re: #370 Dr Lizardo

Yeah, it wouldn’t have been a cake-walk, but capturing the BEF at Dunkirk could have been a turning point, and not in a good way, at least for us normal folks.

Agree with that. It’s just the consequences that …

One of the things I have a little fun with in these ‘what if’s are how they always seem to cascade and everything goes right (or wrong) for one side, and on top of it how the whatiffers posit one element as the only thing that matters. Dunkirk’s a great example.

‘Everyone knows’ (and Lapham repeats) that the reason for the stop was because hitler agreed air power would be enough. It completely ignores the fact that von Rundstedt and von Kluge wanted to stop to reconsolidate their forces. Quite simply the way they were going they’d go into a desperate ground situation (the Brits would fight because it was fight or die - no way to retreat) with no controls to prevent friendly fire or unintended bypass. So here’s another thing that happens:

Hitler insists they go in NOW. And the desperate brits, left with no choice, turn Dunkirk into a preview of Stalingrad. Oh yes, they’re devastated with most dead and no unwounded survivors taken as prisoners of war, but both army groups expend an inordinate amount of fuel, ammo, and more importantly time and manpower doing so. It takes a couple of weeks not only to win but to consolidate and reorganize in preparation for marching south - weeks during which the French reorganize and coordinate.

The Maginot line still sits across the significant logistical routes, and the forest through which they bypasses still constricts those supply lines. The constraints on resupply and the renewed vigor of the French army leads to the situation the German high command feared and tried to bypass with the Manstein plan.

WWII looks, for the first few months, a lot like WWI.