Current Events > I'm a bit confused about something in World War 2.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I always thought that the ground fighting in Europe pretty much went on for 6 whole years. Now, if I understand things correctly, because of the surging of Germany forces in 1940, and how it wasn't until 1944 that the D-Day landings happened, there was really only fighting for a few years, with a 4 year gap (roughly) in the middle. I mean, there was the Russian fighting, i.e. the Eastern Front, and I suppose the fighting with the Japanese, but I think most of Europe was just naval and air fighting. Is this accurate? If it is, I NEVER knew this before, despite knowing quite a lot about the war. Or have I got this completely wrong?
---

Lots of resistance forces and clandestine operations fighting all through the war: Norway, Denmark, Poland, France etc.

After 1940 the focus for battle groups smashing into each other was Africa. 1943 becomes Italy and then 1944 France onwards.
---

Pretty wrong. The Siege of Leningrad was about three years on its own right.
---

Leningrad was part of the Eastern Front.

Hicks233 posted...

Lots of resistance forces and clandestine operations fighting all through the war: Norway, Denmark, Poland, France etc.

After 1940 the focus for battle groups smashing into each other was Africa. 1943 becomes Italy and then 1944 France onwards.

Yeah, I suppose, obviously resistance groups were operating in certain European countries the whole time. You know, Hicks, you're a font of useful information.

---

There was a lot of ground fighting still in 1940 - 1944. You had Germany invade Yugoslavia and Greece in 1941, then the Soviet Union starting that June. Something like 90% of the German military casualties were inflicted by the Soviet Union, so you can't understate just how massive the Eastern Front was. The Eastern Front would have essentially constant fighting from June 1941 all the way to the end of the war in Europe.

Also from 1940 to 1943 was the North African campaign. Once the Allies won that (especially thanks to the first US troops arriving in North Africa in Operation Torch), they started working their way up the Italian peninsula, first invading Sicily in the Summer of 1943 and then in the fall starting to move up the Italian mainland. Rome was actually captured on June 5th 1944, the day before D-Day, so they made good progress by that point.

And yes this is completely ignoring the war in Asia. Where you are right in saying is that it really wasn't a true two front war in Europe until after D-Day, something I believed Stalin was chastising the Western Allies for.
---

It's strange. I didn't realise this before today. I mean, all those war films I've seen, showing big clashes between Allied and Axis soldiers in France, Belgium, or wherever, they made me think that the ground fighting in most of Europe lasted 6 years. I guess those films were pretty much all set in 1944 and 1945.

You know, Sahara is a really good war film that often gets overlooked. The remake, not the original version.

---

Sunhawk posted...

Leningrad was part of the Eastern Front.

Hicks233 posted...

Lots of resistance forces and clandestine operations fighting all through the war: Norway, Denmark, Poland, France etc.

After 1940 the focus for battle groups smashing into each other was Africa. 1943 becomes Italy and then 1944 France onwards.

Yeah, I suppose, obviously resistance groups were operating in certain European countries the whole time. You know, Hicks, you're a font of useful information.

On a good day I can be useful. Taps have been repaired this morning, room is half painted and chickens distracted. That's a productive day.

Thinking back, when I was in secondary school the teaching of WW2 tends to be nationally biased. You hear a lot about campaigns that your nation took part in, but little about other fronts.

We heard a lot about the Battle of Britain in the air, convoys and Normandy but they would only really give lip service to the fuck up at Dunkirk with the BEF and North Africa was only really mentioned when it was something that had gone well. You heard very little about the Pacific and shudder the thought that you'd hear about the Eastern Front.

I used to give the history teacher a headache as round about that time I was playing a lot of Close Combat III The Russian Front. Poor guy dreaded when I would ask questions about something.

Despite that, the Italy campaign seems to be one of those ones that tends to be unfortunately overlooked, regardless of who took part in it.

The other major oversight is Poland in 1939, Poland gets a really rough deal with history in general. Their commander was almost made the fall guy for Operations Market and Garden.

To look at media, at least in English about WW2, you'd think that it began in 1944, ended in 1945 and the reason for the conflict was the Holocaust.
---

Sunhawk posted...

It's strange. I didn't realise this before today. I mean, all those war films I've seen, showing big clashes between Allied and Axis soldiers in France, Belgium, or wherever, they made me think that the ground fighting in most of Europe lasted 6 years. I guess those films were pretty much all set in 1944 and 1945.

You know, Sahara is a really good war film that often gets overlooked. The remake, not the original version.

Yeah I agree with you. There are a lot of misconceptions about the war, mostly due to general ignorance.

One area I find really interesting that is often entirely overlooked is the whole Vichy France vs. Free France aspect of the war. The Vichys actually fought against the Allies at a few points during 1940-1942.
---