The Miracle of Dunkirk is often the title given to the evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force and other Allied troops from the beaches of Dunkirk, France to England. Also known as the “Dunkirk Evacuation”, this was a nine day campaign consisting of naval vessels and hundreds of civilian boats that helped save approximately 198,000 British and 140,000 French and Belgian troops. While popular belief is that the Miracle of Dunkirk was a glorious moment for the Allied forces, Patrick Turnbull argues in his book, Dunkirk: Anatomy of Disaster, that the events at Dunkirk were actually a disaster and a “humiliation” to both the French and the British. He believes that the events at Dunkirk, just like the war itself, could have been avoided.
…show more content…
Turnbull discusses this eight-month long “Phoney War” to show that the lack of British support to the French is one of the causes for the Dunkirk Disaster. He explains how the cowardess and betrayal of Baldwin and Chamberlain, which resulted in the BEF consisting of only 6 combat ready divisions and an obsolete armored brigade, caused a huge breach of faith between the French and the British (Turnbull 176). Turnbull uses this event to point the finger at the British and argue that their conservative tactics led to the disaster on the beaches of Dunkirk. He quotes, “given the manpower and the highly developed industrial potential of the British Isles, the force could, and should have been treble.” Turnbull decide to veer away from the actual “Miracle” of Dunkirk and focus on events like these two mentioned to show that Dunkirk was indeed a disaster and could have been …show more content…
He recognizes that it may have been one of the British Army’s finest hours, but that it showed their many political weaknesses. As for the French, Turnbull feels that the events at Dunkirk were an embarrassment militarily and politically. He supports this argument by analyzing the actions and decisions, political and militant, which were made before the actual evacuation. He then uses his personal accounts as an onlooker to Turnbull uses these two contributions he made to convey he is idea that if certain decisions had been made differently, the events at Dunkirk would not have transpired or would have been less disastrous and could have possibly changed the shape of the entire
Turnbull discusses this eight-month long “Phoney War” to show that the lack of British support to the French is one of the causes for the Dunkirk Disaster. He explains how the cowardess and betrayal of Baldwin and Chamberlain, which resulted in the BEF consisting of only 6 combat ready divisions and an obsolete armored brigade, caused a huge breach of faith between the French and the British (Turnbull 176). Turnbull uses this event to point the finger at the British and argue that their conservative tactics led to the disaster on the beaches of Dunkirk. He quotes, “given the manpower and the highly developed industrial potential of the British Isles, the force could, and should have been treble.” Turnbull decide to veer away from the actual “Miracle” of Dunkirk and focus on events like these two mentioned to show that Dunkirk was indeed a disaster and could have been …show more content…
He recognizes that it may have been one of the British Army’s finest hours, but that it showed their many political weaknesses. As for the French, Turnbull feels that the events at Dunkirk were an embarrassment militarily and politically. He supports this argument by analyzing the actions and decisions, political and militant, which were made before the actual evacuation. He then uses his personal accounts as an onlooker to Turnbull uses these two contributions he made to convey he is idea that if certain decisions had been made differently, the events at Dunkirk would not have transpired or would have been less disastrous and could have possibly changed the shape of the entire