After my recent review of Demobbed I was delighted to receive an email from Alan Allport thanking me for my 'generous' review - nothing generous about it at all, I thought it was an excellent book and a fascinating piece of social history. I mentioned that I had adorned my copy with multiple yellow stickers as thoughts and questions went through my mind and Alan very kindly offered to respond to these in a question and answer session, an offer I gladly accepted. Here it is below and I hope that you will find it interesting and will encourage you to get hold of a copy of this title. You won't regret it if you do..
I see Demobbed began as
a doctoral dissertation and am assuming that this followed on in turn from the
taking of a history degree. Is this
particular area and period of history always been of interest to you or did you
discover your preference when at University?
I
grew up in the 1970s, and I think I was part of the last generation of British
boys who considered the Second World War to be ‘our’ war in some sense, a war
in which we had some personal connection through our grandparents and some authentic
emotional investment. Like most of my friends I had Action Man dolls, Airfix
model kits, and Commando and Battle! comics; I learned that Germans say
‘Teufel!’ and ‘Gott in Himmel!’ when alarmed (usually before a quick slug on
the jaw from a grim-faced British commando). As I got older I picked up quite a
lot of detailed, though often random, information about World War II, and read
some of the classic histories like A.J.P. Taylor’s. But I have to say that when
I originally began thinking about a Ph.D. topic many years later it never
really occurred to me that I could or ought to study the war. My childhood
fascination with that period still cast a heavy shadow and I suppose that I
considered it vaguely juvenile; Proper Historians were supposed to investigate
Proper Topics. It only really dawned on me that the demobbed process would be a
valid and exciting area of research when I started looking through the contemporary
newspapers like the Daily Mirror and
the Express, trawling for ideas. It
became increasingly clear that demobilisation after 1945 had been both an
experience of enormous significance for the men, women, and children who had
gone through it and that it had been
very largely ignored by previous historians.
Why do you think the
press presented the return and coming home of the demobbed soldiers as an
occasion of unalloyed joy and happiness?
The answer is obvious I know, but by depicting the return in such a way
must have made it difficult for those returning and their families at home to
live up to this expected ideal.
I’m not sure that the press at the time did represent the demobilisation
experience as uncomplicated and benign. In fact, if you read through the
popular newspapers of the 1940s you detect a continual drumbeat of concern –
about unhappy marriages and families, crime, adultery, divorce, delinquency,
and so on. I think the reason that the demobbed experience was subsequently
erased from the national memory was a reaction to the social changes of the
1960s and 1970s. As British society became (apparently) unmoored from its
traditional foundations, people harked back to a mid-century Golden Age of
stability and assurance – the classic Fifties image of the happy family, dad in
his armchair with his pipe and slippers, and so on. What got forgotten in this
nostalgic revision was that the period immediately after the Second World War
was anything but stable and reassuring for those who had to live through it.
In Demobbed we learn of the men who returned who found their wives and children were strangers, they could not settle, found family life restricting and, sadly, wives who had been unfaithful in their absence. While I can understand that these make for more interesting case studies, surely this could not have been the same in all circumstances – there must have been many service men returning from the war who settled back happily and whose lives were not turned upside down. Was this the case?
I found it intriguing
that returning servicemen had no idea of rationing or what privations their
families had suffered. The case of one
soldier eating his family’s entire cheese ration without thinking really
brought this home. My father was in the
army and when he left when we were children, an entire support system vanished. So I can understand how difficult it must
have been to adjust.
I
think the sense to which serving men understood what was going on at home was a
reflection of their age when they were called up, what stage of the war it was,
and whether they spent most of their service in Britain or abroad. The soldiers
who found it the hardest to readjust to the social and economic changes that
took place in the wartime UK were those who had been overseas since at least
1941 (when austerity privations really began to bite) and especially those who
had been prisoners of war. My heart especially goes out to one luckless airman
who was shot down over Germany the day after the war broke out and who returned
to a virtually different country in 1945. He had never so much as seen a ration
book in his life …
Until you pointed out
that many of the returning servicemen were resented as having had an ‘easy war’
while those at home were bombed and blitzed and were hungry and cold, this
thought had never crossed my mind. While
some certainly did have an easy war and never engaged in combat, it must have
been shattering to those returning after the most horrendous experiences, to
feel this resentment.
Indeed.
The problem was that for every soldier who had had a relatively comfortable
existence in the Army during the war there was another one who had suffered
indescribable privations and hardships. But civilians didn’t always draw sharp
distinctions between them. Really, I think the problem was that the nation as a
whole was tired and fed up and somewhat lacking in generosity of spirit by the
end of the war. People who in other circumstances would have behaved more
imaginatively and good-naturedly towards homecoming men had plenty of problems
of their own, and weren’t necessarily in a mood to proffer much sympathy.
Empathy was rationed in 1945 as much as sugar.
There is a sentence on
page 48 “......there was an unwillingness
to share basic information with the general public throughout the demob
process, which augured ill for the state’s commitment to open government”
I’m a historian rather than a public policy expert and so I am hesitant to make too many comments about events going on right now. I’m sure that the government today is faced with the same kind of complicated dilemmas and trade-offs that its predecessor was in 1945. But it does strike me that the present administration’s obsession with ‘spin’ and information control is leading to a sense of public distrust which was equally frustrating after the Second World War. The people need to feel that they are being told the truth. And as the citizen of a wealthy and sophisticated country it does disturb me that we find it so hard to provide even the most basic practical and emotional resources for our ex-servicemen. HM Forces today are tiny compared to what they were in 1945, and Britain is so much better prepared to receive them home. Yet stories of disillusionment and despair continue. One wonders whether any of us can really claim that enough is being done.
_____________________________________________________________
Recent Comments