This source2 is a speech Churchill said before the battle of Britain commenced. He honestly if not exaggerates the significance of Frances defeat and states how even though Hitler will turn all his might towards Britain, they had to conquer him or leave the world as they knew it in his evil hands. His words are full of bravado and express the seriousness of the situation in a very poetical way that would of connected to an audience in a positive manner, as they would sum up courage and give people a sense of their own personal importance.
He mentions subjects that would be deep in the minds of many people at this unsettled time and would have had an emotional impact; survival, Christian civilization, failure, duty, and freedom. It seems he intends this speech to trigger a certain attitude in people to resist the enemy in order to save all that is good, this idea is related to god and insinuates that it is the British peoples divine duty to pull together and fight what is being summoned against them. Churchill ends the speech with the memorable phrase “this was their final hour”, this is extremely moving line as it shows how he believes that in the whole of Britain’s history the coming battle is the most crucial, it also indicates the hope and faith he has in his people to be victorious despite the odds.
The confidence Churchill asserts in the public would have filtered through the different classes etc and would have aided that sense of unity and also reduced differences as even people at home felt they had a mission that could be shared with every one.
The issue of social status and identity was not considered in these supposed desperate circumstances. But there were always sceptics to a view of such solidarity as this and the government and civilians were not oblivious to the hardship that would follow an announcement that left such a definite and profound impression.
This does not hide the fact that people were obviously horrified by the destruction and many accounts describe the gruesome affects bombs had when hitting people. These sights would unquestionably have an immense impact on ordinary people who might not have ever seen a dead person. But many people were confronted with these events so people learned to cope as a group as they could share burdens and pains.
Source3 B6 is an account of the Blitz by a member of the first aid post. It was written on 14 September 1940, this is a primary source as it was produced during the Blitz and is a recollection of this persons experience dealing with the a church containing many people sheltering being blown up and how he had to recover bodies. The account is very moving partly because it is so matter of fact and bluntly honest, it doesn’t describe things with great emotion and particularly detailed but states how it looked and felt simply, the sentences are short indicating he is only saying what is necessary to record his point. This makes all the words he writes more prominent
The beginning states how being a church people preferred it and thought it was safe, suggesting that people believed god would protect them, this comment is very poignant and bitter and portrays how unfair he thought it was. The fact he doesn’t mention that they died, yet it is so obvious by the way he says ‘so it was full when the bomb fell’ also shows how difficult it was for him to write about. It later describes vividly the stench and how it made you realise all the pieces were once living, and how there was a ghastly satisfaction with reconstructing the bodies but how sad it was when pieces were missing. These observations and feelings can only be properly conveyed by someone who has experienced it, as most people would regard the ‘satisfaction’ as grotesque, yet, this is how he dealt with the situation.
The account seemingly has no outside induced purpose other than to record a significant event, this is evident as there are no political or social innuendos or opinions that would influence other people. It was produced for personal use and not to be published publicly so is not affected by the expectations of others.
This source is useful in the respect that it gives a clear image of the sought of catastrophes people had to deal with, however this event seems to be chosen as it is particularly distressing so was probably not that common. It is also an example of how someone felt personally even if they didn’t admit it at the time as some of the comments would have seemed too hideous or inappropriate. Being a first hand account it was made shortly after and the facts and visual memories would be clear in the persons mind, so I deem the description reliable.
It is also useful as we have an incite of how people as a group managed to keep strong and continue their allotted jobs despite the terribleness of the situation. This is suggested in ‘unless we kept a very firm grip on ourselves nausea was inevitable’.
Many people felt they were fighting against the Germans simply by carrying on amidst the devastation. This man was obviously brave to try and prepare the bodies for burial and must have felt a strong duty to his people and country to carry out such a task. Being part of the First Aid Post also suggests he supported his country, as it was a government-organised enterprise. This source agrees with Taylor as it shows hardship and suffering but is much more specific, it also shows that people were dealing with the bombing and were working together. However, there is no sense of real unity between people, at this point the man doesn’t regard the connection he has with others important as he is recollecting the horror of the bombing and is certainly not speaking positively as his descriptions are very gloomy.
Source B4 is a table of data showing the total civilians killed by raids up to 1942 in the major town centres of Coventry, Birmingham, Bristol, Sheffield and Manchester, it also estimates the amount of enemy planes engaged on the specific nights of raids. The source is an extract from ‘The twentieth century’ by J Hamer 1980. It’s purpose is to inform readers of the actual amounts deceased due just to air raids, to highlight the affect bombing had on the cities so we can predict the broader scale impact this might have on people living there.
