How England's Gardeners Fought the Second World War

Ursula Buchan tells the inspiring story of how the British authorities cajoled its citizens into contributing to the war effort by growing their own fruit and vegetables and how gardening became a fight for freedom.

Link removed by admin. £5 per event if you want to advertise on Gardeners Corner.

Please contact any staff member for further details.

 

I'd love to know more about "Dig for Victory" and how it all came about. I think I need to Google!

It's a pity GDA didn't pay a fiver....might be more people interested!!

 

I thought they taught it in school? They did when I went. There's also plenty of records of everything. I used to enjoy sitting in the archive room at our main library, that is until they pulled it down to make it better.

In essence, it was one of many initiatives that stemmed from the government's realisation that we didn't stand a chance of winning the war. There wasn't enough money in the pot to pay for the continuing war effort, and with the German blockade in the Atlantic, the nation was at risk of going hungry too.

A number of initiatives were launched, mostly in an effort to offer some hope to the 'defeated' British people by letting them thinking they were doing something to help. Nobody (in government) was convinced any of it would work.

I remember seeing a poster (no, I wasn't there at the time, I mean I remember seeing it in the history books or in the archive room or somewhere) for one of the government initiatives. It was part of the Dig for Victory thing but I don't remember if that term was on it. It was very formal. Nothing like today's upbeat glossy full colour promotions. It said something like "the farmers need all the land to grow cereal. Your family needs vitamins from brocolli, cabbage, carrots, peas and potatoes. If you want your family to eat well, you must grow these things yourself", or something non-catchy and straight to the point like that.

 

Timetable clash.....it was either History or Physics. Guess which one I picked! Should have stuck with History.

 

I picked physics at school too. The history bit was from primary school. I didn't trust the school enough with important subjects so I chose just what I needed to get the formal qualifications I needed to get into college. The actual important stuff I studied solo, mostly at the library, and most of that all alone in the usually locked archive room. It used to be the rule that you couldn't go into the archive room without a member of staff, but they got to know me and would just let me in and leave me there. It sounds dull, but it was like a gold mine of information in there. They even had minutes of parish council meetings, and in one such, they discussed letting some lady off with her council house rent for a while seeing as she'd had to relocate into a prefab as her house had been damaged in a bomb blast. Then at the other end of the spectrum there were mission plans and reports for military missions of a massive scale. In one mission report I read, I was blown away by the sheer scale of the operation. It was the classic pincer move, with a massive mobilisation of everything, by sea, land and air against some oil and fuel depot in Italy. I was blown away by the scale of that alone (it was more than just an fuel refinery, they attacked a number of installations in the area simultaneously), but that wasn't it. Just when I thought I was coming to the end of that report, it went on with a 'meanwhile in the Atlantic...' and went on to describe what was being done to harm the enemy from the other side, so that, as the report explained, Germany would not know which direction to bolster their forces.

I read of few of Churchill's famous speeches too, but to be honest when they're just written on a page and you're reading in your head, its not quite as powerful. At least that's what I thought. I was more moved by the parish council meeting minutes about half the house on Hobson Avenue having been hit, and having to find alternative accommodation for surviving families. All very powerful, and interesting stuff. I have no idea where that wealth of documents went since the current council decided to bin off the central library.

 

They might yet, not bad for National advertising for an event. Just get upset when folk join and tout their wares without asking, this is a privately owned forum, not a Supermarket notice board.

In the mean time....

http://www.homesweethomefront.co.uk/web_pages/hshf_dig_for_victory_pg.htm

Interesting subject.

 

As much as I enjoy a bit of reading of history, my own "knowledge" of the war is handed down to me by a person who lived through it: my mother.

I dislike the use of the word "cajoled" used in this context simply because it wasn't a matter of persuading someone through flattery: it was a necessity! Food imports were targeted as a strategy during the war. Targeting food imports is not a modern war strategy but an historic one! Even the Romans understood the value in cutting off rations to a nation under siege! It is neither new, nor inspired.

As a former Empire, Britain had access to a rich, and varied, diet (if your wage could sustain it!) provided via various modes of transportation. Cut those transportation routes and you diminish the vitamin/strength of your opponent. Simple!

I disagree that the British Government held the believe that we "didn't stand a chance of winning the war" - they would not have entered into it unless there was a belief that we stood a chance! However, there also came a point where it reached such a level that the assistance of the USA was sought, mortgaged and engaged! This is despite the strength of our other allies (which US presentations have diminished through their Hollywood presentations! Simply check the war graves to see just how many allies stood shoulder to shoulder to beat the beast) But, that wasn't necessarily a food issue, more a military strength/strategic issue.

I'm of the mind that, prior to WWII, your common working man was not "at leisure" to indulge in fripperies such as "grow your own": they were too worn out from doing the hard graft demanded of them by the factories/mines/other forms of "employment" and being paid a pittance, housed in over-crowded accommodation - which today's benefit career models would balk at! Nor would they have had the resources (e.g a "garden" - ? - to have a plot to grow anything in! Let alone have the finance available to purchase seed (not when bread on the table too a higher priority!).

My mother was a wealth of information in her verbal memoirs: but these are the verbal memoirs of a working class gal, who came from Yorkshire stock, who's father served in WWI, who's grandfather became nothing more than a grid reference in WWI, and who saw the outbreak of war in her most informative years and endured all that WWII to throw at her: and survived to tell the tale

Attitudes towards the war, it's success, it's doom and gloom varied between people (glass half full/empty? parishes, towns, cities and where you were during those years! ). It wasn't generic and much was dependant upon the resources available during those times.

