Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#16

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Oct 2014, 17:57

Excuse me ????? All of a sudden I'm the one who "missed the point"?
Yes, missed the point; you were the one who widened the discussion onto other topics, not me - including the aspect where you missed the point of why the police were armed.
Try to think a little bit before you start your compulsive contradicting ... what I mean, obviously, is that the temptation to take to the road and flee would be very much stronger for people with a car with a full tank at their disposal than for people who would have to transport their most precious belongings in a pram or wheelbarrow.

The situation would have been different from Belgium and France. People there expected a repeat of WWI and did not want to be in the German-occupied zone. If they had known the outcome in all likelihood they would not have fled, because in the large majority of cases they returned home after a while and so had risked their lives on the road, abandoned their livestock, and/or had their houses plundered, for nothing
Why do you think it would be any different? Continental Europeans were indeed somewhat "used" to taking to the roads to avoid occupation; why do you think British citizens would have been any less anxious about living under the Nazis? Didn't Fleming detail the quiet egress of thousands of inhabitants of the South and South-east of England who could afford it to hotels in the south-west, Scotland etc.? How do you think the inhabitants of the invasiona area who couldn't afford to depart earlier were going to do it? Shanks' mare would be the ONLY choice for many of them that didn't live in an area covered by the government/council evacuation. Just because they didn't have motor transport wasn't going to make them any more ready to let the German occupation roll over them.

After all - while it had been generations since England was truly invaded...hadn't it been the citizens of England who were treated to four years of propaganda regarding the Rape Of Belgium within recent memory? Propaganda that hadn't yet been softened by the decades of revision of that event since the end of WWII? If anything - British citizens probabaly had a WORSE idea and opinion of German occupation than the French or Belgians...because it wasn't in any way softened by years of having to live day-to-day under it. The English' idea of German occupations was still the "babies on bayonets" idea of the Boche, not helped by newsreels from France in May, tales in the papers of machinegunned civilians, terror bombing, etc.. While the reality of German occupation was in no way beneficent - neither was it quite as wantonly violent and arbitrary as the British opinion of it....carefully fostered by the government twenty years before! :P
I imagine that most people in Britain at the time were smart enough to figure out that in case of invasion there were only two likely scenarios: either the invaders would be defeated and thrown back into the sea in a relatively short time - in which case staying in tne cellar was the best bet - or they would win and occupy the whole island, in which case fleeing was pointless
Obviously this opinion is incorrect - and was JUST as incorrect in 1940...or else why even bother with the Stay Put instructions, why even bother with the preparations for directing/feeding/accomodating refugees/evacuees etc.?

And that's in addition to the other plans we know about - for nodal points, fortresses etc. to be evacuated, and the Army wanting the coastal strip evacuated.
To repeat myself, I'm not saying there wouldn't have been any refugees at all - just not large masses blocking the roads everywhere.
By definition there wouldn't have been - BECAUSE of the government/council preparations for largescale, organised evacuations...AND the preparations already mentioned for directing refugees onto dedicated, pre-mapped out, roads for their use.

Given what has already been posted up regarding the police being prepared to handle refugees, the pre-printed maps showing separate military-use-only and refugee-use roads/routes, saying that there would/wouldn't be refugees "everywhere" is just an attempt to establish a strawman.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#17

Post by Knouterer » 24 Oct 2014, 16:49

The only problem is that you still haven't shown any credible evidence of the existence of such "government/council preparations for largescale, organised evacuations" after "the balloon went up".

That there were all sorts of evacuation schemes to get people out of the way before a threatening invasion is undisputed. So is the fact that large numbers of people availed themselves of such schemes, leaving the coastal areas of Kent/Sussex largely depopulated by September. In other words, (almost) everybody with any thoughts of fleeing was already gone.

In any case - as I have asked before - what on earth would be the point of sending people on the road once the invasion had started? To make sure the Luftwaffe could shoot them up more conveniently? To hamper the movements of the military?

There might at most have been some local, small scale evacuations over short distances of (parts of) villages or small towns designated "fortresses" or "nodal points".

