ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags World War II history

Reply
Old 14th December 2018, 07:43 AM   #2001
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,001
Subject for a different thread I think.
Not ine that would interest me. I am not keen on historic fiction.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 09:22 AM   #2002
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,306
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Wishful thinking. As has been pointed out to you, and you've repeatedly ignored, Churchill called for large increases in military spending from the time the Nazis first came to power, but until the late 1930s those calls were mostly rejected by Chamberlain, first as Chancellor, and later as PM. Please explain how this squares with your claim that Chamberlain knew war with Germany was inevitable (hint: it doesn't).

This is simply yet another attempt by you to cast appeasement as a good idea, merely because Churchill opposed it. Fail.
Chamberlain was not a pacifist. He supported the reasons for going to war in 1914-18, whatever those reasons were, and he was quoted as saying we must be too strong to be attacked and that we should not delude weak and small countries into thinking they will be protected from aggression by the League of Nations, and that treaties and agreements (like the Munich piece of paper and Nazi -Soviet pact) can not be depended on to keep the peace.

Money was spent by Chamberlain on Spitfires and radar.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th December 2018 at 09:27 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 09:36 AM   #2003
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,306
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Also, Henri, we're still waiting for you to explain, in detail, among other things:
[*]Why Chamberlain ceded the Treaty Ports back to Ireland in 1938, if he knew that war with Germany was inevitable.[/list]
The Treaty Ports were a sore point with the Irish, who had no principles but fought to the death to defend them. It's a bit like all this empty waffle nowadays about the Irish backstop and WTO rules.

There is an explanation about it all at this website:

http://www.theirishstory.com/2018/05.../#.XBPanPZ2suI

Quote:
By 1938, however, both de Valera and the British government of Neville Chamberlain, were eager to normalise relations with each other. De Valera agreed to pay a lump sum towards the land annuities and in return, Chamberlain lift the onerous tariffs on Irish agricultural imports.

Most importantly though, the British agreed to return to Ireland the three ‘Treaty ports’ on the Atlantic Coast.

The British analysis was that the ports had not been well-maintained, required investment and would be difficult to defend in wartime should the Irish ever try to take them back. But the British thought they were being returned to Ireland on the implicit understanding that British naval forces would be allowed to use them in the event of a European war.

De Valera, on the other hand, had insisted that the return of the ports be unconditional and when war broke out, refused the British request to use the ports as anti-submarine bases.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 14th December 2018 at 09:41 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 11:38 AM   #2004
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,566
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
The Treaty Ports were a sore point with the Irish, who had no principles but fought to the death to defend them. It's a bit like all this empty waffle nowadays about the Irish backstop and WTO rules.

There is an explanation about it all at this website:

http://www.theirishstory.com/2018/05.../#.XBPanPZ2suI
You do realize that the Irish were being totally principled here:

The Irish were maintaining that they were a sovereign nation.
One of the principles of sovereignty is territorial integrity.
Allowing the naval forces of another nation (and one that you'd just fought a war against to become sovereign to boot) to freely use naval bases in your country is contrary to the principles of territorial sovereignty.

You might want to tone down the anti-Irish bigotry to "non-existent" from the "racist grandpa claiming "some of my best friends are.."" levels your doing now.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 11:58 AM   #2005
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,566
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was not a pacifist. He supported the reasons for going to war in 1914-18, whatever those reasons were, and he was quoted as saying we must be too strong to be attacked and that we should not delude weak and small countries into thinking they will be protected from aggression by the League of Nations, and that treaties and agreements (like the Munich piece of paper and Nazi -Soviet pact) can not be depended on to keep the peace.

Money was spent by Chamberlain on Spitfires and radar.
You realize that Great Britain went to war in 1914 as a result of its treaty obligations to Belgium, a small country that needed protection from a larger one.

__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 04:14 PM   #2006
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,612
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Dunkirk may be the greatest military achievement of all time, and it came in the form of a defeat.
Depends how you look at it. In von Clausewitz's view, decisive victory meant not only driving the enemy from a particular battlefield, but pursuing them and destroying their ability to fight.

Thus the pursuit of the enemy is the final and most important part of achieving victory in battle. Von Clausewitz observes that this is both the easiest and most difficult part of the victory. Easy, because the enemy is in disarray. Their actions are uncoordinated and ill-informed. It may be some time before their retreat is organized. Hard, because the victor is also in disarray - at the moment of taking the battlefield, they are at their weakest and most disorganized. It is very difficult at that moment to assemble a force of troops who can swiftly and successfully chase down the retreating enemy.

