Halder: *Opens his mouth* Me: Press X to doubt

Occam's razor: At the moment of Dunkirk France was not yet defeated. To annihilate the British pocket at Dunkirk would have meant committing forces that were needed in the anticipated battle of Paris. Hitler could not have known that France was about to collapse.

"It's the perfect plan. So inspired, so devious yet so simple."

RE: letter to Stalin - "My troops are merely passing by." - Adolf Hitler. +30 Diplomatic Favor

Paris fell AFTER Dunkirk. The French Army was on its heels, and trying to stabilize its lines. War is chaotic and with many unknowns. It would have made sense to keep units available for the attack on Paris, just in case. -- Even if this is not the main reason; it could have been a factor.

"I hate Halder." ~ TIK, 2020

This is why I love your video's. You ask the questions that so many people dare to ignore. Finding the truth means stepping into territory most will ignore or follow the narrative we are all accustomed to. Keep digging and continue to show evidence of an alternative narrative.

Hitler to Stalin: "I continue to hope for our meeting in July" ... to accept your surrender....

It is an interesting theory, and does fit in with the way Hitler seemed to make strategic gambles, such as the Ardennes Offensive. And also in that he (correctly) thought that the only Soviet whose opinion really mattered was Stalin, so to pull off Barbarossa he needed to play Stalin. The Soviets had mountains of evidence that Barbarossa was about to happen, but since Stalin didn't believe it none of it was acted upon. If true it does raise some serious questions regarding the Battle of Britain and operation Sealion. Was the former a real attempt to batter Britain into submission? If not, why even attempt it given the losses to men and equipment that could then not be used in Barbarossa? And though we now know that Sealion had about a 0% chance of success, was it ever actually on the table? Or was it just a great bluff? And who was he trying to bluff - Churchill or Stalin?

12:00 a big factor in Stalin's thinking was simply his political education: Marxist-Leninism. At that stage of the war, he simply thought it was a war between competing capitalist/imperialist powers and simply thought they would tear each other to shreds. Eg. the correlation of forces dictated Soviet foreign and military policy throughout the war.

Another possibility is the French Army: With the Germans having driven a wedge between the French and British Armies, the notion of a French counterattack from the south was easy to imagine (the Germans not realizing the French had no reserves). So waiting to ensure the French Army isn't coming makes sense before closing for the kill, particularly if the British Army isn't going anywhere soon.

Stalin, "There's no way Hitler could be crazy or stupid enough to start a war on two fronts." Hitler, "Hold mien beer."

Dont forget, that 20k allied troops died defending the dunkirk pocket, they have maybe stopped the tanks, but they still tried to destroy the pocket.

TIK, i would like to thank you. You have helped my discover my interest in the second world war and completly renewed my perspective on the eastern front with your countless hours of content, and teached me to do my own research and look at the sources and their origins to better understand the war. Keep doing what your doing, its absolutely wonderfull! (Excuse for any grammar errors english is not my first language)

Are we forgetting that the evacuation of Dunkirk was a complete surprise to the Germans. No one, not even the British expected to evacuate as many troops as they did. The logical reason why the Germans didn't storm Dunkirk was because they expected the vast majority of the surrounded troops to surrender.

18:42 Absolutely brilliant, to give your enemy an exact date of invasion, yet to make him think that you are instead withdrawing troops and that any military engagement is just a provocation by generals who have "forgotten their duties". As I understood, Soviet frontline units were given an exact that order not to react to "provocation" without an explanation how to differ a provocation from full scale attack

Always a must watch. Great passion for your content.

"I HATE HALDER" hahaha, Halder is such a clown

Makes perfect sense to me. The bombing operations in England seem to be the perfect screen to fool Stalin into thinking Hitler was committed to fighting Britain. Had the British troops been 'wiped out' at Dunkirk, Britain might've even given up from the start, not giving Hitler the chance to catch Stalin by surprise. We'd have to look more closely at the bombing operations of the Luftwaffe. If the operations themselves don't show much of a degree of effectiveness then that would be a strong indicator that it was all a sleight of hand to catch the Soviet Union unprepared.

My 'hobbyist historian' theory on Dunkirk is that the majority of the reason for halting was internal politics and tactical considerations and the political reasonings between nations came as a result of hindsight thinking for Hitler and friends. The Nazis were set up to create and exploit opportunities, but in return they had to fall back to 'hindsight thinking' like chucking Hess at the Brits when they failed to either create or exploit those opportunities such as Dunkirk. When it comes to Dunkirk, I'd argue the Royal Navy was the inescapable and largely unstoppable force on every Nazis mind when dealing with the BEF. If they concentrated their forces to annihilate the pocket they'd have to deal with the possibility of Churchill bringing battleships to a panzer fight. So how do they force the pocket to surrender without getting savaged by naval gunnery providing close artillery support? In comes Goering with his massive ego saying he and the Luftwaffe can get it done no sweat with the land forces remaining in a dispersed cordon difficult to impossible to target to move in when the BEF officially surrenders and the threat of the RN has passed. Or put another way, if the BEF had been pocketed inland the Nazis would've absolutely forced them to surrender rather than, say, letting them escape. But since they were on the coast and France was won, the Nazis saw a huge amount of risk trying to destroy the BEF with ground forces for not much gain since before Churchill it's not like the British had been tough political opponents.

Halder is mentioned in first 2 minutes? This is going to be interesting

It's so perplexing because elements of all of these theories can be somewhat true. Stalin himself was an avid reader of Mein Kampf, thank you for mentioning the timing. Uncle Joe thought he had a few more years and not before Britain surrendered.

I think the halt order probably needs Occam's Razor taken to it. I think it most likely that the halt order was given, like the halt order for Army Group Centre at Smolensk, because the panzers had outrun the infantry. Apart from Guderian and the other panzer enthusiasts, the bulk of the German commanders were concerned about Allied counterattacks (such as at Arras). They also needed to rest the troops and perform maintenance on the tanks after something like 8 days of intense fighting and charging over 200 km across the countryside. The German commanders were already looking at finishing off France, so they needed to get their units back into shape (rested, rearmed and resupplied) for the offensive towards Paris and all points south. Also, if the (possibly unsubstantiated) stories that some German soldiers had been given a mild form of methamphetamine, they would be coming off their "high" right around this point (since this would have been the first time the Wehrmacht tried it, they would only now be finding out the down side of combat drugs). Lastly, the German generals figured, much as the British High Command and Admiralty, that only around 30,000 troops could be evacuated out of Dunkirk, not the 338,000 that were eventually taken off the beaches. It is likely they considered this just a "mopping up operation", only to discover a couple of days later that they still had a major fight on their hands. In other words, they forgot the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Even so, the overall thesis that Hitler wanted to continue fighting Britain is not bad, but he could have done this even after annihilating the British Army at Dunkirk. As long as the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force existed, forcing a crossing of the Channel would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible. The Wehrmacht would not have put so much effort into waterproofing tanks and collecting barges for the invasion had they not been seriously planning to attack England (even though some of the planning was carried out in a sort of malaise). Even if it was a smokescreen, leaving the British with sizeable forces at their disposal would be asking for trouble. Would you really want someone snapping around your heels while you are planning an invasion the size and scope of Barbarossa? Lastly, I think the thesis makes it seem like Hitler was trying to play chess 3-4 moves ahead of his opponents. Given the number of major blunders he made during the war, I find this quite unlikely. If he was that smart, why didn't he ensure his army has enough spares for all their equipment? Why did it take until 1943 for the Germans to start increasing production of tanks, aircraft and artillery? Why was there a chronic shortage of replacements at the front? Surely if you were gearing up for an attack on the Soviet Union you would have included this in your planning. So, in summary, although it is an interesting thesis, I think the idea comes up a bit short. I do agree that there are dots here that should and do need to be connected, but I will have to disagree with how you have connected them.

Allow me to advance another theory. In May 1940, Hitler's main goal was to win the battle of France. The battle starts with relative parity of infantry forces between Germany and the Anglo-French armies, and numerical superiority in tanks by the French. German victory is by no means certain at this point in time, but as the Manstein plan succeeds, part of the French army as well as the entire BEF end up trapped and surrounded near Dunkirk. It is irrelevant whether they are destroyed or allowed to retreat accross the Channel. The main thing is that they no longer represent an effective fighting force and that Germany now has a clear advantage over the Allies in the form of numerical superiority, which will allow her to conquer all of France or force an Armistice on the French. Now, with regards to your theory, that Hitler wanted to keep Britain in the war in order to induce a false sense of security on Stalin, I find it compelling and original, but very unlikely. The war on Britain was not a simulated war that cost Germany nothing and allowed the preparations for Barbarossa to procceed unnoticed. The war was costly. Hundreds of planes were lost in the Battle of Britain. Operation Sea Lion had to be cancelled due to Britain's victory in the air, and due to the fact that the RAF managed to sink 10% of the German invasion fleet even before it was given a green light. Think about the other theaters of war, especially North Afrika. These forces could have proven useful (if not decisive) in the upcoming confrontation with the USSR, and yet, they were wasted in the Libyan desert, where they ultimately faced defeat at the hands of the Brits.

This is both the stupidest and smartest theory I have ever heard of in my life

It's an interesting Theory. I can buy this to the extent that Hitler had been studying Bismark and wanted to emulate him. It certainly has a very Bismark thing to do

Another alternative history for a different situations where german tanks in reality did not come out on top at a beach, at Sicily, Salerno and Anzio the Allied Landings were rapidly crushed and driven into the sea at the Sicilian beaches and Salerno where full Panzer divisions with PKW IV (and a handful of Tigers) and at Anzio where a full armor division and 3 infantry at day 4 took on 2 Allied infantry divisions . This is an alternative history because in all 3 cases the Germans tried very hard to do this and failed with the destruction of half of their tanks. In the first 2 cases the air battle was contested with neither side dominant and the naval advantage to the Allies was no more than 2 cruisers and a dozen destroyers. At Sicily there were battleships available but these never fired on the panzers. At Dunkirk the British employed 39 destroyers, most tof the Home Fleet cruisers were within hours of the beach. There was 2 and probably 4 times as much naval fire power available at Dunkirk as was available at any of the Mediterranean blandings. Fire control wuld have been poor but I would take 4 cruisers with 8 6" guns over a couple hundred pew II's and III's. The elephant in the room at Dunkirk was the RN just at sea. In WWI the remnants of the Belgium Army was similarly evacuated by walking down the coast. . It was the Belgium Army which spelled walk over, isn't it? The German Army chose not to challenge the RN and let them walk.

I always thought Hess was held in captivity his whole life for a reason. This is a solid thought! Tho.

Very intresting, combined with the fact that Hitler thought Russian would collapse inside 2 months. The pieces certainly fit.

That is a very interesting episode. I am not a historian but was digging in the Dunkirk affair without getting any satisfying answer. Thanks for putting this idea on the table.

What a fantastic theory! We can never really know the full answer as to what the actual reasons were, but you have just defined a very reasonable possibility for the decision to not finish off the British forces at Dunkirk. Well done TIK! Keep up the good work.

People say they were overstretched and needed rest etc. yet how does 2 days change anything in the grand scheme of things, especially that the panzers and infantry still had weeks more combat and distance to travel after dunkirk

The last time I was this early to a TIK video, Stalin and Hitler were allies.

My god, this video is so intresting!! It is just a gold mine for History Lovers like me! Thank you TIK! You work is awesome.

So that was the “very personal letter to Stalin” that Indy mentioned in the WW2 Channel I’ll be dammed, I would’ve fell for that too at first!

Ok, I'm a 55 year old retired US Army Infantry NCO that served for 26 years and was in two wars as such. I'm using my wife's YT account to post this comment. Now, I am not a professional historian by any stretch but I do study military history as well as conducted small unit actions. Most of us leaders knew well about basic tactics from Art of War and know that "he who controls the tempo of the battle, controls the outcome" so I'm pretty sure the German Officers also read that same book and knew well that if you have an enemy on his heels, the last thing you do is halt to allow them to dig in, fortify, re-supply, consolidate equipment/ammunition, etc. looking at the distance remaining, it's clear it was a halt for a political intent aimed towards Britain. I've heard various theories that the Germans had just ran out of momentum and outran their supplies and could move not one more inch. Ok, got it. Some say that the German Soldiers were taking some sort of drug that gave them stamina, maybe something like speed or whatever and the men had been awake for over 3 days and many were starting to make serious mistakes. But to halt all units to include air assets for days doesn't add up. I've conducted extended ops many times where we didn't get much sleep for over 3 days but all we needed was 3-4 hours now and then to maintain alertness. And as you're defeating a unit, they compress into a smaller perimeter thus you don't need as many assets to push the enemy so that's when you put some units on rest for a few hours as others maintain the fight. And the British Forces were also lacking rest so their men were also making mistakes due to exhaustion so their effectiveness is cut at least by one third if not half. Soldiers don't aim very well as their vision is affected by exhaustion, fear becomes a rampant disease as their perimeter tightens so it's obvious that mistakes were made. So think of what was the main reason why hitler invaded the west? Think about recent events going on in Finland and Spain, the Communists wanted Finland and decided to invade and it cost Stalin nearly half of his newly gutted Army by a country that had a couple tanks but,mother did have skis and damn good marksmen! Every Sniper knows about the short Finnish man ( his name escapes me at the moment). Spain was also dealing with a communist insurgency on a grand scale. Along with all this, swaths of France thought socialism/communism is a great thing, similar issues in the Netherlands. So to ensure Russia had no open harbors, hitler felt he had to act because the weaker western countries would be under communist rule in short time and Germany would be trapped. The issue with Poland is a joke, if they had honored their agreement for the rail line to the port, things might have been more stable but it was clear that the Poles would also cave to the communists so they acted. Please note that my opinions are my own and I may be missing some key pieces but after a lot of good books, even a couple from Mr. Irving, we get the best picture we can but since history is always written by the victor, we all know there's always another part of the situation that got rubbed out of the history books. I was stationed at Baumholder, Germany from 2002-07 but was also stationed in Aschaffenburg, Germany in 1984-85 and I traveled my butt off when time permitted! Ive been to Bastogne a few times and talked directly with some of the Veterans of the battle and learned a lot. I spent a few years in the 2/502d so I knew about our heritage during the Battle of the Bulge but I didn't know how critical the 10th Armor Division task forces were in stopping the German advances, without them, Bastogne would just be a place where you can buy great furniture (lol, I'm guilty, I bought some from there.).

Hitler: *I'm gonna pull a 4D chess move*

11:16 because everything was going so well until the Germans were a bit rude in not responding to his counter proposal of joining the Axis

I appreciate that you're not sticking hard & fast to it! You've raised a good point and I have heard it said that it was Rommel who caused the problem at the Battle of Arras as he'd exaggerated the size of the force he was fighting and that initiated the halt order as the Germans did not want to have their supply lines cut and Rundstedt was a day from reaching Dunkirk the British realised what was going on and took the ports with reinforcements sent over from the U.K. A key point in the discussion is that the Admiralty under operation Dynamo only thought that Britain could withdraw 30,000 troops. Had the Germans also arrived at this estimate, they would have known we would have been technically knocked out of the war, it would certainly send the wrong signal to Stalin. Something other than the start of operation Dynamo was also happening on the 26th May 1940; it is not much talked about by historians and some dismiss it out of hand particularly with Scottish units being left behind. (However was that due to a change of mind by the French, who had decided that they were no longer going to give preference to the British in the evacuation and chose that they too could stay behind?) King George VI called the first of seven days of national prayer in the UK of the war and probably across the whole of the Empire. I am not one for saying God was on our side, however it is more a case of are we on His when you read Joshua chapter one! Particularly when we're fighting AH, who's trying to wipe out all of those in the East. The miracle of Dunkirk happened and we managed to pull 330,000 + men home, 10 times more than the admiralty estimate!

Decision making in the middle of a huge disaster can be complex and uncertain. Stalin allegedly obsessively studied Hitler’s writings and in his mind concluded Hitler would not attack. Further it seems Stalin did not trust the Army and worried they were a threat to him (why his political agents supervised the military at every level). Allegedly Stalin went to his rural estate in despair during the German invasion overwhelmed by events. Trying to apply logic to the human condition, especially in the middle of a disaster, assumes a rational world. Cheers.

Rudolf Hess did fly to Britain for a final attempt at an alliance (or at least neutrality, which he seemed to think was plausible). B t w Hess introduced Hitler to the "living space" theory while helping him to write Mein Kampf in prison. Hess was a disciple of Haushofer's "geopolitics." Haushofer later denied any link between geopolitics and the "living space" concept.

Great video! I never thought of that, I was always wondering what might have led to the decision at Dunkirk

That's a nice theory - avoiding to defeat Britain so USSR didn't expect the invasion to come, as they believe that Germany would not risk the war on two fronts.

"I assure you, on my honour as a chief of state" ROTFLMAO

Tik amazing video as usual now you became more than a drug for me I’m literally watching all your videos , I have a question for you , I know you already talked about the Italian army sometimes but will you ever make a whole video dedicated to it ? Maybe looking more deeply why we failed in such a bad way , I think it would be very cool especially because here in Italy people really have no idea of what actually happened to us. Thank you

The rule of the simplest: von Rundstedt was afraid of a counterattack, it could end with the encirclement of his panzers.

This theory makes a lot of sense because it fits in with the way Hitler played politics up till his invasion of the Soviet Union. Can't wait for TIK's take on the Hess affair.

TIK, thank you for today's video. Because of you I have read's Hitler's Mein Kampf. I viewed the book as his road map. From everything that I have seen and read Stalin was moving "everything" to Ural Mountains. It would seem that Stalin may have read it as well. You provided me with two thoughts until today I over looked: Oil and where GB received a majority of their oil and England's stand alone after France's defeat. I now have some new items to read and discover. Everything that I read it was such a low possibility (USA-1939-40) that we USA would not join the war. To your viewers: You have published this video today and the amount of excellent comments and prospectives that your viewers have shared is simply amazing. Lastly, "NEVER" stick to "just tanks" and thanks the great work. Cheers

I always thought about the Halt Order as a strategically sound idea (but with too much belief in the Luftwaffe) to force the British to evacuate, more or less in the same manor they did in Canakkale (Gallipoli), but with a lot more manpower to evacuate. The purely military lookout on the evacuation would be to use the mighty British fleet and if needed sacrifice a lot of it to get the men out. With only the Fleet evacuating the Army it would have taken maybe a week or more, with enormous damage that could have been inflicted by the Luftwaffe. That damage would have been very time and resource consuming to revert to starting numbers, as rebuilding a fleet could take years, and that was Hitler's goal. As long as the British fleet was on up and operational, a Seelowe could not be realistically mounted. Also the submarine warfare could not be truly devastating. All this said, an infantry army of 250.000 + 50.000 of other nations is more easily replaceable. I believe this was Hitler's main goal at that point. Of course, we all know how it went: Britain mobilized it's civilian navy up to smallest of boats and achieved a very swift evacuation thus saving the fleet from the incessant Luftwaffe air superiority. In regards to the theory that leaving Britain in battle was a gambit in order to keep Stalin in a false sense of security, I believe that this is not the case mostly because it would rely much too much on one personal opinion: that of Stalin. Sacrificing such a great victory and the capture of a whole British army in order to deceive one man, be it Stalin, with a very low chance of success, was not something I personally find believable.

