Rommel was one of the German tank commanders rushing towards Dunkirk
Rommel was a division commander several echelons below Army Group A commander von Rundstedt who ordered the pause. Unlike Rommel, who never did have a very good grasp of logistics, von Rundstedt was concerned with the condition of the entire Army Group, which included von Kluge's 4.Armee and Hoth's XV Korps of which 7.Panzer Division was a subordinate formation.
Blitzkrieg: Thunder War in English
Lightning War, actually. Incidentally, are you of the opinion that most posters who are interested in this era are not aware of such elementary terms that you need to explain them too us? Are you trying to impress us with your recollection of Grade 9 history?
They had to know that an airforce alone could not defeat or force to surrender huge numbers of enemy troops.
Considering the large-scale use of aircraft in war was still quite new, they would not have had as great as idea as they would have had a year later. I note that air forces still seem to believe they can do exactly that.
As well, the destruction of a trapped enemy force is a great deal different than proving air support to mobile operations. At any rate, as has been pointed out by MadDog, the Germans had no other practical option given that mobile operations in the Dunkirk area were off the table.
Once it became clear that the armistice or alliance between Nazi Germany and the British Empire was not going to happen, Hitler decided to use the latest and most advanced German weapons agains the UK: the famous V1 and V2,
I think it was clear in that the British were not going to give up. The V weapon campaign didn't start for another three years. As the name implies, they were retaliation for the Allied bombing campaign against Germany and indeed an act of desperation.
The amazing thing is that Hitler decided to point his wunderwaffen (wonder weapons) towards Britain rather than using them against the Soviet Red Army which by then (mid 1944)
Probably because they were so inaccurate that they had no feasible use in the east. dropping highly expensive missiles on empty fields or already destroyed towns in the Ukraine would have been less than productive.
Please note that by mid 1944 the Soviets had basically won the war
Arguably, it was won as soon as the United States decided to put it's full industrial support behind the Allied cause before the invasion of the USSR, something that might well have not happened had the Dunkirk evacuation been unsuccessful.
by the time of Normandy the German Army was virtually finished, as they had had gigantic casualties on all of the above battles.
Leaving aside that the Soviet Union were very keen indeed for the West to start a second front, do note that the "virtually finished" German Army held out for eleven more months an inflicted hundreds of thousands more casualties on Soviet and other Allied forces.
[–] CarrieWhite2013 7 months ago
All your points are irrelevant and petty except the totally nonsensical reply to my statement ''Please note that by mid 1944 the Soviets had basically won the war'':
''Arguably, it was won as soon as the United States decided to put it's full industrial support behind the Allied cause before the invasion of the USSR, something that might well have not happened had the Dunkirk evacuation been unsuccessful. ''
A) If you knew anything about the war, you would know that what you mention did not happen until after Pearl Harbour, in December 1941. The Americans did support Britain (so much for their ''neutrality'') but by no means did they put their full industrial support behind the Allies. They could not do it as they were not yet at war and the US government would have had no legal basis for a full industrial mobilization (aka directing corporations to produce war material).
The invasion of the USSR started on 21st June of the same year (6 months before Pearl Harbour). The USSR received very little allied help until 1943, by which time the war had already been won after the Soviet victory at Stalingrad. Furthermore, the help received after Stalingrad was pretty much useless as it was of such low quality that (for example) the tanks and planes received were only used by the Red Army for training: they were not fit for combat.
Nothing the Germans did after Stalingrad, and none of their defeats (including the circus of Normandy) made any difference to the actual outcome of the war, only to the timing of their ultimate defeat, as by then it was just a matter of time before the Red Army would take Berlin.
Regarding the ''glorious'' Normandy (for example) after the Read Army reached the Vistula in mid 1944 (just east of Warsaw), as part of Operation Bagration, they waited 6 months to launch their next offensive (from July 1944 to January 1945). If they had continue their advance they would have taken Berlin in weeks as Army Group Centre had been completely wiped out during this operation (the liberation of Belorussia in just 3 weeks): 700000 German soldiers had been killed or taken prisoners, and hence there was literally nothing in between the Vistula and Berlin to stop the Red Army. The Western allies would have not even have reached the western German border by then (probably not even Paris). Normandy: a farce. Period.
Furthermore, the ''almighty'' western allies (lead by a bunch of cowards such as Churcill which only launched Normandy when Germany was on its knees thanks to their defeats against the Soviet Union: Moscow 1941, Stalingrad 1942-43, Kursk 1943, 4th Battle of Kharkov in 1943: all before Normandy, with millions of German casualties) managed to finally get out of the Normandy beaches after weeks stuck on them, as the German High Command had no option but to send most of the troops keeping the Allies trapped at Normandy like rats in a sinking ship to the Eastern Front, to plug the gap left by the destruction of Army Group Centre.
To add insult to injury to the ''allied cause'', Hitler did not actually care about the western allies: the abovementioned redeployment and the fact that its headquarters were in the Eastern Front (the Wolfsschanze in East Prussia) until they were almost overrun by the Red Army, plus facts such as that 74% of German casualties happened in the Eastern Front, shows it.
Many other facts do so as well, including that most troops manning the so-called Atlantic Wall (which wasn't even finished before Normandy) weren't even Germans: any prisoner of war who wanted to change sides was put there, regardless of their quality, while the Eastern Front was overwhelmingly manned by German troops.
After most of the German forces keeping the allies stuck at Normandy were redeployed to the Eastern Front, the ‘almighty’ allies were able to basically roam freely through France as it had virtually been vacated by Germany, something they fully did in September 1944, retreating all the way from the French Atlantic Coast to the German border.
B) According to what you write, there are two possible meanings that you imply:
B1)If the allied troops had not been allowed to escape Dunkirk (this is what really happened: a lie doesn’t become the truth just because you repeat it like a retarded parrot), Germany would not have invaded the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa).
This makes no sense at all. By your own standards of Western Propaganda Brainwashing (you are clearly great at believing any garbage they tell you to believe, including that the Earth is flat, or even better, triangular) since the western allies were ‘’so important’’, if they had all been taken prisoners at Dunkirk (the 400000 that were there) this would have made the invasion of the USSR even more likely (not less) as there would be even less opposition to Germany in western Europe that there was, and more freedom for Hitler to act at will. This is pure logic and common sense (see, brainwashing makes you lose both of these, as well as turning your brain into a stinking pile of s**t).
B2) If you actually meant that the Americans would NOT have armed Britain, you are ALSO wrong:
Because Britain was safe regardless of having 300000 soldiers more left after Dunkirk (the other 100000 were French and Belgian) or if it had had zero: it would have made virtually no difference to what Hitler chose to do afterwards, as in either case it was impossible for Germany to invade the UK.
Why? Not because of the usual rubbish about the RAF saving Britain (that’s nonsense), but because of the Royal Navy, which was several times bigger than the Kriegsmarine(the German Navy), would have made this completely impossible. by their sheer superiority in numbers.
And since the Royal Navy was anchored at Scapa Flow (heavily fortified, including against air attack) it was not possible to fully sink it from the air while at base, a matter not helped by the fact that Luftwaffe (German Air Force) had very few naval bombers. Due to this lack of naval bombers the Luftwaffe would not have been able to sink the Royal Navy even while at sea, including if it had been right next to German airfields in France during a purported invasion of the UK (while the Royal Navy would have been trying to stop this from happening). They even lacked heavy bombers and due to these factors they were totally unable to sink the small Soviet Baltic Sea Fleet while anchored and trapped at Leningrad during the siege of this city, even though the Soviet ships (frozen at port for months each year) were sitting ducks.
And no, Germany was not capable of launching an airborne invasion of the UK, as an operation to occupy Britain cannot be compared to Crete (so that you don’t come up with this silly point, as I can read your mind like that of a starving baby).
I would recommend that you do your homework and learn some real WWII history, instead of watching yet another brainwashing ‘’documentary’’ (aka garbage on film) about Normandy or some absurd imaginary allied special forces operation where they managed to kill Hitler and replace him with a clone made of cheese (maybe Trump is the descendant!)