A History of the Ministry of Information, 1939-46
SECRET
MINISTRY OF INFORMATION
Weekly Report by Home Intelligence - No. 41
Copy No. 33
(From Wednesday, July 9th to Wednesday, July 16th, 1941)
In reading this report, it is important to bear in mind that it is not meant to be a record of facts , except in so far as public opinion is itself a fact. It is a statement and reflection of the public's views and feelings about the war in general. Therefore, in matters on which public opinion is ill-informed, prejudiced or inconsistent, the report does not imply any endorsement of the views which are expressed in it.
HOME INTELLIGENCE WEEKLY REPORT
NO. 41 - JULY 9th to JULY 16th, 1941
NOTE : The figures in brackets refer to sources of information, a list of which is given at the end of this report.
I. GENERAL COMMENTS .
1. General state of confidence and reaction to news .
Public confidence - in some cases complacency - remains on the same high level as last week. This once more appears to be due mainly to Russia's continued resistance, and to the R.A.F.'s offensive action over Germany and the occupied territories. Three weeks had fixed itself in the minds of many people as the probable limit of Russia's resistance. This period now having passed, the fact that the Russians are still giving a good account of themselves leads to a hope that “the beginning of winter will find the Germans still heavily engaged in Russia”. Particular satisfaction is caused by the realisation “that the headlong rush of German mechanised divisions can be stopped”.
The Anglo-Russian Agreement has met with “general acceptance and modulated approval”, though among the “cautious and elderly” a certain uneasiness is reported in case “we may be committing ourselves in advance with respect to peace treaty terms. There is also anxiety about the possible contamination of our political ideals. Though there is some mistrust of Russia (and still more of communism) there is, on the whole, “an appreciation that our complete understanding with Russia is a natural development of the present situation”. Communists seem now to be supporting the war effort, though they continue to demand that the ban on the Daily Worker should be lifted. The B.B.C.'s artful compromise on the question of playing the “Internationale” was greeted with some ironic comments. There is a feeling that “those in authority show an unworthy desire to sit on the fence”.
The belief that our assistance to Russia has so far been confined to the R.A.F.'s western offensive has caused “substantial disappointment”, and there is lively impatience for more adventurous manoeuvres to be undertaken. Some sections of the public are “all agog to hear of the landing of the B.E.F. on the Continent”. News reels of the Prime Minister inspecting invasion exercises seem to have encouraged this. There is also some indication that the desire for action is shared by certain Army units, notably by Canadian and Welsh regiments.
The end of the campaign in Syria has been greeted everywhere with relief. The situation is described as “the end of a combat almost as unnatural as civil war”.
The American occupation of Iceland has been “received with acclamation and has increased and in some cases restored confidence in America”. The majority hopes it will lead to further action: A few seem nervous of any “fresh encroachment by America in Europe.”
For the past few weeks there has been a progressive rise in public spirits. This improvement is related in most incoming reports to a growing sense of complacency. There appears to be a hopeful but often imperfect interpretation of recent happenings. It is suggested that the situation is not being 26 presented in such a way as to enable the public to get a realistic idea of conditions in any particular sphere of the war. If, for example, more facts and publicity were given about the Battle of the Atlantic, and if these were related more precisely to particular food shortages, it is thought that there would be not only a diminution of grumbling, but a growth of realisation and responsibility about this subject.
Among other reasons given for increasing complacency are:
1) “The prominence given by the newspapers to the more encouraging claims of the Soviet communiques”.
2) The belief, produced by the radiolocation announcements, that “large-scale air attacks by night are a thing of the past”, is maintained. Evacuees are still returning to target areas, and there are even reports of people taking down their black-out fixtures. People are talking as though we had experienced our last raid, and “predictions of the victorious end of the war at no very distant date” are said to be common.
3) The infectiousness of the apathy and laissez-faire which are widely believed to exist in industry.
4) Astrological prophecies that the war will end on the 22nd or 25th July; (Our report last week gave an indication of the reliance placed on such belief); and one based on the Pyramids that it will finish in September.
(It should be noted that these reports were received before the Prime Minister's recent speeches on Civil Defence and Industrial Production).