Wouldn't it be easier if - just out of consideration for the readers of this thread - you admitted that you were a little bit confused before, but that you now understand things better, in the light of info provided by other posters ? Just blame it on Longmate.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#18

Post by phylo_roadking » 24 Oct 2014, 19:22

That there were all sorts of evacuation schemes to get people out of the way before a threatening invasion is undisputed. So is the fact that large numbers of people availed themselves of such schemes, leaving the coastal areas of Kent/Sussex largely depopulated by September. In other words, (almost) everybody with any thoughts of fleeing was already gone.
As shown previously and elsewhere - this is a gross exaggeration and therefore by definition wrong.
The only problem is that you still haven't shown any credible evidence of the existence of such "government/council preparations for largescale, organised evacuations" after "the balloon went up".
As noted above and elsewhere - when in June the Government refused to action the prepared evacuation plans as Ironside wanted, they said that they would be actioned in the event of invasion or an imminent invasion - the only problem being that the plans would take at least three days to action; 12-24 hours to start it, then up to 48 hours to complete. The preparations were not abandoned, scrapped or got rid of; as noted previously also, the railway timetables etc. drawn up for these evacuations were preserved ready for use - and in fact are STILL preserved over 70 years later, on file individually by town in the National Archives.

Ironside wanted them out of the way in June because... "We cannot be certain that we shall receive any more information than is in our possession at present as to the day and hour that operations will commence...We are unable to give an assurance that we shall receive three days notice of attack." In other words, even if the evacuation was ordered as the government said the moment that in invasion became apparent and imminent by whatever means - the RAF spotting invasion shipping had departed Continental ports etc. - it would take in total from three to four days to complete, thus the Germans would arrive off the beaches of Southern England in the middle of the ongoing "official" evacuation 8O
n any case - as I have asked before - what on earth would be the point of sending people on the road once the invasion had started? To make sure the Luftwaffe could shoot them up more conveniently? To hamper the movements of the military?
As noted previously and shown above - to remove them from nodal points etc. Add to create a free movement and "free fire" area for the Army - the free fire area they wanted in June 1940. For not only the police, but also the Army was certain that the population would not resist the urge to take to the roads. To quote Gen. brownrigg -
"I had particular experience of this problem around Boulogne and Clais. Crowds of cars, horse-drawn vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians and disorganised soldiers of France, Belgium and Holland, made movement in the coastal roads and roads leading to the coast almost impossible...
I do not suggest that British crowds will necessarily behave in the same way - but "evacuation" by road (HIS emphasis, not mine) is infectious. A few people start to leave an area and others will follow. This is soon taken up by others further away from the anitcipated danger who have become infected with panic by seeing crowds pass through their own towns and villages. So the crowds go on the roads without any definite idea where they intend to go."
Hence the plans made ahead of schedule as to how to route refugees I.E. the marked road maps.
Wouldn't it be easier if - just out of consideration for the readers of this thread - you admitted that you were a little bit confused before, but that you now understand things better, in the light of info provided by other posters ? Just blame it on Longmate.
I would actually suggest you go back and review what you've posted twice now on AHF about the "Chief Constable of Maidstone"'s actions;
The Chief Constable of Maidstone instructed his men as follows: “It is of paramount importance that when a crisis arises the public must remain where they are and any attempt at panic evacuation must be stopped, if necessary by force, regrettable though this course may be.”
What you've said about what he was instructing his officers to do seems to strangely be missing one additonal detail that changes the complexion of that particular anecdote 100%...otherwise, what you've posted up is a gross misrepresentation of the facts of that episode.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#19

Post by Knouterer » 25 Oct 2014, 13:13

phylo_roadking wrote:
That there were all sorts of evacuation schemes to get people out of the way before a threatening invasion is undisputed. So is the fact that large numbers of people availed themselves of such schemes, leaving the coastal areas of Kent/Sussex largely depopulated by September. In other words, (almost) everybody with any thoughts of fleeing was already gone.
As shown previously and elsewhere - this is a gross exaggeration and therefore by definition wrong.

[.
Shown by whom? Not that I noticed. It most certainly was the case in Dover, Folkestone, Eastbourne and other towns in the invasion zone that around two-thirds of the population had left by September, as I showed from various contemporary accounts and local histories.
I could have added the example of Broadstairs (Kent, between Ramsgate and Margate) with a population of 7,500 in May. Seven free evacuation trains were made available, and by 3 July - before any serious bombing had even started - 5,500 people had left the town (according to Mark Rowe, Don't Panic, p. 49).
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#20

Post by phylo_roadking » 25 Oct 2014, 15:49

Shown by whom? Not that I noticed. It most certainly was the case in Dover, Folkestone, Eastbourne and other towns in the invasion zone that around two-thirds of the population had left by September, as I showed from various contemporary accounts and local histories.
Really? You've shown it?...Let's see...

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 2#p1885902
R. Humpries, Target Folkestone, p. 65: (8 October 1940) "The Primate, speaking at Canterbury Diocesan Conference, said: "... the plight of the coastal towns is appalling - the population of Folkestone is down from 47,000 to 11,000 and thousands of houses are empty with whole streets almost entirely deserted and trade has largely vanished."

