No, Hitler Did Not Let the British Escape at Dunkirk

The first week of June, 1940, was a truly perilous time for the Allies in World War II. The German invasion of France a month earlier had torn apart the over-matched, poorly-led Allied army and drove the remnants back toward the English Channel, to the beaches of Dunkirk. Not only was France about to be lost, but 400,000 soldiers and thousands of tons of equipment were at risk as well. If those men couldn’t be rescued, Britain would be left with virtually no army, and would be defenseless against the coming German landings.

On May 25th, the British made the difficult decision to evacuate their army and for the next two weeks, almost anything in England that could float, from warships to private yachts (though the role of the “Little Ships of Dunkirk” has been overstated), went back and forth between England and France ferrying troops, often under enemy fire. With the help of the Royal Air Force covering the beach and French troops fighting desperate rearguard actions, 338,000 men were rescued from certain captivity – men who would return to France four years later to liberate it from the Nazi boot.

The courage of the sailors on those boats and the troops fighting to get out saved the day at Dunkirk, but the Allies had help from none other than Adolf Hitler himself. On the day before the evacuation began, Hitler ordered his army, which was on the verge of a breakthrough, to halt its drive to the coast and stand down for 48 hours in order to rest, refuel and repair their tanks. This pause, which was loudly protested by German generals, gave the Allies precious time to dig in and organize a defense of the evacuation beaches. It also left German troops, some who were just ten miles from the beach, watching as their enemy slipped away. By June 3rd, the last British soldier was off the beach, and less than a day later, Dunkirk was in German hands. But Hitler had missed a stunning opportunity to deliver a crippling blow to the British, a moment which changed the course of the war and gave hope to the beleaguered Allies.

The reasons Hitler gave this “Halt Order” have never been fully agreed on, either by those living through the battle or historians after the fact. On the surface, it seemed like a halfway logical concept. The German troops had been fighting for two weeks straight without a break, something that an old Great War soldier like Hitler knew all too well. They needed time to rest, replace their losses and reorganize their forces, which had taken heavy losses in France. The German armor had outrun their infantry and supplies, having advanced much faster than expected, and were running out of fuel and ammunition. Also, the ground around the Dunkirk area wasn’t ideal for tank operations, full of the marshes and canals that had bogged down German soldiers in the First World War. The pause made sense to Hitler for another reason: Luftwaffe head Herman Goring had assured him that air power could wipe out the British on the beaches, and Hitler was all too happy to give him a chance.

Whatever the reasons it was issued, the German halt was deliverance to the desperate Allies. With the additional time they received, a huge evacuation was organized, larger and faster than anyone anticipated. Also, the Allies had luck on their side, as the Luftwaffe was mostly kept out of the fighting by bad weather and the outstanding performance of the Royal Air Force. The evacuation was a stunning success, and while countless vehicles and guns were left behind, along with huge amounts of ammunition and fuel, the bulk of the British army lived on to fight another day.

That the Allies were given the time they needed to organize their evacuation and get almost 340,000 men out safely has, inevitably, led a conspiracy theory to emerge: that Hitler gave the halt order to purposefully let the British troops escape certain doom at Dunkirk, in order strengthen his bargaining position for peace talks.

Mainstream historians don’t give much credence to this, and most dismiss it out of hand. Indeed, there’s no evidence of it anywhere in the record of the war, and it makes no sense from a logistical standpoint. Nevertheless, the idea of a merciful Hitler letting the British go as a sporting gesture or so they’d “owe him one” has a strong foothold among historical revisionists, white supremacists and Hitler apologists who see the dictator as a brilliant general and all-powerful mastermind.

They allege that Hitler allowed the evacuation to secure better peace terms with Britain and look like a magnanimous gentleman, rather than a psychotic despot. He would need the British for the coming struggle against Communism, so the theory goes. Others allege a racial component to the decision, as Hitler sought to avoid killing numerous Anglo-Saxons, whom he believed were superior to his other enemies. Then there are the claims that are simply bizarre, such as that Hitler wanted to prolong the war at the behest of “European bankers” or the Illuminati, or that he was secretly a deep cover British agent. Don’t laugh.

There is an undeniable element of coincidence to Hitler’s pause. But coincidence is not evidence of conspiracy. And there is no evidence from any element of the German military bureaucracy. In fact, the Guardian recently revealed the contents of a letter from May 28th written by the German High Command to the German Labor Minister, which assumed the British army would be wiped out at Dunkirk:

“Most esteemed Labour Führer of the Reich! Everything that has happened since May 10 seems even to us, who had indestructible faith in our success, like a dream. In a few days four fifths of the English Expeditionary Army and a great part of the best mobile French troops will be destroyed or captured. The next blow is ready to strike, and we can execute it at a ratio of 2:1, which has hitherto never been granted to a German field commander…”

There is absolutely no logical reason why the Germans would have wanted the bulk of the British armed forces to escape. If the Germans had been able to collapse the Dunkirk pocket, it would have weakened the Allies immeasurably, possibly bringing them to the negotiating table. Britain was terrified of a German landing on the home islands, and while Germany never had the capacity to pull it off, the general feeling around Winston Churchill’s government was that it was only a matter of time before the invasion came. And with no army to stop it, that fear might have taken hold and led to peace negotiations.

There was also far more involved in the Allied escape than Hitler ordering his tanks to stop. German soldiers didn’t simply stand around and watch the British being evacuated. They were fighting to reach the beaches the entire time the Allies were fighting to get off them, with artillery and aircraft shelling, bombing and strafing the troops there without mercy. And Hitler’s pause order certainly didn’t influence the weather in France. Even the most ardent white supremacist has to acknowledge that Adolf Hitler couldn’t make clouds appear.

Finally, the idea that Hitler ordered a grand stand down of his troops is deflated by one simple fact: the pause order didn’t actually originate with Hitler. It was first given by General Gerd von Rundstedt, commander of Army Group A, which was the large force fighting in western France. In turn, the pause was requested by von Rundstedt’s tank unit commander, who had lost 50% of his armored forces and needed time to regroup.

The order went, to von Rundstedt, who thought the Luftwaffe could deal with the British while he turned toward Paris and won heroism for himself. He passed it up to Hitler, who rubber stamped it, and the order was given. German generals vociferously blamed Hitler for the British miracle after the war, including von Rundstedt, who placed the whole debacle at Hitler’s feet.

Dunkirk was a stunning victory pulled out of the jaws of defeat. The massive losses in material that the Allies suffered were quickly replaced, and soon, the same British troops that had escaped one beach would be landing on other Nazi-held beaches across Europe. And they escaped disaster at Dunkirk through tenacity, courage and a little luck, not through any gracious gesture of Adolf Hitler.

About Mike Rothschild

Mike Rothschild is a writer and editor based in Pasadena. He writes about scams, conspiracy theories, hoaxes and pop culture fads. He's also a playwright and screenwriter. Follow him on Twitter at
This entry was posted in Conspiracy Theories and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

168 Responses to No, Hitler Did Not Let the British Escape at Dunkirk

  1. Terry Whelan says:

    Family legend has it that my grandfather was captured by the Germans at Dunkirk. As the story goes he was a radio operator. His job was to help coordinate the evacuation, so could not leave himself. Once he returned home he never talked about what happened, and historical records are sketchy. I would love to be able to find out more.

    • James says:

      My father, who was 21 then, was also captured in the outskirts of Dunkirk. He too was a wireless operator (Royal Signals, attached to the 2nd Battalion of the durham Light Infantry). He had been in Belgium, then was at Arras. I had never, till reading your comment Terry, thought associated his captivity with the idea of him needing to use his radio skills for the effort, but perhaps that is what happened. Captivity as a private in those holes called POW camps in poland came very close to killing him, but in the end he was repatriated about two years later; then meeting my mother who was a radio operator in the ATS — so his misfortune at Dunkirk worked out all right for me!

    • Mark says:

      My grandad wasn’t at Dunkirk, he was working at a university and didn’t get called up until 1942. Two years of training and he was with the Royal Signals when they landed in Normandy in 1944. A few days after D-Day (he said)
      He told me some pretty harrowing stories that I didn’t truly appreciate until later in life. Having to shoot 15 year old kids with their hands on their head in 1945 if they refused to obey “Hande hoch!” as they may have been concealing stick grenades (some friends of his had been killed by Hitler Youth putting hands on their heads and not in the air. They got within a few yards, threw the grenades and tried to escape.
      I was lucky that he told me, I guess, as different people deal with grief and loss in different ways. He described losing one of his closest friends. They were heading to Hamburg and suddenly came under fire from artillery. The bulk of his mates in the truck dived for a roadside ditch, two lay under the truck. Direct hit. Must be terrible seeing a mate taken like that.
      I would like to know more if anyone can verify these stories or knows of any links or books for further reading. The official site of the regiment is very brief. It would be good to read a history of the regiment during those years, I can’t find one.

    • Robert Kennett says:

      I am american as were my two grandfather’s vets. And yes hitler did let the troops go dictators are full of mercy while they are a head of the eight ball. Ha he known what harris and churchhill were going to do in th middle of the night with the raf. He would have left them torn and burnt on the beach . Which my gramps said the sprouts were good at doing.

    • Daniel Howard says:

      Why is it so silly to think that Hitler allowed the Anglo-Saxons to escape not to kill them. His main beef was with France to avenge Napoleon. He was a racist so yes he spared the British!

      • Noah Dillon says:

        You can think anything you want, but isn’t the question about whether there’s evidence? Also, if he didn’t want to kill Anglo-Saxons (by which I assume you mean the British military) then he sure had a strange way of showing it, considering the whole rest of the war.

        • Alexandria Nick says:

          Not sure why he’d have wanted to “avenge” Napoleon either, given that while Napoleon was being shipped off to exile permanently, Blücher was walking around Paris savoring his victory. Or Napoleon III either, because that was Moltke the Elder who took the day.

          Guys named Napoleon tended to lose to Prussian armies.

  2. Edward Rothschild says:

    I think that the weight of scholarly opintion is that the Germans were streched to the limit, exhausted and that Goring’s boast that his air force could do the job looked like a simple solution to the problems present in the situation.

    • Reg. says:

      The official war diary of the Wehrmacht for 24th of May records that the order to halt the panzers was given by Rundstedt. The diary makes no mention of Hitler’s involvement with the order. On occasions when corroborative evidence is available, the wording of the diary for the 24th would mean that Rundstedt initiated the order and that Hitler’s only involvement was not to over-rule it.

      The initial failure of the Luftwaffe was the sheer bad luck of finding their bases fogbound with low cloud and poor visibility. The threat of rain was also a factor in halting the tanks, as Flanders, when wet and muddy could well become their graveyard.

      It is well known that post-war, Rundstadt sought to made Hitler himself the scapegoat for the order to halt. All this combined with the recognition that both Goring and Hitler had no appreciation of what any navy, let alone the British Navy to achieve in evacuation.

      The crisis of the six or eight weeks between the fall of France, the rise of Churchill and the sinking of the French fleet should be studied in detail, especially when The Battle of Britain followed just a short few weeks later. The sinking of the French fleet was an imperative made necessary by the fact that both the French and the Germans has proven themselves untrustworthy. With the British fleet scattered across the world a betrayal by the French Vichy government would have spelt the end for the British.

      • Stan Zorin says:

        “The sinking of the French fleet was an imperative made necessary by the fact that both the French and the Germans has proven themselves untrustworthy.”
        How were the French “untrustworthy” ? It is the other way around; throughout history it has been the English/British who often played the role of the professional traitors. [No, I am not French].

        • Darrell says:

          “How were the French ‘untrustworthy’?”

          Gee, I don’t know, Stan. Maybe — and I’m going way out on a limb here — it had something to do with their unconditional surrender to the Nazis and subsequent collaboration.

          Seriously, there has been a great deal written about Vichy France. You could, like, read some of it.

          • Robert Kennett says:

            Stan may not be as educated as you on ww2 .franks werent trustworthy thats funny, every body that made a deal with british mob squads back then were dying in great numbers .
            The raf killed a lot more French civilians than the germans
            Any old vet. Will tell you germany lost the war because it didn’t
            Engage in large scale civil bombings and russians.if that vet is being candid.

        • Dan says:

          There are two or three campaigns you ought to look into in the war elsewhere. The French allowed the Japs into Indochina (Vietnam) which was subsequently used by the Japs as a huge staging area for invading Malaya, Burma, Thailand, Phillipines, Dutch East Indies and Southern China.

          The Japs also based in Madagagascar with Vichy forces. The Vichy troops collaborated with Germans in Syria too.

        • Dan says:

          A fair number of the French were actually fascists. Within the political community it had that appeal. It’s not talkaed about much but it’s a factor in the Perfomance of the French. Plenty of Belgians and Dutch were also keen fascists.

          • Uncle Benny says:

            And plenty of Brits were Nazi sympathizers as well.

          • ilea says:

            It’s funny that people tend to label entire nations of being “traitors”, or being “friends”, where in reality is all about who is the Political power that ruling the country. What happened back then was , that the “fair number of the French who were actually fascists”, were ruling over the vast majority of “traditional communists” in France. The Vichy Gov. was the last hope for the Nationalists to eradicate forever, the Communist plague that raged in France and Europe at that time. Hitler always count on the ” common sense” of the West to join him in the “holly war” against “the bolsheviks” . His biggest mistake was that he dare to take the banks from them , so eventually the West turned against him.

          • Robert Kennett says:

            There is a choice fascist or communist. If you are a person of faith and pride for country it is an easy choice. Know won knew what the Nazis were realy capable of doing until after the war. We now ether one had any real chance in war.

        • Alexandria Nick says:

          Choosing to maintain their armistice with Germany over continuing the fight by turning over their fleet meant that France was already suspect. A trustworthy France would have gleefully sided with the British, secure in the idea that Western liberal democracy would triumph in the end. At a minimum, those ships should have been either tied up in the West Indies, beyond German reach, or milling around Chesapeake Bay under the watchful, semi-neutral eye of the United States. By forcing the British to remove the fleet from the table, the French showed they were already giving deference to the Germans, which means you have doubts about the ability of Britain to win.

      • Paul says:

        Britain was able to pull the troops stranded on the beaches due to the sacrifice of the French rearguard and the valiant small boats owners and Royal Navy.

        RAF provided extremely limited cover above Dunkirk. We need to stop creating legends like Waterloo; if Bluecher wouldn’t have joined the battle, Wellington would had been defeated.

        • Wayne says:

          The plan was that Bluecher would join Wellington as soon as he could. So its not a case of Bluecher came to Wellington’s rescue because it was part of a plan agreed before the battle. They were allies who were supposed to help each other.

          • Pumpkins says:

            And Blucher was lucky to be able to come to the rescue due to Grouchy not catching him 🙂

            Yes, the plan was to fall back in parallel lines but he was still pursued by 30000 soldiers (something like that, not exactly sure)

            In all honesty I believe Wellington wouldn’t win the battle if Blucher hadn’t come.
            That’s all down to speculation though 🙂

        • Director says:

          France in 1940 was a political mess. One minute they have a commie Jewish premier called Blum the next they have a Junta lead by a traditionalist like Petain.

      • Robert Kennett says:

        We must listen to those during that lived back then war is ugly and always one sided in the 40s this b******t would be laughed at both grandfather’s said the krouts sued for peace to many times after several victories but the bankers would not have it .you guys need to read the press back then .where did you get your ed. From hollywood.

  3. Rob Struble says:

    Not to mention the obvious logical flaw in the “bargaining point” theory – his bargaining position with Britain would have been even *better* if he’d wiped out the 38k.

  4. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    You are pretty near the mark with this one Mike. I have a slight advantage with regard to the fact that I have visited Boulogne, Calais, Dunkirk and the nearby Bray Dunes area where our men where evacuated. I have paced out some of the action and visited the cantilever bridge near Bray Dunes where the volunteered, notice I didn’t say volunteers, fought an almost suicide mission to hold off the approaching Germans.

    I have also stood at Mont des Cats a 530m hill rising above the plain where Major General A.E. Osbourne looked out to the advancing German armour and made a stand. It is the ideal defensive position but back then Osbourne knew he had limited supplies and equipment and no chance of replenishment.

    The British fought a rear gard action every bit of the way against all odds. There are many first hand accounts of this and as with all battles tales of bravery and daring do.

    Of course you may have visited this area also, I apologise if I’m been presumptuous.

    I still had family back in the sixties that where involved in some of the second world wars battles. All generations would meet at my Great Grandmas house as they had done for years before when where in farming and occasionally would relate tales of HMS Hood, Monty Casino, Arnhem and Dunkirk to name a few. As a school boy I listened intently. There where some members of the family that where not present. One was my Great Aunt Lols son who lost his life at Arnhem. My father would visit his grave into the nineties to place flowers on it when he was visiting Holland.

    I have also visited the Normandy landing beaches last year as well as many more first and second world war battle fields.

    As I understand Dunkirk you are right about the Germans been over stretched and needed to regroup and consolidate. But also they had the need to service, repair and replenish. Their armour needed maintenance just as any machine does. Its well documented that Rommel made lightning advances but was told to halt by his superiors and wait for the infantry to catch up. Its also documented that he realised himself that he had become exposed.

    The speed of his advance and to some extent luck put mortal fear into the French and they did not always press their advantage.

    This is an over simplification and I would need to write a book to present the full case for the events at Dunkirk but suffice to say I’m satisfied that Hitler did not let the BEF off the hook. Indeed anyone who makes a close study of the events and the traumatic time the British and the French underwent can not fail to come to this conclusion. That is unless you want to promote a new angle to sell a book.

    Fate or what ever you want to call it moves in strange coincidental ways and hind sight is a wonderful thing.

    You may as well argue that Hitler purposely spared the RAF because he didn’t really want to invade Britain. No doubt someone will if they haven’t already.

    One thing I would like to see more investigation in is Winston Churchill’s feeling that he was on a divine mission.

    Now there is a subject worthy of Skeptoid.

    • Stan Zorin says:

      The real history has little to do with the official history. In his memoirs general Heinz Guderian who commanded the XIX. Panzerkorps, presents a very different picture of May 1940. He wrote that his units were ready and able to move towards Dunqerque which had no defense line and finish off the British, but were stalled by Hitler himself. Guderian had not much room to maneuver, he openly disobeyed Hitler before, at Sedan, and his commmander in the field Von Kleist twice. He was told in no uncertain terms to sit and wait for three days, while the British were, under his nose, comfortably deserting their French and Belgian allies.

      • Dan says:

        Guderian paints a picture of a fresh, fully prepped force sitting there watching Briish troops calmly smoking ciggies and drinking tea. Lol. Yeah of course he does. This is typical stuff found in self serving biographies.

        • Robert Kennett says:

          You can’t believe that the Germans couldn’t have whipped out those men. I mean britain was out of the war cause of that and the big lie .the battle of Britain.

      • alex millward says:

        The Wehmacht reports state the order to halt came from Von Runstadt and with mo mention of Hitlers involvement. They halted because they assumed the British were doomed anyway and wanted to repair and maintain their vehicles and await logistics supply. They had not bargained on the weather (fog) or on the incredible response from Civilian and navy alike in collecting troops off the beaches whilst under fire
        An incredible story and one that i cant wait to see told in the new film coming out later this year

    • Director says:

      As you point out. If the various halts were strategic blunders, that the Germans could replay and win, you’d have to give the British, French and Belgians and even the Dutch a chance to alter a few missteps too.

      Had the British simply stayed around Lille from May 10-20th they’d have smashed Kleist and Hoth.

      Had the Belgians kept fighting for 3 more days the British could have Escaped via Neiwporte or Ostend.

      Had de Gaulle counterattacked on the 21st and not the 17th toward Arras from the south instead of further east at Mauberge then the entire Wehrmacht would have been halted for a week.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Yes, yes Hitler did let the British leave. The Brits were Hitlers favorite people outside of Germany. He admired the culture and people. He thought the two people’s had much in common and hoped for an alliance during the early stages of the war. (Even after the invasion of France). Unfortunately, mostly the victors get to choose what’s in the history book. Just look at the Katyn massacre(blamed on the SS for the last 60+ years). Turns out the Soviets did it. Hmmmmm…..

    • Jerry Hamilton says:

      Yes, I read that in “The Hitler Hess deception”.
      Pretty much echoed in “Churchill’s deception”.
      The amount of times Hitler tried to make peace with us and that Hitler proposed he withdraw all troops from occupied lands, you would have thought a sane man would have accepted it.
      Churchill it seems, did allow a lot of people to die that didn’t need to.

      • Ya I mean Hitler kept his word every other time he offered a peaceful solution I mean Churchill was completely negligent. Look at how well Czechoslovakia did???? He occupied the Sudetenland and he stayed out of the rest of the country as promised.

    • Also Anonymous says:

      Yep, and 9/11 was an inside job, the moon’s a hologram, the moon landings were faked (because of its being a hologram), global warming is a complete hoax perpetrated by NASA, vaccines actually cause autism, the cure for cancer’s been withheld by big pharma, the Jews are behind everything, Hitler’s secretly alive, so is Stalin, Tupac never died, Paul Walker’s death was faked, Muslims around the world are uniting to conquer Europe in an ironic twist of the Crusade, I’m an alien, aliens have been around for thousands of years, we’re at the center of the universe, the Earth is flat and is supported by turtles, the Earth is also a concave hollow shape, the government is secretly trying to turn us all into a bunch of robots via reality TV and Bigfoot truthers, and the government is a lie.

      Give us a break.

      • Noah Dillon says:

        You forgot Reverse Vampires and Saucer People.

      • Alexandria Nick says:

        There’s a difference between all that and saying “there’s some evidence that Germany wasn’t particularly interested in actually annexing a conquered France and United Kingdom,” especially given how haphazardly their actual administration was, that Southern France was turned into a rump France, and that Sea Lion only had plans for what to do with Southern England. The fighting in the west was largely an action to keep the Allies from interfering with the east. The post-war seems to have been more in line with what the Soviets would have done: All Power Germany lords itself over semi-independent France, UK, Norway, Belgium, Denmark, and Netherlands. Sweden, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain probably have seats at the table in this weirdo alternate EU.

        France was knocked out and done. The British were functionally knocked out, as far as any action on the ground on the Continent. Annihilation would require you to expend resources and you know they have to leave all their heavy equipment behind. Oddly, you might have a better go of it hitting those same demoralized troops during Sea Lion than slaughtering them in France. At least all the fuel and ammo you’re expending to do it, when in England, gets you physically closer to London and victory. I see it more as a “go back to your corner” in boxing, than a gentlemanly “you fought well!”

      • Uncle Benny says:

        Well, the Earth being supported by turtles is true. It’s turtles all the way down.

      • A random person says:

        You’re being sarcastic aren’t you? High five. And all humans are really werewolves and vampires, dinosaurs aren’t extinct and oxygen is poisonous but takes 80 years to kill.

    • John says:

      Anonymous. Germany was being Jewed good and proper. Especially after Versailles. Hitler knew it and the German people did. There was a Communist plot to do to Germany what had been done to Russia and it was being financed and promoted by New York and London Jeish banksters just as the Coup and subsequent massacre of millions in Russia had been.

      Hitler could simply not believe that the true British people were going to allow themselves to be manipulated into and through a bloody war by unsocial un-assimilated usurpers. That was perhaps his downfall as he knew precisely what was afoot. He spoke of it many many times as he did about his burning desire for peace and for Germany to be left alone free of the iron jackboot of Jewish Banks whom he had exorcised from Germany and without whom just like a body from whom a cancerous tumour has been removed made a thorough and quick seemingly miraculous recovery.
      Just like today the same owners of the global media purveying hate and lies against white westerners and just as then white westerners are blinded and rather believe that destroying themselves on the alter of international gangster inspired doctrines is their way forward.
      Nothing has changed. They won their war against Hitler and the destruction of Europe and the entire white west agenda has been fulfilled.

