When any of the former residents of Tydeham discuss their relocation, they don’t seem bitter. Why do you think this is? How do you think most would react to similar deprivations today?

When any of the former residents of Tydeham discuss their relocation, they don’t seem bitter, more often saying something to the effect that it was wartime and they were lucky (e.g., Mr. Houghton on p. 157: “[T]he war made things hard for a lot of people. At least we always had a roof over our heads.”) Why do you think this is? How do you think most would react to similar deprivations today?

I am sure that they were happy to be alive after the horrible war with so many deaths. Today I hear in the news many people who have lost everything due to the flooding in the south and the fires in especially California are saying, we are alive that is what is important. Brave brave people, not sure how I would feel. We never know until we are put in certain situations.

Residents of Tydeham, for the most part, were stoic and seemed to want to make the best of a bad situation. I think the war made people cling to each other rather than to past events and possessions. Today, I feel natural disasters other and unavoidable setbacks affect many in the same way- people are more important then possessions.
Some of the the Tydeham residents were hopeful they would be returning to their town after the war. The fact they could not do that did not seem to create bitterness except in the case of Liz's mother.

I think the residents didn't like being removed but accepted they were in a state of war and it was their duty to move. I think it would be a harder sell today. There would have to be some dire circumstances involved.

The residents more or less accepted relocation because it was wartime, and sacrifices had to be made by everyone if Hitler was to be stopped.

I agree with many of the previous comments. The residents felt they were doing their duty for the war effort. As time passed they rebuilt their lives. They do seem to demonstrate the resilience of people who suffer the loss of material possessions in natural disasters, but who express gratitude for their lives and the lives of their loved ones.

As I mentioned when answering the question of the military taking over towns during the war, it was never a question of inconvenience during the war, no matter the sacrifice asked for and the sacrifice given. Most everyone was on the same page working only for the greater good of the world, with little to no focus on themselves or their needs.

The overwhelming threat to England created an urgency to prevent losing to Hitler. The “War Effort” was critical to the nation’s survival—-their efforts were meaningful. I am convinced that it was a matter of pride and national unity to have endured and survived hardship. As others have commented in this forum, survivors of disasters are so often just glad they still live.

Today our cultures are fragmented and many social bonds are broken. While it seems that unity is less relevant, I’m reminded of the response to the attacks of 9/11 and to so many natural disasters. Often it is tragedy that brings out the best in most people.

I think that two things affected the citizens’ reaction to being displaced. First, there was a strong sense of patriotism which led to support of the war effort, and second, there is frustration and exhaustion with the war, so if their sacrifice would help bring the war to an end, that would be the best reward for their giving up their homes.

There is no doubt in my mind that the residents of Tydeham considered it their patriotic duty to pack up and leave, believing it would help bring an end to the war. They took the word of those government officials that this was their only alternative to help the war effort. Of course, today we have so many media sources for knowing more about what is going on that few people would accept such an order without question.

It was 25 years later, so the residents had moved on with their lives. Also, they lost their village but survived the war. It is hard to us to comprehend what a terrifying time that was with the fate of the world hanging in the balance. And many of them had better living conditions -- the village was remote and did not have many conveniences that most people already took for granted in those days. So I wasn't surprised that, for the most part, they weren't bitter or angry. War demands sacrifice.

For the former residents, the removal was history, their past. As patriotic English citizens, they felt they were doing their part to win the war. While their families had lived there for a long time, they knew they didn't own the land and probably could have been turned out by the landowner at any time. But they were relocated, even if not where they would have wanted to live, they were alive with a roof over their heads. The British of that generation were more reconciled to their fate than people are now. I could see protests and riots if a government tried this now.

I was surprised to find that most of the former Tydeham residents were not bitter about their relocation. At the time, they were all very upset and worried about leaving behind their crops and all the belongings that would not fit in the transports. However, it is natural for all of us to be wary of the unknown. As it turns out two things may have come from the relocations. One, they were probably grateful to be alive even though many of them lost loved ones in the war. And, two they may have found a new life that was comparable or better then life they had. Except of course the Benningtons. Amelia Bennington did not live long after the relocation and her son James was without a mother.

Even though the residents weren't happy about relocating, they seem to feel they were doing their part during a time of war. I think today's population would also surprise us and make the best of it if a time of war required relocation.