Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Dunkirk/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Inconsistencies

The figures for losses (deaths) per nation or per side as given in the infobox seem inconsistent with those in the text (which are incomplete anyway). Can someone sort them out?

Also, what is the sentence "a total of 5 countries took part in the evacuation..." supposed to mean? Could this be either expanded or removed? --Kotniski (talk) 09:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this correct?

In an edit by 80.42.199.96 (talk · contribs) on June 13, 2007, it was claimed that 1,212,000 British, French, Dutch, and Belgian soldiers were captured (among many other figures which should therefore also be questioned). The article's infobox claims 34,000 captured, which seems like a much more realistic figure, given my limited understanding of the event and the remaining text of the article. No reference was provided. This seems fishy. Neil916 (Talk) 07:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

There is reference to RASC 'retrieving & refurbishing....antique 1930s workhorses (some with only rear-wheel braking, which made them illegal for use on British roads)' This is incorrect. The absence of front-wheel brakes is still legal, as long as the vehicle was first used before 1968. Also in 1940 a 1930s vehicle would still be considered current - anything dragged out of the scrapyard would be older. I wonder if the contributor was thinking of, say, Ford Tonner trucks which had rear-wheel-only braking until 1927.

Jembow (talk) 10:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Decisive German victory

It most definitely is. Wallie (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please respond before just reverting. Ref: [1]

This topic has certainly been discussed before. A summation of some of the arguments follows:
Not a tactical victory: The infobox summary indicated the battle was a German tactical victory and Allied strategic victory. I think this conclusion is incorrect. German failure to prevent the evacuation can't be considered a tacical success. Although the successful escape of the troops boosted British morale, it only avoided the complete disaster of their capture, and the results of the battle setup the conquest of France. That outcome isn't a victory at the strategic level. I changed the results accordingly.StephenMacmanus 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
More than a tactical victory: Surely the box should read ``Decisive Axis victory; Allied evacuation to England? laddiebuck 20:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
British loss/defeat: I would classify this as a British loss due to the fact that it resulted in the evacuation of the British Army from Europe. ~ Butros (Talk) 22:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
A tactical victory:It was clearly an idiotic strategic defeat; but the German victory, I think, would be classified as pyrrhic. Wally 19:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you edit to say Decisive? I put German tactical victory for now. This is what the Front page says today. Of course this is difficult question to answer. In one sense it was a great Germen victory, as they drove the British out of France and captured much material. In another sense it was a Great British victory, since the seccessfully saved the great bulk of their forces on the continent from what appeared to be an intenable situtation. MarcusGraly 17:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
More than a tactical victory: an evacuation cannot be considered a victorious battle. it is only in the british propaganda. the nazi flag was raised in dunkirk... yeah a total allied victory. actually the french general Weygand wanted an allied counter-attack against the german but british general Dort refused and argued for an evacuation. the british chief of staff approved Dort on the 26, the rest is history. Shame On You 23:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
More than a tactical victory:Allied victory?Is this a British army propaganda page?Ok allies managed to evacuate but this is not decisive either.This article says had these forces been destroyed Britain would be defenceless against vast German armies.To be honest they still were.The reason Germany did not try to invade Britain was the lack of protection for their armies during sea voyage to Britain not Lord Gorts 14 division expeditionary force. User unknown

As you can see, there are differing opinions stated, and in order to gain consensus, some research into contemporary and current historical assessments must be made. The fact that the German triumph was tempered by the evacuation and "escape" of a sizable army does not preclude describing the action as a "decisive" victory but acknowledging that a complete victory would include the capture and surrender of the opposing force, which was not fully realized. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

Can you not see what is frustrating here. Every time the British suffer a defeat, it is somehow called something else, which looks like the British won. When the Germans or Japanese suffer a defeat, it is always called that. Can you not see that this is bias? Wallie (talk) 13:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Establishing a consensus can be like herding cats. I have been involved in a number of these contentious issues and the usual practice is to begin with a talk page query, ask for opinions (some of which were already found here as this seems to be a topic that has already engendered discussion in the past), then formally announce that a vote is being taken. The tally is not as crucial as one might guess as the current definition of a consensus is the acceptance of the majority decision not the majority prevailing by vote count. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
How did I know who;d bring this up before I even opened the page? Wallie, as in every other article you've brought this up in, my line has always been clear. Find some reliable sources stating your viewpoint, and don't just steam in demanding changes and declaring British/English bias. I'm finding my AGF exhausted by you, mate - why don't you ever bring in any sources to back your argument up? You now seem to be hopping from article to article, doing nothing but argue but do nothing productive. So, where are your sources for German Victory this time? Skinny87 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we must call it a German victory of some degree (after all, they did win!) For me, the comparable Allied equivalent is the Falaise Pocket, which fell short of a total victory only in as much as around 100,000 Germans escaped the pocket, though minus virtually all their equipment etc. I appreciate that, like Falaise, at Dunkirk the escaped soldiers would form the nucleus of a subsequent force, but I think that's largely irrelevant to the actual battle. My personal preference would be to remove these items entirely from the infoboxes, as the outcome of many battles can't be easily and succinctly put into a few words, but I appreciate the reasons why many editors like them. EyeSerenetalk 15:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
    • We don't write wikipedia articles to please ourselves, even if most feedback is from other wikieditors, we do serve the readers of wikipedia and should not abstain from any struggle to actually help them get better informed. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
      • ...which is exactly why I'd rather see them removed as too simplistic to be useful (either that, or expanded to give a more complete picture). I think in trying to summarise the outcome of a battle in so few words we'll always run a risk of introducing OR, POV, or undue weight, but that doesn't mean it's inevitable ;) Your section below listing the sources is definitely the best way to go. EyeSerenetalk 20:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • In my view, It would be best to leave this part of the infobox empty. As there was no clear result of this operation and historians' views on it differ, we've never going to reach a consensus view on what to write here, and it would be an over-simplification even if consensus was possible. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
    • That seems the simplest solution to me. Essentially this section of the infobox should be the briefest of summaries of the Aftermath section, and where there's any disagreement or difference of emphasis among the sources (which there almost always is), the space is too limited to properly reflect that. However, I don't want to discourage editors from trying to reach a consensus if they want to keep this infonugget in the article ;) EyeSerenetalk 08:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
      • So far all sources call it a British defeat. Thus I don't see any conflict. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
        • It would be nice to have some more sources though, and I've gone through my rather limited collection related to Dunkirk. I'll pop up to the Uni Library and the Public Library in the next few days, but anyone else helping out would be appreciated! Skinny87 (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources about Dunkirk

Please list here WP:reliable sources and what they say about the outcome of the Battle of Dunkirk. Btw. I'm German and have no British biases. Wandalstouring (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

  • David French, Raising Churchill's Army: The British Army and the War against Germany 1919-1945, Oxford University Press, 2001. Page 156: 'The British defeat in 1940 owed much to a poor allied plan of campaign.' In the previous paragraph, which begins the chapter, he gives 'British defeat' in context of '...Britain's defeat at Dunkirk'. Skinny87 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • John Colville, The Fringes of Power, The Lyons Press, 1985. Primary source, but Colville was Churchill's Private Secretary and kept a diary throughout the war. Diary entry for 31 May, p. 144: 'Everybody elated by the progress of the evacuation. One of the world's greatest defeats is being redeemed by an outstanding achievement of organisation and gallantry.' Skinny87 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the website currently being used to source that Dunkirk was a decisive German victory ([2]) doesn't actually say anthat clearly - if you read it carefully, the campaign described as a desicive German victory in that article is actually the Battle of France. (This is not to say that Dunkirk was or wasn't a desicive German victory, only that that particular article doesn't clearly corroborate the statement).--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I concur; the article from the Holocaust Museum site, is not a good assessment as it is unidentified as to the author or date. The actual quote is: "The German western campaign in May 1940 decisively defeated the British and French forces arrayed against it." which is not specifically referring to the Dunkirk action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC).
The Oxford Companion to World War II doesn't say whether either side 'won' or 'lost' this battle, though it does speculate that the German decision not to press the attack may have cost Germany the war (p. 243 of the 2005 hardback edition). Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
That's only speculation about alternative history. Does it say in what way this would have affected the British because neither navy nor airforce were at stake? Wandalstouring (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
No. Both the RAF and RN suffered serious losses during the evacuation, by the way, with the RN's vital destroyer force taking a pounding. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I just checked a few other sources. John Keegan doesn't assign a winner or loser in his book The Second World War (pg 66-67), and neither does Gerhard L. Weinberg in his A World At Arms (pg 131). In his book To Lose a Battle Alistair Horne states that the battle was "regarded by the British" as "a great triumph", regarded by the French as a serious defeat and marked a defeat for Germany's "overall war strategy". Ian Kershaw argues in his book Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis that Dunkirk was a "massive defeat for Britain" which was later portrayed by Churchill and "popular myth" as a symbol of British fighting spirit (pg 295-297). Kershaw does also argue that the successful evacuation was a key factor behind Britain not seeking peace terms though. Correlli Barnett labels the evacuation a success in Engage the Enemy More Closely. The Royal Navy in the Second World War and suggests that its long-term effects may have been "one of the deciding factors" of the war, but also notes that "in the short term ... the evacuation consummated the destruction of the Allied Northern Army Group" (pg 162). This is obviously only a fraction of the literature on this topic, but it strongly suggests that it's impossible to attempt to determine a 'winner' and 'loser' in this battle as there is no consensus view on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could support "German tactical victory but strategic defeat" then, though perhaps (as Jackyd101 suggested on the Milhist talk page,) a link to the Aftermath section and a very brief explanation might be the best way to go? Something like "Interpretations of the battle differ; see Aftermath for more details"? I wish I could remember where I read that the Germans had done Britain a huge favour by capturing so many WWI 'old guard' officers, thus making way for new blood (and new thinking) in the British Army. EyeSerenetalk 09:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's make a difference. The evacuation was a success and it had positive longterm effects on the British military. Only Alistar Horne argues that the battle was a British success in the book To Lose a Battle making it a rather ambivalent statement. Please point out, how he solves the discrepancy between the book's title and his assessment. As long as that isn't clear, I'm disregarding him.
Summarizing what so far most sources say, we can claim the battle to be a British defeat(French, Kershaw, Colville) that was redeemed(Colville) by the successful evacuation(Barnett) leading to claims that there was no winner or loser(Keegan, Weinberg).
I suggest, a "redeemed British defeat" is the closest we can argument with the sources.
"German tactical victory but strategic defeat" is a bit on the alternative history side because none of our sources calls it that way and there was the Battle of Britain that got aborted for more world conquest in Russia. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I like your summation Wandal - possibly put that in a note with all of that cited in the article? Oh, as to Horne, I believe his book refers to the French losing the Battle of France, not the British losing the Battle of Dunkirk! Skinny87 (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems reasonable, and better summarises the sources than my suggestion. Horne seems to equate the battle with the evacuation; I suppose if one considers the battle's objective from the British perspective as the evacuation of as much of the BEF and local French forces as possible, and from the German perspective as the prevention of said evacuation, then it can be described as a British victory (although this is slightly perverse). However, I don't think he can be completely disregarded based on the title he chose for his book; we should still mention his view with appropriate weight, but in the Aftermath section not the infobox. EyeSerenetalk 12:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
That's the problem. What was the German objective?
"The true reason for Hitler's decision to halt the German armour is a matter of debate. The most popular theory is that Von Rundstedt and Hitler agreed to conserve the armor for Fall Rot, an operation to the south.[5] Another theory was that Hitler was still trying to establish diplomatic peace with Britain before Operation Barbarossa so the Germans could have an potential allied force against the Russians."
It was Hitler who called to a halt the armoured attack. It's an enigma why the Greatest Fieldmarshall of all Times (Gröfaz) did so. As long as that isn't clear, we lack any idea about the German objective. How can anyone judge them failing or achieving an unknown objective? Wandalstouring (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, true. Although surely allowing the remains of the BEF to escape was a failure? I still think the idea of having 'Disputed' and then a note summarizing historians views. Heck, why not an entire section that 'Disputed' could redirect to? Skinny87 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
The usual course of events is to allow at least a week to gather comments prior to calling for a consensus but it does appear that there is at least a formulation of an idea of what to ask for, as judged by the discussion "string" above. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the reminder, Bzuk ;) I don't see a need to be too prescriptive about using any particular format for judging consensus; personally I like seeing it emerge naturally as the result of discussion - as appears to be happening here - rather than by, say, taking !votes or straw polls (although these have their place). Happily we don't seem to have any polarisation or entrenched positions yet...
Wandal, you're absolutely right of course, and that's why I think Horne is over-reaching the known facts when he calls it a British victory. With no agreement about German intentions it's not surpising there's none about the outcome, although I think your suggestion fairly reflects the weight of opinion. However, I still believe per Skinny we'll need a link to the aftermath section (or a fairly lengthy footnote!) explaining all this.
Some of us had something similar recently with Operation Epsom, and we ended up writing a section on the historical analysis of the battle to avoid bogging down the rest of the article with all the different interpretations. I wonder if something like that might be useful in this article? EyeSerenetalk 15:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I concur that we should give the result with a wikilink to a detailed discussion of the problems assessing this battle and how different scholars arrived at different conclusions.
My suggestion: redeemed British defeat (dispute about the assessment) Wandalstouring (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(←)That works for me - 'redeemed' sounds slightly awkward, but I can't think of anything better :P EyeSerenetalk 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, like that idea as well. Skinny87 (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Can someone write a section about the assessment dispute? I don't have the sources at hand. Thank you. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
My uni library has a few titles; I'll try and start one in a while. Skinny87 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits

The use of extensive quotes is a real problem as they tend to break up the narrative and are entirely unnecessary. Rather than relying on quotes, there should be a summation of the statement and "real" writing involved. What say you? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC).

  • Well, I understand that concern. I think quotes from the principal movers and shakers provide valuable context and support — but I wouldn't want them to break up the narrative flow. In an attempt to overcome this, I will move them to quote boxes off to one side of the article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
The latest change however, is entirely acceptable and does help the article. Using a sidebar is a great solution. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC).
Thank you. Stopping for the moment, because the edit conflicts as we both work on it are driving me nuts.  :) I'll rough in some more tonight.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about that, Chief! (quoting Maxwell Smart...) FWiW , the edit conflict pop-up didn't show, so I assume I was one ahead of you. I have stopped as well. Bzuk (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC).
I did not see the editing tag on the article (still using a laptop MAC) but will resist the urge to put in my 2¢ for now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC).
Bear with me! :)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
←Done for the moment, thanks for waiting.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh! Good thought of yours, to look in MacDonald 1986. There's some nice little nuggets to add in that.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Poland a belligerent?

Was Poland an independent belligerent? There were Polish troops present, but there were many other nationalities too; were the Polish an independent command, or fighting under French or British command? Cyclopaedic (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Polish army in the exile was a separate armed force. BTW, were there really any Polish troops present at Dunkerque?--ja_62 (talk) 10:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but certainly not a substantial number as the bulk of the Polish contingent had made its way southward by the time of the action. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC).
  • Poland was also a belligerent in the Battle of Britain.  :) About 15% of the German planes shot down, were actually shot down by Polish pilots flying British machines. It was the difference between victory and defeat.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no doubting the contribution of Polish troops and airmen to the Allied war effort in the West, but I don't think that's the same thing as being a belligerent for the purpose of the infobox. The article mentions Polish troops being evacuated, but makes no other mention. Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Right you are, although their contributions were significant, in many cases, such as the Battle of Britain, Poles did not operate as an independent service. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Reading Polish Army in France (1939-1940), it appears that Polish troops fought under French command, but there is no mention of them being engaged in the Battle of Dunkirk. Removing the flag icon. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying quotes

There are some quotes in this article that do not make it clear that a) they relate to the halt order b) that these are claims and not facts. Brian Bond has highlighted Hitler's claim came in February 1945, and it was a lie. The military orders (Directive No. 13) make it clear that "English" land forces were marked out for destruction as were the naval vessels aiding their escape. After all, are we seriously going to take Adolf Hitler's word for it? Or for that matter the German General Staff? Hardly trustworthy sources. And if they are to be used, this article should state they claimed this to be the case only. Dapi89 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Editorialising

I think that this edit is editorialising -- essentially, it converts a statement of fact into a point of view (about Hitler's ability to control his generals). It's okay to present a point of view about Hitler's relationship with his troops, if the point of view is relevant to the facts and attributed to a reliable source.

In short, I object to the edit and would be happier if it were removed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur, but the statement can be then tagged with a <fact> request rather than arbitrary removal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
{{fact}} does not appear to be an appropriate tag, to me. It's not the fact that's in dispute, but the point of view that's been added to it.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It's a bit of formatting issue, when you write a fact tag, it comes up as "citation required", see article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
Remember that a suitable length of time is required, usually a month will suffice. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Stop Order?

Christa Schroeder (Hitler's secretary, whose later recollection and motivation in 'Er War mein Chef' might well be open to question) has this passage (English Translation, Chapter 7, Page 81): 'Explaining why he had not destroyed the BEF at Dunkirk, Hitler told his intimate circle: "Their army is the backbone of Britain and the empire. If we had destroyed the BEF, the empire would follow. As we neither wish to be, nor can be its successor, we had to give it a chance. My generals have not been able to understand that." Hitler was scuppered, so to speak, by his spurned love for Great Britain.' - the last sentence is hers, not mine! This direct statement from Hitler is from eye witness in postwar memoirs! Truly good source to solve this puzzle why Hitler’s order halt the BEF and never finished them up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.71.240 (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 86.172.119.208 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism? ("I like bunnies")

I'm new here, so sorry if I'm mistaken, but I think someone snuck "I like bunnies" into the "quotes from Hitler's halt order" box. I'm presuming that Halder didn't write that at all, but even if he did I would think it should be replaced by an ellipsis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.178.64 (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, Halder hadn't written it. Thank you for your notification. --ja_62 19:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

German casualties

"52,252 killed or woundedb 8,467 missing or captured"

How could the Germans lost so many men in the battle of Dunkirk alone if during the entire Fall Gelb they lost 10,252 dead, 8,463 missing and 42,523 wounded?

It is thus certain that someone attributed losses suffered during the entire Fall Gelb to just one battle.

Peter558 (talk) 02:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding map?

Perhaps a map (like in German article) should be added? DrunkSquirrel (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"Allied Evacuation"?

I don't understand this terminology. Its hardly impartial. The Battle of Dunkirk was, essentially, a German victory. Evacuation would imply defeat, or the product of one, just as there were countless "successful evacuations" by Allied and Axis powers ensuing major defeats. Even Winston Churchill considered Dunkirk to be a defeat.

If we're to start labeling the result a "Successful Allied Evacuation", then shouldn't we start calling the Invasion of Normandy a "successful German evacuation"? Or could we perhaps remove the bias from this article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.245.222 (talk • contribs)

  • At the time, it was widely understood as a good result for the Allies. Nowadays, seen in context, it is still widely understood as a positive outcome for the Allies in the sources. Winston Churchill considered Dunkirk to be a "deliverance", and I think that's the right concept, although I would prefer a more encyclopaedic phrasing.

    At the start of the Battle of Dunkirk, it was understood that there were two possible outcomes: the Allied forces in France could be wiped out completely, or some might escape the jaws of destruction. In the event, more than was ever thought possible were saved. "Victory" is a strong word, and I don't think it was really the kind of success for the Wehrmacht for which the word "German victory" should really be used. Their objective was not to capture Dunkirk, but to destroy the Allied forces.

    The defeat was really the Battle of France as a whole. Dunkirk together with Arras were the two rays of light in what was otherwise a very dark time.

    The outcome set out in full was as follows:-

  • German successful capture of territory
  • German failure to destroy the allied forces
  • Allied successful evacuation
  • Allied loss of some men and a large amount of matériel
  • Understood at the time as an Allied "deliverance"
  • The question that we have to answer is how successfully to encapsulate that in a brief statement. Given the amount of controversy we've seen about it, I'm not sure that's possible, and it may be best to leave that box blank rather than use wording that's going to cause the constant feuding we get on this page.—S Marshall T/C 09:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Its a German victory, like it or not. Perhaps it should be worded 'British driven from continent' - the current wording makes it seem that 'evacuation' was the allied strategic plan all along instead of something forced on them by the Germans. Certainly the French thought the British had deserted them, the Belgians surrendered and the British escaped with only the clothes on their backs.
This argument has come up in several other Milhist articles in similar forms. A discussion a couple years ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history resulted in the decision that if there was controversy and edit warring over a result in the info box then results should be left out of info box and both sides of the argument represented - with citations - in the body of the article. The reasoning being that if either side represents real views in reliable sources it should be easy to cite. As it is, without refs, it can be removed by any editor.Tttom1 (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"Successful Allied Evacuation" is woefully inadequate, vague, and belittles the fact that the Allies were virtually driven out of continental Europe. Simply dubbing the battle an Allied retreat without any causation, and denying the fact that it was the product of a series of German victories is quite absurd.

Its also a clear case of bias due to the fact that there are few/no articles featuring Axis rearguard actions that are listed with analogous outcomes.

I'm going to go ahead and change it to "Allied Evacuation/German Tactical Victory". Considering how many personnel were lost and the amount of equipment that was left behind, the use of "successful" is highly debatable and should be left out. The tactical repercussions to the Germans are, in the article's present state, grossly under emphasized which is why I have chosen to include German Victory in an attempt to shift this article to the impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.245.213 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I think this view confuses two different things. Taken as a whole, the Battle of France was a decisive German victory. But the Battle of Dunkirk really wasn't, because Dunkirk began after the Battle of France was tactically over. In other words, at the start of Dunkirk, all the bad things you mention were already guaranteed to happen. So they weren't really the outcome of the Battle of Dunkirk, were they? They were the outcome of the Battle of France.—S Marshall T/C 19:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The battle involved the assault on Dunkirk by the forces of the Third Reich. The aim was to capture the town, Allied equipment, and the Allied forces. The town and Allied equipment were captured, and the Allies suffered heavy casualties. However, Operation Dynamo launched by the Allies was successful in evacuating the Allied forces. This was therefore a German victory - because the Germans won. It was not a pyrrhic victory - because the price of victory was not exorbitant. Strategically it was successful insofar that the pocket of resistance was neutralised, but was objectively unsuccessful in neutralising a force which would become a significant contributor to the Allied war effort in other sectors.
However, the last aspect above has absolutely nothing to do with the Battle of France. The strategic element has little to do with the Battle for France at all. The decisive German victory of the Battle of France was at Sedan because it was that which decided the Battle of France. The Battle of Dunkirk did not decide the Battle of France, but took place within the French theatre. It was objectively a tactical German victory - the only quibble that one can level at that assessment is that there was technically no country called "Germany" at the time, but as per the other articles, the 3rd Reich is commonly referred to as "Germany". It would also not be appropriate to call it an Axis tactical victory as it was exclusive to the forces of the Third Reich.
Moreover, if one is to discount the German victory as a victory, it really raises questions about why there should be two separate articles at all. The evacuation and battle are being treated separately, so it would be logical to... treat them separately.
You know that there are dozens of sources that can be applied to prove this position. All battles have an outcome; and this is no different. Just because you cannot conflate the Battle for France with the Dunkirk evacuation does not mean that one cannot say that there was not a distinct victor. By declaring that such assessment of the battle must be left blank, all you are doing is putting such assessment in abeyance.
AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Would you list these dozens of sources, please?

    Personally, I own three decent sources on Dunkirk. The first is ISBN 9780330437967 and its title is "Dunkirk: Retreat to Victory" by Major-General Julian Thompson. You'll be able to guess from the title that it doesn't conclude that Dunkirk was a "German victory". The second is ISBN 9781853266850 and its title is "The Miracle of Dunkirk" by Walter Lord. Its thesis is that Dunkirk was a "miracle" and a "deliverance" for Britain. Nowhere does it call Dunkirk a German victory. The third, ISBN 9780141024370, is "Dunkirk: Fight to the Last Man" by Hugh Sebag-Montefiore. Its thesis was that the allied conduct at Dunkirk "saved the BEF".

    If you provide reliable sources that specifically describe the Battle of Dunkirk as a German victory, then that of course will carry great weight.—S Marshall T/C 16:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Your sources contradict that the Germans took and held Dunkirk and had a higher kill-death ratio than the Allies? Because, ultimately, these are the markers for describing whether a combatant wins or loses a battle. If Operation Dynamo were merged with this article on the Battle for Dunkirk, there would be a serious case to describe it as German tactical success; German strategic failure. It would be plain silly to describe the Battle of Kiev, for instance, as a German failure, as the Axis both took the city and captured a half-million Soviets; yet the operation may well have cost them the war. There is no historical source which will not say that Dunkirk was captured, nor that the Allies suffered heavily; but they will also likely look at the strategic implications of the allied evacuation, which were of great significance. AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Nope, on Wikipedia the markers for who won and who lost are reliable sources. Our policy on this, WP:V, says "Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it."

