A poem I couldn't post on the story side

[butters]

You've got juice on your chin.

 

[fridayam]

It was a posed propaganda picture, not a document of an actual incident. Of course, if there were insufficient trench shelters, the adults would make sure that the children were protected first.

The real danger in the Kent countryside during the Battle of Britain wasn't bombs. The Luftwaffe bombs were intended for RAF stations and later for London. The threat was shrapnel, pieces of red-hot metal from anti-aircraft shells, destroyed aircraft and spent machine gun ammunition that hit the ground. Almost any building would be reasonable protection except against crashing aircraft.

Og

Edited for PS: The giveaway is that the children are far too clean and tidy for hop-pickers' children. Hoppers huts had very basic sanitation, if any. A cattle trough for water and any nearby hedge for a toilet weren't unusual.

If it is posed, it's remarkable for the direction the photographer imposed on the children. I've directed children, often, and I would be proud to have gotten so many different emotions from so young a cast. Maybe it is posed, but it doesn't feel posed. Also I came from a working-class family, and we were encouraged to keep ourselves clean.

Oh btw to corndog, do you have to sully every thread you dip your fingers in?

 

[corndog_]

Wow! Sully, huh? Ok.

 

[oggbashan]

If it is posed, it's remarkable for the direction the photographer imposed on the children. I've directed children, often, and I would be proud to have gotten so many different emotions from so young a cast. Maybe it is posed, but it doesn't feel posed. Also I came from a working-class family, and we were encouraged to keep ourselves clean.

Oh btw to corndog, do you have to sully every thread you dip your fingers in?

It is a Ministry of Information (= propaganda) picture that was published in the Picture Post at the time.

I think, but my memory might not be accurate, that they were actually schoolchildren practising for an air raid before the proper shelters were built for their school. There would have been aircraft overhead even during a practice.

My local school still has its WWII air raid shelters some of which are used for history lessons. They are so flimsy that they wouldn't have survived a bomb blast but would have protected against shrapnel.

I agree that many working class children were as clean as possible, but while hop-picking it was very difficult to keep clean because of lack of facilities for washing children and clothes, but the Summer of 1940 was hot and dry so the hoppers wouldn't have been as muddy as they usually were.

However the clothes worn are in too good condition for hoppers' children who would have worn their oldest clothes except on Sundays.

Og

 

[butters]

It is a Ministry of Information (= propaganda) picture that was published in the Picture Post at the time.

I think, but my memory might not be accurate, that they were actually schoolchildren practising for an air raid before the proper shelters were built for their school. There would have been aircraft overhead even during a practice.

My local school still has its WWII air raid shelters some of which are used for history lessons. They are so flimsy that they wouldn't have survived a bomb blast but would have protected against shrapnel.

I agree that many working class children were as clean as possible, but while hop-picking it was very difficult to keep clean because of lack of facilities for washing children and clothes, but the Summer of 1940 was hot and dry so the hoppers wouldn't have been as muddy as they usually were.

However the clothes worn are in too good condition for hoppers' children who would have worn their oldest clothes except on Sundays.

Og

was it common to use colour in the photography then, Og? i'm not disputing, only asking. i thought it looked like a still from a film!

 

[oggbashan]

was it common to use colour in the photography then, Og? i'm not disputing, only asking. i thought it looked like a still from a film!

No. It was very rare. Kodachrome was available but expensive. 35mm Kodachrome film was unusual in 1940 and mainly used in Leica cameras, incredibly expensive and German made. Colour film at that time was much slower than black and white so exposures had to be longer. The definition is so good that it is likely that the camera was tripod mounted. That makes it even less likely that it was shot during a real air raid. Would you stand around taking a picture with a camera on a tripod, using a long exposure, if bombs were dropping nearby?

Most reproductions of that picture are in black and white. I have compared the colour image and the black and white images. They are identical even down to the position of the children's fingers so the picture must have been taken in colour and then printed in both colour and black and white.

The use of colour suggests that either:

1. The photographer was using pre-war stock, or

2. The photographer was official and had access to film stock that most wouldn't have.

The credit to "The Ministry of Information" suggests that 2. is the correct explanation. "The Ministry of Information" was producing propaganda, much of it aimed at US audiences, to persuade viewers/readers to support Britain's war effort.

In the 1940s (and 30s and 50s) stills from films (movies) were not cut or printed from the movie but taken separately on a still camera because prints from the movie stock wouldn't have the definition of a still picture. (As you can tell now with single shot pictures taken from a video.)

Og

PS. Recently there have been several programmes on UK TV channels using colour movie footage taken in the 1930s and during the War. Even when restored with the best digital techniques, the definition is nowhere near that of contemporary black and white movies and nothing like that picture.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Unfortunately not true--here is the reason given for rejection:-

"Out of concern for context (as Literotica is an adult site focused on erotica), we do not allow photographs of anyone under 18 on the story side of the site. This includes in member's profile pages. We do accept illustrations or drawings of those under 18, so long as the images are completely nonsexual. However, photographs of actual people under 18 are not allowed. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your submissions!"

Ahhh. I have my forum preferences set so pictures don't show. It was not immediately clear that there was an actual image involved. I simply saw a URL at the top of the poem and thought it was a link to the pic, not an actual image. I was so caught up in the poem's imagery that I didn't see the last line of your poem.

I would disagree that without the picture, the poem is meaningless. Perhaps you might need an epigraph, "Inspired by Trench Picture by John Doe," (which readers could then google), but your use of imagery makes it very clear what's happening on a literal level. I understood it clearly without seeing the image. In fact, the image, now that I've looked at it, alters my viewing in a lighter fashion. The children appear more posed and there is no context for the picture that isn't provided by the poem. For me, without the poem, the picture is meaningless.

 

[Esperanza_Hidalgo]

Unfortunately not true--here is the reason given for rejection:-

"Out of concern for context (as Literotica is an adult site focused on erotica), we do not allow photographs of anyone under 18 on the story side of the site. This includes in member's profile pages. We do accept illustrations or drawings of those under 18, so long as the images are completely nonsexual. However, photographs of actual people under 18 are not allowed. Sorry for the inconvenience, and thank you for your submissions!"

I had two rejected for the same reason. I get it, they are a business and must be protected from the fundies--legal costs-I imagine this is a rec from their attorneys. But kind of sucks, the pict adds so much IMHO.