      • Noah Dillon says:

        Yeah, it’s crazy how manipulative Jews can be when Germans are launching V2 rockets at London nonstop. Are you joking?

  6. thomas says:

    Hilter was 100 % supported by the banking oligarchy and financiers and capitalists of America.
    He allowed the evacuation ’cause he had a secret deal backdoor with the Britisch aristocracy who were all secretly nazi’s. In the end Hitler was double-crossed and so Rudolf Hess too when he flew in to officialize the deal with the Britisch. So they imprisoned him for 30 years.

    • Reg says:

      Fantasy and hogwash.

      The German bankers, not relishing the damage that the rampaging SA and the Communists could do to their investments, trusted von Papan to keep a tight rein on Hitler as Chancellor in the hope that he would protect their property. This came to naught when Hitler altered the laws to make himself the sole arbiter of everything and the people cheered his audacity. Naturally the banks had to be kept on side if they were to assist in financing his war machine and what banker ever failed to seize a short term profit with a promise of more to come?

  7. Anonymous says:

    “there’s no evidence of it anywhere in the record of the war”

    Neither is there any for gas chambers in Auschwitz.

    • Peter G Brooksbank says:

      There is plenty of evidence for the existence of gas chambers in documents left by the Nazi’s

      • sorry, but theres not. Even if every victim of WW II was killed by a diffrent german. Three quaters of germans would walk free. And if there was industrialized murder, only a few are to blame. You got to decide wehther blame some germans or a very few effectiv germans. Your theorie is not standing ground. So what is all you whining about?

        • Reg says:

          Nor is your attempt to reclaim the “I was only following orders” defense. There is strong evidence that German soldiers who refused to participate in atrocities were never brought to trial or executed for having so refused.

          The first problem was that the court would have had to prove that he had disobeyed a lawful order. In order to prove that the order was lawful it would have been necessary to trace the source and invariably that would have led to Hitler.

          Not going to happen.

          Therefore those who choose the “I was only following orders” defense were intrinsically admitting unlawful involvement.

          • Peter G Brooksbank says:

            I wasn’t going to be drawn on this as Osmosis or what ever he calls himself is clearly a troll.

            Its 01.00 here in the UK and at this time on this day the 6th June 70 years ago the attack by Major John Howard and his men on the German held Pegasus bridge had been underway for about half an hour and was a complete success. At about the same time around 700 men were dropped into enemy held territory in order to take the Merville battery. Due to heavy losses in the flooded area surrounding the battery and some loosing their way only 150 arrived at the battery but it was taken out in short order. This helped to lessen the casualties later that morning as our men came ashore at Sword beach, the beach this battery was designed to defend. I have visited both these sites and I respect and pay homage to the bravery and the sacrifice of those that took part as I do those some four years earlier who gave their all to allow our men to get off the sands at Dunkirk and Bray Dunes.

            My point is that when some clown asks in broken English, “So what is all you wining at?” I would not even give them the time of day. Some take freedom so lightly but to abuse and insult people who gave their lives so that they can talk utter drivel is inexcusable.

      • Stan Zorin says:

        I would like to see this “evidence for the existence of gas chambers”. If you provide the evidence you and me will be the first people on this planet to see it. This is a ‘sceptics’ blog and not an adjunct to a war black propaganda and disinformation bureau.

        • Jerry Hamilton says:

          I would like to see that too.
          Could someone please help me out.
          The revised death toll from the Auschwitz museum of one million is causing some confusion.
          Washington’s Holocaust Memorial Museum in 2013 claim up to 20 million were killed.
          The census in 1939 gave the amount of Jews in the world as 16.6 million.
          There could not have been many Jews that survived the work camps.
          I can not find figures on the internet but from one site I read three and a half million Jews were claiming reparations.
          Looks like the census people can’t count. Or the Red Cross who said 300,000 died.
          Also the time it took to gas and incinerate people never allowed one million to disappear in the time frame given.
          Finally… More than nine million Germans were killed after the war ended.
          And the allies are the good guys?
          Please tell me Eisenhower’s death camps were not real.

          • I cannot speak to the accuracy of what your saying about the museum in Washington. It could be their error or yours. Six million Jews died in the camps during world war II at the hands of the Nazi’s. 1/3 the world population at the time. I have no desire to know the maximum speed that humans can be executed and cremated. The only true way to know is to try it. The Nazi’s had a legendary factory type of system for executing these people with total disregard for reasonable. The dead cannot claim for reparations obviously and their children and grand children can be a much larger group than the small number of individuals killed with surviving family for obvious reasons. Eisenhower’s death camps???? You got me on that one. The Germans killed over 40 million soviet men women and children, in addition to allied losses. Seven million Germans were forced emigrated to work camps in the soviet union. The majority of post war death was people who ran from Germany to Poland Austria and Hungary. Either forced marched in the winter or forced labor there was zero sympathy for German pop post war in eastern europe and a sense of vengance. The western europe fared better and that was the reason behind west germany quick rebound. Still lack of food water and housing cause many deaths that first winter.

  8. Antonio Manso says:

    All previous steps taken by the nazis before they turned West “compelled” by the British and Fench ultimatum, were in order to attack in the East for ideological and economical reasons. Hitler did not want to find Germany involved in two fronts simultaneously. He created positions in Tchecoslovaquia, Romania, Hungary and finally Poland which lead to the British and French declaration of war.
    Finding himself in a favorable position to negotiate (he thougth that after defeating the coalition and encercling its tropops in Dunkerk, Britain had no choice but to negotiate). around a partion of the world:-Britain would keep her word Empire and Germany would get her hands free in the european continent.this led to the german armed forces being given the order to halt so that diplomacy could take its turn.
    Rodolf Hesses flight to England is in in line with this reasoning althout it did not occur Churchill simultaneously with the British retreat in Dunkirk.
    On the contrary, Churchil was commited to prove the british resolution not to capitulate. This intent was shown to the British people and to America which he hoped to attrack to the British side. His speeces had that intent and even the sinking of the french fleet by the Royal Navy had that
    reasoning among strategical considerations, showing that Britain would go all the way if necessary.
    I think that further investigation should be conducted to highlight the diplomatica side of things.
    This led to

    • Reg. says:

      Rommel, who was Hitler’s favorite general even at this early stage, had direct control of his forces and judged the country around Dunkirk NOT to be favorable to his extended ranks. There is NO evidence that Hitler gave any direction on the pause and as someone has said, the Luftwaffe could be trusted to finish off troops trapped on the beach. They tried and failed.

  9. Dean Masters says:

    I totally agree with you. Despite all the claims of the British, the Fuhrer allowed them to go free. It’s a shame Churchill was not so magnanimous a few years later, when he chose to murder thousands of innocent German men, women and children with his bombing of German cities.

    • Peter G Brooksbank says:

      Dean Masters, next time you’re fighting for the very existence of yourself, your family and all that is good in this world maybe you could be magnanimous too. I have nothing but contempt for people like you who have no grasp of what happened at all and juxtapose modern sencserbilty and values on a time when millions were been murdered because they did not fit in with the aryan ideal. Hind site is wonderful thing and only tells half a story.

      How many relatives did you loose in the quest to liberate Europe from a dark and insidious power? A power that had they succeeded many more would have been brutally murdered and sacrificed on the altar of twisted science. This would have included all of my family. No, I’m not Jewish just a member of class that holds qualifications and as such were high on Hitlers extermination list had the Nazi’s invaded Britain. Many others would have been shipped off to Germany to work in camps with no relief and death would have been the only release.

      Many of you’re so called innocent people were nothing of the sort, I suggest you turn your bile on the atrocities that the Nazis carried out both on mainland Europe and in Britain. Do the names Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Exeter, Southampton,Swansea, Hull, Birmingham, Belfast, Coventry, Glasgow, Manchester. Birmingham and Coventry mean anything to you? We still have a ruined church standing as testament to the handy work of the Luftwaffe in 1941 here in Plymouth. Our city centre looks like it does today because it was fattened with great loss of life.

      There is absolutely no evidence that Hitler was ever magnanimous quite the contrary. The reason for the halt in the Germans drive to take France’s Northern ports is well documented. Those that stayed behind to hold the line just inland from Bray Dunes in Northern France would tell you that the Germans pulled no punches there. Have you visited any of these sites as I have? Have you walked the line or seen the countless names on the war memorials and cemeteries of Northern France. I don’t know where you live or nationality you are but Its fair to say that even your very existence may be to a degree ensured by the sacrifice many made in the years 1939 to 1945 in order to endure a free world.

    • Reg. says:

      Only a closed mind could describe Hitler as magnanimous. At least you admit that Hitler and his cronies had their way for several years BEFORE the rain from hell caused a re-evaluation of apparently unanimous support for their leader.

      Yet still he needed to create the SS as his personal protection from more moderate forces. Hitler and his people invited their own destruction and even the atrocities of the Russian occupation of Berlin need to be seen against the background of German atrocities in Russia. None of the misery Hitler brought upon the world can be taken in isolation. Yet somehow your claim of Innocent German people doesn’t sit very well either then, or in retrospect.

    • alex millward says:

      The Bombing of those cities in Germany by BRITISH AND AMERICAN Bombers was horrific and many people in Britain at the time had reservations about it but when you factor in that the Germans were the first to attempt a “Fire Storm” in London and you understand the psychology at the time (one of survival by all means) and the germans had already gone as low as they could go then you can atleast understand the dynamics that lead to such decision making. For me as other generals at the time argued im not sure the carpet bombing had any real value, i think it just served to harden resolve in both UK and Germany. The bombing would have been better to be targeted at manufacturing for me.

      Can i also kindly point out that the Germans were the ones trying to take over the world by force and engineering the annihilation of Jews and Russians and some would argue that they reaped what they sowed

      • Mark says:

        The British bombed German cities first in 1940. The Blitz was in response to the firebombing of German cities by the RAF from 10 May 1940.

        • Mark says:

          Also the Germans had no interest in world conquest – unlike the British who were occupying half the world at that time.

          • Noah Dillon says:

            That’s a half truth. The Germans absolutely had an interest in colonialism and conquest, even if they didn’t control as much as the British.

          • Alexandria Nick says:

            What’s the point of claim you’re the master race if you’re not going to attempt to be global masters? I mean, the two kinda go hand in hand.

      • Vince says:

        One of the big problems in the last 2 years of the war, was that Nazi Germany, despite so obviously heading for defeat & disaster, was absolutely refusing to surrender. This was Hitlers doing above all else.
        He knew that even talk of surrender would mean the end for him, personally.
        His only goals in the final years were to cause as much death & destruction to his enemies (especially the jews) as possible, and to keep his people fighting as hard & long as they could, so as to prolong his own miserable life & put off his dreaded end for as long as possible.
        The allies, eager to get the war finished, and seeing the germans still fighting on, for no good reason, were getting frustrated & desperate to get to the end of it all.
        In 1944, the allies thought the war would be over by christmas that year, but the germans frustrated their efforts to accomplish this, for no useful reason other than Hitler wanted it this way.
        Every day the war kept going, thousands more would die needlessly, in pointless battles.
        In their frustration at the germans pointless persistence, they decided to punish the germans with more & more intensive bombing, thinking this would break german resolve, but it didn’t.
        Hitler had ordered all retreaters & deserters were to be hanged or shot.
        This meant the germans could not give up, even if they wanted to, until Hitler was dead.

  10. Dean Masters says:

    “Do the names Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Portsmouth, Plymouth, Exeter, Southampton,Swansea, Hull, Birmingham, Belfast, Coventry, Glasgow, Manchester. Birmingham and Coventry mean anything to you?”

    You forgot Dresden (war almost over, but c25,000 people murdered). And let me give you another statistic; the number of people killed by Allied bombing in Germany has been estimated at between 400,000 and 600,000. In the UK, 60,595 British were killed by German bombing. So up to ten times as many German people were blown to bits by Allied bombs, than British people by German bombs.
    Hitler was too kind to the British at Dunkirk. He should have wiped them out, and then the mass murders committed by Churchill in places like Dresden would never have happened.

