The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
World War II - West Front Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Panzer Halt, English Channel
CJH    3/11/2005 12:57:46 PM
I have read a few descriptions of the Germans halting short of Dunquerk instead of gooing in for the kill on the beaches.

The most widely accepted explanation is that they had arrived at bogs or swamps and therefore the panzer unit commanders ordered halt.

But I read "Panzer Leader" by Heinz Guderian who was the father of the German blitzkrieg technique and commanded tanks in that campaign and he wrote the order to halt the panzers at the channel coast came from army headquarters in Berlin and not from the scene.

What with Ruldolf Hess' flying to England, his "suicide" while in the custody of the allies, the open admiration of the Duke of Windsor for Hitler and the fashionable admiration of the Nazis by the pre-war British upper class one has cause to wonder.

I read in "Der Fuhrer" by Conrad Heiden that Hitler had given a 1930(I believe) speech on radio on the occasion of the London Naval Treaty. Hitler related how the United States which had a two ocean navy had been left on par by the treaty with Great Britain which had a seven ocean navy and he expressed his opinion that the British had gotten the short end and therefore should look away from America and toward Europe for its future.

Despite the importance of the British naval blockade of 1914-1918, Hitler did not plan on having a dominating navy. We know the importance he placed on land block power and know he was counting on controlling Russian resources but he must have known he was leaving a back door open if he neglected a surface navy presence on the Atlantic.

Maybe Hitler had been convinced by someone who had connections high up in Britain that he had friends on the inside who could deliver Britain. Maybe halting the tanks was with that in mind.

Any comments?
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT
Commander    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel   3/27/2005 6:28:23 PM
It was the fault of Luffwaffe Leader Herman Goerring. It was he who told Hitler that his Luffwaffe could destroy the men in Dunqerk. If the Germans only pushed forward this would be a blow for the Allied Army. If the Germans pushed forward England would still recover from this blow. They won the Battle of Britain.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel   3/30/2005 12:11:38 PM
But why would it be desirable for the Luftwaffe to undertake the sole responsibility for suppressing the British and allies on the beach in the first place? It would seem odd if such were the case since it had been the German method of utilizing air, infantry and tanks in a highly coordinated fashion which had got them to the channel coast. Why halt the infantry and tanks short of a decision? It had to have been a political decision otherwise it just doesn't make sense. The main point centers around the British upper class attitude towards America at the time and the reported fondness of the British upper classes for Hitler before the war. I remember Alister Cooke explaining the anti-American attitude in Britain between the wars. There were questions about the manner of the death of Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel- A Largely Irrelevant Debate   7/21/2005 3:48:21 AM
I wonder if events simply occurred too rapidly for German corps and divisional battle staffs to envision, then coordinate the final encirclement and destruction operations along the beaches. Too, significant resistance was being offered by cut off French and British units who knew that there was no possibility of their escape. Worse for the axis than an incomplete victory on the Dunkerque beaches, the German Army had no means to rapidly leap the channel, as they were... 1.)still securing their incredible victory over France through much of June, 1940, and desperately needed to reconstitute their forces following this victory; and, 2.) the continued presence of a still very effective RAF, operating over its homeland and an utterly undefeated Royal Navy must have made the notion rather daunting. Still, the Home Army was a joke at this point, and the professional army was in utter disarray, with a couple hundred thousand French, Belgians, Poles, and Brits from a laundry list of shattered divisions, and without any equipment. A coup de main on the British Isles by the Wehrmacht in August-September, 1940 simultaneously knocks out the British Empire, ensures axis access to mid-east oil, and seals the doom of the Soviet Union before a shot is fired in anger. Therein lies the real tragedy for the German armed forces amidst all the celebration of victory in the summer of 1940. In a brief window of time (1 August-31 October, 1940), complete victory was lost and ultimate defeat assured by the inability to knock England out of the war. By the spring of 1941, invasion of England was all but impossible.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel- A Largely Irrelevant Debate   7/22/2005 5:32:51 PM
But what if Britain and possibly Ireland had come under axis control? Would not the Royal Family have evacuated? Would not the Royal Navy have evacuated? What would the axis have gained immediately? Probably a significant moral blow. Probably a sounder basis for the seizure of the Mediterranean and the Middle East. But could the British have stayed in the fight from Canada, Australia and India? Would India stay loyal? Would India have become an even more important focal point in the war?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel- A Largely Irrelevant Debate   8/7/2005 9:51:47 PM
Who knows the manner of this "notional" English defeat. Gov't in exile? Do Commonwealth (Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and S. Africa)nations contribute troops to a "lost cause". Or is the cause still capable of being rallied. July, 1940. The United States was still approximately seventeen months from declaring war, and about twenty+ from any lend-lease contribution, much less troops. Is the Royal Navy scuttled in Scapa Flow. The Germans scuttled their High Seas Fleet right under the noses of the British, INSIDE Scapa Flow in 1919, I believe. You know Hitler would have loved that. I know that there is no lend-lease with the Germans in possession of Scotland, northern Ireland, and perhaps Iceland. No oil issues with the middle east in German hands. Finally, defeat for the Soviets, utter and total.
 
