Talk:Dunkirk evacuation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

I have removed the photo

Regardless of the copyright issue, I don't think the photo File:Dünkirschen May-June 1940.jpg is a good fit in the article, as there's no context. We need to be selective as to what images we include so as they will be meaningful and enlightening and I don't think this one has either of those characteristics. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: I'd like to canvass a few other opinions. I didn't first add it, but I did place it next to the paragraph about how the evacuation was presented to the German public, which seems like pretty relevant context.

Since the Dunkirk evacuation has been elevated to the status of national legend, I worry about an "Englishism" bias and think French and German perspectives should be actively encouraged. It's not all that great but I like the book photo because it's a small step in that direction. 23.83.37.241 (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

What important elements does the book photo add when it's at thumbnail size? The body text is all illegible. The top photo shows -- I assume -- columns of troops moving through the water. But we have that already in the lead image. The other two photos are entirely unidentifiable. That just leaves us with the title, which is "Dunkirk" in German. So much for that. MPS1992 (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: (here was an edit-conflict, sorry for the ping.) I added the photo, but with a different text compared to when you deleted it. And there was a better context, I hope, in my image text. This just happened to about Dunkirk and in my opinion, a good illustration of war-time propaganda. Easy to see as it was German. Also Churchill's "We shall fight at the beaches..." was propaganda, and it worked. Propaganda has been an essential part of wars, to the ones who conduct them.

I can see that you have added something about the German perspective (as of above here), that's good, I think. Especially if it's obvious that it is propaganda (also = official statements).

I don't worry too much about "Englishism" bias, though. Not in this article at least. But Britain (or the Tories at least) and France had another moral dilemma. Colonialism, India and Africa, but that's another story. Boeing720 (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Boeing720: As the one who changed the caption, I thought I was improving things, but I could be wrong. I removed the literal word "propaganda" from the caption, as I thought the accompanying text's phrasing ("The evacuation was presented to the German public as") makes it adequately clear. As you say, pretty much anything published officially in wartime is propaganda, and I thought using the term only to describe a German publication was an unnecessarily pejorative WP:LABEL.

@MPS1992: The picture doesn't contribute much, but I think it reinforces the text's statement that the Germans celebrated their victory at the battle of Dunkirk. As you say, the text is illegible in thumbnail, but it's equally unintelligible for people not literate in German, so most readers are trusting the caption anyway. And having it there lets the interested follow the link to zoom in. 23.83.37.241 (talk) 06:35, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

So in a sense, the main thing of significance this is adding is the caption -- which is not based on a secondary source's analysis of the book. I'm not sure this is a step in the right direction. MPS1992 (talk) 12:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I shouldn't have put the image at the top. I now can see that it might been taken as a kind of provocation. Although there were no such intention. But I wanted to underline that there was a different official perspective too. And although the deeds of Hitler and Nazism are "undefendable" (if that is a valid word ?), the pure military aspect is an other issue. (Which doesn't suggest "a clean Wehrmacht", just by the way) Couldn't the photo be used further down, perhaps where Diannaa put some comments about the German official comments ?

By the way, according to Shirer (The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, part III, p118-128 or around 8-18 pages from the beginning of chapter 21 in newer printings), we have both been wrong. The Allied forces were not cut-off already after 5 days, but "their destiny was decided". But "the Lutfwaffe issue" was about "a large counter-offensive threatening to cut-off the German panzer divisions from the south". Halder, who was present at the front, knew there was no such threat. But Hitler at OKW in Berlin got very worried. This gave the Allied forces a few days of "breathing space". Shirer refers to both Halder's (at the front) and Jodl's (in Berlin) diaries. Boeing720 (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I read Shirer's book quite a few years ago, although it seems not to be on my bookshelf here now for some reason. (Liddell Hart's book is.) Anyway, thank you for letting us know about that. MPS1992 (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@MPS1992: "adding is the caption -- which is not based on a secondary source's analysis of the book" That sounds like you're asking for an unreasonable standard. Do you seriously want to limit illustrations to those we have a secondary source explicitly analyzing? Gee, that would be nice. So would Trump's heart growing three sizes Christmas day. If wishes were horses, illustrations for Wikipedia wouldn't be Hobson's choice so often. Unlike text, which can be created de novo, the menu for illustrations is limited and we make the best of what's available.

It's easy to imagine a better illustration, but until we have two to choose between I think the one under consideration improves the article. Echoing Boeing720, what I like about the illustration is that it draws attention to non-British perspectives, and I think that helps with NPOV. (In this, I'm disagreeing with Diannaa, who I wish would participate in this discussion.)