Being in a modern text book the figures are unlikely to be exaggerated and the numbers dead seem very specific and accurate and are not estimates, suggesting people were very precise in finding all the dead and did not neglect their duties to their comrades during the raids. The number of planes seems to be rounded to the nearest 50, also showing authenticity of facts, as it would have been nearly impossible to record the amount of planes in pitch-black darkness.
The source shows that bombing was obviously working in the aspect of killing innocent people, but the ratio of planes used and people dying in total is about 1:2, which is very minimal and is a lot less than either Germany or Britain expected. For Britain predicted millions of casualties due to bombing and thus retaliated by the huge evacuation plan and precautions.
The source is useful factually but does not really give us an incite into how people were really suffering with their losses. Possibly the low numbers of deceased show that the country was fairly unified, fore if they were all panicking and not being sensible many more would have died in the air raids. But it is hard to judge any of the facts against anything Taylor says in his summary.
In school we watched a documentary produced by Cruickshank, it expresses his view on the Blitz. He supported the fact that there was hardship and suffering. This was his main emphasis and he was trying to portray all the factors that affected the hardship people experienced during the Blitz in London. He has a very specific way of proving his point as he picks out single events and individual accounts. He tries to indicate how problems within our own government and ruler ship caused some tragic and shameful events. Much of the evidence he provides contradicts Taylor’s general view of the countries unity and shows how the suffering affected people deeply enough to alter their normal reactions and create resentment and anger between people. However some of the information indicates how people managed to be resourceful and deal with the bombing and destruction successfully.
There was a section in the film where it describes the terrible conditions people had to endure whilst cramped in the underground stations in London. It explained how unhygienic and uncivilised it was, as there was no proper technique of disposing waste and excrement or privacy. It also rose as an issue, a fight that occurred where over 100 people were actually trampled on in the stampede. It also highlighted the presence of many viruses’ that passed through the congested claustrophobic tunnels. This is backed up by aural interviews, which support the description of the horrific conditions and the limited equipment showing the lack of organisation in the tunnels.
However,Cruikshank balances his view by showing an interview with a elderly man who had experienced life in the tunnels and thought although it was unhygienic, generally people worked extremely well together considering the amount and diversity that were cramped together. He spoke of how some people’s actions and manner shocked him and how he and the majority of others coped with it. This aural memory of the time is interesting as it represents what an ordinary child would have thought about the tunnels and that despite the uncomfortable environment people managed quite well.
This extract of the Video would correspond with Taylor’s summary as it explains there was hardship but people first coped with the situation at hand, secondly managed to live with people of different backgrounds and classes, and thirdly could work together relatively peacefully. The only major reason this source differs is it is a personal account and does not recognise a majorities point of view as Taylor suggests in his statement.
The video also went into detail on how dangerous and pointless many of the commercial shelters were and how they were constructed cheaply. The design was supposedly very solid but the mortar used crumbled under the huge vibrations from the bombs, thus making them unstable and unsafe, there were several reports of shelters collapsing causing many casualties. The fact that the common people were given these makeshift huts and many of the rich were allowed to dwell in plush protective residences like the Savoy hotel in London angered people.
There were protests against this unfair treatment and hostility towards the monarchy, thus increasing class distinction. These factors fractioned the people especially in the large cities where the rich and poor lived in close proximity. The disturbances being on a large scale and a shocking nature were published and highlighted the division between classes for those who were poverty stricken and found no compensation in what seemed a hypocritical society. The fact the queen is shown as visiting areas of unrest e.g. the east end and declaring how she was going to improve their conditions and protection and then nothing was done about it indicates how some people had right to be bitter to the government and monarchy.
This source contains multiple facts but most interestingly suggests how much of the suffering was exemplified by our own countries shoddy and crude protection and that there was a lot of hardship at home that people never realised or concentrated on because the battle suffering on the continent was more prominent. This source attempts to enlighten the audience to how people at home were dealing with their own difficulties caused by the German bombers and heightened due to bad leadership.
But also shows how there was unity as people were helping each other and the government was trying to meet the demands and expectations of the people e.g. creating millions of shelters. The video shows an interview with two men during the war who explain how people cooperated and invited strangers into their homes and were learning to accept the differences between each other. This footage agrees with Taylor’s comments about strengthened national unity and reduces differences.
In whole Cruikshanks review of the home front is more personal than Taylor’s summary so is going to express a more mixed opinion. But by selecting only a few examples to suggest his opinion it cannot be a full interpretation of the bombing raids effect on people. Being a video for television it is understandable that it would have to be shocking in some respect to focus people’s attention, but also shows it has to be factually correct. Although this detailed research gives a rather gloomy perspective it does show how ordinary people managed to deal with their troubles as a unit and not suffer in silence. I think the main underlying aspect of this video concurs with A.J.P’s suggestion of unity, but focuses on the suffering greatly as well to demonstrate the resilience and resourcefulness of the common people.