So, any research into parish records would only give a glimpse into *that* parish, at *that* time and by *those* counsellors and could not give anything other than *their* (middle class?) perception. Just as, my mother's recollections were specific to her working class roots. My father's were different, but not much so, but specific to his - military - roots.

I still dislike the use of the word "cajoled" in this context. I feel it is far too flippant, not representative and merely a journalistic tool to evoke a sense of light hearted manipulation/propaganda which is far removed from the reality of that time. People were under NO illusion as to how serious STARVATION would be if they didn't pull their finger out. No "flattery" required!

 

I heard many stories from both my grandads too, and it was great to get their perspective as they'd been right in it. Lots of people have the privelege of knowing someone with such first hand wisdom, and I wouldn't for a second try to compete on a who's most qualified to know argument, but as I wasn't there and I don't think you were, we are equally in the dark except for what we can research for ourselves.

The British government entered into the war for two reasons:
1) Empire mentality. The upper classes of Britain at that time were arrogant enough to believe that simply threatening another nation actually carried immense weight if the threat came from Britain.
2) Good foresight and a bit of common sense. It was quite clear that just a short hop over the sea away, conquest was happening. Poland had already been occupied and it was clear what hitler's intentions were. It was equally clear that if not opposed, hitler would continue his conquest to include Britain. It is well documented that there were people in power in the US that would have sided with hitler's Germany over Britain, and equally Ireland was divided, so our hand was forced.

Elements within our government knew our chances were negligible. It was a case of tiny chance by fighting now, or no chance by waiting for the inevitable. Our best chance, or so it was thought, was a pre-emptive strike on Germany while the underestimated German force was focusing its resources on eastern Europe, then pray that the yanks would get involved before we ran out of limited resources. The yanks didn't come into it straight away, and we were inches from defeat.

During the war, kids were sent out to gather up scrap metal in buckets and take it into school where it was stored until it could be collected to go to the munitions factories. Much of the metal collected was no good, and in documents released well after the war, it is revealed that tonnes and tonnes of scrap metal, and metal fences and railings from churches and all sorts, were simply dumped in the sea because they were not suitable for making weapons or ammo. The people were allowed to believe that the metal they collected was going into guns and bombs and bullets because as long as there was hope, there was a chance. When there's no hope, people behave unpredictably and then you have strife both at home and abroad.

The famous Battle of Britain, that glorious battle demonstrating British air superiority, was a stroke of luck. For the first few years of the war, our legendary Spitfire was no match for the Meschersmitt, which could easily out manoeuvre the Spitty. One of its tricks was to attack from above, because the Spitty couldn't maintain a vertical climb for more than a second or two before stalling, due to a design flaw in the fuelling. A stroke of luck came when a Meschersmitt was shot down over Britain and crashed in a field with a soft enough landing to not completely destroy its engine. Engineers got straight on it, and the Spitfire was quickly retrofitted with primitive fuel injection to replace its carburettors, and suddenly its fuel under pressure as opposed to fuel mixed partly by gravity.

Contrary to what popular media portrays, there was no one thing that served as the turning point. Some cite the cracking of the enigma code at Bletchely Park. Some say it was the yanks getting involved. Others say it was pure British grit and determination, or German arrogance. I think it was all of these things and more. Lots of little things. German mistakes in Africa and Eastern Europe, British pure craziness with daft ideas like the bouncing bomb or the the way we figured out how the German planes were using intersecting beams of radio to direct their planes even at night, so threw our own radio beams into the mix to cause a doppler shift and make them miss their target, Dig for Victory which meant our people didn't starve after all (although if you look at what was available on rations, its hard to understand how come). It didn't do us any harm at all that many Polish refugees came to Britain and signed up to our side immediately. I'll mention that Battle of Britain again just because its so high profile, but less high profile is that a significant number of the pilots in our planes were Polish, because sadly we just didn't have enough combat ready pilots of our own at that time. Also less high profile is that we didn't win that one by strength alone. There are documented cases of allied planes, completely out of ammo, being steered at enemy aircraft with the intention of trying to collide with them, and there are documented cases of our planes taking advantage of the fact that they didn't have as far to go, so if you could just give the German planes the runaround for while, they'll run out of fuel before they actually get to fight.

Its all there in publicly accessible documents. Stuff that has long since been declassified. The government had made contingency plans involving our surrender and/or defeat in battle. It is widely acknowledged both from people with first hand experience, and from the documents, that it was not looking good right from the outset. Even at one point, one of the initiatives was the Pounds make Pounds campaign. £1 buys 1lb of explosive, and there were local sponsorship campaigns where communities could raise money for a new plane. We were stuffed basically. Our parents and grandparents somehow managed to pull it off, and I'll always been mightily impressed and extremely proud of that, but the fact remains, it was looking pretty bleak.

Last thought on the subject. Even Churchill unwittingly hinted at the bleak outlook when he said, "This is not the end, it is not the beginning of the end, but maybe it is the end of the beginning" (or something like that). A clear acknowledgement that prior to that point, he believed it was a foregone conclusion, but now, just maybe, there is a chance that it might be turning around.