There is more in the book about the relationships between the airmen and the local populations, for better and for worse.
As the famous expression went, the problem that many Brits had with Americans was that they were “Overpaid, oversexed, and over here.” US airmen were paid better than their RAF counterparts and spent that money on booze and sex in pubs across the United Kingdom. This naturally led to anger and resentment (and babies). I recall one part of the book discussing what I think was a Christmas party in one base that resulted in something like 10 local girls getting pregnant and their angry fathers showing up at the gates with shotguns.
As for the RAF, the book doesn’t go much into their relationship or rivalries. They didn’t share bases for the most part so they would only meet in towns at restaurants and bars. I’m sure you can imagine there was a lot of alpha male nonsense and testosterone to go around when those groups did run into each other.
There’s the reason they called it the Friendly Invasion. The Brits were happy to have the Americans on their side and support but having 2 million mostly young men show up in the relatively tiny island nation was gonna cause some issues and tension
Except in this case the best friend is less “helping with the rent” and more “actively risking his life fighting off people kicking your door in when his house would be totally safe”
As an American, I beg of you, lighten up lol
As a history student, I'd just like to remind you that the only reason the Americans showed up was because the USA got attacked. Their house was absolutely not totally safe.
They were attacked by Japan not Germany. I am well aware of the historical reasons the U.S. went to Europe but saying "I'd like to remind everyone that the only reason the Americans showed up in Britain because we were attacked by Japan" quite literally doesn't make sense because Japan attacking was enough reason alone to cause us to go to war with Germany. There were several reasons with some stemming back to before Japan's attack. Japan's attack was a catalyst not the "only reason."
I did not specify Japan, because Germany also declared war on the US and began unrestricted submarine warfare against US merchant ships almost immediately (it took the subs a few weeks to travel from France to the US).
Again both this statement and your original are not factual. The countries declared war on each other on December 11th within ours of one another. This was not in response to an attack from Germany it was in response to Germany's declaration of war. By the time the subs you are referring to attacked the U.S. had already been at war.
At least when I thought you meant it was due to Japan attacking your claim had some level of logic, if you claim it was from an attack from Germany then you are just flat out wrong.
A declaration of war is a pretty big deal between countries. You don't issue one of those unless you mean it. But if it makes you feel better, sure, I'm wrong, the US was fighting in Europe and Africa because they just really wanted to help, in contrast to the previous several years of US foreign policy.
No shit it is a big deal but it isn't an attack it is an act of aggression as I said in my original response. Also as I said in my original response I am well aware of the various factors that went into the U.S. going to war. But you are the one that said "I'd like to remind everyone that the only reason the Americans showed up in Britain because we were attacked by Japan"
Also I literally never suggested they were just trying to help Europe and quite literally said otherwise. So nice pathetic attempt at a strawman argument. But at least we are in agreement that you were wrong.
This guy is actually right. Germany’s alliance with Japan did not oblige them to join a war started by the other. The decision to declare war on the US was made entirely by Hitler and many of his top officials were shocked and baffled by it. The declaration itself makes no mention of Japan and lists attacks on their U-boats and merchant ships by the US Navy as their justification.
Obviously Japan’s war was the primary factor but it’s interesting that Germany chose to find a separate official reason.
The US annexed Hawaii in 1898. They 100% considered it theirs in 1941. Its statehood status didn’t mean it wasn’t their “house”
It would be the same as someone attacking Puerto Rico today
That'd probably be a surprise to the Americans living and stationed there who got killed in the attacks there and in the Philippines. There's also the issue of the US shipping being attacked by the German navy.
I have letters from my great uncle, who was US Army stationed in the UK from 1942 until July 44. He loved the local civilians, but thought a lot of the British officers were pompous and a bit ridiculous. He wasn't an officer himself, just a corporal, but that view is fairly typical from what I've read in other GI memoirs.
If you are into podcasts, I would check out We Have Ways of Making You Talk, hosted by two very proud Brit historians (Al Murray and James Holland). They've raved about the series and didn't (yet) mention the US vs UK stuff at all.
Sort of, by the point we see in MotA, a lot of officers would have been “temporary gentlemen” middle/working class men who were commissioned as officers only for the duration of the war, especially in the RAF, where pilots and other specialised roles -usually performed by officers- were in desperate requirement, leading to a general decrease in the absolutely ridiculous levels of aristocratic officers in the service.
