I'm trying to find out about conscripts involved in the war at Dunkirk. I understand that there would be a period of six month's training before a soldier was posted, but how would he have been called up? I presume he would have received a letter? How would this have worked - would all eligible men of a certain age receive their letter at the same time? Also would someone such as a teacher be able to go as an ordinary soldier rather than as an officer? Finally, how long would he have been serving before he was sent to Dunkirk? Can anyone help? Marie
Nobody would have been "sent to Dunkirk". They would have needed to be posted to one of the units in the BEF. These were more or less up to strength when they went to France including reservists, so they would really only have needed replacements etc. A late colleague of mine had been a regular soldier in the 1930s and had left the army, but was still on the reserve. He was shipped to France with the BEF and his unit was captured in the St Omer area. He spent much of the war as a POW working on a German run farm in Poland and got home in 1945. This was a fairly typical experience. Not all those eligible for conscription were called up at once when the war started. My father, who was 21 in 1939, was not called up until January 1940. He wasn't posted to a unit until the summer of 1940 and his unit was initially accommodated in a hotel on the seafront at Folkestone. As far as teachers are concerned, they could indeed serve as "ordinary" soldiers rather than officers. In fact I wonder why the presumption that they would be choice officer material. Many of the teachers I know and have known would not be my choice for commissions, as I would hardly have them down as leaders and achievers.
Thank you for the prompt reply Angie. My two main advisors were in their teens at the end of WW2 and I have to question any information they give me as some of it is rather vague. I was given to understand that those who had a university education would automatically be considered for officer training, I do agree that being academic does not necessarily mean you would also have leadership qualities. I am determined to get my facts right as far as I am able but it is not as easy as I had imagined. There are many books out there that cover the main events of this awful war but the details which concern me are often skimmed over so that I don't get a full picture. This is a lovely site, memories of these times should be shared and not forgotten so that others in the future can learn from them. Cheers Marie
As far as teachers are concerned, they could indeed serve as "ordinary" soldiers rather than officers. In fact I wonder why the presumption that they would be choice officer material. Many of the teachers I know and have known would not be my choice for commissions, as I would hardly have them down as leaders and achievers. in those days and even still today, a university education was s ign of your superiority over the average person! it is interesting that many of the great military commanders where at some point instructors at staff colleges etc
Originally posted by morse1001@Apr 3 2005, 11:41 AM As far as teachers are concerned, they could indeed serve as "ordinary" soldiers rather than officers. In fact I wonder why the presumption that they would be choice officer material. Many of the teachers I know and have known would not be my choice for commissions, as I would hardly have them down as leaders and achievers. in those days and even still today, a university education was s ign of your superiority over the average person! it is interesting that many of the great military commanders where at some point instructors at staff colleges etc [post=32836]Quoted post[/post] Well, as far as today is concerned, I have conducted many job interviews with graduates who, in my opinion, appear to have wasted three years of their time and a good deal of our money on a worthless qualification. A degree these days is a sign of nothing much at all in my opinion. Graduates seem to excell or otherwise in the same propertion as non-graduates. However, we digress. Yes, in 1939/40, a univertity education couned for more, but most teachers in those days did not have degrees. For instance, not that many teachers at elementary schools were university educated. Of those who did have degrees, not all would have been selected, even under the WWII elitist system. And of course officers destined for high rank would spend some time instructing, but they had already proved themselves as officers.
As soon as war was declared, the Burnley Territorial Battalion (I believe the 4th of the East Lancashire Regiment) marched from Burnley Barracks down Accrington Rd. to Burnley Barracks Railway Station (a grand sight) where they embarked a train for transport to the south of England for muster with the Regiment and, I believe, incorporation into the BEF. My memory fails on the exact details, but I think it that was on the 4th or 5th of September 1939. Two of my cousins joined the East Lancashire Regiment (our "home" regiment -- my grandfather, father and some of my uncles had served in the East Lancs in WW1) and were involved in the defence of Escaut and subsequently evacuated from Dunkirk. They arrived back in Burnley by train -- in battle uniform but without weapons or helmets -- and were instructed to hold tight until they received reconstitution orders. I can't remember when and where they were reassigned.
As far as I'm concerned, my Bachelor's Degree was just a required hoop I had to jump through -- a ticket I had to punch. Without that line being checked off on a job application, you did not get past the personnel director. The BA got you past the personnel director and to the interview with the hirer or supervisor. In America, where the GI Bill made college educations a reality for millions of men and women who would otherwise have not been able to gain one, and flattened out that part of the American social and cultural divide. In Britain before World War II, of course, it was a far greater divide. I have since learned that my BA and MFA and $2 US get me a ride on the New York Subway. I really didn't get much out of my BA program at New York University...just drunk.
