Talk:Dunkirk evacuation/Archive 1

Last off the beach
"7 Alexander was the last British soldier taken off the beach". Although a good story of heroism, that seems unlikely in practice. Good Generals are too valuable to risk like this, and know too much if they are captured. In fact I seem to remember that one of the British commanders at Dunkirk had to be given explicit orders that he was to return immediately and not risk himself.

Do we have any references for this statement? DJ Clayworth 15:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not, I, said the guy who wrote the comment in question. I got it from some history or another and published it my book, but I'd be hard pressed to back it up now. Paul, in Saudi

Lord Gort was the general ordered by Churchill not to risk capture (this order was the model of the one given to Douglas Macarthur in the Philippines in 1942). Harold Alexander was the commander of the rearguard. It seems rather doubtful that Alexander was evacuated from the beach at all, since evacuation continued from the mole after the beaches were empty. reprints a 1940 BBC story from 4 June 1940 that includes the text:
 * Major-General Harold Alexander inspected the shores of Dunkirk from a motorboat this morning to make sure no-one was left behind before boarding the last ship back to Britain

"On the last ship" is not the same as "last soldier taken off the beach". I changed the article to quote the BBC story rather than make an unsubstantiated claim. Gdr 12:15, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

That sounds rubbish to me, i lost relatives at dunkirk and all of this searching for the last man stuff is rubbish. By the time we had 3/4 of our men off, the area was overrun, the rest were killed.


 * The citation is from Dunkirk - The Men they left Behind by Sean Longden (2009). His reference (page 1) is the book by Nigel Nicholson Alex: The Life of Field Marshal Earl Alexander of Tunis, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1973.Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

February 23 2006 cleanup
The recently added section of text (from February 16) which was included from a deleted section of the Battle of Dunkirk page mostly repeats or contradicts information which is already in this article. Since the changes to these two related articles seem controversial, I'm including detailed reasons for all the changes I just made. Hopefully, this information will end the slow-motion edit war around them.

1) The first sentence repeats the codename, commander, and headquarters location from the first paragraph of the article. The only new information is the date preparations began, which I preserved.

2) The initial recovery plans and actual number of rescued soldiers on the first day is already included in the first paragraph of the next section.

3) The expanded five-day plan is stylistically redundant, since the next section reports the actual number of rescued soldiers for each day. It's also missing a source.

4) Likewise, the decision to use smaller vessels (2nd paragraph of original section) repeats early information and muddles the timeline, since these craft were already in use.

5) Stylistically, the size of the pocket on a given day adds nothing to this article, which focuses on the evacuation. Any value greater than zero is good enough, and must be true or the events wouldn't happen. It matters for the other article about the battle, and is already described there.

6) Every source I know about only mentions a halt of German armor from May 24 to May 26. I have no idea where the claim for an additional halt on May 29 arises.

7) The remaining text in the same paragraph just repeats information on the number of troops evacuated on specific days, which already exists in the next section.

StephenMacmanus 12:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On 29 May the German armoured forces were in their entirety removed from the battle.--MWAK 12:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Losses
In this article: The Royal Air Force lost 177 planes during Operation Dynamo, compared to 240 for the Luftwaffe (Murray and Millett 2000). I know this is from an earlier source, but this is contradicted by Ronald Atkin in his book, Pillar of Fire: Dunkirk 1940 (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1980, Pg 132). "In the nine days of Operation Dynamo the RAF lost 145 planes, 99 of them from fighter command. Of these, 42 were treasured spitfires. Afterwards, Churchill claimed the RAF had inflicted four-fold destruction on the Luftwaffe, but the true total of German losses in the same conflict was 132." I have also encountered several sources which say that the British Government and reporting agencies not only adulterated their numbers but outright lied about them. I find it highly unlikely that the RAF lost so few compared to the Luftwaffe.

My History AQA textbook states the losses of RAF planes at 474 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.103.33 (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mole
What is a "mole"? Or a "protective mole"? I assume it is not a tunnel boring machine.--Henrygb 17:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a mole (architecture). But someone could fill that out. --Henrygb 17:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

resentment
"In France, the perceived preference of the British Navy for evacuating British forces at the expense of the French led to some bitter resentment" are you sure about that? the article states the BBC said they have waited until the very last man before sailing back to england, so it means everyone was rescued. the French article states the French resentment vis-à-vis the BEF came from Gort's refusal to launch a "traditional counter-attack" as planned by French commander General Weygand. Gort wanted an evac as he claimed it was inevitable in the medium-term. the british chief of staff supported Gort and the british operation was launched instead of the french plan. Shame On You 01:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the 'resentment' was stirred-up by the German occupiers after the French surrender - it was in their (the German's) interest to spread anti-British sentiment amongst the French as the Germans were still at war with them. Gort left withdrawal to the very last minute, as can be seen by him having to evacuate the troops off the beaches, rather than using the port facilities which he would have used normally.


 * Gort by then had lost all faith in the French High Command's ability to maintain any sort of control over events, and he had basically had enough of trying to comply with orders from his French superiors that bore no relation to the situation at-hand. The French forces had not updated their chain-of-command to use radios, and to a large extent they still relied on the French public telephone system for communications and issuing orders, and when the Germans advanced further into France the telephone exchange operators, being civilians, not unnaturally decided to get out while they still could, leaving the exchanges in the areas of fighting unmanned. Then there was the damage to telephone lines, both deliberate (sabotage), and by chance from stray shellfire. This crippled the French command system, with the result that many of the orders Gort received were several hours old, frequently several days old. Often the Germans had advanced way beyond the positions that Gort had received orders to defend by the time he received them.


 * In contrast, the British Army used radio and Dispatch Riders (DonR's) for communication.


 * As regards Weygand's orders, he was by then so out-of-touch with the true tactical situation that many of the divisions that he was planning to use in his 'traditional counter-attack' no longer existed, many of the French troops having become disillusioned, with poor morale, having just abandoned their rifles and simply gone home to their families. Weygand was trying to fight a Blitzkrieg-type of war using Western Front tactics, and unfortunately for France and the Allies, he was completely out of his depth. Gort and the BEF followed their orders scrupulously until the point eventually came where he (Gort) realised that the situation had become unrecoverable, whereupon he decided to evacuate his men, hence Operation Dynamo. He waited just about as long as he dared before ordering this, as no sane military commander needing to evacuate his troops waits until he has to lift his men off a beach in preference to using a harbour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.143 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, the fiasco that was the Battle of France and the lack of co-ordination between the various Allies in the battles preceding it was the reason behind the forming of NATO, as it was felt that in the immediate post-war era with the then-new possibility of the invasion of Western Europe by the Soviet Union, much closer collaboration between defending forces was needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"I had won notable victories on paper and the map with the aid of greaseproof pencils and a typewriter. In the course of this very campaign, if one may dignify the disaster thus, I had seen French generals create imaginary "masses of manoeuvre" with strokes of the crayon and dispose of hostile concentrations, that unhappily were on the ground as well as on the map, with sweeps of the eraser. Who was I to criticise them, hero as I was of a hundred "Chinagraph wars" of make-believe?" - Frederick Morgan


 * For anyone who's interested in some sense of proportion, the BEF's strength at its peak in 1940 during the Battle of France was around 316,000 men, whereas the combined other Allied forces at the time totalled around 3 million men. The French army alone was over two million strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 11:11, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

silver lining
wasnt operation dynamo a case where a dark clouds silver lining was maximised to such an extent that people forget that the british army suffered one of their biggest defeats ever at the hands of a ruthless efficent german war machine the only thing that saved britain from being invaded was it was an and had a much stronger navyBouse23 11:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a 'miracle of deliverance' simply because otherwise the whole army would have been lost. An evacuation under fire on the scale of Operation Dynamo had never been tried before, and there were many in high places - on both sides - who thought it impossible, and had given up the whole BEF as lost, leaving Britain without a home army with-which to defend Britain against the predicted German invasion attempt known as Operation Sealion.


