkirk Spirit is still a phrase meaning solidarity in tough times, coming together as a people. It also fits our love of close shaves and underdogs. I have to admit, the movie did get to me a bit, emotionally. After a lifetime of watching the Americans preen themselves in war films, we got one that shows the best of us Brits.
William Eaton: Have you ever tried getting tanks, trucks and artillery onto a small fishing boat? Most of the vehicles & other heavy equipment was destroyed (or at least disabled) to prevent them being used by the enemy.
another thing about the BEF losing most of their heavy equipment, it was actually a blessing in a very good disguise. before Dunkirk the Brits motorpool and artillery parks consisted of large assortment of outdated and non standardized equipment that was a huge logistical nightmare. so while at the time losing most of your AFV's trucks, artillery etc, may have left England very weak to an invasion, in the long run it forced them to modernize and standardize their equipment, which the Germans never did. the Germans use of captured equipment caused them far more problems then it was worth, largely because the only way to repair most of it was to cannibalize parts form captured stocks, or machine brand new parts.
Jean-Luc Martel en fait les allemands cherchaient surtout a se constituer un parc automobile. Ils n'avaient pas besoin des canons et des munitions anglaises mais uniquement les camions qui transportaient ce materiel. C'est pour ça qu'après la défaite de la france, les allemands se sont emparés de plus de 9000 camions français et ça a été pareil pendant market garden avec les camions anglais à nouveau. Le problème de l'allemagne c'est qu'elle avait trop de régiment d'infanterie à pied ou à cheval. D'ailleurs pendant le débarquement les régiments allemands montaient en normandie à pieds ou à velo et les plus chanceux en train. Le vrai trésor de dunkerke c'était les véhicules de transport.
That's precisely what made the Wehrmacht such a cohesive force by the end of the 30s. Versailles forced Germany to abandon the great quantity of outdated WW1 tech and focus on cutting edge quality
I would argue that the French army is the only reason why the English and French units at Dunkirk were able to evacuate. While those units were evacuating dozens of French units were selling their lives dearly to but them time... I would even argue that rescuing the French was a complete after thought
lol. The halt order was not a 'blunder'. Here are the errors in this statement, evidently borne out of western/NATO lies and propaganda; 1) The panzers just outside Dunkirk had moved too far ahead of their supply lines 2) They had moved too far ahead of the infantry 3) They were exhausted and in need of refitting and repair because of 2 weeks ceaseless battle 4) Unseasonable rain meant the ground between them and the British was pure bog, meaning only roads could be used to advance the attack 5) The roads were, unsurprisingly, mined and barricaded 6) They were needed for the big fish, the French forces and the push on Paris 7) They were inferior to British and French tanks
Agreed, the panzer units in question were in rough shape and the request for a halt came from commanders on the ground. At this time the French are counterattacking to the south. A brief halt to consolidate was prudent, even in hindsight.
Wrestling Burial Channel The Allied army was already defeated and couldn’t fight anymore, you’re kidding yourself if you think they could put up any kind of fight.
Yes, they had moved far ahead of the infantry, but that was the whole point of a major armored attack. Waiting for the infantry was precisely the stupid thing that made the Germans fail to capture Dunkirk. Also, the Panzers were ordered to halt 3 times during the campaign, with the "local" Panzer commanders always heavily opposing all halt orders, sometimes going directly against express and direct orders from high command to wait for the infantry, so experienced German military commanders that were actually commanding in the field didn't feel like their forces were exausted, or were far ahead of supply lines or needed refit and repair, and they likely knew better than we do. The roads were guarded by virtually no French or British troops. Yes, the terrain was not good for tanks, but there was no English of French troops capable of exploiting that terrain when Hitler gave the halt order. It's basically a unanimity among historians that the German Panzers could've taken Dunkirk if any of the 3 halt orders had not happened. The Germans were closer to Dunkirk than the majority of the British forces, and the British would not be able to easily retake the city from strong, well trained and equipped troops like the Panzer division, and the British would be on a timer, as they would be virtually without supplies (also, the Germans could've just blown up the pier, so even if the British retook the city they would've been unable to perform major evacuations) Also, for all intents and purposes, the Germans had won the Battle of France by the time Hitler gave the final halt order. As the video says, without the supplies from the ships, they would've surrended even sooner than the evacuation ended, and without the French troops saved in Dunkirk, Fall Rot would've been even easier (while the French resisted ferociously, Fall Rot defeated the French rather quickly), so the "saving their forces for Paris" makes absolutely no sense Also, French and British tanks being better changes literally nothing. They were better already in May 10 1940, but that didn't stop the Germans from destroying the allied forces.
All good points, iirc in some German Panzer Units operational vehicle numbers were down to 50% due to battle losses and units down for maintenance. However the operational commanders who requested the halt order in their own words (post war and possibly self serving), envisioned a much shorter halt for refit and repair and then resumption of operations. An interesting side note is that Hitler's WWI service was in the Flanders area and he was familiar with the terrain. His memories of the stalemate of the Great War, the lowland boggy nature of the area of operations may have contributed to his hesitation. That and the other Great War Memory...the seeming ability of the French to pull off comeback after comeback; The Marne in '14, Verdun in '15-'16, the Mutines in '16-'17, the Marne again in '18, realistically most WWI German veterans (without the benefit of hindsight) would see knocking out the French Army as the main event.
Judging by personal accounts on Adolf Hitler's opinion on Englishmen the killing of more Englishmen was probably to him a very unpleasant idea Also the argument that he halted german command out of hubris is sort of irrelevant when you consider how intelligent Adolf hitler was and the fact that he understood the value of capturing the British forces Which leads me to think he was not lying when he said he halted the troops as an act of good will.
French troops from North Africa included many Moroccan soldiers. They fought with exceptional tenacity and even ferocity, protecting a land that was not theirs and whose population mainly looked down upon them. I have seen German propaganda reels from 1940 that showed captured French Moroccan soldiers. The narration did nothing to diminsh the quality of these soldiers. It went something like: "These warriors from far away regions of the French colonial empire were brought over here to fight and die for their French masters." I have a few unconfirmed stories of a French Moroccan counter assault with the Germans running for their lives because they surely thought these must be headhunters (because, from Africa). Some German soldiers had heard stories about certain French colonial troops passed on from their fathers who fought against these same colonial troops during WW1. Another story tells about how these French Moroccan soldiers retreated during the night, having to march throughout the night without the ability to rest for sleep. It sounds unbelievable to me, but it appears some of them slept while marching, being supported by their comrades. These stories may be fiction or based on true events, but it shows that the French colonial troops from North Africa were a force to be reckoned with.
AudieHolland Absolutely, Morrocan, Algerian and Tunisian soldiers were always seen by the French as inferior troops but in fact they were a cheap version of elite troops. The north African countries were colonized by France and still many men fought for it with bravery. De Gaulle himself said that one of the greatest achievement during the campaign in Italy was done by Tunisian troops who had more than 50% casualties but they suceeded at breaking through the German defensive lines. Also during the second D-day in August at southern France, many north African troops were participating in the fighting. Another fact is that the first "French" soldier to cross the German borders was in fact a Tunisian. Fortunatly, there's a good movie titled "Days of Glory" which tells the story of North African soldiers being encountering bigotry and inferior treatment while they have fought bravely during the liberation of a French town.
*Komrade Tuniska* Thank you for sharing! It's a bit like the "Gurkhas," the British Empire's elite warriors. Coming from poor mountainous terrain with not much farmland available, to these troops, life at home was probably harder than serving in a foreign army. Closer to home, the Scottish Highlanders come to mind.
*Dominik Schwab* Imagine yourself as a member of the German army fighting in the Battle of France. All is going well, the Allied forces are in full retreat, then something odd happens. A counter attack by foreign-looking soldiers in French uniforms shouting and raging in an alien language. Btw, are you a Yank? Africa is more than North Africa. In fact, Africa is so large that the entire US of A would neatly fit in the Sahara Desert.
KomradeTuniska not really, in most cases the colonial troops were considered as equals during late WW1 and most of WW2 and most of the colonies were French in all but race since most of the solders were born under French rule.
Another video which does not mention the forgotten sacrifice of the Highland Division. Seems they will forever be a footnote to everyone except the people it hurt the most.
What about other units from the Guards and Rifle brigade who are forgotten simply because they dont have the Pr of the Highland Division. Yes they were not at Dunkirk either so not relevant.
They had a hard time but weren't "sacrificed" in the same way as say the Rifle Brigade was at Calais rather, they suffered from an accumulation of events firstly to be seconded to the French at the time the Battle began , then ended up in a small unsuitable port , then fog rolled in to stall the evacuation then the formation they were attached to surrendered before another attempt could be made to get them out .
No. From the looks of it it directly panders to, and plays on, all the myths that are mentioned in this video, without awareness or efforts to portray Dunkirk in an accurate or respectable historic light.
I'd rather they'd bothered giving the nation that stuck out WW2 the longest, without which the whole Allied effort would have been moot, some credit in films (finally) and given us one on a battle we won... I don't know, Kohima maybe, though there are other highlights ... I mean, everybody else, on the Allied side at least, has had movies, especially in the modern era, giving them a good showing at least, with the yanks getting solo war winning efforts since when the war was still going... I'm tired of the Brit = shit story.
How do you know there is no French Army in the Film? And by "protecting the British" do you mean holding a defensive line whilst the majority of the French and British Force at Dunkirk evacuated? "The Germans will all be Nazis"....what does this even mean? There Germans will all be fighting for the third reich, yes. They will be acting as conquerers, yes. That's all historically accurate. "Little ships? Check" "The Little Ships of Dunkirk were 700 private boats that sailed from Ramsgate in England to Dunkirk in France between 26 May and 4 June 1940 as part of Operation Dynamo, helping to rescue more than 338,000 British and French soldiers who were trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk during the Second World War." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ships_of_Dunkirk There were 700 "little ships", so yes, they are in the film. The story of the little ships is an interesting one as it is very unconventional, why would you expect it to not be in the film? You sound like a stereotypical salty anglophobe continental.
"Not all Germans were nazis. If for you, German Heer's soldiers = Nazi soldiers, you forget your brain. " Nobody has made that assertion, so what are you talking about? Please clarify exactly what it has to do with this film, as in what are you upset with this film doing in terms of its portrayal of Germans? Or are you just talking shit? "I was talking about the Little Ship because in MHV's video he is talking about the medias focusing only on them. I expect the movie not to focus only on them." When you say "the media only focuses on them", again, I really don't know what you are talking about, could you find me a piece of media which says that only little ships came to the battle. Or are you saying that this is the thing that people generally associate Dunkirk with the little ships? Of course the thing the layman knows about dunkirk is the little ships, it is the part of the battle which is unique and interesting and makes it stand out in history. In only the trailer of the film we see both merchant vessels, RN Ships and little ships, so already your bullshit is out of the window.
I wrote a review of the new movie "DUNKIRK" which was very popular among my Facebook friends. However, this presentation has augmented my understanding of the French during the war. Also I had not thought of the lives saved had Hitlers used POWs as a bargaining chip in a bid for peace on good terms. Another youtube video informed me that the movie got sour reviews in the Indian press for not mentioning the role Indian soldiers played in that conflict. Older people like myself were curious that the movie barely mentions German. It just says that the BEF were fighting the enemy. Sort of like the Japanese narrating their destruction by say Atomic bombs fell on us.