Quote    Reply

JIMF    RE:German Navy   8/12/2005 9:12:35 PM
Hitler concluded a pact with the British I think in 1934 that would limit German Naval Strength to 35% of the Royal Navy. Hitler actually abided by that treaty, I think for several reasons; Based on his racial concepts he viewed England as a brother aryan nation, he also respected them based on his First World War experiences and really did not want to wage war on them. Hitler was not personally interested in naval matters, and a strong navy did nothing to support his lebensraum in the east strategy. Also, the German navy was starting from such a low base, no post-dreadnought battleships or Aircraft Carriers in 1934, that it would take them too many years to develop a force that could challenge Britain.
 
Quote    Reply

taylorjohn21    The Halt Order   8/14/2005 4:46:17 PM
The underlying reason for the Halt order was simply that Hitler wished to exercise control over the German Army - nearly all the German Army commanders considered it to be a grave mistake as is clear from their diary entries at the time. Even after the Halt order was rescinded the Germans did not commit all their motorized forces against the Allied lodgement around Dunkirk but withdrew them in preparation for the second phase of the campaign. Looking at the historical evidence (situation maps etc) there seems little doubt that had the Germans made an all out effort to capture Dunkirk most of the BEF would have been lost.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:The Halt Order   8/21/2005 5:54:53 PM
The BEF was effectively "lost" upon its return to England, in any case. 300,000 or so troops were in utter disarray and largely leaderless as a result of Dunkirk. Almost no crew-served weapons of consequence were recovered, and many troops escaped without their personal weapons. Command and control in many of the remaining units was non-existent in the final phases of the withdrawal. Most troops had to be re-equipped and reorganized upon their return, and did not constitute an effective "force in being" for some months thereafter. Only those units of the professional army that didn't deploy to France, the infant territorial army, and the home guard stood between England and Hitler. Oh, and the Royal Navy...
 
Quote    Reply

Commander    Britain as an ally   8/26/2005 9:02:02 PM
The probable reason Hitler did not want the destruction of the British Army, is because Hitler saw in Britain an aryan and an ally. Hitler dreamt of making Britain an ally in the fight against the east. In Mein Kampf Hitler wrote of Britain as an ally. Rudolf Hess paradropped from England to make peace with the king.
 
Quote    Reply

CJH    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel   9/2/2005 8:45:37 PM
One question that would be of interest would concern how the British public viewed German nazism and Hitler on the eve of the war. Given that the true nature of Nazism was arguably still concealed while it was being credited with many accomplishments, many people saw positive potential in it. And the social stresses that had been manifest in Weimar Republic Germany must have been at work in between-the-wars Britain if to a lesser degree. Also material would be how, at the same time, the British public viewed the United States given that the Atlantic Alliance for Britain seems to be an alternative to an interest in the affairs of continental Europe. I am wondering if there was any cause, other than Nazi wishful thinking, for the Germans to believe the Brits would not oppose them to the point of suffering a prolonged war against them.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel   10/11/2005 9:34:58 PM
Hitler had wanted the panzer troops to halt several times earlier in the campaign. On the 15 & 16th May he became very concerned the tank corps were too far advanced and ordered them halted. Guderian & the other corps commanders better realized the disorder of the French armys and argued against the order. They also circumvented the order and continued to advance their pz divs. A few days later Hitler, along with some of the senior army commaders became even more concerned that a Allied counterattack would destroy the over extended tank corps. A actual halt was enforced for a little over 24 hours. As the panzer corps approached the coast Hitler and some of the other senior leaders then became concerned the tank forces would be completely expended in fighting amoung the coastal cities. When Goering made his claim for the destruction of the Allied armys at Dunkirk it seemd a logical option to take. The idea that the panzer regiments might be useless after fighting along the coast was reinforced by the numbers on tank and rifle losses the panzer divsions had taken thus far. These reports were many days behind the actual date, but were quite disturbing to those in Germany. Between combat losses and mechanical breakdowns the regimants had lost a average of 50% of their tanks by the 20th of May. Rommels 7th div arrived at the coast with 25 tanks, out of the 220 it had begain the campaign with. Certainly more than half the lost tanks were repaired and quickly returned to service. But, Hitler had no assurance of this as he reviewed the reports on rapidly increasing losses. Allowing the tank corps to cease combat while the infantry and Luftwaffe finished the job must have seemed prudent. As for 'letting the British get away' , the idea does not fit the thinking of the moment. The British had no confidence thay could evacuate so many men so quickly. Admiral Ramseys initial estimates were for perhaps 30,000 men. Even after the evacuation was in full swing the British leaders had little idea they could sustain such a effort. If the Brits estimates were so pessimistic it is hardly believeable the Germans would think otherwise. Remarks by several German commanders indicate they thought the Allied soldiers at Dunkirk as good as in prision. panzers or no panzers.
 