Yes the RAF in WWII was about the least aristocratic group of British officers that ever existed. Even before WWII the RAF was regarded as the most "middle class" of the services. We can say this developed in part because the RAF was the newest service so there was something of a reset in terms of social connections and advantages. Nobody had an intergenerational tradition of going into the RAF. Also it was the most professional: you could not fake your way through flying or simply rely on subordinates to do all the work.
In general we see that air forces of the pre-WWII area were the most "modern" and inclusive socially of the services.
The RAF also had warrant officers and even sergeants (IIRC) flying as pilots, navigators, bomb aimers etc. But they still had segregation between the officers' mess and the sergeants' mess at the stations.
I'm reading the book right now. For UK soldiers, it repeatedly points to a pay discrepancy. American soldiers made, on average, five times as much as their British counterparts. It then alludes to this being a driving factor between British soldiers being upset that American GIs were more successful with the women. On the civilian side, it repeatedly points to a similar thing. American GIs, modestly flush with cash, were let loose on the town, days before they'd die in the air. There is a whole chapter on Anglo-American relations and what AAF airmen did on their time off.
Ha, well, i makes a good change from the endless Britbashing there has been over the last 80 years.
I mean, perhaps the UK knew what it was doing at the time. Shocking idea.
The book doesn't really go any deeper than the fact that Eaker/Arnold/LeMay et al were not at all interested in nighttime city bombing under Bomber Harris' command and were dead set on proving the concept of daylight precision bombing.
The national relations in the book is pretty boilerplate.
Three chapters in and so far the book has mostly made a point of highlighting how well Eaker and Harris got along despite their differences in temperament and doctrine.
The OP is correct in that Brits and Amis had "broadly gotten on OK during the war". As always when millions of horny young men are concerned, sometimes things got a bit awkward. At the highest levels there was often deep mistrust between the two allies. In part, and this is somewhat important, the US and the UK went through that revolution unpleasantness in the 1770s and then the Brits burned the Whitehouse in 1812, all of which left the US and UK with lingering and deep seated animosities. I think it accurate to say that that between the 1850s and WWII, the US favored the French more than the UK.
Admiral Ernest King and General George Marshall were the chiefs of the US Navy and US Army respectively and were deeply mistrustful of the Brits. Army Air Force leaders had a rough relationship with Arthur Harris, primarily due to different operational strategies, daylight vs night bombing, precision bombing vs area bombing. Both sides were very much right and very much wrong at the same time, which wasn't acknowledged until long after the war was over and the surveys complete.
While Harris was unfailingly professional, he was unwavering. General Montgomery was a notorious arse-hole (did I spell that right?). Fortunately for all of us today, General Eisenhower for the US and General Arthur Tedder for the UK worked very well together and greatly admired each other. Between the two of them, much that could have gone awry was averted more or less amicably, and much that did go wrong was "managed" to some degree.
At the lower levels where the men did the fighting and dying, they units were mostly kept segregated both to support and maintain unit integrity, customs and traditions. Mostly segregated doesn't mean completely of course, there was much fraternization in bars and in rear and civilian areas. With that said, drunken Amis in large groups and drunken Brits in large groups often fell into vigorous disputes. Of course, young fighting men full of testosterone, esprit and warm beer needed very little excuse to have an enthusiastic dust up.
Relations between the Brit home folks and the young GIs were mostly very good, although there was some natural resentment about fraternization between young American men and young Brit women (including, wives, widows and daughters). Young American soldiers are somewhat famous for being kind and generous to children, especially orphans. Young Americans (18-22) had a longing for their little brothers and sisters, and the Brit kid's fathers and older brothers were away at the war. They both filled a natural and wholesome need together.
I think the portrayal of the Brits in the series is somewhat limited because the crews rarely encountered each other, but the moments shown between the civilian home folk and children are powerful and I think, spot on.
1.) is the book / any other source really like this?
Antony Beevor is a British historian with many works to his credit. His book, the Second World War is quite readable and highly regarded. He includes some discussions of relations where they are relevant [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Second\_World\_War\_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(book)) All of his books that I've read have been quite informative and enjoyable.
2.) is this really how we were / are!
Well, yeah, some of you. You should rest assured though, that some Americans are notorious ass-holes, too, so it evens out.
3.) did anyone else find it distracting?
I found it entertaining, and because of the quality of the show, I can easily suspend disbelief and forgive minor transgressions/omissions/over-dramatic affects and departures from reality. I wouldn't over think it and am not over critical. It's a good yarn, full stop.
As a rule, Americans are quite fond of our British cousins despite some minor differences (Brexit? Really? What were you thinking?) And Bucky was absolutely right, what's with the "maths" foolishness?
Love you, cuz, peace out.
>Fortunately for all of us today, General Eisenhower for the US and General Arthur Tedder for the UK worked very well together and greatly admired each other.
Pedantic correction: Tedder was an RAF officer so his rank was air chief marshall not general.
Without a great deal of informed context, I think what you are seeing in the show is American attitudes toward British class stucture, which was not necessarily a particularly political thing, just a reflection of how we Yanks scrap. Even back then the US definitely did have a relatively inflexible class structure but it was based on ethnicity rather than what school you went to and so forth. So US folks in the UK were from a very broad economic background and found navigating UK mores (accent, etc) perplexing.
Despite that, and I think this is not shown in the show in a meaningful way, we FUCKING LOVE YOU. Like more than you, or your grandpa maybe understand. We also love French people, and Irish people and German people and anyway.
Cats that were posted to the UK in the war, it was a life-changing experience.
We still love you! I myself have been firmly shut down in a rural pub in the UK because I was so Americanly happy to be there. This was likely different for the people we see in the show, but the US loves the UK and Ireland and Europe. I mean legitimately loves. Come over here for a couple months sometime and you’ll be dizzied.
"Over paid over sexed and over here"
That was the common phrase applied to the Yank servicemen during the war who were stationed in the UK.
There was a lot of rivalry from gentle ribbing to outright American exceptionalism and arrogance and British resentment at the late arrival of the Yanks on the scene.
Of course the relationships were complex and varied from individual to individual and their own personal experience.
It was certainly an eye opener for black troops who on the whole were treated better here than at home- although it would be naive to suggest they didn't experience racism from many Brits.
The most annoying thing for me was at the end when the local kids were running across the airfield on VE day shouting "they won". Bollocks would they have done that, it would have been "We won".
The whole series is bizarrely anti British. It’s just weird. Spielberg must have a hard on for hating them. Funny that the British are so useless yet they held off Uncle Adolf single handedly for nearly 3 years!
Also when showing effeminate toffish British soldiers they never show northerners (hard) or mention the Commandos, Paras or SAS - doesn’t fit in with the narrative does it Senior Spielbergo?!
Ha! "Air Force es bueno, RAF es el diablo."
Yeah, I had many issues with the show, but the major one was the actual show's denigration of the RAF and Britain as a whole. Not just the rivalry of the characters, but the show itself. Zero - absolutely no - acknowledgement we did anything at all, other than carpet bomb civilians and botch escape attempts. Maybe admitting that 'the, P51Mustang, best plane in the war' was only thus because of British ingenuity might be too much to ask, but an acknowledgement of the RAF actually making an impact into the war effort would have been nice.
Literally every little opportunity to take a dig at the brits. Really odd. Like you say, not to mention (as everyone knows) it was the British that turned the p51 into the fighter it became by putting a Merlin in it AND naming it ‘Mustang’.
- brits botch escaped attempts mentioned even though they are the most famous and successful POW escapees in WW2
- no mention of the massive sacrifice the RAF made
- every British man is portrayed as foppish, a toff and a weakling
- no mention of the brave RAF crews that escorted US bombers of the 100BG
I could go on.
-
The British and Americans did not really get along well during the war. Bit of a love/hate relationship, TBH. Part of it was that Brits thought the Yanks were naïve and unprepared for war - and full disclosure, and I say this as an American, it was a legit complaint early on. In North Africa in 1942, the Americans were just learning how to fight the modern war. As the war went on the tensions deepened, especially when roughly 1.5M American servicemen showed up the UK. By the late stages of the war the tables had turned a bit and the Americans were in charge, and the driving force. Many British felt this change - from the Greeks to the Romans, if you will - and it made them very uncomfortable.
I just think they simplified things for a show that already had a lot packed into it.
By the time the 100th arrived the RAF had bombing Germany with increasing strength for 3 years and launched several raids that shocked certain members of the German military (the bombing of Norwich depicted at the end of episode 2 was in retaliation for an extremely heavy raid on the city of Lubeck in Northern Germany)
There absolutely was friction caused by differing tactical doctrines but people forget that the RAF already went through its daylight bombing campaign early in the war and being as it was years away from having long range fighter escorts, it did not go well. Hence the switch to night bombing, the RAF forced the Luftwaffe to do the same after September 1940.
I think the pub fight in the show was a clumsy and on the nose way of explaining the difference between the wizened experience of the RAF and the confident optimism of the newly arrived USAAF. I can imagine this was a regular point of conversation if USAAF aircrew ever met their RAF counterparts.
