• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

Betrayed?

B

Big Gee

master brummie
My dad was an electrician all his working life, and was employed from 1938 to 1977 by the same company which manufactured electric furnaces. He was just an ordinary working-bloke, but at the end of the War his firm gained some large contracts to install electric furnaces in Europe. This meant that from about 1947 onwards my dad travelled quite a bit, especially to Sweden, the first time he had ever been out of the country. He also spent a short time in Germany and Italy. These visits made a lasting and profound impression on him, and to the end of his life he would sound off about how, after WW2, the neutral and even the defeated countries enjoyed a better standard of living than poor victorious Britain. He'd go on about how there were no food shortages or rationing in Italy, yet well into the 1950's some basic foodstuffs were still rationed in the UK. He couldn't understand how Italian shops were loaded with good food and luxury goods, whereas in England you had to queue to get your ration-card for the absolute basics.

All his life he'd tell anyone who cared to listen that, in his opinion, Attlee 'punished' the British electorate for supporting Churchill through the war, by extending austerity long after it was necessary to do so, keeping wages low and taxes high. Dad wasn't concerned that in 1945 the British people voted Churchill out and Attlee in! Dad called it the 'Welfare State Election Of Lies', and that Attlee got in purely on the basis of false promises. He hated that man, and he hated the postwar Labour Government with a vengeance. He was also convinced that at the end of the War the USA turned its back on Britain, and poured money into the defeated nations so that they became dependent upon America.

Until the day he died he would say that far from being the champion of the working-man, the Labour Party and various Labour Governments have done nothing whatsover for the people who put them in power. Had Dad lived to see the Blair Government, I think he'd have died of apoplexy! His hero was, it goes without saying, Winston Churchill. Dad was also a great admirer of Harold MacMillan who, he said, gave this country some pride in itself and wasn't afraid of material benefits, higher wages, lower taxes, etc. Dad said that MacMillan was the only Prime Minister who really did do something for the workers - including ridding the country of the austerity hangover from the War. And then of course along came Harold Wilson who turned everything around again.

I don't think Dad voted again after Thatcher got in. He was very bitter about the War and its repercussions as far as the workers were concerned, and he very often used the word 'betrayal' when he was in full flow.

I just wonder if anyone else feels the same as Dad did, or if their own father had similar views. Please note that the above are his thoughts and convictions, not mine! I shan't say what I think!

Big Gee
 
Tory Electricians

My father was also an electrician and devout Tory, he used to say to me "never buy a Ford car and always vote Conservative. As for the aftermath of WW2 and shortages the common saying was "we won the war and the Germans won the peace.

I was an apprentice electrician until 1955 and it's ironical that most of that time was spent working on war damaged property in the centre of Birmingham, mostly C & A and Marshall & Snelgrove
 
Betrayed

BigGee, I think you father was a wise and farseeing man, and I am sure there are tens of thousands of us who feel betrayed by the various labour governments we have suffered under since the war. I will only say that they are certainly not patriots, and many of the present cabinet members and leading members of the Labour Party
embraced communism during their university days.
 
Betrayed by All Politicians

Hi Sylvia :) Big Gee, George,, great postings & meaningfull,,
Yet considering the state of this country i think All the Politicians
should shoulder the responsibilities, They,ve (Con + Lab) mainly all had
Terms in "Power" & caused a lot more harm than good in their tenure,
Decimation of Industries, abominations of the once great NHS,
mucked up the Education system & not controlled Immigration are
just a few to mention,, The treatment of our "Heroes" in WW1 & WW2 And
up to recent/present scenerios is despicable,, by All the Politicos,
But well said anyway Guys & Gals,,
Cheers John Y :cool:
 
Postwar

Someone has to counter this Daily Mail stuff. Your relative is obviously entitled to his view based on his experiences but he must have had some blinkers on. Attlee and Labour won in 1945 to build a better future for the citizens in arms and those who were at home. Churchill himself and his party were incapable of doing this. They were lukewarm on the Beveridge Report for example and were tarnished by the means test and the image of the 1930s. Attlee's government delivered the greatest domestic achievement in our modern history - the creation of the NHS. It still is despite the problems it faces with the pressures of an aging population etc.