 * BTW, von Rundstedt halted his troops because Hermann Göring had boasted that his Luftwaffe could destroy the British on the beaches and in addition, von Rundstedt's panzers and other tracked vehicles had run a considerable distance on their tracks and as-such the vehicles were in need of a break in operations for a refit and other maintenance - tracked AFV's have a limited track life, and once worn the track is likely to get 'thrown' leaving the vehicle immobile. It should also be pointed out of course that neither he nor Hitler thought Dynamo had any chance of success, so by halting the advance the Germans didn't think they were actually risking anything. So on the German side there were in fact what looked like good reasons for calling a halt to the advance.


 * In any event the success of the Dunkirk Evacuation was rather important to both sides, as it eventually led to the possibility of Operation Overlord four years later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.124 (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Dunkirk spirit merge
The article Dunkirk spirit seems to me to belong in this article, either as a new section or as part of the Aftermath section. There's not a lot there that isn't already in this article, so the merge wouldn't even add much in the way of length. Orpheus 13:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As it turns out, there was virtually nothing to merge and no objections, so I went ahead. Orpheus 05:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on the fate of evacuated French Soldiers
The article had previously implied that while some french soldiers went back to fight, and some joined the Free French, most dallied around until the armistice, where they placidly returned to France. This is false! Most of 100 000 troops were repatriated extremely quickly, some spending less 48 hours in Britain. They were repatriated to France, maintained as divisions, and used by the French army during the remainder of the Battle of France. Just thought I'd correct that. --Cacofonie (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DUNKIRK1940.jpg
The image Image:DUNKIRK1940.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Evacuation Numbers
Are these verifiable? I'm not disputing them, but 120,000 men evacuated in 2 days is simply mind-boggling. LikeHolyWater (talk) 02:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DO NOT MERGE THIS PAGE
The Dunkirk evacuation page should not be merged. I feel that it is an extremely signinficant historical event, and is well worthy of being maintained as its own article. I see no discussion section started by the person who placed the merger idea, so I think that he or she must explain themselves and promptly. If wikipedia can spare articles for every character of a particular move or show, it can spare an article for the heroics of these people, both military and civilian, who did the impossible and the very brave thing of evacuating the shores of Dunkirk, at great personal risk. While it is part of the Battle of Dunkirk, it is a distinct enough event to warrant its own article. By merging this article, you would set a precedent that might see, at its worst, World War Two and all of underlying battles, causes, effects, and heroics being forced onto one page. This modern age depends too much upon abridgement of facts, and this is unacceptable. Wikipedia should not be the cliffnotes of the internet. While it must be accessible to the average reader, this does not mean its content should be diluted. I shudder to think what will happen if this modern trend of "shortening" the facts continues. Where will human intellect end up? Take a stand against it.SAWGunner89 (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's no intention to abridge. At all.  In fact, I very sincerely intend to expand both of them.  There have been whole books written about Dunkirk in 1940, and there's a lot to say. Having everything in one article doesn't mean it'll be treated less thoroughly.  It just means it'll be easier to find information about it because instead of having Battle of Dunkirk, Dunkirk evacuation and Little ships of Dunkirk, everything will be in one place.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't merge. My first instinct was to vote merge, but the more I thought about it, the less sure I became. What clinched it for me is the fact that the evacuation has its own designation, Dynamo. If the Allied commanders saw it as distinct from the battle, who am I to disagree? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's orders to let the Allied evacuation go without interference
Why is there no mention of Hitler's orders on 24.05.1940 to stop 3 armored divisions 18km in front of Dunkerk? --Fukla (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue of Hitler's 'Haltbefehl', (and rationale for it), is discussed in article Battle of Dunkirk. This article cocentrates more on evacuation of Allied troops from Dunkirk, combats on approaches to Dunkirk are rather out of its scope.--ja_62 (talk) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he was confirming a decision already taken by von Rundstedt the day before. Goring had convinced Hitler to let the Luftwaffe finish them off. He changed his mind again on the 26th at 1:30pm.

I've added that all with refs (35-38), both from secondary sources and official German military history, as well as Jodl and Halder's diaries. --Ganpati23 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dunkirk syndrome
I wonder if a more knowledgeable editor might add something about the "Dunkirk Syndrome" that apparently affected those who were last to be evacuated through the constant strafing of the beach. My own father (Edward McArthur) was one off the last to be evacuated, our family was told he had died (he had given his coat to a dying boy near the beach that contained his i.d, we only found out he was alive when a young man turned up at my mothers door to explain that my father saved his life when swimming out towards a rescue ship). He also had the unusual distinction of being imprisoned by his own side (British Army) for protecting a serviceman who was being attacked by his fellow soldiers for being Jewish and, from my pov, wading in to to defend a mother and baby who were being attacked in Ostende for being collaborators. He was also one of the first to enter Belsen, after his release. Taam (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

“Operation Dynamo” in the Second World War was the British code name for the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force, French and other allied soldiers from the beaches and harbour of Dunkirk, France, between 26 May and 4 June 1940. The British and French troops had been cut off on the French coast by the advancing German army during the battle of Dunkirk. Facing the loss of its army of over 300,000 men Britain launched a desperate effort to rescue its soldiers. The evacuation was the end result of a disastrous military campaign by the British and French forces. However the success of the evacuation using the Royal Navy and numerous civilian boats, known as the “little ships” became to be seen by the British public as a victory rather than a military defeat and was the beginning of what became known as the British “Dunkirk Spirit”. The French army surrendered and the British army escaped from the Germans and they were sent to the beach and were told to leave their weapons behind because they wouldn’t be able to take them on the boats with them. There were 68,000 injured British troops on the beach as well as the French. They all had to line up in the sea and wait to be picked up in small boats to then be taken to larger boats which would take them home. Some of the small boats only took 12 men at a time, where as others could take up to 60 or 70 men. The soldiers who were at the back of the line were left in the sea up to 24 hours until they were picked up. This caused hypothermia and pneumonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.223.242 (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Canadians
At the start of the article it states British, French, Canadian & Belgian soldiers - there were no Canadian units involved. This needs removing. There may have been individual Canadians within British units but you could say the same for lots of other nationalities! 194.203.215.254 (talk) 11:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * With regard to the above, I've just deleted the ref to Canadians at Dunkirk. One large unit (Edmontons?) was sent to western France but had hardly arrived when they were repatriated via St Malo or Cherbourg. Mikeo1938 (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just seen the following on the MLU forum:

From "The Fall Of France" by Terry Copp: "First Bde. [the Royal Cdn. Regt., the Hastings and Prince Edward Regt. and the 48th Highlanders of Canada, with field and anti-tank artillery regiments] sailed for Brest on June 13, the day before the Germans entered an undefended Paris. The level of confusion in France was such that the Canadians, who were supposed to concentrate near the port before linking up with the Lowland division, were sent inland to Le Mans well past the proposed Brittany defence line. The next day orders were issued reversing the movement; the Canadians were to return to England. Some elements of the division were 250 miles inland while much of First Bde. was en route to Le Mans by road. There was much cursing, frustration, disappointment and some reports of drunkenness, but the entire force was re-embarked in good order. Most of the brigade’s vehicles were lost though Lt.-Col. J.H. Roberts, commanding the lst Field Regt., Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, insisted his precious 25-pounder guns had to be saved. He was given less than two hours to accomplish this but it was more than enough time. The RCHA war diary noted bitterly: "Although there was evidently no enemy for 200 miles the withdrawal was conducted as a rout." This was no doubt unfair but the Canadians had little reason to be impressed with the strategic or operational management of the British army." Mikeo1938 (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There's now a whole lot more at "WW2 Military History & Equipment" on the MLU Forum.Mikeo1938 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This was no doubt unfair but the Canadians had little reason to be impressed with the strategic or operational management of the British army." Hmm, actually I think you'll find that, A: The BEF only made up around 10% of the defending forces. And B: until right up to the evacuation they had been operating under French command. Therefore blaming the British for the Fall of France seems a little bit like the sort of excuse that Petain's Government used themselves. The British were only a small proportion of the defending forces, most of the others surrendering, leaving, as it where, the British in the lurch. At least up until the Evacuation the BEF followed their orders from the French High Command as best as they could, until it became apparent that their French superiors were losing grip of the situation and that the position was becoming hopeless. At this point Gort ordered the evacuation. Any chaos prior to this was largely the result of the French High Command's conflicting orders brought about by being out of touch with the tactical situation and not being able to communicate properly with units in the field, for the reasons I mentioned elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.76.205 (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Uniforms, French
First of all, I would like to apologize for my addition to the discussion page. I found my way here through a Google image search which turned up images of French soldiers. My question is only partially relevant to the topic.

I have been searching all over the internet, and Wikipedia, for information regarding French military uniforms, particularly in regards to the Dog Tags page (see National Variations section). I have read that in the past, WWI French soldiers wore bracelets and not dog tags. However, I can not find any information about what French soldiers wore for personal identification in WWII, or anytime after that up to today. Nobody appears to have an answer to this question. If you have an answer, please make a submission to the Dog Tags page, and reply so that we can be aware of the addition.

As I said, it was images of a French soldier and French officer uploaded to this article which brought me here, and I apologize for having to make my inquiry here on the discussion page. Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

U. S.
The United States are mentioned in the "Aftermath". They were at that time neutral. Any British financial dependence on America could only have started later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.18.65 (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Loss of life
I have no information, but I think the "Losses" section of the article should contain information also on losses to human life and not just machines, i.e troops killed during evacuation in ships sunk by german air attacks and troops killed on shore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.54.201 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's British Slaves ...
Does anyone have a copy of the above by Sean Longden? It would be nice to add a page reference for the statement: "The majority (those below the rank of corporal) then worked in German industry and agriculture for five years." Mikeo1938 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"But if not"
"In 1940 a British officer on Dunkirk beach sent London a three-word message: ``But if not. It was instantly recognized as from the Book of Daniel. When Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego are commanded to worship a golden image or perish, they defiantly reply: ``Our God who we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and He will deliver us out of thine hand, O king. But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods. ...

Britain then still had the cohesion of a common culture of shared reading. That cohesion enabled Britain to stay the hand of Hitler, a fact pertinent to today's new age of barbarism. " - George Will http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will072204.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.197.144 (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can see how society was better for having so few books to read that when somebody quoted from one of them, everyone else knew the quote. Time to burn all our books, and go back to reading nothing but Dickens and the Bible. 81.105.111.230 (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Erm, no, it was called being educated and having a common culture, with books such as the Bible and the works of Dickens being regarded as Classics, unlike the trash literature that abounds today, although judging from your post I would guess that my reply would be wasted on you ... as it seems would be the British officer's 1940 telegram.


 * You see, one of the problems with being ignorant is that few ignorant people are aware of what being ignorant truly means for them, in that they don't know what they don't know, nor are they able to appreciate what a person who does know finds of value in just knowing. So an ignorant person is unable to even understand the value of education.


 * Education was originally intended to 'broaden the mind' and to expand a person's horizons, both in thought, and in possibilities in life, and classics such as the Bible and Dickens actually tell the reader something about the human condition, and like Shakespeare, and Tolstoy, are to some extent, timeless. Current novels, etc., don't and aren't. That's why there are so few modern classics, as most are the printed equivalents of the television soaps, although with the introduction of the UK National Curriculum and the dumbing-down of the UK media I suspect many would nowadays be regarded as rather highbrow.


 * So, my advice is to never boast about, or at least try to conceal, your ignorance, that is unless you want other people to think you an oaf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I came across this "but if not" meme a couple or three years ago when it was posted to a now-defunct discussion group by an American Christian fundamentalist. I tried to source it then. It turned up in a sprinkling of writings by conservative American commentators but nowhere else. I eventually traced it back as far as the American columnist George Will. It appears in The Morning After: American Successes and Excesses, 1981-1986 (Free Press, 1986) (Page 392). Had Will heard it somewhere or did he make it up? Can anyone find an earlier source? - Dkahn400 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Dunkirk anchor brought home to serve as memorial for those lost in 1940
http://www.isleofman.com/News/article.aspx?article=40559 is about the anchor from the Mona's Queen, one of three Steam Packet company ships which sank at Dunkirk, has been recovered and returned to the Isle of Man. Plans are to put it at Kallow Point in Port St Mary as a memorial.

The citation needed to prove that Von Rundstedt ordered the halt on the Dunkirk attack
(sorry, wiki virgin, dunno how to use this)

Nazism 1919-1945: Vol 3, : Foreign Policy, War and Racial Extermination, Eds: Noakes, J, and Pridham, G.  (2010) (First published 1988) but this is from the 2010 reprint of the new edition first published with additional material in 2001. (reprinted 2006, 2010) isbn 978 0 85989 602 3 University of Exeter Press, Exeter, Devon.

p.167 "From these documents it is clear that the initial decision to halt was that of von Rundstedt, Commander of Army Group A. When he arrived on the scene Hitler confirmed this decision and made it a Fuhrer command, thereby overriding the Army High Command (OKH)."

It continues saying AH had been urged by Goering to let the Luftwaffe finish them off.

The docs N+P cite are: War Diary of Army Group A, 24.v.40        and OKW Jodl diary, 25.v.40

Can someone please explain how one adds a reference to a {citation needed}.

Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.13.113 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome, dear anonymous! Please take a look at this citation guide, and feel free to add the citation above to the article. Even if you mess it up for the first time, there are enough people around to fix it. Editing Wikipedia is fun, I hope you will enjoy it and stay with us! --ElComandanteChe (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, ElcomandanteChe. I'm typing this to you via the Edit bit of discussion. Am I doing this right? I don't know what all the symbols are about. Anyway, I added the refs (35-37). Have I done it the right way? Do you need more details for 36 and 37, i.e. where you can find the official German Army records and diary cited by N+P (ref 35)? Thanks for that. Didn't know it was that easy. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.225.5 (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You did it just right (and as you probably noticed, Bzuk already formatted the refs). Don't be afraid of the technical details, no one is familiar with 100% of them. The info on the Army records and the War diary could be helpful, but not essential, for Wikipedia prefers secondary sources – Noakes and Pridham in this case. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 01:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Cheers mate. Will try to do it properly in future, but glad that boffins can tidy it up so quickly for us. Re Primary/Secondary sources.... 1) N+P, for example, is 90% primary sources linked by 10% analysis. Is it not beneficial to give details of the primary source quoted?  It would allow a student to check a fact, the Hossbach Memorandum for example, in any book he/she possessed that quoted it, without needing to buy N+P.  2)  I've some books that are solely anthologies of primary sources. For Example, if I wanted to reference from the GB govt's Casement Report (1904) which I've seen both online and in a course book : 'Primary Source Anthology - 15xx-19xx', how should I do that? Thanks for the help, ECC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganpati23 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats on getting an account Ganpati23, please see my answer here --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

--Ganpati23 (talk) 19:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Need a background section
I just want to point out that this article could be improved by adding a background section that explains the lead-up to this military scenario. For example, why was so much of the British war machine trapped in France? I can guess, knowing enough about the history prior to and during the beginning of World War II, but it makes it harder for the reader to understand the makings of the situation. 74.76.60.27 (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Numbers evacuated
The numbers of French troops evacuated in the last 3 days, as supposedly quoted by Churchill, do not add up with the total numbers evacuated as listed by Thompson, and the 338,000 figure sounds the accepted one. I am editing the text to make as much sense as I could of this. Hyperman 42 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Losses (again)
This section seems one sided, with no reference to German Naval or Army losses SovalValtos (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't agree with you there, as this article is about the evacuation and associated losses to the evacuees, not the preceding fighting. Just my opinion. Tony Holkham (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I had understood that the article is about the Dunkirk Evacuation and only includes material about the preceding fighting in order to put it into context. I was referring to the evacuation and the associated losses to those trying to prevent it, which are excluded, with the exception of those for the Luftwaffe. So how about German Naval and Army loses? SovalValtos (talk) 12:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Point made about air losses. Don't know where you'd find the info about other losses specific to Dynamo, though. Tony Holkham (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have changed the name of this section as there is an earlier one with the same name.
 * Is there consensus that "Aircraft losses from 10 May until the fall of France were 959 for the British and 1,279 for the Germans.[97]" is off topic, not needed for context and should be removed ? SovalValtos (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hugh Dowding got any additional RAF fighters being sent to France stopped sometime around the relevant period, as he was worried about sufficient numbers being available for the-then almost-certainly forthcoming Battle of Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation Suggestion
Can someone please look at this orphaned article List of ships involved in the Dunkirk evacuation and see if it can be linked to or if it is actually needed? Thanks Gbawden (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Churchill in Volume II says there were 861 ships involved, and this list only contains a dozen. I don't see any point in even listing it in the see-also. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we need this list? Can it be AfD'd? Gbawden (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be appropriate. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

CE
Changed running order somewhat to tidy the page and remove whitespace, revert as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your addition regarding Halt Orders. The prose does not meet GA standards and is off-topic for this article. Please discuss here rather than trying to communicate via edit summary; that's how edit wars start. — Diannaa (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest you assume good faith and try to set a good example, rather than making implied threats. The section is based on Frieser, a newer and very reliable source, rather than the older ones of the original edit (Guderian, Churchill and Liddell Hart as reliable sources?). The prose is superior to the earlier paragraphs on the halt orders but if you want to explain why you disagree, go ahead. As for the article, I think it's hardly worthy of a B class, even with the structural improvements.Keith-264 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Example of questionable prose: Working with the BEF were the Belgian Army and the French First, Seventh[,] and Ninth Armies.[8] No, the Belgians were neutral until the German invasion and hardly "worked" with the Allies afterwards. Working is a slack term/weasel word.Keith-264 (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The comments from Guderian, Churchill, and Liddell Hart are examples of what well-known people said about the halt order. I don't think there's a sourcing problem with that, and it's important to say that the halt order has been much discussed, and by whom. I think that the material you added is off-topic as well as ill-placed in a separate section rather than integrated into the existing chronology. Regarding the prose, there's punctuation, grammar, over-linking, and under-linking. For example, Halter is already linked higher up in the article, and you've got Panzergruppe von Kleist linked twice in the same paragraph. You need to identify Frieser and link to his article. . — Diannaa (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Two were participants and wrote decades ago so need caution, the other has been severely criticised for getting Guderian to make false claims about his pre-war influence so has had his integrity questioned. The change I made was a replacement of similar material, so hardly off topic and sourced to a newer and more reliable source. If you want to remove the header go ahead but note that I took the trouble to add Frieser to the Bibliography, so it was linked; I forgot to click Highlight duplicate links but that's hardly revertible. The article is littered with Oxford commas, cliche (heavy resistance?) – instead of — and at least one bracket inside a bracket; aren't these elementary grammatical errors? If you have another look, you'll see that PG von Kleist isn't linked it's lang'd Panzergruppe von Kleist .Keith-264 (talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit surprised that the structural changes I made haven't been questioned or is that next? That's why I wrote revert as desired. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What about this

On 23 May, Rundstedt ordered the panzer units to halt for the next day, concerned about the vulnerability of his flanks and supply difficulties.[35][36][37] Rundstedt was also concerned that the marshy ground around Dunkirk would be unsuitable for tanks, that in some units, tank losses were 30–50 percent and it was necessary to conserve the armour for an advance on Paris. Hitler was also apprehensive and on a visit to Army Group A headquarters on 24 May, endorsed the order after it had been issued.[38] Göring wanted Hitler to let the Luftwaffe, supported by Army Group B, complete the victory, to the consternation of Halder, since the Luftwaffe was dependent upon the weather and aircrews were worn out after two weeks of battle.[39][40][38] At 12:31 p.m. Rundstedt issued another order

"By order of the Fuhrer ... attack north-west of Arras is to be limited to the general line Lens–Bethune–Aire–St Omer–Gravelines. The Canal will not be crossed."