A.J.P. Taylor states that in the long term the air raids strengthened national unity and reduced the difference between people and also the idea of people being able to take it. Many of the sources I have studies would support this opinion. Volunteered aural accounts published on the Internet of people’s personal experiences often show a feeling of communal unity, despite appalling events happening to them.
However many of these accounts were memories of children in the war written 50 years later, so are possibly not as reliable due to the memories ability to alter traumatic events and general degeneration of the mind over time. (A diary written at the time is likely to be more factually accurate) If a person experiences something horrific or a great loss of some sought, they can edit the more uncomfortable issues e.g. anger, blame, hatred and emphasise the sadness instead as it is more bearable and understandable to a reader who does not know the whole situation.
This source is a selection of extracts from longer accounts that suggest either a sense of people being able to continue properly despite the awfulness of the situation or the ways in which people helped each other in times of need. Extract 2 contradicts the others in the way it shows the person had nightmares even 50 years later so there fore did not recover or learn to accept the past totally, but the fact she can admit this to the public indicates her willingness to show she survived. Extract 1 is the end of one particular memory in which the person thought every thing was ok really. By this point however he is realising that it was ‘frightening after all’. This person although saying he was scared also knows that was not the entirety of his experience and insinuates that during the war he did not think about being horrified but dealt with his feelings. It wasn’t until he grew older that the memories were terrible.
Extracts 4 and 5 agree with A.J.P totally as they are examples of children enjoying their war experiences. 4 describes how in the shelters with the teachers they were allowed special novelties like sweets and singing songs and fewer lessons due to teachers being away. This shows this person had fond memories of enjoying air raid scares. 5 indicates how neighbours helped each other with out question and there fore were able to succeed in the tasks they took on as everyone assisted, supporting A.J.P’s ideas of unity and reduces differences.
Source 3 explains how some people reacted badly to the terrible situations confronted by the bombing as the women in the extract could not be consoled but also showed how the writer of this account had tried to help and had obviously not broken down when faced with horror.
Source D5 is a punch cartoon from May 1st 1940 and queries national unity at this stage of the war. It is a detailed tableau of a street with various uniformed figured in it. It is quite a bleak and uninviting with it’s straight blunt lines and no sense of celebration or amusement. It’s uniform appearance puts a rather sour view on the idealistic view of unity the government portrayed at this point.
There are two people near the front of the scene who appear to be talking they have grumpy, disgruntled expressions, one is gesturing as though speaking about an important issue. The below speech says “ nearly eight months this wars been on and what do we have to show for it” He is obviously not satisfied with the war situation and sees no benefit in all the efforts and preparation being made. This sceptical view is accentuated by the fact he and his companion are the only ones in non-uniform, showing there’s also a difference between people. All the other people are facing away, which also suggests they are not associated with them.
By the fairly rich attire they are wearing we can guess the two men are well off and of an important social position, this is significant because it shows that not just the poverty stricken people were unhappy.
The angry slightly pompous phrase seems to be trying to point the blame. This can be deciphered by all the government signs for A.F.S and first aid post in the street and how these new organisations appear to be taking priority of things. The irony in the propaganda “ you cheerfulness will bring us to victory” and then the actual entertaining theatre being closed and the men’s glum faces, explain how not everything is as happy and unified as the government would choose to promote.
The accusative and sarcastic rhetorical question is answered by the dismal and totally controlled scenery behind them and suggests that there is nothing directly positive other than a sense of grim discipline and duty. This sought of totalitarian environment is what the country is supposed to be fighting against. The other poster says,” lend to defend the right to be free” yet there seems to be no diversity and freedom in this street. The charismatic propaganda appears to exaggerate the optimistic side of the story, and the rest of the cartoon indicates a more negative view as the reality of the war situation in cities.
This cartoon was probably a controversial article at the period as during the war most of the media was censored to filter out events that might argue against government plans or lower public moral and government support. The government desperately wanted to create national unity in order to combat Hitler to the fullest capacity, as they knew his was the most powerful side. They needed the mass’s support to produce munitions, save food for soldiers as imports were not present (due to Germans gaining supremacy over the seas to the east and south of Britain), save lives with good community co-operations, keep the economic infra structure working with industries being kept afloat, and generally help where ever possible with the war effort.