Thus, in turn, the acme of success on the battlefield is not the winning of the battle itself, but the winning of the pursuit that follows. If the victory is to be decisive, the retreating enemy must be pursued and destroyed. There are three things to destroy: The fighting force itself; their arms, and their morale.

The defeat to which the Dunkirk is related is not the Battle of Dunkirk itself, but the Battle of Arras, which the Allies lost, and which forced the BEF into retreat. At that point it was the German task to pursue the retreating British and destroy them as a fighting force.

This the Germans failed to do. They succeeded in part. The British were forced to abandon their arms. But the fighting force itself escaped. What's more, far from a devastating loss of morale, British morale actually increased following Dunkirk. In this context, I consider the Battle of Dunkirk to be a victory for the British, who succeeded in making their retreat, without their arms, but with their fighting force intact and their morale improved. And I consider it a defeat for the Germans, who needed to pursue and destroy the British, and failed to do so.

In terms of the morale victory alone, I would say that Dunkirk was the moment Great Britain won the war.

Last edited by theprestige; 14th December 2018 at 04:20 PM.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 04:26 PM   #2007
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,582
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The defeat to which the Dunkirk is related is not the Battle of Dunkirk itself, but the Battle of Arras, which the Allies lost, and which forced the BEF into retreat. At that point it was the German task to pursue the retreating British and destroy them as a fighting force.
Arras was a minor action, a small scale raid by 74 British tanks and 2000 infantry. Its only real impact on the Germans was to confirm the need for the Panzers to pause and regroup so that their infantry support could catch up. It had no real strategic significance beyond that, the British had been retreating well before Arras took place on 21st May and the Germans most certainly did pursue them, its largely down to the efforts of the British and French soldiers holding the perimeter that they failed to destroy the BEF. A good book to get an overview of the Dunkirk battle is Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory by Julian Thomson
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 04:35 PM   #2008
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,582
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was not a pacifist. He supported the reasons for going to war in 1914-18, whatever those reasons were, and he was quoted as saying we must be too strong to be attacked and that we should not delude weak and small countries into thinking they will be protected from aggression by the League of Nations, and that treaties and agreements (like the Munich piece of paper and Nazi -Soviet pact) can not be depended on to keep the peace.
So yet another topic you couldn't be bothered to research then?

Quote:
Money was spent by Chamberlain on Spitfires and radar.
Not it was spent by the British government and while Chamberlain was reluctantly nudged into these measures he left the army desperately short of resources.


Here's an actual quote from the time, repeated in the book Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory.

Quote:
History provides many examples of a British army being asked to operate under appalling handicaps by the politicians responsible for British policy, but I doubted that the British Army had ever found itself in a graver position than that in which the governments of the last twenty years had placed it.

Major-General Noel Mason-MacFarlane briefing the press 15 May 1940
Now I wonder who was a major player in the governments of that prewar period? Hint, it wasn't Churchill.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 04:41 PM   #2009
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,612
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
Arras was a minor action, a small scale raid by 74 British tanks and 2000 infantry. Its only real impact on the Germans was to confirm the need for the Panzers to pause and regroup so that their infantry support could catch up. It had no real strategic significance beyond that, the British had been retreating well before Arras took place on 21st May and the Germans most certainly did pursue them, its largely down to the efforts of the British and French soldiers holding the perimeter that they failed to destroy the BEF. A good book to get an overview of the Dunkirk battle is Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory by Julian Thomson
Thanks for the correction. I apologize for mischaracterizing the battle of Arras.

I never said the Germans did not pursue; only that their pursuit was unsuccessful in its task; and that Dunkirk was therefore a defeat for the Germans, and a victory for the British and the French.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 05:38 PM   #2010
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,582
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Thanks for the correction. I apologize for mischaracterizing the battle of Arras.
No problem, both sides had their reasons for exaggerating its importance over the years, portraying it as the key reason for the infamous 'Halt Order'.

Quote:
I never said the Germans did not pursue; only that their pursuit was unsuccessful in its task; and that Dunkirk was therefore a defeat for the Germans, and a victory for the British and the French.
And on this we are in complete agreement
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 09:47 AM   #2011
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,822
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Depends how you look at it. In von Clausewitz's view, decisive victory meant not only driving the enemy from a particular battlefield, but pursuing them and destroying their ability to fight.