*The British won the Battle of Dunkirk.* No miracles involved. *The British BEF was only 9% of the total allied forces in France and the Low Countries.* The huge French army collapsed in front of the British small army, which manned mainly the coastal areas. Nevertheless the German advance was halted in France as the British with a vastly inferior force stopped them at Arras. Some German soldiers turned and ran. *Directive 13, issued by German Supreme Headquarters on 24 May 1940 stated specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the Dunkirk pocket.* The Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the British forces across the English Channel. The German southern advance was stopped at Arras by the British with a numerically inferior force. The Germans never moved much further after. The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk, they would have been badly beaten in and around the town. *The Luftwaffe was defeated over Dunkirk by the RAF with the first showing of the Spitfire en-mass. More German than allied planes were destroyed in the Dunkirk pocket.* The first defeat of the Nazis in WW2 was by the British in the air battle over Dunkirk. Only six small warships were sunk at Dunkirk by the Germans as the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe blunted. The British were retreating after the French collapsed in front of them - a programme already in motion, a programme already in motion before the Germans showed up, as General Gort saw the disjointed performance of the French forces in front of him, and the exceptionally poor leadership. If the French collapsed the small BEF had no hope against the large over two million strong German force heading west. *French forces were amongst the British when General Gort decided to take the men back to England,* as he did not trust the French in a joint counter-attack. French General Wiegand held a meeting to arrange a counter-attack not inviting General Gort head of the BEF. Gort was under the command of Weigand. Gort heard of the meeting rushing to be there. He got there after the French and Belgians had left. He ordered the evacuation, having no faith in the elderly French leaders. All armies retreat and regroup when the need is there. There happened to be a body of water in the line of the retreat. Were the BEF to move down the English coast and enter France further west with more men from England? The Germans did not know what was to be the next British or allied move. *The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk trying for nearly a week failing in the process.* The British retreat operation was carried out as planned and in orderly fashion. All bridges to Dunkirk were destroyed by the allies. The British counter-attack at Arras was with outdated Matilda 1 tanks, which only had machine guns, and a few of the brand new Matilda 2 tanks. The Germans fled in droves. In desperation the Germans turned a 88mm AA gun horizontally successfully against the Matilda 2 - their conventional anti-tank weapons and tanks could not penetrate the tank. The 88mm had hard shell shells made for it, to use against the Maginot Line's bunkers. The Matilda 2 would roll over German gun emplacements killing the gunners, not even using the guns. Rommel thought he had been hit by a force three times the size, which made them stop and rethink. The Germans countered with their superior numbers pushing back the British who fell back consolidating towards Dunkirk. The British resolve and the new Matilda 2 tank made the Germans sit up and think about a street fight in Dunkirk against a consolidated force still with its weapons and the new Matilda 2 - the large 88mm would be useless in Dunkirk streets while the Matilda 2 would be in its element, with the Matilda 2 easily destroying the Panzer MkIII & MkIVs. The Matilda 2 could knock out any German tank at the time, while no German tank could knock it out. The Germans were expecting the Matilda 2 to be shipped over in numbers and for all they knew many were in Dunkirk, and some were. The Germans could not stop the tanks coming as the RAF controlled the skies with a CAP and the RN the waters of the Channel. Not a good prospect for the Germans. A Dunkirk street fight was a fight the German troops were untrained and unequipped for and unwise to get involved in. Von Rundstedt and von Kluge suggested to Hitler that German forces around the Dunkirk pocket cease their advance, consolidating preventing an Allied breakout from Dunkirk. Hitler agreed with the support of the Wehrmacht. German preoccupation rightly was with an expected attack from the fluid south of the German lines, by mainly French and some British forces, not from dug-in Dunkirk which was too much of a formidable consolidated opponent, taking substantial resources to seize. The German column had Allied troops to each side with soft marshland to the south west of Dunkirk unsuitable for tanks. If German forces had engaged in a street battle for Dunkirk, they would be vulnerable on their weak flank from the south. In short the fast moving panzers were now static; German forces attacking Dunkirk in a battle of attrition would have been largely wiped out. The German columns were consolidating their remaining armour for an expected attack by the British and French from the south, and the important resupply from Germany, which was slow as it was via horses - or maybe a combined attack from the south and the Dunkirk pocket. The Germans attacked on a remarkably narrow front. *They had over-stretched their supply lines.* The Germans had no option but to stop, being more concerned at defending from the mainly French forces in the south which were viewed as a greater threat than Dunkirk. French general Weigand implemented his creation of _hedgehogs_ to attack German lines from the sides, with success - hedgehogs were adopted post war by NATO being a part of the tactics until the 1970s. What were the Germans thinking? Are the British retreating to England from Dunkirk to move down the English coast and re-enter France further south with fresh forces, including Canadians and the new Matilda 2 tanks, which they feared, and join up with the French forces there to hit the Germans from the south? Are the British going to reinforce the Dunkirk pocket supplied by the Royal Navy with a 24/7 air CAP? The British did reinforce Dunkirk by taking over from England the 30th Tank Regiment and 20th Guards Brigade on the 25th and 26th May, with the Germans fully aware of this. Canadians landed further south. The British could easily do any of these as they controlled the Channel. Reinforcing Dunkirk would create one large difficult to combat force. The Germans also saw the resolve of outnumbered British forces at Arras. German generals were trying to figure out what was happening. None thought that British troops would retreat to England and stay there. The British never did that sort of thing. The Germans could divert most of their forces south to engage the French forces, then risk a Dunkirk breakout. This would mean being attacked from their rear fighting on two fronts. Or stay and consolidate, which they needed to do anyhow, awaiting a French/British attack from the south and use some forces and the Luftwaffe to attack Dunkirk. Which what they did. *German forces resumed their attack on Dunkirk, after only a 36 hour delay, for over 6 days failing to seize the port.* The plan to break out of the Dunkirk Pocket using British, Belgian and French forces was abandoned as Gort had no confidence in the French. All military school studies since, knowing what the German and allied positions and situations were in 1940, have shown it would have succeeded. *The Germans were defeated at the Battle of Dunkirk.* They tried militarily to seize the port but failed. Only because the British did not trust the French and moved back to England did the Germans eventually occupy the town. *The Germans did not let the British get away that is misguided myth, they tried for a week simply not able to seize Dunkirk.*
The British were not planning to break out of the pocket, although the Germans did not know that. The Germans were attempting to annihilate the British *failing.*
So, the Brits bugger off and call it an incredible victory, meanwhile people joke that the French invented the tank turret in order to fire while retreating. Seems we're ribbing the wrong allied power.
A few aspects of this video are interpretations presented as facts, but mostly it's over 70% correct, which is good going for UA-cam historical videos. At the end of the day, the British had to do what was right for them to survive longterm - and in that sense Dunkirk was a huge success, vindicated many times over in later years. The British Army was subsequently transformed into something incredible because of Dunkirk. Whether it should be portrayed as a victory is all down to individual perception - I'd personally call it a longterm strategic victory, similar to many historians.
Damn Military History Visualized! I was just excited to see Dunkirk later this month and now you tell me that most stuff in the movies (like most "historical" movies) are false or dramatized :(
Good video. It's often difficult when speaking with people to separate propaganda and cherished myths. These things can be so ingrained. I met a woman in her early 20s who'd emigrated from Tito's Yugoslavia. She was well aware that they had been lied to by the communist government. She was surprised that I'd read Djilas. She knew who he was but hadn't been able to get his books in Yugoslavia. I quizzed her based on what I'd learned from Djilas, "What did Tito do in WWI?" "He was a pilot in the Serbian air force." "Nope, he was in the Austrian Hungarian army, a non-com charge of a machine gun." She knew Djilas was a reliable source but she just could not accept this. One of the boats in the Dunkirk evacuation was operated by a man named Lightoiler. If you saw the movie Titanic, there's a scene where an officer points a gun at someone. That's a real event. Lightoiler was a mate on the Titanic. He survived. A few years later in WWI serving in the Royal Navy, his ship was sunk very near the same spot. Before the start of WWII he took his personal boat along the Baltic Coast doing reconnaissance for the Royal Navy. Both his sons died in the war. I don't think his operating his boat during Dunkirk was part of the myth, he was probably one of the most experience seaman there and he'd served in the Navy. Just a detail.
That depends on which exit you want to take. On the other hand I am rather excited at seeing what Hollywood has done to a story which includes no Americans.
As I recall from reading on Dunkirk, there were multiple stop orders by the German High Command for the Panzers during the campaign. Otherwise, recall the Allies' defenses stiffened in Belgium as the lines were pulled back, with rear-guard (or escape corridor) formations fighting to the last round in many instances.
The Panzers were "stopped" because they felt they would need refit and rest before the next major phase of the war. The French were not defeated at this point. We only know in retrospect how easily they cracked again on the line on the Somme? later. They had been in action and movement constantly for over a week. Men crack at that point. The second phase would have gone much worse if they had expended these forces in city fighting around Dunkirk, which, btw the way, COULD have been easily defended even longer, as the terrain was so poor for tanks.
Historian Anthony Beevor argues that prior to the Dunkirk evacuations, the British had executed a counter-attack on the northern flank or the German thrust, which (unbeknownst to the British at the time) came quite close to cutting off the Panzer spearhead from the following infantry support - hence the German High Command felt a real need to consolidate forces before advancing further, hence they halted short of Dunkirk for legitimate military reasons.
LOL. a British victory? The French caved in with barely a fight...the British fled as fast as they could drive, run or fly. This was not in any way a "successful" military operation, it was a barely controlled rout. No offense, but both the French and the British were outnumbered,outgunned and unprepared.
Actual history is that the fall of France was down to a number of reason, lack of courage was not one of them. The French fought hard and well but the politicians had neglected the army so much that no amount of courage was going to make up for that. The Germans had a real hard time breaking through the Weygand Line and lost a lot of men doing it. Once across the Seine though the French army did collapse, just like the German army did when the Allies crossed the Rhine.
A victory in the sense they weren't completely slaughtered. If the BEF was defeated then the UK would have likely surrendered. With the collapse of France anything other than retreat would have been suicide for the Brits.
The British army had to be evacuated from the beaches and moles of Dunkirk as well as from Norway, Greece and Crete, forced to surrender at Hong Kong and Singapore (To a force the British outnumbered) yet no one is saying the British did not fight hard. It was not less than a month, it was 7 weeks. It was Poland that fell in less than a month, 3 weeks. The French fought hard until the Germans crossed the Seine, then the French resistance collapsed totally when it became clear that France was lost, yet the same thing happened to the Germans in 1945, once the Allies crossed the Rhine the Germans surrendered in their hundreds of thousands, many without firing a shot. The key to German success was in 1940 to two main factors (1) the use of tanks on mass instead of in penny packets to support infantry attacks like the Allies did. Yet the Allies learned, when the British and French collected tanks together for a counter-attack at Arras they broke right through the German line, forcing the Germans to retreat, the SS Totenkopf was seen throwing their rifles down and running in panic, but it was too little, too late. The Germans brought up their 88s and called on the Luftwaffe to halt the attack, but Arras showed what could have happened if the Allies had used tanks on mass from the beginning. (2) Airpower, much of the Allied air forces was destroyed on the ground, and France had few modern fighters capable of matching the German BF 109. They did have the excellent Dewoitine D520 but this was only available in small numbers in May 1940. Mostly France had to rely on Morane-Saulniers and Bloch Fighters which were totally out glassed by the 109s. The French even won two battles, the battles of Hannut and Gembloux where they stopped the Germans dead, but because of an German breakthrough through the Ardennes at Sedan, even though the French had stopped the Germans they were ordered to retreat towards Dunkirk as their lines of communication were in danger of being cut by the Germans moving up from Sedan. The French First Army advanced into Belgium where they were engaged in desperate fighting and forced to retreat. The survivors then fell back on Lille. 40'000 men hold that town which was attacked by up to 200'000 Germans. Tanks, aircraft and artillery was used but the French battled on keeping those 200'000 Germans from attacking the Dunkirk perimeter. If they had been free to do so Dunkirk would have been overrun with or without tanks before the first ships could arrive. "These Frenchmen, under the Gallant leadership of General Molinie had for four critical days contained no less than seven German divisions all of which otherwise could have joined in the assaults on the Dunkirk Perimeter. This was a splendid contribution to the escape of their more fortunate comrades of the BEF." (Winston Churchill} On finally surrendering after the most gallant resistance the Germans were so impressed that they allowed the French to march through the streets of Lille with all their arms and with their banners flying. As they marched the German officers saluted them. One German officer wrote in his diary. "The stand of the French 1st Army at Lille proved that the French soldier is still among the best in the world." During the French campaign the Germans suffered 157,000 casualties. lost 795 tanks and 1236 aircraft. Another key to German success and one I overlooked in my last post was the fact that the Germans had radios in their tanks and the French did not so the Germans were better able to coordinate their movements. Wikipedia has this to say about Hannut The German plan failed to forestall the French 1st Army at Gembloux, despite their victory over the 3rd DLM. Still, Hoepner's advance to the Belgian plain tied down the Cavalry Corps and part of the French First Army while the decisive German assault succeeded across the Meuse at Sedan to the south-east. The Germans had hoped that Hoepner's panzers and their neighbouring corps would tie down and neutralise the threat of the First Army but on 15 May, forces of the First Army properly settled into position, checked the Panzerwaffe, which gained them time and space to manoeuvre. Part of the First Army sacrificed itself at the Siege of Lille and held up the bulk of the panzers, which had broken through to the south-east, enabling the British Expeditionary Force and other French units to escape from Dunkirk.[41]
It is a fantastic film. I'm impressed that they show the French holding the line, but disappointed that you only catch a glimpse of their presence in the whole of the film. Still, excellent film.
Lets not forget [obvious spoilers] in the movie the french deserter stayed in that sinking ship to pug the holes allowing the highlanders to escapes whist he did not. Nolan's movies are well thought out and this is a pretty big hint at some symbolism.
I don't no putting ones tank force in range / sight of the Royal Navy big gun does seem rather stupid, So whoever gave the halt order my have had a bit foresight.
French General Wiegand held a meeting to arrange a counter-attack and never invited General Gort head of the BEF. Gort heard of the meeting and rushed to be a part. He got there after the French and Belgians had left. He ordered the evacuation having no faith in the French leaders.
you're false about the RAF, they were just on the beach at the begining and at the end of the day to slightly show they were their, but they never intended to put a full air protection of the beaches
The Halt order could be interpreted as a blunder, but it can also be interpreted as Rundstedt and Hitler not wanting to butcher 100,000's. Have to look into it further.
Technically well done-- the illustrated approach permits rapid review of key points. Without graphics to track each point as it is made, the typical serial (verbal) narrative "bogs down" in detail. As poster "Wrestling Burial Channel" notes, below, there is many valid reasons for which General von Rundstedt might have halted German panzer units short of Dunkirk.
