Evacuation Coursework
3- "Evacuation was a great success"
Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
When the war broke out in September 1939, the government knew that aircraft would be used for the first time to attack civilian populations. Many writers saw the opportunities of using aircraft to bomb civilians such as J.F.C Fuller and General Douhet. Casualties would be immense if the government could not intervene and help, thus 'Operation Pied Piper' was put into action. Operation Pied Piper was the codename for evacuation during the war. The threat of civilians being targeted in war was very real, as illustrated in the bombing of Guernica by the German Air Force - The Luftwaffe. Britain prepared for 'Total War'
When deciding whether evacuation was a success, it is necessary to analyse the figures. The ministry of health predicted 600,000 deaths and more than 1,200,000 injuries in the first six months of war. At the end of the war the number of civilian deaths was put at 67,800. While the number of civilian deaths are not to be disregarded, it seems as if evacuation was a great success. To restrict the number of deaths to less than 70,000 after almost 6 years was a great achievement. During the first 3 days of September more than 3 million Britons - most children, as they were the most vulnerable - were moved from towns and cities that were possible targets for the Luftwaffe. This was an amazing feat, the sheer scale of the operation was enormous and required great discipline. The photograph of evacuees walking to the station in London provides evidence of how the government managed to achieve this. It shows the evacuees carrying their gas masks and their belongings being marched along with teachers escorting them. Although this is only a picture of one place at specific time, my knowledge and other sources back up the photograph. However I would be wary in trusting the source completely, as it looks like a piece of government propaganda. The media at the time would be in the control of the government, so it is likely to be censored or have a bias towards whatever image the government is trying to show.
Whilst also saving lives, evacuation gave city children a chance to explore the countryside. Many of the evacuees felt like it was all a 'big adventure'. A report by the Daily Mirror on evacuation backs up this point of view, it writes 'Little tots smiled gleefully and boys whistled and exchanged jokes'. The mood seems to be light and cheerful and the evacuees sound like they are all happy being sent to the countryside. Though the reliability of the source is quite questionable, as all media at the time would be in the control of the government including ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Whilst also saving lives, evacuation gave city children a chance to explore the countryside. Many of the evacuees felt like it was all a 'big adventure'. A report by the Daily Mirror on evacuation backs up this point of view, it writes 'Little tots smiled gleefully and boys whistled and exchanged jokes'. The mood seems to be light and cheerful and the evacuees sound like they are all happy being sent to the countryside. Though the reliability of the source is quite questionable, as all media at the time would be in the control of the government including newspapers. So the newspaper report is a piece of government propaganda and the report is probably skewed. Another photograph issued by the government shows children enjoying bath time. The children are all smiling and look like they are happy after being evacuated. The photograph was published in London, where the children's mothers lived. The photograph is a piece of propaganda, to show children were happy in their new environments, so it is most likely to be staged. It is also only one time and place.
On the surface, it looked like evacuation was a total success - lives were being saved and evacuees were having fun, but when taking a more in-depth view of evacuation, it was obvious there were some fundamental errors with evacuation. As it says in Jebsons article 'the process of selecting a foster child resembled all too closely what transpired at a nineteenth century slave market'. The strongest and healthiest looking children were picked first and those that were left had to rely on government officials to be place them; these children sometimes ended up where the adults had little interest in their welfare. While government propaganda shows many pictures and reports of happy, excited children being evacuated, the reality was likely to be very different. An interview with a teacher in 1988 shows this, she relates 'the children were too afraid to talk' and 'we had no idea where they were going'. Teachers were a integral part of evacuation with many responsibilities, some became like surrogate parents to the children being evacuated. This source is more reliable than the government pictures showing a group of happy children being evacuated. The teacher is in a professional position and would have no reason to alter the events that occurred. However the interview is only one point of view. Evacuation was a daunting experience for most children, they were uprooted from their homelands and as the actor Michael Caine says were 'dispatched to live with strangers in what often amounted a foreign land'. However this is only his point of view and evacuation was a different experience for every child.
Also during the first few months of the war, there was relatively little fighting, this period was called 'the phoney war'. Many parents decided to bring their children back from the countrysides. The government tried hard to stop parents from bringing children home by launching another propaganda campaign but the truth was that many parents did not send their children back to the countryside, even the threat of the new V1 and V2 flying bombs could not change the minds of many parents. Since evacuation was not compulsory many parents decided to not send their children to the countrysides at all. They feared that they would not be taken care off or they couldn't bear to live without their children as many of the fathers were out fighting in the war. This is shown in the movie 'Hope and Glory'. The mother of the children has been left to look after 3 children on her own, but she decides not to send her children to be evacuated. The movie is useful as piece of evidence for a historian studying evacuation, but I would be wary in trusting the source completely as its main purpose was to entertain rather than educate.
Evacuees had to deal with common stereotypes, such as they were a bunch of poor and unmannered kids. Sources F and G back up this point of view, source F is an interview with an evacuee in 1989. He looks back and says that he 'wished the common view of evacuees could be changed'. Many of the host families believed that the city children were all uneducated. This source is quite reliable as the evacuee was present at the time of evacuation and would have no reason to change the events that occurred. The novel 'Carries War' by Nina Bawden also sheds light in the situation for evacuees, Miss Evans, a lady from a host family thinks the children are too poor to have slippers, when actually in their case they didn't have the space to pack them in their suitcases. However the main aim of the novel was to entertain and some of its reliability would be lost. However the stereotypes against city children were mostly true. Evacuation showed the divide between the working and middle class people of Britain. Most evacuees came from poor backgrounds and the country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation of town children.
While many evacuees had a rough time during evacuation, the country people that hosted them were no different. They were shocked at the health conditions of the children and also their lack of manners. One mother of a host family said 'the children went round urinating walls, although we had two toilets'. Many evacuated children came from deprived backgrounds and did not learn any basic manners. The interview with the mother is reliable as she was there at the time of evacuation, however this is only one persons experience of evacuation. 'Mastering Economics and Social History', a textbook written for British schools, also documents the state of the evacuated children. It reads 'There were reports of children fouling gardens, hair crawling with lice, and bed wetting'. This shows the state of the city children, many evacuees were underfed and had health problems such as malnutrition. The textbook is very useful to a historian studying evacuation and is also very reliable, considering it is a textbook made for British schools.
My Neighbour Philip Clayton was evacuated from his home in Liverpool, he came from a rather well of family and found it hard to adapt to the life in the countryside. He recalled 'I was 11 years old when I was evacuated, it was the first time I had ever gone to live somewhere without my parents. It happened rather suddenly and I wasn't ready for it, but I put on a brave face and joined my school mates on the train to Ribchester in Lancashire.
My mother was crying really loudly, it was really embarrassing. I was billeted with a family of 3 children, I shared a room with the oldest. At first I would have nightmares and was severely home-sick, but I came to enjoy waking up in the mornings to help with milking the cows and the walks along the turkey farms. The family I lived with were terribly nice, but I sometimes felt like I was intruding'. Many evacuees were very happy, well looked
after and enjoyed their experiences working with animals and eating a better diet. However this is only one point of view and as Jebson says in his article the story of Britain's wartime evacuees represents 'a tale of two cities'. The experience of an evacuated child was determined first and foremost by the home he or she was sent to.
The aim of evacuation was to save lives, and there is no doubting that it achieved its aim,
therefore it was success. However this depends of the individuals definition of success, In the governments eyes it was a success, but for some of the evacuees and others who were on the wrong end of evacuation would say it was not a failure due to events such as the abuse of children and other errors with the evacuation system. In conclusion evacuation, with all its faults and mistakes, did what it was supposed to do - saving the lives of the vulnerable. It did not go exactly as according to plan, but the problems of evacuation, in my eyes are outweighed by the number of lives saved.
Harun Jalil History Coursework
Harun Jalil History Coursework
-2-
-1-