    We have three choices for resolving this: you can provide a source; or I can remove the phrase; or we can request a third opinion.—S Marshall T/C 18:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Lord, Walter. The Miracle of Dunkirk. New York: The Viking Press, 1982 / London: Allen Lane, 1983. Citations from the Wordsworth Military Library reprint of 1998. ISBN 1-85326-685-X. p 246.
But in all seriousness, if you feel that strongly about it, do ask for a peer review. As it currently stands, the article is consistent with the description of other battles such as Battle of Bir Hakeim, Battle of Bataan, Siege of Calais (1940), Battle of Timor, etc. etc. where one side achieves tactical victory but delaying actions or evacuations are successfully conducted by the defeated party, with long-term strategic consequences. AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

At the time, the Germans expected the Allied soldiers to either die fighting or surrender, as that was effectively the only choice open to them, no-one had ever before evacuated such a vast number - ~300,000 - of troops from beaches under fire in such a short time as was available, so when Operation Dynamo began few on the German or Allied sides would have thought it would be so successful. Most Germans would have expected the British forces to eventually surrender, as they didn't appear to have any other choice.

A large-scale sea evacuation like Operation Dynamo had never been tried before, and it is possibly still the largest seaborne evacuation of troops under fire ever. As Churchill said; 'Wars are not won by evacuations', but from the British POV Dynamo was an unqualified success. The alternative was to lose the whole BEF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.150 (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"Allied break"

What does this mean?:

German forces around the Dunkirk pocket should cease their advance on the port and consolidate, to avoid an Allied break.

To prevent the Allies from breaking out through the encirclement because the German forces were still strung out in a line approaching the city? {{ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Decisive German Victory?

Tough one this. I mean, sure, on the face of it the German army captured Dunkirk and the BEF fled leaving most of its equipment on the beach and in no shape to fight. On the other hand, if the Battle of Dunkirk is defined as the action that was fought to keep the port open while the evacuation went on, and far more troops were evacuated than even the most gloomy prognostications, there is an argument for it to be at least a partial Allied victory. I don't necessarily agree - Churchill himself said "we must be careful not to ascribe to this defeat the qualities of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations", after all. Surely a "Decisive German Victory" would have involved them quickly capturing Dunkirk, destroying and capturing the entire BEF and whatever French and Belgian troops were also there.

I have no particular strong feelings one way or the other, except that I glanced at the infobox and said "Decisive German Victory? Really?" and thought I'd open the debate. Brickie (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Tactical German victory ? For Operation Dynamo: Allied operational success . Dunkirk was a significant German victory - but it failed in its primary goal of neutralising the Allied forces. Dynamo achieved its objectives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.155.235 (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It was a decisive victory German because, although can not capture large numbers of soldiers, met his goal of bringing to fudamental bef continent, besides the Germans captured a huge amount of material that will preserve much britain. Magmeto616Magneto616 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Do you have a source that calls it a German victory, though? I've not come across an English-language source that calls it that, and I think the view that it was a German victory confuses two different things.

    The Battle of France was a decisive German victory in which the Germans conquered continental western Europe and drove the BEF back to the UK --- but by the time the Battle of Dunkirk began, the Battle of France was over. The Battle of Dunkirk was, from the beginning, a last stand holding-action in which all that mattered was how many Allied troops got away.

    I only have one sources that describes Dunkirk's outcome in terms of victory or defeat. That source calls it a British victory. I think that's misleading, but I've now come to the view that it's misleading to call it a German victory.—S Marshall T/C 10:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, this single battle should be not confused with the much larger campaign and it wasn't here that the germans won their decisive victory, instead it was the culmination of a series of actions already in action much before it was fought. Like the Battle of Corunna it was a tactical victory for the allies and a strategic victory for the germans. Reiftyr (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

First some facts:

  • The BEF was one third of the British army, 9% of all allied ground forces.
  • The British were primarily to control the Channel and provide air support.
  • The RN implemented a successful blockade of Germany.
  • The BEF was mainly on the coast behind the French and Belgians.
  • The BEF was in France and moved into Belgium covering Northern France and Belgium behind the French and Belgians.
  • The French and Belgians capitulated in front of the BEF.
  • The small BEF was facing massive German army in front of them.
  • The BEF stopped the panzers at Arras. Rommel said he thought he had been hit by a force three times the size.
  • General Gort said the BEF will retreat back to the UK facing such overwhelming odds.
  • The British and some French formed the Dunkirk pocket.
  • The Germans tried to annihilate the BEF in the pocket. They failed.
  • The RAF formed a CAP over Dunkirk.
  • More German planes were destroyed than British over Dunkirk.
  • The Luftwaffe was mainly kept away from Dunkirk town and beaches.

The specific Battle of Dunkirk was a decisive Allied victory (mainly British BEF). The British were ordered by General Gort to retreat back to the UK as the French and Belgians had capitulated in front of the them. The small BEF, only 9% of all allied ground forces, were facing a massive German army in front of them. Retreating back to the UK was the only option. The BEF were not pushed into the Dunkirk pocket, the pocket was created because of the British plan to retreat back to the UK.

  • The Germans were ordered to annihilate the BEF in the Dunkirk Pocket - their prime aim.
  • The the BEF's aim was to retreat back to the UK - their prime aim.

The Germans never annihilated the BEF at all as 350,000 retreated to the UK. The BEF with French assistance prevented the German forces from entering the Dunkirk Pocket. The RAF formed a CAP over Dunkirk with more Luftwaffe planes destroyed than RAF. The BEF achieved their aim, the Germans never achieved their aim. This was the first German defeat of WW2. 90.198.216.99 (talk) 08:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hitler deliberately allowed the BEF to escape because he never wanted war with the British Empire. (86.183.30.70 (talk) 14:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC))

Unencyclopedic

Hi! SuggestBot got me here, the article is tagged as unencyclopedic. I see why: Prelude (section) On 10 May 1940, Winston Churchill became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. By 26 May, the BEF and the French 1st Army were bottled up.....
Wikirictor (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

"NPOV dispute - Fight back to the west"

The tone of this section does not conform well to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. Rather than describing the facts, the piece tends towards cheerleading the alíes and mocking the Nazis, detracting from a historical understanding of events. Examples: "The leaflets showed a map of the situation. They read, in English and French: "British soldiers! Look at the map: it gives your true situation! Your troops are entirely surrounded – stop fighting! Put down your arms!" The Allied soldiers mostly used these as toilet paper."

"To the land and air-minded Nazis, the sea seemed an impassable barrier, so they really did think the Allies were surrounded; but the British saw the sea as a route to safety.[20][21]" What a glib characterization of what were genuinely complex, difficult tactical decisions. The bumbling Nazis did not regard the channel as impassible, they understood the concept of a boat. They were making decisions none of which were without risk, trying to pursue the retreating allies without overstretching themselves. Attributing the actions of each side to the German vs British character or the purported "air and land mindedness" of the Germans, who at this time were developing a powerful submarine fleet as they had in WWI, is needless embellishment for the sake of narrative. 184.152.36.186 (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It's both unlikely and unreferenced, so it should be removed. Duncan (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi! One question. Do we call the German Wehrmacht indiscriminately Nazis in this article? Wikirictor (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

We should not. Duncan (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Dunkirk spirit

I just redirected Dunkirk spirit to the pertinent section in this article. Please see Talk:Dunkirk spirit for my explanation of this update. I am open to further rearranging based on the ideal placement of this phrase based on the coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Chance for Luftwaffe to demonstrate itself?

I also remembering read that Goering wanted to show that the Luftwaffe could destroy the British Army from the air in order to advance the argument that it would be able to do the same to London, increasing the chances of a surrender by Britain as a country. (Also that the Germans had reached the limits of their supply lines.)Historian932 (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Beligerents

Is it not better to say British empire rather than the united kingdom? Furthermore, shouldn't the commonwealths (from which soldiers were present at the battle) be listed as belligerents as well, perhaps most notably British India, which had four companies present at the battle. There is no reason to omit them. Bodha2 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly true that troops originating from India fought bravely at Dunkirk. I would have concerns that if we included every nation who had soldiers present at the battle, then the list of belligerents would become too long to be useful, including as it would most European nations (except Vatican City and Liechtenstein), the many African nations that made up French colonial troops and the King's African Rifles, volunteers from the US and Canada, and as you say from India and Burma.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree that an exhaustive list of colonial troops may be too cumbersome to list, however the info box could easily accommodate them by simply having a sub heading of "colonial forces" beneath the respective empires of Britain and France; with as accurate a figure of the number of colonial forces present, without having to individually list them. If this still is too tedious then perhaps instead of the United kingdom it should say British empire, and a similar treatment could be applied to France. I feel obliged to add that I am counting all colonial forces such as those from Canada and the like. From these two options I, however, prefer the former rather than the latter.Bodha2 (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Although as far as I know not present at Dunkirk as units (v individuals), re your point above, Canadian, Australian, NZ and South African were not 'Colonial' but 'Dominion' troops; the difference being that they were ultimately controlled by their domestic governments (eg John Curtin's demand in 1941 for the return of Australian troops from N Africa). As an ex-Gurkha officer, I am well aware of the importance of the Indian Army in British victory in WWII, but the four companies of the Indian Service Corps present in France in 1940 would not have exceeded 450 men in total and most of the supply and logistics arms were evacuated from the Western France ports in late June in Operation Ariel, not Dunkirk. This is not to belittle their contribution but it's hard to identify a specific number of Indians evacuated from Dunkirk and if we're going to list them separately, that opens a big window - especially since some of the names of those recorded in the records as belonging to Force K6 are clearly Muslim and Bengali, so could be Pakistani or Bangladesh. So I think it's correct to use 'Empire' to cover these categories. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Should there be a section for notable portrayals of Dunkirk on stage, screen, and literature? If so, would it be on both Dunkirk evacuation as well as Battle of Dunkirk, or should it be a separate article entirely? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Casualties

