In conclusion, Source B seems like a staged photograph, and is quite useful in finding out what happened during evacuation, though it is only one scene of the evacuation of children. Source C is useful as it gives an insight of what the children were feeling and the knowledge of the teachers during evacuation.
- Source G is an extract from a novel for children in 1973. It tells of girl called Carrie and her experience of going to a new foster home. The author portrays the carer to be kind and considerate, giving them a pleasant welcome to her home. Firstly, the novel’s purpose is to entertain children and to encourage and inform them of evacuation. The author would not put anything negative regarding the evacuation as the audience are children. It is not mentioned whether the novel was based on a true story or not, so the Source isn’t very reliable, not having first hand experience of evacuation, although from my own knowledge, not all evacuees had a bad time in their foster homes, and did have willing carers, brought into a new life of luxury and of high standard, although this was quite uncommon. The Source is very limited in helping of our knowledge of evacuation, although the fact people wrote novels on evacuation for the purpose of informing children about evacuation, shows the enormity of it all. The Source is limited as it is one person’s view of evauation, although possibly reliable as it supports children with good experiences of evacuation. The novel’s purpose as well as informing the children, it must also entertain, so the contents of the novel could be changed and exagerated to make it more interesting to the reader, making the Source’s reliabiity questionable. Due to the limitation of the extract of a whole novel, it is hard to tell whether it is a reliable source about the refugees, although what is in the source seems reliable.
“Evacuation was a great success” do you agree or disagree with this interpretation
A lot of effort had been exerted by the British Government for propaganda for evacuation. Encouraging both children and adults that it is the right thing to do. This was to avoid children being killed as a result of bombing that the British expected. In this essay I will evaluate Sources, comparing them, and agreeing or disagreeing with the statement “Evacuation was a great success”.
Source A is from a textbook, a secondary source written in 1988 for students. Firstly, it was written in 1988, after the event and written in a textbook, so its purpose would be for factual information, so there woud be no clear reason why it would be biased, and the date is after censorship, therefore anything can be written. The source suggests that evacuees could not fit in and settle in the countryside, from my own knowledge I disagree with this, as there had been three brothers in a BBC documentary telling of their time in the countryside, describing it as an “adventure”, suggesting they had a fun and memorable time. The source tells of the children fouling and bet-wetting. This is true in some cases, as some children suffered from terrible hygiene and some claimed never to have used a toothbrush nor had ever had a bath. Overall, this Source is reliable due to its factual purpose, although portraying evacuation as a disaster, telling of the carer’s shock and disappointent in the children’s poverty and manner.
Source B is a photograph of the evacuees walking to the station in London, taken in September 1939. The photograph shows children and teachers walking in a single file line, in an orderly fashion, with the children smiling, some looking and waving at the camera. The source is primary, and most likely taken for propaganda. Therefore the reliability is questioned, making this source unreliable. The limitations of the Source plays a big role in its reliability too. It is only one area of where evacuation took place, others may have been disasters. The children’s true feelings aren’t told, diminishing the usefulness of the source. This shows evacuation as a success, fulfilling its purpose as propaganda, although the Source is likely to be bias and unreliable, it still shows evacuation as a success.
Source C is an interview in 1988 with a teacher who tells of her account as a teacher being evacuated with children from her school. Firstly, it is an interview in 1988. At this time the government did not have censorship, so it doesn’t show any clear reason why the teacher interviewed would lie about anything. She says “All you can hear was the feet of the children and a kind of murmur, because the children were too afraid to talk”. This shows that she knows what the children feel, having a close relationship with them, this is to an advantage as it shows a wider view than a picture, like Source B. She also says “We hadn’t the slightest idea where we were going” this shows that even the adults in charge of the school weren’t informed of the government plans on evacuation. “Mothers weren’t allowed with us, but they came along behind” she also expresses the mothers’ concern for their children. “The mothers pressed against the iron gates calling “Good-bye darling”. This shows the mothers will miss the children a lot, as she said they “pressed against the iron gates” showing that they were more than just stood there, but actually pressing their faces against the gates. Although this gives information, it does have limitations. She is only a teacher in one of thousands of schools in Britain, different children, different feelings. This is a negative view on the evacuation; other schools might have a positive view on the evacuation. So therefore this portrays evacuation wasn’t a success.
Souce D is a photograph issued by the government during the war of evacuees having a bath. The children are smiling and looking at the camera, so therefore this suggests that it may have been used as propaganda, showing parents how clean and well looked after the evacuees were, as most evacuees have never had a bath, I know from my own knowledge. The purpose of the source is not stated, and although it is likely to be used as propaganda, the source supports that the evacuation was a success.
Source E is an interview of a mother of a host family in 1988. This source is similar to Source A. It tells of the horrible hygiene habits of the evacuees, with things such as urinating on walls, although from my own knowledge I know that carers tried their best to straighten out those with bad hygiene. This is a reliable source, although it was years after the event, it would have been memorable, so the account told would be accurate, and as it is an interview, there wouldn’t be a clear reason why the interviewee would lie, as the date is after censorship. This source is limited as it is only one view of the evacuation, and shows a negative view on evacuation.
Source F is an extract of an interview in 1988, but this time of an evacuee. She tells that not all evacuees came from poor backgrounds, the polite and well-mannered also got sent to slum homes. I know from my own knowledge that this was true, although the majority of evacuees came from poorer backgrounds. This was an interview after censorship, so the evacuee has no reason to be bais. Again, the point is limited, as it is only an extract, so not everything she said could be interpreted, and also this is only one point of view, so doesnt prove to be of much use, although it does provide a contrast to other views of poor evacuees going into big houses. Overall, this source is useful as it shows a wider variety to the evacuation, and agrees with my knowledge. The source shows that the evacuation was a failure due to it being negative.
Source G is an extract from a novel for children in 1973. It tells of girl called Carrie and her experience of going to a new foster home. The author portrays the carer to be kind and considerate, giving them a pleasant welcome to her home. Firstly, the novel’s purpose is to entertain children and to encourage and inform them of evacuation. The author would not put anything negative regarding the evacuation as the audience are children. It is not mentioned whether the novel was based on a true story or not, so the Source isn’t very reliable, not having first hand experience of evacuation, although from my own knowledge, not all evacuees had a bad time in their foster homes, and did have willing carers, brought into a new life of luxury and of high standard, although this was quite uncommon. The Source is very limited in helping of our knowledge of evacuation, although the fact people wrote novels on evacuation for the purpose of informing children about evacuation, shows the enormity of it all. The Source is limited as it is one person’s view of evauation, although possibly reliable as it supports children with good experiences of evacuation. The novel’s purpose as well as informing the children, it must also entertain, so the contents of the novel could be changed and exagerated to make it more interesting to the reader, making the Source’s reliabiity questionable. Due to the limitation of the extract of a whole novel, it is hard to tell whether it is a reliable source about the refugees, although what is in the source seems reliable. Although it is a novel, it shows that the evacuation was a success.
In conclusion, after analysing the sources, the majority of the sources say that it was a failure. The main issues being leaving family to go into the unknown, hosts aren’t happy with the evacuees, evacuees aren’t happy with the hosts. These reasons are personal reasons, as oppose to life threatening reasons. The main aim of evacuation was to save as many children as possible, and none of the sources show anything of the children being unsafe. The sources that agree with this statement are unreliable as they might have been used as propaganda. There are many positives and negatives to the evacuation, so I am drawn to a conclusion of it was both a failure and a success.