In spite of complacency and optimism there are still strong undercurrents of anxiety and discontent, chiefly on the subjects of food and industry. “From many quarters reports continue to be received of a growing spirit of restlessness among the workers”. There are “signs of dissatisfaction with the general conduct of the war and with much that the Government is doing; and there is criticism, not only of the Government Departments, but also of certain Ministers”. There is still “much discussion about the alleged waste of time in factories engaged in war work,” and in this respect the Debate on production is said to have “confirmed what was already known to exist”. Criticism is made of the “lack of firm policy, rather than of absenteeism or of individual self-interest”, and it is repeatedly asked: “Why should it be necessary to call up extra men and women for industry when those already in it appear to be wasting half their time?” That the Debate failed to induce the Government to take any drastic action was a keen disappointment to many workers, who are said to be calling for a “thorough clean-up”, and to be hoping for “another Lloyd George to arise”. Some are asking “why the Government does not use the emergency powers which were so freely granted to it?” and it is suggested that all war production should be “put on a military footing and discipline, with corresponding ranks and pay”. Those in contact with the industrial population are confident that, “given leadership on propaganda and production, nothing will hold them.”
Although criticism of industry tends to come mostly from the workers themselves, there is “no doubt that this sort of talk is exercising a bad effect on public feeling generally.”
(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 20 Inverness, Manchester, S. Wales, Edinburgh, Special P.C.s, 22, 23, 31, 34)
Long-term opinions .
Some four weeks ago (15th June 1941) the British Institute of Public Opinion made a series of enquiries which yielded the following results. (The sample in each case consisted of about 2,200 people.)
(a) “What do you think we are fighting for?”
The following are the chief headings into which answers fell:-
46% said: “Freedom, liberty and democracy”, or analogous expressions.
14% said: “To stop Fascism, Hitlerism, Nazism, aggression.” This was more strongly marked among upper and lower income groups than in middle income groups. There was not, however, a difference of more than 6 or 7 points.
8% said: “It is Britain v. Germany; We are fighting to keep what we've got; It's them or us.” This was slightly more emphasised in the lower income group than in others.
7% said: “For a better post-war world; for lasting peace.”
5% said: “For our existence, our lives.”
4% said: “For capitalism; power for a few; for Imperialism.”
2% said: “Freeing the small nations; to fulfil our pledges.”
1% said: “Not what we're told - so-called democracy.”
6% made miscellaneous comments, and 7% had no opinion.
(b) Are we going about it the right way?
Some of the headings in the previous questions were grouped so that percentages expressing agreement or disagreement with question (b) could be estimated.
1) Of those believing that we were fighting for “Freedom, Liberty and Democracy; A better post-war world, and to free the small nations”:
73% said we were going about it in the right way;
27% said we were not.
2) Of those saying it was “Britain versus Germany”; “We are fighting to keep what we've got”; “It's them or us”; “For our existence, our lives”:
54% said we were going about it in the right way;
46% said we were not.
3) Of those saying: “To stop Fascism, Hitlerism, Nazism, aggression”:
69% said we were going about it in the right way;
31% said we were not.
It will be seen that those with a more idealistic conception of our war aims (Groups 1 and 3) are least critical of our present efforts, while those with a more materialistic approach (Group 2) were most critical.
The first part of this question was also asked in February this year. The total results were then:
Analysis of results from the present enquiry indicate a reduction of 27% among men who expect invasion, among women a reduction of only 18%
In upper income groups there is a decrease of 17% among those expecting invasion; among lower income groups the decrease is 23%; and, as is shown by the ‘economic’ percentages above, the lower income groups are also less confident than the upper in our ability to resist invasion effectively.
(34)
Irish Neutrality
There are few signs that Eire's desire to stay out of the war has been affected by the Russian development, although the belief that “Britain is already beaten”, and “it is only a question of months”, which was widely held early this year, seems to be far less prevalent now. The final, overwhelming proof that neutrality is no protection against German invasion seems to have more or less cancelled out, as an incentive to helping England, with the religious tendency to believe that no good can come of an alliance with Russia. There is, however, considerable evidence from Postal Censorship that opinion in Eire is increasingly in favour of giving up or leasing the ports to Britain or, preferably, to America. The majority of writers are still against this measure, in the proportions of 57% against and 43% in favour: but this is in itself a notable change from the comparable figures for last month, which were 65% against and 35% in favour. Typical views stated on both 29 sides are: “We Irish think they (the British Government) should just take the ports, and no more about it....nearly everyone wants Britain to win. But without our help if possible.” and “Of course we know we are of vital importance to England, but what did we get from her in the days gone by? Do you think she would treat us differently if we gave up our ports? She might while the war is raging, but after the war it is not known how we would be treated.”
(13, 20 Special, Leeds, Cardiff, Edinburgh P.C.s)
Rumours
Current gossip in Salisbury contends that the Krupps works at Essen and the synthetic oil works at Leuna are not attacked by the R.A.F. with the frequency which their importance merits, on account of the “vested interests of European financiers”.
In Cornwall there is a revival of the idea that this part of the country would be undefended in the event of invasion; this is attributed to the withdrawal from West Cornwall of considerable numbers of troops, and also to the demolition of concrete road blocks.
It is believed in Falmouth that captured British planes were used in a recent raid on that locality, and that because of confusion deliberately caused in this way, some of our own fighters were fired on by the anti-aircraft guns.
From Fishguard comes a persistent rumour that the “Queen Mary” has been sunk.
(7, 8, 12)
II. SPECIAL COMMENTS
Waste
Public discussion of waste as it affects industry - i.e. in men, material, time and enthusiasm - has followed the tone of the Parliamentary debate on war-production. This in turn seems to have directed attention in detail to various other forms of waste. Where, as a rule, complaints deal with alleged unfairness in rationing or distribution, this week they are concentrated on every form of loss which it is felt might be avoided by better organisation.
Food
There is great indignation about rumours of vegetables and fruit being destroyed, so that prices shall be kept up. In some places the pea crop is said to have been incompletely gathered because of the lack of pickers. Elsewhere there are tales of tomatoes being allowed to rot because dealers consider that price-control will not allow them enough profit to warrant trouble of marketing. Although there has been some response to Lord Woolton's appeal to give the egg scheme a fair trial, there are bitter complaints that, so far, “all it does is to ensure that the eggs are stale when distributed.” Canadian eggs are reported to have been sent to the south of England, where many were found to have gone bad through delays in transit; 30 while in Liverpool, where they were unloaded, there was a serious scarcity of eggs at the time. According to another report, Irish eggs, “mostly bad”, have been received “in the heart of an egg-producing area in the west of England”; yet in the same area farmers had eggs which had been awaiting collection for nearly a fortnight.
Army canteens are accused of throwing away “pounds and pounds worth of food.” Among the W.A.A.F.'s, the girls themselves are said to be “horrified by the waste” of being given “much more than anyone could eat.”
Petrol
In many parts of the country, notably in the Cardiff and Bristol areas, and in several northern districts, bus services are now curtailed for lack of petrol, or if running normally, they are unequal to the increase in passengers where factories, camps, etc., have been opened in the locality. In the circumstances the sight of “hundreds and hundreds of private cars, obviously used for pleasure” is arousing more and more irritation and the demand is steadily growing that the basic ration should be cut still further, “despite the vested interests involved.”
Call-up of miners, etc .
The refusal of the Military Authorities to release miners from the army is thought to be “inexplicable, since they should never have been called up.” But in spite of their repeated requests that compulsion should be introduced, the public shows no signs of interest or satisfaction now that the Government has decided to compel miners to return to the mines. The Regional Information Officer Northern Region states that “a strong feeling remains that miners are still underpaid, and that great difficulty may be expected in drawing them back from better paid, less arduous and more secure work in industry.” There are also protests against the “wastefulness” of calling up trained and experienced wardens - “men who know their job and also their locality, both of which are essential” - in order that they may, in the public's opinion, “do nothing for months” in the Army.
(1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15, 20 Leeds, Cardiff, Inverness P.C's 34)
Constant Complaints
No changes have been noted in the public's attitude towards the following subjects. Detailed criticisms have been given in previous Reports:-
Shortage of price-controlled fruit and other foodstuffs.
Exorbitant rents charged to evacuees.
Lack of day nurseries or other suitable provision for young children, acting as a deterrent to women desiring to take up war-work.
Lack of understanding, on the part of factory managements, that arrangements must be made for women workers to do their household shopping, if absenteeism among them is to be reduced.
Queues, in which the leisured have the advantage over the busy.
“Favoured customers” - Tobacconists and grocers are thought to be particularly inclined to the practice of saying “Sold out” to the general public, while reserving considerable stocks for favoured people, either very big customers, or those who can afford bribes.
(1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 34)