Quote    Reply

Seeker    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel   10/18/2005 8:17:21 PM
Most of the accounts I have read credit this mistake to Hitler himself. It was just one more attempt by Hitler to ease Britains exit from the war. He did have a notion that Brits were part aryan and atleast they should see the sence of a anti soviet coallion. Infact alot of prewar politics centered around that concept. Across Europe the thinking was that the explicit threat stated by Stalin was far worse than any doubts they would have about Her Hitler. So in many ways Germany was allowed to rehabilitate itself on the assumption that it would have to shoulder the burden of fighting off the soviets.After Munich that all changed of course. Hitler himself believed he had such a control of events that he could pick and choose who he would fight with and told his generals not to worry they would not have to face UK & USA until later [1943/45]. So no real UK invasion plans were included in the initial war plans. Had they made preperations for such an attack, its very likely Dunkirk would never have happened and UK would have been occupied shortly after France. I suspect that HMG , Royals , RN & as much of the RAF would have moved else where to continue the fight. Not unlike Norwegian and French government , crown and forces did. Didn't the USA have an invasion plan for the UK based on the assumption that the Nazis occupied Great Britain?
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel/Seeker Reply   10/18/2005 10:33:06 PM
"Didn't the USA have an invasion plan for the UK based on the assumption that the Nazis occupied Great Britain?" Yeah? What would that be? Consider what a German occupation of England means-I believe that you'd best include Gibraltar, the Azores, Ireland and perhaps Iceland/Greenland as further possibilities. The defense of the European/N. African coast from direct invasion from America is far easier. German subs no longer have to transit the channel and the Bay of Biscay. The strategic implications for a German extension into the Atlantic are astounding.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl S    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel-US War Plans   10/18/2005 11:37:40 PM
There was not a specific plan. There were staff studies from 1939 of the problems inherent in various outcomes of the current situation, and these were updated at least annualy. When France collapsed in 1940 the US Joint Chiefs had studies done up for the military implications in a British collapse. When the USSR was invaded there were further studies on the possible outcomes there. The reports or summarys of these studies were sometimes labeled plans rather than estimates. What they ammounted to were preliminary guides for maing stratigic plans if the situation under study actually occured. War Plan Orange is one example. It was based on the assumption of war between Japan & the US. In it was a estimate of Japanese stratigic objectives and militaray capabilities, the US stratigic objectives and a general outline of how the US might counter Japan and what resources it would take. War Plan Black considered the possibility of war with Germany only. War Plan Rainbow considered the problems of a two front war with both. These plans served as a starting point for budget requests, and the basis for guidance from the Chiefs of Staff to their Department heads. They also served as a basis for other staff studies or plans for specific operations. ie: the Command and Staff College war games at Ft Leavenworth. What Seeker is likely refering to is what some refer to as the '200 Division Plan'. There were several estimates made based on the assumption that either Britian or the USSR would be defeated in 1942 or 43. These roughly identified the level of combat power the US would have to produce to replace the lost ally. Another set of estimates, sometimes refered to as the '300 Divsion Plan' assumed the loss of both the USSR and Britan. Again these were studies or estimates. Not specific war plans. Often they were not based on actual practical considerations. For instance S-2s observation on the problems of attacking Germany from across the Atlantic but rather on vaguely defined optimal stratigic goals. For actual war plans one has to look at the documents produced by the army or theatre commanders charged with actually carring out operations. ie: Macaurthurs plans for defending the Phillpines. Or the various plans for invading France. It is not impossible some General was tasked with drawing up a specific plan for the action Seeker mentions, but my first guess it is unlikely.
 
Quote    Reply

S-2    RE:Panzer Halt, English Channel-US War Plans   10/19/2005 5:25:06 AM
Your comments about the 200 division army do serve as a point of departure into global war with a German dominated Europe. Given our inability to field even 100 divisions by war's end indicates a radical change in draft criterion. Older, and weaker to be sure. Maybe younger as well. Certainly a new set of HUGE challenges.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy