I'm just wondering what people's opinions about whether the 1940 campaigns get a "raw deal" in terms of people's interests. I know that here on WW2talk the 1940 BEF has gotten extensive coverage. But on other forums it seems that there is very little discussion, apart from Dunkirk. Since being here I have learned tons about the 1939/1940 campaigns and I'm wondering if its a case that people dont take the time to have a look at them. What do you guys think?
I must admit I knew very little about the 1940 campaign before I joined this forum. Now I'm one of the main posters on it. I think it's because, "we" lost, and the tanks aren't as "sexy" as it 1944.
I agree that for me atleast, pre 1944 is less interesting than D-day +. I've just finished reading a book about D-day and have another one sitting there about Dunkirk. Although I find the subject interesting, I have put off reading it until I could be bothered. I was infact thinking about starting it tonight, and this thread has just inspired me to do so. Nice one.
I agree that for me atleast, pre 1944 is less interesting than D-day +. I've just finished reading a book about D-day and have another one sitting there about Dunkirk. Although I find the subject interesting, I have put off reading it until I could be bothered. I was infact thinking about starting it tonight, and this thread has just inspired me to do so. Nice one. I think that that's what the majority in the UK feel regarding WW2. There have been so many books , documentaries and films made regarding the post-D Day war that I think that the 1940 campaign(battle of Britain apart) seems to get forgotten. I wonder what percentage of the general population don't even know it happened*. Personally though, I'm the complete opposite. The 1939-40 campaign has always fascinated me (maybe because of my grandad ("his" war was Sept 39 - May 40), but then again, my other grandad fought through N.Africa and Italy and those campaigns never held my attention in the same way, so I don't know). Though I've been to Normandy, etc. on many occasions, i've never really felt much interest in that campaign. To be honest, I think that my own personal interest (as far as British forces are concerned) in WW2 actually ends in June 1940 (though Market Garden certainly holds my interest too). It's rare that I'll be found with a book about D-Day in my hands - unless I have to, I just can't motivate myself to look into it in any depth! * and it's amazing how many WW1 buffs (who I thought would have had at least some knowledge of events) have been taken aback when I've been "caught" studying some 1940 action by them somewhere like the old Ypres Salient (I think some of them thought I was profoundly odd studying a different war on "their" battlefield!!! ) Dave
Odd comment about the WWI folks. One can easily argue that the battles of 1918 have more in common with 1940, than 1914. And, the same could be said of the war in 1940 had more in common with 1918 than 1944.
Odd comment about the WWI folks. . Surprised me too. It's happened many times to me on the old WW1/1940 battlefields though. Dave
Hi Guys I wonder if the 39-40 are not so "popular" because they are seen generally as a series of defeats rather than the successes of 1944 going forward. The obvious exception was Dunkirk, which despite Churchill's words still tends to viewed as a Victory. Until th elast few years I did not know too much about the early years, still a lot to learn but slowly getting there. I followed an artillery regt that a friend's Dad served in, 97th Field Regiment (Kent Yeomanry) using the War Diary and learnt so much. It was a fully mobile action with quite heroic actions with close quarter co-operation between guns and infantry. Part of the Regt came back via Dunkirk, half from St Valery. That research has generated quite a bit of interest in the whole period and the knowledge being posted on these forums is fantastic.
I know I'm gonna take flak for this but I still cant buy the "Dunkirk was a victory" line of thinking. I completely agree that it was a miracle and that the bravery of the British Officers and men are well demonstrated but I cant understand how anyone can proclaim a situation where an army retreats and leaves all its equipment on the field of battle a victory. Yes it was a miracle and a success from a point of view of getting the men out, but a victory? No. sorry.
I know I'm gonna take flak for this but I still cant buy the "Dunkirk was a victory" line of thinking. I completely agree that it was a miracle and that the bravery of the British Officers and men are well demonstrated but I cant understand how anyone can proclaim a situation where an army retreats and leaves all its equipment on the field of battle a victory. Yes it was a miracle and a success from a point of view of getting the men out, but a victory? No. sorry. I agree, GH. It can't be called a victory in any sense of the word. It was a rescue and a miracle. But do the French take the blame for Dunkirk happening in the first place? I think that 1940 is very interesting as a whole. The air war over France is very interesting.
I'm not completely sorry that it is slightly a minority interest, it makes the search for new information all the more interesting. The campaign was also such a short one that there is a limit to what can be published over it for the more general audience. Owen, I'm a little shocked by you. Do you find a Sherman more 'sexy' than a Matilda ? Next you'll be saying that a T16 has nicer lines than a Scout Carrier ! Personally I go weak at the knees over Morris-Commercials with fly screns !
I'm not completely sorry that it is slightly a minority interest, it makes the search for new information all the more interesting. I'll second that! Contradicting what I said earlier, I do find the battle of britain very interesting, along with the blitz, the homeguard, rationing and so on. So I suppose pre 1944 isn't as less interesting as I earlier made out.
The earlier part of the war has definitely been the 'Cinderella' in relation to the sheer volume of coverage for DDay etc. so favoured by Hollywood and the documentary makers. I think there's a cadre of chaps here contributing rather nicely to the fight back . As Rich says, it's often a fascinating area because of the scarcity of coverage, it's also in many ways a completely different war to the later one. I sometimes suspect this hinders it's coverage as it's hard enough keeping up with 1944+ history. Equipment, doctrine, even the enemy, all changed quite a bit over a very few years. It's not just 1940 though is it? So many other campaigns across Italy/Balkans/Burma etc. etc. (even the Eastern Front, for the average westerner) still lie in the shade somewhat in terms of coverage when compared to DDay. This Historiographical 'slant' is being worked on of late, I honestly think the forums and Internet in general have helped; my 'width' of appreciation of the war has really expanded since I began visiting this place thanks to the agglomeration of more specialist interests. While definitely not wishing to provoke a nationalistic bit of 'nya nya', I also think it's pretty safe to cite the fact that Day was America's 'main event' has contributed to the bias towards it, I'm sure it's fair to say they have more of a grip on the world of Film and a scale influence on cultural perception that has fed the bias for a fair old while. (DDay's also 'the beginning of the end' isn't it? Everybody likes a nice short run-up to the eventual victory. Much easier to comprehend than 6 years of complication... ) Cheers, Adam.
Certainly there is the aspect of it that the early war battles are seen as less "sexy" than the late war battles on the Western Front and that is partly due to the early war battles being a major defeat and the late war battles being a victory as well as that fact the late war equipment was that bit better than in the early war years. Whilst this takes nothing away from what actually occurred during both series of battles and when you look at it you can see that both sides fought equally hard in both series of battles whether they were attacking or defending. The other facts come to the fact that very few TV programs do the Battle of France (compared to D-Day/Battle of Britain) and this will limit the people who thus have knowledge of the battles - this also can include the fact that there are less books on the subject as well. As a result of the limit coverage of the battles there is less "interest" in the mainstream for them thus the books and TV programmes because the sell more than if they were on the early war. In the end it sort of comes down to "sex sells" and the late war is in most peoples opinions "sexier" than the early war (except the Battle of Britain in most cases). Interesting about the WW1 folks Dave, wouldn't of expected that.
Interesting about the WW1 folks Dave, wouldn't of expected that. Don't you believe it a lot of Great War types think they own the battlefields. I almost got like that myself.......a long long time ago.
I'll second that! Contradicting what I said earlier, I do find the battle of britain very interesting, along with the blitz, the homeguard, rationing and so on. So I suppose pre 1944 isn't as less interesting as I earlier made out. I agree, I even find pre-war interesting.
Thought all you good people who like the 1940 campaign might be interested in the updates on the 51st HD site, here. 51 Highland Division Website : Homepage There are also updates on Rhine crossing and Victory in Europe.
The Early part of the war was in some ways an absolute shambles in my way of thinking. Why? well we were fighting it like WW1 with the same equipment and what was worse...The same mental outlook. During the interwar period, the forces had almost been abandoned as regards updating, materials, tanks, and training. There was also the dreadful way in how the forces were treated. some areas the army was looked on as Ruffians,the lowest of the low......Common brutes, Bournemouth Gardens Had a notice at the entrance, "No service men allowed in the gardens" They were thought to lower the tone of the place. There was also the general health of the young men at that time, many were half starved...Indeed later on 1942/3/4 the army were getting men in such a bad state of health, that they were deemed not fit to serve. They were not strong enough to drill, or to do arms training. The situation was so bad, that as late as the end of 1943/4 there were special units that took young men with their ribs sticking through, and built them up to make them fit to serve. Sounds almost ridiculous? certainly does now, but that is true picture of certain parts of the country pre war. That is why the post war elections were such a land slide. The men were not going back to those days, no matter what. And it also prompted the start up of the NHS. That was the true state of this Country. Yet we still made a bit of a fist of fighting off the Enemy in the days of the BEF of 1940. Sapper
It is in our mentality to bury away anything but victories. At the beginning of the 2nd World War, Britain was not really prepared for a war and had to catch up several years in short time. I think therefore that, due to many setbacks early in the conflict, this is the reason why the early campaigns are not well understood my so many. Even at the time of Dunkirk, many soldiers felt betrayed by the lack of visible RAF action. Little realising that the RAF was putting up a vicious fight against the Luftwaffe. I find it refreshing that this forum talks about all times of the conflict and all aspects, which makes for very interesting reading and learning. Tom
I find it refreshing that this forum talks about all times of the conflict and all aspects, which makes for very interesting reading and learning. Tom There are so many facets of the war to discuss and I constantly find myself learning every day I log on here.
