Originally posted by no1marauderIts not 'my' explanation, its what I've read in the past.
That's nonsense, though it was something a few German generals claimed after the war. The fact is that the area around Dunkirk was ill-suited to armored operations being marshy and sandy. The spearheads of Guderian's armored column was simply not strong enough to overwhelm a position containing 400,000 well trained and armed troops in a short time. The B ...[text shortened]... y to maintain a quarter million troops to "use it in further discussions". What nonsense.
However, I may be willing to concede to your point in light of the following. Its one source but I may be able to find others to support it, we'll see. This is taken from...
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p375_Lutton.html
Harmon re-examined the on-going controversy concerning Hitler's order of 24 May, halting for two days the German advance in the direction of Dunkirk. After the war some German officers claimed that they were "shocked" when they received the order to stop their tanks at the river Aa, which permitted the French to establish a defensive line on the west side of Dunkirk. At the time, however, Panzer General Heinz Guderian visited his leading units on the approaches to Dunkirk and concluded that General Von Rundstedt had been right to order a halt and that further tank attacks across the wet land (which had been reclaimed from the sea) would have involved a useless sacrifice of some of his best troops. In his post-war memoirs and discussions with Sir Basil Liddell Hart, Guderian tried to blame Hitler for the suspension of the advance. From his discussions with Guderian and other German generals, Liddell Hart concluded that Hitler permitted the British Army to escape on purpose, hoping that this generous act would facilitate the conclusion of peace with Britain.[3]
A number of years ago it became clear that the order to stop the advance of the German Panzer units had been expected for some time. General Von Rundstedt finally issued that order on 24 May which Hitler simply confirmed.[4] The troops were allowed to rest and local repairs were carried out on the armored vehicles. When the offensive resumed on 26 May the German priorities had shifted and the focus of the attack was Paris and the heartland of the country where a large body of French troops remained. Dunkirk was regarded as a sideshow. German Air Force units were assigned to bombard Dunkirk, but the weather there was generally unsuitable for flying and during the nine days of the evacuation the Luftwaffe interfered with it only two-and-a-half days-27 May the afternoon of 29 May and on 1 June.[5]
OK no1mauarder, I am convinced upon further citings, good job. However, remember this history is written by the winning side. 😉
http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/dunkirk1940.htm
The German armies inexplicably waited around the perimeter of Dunkerque. Maybe the Panzer tanks and armoured divisions were short of fuel and supplies after their successful but frantic dash into France.
Whatever the reason, this gave a window of opportunity to save as many as possible of the Allied troops to fight on another day - though all their equipment and weapons had to be left behind.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAnd how would this be a good thing? Please explain the economic and social benefits of spending millions to switch over! It's been 25 years here since we've supposedly switched and the only aspect that is truely metric is the temperature. Everything else is still imperial.
They invented and then spread the Metric system to everyone (but the US).
GV
1 edit
Originally posted by Nighthawk62The Imperial system is retarded? Don't go blaming France for Canada's failures (or those of the US).
And how would this be a good thing? Please explain the economic and social benefits of spending millions to switch over! It's been 25 years here since we've supposedly switched and the only aspect that is truely metric is the temperature. Everything else is still imperial.
GV
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI never said that it wasn't retarded. It stems from medievel bartering and many arbitrary units were used. The metric system should theoreticaly be easier to use, however, switching over is a monumental task and I believe we have been slipping backwards towards the imperial system over the last 10 years. Consider the following:
The Imperial system is retarded? Don't go blaming France for Canada's failures (or those of the US).
North America was surveyed in miles - impossible to change
Buildings were built in imperial - If materials become metric reovations would be a nightmare and cause costs to rise. A dual system so as that new construction could be metric and renovations done in imperial is cost prohibative and confusing, and would need to be carried on for 100 years.
Why do France and Britain who build Airbus use imperial fasteners? Even they have found it dificult to break from the medievel system!
I don't believe the benefits of being able to do calculations on your toes outweighs the cost (two fastener systems, mechanics need two sets of tools, signage changeover, packaging changes and labeling, etc), inconvenience(units of measure and area now bear no resemblence to the way the land was surveyed, confusion over conversions, confusion which wrench you need, etc) and dangers (Gimli glider) of switching over. In my opinion the metric system was conceived by people who were poor at math and fractions and thought that everbody else was as well. How selfish on their part. Oh that's right they were french!
GV
I believe this topic deserves a thread of it's own so I'll be cut and pasting info to a new one.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHistorical fact.
[b]...the Line achieved the specific task it was intended to do, rendering a direct assault against France's Eastern border impossible (the few Maginot forts which were directly attacked by German armoured troops held very well). It would be more truthful to state that the Line was sound, but France's strategic use of it was poor. As originally envisi ...[text shortened]... sible that the Line was not a bad idea, but instead that France failed to utilize it properly?
How did France first propose to prepare for the reunification of Germany? Was it another maginot line? No. They built speed bumps for the panzers instead.
Originally posted by sword4damoclesplanning to attack USSR later ?
Its not 'my' explanation, its what I've read in the past.
However, I may be willing to concede to your point in light of the following. Its one source but I may be able to find others to support it, we'll see. This is taken from...
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v02/v02p375_Lutton.html
Harmon re-examined the on-going controversy concerning Hitler's ...[text shortened]... erfered with it only two-and-a-half days-27 May the afternoon of 29 May and on 1 June.[5]
an extraodinary army ( die Wehrmacht ) to the worst military leader !!!