Thanks for the video, but most of us want elaboration on the events from the movie. No spoilers, the movie Dunkirk was focused on the events on the beach.
i've read that The panzer divisions were so worn out that by The time They got to dunkirk They only had 50% of their units operable, most of The missing vehicles simply broke down due to a lack of support since The germans were moving so fast but also intense fighting. This is partly why The halt order was ordered
don't have Blitzkrieg Legend from Frieser lying around, so I can't deny nor verify the numbers, but he closely looked into this mess and concluded that the Halt Order was not warranted at all. Majority of the officers both front-line and High Command were against it. This even becomes more damning if you fast forward to Fall 1941, when ALL front-line commanders at the conference at Orsha were against continuing offensive operations, but the whole High Command was now for pushing onward.
Great work like always! This is an aside of course, but you could've also brought in how Hitler wished to preserve his armored forces, and only wanted the assault on Dunkirk to be performed by infantry forces (who were slower to arrive since the Panzers had raced ahead of them). This was mainly since Hitler hoped for his armored forces to remain unscathed and rested for the coming offensive he was planning against the well-entrenched french forces on the Somme, who actually held out for three weeks against the Germans before Pétain announced he'd seek out an armistice. "The Germans renewed their offensive on 5 June on the Somme. During the next three weeks, far from the easy advance the Wehrmacht expected, they encountered strong resistance from a rejuvenated French Army.[177] It had fallen back on its interior lines of supply and communications, and had closer access to repair shops, supply dumps and stores." So much for the surrender stereotype hah.
Very good, as usual. Though this time I can add something. As understand it. The initial pause of the tanks was ordered and wanted by the tank commanders. They needed a short pause. The crews were tired and the infantry keeping up with them exhausted. As they closed on the trapped forces resistance had been increasing and more concentrated. The pause was extended due to a British tank counter attack, the result was a temporary gross over estimate of how many British Tanks might be in the area. So being very organised before proceeding was essential. Back with Hitler Goering was boasting that he could destroy the British on the beaches, and Hitler gave him his chance. This would not have seemed such a stupid thing to do at the time, as even the British thought they could only rescue a tiny fraction of the troops at Dunkirk. Hitler thought he had plenty of time, and the British commanders at the time would have agreed with him. He was also concerned about possible counter attacks from the south of France. The idea that the tank commanders desperately wanted to press forward from the stop on day one is false ,and probably unlikely on day 2. Though they would have by day 3 because they would have realised how well the evacuation was going; plus the troops were rested, and they were fully aware of were all resources and enemy were.
Ah, finally got to watching this. I have a few questions. 1. From what I had gathered, even if the Germans were to attack without delay, they still would have had to face the French rearguard, which could have proven complicated in the disorganised state they were. Is that incorrect? Were the French not yet in defensive positions? 2. In relation to the above, I read that the German forces were in a bit of disarray after having advanced too fast, outrunning their supplies and/or infantry support, and that waiting was a generally good idea given the information they had at the time, especially with Rommel's alarmist claims about the enemy strength. What have you heard on the subject?
1. been a while since I read Blitzkrieg Legend, but if I remember correctly Friesner notes that basically just a handful (or even one?) company was there. Nobody dug in, bad morale, etc. 2. well, so what? Look at what they did in Barbarossa. The example I always bring is the conference at Orsha Fall 1941. ALL front-line commanders were against continuing offensive operations, yet all of the High Command was for it. Whereas with the Halt-Order a few front-line commanders wanted it, but the majority was against it and also the High command was against it. Read something about Rommel's alarmist strength yesterday, but can't remember what Frieser wrote on that or if he covered it. Still, High Command and most front-line commanders were for "no halt".
OK on 1. As for 2. I'm just curious about just how lucky the Allies were. Because had the decision to halt been a sensible one given the circumstances, it means they didn't really escape miraculously, whereas had the decision been stupid even without the benefit of hindsight, it does make the escape the more miraculous.
another point was, that the Germans were more focused on defeating the French, so the push against Dunkirk was "limited". Case Red was more important to them.
did you know at Dunkirk the allies where attacked by a fifty foot hilter robot. Churchill had to turn 50ft tall and swim the channel to defeat the monster.
Seemed odd to me when you said Dunkirk "was portrayed and perceived as a victory for the British and the allies" I have never held the opinion, never been taught that point of view, never even spoken to anyone who saw it as anything but a very bad defeat for the allies. The whole point of having to evacuate in the face of an advancing enemy is that you have been defeated. There was a propaganda campaign that seemed to try and portray the British as resilient in the face of defeat, but I do not recall anyone ever trying to claim it as an allied victory.
The case for Hitler sparing them in order to negotiate with the British is the stronger in my opinion. I think it was more about that than just flexing on his high command. Its speculative either way but the makes more sense to the overall goal he stated. I guess he thought old Winnie the boozehound would see the 200,000 men let go and consider a peace talk . Even when Hess jumped in by parachute the British didn't want to talk peace.
First and foremost the main participants in the Battle of France were, unsurprisingly, the French and German Armies. The BEF landed with 10 Divisions, the French and Germans had a ~100 each. Indeed, the British can be seen as more of an auxiliary in this battle holding up the left flank of the French Army (as was pretty much the case in WW1). For all intents and purposes the British held up their end of the line until the situation became untenable due to the collapse of the French 9th Army Corps just short of the Ardennes. Not a lot the British are going to be able to do when 70% of the Allied Army disintegrates and so you are inevitably going to have to get them all out as fast possible in the face of overwhelming odds. Secondly, given that Germany (and perhaps to a lesser extent Japan) were the only ones really gunning for another horrific world war it is completely unsurprising that they scored some big initial successes (they were fanatics and on drugs). The memory of WW1 had a left a nasty scar within the British conscious in particular and they in no way wanted a repeat of the slaughter. That snowball sure got a role on but then guess what... it melted.
My great uncle was at Dunkirk and he always said that he and all of his pals were exceedingly grateful of the sacrifice made by the French army which enabled the evacuation to take place. Those guys had been outmanoeuvred, outfought, had poor leadership and equipment but they stood their ground and fought to the end. There was no shortage of bravery in the French military.
My grandfather was a French in his seventeen when those events occurred. Living in the northern France but too young to be incorporated in the army, he was told by authorities to embark to England. He walked his way to Dunkirk, but when he reached the brits line, they yelled at him to turn back. Being trapped between the German and the brits, he ended being wounded in the leg by a British bullet, stayed hidden in a barn for two days before being rescued. Later in the war he would be deported with "Compulsory Work Service" to work on a steel factory in Germany, would survive the incendiary bombing of the factory by Americans. Finally got back to France at the end of the war, the body covered with burns and losing some fingers. He would become a successful business man and never had any hard feelings against German, British or Americans.
I'm surprised that this video says that the French are usually said to have been ineffectual or bad during this operation. My mother served the British military and my father the Americans during WWII. My mother's uncle was one of the people sailing one of the "little boats". They always told me thold that it was due to the heroic, self sacrificing stand that the French took to protect the evacuation of troops that Dunkirk was turned from defeat to future victory. If history has forgotten this sacrifice, I'm sorry. I guarantee you that my family never has.
TRUE THE FRENCH TRIED AND ALSO DONT FORGET BRITISH TROOPS WERE ALSO THERE STILL FIGHTING i WROTE TO A BRITISH POW WHEN I WAS STILL AT SCHOO L IN 1940. LATER I WAS IN BAOR TRAINING FRAULEINS TO TAKE OVER COMMUNICATIONS I ALSO WENT TO DACHAU IN THE US ZONE TO VISIT THE PLACE WHERE TWO BRITISH FEMALE AGENTS WERE TORTURED AND KILLED AND I GET SO TIRED OF PEOPLE MAKING STATEMENTS WHEN THEY KNEW DAMNED ALL ABOUT IT PERSONALLY
Mate I know I'm late too this comment and video to that. But I've never once thought the French where useless or part of the problem at dunkirk, where is he getting this information from?
Dynamic Slash Well basically, every video about French army or France during WWII gets its fair share of " LOL FrANcE SuRrEndEr", "FrEnCh aRe CowArDs" etc. You don't have to go very far. The people commenting around here are rather polite and well educated but can still find some of this kind of comments under this very vid.
It's something that have become inavoidable since 2003 to a point it have become some kind of online guerilla warfare rather than "traditional Franco-British bashing".
And, sadly, some armchair historians have come to believe the French soldiers were very bad because of the French failure in the Ardennes or because of some reports of some French ill-disciplined troops in contrast of the professional BEF. But they often forget that they are comparing 13 divisions of professional voluntary British soldiers to 117 divisions of French conscripts with close to no military experience.
As Goebbels used to say : "Repeat a lie a thousand times and it becomes the truth."
@@mitsumichi5325 Yep. It was further compounded in just how ineffectual the French Command structure was at dealing with the changing tide of warfare. There were committed to a style of warfare that had been left behind. Also the lack of capable and experienced officers was also very telling. However all this aside, it still does not take away from the bravery and discipline of the French troops who continued to fight. I also cite the French spirit in the famous French Resistance. Many of those unsung heroes and heroines show the tenacity of the French people.
I am glad in this video he addressed the fact that without the French army holding the lines, they never would have made it off the beaches. Also the major reason for the halt order of the panzers is actually more or less an order of necessity. Many of the German panzers were in bad need of repairs and overhauls. I mean you can only fight for six months straight with the same equipment and not expect it to be worn down and broken. Hence why the Germans halted. The other reason for the halting was that the panzers were out running their supply and infantry. As many people point out, if the French had a proper coordinated tank battalion, the dangerously overly extended German panzers could have been cut to pieces. As the Panzer III had not come into large service before the fall of France. The bulk of German Panzer divisions were largely comprised of Panzer I and IIs. Anyway that's my two cents on this one.
Anecdotes aren’t popular views
For those who criticize the French for surrendering, look up the Siege of Lille. As MHV stated, "Without the French holding the rearguard the evacuation would probably have turned out quite differently." And by differently, he means disastrously for the allies.
you should critize the french for surrendering, if they organised their soldiers better there was every chance they could have held, the french army was about as powerful as germany, yet the idiots couldnt hold out, that should be critizised, a lot of people died on dday needlesly because of the weak french army ! why should i look up some battle were the french obviously did reasonably well ? its irelivent, the french shouldnt have lost so easily !
The French were actually divided on that question, many would have continued the fight, and some did even when there was Nothing left.
But people need to understand this.
After Dunkirk, the French army is a complete mess, and there is no French Air Force anymore, 1200 planes were destroyed during the first two weeks of battle, and they fought quite well, but French Air Force and R.A.F combined were outnumbered, about 2500 planes for the allies vs 3000 for the Luftwaffe.
Yes, the German high command had a better war philosophy and understood that Victory would be a lot easier by controling the air, and they produced a whole lot more planes than the allies.
After Operation Dynamo, the French Army continued the fight two long weeks, without any tactical success, everytime the French armored corpses tried to keep positions they were punished by Air Strike...
There was no winning the war at this moment, 2 000 000 soldiers were already prisonners, Paris was captured, a lot of people were starting to ask for peace, and Italy declared war to France (and never succeded at crossing the alpes).
Of course France could have tried to resist a little more trying to buy some time in hope the British eventually decide to send another expeditional corpse, wich could have take month, and remember U.S.A never seemed to be concerned at this moment., the Brits were France's only ally.
So, resist and sacrify maybe millions of men like they did 20 years before, and finally having to accept unevitable defeat...
When you fail to conduct a good strategy, and put yourself in a situation of desaster, there is only two choice, death or surrender.
Principle of "last stand" or "death in honor" have a very different meaning when talking about a whole country, in 1945 Hitler choosed death and millions of his people followed him.... French were right.
Dal Roy:
In fact they didn't tell anyone from the beginning, Lord Gort decided on his own to start the evacuation, even Churchill wasn't aware of it at the beginning.
The French General Weygand was planning to try a counter Attack to the South by joining all allied forces to break the siege.
When he asked to meet Lord Gort, he was answered negatively...
It's the French Admiral Abrial, who decided to defend the City of Dunkirk with about a third of the French troops to protect the evacuation a long as possible and save as many men as they could in hope some French could be saved.
attack at sedan and break the german position at the river,encircle the tank divisions and destroy them, blame german for stupidity forever
Yeah and a lot of these surviving GI's did far more rape in far less time than the germans during 4 years... telle us a lot. I can give you the sources, if you want...
My great-grandfather was evacuated in Dunkirk as a French soldier and then he stayed in England until the D Day where he came back to Normandy to fight with the Canadians in Juno Beach. He survived and told us that going through the dead bodies of his friends was worse than going through hell
Respect to your Grandfather. I always read about Verdun and know what true courage is.
Two points:
- Goering convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe was more than capable of annihilating the men trapped in the pocket, which, like most things Goering said, wasn't true.
- The German armor was at the very end of its logistical line after the dash through France in the first few weeks of the invasion, and was lacking infantry support. In hindsight it's easy to say not immediately attacking was a huge mistake, but Von Rundstedt's fears were not completely irrational
"the very end", it was clearly at the very end near Moscow, in France they were probably not even near the end of the line, of course it was farther than they have gone before, but far from anywhere were it was a real problem.