Yes, in 1939/40, a univertity education couned for more, but most teachers in those days did not have degrees. For instance, not that many teachers at elementary schools were university educated. Of those who did have degrees, not all would have been selected, even under the WWII elitist system. Teachers may not have had a university education but they stil had to go through a recognised qualification and then had obtain their teachers parchment by spending - i think - 200 hours teaching. An intersting point at my old school was that teachers who had a degree where entitled to wear a cown with the "tawse" pocket! My "ex" used to tell me of how at her graduation there were stalls with academic gowns and of course the tawse. Going back to the subject of degrees, the view that it imposes some form of sense of superioriety stems from the days when there were very few degrees and has been maintained by the fact that people have the early example of teachers, who were seen as been "know alls" and in familys were generations have gone to university. I also remember an incident when i was at Nautical college, we had some students from Edinburgh uni stay in our halls and they were some of the most arroganct people I have ever met, all because they were "undergraduates" and we were students! As for the calibre of graduates, I remember talking to a lecturer who took one of the courses when i was at uni who said that he thought that unis should apply a policy where applicants had to have at least four years experience of the "real" world before coming to uni. one of the students who took part in the Contemporary Germany As for senior officers being intstructors, both Monty and Rommel have been described as being great teachers which actually affected their attitude towards their troops. lets us not forget "Uncle Bill" Slim.
Originally posted by morse1001@Apr 6 2005, 05:22 PM As for the calibre of graduates, I remember talking to a lecturer who took one of the courses when i was at uni who said that he thought that unis should apply a policy where applicants had to have at least four years experience of the "real" world before coming to uni. I'll agree with that. I didn't go to university until I was 24 having dropped out of education at 16. I actually hated it as nobody seemed to want to learn and they expected everything on a plate. Spent three years being patronised by the middle classes. My MA on the other hand was fantastic because my fellow classmates engaged with the subject and enjoyed the learning process.
Call-up ages for men were 18-41; first tranche of conscripts taken up in October 1939. Unlike the start of WW1, by far the majority were told to wait until they could be called-up and processed by the Authorities, although some found out about specific vacancies in regiments etc. and volunteered (for example, the actor Jack Hawkins did this). Once in the Services, these 'Hostilities Only' men could be put forward for a commission during or after their basic training. The RN did this a lot, commissioning them into the RNVR, and this approach was taken up by the other Services. IIRC, a registration form would have to be filled in, then a medical would be arranged and depending upon that the man would then be conscripted into the Armed Forces. You might want to get hold of Vol.1 of Spike Milligan's WW2 memoirs, for this concentrates on the outbreak of war, his call-up process and basic training. As for teacher = officer. There was obviously an element of keeping the officer cadre middle class, even in wartime, and formal qualifications would help immesurably in a soldier gaining a commission. However, I doubt whether an average teacher of the 1930s would have the right connections or lifestyle to be seen - at least by many infantry and tank regs. - as officer material immediately, although he would have a far better chance than, for example, a farm labourer or factory worker. Of course, their were wide variations in what each branch of the armed services expected of an officer, save they were to be leaders. Richard
I'll agree with that. I didn't go to university until I was 24 having dropped out of education at 16. I actually hated it as nobody seemed to want to learn and they expected everything on a plate. Spent three years being patronised by the middle classes. My MA on the other hand was fantastic because my fellow classmates engaged with the subject and enjoyed the learning process. I found quite a lot had just left school and so; still expected Uni to be the same and treated the lecturers as they did their school teachers.
You might want to get hold of Vol.1 of Spike Milligan's WW2 memoirs, for this concentrates on the outbreak of war, his call-up process and basic training. Adolf Hitler - My Part in his Downfall
Well, it seems there is a vast amount of knowledge here to help me on my way. I just hope some of you are publishing what you know in print. It would be such a shame for it to be lost in time. Thanks for all your help, Marie
Originally posted by angie999@Apr 5 2005, 08:45 AM Well, as far as today is concerned, I have conducted many job interviews with graduates who, in my opinion, appear to have wasted three years of their time and a good deal of our money on a worthless qualification. A degree these days is a sign of nothing much at all in my opinion. Graduates seem to excell or otherwise in the same propertion as non-graduates. However, we digress. Glad to know I wasted my time - seriously a bit of a sweeping statement on the education system and people's interest / careers. I'll grant you some slack on the 'newer' arty farty degress though!