As for the caption, at the time of removal it was

Contemporary German book "Die Wehrmacht 1940" celebrating "Dunkirk: England's escape from the continent"

The only thing not purely descriptive is the word "celebrating". That was my euphemism for "propaganda", and I don't think anyone would consider it unreasonable. (The entire book can be summarized as "Deutschland, Fuck Yeah".) Wikipedia's policies are applied strictly to resolve content disputes. If there's an actual dispute over the characterization, then WP:V is clear: secondary source or yank it. But is there a dispute? Does anyone think that's an unreasonable characterization? If not, we can honour the spirit of WP policy without getting bogged down in the letter.

WP:V requires sourcing for statements that are or are likely to be challenged. Does "celebrating" fall into those categories? And if anyone is challenging "celebrating", would softening it further to the neutral "describing" solve the issue? 23.83.37.241 (talk) 00:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't been participating in the discussion because I haven't changed my mind about its inclusion. Changing the caption won't have any impact on my opinion, which is that the photo tells us little about the subject of the article, as there's no context. The photo is a bit blurry, and while we are told by the uploader that it's a propaganda book, it's impossible to tell that by looking at the photo. It looks like a history book to me. I can understand why adding some non-British perspective might be a good idea, but I don't see how this photo accomplishes that for people who read this wiki, most of whom don't speak German and will have to take your word for it that it's propaganda. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thank you! I'm delighted to refocus on the original issue of "include it or not?" I don't think it's a huge deal but I think it serves as an example of the text it's alongside: "The evacuation was presented to the German public as an overwhelming and decisive German victory." One does not have to understand the text, or even enlarge the thumbnail, to see the style of the presentation: a popular picture-book format.

That's what I think it's showing, and it serves a function commonly seen in textbook illustrations: a specific example of a general theme described in prose. (If you want a useless illustration, the "white cliffs of Dover" picture really contributes nothing. That's just an establishing shot; they don't appear in the narrative at all.) 23.83.37.241 (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you about the White Cliffs of Dover photo and have removed it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

(As I was alerted). I hope the image can be of use somewhere, this "two-pages" is actually unique even for "Die Wehrmacht 1940 & 1941". All other boastful "two-pages" are based on artistic paintings, not on photos. But it would most certainly have been interesting to have a look also in the following annual Wehrmacht-books... These two books are owned by a cousin of mine, very fragile and hence "un-scannable". I assume they were sold in Sweden at the time. Literature in the German language had been rather common long before Hitler was known about. But after WW2, English soon became more popular. Boeing720 (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

You could perhaps make a case (on the appropriate talk page) for its inclusion in the article Propaganda in Nazi Germany, as an alternative to one or other of the photographs currently in that article of statues, insignia of other countries being removed, Lord Haw-Haw in British captivity after Nazi capitulation, various people involved in propaganda, and so forth. There are also a lot of posters and newspapers in that article, but those are appropriate there -- perhaps not in such great numbers. Some parts of that article seem flooded with images to the point that any more would be inappropriate, but other parts seem sparse on images. The latter includes the Books section, which is perhaps particularly appropriate for your interest here!

In case it is useful, some Britishers and Americans use the phrase "double-page spread" to mean the same as "two-pages". You are correct in that it is seen as symptomatic of importance in the publication. MPS1992 (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Thanks for the removal. But getting back to the main point: doesn't the book nicely illustrate how the evacuation was presented to the German public? And isn't that the subject of the corresponding paragraph in the text?

Oh BTW: "it's impossible to tell that [it's a proaganda book] by looking at the photo. It looks like a history book to me." Er, yes, that's what this sort of propaganda is designed to look like... 23.83.37.241 (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The book may illustrate how the evacuation was presented -- but that photo of the book (which is what we are discussing) does not. MPS1992 (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@MPS1992: Er, huh? It was presented in a double-page picture spread. (What today would use coated paper and be called "glossy".) Clearly someone was very proud of the event and wanted to draw public attention to it by giving it the Life magazine treatment. How does the photo of the book not show that? 23.83.37.241 (talk) 10:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Apparenntly this 81.230.36.59 (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC) is my Wiki-IP. It's better to use a signature or create one. Having said that, I think the IP-user have some valid points. And this isn't really Nazi-propaganda, but sooner usual military propaganda. If Goebbels had edited this work, I presume "DÜNKIRSCHEN" wouldn't had been the main headline and "Englands flucht vom Kontinent" is after all a rather modest observation. I don't think the "total photo" belongs under Nazi-propaganda. Fall of France perhaps ? (Please note there was an edit-conflict) Boeing720 (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"Clearly someone was ... and wanted to ..." -- I think we're in WP:OR territory now, interpreting the format of a printed work to decide what it means about the feelings and intentions of its author, without any reference to secondary reliable sources. MPS1992 (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Why not just see it as it is, without interpretations from our side ? "German military illustration of the event" Boeing720 (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Because when one sees it as it is, one does not really see much at all. MPS1992 (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a matter of opinion. I would like to think that most of our readers can see something of value in it. Otherwise I wouldn't have added it. Boeing720 (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@MPS1992: "I think we're in WP:OR territory now" Which is precisely why I want the illustration! Per WP:OR and related policies, we do not draw original conclusions from source material, but present it to the reader and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. I am discussing here, on a talk page, why the illustration is useful by describing what a reader can see in it, but not advocating for making the claim directly in mainspace.