A panzer division has divisional infantry in it! The whole idea of a Panzer Division is that it is a self-sufficient unit with infantry, artillery, engineers, etc. see here: ua-cam.com/video/rk-T-iNSdaw/v-deo.html
After the botched counter attack at Battle of Arras the Germans were somewhat hesitant to commit haphazardly. The armored spearhead was ahead of the rest, despite Panzer divisions being self-sufficient, and they did feel the need to consolidate strength.
As for 'logistical lines': obviously it was not comparable to Moscow nor am I claiming that. Still, after weeks of endless fighting and advances, the Panzers were in dire need of repairs. Supplies needed to be brought to the front. I'll look up specific references if you wish.
They were already at Calais, moving to Dunkirk wouldn't make much of a difference. Rundstedt did want to halt, but OKH disregarded it and ordered to go on at which point Hitler interfered. OKH had the view of the overall strategic situation and they based their decision upon it, even front commanders such as Guderian urged to go on. As far as I remembered, Rundstedt (a good commander otherwise) was suffering a minor nervous breakdown due to the war strain at that point so his decision couldn't be rational by default.
The Matlida II's were not necessarily the issue. OKW was perfectly fine to tangle with heavy armor at Stonne and at Hannut. Rommel was also able to stop the attack after it had made a penentration and restore the situation with combined arms in a matter of hours. A localised counterattack that wasn't even succesful in its intended objective should never have dictated such operational decisions, especially since it was business as normal again within a day. What more likely seems to be the problem is the emotional shift in the high command (all the way up to uncle Adolf). Initially the campaign in the West was regarded with great dread and trepidation: hundreds of thousands of casualties were expected and the left hook through Sedan was not trusted as a strategic solution to the problem. Once it turned out to be way more succesful than anyone dared to dream the mood shifted to barely-controlled euphoria mixed with the sneaking suspicion that the French were setting up an ambush. This means that once a little friction was encountered, it was overinterpreted by nearly everyone involved. Basically it was the military equivalent of Borderline Personality Disorder. As for the Göring issue: that is mostly interesting in that it ties in to the larger issue of the Nazi's fearing that the Heer would be the one to run away with the victory over the ultimate enemies. Hitler's halt order was a result of that same issue. Hitler always looked at war from a political angle (which underlaid most of his poor strategic decisions) and the point was that for propaganda's sake, the Nazi party had to be shown as the ones handling the reins on this victory. With most of the SS. Verfügungstruppen stuck with Heeresgruppe B, the Luftwaffe was one of the few 'Nazi party vehicles' that could deliver the knockout blow. At the end of the day, showing both the 'snivelling Prussians' and the rest of the world who was boss and who was the one who delivered them the victory was just as - if not more - important than humiliating the French and British.
DiggingForFacts read tank command by Bill close. he didn't have ammo only smoke shells
what a glorious yes men icon
The French were not cowards, but rather the Government was toothless. Saying the French were cowards is extremely narrow minded and disrespectful, not to mention its further perpetuating the myth that the French are only good at surrendering, which if you look at their extremely long and colorful military history is simply not true.
Provocateur ignoring
I was expecting the bot from new vegas, but this is a great replacement
The French protected the evacuation. Without them Dunkirk would have been even worse than it was.
I come from Southend-on-Sea. There was a high turnout of volunteers from there. My Uncle is a fisherman and often told me stories of the men who went, and back in the 90's I got to meet one of them who said it was his duty to go, and only fair, as he wasn't allowed to join the navy during the war as he was providing food for the country.
Also many of the other little ships were lifeboats (similar to the us coastguard) where most of the boats left with their own crews, which is pretty amazing considering it's always been an all volunteer charity. I think 19 boats went and 16 worked directly between the beaches and destroyers.
So although a lot of the boats were commandeered the fact that hundreds of civilians were prepared to do their bit is remarkable, even if it wasn't all of them.
My father was a veteran of the Dunkirk evacuation. With the artillery, he had to destroy his gun to prevent its use by the Germans. He kept a breech-pin as a souvenir (which I now have). My nephew has a wall barometer my dad "liberated" from a bombed out inn. My father also said that with all the strafing and bombing of the beach his nerves started to go until he took out a picture of his parents and little sister. He was evacuated late in the operation.
Sometimes the story is necessary. Reality is dark and bitter, but a myth can be inspiring beyond all measure. Hope is perhaps the most powerful weapon you can give a defeated enemy.
How was a cowardly retreat from the English army transformed into a heroic act? The French army was left to its own devices by the unexpected retreat of the English.
Because it allowed the fight against the Nazis to continue .
Roberto 1958: When you have no choice, retreat is a better option than surrender. It leaves you free to fight and win at a later date (which is what happened).
Because the British were shocked France had no backup plan if the maginot fell so had to do something or be annihilated. Not the fault of the French soldiers and not to take anything away from them, rather the fault of the leadership. Also people seem to think all the brits fled, we left behind men at calais to draw some of the Germans away and left British men behind on the beach as well as taking French and Belgians to the UK.
One often-overlooked reason for the success of Operation Dynamo was the freakish weather. Eye-witnesses described the sea for a crucial three-day period as looking like a sheet of polished steel. Had the wind got up - even moderately - things would've been far more difficult, and far fewer men would've been rescued.
Prime Minister Churchill put it best in 1940:
"Wars are not won by evacuations"
yes, but they're not won without having any bloody troops to fight with
Hannah Miyamoto
In the end yes this is true. However, wars are also not won without an army to fight! Sometimes you have to retreat to regroup and fight another day.
Well, in truth, Sea Lion was impossible as long as the Home Fleet and Fighter Command were around. The Germans could have landed a force in England, and they could have caused great damage and loss of life, but they could have never kept their army supplied. Eventually, the fuel, ammunition and even food would run out, and the invaders would have been forced to surrender. However, the loss of the entire professional Army in France would have been demoralizing to many Britons, if not the P.M.
The main problem with Allies during the first stages of war was that, they didn't feel allies at all. Britain and France started this passive resistance, then Belgium... It finally came to the point, where everyone were on their own... Sad but true :-/
Hannah Miyamoto ...but thanks to the evacuation they survived...we got our army back...that was enough given the circumstances...to live to fight another day...it was an amazing feat!
The original Brexit.
haha. Nice
chris tobal LoL
chris tobal yes going backwards,
chris tobal your pfp makes this 20000 percent better
Actually the original Brexit was in 1776 :)
You should tackle the myth of France's surrendering armies. Because while some did not fight and ran away, those were the reservists that were put right on the spot where the German armored spearhead was attacking. The majority of the professional army was in Belgium and was busy containing the German attack on the North.
Definitely, a good example is also the siege of Calais. The French fought like lions, and definitely deserve more credit than they get.
Laird Cummings except for russian t34 tsunami nothing will beat societ privyet
"And millions joined the Vichy French and Waffen SS. "Source: your ass.
The LVF, which wasn't incorporated into the SS until very late in the war, never amounted to much more than 7000 men, and the Vichy armed forces, which were non-belligerent, were forced by armistice treaty to amount to no more than 100 000 men and even then it was basically disbanded in 1942 with a large part joining the Free French.
It is ironic that Americans do not remember that the US Army made an ignominious retreat, actually a rout, during the Korean War. The American soldiers abandoned their fighting lines and positions and ran when the North Koreans pushed hard. If I recall correctly an entire American Artillery unit was captured without firing a shot. Their officers and enlisted surrendered. And it happened due to the same malady: untrained soldiers. In the French case it was 30 to 40 years old reservists that had mediocre leadership and in the American case it was garrison troops with incompetent leadership.
Fortunately for the US and South Korea, while the company grade officers were not up for the job, their field grade officers were WWII veterans and they were able to rally their troops around Pusan and hold the North Koreans from capturing the whole country.
Unfortunately for France, their field grade officers were for the most part, too busy with their own internal quarrels to pay attention to what the Germans were doing. To the point that the entire French Officer Corps can be declared incompetents. The amount of "I did nothing wrong" memoirs written after the war indicates that they knew that the had dropped the ball when it mattered the most.
You can have the best trained and superbly equipped soldier in the world, but if his commanding officer is an idiot, he will accomplish nothing but die stupidly.
I have not read wikipedia but two separate books on the battle of France and it seems that the consensus was that Hitler was scared of a flanking attack. He ordered a halt and the OKW overrode it because they felt that they had the Allies where they wanted. Hitler found out and gave a no nonsense order.
So far the rumor that he wanted Goering to give the coup de grace, is just that a rumor.
Hitler was in constant struggle with the OKW during the early war years.
The Germans were not invincible. In fact during the Invasion of the Low Countries and France they lost SIX battles. Prove that you can lose a battle and still win the campaign. The battles that Germany lost were not important enough to stop the German over all victory, but they did prove that the mighty German army was not unbeatable. The Germans lost one battle to the Dutch and four to the French and one to the British. These being the battles of Rotterdam when German paratroops tried to capture the Dutch Royal family and failed and the battles of Hannut and Gembloux in Belgian where the French halted the Panzer armies in central Belgium Through the panzers failed to break through at Hannut and Gembloux the French were later forced to retire as the German breakthrough from the Ardennes at Sedan threatened their rear.
"The effect on the German light tanks was catastrophic. Virtually every French weapon from 25mm upward penetrated the 7-13mm of the Panzer I. Although the Panzer II fared somewhat better, especially those that had been up-armoured since the Polish Campaign, their losses were high. Such was the sheer frustration of the crews of these light Panzers in [the] face of heavier armoured French machines that some resorted to desperate expedients. One account speaks of a German Panzer commander attempting to climb on a Hotchkiss H-35 with a hammer, presumably to smash the machine's periscopes, but falling off and being crushed by the tank's tracks. Certainly by day's end, Prioux had reason to claim that his tanks had come off best. The battlefield around Hannut was littered with knocked-out tanks-the bulk of which were German Panzers-with by far and away the bulk of them being Panzer Is and IIs.[93]"
The fourth battle was Brest, which the Germans failed to capture, the port only came into German possession after the armistice. The Five was the First battle of Stonne, when a French counter-attacked drove the Germans off the heights amongst very heavy fighting against the Crossdeutschland. But the Germans retook the heights in the 2nd battle of Stonne. The sixth was a British victory at Gastuche in Belgium where the Durham's beat back every German attempt to cross the Dyle in this sector and where Second Lieutenant Dick Annand won the first British Victoria Cross of the war
The French, British and Dutch and Norwegians all won battles against them on their own but it would take the whole of the Allies to bring them to total defeat. The victories of the French, Dutch, Norwegians and British may have been small affairs but they should what the armies of those countries could have done had the politicians had funded the armed forces probably and had they been probably led from the outset
So the battles I listed were made up were they?
I am not going to spend the entire evening arguing with you, I am in the middle of watching something, I have given you examples of German defeats,, you can take it what ever way you like but none of that will change the fact that the Germans DID LOSE battles to the French, (Glembloux , Hannut, First battle of the Sonne), the Dutch (Rotterdam) the British (Gathuche) and the Norwegians (Oslofjord). These were small battles that did not altar the campaign but they PROVED that the Germans was not invincible and that he DID NOT WIN EVERY BATTLE, if he was invincible what was he doing losing those battles and the BATTLE OF BRITAIN.
The Germans won mostly because they had gained air superiority, whenever they came up against stiff resistance they just whistled up the Stukas.
You come on her insulting me, asking whether I have any sense of reality, when I could be asking you the same question. INVINCIBLE, MEANS NEVER LOSING EVER, it means just that, Look it up. The Germans won MOST OF THE TIME, but NOT ALL OF THE TIME, if they were invincible they would have WON EVERY time, including the Battle of Britain. Try and do some research, and you will find out that the Germans lost a battle as early as 1939, in the first year of the war to the British, when the Germans lost this battle the war was not even a year old. look it up and try and find out which battle it was, I will not tell I will leave you to research it.
never stated that the Germans never lost any battles,-------------------Then why are you arguing because that is all I have said. I made a simple statement , based on those battles, trying to point out that you can win a battle and still lose the campaign and in the right conditions, with the right kind of leadership the Germans could be defeated, if only temporarily and you have to make an issue over nothing. By the way, the battle Germany lost in 1939 was the Battle of the River Platte
As an US citizen, it really rubs me wrong how the French soldier is the scape goat for many things going wrong in WWI as well as WWII. The French military was more professional at the onset of both of the wars as well as having much better artillery and much better at using it . This is not to say that the Brits and even the US did not learn to be good soldiers, it's just that the French had to have a good , big, professional standing army due to their geographical location. So my French colleagues, I say Viva La France.
I beg to differ with you in that the most professional Army was the Regular part of the BEF. Superb soldiers but in too small a numbers. The french Army showed its courage at Verdun but had a poor officer class and poor political backing. Hard to measure where the US Army were in WW1 as the best of the German Army never faced them, as like the British Army they were buried in the mud of 1917.
Thank you sir
As a US citizen you cannot appreciate the history between Britain and France, think two bickering brothers! I personally don't like the French because of the battle of Hastings 1066, in fact if you include the Battle of Mers-el-Kébir in 1940 we've had action against the French every century since.
Thank you, but it's "vive la France" ;-)
Mika Hell vous y allez un peu fort mais ça a le mérite d'être vrai. Ils nous l'auront enfilée jusqu'au bout ces rosbifs! :-)
keep 'em coming! You present all sides masterfully.
Thank you for your work on this channel.
If people who don't know about the French rearguard think they're patriots and geniuses for saying "hur dur french Surrenderer" they should probably reevaluate their knowledge of WWII
It was the French duty to provide a rear guide, it’s their country after all
Ayee Hayche
And they did it. Superably
Jackiezyon alongside British and commonwealth soldiers. It’s interesting that the French complain their rearguard is written out of history whilst writing out the brits who stayed
Ayee Hayche
No one has written out the contribution of the British that stayed. In fact Charles de Gaulle thanked the Scottish troops that stayed on. Its a fact that much of the fighting in both World Wars were done by the French on their soil. As it should be.
As a Brit I still can't understand why Dunkirk is romanticised and glorified in British history and psyche. At the end of the day it was a crushing defeat that left our French allies abandoned. Also, from some of the memoirs of people who were there said that many British units performed shabbily and poorly, often retiring without much of a fight, including some prestigious units like the guards. If it had been WWI soldiers, I think they would have put up a stiffer resistance. Donold Dean (VC) has an excellent memoirs about WWI and WWII including Dunkirk, check it out. But anyway, yes, it was a defeat for God's sake! Just fortunate the Germans stalled and some brave French and British units formed a defensive ring around Dunkirk till the last.
Back to front analysis. The French were surrendering - it was only a matter of time. Not sure how Britain could abandon a country that was not willing to fight on. Indeed the 100,000 French troops evacuated mostly returned to F after the surrender.
@@tcroft2165 well, the war was lost by france and Britain at the time, and no Chanel was protecting Paris.
The F government could have left abroad to fight on.
@@tcroft2165 ... I sworn to myself not to argue anymore in the UA-cam comment section... HOWEVER, you are interpreting events that happened 80 years ago with today's mind, which is incompatible for understanding History.
What happened, was that the army that everybody thought was the best army in the world had been crushed in a couple of weeks. How do you think people in the US would react if in a matter of 3 weeks the whole US armed forces were crushed by the Chinese and that Washington DC were occupied?
The armed forces of various other European countries were ordered or already fled themselves abroad to fight on if they could. F had more opportunity than any to use its troops but they woulnd't (largely) fight on
The French lost around 100 000 men in the six weeks or so of fighting, The French fought hard to stop the Germans in the Battle for France. Anyone who has been to Dunkirk knows the MANY little bridges and cannels that ring Dunkirk, so if you are falling back on the port iin Retreat, Blowing and/or holding the bridges would bring the fight down to a infantry action, where the Brits and French could hold and slow down the German advance. And this what they did.
the British leaving France to Germans was a betrayal, not France surrendering.
@Nicholas Shaddick nonsense too. they could have attack germans lines and outflank them. they did not. check the war week by week please :)
My father always told me that the "little ships" were mainly used to ferry soldiers between the shore and bigger ships off shore. This makes sense, and it would've meant that the ships could be better able to defend against aircraft attack. I'm not saying "this is certain" as it's from a secondhand account of secondary sources, but it makes sense.
Your father was right. A typical WW2 RN destroyer had only four boats, two whalers, one large and one small motor boat. To get troops off the gently sloping beaches would have taken ages, especially since most destroyers transported 800 men on each trip. Not that this would have been apparent from the movie, which didn't seem to know that the Royal Navy was actually present at all.
In point of fact, by the way, more men were lifted from the Mole than from the beaches.
merci from france . ty for honoring these dead soldiers.
I like the Jingles reference with the Eyeball Mark I.
Keep up the good work MHV. Love your vids, from Finland.
Almost every defeat, last stand, or evacuation is seen as a victory for the British. Arnhem, Somaliland, Isandlwana/Rorke's Drift, retreating from Galipoli, and holding onto Tobruk (with Tobruk, losing most of the land beforehand but holding onto one town is somehow seen as a success).
TIK
we British probably prefer plucky losers to unbeatable winners.
Speaking as a Brit who grew up with a healthy interest in history, I would have to disagree with you on both Arnhem and Gallipoli - both are pretty much universally seen as huge military disasters and are taught as such here in Britain. The men who fought and died in both battles are very much lionized for their bravery in the face of defeat, but they are not celebrated as victories by any stretch of the imagination. Likewise while Rorke's Drift is romanticised in the extreme, it is prefaced by the universally accepted disaster and embarrassment that was Isandlwana. Tobruk also doesn't get much press in popular British culture either, so it's an odd one to see you list there actually. The Somme offensive (along with much of the first world war in its entirety) is also seen as an utterly tragic failure as well, though to be fair you did omit that from your list.
While I'll admit Britain has done a surprising job of portraying itself as being the underdog at points in history where we were arguably the most powerful nation on earth, the failures and defeats get more coverage here than you would apparently believe judging by your post. In fact there is a pervasive attitude among many in this country that our army during both world wars (more so the leadership, rather than the honest tommies on the ground) was a bit of a joke, renowned for making huge blunders on a regular basis. The Navy has its share of popularly-known defeats as well, including the sinking of both the HMS Hood and the HMS Prince of Wales, and the RAF's reputation in World War 2 remains slightly tarnished by the area bombing campaign which remains controversial in this country to this very day. Other well-remembered screw-ups include the Norwegian campaign in 1940, and the Japanese occupation of Singapore. In fact there are even some successes that don't get the press they deserve, such as the Burma campaign under William Slim (sometimes referred to as the Forgotten War).
TIK - Absolute rubbish. I am British and we have never regarded events such as Arnhem and Islandlwana as a victory. Unfortunately for you we did and do regard Rorke's Drift as a victory for one simple reason - we defeated the Zulu army. Before commenting on historical events do try and learn some history.
Nay,Battle for Singapore was a shame even by "british" standards
No need to defend our backyard because it's all jungle anyway. No modern army can maneuver through that terrain so why bother defending it?
It's simple; if you want the myth watch the film.
Glory to the french 12th infantry division, the 68th, the 21th, the 32th, the 60th and the 8th zouaves regiment who defended the pocket.
Sadly the new Dunkirk movie probably won't have the French or Belgian troops, and looks to feature many civillians operating their own boats. #ruined
Agent 006 Keep the myth alive....
Civilians did run their own boats. Of the 800 odd little ships that served during the evacuation, roughly 30% of them were commandeered by civilian fisherman. Many more of the boats had their civilian crews but had a RN Officer acting as captain for the operation.
One of the best examples:
www.leigh-on-sea.net/leigh_dunkirk.html
The the myth of the myth of dunkirk is seemingly becoming extremely popular with French and German anglophobes.
yeah its a film, honestly why do people go and see such shit, its obviously just trivial entertainment, if you want reali information dont go for low grade woman and children entertainment, your a man, you shouldnt be watching that shit, youve been blessed with a superior brain and all you can do with it is watch the same shit women and children watch ? man, your a discrace.
mcpartridgeboy - How do you know that it is shit? You haven't seen the film and nor has anyone else.so please do explain how you have such superior knowledge.
films are designed to make money their about sex good looking people, scripted, low on fact and designed for entertainment,
Nice arsekisser-badge at 6:21 .
A little fact everyone seems to be missing is, by the time the Germans reached Dunkirk they had significantly out ran their supply convoys, the panzers were running on fumes, they were low on ammunition and practically everything else. If the allies in Dunkirk had known this and countered attacked Hitler's invasion of France could have become quite the disaster. Many believe, and so do l, the real reason the Germans stopped was because they simply couldn't go any further.
p.s. attacking entrenched troops in a fortified position is much more difficult than fighting them in the open.
Wow, last time I was this early the ANZAC's successfully evacuated galipoli without a single casualty!
I'm pretty late. Like a frenchma. evacuating dunkirk
It is also worth to know that besides the French troops that acted as rearguard in and around Dunkirk itself (among which around 40000 were left on the beaches to be captured), Many French and colonial Troops (around 40000) also bitterly held 7 German divisions at the siege of Lille long enough to allow the BEF to disengage and evacuate at Dunkirk.
They fought so bravely that Waeger, the German General commanding the 27th Korps, allowed them to parade in the streets while they presented arms to the French soldiers after they surrendered (the last time was in 1916 after the battle of Fort de Vaux). When Hitler heard about that, he was furious and fired Waegar. After the battle, many of the North-African prisonners were needlessly executed by the Germans... (probably by SS ?)
It would be nice to not forget them either.
Sources :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Lille_(1940)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkirk_evacuation#Evacuation
Pictures :
a142.idata.over-blog.com/5/06/00/92/lille1.jpg
a398.idata.over-blog.com/5/06/00/92/lille2.jpg
68.media.tumblr.com/8a94652a2443c2cce8a4f2ea07c71435/tumblr_nu4w8hus3J1tii3ypo1_500.jpg
the first time i was this early, poland is still part of Prussia,Austria and Russia willingly ofcourse
Poland is still part of prussia, austria and russia WILLINGLY? What do you mean?
Asebele Keto hay don t piss on the polish they have been pist on enough and they are good fighters on the ground and in the air and I like their food
My great-grandfather on the paternal side was supposed to be sent to Dunkirk but it didn't happens and was sent to the Somme front, he's been imprisoned as a pow in Germany and came back in France in 1945-46 with a bad case of tuberculosis, a weak body due to forced labor and poor conditions of detention.
He died only few years after coming back and didn't really talked to his wife or daughters about it. The only thing he said about all of this was that he losed many friends at Dunkirk, in Somme and in Germany camps and maybe it would had been better for him to die on the field, but he was grateful to be able to see his loved ones before dying.
(He had written all of their names and birth places in letters telling my great grandmother to keep them, he didn't want them to be forgotten).
"We must not assign to this the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations"
Winston S Churchill, after Dunkirk.
I heard that the Belgians, by mistake, also had an important role in the successful evacuation of Dunkirk. When the Belgian King Leopold III surrendered the Belgian Army on May 28 the order to surrender did not reached the Belgian army at the fortress Tancrémont-Pepinster at the edge of Liége. These forces under command of captain Abel Devos kept fighting for one day and half more. The Germans redirected forces from Dunkirk to there. That has given the opportunity for two French divisions (around 20,000 men) to reach to port for evacuations. Those Belgian soldiers saved many lives. By mistake, but nevertheless the did.
Fantastic analysis. One of your best yet.
Here is a fun fact about Dunkirk some or many people may not know. The British comedy "Are You Being Served" featured a British actor, Arthur Brough, who played Mr. Grainger, was an actual British soldier who was at Dunkirk. He was my favorite personality on that show. Sadly he died during the sixth season, a season he was not in.
Hey Mhv, its your biggest fan, thanks for another gr8 vid, keep up the good work
Your choice of icons is brilliant :)
I'm glad for the mention of the French there, but equally there is a modern myth starting to take hold that the French "were the only reason that Dunkirk survived and fought an amazing last stand to let the British escape and thus France should be credited with everything for protecting and saving the British".
This is of course absolute nonsense. It's equally as bad as those who like to pretend the French weren't there at all. It reeks of the same sort of lines of people that like to try and claim Napoleon "won" Waterloo in hysterical pro-France narrative.
Hopefully everyone can see sense and realise that both Britain and France were there. Both fought, both partook in making Dunkirk the sucessful evacuation it was, and lets hope there's much less "all this side" type myths starting. Real life in history is NEVER that simple.
Retrosicotte I'm French so here's my opinion.
no french has ever said that we "won" the battle of waterloo, we simply like to point out that we won against the British division and lost only because of the intervention of the Prussian cavalry further more most British have this delusional idea that we think that we liberated France on our own which is stupid, we simply look at the fact that the various Resistence movements seriously impacted the mobilisation efforts of the Nazis during the liberation.
No you did not win against the British because losing is not the same as already lost.
@Nicholas Shaddick Actually i encountered a lot of them across the internet. I even met some who stubornly insisted that England won the "Hundred years war"...
And strangely, many of them had a common denominator : Lindybeige...
The British know all about the Resistance. Have you not seen 'Allo 'Allo?
Retrosicotte time for some uncomfortable truths from both sides that most would prefer to have been forgotten. Yes, 120,000 French soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk, however 80,000 of them, two-thirds, returned to Vichy and Occupied France after the peace treaty with Germany. This means that 80,000 British and Free French forces were needlessly captured.
On the other side we have events like Mel's El Kirbir ,an admittedly rocky flair point between the allies. Many of those in the French fleet thought that the British had come to combine their fleets against Germany, and, thanks to intransigence on both sides, 3000 French sailors were killed.
In war no country is Innocent, no one is an unconditional hero, and their are no perfect solutions. France and Britain will always argue and annoy each other, and this debate will outlast our lifetime, as it has lasted for the last 2000 years. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.
I don’t want to diminish the merit of North African troops who did very well in WWII for sure but unlike what is suggested in this video the French rearguard that slowed down German at Dunkirk wasn’t made of North African troops.
