1. Wherever possible, direct quotations are presented verbatim, with original spelling, punctuation, and abbreviation. In the case of military terminology, the author hopes that the reader will be able to decipher (for example) such standard forms as ‘rly’ for railway, ‘coy’ for company, or ‘tk’ for tank from the context in which they appear. In a similar vein, units of measurement are generally reported in terms appropriate to the nationality. The British referred to guns by weight of shell (6 pounder, 25 pounder) and calibre in millimetres (75mm, ‘eighty-eight’); whereas the German nomenclature favoured centimetres (7.5cm, 8.8cm; note however that the point is used rather than the German comma for decimals). Both imperial and metric measures of distance are used, as appropriate. For example, if a British unit advanced on a front estimated as ‘two hundred yards’, it would be misleading to record the measure as 200m, yet otiose to give it as 182.88m.
2. The spelling of French place names is often found to vary, even in French-language publications. For consistency (apart from verbatim quotations – see above), place names will be presented exactly as they appear - including hyphenation – on modern maps of the French Institut Géographique National (IGN).
3. English-language history has hitherto tended to anglicize German terms. As a general rule, names of German units, ranks, weapons systems, etc. will herein be presented in German form (again, verbatim quotes excepted). There are several reasons for this. Recent years have seen a ‘creeping’ of German terms (Panzer, Schwerpunkt, Panzerfaust, and even Auftragstaktik) into English-language texts. Adopted piecemeal, this can result in grammatical absurdities (e.g., ‘panzers’ or ‘panzerfausts’ in place of the correct plural forms Panzer and Panzerfäuste). It can mislead, since some German military terms such as ranks are not precisely equivalent to their literal English translations. Worse, in ‘translating’ into English some accounts have perpetrated gross inaccuracies (some of the worst offences commonly being found in photo captions). At a time when increasing use is being made of German sources, by historians of various nationalities writing in various languages, it seems all the more inappropriate to translate original terminology into a confusing muddle of pidgin-German terms. Longer quotes from German sources are of course translated. The author hopes that the reader will feel flattered rather than inconvenienced by these attempts at precision.
4. If the author occasionally refers to the Allied forces involved at GOODWOOD as ‘British’, this is by no means to disparage the part played by the Canadians (and other Commonwealth forces) in the Normandy campaign. From 13 July, 1944, the British Second Army became formally recognized as the ‘British Liberation Army’, with II Canadian Corps under its command throughout GOODWOOD. Only after GOODWOOD was Canadian First Army activated as a separate entity. A great many of the Canadians involved, while taking a pride in the Maple Leaf and owing a primary loyalty to their regiment, would have recognised themselves nevertheless to be an essential part of the British Army.
