From The Economist's Charlemagne blog:
From the archive - June the Sixth - The Economist
The following leader was published on the cover of The Economist on June 10th 1944, following the D-Day landings of June 6th.
FOUR years ago almost to a day the last man was taken off the beaches at Dunkirk. Then, under a pitiless and unopposed German bombardment from the air, the shattered remnants of an Allied army, without stores, without food, without equipment, were rescued from Europe in tugs and trawlers and yachts and rowing boats, in any odd scratch vessel that could make the Channel crossing. This is the picture of defeat and disarray which today can be set against the massive pageant of invasion—the armadas of 4,000 and 6,000 ships, the great armies equipped to the last detail of mechanised armament, the Allied air forces in thousands of sorties raking the French skies empty of all German opposition. It is a tremendous and exhilarating contrast, and in the first hour of relief and jubilation it is only right that the British people should offer their thanks to the one man who, before all, is responsible for the greatest reversal of fortune in this island’s history. Mr Churchill is the supreme architect of this achievement. It was his leadership and inspiration that made possible Britain’s resolve in 1940 “to ride out the storm of war and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary alone.” It was his vision on the very morrow of Dunkirk that saw the forging of a future alliance, the new world stepping forth “with all its power and might ” to the liberation of the old, the rallying of the world against tyranny, the long struggle and the final success. This, in June, 1940, was not an easy or an obvious vision. When Mr Churchill said....MUCH MORE
we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air . . . . whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills. . . .he spoke in terms only of defence and of no surrender. But his words had a prophetic ring, and now indeed Britain and its Allies fight on the landing grounds and on the beaches, not on British soil, but on the liberated soil of Europe. If there is any one man of whom it can be said that he won this war, that man is Mr. Churchill.
The vision was his, but it could not have been fulfilled without the forging of the Grand Alliance and the enormous efforts and sacrifices of Britain’s friends. If British armies can enter the Continent in such strength and so well equipped, it is because the Americans are at their side and the flood of American war production has helped lavishly to swell their armament. And if they face a German army and a German air force reduced to a shadow of their former strength, it is because the Russians have whittled away Germany’s military strength by their own stupendous sacrifices. The Russian cry for a Second Front was always a cry of bitterest need, and now that the Second Front has come, it is only fitting that the Allies in the West should recognise the scale of their obligation to Russia’s efforts on the Eastern front. But gratitude is the last thing the Russians want. They want heavy blows, hard fighting and rapid victory. The British and Americans are now in a position to repay their debt to Russia in the best and most acceptable coin.
Even if the Great Powers have been the chief engineers of Germany’s deepening defeat, in the next weeks, the nations of Western Europe will bear the full brunt of the fighting. The hour for their active participation has not yet come, and all the Allied leaders have warned their peoples against premature uprisings which would lead to a loss of life and effort before the crisis is reached. But even during the passive phase, the peoples of Western Europe will be one of the factors in Allied victory. Their bearing under bombardment, their discipline in the midst and in the rear of the advancing armies have military importance, just as, in the past, their refusal to accept the New Order and their four years’ underground struggle have been military factors of the highest significance. To them, too, the Allies owe a tremendous debt and one which they will pay only in part by the act of liberation. Inevitably the Allies’ tanks and artillery and transport will add to the destruction which Allied bombing has begun. As passive or active agents in their own liberation, the peoples of Western Europe are paying a heavy price. It is not enough to free them. Behind the guns must come the food lorries and the mobile canteens. The physical basis of reconstruction barely exists in some areas. Invasion threatens to overlap the narrow margin of subsistence. The Allies will need to act vigorously if their friends are not to be liberated only to starve. Much, too, will depend upon the behaviour of the invading armies.
The lessons taught by the Italian campaign on the dangers of overspending by the troops have presumably been learnt, and while it is too much to hope that men worn out from battle will always be the surest ambassadors of good will, each unit could at least go out with some instruction on the degree to which good behaviour, good discipline, good humour and kindliness can oil the wheels of occupation and lay the foundations of lasting friendship. Britain and America are, with whatever tact and reserve they may be compelled to act, in some sense the trustees of the future political freedom of the peoples they are liberating....
