Of Military Equipment and Tactics, Essay Example

A key strength of the essay is the discussion of military equipment and tactics, especially those employed by Hitler’s Wehrmacht. The essay deserves credit for discussing the role of Heinz Guderian, the development of the Panzer and later Panther tanks, and the limitations that Germany was forced to work around in the early stages of the war. The author also goes into some detail on the strengths of the respective German and Polish forces who clashed when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939.

Overall, the author provides commendable background to what happened at Dunkirk, analyzing the moves of Poland, Germany, Britain, France, The Netherlands, and Belgium. This definitely sets up what happened at Dunkirk quite effectively. Reading this account, one can trace the course of the conflict down to that crucial moment at Dunkirk, reifying the criticality of what occurred there. The author also does a fine job of projecting some of the mystery and controversy that has swirled around the decision to halt the Wehrmacht advance near Dunkirk, a decision long attributed to Hitler but which the author explains was actually issued by Rundstedt and only later confirmed by Hitler. Rundstedt’s decision, which seems inexplicable from a military standpoint, becomes more reasonable in light of the facts that the author presents, namely the 50 percent decline in tank strength. That this fear could be transmitted to Hitler certainly is in accord with what is known about Hitler’s personality: although Hitler often had remarkably iron nerves and a noted penchant for taking risky gambles, he could and did also have crises of self-confidence.

One key area in which the essay would benefit from further explanation and elaboration is the responses of France, Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union to the lessons of the Great War. The author states that France “failed to study carefully the lessons learnt from WWI avoiding to discover unpleasant truths.” The key question that seems to be left unanswered is Why? While the humiliation of France’s tremendously heavy losses in that conflict provides an intuitive explanation, the author would do well to elaborate on the decisions that led to France being so poorly prepared to face Hitler in 1939-1940. This is the more worthy of explanation when one considers that by the time war broke out in September 1939, Adolf Hitler had been in power since 1933, and had Nazified Germany in 1934.

Similarly, Britain’s heavy losses, coupled with that perennial feature of Anglo-British foreign policy and strategy, the debate over continental involvement versus remaining aloof and focusing on the sea, provide likely intuitive explanations for Britain’s failure to prepare. The author does get into a bit more detail with Britain as opposed to France, noting the role of public bitterness and discontent over the tremendous sacrifices of the Great War. Given the degree to which the author has already discussed the Third Reich’s invasion of Poland, it is a bit surprising to find only a single brief mention of Chamberlain and his efforts at appeasement, and no mention of Czechoslovakia, the Sudetenland, and Munich. However, again, the author would do well to analyze this more specifically and in more depth. Simply put, why did German war preparations so far outstrip those of France and Britain?

The basic thesis is that if only Germany had pressed forward and finished off the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), Hitler would have had far more resources at his disposal to fight his eastern war with the Soviet Union. The author rightly emphasizes the importance for the Allied war effort of saving over 338,000 British and French troops. However, it is not clear from the facts and arguments presented that a German victory at Dunkirk would have translated to the kind of advantage that would have enabled Hitler to triumph over Stalin’s Soviet Union thereafter. To the author’s credit, they do not claim with certainty that a victory for the Third Reich at Dunkirk would have led to the capitulation of Britain, something which would have unquestionably tipped the course of the war even more decisively in Hitler’s favor.

The author does rightly observe that it would have been calamitous for Britain, and may have put pressure on Churchill—or perhaps not. Perhaps a failure at Dunkirk would have led to a wave of public determination to defend the United Kingdom from Nazi aggression. This is surely a possibility the author should consider. Indeed, since what would have happened to Britain is so important to the argument this essay is making, it would behoove the essay to get into this with a great deal more detail. How likely was it that a Third Reich victory at Dunkirk would have led to the Nazis overwhelming Britain entirely? If that had happened, would the United States have entered the war sooner? Why or why not? Also, what about the enormous reserves of manpower in the Dominions and colonies of the British Empire? What about the army of the British Raj in India, and the armed forces of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia?

Building on this, the author does not satisfactorily explain the impact of Dunkirk for Germany’s overall war effort. That the event was significant, especially for the Allies, has been demonstrated at least to some degree. The question is, Did Dunkirk make enough of a difference for the Third Reich? Since Hitler went on to invade the Soviet Union in 1941 despite an unfavorable outcome at Dunkirk, did the 338,000 British and French troops saved at Dunkirk, not to mention the effects on Allied morale, really make enough of a difference either way? Even if Hitler had triumphed at Dunkirk, would 338,000 fewer Allied soldiers have guaranteed him a victory in the Soviet Union? Again, previous points about whether or not Hitler would have been able to overrun Britain apply here, since this is unquestionably a very significant variable.  Instead, the author simply observes that many of those saved at Dunkirk went on to fight against Hitler in the later stages of the war, when the Allies successfully returned to Dunkirk. One must remember that the Ostfront, the conflict between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, was the biggest and bloodiest part of the Second World War, dwarfing the Allies’ penetration of the Mediterranean in 1943, and the Western Front opened with D-Day. Yes, Dunkirk was significant, but would it have been enough for the Third Reich to secure a victory in the war?

The author would do well to look into historiography for Dunkirk on this point, and elaborate upon their interpretations. Such an elaboration could satisfactorily answer the queries raised about the importance of Dunkirk for both the Allies and the Third Reich. How divided have the major historians been on this point? Do the majority of them agree with the author that Dunkirk could have shifted the whole trajectory of the war in Adolf Hitler’s favor?

There are also numerous mechanical and grammatical errors, which will necessitate a quite thorough round of editing. The author would be advised to observe proper punctuation, especially commas, and to avoid run-on sentences. In multiple places, the author utilizes semicolons to string together clauses that could really function as separate sentences. Semicolons should be an occasional feature at most, not a staple form of punctuation. Capitalization is sometimes amiss too, for example “pacific waters” instead of “Pacific waters.” The author needs to ensure that they are consistent in using the correct tense, i.e. past, present, future. There are also multiple errors involving the use of country names and demonyms, i.e. “the China” (p. 1), “Germans was ready for war” (p. 5) By way of example, see corrections and suggestions for this sentence from pages 3-4: “However, a German master mind did not miss the opportunity and began to study the experience of tanks during WWI. Heinz Guderian was strongly influenced by Basil Liddell Hart and John Fuller, and as a consequence, his studies of tank tactics became the key to German victories.” This will make the essay much easier to read, by improving its overall clarity and flow.