If you were Russian, you might be asking "Why is there more of an emphasis on the Eastern front of World War 2?" In Russia, the war is seen through the context of the [Great Patriotic War](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Patriotic_War_(term%29), and the struggle between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is what is primarily taught and turned into books, films, et cetera.

That makes sense, really. People will focus on what they think was important to them. For Russians, the Eastern Front was more important than the Western Front or the Pacific (heck, the Soviet Union wasn't even at war with Japan until August 1945).

For westerners, however, things are different. You say you are British. Western Europe is where British troops first saw large-scale action (with the Battle of France). France was where the BEF staged it's famous evacuation from. France was where German planes operated from during the Battle of Britain, and where many U-Boats operated from. And France and the Low Countries are where British soldiers fought in large numbers in the battles to liberate Western Europe from Nazi control.

Yes, Stalingrad and Kursk were larger battles than Normandy or the Bulge, but Brits didn't fight in Stalingrad or Kursk, they fought at Normandy and the Bulge. British soldiers in Western Europe wrote and told their stories, and news agencies followed them closely. It's no surprise that it makes up a big portion of the public imagery on the war.

Of course, British forces also fought elsewhere. North Africa, Italy, the Middle East, the Balkans, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific. I'd say that the North African theatre is pretty well-represented in the popular memory (especially since it produced the famous figures of Montgomery and Rommel), but one can easily argue that recognition for the other aforementioned campaigns is lacking.

It was Germany that posed an immediate threat to the safety of the British populace itself, so it shouldn't surprise one that Germany was seen as a more important enemy than Japan. Fighting the Germans in France was more vital to Britain's immediate security than fighting the Japanese in Burma, despite the fact that one of the best British generals of the war fought in Burma.

The Balkans and the Middle East featured comparatively small actions, relative to those of the Western Front. Once again, I'm not saying that they should be ignored, but I'm not surprised that they often are.

That leaves Italy as a bit of a puzzle - the invasion of and subsequent [battle for Italy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Campaign_(World_War_II%29) was a very large operation with a clear goal - taking one of the three main Axis nations. It should be better known. There are multiple factors that can perhaps explain why it isn't - the latter portions of the campaign overlapped with the much better-known invasion of France, Italy was and is seen (not without reason) as a less important enemy than Germany, the terrain led to slow, slogged fighting rather than fast-moving, maneuvering battles, and many decisions made by the Allies during the fight for Italy were rather dubious and detrimental.

It's hard to provide sources that would explain why people talk about certain things and overlook others, and you'd get no argument from me when it comes to focusing more attention on lesser-known parts of the War, especially when it comes to education. The thing is, people generally don't base the way they perceive or remember the war based on purely logical terms. We focus on what we know, what we see as being most important to us and our ancestors. For many in Britain, that is Western Europe.

An interesting thing to note is that during the war the Eastern front was a source of great encouragement for factory workers in Britain. Many Russian tanks were produced in Britain and upon tales of Russian defeats there would be a massive rise in productivity as the British workforce got behind the Red army. This side of the war has been largely forgotten.

A reason for this in Britain could be the Zinoviev Letter which was a forged letter released by the Daily Mail in 1924 suggesting that the Russians were planning a Communist takeover of the country. It created a huge scar on British politics which continues in one form or another to the current day. Immediately it lost Labour the upcoming election, and looking onwards it set a chain of events which saw Churchill believe Fascism could be the antidote should the Bolshevik poison take over Britain's Northern cities. This fear has written Russia out of our national history.