This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 138.59.24.139 (talk) at 00:02, 13 February 2018 (→WTF?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 00:02, 13 February 2018 by 138.59.24.139 (talk) (→WTF?: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of annihilation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Military history: National Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Archives (Index) |
This page is archived by ClueBot III. |
WTF?
"Some historians have speculated that Hitler declined to seek the destruction of the British army at Dunkirk in 1940 for political reasons: to show magnanimity by allowing the British to withdraw, facilitating a political end to the war. This is, however, disputed—other historians feel that Hitler simply wanted to avoid the risk to his armored formations that a battle of annihilation would have required, and Alexander Procofieff de Seversky in Victory Through Air Power implied that the cover of land-based Royal Air Force aircraft allowed the army at Dunkirk to escape."
Lolwut? More 'historical revisionism' makes its way onto Misplaced Pages. This is beyond 'fringe opinions' and into true nutbar Holocaust-denial territory. No serious historian of any stripe suggests for one moment that the Axis powers did not attempt to annihilate the BEF at Dunkirk, so speculations as to possible reasons why they might not have wanted to must be put in that light. The only people attempting to portray Hitler as magnanimous are Holocaust deniers, and the phrase 'show magnanimity by allowing the British to withdraw' is a direct quote from David Irving's account of Dunkirk.
Categories: