Britain and World War 2

In his book, Britain in the Second World War: A social history, Dr. Harold L. Smith provides original documents in an effort to examine the implications that World War II led to a sense of social idealism within Britain. Smith provides research and proof that the general consensus of social unity in Britain after World War II are misleading, and that in actuality, there existed a "continuation of prewar social conflicts and . . . Policy differences dividing the Labour and Conservative parties" (1). This paper will focus on both social structure and social policy in British history in the wake of the Second World War, including class, race, women, family, health, social insurance, national health service, and employment policy.

The Second World War was promoted as a war of the people in an effort to unify a country that was divided a decade earlier--the patriotic view came about in the midst of the war while other material which may have objected to this unification of peoples, races, classes, was kept out of the media. Even after the war was over, this idea of a united country existed because it was promoted by both the Labour and the Conservative parties: "popular patriotism . . . [created] the national unity which made victory in the war possible. . . . It was a powerful image of community, representing a step toward a classless society" (3). Despite the hype, there existed an increase in conflicts between classes, genders, a rise in crime, and a general lack of support for the so-called "people's war" (3).

Where the issue of class feeling is concerned, many studies taken from the view of the working class may be misleading--pointing to a reduction and a new sense of solidarity. Because policies which promoted more equality had a greater effect on improving the lives of the working class, their particular standard of living exhibited some changes from the 1930s: "price controls and rationing reduced class differences in consumption. Full employment, rent control and food subsidies contributed to a substantial rise in real wages" (9). However, this example of equity was not far-reaching and differences and prejudices, as well as resentment, continued between those of differing social classes.

A number of examples may be cited for the continuation of differences between the social classes in Britain during and after the war. While richer families had the ability to move their children to another country out of fear of invasion, the poorer families could not (42). Many of the wealthier people who owned large houses shirked their responsibilities, while "local billeting officers were reluctant to pres the issue for fear of repercussions against themselves" (43). Women of higher class were allowed to voluntarily work, whereas those of poorer means were often forced to work in factories, such as those which manufactured ammunition (44). While upper-class families could afford to dine in restaurants, those of lower-income status had to rely solely on rationed items (48). Despite the fact that many middle income families believed that class differences during the war had dissolved, they soon realized that many, if not more, of those same differences had returned or accumulated afterwards (51).

Racial conflicts during and after the war progressed, apparently leaving such races as Jews, blacks, Irish, and other refugees out of the circle of supposed "social solidarity" (10). Refugees thought to be supporters of the Nazi faction were arrested, while riots erupted in a number of cities around the country as native Britons publicly decried lack of sympathy for the plights of aliens in Britain. Prejudices against British Jews and the Irish prevailed, despite the existence of such horrors as extermination camps and likely due to the shortage of labor during wartime.

Prejudices against American troops who happened to be black were also prevalent during this time of war. British Secretary of State at the time thought that the adoption of a policy for the segregation of their armies was necessary, pointing out that the US already had such a policy in existence. While the government did not enforce segregation, "the Cabinet agreed not to object to that policy and to caution Britons against becoming too friendly with black GIs" (55). Such a warning indicated that Caucasion women were not to be allowed alone in the company of black soldiers. When relationships between white women and these black soldiers were noted, the public opinion tended to blame the women involved in the affair (59).

If conflicts between classes and races were prevalent during the war, then the increase of conflicts between the genders should not come as a surprise. Despite the mobilization of women, pushing them into the workforce to replace the labor taken by the war, the government insisted on keeping women in their respective places. Women drew a lower wage than men working in munitions factories, "regarded as temporary workers whose employment would be terminated when the war ended" (13). In keeping with the traditional gender roles, women were assigned tasks which fit their natures, "such as cooking or clerical work" (13). Women were expected to exact the same number of sacrifices as men, but were being paid at two-thirds the rate of their opposite sex. Meanwhile, the public supported equal compensation for women, backed by the efforts of the National Council of Women who called for "equal compensation on the ground that all citizens should be treated alike regardless of their gender" (68).

With greater sexual freedoms, women faced a number of charges against their pure nature, gender-biased as it was by the select spheres in which women's roles in society fell victim to. Promiscuity in women, especially where relationships existed between US troops and British women, increased