Personally I don't think there has been any undermining, or attempts to to do so. But I do think there is a place for an examination of the true picture of what was going on at grass roots level.
However, just like any other event or period of history, the
interpretations of the individual historians should be taken into account, and no serious student of history would rely on just one book or source.
For example, a counterbalance to the
Myths of the Blitz seems to be:
Amazon.co.uk: Half the Battle: Civilian Morale in Britain During the Second World War: Books: Robert Mackay Quote:
|
How well did civilian morale stand up to the pressures of total war and what factors were important to it? This work offers a robust rejection of contentions that civilian morale fell a long way short of the favourable picture presented during World War II and in hundreds of books and films ever since. It acknowledges that some negative attitudes and behaviours existed - panic and defeatism, ration-cheating and black-marketeering, looting, absenteeism and strikes - but argues that these involved a very small minority of the population. Robert Mackay demostrates how government policies for the maintainence of morale were put in place, giving special emphasis to the patriotic feeling that held the nation together despite the official pessimistic prognosis in the initial stages of the war.
|
or this one which seems to fall somewhere in the middle of the above two studies:
Amazon.co.uk: The Test of War: Inside Britain, 1939-45 (Warfare and History): Books: Robert Mackay Quote:
|
While it lasted, the Second World War dominated the life of the nations that were involved and most of those that were not. Since Britain was in at both the start and the finish her people experienced the impact of total ar in full measure. The experience was a test of the most comprehensive kind: of the institutions, of the resources, and the very cohesion of the nation. The Test of War by Robert Mackay examines how the nation responded to this test. For a generation after the ending of the war this response was represented as largely unproblematical: faced with mortal threat to their survival the people rallied around their leaders, sank their differences and bore the burdens and sacrifices that were necessary to victory. More recently, demurring voices have challeged this cosy picture by emphasizing negative features of the war as official muddle, low industrial productivity and strikes, the black market, looting and the persistence of hostile class relations. Robert Mackay re-examines these debates, arguing that, for all its imperfections, British society under threat remained vital, cohesive and optimistically creative about its future.
|
I read this article a while back and found it quite interesting:
http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu...and_morale.pdf Quote:
|
ABSTRACT Following September 11 in the US and July 7 in the UK, the threat to civilians from terrorist attack has become real yet considerable disagreement exists about how people might respond. The effect of aerial bombing on the public’s morale during the Second World War and the incidence of psychiatric casualties have been explored to provide reference points for the current terrorist threat. Systematic study of restricted government investigations and intelligence reports into the effect of air-raids on major British towns and contemporary medical publications have shown that panic was a rare phenomenon and arose in defined circumstances. Morale fluctuated according to the intensity of attacks, preparedness and popular perceptions of how successfully the war was being conducted. Resilience was in part a function of the active involvement of the public in its own defence but also reflected the inability of German bombers to deliver a concentrated attack over a wide area. Most civilians, by their very numbers, were likely to survive. Inappropriate or excessive precautionary measures may serve to weaken society’s natural bonds and, in turn, create anxious and avoidant behaviour. Weapons that tap into contemporary health fears have the greatest psychological impact. Efforts by government to engage the public not only build trust but may also make an effective contribution to the campaign against terrorism.
|