East
Lv 4
East asked in Arts & HumanitiesHistory · 3 months ago

Were people in the UK angry about destruction of their property by German bombing in WWII?

World War II must have been traumatic for a lot of civilians in the UK, given German bombing plus war generally.

Were people angry when their homes and offices and shops were destroyed by bombing?  Or were they mostly renters, and thus they weren't as attached to them as an owner would be?  Or was WWII just so awful generally that loss of life would have been the worst thing, and anything else was secondary?

I admire the people of the United Kingdom greatly for their courage during WWII.

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    3 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    Traumatic Yes we lost 2 Houses we were Renting so I have no Toys or Photographs when I was Young but as for Angry NO I Joined the RAF at 17 after WW2 served 3 years in Germany and Loved it

    I have been Back to Berlin about 5 times  not all Germans were Nazis and many Germans said they were glad to be in the British sector I wanted to learn German and they wanted to learn English so the classes were Fun

    Angry No can't say I am

    But and nazi wanted for war crimes Must be Hunted down and Punished No matter How old they are

    My Mate died from a V2 in March 1945

    The Treaty of Brest-LitovskThe treaty that ended Russia's participation in the First World War was signed on March 3rd, 1918.

    the Germans imposed this on Russia 1918 which was far Harsher than the Treaty of Versailles the Germans could dish it out but they moaned about the slap on the wrist

    They were extremely harsh. Russia gave up close to half its European territory. Russian Poland, Lithuania and part of Latvia were ceded to Germany and Austria. The Ukraine, Finland, Estonia and the rest of Latvia were transformed into independent states under German protection. Bessarabia was to go to Romania and the Ottomans took the Armenian areas in the Caucasus. All Bolshevik propaganda in the ceded areas was to cease (a provision which the Bolshevik regime soon found ways round). Russia lost huge areas of prime agricultural land, eighty per cent of her coal mines and half her other industries. A follow-up agreement in August committed the country to pay six billion marks in reparations.Trotsky could not face the humiliation of signing the treaty and had a subordinate sign for the regime. There was turmoil in Russia. The Petrogradskoe Ekho evening newspaper, for example, reported that workers at the Tula armament factory considered the treaty an act of treason which was ‘destructive to the international proletarian movement and deeply harmful to the interests of Russian workers, the revolution and the Russian economy in general.’  Whether ordinary Russian factory hands ever talked like that seems doubtful, but certainly many Russians regarded the treaty as an abominable betrayal of their country. Brest-Litovsk had a role in provoking the civil war between the Whites and the Reds. So did the fact that the Left Socialist Revolutionaries withdrew from the government and left it entirely in the hands of the Bolsheviks, and some of them took the White side in the civil war.

    the Treaty of  Versailles was based on The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

    so germany had Nothing to complain about

  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    Possibly yes, and people in Germany were angry about the destruction of their property by British bombing in WWII

    And we should not forget that in the relationship between Germany and the UK, it was the UK that declared war on Germany and not vice versa.

  • xyzzy
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    No they were not angry nor were the Germans angry about the bombing the Allies did. It was a fun time for all. People cheered when they heard the air raid sirens. Everybody enjoys having their homes and business destroyed and wondering if they and their friends and family are going to live to see tomorrow.  (see sarcasm).

  • Tina
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    Of course they were angry. And frightened. And devastated when they were made homeless and their families were killed. What did you expect? But what could they do about it, except resist Hitler as best they could?

    And, Dave (aka 'nonpartisan') you say Churchill was responsible for the bombing, just as you claim he was responsible for the death camps and the terrible sufferings of Hitler's civilian victims - the Roma, the Jews, the long list of people Hitler didn't like. Of course he wasn't. Hitler built the camps and ordered the bombing. And when did Hitler suddenly become reluctant to bomb heavily populated areas? - he began his war with Poland by bombing four towns with no military targets and no air defences - the terror-bombing tactics his air force had learned under Franco.

    As for your ludicrous suggestion that Hitler didn't want war - in spite of the fact that he had directed all his spending to building up his war machine, with money Germany didn't have, in defiance of the Treaty of Versailles, and that Churchill did - although he knew the country was *not* prepared for war - can you see that you are not making sense?

    And Hitler said himself that he didn't care about Danzig - he wanted Polish land that he could clear of its Polish inhabitants by deportation, starvation and murder and fill with his 'German soldier-peasants'.

    The bombing of London would never have happened if it had not been for Hitler.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    Of course they were.

    Just as most are appalled by the destruction of historical statues by anarchists, often  immigrants  who chose to move to Britain abd now complain it does not meet heirexacting standards. 

  • 1465
    Lv 6
    3 months ago

    You should admire the innocent victims, but if you're being all-inclusive you need to do a little homework.

    The bombing of London and subsequent cities in the UK would never have happened had it not been for Churchill.

    Churchill is credited for being a tireless hero who saved Britain from the nasty Germans. But that's not quite accurate...

    Look up the word "appeaser" in an encyclopedia and you'll find a picture of Neville Chamberlain. It has since become a term of disgrace.

    At the time of the Munich Agreement in 1938, he was lauded a hero for not only avoiding war with Germany over the Sudetenland issue but for helping other countries associated with Czechoslovakia gain their independence as well.

    (Interesting how the only part that gets remembered is that which involved Germany, while the entire event is crucial to understanding all of the facts about it. But then, the only part that history is interested in is what condemns Germany.)

    Chamberlain returned home a hero - and declared "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour.

    I believe it is peace for our time...

    Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

    The job of a country's head of state is to maintain peace with other countries and protect the people of his own country - which is exactly what Chamberlain did.

    Churchill's response to Chamberlain was, “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war."

    This affected the rest of Chamberlain's term as Prime Minister and changed the political atmosphere toward Germany (Britain is as obsessed with their honor as the Japanese).

    With the political climate increasingly moving towards war with Germany, Britain gave a bogus assurance that they would come to Poland's aid if Germany attacked.

    Hitler had been trying to negotiate a route to access Danzig (the Polish Corridor), but Poland, under the leadership of wannabe dictator Edward Smigly Rydz who lived for war himself, opposed it. Poland wanted to go to war with Germany but didn't have the military strength to do so.

    Britain's worthless assurance gave Rydz a false sense of assurance that Britain had his back, and so he quit negotiations altogether.

    This had the effect Britain wanted - an attack by Hitler to justify declaring war on Germany.

    Hitler never wanted war and tried to avoid it many times - it was Britain and, in particular, Winston Churchill that wanted war.

    Even after war had been declared, Hitler hesitated to bomb heavily populated cities - it was Britain's bombing of Berlin that opened that can of worms.

    The blame for bombing the UK gets piled on warmonger Churchill's shoulders, as does the blame for igniting the entire world war.

    Hitler may have fired the first shot against Poland - after he was provoked into it, but Britain never responded (they abandoned Poland) for 8 months until Churchill became Prime Minister and Britain had built its forces enough to follow through with their declaration of war.

  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    They were more annoyed by having their mothers, wives, aunties and kids killed. Or having to their tea spoilt by a blast.

    Phlegmatic has often been used to describe the British.

  • Andrew
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    If you were renting a flat and I were to bomb it in the dead of night and you were somehow able to escape with your life, how do you think you would feel if you were standing in front of the pile of rubble that had once been your home? Do you think your reaction would be "Well, that's the landlord's problem, not mine"? Do try and use your noggin for something other than a handy place to keep your hat. 

  • 3 months ago

    Just a peculiarly British trait in my opinion. Survival was the name of the game and bombed out people simply went and stayed with friends, relatives and neighbours. The idea of "home" was not a building but a shared experience. Churchill's words "we shall never surrender!" was born of such defiance and defines us in times of crisis still.

  • Mike
    Lv 7
    3 months ago

    If my residence was destroyed by a bomb, I would be very angry whether I owned the place or rented it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.