Talk:Battle of Dunkirk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Hi, why is in this article claimed that the reason for Hitler`s halt order was to save his tanks for further operations. Thats just speculation and not true. The reason for the halt order is not definetley known even today. Well one version is, that Hitler wanted to halt them, in agreement with von Rundstedt, to save them for further battles, another version is that Goering convinced Hitler that the Luftwaffe could destroy the encircled Allies alonely. Then i would add, that many generals (for example von Brauchitsch) protested heavily against the halt order and that the halt order was cancelled after Hitler heard, that the Allies started the evacuation. I will add this in the afternoon, if someone doesn`t agree plz tell it here.

* I've removed that section because it is highly speculative and can be considered primary research. Comatose51 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete the What-If? I think we should remove that section because that's just speculation and primary source work and have no place in the Wikipedia. We cannot substantiate most of what is stated in that section. Please advise. Comatose51 20:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)



What was the locaton of this battle?

If you would click the link in the first sentence you'd see it: Dunkirk, France andy 13:14 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever heard this referred to at the Battle of Dunkirk. (usually just Dunkirk). Indeed a google search find just 463 references to battle of Dunkirk, with the Wikipedia page thetop hit. I suggest a mergerwith and move to Operation Dynamo with a redirect for Evacuation of Dunkirk. Mintguy 17:14, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • The Military history project recommends a geographic name instead of an operational

designation for reasons of neutrality.

Why did the Germans halted the advance of their armored divisions?

  • Well, nobody really can come up with anything that is plausible right now, but according to Peter Wright, author of the famous book Spycatcher, the Germans didn't advance with their troops because they though that the HEAVILY mined British Channel would've wiped out the retreating ships. Unfortunately for the Germans, Mr Wright and his friends in the Royal Navy found out a way to degauss the ships of the RN to repel magnetic mines as to protect them from the mines. This is all in his sequel to Spycatcher, The Encyclopedia of Spycatcher. However, I cannot verify whether his anecdotes are true or not, but he was there at the time.

PS, if anyone has an answer to this, can they reply? I would like to know too. Thanks. CronoDroid 5 NOV 05.

  • There are actually several reasonable military reasons for this order, including a pause to resupply and refit the Panzer divisions for an attack on the French forces to the south of the German breakthrough. Also, the canals and rivers in the Dunkirk area were not ideal terrain for armored operations. Other historians believe that the personal influence of Hermann Goering promoted the ability of the Luftwaffe beyond its actual capability. Some historians propose a more complicated political scheme which involved allowing the British to escape in hopes of a peace settlement, but this possibility isn't widely accepted. See the treatment of Dunkirk in the references for details.

StephenMacmanus 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the possibility that there could be a political reason for this order? I don't think that the Wehrmacht leaders were dumb enough not to recognize an opportunity to crush their foes. --205.177.246.156 18:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Battle of the Dunes

The Battle of Dunkirk 1658 June 4, (also known the Battle of the Dunes) is the name for a battle between the French and their English Commonwealth allies against the Spanish during the The Anglo-Spanish War 1654-60. The English who had had no idea how to fight a battle in 1640, could now field a new model army which could defeat a professional continental army in under 2 hours. There was also a regiment of Royalists, (up from Paris), present for the battle, I don't know if it is recorded what the two English groups thought about fighting along side each other. Perhaps they fought on opposite wings.

As there is already a battle with this name and this article is squatting on it, it is another good reason to merge this article into Operation Dynamo, but there should be redirects from articles called "Evacuation of Dunkirk" and "Dunkirk evacuation" to Operation Dynamo to make searching for it easy. Philip Baird Shearer 14:33, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Take a look at that site. Nearly every article they have is very similar to the ones here on Wikipedia.

The one's the Bren and Sten (which I helped to write) are almost word-for-word copies of ours. They even use the same pictures.

Methinks the copyvio should be going the other way. Oberiko 12:56, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, their article is a copyvio of ours. For one think their site says (c) 2003, while our article is from 2002. Secondly, and decisively, our page contains a progression of edits like [1] and [2], the accumulated effect of which is their page. If our page was a copyvio of their this would not be possible. It is however a compelling argument that their page is a copyvio of ours. Thue | talk 10:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree. Checking the original version of this article vs. their version shows verbatim matching except that our version is more complete. It appears that they took material from us and edited some out. I have reverted to the pre-copyvio tag version, restoring this to normal article status. SWAdair | Talk 10:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Ok, it looks like Thue beat me to restoring the article, probably by seconds. Since we were both reverting, there was no edit conflict. Anyway, the article is restored. SWAdair | Talk 11:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It turns out that the external site is already listed as a Wikipedia mirror, although they do not mention Wikipedia, the GFDL, or offer attribution in any way. See User:JesseW/Full_mirror_list#world-war-2.info. SWAdair | Talk 11:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thanks all for catching this - I usually put a "-wikipedia" on a google search to make sure this doesn't happen, but they seem to be a screwy mirror. Hmm. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\talk]] 04:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Did Hitler want peace with Britain ?


Some sources suggest that Hitler’s intention was either to avoid war with Britain after the fall of France! or to attack only military targets and let the British Army evacuate unmolested.
Edward P. Von der Porten - Famous Marine Historian in his book The German Navy in World War Two wrote "In late May of 1940 when German Army had reached the Channel, Hitler had not yet thought seriously about the next step. in the war against [Britain] May 21 Admiral Raeder first brought up the Naval Operation staff study, Hitler showed little interest and he said after the collapse of France that no service other than the Navy was thinking about Sea Lion (the planned invasion of England).
Joseph Goebbels in a speech, after an allied air raid caused serious damage to this his home town , criticized Allied area bombing methods, claiming, "that was not our way of war, to attack non military targets ...it was not our way in Dunkirk.".
In Hitler's Political Testimony [3],, which he dictated to Traudl Junge shortly before he committed suicide, he stated that he never wished a war against Britain or the USA.