Because it's a primary source, it's best used verbatim (and a photograph is as verbatim as it gets) rather than to draw inferences from.

As I mentioned before, this is an extremely common application of illustrations. (See, for example, motherboard. All seven illustrations are examples of what's being discussed in the accompanying text. "Cell phones have very small motherboards." [Picture of a specific very small cell phone motherboard.]) 23.83.37.241 (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree Boeing720 (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Twice you've talked about the absence of "context", and I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. I've been thinking of the article text alongside the illustration as the context, and specifically the paragraph beginning "The evacuation was presented to the German public as an overwhelming and decisive German victory."

But re-reading the discussion, you repeated "there's no context" after I made that claim, which leaves me wondering if I'm misunderstanding. To ensure we're not talking past each other, can you clarify what you mean by the word? 23.83.37.241 (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What I mean is that readers will see the photo and wonder at its meaning, not be enlightened or have a deepened understanding of the subject of the article. It's out of place, does not fit, is not helpful. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

@Diannaa: If you'd rather not answer, that's okay, but it risks perpetuating my current confusion.

As for your statement "It's out of place, does not fit"... my head is exploding.

The text is talking about how the event "was presented to the German public". The illustration is an example of the event being presented to the German public at the time. The fit is glaringly obvious.

Not helpful, I'm happy to discuss (especially not helpful enough, a matter of degree), but it's clearly on topic and relevant. It's so clear that I cannot fathom how any reasonable person could possibly disagree. Not wishing to call you unreasonable, I'm casting about for some profound misunderstanding/miscommunication between us.

What is the paragraph under discussion talking about if not the spin (propaganda) put on the evacuation by the German authorities? What does the illustration depict if not the spin put on the evacuation by the German authorities? How does the spin put on the evacuation by the German authorities "not fit" with the spin put on the evacuation by the German authorities?

Very confused here... 23.83.37.241 (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

If I may interject. I think the issue is that there is a difference between an image of a headline which says "Huge German Victory", and one of an open book with some images in it with barely/illegible text. The first clearly illustrates the point, the second doesn't. (Hohum ^@) 14:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

References

Irish naval crew at Dunkirk

I just came across this article, Neutral Ireland and Dunkirk, which claims that a Vosper Motor Torpedo Boat ordered from Thornycroft by Ireland was used during the evacuation and was manned in part by a volunteer Irish naval crew who wore "a blue and yellow thread version of the Irish Defence Forces badge, the centrepiece being the interlocking letters "FF". The cap tally did not yet bear the current Irish Navy title "Eire" and evacuees are said to have interpreted the badge as the initials of the Free French". I'm hesitant to add this to the article but perhaps if someone has a second source it might be worth looking at. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the source is sufficiently RS, and the inclusion might be somewhat UNDUE even if the source was good. As an aside; one would think that as soon as one of the crew spoke to someone they were evacuating, the idea that it was a Free French vessel might have subsided, an Irish accent not being likely to be confused with a French one. (Hohum ^@) 17:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, the Free French did not yet exist at the time of Dunkirk. Khamba Tendal (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

There were numerous Irishmen from neutral Eire in the British Army and so any other Irishmen were not likely to be noticed because of their accent. IIRC, at one point during the war there were more Southern Irishmen in the British Army than there were in the Irish Army, Southern Irishmen wishing to join only needing to cross the border into Northern Ireland to join up, there being no border controls IIRC at the time.

"Dunkirk in Popular Culture" section?

Should there be a section for notable portrayals of Dunkirk on stage, screen, and literature? If so, would it be on both Dunkirk evacuation as well as Battle of Dunkirk, or should it be a separate article entirely? The Verified Cactus 100% 01:57, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I removed the secion in December 2017 as suggested in WP:MILPOP as it was starting to become a magnet for American pop culture trivia. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Would it be possible for someone to make a new one and keep trivia out? Also, what would constitute as "trivia" in this context? I looked at a revision, which was a list of film and television appearances. The Verified Cactus 100% 21:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I've re-added the last good version, section is titled "Film and television representations" rather than "Pop culture". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Lord

Reading The Miracle of Dunkirk by Walter Lord, the Halt Order given in the introduction is incorrect. Later in this article at the section "Battle of Dunkirk" the correct sequence of events is given. Since the Halt Order is critical to the evacuation, I corrected it in the introduction.