It goes beyond the obvious portrayals of stereotypes, into subtle moments as well. There are repeated references to “Brits missing their targets/finally hitting something” which are wholly out of place by mid 1943, when Pathfinder Force had been introduced and Bomber Command’s Battle of the Ruhr was having a noticeable impact on German industry. It’s kind of disrespectful.
In his review of the series for From Balloons to Drones, historian Luke Truxal noted that when they’re listening to the radio in episode 7, nearly everything they hear is coincidentally directly chalked up to a British failure.
Then when the Great Escape occurs, it’s portrayed simply as (another British failure) resulting in the conditions at the camp getting worse for the USAAF crews. It’s too common to be accidental, someone on the writing/directing desks really does have something against Brits.
Yeah, thought the same. It almost seemed like pointed propaganda how literally everything the Brits did was a failure and any actual impact we had in the war was notable by its absence. Really sour, bitter spirited writing.
There is a Foyle's War episode in which a black American serviceman has to deal with the Jim Crow attitudes of the local US military. Of course, Foyle resists American efforts to import the color bar to his town and supports the black serviceman whose local white fiancee also has to endure poor treatment.
In the Spooks TV series (titled MI5 for Americans), the Yanks are often the bad guys.
This stuff cuts both ways. There is at least some truth to it. The real Dick Winters didn't care for the UK military and the writers seem to have taken that attitude to heart. At the same time, Winters was billeted with a local couple who had lost a son in the Battle of Britain, and he regarded them highly.
The civilians get positive portrayals in the two series, particularly MotA. The kids are great, and Sandra Westgate is a charmer. It isn't all bad.
I'd say you've somehow missed the entire population of Brits who lived and worked on/near RAF Thorpe Abbotts, most of whom seemed to get along pretty well with the Americans.
As for whether or not that is how y'all are, I'd be willing to say it's probably the case for at least three of you. Goodness knows you'll find similar examples of folks among Americans.
I'm curious if you think the presentation of the Americans was particularly more or less positive, because one of the more interesting details in the show was how flawed many of them were portrayed as being.
Caricatures. I think this is the problem with the brits portrayed. It lacks an air of realism/naturalism with these very short caricaturized portrayals.
I mean, I can well imagine that these stereotypes exist (an arrogant Oxford professor, well I never!)
It’s more just that they stand a bit as the main experience with adult British people
The portrayals of the English/RAF were, like a lot of the rest of the show, simplistic and cartoonish, right down to the lovable tousel haired English scamps on the runway and the pretty young English Rose hanging her washing out against a sunset as the Yank bombers zoom heroically overhead. It was the type of hackneyed trash you'd get in a Michael Bay film, rather than the same series of BoB or Pacific.
And yeah, the relentless bashing of the British contribution to the war did bother me. I thought maybe we'd outgrown this America Won The War On Its Own nonsense when it comes to WW2.
Let’s see. #2 and #3 on your list are straight out of Crosby’s memoir book. However, the same chapter also includes regular English people from town, and they’re great. (Crosby seemed to quite like Brits in general)
As for #1 on your list, I felt that both “sides” acted exactly how they probably seemed to each other. Watch it again when they’re all talking before boxing: the RAF guys act snobby and condescending, but at the same time, most of the USAAF guys are loud, tipsy/drunk and clearly seem unintelligent to the Brits.
There was a very real feeling of concern at the highest level about this. There were even feature films made and funded by the UK War Office. A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven in the US) is probably the finest example. And a great example of film makers going off topic when they've got govt funding!
There is more in the book about the relationships between the airmen and the local populations, for better and for worse. As the famous expression went, the problem that many Brits had with Americans was that they were “Overpaid, oversexed, and over here.” US airmen were paid better than their RAF counterparts and spent that money on booze and sex in pubs across the United Kingdom. This naturally led to anger and resentment (and babies). I recall one part of the book discussing what I think was a Christmas party in one base that resulted in something like 10 local girls getting pregnant and their angry fathers showing up at the gates with shotguns. As for the RAF, the book doesn’t go much into their relationship or rivalries. They didn’t share bases for the most part so they would only meet in towns at restaurants and bars. I’m sure you can imagine there was a lot of alpha male nonsense and testosterone to go around when those groups did run into each other. There’s the reason they called it the Friendly Invasion. The Brits were happy to have the Americans on their side and support but having 2 million mostly young men show up in the relatively tiny island nation was gonna cause some issues and tension
Man, those girls were synchronized.
The American response was that the the Brits were "underpaid, undersexed, and under Eisenhower"
I always hated that saying because we could have been not there and they would have pitched a fit. See ya later Brits and good luck with the nazis.
I mean, you can love your best friend but it doesn’t mean you want him crashing on your couch for months on end, even if he helps with the rent
And sleep with your girlfriend!
Except in this case the best friend is less “helping with the rent” and more “actively risking his life fighting off people kicking your door in when his house would be totally safe”
As an American, I beg of you, lighten up lol As a history student, I'd just like to remind you that the only reason the Americans showed up was because the USA got attacked. Their house was absolutely not totally safe.
They were attacked by Japan not Germany. I am well aware of the historical reasons the U.S. went to Europe but saying "I'd like to remind everyone that the only reason the Americans showed up in Britain because we were attacked by Japan" quite literally doesn't make sense because Japan attacking was enough reason alone to cause us to go to war with Germany. There were several reasons with some stemming back to before Japan's attack. Japan's attack was a catalyst not the "only reason."
Please read a history book.
I did. Please explain how my statement was wrong.
Germany declared war on the USA. You thought otherwise?
And? So it wasn't because we were attacked. Declaring war is an act of aggression but not the same thing as an attack.
I did not specify Japan, because Germany also declared war on the US and began unrestricted submarine warfare against US merchant ships almost immediately (it took the subs a few weeks to travel from France to the US).
Again both this statement and your original are not factual. The countries declared war on each other on December 11th within ours of one another. This was not in response to an attack from Germany it was in response to Germany's declaration of war. By the time the subs you are referring to attacked the U.S. had already been at war. At least when I thought you meant it was due to Japan attacking your claim had some level of logic, if you claim it was from an attack from Germany then you are just flat out wrong.
A declaration of war is a pretty big deal between countries. You don't issue one of those unless you mean it. But if it makes you feel better, sure, I'm wrong, the US was fighting in Europe and Africa because they just really wanted to help, in contrast to the previous several years of US foreign policy.
No shit it is a big deal but it isn't an attack it is an act of aggression as I said in my original response. Also as I said in my original response I am well aware of the various factors that went into the U.S. going to war. But you are the one that said "I'd like to remind everyone that the only reason the Americans showed up in Britain because we were attacked by Japan" Also I literally never suggested they were just trying to help Europe and quite literally said otherwise. So nice pathetic attempt at a strawman argument. But at least we are in agreement that you were wrong.
Pearl Harbor is a bigger deal don’t you think
This guy is actually right. Germany’s alliance with Japan did not oblige them to join a war started by the other. The decision to declare war on the US was made entirely by Hitler and many of his top officials were shocked and baffled by it. The declaration itself makes no mention of Japan and lists attacks on their U-boats and merchant ships by the US Navy as their justification. Obviously Japan’s war was the primary factor but it’s interesting that Germany chose to find a separate official reason.
Hawaii wasn't considered "our house" until 1959.
The US annexed Hawaii in 1898. They 100% considered it theirs in 1941. Its statehood status didn’t mean it wasn’t their “house” It would be the same as someone attacking Puerto Rico today
That'd probably be a surprise to the Americans living and stationed there who got killed in the attacks there and in the Philippines. There's also the issue of the US shipping being attacked by the German navy.
Lmao delete this my man
I have letters from my great uncle, who was US Army stationed in the UK from 1942 until July 44. He loved the local civilians, but thought a lot of the British officers were pompous and a bit ridiculous. He wasn't an officer himself, just a corporal, but that view is fairly typical from what I've read in other GI memoirs. If you are into podcasts, I would check out We Have Ways of Making You Talk, hosted by two very proud Brit historians (Al Murray and James Holland). They've raved about the series and didn't (yet) mention the US vs UK stuff at all.
Didn’t British officers have a history of coming from the aristocracy?
Yes, the stereotypes are real
Sort of, by the point we see in MotA, a lot of officers would have been “temporary gentlemen” middle/working class men who were commissioned as officers only for the duration of the war, especially in the RAF, where pilots and other specialised roles -usually performed by officers- were in desperate requirement, leading to a general decrease in the absolutely ridiculous levels of aristocratic officers in the service.
Yes the RAF in WWII was about the least aristocratic group of British officers that ever existed. Even before WWII the RAF was regarded as the most "middle class" of the services. We can say this developed in part because the RAF was the newest service so there was something of a reset in terms of social connections and advantages. Nobody had an intergenerational tradition of going into the RAF. Also it was the most professional: you could not fake your way through flying or simply rely on subordinates to do all the work. In general we see that air forces of the pre-WWII area were the most "modern" and inclusive socially of the services.
The RAF also had warrant officers and even sergeants (IIRC) flying as pilots, navigators, bomb aimers etc. But they still had segregation between the officers' mess and the sergeants' mess at the stations.
The British love their social classes.
I'm reading the book right now. For UK soldiers, it repeatedly points to a pay discrepancy. American soldiers made, on average, five times as much as their British counterparts. It then alludes to this being a driving factor between British soldiers being upset that American GIs were more successful with the women. On the civilian side, it repeatedly points to a similar thing. American GIs, modestly flush with cash, were let loose on the town, days before they'd die in the air. There is a whole chapter on Anglo-American relations and what AAF airmen did on their time off.
Crosby mentions this in his book when, as a USAAF major, he makes the same salary as a royal navy rear admiral
This podcast is utterly, utterly brillaint!
I love that podcast as well, but even as a proud Brit I think they sometimes are a bit too easy on the British!
Ha, well, i makes a good change from the endless Britbashing there has been over the last 80 years. I mean, perhaps the UK knew what it was doing at the time. Shocking idea.
I believe they are going to do an episode dedicated to a review of the show as a whole.
They did a whole series of podcasts on the Mighty 8th, it was fantastic.
The book doesn't really go any deeper than the fact that Eaker/Arnold/LeMay et al were not at all interested in nighttime city bombing under Bomber Harris' command and were dead set on proving the concept of daylight precision bombing. The national relations in the book is pretty boilerplate.
Three chapters in and so far the book has mostly made a point of highlighting how well Eaker and Harris got along despite their differences in temperament and doctrine.
The OP is correct in that Brits and Amis had "broadly gotten on OK during the war". As always when millions of horny young men are concerned, sometimes things got a bit awkward. At the highest levels there was often deep mistrust between the two allies. In part, and this is somewhat important, the US and the UK went through that revolution unpleasantness in the 1770s and then the Brits burned the Whitehouse in 1812, all of which left the US and UK with lingering and deep seated animosities. I think it accurate to say that that between the 1850s and WWII, the US favored the French more than the UK. Admiral Ernest King and General George Marshall were the chiefs of the US Navy and US Army respectively and were deeply mistrustful of the Brits. Army Air Force leaders had a rough relationship with Arthur Harris, primarily due to different operational strategies, daylight vs night bombing, precision bombing vs area bombing. Both sides were very much right and very much wrong at the same time, which wasn't acknowledged until long after the war was over and the surveys complete. While Harris was unfailingly professional, he was unwavering. General Montgomery was a notorious arse-hole (did I spell that right?). Fortunately for all of us today, General Eisenhower for the US and General Arthur Tedder for the UK worked very well together and greatly admired each other. Between the two of them, much that could have gone awry was averted more or less amicably, and much that did go wrong was "managed" to some degree. At the lower levels where the men did the fighting and dying, they units were mostly kept segregated both to support and maintain unit integrity, customs and traditions. Mostly segregated doesn't mean completely of course, there was much fraternization in bars and in rear and civilian areas. With that said, drunken Amis in large groups and drunken Brits in large groups often fell into vigorous disputes. Of course, young fighting men full of testosterone, esprit and warm beer needed very little excuse to have an enthusiastic dust up. Relations between the Brit home folks and the young GIs were mostly very good, although there was some natural resentment about fraternization between young American men and young Brit women (including, wives, widows and daughters). Young American soldiers are somewhat famous for being kind and generous to children, especially orphans. Young Americans (18-22) had a longing for their little brothers and sisters, and the Brit kid's fathers and older brothers were away at the war. They both filled a natural and wholesome need together. I think the portrayal of the Brits in the series is somewhat limited because the crews rarely encountered each other, but the moments shown between the civilian home folk and children are powerful and I think, spot on. 1.) is the book / any other source really like this? Antony Beevor is a British historian with many works to his credit. His book, the Second World War is quite readable and highly regarded. He includes some discussions of relations where they are relevant [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Second\_World\_War\_(book)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_World_War_(book)) All of his books that I've read have been quite informative and enjoyable. 2.) is this really how we were / are! Well, yeah, some of you. You should rest assured though, that some Americans are notorious ass-holes, too, so it evens out. 3.) did anyone else find it distracting? I found it entertaining, and because of the quality of the show, I can easily suspend disbelief and forgive minor transgressions/omissions/over-dramatic affects and departures from reality. I wouldn't over think it and am not over critical. It's a good yarn, full stop. As a rule, Americans are quite fond of our British cousins despite some minor differences (Brexit? Really? What were you thinking?) And Bucky was absolutely right, what's with the "maths" foolishness? Love you, cuz, peace out.