    Hitler underestimated the depths that the English aristocracy (e.g. Churchill) would stoop to, in order to retain control of England for themselves.

    • Reg says:

      That wasn’t the only thing Hitler underestimated but he never underestimated the resolve of his people to adopt his mad-cap schemes, making them all as guilty as he was.

      In order to defeat an enemy it is necessary to use a force greater than that the enemy is prepared to use, which is why Hitler implored his people to be cruel in the extreme and history shows they were only too pleased implement his demands.

      Pleading with hindsight was ever a futile gesture.

    • Reg says:

      Dean, in spite of your claims to the contrary, your figures are decidedly rubbery and unverifiable. Down to the last five in British casualties but to the nearest 100,000 for the Germans. Or are simply revealing your callous disregard for German lives?

      Then tell us about the 27,001,012 Russian casualties, not including the Russian prisoners of the Germans or the Ukrainians who fought with the Germans, and were executed upon forced repatriation. That is, if they hadn’t already been starved to death or executed or worked to death by the Germans. It seems you’re taking a few teeny weenie liberties of your own Dean.

      Then explain to us why the Germans did not use poison gas on the Normandy beaches or at Dunkirk? After-all the majority of gas victims survive.

      A gas attack by the Germans would have hastened their defeat because the British were ready to respond with 20 times the amount and would have relished the opportunity of shortening the war at the cost of a few more German lives.

      Oh and then there’s the matter of peak submarine production occurring in late 1944/45. But we’ll let that pass. They probably had holiday cruises in mind.

      Hitler being magnanimous again?

    • Dan says:

      The point of the look at the Dunkirk evacuation is that the Armed Forces of Germany could not wipe out the pocket of Allied troops in the Dunkirk perimeter… There are various examples of the German military failing to defeat pockets of Allied troop and cities. Tobruk, Malta, Leningrad, Stalingrad or being run close in places like Crete or even in Kiev.

    • Vince says:

      The bombing of Dresden happened in Feb 1945.
      You have to ask, what the hell were the Germans trying to achieve by STILL fighting on in Feb-1945???
      By that stage they were surrounded on all sides by massive armies closing in on them.
      Their defeat was certain and so obvious to everyone on all sides.
      In fact, their ultimate impending defeat had been obvious to all, by that stage, for more than 6 months.
      So, why were they still fighting on???
      If the germans had accepted the inevitable, cut their losses, and decided to surrender, like they would ultimately have to do anyway, and surrendered in, say, mid 1944, when the wars outcome was no longer in doubt, then the bombing of Dresden would never have happened.
      Ive read that the worst bombing of the war happened in its final year.
      In theory, the germans could have laid down their arms & surrendered to the inevitable, at any stage, during that time & the bombing would have stopped immediately.
      But no. The germans could see the end coming, yet they kept fighting on…for what ????
      The answer was Hitler & his henchmen, who all knew they were headed for the hangman’s noose when the end comes.
      This is not to justify the bombing of Dresden, which was wrong. The british should have known long before that, that area bombing does not win wars. It was a bad idea, but in context, they were up against an enemy, who were still fighting on, for no good reason, and every day the war dragged on, for no good reason, more & more allied soldiers & german prisoners continued to die, for no good reason.
      Put simply, germany should not have been still fighting on, at that late stage.

      • david says:

        Wow blame the Germans for fighting for survival to justify war crimes.

        • Al says:

          You did not understand what Vince said, “fighting for survival”?, Vince is saying that many more Germans could have survived if they just had stopped fighting and surrendered. At that stage of the war fighting was a sure ticket to death. Surrender was a much better chance to survive. so “fighting for survival”? got me on that one.

        • Chris Stiehl says:

          My family was from Germany, over 140 years ago. My father was sent to fight in the Pacific because he had German heritage. I have spoken to my relatives in Germany. They claim our family were not Nazi’s; the German Army was not the Nazi Army. They were Germans defending their homeland from invading armies who were bombing their neighbors and relatives indiscriminantly. What would we do in the same circumstances? I had great aunts killed in bombings of Kassel. Would that make me want to surrender because Germany was going to lose anyway, or fight on and hope for the promised miracle weapons? If you were not there, under the same pressures and concerns, don’t try to second guess them; you couldn’t possibly understand what they thought or felt?

          • Vince says:

            Unfortunately, the WW/2 german army, whether it liked it or not, was indeed the nazi army. As the war went on, it became completely under the micro control of Hitler himself. Ive read that in the last years of the war, most German people just wanted the war to end, and a return to normality. But at the same time, they realised that the war could never end, with Hitler in charge. They were torn between having to obey nazi orders, and wishing Hitler would just go away. They were not fighting for “survival”. Most intelligent Germans knew they had a better chance of survival, if they surrendered earlier rather than later. In effect, they were merely fighting on for Hitlers (and his henchmen’s) prolonged survival. The germans were in effect, caught in a trap, between Hitler and his multitude of enemies, who wanted him gone, and towards the end, most Germans understood this.

          • Ted Mittelstaedt says:

            Vince is absolutely correct. There was at least 1 known assassination attempt on Hitler probably many more that were covered up by the Nazis that we will never learn about. If Hitler had the support of the German People later in the war he would have not surrounded himself with SS. Remember that when Hitler was rising to power he was giving speeches in open air with crowds of tens of thousands of people. Nobody shot him from the crowd or even attempted to. Hitler was known for mingling with the German people when he was rising. When my parents toured Germany in the 80s their guide had actually sat in a beer hall and had a beer with Hitler right across from him.

            Hitler knew later in the war if he had tried to go out into the street he would have been shot immediately. He knew he was hated and all his people did. That’s why they had the Gestapo.

            It’s pretty amazing that the revisionists cannot use a little logic.

          • Alexandria Nick says:

            “Nobody shot him from the crowd or even attempted to.”

            Plenty did, actually.

            But here’s the thing: the average person isn’t a murderer. Even people that did try to kill Hitler grappled with the moral debate over if the means justified the ends.

            The other thing to keep in mind is that even though he was mingling around with the regular people, he had formidable and numerous personal security forces. The average person isn’t going on a suicide mission either.

  11. Dean Masters says:

    The majority of German people did not vote for Hitler. But once the NSDAP were in power, those people who did not ‘toe the line’ faced the wrath of the SS, Gestapo, etc, for ‘un-German activities’. This is completely opposite to suggesting the German people had the ‘resolve….to adopt his mad-cap schemes’.

    Murdering 25,000 people towards the end of a war that is won is not using greater force to defeat an enemy, it is a war crime. And I know of no evidence at all that Hitler ‘implored his people to be cruel in the extreme’.

    Continual false statements is an even more futile gesture.

    • Heather MacAuley says:

      The officers of the Hitler regime were standing over people’s holders while they voted. My grandmother had to go in and vote with a man with a gun looking at her vote. it was not private and you had to sign in so they know who voted which way. Officers came to the doors of homes and threatened the people before the vote. My Nan lived through this, so you cannot tell me the German people didn’t vote for him. They HAD to, or else they could lose privileges.

      Eisenhower did the de-Nazification on purpose, so try to prevent this sort of BS such as you are spouting. There are films and many documents from the Nazis who were proud of their achievements as well as films and photos galore of the death camps. No evidence? TONS of it!! The german people had to go inside the death camps and see with their own eyes what went on, in every town that had a camp. but you have forgotten the lesson of history. Did you not see the civilians throwing up when they came out? Did you not see the matchstick human forms piled up? You insult the dead. your sort of blindness is one of the causes of war.

      • Lance Jameson says:

        “The German people had to go inside the death camps and see…” There were no “death camps” in Germany proper. Not even the most lax historian would make such a claim these days. Any alleged “death camp” would be placed in Poland. So how, exactly, do you propose that “the German people had to go inside…”?

        • Michael Sheridan says:

          Ravensbruck is not in Germany?

          • Lance Jameson says:

            Ravensbruck was never considered a “death camp”, as the term (admittedly an unscientific one) was generally understood.

          • Michael Sheridan says:

            Tell that to one of the survivors. Just what exactly are you trying to prove by splitting hairs in this way? Over 130,000 dead in less than six years and that’s not a death camp? Wake up to yourself boy.

          • Lance Jameson says:

            “Over 130,000 dead in less than six years…”
            I’ve seen estimates as low as 30,000 deaths at Ravensbruck from May 1939 (when the camp opened) to April 1945 (when the Soviets “liberated” the main camp).
            While you might consider a hundred thousand here and there (or a million here and there, in the case of Auschwitz) as “splitting hairs”, for those who are actually interested in getting to the truth of history, facts matter.
            There is no “official” death toll for Ravensbruck.
            The majority of those who died at Ravensbruck were not Jewish.
            If you’re unfamiliar with the term “death camp” as it has been used in Holocaust literature for decades, there are many sources of information available.
            The initial post I was responding to spoke of German people being forced to go into “death camps”, presumably to view the outcome of events which took place there.
            This did not occur at Ravensbruck.
            Ravensbruck was not a death camp.
            You brought up Ravensbruck.
            “Wake up to yourself boy”
            That’s gibberish.

          • Michael Sheridan says:

            Oh, only 30,000. Well, obviously not a death camp then, despite the fact that it was equipped with a gas chamber and crematoria. And what difference does it make whether or not the victims were Jewish? I don’t think your intention is historical accuracy at all. It’s an attempt to suggest that the German people didn’t know what was going on. That was shown to be nonsense when I was stationed in Berlin in 1961. These days you would be hard pushed to find any German except perhaps the most backward who would agree with you. Certainly none in my family. And yes, you are splitting hairs to try and “prove” a meaningless point, and in so doing you demean yourself.

        • Randall says:

          Hey retard the Germans bussed and train German civilians out to territory like Poland to Germanize the land that was conquered. So yes there were German villages and factories in Poland,Russia,Czecheslovakia etc. At the end of the war all these Germans were now illegally living on another states land and had to be deported back to Germany. There is clear evidence of German civilians having to go into the death camps and were forced to bury the dead in a dignified way. So your argument holds no weight at all. Get your facts straight bro.

          • R Wolfe says:

            There is a very accurate documentary available…
            2014 – Night Will Fall –
            Researchers discover film footage from World War II that turns out to be a lost documentary shot by Alfred Hitchcock and Sidney Bernstein in 1945 about German concentration camps.

            Bernstein describes how important it was to bring the German people in from the surrounding towns to witness the atrocities. That many of these towns popped up during the war, alongside camps, having governments that were structured and appointed by Berlin and filled with German citizens. Film of survivors discuss the horrid conditions, the gas chambers, the incinerators and mass graves. This film was never completed until 2014 for reasons explained during the exhibition.

            Simply put, intelligent people must understand that war is about murder, atrocity and disregard for human life. A bullet, a shell, a bomb has no conscience. It cares not where it is directed, who it embraces and the outcome of the interaction. What must be ascertained is that murder in the court of human sensibility has those guilty for the ruthless, barbaric and intentional malicious endeavor it is, and those not guilty for using the same, if not more prolific and heinous mannerisms to commit murder, to win the war for what the victors deem as justice.

            What this affords us is one terrible, yet moment of thought rendering; what if the Nazi’s had won the war? Would then the Brits, Americans and Russians still be suffering the consequences of their attempt to battle the Reich? I’m certain there are more than enough acts of the same violent murdering to have a Nuremberg Trial that would easily convict some Allied leaders.

            Alas, to the victors go the spoils. Prayers to all of those people affected directly or otherwise by the horrific battle s and war, and know in our hearts that many a man, woman and child lay in unmarked ditches because mankind could not get along, could not as intelligent people resolve things with discussion and negotiation and to this day, even with this war and numerous ones since then as witness, we have not learned from them. The murdering goes on and we all justify it by our particular affiliation to it. My bullet is no less innocent than yours should we elect to fire them at each other.

