British Troops Inferior?

[adamcotton]

Anyone listen to the radio interview of John Simpson by Michael Parkinson yesterday lunchtime ( Sun 6th November)? In it, Simpson, who has just brought out a new volume of his memoirs, voiced the opinion - formed over a number of years and supplemented by personal research - that the citizen soldierhood of Britain in WW2 was not the hard fighting, determined entity popular mythologising suggests. Indeed, says he, whenever and wherever the British Army came up against the Wermacht - and assuming all things being equal - they were always beaten! Only later in the war, when they had superior numbers and better equipment than the enemy - so things were far from equal - were they able to achieve victories.

Moreover, Britain's army was not willing to fight to the death, preferring surrender, unlike the Americans and Axis armies, perhaps as a result of its experiences in the First world War....

Anyone care to comment?

[spidge]

(adamcotton @ Nov 7 2005, 11:15 PM) [post=41191]Anyone listen to the radio interview of John Simpson by Michael Parkinson yesterday lunchtime ( Sun 6th November)? In it, Simpson, who has just brought out a new volume of his memoirs, voiced the opinion - formed over a number of years and supplemented by personal research - that the citizen soldierhood of Britain in WW2 was not the hard fighting, determined entity popular mythologising suggests. Indeed, says he, whenever and wherever the British Army came up against the Wermacht - and assuming all things being equal - they were always beaten! Only later in the war, when they had superior numbers and better equipment than the enemy - so things were far from equal - were they able to achieve victories.

Moreover, Britain's army was not willing to fight to the death, preferring surrender, unlike the Americans and Axis armies, perhaps as a result of its experiences in the First world War....

Anyone care to comment?
[/b]

Was he making a generalised statement (as it seems he was) or did he quote correlating actions and the opposing numbers? That is where and when!

[morse1001]

I am sure it is a sweeping statement based upon limited information. However, Len Deigton in his book on the batle of Britain mentions incidents which shows that they so called BofB spirit was a wartime myth.

[Gotthard Heinrici]

I would not entirely disregard the views stated. It is true that El Alamein was the one Land Battle were the British defeated the Germans by themselves, and indeed the Battle of Britain should also be included. I wouldnt doubt that the Bof B spirit was somewhat of a myth though. As regards the effect of WWI well he has a point although I would have thought that it affected the French army circ 1940 more especially in terms of morale

[adamcotton]

Simpson didn't mention any particular specifics, except a brief reference to the British surrender to the Japanese in Singapore in 1942. He added sentiments that Britain certainly wasn't the "home of the brave" in 1943, but seemed ignorant of the fact that British "caution" was endemic to a nation with limited resources. America had vast reserves of men and materiel, the Japanese were imbued with the fantaticism of the Samurai code, the Wermacht - in defence - were fighting for their very existence, and the Russian leadership was simply profligate with the expenditure of human life. In comparison, I imagine the Briitsh "Tommy" and his generals would seem to have less stomach for the fight....but could the BEF's defeat in 1940 be attributable to that fact? I doubt it.

Len Deighton's book on the Battle of Britain, "Fighter", which I read many years ago, does attempt to explode the myth of the Battle of Britain spirit, but in my view is unbalanced and biased. It focuses on too many small and unsavoury incidents in an endeavour to prove its point, but neglecting to address the bigger picture.

[Gibbo]

Although Len Deighton tries, with mixed results in my view, to explode many myths surrounding the Battle of Britain, he does state that 'Just by remaining intact, Fighter Command had won the Battle of Britain.' His criticisms of the RAF are of the Air Staff & Leigh Mallory's big wing' tactics. He praises the men who fought the battle, Dowding, Park & their fighter pilots. I think that the marketing of this book has created some myths of its own.

While I'm on the subject of myths, El Alamein wasn't Britain's first land victory over Germany. Operation Crusader didn't achieve all its objectives & Britain suffered more casualties than Germany but the Afrika Korps was pushed a long way back.

Overall, the British army suffered more defeats than victories in the first half of the war but, as far as I am aware, all can be attributed to poor tactics, generalship or equipment or lack of numbers. The only British defeat that I've ever heard attributed to lack of fighting spirit by British soldiers is Singapore. If Germans are to be praised for their fighting spirit in defeat, then what about the British paras at Arnhem?

[sapper]

What a load of utter bull! from my experience the British soldier is the best in the world. bar none.Why is it when they want to sell a book they have to run down our own men?

Just plain bull......from Sword Beach onwards we never took a backward step, not for anyone. I have never heard such complete crap, If you think otherwise? ask the Germans! They concentrated their panzers around the British troops. WHY? they knew were the real scrappers were situtated...The rest? half a Panzer div was deemed good enough.
So come off it........From all that I saw, I can only have an immense pride in the fighting quality of the British,, I would challenge anyone to tell that to the Black Watch, the KOSBs, the Airborne, Suffolks, East Yorks . South Lancs, the Warwicks, any of that gallant tribe that took on and destroyed the might of the SS Panzers. Absolute bull.
Come near me and say that, and you will be walking about a crutch hanging out the back of your trousers!

Consider the RE that removed the explosives off the beach defences, when the tide came in, they continued to swim while removing them and many drowned, givng their lives for the success of the invasion.

To accuse the British of not giving their best is to insult their memory. It just goes to show just how bloody ignorant some of these people are...Obviously been reading to many comics
British soldiers? second to none.
Sapper

[Des1]

I'm afraid Simpson is not saying anything new on the subject. I've read several books which have made this point - some by historical writers, some memoirs of troops who actually fought.

With respect to surrendering ... I don't think Simpson, if he is being quoted correctly, could possibly say that American troops were less likely to surrender than the British. That IS a load of bull.

Remember British WW2 soldiers were a much more sophisticated, unionised, educated bunch than their fathers of WW1. They were also soldiers of a democratic nation which did not try to create brainwashed nationalistic ubermen or draw on the code of Bushido.
They very fact that they were less likely to 'stand and die' is something which is worth consideration on a careful basis. If they had been brainwashed to 'stand and die' for fear of being shot (or their families shot) by their own side ... would they not have been fighting for a cause equally abhorrent as Fascism/Nazism?
They were ordinary blokes and some fought well and some did not. A lot of them were there because they had no choice.

I found Max Hasting's Armageddon very good in dealing with this very topic in a sensible way.
Des

I also have to say that the real damage to the Panzer Divs was inflicted by the allied air forces. Another book which makes this point is Lt. Col. Colin Mitchell's 'Having Been a Soldier' .. talking of Italy in the very late stages of the war, he states that German defence was far more tenacious and skilfull than anything he could have imagined.

[jimbotosome]

Wouldn't the primary requirement of determining if an army is "inferior" to another, be seeing that army lose to the other in battle rather than defeat them?

A more objective measurement might be to measure the time the tanks spent in "reverse" and judge an army's moxie based on that.

[adamcotton]

Jimbo, I think you are missing the point here! Simpsaon was suggesting that the British Army was inferior precisely because it was defeated more often than it was victorious, and by implication its tanks spent more time in retreat than advance. Not saying Simpson was right, merely reporting what he said.....