Britain: Bans, Survival, Inclusivity

This chapter focused comparatively on local community and non-mainstream press in addition to the Kent experience prior to D. Day. It was the changing allied fortunes in the progress of the war that had the strongest influence on all occupied countries and a contrasting effect on the home front in Britain’s community newspaper publishing. How far does close reading of local and community print coverage extend scholars’ understanding of the wartime role of media? D Day preparations took place at certain key locations. But what did the local press discuss within the context of censorship? How far did the intelligence-led allied strategy impact upon a broad range of print communications prior to and during D Day? Despite censorship and bans on news coverage of troop movements in Britain, was there still potential for print communications? The bottom-up media landscape, as this chapter outlines, was obviously different here. The chapter starts by revisiting from the newspaper standpoint, the ‘deception’ narrative that was so carefully and intricately devised to ensure that Hitler continued to believe that the Allies, in their imminent invasion of Europe, would land in the Pas de Calais, not Normandy. This was secrecy and deception from ‘above’, that is, at top government level, but as a matter of contrast, this chapter focuses instead on various manifestations of ‘bottom-up’ newspapers as examples of what has been called ‘The People’s War’. Analysis focuses on the context as well as wider implications for the characterisation of writing. In Britain, as in occupied Europe, a group participation was developed through collaborative newspaper production, encouraging morale amongst participators as contributors and readers, which in turn helped them to face the realities of war. Yet there are many obvious contrasts to be noted. In Nazi occupied Europe newspaper inclusion was achieved with the support of political structures for oppositional publishing, but in Britain the community spirit that accompanied the writing was one that was engendered by loyalty to the war effort rather than politics. This latter is illustrated by a cameo overview of civil defence publishing, accompanied by analysis of Britain’s local press that both demonstrate a popular, national unity of purpose. This is contrasted with a far better resourced (from official American defence circles) and impressive production achievement of forces publishing in theatres of conflict. In stark difference, an analysis of one journalist’s dissent, published in London, but also with wide impact, raises issues of press freedom. Such cameo studies demonstrate how the boundaries of journalism were challenged and stretched in unpredictable ways.