I also changed "prevent the evacuation" in a later sentence to say "destroy the BEF, and the French and Belgium armies" because Lord makes it clear the German's had not the slightest thought of an evacuation. Nick Beeson (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Introduction not mentioning french destroyers

The sentence "Many troops were able to embark..." does not mention any french warships taking part in the evacuation. Is this an oversight? Taking into account the disproportionate number of french destroyers sunk in the action, this seems rather unfair. Koo Kee (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The source (Churchill volume II Their Finest Hour) specifies 49 Allied warships but does not say which countries participated. If you've got a source that breaks it down by country that would be a nice addition. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding: There's some information on French destroyers in the Casualties section. Three of the 18 capital ships that were sunk were French destroyers. Also, the introduction says 39 British and 4 Canadian destroyers and the total destroyers taking part according to Churchill was 49, so therefore 6 were from countries other than the UK and Canada. So yeah, the French did lose a big proportion of their destroyers but I don't know how many French destroyers participated. It must have been at least three and anywhere up to six. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, that was exactly what I stumbled over – with three French destroyers lost mentioned in the later section, that must have been a rather large proportion of their force engaged. Unfortunately, I can not provide any sources that would shed more light on this (i.e. the total number of French warships engaged or whether their destroyers were actually involved in the evacuation or were just "covering" the action). Maybe we could work with a phrase that states an unspecific number of, but at least three, French destroyers? Koo Kee (talk) 05:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Allright, the article about the "Bourrasque" states that she was sunk by mine and artillery fire while carrying troops, so apparently the French destroyers did not just act as a covering force but were actively engaged in the evacuation. Koo Kee (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Darkest Hour

On page 195 of Anthony McCarten's recent book, there is this statement, backed up by Cabinet minutes May 20, 1940:

"It is seldom observed, by the public or even by historians, that the father of this colossally risky idea -- what has become known as the "Little Ships Rescue" was Churchill himself."

If someone wants to incorporate this, go right ahead. Keith Henson (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I believe that idea is also well-represented in the excellent movie Darkest Hour (film), which I suppose is because Anthony McCarten wrote and produced its screenplay. So, we should perhaps recognize that Churchill raised the idea, but we do need an historian -- not a "novelist, filmmaker, and playwright" -- as a source for it being "colossally risky" or anything out of the ordinary. MPS1992 (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Churchill says on page 58-59 of Volume II that "It is recorded in the minutes of the meeting: 'The Prime Minister thought that as a precautionary measure the Admiralty should assemble a large number of small vessels in readiness to proceed to ports and inlets on the French coast." On this the Admiralty acted immediately and with ever-increasing vigour as the days passed and darkened." Churchill does not comment on the riskiness of the idea or even on whether he expected the assembled vessels to be military or civilian ones. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

OK I've gone ahead and added a word about it. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It was Churchill's idea to use the large number of civilian small boats in the evacuation, the use of normal naval vessels was the Admiralty's, who would use these ships anyway as a matter of normal practice for an emergency embarkation. Thus it was Churchill who ordered the Admiralty to make up a list of the small vessels that might be suitable should an evacuation become necessary.

Originally it was thought only a small minority of the troops would be able to be evacuated, and there were many who thought any mass evacuation impossible, as an evacuation under fire - the Luftwaffe were still bombing Dunkirk - on the scale required had never been attempted before, never mind been successfully carried out. Hence Hitler didn't 'let the British escape' by issuing the 'Halt Order', as far as he and his Generals were concerned, the British were trapped with no possibility of 'escape'.

Reason for the 'Stop' order

Apparently Hitler gave the order because he still thought the newly-appointed PM Churchill might do a deal. Valetude (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

OK. Source? MPS1992 (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A successful evacuation under-fire on the scale of what subsequently occurred at Dunkirk had never happened before and as far as Germany was concerned was physical impossible, therefore any delay in the German advance was merely, in German minds, delaying the inevitable British surrender of the entire BEF.

The BEF were trapped and couldn't get away. That's what Hitler thought. He didn't think he needed to make any deal.

There are several post-war explanations for the 'Halt Order' but many of these assume that Hitler knew the evacuation would be successful and that he 'let the BEF get away'. He didn't, it had never been tried before, and there were also many on the English side of the Channel who doubted it would succeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.228 (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)