[Jawgap]

Originally Posted by snafuk35

Unquestionably Dunkirk.
If Germany had not allowed the bulk of the regular British Army to escape, Britain would probably have been forced to capitulate.
Britain of course became an island fortress and later giant base for the bombing of German cities, for naval forces and airpower protecting the Atlanitc convoys routes and for the jumping off point for the invasion of North Africa and Europe.
With Britain still in the war and later America to join with Britain precious divisions were posted to defend the coasts from Norway to the Bay of Biscay and to protect the Mediterranean. There was less manpower available to hold back the Soviets after the failure of Barbarossa.

They still had a powerful Navy and Air Force at their disposal. Britain's defence policy during the 1930s shifted in 1934 when the RAF took on the role of defenders of the homeland from the RN (the Inskip Doctrine). And specifically within the RAF, Fighter Command was tasked with protecting 'the base.'

The defence establishment actually planned for being expelled from the Continent (thought not leaving all the heavy kit behind) whereupon Fighter Command would defend Britain while the army built up its strength.

In the interim, Bomber Command and the RN would engage the enemy wherever and whenever it could.

It would be a stretch to say Dunkirk was anticipated, but the idea that the army would be excluded from mainland Europe and would have to force a landing at some point was one eventuality that was actively addressed. Given that, I wouldn't say Dunkirk was quite the disaster it's sometimes made out to be.

[Delancey]

Any discussion of Dunkirk must include the address made to the House of Commons by Winston Churchill on the subject where he said : '' We must take care not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory '' - how eloquent.

[OS119]

Originally Posted by Delancey

Any discussion of Dunkirk must include the address made to the House of Commons by Winston Churchill on the subject where he said : '' We must take care not to assign to this deliverance the attributes of a victory '' - how eloquent.

indeed - as Jawgap says, even if the BEF had been anihalated at Dunkirk, the UK still had the capability in the RAF and RN to keep the Germans on their side of the Channel. Dunkirk was a god-send in terms of morale and eventually being able to re-build the Army - but it wasn't the Army who were going to keep the Germans away, it was the RAF and RN.

[Farmer Pudsey]

Originally Posted by OS119

indeed - as Jawgap says, even if the BEF had been anihalated at Dunkirk, the UK still had the capability in the RAF and RN to keep the Germans on their side of the Channel. Dunkirk was a god-send in terms of morale and eventually being able to re-build the Army - but it wasn't the Army who were going to keep the Germans away, it was the RAF and RN.

I tend to disagree if the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk Britian would have had no professional army for the battle of Norway,Greece and North Africa. Also if they had beem destroyed would Hitler have continued with the Battle of Britian as it Britian had no defence. My own opinion is that Britian staying in the war was the crucial act of WW11 it peovided the USA a gigantic airfore carrier in the Europe that would not have been there.

Would Britian have been able to perserve in 1940 if the army had benn destroyed?????

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by Farmer Pudsey

I tend to disagree if the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk Britian would have had no professional army for the battle of Norway,Greece and North Africa.

The Norwegian campaign was almost over when Dunkirk happened.

[jonniebgood1]

Originally Posted by OS119

even if the BEF had been anihalated at Dunkirk, the UK still had the capability in the RAF and RN to keep the Germans on their side of the Channel. Dunkirk was a god-send in terms of morale and eventually being able to re-build the Army - but it wasn't the Army who were going to keep the Germans away, it was the RAF and RN.

Also overlooked in terms of importance IMO is the attack on French ships by the Royal Navy in Algerian waters that followed Dunkirk.

[Jawgap]

Originally Posted by Farmer Pudsey

I tend to disagree if the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk Britian would have had no professional army for the battle of Norway,Greece and North Africa. Also if they had beem destroyed would Hitler have continued with the Battle of Britian as it Britian had no defence. My own opinion is that Britian staying in the war was the crucial act of WW11 it peovided the USA a gigantic airfore carrier in the Europe that would not have been there.

Would Britian have been able to perserve in 1940 if the army had benn destroyed?????

Yes, the BEF was not the entire army.

Here is the order of battle for the BEF - compare it to the order of battle for the British Army in 1939

Dunkirk was a disaster, but they still had plenty in reserve, before you even get to the support they would have got from the 'Dominions.'

@delancey is right about the attitude of the Government, they knew they had a lucky escape and regarded it as such.

and for all his faults (which are indeed many) Churchill recognised fighting on was the only realistic option - he summed up Dunkirk for what it was, but my own favourite was the speech he made in cabinet, which again summarised the strategic position very well and ended with some great rhetoric....

"......if we tried to make peace now, we should get better terms than if we fought it out. The Germans would demand our – that would be called disarmament – our naval bases, and much else. We should become a slave state, though a British Government which would be Hitler’s puppet would be set up – under Mosley or some such person. And where should we be at the end of all that? On the other side we have immense reserves and advantages. And I am convinced that every one of you would rise up and tear me down from my place if I were for one moment to contemplate parley or surrender. If this long island story of ours is to end at last, let it end only when each one of us lies choking in his own blood upon the ground.

[Kilkenny14]

Originally Posted by Farmer Pudsey

I tend to disagree if the BEF had been destroyed at Dunkirk Britian would have had no professional army for the battle of Norway,Greece and North Africa. Also if they had beem destroyed would Hitler have continued with the Battle of Britian as it Britian had no defence. My own opinion is that Britian staying in the war was the crucial act of WW11 it peovided the USA a gigantic airfore carrier in the Europe that would not have been there.

Would Britian have been able to perserve in 1940 if the army had benn destroyed?????

I agree with your point - if the BEF were destroyed that would also have meant that officers like Brooke, Montgomery, and Alexander would have been lost to the Allied war effort.

[dave2pvd]

I've got one: the air raids on Japan.

Perhaps this is not considered a battle?

Japan's war machine was crippled before the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings. The turning point was the B-29. Once the Allies had this long range bomber, Japan's isolation was no more.

In many ways, the air raids / B-29 arrival was the beginning of the end for the Empire.

[Reekwind]

Originally Posted by dave2pvd

In many ways, the air raids / B-29 arrival was the beginning of the end for the Empire.

Devil's advocate: Japan went into the war with a barely industrialised economic base that was in no position to compete with the industrial powerhouse that was the US. For example, in 1943 alone the US produced more aircraft than Japan did from 1939-45. So while the air raids may have hindered Japanese production, can this really be said to have had much bearing on the course or outcome of the war?

[Delancey]

More important than the B 29 raids was the submarine campaign of the US Navy - the methodical destruction of its merchant fleet was a colossal loss that Japan as a maritime nation could not afford.
Losses of tankers reached a point that the Japanese Navy had to base itself in the Dutch East Indies because tankers en route to the japanese home islands could not make it past the gauntlet of US subs.
The war in the Pacific is often described as a war of aircraft carriers - I think it inaccurate to say that , rather it was a war of carriers and submarines.