[Hobilar]

When the BEF returned to England after the Dunkirk evacuation there was one other little problem to be overcome-The Railwaymen were on strike over an overtime dispute. Thankfully reason prevailed and the Railwaymen went back to work, in an extraordinary effort to get the troops to their destinations.

[Hobilar]

The youngest veteran of Operation Dynamo was 14-year-old Albert Barnes from Dagenham, who was tea boy on a Thames tug. His boat, Sun XII, was called straight off a job and into action and only returned home 14 days later, having carried out a daring series of rescues.

Albert's mother, bursting with pride, showed off his socks to their neighbours. They were so stiff with dirt that they stood up on their own like a pair of wellingtons-but they'd seen action at Dunkirk.

[DDLDSDB]

It might have made things a bit easier if Adolf hadn't let them escape.

[temujin77]

DDLDSDB said:

It might have made things a bit easier if Adolf hadn't let them escape.

What does that mean, exactly?

[Jim O]

temujin77 said:

DDLDSDB said:

It might have made things a bit easier if Adolf hadn't let them escape.

What does that mean, exactly?

I was wondering the same thing. Easier for whom?

[Klaus]

What he means is, that it would have made the war easier for Hitler if he destroyed the british at dunkirk. If I'm not mistaken.

[Lancer44]

Klaus said:

What he means is, that it would have made the war easier for Hitler if he destroyed the british at dunkirk. If I'm not mistaken.

Not really, Wehrmacht had no means for invasion in 1940. All things are purely crazy. If Luftwaffe could not achieve air superiority in October 40 what was the time for Sea Lion and German invasion?
Anyone familiar with weather in Europe will know, that Sea Lion in November 40 is a "dream of idiot" - impossible. Go to Ramsgate and look at Channel....

So, if all British soldiers which were evacuated at Dunkirk would end up in German Stalags... well... bad luck for Germans and Swiss Red Cross, which fed them.

We already know, that Sea Lion - German invasion of British Isles - was impossible.

The only real impact of Dunkirk "destruction of British EF" would be:

1. More American GI's would be needed to stage an invasion. And more GI's KIA in Normandy and after...
2, More kids born in UK after 1942 would be of American descent.
Hmm, perhaps more happy marriages....

Cheers,

Lancer44

[DDLDSDB]

I actually thought my post was a no brainer. But Klaus hit it on the head. That wasn't the last time England was kicked off the Continent either. England would have perhaps been finished. America would not have had a place to bomb places like Dresden and all those other civilian targets. And most likely England couldn't either. I guess Germany not being able to invade England (which I agree,at that time) puts to rest the 'threat' he posed to America also. As far as pow's, not Germanys bad luck. Hitler made a big mistake in trying to show England didn't want war with them.

[temujin77]

DDLDSDB said:

I actually thought my post was a no brainer. But Klaus hit it on the head. That wasn't the last time England was kicked off the Continent either. England would have perhaps been finished. America would not have had a place to bomb places like Dresden and all those other civilian targets. And most likely England couldn't either. I guess Germany not being able to invade England (which I agree,at that time) puts to rest the 'threat' he posed to America also. As far as pow's, not Germanys bad luck. Hitler made a big mistake in trying to show England didn't want war with them.

It would've been a great morale booster for the Germans, but it would hardly have changed the course of the war. Even if the 200,000 men were completely wiped out at Dunkirk, Germany still had no means whatsoever to launch an effective cross-Channel invasion. Germany simply did not have enough transports to mount an effective initial landing to secure a beachhead for subsequent landings; did you know that they even considered towing river barges for Operation Sea Lion at the risk that some of them might not survive the journey (therefore possibly drowning the occupants)? If Germany could not threaten Britain with an invasion, then how would it actually change the course of the war?

[Jim O]

DDLDSDB said:

I actually thought my post was a no brainer. But Klaus hit it on the head. That wasn't the last time England was kicked off the Continent either. England would have perhaps been finished. America would not have had a place to bomb places like Dresden and all those other civilian targets. And most likely England couldn't either. I guess Germany not being able to invade England (which I agree,at that time) puts to rest the 'threat' he posed to America also. As far as pow's, not Germanys bad luck. Hitler made a big mistake in trying to show England didn't want war with them.