N. D. Goodwin, Hastings at War, p. 31: "On 11 September, six weeks after the first evacuation, the second evacuation of the town, which was more widely heeded, took place (...) The town's pre-war population of over 65,000 dropped to just 21,000."

G. Humphrey, Eastbourne at War, p. 19: "Tuesday, September 10, 1940, saw the issue of a Home Office proclamation inviting all those with no official duties to take advantage of a voluntary evacuation scheme and leave Eastbourne clear for the defenders, should the evacuation materialise. During the following days many took up the offer ..." About two-thirds of the pre-war population of around 60,000 left, including many ARP wardens, so that the service functioned only with great difficulty when a raid came on Sept. 13th.

S. Hylton, Kent and Sussex 1940, p. 138-139: "The populations of the coastal towns plummeted. Margate's peacetime population of around 40,000 had fallen by August 1940 to just 11,516."
Look closely at whay you posted up before - as I advised you to look again before too, when you posted those up the first time...
N. D. Goodwin, Hastings at War, p. 31: "On 11 September, six weeks after the first evacuation, the second evacuation of the town, which was more widely heeded, took place (...) The town's pre-war population of over 65,000 dropped to just 21,000."

G. Humphrey, Eastbourne at War, p. 19: "Tuesday, September 10, 1940, saw the issue of a Home Office proclamation inviting all those with no official duties to take advantage of a voluntary evacuation scheme and leave Eastbourne clear for the defenders, should the evacuation materialise. During the following days many took up the offer ..." About two-thirds of the pre-war population of around 60,000 left, including many ARP wardens, so that the service functioned only with great difficulty when a raid came on Sept. 13th.
Didn't you claim less than a page ago that there were no evacuation plans?

As for the efficacy of "Stay Put", and both the police AND the Army being only too well aware of the propsect of refugees and having to plan for them, I ALSO noted previously...
Just as an aside, IIRC it's Lavery who mentions that seven days after the "If Invasion Comes..." admonition to "Stay Put" was published on June 13th...the rate of voluntary evacuations by individuals/families suddenly spiked after the police posted up the "compulsory" evacuation notices in the nineteen coastal towns on June 20th :lol:
I.E. those people Fleming mentions, who took themselves off to distant parts and crowded the hotels and boarding houses of Scotland and Devon/Cornwall - their flight was triggered by the government's plans and instructions!

In the matter of this over-exaggeration...
So is the fact that large numbers of people availed themselves of such schemes, leaving the coastal areas of Kent/Sussex largely depopulated by September. In other words, (almost) everybody with any thoughts of fleeing was already gone.
Let's see...43,000 out of 120,000 inhabitants of Southend had left...which is a third, NOT two thirds - and hugely short of "largely depopulated"; half the citizens of Deal had evacuated themselves - that's a half, not two thirds as you claim; etc., etc...

Now - have you taken a look at your unreferenced remarks about the Chief Constable of Maidstone yet?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#21

Post by Knouterer » 25 Oct 2014, 16:02

[quote="phylo_roadking"] Didn't you claim less than a page ago that there were no evacuation plans?

/quote]

No I did not ... what I said was, on the contrary:

"That there were all sorts of evacuation schemes to get people out of the way before a threatening invasion is undisputed."

And I even mentioned various examples such as at Broadstairs.

And now that we have reached this depth of intellectual dishonesty, deliberate misquoting, stubborn refusal to admit historical facts, unwarranted aggressiveness, and silly guessing games about the Chief Constable of Maidstone, about whom I could not care less, I quit the thread.
You can keep on arguing with yourself if you like.
Last edited by Knouterer on 26 Oct 2014, 12:30, edited 1 time in total.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#22

Post by phylo_roadking » 25 Oct 2014, 16:41

And now that we have reached this depth of intellectual dishonesty, deliberate misquoting, stubborn refusal to admit historical facts, and silly guessing games about the Chief Constable of Maidstone, about whom I could not care less, I quit the thread.
Let's see - intellectual dishonesty, deliberate misquoting, stubborn refusal to admit historical facts....
3. Whatever wild plans there may have been before, by August/September policy was clear and the government had ordered the population, repeatedly and unequivocally, to stay put in case of invasion and there were more than enough police, Home Guard and military on hand to enforce that order – and the road blocks were already in place for other reasons. The Chief Constable of Maidstone instructed his men as follows: “It is of paramount importance that when a crisis arises the public must remain where they are and any attempt at panic evacuation must be stopped, if necessary by force, regrettable though this course may be.”
Strangely enough on neither occasion on AHF you've mentioned this gentleman about who you couldn't care less...but you've chosen to reference twice now in two threads...you've neglected to provide a reference for that little quote. But when I went searching for any further information on that subject, what did I find?

From the Kent Police Museum website... http://www.kent-police-museum.co.uk/cor ... art3.shtml
With the invasion of Britain believed to be imminent, the possibility of public panic was greatly feared in high places. The Chief Constable of Maidstone went so far as to instruct his men that, in the event of an invasion, there was to be no evacuation of the civilian population of the town and, in order to keep the roads clear for military traffic, people were to be prevented from leaving the town, by force if necessary. As for the police themselves, not being part of the Armed Forces, they were not expected to put up any resistance in the event of an invasion, but were to look after the civilians in their area. This policy was later amended somewhat and the police were told that, in any area not actually occupied by the enemy, they should not hesitate to use any weapons to deal with enemy infiltrators, saboteurs and such-like.
Yes, the policy was indeed amended somewhat - because as has already been shown in detail, refugee/movement control was NOT what the police were to be armed for. But strange that the two times that you've referenced the Chief Constable of Maidstone, you failed to note that his policy had been amended to bring it in line with the policy on the use of armed police in the REST of the country...which was, as shown earlier -
As we can see later in your article, Churchill had pushed the arming of the police because he saw THEM...along with the ARP wardens etc...providing a two-tier system in the event of invasion, when there would be armed combatant branches of both assisting/being part of the Crown forces. And in fact...
Churchill was having none of it and said that ‘his view of the Cabinet decision ... was that we did not contemplate or countenance fighting by persons not in the armed forces, but that we did not forbid it. What he had had in mind was that the
police, and, he hoped, the A.R.P. services, could be divided into combatant and noncombatant branches, armed and unarmed; those armed would co-operate actively in fighting with the Home Guard and Regulars in their neighbourhood, and would withdraw with them if necessary; the unarmed would assist in the "stay put" policy for civilians’.
I.E. no armed police for handling refugees! In other words -
If any refugees had poured out of the coastal towns of kent and Sussex that autumn, they would not have found their way barred by some grim-faced gendarme flourishing a gun, but by a familiar, blue-helmeted figure armed with nothing more legal that persuasion, cajolery, and, as a last resort, a truncheon, reciting that often heard litany, "This way please."
The younger (fitter ) police officers were armed to "...co-operate actively in fighting with the Home Guard and Regulars in their neighbourhood"...and/or "withdrawn" ....from invasion areas as necessary and under military orders.
Likewise - intellectual dishonesty is posting up details for five (5) towns only in the invasion area, and claiming that this proved that the situation was the same for ALL towns in the invasion area...
Some two-thirds or more of the population of Dover, Folkestone, Deal, Eastbourne and other coastal towns had already left by mid-September.
It most certainly was the case in Dover, Folkestone, Eastbourne and other towns in the invasion zone that around two-thirds of the population had left by September, as I showed from various contemporary accounts and local histories.
...when in fact it needed only two population figures to demonstrate that that assumption was wrong - figures that were equally contemporary, being from CAB 120/439. What you're supposed to do is note that the population had been reduced by two thirds in some coastal towns...

...while a "stubborn refusal to admit historical facts" includes -
3. Whatever wild plans there may have been before, by August/September policy was clear and the government had ordered the population, repeatedly and unequivocally, to stay put in case of invasion
...the failure to take on board what you had been told some time ago, that the "Stay Put" instruction in "If The Invader Comes" and the subsequent "How Shall I Prepare To Stay Put?" leaflet was itself later amended by the government to the more inspiring "Stand Firm" because the original advice went down like a lead ballon (Michael Glover) AND as illustrated earlier actually caused a major flight from the coast....

...not to mention the fact that both the police AND the Army fully anticipated the population to take to the roads, and had prepared for such an eventuality.

Just incidently...given that it won't be answered now...I can't help wondering exactly what transport resources the Army intended to use to evacuate civilians from the nodal points and fortresses in the coastal strip..?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Andy H
Forum Staff
Posts: 15326
Joined: 12 Mar 2002, 21:51
Location: UK and USA

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#23

Post by Andy H » 25 Oct 2014, 18:38

Hi Phylo & Knouterer

Whilst I welcome responses and information that helps in answering my initial query, I don't particularly welcome posts that don't!

Thread drift is a ever present issue on Forums and to some extent they can bring about interesting information and otherwise shine light on neglected areas of history. However, when they are used to re-fight or re-ignite debates between individuals, there worth soon evaporates. That is the case here, where some interesting and know doubt obscure aspect of UK wartime policing is being usurped by your personnel Intifada.
I'm hesitant to remove all the posts not directly related to my initial post, as they do contain interesting facts etc, especially if one ignores the personnel sniping etc. So I'm asking you to please refrain from the sniping, otherwise I'll remove what you've already posted.