The punch was a politically aware cartoon and liked to represent a serious alternative point of view in a humorous satirical manner that appealed to the population. It is an important article as it shows there was a minority of people who thought similarly and also others who would be influenced by it’s pessimistic message of the war as it was a popular cartoon.
This cartoon opposes Taylor’s analysis by visually showing a possible incite of a typical city street. All the evidence of unified success is present i.e. sign posts for government organisations helping the British cause, positive propaganda to motivate people, citizens looking busy in uniforms, but the fundamental flaw is the unhappy faces and atmosphere that clearly indicates however hard the government try and persuade people everything’s all right it can’t possible be, because the country is at war.
This scene is unreliable as a factual basis to the way people thought because it is a fabrication of one persons view and was also created for a particular audience so is likely to be biased. However, it shows the country was not totally unified as people were disagreeing with the government.
Other reports written just after particularly damaging events show a severe lack of positive morale and people not co-operating and acting irrationally with unorganised behaviour. Source D3 is two unconnected accounts which both express the writers experience with groups of people during bombing as “hysteria”
The fact there are two different accounts expressing the same evidence, support the claims against the supposed unity. The same feeling was presented to two different parties of people at separate occasions; this signifies they weren’t just freak incidents.
However, both were written just after a bombing occurrence so this gives little indication of the long-term affects it had on people, as people recover over time. There fore the source cannot properly argue against A.J.P’s statement.
Source D31 describes the response to an air raid as having a tremendous impact on people leaving them speechless. This intensity of emotional reaction would most likely have a long-term affect on a person. There fore this sentence indirectly disagrees with A.J.P’s idea of national unity as these people had been deeply distressed and had not seeked solace or companionship in the circumstances.
The source also explains how there was signs of “suppressed panic”, this contradicts A.J.P again as it shows they were scared of what might happen the next night and that in fact they could not take it.
Source D32 depicts a division in opinions between the newspapers so called fabricated version of an undisturbed way of life continuing in the East end where extensive bombing had taken place during 1940 and a local officials observations of no phones, electricity or basic foods.
The man is clearly angered as he called the newspapers allegations grotesque. This source suggests that many people in this area were unsatisfied by the government’s ruler ship and firm control over the press. This source was written in 1940 and it’s purpose was to report conditions in the East end. Being a local official he is probably genuinely concerned about the people of this area and wants to give them the justice they deserve.
During this time there had been various protests and riots in the poorer East end of London for proper shelters that equalled the richer citizens in adequacy, they felt unfairly treated and demanded the same safety precautions as those who were wealthy and could afford the extra security. This showed how the separate classes were still considered different and divided socially, thus disagreeing with A.J.P’s idea of reduces differences.
D32shows how a single person reporting for normal working class civilians was sceptical of the newspapers initiatives and thought they were wrong in their views on peoples way of life during the raids. It also implies how the newspapers were capable of being biased and trying to hide the truth of the situation, showing that simply informing the public about events wasn’t their only motive for writing.
Source C2 is an example of a photo published in the daily herald 9th September 1940. It contains a scene of utter destruction caused by the previous nights extensive bombing. In the centre is a man proudly waving the union jack over a heap of rubble. This photo sends a strong message over to the viewer of how brave and stubborn a person can be when faced with such a hopeless situation. In reality this would be a rare occurrence for a person to be so optimistic and patriotic after his home or street had just been destroyed. This scene was obviously captured to portray an image that would make people think and notice, even if it was not what a normal civilian would do. With out a word you get the sense the photographer is trying to make an example of this person by showing the British people would not give up.
This is an important source in the respect it is reliable in it’s content so is not lying or exaggerating a fact. However the truth cleverly disguises the actual motive for choosing this particular scene. It attempts to manipulate the reader by showing a scene that would activate an emotion of pride and relation to a fellow Brit and also intensify the bitter hateful feelings against the German bombers. the fact the man is flying the British flag is symbolic to the idea of, if British people could survive this they could survive anything.
The government used the media at this time to influence public opinion, rally support and generally keep morale high. This was an effective method, as most people read the papers during the war to keep up with all the news (in a similar way to listening to the radio). Even if people were pessimistic at the government they thought they could trust the press, as it was the only wide spread way of accessing news. By showing what havoc the Germans were doing as well as the overview of British success and survival people thought they had the whole story and were less likely to complain about inaccurate reports as the photos gave distinct images of the carnage.
This source is a clear indication of how some people were able to take the suffering and rise above it, so there fore agrees with Taylor. It also shows what an important role the press played in maintaining public morale, as this popular national newspaper would not have been successful if people did not want to buy it. It shows how people could take it, but as it doesn’t explain the picture in any sense it cannot really give us an idea of whether this was the state of mind of the whole British people or just one person who might even have been brought in as a modal. There fore it is impossible to prove how reliable this photo is.
