Robert M. Citino, one of the foremost German-military historians today, has an interview, "Why the Germans Blew It at Dunkirk,” at Bloombery View about Dunkirk, both the actual event and Christopher Nolan’s movie about said event.
On the topic of the infamous Halt-Order, Mr. Citino says:
Remember, Hitler's May 24 Haltbefehl ("stop order") did not stop the Panzers from attacking the Dunkirk beachhead. They were already stopped by virtue of a "close-up order" from the commander of the Panzer Group, General Ewald von Kleist, on May 23rd. Kleist's Panzers were badly strung out and worn down as a result of the high-speed chase across northern France. Some of the other army commanders wanted to keep moving forward. The Army Group commander, General Gerd von Rundstedt, backed Kleist, while the Chief of Staff, General Franz Halder, disagreed with Rundstedt, and actually took the Panzer Group out from under his command. It was a mess of the worst sort! When Hitler flew to the front on May 24, it seemed as if the commander he respected the most, Rundstedt, was being sidelined. It also seemed (and this was actually true) that decisions of the highest order were being taken by commanders without looping in Hitler at all -- and that was something the Führer was determined to stop. That was the origins of the May 24 "halt order" -- an attempt by Hitler to reassert his control over events at the front.
Mr. Citino also speaks about the Wehrmacht’s command-structure, which is a reoccurring theme in his works:
Many students of World War II still hold to a myth of German efficiency, the notion that the Wehrmacht command was infallible. The Germans had a tradition of allowing commanders a great deal of latitude while on campaign, allowing them to seize opportunities that might otherwise be lost. That tradition was responsible for a great deal of their success. But often, German commanders worked at cross-purposes with one another, requiring a strong hand on the rudder, if you will. Virtually every "blunder" attributed to Hitler in World War II originated in a conflict within the German officer corps that only Hitler had the authority to sort out.
On Dunkirk, Mr. Citinio approves of the movie:
It’s impressive. 'Dunkirk' makes points about the human experience of war -- the almost anonymous and randomized killing, the chaos, the confusion -- but it also makes a far more directed point about the nature of modern war, the interplay of air/sea/land. And, as a German military historian, I would say that the movie provides the best treatment of a Stuka attack ca. 1940 that I have ever seen.
Many of the weaknesses many have identified with Dunkirk, including the anonymity of the characters and the movie's sheer loudness, are, to me, the movies greatest strengths. War does not care about whether its soldiers have interesting ties to home or about their back-story. It just places its soldiers in hell. Moreover, as anyone who has ever fired a rifle knows, war is loud, so very loud.
Dunkirk is truly a movie about Dunkirk. It’s about an organization’s struggle for existence in an almost hopeless situation. Those who have little interest in Dunkirk, or for that matter the cacophony of modern warfare, might have very little interest in Mr. Nolan’s film. But for those who are, Dunkirk is awesome.
Comments