          • Lance Jameson says:

            “So yes there were German villages and factories in Poland, Russia, Czecheslovakia etc.”.
            Just so I understand you clearly, you are stating there were German villages and factories in Russia?
            “There is clear evidence of German civilians having to go into the death camps and were forced to bury the dead…”
            With all this “clear evidence” available, as you say, name one. It should be easy. Name one “death camp” where German civilians were “forced to bury the dead”. Treblinka? Sobibor? Belzec?
            I assume you’ve seen the photos of the lampshades made from human skin, and the soap made from human fat, as well?
            “Get your facts straight bro”.
            Indeed. Bro.

  12. Reg. says:

    Of the many candidates in the election at which the NDSP received the greatest share of the vote from people who had never seen or heard Hitler’s rantings, he was in a position to demand he be given the leadership of the government.

    He would not accept the title President, he demanded to be known as Fuehrer. His resolve to eradicate all opposition was NOT an idle political threat, he had the enforcers and their earlier use in crushing the influence of the SA was more than enough to convince the Wehrmacht he trusted them to defend the nation, rather than challenge his leadership. This support from upper class officers in the Wehrmacht went a long way to assuring his majority in the elections. But of course he still regarded it as essential that every member of the military swear individual allegiance to their leader, NOT to their country as previously, much to the consternation of the more Nationalistic of them.

    Hitler’s pre-war “chats” with his officers at Bechtesgarten were littered with his WWI experiences and exhortations to spare no-one and no cruelty, because it would be seen as a display of weakness and could only work to the advantage of their enemies, whom-ever they may be. This was also seen as oblique reference to the Jews who had already been marked as the prime enemy of the country. Such exhortations would also imply that letting the British off the hook at Dunkirk would have been far from his fevered mind.

    It really doesn’t matter what you don’t know Dean after-all you’re only a small part of the new generation of history revisers who seek to rearrange the context and re-write history as they would rather it had been. But if you don’t do it, someone else will.

  13. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    Dean, you are wrong. I did not forget Dresden; I never intended to refer to it.

    You have forgotten or have never understood what was at stake here and the suffering meted out to the people of Europe by a Monster.

    Perhaps it was an act of magnanimity that drove Hitler to sacrifice millions of slave workers in his quest to build the America bomber and the V3. Perhaps it would have been a further act of magnanimity had he succeeded and launched a V3 armed with a nuclear warhead for New York.

    Hitler was certainly magnanimous when he had millions of frightened men, women and children stripped naked, toyed with and then herded into the gas chambers to meet an obscene fate, wasn’t he?

    As I said before, hindsight is a wonderful thing and I will show no magnanimity as I say I don’t suffer fools gladly, they will leave you for dead. When your very existence is threatened, when you face a foe who shows no vestige of humanity, you stop at nothing to ensure the survival of you and yours. That includes the luxury that you indulge in has you weave your twisted web.

    I hold no hatred or I’ll feeling towards the German people, those were different times and different people but I make no apologies for anything that was done to stop death and destruction that the Third Reich carried out.

    You dismiss the destruction of British cites as nothing and play with statistics of the dead as a child does will building bricks. You wish death and destruction on those that wanted to maintain a righteous and just free world. A world without the fear of a boot kicking in your door at midnight and carrying you off to a certain horrible death. What you perpetuate and peddle is the logic of the sanatorium.

    Look elsewhere to pour out your scorn and derision. It will be people like you who will precipitate the downfall of the human race the next time we face such evil.

    It will come, believe me; you and your kind are the evidence that tells me it will come.

    • Reg. says:

      The reason for the Dresden raid hinged on the stated Russian fear that there were divisions in the city readying to attack the Russian flank.

      It doesn’t matter whether they were right or wrong, fear is enough to validate action in war. This raid is often used by the US to show that the US had higher moral values than those of the British and yet it was US Mustangs that machine-gunned the people taking refuge from the fire-storm in the parks next day. Again with the presumption that they were actually German troops who would have taken higher priority than civilians.

      War is chaos for civilians but it’s organization for the military, as shown by the US raids of a similar nature on Japanese cities. Reducing production capacity was the goal and the people represented links in the chain of production for offense turned into production for defense.

      • Dan says:

        The entire strategic bombing campaign by the RAF and USAF was pointless militarily.

        These air fleets should have been used to crush front line German units instead of massacring old men, women and children.

        • Alexandria Nick says:

          Except they couldn’t. High level strategic bombers couldn’t be used in close air support, especially with the technology of the day. Massed bomber formations couldn’t do it either. Operation Cobra proved that. It killed more Americans than Germans.

  14. Dean Masters says:

    Well Reg, there is a world of difference between alleged ‘pre-war chats’ between Hitler and his officers, and Hitler ‘imploring his people to be cruel in the extreme,… making them all as guilty as he was’. I take ‘people’ to mean the German people, as I suspect most people would.

    I accept Hitler’s military experience as a mere foot soldier in the WW1 trenches shaped his view of the world, particularly given the very harsh conditions imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. I think any self-respecting German WW1 soldier would have been very bitter and angry at their post-war treatment.

    Going back to the issue of Dunkirk. Even Churchill said he would never understand why or how the British were able to escape. I think if we put our feelings aside and look dispassionately at the facts, then all this talk of ‘fighting a rear-guard action’, ‘the Germans needed a rest’, ‘it was difficult for the Luftwaffe ‘cos it was cloudy that day’ (!) etc, should all be taken with a pinch of salt. We all know the British were allowed to escape because Hitler was an Anglophile. Dunkirk was a British embarrassment, but it had to be ‘spun’ into positive propaganda, not least because how would the British people have reacted to the targeted bombing of hundreds of thousands of German men, women and children by the British, just a couple of years or so after Hitler allowed hundreds of thousands of British troops to escape from Dunkirk, when he could have quite easily wiped them out? So the British people were misled.

    • Reg. says:

      Dean, although there are many who are convinced that we have a record of every word uttered by Hitler between 1932 and 1945, this is obvious silliness, however with all the Wehrmacht officers at his Bechtesgarten retreats, Hitler’s entreaties to absolute cruelty seem to have left an ongoing impression because that’s what happened and if we only look at the Russian campaign, no quarter was given and even the Wechmacht participated in the work of death squads which were the domain of the SS.

      Back to Dunkirk. You seem to be convinced that your weather assessment of late May 1940 in the region of interest has been dummied and that it was in fact fine and Sunny and ideal weather for the Luftwaffe to complete the job at Dunkirk, but they magnanimously chose NOT to. Easily verified if you really wanted to.

      Quote; “on the 24th of May Hitler was met by Goring. The Luftwaffe chief slammed his hand on a map of the campaign and declared ‘This is a job for the Luftwaffe.’ He promised Hitler that the bombers would smash the port of Dunkirk and cut the British off from the Royal Navy without the need to risk the precious panzers. The port of Dunkirk would undoubtedly be a bottleneck and dock facilities were highly vulnerable to aerial bombing. There is no doubt Goring believed he could destroy the port of Dunkirk and there is little to suppose Hitler thought otherwise. Neither man had a naval background and Hitler certainly did not consult Raeder at this crucial moment. It probably did not occur to Hitler or Goring that the Royal Navy could evacuate an army by any means other than a port.

      Hitler visited Rundstedt at his headquarters. Rundstedt was still in charge of Army Group A, the main force in the schelschmitt but he had been informed by Brauchitsch that he would shortly be given command of attack South to defeat the remaining French and British forces. Although we do not know what Rundstadt said to Hitler, it would be natural that he concentrated on the coming battle in the South. Hitler was already concerned about conserving his panzer forces. Rundstadt’s assessment of the task still to be accomplished- and the Franco-British forces were still formidable- can only have confirmed Hitler’s worries.

      Back at the Eagle’s Nest, Hitler would have been able to consult maps and papers of the OKW. These told him what he already knew from his experiences in the trenches 25 years earlier – that Flanders was a wet and muddy place with soft, unstable ground. If it rained, Dunkirk would become a scrapyard for the tanks.” Unquote. ###

      The British also knew the area around Dunkirk was a natural tank-trap and why would they even think of using the port facilities when it was obvious that to do so would have made the troops a concentrated target for Goring’s dive bombers. Dispersion is the principle and soft sand absorbs the blast of buried bombs.

      Hitler and Goring were obviously not very smart when push came to shove. A pair of bumbling idiots actually.

  15. Dean Masters says:

    “You dismiss the destruction of British cites as nothing and play with statistics of the dead as a child does will building bricks. You wish death and destruction on those that wanted to maintain a righteous and just free world.” No I did not, and no I don’t. You are misrepresenting what I’ve said.

    I’m simply pointing out the fact that up to ten times as many German men, women and children were bombed to bits by Britain and the Allies (mainly later in the war, when it was almost won), than the other way round regarding British deaths.

    You are the one that seems to want to dismiss this huge imbalance, you had no intention of referring to Dresden, for example, as you admit.

    I hope the damage to the church in Portsmouth isn’t too bad, and that it hasn’t affected your life too seriously.

    • Reg. says:

      Dean forgive me, but you seem to be rather ignorant of military tactics.

      The prime tactic is called “taking the war to the enemy.” Control of air space over Britain was the key to minimizing British casualties and your figures prove that the British were very successful in this undertaking.

      The Germans only had to fly across the channel to invade British air space from local airfields on the seaboard anywhere from Norway to the Spanish border. While the British had to fly for hours and hours to attack an extremely dispersed inland areas of enemy facilities. All from airfields in Great Britain which should have made the task of suppression a push-over for the Germans. So what your figures prove is that the British were far more effective than the Germans. Not ONLY more effective, but also more BRAVE.

      Now there’s another angle to this as well. The German nations had been at war almost continually for centuries, in fact they were a war-like people and to be an officer in the Wehrmacht was revered as the pinnacle of youthful aspirations. The result of all this was that the German soldier was 50% more effective than the Western equivalent and even more important, this extended through to industrial capacity and the factory floor.

      It was this appreciation that led to the understanding that the West could only hope to defeat such a war-like nation by using overwhelming numbers. It is also worth considering that Hitler liked to turn his attention to one war at a time and the invasion of Russia in 1941 was high on his agenda, so quite naturally the British tactic was to keep him guessing about where the next threat might come from. The one month delay in the Russian attack, while Hitler and his forces helped the Italians in the Balkans with their image problem, was an absolute god-send that was likely a major reason for their failure to overrun Russia before winter 1941 and likely played a major role in the Germans losing the war.

      Then once again there was Goring who promised a rate of supply of food and ammunition that was truly beyond the capacity of the Luftwaffe to deliver. Yet still their submarine production expanded. With this in mind, the British response was justified.

      • Kristjan says:

        “The story about delayed Barbarossa”
        There was never chance start invasion to CCCP earlyer then it was .The spring in eastern europa region was extremly wet and all landscape was flooded in 1941. Sorry my miss spelling english isnt my first language .

        • Reg says:

          A reasonable proposition Kristjan but troops were being assembled at the border as far back as February 1941, a full four months earlier.

          “The Germans had begun massing troops near the Soviet border even before the campaign in the Balkans had finished. By the third week in February 1941, 680,000 German troops were stationed on the Romanian-Soviet border. // In preparation for the attack, Hitler moved 3.2 million German and about 500,000 Axis soldiers to the Soviet border, launched many aerial surveillance missions over Soviet territory, and stockpiled materiel in the East.” Wiki.

          It’s reasonable to presume all these troop movements and the stockpiling took place in the month or two ahead of the launch of the invasion which was scheduled for May, so any flood problem of April/May/June apparently had little effect in slowing the campaign which opened with an enormous artillery barrage and the essential stock-piling that required.

      • Dan says:

        The strategic bombing campaign by the western allies was a military failure. Harris and Spaatz were redirecting high explosive tonnage that could have been used to wipe out front line German units to kill civilians. When the Germans used their air fleets to hit civilian centers they too were in error.

      • Mark says:

        Intervening in Greece did not delay Barbarossa, that is just another urban myth.

  16. Dean Masters says:

    An earlier reply of mine seems to have ‘gone astray’.

    There is a world of difference between alleged ‘chats’ between Hitler and his officers, and Hitler imploring ‘his people to be cruel in the extreme’ making them ‘all as guilty as he was’. I take ‘people’ to be the German people, as I believe most would.

    I accept Hitler’s experiences as a mere foot soldier in the WW1 trenches affected his view of the world afterwards, particularly given the very harsh treatment of Germany following the Treaty of Versailles. Any self-respecting German WW1 soldier would be very bitter and angry afterwards.

    But going back to Dunkirk. I think it’s obvious that all the talk of ‘the Germans needed a rest’, ‘it was a rear-guard action’ ‘it was too cloudy for the Luftwaffe (!), is all part of the British propaganda that turned a disaster into a propaganda success. Hitler was an Anglophile who allowed hundreds of thousands of British to escape, but if this was made clear to the British people, how would they have reacted to the bombing of hundreds of thousands of German civilians by Churchill’s forces just a couple of years or so later?

  17. zoov says:

    The plan was to burn out the German war machine, with an assault on dunkirk the Nazis would have certainly eliminated a majority of allied forces and left Hitler with an incredible advantage.

    Both world wars were orchestrated by banking dynasties to create a communist/capitalist world society.

    • Reg says:


      • I wish I’d said that 🙂

        • Reg says:

          But Marky, all this communism stuff might be a bag of crap but still everyone chooses to forget that Stalin and his mates were not communists. They were ars**hole tyrants who has destroyed any respectable nuance of kindness and good in the original intention. But even then, it was their personal dreadfulness that pushed the people to defeat the Germans. The same Germans they’d been supplying with material to invade Russia with. The last trainload of freight from Russia to Germany trundled across the border AFTER Germany had invaded Russia.

          My mate was born in Germany to Ukrainian parents who were fighting on the German side to help eliminate Stalin the torturer of the Ukrainian people. He was one of those displaced people who had no home and no papers and to this day worships the name of Arthur Caldwell the Australia Labor politician who took pity on these people.

          Now we’ve no Communist Russia yet we still have a Russian threatening the Ukraine just as Stalin did. Some of these guys here really need to get acquainted with history before slipping off their snake-oil anti-Communist jibe.

          No balance at all, just fu**ing idiots. And?

  18. Douglas says:

    There’s a few factors which were only lightly touched on in this discussion:

    1) The French First Army, about 100,000 strong, was bottled up at Lille but still occupying considerable German efforts to reduce that pocket. Hence why Guderian’s panzers, having reached the sea at Abbeville on 20 May 1940 and having advanced to Calais four days later, couldn’t be committed to an ill-advised attack on Dunkirk.

    2) The Luftwaffe was still operating largely out of bases near the Rhine in Germany. Dunkirk was at the edge of their effective combat range. However, the RAF was able to provide air support from across the Channel in Kent. This is well illustrated in Seversky’s “Victory through Air Power” (1942).

    3) As one poster pointed out, half of the German armor was out of action, mostly due to mechanical troubles rather than combat damage. The Panzers were desperately in need of refit and needed for the final battle for France.

    4) The German infantry in AG “A” was still closing up but had to cover the flanks on the rivers Aisne and Somme. AG “B” had finished off the Dutch but was fighting a slogging campaign in Belgium. The Belgian’s were covering the north and east flanks for the BEF.

    5) It’s not as if the BEF had just turned tail and ran. They’d also assembled available armor, including 74 Matildas and a French tank regiment, and counter-attacked at Arras on May 21st against the German spearhead. Though the Germans ultimately prevailed, this attack did everything to put fear into the German generals that their Panzers would be outflanked and cut off. Hence why an attack on Dunkirk in hopes of smashing the BEF before it could be evacuated might have been considered reckless at the time.

    6) It’s reasonable to expect that VonRunstedt, who desirely referred to Hitler as “that Bohemian Corporal” (referring not only to AH’s origins but also his eccentric lifestyle, both which a Prussian Junker would sneer at), would blame his late commander-in-chief for a lost opportunity at strategic victory.

    • Reg says:

      Douglas, (3) half the German tanks were Mk1s and Mk2s being used as ammunition/ fuel transport and repair vehicles, as well as creating an enormous noise sufficient to bring disproportionate fear to all and sundry.

      This was the arrangement adopted from the time of the faux-invasion of Austria which proved the unreliability of the panzer. I would think it highly likely that by the time the panzer had traversed the distance to Dunkirk, those support vehicles would have found their store of spares greatly depleted. The same happened at Kursk where the first use of Tiger Tanks showed that they were unreliable, many becoming immobile gun platforms before being destroyed by their crews.

    • Bill McCooL says:

      where did you get your sources of information

      • Dan says:

        What he said is well known.

        Half of the German tank strength on the German books were mark I or II basically machine gun carriers. Not gun tanks (37mm 50mm or 75mm) as we would understand the term today. Quite vulnerable to any allied 40mm or 47mm AT guns. Even vinnerable to .50 cal machine guns.

        Run a tank for two weeks like Guderians run to the sea and you would understand that fuel, spares and ammo would be in short supply. The US tanks in Gulf Storm and Iraqi Freedom had to pause to refuel and rearm too.

    • Dan says:

      The Detreat of the BEF suited Germany.

      Why interupt the enemy when he’s making an error?

  19. Martin says:

    Sorry Mike. Don’t share your point of view.

  20. LIII 1940 says:

    Today I honour King Leopold III 4th King of The Belgians 1934 -1951
    Commander and Chief of the Belgian Army during the attack on Belgium in 1940
    where the Belgian army pushed with their backs to the sea fought one last stand in the battle on the river Lys near Kortrijk
    The battle at the Lys river had been very costly for the Belgian army as it had sustained 40.000 casualties (4000 KIA, 36.000 WIA), but it had managed to disturb the Germans plans and had aided, without their knowledge, in the escape of the BEF at Dunkirk.
    For this our King was branded a traitor.
    Although the British military establishment has never publicly acknowledged the King Leopold III and his army, by their prolonged resistance saved the BEF, the world famous military expert Liddell Hart saw no reason for such reticence.
    In 1960 delivering a lecture to students and faculty at King College.
    Liddell Hart bluntly declared “ The British army at Dunkirk was saved from destruction by King Leopold III of the Belgians.
    Captain Liddell Hart said that Sir Arthur Bryant’s claim that the saving of the BEF was mainly due to Lord Alanbrooke did not stand up to examination.
    Hart went on to say, “ the unfortunate Belgian Army absorbed the weight of the German frontal attack from the north. By the time the Belgian front had turned the BEF had slipped out of reach and were nearing Dunkirk.
    Liddell Hart went further to say, “ if King Leopold III had left Belgium on May 25th as his ministers and Churchill had urged him to do so. The Belgian army would have surrendered immediately, instead of fighting on until early morning of May 28th.
    It has taken over 50 years to vindicate the honour of our King .
    The English speaking world continues to believe the Churchill version of events
    however archives are now becoming declassified and the truth has come out.
    King Leopold III of the Belgians – The Scapegoat Who Saved the British from
    Defeat in 1940.
    When the true story of the Belgian capitulation comes to be known King
    Leopold III of the Belgians
    will emerge, not as the cowardly traitor depicted by Reynaud, but rather as
    one of the great heroic figures of the war.
    I know that this is a startling statement to those unfamiliar with the
    facts; but it is a statement that will be borne out by history.

    • Dan says:

      I disagree. Belgium was too fond of neutrality. the Flemish were also pro-nazi.

      Also, Eban Emael should have simply had a few glider obstacles and booby traps plus aggressive infantry and all these other questions would be moot.

  21. Vic Wellins says:

    What an awful article. We have fallacies (appeal to authority, essentially unsupported no less [most mainstream historians]), ad hom via associations (white supremacists and nazis), and little detail with no few supporting points. Further, the reasons argued that Hitler gave the order aren’t supported in any logical way, nor by further actions and history of the regime. Awful argument. The argument can be made, but this post does it no justice.

    • The reasons the order was given are clearly spelled out in the piece. What do you think was missing?

      • Dan says:

        The white supremacy thing was gratuitous.

        It’s calling anyone who disagrees a racist for disagreeing.

        I’d guess the pause can be explained by conventional friction and fog.

        Also the scale of the eventual evacuation was unprecedented. The Germans had no understanding of the flexibility that the Royal Navy provides the British Army.

  22. Douglas says:

    Hindsight is ALWAYS better than 20-20:

    If you take Seversky seriously in ‘Victory Through Air Power’ (1942), he points out that the Dunkirk evacuation was supported by the RAF from airfields in Kent. Though Air Marshall Dowding wanted to conserve his relatively meager air force for the Battle of Britain (which was itself a rather close thing), there was enough of a fight put in that the Luftwaffe (still largely operating from airfields in Germany proper, they were just barely clearing wrecks of Ju52s from the Dutch airfields their airborne forces had paid dearly to capture) could not effect a massacre of the BEF on the Dunkirk beaches or wreck the harbor facilities (which would have accomplished more).

    The counter-attack at Arras might also have contributed to the German decision to pause and consolidate. Though it wasn’t all that effective of itself, it managed to unnerve Rommel, who estimated the British forces committed at five times what they actually were. Guderian and his Panzers had managed to drive practically unmolested all the way from Sedan to Abbeville and the Channel coast; the Germans were fearful of a riposte snapping off this armored spearhead.

    Finally, until May 28, the Belgians were also resisting furiously. There was a need to finish them off. Also, the French to the South on the Somme and Aisne were on their heels but not finished. The German principle of “boot ’em, don’t lick ’em” had to be applied to the French FIRST. The strategy of prioritizing knocking France out of the war was sound. Churchill had become PM only a fortnight before and by no means did he have the confidence of even his party, let alone the British public. It wasn’t unreasonable to suppose that once France was finished that the UK would see little point in continuing the war.

    • Dan says:

      Tanks are a theatrical devise, especially the type of tanks used in 1940.

      Guderian was mostly reliant on Mark II armed with 20mm cannon and Mark I armed with MGs. He had a smattering of Mark III with a relatively weak 37mm
      Antitank cannon and a handful of Mark IV armed with a low velocity 75mm infantry support cannon.

      All of these tanks were dangerously vulnerable to the 47mm French AT gun and the 40mm British AT gun. If Guderian had thrown his tanks at the concentrated mass of allied troops in the pocket he’d have been deprived of his running tanks within a few days.

      German military doctrine was to create a cauldron into which the enemy was trapped with rapid movement by tanks then destroy the isolated pocket with infantry backed by artillery. At Dunkirk the British had their backs to the sea. A place that tanks can’t block.

      The same pattern is seen in half a dozen campaigns.

  23. Peter G Brooksbank says:

    A well written piece Douglas and a good reflection on what the situation was in reality. There are few that are still around now that were on those beaches but I know what they would say to the Idea that Hitler let them off the hook and yes I have spoken to veterans from the various theatres over the years, most recently D Day.

  24. Mittymo says:

    In Mein Kampf, Hitler said he wanted Britain to be an ally of Germany in helping to halt the advance of the gathering Red Storm. The Soviets wanted to impose Communism on all of Europe, either through conquest or subversion.

    Stalin felt WW2 would exhaust Europe & facilitate the Communists’ revolution there. And to a large extent, Stalin was right as the Communists took over nearly 1/2 the world, as the Soviets aided Mao’s takeover of China, sparked wars in Korea & Vietnam, & spread its revolution to Latin America & other parts of the world, nearly depleting the U.S.’s will to resist.

  25. shahid says:

    One thing ,the most of you not considering is Rodulf Hess factor MI6 has conncted with Hitler before his flight to Eagle sham,surely at dunkirk hitler had full capasity to mince meat the BEF,here the british might have used their precious prisoner Hess to ask for mercy to Hitler.

  26. Richard Sharpe says:

    It is interesting how many people forget the context of “the fog of war” in their assessments of the conduct of all parties, or the escalation of barbarity that occurs as a war progresses.

    My father was a bomb aimer in the RAF, and his squadron sustained the second highest fatality rate of all Allied air forces. He always felt guilt about the fact that so many non-combatants were killed by his action since he well knew how inaccurate the technology was, but as he would say, when your close friends and family members wree being killed around you, those transgressions seemed morally justifiable.

    A similar view can be taken of criticism of France and Belgium for surrendering in the face of an inevitable slaughter of their citizens when there was no reasonable prospect of altering the outcome – especially in light of the losses they had sustained just 20 years before.

    As for the Holocaust deniers, I suggest you obtain treatment for the personality disorders that cause you to deny reality.

  27. Vince says:

    I taped a documentry a while back that explains that Hitler ordered the halt because of his anger at glory seeking generals, like Guderian, who were ignoring his requests to slow down.
    At this stage of the battle, with success assured, Hitler was not willing to share the glory of victory with others.
    If he had allowed Guderian & others to forge ahead & capture the BEF, no doubt Gudarian would have claimed the lions share of the credit for the victory.
    By denying them this perfect finish, Hitler also denied them a prominent mention for the victory, saving most of it for himself.
    To Hitler, pulling a few glory seeking generals into line & saving the glory for himself, was far more important than capturing the leftover troops from the battle which he had already won.
    As always, Hitler was just thinking ahead.
    I believe this is true, because it fits in perfectly with his ego-central character & his behaviour in later battles.
    With Guderian & other generals heading towards Moscow & glory, at high speed, defeating all in their path, Hitler did the same thing again. They were ordered to halt & divert to another path.
    Whatever reasons Hitler gave for these decisions, there can be no doubting that he put his own prestige above all other considerations, which included “who” gets all the credit for any impending victories.
    Being the man at the top, he was also in the perfect position to smudge over his true motives & present some lame official excuse for his actions.

    • Dan says:


      A few hundred tanks and Stukas can’t attack a 600,000 strong pocket of men desperate to defend and evacuate. Guderian’s tanks would have been wrecked in the heavily unrbanized, canalized and exposed terrain around Dunkirk.

      They just didn’t expect the British could evacuate 400,000 men under airattack, submarine and mine blockade while a perimeter was defended. Nothing like Dunkirk evacuation had ever happened in military history.

    • Vince says:

      On second thoughts, its clear from records of hitlers conversations at the time of Dunkirk, that he had a sudden attack of sentimentality towards the British, and in his eagerness to bring them to his negotiating table, after their traumatic defeat, he wanted to present himself as a “reasonable man”. At that stage, he still didn’t know what kind of stubbornness he would soon be up against, with Churchill. He had gotten too used to dealing with Chamberlain, who was much more of a pushover. No doubt Hitler was happy to let some British escape, not realising how many would actually get away. But its also probably true, that Hitler used his halt order as a way of pulling some cocky generals in line & reminding them of “who” is in charge.

      • Ted Mittelstaedt says:

        That just does no hold any water. Hitler fought total war, just like Sherman. But in any war there are always mistakes that happen which seem like nothing at the time but then hindsight shows became turning points in the war.

        The halt order was looked at by dozens of people in the German chain of command and nobody flagged it or complained other than the usual glory-seeking general/politicians who would have been expected to complain. If it had been recognized at the time as a serious blunder it would have been stopped. But it was not. It was only after the fact that people came out of the woodwork claiming they thought it was a bad idea at the time. With, of course, no documentation backing this up.

        In a war nobody knows what’s going to happen when you issue an order, whether it’s going to be good or bad, until later. The simplest and most obvious explanation is that they simply didn’t think it would matter to halt the advance.

  28. Vince says:

    The fact that Hitlers halt order remains a mystery to everyone, is probably no accident.
    If Hitler wanted to cover up the truth about anything, he was in the perfect position to do so.
    Suggestions that he was worried about bad terrain for his tanks & that he was just being careful & cautious, dont measure up when you look at his attitude in his next big battle against Russia, the following year.
    In Russia, he cared nothing for losses, bad terrain, logistical problems or conserving strength for future battles, even when the need to do so, was staring him in the face.
    For Hitler, it was always about prestige above all else, and having cronies around him, like Goering, to blame, if anything went wrong.

    • Noah Dillon says:

      If he wanted to cover something up, why would he only cover that up and not the documentation of his other military blunders and war crimes? And how would he have prevented others in the chain of command from disclosing what happened? It makes no sense.

      • Vince says:

        It makes sense if you know the clever & devious ways a psychopath operates.
        Hitler was extremely secretive & manipulative. If he wanted to cover up his true motives or shortcomings even from those closest to him, he could (and often did) do it easily.
        He could easily prevent others from knowing the real reason behind his halt order with a simple & believable cover story(s).
        Naturally, his greatest fear was to be seen as responsible for any failure, for he had built an unbroken reputation for always being right, which he prided himself on.
        But he could hardly pass the blame for his failure to take Moscow & the disaster at Stalingrad.
        On both occasions, he had been building himself up to be the genius behind the coming victory, but was taken by surprise, at the last minute, just when victory looked near.
        At Moscow, he tried sacking a heap of generals to make it look as if it was all their fault, but everyone knew it was him.
        At Stalingrad, his prime responsibility for the catastrophe was even more obvious to the germans & the world. There was no way he could deny it.
        As far as I know, the Stalingrad disaster was the only blunder which he openly admitted (temporarily) was his fault.
        The only thing Hitler tried to cover up concerning war crimes, was his own connection to them, apart from criminal orders sent to army units to execute people, but at that earlier stage of the battle, he was still sure he would win it & it could all be covered up later.

  29. Mark Rowland says:

    Near Dunkirk, the German Navy sowed hundreds of magnetic mines. A war winning device. The air force wanted in. The secret found out. Ships were made safe (degaussed) and although 272 vessels were sunk, the troops got out. Seeing the little German Navy was about to win the war, Gouring demanded he have a part in that. His planes dropped them on parachutes. Until then the amazing fuses protected their secrets. Intrepid anti-mine engineers gave their lives for those secrets. The ships that recovered troops were treated to not trip the electric fuses. Hitler was assured the British ships would all be damaged or sunk. There was no let off.

  30. Alan B says:

    Magnetic mines do not work on wooden boats. Most of the boats and ships used in the Dunkirk escape were small private owned wooden pleasure boats, or minesweepers. These then ferried the soldiers out to the waiting destroyers in cleared waters. The mines were laid close to shore and only the shallow draft boats could get there. By the way my father in law used to own the “Lady Haig” one of the small boats.
    As for no death camps study the evidence. Eisenhower was right when he said “film and photo everything, in 60 years they´ll try to deny this” And as for not finishing off the allies at Dunkirk. The German Army was overstretched and short of supplies, however they firmly believed the Allies were finished and would not recover. Hitler and the Nazis always had eyes to the east and only invaded to the west so they did not have to fight on 2 fronts. Excellent theory, shit execution.
    If you are going to argue the rights and wrongs of the bombing campaign against Germany then do so only with the information and technology of the age. Not with today´s mountain of hindsight and information. Remember there was no internet or spy satellite, information was often out of date or wrong. And when your town, city or country has had the shit kicked out of it, would you not want to kick back harder. That was the attitude of the era. Hitler and Nazis needed to be stopped, and all good leaders military or civil will make sure the enemy suffer more than their people do to gain victory. All that I can say is thank god the UK, USA, Russia and all the allies stood up against Germany, Italy and Japan so that we can live a life of freedom. Do not ever take freedom for granted, it can be lost so easily (10 days for the French, less for others)

    • Peter G Brooksbank says:

      Well said Alan, I think there are a lot of people who are going to have to learn the hard way looking at how events are unfolding in Europe and the rest of the world today. It gives my no pleasure to say that.

    • Mark says:

      Britain bombed Germany first in both world wars.

      We were fighting to preserve our empire. The war had nothing to do with “freedom”.

      • Director says:

        Germany did flatten Rotterdam with 1000 fatalities to get the Dutch to surrender. Butter wouldn’t melt in Wolfram Von Ricthofen’s mouth would it?

    • Ted Mittelstaedt says:

      Freedom can be lost in a single day, the US did it during the November election in 2016.

  31. Alan B says:

    So much truth has come out about the second world war over the last few years, and most of it contradicting the original theories.
    The original historical errors must be attributed to the likes of Churchill, Stalin and American writers
    After all Churchill famously quoted “History will prove us correct and honourable. How do I know this? Because we will write the history”
    Not everything carried out to win the war was good, and end does not always justify the means. However if the allies had lost, none of this free speech would be allowed. So maybe just maybe we should be more grateful for what we take for granted

    • Peter G Brooksbank says:

      You are right Alan and a most balanced synopsis. History is nearly always written by the victors, the Romans knew this. Mistakes were made, decisions that were not always moral but as you say we survived and its easy for people to criticise but as my relations have said who were there our survival was not always certain. We had mistakes like operation Tiger regarding the preparations for the D Day landings and the lesser known mistake regarding a creeping barrage that killed our own men on Slapton Sands Devon. Hushed up for decades. As I have said before, if we had lost many of us would not be speaking German as commonly mooted but many of us would never have been born at all. If it was today I fear many would not be made of the right stuff to guarantee our survival and darkness would win.

  32. Dan says:

    I find a few points annoying here.

    I’m something of a Hitler apologist and something of an admirer of Western (read white supremacist)

    I just don’t think the Germans expected the British could remove more than 10-20 thousand men (officers mostly) from the continent.

    They didn’t expect the British could evacuate 400,000. There’s no prescident in the annals of military history.

  33. Andrew says:

    This article is factually incorrect and inherently dishonest, or just humilitation of impending defeat rationalized which is pronounced as incompetance psychologically projected onto ze Germans.

    Dunkirk was a massive defeat for the “allies”.

    One nation defeated 2 of an expeditionary force?

    The Germans could have annilated the “allies” if they wanted too.

    800k Highly trained military force just coming off of the win in Belgium against two weak and inexperienced as well as untrained, lightly powered military forces?

    Get real. It was a monumentsl defeat. The disinformation makes me all the more having disrespect for the Brits and the French.

    No wonder their nations are being filled with rapefugees and slime as they force it on the Germans.

  34. Al says:

    No Mike, You are so wrong.

    Rundsted met with Hitler at a cottage just hours before the stop order. Hitler simply gave him a verbal order and Rundstet obeyed.

    French reports show complete chaos, high ranking French generals were literally saying “mon dieu” what do we do and “there is no reserve”. Not 1, not 2, not 3 but 6 panzer divisions were within striking distance of the beach (no effective mobile forces existed for the allies…none)!

    German forces had already forded the aa canal , which was the last physical barrier, and had formed a “kampgruppe” with armor on the other side.

    While armchair generals say Allied resistance was the reason for the stop, the actual German officers who were there, Like Von Luck and Rommel say there was no effective defense and an overrun of Dunkirk could/would have been accomplished.

    Finally for you to suggest that those who think Hitlers stop order saved the allied army indicates they are fascists or sympathetic to Hitler just shows how effective the push to indoctrinate youth has been in schools and colleges.

    PS Dan, 600,000 men well armed, led, entrenched and supplied having good morale would have been a formidable opponent. Where were you speaking of? Belarus? China? Because there certainly wasn’t an effective allied force of 1/2 million on the Atlantic coast of France. LOL if anyone is spouting bullshit it’s you.

    The 600,000 were a routed, disorganized mass of men. they had abandoned all heavy weapons, most vehicles. They were hemmed in, had no time to entrench. The French were nearly panicked and only a few British units put up a stout rearguard action. It would have been a great slaughter.

    • Director says:

      That’s absolutely untrue.

      The German Bridgehead over the Aa
      Canal was in Watten. The LSSAH (Adolf Hitler Lifeguards) crossed the Aa and occupied the Watten hill. They did this after French and British troops bloodily repulsed the heavier German attack further north at Gravelines.

      By the time these exhausted SS troops were on that hill the British were between them and Dunkirk on the highways at Cassel.

      The French counter attacked at Watten and pushed the LSSAH out of most of their position too.

      Guderian was busy meeting Shaal in Calais telling him to call off the attack on the citadel so the Luftwaffe could bomb the KRRC into surrending at roughly the same time.