Rudolph Hess, the Deputy Leader of Nazi Germany with his controversial flight, He was in contact with the Cliveden group and flew to England May 10 1941 - a year after Dunkirk - and according to his testimony in Nuremburg he wanted to negotiate peace but this is not officially announce by Germany! And it was not either accepted by British officials.
These conclusions put together might favor the opinion that Hitler was hoping or working on getting peace period with Britain and perhaps he wanted to concentrate his war with Soviet Russian which he recognized as his first enemy of the Third Reich
After occupation of France,Hitler's territorial demands and real desire were only pointed to the East toward [Russia]
in His speech at NUREMBERG , LABOR-FRONT SPEECH in September 12, 1936 [4] he said "HOW Germany has to work to wrest a few square kilometers from the ocean and from the swamps while others are swimming in a superfluity of land! If I had the Ural Mountains with their incalculable store of treasures in raw materials, Siberia with its vast forests, and the Ukraine with its tremendous wheat fields, Germany and the National Socialist leadership, would swim in plenty! . . . " --Hiens 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is what the correct analysis about the halt of the German Army in Dunkirk to attack the British Expeditionary force and no matter what other speculations said ; it is indeed The German Commanders are no fool to realize it is possible or not to destroy the troops BEF the reason was political for sure.

[edit] Analysis

The article contains this paragraph of analysis:

The troops evacuated from this battle later served as backbone forces in the defense of Britain. There is a general consensus that if Hitler had ordered a full strike on Dunkirk, effectively wiping out the entire British army, the Axis powers would have crushed Britain, and Germany would have been able to send many more troops in its invasion of the Soviet Union. The lull in action was enough time to evacuate many troops, and many of them subsequently fought in the Battle of Britain and other battles against Nazi Germany throughout the rest of the war.

I think this kind of analysis needs a source. The conclusions seem wrong to me, because (1) the evacuated troops did not fight in the battle of Britain; (2) Germany could only have "crushed" Britain by invading it, and the difficulty of the invasion was gaining air and sea superiority over the Channel; the evacuated troops would probably not have affected the outcome, since they had lost all their heavy equipment; (3) In the event of Britain being crushed, Germany would have been able to send fewer troops to the Soviet Union, because many would have been killed or injured in the invasion of Britain and many more would have been involved in occupation duties.

The article could do with some analysis of the effects of the evacuation at Dunkirk (e.g. effects on morale, notes on relative performance of the air forces, actual role of the evacuated troops), but this is not it. Comments, please. Gdr 12:39, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

I wrote that section back when I was an anonymous user. I can tell you that I didn't make that up; in fact, I wrote it right after watching a show on the History Channel about the invasion of France. Or the beginnings of World War II. I forget. The point is most of the British Army was in France in 1940 to defend against a German invasion, but clearly the Germans were far superior in their attack than both the French and British were at defending. If Hitler had ordered a full attack on that 30 sq km. area instead of pissing away his time touring Paris, the war may have gone a different way. -- The KoG | Talk 17:37, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
Also, Hitler would have been able to divert more resources to the Eastern Front, because even if substantial losses were incurred at Dunkirk and in the possible invasion, the fact remains that no Western Front would have existed for very long. France was a ruined mess, and Britain would be under Axis control, meaning that the U.S. and Canada could not base itself out of England. With no Western Front, Hitler had until August 1941 to rebuild his forces for the attack on the Soviet Union, and he probably could have found thousands of indoctrined young men to do his bidding. -- The KoG | Talk 17:44, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)

The war may indeed have gone a different way, but you haven't justified why. The evacuated troops did not fight in the battle of Britain. There was no Western Front in 1940 or 1941. A forgotten TV documentary is not a reference. Can you do come up with a better justification or shall I rewrite the paragraph myself? Gdr 22:58, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Then change it. If you know better than I, then you don't need my permission. Again, I was just an anonymous user. I wasn't as skilled with my fact checking as I am now. Although I admit I could have phrased the Battle of Britain line better. I didn't mean to imply that they all fought in the battle, I just meant to say that after France was taken over, the British troops fought in subsequent battles includng the BoB. It was just an attempt to expand on a single line paragraph which said "The troops evacuated from this battle later served as backbone forces in the defense of Britain." -- The KoG | Talk 00:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

The usual argument which is put forward is that if Dunkirk had fallen then the British Army would have been in a pocket. They might have been able to fight their way south west. But more likely they would have been enveloped and faced with decimation or surrender. If the Germans had then suggested an armistice, "not surrender you understand, just a few minor concessions like the return of the German colonies, and a few other minor details to be sorted out at the peace conference... Oh yes, one other small point hardly worth mentioning but don't send any Jews along to the conference", then there would have been very strong pressure in Britain for a political settlement, probably with yet another Prime Minister (three in one year) who was more in tune with new political realities. :-( Philip Baird Shearer 02:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that, had the BEF not been evacuated, best-case scenario would be a drastically reduced campaign in the Mediterranean and Asian theatres (likely all British forces would have been recalled to guard against the seemingly inevitable German invasion). Worst-case would have been Britain being taken out of the war completely through armistice. After that, it's difficult to predict further events, but the war would have definitely gone much worse for the Western Allies. Oberiko 03:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If the BEF had been threatened with destruction and if Britain had been knocked out of the war with a generous armistice, then the chances are that there would have been no Free French or governments in exile. The job of pacifying Western Europe would have been much easier with far far fewer occupation troops needed. Most of the colonies in the Far East would have been under the control of whatever governments existed in Europe. As Japan was allied with Germany, it is likely that the colonies would have traded oil and other commodities with Japan. The Japanese would no longer have had to look south and as a favour to the German, and to exploit the wealth of Eastern Russia, they might have been willing to open up a second front against the Soviets in Siberia to aid Germany's attack against the western borders of the Soviet Union... But the tyranny of ifs and maybes have add up. I agree the paragraph needs rewriting and as Gdr is volunteering :-) ---Philip Baird Shearer

