Source A2 is the film “Hope and Glory” – a fictional autobiographical account of the war from the eyes of a young boy during the war. In this film, there are air raid sirens, kids screaming, gas masks, bomb shelters, and lots of crying women – and many more, which all depict how Britain was suffering and in hardship during World War One. It was made as a film that people would buy, so it’s not all doom and gloom, it has a sub-plot that makes it more watch-able, yet also detracts from the real message. It’s not very reliable, as it’s the story of a young boy, who after all this time, could have probably forgotten a lot of the details of the war. Although, it still is useful of telling the story of a regular family on the East end of London (the worst hit area in Britain), and how they suffered, but came out of it with quite a reasonably happy ending. Also, apart from when Britain was being bombed, the public suffered from losing their loved ones in the conflict, and with this added to the stress of constant hysteria (Source A3) caused by the bombing, people did suffer. Because of the bombing, food shipments were interrupted, causing rationing to be introduced, hence causing more hardship – and with all the soldiers needing uniforms, clothing was in short supply, so thus added even more hardship with fashionable ladies having to put up with utility clothing or buy goods illegally on the black market.
However, there is evidence that there wasn’t suffering and hardship. Like in “Hope and Glory” with people watching films in the cinema, drinking alcohol and having parties regardless of the news that war had broken out, impatience for the war to start, and men not being scared to join up for the army – and like in World War One, seeing it more as an adventure than putting your life in risk.
People didn’t eat much in the war times, because of rationing, therefore people did suffer in the short-term – but in the long-term, people were fitter and healthier, so had a better quality of life because of that. The war and bombing brought families together, and people’s feeling and emotions were let out, because they were afraid that any day away, they could die. This brought people together, as they knew what people thought, so everything was out in the open. More evidence that there wasn’t suffering and hardship was teenage girls (and mothers) going off with foreign soldiers visiting the country, this means that whilst people were dying away from home, people at home were enjoying themselves by having secret love affairs.
So overall, n the topic of suffering and hardship, AJP Taylor was right, but left out several important facts that could have easily contradicted him, which leads us to think he’s not telling the truth all the time.
Strengthened National Unity and Reduced Differences:
In this section, I will find out if AJP Taylor’s comments about bombing strengthening national unity and reducing differences in Britain are true or not.
In a time of bombing, death and destruction, any sort of coming together at all would be amazing in itself, but for the whole country to be united fully for one cause, and to generally all feel the same about it, is a miracle – but I feel it happened. For example, on the 5th of March 1940, the millionaires Maxine Elliott died and left her best clothes to be cut up and used to make clothes for evacuee children (Source B1), the purpose of the source was to demonstrate to restless poorer people that rich people did care, and were willing to help, thus decreasing the void in class differences. It is reliable as it is told in a newspaper, and on first sight, it seems as a pretty normal run-of-the-mill story, until you look deeper into it. So it is useful for this cause as it tells of how there are reduced differences as rich people are helping poor people – and how it strengthened national unity, by letting charity in, but the people receiving charity still seeing that the rich are suffering too, this lead to empathy for both classes, so people felt closer to one another. This demonstrates how the nation got together for one cause, and also how rich people got together to help up the poor, and the poor helped out the rich by growing their crops and working in factories, providing the goods for the rich to purchase, so the poor could get their much needed money.
Another example is Source B2, the photo of the King and Queen visiting a tube shelter in November 1940, this shows how even the monarchy could get together with the public and be together.
Yet again, “Hope and Glory” (Source A2) is helpful to the argument as it shows that people could all get together and help each other out and stick to the rules, therefore making life easier on everyone else.
However, “Hope and Glory” also projects the image of people not getting along – it just depends on which part of the film you are watching. The bad side to the film is the gang of little boys who go around and destroy everyone’s belongings if their house had been bombed, not realising the effect it might have on the people who’s home it is. Or not considering the fact that neighbours might have been friends, and seeing them destroying their (maybe dead) friends’ belongings smashed for the sake of it would be quite disturbing to them.
Overall, AJP Taylor was correct again, but, like last time, he missed out the important facts about how there was a further separation of classes, as rich people lived in the countryside, but poor people were sitting ducks living in the big cities in terraced houses. So his interpretation is reliable, if you are looking for a biased view saying everything was great.
They Could Take It:
This section will help understand whether AJP Taylor’s interpretation is correct when he said “they could take it” about the bombing in Britain.
Source C1, Newspaper front page (Daily Mail June 30th 1940) describes the bombing as a usual aspect of life with nothing special about it, and especially no hysteria about it. It tells of the damage caused by a bomb dropped the previous night in a back garden. This shows that people could take it, and they did, and as they continuously had to put up with their problems, they eventually got used to it, and then got together and grew as a nation to deal with their problems together, it’s purpose was to comfort people, by saying – “yes, it is normal not to be afraid”, therefore giving the comfort they desire. It’s reliable as the writers of the article are obviously going through the same thing as the public, they live in the houses too, so they’re getting bombed and killed just as much as the rest of the public, therefore it’s useful as it tells someone’s story, who is affected by the war just as much as anyone else – so it comes across as close to the reader, so they can empathise and understand the situation – also strengthening national unity at the same time.
However, AJP Taylor didn’t say about the people who couldn’t take it, and the people who left the country and emigrated. It also doesn’t take into consideration the fact that all the children had been evacuated, therefore the children didn’t die or get injured, because otherwise morale would’ve been very low, and then people definitely wouldn’t be able to “take it” as it is put. This as well as the men away on the war front, this leads to not that many people actually being left in the country, percentage-wise, so therefore this quote generally isn’t the most reliable source.
So overall, AJP Taylor was wrong about “they could take it”, as most of “they” weren’t there. So, as the population was depleted, he couldn’t make that generalization in a reliable manner without possibly being contradicted in just the way I have pointed out.
Conclusion:
AJP Taylor overall was a bit short-sighted in his comments about how Britain coped with the impact of bombing. He seemed to think that everyone was scared and terrified, but pulled through as they believed so much that they could win the war. He seems to demonstrate a lazy attitude towards the whole thing and seems complacent about the issue. He also comes across as quite arrogant by ignoring many people when he conducts his vast generalization about the attitude of people being affected by bombing.
Even if most people could “take it”, lots of people obviously didn’t. The people who died from bombing can’t put their opinion across – and the survivors had to be strong to manage. If they weren’t strong, then they would probably have given up – but with Britain’s legendary “stiff upper lip”, people felt obliged to try their best to fight for the cause their loved ones died trying to fight.
This also explains how people felt united together, as everyone was in the same scenario – where they’d lost loved ones, but, if those loved ones were still alive, then they wouldn’t have a thing in common (their grief) so the social class divide would have still been there.
And of course people suffered… who wouldn’t if they lost loved ones, or had friends who lost loved ones? Everyone was affected by the bombing, but if they seem to like nostalgia and only remember getting drunk and having a laugh with their neighbours, that’s fine – but what probably was the reasons they were all together in the first place? Combined grief? Combined terror? Either way, people needed comforting, so whatever they said that contradicted this was either just covered up or a lie.
So overall, I wouldn’t say I disagreed with AJP Taylor, so much as disagreeing with his tone and lack of effect put into a very harrowing moment of Britain’s history. But, to be fair to him, he didn’t write this to sound like everything that had ever been published before, he wrote it for controversy, and so people would read it/buy it. So that’s blatantly worked.
