What if Dunkirk had been a disaster?

[Swampy]

Long time members will remember the discussion about the Battle of Britain, and our consensus that Operation Sealion could never have worked, and even the Battle of Brtain could not have been lost, because of so many factors. But the ongoing concern, of course, is that Dunkirk could have been a different matter - if the German armoured units had not stopped, they might have plowed through. The nature of that "halt" order is still debated today, and Churchill has said that von Rundstedt had in fact given the order, which Guderian agreed to, because the tanks needed to refit while the soldiers needed to rest.

I would say also that, even if they had advanced, they would have had to face the enemy in the narrow streets of Dunkirk, where their armor would have been useless - look at Arnhem a few years later, when a few lone units of British paratroopers held out for nine days - which is, by the way, the same number of days needed to evacuate the British Expeditionary Army in 1940.

What do you think? Let's get a discussion going, in light of the movie.

[Sir John]

Not a lot, at least initially. The loss of 300,000 British troops would have made recruitment a lot slower to reach targets, but 'Sea Lion' would still have failed thanks to the ever present RN Home Fleet.

First big strain would have been North Africa but even there, Tobruk would still have been safe and el Alamein still a close run thing.

More later.

SJ

[Swampy]

Sealion would have failed, but the British could not have diverted the Germans in the Balkans and North Africa, and so the German invasion of Russia would not have been delayed by those critical months. Also, without the 300,000, where would Britain find the troops? Granted, lots were surrendered at Singapore and elsewhere, but this only means the British needed warm bodies.