I might miss some of them but as far as I know the units involved in this stubborn resistance were 12thDIM, 60th DI, 68th DI, 21st DI, 32nd DI. The 8th Zouaves is indeed a part of the 12thDIM. However 8th Zouaves was based in Mourmelon and unlike other Zouaves units wasn’t made of colonial troops. Moreover a Zouaves unit is around 2000 soldiers so a small part of the French troops in Dunkirk.
The 2nd North African Division mentioned in this video fought actually in Lille where they held gallantly German assault between 25th to 30th of May.
Almost getting wiped during a retreat is something to be proud of? Can you say spin?
Isn't it wonderful what one can learn from real historical teaching when the proper time is invested in research and that the true sources of information can be consulted and reviewed. This is a fair and excellent addressing of the mythology that has grown up around what was and still is a very astounding historical event.
-
Well done sir.
Dunkirk.
Welp some times you gotta run to go kick some ass later
Tyler La Pointe replace bomb with
"help destroy the German Airforce"
"Land with the US and Canadians to free France"
Tyler La Pointe
It really wasn't the Russians who broke the Luftwaffe though. It was the American and British who practically destroyed most of German Industry, followed by both US/UK and Soviet Airforces beating the fighters and bombers that couldn't get easily replaced
Tyler La Pointe - What an extraordinarily ignorant comment. Have you heard, for example, of the Battle of Britain? Do you know the result of that battle?
The Luftwaffe was far from destroyed after the Battle of Britain.
Wasn't destroyed but they were well and truly beaten
You've ignored the necessity of the Panzers to stop and refit. That was the reason von Runstedt gave the halt order.
cheers 4 the post
There are a great many parallels between World Wars One and Two. In the early stages of World War One, the British seriously considered plans to evacuate through the Channel ports. As the French lines stiffened during the Battle of the Marne, the British threw themselves headlong into the fight and the "Old Contemptibles" prewar army of experienced soldiers was essentially annihilated. This left Lord Kitchener with a very difficult challenge in building up a large British Expeditionary Force that was lacking in an experienced cadre. In World War Two, Operation Dynamo prevented a repeat of that disaster, thereby allowing an experienced cadre to train the armies that would later fight in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and eventually France again in 1944. Bismarck's Dunkirk video is highly recommended.
if only they had more Baguette werfers
stephend50 it werfers baguettes
Sarp Kaplan I thought the verb came at the end? :)
I understand the panzers were halted outside Dunkirk because they had left infantry and logistical support far behind and that counterattacks from British Matilda 2 tanks and a French force had led to fears that the allies would cut the panzers off.
obviously at the time, the Germans would not have known the strength of allied forces or their dispositions.
General von Kluge told von Rundstedt that his troops "would welcome an opportunity to halt and close up tomorrow". General von Kleist complained to von Rundstedt about his losses of armor- which were overstated and consisted primarily of breakdowns, and not combat losses. All three men were undoubtedly concerned to some extent about the possibility of a French counterattack, but the armored division commanders wished to advance, as did Guderian. One good look at a situation map for the morning of 24 May will show just how critical a position the Allies were in.
Had Hitler crushed the British at Dunkirk, the British would have either sued for peace or at a minimum would have been unable to defend North Africa or Greece. The Mediterranean would not have been as much of a soft underbelly
thedudepdx - But Hitler did defeat us at Dunkirk but we carried on fighting. What curious version of history have you been reading?
Barbarossa Uhh Over 300,000 veteran troups escaped. Without the morale boost and the experienced veterans to train new recruits and fight in North Africa I don't think the U.K. could have had El Alamein
Yes by crushed I meant prevented the escaped, and killed or captured all the troops of the BEF as well as the free French and Belgians (and others) who escaped. Of course he defeated the Allies at Dunkirk but the missed opportunity to obliterate the BEF was a blunder that the UK would capitalize on in the near, mid, and long term as the war progressed
+thedudepdx
>would have been unable to defend North Africa or Greece
You think they would have performed even worse than in reality?
I think if they had lost the additional 300k men they could have done very little to prevent anything the Germans and to a lesser extent the Italians wanted to do in North Africa. Suez Canal would have been lost and the Germans could have gone into Arabia with little resistance
I think overall Dunkirk was about as good as Britain could hope for. Our losses, overall, were fairly small, manageable, and it gave an excellent opening to the coming war at home.
Now the average person knew there was genuine threat, and the Little Ships could be inflated by propaganda to show how every Brit did their part to help our boys.
While the Little Ships were exaggerated, I think it's a powerful message of unity in Britain, even today. Dunkirk Spirit is still a phrase meaning solidarity in tough times, coming together as a people. It also fits our love of close shaves and underdogs.
I have to admit, the movie did get to me a bit, emotionally. After a lifetime of watching the Americans preen themselves in war films, we got one that shows the best of us Brits.
Only a Brit will call leaving 60,000 vehicles to the enemy a victory.
Will - you obviously never owned a Vauxhall then mate .... If you had you would not wonder why the BEF left it all behind !!!!
:0)
William Eaton: Have you ever tried getting tanks, trucks and artillery onto a small fishing boat? Most of the vehicles & other heavy equipment was destroyed (or at least disabled) to prevent them being used by the enemy.
Ou YEAH!!! Had waited for such a video for a long time! THANK YOU!
another thing about the BEF losing most of their heavy equipment, it was actually a blessing in a very good disguise. before Dunkirk the Brits motorpool and artillery parks consisted of large assortment of outdated and non standardized equipment that was a huge logistical nightmare. so while at the time losing most of your AFV's trucks, artillery etc, may have left England very weak to an invasion, in the long run it forced them to modernize and standardize their equipment, which the Germans never did. the Germans use of captured equipment caused them far more problems then it was worth, largely because the only way to repair most of it was to cannibalize parts form captured stocks, or machine brand new parts.
That is a good point, never thought about that.
Jean-Luc Martel en fait les allemands cherchaient surtout a se constituer un parc automobile. Ils n'avaient pas besoin des canons et des munitions anglaises mais uniquement les camions qui transportaient ce materiel. C'est pour ça qu'après la défaite de la france, les allemands se sont emparés de plus de 9000 camions français et ça a été pareil pendant market garden avec les camions anglais à nouveau. Le problème de l'allemagne c'est qu'elle avait trop de régiment d'infanterie à pied ou à cheval. D'ailleurs pendant le débarquement les régiments allemands montaient en normandie à pieds ou à velo et les plus chanceux en train. Le vrai trésor de dunkerke c'était les véhicules de transport.
That's precisely what made the Wehrmacht such a cohesive force by the end of the 30s. Versailles forced Germany to abandon the great quantity of outdated WW1 tech and focus on cutting edge quality
I would argue that the French army is the only reason why the English and French units at Dunkirk were able to evacuate. While those units were evacuating dozens of French units were selling their lives dearly to but them time... I would even argue that rescuing the French was a complete after thought
lol. The halt order was not a 'blunder'. Here are the errors in this statement, evidently borne out of western/NATO lies and propaganda;
1) The panzers just outside Dunkirk had moved too far ahead of their supply lines
2) They had moved too far ahead of the infantry
3) They were exhausted and in need of refitting and repair because of 2 weeks ceaseless battle
4) Unseasonable rain meant the ground between them and the British was pure bog, meaning only roads could be used to advance the attack
5) The roads were, unsurprisingly, mined and barricaded
6) They were needed for the big fish, the French forces and the push on Paris
7) They were inferior to British and French tanks
Agreed, the panzer units in question were in rough shape and the request for a halt came from commanders on the ground. At this time the French are counterattacking to the south. A brief halt to consolidate was prudent, even in hindsight.
Wrestling Burial Channel The Allied army was already defeated and couldn’t fight anymore, you’re kidding yourself if you think they could put up any kind of fight.
Yes, they had moved far ahead of the infantry, but that was the whole point of a major armored attack. Waiting for the infantry was precisely the stupid thing that made the Germans fail to capture Dunkirk.
Also, the Panzers were ordered to halt 3 times during the campaign, with the "local" Panzer commanders always heavily opposing all halt orders, sometimes going directly against express and direct orders from high command to wait for the infantry, so experienced German military commanders that were actually commanding in the field didn't feel like their forces were exausted, or were far ahead of supply lines or needed refit and repair, and they likely knew better than we do.
The roads were guarded by virtually no French or British troops. Yes, the terrain was not good for tanks, but there was no English of French troops capable of exploiting that terrain when Hitler gave the halt order. It's basically a unanimity among historians that the German Panzers could've taken Dunkirk if any of the 3 halt orders had not happened. The Germans were closer to Dunkirk than the majority of the British forces, and the British would not be able to easily retake the city from strong, well trained and equipped troops like the Panzer division, and the British would be on a timer, as they would be virtually without supplies (also, the Germans could've just blown up the pier, so even if the British retook the city they would've been unable to perform major evacuations)
Also, for all intents and purposes, the Germans had won the Battle of France by the time Hitler gave the final halt order. As the video says, without the supplies from the ships, they would've surrended even sooner than the evacuation ended, and without the French troops saved in Dunkirk, Fall Rot would've been even easier (while the French resisted ferociously, Fall Rot defeated the French rather quickly), so the "saving their forces for Paris" makes absolutely no sense
Also, French and British tanks being better changes literally nothing. They were better already in May 10 1940, but that didn't stop the Germans from destroying the allied forces.
All good points, iirc in some German Panzer Units operational vehicle numbers were down to 50% due to battle losses and units down for maintenance. However the operational commanders who requested the halt order in their own words (post war and possibly self serving), envisioned a much shorter halt for refit and repair and then resumption of operations. An interesting side note is that Hitler's WWI service was in the Flanders area and he was familiar with the terrain. His memories of the stalemate of the Great War, the lowland boggy nature of the area of operations may have contributed to his hesitation. That and the other Great War Memory...the seeming ability of the French to pull off comeback after comeback; The Marne in '14, Verdun in '15-'16, the Mutines in '16-'17, the Marne again in '18, realistically most WWI German veterans (without the benefit of hindsight) would see knocking out the French Army as the main event.
Judging by personal accounts on Adolf Hitler's opinion on Englishmen the killing of more Englishmen was probably to him a very unpleasant idea
Also the argument that he halted german command out of hubris is sort of irrelevant when you consider how intelligent Adolf hitler was and the fact that he understood the value of capturing the British forces
Which leads me to think he was not lying when he said he halted the troops as an act of good will.
French troops from North Africa included many Moroccan soldiers. They fought with exceptional tenacity and even ferocity, protecting a land that was not theirs and whose population mainly looked down upon them. I have seen German propaganda reels from 1940 that showed captured French Moroccan soldiers. The narration did nothing to diminsh the quality of these soldiers. It went something like: "These warriors from far away regions of the French colonial empire were brought over here to fight and die for their French masters." I have a few unconfirmed stories of a French Moroccan counter assault with the Germans running for their lives because they surely thought these must be headhunters (because, from Africa). Some German soldiers had heard stories about certain French colonial troops passed on from their fathers who fought against these same colonial troops during WW1. Another story tells about how these French Moroccan soldiers retreated during the night, having to march throughout the night without the ability to rest for sleep. It sounds unbelievable to me, but it appears some of them slept while marching, being supported by their comrades. These stories may be fiction or based on true events, but it shows that the French colonial troops from North Africa were a force to be reckoned with.
AudieHolland Absolutely, Morrocan, Algerian and Tunisian soldiers were always seen by the French as inferior troops but in fact they were a cheap version of elite troops. The north African countries were colonized by France and still many men fought for it with bravery.
De Gaulle himself said that one of the greatest achievement during the campaign in Italy was done by Tunisian troops who had more than 50% casualties but they suceeded at breaking through the German defensive lines.
Also during the second D-day in August at southern France, many north African troops were participating in the fighting.
Another fact is that the first "French" soldier to cross the German borders was in fact a Tunisian.
Fortunatly, there's a good movie titled "Days of Glory" which tells the story of North African soldiers being encountering bigotry and inferior treatment while they have fought bravely during the liberation of a French town.
AudieHolland Every African has now a boner...
*Komrade Tuniska* Thank you for sharing! It's a bit like the "Gurkhas," the British Empire's elite warriors. Coming from poor mountainous terrain with not much farmland available, to these troops, life at home was probably harder than serving in a foreign army. Closer to home, the Scottish Highlanders come to mind.
*Dominik Schwab* Imagine yourself as a member of the German army fighting in the Battle of France. All is going well, the Allied forces are in full retreat, then something odd happens. A counter attack by foreign-looking soldiers in French uniforms shouting and raging in an alien language. Btw, are you a Yank? Africa is more than North Africa. In fact, Africa is so large that the entire US of A would neatly fit in the Sahara Desert.
KomradeTuniska not really, in most cases the colonial troops were considered as equals during late WW1 and most of WW2 and most of the colonies were French in all but race since most of the solders were born under French rule.
The moment you mentioned the French I thought about the army they left behind to defend the evacuation
Another video which does not mention the forgotten sacrifice of the Highland Division. Seems they will forever be a footnote to everyone except the people it hurt the most.
They were not at Dunkirk .
Edward Corran exactly my point, they where sacrificed to hold back the Germans, an important part of the Dunkirk evacuation never mentioned.
What about other units from the Guards and Rifle brigade who are forgotten simply because they dont have the Pr of the Highland Division. Yes they were not at Dunkirk either so not relevant.
They had a hard time but weren't "sacrificed" in the same way as say the Rifle Brigade was at Calais rather, they suffered from an accumulation of events firstly to be seconded to the French at the time the Battle began , then ended up in a small unsuitable port , then fog rolled in to stall the evacuation then the formation they were attached to surrendered before another attempt could be made to get them out .
As always excellent, thank you.
The Christopher Nolan Dunkirk film is out later this month and it looks awesome.
No. From the looks of it it directly panders to, and plays on, all the myths that are mentioned in this video, without awareness or efforts to portray Dunkirk in an accurate or respectable historic light.
I'd rather they'd bothered giving the nation that stuck out WW2 the longest, without which the whole Allied effort would have been moot, some credit in films (finally) and given us one on a battle we won... I don't know, Kohima maybe, though there are other highlights ... I mean, everybody else, on the Allied side at least, has had movies, especially in the modern era, giving them a good showing at least, with the yanks getting solo war winning efforts since when the war was still going... I'm tired of the Brit = shit story.
Harry styles anyone
How do you know there is no French Army in the Film? And by "protecting the British" do you mean holding a defensive line whilst the majority of the French and British Force at Dunkirk evacuated?
"The Germans will all be Nazis"....what does this even mean? There Germans will all be fighting for the third reich, yes. They will be acting as conquerers, yes. That's all historically accurate.
"Little ships? Check"
"The Little Ships of Dunkirk were 700 private boats that sailed from Ramsgate in England to Dunkirk in France between 26 May and 4 June 1940 as part of Operation Dynamo, helping to rescue more than 338,000 British and French soldiers who were trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk during the Second World War."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ships_of_Dunkirk
There were 700 "little ships", so yes, they are in the film. The story of the little ships is an interesting one as it is very unconventional, why would you expect it to not be in the film?
You sound like a stereotypical salty anglophobe continental.
"Not all Germans were nazis. If for you, German Heer's soldiers = Nazi soldiers, you forget your brain. "
Nobody has made that assertion, so what are you talking about? Please clarify exactly what it has to do with this film, as in what are you upset with this film doing in terms of its portrayal of Germans? Or are you just talking shit?
"I was talking about the Little Ship because in MHV's video he is talking about the medias focusing only on them. I expect the movie not to focus only on them."
When you say "the media only focuses on them", again, I really don't know what you are talking about, could you find me a piece of media which says that only little ships came to the battle. Or are you saying that this is the thing that people generally associate Dunkirk with the little ships?
Of course the thing the layman knows about dunkirk is the little ships, it is the part of the battle which is unique and interesting and makes it stand out in history.
In only the trailer of the film we see both merchant vessels, RN Ships and little ships, so already your bullshit is out of the window.
I wrote a review of the new movie "DUNKIRK" which was very popular among my Facebook friends. However, this presentation has augmented my understanding of the French during the war. Also I had not thought of the lives saved had Hitlers used POWs as a bargaining chip in a bid for peace on good terms. Another youtube video informed me that the movie got sour reviews in the Indian press for not mentioning the role Indian soldiers played in that conflict. Older people like myself were curious that the movie barely mentions German. It just says that the BEF were fighting the enemy. Sort of like the Japanese narrating their destruction by say Atomic bombs fell on us.
*The British won the Battle of Dunkirk.* No miracles involved. *The British BEF was only 9% of the total allied forces in France and the Low Countries.* The huge French army collapsed in front of the British small army, which manned mainly the coastal areas. Nevertheless the German advance was halted in France as the British with a vastly inferior force stopped them at Arras. Some German soldiers turned and ran. *Directive 13, issued by German Supreme Headquarters on 24 May 1940 stated specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the Dunkirk pocket.* The Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the British forces across the English Channel.
The German southern advance was stopped at Arras by the British with a numerically inferior force. The Germans never moved much further after. The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk, they would have been badly beaten in and around the town. *The Luftwaffe was defeated over Dunkirk by the RAF with the first showing of the Spitfire en-mass. More German than allied planes were destroyed in the Dunkirk pocket.* The first defeat of the Nazis in WW2 was by the British in the air battle over Dunkirk. Only six small warships were sunk at Dunkirk by the Germans as the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe blunted.
The British were retreating after the French collapsed in front of them - a programme already in motion, a programme already in motion before the Germans showed up, as General Gort saw the disjointed performance of the French forces in front of him, and the exceptionally poor leadership. If the French collapsed the small BEF had no hope against the large over two million strong German force heading west. *French forces were amongst the British when General Gort decided to take the men back to England,* as he did not trust the French in a joint counter-attack. French General Wiegand held a meeting to arrange a counter-attack not inviting General Gort head of the BEF. Gort was under the command of Weigand. Gort heard of the meeting rushing to be there. He got there after the French and Belgians had left. He ordered the evacuation, having no faith in the elderly French leaders.
All armies retreat and regroup when the need is there. There happened to be a body of water in the line of the retreat. Were the BEF to move down the English coast and enter France further west with more men from England? The Germans did not know what was to be the next British or allied move. *The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk trying for nearly a week failing in the process.* The British retreat operation was carried out as planned and in orderly fashion. All bridges to Dunkirk were destroyed by the allies.
The British counter-attack at Arras was with outdated Matilda 1 tanks, which only had machine guns, and a few of the brand new Matilda 2 tanks. The Germans fled in droves. In desperation the Germans turned a 88mm AA gun horizontally successfully against the Matilda 2 - their conventional anti-tank weapons and tanks could not penetrate the tank. The 88mm had hard shell shells made for it, to use against the Maginot Line's bunkers. The Matilda 2 would roll over German gun emplacements killing the gunners, not even using the guns. Rommel thought he had been hit by a force three times the size, which made them stop and rethink. The Germans countered with their superior numbers pushing back the British who fell back consolidating towards Dunkirk.
The British resolve and the new Matilda 2 tank made the Germans sit up and think about a street fight in Dunkirk against a consolidated force still with its weapons and the new Matilda 2 - the large 88mm would be useless in Dunkirk streets while the Matilda 2 would be in its element, with the Matilda 2 easily destroying the Panzer MkIII & MkIVs. The Matilda 2 could knock out any German tank at the time, while no German tank could knock it out. The Germans were expecting the Matilda 2 to be shipped over in numbers and for all they knew many were in Dunkirk, and some were. The Germans could not stop the tanks coming as the RAF controlled the skies with a CAP and the RN the waters of the Channel. Not a good prospect for the Germans. A Dunkirk street fight was a fight the German troops were untrained and unequipped for and unwise to get involved in.
Von Rundstedt and von Kluge suggested to Hitler that German forces around the Dunkirk pocket cease their advance, consolidating preventing an Allied breakout from Dunkirk. Hitler agreed with the support of the Wehrmacht. German preoccupation rightly was with an expected attack from the fluid south of the German lines, by mainly French and some British forces, not from dug-in Dunkirk which was too much of a formidable consolidated opponent, taking substantial resources to seize. The German column had Allied troops to each side with soft marshland to the south west of Dunkirk unsuitable for tanks. If German forces had engaged in a street battle for Dunkirk, they would be vulnerable on their weak flank from the south. In short the fast moving panzers were now static; German forces attacking Dunkirk in a battle of attrition would have been largely wiped out.
The German columns were consolidating their remaining armour for an expected attack by the British and French from the south, and the important resupply from Germany, which was slow as it was via horses - or maybe a combined attack from the south and the Dunkirk pocket. The Germans attacked on a remarkably narrow front. *They had over-stretched their supply lines.* The Germans had no option but to stop, being more concerned at defending from the mainly French forces in the south which were viewed as a greater threat than Dunkirk. French general Weigand implemented his creation of _hedgehogs_ to attack German lines from the sides, with success - hedgehogs were adopted post war by NATO being a part of the tactics until the 1970s.
What were the Germans thinking? Are the British retreating to England from Dunkirk to move down the English coast and re-enter France further south with fresh forces, including Canadians and the new Matilda 2 tanks, which they feared, and join up with the French forces there to hit the Germans from the south? Are the British going to reinforce the Dunkirk pocket supplied by the Royal Navy with a 24/7 air CAP? The British did reinforce Dunkirk by taking over from England the 30th Tank Regiment and 20th Guards Brigade on the 25th and 26th May, with the Germans fully aware of this. Canadians landed further south. The British could easily do any of these as they controlled the Channel.
Reinforcing Dunkirk would create one large difficult to combat force. The Germans also saw the resolve of outnumbered British forces at Arras. German generals were trying to figure out what was happening. None thought that British troops would retreat to England and stay there. The British never did that sort of thing.
The Germans could divert most of their forces south to engage the French forces, then risk a Dunkirk breakout. This would mean being attacked from their rear fighting on two fronts. Or stay and consolidate, which they needed to do anyhow, awaiting a French/British attack from the south and use some forces and the Luftwaffe to attack Dunkirk. Which what they did. *German forces resumed their attack on Dunkirk, after only a 36 hour delay, for over 6 days failing to seize the port.*
The plan to break out of the Dunkirk Pocket using British, Belgian and French forces was abandoned as Gort had no confidence in the French. All military school studies since, knowing what the German and allied positions and situations were in 1940, have shown it would have succeeded.
*The Germans were defeated at the Battle of Dunkirk.* They tried militarily to seize the port but failed. Only because the British did not trust the French and moved back to England did the Germans eventually occupy the town. *The Germans did not let the British get away that is misguided myth, they tried for a week simply not able to seize Dunkirk.*
Failure since they weren't redeployed to the battle lines; Failure also in breaking out of the pocket
The British were not planning to break out of the pocket, although the Germans did not know that. The Germans were attempting to annihilate the British *failing.*
@B Mc
The British were not attempting to break out of the pocket via land, they did via sea.
They tried a few times on land, since attempt to leave the pocket by Sea would cause the line protecting Paris to fall apart
the panzer division was a few days ahead of their infantry divisions and had also just run through france and were really low on supplies
So, the Brits bugger off and call it an incredible victory, meanwhile people joke that the French invented the tank turret in order to fire while retreating. Seems we're ribbing the wrong allied power.
At least Churchill recognized at the time "Wars are not won by evacuations"
I don't think it was called a victory of any kind .
@Edward Corran The paper news did. And they are the ones who spread the myth of the "miracle of Dunkirk"
I'm not aware of any contemporary newspapers calling it a victory .
The newspaper at the time back in 1940, with the approval of the government since it boosted morale.
A few aspects of this video are interpretations presented as facts, but mostly it's over 70% correct, which is good going for UA-cam historical videos. At the end of the day, the British had to do what was right for them to survive longterm - and in that sense Dunkirk was a huge success, vindicated many times over in later years. The British Army was subsequently transformed into something incredible because of Dunkirk. Whether it should be portrayed as a victory is all down to individual perception - I'd personally call it a longterm strategic victory, similar to many historians.
6:16 Lol kiss ass
Damn Military History Visualized! I was just excited to see Dunkirk later this month and now you tell me that most stuff in the movies (like most "historical" movies) are false or dramatized :(
French generals were reading WW1 textbooks while Germany had the blitzkrieg.
Good video. It's often difficult when speaking with people to separate propaganda and cherished myths. These things can be so ingrained. I met a woman in her early 20s who'd emigrated from Tito's Yugoslavia. She was well aware that they had been lied to by the communist government. She was surprised that I'd read Djilas. She knew who he was but hadn't been able to get his books in Yugoslavia. I quizzed her based on what I'd learned from Djilas, "What did Tito do in WWI?" "He was a pilot in the Serbian air force." "Nope, he was in the Austrian Hungarian army, a non-com charge of a machine gun." She knew Djilas was a reliable source but she just could not accept this.
One of the boats in the Dunkirk evacuation was operated by a man named Lightoiler. If you saw the movie Titanic, there's a scene where an officer points a gun at someone. That's a real event. Lightoiler was a mate on the Titanic. He survived. A few years later in WWI serving in the Royal Navy, his ship was sunk very near the same spot. Before the start of WWII he took his personal boat along the Baltic Coast doing reconnaissance for the Royal Navy. Both his sons died in the war. I don't think his operating his boat during Dunkirk was part of the myth, he was probably one of the most experience seaman there and he'd served in the Navy. Just a detail.
So, who's exited to see the film Dunkirk?
Alonzo Aldaba Not me
me neither
Alonzo Aldaba
I am!
I am! Gonna see it at release
That depends on which exit you want to take. On the other hand I am rather excited at seeing what Hollywood has done to a story which includes no Americans.
As I recall from reading on Dunkirk, there were multiple stop orders by the German High Command for the Panzers during the campaign. Otherwise, recall the Allies' defenses stiffened in Belgium as the lines were pulled back, with rear-guard (or escape corridor) formations fighting to the last round in many instances.
Whoa.
I'm early.
That's interesting.
But France surrendered faster than how fast I got here.
Really it took you a couple of years to get here?
You were fast but not that fast mate. Maybe next time :D
Ned Slark more like a few months
They didn't surrender quickly enough at Dunkirk. Or else the British would never have escaped defeat.
AudieHolland But they did lose. If they won the battle we wouldn't have all the 'merchant ships save the day' circlejerk.
The Panzers were "stopped" because they felt they would need refit and rest before the next major phase of the war. The French were not defeated at this point. We only know in retrospect how easily they cracked again on the line on the Somme? later. They had been in action and movement constantly for over a week. Men crack at that point. The second phase would have gone much worse if they had expended these forces in city fighting around Dunkirk, which, btw the way, COULD have been easily defended even longer, as the terrain was so poor for tanks.
Historian Anthony Beevor argues that prior to the Dunkirk evacuations, the British had executed a counter-attack on the northern flank or the German thrust, which (unbeknownst to the British at the time) came quite close to cutting off the Panzer spearhead from the following infantry support - hence the German High Command felt a real need to consolidate forces before advancing further, hence they halted short of Dunkirk for legitimate military reasons.
LOL. a British victory? The French caved in with barely a fight...the British fled as fast as they could drive, run or fly. This was not in any way a "successful" military operation, it was a barely controlled rout. No offense, but both the French and the British were outnumbered,outgunned and unprepared.
Or actual history.......
Actual history is that the fall of France was down to a number of reason, lack of courage was not one of them. The French fought hard and well but the politicians had neglected the army so much that no amount of courage was going to make up for that. The Germans had a real hard time breaking through the Weygand Line and lost a lot of men doing it. Once across the Seine though the French army did collapse, just like the German army did when the Allies crossed the Rhine.
A victory in the sense they weren't completely slaughtered. If the BEF was defeated then the UK would have likely surrendered. With the collapse of France anything other than retreat would have been suicide for the Brits.
The British army had to be evacuated from the beaches and moles of Dunkirk as well as from Norway, Greece and Crete, forced to surrender at Hong Kong and Singapore (To a force the British outnumbered) yet no one is saying the British did not fight hard. It was not less than a month, it was 7 weeks. It was Poland that fell in less than a month, 3 weeks. The French fought hard until the Germans crossed the Seine, then the French resistance collapsed totally when it became clear that France was lost, yet the same thing happened to the Germans in 1945, once the Allies crossed the Rhine the Germans surrendered in their hundreds of thousands, many without firing a shot. The key to German success was in 1940 to two main factors (1) the use of tanks on mass instead of in penny packets to support infantry attacks like the Allies did. Yet the Allies learned, when the British and French collected tanks together for a counter-attack at Arras they broke right through the German line, forcing the Germans to retreat, the SS Totenkopf was seen throwing their rifles down and running in panic, but it was too little, too late. The Germans brought up their 88s and called on the Luftwaffe to halt the attack, but Arras showed what could have happened if the Allies had used tanks on mass from the beginning. (2) Airpower, much of the Allied air forces was destroyed on the ground, and France had few modern fighters capable of matching the German BF 109. They did have the excellent Dewoitine D520 but this was only available in small numbers in May 1940. Mostly France had to rely on Morane-Saulniers and Bloch Fighters which were totally out glassed by the 109s.
The French even won two battles, the battles of Hannut and Gembloux where they stopped the Germans dead, but because of an German breakthrough through the Ardennes at Sedan, even though the French had stopped the Germans they were ordered to retreat towards Dunkirk as their lines of communication were in danger of being cut by the Germans moving up from Sedan.
The French First Army advanced into Belgium where they were engaged in desperate fighting and forced to retreat. The survivors then fell back on Lille. 40'000 men hold that town which was attacked by up to 200'000 Germans. Tanks, aircraft and artillery was used but the French battled on keeping those 200'000 Germans from attacking the Dunkirk perimeter. If they had been free to do so Dunkirk would have been overrun with or without tanks before the first ships could arrive.
"These Frenchmen, under the Gallant leadership of General Molinie had for four critical days contained no less than seven German divisions all of which otherwise could have joined in the assaults on the Dunkirk Perimeter. This was a splendid contribution to the escape of their more fortunate comrades of the BEF."
(Winston Churchill}
On finally surrendering after the most gallant resistance the Germans were so impressed that they allowed the French to march through the streets of Lille with all their arms and with their banners flying. As they marched the German officers saluted them.
One German officer wrote in his diary. "The stand of the French 1st Army at Lille proved that the French soldier is still among the best in the world."
During the French campaign the Germans suffered 157,000 casualties. lost 795 tanks and 1236 aircraft.
Another key to German success and one I overlooked in my last post was the fact that the Germans had radios in their tanks and the French did not so the Germans were better able to coordinate their movements.
Wikipedia has this to say about Hannut
The German plan failed to forestall the French 1st Army at Gembloux, despite their victory over the 3rd DLM. Still, Hoepner's advance to the Belgian plain tied down the Cavalry Corps and part of the French First Army while the decisive German assault succeeded across the Meuse at Sedan to the south-east. The Germans had hoped that Hoepner's panzers and their neighbouring corps would tie down and neutralise the threat of the First Army but on 15 May, forces of the First Army properly settled into position, checked the Panzerwaffe, which gained them time and space to manoeuvre. Part of the First Army sacrificed itself at the Siege of Lille and held up the bulk of the panzers, which had broken through to the south-east, enabling the British Expeditionary Force and other French units to escape from Dunkirk.[41]
It is a fantastic film. I'm impressed that they show the French holding the line, but disappointed that you only catch a glimpse of their presence in the whole of the film. Still, excellent film.
Lets not forget [obvious spoilers] in the movie the french deserter stayed in that sinking ship to pug the holes allowing the highlanders to escapes whist he did not. Nolan's movies are well thought out and this is a pretty big hint at some symbolism.
I don't no putting ones tank force in range / sight of the Royal Navy big gun does seem rather stupid, So whoever gave the halt order my have had a bit foresight.
There were a series of 'halt orders' during the battle of France. Dunkirk wasn't the only one.
French General Wiegand held a meeting to arrange a counter-attack and never invited General Gort head of the BEF. Gort heard of the meeting and rushed to be a part. He got there after the French and Belgians had left. He ordered the evacuation having no faith in the French leaders.
This video should be played to everyone before Dunkirk starts in cinemas
you're false about the RAF, they were just on the beach at the begining and at the end of the day to slightly show they were their, but they never intended to put a full air protection of the beaches
Great Job, thanks for all you work.
The Halt order could be interpreted as a blunder, but it can also be interpreted as Rundstedt and Hitler not wanting to butcher 100,000's. Have to look into it further.
Technically well done-- the illustrated approach permits rapid review of key points. Without graphics to track each point as it is made, the typical serial (verbal) narrative "bogs down" in detail. As poster "Wrestling Burial Channel" notes, below, there is many valid reasons for which General von Rundstedt might have halted German panzer units short of Dunkirk.
Thanks for the video, but most of us want elaboration on the events from the movie. No spoilers, the movie Dunkirk was focused on the events on the beach.
i've read that The panzer divisions were so worn out that by The time They got to dunkirk They only had 50% of their units operable, most of The missing vehicles simply broke down due to a lack of support since The germans were moving so fast but also intense fighting. This is partly why The halt order was ordered
don't have Blitzkrieg Legend from Frieser lying around, so I can't deny nor verify the numbers, but he closely looked into this mess and concluded that the Halt Order was not warranted at all. Majority of the officers both front-line and High Command were against it. This even becomes more damning if you fast forward to Fall 1941, when ALL front-line commanders at the conference at Orsha were against continuing offensive operations, but the whole High Command was now for pushing onward.
Great work like always! This is an aside of course, but you could've also brought in how Hitler wished to preserve his armored forces, and only wanted the assault on Dunkirk to be performed by infantry forces (who were slower to arrive since the Panzers had raced ahead of them). This was mainly since Hitler hoped for his armored forces to remain unscathed and rested for the coming offensive he was planning against the well-entrenched french forces on the Somme, who actually held out for three weeks against the Germans before Pétain announced he'd seek out an armistice.
"The Germans renewed their offensive on 5 June on the Somme. During the next three weeks, far from the easy advance the Wehrmacht expected, they encountered strong resistance from a rejuvenated French Army.[177] It had fallen back on its interior lines of supply and communications, and had closer access to repair shops, supply dumps and stores."
So much for the surrender stereotype hah.
Very good, as usual. Though this time I can add something. As understand it. The initial pause of the tanks was ordered and wanted by the tank commanders. They needed a short pause. The crews were tired and the infantry keeping up with them exhausted. As they closed on the trapped forces resistance had been increasing and more concentrated. The pause was extended due to a British tank counter attack, the result was a temporary gross over estimate of how many British Tanks might be in the area. So being very organised before proceeding was essential.
Back with Hitler Goering was boasting that he could destroy the British on the beaches, and Hitler gave him his chance. This would not have seemed such a stupid thing to do at the time, as even the British thought they could only rescue a tiny fraction of the troops at Dunkirk. Hitler thought he had plenty of time, and the British commanders at the time would have agreed with him. He was also concerned about possible counter attacks from the south of France.
The idea that the tank commanders desperately wanted to press forward from the stop on day one is false ,and probably unlikely on day 2. Though they would have by day 3 because they would have realised how well the evacuation was going; plus the troops were rested, and they were fully aware of were all resources and enemy were.
Ah, finally got to watching this.
I have a few questions.
1. From what I had gathered, even if the Germans were to attack without delay, they still would have had to face the French rearguard, which could have proven complicated in the disorganised state they were. Is that incorrect? Were the French not yet in defensive positions?
2. In relation to the above, I read that the German forces were in a bit of disarray after having advanced too fast, outrunning their supplies and/or infantry support, and that waiting was a generally good idea given the information they had at the time, especially with Rommel's alarmist claims about the enemy strength. What have you heard on the subject?
1. been a while since I read Blitzkrieg Legend, but if I remember correctly Friesner notes that basically just a handful (or even one?) company was there. Nobody dug in, bad morale, etc.
2. well, so what? Look at what they did in Barbarossa. The example I always bring is the conference at Orsha Fall 1941. ALL front-line commanders were against continuing offensive operations, yet all of the High Command was for it. Whereas with the Halt-Order a few front-line commanders wanted it, but the majority was against it and also the High command was against it.
Read something about Rommel's alarmist strength yesterday, but can't remember what Frieser wrote on that or if he covered it. Still, High Command and most front-line commanders were for "no halt".
OK on 1. As for 2. I'm just curious about just how lucky the Allies were. Because had the decision to halt been a sensible one given the circumstances, it means they didn't really escape miraculously, whereas had the decision been stupid even without the benefit of hindsight, it does make the escape the more miraculous.
another point was, that the Germans were more focused on defeating the French, so the push against Dunkirk was "limited". Case Red was more important to them.
So the decision to halt was indeed sensible at the time, given their priorities and the information available.
Thanks, I've been wanting to learn more about Dunkirk prior to the upcoming movie.
did you know at Dunkirk the allies where attacked by a fifty foot hilter robot. Churchill had to turn 50ft tall and swim the channel to defeat the monster.
Seemed odd to me when you said Dunkirk "was portrayed and perceived as a victory for the British and the allies" I have never held the opinion, never been taught that point of view, never even spoken to anyone who saw it as anything but a very bad defeat for the allies. The whole point of having to evacuate in the face of an advancing enemy is that you have been defeated. There was a propaganda campaign that seemed to try and portray the British as resilient in the face of defeat, but I do not recall anyone ever trying to claim it as an allied victory.
Did the retreat of the BEF from the front line begin before or after the time when line could no longer be held?
so much for that stuff i read about the german supply lines not being able to keep up and thus slowing down the jerrys at dunkirk.
The case for Hitler sparing them in order to negotiate with the British is the stronger in my opinion. I think it was more about that than just flexing on his high command.
Its speculative either way but the makes more sense to the overall goal he stated. I guess he thought old Winnie the boozehound would see the 200,000 men let go and consider a peace talk . Even when Hess jumped in by parachute the British didn't want to talk peace.
Congratulations, excellent video.
It's nice to see some of you are familiar with history.
Nothing to add😉
First and foremost the main participants in the Battle of France were, unsurprisingly, the French and German Armies. The BEF landed with 10 Divisions, the French and Germans had a ~100 each. Indeed, the British can be seen as more of an auxiliary in this battle holding up the left flank of the French Army (as was pretty much the case in WW1). For all intents and purposes the British held up their end of the line until the situation became untenable due to the collapse of the French 9th Army Corps just short of the Ardennes. Not a lot the British are going to be able to do when 70% of the Allied Army disintegrates and so you are inevitably going to have to get them all out as fast possible in the face of overwhelming odds.
Secondly, given that Germany (and perhaps to a lesser extent Japan) were the only ones really gunning for another horrific world war it is completely unsurprising that they scored some big initial successes (they were fanatics and on drugs). The memory of WW1 had a left a nasty scar within the British conscious in particular and they in no way wanted a repeat of the slaughter.
That snowball sure got a role on but then guess what... it melted.