Source C4 also shows several reports in the Daily Herald where people had avoided injury despite the perilous circumstances and continued on with their normal way of life with out hesitation. All the stories are jolly and seem to be purposefully taken the threat of German bombing for granted. These stories, published all together and all with the same jovial attitude show how the press were trying to encourage people to accept the bombing and practically laugh in the face of danger.
This type of propaganda could relate to people on a personal level as it had a relevance to the readers life. It was intented to influence the reader and hopefully help boost public morale. This source also backs up the incentive of the previous source as well and shows the varying methods in which the government and media tried to make the country unified.
In school we watched an episode of Dad’s Army, which is based around a group of local defence volunteers who’s duty was to be prepared encase of invasion. The group of mainly elderly men are particularly disciplined and have taken the initiative to do their own training and consider their actions a very serious and important matter.
This show was first created long after the war when it was politically correct to laugh at some of the stereotypical images created during the war. Dad’s army is a satirical view of what the civil defence was like during the war. Coincidently the title; Dad’s army refers what they were called at the time, due the fact they were often people to old to enter combat and although they were supposed to be defending the country they had no equipment or skills to deal with an invasion. Because of these factors they were often seen as a bit of a joke anyway.
During this episode you realise this community is undisturbed and devoid of any turmoil considering the country was at war. The fact the priest was more worried about his garden than helping the soldiers showed his lack of concern for the war effort, and his uncooperative nature also indicates he has little respect for the home guard or national unity. Being in a rural village the home guard almost doesn’t belong as they were in little danger, there fore it is easy to laugh at the soldiers trying to commit to strict exercise, as it is not appropriate in the circumstances.
The title song ‘who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler’ is an example of government Propaganda trying to raise the morale of soldiers, as this was composed for this purpose during the war. It basically implies that Hitler must be joking if he intends to invade Britain. This song is proved in the fact that the people in the village are totally unconcerned by the threat the war poses and even find their own defence annoying. The fact the group of soldiers are utterly pathetic at all they intend to do this is even more hilarious as they are the only people unoblivious to the threat of war, yet they cannot do anything correctly.
The whole program seems to be ridiculing the effort the government made to introduce the home guard and shows how many in rural communities probably felt totally unconnected to all the grand propaganda and war initiatives and survived quite adequately on their own. It also goes against the ideals the government wanted to achieve of national unity because even a righteous person like the priest could not be bothered to help out the home guard. This also indicates the village also survived well with out government intervention anyway, so the home guard was useless.
This is a difficult source to analyse in comparison to A.J.P’s statement as it is bound to be bias due to its comedy fashion. However, many of the facts about the home guard, including their duties and attitude and equipment are based on truth and extensive research had obviously gone into this program to make it appear fairly realistic.
There fore this source can be seen as opposing the ideas of national unity because people were not working together, but the idyllic village seemed contented anyway. So it is more questioning the point of the home guard than disagreeing with the supposed national unity at this time. It agrees with A.J.P at some level for it shows that these people were happy during the war, so they could blatantly ‘take it’
I have compared all my source analyses and come to a mixed conclusion on the justification of A.J.P Taylor’s view on the impact bombing had on the British people.
It is very certain that people, especially in the cities suffered a great deal, but it seems in the majority of cases they learned to cope with their personal trauma’s and in many cases people co-operated and helped one another. However, some reports challenge this opinion but saying how people still are damaged by the affects of bombing to this very day and that sometimes people after bombing attacks lost hope and became hysterical proving they were unable to deal with the situation.
I think the fact A.J.P does not mention the important role propaganda and media played in keeping up morale leaves out a major point that would assist his argument. Also, if he had asserted the fact that his statement was based on a majority and not simply the whole of Britain, he could have justified his opinion more accurately.
The issue about reduced differences is also hard to decipher, fore it covers such a huge range of possibilities e.g. race, class, sex, age etc. Certainly the war reduced some differences and due to its catastrophic effect on the country as a whole was bound to increase the rate of the gradual growing equality. But in some cases where people were treated differently over an important matter, the differences, particularly in class became more apparent.
A.J.P clearly states how people believed that with a positive attitude they could win the war. This type of comment would apply to Britain at this time as they did all have a common enemy, and most people would obviously think that by showing your not scared you can begin to win the moral fight even if in the battle you are loosing. The fact they were in a total war meant everyone was involved in some way also.
Over all I think A.J.P Taylor was fairly justified in his summary, even if he did not include the inevitable inconsistencies that would occur if considering the feelings of a whole nation at one time.