The casualties listed for the BEF are the numbers for the entire Campaign in Belgium and France (the source listing the casualties is also wrong when pointing these are the casualties only for Dunkirk). I couldn't find the exact numbers only for Dunkirk. If someone with access to reliable sources could look into it, that would be great. (10 February 2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D0:4BF5:A301:C1D4:828D:7C5D:3E5E (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


I have read that after the troops returned to England that other troops had to be brought in to restore order - theft, rape, etc 2601:181:8301:4510:A01F:945:95E4:2AB2 (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

German tactical victory

@Pipsally:: Please cite any source that describes the Battle of Dunkirk as a German tactical victory.—S Marshall T/C 16:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

https://www.britannica.com/event/Dunkirk-evacuation/The-miracle-of-Dunkirk
"the British gas suffered a terrible defeat".
I find the story of Dunkirk as heartening as the next British tub thumper, but it was a defeatPipsally (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Or while we're about it, how about Churchill...
"We must be very careful not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory. "Pipsally (talk) 16:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Let us read the entire quote that you have cited. It reads: With Dunkirk, the disastrous defense of the Low Countries ended in a brief flash of glory for the Allies. Yet the brilliance of the evacuation could not hide the fact that the British had suffered a terrible defeat and that Britain itself was in dire peril. Read in context, it is clear that this source is describing the defence of the Low Countries (i.e. the Battle of France) as a terrible defeat. The source says that the Battle of Dunkirk was a "brief flash of glory", and I agree that that's a good way to describe the outcome of Dunkirk itself. Churchill is right, and I agree that the Battle of Dunkirk should not be described as a victory for Britain.—S Marshall T/C 17:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
It is completely disingenuous to claim that the consensus on previous talk discussions is for this change. Pipsally (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:CHALLENGE, you do need to provide an inline citation to a reliable source that says the Battle of Dunkirk (not any other battle) was a German victory. You should not restore your change without doing so.—S Marshall T/C 16:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @WilliamJE: Per WP:CHALLENGE, you do need to provide an inline citation to a reliable source that says the Battle of Dunkirk (not any other battle) was a German victory. Verifiability is not optional on Wikipedia. You should have added your citation when restoring the contested content. You must do so promptly, or I will remove it. You do have a history of following me around reverting and griefing in various other ways, and I firmly believe that that's why you're here now..—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Result

Looking at the current content of the infobox causes me to wonder if any contributors to this page have read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history, which "is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style". Under "infobox military conflict" it says in part "The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes."

I have changed the "Result" to be MOS compliant. If any editor believes it to be factually incorrect and wishes to change it - assuming that there is a consensus for such a change - could I urge them to read the extract above from the MOS to make themselves aware of the available options: reverting to the current formulation is not one of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dunkirk1940.org

The works look RS enough. Any chance of page numbers? Or, better still, quotes?
  • Well, the thesis of the first work is rather revealed by its title. But for example, in the preface, page xiv: ... in the end for the BEF it was a retreat into victory like that at Corunna in Spain in 1809 or Burma in 1942. I think that read in context, what Thompson means is that the success of the evacuation enabled subsequent victories. The second work is a great deal more nuanced and less bombastic. It doesn't explicitly describe the battle as a victory for either side, and if we prefer the second work, as I do, then I feel that the solution is to remove the "results" parameter from the infobox.
    We need to be careful because Wikipedia -- unlike the book sources -- separates the Dunkirk evacuation from the Battle of Dunkirk itself. I think that what this article is really about is the perimeter holding action while the evacuation took place. It was a successful holding action that achieved its rather limited objectives. On balance my preferred solution would be to remove the "results" parameter and describe the outcome in text.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I broadly agree with that. It's fairly easy to find sources that describe Dunkirk as a British defeat. By extension that should mean that there are source describing it as a German victory, but there aren't many/any that do that in explicit terms. Better to cut the parameter. Maybe with a note on editing in the hope that it doesn't get endlessly readded for one POV or the other?Pipsally (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Infobox Territorial changes

"Allied foothold in France lost". Erm: 1. Dunkirk was not in France, so no French territory was lost. 2. The vast majority of France was still held by the Allies at the point at which the Battle of Dunkirk ended.

"Allies withdraw to Britain". 1. What has this to do with "Territorial changes"? 2. At the point at which the Battle of Dunkirk ended, the majority of Allied troops remained in France.

Given the above I have changed this part of the infobox. Feel free to change it, assuming there is a consensus to so do, but can we keep it both reflective of the article and accurate? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I've edited this - this wasn't the last Allied Foothold in France, indeed all of France South of the Seine was still in Allied hands, and over 200,000 troops still in France after Dynamo ended were evacuated for France during Operations Cycle and Ariel before the French Armistice.Pipsally (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'd leave it out entirely- territory changes make more sense for campaigns and wars than individual battle and being obvious doesn't actually inform the reader. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair point, looking at it again it seemed a bit clumsy anyhow. Pipsally (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"Erm: 1. Dunkirk was not in France" - "Dunquerque/Dunkirk is a coastal city in northern France" SquireJames (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Dunkirk/Archive_1&oldid=1175132219"