- Hitler[41]

which was sent un-coded and was intercepted by the RAF Y service at 12:42 p.m. Later that day, Hitler issued Directive 13, that the Luftwaffe was to defeat the surrounded forces and stop the escape of the BEF. On 26 May, Hitler agreed that the the panzer groups could continue their advance and the orders were issued at 3:30 p.m. but must units took another 16 hours to attack; the delay had given the Allies time to prepare defences vital for the evacuation and prevented the Germans from stopping the Allied retreat from Lille.[42]

as a description in the main body and some explanation in the Analysis?Keith-264 (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Your new posts have not changed my opinion that we do not need additional material on the Halt Order in this article. I suggest it might be better suited to the main article (Battle of Dunkirk). That goes for the additional material in the proposed amendments directly above (some of which needs sourcing, such as that in some units, tank losses were 30–50 percent; on a visit to Army Group A headquarters on 24 May), as well as the, which is already available at the place where you copied it from (Battle of Arras (1940)). Perhaps you could add a hat-note here instead of copying this material over to this article. -- — Diannaa (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote it for Arras as a generic section, I've adapted it by separating description from explanation (for the Analysis section) and now I've added another citation. I think it improves a poor article, perhaps you could look at Ownership of content? Keith-264 (talk) 22:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the material in be added to the article? — Diannaa (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose; This article needs to focus on the evacuation, and already provides adequate material on the Halt Order and its background. The material in the addition is already present in the article Battle of Arras (1940), and people could be directed to that article via a hatnote. — Diannaa (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; per Diannaa. It's needless duplication. - the WOLF  child  03:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose This
 * On 23 May, Rundstedt ordered the panzer units to halt for the next day, concerned about the vulnerability of his flanks and supply difficulties.[35][36][37] Rundstedt was also concerned that the marshy ground around Dunkirk would be unsuitable for tanks, that in some units, tank losses were 30–50 percent and it was necessary to conserve the armour for an advance on Paris. Hitler was also apprehensive and on a visit to Army Group A headquarters on 24 May, endorsed the order after it had been issued.[1][38] Göring wanted Hitler to let the Luftwaffe, supported by Army Group B, complete the victory, to the consternation of Halder, since the Luftwaffe was dependent upon the weather and aircrews were worn out after two weeks of battle.[39][40][38] At 12:31 p.m. Rundstedt issued another order

"By order of the Fuhrer ... attack north-west of Arras is to be limited to the general line Lens–Bethune–Aire–St Omer–Gravelines. The Canal will not be crossed."

- Hitler[41]

which was sent un-coded and was intercepted by the RAF Y service at 12:42 p.m.[2] Later that day, Hitler issued Directive 13, that the Luftwaffe was to defeat the surrounded forces and stop the escape of the BEF.[3] On 26 May, Hitler agreed that the the panzer groups could continue their advance and the orders were issued at 3:30 p.m. but must units took another 16 hours to attack; the delay had given the Allies time to prepare defences vital for the evacuation and prevented the Germans from stopping the Allied retreat from Lille.[42][4]

is the edit I propose for the main section of the article.Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Dianna. I agree that it is a needless and irrelevant duplication of material.  The article already discusses this topic.   Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 01:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose this for the main section and the other details being moved to the Aftermath?

On 23 May, Rundstedt ordered the panzer units to halt for the next day, concerned about the vulnerability of his flanks and supply difficulties.[35][36][37] Rundstedt was also worried that the marshy ground around Dunkirk would be unsuitable for tanks, that in some units, tank losses were 30–50 percent and it was necessary to conserve the armour for an advance on Paris. Hitler was also apprehensive and on a visit to Army Group A headquarters on 24 May, endorsed the order after it had been issued.[1][38] Göring wanted Hitler to let the Luftwaffe, supported by Army Group B, complete the victory, to the consternation of Halder, since the Luftwaffe was dependent upon the weather and aircrews were worn out after two weeks of battle.[39][40][38] At 12:31 p.m. Rundstedt issued another order

"By order of the Fuhrer ... attack north-west of Arras is to be limited to the general line Lens–Bethune–Aire–St Omer–Gravelines. The Canal will not be crossed."

— Hitler[41]

which was sent un-coded and was intercepted by the RAF Y service at 12:42 p.m.[2] Later that day, Hitler issued Directive 13, that the Luftwaffe was to defeat the surrounded forces and stop the escape of the BEF.[3] On 26 May, Hitler agreed that the the panzer groups could continue their advance and the orders were issued at 3:30 p.m. but most units took another 16 hours to attack. The delay had given the Allies time to prepare defences vital for the evacuation and prevented the Germans from stopping the Allied retreat from Lille.[42][4]Keith-264 (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I oppose for several reasons: It's a little too detailed for this article, which needs to focus on the evacuation. Extensive material on this phase is already covered in the article Battle of Dunkirk, and these details might fit in better there. Also, it's not "aftermath", it's background material about events that happened before the evacuation. It's not very well written, with several punctuation, grammar, and style errors. For example, quotes of less than forty words do not get a block quote template, and many of the sentences run on, with material strung together haphazardly. — Diannaa (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No they don't and your punctuation, grammar and style leave a lot to be desired. I'm beginning to find it hard to assume good faith in these exchanges. You complain about excessive detail yet want discussion of the halt orders by Guderian, Liddell Hart etc to remain? The edit is slimmer and can easily be trimmed; the post-war discussion in the article would fit better in the analysis section. Keith-264 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with adding details of events that took place on 24 May to the "Aftermath" section, which currently covers events that took place after the evacuation. If it's included at all, it would be better suited to the section "Battle of Dunkirk". In fact some of the material such as the fact that the ground was marshy is already present in that section. Would you consider adding the additional details there instead of to the "Aftermath" section? They should probably also be added to the article that covers that period (Battle of Dunkirk), as this article should not be more comprehensive on the period prior to the evacuation than that one. I think the paragraph that starts "The Halt Order has been the subject of much discussion by historians" should be left in place. Here is how I would improve the prose:

— Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

With a few amendments (see above, Guderian was the corps commander) I'd be happy. Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think "road to Dunkirk" is necessarily accurate, as there were multiple roads to Dunkirk (but what with the bocage and flooded terrain, travelling cross-country was difficult or impossible). Perhaps "blocked German access to Dunkirk" or "was positioned between the Germans and Dunkirk" or the original wording "blocked the Germans from seizing the port facilities at Dunkirk"? I think instead of putting Veiel in brackets we should say "under Generalmajor Rudolf Veiel". "Generalmajor" needs to be wikilinked. Otherwise your latest version is okay. I have taken the liberty of adding the citation templates to your post now that we are getting close to the final version; I hope you don't mind. Cooper and Hindsley will have to be added to the bibliography. — Diannaa (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a convention to put the unit commander in brackets and then refer to him/her by surname but after this marathon I'll give in. "blocked the Germans from seizing the port facilities at Dunkirk" mixes a fact and German intent, I'd put "... British battalion barred the way to Dunkirk". Please feel free to consider these points but I'll accept your preference.



let me know and I'll add the references. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "... British battalion barred the way to Dunkirk" is perfect. If you would like to proceed with the edit that would be great. I think I can remove the RFC template now as well, as you are no longer considering adding ? — Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Suits me fine, thank you. Keith-264 (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Request
As there is an ongoing dispute: may I request when engaged editors have a moment that the following can be amended:

"The initial plan for the German invasion of France called for an encirclement attack through the Netherlands and Belgium, thus avoiding the fixed defensive emplacements of the Maginot Line.[9]"

The sentence, to me at least, implies that the Germans pulled off some sort of coup whereas this was the very expectation of the Maginot Line and the French elite. It is how the Germans cut through Belgium that caught everyone off guard (although to be fair, the French were well aware of the Ardennes vulnerability). I can point to sources, if required.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The initial plan for Fall Gelb was very similar to the Schlieffen Plan, which was only partially successful and led to the static trench warfare of WWI. Manstein was not satisfied with the plan, as it focused heavily on the northern wing (through Belgium). Manstein's Sichelschnitt, the unexpected attack through the Ardennes, was the thing that trapped the British and French along the coast. Not sure what you think is wrong with the present wording, or how to fix it. — Diannaa (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The Schlieffen Plan was much-mythologised after the Great War so analogies with it are risky. Trench warfare late-1914 to 1917 was a desirable conclusion for the Germans.Keith-264 (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The French spent the 20s and 30s attempting to avoid a repeat of the First World War (that being a devastating war fought on their soil), and thus developed the Maginot Line to funnel an attack north into Belgium where it could be met by the best French divisions. The current wording, to me at least, presents the classic view of the Germans being sneaky by going around and catching everyone off guard. Could we add at least some mention of the Maginot Line's purpose?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have any sources here that present that point of view or even cover the purpose of the Maginot Line. If you've got some sources that would be great. — Diannaa (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will post some info here later when I am home and have a moment. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * A little something I wrote up a while ago for another article:

""During the 1930s, the French had constructed a series of fortifications—the Maginot Line—along their border with Germany. This line had been designed to deter a German invasion across the Franco-German border and funnel an attack into Belgium, which could then be met by the best divisions of the French Army. Thus, any future war would take place outside of French territory avoiding a repeat of the First World War. The main section of the Maginot Line ran from the Swiss border and ended at Longwy. The area immediately to the north, was covered by the heavily wooded Ardennes region. French General Philippe Pétain declared the Ardennes to be "impenetrable" as long as "special provisions" were taken. If so, he believed that any enemy force emerging from the forest would be vulnerable to a pincer attack and destroyed. The French commander-in-chief, Maurice Gamelin, likewise believed the area to be of a limited threat, noting that it "never favoured large operations". French war games held in 1938, with the scenario of a German armoured attack through the Ardennes, left the military with the impression that the region was still largely impenetrable and that this, along with the obstacle of the Meuse River, would allow the French time to bring up troops into the area and thus counter such an attack. With this in mind, the area was left lightly defended. German strategy sought to advance through the Ardennes with a large concentration of armoured forces, who would then push towards the English Channel encircling the Allied armies in Belgium cutting them off from any reinforcements from France."


 * Not that I am suggesting it be copied and pasted in, but the above does paint a slightly different picture. At any rate, for the consideration of those working on this article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Verry useful stuff; thank you. I have added some of it and modified the existing content. Please let me know if you think this addresses your concerns. — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Verry useful stuff; thank you. I have added some of it and modified the existing content. Please let me know if you think this addresses your concerns. — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Verry useful stuff; thank you. I have added some of it and modified the existing content. Please let me know if you think this addresses your concerns. — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Verry useful stuff; thank you. I have added some of it and modified the existing content. Please let me know if you think this addresses your concerns. — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)



Recent edits
"Nevertheless, exhortations to display the "Dunkirk spirit", a phrase used to describe the tendency of the British public to pull together and overcome times of adversity are still heard, and readily understood, in the United Kingdom."

As a denizen of England and Britain for the last 54 years (not the United Kingdom, no-one says that here), I haven't heard anything like this, although I remember politicians and other guttersnipes bemoaning the lack of it in the 1970s. I wouldn't start a sentence with "nervertheless" either. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources are this BBC article and a 1990 book by Ronald Atkin. Google shows 93,200 hits. It looks to me like the phrase is no longer in common usage. — Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd either note it as an obsolete figure of speech or get rid.Keith-264 (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy in listed dates
"France, between 27 May and 4 June 1940"

"Date	26 May to 3 June 1940"

Which one is right? TheRealJarGames (talk) 22:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have changed the dates to 27 May to 4 June 1940, which is what it said when the article passed GA. It looks like the confusion arises because Churchill declared the start of the operation on 26 may. Some men were evacuated on 4 June, and the French rearguard surrendered on that date. — Diannaa (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hitler allowed the BEF to escape
Isn't it true the evacuation was only possible because Hitler deliberately halted his forces so the BEF could leave France? (IssacSterling (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC))


 * No, it's a myth. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * How is it a myth? If Hitler had wanted to destroy the BEF he would have done so easily. (IssacSterling (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC))
 * We can't include it without a citation, and none of the sources used to write the current version of the article state that Hitler intentionally allowed the BEF to get away. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The Wehrmacht's tanks had worn out their tracks and were in urgent need of a refit, which they had postponed several times due to the speed of their advance through France. If they had pressed-on the Germans would have lost most, if not all of their tanks. Hitler gave the task of destroying the BEF to Göring and his Luftwaffe, and they tried to destroy the BEF, and failed, many of their attacks being intercepted by the RAF before they got anywhere near Dunkirk - which is why some of the men of the BEF later complained of never seeing any RAF aircraft over the beaches.


 * Tank tracks have a limited life and stretch in use over time and with mileage. The track then has to be tightened and eventually shortened, before finally needing to be replaced. If this is not done in time the track becomes too loose and eventually will be 'thrown' leaving the vehicle immobile, often at the most inopportune time. That's one of the reasons why you have tank transporters, to save on track-wear.


 * The Wehrmacht's tanks had driven all the way from Germany on their tracks by the time they got near Dunkirk.


 * The RAF fighters BTW, were having to fly from UK airfields in the South East of England, having earlier been withdrawn across the Channel due to the BEF and French forces having been unable or unwilling to defend the RAF advanced airfields in France. This led to the later formation of the RAF Regiment, the RAF reasoning that if it couldn't rely on anyone else to defend its airfields it would be better-off doing the job itself.


