data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc0a7/fc0a78e467b78efb1e81aae374534ca5422fcd83" alt="Red blue gradient"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/172a9/172a9488d895ce269a041cd2591917a380b46f4f" alt="red blue gradient red blue gradient"
Glorification of the attack had been much rarer.īy 1944 the country had been at war for nearly five years, so there was a considerable war-weariness.Īnd as the end of the war came in sight, men wanted to survive. Perhaps a historic psychology might have been at work.īritish military myths had always tended to focus on heroic defence – the retreat to Corunna, the squares at Waterloo, the sieges of Lucknow and Delhi, and Rorke’s Drift. The Germans quickly observed that the British were resolute and brave in defence, but often over-cautious in attack. And of course the regimental system itself encouraged a sense of parochialism. There was little of that attitude in either the German or the American army. Sappers, as a Canadian observed, did not believe it was their task to fire at the enemy when not engaged on an engineering task, and infantry refused to help ‘fill a crater or get a vehicle out of difficulties’. The other connected failing came from a demarcation mentality: of not doing anything that was not strictly their job. On the first day of the Normandy invasion, many who felt tired after wading ashore believed that they had earned a rest on the beach simply for having survived the landing.Īn American liaison officer reported: ‘There was also a feeling among many of the men that, having landed, they had achieved their objective, and there was time for a cigarette – and even a brew-up – instead of getting on with the task of knocking out the enemy defences and pushing inland.’ As a result, a certain trade union mentality influenced attitudes as to what could be expected of them.Īmerican and Canadian observers were amazed by the British soldier’s expectation of regular tea and smoke breaks. Soldiers and NCOs were far more politicised than in World War I. It had been much more deeply marked by the social and political tensions of the interwar years. It is time to re-examine the balance, but first of all we must recognise that the British Army possessed certain systemic flaws not shared by the U.S.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/891e1/891e16bddef5dfa0986c0ca3d1ab724250fce3d8" alt="red blue gradient red blue gradient"
Inevitably, much later, a highly critical view was adopted by some historians, who claimed that the German Army was far superior. One might have expected interest to diminish with the passage of time and the death of participants, yet there are more museums in Normandy and more visitors than ever before.Īll nations create their own myths, and the British felt an understandable need in the depressing reality of the post-war world to vaunt the qualities of the British Army and its leadership. Seventy years have now passed since the Allied invasion in June 1944, which began the liberation of western Europe from Nazi occupation. A certain trade union mentality influenced attitudes as to what could be expected of them American and Canadian observers were amazed by the British soldier's expectation of regular tea and smoke breaks.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fc0a7/fc0a78e467b78efb1e81aae374534ca5422fcd83" alt="Red blue gradient"