The children had no idea where they where going at all, like stated in source C and where herded in large groups with their teachers, shown on source B. They where sent onto trains, leaving the children bewildered and fearful, as stated in source C. Once arrived at their location, they where all gathered in to local halls and foster families would chose which child they wanted leaving the dirtiest and ugliest children until last.
There where mixed opinions of evacuation, some children had great experiences, they learned to work on farms with animals, had better food, hygiene and atmosphere, but some children suffered emotional and physical abuse resulting in homesickness and poor standard of living.
Both sources show us useful information.
However, on B we don’t know the purpose of it, its audience, the motive so propaganda limiting its usefulness, on C, this is a secondary source, a memory is being used, also their opinions might be restricted, also motive, purpose and audience are unknown, limiting its reliability. Using this information I have come to the conclusion that c is the most useful source, the usefulness of C outweighs the limitations of source B, however to be certain on which source was to be certain on which source was most useful, we would have to know the motive, purpose and audience for each source.
History coursework part 2
Reliability of sources
It is hard to judge if source G is reliable or not. The source is an extract from a novel that was written in 1973 for children. The novel accounts a child’s experience of evacuation in world was two. It tells you about what happened to Carrie when she arrived at her foster parent’s home, it says how her slippers wouldn’t fit into her case, so her foster mother, Miss. Evans assumed that she was poor.
The author gives the impression that the woman was kind and had the child’s best interests at heart; she doesn’t want them to hurt their feet, so tells them to walk on the carpet. She gave the children a warm welcome to their home; she appears very caring and feels embarassed when she thinks she’s upset them.
The novel was written to entertain children, and where the information was gained from is unknown. It could be based on assumption, research; in this case opinions and views could have changed over time e.g. parts forgotten or evolved, on the other hand she may be writing from her own experience, in that case she would have the benefit of historical hindsight. However, in both cases the information might have been biased in order to make the novel more entertaining to the audience.
We know that the audience and purpose for writing the novel, to inform children about evacuation. For the book to be successful it would have to be enjoyable, she would want children to enjoy her work, Carrie is a child that children would like. Positive points of view are used; she didn’t use any bad points of view. The children in the story would now be adults, memories fade and bad points tend to be blocked out.
In evacuation in World War 2 some children had good experiences and some had bad ones, children suffered neglect and abuse and this made them homesick, however, some had good times, they lived a life of luxury, had better living conditions food and better family life. If the novel was written for children then the unpleasant view wouldn’t be mentioned.
The reliability needs to be weighed up using its advantages and limitations. If Carrie was a real person, would she have had a good experience? I feel it’s reliable because some children did have a good experience; however it’s limited because this is only one person’s view. In the novel the story could have been over exaggerated to make it more interesting to the reader. The source relies on how much the evidence has changed over time and how it’s been altered for the novel, because of the motive and purpose limits the source, e.g. for children. However we don’t know the rest of the story and the end of the story we are only given seven lines, Carrie could end up having a terrible time. Therefore it’s impossible to judge the reliability due to the limitations and the advantages; I would need to be given more information to make an accurate decision.
History Coursework part 3:
Was evacuation a success?
Evacuation was the result of the government using a massive advertising campaign using propaganda, to persuade parents to let their children be evacuated out of city areas. This was to avoid children being killed as a result of the German air raids that where expected in World War 2. However many children where sent back home in between September 1939 and April 1940, this was what was called the Phoney War. This was when a war was taking place but no action was being taken, it was an attempt by Hitler to make Europe to back down over Poland. Another advertising campaign was launched to persuade the parents to send their children back to the countryside in 1940 when the Blitz began and again in 1944 when Germany launched V1 and V2 flying bombs.
There where 2 different views of evacuation, a good experience and on the other hand, a bad experience.
There where advantages and disadvantages to evacuation.
The advantages where that some evacuees where very happy, well looked after and enjoyed their experiences working with animals and eating a better diet. It kept the children away from possible air raid targets so saved their lives. Also, it showed citizens from the countryside what kinds of poverty the city slum where living with, e.g. poor nutrition, clothing, manners and cleanliness. Youngsters from the city got to live in the countryside; many saw it as an adventure. It brought about demands for reform to ease such social problems, bringing different social groups together. Also the mothers from the cities could now work, helping the war effort because they no longer had to look after their children.
The disadvantages where that some evacuees where badly treated by their foster parents and never really settled in their new homes. Many countryside families, unaware of how city people lived, had to deal with children who wet their bed or had no experience with a knife or fork. The evacuation process wasn’t well organised, the least clean or pretty children where last to get a foster home.
It’s difficult to decide if evacuation was a success or not.
Source A is from a history textbook, a secondary source written in 1988for history students. It suggests that evacuees couldn’t fit in or settle in their foster homes and foster carers where shocked by their poverty. The inner city children brought problems to the countryside, bad manners, poor hygiene e.g. hair crawling with lice. Because of the purpose of the source, it is highly unlikely that the source is bias, as the textbook is a factual reference.
Source B is a photograph, a primary source taken in 1939. It shows us children being taken to the station to be evacuated, the children appear happy. However we are unsure of the purpose and audience of the source, it could be staged to use in government propaganda, and therefore the true emotions of the children is unknown. Also it only shows one area of the country and one group of children. This source is very limited.
Source C is and extract from an interview with a teacher who took part in evacuation. It is a secondary source, it took place in 1988. The teacher remembers how the children where frightened and parents came along until they got on the train, to an unknown destination. Some of the teacher’s memories might have been forgotten or blocked out, or changed with time; however the teacher had the benefit of historical hindsight.
Source D is a photograph that was issued by the government during the war; this suggests that it was a piece of government propaganda made to persuade parents to evacuate their children. It shows the children having a bath, so shows they are clean i.e. being well looked after. Also the children appear to be laughing so they look like they are having a fun time during evacuation. This photograph could have been staged by the government, as its purpose is not stated.
Sources E and F are both from interviews done in 1988, they are secondary sources. They do not state the audience or purpose for the interview. They are interviewing an evacuee and a host family.
Source E tells us about the disgraceful hygiene habits of the evacuees. Source F tells us how an evacuee explains how that some clean and polite evacuees where sent to slummy homes in emaciation, It was just as horrible as a dirty city child being sent to a clean hygienic home. This explains that some children where sent to homes poorer than them, and some went to them who where better off than them. For some evacuees this was the first time they had been in a house with running water and a toilet, let alone the first time in the countryside. There are many different interpretations. Some had caring foster parents but some used the evacuee for cheap labour and to gain extra money.
Source G is an extract from a children’s novel written in 1973. This is a secondary source. Where her information that the book is based on comes from is unknown. The novel was written to inform children about evacuation in the war, so information could have been made more pleasant or altered to be more entertaining. It gives the impression the children have caring foster parents who are well off. It says how their foster mum thinks the children are poor, because they couldn’t fit their slippers in their suitcase. However, we can’t tell if the children had a pleasant experience or not from this small amount of the text supplied.
Source H was a government appeal to make people in Scotland foster the evacuees in 1940. This is government propaganda. The government are persuading the parents that evacuation was a complete success. They don’t mention things like the disgraceful hygiene of some of the evacuees. They say how they would be saving a child’s life; they make the audience feel guilty.
Source I gives a fathers opinion of evacuation. It is an extract from a survey conducted in 1940. It shows how the father refused to let his son be evacuated, as he was concerned that he wouldn’t be looked after in his new home and didn’t want to separate form him. This shows that the government propaganda wasn’t working on some people.
Source J shows us how we can achieve other information on evacuation. It doesn’t state the purpose audience of where this article is from. This doesn’t tell us any information on weather evacuation was a success or not.
Overall, it is still hard to decide whether it was a success or a failure. The sourced contradict each other.
Some children had a good experience during evacuation, some had a bad one. To decide if it was a success or not, you would have to know the criteria of ‘success’. Evacuation saved many children’s lives and kept them safe so if the government wanted to save lives, which they did, this would be classed as a great success. However many children where unhappy and had a terrible experience, so some would see this as a failure, but some would see this as a small price to pay for saving their life.
In the sources and my own knowledge you come cross many different interpretations and contradictions. There are two sides to the story. Also the sources have many limitations and could be bias. Therefore I am undecided if evacuation was a success or not. It was a failure and success at the same time.