 * Tank track mileages have improved greatly since then, but that was the first time tanks had been driven such long distances on dry roads which provide little or no lubrication for the track pins. That lesson is one of the reasons the DAK went into North Africa with tank transporters, and the British didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.158 (talk) 11:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Norman Franks
I think his work on the air battle should be in, with Hooton. Dapi89 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hitler's offer to end the war
Hitler offered to end the war in May 1940, just before the evacuation began. Even Churchill said he was willing to give up Malta and Gibraltar on 26 May if it meant the rest of the British Empire could be preserved. (81.153.139.230 (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2017 (UTC))


 * Very interesting if a reliable source discusses these ideas. MPS1992 (talk) 22:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Evacuation of no consequence
Historians agree the evacuation was of no real consequence, as Hitler had never wanted war with the British Empire and did not intend to ever attempt an invasion of the UK. (JunklinJessy (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)) Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This would needs a citation, and also a context. The difference between being a P.O.W. or a Dunkirk evacuee would be of consequence at a personal level for a lot of people.  I assume what is meant is that invasion would still not have been realistically feasible if the evacuation had not occurred; and also that lack of an evacuation would not have influenced Britain to sue for peace.  Again this would all need citations.
 * Hitler never wanted war with the British Empire, and he offered to end the war on 19 July 1940. If an invasion had been attempted the Germans could not have got past the much larger Royal Navy. Churchill was going to release hundreds of tons of deadly chemicals on German cities, and the Royal Navy was to continue the war from Canada and the Mediterranean. (JunklinJessy (talk) 10:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC))
 * These are very interesting opinions, but this is not a forum for talking about your opinions, see WP:NOTFORUM. MPS1992 (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not an opinion. Hitler offered to end the war several times between 1939 and 1941, even offering to evacuate northern France and allow the British Empire to remain intact. The Dunkirk evacuation made no difference to the outcome of the war as Germany never had any chance of defeating the entire world. (JunklinJessy (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC))
 * Do you have a suggestion with regard to how this Wikipedia article might be improved? MPS1992 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * British historians have traditionally exaggerated the actual importance of the Dunkirk evacuation and the subsequent Battle of Britain. The reality is that Germany did not have the resources to defeat the British Empire. (2A00:23C4:638A:5000:8C96:57AC:45EA:B79B (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC))

Halt Order did not matter
It would have been suicidal for the Germans to attack with 50% of their armoured units destroyed or heavily damaged. (FarnuBak (talk) 10:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC))


 * Source? MPS1992 (talk) 19:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

When was Calais surrendered?
The text, citing Atkin states that Calais surrendered 26 May; the map states 27 May. Kablammo (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Churchill says in Volume II, page 82 that the decision not to relieve Calais was taken at 9 pm on the night of May 26, but he does not say when the garrison surrendered. Sorry but I have checked in the other sources I have on hand and none of them give a date for the surrender. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking Diannaa. I have Volume II of Harold Nicolson's Diaries & Letters, and Correlli Barnett's Engage the Enemy More Closely; Nicolson states that Calais was captured on the 26th, and Barnett says that the siege of Calais ran from the 22d to the 26th.  I can add cites to these if that would be helpful.  Kablammo (talk) 01:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The defence of Calais is detailed here by Ellis: DEFENCE OF THE CHANNEL PORTSDamwiki1 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When Britain Saved the West: The Story of 1940 by Robin Prior, page 96, shows the surrender to have occurred on 26 May. I don't think we need to add any additional citations to the article itself now that the point is well sourced. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The air battle had a more prominent role
In Dunkirk: The New Evidence broadcast on Channel 4 (July 2017) and presented by the historian Joshua Levine, it stated the following (almost word for word);


 * Hermann Göring halted the German land advance in order for his bombers to finish off the British Army. Hitler agreed to this request. Göring hadn't bargained for the strength of the Spitfire. In holding off the Luftwaffe the Royal Air Force lost 900 planes, the Luftwaffe lost 1400 and thus were stopped from preventing the mass evacuation from the beaches. Kesselring, the general in charge of the German air force at Dunkirk, acknowledged that it was the Spitfire that enabled the British to evacuate across the channel.

So according to this It wasn't a mystery halt, it was that Göring thought his air force was untouchable and that it would be a coup for them alone to achieve victory. The RAF fought inland, downing 1400 Luftwaffe while the RAF lost 900, with the Spitfire being most effective (Kesselring documented its effectiveness). It was only after the Luftwaffe were largely halted from reaching the beaches that the German army then advanced a day and a half later by which time the evacuation had taken place. This article as it stands has little on the fierce battle that was taking place in the skies above (possibly because the detail hasn't been public knowledge). Levine on the programme states that without question the evacuation would not have taken place without the RAF downing 1400 Luftwaffe. One of the British soldiers on the beaches at Dunkirk appeared on the programme and was shocked at the figures from the battle taking place in the sky. DReyan102 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I had already removed your addition before I noticed this talk page post. The reason for the halt order has been much debated by historians and is covered in the body of the article. Giving emphasis in the lead to the role of the RAF and one particular type of airplane is a bit simplistic and not an accurate representation of the way the majority of historians view these events in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is historians have gone on what was known. There were soldiers on the ground that had no idea until this day that 1400 Luftwaffe were prevented from reaching the beaches. While it was a factor in aiding the evacuation, Levine stated on the programme it was decisive. I've reworded from Kesselring (featured article). DReyan102 (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The halt order was only in effect from 22 May to 26 May, and the Panzers resumed their advance on 27 May. I have amended your addition to reflect this. The sources to back this up are already present in the body of the article. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Dunkirk spirit
Dunkirk spirit used to redirect here, but I've changed this. Please see Talk:Dunkirk spirit for my explanation of this change. I am open to further rearranging based on the ideal placement of this phrase based on the coverage. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:59, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Two Dunkirk jacks?
I searched for an outside link to augment citation 128, and it looks like two different flags associated with Dunkirk are being conflated. One is the Dunkirk jack, which is actually a St. George's Cross on a plain white background and is identical to the Admiral flag. To prevent confusion it is apparently supposed to be flown with the red ensign, which indicates the ship is a civilian vessel and thus would have no Admiral on board.

The second is the St. George Cross defaced with the arms of Dunkirk. It is the image currently displayed on the page as the "Dunkirk jack", but is actually the house flag of the Association of Dunkirk Little Ships. While membership is only open to someone who owns one of the Little Ships, it is NOT the same as the Dunkirk jack described above. In the article this flag is referred to both as the ADLS house flag and the Dunkirk jack, which it is not. (The image is named Dunkirk jack in the Commons and it should probably be renamed.) It may only be flown by someone who is a member of the ADLS, whereas the Dunkirk flag may be flown by any of the Dunkirk Little Ships. The ADLS does not refer to their house flag as the Dunkirk jack anywhere I could find on their site.

I am NOT any kind of expert on flags, and the above should be verified by someone familiar with them before any of it is put in the article in case I have misunderstood.

References: The Association of Dunkirk Little Ships, Article on crwflags.com (commercial site), St George: Let's Hear it For England! (google book search), Thread on navy-net.co.uk, and New World Encyclopedia article on the evacuation from Dunkirk in the final paragraph of the article (although this source references the Wikipedia article as its major source so may not suitable). kdorian (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)kdorian


 * I fear you are correct. Please put it right. Nedrutland (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Edits
Summary Section

Reference to '...also known as the Miracle of Dunkirk...' I know this sounds unbelievably petty but while you can describe the evacuation as 'miraculous,' 'The Miracle of Dunkirk' is the title of the book by Walter Lord and I personally can't find a separate reference to it apart from that.

The operation was decided upon when large numbers of British, French, Belgian, and Canadian troops were cut off and surrounded by German troops during the Battle of France. Remove reference to 'Canadian;' the Canadians landed at Brest on 4th June and later evacuated during Operation Ariel, not Dynamo.

Background

I think this should include a reference to the fact that Belgium remained Neutral until the German invasion in May 1940; this delayed the movement of the Northern Armies to the Dyle line and the speed of the German attacks on the Netherlands and Belgium is a major reason why they were unable to hold their line and ended up in Dunkirk.

