Did Hitler stop his tanks to allow the BEF to escape from Dunkirk?

[BritinBritain]

This question has been asked many times, some say that Hitler wanted the BEF to escape in the hope that a separate peace could be achieved with Britain.

One of my uncles who served with the Royal Horse Artillery, who managed to escape from Dunkirk stated emphatically NO. All the time while waiting on the beaches to get off, were constantly pounded by by JU87 dive bombers.

So the question is, why did Hitler stop his tanks?

 

[LeEnfield]

The German Army got a bit of scare when attacked by a couple of Squadrons of Matilda Mk 1 tanks. They had a hell of job to stop these tanks and it was the first time that the Germans used the 88 mm gun as an anti tank weapon. Although the Germans had a a job to stop the British tanks they were so under gunned that they did not do a lot of damage, but they did kill Rommel's 2 I/C who was standing beside him. As the Germans had pushed so far so fast it was decided to take a few days break to allow them to get ready for the final push in France. Most of the German tanks needed servicing also they were low on fuel and ammunition, once this was done they resumed their attack. I don't think they expected over 300,000 men would escape across the sea to fight them again and I think even Churchill was surprised that operation Dynamo had been such a success.

 

[redcoat]

The 'halt order', which only lasted 3 days, ended before the British had even started any large scale evacuation.

The claim that Hitler had 'allowed' the British to escape was merely an excuse to cover the fact that the German High Command had blown the chance to destroy the BEF.

 

[aleph]

Destroying the BEF totally may have in hindsight won the war for Germany,if it resulted in a truce of sorts with Britain, however Hitler may have concluded this may allie Britain with his intended real enemy the Russians.
A gesture of mercy as surely it was he may have concluded would see Britain let Germany take care of the communist menace once and for all, and endear him to the United States also many of whoms citizens had Germanic Roots.
Unfortunately Hitler underestimated British aversion to any foreign power in Europe dominating the landscape, yes Britain rubbed their hands when Germany weakened the Russian Beast, but what they really wanted was a stalemate, and perhaps only when Germany started losing against Russia did they with the US decide to come from the west.
In my opinion Hitler did spare destruction to the allies in 41 but not for anything other than his own purposes which he would have fulfilled had he not allowed Japan to bomb Pearl Harbour and had he started the Russian invasion just weeks earlier to avoid the pitfalls of the Russian winter

 

[lljadw]

I think LeEnfield siad a lot of good things,but some remarks:after all these years I have to find yet a beginning of a proof that the Germans were be on the point of capture Dunkirk;I think it is all a myth from Blumentritt to lay the blame on Hitler (he was a collaborator of von Rundstedt who has given the order) .The reason to stop the tanks was :they were spent,tanks were(and are )not made to drive from the German frontier to the coast;it is as simply as that. An other point :I doubt that the capture of Dunkirk would have been a military disaster for the UK :you had 200000 troops from the BEF-the others beying French- (the Bef was 400000 men) they escaped without weapons!! How much of these 9 divisions were operational in september? The impossibility of Sealion was not caused by the escape fromthose 200000 men but by other factors as the weather,....

 

[perseus]

An other point :I doubt that the capture of Dunkirk would have been a military disaster for the UK

It's difficult to defend an Island without any trained troops, or anyone to train the green ones even if the supply lines are blocked. All they needed to do was land half a million trained troops with a rifle and a few hundred rounds, the rest of the supplies could be taken from the land.

With regards to why they didn't take Dunkirk was due a combination of the following

1. A series of stop orders from Hitler/high command
2. Tanks needed servicing for invading rest of France and weren't suited to ground around Dunkirk
3. Goering convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe could do the job
4. Stubborn defence by the BEF and French 1st.
5. Germans simply didn't realise the BEF could be evacuated (being a land based nation at heart)

 

[AussieNick]

Oh yeah right, just surviving off the land is so easy. Given how the Germans did 'living off the land' in Russia after Stalingrad I wouldn't get so excited about the idea.

It's difficult to defend an Island without any trained troops, or anyone to train the green ones even if the supply lines are blocked. All they needed to do was land half a million trained troops with a rifle and a few hundred rounds, the rest of the supplies could be taken from the land.

With regards to why they didn't take Dunkirk was due a combination of the following

1. A series of stop orders from Hitler/high command
2. Tanks needed servicing for invading rest of France and weren't suited to ground around Dunkirk
3. Goering convinced Hitler the Luftwaffe could do the job
4. Stubborn defence by the BEF and French 1st.
5. Germans simply didn't realise the BEF could be evacuated (being a land based nation at heart)

 

[Del Boy]

This question has been asked many times, some say that Hitler wanted the BEF to escape in the hope that a separate peace could be achieved with Britain.

One of my uncles who served with the Royal Horse Artillery, who managed to escape from Dunkirk stated emphatically NO. All the time while waiting on the beaches to get off, were constantly pounded by by JU87 dive bombers.

I agree with your uncle. My stepfather escaped from Dunkirk and rearguard actions were mounted all the way; one such sacrificed his freedom and a screwed up leg to effect this and spent 5 years in captivity; in 1953 he was my training sergeant - Jamieson MM.
In my regiment they sang a song of the hell on the beaches of St Valery - the chorus went : "Thank God for the Navy, those heroes in blue ; The song that we sing is in honour of you." Correctly or otherwise, another line ran " When we were surrounded by artillery, that day at St Valery".

 

[perseus]

Oh yeah right, just surviving off the land is so easy. Given how the Germans did 'living off the land' in Russia after Stalingrad I wouldn't get so excited about the idea

I don't really understand what your point is here. Against an trained armed enemy it would be unfeasible yes where you need constant supplies of heavy ammunition, but here the enemy hardly existed. Armies relied on living of the land up to the time of Napoleon, and unofficially did to some extent throughout WW2. The only additional thing you need other than your weapon and small arms is food, morale and good feet. Surely if there are stores and fields to feed 40 million people an extra half a million hardly constitutes a problem. This is England in the late Summer not a bleak Russian winter.

 

[IIyx]

One of the very good versions is Hitler thought that if he spares the britts then they wont involve further in war as a sign of gratitude and fear.


the german generals were going crazy screaming let us go in and slaughter the britts!

 

[Del Boy]

I don't really understand what your point is here. Against an trained armed enemy it would be unfeasible yes where you need constant supplies of heavy ammunition, but here the enemy hardly existed. Armies relied on living of the land up to the time of Napoleon, and unofficially did to some extent throughout WW2. The only additional thing you need other than your weapon and small arms is food, morale and good feet. Surely if there are stores and fields to feed 40 million people an extra half a million hardly constitutes a problem. This is England in the late Summer not a bleak Russian winter.

Not if the local population did not want you to eat etc. Roll over and die? You are mixing us up with a different country altogether. Our whole existence was to stop just your scenario happening. The ground would burn beneath their feet. What you are suggesting is precisely what were expecting and prepared for. And do you take retention of your one weapon and your food supply and your good feet and your good morale for granted? Granted by whom?

I am unclear - what is the enemy that hardly existed?

 

[redcoat]

It's difficult to defend an Island without any trained troops, or anyone to train the green ones even if the supply lines are blocked. All they needed to do was land half a million trained troops with a rifle and a few hundred rounds, the rest of the supplies could be taken from the land.

Military equipment found within the UK on 1st June 1940, the date Dunkirk ended;

600 Tanks (140 Infantry tanks, nearly all Matilda II, 141 cruiser tanks, and 407 light tanks)

2,242 Bren/Universal Carriers

333 2 pdr anti-tank guns

606 25 pdr Gun/Howitzers

280 4.5inch Howitzers

6,675 Boys anti-tank rifles

14,026 Bren guns

3,100 2inch Mortars

261 3inch Mortars

and last but not least

1,500,000 SMLE .303 Rifles


By late August 1940 the situation regards armour was as follows;
272 Infantry tanks

322 Cruiser Tanks

659 Light Tanks

3,784 Bren/Universal Carriers

It has to be remembered that only around 5 divisions were evacuated from Dunkirk, in the UK the number of infantry divisions on the books was 27. These divisions were part of the massive expansion planned for the British forces in the coming months, They were lacking in heavy equipment, but they had more than enough rifles and small arms to defeat any German force the Germans were capable of landing in 1940.

 

[perseus]

Not if the local population did not want you to eat etc. Roll over and die? You are mixing us up with a different country altogether. Our whole existence was to stop just your scenario happening. The ground would burn beneath their feet. What you are suggesting is precisely what were expecting and prepared for. And do you take retention of your one weapon and your food supply and your good feet and your good morale for granted? Granted by whom?

I am unclear - what is the enemy that hardly existed?

I've heard varied reports about the number of men available throught the UK and Northern ireland in May 1940. However the book in front of me 'Operation Sealion' by Peter Fleming suggests less than 100 thousand had attained a state of training described as 'fair' and of course these were woefully equipped. Sending men into battle with arms any less well trained than this could have been counter productive, they could easily end up supplying the other side. In practice, any divisions which were really fit to fight had been sent to France and the remaining were in various states of training.

The chiefs of staff in an otherwise sturdily optimistic appreciation of the situation at the end of May, felt obliged to record their view that "should the Germans succeed in establishing a force with its vehicles in this country, our army forces have not got the offensive power to drive them out" Not exactly what I suggested but you get the picture.

Don't get me wrong I think the BEF were good defensive soldiers, but the scenerio which we contemplate here is that they were trapped in France. The Germans were in contrast 'on a roll' as they demonstated aptly during the next few weeks.

Once the BEF were re-formed from August, a quick invasion would have been impossible

 

[Doppleganger]

Oh yeah right, just surviving off the land is so easy. Given how the Germans did 'living off the land' in Russia after Stalingrad I wouldn't get so excited about the idea.

