Well a strenghened bookcase at any rate...I'll put up the ones I think worth reading...On a purely personal basis of course.. There are many though that deal with the battle of France that are of equal interest and need reading in association with anything Dunkirk in my view.
Ok in my own personal view, and book recommendations should be a personal view, apart from those already mentioned in this thread.: Walter Lords The Miracle of Dunkirk an oldie but a goodie, reads almost like a novel, and much spent on naval operations HMS Keith etc. Dunkirk the Great Escape by A.J.Barker is more of a general field force book more factual than first person unlike Lords certainly not written in novel form. And an excellent appendix with a first impression of BEF forces engaged as an order of battle. There are also some excellent illustrations in this book. Nicholas Harmans Dunkirk, is a more sobering account than the first two, and tries to explode some of the myths surrounding Dunkirk in his view, and I think he does this well, without any form of revisionism. As he says in his preface…Time cannot harm them now…And that may serve as a small warning to anyone wishing to read it thinking it is all little ships sailing over the horizon to rescue an army and bring them home to cheers, flags and kisses. It certainly tells that tale but in another way, sort of lifts the rose coloured spectacles at times, but never in such a way to be disparaging of those that were there. Norman Gelb’s Dunkirk is much like A.J.Barkers work, factual and to the point, no romancism here. But a good read if your after people and places. There are also the excellen Cassell paperback series concentrating on Dunkirk and in another Calais which are brilliantly illustrated in a sort of then and now way, and again factual rather than story esq. We cannot read or look at the BEF alone here though, and its well to read such as Alister Hornes To Lose a Battle, an epic in my view, of the French before ww2 and a little on the politics with Britain, ending in the Battle for France itself with BEF and Dunkirk seen as part but not the be all and end all of battle and rightly so. Allenbrooks diaries relating to his own days in BEF are worth a read too, as are Churchills first 2 volumes of ww2. His eyes, his view and as he said history will be kind to him, as he intends to write the history…and epic they are too. Much left out but much in them that most won’t know of…with amazing insight into telegrams and first person communication of the time in the appendix sections. Operation Sea Lion by Peter Fleming, is a loose but highly entertaining view of the state of Britain and its preparadness for invasion…There are some inaccuracies, as inost books, but some great information such as the kings bodyguard force…except his information on the force he mentions is in fact a few years too early for Sea Lion days, but a good part of the early pages spent on the mood of Dunkirk in the nation. With this in mind, Finest Hour by Tim Clayton and Phil Craig, follows many personal stories through to conclusion that are mentioned in some earlier works. The Dunkirk evacuation, the story of 2nd Durhams, Coldstream Guards, The Navy etc are told well. And moves on with the politics, the relationship with America at the time, the Battle of Britain, brought home in a very personal way, and a great story on City of Benares sinking…This book should be part of national curriculum in my view…1940….the story and if you like the legend… And emotional in parts especially Edith Heaps story regarding her Battle of Britain fiancé. For personal stories Dunkirk we were there, similar to the book D Day we were there, cant find it on bookshelf at moment, but will come back with the publisher…tale after tale of individual BEF and Homecomings stories etc. Another emotional whirlwind for me when reading that one. Strange Victory…Ernest R.May….I throw round the room….its a challenge in my view to Horne’s account…and a weak one at that…revisionism…by a supposed intellectual from America. His facts are laid out, and then put to one side…he belives or seems to believe its all about numbers and not calibre or the original German thrust…He would have us believe that the allies were far superior…they may have been in certain areas, but his assertions that numbers matter above all else leaves a lot of unanswered questions in my mind….Well they were answered….by the German plan…He at one stage tells us of a computer simulation that was run by dept of defense….in which we won…hurahhh….then tells us the name of the simulation…The Big 3…a early Spectrum and Commodore game…that is so infantile in its strategy and units that he obviously thought no one had a copy before telling us of it…that is enough in my view to make the rest of his assertion worthless.. There are more…I’ll find em when I find em…Enough for now.. Cheers.
Thanks for the recommendations - I have already worn out my copy of "Finest Hour", having read through it about six times. I consider it a "must have" for anyone interested in the early stages of the war. I should say again that my interest extends mainly to the BEF's actions in the Battle for France and the holding actions on the Dyle, Escaut and so on - it was other posters who concentrated on Dunkirk (not that the evacuation itself wasn't a minor miracle in my humble view). In particular I have been looking into the role of the 4/7 Royal Dragoon Guards (the reconnaissance element of 2nd Division) who were equipped with Vickers light tanks, Scout Carriers and motor cycles. Sebag-Montefiore's "Dunkirk" actually concentrates very little on the evacuation, with much more emphasis on the politics, the French and Belgian experience and the myriad small holding actions by vastly outnumbered BEF units. The story of 2nd Lt Gill and 3 Troop, C Squadron, 4/7 RDG at Lessines on 19 May 1940 sends shivers up my spine each time I read it - but it is just one out of dozens of equally outstanding episodes experienced by the unit. You are quite right about some authors looking for a spin or revisionist angle on history, I have seen exactly the same approach on occasion in my other sphere of interest (12th century Norman England). I guess the trick is to keep an open mind and read a wide spectrum of accounts, particularly those of people involved at the time.
