From what I’ve read, Hitler could have quite easily taken Dunkirk instead of letting the mass evacuation that occurred happen there. I was curious as to why? Or am I wrong, and would taking Dunkirk have been too risky? Could it have forced a British surrender if Hitler did take Dunkirk?
I'm providing links to previous discussions just for convenience. This is not to discourage further questions and debate -- please feel free to raise any other points that you like to.
I do find "Why did Hitler not crush the British army when he had it surrounded and cut off at Dunkirk?" at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6lds2b/why_did_hitler_not_crush_the_british_army_when_he/djtaq0b/ , a reply by /u/threechance . The massive thread under it has a link to
"Do most contemporary historians agree on the reason for the halt order at Dunkirk?" at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4eqt6c/do_most_contemporary_historians_agree_on_the/ , replies by /u/PantsTime and /u/Heimdall2061 .
Another angle is in "Was the Dunkirk evacuation a triumph or defeat for Britain?" at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2nl7ln/was_the_dunkirk_evacuation_a_triumph_or_defeat/cmepl7t/ , with replies by coinsinmyrocket and CrossyNZ. This was the only FAQ item that I could find, which astonished me.
You can also see "why dident the Nazis fight the 400,000 stranded Brits in Dunkirk?", with vonadler's answer, at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6kfmhk/why_dident_the_nazis_fight_the_400000_stranded/
If you want much more reading about Dunkirk, at the time of the movie Dunkirk there was a megathread.