Thus the pursuit of the enemy is the final and most important part of achieving victory in battle. Von Clausewitz observes that this is both the easiest and most difficult part of the victory. Easy, because the enemy is in disarray. Their actions are uncoordinated and ill-informed. It may be some time before their retreat is organized. Hard, because the victor is also in disarray - at the moment of taking the battlefield, they are at their weakest and most disorganized. It is very difficult at that moment to assemble a force of troops who can swiftly and successfully chase down the retreating enemy.

Thus, in turn, the acme of success on the battlefield is not the winning of the battle itself, but the winning of the pursuit that follows. If the victory is to be decisive, the retreating enemy must be pursued and destroyed. There are three things to destroy: The fighting force itself; their arms, and their morale.

The defeat to which the Dunkirk is related is not the Battle of Dunkirk itself, but the Battle of Arras, which the Allies lost, and which forced the BEF into retreat. At that point it was the German task to pursue the retreating British and destroy them as a fighting force.

This the Germans failed to do. They succeeded in part. The British were forced to abandon their arms. But the fighting force itself escaped. What's more, far from a devastating loss of morale, British morale actually increased following Dunkirk. In this context, I consider the Battle of Dunkirk to be a victory for the British, who succeeded in making their retreat, without their arms, but with their fighting force intact and their morale improved. And I consider it a defeat for the Germans, who needed to pursue and destroy the British, and failed to do so.

In terms of the morale victory alone, I would say that Dunkirk was the moment Great Britain won the war.
Thanks,
I think we are saying the same thing, you just said it more clearly.

I was saying that
Quote:
Dunkirk may be the greatest military achievement of all time, and it came in the form of a defeat
I should have said, Dunkirk may be the greatest military achievement, and it came in the form of a RETREAT.

Definitely not a defeat.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 10:07 AM   #2012
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,518
Was Dunkirk a victory? Yes or no? Even Churchill basically contradicted himself within two sentences.

We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations. But there was a victory inside this deliverance, which should be noted.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 10:34 AM   #2013
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,612
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
Was Dunkirk a victory? Yes or no? Even Churchill basically contradicted himself within two sentences.

We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations. But there was a victory inside this deliverance, which should be noted.
I don't see a contradiction here. Human emotions are not systems of formal logic. Neither is commerce; nor is its close cousin, warfare.

Churchill is making a complex, but very important point. The successful evacuation of Dunkirk was a defeat for the Germans and a victory for the British. It was important for the British to recognize this victory and gain the morale improvement that comes with success in battle.

However, it was also important for the British to not rest on their laurels, and squander their great morale gains. Churchill wanted to convert that good feeling into grim resolve. So he reminded his countrymen that there was more fighting to be done, and that final victory in the war would not be a matter of successful retreat, but of determination to bring the battle back to the enemy, and defeat him outright.

"Good job escaping from the battle, but remember that we have not escaped from the war."
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 11:07 AM   #2014
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,518
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I don't see a contradiction here. Human emotions are not systems of formal logic. Neither is commerce; nor is its close cousin, warfare.

Churchill is making a complex, but very important point. The successful evacuation of Dunkirk was a defeat for the Germans and a victory for the British. It was important for the British to recognize this victory and gain the morale improvement that comes with success in battle.

However, it was also important for the British to not rest on their laurels, and squander their great morale gains. Churchill wanted to convert that good feeling into grim resolve. So he reminded his countrymen that there was more fighting to be done, and that final victory in the war would not be a matter of successful retreat, but of determination to bring the battle back to the enemy, and defeat him outright.

"Good job escaping from the battle, but remember that we have not escaped from the war."
My point was, there really is no way to win an argument of whether it was a victory or defeat. Dunkirk wasn't a tactical or strategic withdrawal. It was an evacuation, the BEF was leaving the field of battle. The Battle of France was lost, in truly stunningly quick fashion. Not even the Germans really expected a victory that quickly. In that sense it was a defeat. OTOH, evacuating the large majority of the BEF when it seemed days earlier perhaps no more than a tenth would make it out, is a defeat for the enemy... and a defeat to your enemy is in some sense at least, always a victory.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 12:16 PM   #2015
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 31,612
In my view, there's no argument to win. Quibbling about whether Dunkirk was a victory betrays a fairly impoverished understanding of warfare.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 01:54 PM   #2016
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,822
The closure of the Dunkirk beachhead would have been devastating.

If they had captured the BEF in France. The pressure to negotiate a ceasefire for the return of the troops would have been enormous.

210,000 British soldiers having to surrender to Hitler would have probably ended the war.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 07:32 PM   #2017
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
My point was, there really is no way to win an argument of whether it was a victory or defeat. Dunkirk wasn't a tactical or strategic withdrawal. It was an evacuation, the BEF was leaving the field of battle. The Battle of France was lost, in truly stunningly quick fashion. Not even the Germans really expected a victory that quickly. In that sense it was a defeat. OTOH, evacuating the large majority of the BEF when it seemed days earlier perhaps no more than a tenth would make it out, is a defeat for the enemy... and a defeat to your enemy is in some sense at least, always a victory.
Actually it is fairly easy to win an argument about whether or not Dunkirk was a defeat or victory. just apply the normal criteria for deciding whether or not a battle is a victory or defeat. If you do then it is obviously a German victory. Successful flight from a battlefield is not much of a victory or a victory at all the overwhelming majority of the time. Especially since the BEF, left behind over 700 tanks, (40,000 British solders were captured in and around Dunkirk), practically all of it's heavy artillery, masses of trucks, great amounts of guns, ammunition etc. In fact so much equipment was lost it took months to rearm the British divisions. In fact many of the men even lost their rifles!

During and after the war the British were very successful in portraying Dunkirk has a "victory", when it was actually a serious defeat.

It was only a "victory" in the sense that if not for the skill and bravery of the various services involved the great majority of the men trapped would have been captured. Although we must here also thank Hitler for his halt order of May 26, 1940 which more or less stopped German forces for c. 3 days.

In other words the defeat at Dunkirk could have been easily much worst but it wasn't and that was very important in the long run. However it still remains a defeat. I just would not categorize has "victory" all the numerous occasions in which a defeated army manages to escape total destruction. If that is the case than the Falaise pocket in 1944 was a German "victory".

Certainly the British being able to more than 200,000 trained men of the BEF to serve in reconstituted divisions was militarily important and it would have been far worst to lose those men into German captivity, but it doesn't make Dunkirk a "victory". It is instead the difference between a serious defeat and a catastrophic one.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 07:47 PM   #2018
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,001
German forces weren't stopped for 3 days.

I am surprised you are repeating that old myth.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2018, 08:31 PM   #2019
Pacal
Graduate Poster
 
Pacal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,005
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
German forces weren't stopped for 3 days.

I am surprised you are repeating that old myth.
Did Hitler give a halt order or not on May 24th 1940? (I gave the wrong date it was the 24th of May and rescinded on the 26th of May), Every account I've read about Dunkirk mentions this halt order. I agree that there is a dispute over how much it actually affected the behavior of German troops. Yes I've read that it had little effect and German troops continued to press forward and in other accounts that it did have an effect. I suspect that the order was partially ignored but that it may have had enough effect to have played an important role in saving the BEF from being largely captured.
Pacal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 07:14 AM   #2020
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,001
The tanks were stopped. They needed to re supply, refit and recover breakdowns.
More importantly the terrain and flooded, wet fields around Dunkirk and it's surroundings would have been a deathtrap for armour. Tanks would have been channelled in to fixed lines of advanced which were well covered by defending AT guns that couldn't have been flanked.
Artillery and infantry attacks continued without a halt and intensified as the perimeters shrank.
Resistance also increased as the retreating forces dug in and formed defensive positions.
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:08 PM   #2021
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,701
Originally Posted by Pacal View Post
Actually it is fairly easy to win an argument about whether or not Dunkirk was a defeat or victory. just apply the normal criteria for deciding whether or not a battle is a victory or defeat. If you do then it is obviously a German victory. Successful flight from a battlefield is not much of a victory or a victory at all the overwhelming majority of the time. Especially since the BEF, left behind over 700 tanks, (40,000 British solders were captured in and around Dunkirk), practically all of it's heavy artillery, masses of trucks, great amounts of guns, ammunition etc. In fact so much equipment was lost it took months to rearm the British divisions. In fact many of the men even lost their rifles!

During and after the war the British were very successful in portraying Dunkirk has a "victory", when it was actually a serious defeat.

It was only a "victory" in the sense that if not for the skill and bravery of the various services involved the great majority of the men trapped would have been captured. Although we must here also thank Hitler for his halt order of May 26, 1940 which more or less stopped German forces for c. 3 days.

In other words the defeat at Dunkirk could have been easily much worst but it wasn't and that was very important in the long run. However it still remains a defeat. I just would not categorize has "victory" all the numerous occasions in which a defeated army manages to escape total destruction. If that is the case than the Falaise pocket in 1944 was a German "victory".

Certainly the British being able to more than 200,000 trained men of the BEF to serve in reconstituted divisions was militarily important and it would have been far worst to lose those men into German captivity, but it doesn't make Dunkirk a "victory". It is instead the difference between a serious defeat and a catastrophic one.
The bit I highlighted is correct. At Dunkirk, the Germans did not achieve their objective; the British did. If we go by simple criteria such as that, it's clearly a British victory. The single and artificial criterion of whoever-controls-the-battlefield to determine victory does not apply at Dunkirk nor at many other places.

While it may be going too far to say Dunkirk was a British victory, it is going equally too far to claim it as German victory. Initially, Germany hoped to place the Allied armies at a strategic disadvantage with Fall Gelb; their unexpectedly wild success led them to modify their objectives to include the conquest of France and peace terms with Britain. They accomplished the first and not the latter.

I recommend re-reading theprestige's comments about Clausewitz and the value (and necessity) of the pursuit. While Clausewitz is somewhat limited in that his framework is quite distinctly Napoleonic style warfare and its constant quest for a battle of annihilation, it is rare to find a military operation in which his words do not offer insight. The Battle of France, The Battle of Aras, the French and British defense of the Dunkirk perimeter, and the successful evacuation of the BEF, even sans equipment, could be put in the original text of On War as the perfect example of what Clausewitz says not only of the necessity of pursuit but of its difficulty.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2018, 01:38 PM   #2022
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,582
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
The tanks were stopped. They needed to re supply, refit and recover breakdowns.
More importantly the terrain and flooded, wet fields around Dunkirk and it's surroundings would have been a deathtrap for armour. Tanks would have been channelled in to fixed lines of advanced which were well covered by defending AT guns that couldn't have been flanked.
Artillery and infantry attacks continued without a halt and intensified as the perimeters shrank.
Resistance also increased as the retreating forces dug in and formed defensive positions.
So for once not referencing 'Wages of Destruction' but Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory instead.

The halt order originated with the front line commanders of the Panzer formations, as you say they recognized the need to regroup, refit and resupply. They also wanted to conserve the panzers for what they saw as the main objective, breaking the French armies to the south, storming into Paris and polishing their egos in the process. This last point also explains why after the war they were so eager to pin responsibility for the halt order on Hitler and exaggerate its effect, establishing the idea that they could have won the war there and then except for 'crazy Hitler'.

The reality was the attacks on the Dunkirk pocket continued unabated during the halt and the Panzer generals had no intention of wasting their armour on reducing a defensive line that was obviously doomed when the real prizes lay elsewhere.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 09:23 AM   #2023
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,306
Chamberlain was right.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 09:49 AM   #2024
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,582
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was right.
Are you seriously so desperate for attention? Here you go, I've noticed you. Now do you have any evidence to back up your numerous claims? Or any evidence for the above? And by evidence I mean something that isn't a blog, political editorial, or other random page thrown up by a google search.

You could have been using the time since your last post to read some real history books, but I wouldn't bet any money on it.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 10:44 AM   #2025
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,047
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was right.
Mao was left?
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 03:50 PM   #2026
Rincewind
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Adirondacks, NY - with Magrat!
Posts: 7,998
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was right.
Chamberlain was wrong.
__________________
I used to think I was happy. then I met Magrat...
Rincewind is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd January 2019, 04:14 PM   #2027
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 19,001
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was right.
about?
Captain_Swoop is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 02:22 AM   #2028
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,384
New year, same old ****.
Tolls is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 02:33 AM   #2029
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,480
In other news, my cat is still dead.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 03:33 AM   #2030
fagin
Philosopher
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 7,047
I still grieve for your loss.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 08:01 AM   #2031
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,767
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Chamberlain was right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...United_Kingdom
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 01:21 PM   #2032
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
In other news, my cat is still dead.

Dave
Although I gather that hasn't stopped Pickle captaining the first Seaborne ferry
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd January 2019, 02:14 PM   #2033
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,480
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
Although I gather that hasn't stopped Pickle captaining the first Seaborne ferry
Or serving as their IT consultant, apparently.

Dsve
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 09:57 AM   #2034
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,306
Originally Posted by Border Reiver View Post
You do realize that the Irish were being totally principled here:

The Irish were maintaining that they were a sovereign nation.
One of the principles of sovereignty is territorial integrity.
Allowing the naval forces of another nation (and one that you'd just fought a war against to become sovereign to boot) to freely use naval bases in your country is contrary to the principles of territorial sovereignty.

You might want to tone down the anti-Irish bigotry to "non-existent" from the "racist grandpa claiming "some of my best friends are.."" levels your doing now.
There was an interesting quote by an actor in a film playing an Irishman in the second world war in which he says the Germans could use ports in Ireland if the British were allowed to use the Irish treaty ports. The matter was more complicated than it appears and was not appeasement. I never liked the way De Valera expressed his sympathy to the Germans about the death of Hitler after the war ended. The matter is explained at this website:

http://www.theirishstory.com/2018/05.../#.XEyP0vZ2suI

Quote:
Because of Ireland’s stance, many in Britain claimed that Ireland was secretly pro-Axis and rumours, mostly unfounded, abounded of German u-boats docking on Ireland’s west coast.

Pressure increased on Ireland to join the war after the entry of the United State in 1941. The American consul in Dublin David Gray, was extremely hostile to Irish neutrality and consistently reported, erroneously, that Irish neutrality was pro-Axis.
This meant that Ireland had to aid the Allies in order placate Britain, avoid a possible British invasion and to avoid American hostility.

At the start of the war, De Valera secretly agreed with the British to share naval and marine intelligence with them.[5]

Dan Bryan, the head of Irish military intelligence, developed particularly close relations with his British counterparts during the war.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 26th January 2019 at 10:04 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th January 2019, 10:17 AM   #2035
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,582
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
There was an interesting quote by an actor in a film playing an Irishman in the second world war in which he says the Germans could use ports in Ireland if the British were allowed to use the Irish treaty ports.
Congratulations this is officially the worst 'evidence' you have ever offered, and I've seen your posts on the Jeffery McDonald thread...
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 03:50 AM   #2036
Henri McPhee
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Bristol UK
Posts: 3,306
Churchill was once described by General Alan Brooke as having an astonishing lack of vision. The British working classes seemed more interested in obtaining a bathroom for their houses at the time. That was the attitude of the workers.
Professor Richard Overy talks and writes sense about appeasement and the second world war and he seems to pop up on TV now and again:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ryonehasgotina

Quote:
Historians have started to reassess Chamberlain over the past few years. This is not just a piece of crude right-wing revisionism. It is clear that Chamberlain's policy always had limits - his "red lines" - but it was also evident that Britain was neither prepared enough nor sufficiently united on the idea of waging world war for a second time in a generation for the government to pursue confrontation. As it was, on the day before Hitler agreed to the Munich Conference, on 27 September 1938, France and Britain were preparing to face the prospect of war if German forces crossed the Czech frontier. Hitler was made to climb down at Munich from the little war he wanted to blood his armed forces and re-assert German predominance in Europe and he bitterly regretted it.

Above all what Chamberlain wanted to avoid was another bloodletting like 1914-18. Though not a pacifist he shared his population's wide antipathy to war. Avoiding war was not just feebleness of spirit, however it might look today, but a desperate, anguished fear that war would do infinitely more damage than a policy of concession.

Chamberlain was right. Unleashing war in 1939 cost more than 50 million lives. Remarkably few of them were British, which perhaps explains why 70 years later British politicians can still be found who prefer confrontation to appeasement, and why the Labour party, which has eagerly joined in every war going in the past decade, thinks fighting must be morally preferred to peace for our time too.

Last edited by Henri McPhee; 9th February 2019 at 03:52 AM.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th February 2019, 09:08 AM   #2037
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,582
Originally Posted by Henri McPhee View Post
Churchill was once described by General Alan Brooke as having an astonishing lack of vision. The British working classes seemed more interested in obtaining a bathroom for their houses at the time. That was the attitude of the workers.
Professor Richard Overy talks and writes sense about appeasement and the second world war and he seems to pop up on TV now and again:

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ryonehasgotina
So another commentary that has more to do with modern politics than the history of appeasement. Granted this one is by an actual historian but contains nothing that hasn't already been thrashed out in this thread. Which of Overy's books have you read?
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.