Maybe you'd be interested in reading this then BEF !! ( when the books get too much !! :headhurt: ) 1.JmA - The battle for france, strategic and tactical Blunder
Interesting Annie, a summary that many would agree with. However there are included in there some oft repeated fallacies on numbers...The numbers mattered little once Sedan fell. It was the French force of manouvre that lacked any plan or any means of carrying out a plan if one ever existed for such an eventuality. We have to give the German plan some kudos here, and not just blame the French or indeed the British. They sucker punched us good and proper and it was ultimately our fault, but I will never take away from the small genius of the German plan and how it worked out for them. Gamelin never said the Ardennes were impassable...Which makes it even worse that what happened there was allowed to happen. Tank wise, as we all know...the French lacked an understanding on mobile warfare apart from the likes of De Gaulle, the fact they were placed the way they were is proof of that. The tanks themselves though were not much superior to German tanks, in armour yes, but like the Char...a one man turret which would cause no end of trouble to manouvre and fire in action made some little better than mobile turrets. The British dont come out of this well, the retreat yes, but a continental army planned in advance for France which at one time was to number no more than 3 divisions. The British peace time plan for a BEF in the years leading up to the debacle needs to be looked at in detail to see just why quite large numbers of the lamentably few divisions were even fit to fight and the territorial divisions being no more than labour divisions. Even so they put up a splendid fight when required, but not one that was ever going to win a war on the scale coming their way once Sedan had been breached. Reynaud was proved right and Churchill wrong in his midnight call when he said in the early days of the battle, we are finished it is over...Churchill was incredulous...and flew to meet him and his generals, but Reynaud knew as Gamelin did that once Sedan was gone and the line ripped open the war or the battle for France was over. Which makes it the more lamentable as to how it was allowed to happen in the first place.
I've been thinking about this overnight Annie, as you do...Hey I have another life, its just hard to pin down sometimes... I don't do what if's, they tend to end up in a German invasion of Britain and some nasty person sitting in the ruins of 10 Downing st. But I do one what if, purely because the general premise behind it in my view could be looked on as one of the reasons for the lamentable defeat in France. And that is, if Hitler had his earlier way and invaded in Autumn of 1939. The Manstein plan not on the table...the hanner blow indeed a replica in all but name of ww1 thrusts Would Gamelin, the French, the Bef and their plans have looked so stupid in hindsight then if that German invasion in Autumn had gone ahead? The armies would have met in Belgium as Gamelin and his planners designed, Gort would have fitted us into the French role, the rerun or ww1 and a half would have had both armies clashing in their Autumn designed roles...the outcome? Who knows..But one much less hollow defeat for the French as the later one. So where is the biggest mistake here. My view is in not adjusting the initial French planning for the Ardennes eventuallity, but lets not forget, the French were planning for the same attack the Germans were going to give them in the Autumn. Once the Manstein plan was on the table...the French were wrong footed, their and our own fault in hindsight...but would we still be here now all these years later shouting down what a disasterous lot the French were and us as allies being not much better in foresight....? I think it could have quite easilly have been...Marshall Gamelin, saviour of the Republic. But never again....the casualties....France cannot afford another war... Here we go again.
Thanks Andy, yes this seems like a good place to be. When I get some time I will have a look around at the other threads. eep:
Don't you just hate it when you do that ?? :headhurt: You forgot to add the French also had Petain !! ( leaning on his WW1 laurels ! ) they kept replacing their commanders ... each one older than the one before ..... When the Germans after 6 weeks of bloody fighting took Paris - he surrendered to Hitler because it is said that he didn't want to be guilty of the death of the people who would be killed if the French government didn't surrender ! ... the battle of France was lost - he said - there wasn't really anything he could do !! :brick:
Oh, no one could possibly forget Petain savior of Verdun...First Gamelin, who gave up on day one, it was all too much...Weygand to follow, and as the Germans take a crash tour of Northern France towards the Channel, he lands from the Levant, and demands a day or two to familiarise himself....The Germans meanwhile get on with their picnicking while they wait on his musings...Reynaud, calls Petain back from Spain to put some heart into the French peoples morale, the savior of Verdun, only he now tells anyone willing to listen in Spain that he is going back to make peace, his country is beaten...This was the calibre of the men at the top, Billiotee, Blanchard, George, Ironside having to grip the lappels of Billoette at one time to pull him together...and we wander why Gort on 24 25th, went his own way and said bugger the lot of you, your living in cloud cookoo land my lot included...stop the plan south, were going to cover the Belgian area or we all go in the bag. I have no illusions on French command and our own subserviance to it, I dont tar the French as a whole with the incompetents but they had their role to play in this debacle more than any other. But I still give the Germans the kudos they deserve...They must have been laughing all the way to the channel I do have political sympathy with the French and the people, cant do right for doing wrong in inter war years....We critisise them in history for not doing anything when Germany occupied the Rhineland...thats the time history says we should have stopped them, and the time many across the pond hold up on other forums as a hammer to batter us Europeans with...its all Frances fault at the Rhineliand occupation, but where were we..the French had learned their lesson one that history and most sideline....on their occupation earlier with the reperations scandal, they went in and did what the treaty said they had a right to do, and were maligned, and bullied by both the USA and Britain over it...Once bitten twice shy...but history is not kind to them and wishes to forget certain aspects before the war years.
The British were (perhaps) just as culpable during the inter-war years in terms of penny-pinching on the defence budget, the military planners depending on outdated strategies and tactics and not providing effective and modern weapons. Corruption in high places is nothing new. I know we have a long history of Army cutbacks and amalgamations when there isn't a war on, but sending troops to fight against panzers with just Boys anti-tank rifles is nothing short of stupid. One veteran recalled using the thing to "knock a sniper out of a church tower", but against AFVs you might just as well have used a pea-shooter. 4/7 RDG arrived in France to find their tank machine guns were mostly without vital parts, there were generally not enough mortars, brens and 2 pdr A/T guns to fill the proper establishments (Ironside had to beg A/Ts from the French). I guess it is true that Dunkirk saved the British Army - not just by evacuating it but by making it leave most of its useless kit behind. Improved tank designs, trucks with closed cabs as standard, automatic weapons like the sten and thompson, closer cooperation between infantry, artillery and the RAF (and more) all came about because of Dunkirk.