OK, done. Dunkirk is one of the popular "what ifs" of World War II (examples include If By Chance by John Strawson; Third Reich Victorious: Alternate Decisions of World War II by Peter Tsouras et al; Virtual History: Alternatives and Counterfactuals by Niall Ferguson), so I suppose this kind of speculation deserves a mention. Gdr 13:08, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)


Despite the propaganda thrown about at the time Britain was unlikely to be invaded all the while the Royal Navy had anything to do with it. At the time of the Dunkirk evacuation, the entire German surface fleet consisted of less than thirty warships. The British navy sank half of the entire German destroyer fleet at the two battles of Narvik - Germany had twenty destroyers before Narvik - the British around 200. Admiral Raeder knew that even with aircover (i.e. if the British had lost the Battle of Britain) invading Britain while their navy was able to fight would have been madness, the German invasion barges would have been anihilated as the British Admiralty were willing to accept %100 losses in ships used to prevent an invasion and they could afford to lose them. If Britain really had been in danger of invasion then they would have withdrawn every ship they could from all around the world back to Britain to defend the home country.

In addition, to many non-seafaring people the English Channel may just look like a wide river and crossing it no-more difficult - well it isn't a wide river, it's a sea and has a sea's weather and a sea's dangers, so apart from the risk of getting his invasion barges sunk by the Royal Navy, Hitler would also have had to take into account the unpredictable weather which can change from a fine day to howling gales in the space of a few hours, e.g., the storms after D-Day 1944 which were in the summer. Bear in mind the Gemans were using hastily converted Rhine barges which are not the same as the purpose-designed landing ships that were used in 1944.

Operation Seelöwe was a bluff and Hitler knew it and so did the British.


The trapped BEF was the entire British field army. The Brits would not be able to raise an army for the North African campaign. Just imagine the Afrika Korps driving through the Suez Channel and into Crimea.... I think Dunkirk worth a mentioning.

Chin, Cheng-chuan

[edit] External link

Er...this external link at the bottom, should it really be here? It's an interesting rant at the British and all, but 'This one is for the Nazi and Hitler bashers?' Doesn't seem entirely NPOV... Semprini 11:33, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Arras

I don't exactly know where, but I think the Battle of Arras should be mentioned in this article. Oberiko 19:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I added a reference to these events.

StephenMacmanus 00:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 51st Highland Division

Likewise, I don't know exactly where, but this article is incomplete without mention of the rearguard action fought by the British 51st Highland division who were left behind to hold off the Germans as long as possible, and to appease the French. They are almost never mentioned in discussions or documentaries about Dunkirk, and yet they played an absolutely vital (and heroic) role. Lianachan 10:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes the action at St.Valery. Was a damn fine display of what the Scottish soldier can acomplish. Its a shame they have been forgotten. Youre not even allowed to refer to militery actions as brave or heroic on this website. Thats political correctness for you.

Yes I think there should be a greater recognition of the sacrifice of the 51st at St-Valery. Well Done 51st. Scotland Forever.

This wasn't a rearguard action to cover the evacuation at Dunkirk. 51st Highland was deployed behind the Maginot Line and it was simply moved to the west to strengthen the Somme position. That it got trapped at Saint Valéry was not a deliberate sacrifice and it had nothing to do with Operation Dynamo, which was well over at that time.--MWAK 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

If you`d read our comments you`d no that idiot. Churchill sacrificed the Highland Division so as to keep the French fighting. Come on Wikipedia drop all this political correctnes nonsense.

I see: all the events of Fall Rot were one gigantic rear guard action! I hadn't thought of it that way and my apologies for misunderstanding you. From that point of view it could be said that even more British troops were sacrificed: not only were the Scots left behind but many troops were sent in, among them the most powerful force of Britain: the 1st Armoured Division. Most of them were succesfully evacuated again and I maintain that the fact this didn't work for the 51st was sheer coincidence (I presume you weren't implying they were singled out to be left behind because they were Scottish :o). Of course an immediate and complete withdrawal from France in late May would only have been logical if Britain intended to make a separate peace with Germany. Luckily and most honourably, the opposite was true.--MWAK 13:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results of Dunkirk in Infobox

The infobox summary indicated the battle was a German tactical victory and Allied strategic victory. I think this conclusion is incorrect. German failure to prevent the evacuation can't be considered a tacical success. Although the successful escape of the troops boosted British morale, it only avoided the complete disaster of their capture, and the results of the battle setup the conquest of France. That outcome isn't a victory at the strategic level. I changed the results accordingly.

StephenMacmanus 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Canadian addition

Regarding this section after line 36

It is curious to note that admist all the confusion, and after the evacuation at Dunkirk - and while Paris was enduring its short-lived siege - the First Canadian Division and a Scottish division were sent to Normandy (Brest) and penetrated 200 miles inland toward Paris before they heard that Paris had fallen and France had capitulated. They eventually retreated and re-embarked for England. At the same time as the Canadian 1st Division landed in Brest, the Canadian 242 Squadron of the RAF flew their Hawker Hurricanes to Nantes (100 miles south-east) and set up there to provide air cover

This is interesting information, however, does it really belong as part of this article? It is already included word for word in the Battle of France article. Not wanting to step on any toes, but I believe this passage is not entirely on-topic and can be removed from this specific article. Any objections? JQ 13:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

As I hadn't received a reply to the above I went ahead with the edit today. Again, if there are serious objections to this change please open a discussion to determine what is best for the article. Best Regards, JQ 04:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This sounds like the addition of someone with a little nationalistic bent; in any event it has nothing to do with the Battle of Dunkirk. Should not the note on the infobox including Canada as a participatory nation also be removed? Also Belgium should be added, I think. Wally 19:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] was the battle of dunkirk a defeat or a victory for Britain?

if you know any thing about this question and would like to answer it please dont hesitate to tell me. this will benefit alot of people.

