It's reasonable for the British to cast an affectionate glance over their shoulders towards what Churchill called 'The Few'. Photograph: PR
At the end of his Today programme discussion on the significance of the Battle of Britain this morning, Professor Norman Davies could be heard calling out: "That was a very British-centric debate."
Well, of course it was. The great air battle was reaching its peak over southern England about now 70 Augusts ago (in much better weather, too), and it is reasonable for the British to cast an affectionate glance over their shoulders towards what Churchill called "The Few".
All countries do it. Just read today's Guardian for a one-sided American perspective on the 2003 invasion of Iraq offered by the last combat troops to roll south towards the safety of Kuwait, leaving just 50,000 "advisers" behind to help – in Nick Clegg's phrase – "hold the fort".
Davies is right, too, mind you. The second world war was fought on every continent, and the role of Britain and its empire in defeating the Axis powers was smaller than that of the US or the Soviet Union. As a Welshman married to a Pole, and a champion of small nations, he's entitled to protest.
But the "sophisticated" view – that the British contribution to victory is routinely exaggerated – somehow misses the point.