1940 versus 1944

You never hear much of a mention about the failed Norwegian campaign or Iceland when the war is discussed.

I'm fortunate that my Great Uncle (nearly 91 years old) is still going, and has some amazing stories to tell about that time.

He went to fight on D-Day, through France, Belgium, into Holland, and then Germany.

Regards
Paul

 

Thanks for that Owen, always interesting to read more on that campaign.

My great uncle said the two main problems with Norway were that the troops were not prepared for the conditions (certainly the equipment was lacking), and that the locals weren't that friendly.

Regards
Paul

 

Prior to the fall of France you are looking at approx. 6 weeks in which the Germans approach to waging war overcame the numbers game and kept the Allies firmly on the backfoot for much of the time , movie makers don't find much to tell in that.
Dunkirk was the product of panic caused by a lack of understanding and trust in the frontline commanders - the "halt" order allowed "Dunkirk" to become possible.
It was a miracle of organisation by Ramsey and the loss of the best chance Germany had to win the war , with the BEF in the bag there was nothing left to fight with.

 

I guess its fair to say that a lot of people in the UK don't take much notice of anything pre Battle Of Britain when it comes to WW2. It was always reffered to as the 'Phoney War' after all.

I guess you could liken it to 'The Forgotten War' in the Far East.

I really should go to bed.
Cheers

 

Gotthard
1940 versus 1944
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?


An interesting concept and it's made me think.
Looking at the theory from a purely personal view, I find that when thinking about the war years I tend to concentrate on the period 1942 to 1945.
Some might think that the fact that I was called up in October '42 might have much bearing on that and obviously I have more confidence when pontificating about that period because I can call on experience, but I don't think it is as simple as that.
Post-Alamein there was a different air of confidence abroad in Britain and even as a callow youth I could sense that we now had a fighting chance of winning the war.
This site caters for a wide scope of opinions, and long may that continue, but I feel that on certain subjects the "veterans" will usually all sing from the same song sheet. I will be interested to read what others of a similar age group to myself think on this matter.

 

1940 versus 1944
Hi Ron

As you know I was in the same Division as you and although I was infantry we trod the same paths N Africa Sicily and good old sunny Italy but unlike you I never kept a diary possibly because I was scared s***less most of the time but that’s another story the point I am trying to make is that without people like yourself that kept such detailed accounts those memories would be lost for ever which brings me to the reason why I am relaying this story like you three of the senior officers in our battalion along with money donated by the Old comrades association wrote a book about the regiment during the 2nd world war drawing on memories while still in the mind and contributions from any one that served. in it. It was ready for publication in1953almost impossible to get hold of a copy nowadays but managed to track one down after all these years and recently got a copy in hardback and the ghosts that jumped out of those pages was unbelievable but I could vouch for the authenticity of the stories one very important part of the story was the part the battalion played as part of the BEF in 1939/40 (I hasten to add long before my time) they were a support machine gun battalion for the 51st Highland division and was involved in many actions with them during that period all of the Scots regiments were territorial’s along with our mob and gave a very good account of themselves against overwhelming odds
So once again Ron as the song says” thanks for the memories”

Regards niccar

 

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

I agree with Dave, its not just a forum thing but the way in which most people view WW2. My understanding is that a lot of those who fougght pre Dunkirk were enlist in the forces pre the start of the war, and it wasnt until Dunkirk that the war started to really hit home, and start to impact on the mases. ie the Blitz, mass scale call up etc etc

Phil

 

I don't think that the early years get a raw deal in terms of coverage; there is plenty of information out there and that's not a recent phenomenon. If anything, D-Day and beyond have gotten overexposure by film and documentary makers, and this naturally leads people to view that time period as the most critical of the war. And like others have stated, it was the part of the war where the English speaking people finally started to kick some tail, so it can be looked on with a greater sense of pride. But keep in mind that these ARE English speaking forums, and I doubt that the level of interest in the 1944 Western campaign carries the same weight in non-English speaking parts of the world.

 

But keep in mind that these ARE English speaking forums, and I doubt that the level of interest in the 1944 Western campaign carries the same weight in non-English speaking parts of the world.
Thats a very good point drgslyr. The Normandy campaign is probably not that popular on a Japanese or a Russian or even a Finnish forum.

 

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.


I'd agree with that-Since I've become obsessed with the BEF I'd like to think I have, along with the help of some forum members, uncovered some previously forgotten and unknown events and posted them on here - The murders at Nieppe Forest is one I'm particulary proud of.

 

"You only sing when you're winning" Hmm I've heard that on football terreces and it's true. When people (that's people in general) now think of WWII, it's the desert or Normandy, Yanks and the SS (thanks to Hollywood and the History Channel, or should I say the Hitler Channel?). There's more to it than that (including Italy).

There's the Un-PC word patriotism, duty, quiet determination, (Bull)doggedness, gumsion, call it what you will but the BEF in 1940 had this in spades and just as well or we'd all have shiny calf length boots and small mustaches now. Some American military leaders have said that the whole Dunkirk thing was a defeat and cannot/should not be portrayed as any sort of victory, but pulling an army, AN ARMY! off a beach under fire has got to to show something of the character of the British and Allies, yep French, Belgians and others who were lifted off the beach, and those who defended the perimeter.

What of those formations/units inserted to draw enemy units away from the evacuation, such as at Calais and Bolounge, how did they feel? And finally, my interest, the fighting withdrawal of the 51st Highland Division, from the Maginot Line to St. Valery-en-Caen, what an example of drills and discipline, which never left them, even when they were left alone in a fishing town in France.

This period of the war, although short is packed with the stuff of legend, so much I cannot fit in, just look at other threads on this site. And it shows the ordinary British person (as most of the troops in the BEF were Terratorials) in their best light, tough, tenacious, indomitable.

That's it!

 

1940 and 1944 ?
The difference being the 40s war was carried out as WW1, the 44 as WW2. The whole thing was completely different. Not to mention the fire power that we 44 crew could bring to bear on our enemies. Plus the mastery of the air, and the power of the "Tiffies" The full horror of the inside of the Falaise Cauldron was not possible in the 40 battles. It took our planners long time to rid themselves of the trench warfare of WW1.
Sapper

 

Agreed Brian-The BEF certainly had a harder fight in France than in 1944.