Kommunal.az

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dunkirk evacuation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 50 days

	Dunkirk evacuation has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 29, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 3, 2007, May 26, 2011, May 26, 2015, May 26, 2017, May 26, 2019, and May 26, 2022.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: July 23 to 29, 2017 (9th) July 30 to August 5, 2017 (25th)

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This  level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime / African / Asian / British / Canadian / Dutch / European / French / German / Indian / North America / Polish / South Asia / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force African military history task force Asian military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Dutch military history task force European military history task force French military history task force German military history task force Indian military history task force North American military history task force Polish military history task force South Asian military history task force World War II task force United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. France High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. European history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Disaster management High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. British Empire High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. India: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indian history (assessed as High-importance). Belgium High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Canada High‑importance Canada portal WikiProject Canada Canada notice board This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Benin / Burkina Faso / Guinea / Ivory Coast / Mauritania / Niger / Senegal / Togo High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by WikiProject Benin (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Burkina Faso (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Guinea (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Ivory Coast (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Mauritania (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Niger (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Senegal (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Togo (assessed as High-importance). Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands Poland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Germany High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: BBC (19 August 2009). "Who Do You Think You Are?".

"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)[reply]

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

• 3,500 dead
• 16,815 wounded
• 47,959 missing or captured
• 68,274 total

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

The 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.

At 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I do understand that there were comparably very, very few British victories in WW2, but to call the disaster that was Dunkirk, or any aspect of it, an "Allied Victory" is beyond joke!

If anything, on the contrary -- civilians rescuing their humiliated, rallied army, or whatever was left of it. If there is such a thing as a "Civic victory" (and there should be, in my view), this is one of those. WxAxNxDxExRxExR (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ignoring the frankly insulting nature of your words, i personally believe, though others have disagreed so we ended with a agree to disagree and kept the wikipedia as is, that its an allied victory as... it was an evacuation and if we just check the wikipedia page.. it was a success. HCPM (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the entry for HMS Grafton because it read as though she was sunk by friendly fire and this was not the case. The Ivanhoe scuttled her after everyone was evacuated.

Frankly, it was more of a skedaddle... Where does the term 'evacuation' originate, really, in this context and should it not be changes? (Must admit i LOL-ed, when I saw this! Totally inappropriate term being used to name the article) WxAxNxDxExRxExR (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you not understand this wikipedia article? or the conflict? this wikipedia article is about the evacuation at dunkirk, which it.. was? what else would you call this? its literally one of the most famous evacuations ever

as for the actual battle of dunkirk.. it has its own wikipedia page called (shocker) Battle of Dunkirk HCPM (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

didn't Churchill himself refer to it as an evacuation, as well as his famous line in connection with Dunkirk that "wars are not won by evacuations"?Cloptonson (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did, he said it in a speech to the House of Commons. See Their Finest Hour, Churchill 1949, p. 115. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And we should trust this psychopathic drunk rather than our own eyes, because... ~2026-13391-16 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

lets not use propaganda please. Churchill was described as a drunk by his political enemies in the house of commons, its been proven that his speech was due to a speech impediment, lets not insult people over impediments please.

also for the record every historian I know calls it an evacuation because thats not only the correct descriptor its the only one? should we call this the "Dunkirk Skeddadle" or what? HCPM (talk) 07:47, 2 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]