Talk:Dunkirk evacuation

Why was the name “Operation Dynamo” chosen?

What were the forwhys for calling the said Dunkirk withdrawls “Operation Dynamo”? Bytheway, the word “dynamo” is said to be an German Seaman’s coinage/shillingwich.

Anyway, markworthy enuffness to at least be byworded mereckonthinks. 2A00:23C7:9C95:DD01:A8BE:72B9:EA52:8346 (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Meforgets…

D = Dynamo

? 2A00:23C7:9C95:DD01:A8BE:72B9:EA52:8346 (talk) 03:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Casualties - any civilian volunteer boatmen among the lives lost?

Were any civilian boatmen who volunteered without enlistment to take their own boats to rescue troops from Dunkirk killed in the German attacks during Op DYNAMO? I well recall studying Paul Gallico's story "The Snow Goose" at secondary school, whose central male character, Rhayader, ventures to assist accompanied by his pet snow goose despite a disability that would have barred him from military service, and was killed IIRC when his boat was strafed or sunk by the Luftwaffe. Were there real life civilian losses through the evacuation?Cloptonson (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Per the Association of Dunkirk Little Ships, a small portion of the "Little Ships" were sailed by their owners volunteering on the spot, although the vast majority were manned by Royal Navy men. DesiArcy (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Casualty numbers inconsistent?

"During the entire campaign, from 10 May until the armistice with France on 22 June, the BEF suffered 68,000 casualties. This included 3,500 killed and 13,053 wounded."

How does 16,553 equate to 68,000? The sources are books so difficult to refer back, that is a very significant discrepancy. 2601:445:801:8520:4952:FDAD:33FC:3A67 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

The remainder were missing or captured. See Battle_of_France#cite_note-30.

• 3,500 dead
• 16,815 wounded
• 47,959 missing or capturedTemplate:Pb
• 68,274 total

— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

correct formatting is either X Victory or Inclusive for the results

Operation Dynamo was an evacuation, it was successful so it should be Allied Victory

also this is specifically on the evacuation of Dunkirk not the battle of Dunkirk HCPM (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

also to add i just think Allied Victory is best fitting because dynamo was a success however i would understand if inconclusive was a better option but "allied retreat" wouldnt be correct formatting, and would be more so an "Axis Victory"

idk the formatting rules are a bit finnicky but again this is the evac specifically, Axis Victory would be more accurate for the Battle of Dunkirk which resulted in the retreat but this was just the name of the retreat so saying retreat here would say they retreated from a retreat? sorry if im explaining this bad but i just dont think "allied retreat" really makes sense in this context (and in the rules of formatting isnt allowed) HCPM (talk) 13:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Please don't revert to your preferred version. Two people have objected to your edit so you should not reinstate it. It's not a victory; a successful retreat is not the same as winning. I have restored the previous version but changed it to "successful retreat". — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It was not a battle but an evacuation so the word "victory" is not appropriate in my opinion. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

i do for the most part agree, i dont think dunkirk was so massive victory over the germans, i personally think that a term like "Allied Success" would be better term overall however technically speaking "Victory" and "Success" have the same meaning

but this is not really my point, im mostly confused on how the formatting works as per Wikipedia it says it must say "X Victory" so just for future reference why does that not apply here? is that just written in American English (in which victory and success are much closer words then in british english) or is that outdated or something? like i genuinely just want to know

either way I (as much as i dislike calling the outcome of a retreat a retreat) can agree with your verdict as i do understand your point, i apologise for any inconvenience caused HCPM (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

If you had an issue with the formatting options you should have started a discussion about that, on the appropriate page, rather than trying for edit war nonsense into this article. In no sense was Dunkirk an allied victory; it was a defeat that was saved from being a whole lot worse. MapReader (talk) 09:40, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

But the wikipedia page is not about the battle of dunkirk, its about operation dynamo which started afterwards and was specifically the evacuation of Dunkirk, this was a success... and victory can be a synonym of success

Operation Dynamo was literally just the name of the retreat/evacuation of Dunkirk which.. last i checked roughly 330,000 out of 380,000 troops got out? i think? this is off the top of my head i apologise, but is that not a success? id bring up articles calling it a success but lets be honest its rather hard to sort through the ones that are and aren't propaganda but if you wish i can get you some sources

Point being the Battle of Dunkirk and Operation Dynamo were two different operations/battles, and i wont change it for now but just.. id recommended learning more about dunkirk because there's a bit more to learn and you'd probably find it interesting like genuinely just being kind, like this isnt a snide comment. youre into British history and its a rather interesting chapter (again i apologise if this comes off as rude i dont mean it as such) HCPM (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Victory and success are not synonyms. My Webster's dictionary defines it as "final and complete supremacy in a battle or war". My Oxford dictionary defines it as "an act of defeating an enemy or opponent in a battle, game, or other competition." So by these definitions, victory is the wrong word; they only got some of the men out, leaving a rear guard of 35,000 behind, and had to abandon all of their equipment.Template:PbThe result field is optional. There's also another template we could use: Template:Infobox military operation. There's a suggestion to this effect at Template talk:Infobox military conflict#rules for Result parameter. In that discussion Hohum implies it's more important to provide accurate information to our readers than it is to follow the arcane rules hidden in template documentation that our readers will never see. Also if the local consensus for this article is to use more accurate terminology than that provided in the template documentation, that's okay too.Template:PbAt Talk:Dunkirk evacuation/Archive 2#Infobox "result" there's a previous comment supporting using an accurate wording rather than sticking strictly to the rule for this template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:06, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I have just had a closer look at Template:Infobox military operation and it does not work as well for this article, as there's no fields for combatants and commanders. There's fields for "commanded by" and "executed by" but that only gives the opportunity to list the participants on one side rather than both sides. So I am not in favor of switching to Template:Infobox military operation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2025 (UTC)