Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Wars and ConflictsΒ  permalink

Longest Campaign of WWII

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by Allan D (U1791739) on Monday, 19th January 2009

  The "On This Day" column asserts that the Burma campaign (January 1942 - August 1945) was the longest campaign fought by British troops during WWII (exceeding the North African campaign fought between June 1940 - May 1943). Whilst this may be true on land I would have thought the Battle of the Atlantic (September 1939 - May 1945) and the Strategic Air Offensive against Germany (May 1940 - April 1945) were both of longer duration.

  Link to this forum: Longest Campaign of WWII

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by VF (U5759986) on Monday, 19th January 2009

  Allan,
  
  I would agree with you,certainly on they naval side of things.There was no "Phoney war" for the RN.War started on September 3rd,by the end of the year the navy had lost HMS Courageous and HMS Royal Oak.After the Norwegian fiasco you could add HMS Glorious and HMS Effingham (ok the last one was grounded but she was still a loss) and many others sunk or damaged.
  
  I think it should have said longest land campaign.
  
  
  Vf

  Link to this forum: Longest Campaign of WWII

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 19th January 2009

  Allan,
  
  happy to see you once back on these boards. I miss your always interesting posts.
  
  About your message:
  
  I think that you are right, but perhaps that "On this day" thing is a bit sloppy? Thinking a "campaign" is only on land?
  
  There was on ARTE (French-German cultural channel) two emissions about Verdun and they were not as bad as the "Charles II" series.
  
  We discussed the Charles II series here on these boards, when it first appeared on the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. Minette introduced it. I have now received "The World at War" from the step-son, who bought it for two times nothing. If you compare this series with for instance "Charles II" it is obvious that the makers of "Charles" were more (I have only seen two episodes) attentive to make for instance the rolling of the head of Charles I very impressive with footage from under the grid where the blood was poored in gulps. A bit the modern cowboy films with the impact of the bullet with gulps of blood. Not to speak about the sex footage. It came even that far, again if I remember it well, that the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ made a special episode with the historians that had supported that series, to let them say that the series was historical made.
  
  It was the same in these Verdun episodes a bit real footage but mostly "played" with attention for the "dramatic" effect. (Now thinking about it: It seems that a lot of "real footage" of WWI was played afterwards, while it wasn't possible with the apparatus available at that time to do "life coverage").
  
  We discussed the German Verdun films on a French history messageboard and that was also the opinion of some other contributors. It seems to be a European trend: the great "houses" as the German ARD, the ZDF, the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ, the French-German Arte seems all to have evoluated in the same sense. Years after each other I was glad to look to good historical documentaries of the ARD and ZDF, but that time seems also there to have been gone. A hang for sensational images to the detriment of underlaying deeper causes and roots. And they defend themselves, that it has to be to the interest of the general viewer, which makes the "view ratings" and which seems nowadays the only parameters, while the "money" depends from it?
  
  No, I think that we have to learn to live that we are only a minority of the public (5, 10 % ?), which can not have an impact on the "producers" houses, which are run to make money.
  
  Rant over and warm regards from,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: Longest Campaign of WWII

  Report message3

Back to top