      • JP says:

        You give no account of the rest of the 15th Panzer Corps (the corps Rommel was attached to). Hoth wasn’t given the okay to break his entire corps out of Arras and drive the 40 miles to Dunkirk. Besides Rommel’s 7th, Hoth commanded another panzer division and an infantry division. A coordinated attack towards Dunkirk by the 15th would have overwhelmed British forces in that area.

        • Director says:

          The German Generals like to pin every problem on Adolf. It’s kinda wierd. Rundstedt, Kleist and Kluge were very wary about the move. That’s a lot of Generals and their staff recommending caution.

  35. Armed says:

    Why does this garbage get featured on the first page of google? This entire piece is:

    Germany did not want peace because “mainstream says nuh-uh.”

    And “only White supremacists say otherwise”

    And rundstedt did not commit to Dunkirk because he needed to recover.

    None of these points suggest that Hitler had any intention of fighting Britain again. On the other hand the U.K. started the bombing war with Germany.
    More bombs were dropped on one bombing campaign in Germany than in the U.K. the entire war. Yet it’s the same old propaganda about a so called “Battle of Britain” which was in retaliation for each British bombing effort and now we get a Hollywood film on Dunkirk, great I can’t wait to see how it’s turned into some multicultural fairytale about poor little defenseless Britain.

    England interfered with the German-polish war, just like they interfered in World War I. Just like the interfered in every major European continental war because a strong continental Europe is bad for the island. The German polish war had every element of today’s Palestine-Israel conflict or the Northern Ireland conflict, but all that is forgotten. Instead it’s the same narrative played out every day on a&e, the history channel and on and on.

    British and American capitalists built up hitler to destroy the ussr-led socialist movement in europe. But not the way hitler imagined, i.e. Not with the europe-led coalition destroying the ussr. But with the Europe-led coalition strong enough to resist the ussr with bloodletting, sort of the way it played out but with Germany and Europe on the defensive. And all so Britain could have no contest over its markets in europe by keeping the European currencies weak against the pound. That was the reason for the creation of the fable nationality “Czech-o-slovak” a mishmash of Germans, poles, Czechs, Slovaks in a tiny area, all to take away from the ability of them to be part of a larger polish or German rump state. That is why Austria was banned from joining Germany. That is why Britain murdered 1,000+ French troops who surrendered at Mers-El-Kebir because they were determined to keep fighting their war rather than recognize a strong German led Europe.

    Story of Britain in WWII: a paranoid dying seafaring empire starts a war with an emerging power in Europe out of paranoia that it will lose said seafaring empire. By 1941, it is bankrupt and borrowing from the US to fight the war to prevent losing its prominence and empire. It “wins” the war, losing its empire and repays the us for the next 50 years. there is no indication that the emerging power in Europe had any intention of destroying Britain’s empire.
    Churchill was a drunk war monger and he waged the Dumbest war in the history of the West, destroying mainland Europe and setting it on the path for Islamification and a future as a refugee shelter, with no relevance to anyone elsewhere.

    The oldest surviving member of the Raf joined the racist bnp because he saw the mess you globalists created and that was the only party offering an alternative. What a shame so many of his comrades died fighting for your garbage cause.

    • Vince says:

      Are you saying that Hitler was actually the “good guy” of W/W2??
      Or that Britain should have placed their trust in Hitler, after Dunkirk, and come to his “peace” table, to accept his terms, which would have included the disarmament of Britain & the surrender of her fleet to his war machine, effectively leaving Britain a defenceless sitting duck for him to march in & take over, at any time in the future, if he so wished?? (like he did with Czecoslovakia & Vichy France, after having promised not to)
      If the western powers played their part in helping Hitler rise to all conquering power, it was only because they were completely misjudging him, who he really was, the true scale of his aims, and his willingness to do the unthinkable to achieve his aims.
      Historically, Britain & Churchill were no angels either. Britain had a long history of colonising foreign lands for their own exploitation.
      But Hitlers brand of conquering, colonising & exploiting, was far worse.
      As the war went on, he became addicted to mass murder as a convenient way to “cleanse” a conquered country prior to colonisation.
      The problem with any country trusting Hitler was that he was the type of man who would make all kinds of assurances & promises, one day, then completely change his mind, without warning, not long after, and that he saw nothing wrong with this.
      Given the military power he had at his fingertips, this character trait made him the most dangerous man in the world.

    • Peter Brooksbank says:

      Its obvious that some people don’t even have a rudimentary grasp of history. Somethings may be blurred, some things maybe disputed but making it up as you go along is reserved for fairy stories.

  36. Mark says:

    The Blitz was in retaliation for the RAF having already bombed German cities since 10 May 1940.

    • Director says:

      The Blitz was an attempt to get the English to chuck in the towel like the Poles, Dutch and Belgians did after the threat of obliterating their captitals.

  37. JP says:

    Documentation strongly supports that the Halt Order originated with von Rundstedt, one of the few operational commanders Hitler respected through-out the war. Additionally, General von Klesit who commanded the three panzer corps (commanded by Guderian, Weitersheim, and Reinhardt) also became alarmed at the unprotected flanks of his mechanized group. General Hoth, who commanded the other panzer corps was attached to Kluge’s 4th Army. In all, Rundstedt, Kleist, and Kluge didn’t fully understand what was at stake. Rundstedt, who was a staff major with von Kluck’s army in 1914 at the Marne, was still haunted by that decisive loss. Through-out the drive to the Channel he constantly looked over his shoulder expecting some phantom French army to appear and attack the panzer’s deep flank. Kleist and Kluge were two well schooled commanders who constantly had to put a leash on the fast moving mechanized forces. The majority of the panzer commander had a different but opinion, but it the mid and higher level commanders over-ruled them.

    Hitler himself was as shocked as anyone by the success of his armored forces. General von Manstein, who authored the Ardennes Offensive, and had served as Rundstedt’s Chief of Staff, however wasn’t present during the important phases. In February he was transferred to command the 39th Corps and his replacement, von Sondernstern, was an officer unschooled in armored warfare.

    After the war, the German Officer Corps pinned every bad decision on Hitler. The Halt Order inclusive. However, as much as we hate to say it, the blame largely fell on Rundstedt’s shoulders.

  38. Marc says:

    Interesting comments. Have any of the commentators heard of Viktor Suvorov? Opinions?
    I have read vituperative remarks that he is a fraud, but his KGB status apparently has led to a death sentence because of his defection.
    Perhaps he is a disinformation agent, no more.
    The enormous losses on the early days of the Eastern Front buttress the claim he made that the Russian forces were in offensive formations, not defensive.
    Personal opinion is pro-Suvorov. Stalin had to expand his empire. His internal situation was disastrous. He had to have a worldwide campaign to prevent internal collapse due to demoralization.

  39. Pamela says:

    As a 95 year old and a Londoner I remember so much of WW11 and have read all the comments on this page with interest.

    Last week I saw the movie Dunkirk and was very disappointed. Yes it was a movie and had to sell, but the Directors had a great opportunity to explain in more detail for those who were too young to have known about Dunkirk. The greatest unplanned evacuation, and the success it was is beyond my comprehension
    The movie and previous comments did very little to tell the story of the small craft armada that did so much in an effort to get our men back to safety.

    • Ted Mittelstaedt says:

      Hollywood (and much of the ruling class in the United States and the rest of the world) is struggling to come to terms with what we call today “the speed of social media” that is, how quickly large masses of people can move and how much can be accomplished when the all move together in the same direction. They so much want to cling to the belief that 1 man can be the “hero” and run everything.

      England is not very big and the coast opposite France is not that large. And in the space of hours the message was communicated to virtually every small boat owner along the coast “get your boat down into the channel and get to France and rescue our army” Since the message was simple, clear, and obvious – just about everyone did it.

      To me the amazing part of the evac isn’t that it worked. To me the amazing part is that the crowd-sourcing communication happened at all particularly given the crude communications infrastructure of the time. Almost certainly nothing was broadcast on the radio due to the fear of German eavesdropping and due to the Allied military commanders not really even believing it would work, and the telephone exchanges would have been jammed in minutes so it’s pretty clear the message to get your boats down into the water was relayed the old-fashioned way – by person to person.

      I cannot imagine something like this working in the US we are just too big and spread out.

      I’d love someone who was alive then to post about daily life in England during WWII and how people communicated with each other.

      • Alexandria Nick says:

        “I cannot imagine something like this working in the US we are just too big and spread out.”

        How is that relevant? There’s no possible emergency that would require a guy in Key West to do the same exact action as a guy in Puget Sound. They pulled everything they could get from the Thames and the southeast coast of England. That only accounts for an area of about 150 miles of shoreline. That’s akin to the upper Chesapeake Bay or Long Island. I’m pretty sure if we absolutely needed to, we could round up 700 boats at Annapolis or the Hamptons.

  40. Karl says:

    Dunkirk was a turkey-shoot. It would have been easy for Hitler to have wiped them out in a matter of hours.

  41. SD says:

    Ive been there, read the histories and I agree – there is no way Hitler let the British off. A stubborn rear guard action, luck with the weather, Goering thinking he could do the job himself and need to repair the tanks are the most likely explanations.
    In any case how useful were Panzers really in that environment, a tight perimeter, partly urban, mobility neutralised, no surprise, enemy has aircover and naval gunfire support. Im skeptical, if i were the Germans I would have saved the tanks and left it to slow reduction by the infantry. In anycase the Brits left their equipment behind, Britain was still defenceless.

  42. Rokjmr says:

    Hitler was a British agent. This incident proved it. We are not foolish readers

  43. TG says:

    And the German troops running out of amphetamines and meth induced physical capacity

  44. Carl Foulkes says:

    Hitler tried effortlessly to keep peace with the UK. In main kampf he does nothing but praise the British and our empire. This war should never have started. We had no reason to invade Germany. Millions perished for no reason at all.

  45. james says:

    your an idiot who believes he knows more then Gen.Rundstedt who was there and says he could have easily continued his advance and explains he was miffed at the orders to halt…Oh yea but idiot you knows more, I think I would believe the German General in command

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Hey, calling people “idiot” is not cool. Please don’t do that here. It’s really not appropriate. And I don’t know why you would get so rude about this blogpost. It’s really over the top.

      My aunt and my mom were both at my mom’s wedding, and they don’t agree on fundamental, big aspects of that event. Sometimes participants aren’t the best judge of how events happened. Doubly so if they’ve got a motivated reason to blame the outcome on someone else. I mean, maybe he’s right, but he’s not right about what happened just because he was there. That’s silly. And it’s no reason to call someone names.

  46. Slippy says:

    What a strange article. Why use the word ‘conspiracy’? How would Hitler calling for a ceasefire to better his relationship with the UK would be a conspiracy?
    Doesn’t the word imply a secret effort by a group rather than a single man’s motivations? I guess it makes sense to use the word if you just want to graft on the negative connotation it has to pad your argument with a sense of snarkiness to make up for the lack of facts or reasoning.

    A great deal of the article devolves into strawmanning, attempting to show how wacky the opposition to your point is, which shows a lack of argumentation integrity. Seems like the type of low-brow posturing meant for a backwoods email-chain rather than a site dedicated to ‘science’.

    Honestly, this is the first article I’ve seen from this site and I’m making it my last.

  47. Franz stigler says:

    Because Hitler was a grandson of one Rothschild family who are Jewish and Churchill was a Freemason the whole war was planned from the beginning with Germany being the loser

    • Noah Dillon says:

      Except for there’s no evidence Hitler was the grandson of a Rothschild and it seems like the big losers of WWII were all those people who died in extermination and work camps, or on the Eastern Front. Or in Japan and China. And it seems like it would be kind of weird to plan to have London under siege for the better part of four years. That stuff costs lives and time and energy and resources and popular political support. So, there’s no evidence for it and it would be a bad strategy to accomplish anything.

      That “Franz Stigler” pseudonym sure is cute, too.

  48. Harry Harris says:

    Why no carpet bombing by Germans on the beaches of Dunkirk. The English were sitting ducks. The latest movie shows only a few German bombers going after the ships picking up troops. Actually very few. Not sure what the actual status was of the Luftwaffe at the time. A mass bombing attach on the beachs could not have stopped by the Spitfires wondering around.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *