Good workBest way to "find" is misquote or misattribute
comes from an alleged statement in a secret meeting
View attachment 899727
i.e. not a direct quote
The second "quote"
Comes from this larger quote from Churchill dismissing a hypothetical as a basis for discussion.
View attachment 899728
Churchill and the Approach to Mussolini and Hitler in May 1940: A Note on JSTOR
Jonathan Knight, Churchill and the Approach to Mussolini and Hitler in May 1940: A Note, British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Apr., 1977), pp. 92-96www.jstor.org
What if the evacuation of Dunkirk had failed?
- Thread starter Xx_Pro_State_Exam_xX
- Start date
I've read this in countless other accounts, but for brevity I will just use the relevant Wikipedia articles.
War Cabinet crisis:
en.wikipedia.org
The decision to fight on and not explore an armistice is taken mainly on May 28th, 1940. The article goes into depth on this.
Dunkirk evacuation:
en.wikipedia.org
Dunkirk was evacuated between May 27th and June 4th. The War Cabinet had no idea how well it was going until May 30th at the earliest. They were surprised at its success.
The key discussions in the British government about fighting on took place before the Dunkirk evacuation, when they thought it was going to go worse than it did. A "failure" would not have had any effect on a decision that had already been taken, in expectation of a less successful evacuation than OTL.
War Cabinet crisis:
1940 British war cabinet crisis - Wikipedia
The decision to fight on and not explore an armistice is taken mainly on May 28th, 1940. The article goes into depth on this.
Dunkirk evacuation:
Dunkirk evacuation - Wikipedia
Dunkirk was evacuated between May 27th and June 4th. The War Cabinet had no idea how well it was going until May 30th at the earliest. They were surprised at its success.
The key discussions in the British government about fighting on took place before the Dunkirk evacuation, when they thought it was going to go worse than it did. A "failure" would not have had any effect on a decision that had already been taken, in expectation of a less successful evacuation than OTL.
German forces in the area had been running on fumes (and meth) for a long time at that point and needed to rest and refit. I don't know what Guderian was smoking when he said otherwise. The French army was still in the field and forming a new defensive line.
Even if the Germans tried more actively to prevent the evacuation (which they regarded as a big victory at the time), the main effect would have been to possibly prevent the fall of France.
Even if the Germans tried more actively to prevent the evacuation (which they regarded as a big victory at the time), the main effect would have been to possibly prevent the fall of France.
Band in China
Banned
So what, does any of this change the RAF, RN, or the distance between Alexandria and Rome? The Brits are weaker, Germany still runs out of oil and luck in the USSR. Commonwealth soldiers shake hands with Soviet troops in Germany.
Churchill may not commit to Greece given his weaker army but Alexandria's still going to be defended. There wasn't a peace faction by then within the UK and the Nazis can't beat the Royal Navy.
Churchill may not commit to Greece given his weaker army but Alexandria's still going to be defended. There wasn't a peace faction by then within the UK and the Nazis can't beat the Royal Navy.
A lot of reactions only look at the militairy side but ignore that war is diplomacy. If operation Dynamo is a failure or far less succesfull, at least to make it spinn as a succes. Than Churchill will lose confidence and his opponents will take power, who in turn go for terms with Germany. Terms who will cost the British most likely nothing....
Show the minutes of the meeting and not just someones recollections from a book published 30 years later. Lot of people brought up different things from that time period to meet their own recollections and later were found to be misconstrued or otherwise not the facts. Look at all the "recollections" around Pearl Harbor to justify their conclusions.
The British went into Dynamo only planning to get about 30,000 men out if memory serves, and Churchill succeeded Chamberlain specifically because of his desire to continue fighting, it seems unlikely that a less successful operation would've made the British submit.
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
But France is still fighting at the start of June 1940. If/when France (apart from de Gaulle) goes Vichy and surrenders, then it will no longer be true that the UK's main continental ally is (apart from de Gaulle) still fighting.
1Best way to "find" is misquote or misattribute
comes from an alleged statement in a secret meeting
View attachment 899727
i.e. not a direct quote
The second "quote"
Comes from this larger quote from Churchill dismissing a hypothetical as a basis for discussion.
View attachment 899728
Churchill and the Approach to Mussolini and Hitler in May 1940: A Note on JSTOR
Jonathan Knight, Churchill and the Approach to Mussolini and Hitler in May 1940: A Note, British Journal of International Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Apr., 1977), pp. 92-96
1977... lets try something more recent that can better put things into context:
So, Churchill was still fine with Hitler getting former German colonies plus eastern Europe... his only caveat to such an acceptable deal, was that he doubted Hitler would offer it... groundbreaking.
Last edited:
No, Churchill replaced Chamberlain due to his perceived failures on the conduction of the war... failures that we now know were mainly caused by Winnie.
And Chamberlain resigned after winning a no confidence vote.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Not exactly more recent - if you had read the original article I liked to the author was responding to a piece by David Carlton (the same author of your link) had written back in 1976. Basically Carlton is rehashing the same argument 17 years later and quoting such luminaries as Clive Ponting and Alan Clark as supporting players, who whilst they may be entertaining aren't exactly mainstream historians.
You're entiled to believe what you wish - I just wanted to take issue with the suggestion that you were quoting Churchill.
In the case of Churchill, the official notes of the meeting are a better source than the man himself, who is well known for his self serving writing, like most politicians.
I dont know who Knight is either, just that he is obviously drunk on propaganda:
Myths die hard...
Coulsdon Eagle
Monthly Donor
Churchill replaced Chamberlain because the general indolent conduct of the war, added to the realisation that appeasement had not kept the peace and that Churchill was foremost among the prophets of doom now perceived visionary.
Certainly Churchill's second spell at the Admiralty had many flaws and cost many lives, but the game had moved on beyond assigning blame for the failed Norway Campaign to the way Britain had to fight the war. And no-one could reasonably claim Churchill had any influence on the failures of the Army & RAF, only to the extent that he had been warning the Government over the lack of military build-up.
Hell, even the Labour Party, most of whom despised Churchill, chose to serve under him rather than Chamberlain
Look More Closely Later
Gone Fishin'
I'm making the point (or at least trying to make a point) that even if the entire British cabinet were planning to fight on at the end of May 1940 on the basis of losing every last soldier and gun at Dunkirk, they were not planning to fight on on the basis of losing everything at Dunkirk and then France (apart from de Gaulle).
(edited for further attempted clarity)
What I'm trying to put across is that it seems to me that a consequence of losing practically everything at Dunkirk (which the Original Poster wants to discuss) may be a delayed action UK truce/armistice/surrender which occurs if/when France (apart from de Gaulle) goes down. (Although as I have noted, in previous posts, there seem to me to be questions of whether a Germany which has done whatever-the-heck at Dunkirk is capable of then going on to force France to surrender as in the original timeline, and there seem to me to be some posts in favour of this and some posts against.)
Last edited:
You have something to share? The historic record has been pretty well sifted by now, with plenty of researchers looking to count Coup on. Churchill with no information gleaned.
If not, were you just being a jerk?
Every time someone is a jerk on AH.com Sonny the Sea Lion cries
Pleaxe don't make Sonny cry again.
The U.K. and Commonwealth forces don’t suffer the losses in that campaign and the evacuations, whether or not the losses in France means the campaign in the Middle East is influenced is the greater question?
Hitler NEVER wanted to invade the United Kingdom, no one did. No one actually considered Sealion, that's a myth. Sealion was just a response to the United Kingdom refusing to give up the fight when Germany called for peace, it was a huge bluff, and no one in the OKW believed it could even land. Hell, I don't even think that was an actual fully strategized plan and was just to spook Churchill into giving up. Hitler believed in a kick-the-wooden-door strategy, but when it came to the United Kingdom, he wanted to kick British morale.
For Sealion to even land, god-forbid succeed, you need to give Germany enough plot armor to make them a Modern Star Wars Character. The Kriegsmarine's blockade was already beginning to crumble, especially with Hitler going gun-ho into Plan Z and mega battleships. And even if Goring wins the Battle of Britain, all it takes is one miscalculation, or one Hitler Rant turned into an emotion-driven order to destroy their supremacy, as what happened IRL.