The Russians operated a 'scorched earth' policy and had the time and space to operate it without getting caught up in its negative effects. Would the British Government have the same mentality if the Germans had ever established a beachhead in the UK? Would they be willing to burn great swathes of Middle England to halt the Germans? Would they even have the time and space to operate such a policy, given that the UK is much, much smaller than Russia? The geography and size of the UK, and also especially that it is an island, is unsuited to such a policy.

 

[MontyB]

This question has been asked many times, some say that Hitler wanted the BEF to escape in the hope that a separate peace could be achieved with Britain.

One of my uncles who served with the Royal Horse Artillery, who managed to escape from Dunkirk stated emphatically NO. All the time while waiting on the beaches to get off, were constantly pounded by by JU87 dive bombers.

So the question is, why did Hitler stop his tanks?

Hitler stopped his tanks in my opinion because the advance had exceeded its support and logistics, they needed to wait for the infantry to close the gap with the armoured forces and for adequate supplies to reach that armour.

Any idea that Hitler wanted the BEF to escape is ridiculous as any peace agreement with Britian was going to require Germany to be in an unassailable position and you don't achieve that by giving the opposition 300,000 more troops.

Not if the local population did not want you to eat etc. Roll over and die? You are mixing us up with a different country altogether. Our whole existence was to stop just your scenario happening. The ground would burn beneath their feet. What you are suggesting is precisely what were expecting and prepared for. And do you take retention of your one weapon and your food supply and your good feet and your good morale for granted? Granted by whom?

I am unclear - what is the enemy that hardly existed?

Well at the risk of starting another war of words, the enemy that hardly existed was the British Army (immediately following Dunkirk), had Germany got sufficient forces ashore along with forward elements of the Luftwaffe to support it Britain would have fallen over faster than France.

Any argument that the "Home Guard" was going to save Britain is as ludicrous as the expectation that the Volkssturm were going to turn the tide of WW2, the simple reality is that any military capable of defeating your regular forces will have far less trouble dealing with militias.

But this has nothing to do with the question being asked and is perhaps more applicable to the Operation Sealion thread.

 

[Del Boy]

At risk of responding to the commencement of a war of words, please alow me to point out that I was referring to a specific scenario that Perseus had set . Getting sufficient numbers by sea had already been recponded to , paratroop invasion had been responded to; numbers of men spirited in with a single weapon, no supplies or suppport was the last scenario , and the one that was presumed to find no enemy.

Therefore I find your whole approach to my post hardly appropriate, and it seems that you would rather be dismisive of matters not mentioned by me, such as Home Guard. Do you think the Home Guard destroyed the Lutwaffe? Do you think the generation of WW1 veterans would roll over.? Do you think that the vast numbers of soldiers back from Dunkirk were pensioned off?

Therefore I have to refer you to my earlier posts and save myself the trouble being at risk of a war of words.

So perhaps you would care to leave Perseus tro answer the question I put to him in my last post.

 

[George]

I don't really understand what your point is here. Against an trained armed enemy it would be unfeasible yes where you need constant supplies of heavy ammunition, but here the enemy hardly existed. Armies relied on living of the land up to the time of Napoleon, and unofficially did to some extent throughout WW2. The only additional thing you need other than your weapon and small arms is food, morale and good feet. Surely if there are stores and fields to feed 40 million people an extra half a million hardly constitutes a problem. This is England in the late Summer not a bleak Russian winter.

As a Union Gen. said during the Civil War, an army can eat even if the civilians were starving before.

 

[MontyB]

At risk of responding to the commencement of a war of words, please alow me to point out that I was referring to a specific scenario that Perseus had set . Getting sufficient numbers by sea had already been recponded to , paratroop invasion had been responded to; numbers of men spirited in with a single weapon, no supplies or suppport was the last scenario , and the one that was presumed to find no enemy.

Therefore I find your whole approach to my post hardly appropriate, and it seems that you would rather be dismisive of matters not mentioned by me, such as Home Guard. Do you think the Home Guard destroyed the Lutwaffe? Do you think the generation of WW1 veterans would roll over.? Do you think that the vast numbers of soldiers back from Dunkirk were pensioned off?

Therefore I have to refer you to my earlier posts and save myself the trouble being at risk of a war of words.

So perhaps you would care to leave Perseus tro answer the question I put to him in my last post.

And none of this is relevant to the question being asked, primarily "Did Hitler stop his tanks to allow the BEF to escape from Dunkirk?" as I have pointed out I am more than happy to discuss German invasions of England in the Operation Sealion thread.

 

[perseus]

OK, better move to the Sealion thread on this one we have moved OT.

 

[Panzercracker]

Short answer, yes.

Hitler was hoping for a truce with UK and believed that such a gesture would shift Brits towards peace.

Argument about BEF being able to defend themselves is ridiculous, Germans just crashed the party for everyone, what was the expedition force gonna do?

@Monty.

Its not like Hitler needed an entire logistical chain, the BEF was by that time a complete mess and nicely bunched, Germans could just strafe them to death.