OK, first, that's not quite how your post sounded, so please be a little more explanatory for those of us who cannot read other people's minds. In any online debate or discussion one needs to be sensitive to the fact that the basic aspects of verbal communication such as tone, facial expression, and body language are not present. A few extra words can prevent misunderstandings. I'm reminded of the telegram which said:

YOUR UNCLE DIED AND LEFT YOU A MILLION THANKS FOR EVERYTHING

PEACOCK & MORTIMOR ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Place a period after the word "million" and it means one thing, after "you" and it means something entirely different.

Second you are making contradictory arguments: first you say "...England would have perhaps been finished. America would not have had a place to bomb places like Dresden and all those other civilian targets. And most likely England couldn't either..." and then you say "...I guess Germany not being able to invade England (which I agree,at that time) puts to rest the 'threat' he posed to America also...". Either England would have been finished or it would not have been finished. No way was Britain going down without an invasion, even with the loss of 200,000, unless you believe that Churchill's government would have fallen and they'd have turned to a leader who would be willing to make peace. I do not think Churchill would have made peace regardless of the outcome at Dunkirk. He'd have still said "Go ahead and try, Adolf" and he'd still have had the RN and RAF.

[Klaus]

I agree with Jim. If it was foolish of Hitler to let 200.000 solders escape is an other story.

[DDLDSDB]

I understand what you mean about puctuation Jim. I will try to be a little more careful in the future. England would have been in dire straights if the men at Dubkirk had been captured. (she already was) If not for America entering the war,England would have been out of the picture and Hitler could have turned his complete focus on Soviet Russia. And as I stated,I agree Germany could not have invaded England at that time.I also don't beleive it was ever a real concideration in the first place. And for all those then and now, Germany was no threat to America. Even after Pearl Harbor,most Americans were against going to war. If not for FDR pushing the US. into it, Dunkirk would have put England on ice.

[Jim O]

DDLDSDB said:

...England would have been in dire straights if the men at Dubkirk had been captured. (she already was) If not for America entering the war,England would have been out of the picture and Hitler could have turned his complete focus on Soviet Russia. And as I stated,I agree Germany could not have invaded England at that time.I also don't beleive it was ever a real concideration in the first place. And for all those then and now, Germany was no threat to America. Even after Pearl Harbor,most Americans were against going to war. If not for FDR pushing the US. into it, Dunkirk would have put England on ice.

If the US had not entered the European War, I agree that Britain and Germany would have been in a stalemate and Hitler would have had a freer hand in Russia (though that would not have changed events in the key battles in the East, nor perhaps the outcome of the war, just the speed with which it would have happened and perhaps the location of the "Iron Curtain" further to the west). Whether Hitler was a threat or not is not the point. On December 8, 1941, when FDR addressed the joint session of Congress and reported the events of the previous day, he asked only for a declaration of war with Japan. He no doubt wanted one with Germany but knew Congress and the American public (I agree with you on that) did not want it. Hitler made the decision for FDR by declaring war on the 11th of December. Even then, some people opposed responding, but the vote for reciprocation by Congress was overwhelmingly positive. And US public opinion, after Hitler declared war, became quickly in favor of entering the European conflict. Americans did not take kindly to Herr Hitler's slap in the face, as it were. At that point, threat meant nothing. After all, what threat was Japan to the US before FDR provoked her into attacking? She was the same threat as Germany was, an economic one. If Asia becomes dominated by Japan, and Europe by Germany, what's left for US? The horribly poor neighbors to her south? Not a big enough market. Virtually all wars are economic in nature with a thinly applied veneer of ideology. Add to all that is the observation of how Germany benefitted economically from the preparations for war, and the Great Depression in which the US was still mired in the early 1940's, and maybe FDR saw war as a way to speed economic recovery at home. But threat? The US had oceans on two sides and the idea that Hitler would land troops in Mexico and invade from the south, while useful as a propaganda tool, was only that, propaganda.

If anyone cares to discuss this subject further please start a new thread on that topic. This thread was simply about Dunkirk.