187 190 4

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
HOME INTELLIGENCE SPECIAL REPORT NO. 26
SECRET

7th August, 1942

AIR MARSHAL HARRIS'S BROADCAST TO GERMANY, 28th JULY, 1942

In view of the wide publicity given to this broadcast by the press and radio, Regional Information Officers were asked to report on the public's reactions to it. The following summary is based upon their observations.

Northern Region

Comment on the broadcast was extremely varied. Though a bare majority seemed to approve it, “a very considerable minority regarded it as unnecessary and out of place”. It seemed generally to be thought less inspiring than the Prime Minister's speech dealing with the same subject.

Those who liked it were less explicit than were its detractors. “Very heartening” and “damn well time it was said” are two comments typical of the former group. The approval of those “partially in favour” appears to have been modified by a belief that the speech will not have been heard in Germany.

Reasons for disapproval were that “the public would relish our doing more and saying less”; that the effect of such a broadcast, if followed by inaction, would be to “encourage the feeling of frustration experienced by so many”; and that it was “playing to the gallery”. Some allied the Air Marshal's views with those of Lord Vansittart, and felt that the speech showed “the Government's approval of Vansittartism”.

North Eastern Region

A substantial majority are said to “demand action to substantiate the words”, and a large minority “recall the unfulfilled promises .... made by the Prime Minister”. A minority, however, of almost equal size expressed their satisfaction in terms such as “That's the stuff to give 'em”

Some complained of the speech as being “bombastic and more of Dr. Goebbels' type of propaganda”. Others regarded it as “a waste of breath - the German's can't revolt”, or alternatively, thought that its effect would probably be a stiffening of resistance rather than a lowering of morale”. A few people seem to expect that the speech will produce some unspecified form of reprisals.

North Midland Region

Though the general tone of comments seem to have been one of approval, this is qualified in nearly all cases by the hope or expectation that action will rapidly follow the broadcast.

The recollection of similar speeches by the Prime Minister and Sir Archibald Sinclair, which are considered to have been unfulfilled, cause some people to be sceptical or to regard the broadcast as “only propaganda”. As such it is thought “it would have about as much effect as our leaflets at the beginning of the war”.

Some critics, who divined “political implications” in the Air Marshal's words, thought such a statement should have been left to a politician, and that it would have carried more weight if it had been given out as “the declared policy of the Government”.

Eastern Region

In the view reports received opinion was shown to be fairly evenly divided. Of those who approved the speech some said it expressed “many people's desire for a bolder fighting policy” and that it was “the stuff to give 'em”. But others thought it “not dignified”, that it was “Vansittartism” and gave Goebbels “a handle for his propaganda”. It was asked why bombing should “break German morale when it stiffened ours?” Another report questioned the necessity of the speech on the ground that it was “rather cruel”.

London Region

The broadcast was approved by those who are constantly urging heavier bombing of Germany, and disliked by a minority who feel that threats to the German people conflict with our Atlantic Charter ideals. From both groups, comes criticism that “unless words are supplemented by deeds they are useless”.

Southern Region

Little interest seems to have been aroused by the Air Marshal's words; the comparatively few comments received are described as “uniformly unfavourable”. The speech was disliked for its “bombastic and over-confident tone” and because “people are said to be tired to death of optimistic claims about what we are going to do in the dim and distant future”. The demand is made for deeds rather than words. The timing of the speech was also thought to be unfortunate, since the effect which it might otherwise have had upon the Germans is likely to be offset by their present victories in Russia. The broadcasting of threats to Germany is considered “a waste of time ... because few would dare to listen” except those who are already anti-Nazi. Another comment was “that Service leaders should stick to their jobs, and not go in for prophesying”.

South Western Region

There does not appear to have been much interest in the broadcast. Such evidence as there is suggests that opinion was, on the whole, critical, “enthusiastic praise” being limited to “a few sources”. Again, there appears a desire for action instead of words. “We always seem to be making a threatening gesture .... and do nothing more about it”.

Comments described as “semi-favourable” included the familiar proviso that we should act as well as talk. Again, there was some criticism of the timing of the speech which was thought to be unsuited to a period when our air losses over Germany are “comparatively heavy”.

Wales

Here it is reported that “the public generally approved the broadcast .... but practically all comments point to the demand for action not words”. “Threats unvoiced do less damage than threats unfulfilled”.

Among the various views expressed are the following: there is doubt as to whether it will reach the people for whom it was intended, and whether bombing will in fact break German morale; those who liked the speech because “it was straight from the horse's mouth” became suspicious when it was announced that it was officially inspired; some people expect retaliation.

Midland Region

Feelings are reported to be mixed but the majority appear to regard the speech as “ballyhoo”, its effect being to emphasise the view attributed to “many people” that the Government “thinks it can win the war by hot air”.

Some considered the Air Marshal to be bragging; others that his prophecy of raids in hail or snow will be impossible to fulfil. “We have told Jerry enough of what we are going to do” says one report: “we should do the job first and tell them afterwards”. The minority who approved the speech declared in effect, that, “it was time Germany got it straight from the horse's mouth”.

North Western Region

Interest in the speech appears to have been sporadic. Though an informed minority assumed that it was “intended as much for this country as for Germany”, some reports indicate without further comment that “it was thought quite the wrong type of propaganda for British people”.

A general view, and one which is said to be strongly held, is that if the Air Marshal's remarks are followed “by as little air activity as followed the Prime Minister's speech” on this subject, the effect would not only be most disappointing to the public but damaging to the Government's credit. The familiar tenor of most reports appears in a strongly marked preference for “deeds not words”.

Criticisms of the speech include the view that “talking should be left to politicians”; and, among a small minority, that it is doubtful whether the speech would have been heard in Germany.

To a minority also some fear of reprisals is attributed.

Scotland

The reactions of the majority were said to be “exasperation and disbelief in the promises made”. Among the reasons given for this attitude were that earlier undertakings of the same sort made by the Prime Minister and Sir Archibald Sinclair have not been carried out. Whatever the reasons for this, it is said that the public “remember only an exciting promise and a disappointing failure”. Doubts are also expressed of the German people proving more susceptible to bombing than ourselves, since there is thought to be “no substantial evidence that German morale is cracking or likely to crack”. It has also been remarked that “the duty of a Service Officer is to carry out threats, not to make them”.

The minority who approved the speech are said to have done so on the grounds that “Harris is a sound chap, and, unlike politicians would never make promises he did not mean to keep”; that threats are “something the Germans understand” and that they “form part of the war of nerves”.

South Eastern Region

Some satisfaction is reported, but little enthusiasm. Again the main question asked is: “Are we going to carry out the threat?” Previous speeches of a similar nature “which came to nothing” are recalled, such as the request to the French to leave coastal areas. It is also doubted whether the Nazi grip on the German people is not such that suggestions that they should revolt are futile.

Northern Ireland

Comment on the broadcast is described as being “not marked and short-lived”. Again the familiar reaction is reported: “There is too much threatening and too little action”. Some deprecated the statement because it “savoured too much of boastfulness”. Others regarded it as a reminder that the Prime Minister's promise about the bombing of Germany would be fulfilled, and that the speech was “a real contribution to the Allies' war of nerves”. There was, however, some impatience at the irregularity of “1000 bomber raids”.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that the majority of the public were unmoved by accounts of the broadcast, and that the degree of interest aroused was limited.

Those who expressed opinions fell into two main groups:-

a. Those approving - the “that's the stuff to give 'em” school. This group was less explicit than the second - but even here the proviso was frequently expressed that “it will do no good unless followed by action”.

b. Those who were critical . This group appeared to include the more intelligent and informed members of the public. Scores on which the broadcast was criticised were:-

i. “Just another unfulfilled promise”. This was a widely expressed opinion. “What we need is deeds, not words”. It was thought likely only to “add to the public's sense of frustration".

ii. It was “playing to the gallery” ... “bombastic Vansittart stuff” ... and “in the best Goebbels style”.

iii. Its effectiveness was doubted for a number of reasons:-

Will it really be heard in Germany?

If it is heard, what chance have the Germans of revolting?

Is the time ripe, when Germany is winning so much in the East?

Will bombing really break German morale ... it didn't break ours?

iv. A few timid people feared the broadcast would lead to reprisals.

v. Another small group wondered if such statements of policy should be made by serving officers.

HOME INTELLIGENCE.