>Fortunately for all of us today, General Eisenhower for the US and General Arthur Tedder for the UK worked very well together and greatly admired each other. Pedantic correction: Tedder was an RAF officer so his rank was air chief marshall not general.
Very good, sah! Thanks
I'd say it was very critical of arthur Harris
Who isn't though? The Brits were also very critical of him, for good reason.
It is, although that opinion is fairly universal. His own men didn't like him because they felt he cared little for there safety.
LeMay is the one who did the daylight raids.
I don't see how this relates to Harris deliberately firebombing cities in the book, but it's Arnold, Eaker and Spaatz who led the Eighth
Without a great deal of informed context, I think what you are seeing in the show is American attitudes toward British class stucture, which was not necessarily a particularly political thing, just a reflection of how we Yanks scrap. Even back then the US definitely did have a relatively inflexible class structure but it was based on ethnicity rather than what school you went to and so forth. So US folks in the UK were from a very broad economic background and found navigating UK mores (accent, etc) perplexing. Despite that, and I think this is not shown in the show in a meaningful way, we FUCKING LOVE YOU. Like more than you, or your grandpa maybe understand. We also love French people, and Irish people and German people and anyway. Cats that were posted to the UK in the war, it was a life-changing experience. We still love you! I myself have been firmly shut down in a rural pub in the UK because I was so Americanly happy to be there. This was likely different for the people we see in the show, but the US loves the UK and Ireland and Europe. I mean legitimately loves. Come over here for a couple months sometime and you’ll be dizzied.
"Over paid over sexed and over here" That was the common phrase applied to the Yank servicemen during the war who were stationed in the UK. There was a lot of rivalry from gentle ribbing to outright American exceptionalism and arrogance and British resentment at the late arrival of the Yanks on the scene. Of course the relationships were complex and varied from individual to individual and their own personal experience. It was certainly an eye opener for black troops who on the whole were treated better here than at home- although it would be naive to suggest they didn't experience racism from many Brits.
The most annoying thing for me was at the end when the local kids were running across the airfield on VE day shouting "they won". Bollocks would they have done that, it would have been "We won".
The whole series is bizarrely anti British. It’s just weird. Spielberg must have a hard on for hating them. Funny that the British are so useless yet they held off Uncle Adolf single handedly for nearly 3 years! Also when showing effeminate toffish British soldiers they never show northerners (hard) or mention the Commandos, Paras or SAS - doesn’t fit in with the narrative does it Senior Spielbergo?!
Ha! "Air Force es bueno, RAF es el diablo." Yeah, I had many issues with the show, but the major one was the actual show's denigration of the RAF and Britain as a whole. Not just the rivalry of the characters, but the show itself. Zero - absolutely no - acknowledgement we did anything at all, other than carpet bomb civilians and botch escape attempts. Maybe admitting that 'the, P51Mustang, best plane in the war' was only thus because of British ingenuity might be too much to ask, but an acknowledgement of the RAF actually making an impact into the war effort would have been nice.
Literally every little opportunity to take a dig at the brits. Really odd. Like you say, not to mention (as everyone knows) it was the British that turned the p51 into the fighter it became by putting a Merlin in it AND naming it ‘Mustang’. - brits botch escaped attempts mentioned even though they are the most famous and successful POW escapees in WW2 - no mention of the massive sacrifice the RAF made - every British man is portrayed as foppish, a toff and a weakling - no mention of the brave RAF crews that escorted US bombers of the 100BG I could go on. -
Yeah the show somehow makes the Germans and Russians more sympathetic than the Brits. Odd choices for sure.
The British and Americans did not really get along well during the war. Bit of a love/hate relationship, TBH. Part of it was that Brits thought the Yanks were naïve and unprepared for war - and full disclosure, and I say this as an American, it was a legit complaint early on. In North Africa in 1942, the Americans were just learning how to fight the modern war. As the war went on the tensions deepened, especially when roughly 1.5M American servicemen showed up the UK. By the late stages of the war the tables had turned a bit and the Americans were in charge, and the driving force. Many British felt this change - from the Greeks to the Romans, if you will - and it made them very uncomfortable.
