The Home Front

[IanR]

How much did the Great War affect the lives of the people of Britain whilst it was going on? Say in comparison to the Second World War?

Obviously, there was the sacrifice of the fighting men, which would have had profound affect on communities, families etc., but was there also a wider affect on the lives of people living in Britain at the time? Or was the war something that was happening elsewhere? I get the impression that during the Second World War, because there was more of a direct threat to the British Isles, in terms of an invasion or bombing, that the people on the home front felt more of a connection with war - a "backs against the wall" spirit prevailing, and the whole population suffering together and pulling together .

In contrast, I have read reports that during the First World War, some men returning from the Front, found that life at home was going on pretty much as it always had and that you wouldn't have known there was a war on. As a consequence they felt isolated from life at home.

Are there any views on this? Did they they have an easy time of it on the Great War Home Front compared with that of the Second World War? Or was it the same?

Ian

[DrB]

Opinions (mine) are like a......s, everyone has one.

WWl, to my way of thinking and reading, was not as "up tight" on the home front as WWII.

Certainly WWI had casualties/losses greater than WWII, some bombing raids and naval shelling and some rationing, loss of domestic help, introduction of women in the workplace, etc, but compared to WWII, no "backs against the wall" feelings.

Many, I believe, suffered during the war, but for many others, it was life as usual, albiet inconvenient at times. WWII was a little more close and personal.

DrB

[Chris_Baker]

While there was less by way of direct threat to the homeland, don't forget

> air raids on London and south east

> quite extreme restrictions on civil liberties under the Defence of the Realm Act

> compulsory military service and many restrictions and regulations on employment

> shortages and rationing, late in the war

> deep recession and unemployment oin 1914 and 1915

> rampant inflation

> massive hikes in income and other taxes

> an obvious and deepening gap between the "haves" and the "have nots"

I'd say it was every bit as "involved" for the ordinary public as was WW2.

[gporta]

Ian,

Last year I read a book on the subject, "All Quiet on the Home front", and I got the impression that they went through hardships in Blighty as well.... There were air raids, admittedly, far from the scale of world war two, but frightening and dangerous enough, whether by Zeppelins or Gothas. The German fleet shelled coastal towns like Hartlepool and Scarborough... and life could get pretty rough to families with little income whose breadwinners were away in the front, or killed.

My idea after reading the book is that life at the British homefront in WWI was far from cushy for most people.

Gloria

[Ron]

I understood from my parents that life during the First World War was fairly tough. Food was a problem despite an elementary form of rationing.

I was kid during the Second World War and attribute my good health to the food during the period. There was rationing of animal products, flour and sugar but it was much better organised than in the first war and although some things like bananas and oranges were unobtainable and confectionery and ice-cream very scarce you could always fill up with vegetable and British fruit dishes and bread and homemade jam. Blackberry picking was universal in the autumn and elderflower collection during the early summer. I don't think anybody ever went hungry.

Ron

[treetop]

In contrast, I have read reports that during the First World War, some men returning from the Front, found that life at home was going on pretty much as it always had and that you wouldn't have known there was a war on. As a consequence they felt isolated from life at home.

Are there any views on this? Did they they have an easy time of it on the Great War Home Front compared with that of the Second World War? Or was it the same?

Ian

Just my own family's experience but a grandfather who enlisted a week after his 4th child was born,went off to France 3 weeks later and never came home.Left a wife with 4 children,no obvious means of support ,no pension (?) and got himself blown up in 1916. His wife remarried a man (a publican) who wouldnt accept the children who had to be brought up by a maiden aunt and were forced to meet their mother halfway down the street out of sight of the stepfather who profited from those who needed a drink to console themselves. I think many people had a right to be bitter that the hardships were not equally shared.

[De Petrowski Alexander]

It would seem logic that with the experience of a previous world War, some things in WW II were better organised and prepared, things such as food rationing and such. I do not know if this was always the case though.

I suppose that living in rural villages with its farming communities there was less of a hazard of famine, opposed to the cities, at least this was the way in my native Belgium where the townfolk when on "food expeditions" to the farming communities during both Wars.

I think people being people, they always try to hang on to a form of "normality" in their everyday lives during such major upheavels such as world wars, I suppose its a way to cope with it and still remain their sanity. For those servicemen returning on leave and such, it looked perhaps as if they ignored the war while it was actually only a facade.

[Terry_Reeves]

War -time inflation caused a major problem, especially for the middling classes, who saw their savings severely affected.

On the other side of the coin though, once the changeover from peace time to a wartime economy had been completed, which brought about some hardship as already mentioned, there were those who did gain for the period of the war. Shortage of skilled labour saw wages increased in that area. Later on even semi-skilled and unskilled labour saw a demand for their services as the size of the armed forces increased rapidly. One group who gained economically, in the short term at least, were women who replaced men in many industries affected by recruitment and conscription. This wasn't without opposition from the Trades Unions who objected strongly to dilution and deskilling. This opposition can also be found in areas such as public transport and postal work, where women had also filled vacancies in traditional male employment areas. Indeed, you can see deals being made with employers and local government in this respect. Trades Unions would drop their oppostion provided that promises were made to re-employ men on their return home. Local council and trades union minutes books reflect this quite often.

Terry Reeves