Robinvp11 (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have removed the part about Canadians at your suggestion. I think we can leave in "miracle" as Churchill himself used the word ("miracle of deliverance"). I will dig up a citation for the Belgian thing and will add a bit ASAP. — Diannaa (talk) 01:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, here is what I found: The Belgians invited the Allied armies into their country on 10 May, the date of the invasion of Belgium. (this was a good two weeks before the start of the evacuation, and 10 days before planning for it commenced). The BEF advanced to the Dyle and elements the French army entered Belgium. Source: When Britain Saved the West: The Story of 1940 By Robin Prior. Page 75. There's more information on the Dyle plan at Battle of Belgium and French war planning 1920–1940. I think adding any coverage of this would give too much emphasis to Belgium's neutrality. My opiion is that the biggest reason why the defenses failed and the evacuation became necessary was the absolutely dreadful performance of the French army, not the fact that they were not permitted to station men in Belgium until 10 May. — Diannaa (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

My prejudice :) I know that the point is made several times in the Introduction but Dunkirk was a disastrous defeat, just not as disastrous as it might have been so using words like 'Miracle' in the opening line is misleading (and annoys the non-Brits :)) but that's a matter of opinion so I'll leave it with you.

I wasn't clear on my point on Belgium; I don't agree with your analysis (or Robin Prior's book) but that's a discussion for another day :) because I'm not suggesting it needs to be explained in detail. What's significant is most of the Allied armour was in the Northern Army that moved into Belgium (it was caught out of position by the speed with which the Dutch and Belgian defenses were over-run) and lost at Dunkirk. That is relevant to the Battle of France (lack of armour was a major factor in why the French couldn't hold their line on the Somme) and also helps explain why Dunkirk was so disastrous. It's not the men - it's the equipment losses.

Do you know where the Belgian evacuees came from? Simple curiosity because the Belgians surrendered on 28th May so....I read somewhere a few Belgians kept fighting but I've never come across figures (I think there were some Dutch as well).

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that point being covered in the sources I used when I prepped this article for GA. — Diannaa (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

How many French and British evacuated?
Of the 338,226 troops mentioned in the introduction, is there any estimate of how many were French, and how many British? The "Aftermath" section says that 100,000 evacuated French troops were redeployed quickly - were those all Dunkirk evacuees?Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The source says 100,000 French soldiers were evacuated from Dunkirk. I have amended the prose to make this clearer. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Evacuation, escape or both ?
I guess within this subject, it's easy to be misunderstood. But this event was naturally of huge significance for Britain, and a kind of miracle. But I think the greater picture, caused by a combination of French military conservatism, the German insight of how use armoured forces (as stand alone divisions rather than being a support to the infantry), the allied refusal to learn anything from the German war on Poland as well as the wrongful assumption that the Ardennes constituted some kind of protection, really became a disaster. And given the four year of standstill and madness in the trenches at the Western Front 1914-18, this (overall, 1940) German victory was truly spectacular and frightening. Churchill just happened to become new PM the same day the German offensive began (May 10), and only five days later (May 15) all mobile allied forces were cut off from their supply lines, and the only remaining French reserves were tied to the stationary Maginot line. Hence it soon became a necessity to save and bring back as many as possible. There was absolutely no cowardice behind this. And it was very well done, many brave fishermen and yacht sailors included. But Hitler and Nazism aside (if possible), it's understandable I think, if the German perspective at the time was different. And the word "escape" is kind of true too. (first due to a disastrous war-planning and after 10.May, following the German expectations, almost down to the letter) The label we put on this event is not of any larger significance. But wise after the event, it's rather easy to see that it had been better to not send any British troops to France at all. To take responsibility for one's own soldiers, is a good thing. And something Hitler never did. But I think there is something missing in this article. I'm not suggesting any kind of glorification of the Third Reich. Solely something about the opposite point of view, or how the military enemy (who ever that might have been), looked at this event at the time. Boeing720 (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The answer to the question of how the enemy viewed it can be found, sourced, in the Battle of Dunkirk section of the article. Specifically, Manstein saw the decisions that allowed the evacuation to happen as being "one of Hitler's most critical mistakes". That section does use the word "escape" -- the Luftwaffe was supposed to prevent the escape, so the result was an operational failure for the Germans. MPS1992 (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Herr von Manstein (the "von" is a part of his surname and isn't a title, but like "de" in "de Gaulle") was presumably one of Germany's most skillful generals (and Fall Gelb/Operation Danzig, was an idea which originally came from him through von Rundstedt, final adjustments made by Halder and others), and also dared to oppose Hitler on military matters. He was aware of the assaination-plans on Hitler, but said "Prussian officers don't make revolutions" (or somthing very similar), but he didn't reveal the knowledge either. Von Manstein also believed a German victory in Russia still was possible as late as before his dismissal (early in -44). But what he stated after the war, isn´t quite the same as how the German military regarded this event at the time and officially. E.g. war-time propaganda. I really have no desire to change very much.
 * I've, by the way, noticed a minor confusion, as both OKW and OKH are descibed as "High German Command", in the lead and in the background section. And in the Analysis, Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW) is used. To my knowledge OKH refers to the army alone (chief von Brauchitsch until Moscow-41; chief of staff Halder) and OKW to all armed forces (chief Keitel and chief of staff Jodl) Boeing720 (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources establish what was thought at the time by examining the primary source material and by recollections of the people involved. I have no desire to change very much either. MPS1992 (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I take your word for that. But it's still just what von Manstein said, not any official propaganda. Boeing720 (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Nazi Propaganda vs military
This is a better example of pure political/Nazi propaganda. Sorry for the poor quality, but I was not allowed to use a scanner. . Surelly there is a difference between this illustration and the evacuation illustration, or am I wrong ? Boeing720 (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You are exactly right, there is indeed a difference between this illustration and the other one. MPS1992 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As all involved now have had the opportunity to see the Nazi Chamberlain illustration (and the differece vs "Dünkirchen", perhaps), and due to poor quality, I have removed the illustration. Boeing720 (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

German propaganda and "the greatest annihilation battle of all time"
I added a paragraph about how Dunkirk was treated by the German press (that is, through the OKW and Hitler's headquarters). Superlative descriptions of the German victory were used, such as "greatest annihilation battle of all time." This relies on primary sources but I hope presenting the quotations in context is sufficiently reliable and verifiable. The intent is just to state what the German people were told at the end of the evacuation. The text can be removed if it is out of place, but I think it is important to state how the public on both sides of the war were informed of what happened at Dunkirk. More discussion of the British press would be interesting as well, as the public were kept in the dark about the possible destruction of the BEF until the evacuation was well underway. Roches (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a little content on the lack of British press coverage, ie, "Due to wartime censorship and the desire to keep up British morale, the full extent of the unfolding disaster at Dunkirk was not initially publicised." I have formatted the citations to match the existing style. — Diannaa (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The Dunkirk operation wasn't a disaster, it was actually more successful than had ever been hoped. The Battle for France was the 'disaster' as it was what had made the evacuation at Dunkirk necessary in the first place.