- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
How different would WW2 have turned out if Germany didn't delay for 3 days at Dunkirk?
Posted on 7/21/17 at 10:49 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 10:49 pm
Watched the movie last night.
-338,000 troops were evacuated to England at Dunkirk from May 27-June 4 of 1940.
For some reason, the German forces delayed the assault on the trapped Allies forces at Dunkirk for 3 days leading up to the evacuation.
Had Germany just continued the assault, and either killed most of those 338,000, or forced surrender of those, how would it have affected the outcome of WW2?
..with all of Europe conquered and England virtually defenseless from assault, would Germany have been defeated?
They would not have been fighting a 2-front battle, either when they eventually invaded the USSR.
-338,000 troops were evacuated to England at Dunkirk from May 27-June 4 of 1940.
For some reason, the German forces delayed the assault on the trapped Allies forces at Dunkirk for 3 days leading up to the evacuation.
Had Germany just continued the assault, and either killed most of those 338,000, or forced surrender of those, how would it have affected the outcome of WW2?
..with all of Europe conquered and England virtually defenseless from assault, would Germany have been defeated?
They would not have been fighting a 2-front battle, either when they eventually invaded the USSR.
16
Posted on 7/21/17 at 10:56 pm to LSUAlum2001
Been reading a bit about that decision and there's a few theories as to why Hitler eventually approved the halt, one of the more prevailing ones is that he was the idiot savant of military strategy.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 10:57 pm to LSUAlum2001
Haven't seen the movie yet, but Hitler basically couldn't believe his troops had made the progress they claimed to have made. A major strategic error without which may have been a totally different ending to the war. You have to wonder what was going through his mind.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 10:58 pm to LSUAlum2001
How was the movie? Live up to the hype?
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:00 pm to LSUAlum2001
The Africa campaign and invasion of Sicily/ Italy would've been harder. The RAF and RN would've still been around to guard the home islands. They could've filled the manpower gap but the significant lack of experienced officers and soldiers would've impacted the training of replacements.
The allies would likely still prevail. Once the US joined the war it was over.
The allies would likely still prevail. Once the US joined the war it was over.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:06 pm to LSUAlum2001
If the US still gets nukes the war still ends with an Ally win
Might have resulted in us nuking Berlin though
Might have resulted in us nuking Berlin though
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:06 pm to LSUAlum2001
It amazes me how many people have never heard of this and are now talking about it.
Not saying this is you, but the point remains.
Not saying this is you, but the point remains.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:09 pm to rmnldr
Look at which generals would have been captured
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:10 pm to jimbeam
This one gets a decent amount of play. Hell, one of Churchill's most famous speeches was delivered amidst the context of Dunkirk. I agree, though, that most haven't heard of it until recently. My favorite underrated WW2 campaign has to be the Winter War, though.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:12 pm to LSUAlum2001
Yeah, they were fricking about...
Churchill is the only reason England didn't hand over Europe to the Krauts...
Yet here it is 70 years later and the euros did it anyway
Churchill is the only reason England didn't hand over Europe to the Krauts...
Yet here it is 70 years later and the euros did it anyway
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 11:19 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:16 pm to prplhze2000
Dunkirk podcast
Ray Harris Jr has about 5 podcast episodes covering this topic.
Basically, the Brits would have had to sue for peace and agreed to stand down the campaign around the world in supposed exchange for not invading the British isles.
The French took their rescued soldiers from Dunkirk and dumped them right back into southern France to no avail.
The Germans couldn't believe there wasn't a trap out there and thought the allies would attack their extended left. Also, Hitler wanted the Luftwaffe and not the infantry to get the prize.
Ray Harris Jr has about 5 podcast episodes covering this topic.
Basically, the Brits would have had to sue for peace and agreed to stand down the campaign around the world in supposed exchange for not invading the British isles.
The French took their rescued soldiers from Dunkirk and dumped them right back into southern France to no avail.
The Germans couldn't believe there wasn't a trap out there and thought the allies would attack their extended left. Also, Hitler wanted the Luftwaffe and not the infantry to get the prize.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:17 pm to rmnldr
quote:
The allies would likely still prevail. Once the US joined the war it was over.
Impossible, Germany could've forced a surrender...
There's no way they capture over 300,000 British men, then the war goes on...
There would've been no war for the US to jump into...it would've been US vs. Japan, and even that would've been different...
Hell, we may have aligned with the Krauts and been Socialists far earlier than we accomplished it over the last 15 years...
Dunkirk was a decision point/gateway, even the loss allowed UK to figure out the port issue/mulberries
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:19 pm to jimbeam
quote:
It amazes me how many people have never heard of this and are now talking about it.
Most people probably can't even tell you who the presidents were during WW2.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:24 pm to LSUAlum2001
Just my off-the-cuff opinion.
The Germans would have always been defeated. The US and USSR were producing multiples of planes, tanks, ships, and bullets that the Germans were by 1943.
Plus Germany was outnumbered 317 million (170 USSR;147 US) vs 69 million people in 1940.
Just looking at the 2 main powers and not counting the UK and other allied powers this eventually going to be a slaughter of the Germans whatever happened in Dunkirk. The Allies would have lost a small minority of troops if Dunkirk would not have succeeded. Given the disparate population numbers and manufacturing superiority of the US and USSR the end game started when Germany started WW2.
Germany never had the resources to take and hold GB. That was really their only shot at conquering western Europe and Germany was always operating on borrowed time.
The Germans would have always been defeated. The US and USSR were producing multiples of planes, tanks, ships, and bullets that the Germans were by 1943.
Plus Germany was outnumbered 317 million (170 USSR;147 US) vs 69 million people in 1940.
Just looking at the 2 main powers and not counting the UK and other allied powers this eventually going to be a slaughter of the Germans whatever happened in Dunkirk. The Allies would have lost a small minority of troops if Dunkirk would not have succeeded. Given the disparate population numbers and manufacturing superiority of the US and USSR the end game started when Germany started WW2.
Germany never had the resources to take and hold GB. That was really their only shot at conquering western Europe and Germany was always operating on borrowed time.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:30 pm to bleeng
I agree. 300,000 soldiers was really small potatoes compared to some battles on the eastern front. When Germany attacked the Soviets, the war was over.
Of course, we can see all this now clearly through the lens of history.
The real "what if" is if the Germans and Soviets leave each other alone. The US and Brits are left to take on the Germans without the Soviets killing 7/8ths of them.
Of course, we can see all this now clearly through the lens of history.
The real "what if" is if the Germans and Soviets leave each other alone. The US and Brits are left to take on the Germans without the Soviets killing 7/8ths of them.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 11:33 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:33 pm to pensacola
Another thing I read is that Germany was heavily focused on ground and air, and didn't think they sea was a means for the allies to escape. Really thought they had them trapped.
This post was edited on 7/21/17 at 11:37 pm
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:47 pm to jimbeam
quote:A lot of people are woefully ignorant of WWII; however, a major motion picture directed by one of Hollywood's golden children will make droves of people talk about anything.
amazes me how many people have never heard of this and are now talking about it.
Can you imagine the number of threads that would be started if he made a movie about the JFK assassination? The Poli board would probably have a few bans come out of that one.
Posted on 7/21/17 at 11:55 pm to jimbeam
quote:
It amazes me how many people have never heard of this and are now talking about it.
I think that too, then remember I have a degree in history so I climb down off my high horse.
Posted on 7/22/17 at 12:09 am to LSUAlum2001
Depends, how many of that 330K went on to fly Spitfires, Hurricanes, Mosquitoes, Tempests and Typhoons. English Air and Naval power thwarted an invasion.
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News