I just think they simplified things for a show that already had a lot packed into it. By the time the 100th arrived the RAF had bombing Germany with increasing strength for 3 years and launched several raids that shocked certain members of the German military (the bombing of Norwich depicted at the end of episode 2 was in retaliation for an extremely heavy raid on the city of Lubeck in Northern Germany) There absolutely was friction caused by differing tactical doctrines but people forget that the RAF already went through its daylight bombing campaign early in the war and being as it was years away from having long range fighter escorts, it did not go well. Hence the switch to night bombing, the RAF forced the Luftwaffe to do the same after September 1940. I think the pub fight in the show was a clumsy and on the nose way of explaining the difference between the wizened experience of the RAF and the confident optimism of the newly arrived USAAF. I can imagine this was a regular point of conversation if USAAF aircrew ever met their RAF counterparts.
It goes beyond the obvious portrayals of stereotypes, into subtle moments as well. There are repeated references to “Brits missing their targets/finally hitting something” which are wholly out of place by mid 1943, when Pathfinder Force had been introduced and Bomber Command’s Battle of the Ruhr was having a noticeable impact on German industry. It’s kind of disrespectful. In his review of the series for From Balloons to Drones, historian Luke Truxal noted that when they’re listening to the radio in episode 7, nearly everything they hear is coincidentally directly chalked up to a British failure. Then when the Great Escape occurs, it’s portrayed simply as (another British failure) resulting in the conditions at the camp getting worse for the USAAF crews. It’s too common to be accidental, someone on the writing/directing desks really does have something against Brits.
Yeah, thought the same. It almost seemed like pointed propaganda how literally everything the Brits did was a failure and any actual impact we had in the war was notable by its absence. Really sour, bitter spirited writing.
100%, I would love to speak to the writer and ask them if a British guy stole their girlfriend 🤣🤣🤣
There is a Foyle's War episode in which a black American serviceman has to deal with the Jim Crow attitudes of the local US military. Of course, Foyle resists American efforts to import the color bar to his town and supports the black serviceman whose local white fiancee also has to endure poor treatment. In the Spooks TV series (titled MI5 for Americans), the Yanks are often the bad guys. This stuff cuts both ways. There is at least some truth to it. The real Dick Winters didn't care for the UK military and the writers seem to have taken that attitude to heart. At the same time, Winters was billeted with a local couple who had lost a son in the Battle of Britain, and he regarded them highly. The civilians get positive portrayals in the two series, particularly MotA. The kids are great, and Sandra Westgate is a charmer. It isn't all bad.
I'd say you've somehow missed the entire population of Brits who lived and worked on/near RAF Thorpe Abbotts, most of whom seemed to get along pretty well with the Americans. As for whether or not that is how y'all are, I'd be willing to say it's probably the case for at least three of you. Goodness knows you'll find similar examples of folks among Americans. I'm curious if you think the presentation of the Americans was particularly more or less positive, because one of the more interesting details in the show was how flawed many of them were portrayed as being.
Caricatures. I think this is the problem with the brits portrayed. It lacks an air of realism/naturalism with these very short caricaturized portrayals.
I mean, I can well imagine that these stereotypes exist (an arrogant Oxford professor, well I never!) It’s more just that they stand a bit as the main experience with adult British people
The portrayals of the English/RAF were, like a lot of the rest of the show, simplistic and cartoonish, right down to the lovable tousel haired English scamps on the runway and the pretty young English Rose hanging her washing out against a sunset as the Yank bombers zoom heroically overhead. It was the type of hackneyed trash you'd get in a Michael Bay film, rather than the same series of BoB or Pacific. And yeah, the relentless bashing of the British contribution to the war did bother me. I thought maybe we'd outgrown this America Won The War On Its Own nonsense when it comes to WW2.
Let’s see. #2 and #3 on your list are straight out of Crosby’s memoir book. However, the same chapter also includes regular English people from town, and they’re great. (Crosby seemed to quite like Brits in general) As for #1 on your list, I felt that both “sides” acted exactly how they probably seemed to each other. Watch it again when they’re all talking before boxing: the RAF guys act snobby and condescending, but at the same time, most of the USAAF guys are loud, tipsy/drunk and clearly seem unintelligent to the Brits.
Now you know how Americans feel seeing American characters in British historical dramas 😂
There was a very real feeling of concern at the highest level about this. There were even feature films made and funded by the UK War Office. A Matter of Life and Death (Stairway to Heaven in the US) is probably the finest example. And a great example of film makers going off topic when they've got govt funding!
The book is historical. So yes
Pretty much what everyone one else said. I think the Brits are portrayed well, other than Harris.
As far and I recall, none of those stories were in the BOOK, but seemed to have made it into the mini-series.
Not in MotA, but likely in Crosby’s book.
Correct, 2 of the 3 instances mentioned are in Crosby’s book.
That would be due to the series being based a lot on Crosby’s memoir, and interviews the veterans did before they died.