Kind Regards

Andy H

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#24

Post by Knouterer » 26 Oct 2014, 21:08

Hi Andy,

You can delete the whole thread for all I care. And for the record: I'm not conducting an "Intifada" (???); I'd just like to be able to post some factual information on this forum - just once - without it being immediately being followed by an aggressive, rambling, irrelevant reply taking up half a page.

Just watch what happens the next time I post something on the "British Army at home in September 1940" thread.

I may well have to switch to a forum where moderators are able and willing to do something about this kind of continual harassment.

Regards,
Knouterer
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

EdFearon
Member
Posts: 4
Joined: 14 Jun 2014, 21:37
Location: Portpatrick

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#25

Post by EdFearon » 26 Oct 2014, 21:51

Its sad that this particular subject should lead to my first post on the forum, but Ive been an avid reader of the various Sealion threads and this one for some months now.

As far as I can see, this is indeed the heart of the problem:
I'd just like to be able to post some factual information on this forum - just once -
I for one would like to see you post some factual information on this forum too just once, not your previous tissue of facts strung together with assumptions and personal opinions that you cant handle being questioned on. That totally ruins the historical value of the majority of what you choose to post. There comes a point where too much assumption and opinionising doesn't create good history or historical research: it creates The Emperors New Clothes. You may not like him or what he posts, but Ive learnt more from phylo_roadkings comments on your posts than I have from your original posts each time.

Ed

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#26

Post by Gooner1 » 27 Oct 2014, 11:39

phylo_roadking wrote: Let's see...43,000 out of 120,000 inhabitants of Southend had left...which is a third, NOT two thirds - and hugely short of "largely depopulated";
Uh, Phylo, 'Sarfend' is in Essex, not Kent. :wink:

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#27

Post by Knouterer » 27 Oct 2014, 14:50

Knouterer wrote: Just watch what happens the next time I post something on the "British Army at home in September 1940" thread.

I may well have to switch to a forum where moderators are able and willing to do something about this kind of continual harassment.
Well, I posted something there yesterday,and it took exactly three hours for the usual "Roadking Rant" to appear ... would probably have been faster if it hadn't been around lunchtime.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#28

Post by Knouterer » 21 Nov 2014, 23:30

Gooner1 wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote: Let's see...43,000 out of 120,000 inhabitants of Southend had left...which is a third, NOT two thirds - and hugely short of "largely depopulated";
Uh, Phylo, 'Sarfend' is in Essex, not Kent. :wink:
In any case, the situation in likely invasion zones north of the Thames was not very different; according to the Official History (Collier, The Defence of the United Kingdom, p. 144):"By the middle of July, 127,000 people, or nearly half the population, had left East Anglian coast towns under voluntary schemes and special arrangements made for children and old people ..."
Presumably, quite a few more had left by the end of September.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#29

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Nov 2014, 00:30

It's strange, you know; you keep on posting up quotes about...
"By the middle of July, 127,000 people, or nearly half the population, had left East Anglian coast towns under voluntary schemes and special arrangements made for children and old people ..."
"On 11 September, six weeks after the first evacuation, the second evacuation of the town, which was more widely heeded, took place (...) The town's pre-war population of over 65,000 dropped to just 21,000."
Tuesday, September 10, 1940, saw the issue of a Home Office proclamation inviting all those with no official duties to take advantage of a voluntary evacuation scheme and leave Eastbourne clear for the defenders, should the evacuation materialise. During the following days many took up the offer ..."
...and you yourself even said -
So is the fact that large numbers of people availed themselves of such schemes, leaving the coastal areas of Kent/Sussex largely depopulated by September. In other words, (almost) everybody with any thoughts of fleeing was already gone.
...yet continue to deny that there were any local government plans or schemes for evacuation, or officially-sanctioned government ones :roll:

Even though one of those quotes clearly states...
Tuesday, September 10, 1940, saw the issue of a Home Office proclamation inviting all those with no official duties to take advantage of a voluntary evacuation scheme
I take it you do appreciate that the Home Office was and is part of the government of the UK?

On the one hand you keep saying there were no such plans or schemes...and on the other keep posting up proof that there were such schemes and that they actually took place :lol:
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Proposal for Aircraft Defence Police Sept'40

#30

Post by Knouterer » 22 Nov 2014, 11:00

As I have explained twenty-three times by now, there were all sorts of schemes to get people out of the way BEFORE the invasion, but not AFTER it had started (except perhaps locally on a small scale). I don't know why you find it so hard to grasp the difference.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”