[rof120]

Originally Posted by John Vasco

1. And your point is...?


2. Again, and your point is...? Note to self: Got a lot to catch up on those millions of books...


3. I will be interested to see your further comments on points '1' & '2' of your post I have quoted above. I've got all the time in the world...

- I'll reply as soon as I can. Meantime:

John Vasco :

“The French (sic) campaign neglected or ignored by historians?”

Why not French ? You seem to take exception to this name but this campaign took place mainly in and over France even if some very important German operations took place in the NL and Belgium. It’s just a general habit in history to name campaigns or battles after the place or region where they, or their main part, took place. In the English books I own they often call it the “French” Campaign too. It’s simply logical. If you care to have a look inside a few British books on this subject or on the whole of WW II you’ll notice very quickly.

Besides, Peter Cornwell gave the very book you mentioned the following title: “The Battle of France Then and Now” (according to a tradition by “After the Battle” and himself). No “France (sic)”. In this particular case the title is quite wrong (which doesn’t matter) for the French Campaign (not Battle even if W. Churchill used this phrase) started first on May 10, 1940 with the all-out German offensive. As far as I know historians call the fighting starting on June 5 “The Battle of France” for it took place exclusively on and above French territory (starting along and across the Somme and Aisne rivers). The period from May 10 through June 4 is simply the first phase, or period, of the French Campaign. Both periods together (May 10-June 24) are the French Campaign.

German people call it mostly “der Westfeldzug” (a nice mouthful), the West(ern) Campaign, but often, too, “der Frankreichfeldzug”, as many German books and reviews I own show. “Westfeldzug” is perfectly all right from the German point of view for virtually all the fighting took place in the West (seen from Germany), partly Southwest (the deep French territory). British people could call it “The campaign in the South” for the same geographical reasons but they don’t. How would YOU call it, if not “The French campaign”? I suspect you admire the Luftwaffe, especially their Me 110s, so much that you adopt every German phrase including “The Campaign in the West”. To British people the vast expanses of space in the West of Great Britain are called Atlantic Ocean. By the way, French fighter pilots including Czechs and Poles claimed no less than 56 “sure” victories on Me 110s (248 were engaged in combat) plus about 20 “probable” ones, and FRENCH victories were filtered, checked and officially confirmed or rejected – the latter did happen.

You seem to have a high opinion of P. Cornwell’s book. So do I. If you care to have a look at PC’s own “Introduction” on page 6 you’ll find “the campaign in France” (5th line of text). On page 7 you’ll find “the French Campaign” (6th line). If you disagree with the phrase “French Campaign” you disagree with Peter Cornwell and his TBFTN. Page 7 too, 1st line of 3rd paragraph: “the campaign in France”. Same paragraph, 3 last lines: “… was consulted at the National Archives at Kew, the RAF narrative of the Campaign in France proving an excellent source”… (italics by P. Cornwell). Obviously, accepting “the campaign in France” but not “the French Campaign” would be unserious stubbornness and quibbling and I’m sure you’re not the type to behave like that.

In my first post I mentioned that I immediately warned Larry for the immense quantity of facts and data on the 1940 French Campaign. I think he realized how terribly right I was but only belatedly : he didn’t believe me at first. So the quantity of work to be done by him was much larger than he had bargained for: the Polish campaign, however brave the Poles and fierce the fighting were, was short and aircraft losses relatively few (a few hundred ones). The Battle of Britain had been thoroughly researched long ago, including by his right hand Peter Cornwell, and, like everybody, he strongly underestimated the air fighting during the French Campaign with an actual total of lost aircraft from all countries much higher than in the Battle of Britain (BoB: 2,910 AC from both countries, and a few from Italy, were lost according to the same P. Cornwell) : well over 4,000 AC were lost in the Fr. Camp., and the subject had been hardly researched thoroughly yet, according to his philosophy (and he wanted to collect and publish every possible detail on every loss including all details on crew members). As German people use to say, “das war eine harte Nuss zu knacken” – it was a hard nut to krack.

On page 6 too (bottom of first column) P. Cornwell, who had accepted this task when asked by “After the Battle”, admits to have been “little appreciating the sheer enormity and complexities of the task ahead.” These are more or less my own words when I warned Larry but his project was even much more enormous and complex – probably unrealistic, which is a great pity.

About 10 days ago I emailed my first post in this thread to Larry. He didn’t reply and I think he’ll never do. Clearly he’s very ill for when he was more or less in good health he would reply immediately or at least very quickly.

Crossing fingers for him.