I had never heard this explanation before, but it makes a lot more sense than anything else I’d heard. Fascinating.

I believe the tanks were told to halt simply because they outran their infantry yet again and Germany didn't want to break all of its tanks at Dunkirk since they still had to deal with France afterwards. There was no hurry to smash Dunkirk since the air force and navy was going to make it very difficult to escape anyway. Even though the BEF did manage to escape, they were forced to leave behind all of their equipment. This means the troops could not simply be sent back around to help France, and by the time the equipment could be replaced... France was already conquered.

Love the theory. Fresh thoughts on the war are always intriguing. I tend to agree for the most part. Really love your stuff, I’ve picked up some great books from your channel. Reading Ostkrieg now.

Interesting Theory, but it definitely raises a few questions. First of all if Hitler really wanted peace with Britain why would he bomb civilians? You could argue that the Battle of Britain was to Cripple their Air Force which could be a threat but I don't see why he would Target civilians if he wasn't trying to force Britain to accept a peace deal. Wouldn't the Lost airplanes and oil be of much better use against his real enemy, the Soviet Union? Also what would the point be in attacking British convoys with submarines if not to force them to surrender? Especially since it also escalated tensions with the USA which would also get in the way of invading the Soviet Union. Why bother using the resources and oil sinking Merchant ships if he wanted Britain to stay in the war? Also something that is unclear is if he wanted them to escape why would he send in the Air Force and submarines? You mentioned in the video that he might have wanted to Cripple the British but then why not send in the army? did he only want to partially attack them? Like the only thing that makes sense for your theory is that he didn't want to destroy the British, but he also didn't want them to escape, so he tried to do something in the middle? Like it sounds a little over complex especially when you could have just destroyed them, crippled the British even more, and just not accepted a peace offer, if he didn't want to be seen denying one he could also just demand unconditional surrender similar to The Americans and I doubt Britain would accept and even if it did unconditional surrender from Britain would be extremely beneficial so it's win-win. I'm not convinced.

How to solve this once and for all: Go back in time and ask Hitler himself almost directly afterwards (and give him no incentive to lie, etc.). Be sure to secretly record this. Unfortunately this is rather hard to do, so we may never know.

Hey Tik. Saw the video the other day. It's an interesting theory, and I'm glad that your playing around with your own idea about the "Halt" Order. I've been fascinated about Dunkirk and the Fall of France and the Low Countries since I was a kid. Definitely worth looking more into. Not sure if I agree with your hypothesis, but that's what we history lovers do, debate. :)

Very interesting view on things. Thanks!

Well you have a point. On the other hand, even if the BEF would have been destroyed in Dunkirk, Hitler could have insisted on a unconditional surrender by Churchill. To keep the Illusion of a war going on in the west, he could just keep away from invading, which he did anyway. The Battle over Britain and the plans of Seelöwe wouldnt be affected by this theory and would be sufficient for the soviets to believe in the war in the west. Even by winning in Dunkirk, Hitler could have kept the war going on and would have MUCH better conditions to make peace after winning in the east.

TIK when do you think you will finish your battlestorm series?

Considering the Nazi's "all in" mentality, the theorie of deluding Stalin by not attacking the remains of the british and french forces in the pocket at Dunkirk makes perfect sense.

Holy smokes, I've never seen a patreon list that long! Fully deserved, of course!

From the German perspective, I can't see any point in continuing the war with Great Britain after the fall of France. Let's assume Hitler was mad but not an idiot, he had a pretty detailed knowledge about his armed forces and could clearly see that there was no way of invading GB. Neither was GB able to invade the continent. But a peace with GB certainly would have alerted Stalin, so staying at war with GB to cover "Barbarossa" makes some sense. Since everybody thought the Soviet Union would collapse within months anyway, a peace with GB would/could/should still be possible after a successful war in the east. Which would also have strengthend the German position quite a bit. As for Dunkirk: not even the British thought they could get away with it. So it is quite understandable that German high command stopped the Panzers for a short period to consolidate their forces and to sort out the logistics, which were chaotic due to the unexpected successes. Not to mention that the mechanized units - men and material that is - hadn't had any rest for some 10 days and were walking on their teeth. As for Göring and his promise to destroy the British from above: well, the guy was on hard drugs continously. As for Rudolf Heß: as long as none of the facts are on the table, it is somewhat hard to argue about intentions. Too many mysteries. Fact is, he was Hitlers lieutenant (second in command) in the NSDAP. One and a half question that bother me: how strong was the opposition to Churchill in GB ? Was there any real chance for peace if it wasn't for Churchill ? Or are we victim to another propaganda on that matter ?

I remember reading somewhere that Hess would attempt peace negotiations on orders of Hitler, essentially buying time for the offensive to the east. My memory on it is a bit hazy, but from what I recall, Hess would end up negotiating on a phoney truce on the west front where Britain would pledge not to invade for a considerable amount of time in return to some concessions. That was the result of a peace deal being rejected on the first stage I'd guess. That would be far fetched however. As far as I know there were two sides in UK back then, one opting for peace, one not. The schism could have played a role in this hypothetical phoney truce, as a intermediary step, however its still dubious. If I wanted to solidify some truth, I'd look at certain factors. A) On a human level in the high command, how willing was Britain to opt for peace (leaving Churchill aside). B) How willing was Hitler on allowing Britain's empire to survive and to what extent. C) Supposedly that this was the case, the bombing raids should have gradually declined, at least till the point where peace was no longer an option. Charts would help indicating bombing between England and Germany in the few months till June 21 and the few following months that Hitler was committed east. D) When did the harsh crackdown of the Resistance in France started and when the resistance itself started forming substantially. I am pretty sure UK is not completely innocent, considering how they still keep the Hess files in the dark. What I would assume is that the option of peace existed and the British high command seriously considered it, to the point they would be scrutinized if it became known today since the whole rhetoric of the past 80 years has been "Democracy stood against Fascism without any doubt or shaking".

I am not fully convinced by this argument, but it is much more compelling than the normal narrative. Hitlers strategy, before being furher and even in his tremendous evil, was very willing to bet everything on double-zero. This pattern definately doesn't conflict with betting a year of war with Britain against suprise Barbarossa (but doesn't itself conflict with traditional Dunkirk-as-peace either, that one is just a much worse looking bet).

The biggest issue I have with this is that there's no way Hitler would have known that the British would not surrender even if they kept their army. Halifax wanted to make peace with the Germans and Churchill was almost pressured into doing the same. There's not really a way that Hitler could have predicted the Churchill would remain Prime Minister and that he would keep fighting even after the evacuation. However, I do believe that after Britain refused to surrender, that Hitler used the idea that he didn't want a war on two fronts as ploy to fool Stalin.

"offered england humane peace terms" "received insulting replies" That would have been fun. Have any such diplomatic messages surfaced?

Always love your videos Tik

Found so many new books to read from your book case thanks for the hardwork on the video

Glad to see you start to tackle the Hess Affair. More on that later. Regarding Dunkirk, however, Occam's razor might be an apt guide. The most parsimonious explanation might be that attempting to destroy the British and French forces in the Dunkirk pocket would have diverted them from attaining the primary strategic objective of the campaign, which was a rapid French surrender. The longer they delayed the conquest of France, the more likely it would have been that the French government would have taken actions - - such as re-deploying their navy to British or Canadian ports - - to help thwart the German efforts. Several European navies sent ships to fight alongside the British, and if the French navy had had sufficient planning time to execute this command, it would have severely hampered the efforts of the Kriegsmarine's U-boats to starve Britain into submission.

I would be curious about your thoughts on why Hitler declared war on the US.

Considering how much the Germans underestimated the Soviets, I don’t think catching them of guard would be considered an important advantage. I feel like the costs of not being able to trade with the west would be considered far more of a problem. I just think it’s far to contrived to be a viable plan

The returning troops from Dunkirk well totally demoralized - tossing their rifles into the railway tracks shouting, 'its over the Germans will be here any day' - how do I know this. My father 21 at the time watched them. It was many years later that this information became public.

Since I heard so many different arguments why they stopped at Dunkirk I started to ask all people I (personally) know why they think it happened. Just yesterday I ask my new teacher and now I woke up to this. Tank you for making this video

TIKs channel is growing fast and getting famous even Isaev mentioned TIK about Kurland pocket series

Holly cow This theory makes so much sense 😯

Great video, I'm gradually working my way through the videos I've missed in your back catalogue. Personally, I always assumed the halt order was for logistical problems which always hamper these rapid advances. So basically the Germans had to stop for replenishment before continuing the advance. To be honest though, I'm alot more interested in the potential plot around the Hess flight. Definitely looking forward to that video!

Great video Tik. IMO one of your best. Do you plan on doing anything on Rudolph Hess?

My Father was a young squaddie at Dunkirk. I now live in Russia , this alternative theory makes the most sense of any explanation I’ve heard especially taking into account the mentality of the two main characters. Once again , thank you very much for what you do .

Ah, one of the mysteries of the 1940 campaign!

Hess was held just 100 yards from my home in Maryhill army barracks in Glasgow, cracking channel by the way 👍

Jens growing up in communist East Germany we were always told that Stalin even after the first shots had been fired at his troops commanded them to only defend themselfs but not to start offensive actions, insisting that this was all just "provocations". If the mentioned letter from Hitler to Stalin is real, that actually makes now some sense.

Halder and Hitler engaged in revisionist history. It was a tactical imperative to hold. The German Army was at the end of a 6 week advance over hostile territory, the difficult supply problem along with maintenance issues gave the division and corps commanders pause. A cornered enemy is a dangerous thing. the country was not conducive to Armor and the infantry still needed to catch up. The Germans also had a hard fight ahead with the rest of France. It was just the inertia of war that caused the pause. Hitler was not subtle enough to continue to fight England to fool Stalin to thinking he would not be attack soon. He wanted to win over Britain, his old enemy in the trenches. He could have continued the battle with Britain even if he destroyed their army. Why all the preparation for a cross channel invasion if hitler wanted the battle to continue? The hitler plan to fool Stalin is just a castle build on a cloud. Didn’t happen. Charlie

Have you made a DNA test with Phil Collins lately?

Immaculate video as always, TIK. Down the road, do you have any intention on going into a more in-depth look into the brief war involving Slovakian resistance members and Hungarian forces during the 1939 Vienna Awards? It’s such an unknown topic that is short enough but with enough info to make a really interesting documentary.

Hi, TIK. I would like to say a few things about Dunkirk and the Halt Befehl. So the Halt Befehl stopped the Panzer Divisions from May 24 to May 26. Dunkirk was the only French port remaining in Allied hands on the 24th. However the Belgians still held the ports at Zeebrugge/Zeebruges, Oostende/Ostend and Nieuwpoort/Nieuport. The Halt Befehl was only for the Panzer divisions, not the German infantry divisions. The German infantry kept on attacking during this period. During this period the Belgians fought the Battle of the Lys river. This was the hardest battle fought by the Belgians during this campaign. +- 2500 out of the 7000 Belgians killed in 1940 died in this battle from the 24th till the 27th. The Germans attacked the Belgians allong the entire frontline. Around the 24th, the German infantry achieved a breakthrough at Kortrijk/Courtrai at the junction between the Belgian army and the BEF. They advanced forward from Kortrijk/Courtrai over Menen/Menin towards Ieper/Ypres. This is essentially towards dunkirk but from the east instead of the south. The Belgian HQ had to rush the 2nd Belgian Motorised Cavalry Division over to try and plug the gap between the Belgian right flank and the British. This stabilised the front by the 27th but this unit was severely understrength by this time and it remained a weak point. So my points are: 1) The Belgians only surrendered on May 28. Even if Dunkirk fell to the Panzers on the 24th, the British would still be able to move north behind the Belgians and evacuate from the three Belgian ports. Taking Dunkirk on the 24th or not taking it doesn't mean the end or salvation of the BEF since there are still three Belgian ports left. By the way, the French 60th infantry division was still in the area of Zeebrugge/Zeebruges on the 27th of May. The Belgian HQ loaded this French division in lorries and transported them to the Dunkirk area before the capitulation on the 28th. Also on the 27th of May the Allies still controlled two railway lines running from the Dunkirk area to Oostende/Ostend and Zeebrugge/Zeebruges and at least four major hardened roads between Dunkirk and the Belgian ports. 2) Why would the German infantry divisions keep attacking the Belgians (who were shielding of the Belgian ports) with such vigour if the plan was to let the British escape? 3) Why would the German infantry divisions concentrate the attack at Kortrijk/Courtrai and attack in the direction of Dunkirk if the plan was to let the British escape? Overall, I think that the point of the Halt Befehl really was just to let the Panzer Divisions get some rest and refitting and save their strenght for further actions against France. The Germans probably thought that the infantry and Luftwaffe would be sufficient to finish off the Allies.

This is an interesting idea, but i does not make sense. "Yep, yep, yep herr Benito not being able to defeat the English at Dunkirk was TOTALLY intentional. (Cough cough cough) It's ... a trap for the Soviet Union! -Alright Pinocchio." But despite that historiography is always changing, so maybe someday this idea may makes sense and be more accepted. It's totally possible he used that situation at his advantage, but i really doubt it was intentional. Still an interesting video.

What’s your favourite ww2 film tik?

I think it is actually far more complex. The original plan was to take France quickly, taking the Low Countries as well, denying the British the ability to bring more troops to the fight as quickly as possible. (Think race to the sea ww1). Letting the Brits go was a gesture of goodwill to the British in the hopes that both Britain and France could be brought to terms quickly. Britain, however not only denied any offer, they were bombing Germany. So it’s not so simple. The air war over Britain was meant to bring the British to their knees, completely devoid of clear focus (schwerpunkt), it failed quite miserably despite decent intel on air defense and radar installation locations. Hitler was navigating his options. He wanted peace with the west so he could end the blockade, and maybe to have more potential allies in the fight against the Soviets but more importantly to buy time. The German military simply wasn’t ready for the fight against the Soviet Union and the war with France highlighted many areas that needed improvement within the German armed forces (tank and anti tank armament just to name a few). Additionally, In Axis-Soviet negotiations late 1940-41, the Nazis wanted the Soviets to expand into Iran and then British territory, however, Stalin wanted to avoid clashes with the British so he could clean up all of Europe after the war between Germany and Britain was over. So Molotov demanded the Germans leave Finland and for influence in the Balkans. After realizing there was no hope of finishing Britain off, with the economic tank running low, Hitler uses the war with Britain to attempt a surprise invasion, hoping to knock them out of the fight by quickly seizing the Soviets food and oil. It’s much less a matter of genius long term planning and much more of a string of attempts to seize the perceived opportunities as they presented themselves. Peace with the west is far more advantageous and everyone knows it. Ironically, capturing the troops at Dunkirk would have been far more likely to bring Churchill to the table. Had Guderian simply ignored the order, he could have pressed the allied troops into surrender. Bam, war in the west potentially over. If Hitler wanted to keep the war with Britain going, all he had to do was not accept any peace offer. Very simple. No elaborate deception required. It’s not like Britain was just going to surrender. A negotiated peace involving both parties was required. Dunkirk was just a misguided blunder. Almost as bad as keeping Canaris in charge of the Abwehr or hoping for a “quick victory” in the Soviet Union. All of those decisions just helped kill off the Nazis.

There are two other issues that should be considered: 1. The French were fighting a serious rear guard action for the English at Dunkirk. Plus it wasn't clear that England would have enough naval capacity to evacuate a significant number of troops from Dunkirk. It's possible the Germans felt they had time for their logistics to catch up so that they would have an overwhelming force to take Dunkirk and the Allied soldiers. 2. If Germany had made peace with England, there would no longer be a blockade for materials such as oil, iron, and food. They could then have stopped their dependency on the USSR for these things and would not be starved into submission like the previous war. And still have attacked the USSR for their "living space".

"because that would be a big red flag to Stalin". Methinks Stalin would have liked to see a big red flag, given that he was a communist. 😆😉

He spared them because he took pity. He was a great human being and one day people will know his greatness.

One of the great problems with history is that it is often made by politicians. Relying on them for logical explanations is quite the ridiculous notion.

Brave and thought-provoking video, delivered with due humility. Thanks, once again. 👏👏

“You wouldn’t dare fight a war on two fronts.” “You underestimate my masochism.”

I know I am getting ahead of myself (but I do like your videos, and look forward to new ones) but you could do a whole series of "What If" videos on plans that never happened: The Sandhurst wargame study of Operation Sealion Raeder's Med strategy Operation Orient (Axis join forces against the Middle East) Operation Felix (Gibraltar, and an analysis of Spin in WWII like your analysis of Hungary) North Wind Rain (Japan strikes at Siberia instead of Pearl Harbor) etc.

The idea that Hitler wasn't really worried about Britain and duped Stalin fits perfectly. But I've always thought that the supposed 'Halt' order came for several reasons - that the tanks and their crews were worn out, lacking fuel and ammunition and, most importantly, infantry support to go into the urban environment of Dunkirk. Let's not forget that 300k plus enemy were waiting for them. It would seem a fairly simple task to put the port out of action by air attack and wait for von Bock's troops to take the town. The Germans certainly didn't give up completely on the idea of capturing the British army, as the Luftwaffe and the Wehrmacht pressure from the North and East demonstrate. There were epic battles fought both by the British and French rearguard, but also by the RAF with Dowding risking his Spitfires for the first time. And, let's not forget, everyone was surprised by the numbers taken off by the Navy and the civilian vessels. If Churchill was surprised by the numbers then my guess is that Hitler was too. A lot of varying excuses have been put forward since then. Halder seemed to rewrite history every time he spoke. But I don't think it was much more than a tactical inability at that exact moment and a surprising strategic reaction by the almost defeated allies. As you have said before, the concept of Blitzkrieg wasn't really more than giving a name to the war of manoeuvre that the Germans had practiced. They let the tanks forge ahead whilst they were winning. Guderian and Rommel took this to extremes and their gamble had paid off. But by the time they reached the channel they had far outrun their supporting infantry; artillery; everything! They did renew the armoured attack after 3 days, before swiftly being ordered South. So, maybe France was the prize anyway and not the BEF? But in the end, to try to take Dunkirk without a pause could have been their bridge too far...

I like your theory-- but I wonder why Hitler didn't make really serious offers of peace to England after June 22, 1941. Once the panzers were on the move and Stalin was cowering in his dacha, the subterfuge was unnecessary and an armistice with GB would have made perfect sense, to prevent a war on two fronts (or three fronts including North Africa and the Middle East).

Can't wait to hear your ideas on this!

Hey Tik, big fan of your content, I apologize as I haven’t been able to keep up with your videos as much as I’d like to but I was curious if you have or would ever considered making a battlestorm documentary on operation overload?

Why are the Hess stories still sealed. What is Britain hiding? Might lead to a revision of history?

On multiple occasions I have heard the idea put forth that Hitler actually thought he could get the British to ally with him and then go at Russia together. There might be some credence to this because many knew of Churchill’s hatred of Communism. Having Britain for an ally against Russia would make sense. But at this point did Hitler actually think that the British would make peace and then ally with him?