I would classify this as a British loss due to the fact that it resulted in the evacuation of the British Army from Europe. ~ Butros (Talk) 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
It was clearly an idiotic strategic defeat; but the German victory, I think, would be classified as pyrrhic. Wally 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you edit to say Decisive? I put German tactical victory for now. This is what the Front page says today. Of course this is difficult question to answer. In one sense it was a great Germen victory, as they drove the British out of France and captured much material. In another sense it was a Great British victory, since the seccessfully saved the great bulk of their forces on the continent from what appeared to be an intenable situtation. MarcusGraly 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
an evacuation cannot be considered a victorious battle. it is only in the british propaganda. the nazi flag was raised in dunkirk... yeah a total allied victory. actually the french general Weygand wanted an allied counter-attack against the german but british general Dort refused and argued for an evacuation. the british chief of staff approved Dort on the 26, the rest is history. Shame On You 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Allied victory?Is this a British army propaganda page?Ok allies managed to evacuate but this is not decisive either.This article says had these forces been destroyed Britain would be defenceless against vast German armies.To be honest they still were.The reason Germany did not try to invade Britain was the lack of protection for their armies during sea voyage to Britain not Lord Gorts 14 division expeditionary force.

[edit] planes

How many planes that had been shot down is unclear as it says it twicew but with different figures. once with 177 and on with 132

One is for the Allies and the other is for the Germans. Wally 02:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] combattants NPV

why only the uk and fr are flagged as fighters while there were the belgian with them and the dutch and polish? the same way it was tagged "Decisive British victory", while the British were not alone (hence the french memorial at dunkirk pays homage to the "french and allied armies") and of course it was a german victory since they were not the ones who retreated, but instead captured material and POW, and eventually raised their stinky flag in dunkirk. it was a succesful evacuation not a victory. Shame On You 23:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] uniform

beret does anyone of you knows from which army are those with a beret? those with the ugly adrian helmet are the french, i'm not sure fo the others. i've heard in a "Journal de guerre" (war diary) newsreel the french gave equipment and uniforms to the belgians who move to france to follow the fight.

Shame On You 00:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allied victory...?

Surely the box should read ``Decisive Axis victory; Allied evacuation to England? laddiebuck 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if?

This section should be removed. Even if properly referenced, the whole section is POV and speculationDapi89 14:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Did Hitler want peace with Britain

I see no dispute and I believe it is very clear that Hitler halted the attack at Dunkirk for hoping peace period with Britain. Hitler is not a fool to continue war with Britain after the success of occupied France ! he clearly wanted to direct his operation toward Soviet Russia. sending his Deputy to England in secret mission to negotiate peace ; is also another evident for that . How ever he was too proud to officially declare peace !! I believe the paragraph Did Hitler want peace with Britain is truly valid .
It is really easy catch for the Luftwaffe and the two Panzers Divisions to capture the exhausted and despair BEF while they are on the run! Why would he halt the attach for 10 days !! no Air attach no panzer attach !in May 21 German Army reached ABBEVILLE and I believe at that time Germany has the air superiority ! it is impossible to think that the Werhmacht is exhausted to launch such attach. Hitler in many cases during the WWII care about the outcome much more than the causality ! He ordered standup and no retreat in many battles where the retreat is safer for life and benefits the solders ! His determination to gain victory exceeded the power of his troops in many cases and if he wanted to capture the BEF in [Dunkirk] then he would have done it for sure even if he had less ammunition and less fuel!--Hiens 08:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It matters not if you think it is obvious, it needs to be something said and published by other writers. For example to write something like "some historians and writers believe that Hitler ordered a delay in the hope/belief that he might be able to make a peace treaty with the UK" would be valid if acocmpanied by (a few) examples. To assemble your own argument for the point is not valid. GraemeLeggett 09:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User "Hiens" comments are utter nonsense. Hitler did not send Hess to the UK, this is so unbelievably untrue its actually hesterical. He/she seems to be grossly misinformed. There are also other points to consider, the Section was bigger than the entire article put together....this article is about the Battle of Dunkirk and should focus on that rather than speculative things that did not happen. Speculation has no place in an Encyclopedia. Hence I have deleted this section "hiens" re-added.Dapi89 18:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


User GraemeLeggett here is what you asked for! [[Edward P. Von der Porten ]] the famous Dutch Marine Historian in His Book German Navy in WWII supported the fact that Hitler was not interested in Invading England Admiral Raeder in His Memories confirmed that Hitler had no serious intention to invade England with «operation sealion" ; David Hogan the famous historians confirmed also that Hitler Halted the troop in Dunkirk hoping for Peace with England /!!

Winston Churchill in his speech announce that Hess " Hitler Deputy " visit to Germany was not official and that's why not recognized by the British Government ; however in Nuremburg trial Hess confirmed that he was sent for peace purposes under secret agreement with Hitler !

Now do you think with these confirmed resources - old and new - that my statement is unreal ? Why would Admiral Erich Raeder after he served in prison and released and the war is over more than 10 years ago !! and Hitler died many years ago wrote down in His Book (Published 1957) something not true ? who else can know what Hitler think better or justify his decision than him ! indeed Hitler wanted no war with England and tried to avoid it but he couldn't.
--Hiens 21:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Every world renowned Historian that I have come across, on this particular subject is in unanimous that Hess acted alone without the authorisation of Hitler. Albert Speer Inside the Third Reich and numerous other memoirs of high ranking officials in the Third Riech attest to this. The fact that a Dutch Historian has written a book claiming that Raeder said that was so is no where near good enough.

With regard to the question of Hitler wanting peace there is no absolute proof that he did. The notion that Hitler actually offered peace to Britain believing that Britain would come to terms is a myth. Hitler knew the British with its Army now intact and escaped from Dunkirk stood a chance of repulsing an invasion (as long as the Royal Navy remained formidable) with RAF air support. Therefore it is extremely debatable that Hitler seriously thought there was a chance of peace, the advances that he made were going to be invain regardless of how serious they were.

As far as "Hitler's book" is concerned, (I take it your referring to his last will and testament dictated to his secretary Traudl Junge), we absolutley can not rely on Hitler's word. Psychologically he was a wreck at that point. Further more it was written just days before the end of the war, of course Hitler did not want to be percived as the creator of the conflict. All he could do was to try and deflect blame by claiming "it is false that I or anyone else in Germany wanted war with e Great Britain in 1939" (A.J.P Taylor, 1974). I would have thought this was obvious. Would you really take the word of the dictator in the midst of his last battle?

Dapi89 06:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not taking the words of Hitler alone ! but if you examine it with fair eye ; it is written few hours before he kill himself - it sounds like his last confession - and it is considerable statement even in court !! He never mention in his testimony that he never wished a war against France or Poland ! because that would be a damn lie !! he only mentioned England and USA !! The Decision of halting the troops in Dunkirk is one of the crucial decision which might altered the war ; the paragraph what IF should be retained . It is true and undisputed fact that Hitler halt the Army group A&B from Attacking the BEF evacuated at Dunkirk

for 10 days or little more  Why ! does he lack of Air force !! 
 Germany at that time have Air superiority and these two Army groups have qualified generals like Rommel !
  if the Wermacht went all the way defeating All others to the English Channel then attacking these exhausted, defeated, 
 on the run BEF  would not be more difficult than what has been done before !!

Ladies and Gentlemen Hitler didn't want peace with England for the sack of peace itself but he doesn't want to open new front ! a front which doesn't interest him as Admiral Raeder said by himself  ;Hitler real intention after liberating the German lands before WWI and treaty of Versally is Moving toward East .. Ukraine Fields the oil fields and his eternal enemy the Jewish bolshevism ( according to His words and Nazi's leaders statement) that's why he halted his army to attack the BEF --Hiens 07:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Note for other readers that David Hogan doesn't link to a historian but a composer/musical director. you need to look for him at the U.S. Army Center of Military History. GraemeLeggett 11:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I just spell it wrong it is David Hoggan and sure he is famous Historian - see his Book "The Forced War when ".

Hiens: Your last post was confusing. It appears you did not read my last post properly. I did not mention Poland or France, but the Uk only. Hitler's last testament was indeed not a "confession". nThe definition of "confesion" is admitting a written document acknowledging an offense and signed by the guilty party. Hitler did niether of these things. He blamed the war on a Jewish conspiracy and excused himself from blame.

Once again an encyclopedia is no place for speculation. There are many theories as to why Hitler stopped the Panzers at Dunkirk. One popular theory is that he wanted to conserve them for Fall Rot. There is no definitive reason to this debate. Hitler certainly would not have halted them in the hope of peace with Britain. He wanted to finnish of the B.E.F and French as quickly as possible, then approach the British for peace. But as I have said before this is not proven beyond doubt therefore should not be included.Dapi89 12:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Dapi99 ; there is one undisputed fact ; that Hitler Halt the troops Group Army A and B to attack the BEF ' still the questions Why ? All the theory fall around reasons 1- He Wanted to re-organize his troop which were exhausted from the battle of France and Poland. 2- He never believe he could crash the BEF without powerful navy like British Royal Navy or without the help of strong infantry/artillery around them ! 3- He was hoping to get peace period with UK where he see no hope or future interest in invading England !! his interest and ambitious looking toward East he halted the troops by offering peace virtue to England.

I believe it is clear that the third reason is the valid one and Hitler decision might turn the war in different way; same as many wrong decisions made by Hitler which favored the Allied .. like mistake he did in Russian War , Stalingrad and others. Hitler himself confirmed that he didn't want war with UK while he is going to die !!! and Admiral Raeder confirmed that 10 years after Hitler Death and the war is over !! what prove more you need that Hitler liked to have peace treaty with UK.

it is not you who mentioned Poland or France it is Hitler in his last testament who didn't mentioned that he never wished a war with Poland or France because every body knows his intention to crash these two countries! and if he said in his testament I never wished a war against France it would be a true Lie BUT HE Didn’t he only mentioned Britain and America! some correction Hitler wrote his final `Political testament on 29 April 1945 at AM !! he suicide on 30 April . means he wrote it less than 24 hours of his death. So he knew he is not neither in the middle of the battle nor in condition to continue fighting ; he simply step one foot in is grave ! Regarding Hess visit to UK as I mentioned Winston Churchill himself admit that Hess came to negotiate peace but non officially which we can not accept it !! All observer and historian of WWII respect and appreciate the value of Albert Speer and his truth which revealed in Nuremberg and after and I would like to know in which page ? he mentioned this comment about Hess visit to England. I read some part till 1929 of his life and not yet reached 1940. Hess was Deputy of Hitler ; studied in England and it was close to impossible that he did such initiative without consulting/pre-agreement with Hitler ; and it is impossible he will think he can achieve peace by himself with England without Hitler/Germany Approval ! it is hard to imagine that he simply took the plan on his responsibilities to solve the problem ! --Hiens 16:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of who Hess was. Believe it, it happened. Hess flew to England on his own initative as he was extremely unsatble and feared (as did Göring) the coming invasion of the USSR would ruin Germany -which of course eventually it did.

You don't have a point with regard to the last testament. What Hitler said in his last testament is irrelevant to the situation in 1940.Hitler knew by going to war with Poland it could well result in a conflict with Britain. The fact the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed in August 1939 highlights the fact that Hitler knew war with Britain was highly likley if Germany invaded Poland and he pursued his designs regardless of whether war with Britain was avoidable or not.

It doesn't matter at all what you believe hiens, an Encyclopedia can only report what actually happened, FACT is the most important thing here. The mention of this topic should not appear in an encyclopedia. Taking into consideration other editors have deleted this type of section more than once over the course of this articles history suggests the consensus of opinion is it should not be included. At best it should be a foot note, with a cursory mention in a Further Reading section- and well sourced by well known (preferably world famous) historians. I would support your contention for this type of edit.Dapi89 16:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Dapi89 you still not able to see the FACT in this issue and I think you will not!! Then Why you Wikipedia mentioned at the top of this article that Hitler halt the troop "This order allowed the Germans to consolidate their gains and prepare for a southward advance against the remaining French forces " this should be removed as well !!

you still need to answer me if you please two quesatons
1- Which page/section you found the comment of Albert Speer regarding Hess Visit to England ?
2- What is your comments about Raeder statement that Hitler was not interested in SeaLion operation and he show non interest in it. ? he wrote that after his release from prison 10 years after Hitler death. !

Dapi89 I believe your words showed genuinely the truth of my statement ; when you said about Hess "he was extremely unstable and feared (as did Göring) " then do you think if this is his condition THEN why on earth he fly to England ?? to do what ? to fight them or drop Bomb OR negotiate peace with them ... I leave the answer to other readers .... --Hiens 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh for God sake. Hiens, Do not distort what I said. Your posts are extremely nonsensical and at times I wonder what you are trying to say. And I am FULLY AWARE of the facts thankyou.

You have completely misunderstood what I have said in the earlier post. I did not say it was my opinion that Hitler halted the tanks to move southward, merley that this was a popular theory. I DO NOT IN ANYWAY accept your comments regarding Hess, this is a complete fallacy, it is abundantly clear that I utterly oppose your views on this. Your arguments lack coherence or logic. The reason Hess flew to England is BECAUSE Hitler insisted on attacking the Soviet Union - not because he was sent.

1-Albert Speer's Book Inside the Third Reich (Phoenix paperback version) p 250-251 gives a full account of Hitler's reaction to hess's flight in his own words.

2- This question is silly Hiens. If Hitler was not interested in the Battle of Britain then why ask the Luftwaffe go all out to win it. This notion that Hitler was not interested in Sealion is also fallacy. Any history book relating to the battle will tell you this. Hitler had EVERY intention of invading Britain but was defeated by the RAF.Dapi89 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Dapi89 your phrases are fanatical and you rely on theory when you like it and consider it the shine truth! and whenever you see another throry which you don't agree you simply call it nonsense ; utter nonsense ... etc You need to look at the matter with fair eyes and without any fanatic or amateur attitude ! for example you simply rejected the Raeder statement which said Hitler had less interest to invade England ! I will not downgrade your opinion for that but as I mentioned above ; Raeder is eye witness and he wrote that 10 years after all the events is over ; and I mentioned famous Historian Ducth agreed on that na dreferred to this account ! but you still call it nonsense and silly and utter nonsense  !!! come on Dapi89 your atitude not related in any way to discusion or scientific methods of Anlysis. Quick comments on another bomb you dropped in your answer " Regarding the Luftwaffe attaching England I will advice you to read more in details about it and how it is started !developed to night attach .
the Luftwaffe didn't defeat the RAF before Russian invasion but you can say both sides had large damages and the goal of the Luftwaffe to crash the RAF/Industry wasn't achieve and the RAF goal to prevent the Luftwaffe Raids and destroy it was not achieved as well !
Luftewaff had more casuality in Aircraft than Britain ! but the german industry at that time with only one front and the acquired resources and territory in France and Poland could catch up with the demands much better than British Industry ! in WikiPedia written that the Luftwaffe almost defeated the RAF ! but to acheive final victory it would have cost Hitler lot of resources and huge causality without any final benefits !! Hitler didn't want England !!!
In Albert Speer Book ; the same Book as you referred to ; Albert Speer mentioned that Hitler one time consider England his First Enemy and other time admire her power and try to find a way to deal with her .

Dapi89 : look to the other opinions and respect their views even if you don't agree with them !

it is not CORRECT to say RAF defeated the Luftwaffe between 1940-1941 ! or the Luftwaffe defeated RAF in this period !!
Hitler didn't want( or couldn't ) reach decisive victory of that battle and switched toward East ! he knew that England
would need long time to recover and perform no harm to him until he met his goal to capture Soviet resources and vast space.
I have referred to "Inside the Third Reich" Albert Speer and I found few valuable pages about Hess Visit as you pointed out ; it is truly stated in these pages that Hess didn't make this attempt according to Hitler's instructions ; it was individual initiative - Hitler called him insane while read the page of Wikipedia regarding Rudolf Hess and see Hess's wife and his own statement to that visit ! User Dapi89 it might be considered a FACT what Albert Speer - such trust worthy resource- is more genuine to believe " he is eye witness" but that Analysis which I mentioned is build on good methods and reasons and you simply free to accept it or not . Hitler had that secret agreement with Hess and in public didn't announce it and hide it - specially from his allied -! he will only support it if the attempt of Hess end up with success! still this is only analysis and not a fact! that's why I never mentioned that on the Main page that Hitler sent him - only on discussion page-
So Dapi89 please Stop calling the other opinion speculation just because you don't agree with it
--Hiens 11:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't be stupid Hiens I'm not a fanatic. I am niether a fanatic or ignorer of fact. I certainly don't need a lecture from you about the Battle of Britain, and I am no ameuter when it comes to World War Two...I dare say I far more knowledgeble than you. As I have said before I am not projecting my points of view during this discussion. Once again you completely distorted or misinterprted what I have said. I didn't say that the Luftwaffe defeated the RAF in 1940-41 or vise versa. I certainly did not say the Luftwaffe was destroyed in 1940-41 as your last post implies. The RAF certainly defeated the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain (I suggest you read the Battle of Britain article.)

As regard to your accusations of POV, I have no POV on this matter other than this type of information, at best, should only be mentioned fleetingly and documented clearly that it is highly contentious. I have displayed nothing other than neutrality, and adherence to Wikipedia's policy.

The fact remains, Hitler tried to invade Britain, speculating that he didn't want to is difficult, because he actually did try. Discourse is overDapi89 14:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

First and foremost, I'd kindly request of you both to calm down and discuss the matter in a logical non-offensive way. Ad-hominem attacks contribute only to the deterioration of this fine encyclopaedia we all have a chance of contributing to.
Secondly, I request of user Hiens to make a small effort to formulate his views in a more easily percepible manner, in accordance to standard rules of grammar and punctuation. In my opinion this matter is perfectly discussable and you have a right to voice your opinion. Nevertheless, I must say I had some difficulty in rummaging through your posts due to the above outline problems.
Concerning the events of May 24, 1940 and the order to halt before Dunkirk, while it cannot be effectively proven Hitler did so in order to "keep open the way for the compromise with England that he continued to hope for" (Fest, Hitler, pp.630), as "such decision would have contradicted the war aim formulated in his memorandum" [October 6, 1939. It called for the "annihilation of the strength and ability of the western powers to oppose the ... further development of the German nation in Europe." (Fest, Hitler, pp.609)] and Directive number 13 of May 24, 1940 involving the "annihilation of the French, British and Belgian air forces encircled in Artois and Flandres..."), it is most certainly worth mentioning in the article, especially in the light of previous references to Hitler's hope of obtaining peace with Great Britain ("If France was finished...England would have to make peace.") (Fest,Hitler, pp.609), as well as Article 8 of the French-German armistice regarding the promise on Germany's part not to employ "vessels of the French Navy now in ports under German control."), which Fest considers to have been a "quiet offer to London."(Hitler, pp.636). -- Ishikawa Minoru 16:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I've employed logic. I was conversing rationally with Hiens trying to make him understand that I'm not arguing against him so much as telling him that this section was twice the size of the article, and highly contentious. My later posts were frustration as I didn't seem to be getting this simple message across. I did say to Hiens a mention in the article most editors could live with, but to have it dominate an article about the Battle of Dunkirk is not appropriate. The references you have provided are dubious and don't cover the question. The question that has to be asked is not -Did Hitler want peace? but rather Did Hitler offer peace? Its obvious that Hitler would have hoped for peace, quite another to say he actually asked for it Dapi89 17:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC).

I agree being called a fanatic isn't pleasant. I deeply oppose personal attacks on this page and as a result, understand your frustration and that you telling Hiens not to be stupid was a byproduct of that.
I was merely trying to cool you down.
Regarding the references I provided, how exactly are they dubious? As far as I am concerned Joachim Fest is a respected and reliable historian and the quotations pertaining to the subject at hand:
  • The exact reasons behind the orders to halt the troops cannot be exactly ascertained
  • According to Fest, other historians suggested this was because he expected doing so would facilitate peace negotiations
  • This theory runs counter to Hitler's memorandum of October 6, 1939 and Directive 6, which called for the annihilation of British, French and Belgian forces.
  • On the other hand, given Hitler's wish to make peace with Britain and the clause he wrote into the French-German armistice, it's also a possibility. -- Ishikawa Minoru 21:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't mean they were dubious in the context of the Author being unworthy or not reliable in general, I believe in fact this Historian is one of the most prominent of Hitlers. Just that in relating to this particular subject Fests interpretation, particularly of Article 8 of the Surrender terms, is certainly personal pov rather than Historical fact. Surley there must be a consensus of opinion among historians in order for this to be included or interpreted as a covert offer to Britain.

Hitler, in military terms, was quiet erratic, it was almost impossible to predict for certain what he intended or how seriously he intended it. With France defeated it woud make far more sense to strike Britain out of the reckoning at its weakest than enter into a peace that could be broken so easily once Britain has re-armed and regained its strength.

I agree that it is unclear why the Panzers were halted, this has been my view point throughout. I have put forth one theory that Hitler wanted them for Fall Rot (as quoted by Taylor, Webbe, Von Rundstedt, and General Halder).

I still believe that a small inclusion would be okay. But I feel there should not only be references to Fest and these "other Historians" but also direct quotes: included in a Further reading Section. There is a possibility that Hitler wanted peace, I would like to believe this, but we need references that actually say it in black and white, given of course that it is not indisputable factDapi89 18:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The Mian photo is a Fake - Remove it Please

Would some body please remove the Photo !! it is not a true photo !! it is from a Movie or perhaps Foirst World War ! At Dunkirk there was no fighting in 1940 ! just all the BEF succeeded to evacuate safely.--Hiens 12:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the caption for the moment. Do we have sources that can confirm or deny that there was any interaction between German planes and the infantry on the beaches?GraemeLeggett 11:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I will add some later. There was plenty of action that took place on the Beaches between the Luftwaffe and the Allied Ground forces, once again "Hiens" has got wrong!Dapi89 13:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


User GraemeLeggett At Dunkirk which that photo appear there wasn't any attach on the BEF - specifically in Dunkirk 1940. the subject of this page. Usr Dapi89 if you have any real photo please add it. but this one is not real ; it is from a movie ; in other words a FAKE which not suitable to Wikipedia.
--Hiens 11:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the use of this picture either, especially when you consider its provenance: "Why We Fight #3" by Frank Capra. In other others, US propaganda based on news archives, animation, restaged scenes and propaganda from both sides. In my opinion not the most reliable source. It would definitely be better if we could use another picture. -- Ishikawa Minoru 16:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User Ishikawa comments about " Why We Fight " is true it is purely propaganda with mixed Movie Artificial sceins. still some good illustration of tactics and battles in it. --Hiens 18:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all.

I have replace both pics with real photos. Hope they are good enough.Dapi89 19:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

User Dapi89 you make me laugh it is really funny one photo you add is good one and looks real showing the evacuation of soldiers - probably peacefully - in a long queue as there is no rush and their colleagues watching/waiting them from onboard without any gun !! this is OK and match the subject .
and the Other Photo is really ridiculous - los resolution 72 DPI of a (British) soldier pointing his gun to the sky and you wrote under it "A British soldier fires at German aircraft ... in Dukirk's beach "
User Dapi89 this photo is not related by all means to the subject of this Article in any way ! ( the other one does ) ; Perhaps your comments below the photo is clearly supporting your view which you wrote it above ;-)


We still welcome you to provide REAL resources on Luftwaffe assault British troops at Dunkirk Beach during their evacuation in last 10 days and I am also working on that too , meanwhile remove the soldier photo and put a photo related to the subject. --Hiens 10:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No Hiens, once again you don't seem to understand. The caption is sourced. This was a famous photograph taken "in action" of a soldier on Dunkirk Beach replying the only way he could to visible German aircraft. It is related to the subject. I'm getting sick and tired of having to explain the simple things Hiens. The reason I captioned (the caption is a exact quote from the book) the image was because I knew you would respond in this way.

To say this is false is to call A.J.P Taylor a liar.Dapi89 18:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


with all respect to A.J.P Taylor this photo - a soldier pointing his riffle up - doesn't have impact here ; perhaps it does in his book ! user Dapi89 I am not saying it is a lie or true ! what I am saying and you bluntly keep on arguing that this photo could be inserted in any situation in any battle in additon to the horrible quality ! but look at your second photo ; it is meaningful and fully acceptable in quality and matching the subject !! I am sure you can work hard and find other meaningful photo ; don't come back with a photo of BF109 or JU87 alone in the sky and write comment under it "German Luftwaffe on the way to attach soldiers in Dunkirk" !

in case you didn't understand what I am trying to say or there are no other photo available then you may remove this poor quality photo of the soldier and put the second one as the Article main photo. --Hiens 19:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a poor quality photograph Hiens, use what common sense you have. The Soldier is in motion and despite this its very clear. This is an extremley famous photo of Dunkirk. Hugh Sebag-Montefiore used it in his book Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man(Paperback) for his front cover. Whenever you come across images of Dunkirk this is always included. Its very fitting for this article. Whatsmore I'm through arguing with you Hiens. You proven yourself to be wrong about everything we have discussed. Discourse is definately over.Dapi89 17:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the famous photo ; if any body believe it is famous then please get it from other source with permission BUT with clear quality ( 72 DPI Minimum - Dot Per Inch ) suitable for Online viewing. I added one from Wikipedia Archive which is meaningful to the spirit of Dunkirk and kept your other photo because it is meaningful and acceptable quality. --Hiens 07:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not a question of believing Hiens. This was SOURCED MATERIAL. What part of SOURCED don't you understand? I have sourced the caption and given you a book title about Dunkirk that actually uses the picture for its front cover.

Besides this point is now moot, I have added the full picture nowDapi89 20:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Contentious edit

The section below was introduced and I made a reversion as I am not sure whether this is actually original research, i.e. an interview or retelling of a conversation: "This paragraph reports the actual testimony of the late Edgar ['Ted'] Holt, my father, who was a soldier in the Royal Army Service Corps and present at Dunkirk, in 1940. He described how apalled the troops had been at having had to leave behind everything of value - vehicles, arms, tools, engineering spares, everything. He also described how after their return to the UK, the RASC were massively under-strength in trucks in particular, and so large numbers of essentially scrap coaches and buses (Tilling-Stevens buses recently retired from Kent local bus services were an example) were retrieved from scrap and refurbished. Many of these had evidently been recently obsoleted by pre-war changes in safety regulations, mandating four-wheel braking on PSVs for the first time. Some of those vehicles saw service, with him, right out to the North African campaign as British Forces re-entered Europe through Algeria, Tunisia and then up through Sicily into Italy. He described still maintaining such vehicles in Naples, very late in the war. [Author M.Holt TW20 9BD, London]" FWIW Bzuk 19:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Why is Canada not mentioned until the end?

I know Canada was part of the British Empire still but weren't Canadian troops also evacuated? Shouldn't they be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.56.236.39 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find supporting evidence somewhere that Canadian troops were also evacuated, work away. beano (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistencies

The figures for losses (deaths) per nation or per side as given in the infobox seem inconsistent with those in the text (which are incomplete anyway). Can someone sort them out?

Also, what is the sentence "a total of 5 countries took part in the evacuation..." supposed to mean? Could this be either expanded or removed? --Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)