A recent re-examination of the term reveals the enduring need for collective strength.
The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) recently revisited its definition of “Blitz Spirit”, prompted by a petition arguing its initial entry – focusing on stoicism and a stiff upper lip – was too narrow and actively obscured the crucial elements of mutual aid and community solidarity that actually characterised the British response to the bombing raids of 1940-41. The debate, reported widely this week, isn’t about erasing history, but about ensuring a fuller, more accurate understanding of how people behaved under immense pressure. The OED has now added a secondary definition that acknowledges the vital role of neighbourly support, collective action, and even quiet resistance to hardship.
The Spirit in Action
The petition for a revised definition, and the OED’s subsequent response, weren’t driven by academic curiosity alone. It reflects a present-day questioning of how we talk about resilience, particularly in the wake of the pandemic, cost-of-living crisis and ongoing challenges facing the NHS. The original OED definition, while not wrong, carried a certain national mythologising – a romanticised image of individual fortitude that felt increasingly out of step with a society grappling with systemic issues.
The updated definition rightly acknowledges that the “Blitz Spirit” wasn’t simply about keeping calm, but about kindness and co-operation. It speaks to the ARP wardens checking on vulnerable neighbours, the shared air raid shelters forging unexpected bonds, and the widespread willingness to help strangers rebuild their lives after a night of bombing. This is the spirit that powered the Women’s Voluntary Services, coordinating support networks across the country, or prompted ordinary citizens to open their homes to those left homeless. The crucial addition to the definition isn’t a dismissal of individual courage, but a correction of the historical record – an assertion that collective action, not stoic isolation, defined the era.
Echoes of 1940
The debate over ‘Blitz Spirit’ feels particularly relevant now because we are being asked to navigate hardships – though of a fundamentally different nature. The shared trauma of aerial bombardment fostered a visceral immediacy of need. Today’s challenges – economic pressure, a struggling healthcare system – are often slower-burning, less visibly dramatic, and have roots in complex political and economic forces. This makes collective response harder to mobilise.
During the Blitz, there was a clear enemy, a shared goal of survival, and a powerful sense of national unity, however manufactured at times. That focussed energy isn’t easily replicated in the face of austerity or political disagreement. Furthermore, the “Blitz Spirit” narrative conveniently glossed over the hardship, rationing, loss, and long-term psychological trauma endured by so many. It also excluded the experiences of those who didn’t fit the ‘nation’ being defended – colonial subjects, Black Britons, and others. However, the core principle – looking out for those around you – remains profoundly important, and the revised OED definition serves as a valuable reminder of that.
A Legacy of Support
The OED’s decision is a small but significant act. It’s a recognition that resilience isn’t merely a personal trait, but a communal one, built on networks of care and mutual support. It pushes us to move beyond the platitudes of “Keep Calm and Carry On” and into the hard work of actively ensuring that no one is left to face hardship alone. Perhaps revisiting this definition helps us understand that the ‘spirit’ is not something from the past to be invoked, but a living value continually needing cultivation. Check on your neighbours. Support local community groups. Remember that collective strength is always greater than isolated stoicism.
Source: The Truth About the Oxford English Dictionary definition of Blitz Spirit (filename based).
