Started By
Message

re: How different would WW2 have turned out if Germany didn't delay for 3 days at Dunkirk?

Posted on 7/22/17 at 12:18 am to
Posted by The Boat
Member since Oct 2008
178343 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 12:18 am to
Yeah I feel like average people talking about Dunkirk is a pretty new development. I've always been fascinated with the invasion of France. Germany wrecked them.
Posted by Tiger Prawn
Member since Dec 2016
26338 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 12:46 am to
If the US still develops nukes, after we nuked Japan then Germany would've been up next. Although its possible that Germany could've surrendered before US nuked them with more favorable terms than what they ended up getting after the Allies captured Berlin
Posted by bleeng
The Woodlands
Member since Apr 2013
4442 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 12:48 am to
quote:

how many of that 330K went on to fly Spitfires....


About 190,000 of the rescued were British-and those were BEF (British Expeditionary Forces). Mostly lightly armored infantry and cavalry forces.

I don't think many of those were in the RAF..
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 1:05 am
Posted by CapstoneGrad06
Little Rock
Member since Nov 2008
73505 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 1:04 am to
Yes. But how does an even more catastrophic event at Dunkirk change the likelihood German scientists eventually flee to the United States? Those scientists that played major roles in the Manhattan Project.
Posted by tigersownall
Thibodaux
Member since Sep 2011
17206 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 1:22 am to
Just think if Patton had been Generaling on the other side. We may have never won.
Posted by Merck
Tuscaloosa
Member since Nov 2009
1693 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 1:34 am to
Dunkirk was in 1940, didn't most of the German scientists flee to the US in the 30's?
Posted by Jim Rockford
Member since May 2011
106081 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 2:22 am to
Little known fact: several other British divisions were attached to the French semy in other locations and continued fighting until the French capitulation. The British government intended to re-equip the Dunkirk force and send it back to France. Hostilities ended before they could do so on a large scale, but some did arrive in time to rejoin the fighting.
Posted by CapstoneGrad06
Little Rock
Member since Nov 2008
73505 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 2:37 am to
quote:

Dunkirk was in 1940, didn't most of the German scientists flee to the US in the 30's?


Some did. But others matriculated later. Albert Einstein moved to the US in 1933. He continued to work in helping fellow scientists flee for years afterward.
Posted by cave canem
pullarius dominus
Member since Oct 2012
12186 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 4:34 am to
quote:

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.



No "what if" here at all, the Brits and Americans would have never been able to dislodge the Germans from the continent had the majority of Germany's forces not been engaged in Russia.

Posted by Wolfhound45
Member since Nov 2009
127616 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 5:24 am to
quote:

Watched the movie last night.

-338,000 troops were evacuated to England at Dunkirk from May 27-June
Spoiler alert?












Cannot wait to go see the movie. Most importantly, the U.S. would have been hard pressed to make up for the land mass of Great Britain as a staging base for sea and air operations. Without GB still in the fight it would have meant staging the equivalent of Torch or Overlord completely from the U.S. sea ports. Would have also meant to have to use carriers in the Atlantic because there were no air fields within range of continental Europe. Losing the additional 190,000 from the BEF would have only made the situation that much worse.
Posted by redstick13
Lower Saxony
Member since Feb 2007
41382 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 5:55 am to
quote:

If the US still develops nukes, after we nuked Japan then Germany would've been up next. Although its possible that Germany could've surrendered before US nuked them with more favorable terms than what they ended up getting after the Allies captured Berlin



How about if the Germans also developed nukes? That would have been a game changer.
Posted by GetCocky11
Calgary, AB
Member since Oct 2012
53509 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:04 am to
quote:

It amazes me how many people have never heard of this and are now talking about it.


It is one of the more amazing moments in military history.

However, no Americans were involved, so people don't really know about it in general.
Posted by Revelator
Member since Nov 2008
62296 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:28 am to
quote:

It amazes me how many people have never heard of this and are now talking about it.


There are kids on college campuses that couldn't name our first president so.....
Posted by Martini
Near Athens
Member since Mar 2005
49696 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:32 am to
Of Wine and War

This is a good read on Germany invading France and how the vineyard owners used their resources with the resistance.
Posted by CelticDog
Member since Apr 2015
42867 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 6:52 am to
Hitler is the wild hair. His decisions cannot be modeled by sane people. If robt e lee were running the german operation, germans accept the unconditional surrender of the brits in france as he would have crushed them during the 3 days.. germany then consolidates, "owns" all of europe.
Develops jets.
Nuance improvements missiles.
Nukes.
They attack brits in africa. The french give up french west africa. Germans take entire continent.
Expand east and south across oil arabs to what is now bangladesh and yeman.
No one messes with them to this day.
Would have liberated nonrussian soviet republics, now and then. The Ukraine would have volunteered after the holomodor.

As luck has it, hitler was in charge. Single worst theater commander ever.


Thank you baby jesus.
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 6:58 am
Posted by baldona
Florida
Member since Feb 2016
24474 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 7:32 am to
I thought it was more like 2/3 French so only like 120,000 brits at Dunkirk? Either way, as said Britain won the Battle of Britain in the air and Dunkirk didn't have a huge impact on that outside of morale.

Britain was 50 mil people at the time right? I don't think 200k Loss completely changes the war. Britain was in an all out invasion preparation at the time, arming every man, woman, and child. It would of been a very very difficult island for the Germans to invade.
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 7:32 am
Posted by pensacola
pensacola
Member since Sep 2005
4832 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 7:42 am to
Hitler was the wild hare; Einstein the wild hair. Stonewall would have been eating lemons on the beach by May 25, 1940.
Posted by klrstix
Shreveport, LA
Member since Oct 2006
3643 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:18 am to
quote:

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.


...The real "what if" is if the Germans and Soviets leave each other alone



This... If I recall correctly, 80% of German War resources were directed to this front. The grand strategic mistake was engaging Russia.

Posted by razorbackpat
Member since Nov 2016
231 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:18 am to
would of changed much more than the war. if he pushes forward and kills only 1/3 of the british, think of the impact on british population in the future.

if hitler pushed at dunkirk and swept into suez canal, imo his two biggest mistakes, the world would be a much different place.

although we probably would have just dropped a nuke in germany somewhere
Posted by klrstix
Shreveport, LA
Member since Oct 2006
3643 posts
Posted on 7/22/17 at 8:21 am to
quote:

How about if the Germans also developed nukes?


Do not know the details but they were developing nukes. We just beat them to the finish line.

Also, here is a little known fact... we only developed three nukes. 1 we tested and the other two we dropped on Japan. After we dropped the 2nd one we basically bluffed Japan (and the rest of the world) telling them we would drop more if they did not surrender.

We would not have been able to make more nukes very quickly if they had not surrendered after the 2nd one..
This post was edited on 7/22/17 at 8:26 am
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram