The context of source C frequently contradicts the visual facts in source B. In source C the teachers explains how the children were silent and ‘were too afraid to talk.’ However, when compared to source B the children are seen to be waving and cheering. However, in both sources, the parents are seen to be following the group of children and the behaviour of the children is identical in both sources.
In conclusion, the utility of the two sources is dependent on the purpose of the source. Source B is a piece of persuasive media propaganda from the Government or a Newspaper. Source C is an extract from an interview used to educate those who have never experienced evacuation and the emotions one teacher felt throughout the circumstances. Source B shows the way in which evacuation was organised, the clothes worn and the emotions of the people involved. Source C on the other hand, shows only the emotions of one teacher and is only supported by a brief account. However, both are looking at evacuation from different perspectives, source B is a primary source and source C is recalling on the events after previously being in that situation.
Overall, source B is more useful as it is a very informative of the way in which evacuation was organised, compared to source C which is hard to picture as the description is very brief. Source C is also again from one perspective and the teacher only sees the children being evacuated once and therefore only has one experience of the event.
Source G is an extract taken from a Novel. Is it reliable as evidence about evacuees?
Explain your answer using Source G and knowledge from your studies.
The first factor to support its unreliability is that as a Novel the characters and story are fiction. However, through research it is known that the writer Nina Bawden was evacuated in 1939 at the age of 14. Therefore, all events, emotions and surroundings have come from personal experience and are reflected in the Novel. Therefore, the books content must be reliable. However, the characters are works of fiction and from the short extract, we know very little about the characters previous lives and through what circumstances they arrived here.
Nevertheless, when understanding and considering the word Novel, it is assumed that the story may stray away from the facts, as to accumulate more readers. However, it is moreover understood that the book is there for the younger generation to understand and conceive what it would be like to be in that situation. The book would not meander away from the true heart and emotions of the true story of evacuation. On the other hand, the story is written by only one woman and therefore the source is only looking at evacuation from one perspective.
Another factor affecting the reliability is that she wrote the book in 1973, 34 years since she had been evacuated. Emotions and facts could have become vague over that long period and the way she wrote could have reflected the sorrowful or morose experiences during evacuation.
The context of the source can also indicate whether the source is reliable. From previous studies, it is known that there was tension between different social classes. The host families commonly thought that the children arriving were poor, as can be seen from the line, ‘Oh, I’m sorry, how silly of me, why should you have slippers.’
In conclusion, the source is an extract from a Novel, written to explain the joys and adventure of evacuation and the tension and sadness that evolved around it. Moreover, it was written to educate children on evacuation and what it was like, developed into a heart warming story. Nina Bawden most likely wished to write the book to explain her emotions and attitudes towards evacuation and due to herself experiencing these emotions the source would seem reliable.
However, the source is fiction and only looking at evacuation from one perspective. As a novel, the truth may have been altered to suit the story. The harsh realities of being taken from your family may have been dubbed down, as the story is focusing on the blissfulness and happy times of evacuation. Overall, due to the extracts sources and reliable facts due to Nina Bawden experiencing them the source is reliable.
‘Evacuation was a great success.’
Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
In 1939, the threat of intense bombings on civilian areas was so feared that during the first weekend of September 1939, 1,474,000 people were evacuated. This immense number could only have been achieved if the organisation was precise and well arranged by the Government. The objective was to get children and others from dangerous areas into places that were safe. This of course transpired, so therefore evacuation must have been a success as it saved thousands of lives from the feared destruction of the Luftwaffe.
However, it was the many consequences and after effects of evacuation, that made evacuation not such a success. Firstly, children were taken from their families, removed from their roots and relocated in a place hundreds of miles away. Children became distressed and apprehensive and it was the consequences of this, which caused the most problems. From source A, ‘There were reports of children fouling gardens, hair crawling with lice and bed wetting.’ The clashing of social classes, different lifestyles and attitudes did not help the situation.
As the children arrived at their destination on the platform or Town Hall, they were picked by host families, auctioned off as if it were. The foul smelling, weak children were left, especially those who wished to stay with siblings. When arriving at their new homes, due to different attitudes and ways of being brought up, the children were often nuisances and seemed arrogant or unruly to the host families. This of course supports the fact that evacuation was not a success, as more trouble had developed.
One success though of this change was that the evacuated children were brought up much better than if they were living with their parents, in the middle of a highly dangerous industrial urban area. They were better clothed and fed a much healthier diet.
Moreover, another major success was that one of the repercussions of evacuation was that every person in the village was in the same situation. Soon a greater community spirit evolved, as everyone helped together. All of these factors made the War almost enjoyable and children soon forgot about the atrocities occurring in industrial Britain and Europe. This was a major boost to British moral, especially as parents knew their children were safe, all accumulating to the fact that evacuation was a success. Children were also extremely useful; due to being so willing there was soon a huge workforce in the countryside to help harvest the crops and send them to the soldiers and those in urban areas. Through their great enthusiasm to help, children collected scrap iron, old bottles and knitted clothes and prepared packages for the War effort, which all began due to evacuation supporting its success.
Being in the same situation, social classes were soon forgotten, as before evacuees were seen as being ‘raised on a diet of fish and chips.’ Many evacuees believed, ‘it was just as upsetting for a clean and well educated child to find itself in a grubby semi slum as the other way around,’ as can be seen from source F. This helped to bring Britain through, with a united front, boosting moral, which supports that evacuation was a success.
However, from Source H, a desperate appeal has been sent out, urging Scottish people to foster children in 1940, a year after the first evacuations began. This is most likely the fault of the Government, miscalculating the number of willing families to the number of people needed to be evacuated. This could also be due to slow communication and organisation of transporting evacuees, not knowing which houses would be willing. This is a major factor in the question of whether evacuation was a success.
In conclusion, the main aim of evacuation, transporting people away from danger occurred. It also happened efficiently and in doing so many lives were saved. From that perspective evacuation would seem a complete success. However, the downside to evacuation was the critical consequences. The conflicting and contrasting attitudes and social classes created problems. As rumours of the ‘lower’ class evacuees nuisances began to take off people in the country became hostile to evacuees. However, this tended to be uncommon and once this settled a greater community spirit began to develop, changing the lives of those in the country and most importantly the evacuees. This generation of inner city children were brought up much better than they could have been in their previous home. They were all better educated and better fed. This also caused the hierarchical social extremes to deteriorate and due to being in the same situation such as rationing, Britain became united against a common enemy. Therefore, I conclude that I agree that evacuation was a success.