Austerity was necessary as we were basically broke in 1945. I do not know why coupons extended into the 1950s but that decade is one of 'you've never had it so good'. I did not believe it in the 1960s but it was true as material living standards improved immeasurably for most people at this time. To single out Labour Governments post-war for criticism is also blinkered thinking. We basically had a post-war party consensus from 1945 to 1979 called Butskillism where both major parties supported a mixed economy, supported the extension of the welfare state etc. The Labour Party was last in office in 1979 under James Callaghan. What we have had since 1997 bears no resemblance to the proper party.
 
It's nothing to do with 'Daily Mail stuff'. My old man was a union member all his working life, but in his opinion the Labour Party and Labour Governments were not as dedicated towards the betterment of the working class as they claimed to be. He may well have been blinkered. But he spoke about only what he saw. He was not an imaginitive person.

You mention the Callaghan Government of the late 1970's, and as I remember that debacle extremely well I do tend to have a little bit of sympathy with my father's views.

Big Gee
 
I do see both sides of the coin people were fed up with the war, so they voted for a labour government, that‘s not saying the conservatives could have done any better?
Having said that I do understand Big Gee's point of view. His father lived through his own post war experience . . . so let’s for a moment forget the history books. .
Many like my dad had served six years in the armed forces, came back to civvy street faced with so many government restrictions (as to where one was allowed to work) dad being in the jewellery trade was fed up , like so many who had served their country expected something better!
As a family we emigrated to Canada December 1948 –
Why do you think there are so many expats – and yes at the time ‘WE WERE ACCUSED OF LEAVING A SINKING SHIP’
 
I don't know, it's easy to slip into a malaise on this subject and to wonder why things happened the way they did. I suspect that Britain was in decline even before the second world war. If anything the first world war did the Empire, as it was, in. Yet children in the 40s and 50s were still being imbued with knowledge about an Empire on which the sun never set. It was all nonsence at that point. The days of the gun boat was long gone.
I find myself falling back into this feeling of despair this hopelessness of might have beens, at times. Even though I have not lived in the UK for many years now. I don't think that my parents for instance, benefited much at all from the Great British Empire. It all seemed a lot of hard work for little gain. Their lives and living conditions were pretty poor. What the comparrison was with existance in other countries I don't know. Most of the people that I knew did not stray very far from home. But we had a sense of pride. After all, we all knew that anything British was best.
It has all changed now and the old Empire /Comonwealth is history. Together with all of the bad things that came with it. But you know; if we look at the world in a different way we can see that a great thing has happened and that is that the English speaking peoples have forged the most powerful band of influence around the world and it is for the most part a peacefull facet of life. It includes the USA and the centre has shifted to there. This was inevitable. I find myself regarding Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the UK as companions. Why is this so. The people in these places are no closer to me than US ciizens are. They are no more amenable or at times friendly. I suppose they play cricket and rugby. The people in the US are ancient kin and just as close even though they are ruled by a different system. We speak the same language and are diversifying increasingly along cultural lines.
And so, if we look beyond the shores and take everything all in all, maybe it is a great success story that we are looking at. The centre has shifted but the band holds strong. Compared to all of this, the tenures of individual governments of whatever stripe and of monarchies, and their actions in any single part, are small potatoes. We all have much to be proud of.
 
Last edited:
To some extent I’m with Big Gees dad. The defeated Germany and Japan did achieve prosperity much quicker than us and that must reflect on our political leaders. From what I saw all those years ago was a very slow painful recovery coupled with the further demolition of irreplaceable Victorian building to make way for modern monstrosities which in turn have been replaced by other so called award winning designs. We still had bomb sites as late as the 1980’s.

Like it or not the planners in most European cities had and still have a lot of style. Their bombed cities were restored to their former glory. A lot of this was financed by the US with their Marshall Plan. The US at the same time was compelling us to repay our war debt. Which crippled us financially. Post war politicians in the main are career politicos. People with very little work experience and the product of our left wing academicians. The wealth created by us is squandered on a corrupt social agenda and overseas development. Not to mention our assumed, not appointed or paid, roll as policeman to the world.

The shenanigans of Lloyd George and his like are small beer compared to some modern MP’s who are in it for what they can get.
 
Post-war

And this is not a Daily Mail/Daily Express/Sun type thread! We have now had the debacle of the late 1970s under Callaghan. Politicians corrupted by 'left wing academicians' (I assume this meant academics) and the great union of the English-speaking peoples. I have absolutely nothing in common with American rednecks or the neo-cons who have re-invented colonialism under the guise of liberal interventionism.

Historians do and will see our post-war situation as part of a long painful disengagement/readjustment as a world power, an imperial power and as a world economic power. All parties had to cope with these realities sometimes successfully e.g. MacMillan 'wind of change'; abandonment of east of Suez under Wilson in the 60s. At other times less successfully e.g. coping with the impact of tiger cheap labour economies. The people get the politicians they deserve!
 
Hi Alan,
I’ll stick with academician if you don’t mind. Academic is also appropriate and if you find it easier to understand then that’s fine with me. I do agree that the public get the politicians they deserve but this statement has a feel of inevitability which I hope is not the case. I’m worried about your persistent reference to the Daily Mail. Like it or hate it I don’t see any politicians suing then for misrepresentation. It is I accept a bit of a rag but for my money it is infinitely superior to the Express and the Sun. I’ve tried the Times and the Telegraph what paper would you recommend. Not the Guardian I hope.
Regards
Tony
 
Surely the aid to the defeated countries after the second world war stemmed from the experience gained after the first one, when the reparations, that were insisted upon, so impoverished Germany that it led to WW2. At least that was how I understood the way it was. If this is the case surely the results indicate success in this endeavor. A by-product was an earlier return to prosperity in these countries, spoken of as a generality here, but was it in fact universal. Maybe the return to prosperity helped to stem the advance of Communism through Europe. If this had occured it may have been a creeping defeat for everyone.
The vast majority of Americans are not rednecks. They are for the large part ordinary citizens trying to live their lives out peacably. They do have a fierce loyalty to their country though;to their system of government. It is a class-less society but money does rule for the most part. I think that I prefer this approach. But rednecks or otherwise on whichever side, we are the same people. Travel through North America and you will find names like..Cornwall..Manchester...Tiverton...Whitby... Scarborough...the list goes on, even Birmingham. This phenomina did not happen accidentally. And by the way, industry is rapidly declining in North America now and has been for some time.
 
Rupert said:
Surely the aid to the defeated countries after the second world war stemmed from the experience gained after the first one, when the reparations, that were insisted upon, so impoverished Germany that it led to WW2. At least that was how I understood the way it was.

Sorry but way off what happened post Great War. Germany was not impoverished by reparations as they were reduced to Germany's capacity to pay after the Ruhr crisis of 1924. Under the Dawes Plan Germany resumed reparations payments to France and Britain so we could pay back US loans in the war and they in turn invested in the German economy (Ford plants etc) so that they could afford to pay reparations etc etc. They were scaled down further by the Young Plan in 1929. There is no relationship between reparations and the Second World War. By 1928 Europe had recovered substantially. Democratic Germany had joined the League of Nations and had renounced aggressive intentions towards the west. Economic recovery was taking place after a cyclical dip in the middle of the decade. Residual problems of the post-war settlement could be settled by negotiation. Where it went wrong was the Wall Street crash and its impact on Europe, particularly the German economy. This gave Hitler (only 12 Reichstag seats in 1928) the opportunity to portray himself as an economic saviour who offered hope.
Click to expand...
 
And this was some monster contorted conspiracy to destroy the British influence in the world. OK you have obviously researched the subject beyond the level of my previously held beliefs. The giving of aid to a defeated country; so that production could produce profits to pay reparations to others who would then pay off the war debt owed to the original givers. They must have had think tanks back then. Would the Brits debt have gone away on it's own then, if none of this would have happened and no reparations were paid. Surely that is the way the world works..the rotation of money. It seems to have worked in many ways and don't forget that the original aid was to GB to help fend off agression. These sentiments have all been aired before, 50 years ago for me and, whatever the nature of accuracy, it was time, even back then, to move on. The reality is what it is. You can choose to see it positively or negatively.
 
It's nice to see that my original post has produced some lively debate.

My dad, along with probably most of his generation, had the attitude after WW2 - "To the victor the spoils". Quite simply, he could not understand why other countries seemed to thrive after the War whilst Britain was still subject to rationing and other inconveniences. I think it's a fair reaction, in all honesty. Yet he was not so naive as to think that we could have won the War without American aid, but in his opinion what money America saw fit to shell out after the War should have come to Britain, and not to the aggressor nations such as Germany, Italy or Japan. Maybe to think that way was naive, but it was the common perception after WW2 that America simply abandoned us.

What prompted my original post was a conversation I had about 2 weeks ago with a good friend of mine, a man in his late 70's, who was a life-long supporter of the Labour Party, a card-carrying member and someone who gave up a lot of his free time rallying support for Labour in local and general elections, but who last year tore up his card in total despair and disillusion. He reminded me so much of my old man. He told me that when Blair got in he thought that New Labour might just put the interests of its core-supporters first and foremost, but it never happened. The workers have, as always, been treated with complete disdain, in his opinion.

Finally, did anyone see the recent YouGov poll on the present Government? I realise that all governments eventually decay and lose popular support, but it seems that Mr Brown's efforts have been singled out for particular vitriol.

Big Gee
 
For the ordinary people on all sides in war, there are no winners only losers. The winners are the armament manufacturers and the industrialists, making miiions out of death and misery. Peter
 
Post-war

I think we need some facts on the post-war situation. Ignoring Japan for this purpose the stats below are from the Marshall Plan wiki article which puts US/victor support for the defeated in context. Much of the aid was spent on American manufactured goods which helped the interntational economy to recover in everyone's interest...

Country1948/51
($ millions)Cumulative
Austria 468
Belgium and Luxembourg 777
Denmark 385
France 2,296
Germany 1,448
Greece 366
Iceland 43
Ireland 133
Italy and Trieste 1,204
Netherlands 1,128
Norway 372
Portugal 70
Sweden 347
Switzerland 250
Turkey 137
United Kingdom 3,297
Totals 12,721
 
Last edited:
Both politics and religion are part of life: Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, whereas at some fundamental level religion does not allow for compromise. . .

I see no harm talking about politics or religion as long as we remember there are more than two sides to a debate and that another person's point of view is well respected. . .

We all come to the table from different walks of life in fact one might be touched by someone else’s experiences.
 
I agee with Beryl and frankly I think this dialogue has been conducted in a very civil manner. No one is forced to take part and most of the contact here is not about politics at all. More a view of the world as was, as we see it. I have learned some things here and that is not a bad thing. A proposition was put up and we debated it. Thats all.
 
Beryl and Rupert,

I agree totally with what you said. My intention in starting this thread was not to get involved in a political debate at all, but merely to see if other people felt the same way as my dad. I have purposely refrained from airing my own views here,

But having said that, politics and religion ARE both part of life's rich tapestry, whether we like it or not.

Regards,

Big Gee
 
Big Gee said:
Beryl and Rupert,

My intention in starting this thread was not to get involved in a political debate at all, but merely to see if other people felt the same way as my dad. I have purposely refrained from airing my own views here,

Big Gee
Click to expand...

But your dad's views had a particular political perspective on a range of post-war issues so 'feelings' do not come into it.
 
But your dad's views had a particular political perspective on a range of post-war issues so 'feelings' do not come into it.
Click to expand...
Those of us brought up in the 'post war' years would find it very difficult not to have 'feelings' whether it be from a political point of view or living conditions.
We were very lucky as far as housing was concerned, we only had some of our windows blown out. Where as some of our neighbours had their house destroyed or so badly damaged they were demolished.
Economically, I can remember how difficult is was for my parents to have enough money to buy food. My father was like many others who had jobs that were directly affected by the war and people not having money when it was over.
I would agree, many other countries seemed able to pick themselves up far faster than the UK. America was involved in the war but didn't have the devastation to deal with as far as rebuilding was concerned. Mo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top