WW2Talk

I recently watched a BBC three-part "docu-drama" on Dunkirk. In the film, an incident is depicted that is supported by later testimony from one of the officers involved. Background: An element of the Coldstream Guards is holding position forming a rear guard action allowing remnants of the BEF to evacuate. During the fighting, a subordinate company commander of another unit holding a key position on the flank of the Guards indicated his intention to withdraw, based on earlier orders from his regimental commander. The Guards company commander, senior, denied permission, and was challenged. His response was to clearly indicate that any withdrawal beyond a given point specified would be met with lethal fire. The subordinate commander left, persisted in withdrawal, and the Guards officer ordered fire. Whether or not the shot was fatal isn't clear, but it is perceived that it was... the line held further, and we know the history of what happened thereafter.

To my mind, the issue is a grave one, but I can see the justification, based solely on the circumstances. The rear guard was the only force holding back the German advance, and thousands of lives were at stake. If the subordinate commander had been allowed to withdraw, the line would've been broken, the Guards' position flanked, and it is unlikely any of the withdrawing units would've been able to avoid being killed or captured anyway.

The film, and the first person accounts indicate that the Guards' officer tasked himself and a platoon commander to do the firing...not rank and file. To my mind, this was both an expediency, and an effort to shield other ranks from the possible repercussions should they have been faced. As Lieutenant (later Lt. Col.) Langley not only avoided charges, but was decorated for actions in this campaign, it would appear the British Army agreed.