In conclusion both sources are useful for different reasons. The interview is a person who witnessed evacuation. From my knowledge and both sources I know that evacuation was a huge success as it saved many innocent civilian lives.
2) Study Source G
Source G is an extract taken from the novel “ Carries War” by Nina Bawden. Is it reliable as evidence about evacuees?
Explain your answer using Source G and knowledge from your studies.
5 Marks
Source G is an extract from the novel Carries War by Nina Bawden written in 1973 nearly 30 years after WW2, therefore it is secondary evidence.
The extract tells the story of Carrie who is evacuated to the countryside to live with Miss Evans who seems a very nice and caring person.
The extract is fictional but from my own knowledge I know evacuation did take place I also know from my knowledge that the author of the book from which the extract is taken was evacuated herself when she was 10 and she has based the story on some of her own experiences. I also know that Nina Bowden enjoyed being evacuated.
This extract shows a contrast in backgrounds since Miss Evans incorrectly assumes Carrie is a poor child from a poor background. From my knowledge I know that this may have been true, as many evacuees had come from terrible poverty within cities. Carrie tries to explain that there was no room in her case for slippers. Miss Evans is embarrassed.
“ Oh I’m Sorry how silly of me why would you have slippers.”
Miss Evans is a concerned and kind person. It gives the impression that she likes the children. The children are lucky as from my own knowledge some children had terrible experience of evacuation.
The extract is from a children’s novel and the main character Carrie is someone who people who experienced evacuation can relate too, even those who did not experience evacuation. Evacuation can be a difficult subject to address. This book gives the impression of happiness, and if it was entertaining it would sell even if it were not very realistic.
The extract only shows one side of evacuation. Nina Bowden wanted her book to sell and informed children that evacuation was a good experience.
The source is very limited since it is only an extract. It doesn’t inform us where the author got her information but from personal research I know Nina Bowden was evacuated during WW2. It does tell us that children had pleasant experiences but from my knowledge I know this wasn’t always the case for evacuees.
3)“Evacuation was a great success.”
Do you agree with this statement or disagree with this statement?
Explain your answer using all the sources and knowledge from your studies.
15 Marks
The government decided at the beginning of WW2 that it was necessary to evacuate all children to the countryside to protect them from German bombing, as the government had expected many casualties and deaths. The “Phoney War” interrupted this process parents were very upset at sending their children away to safe areas and Parents brought many children home. The Government released Propaganda posters in an attempt to persuade parents to leave children in safe areas. Within the question I will look and discuss different sources and conclude whether Evacuation was a success or not.
Source A is from a textbook, it explains what happened when children were evacuated. Host families were shocked at the children’s behavior and the language they used. Many could not settle in their new environment. From my own knowledge I know this wasn’t always the case as some children enjoyed living the countryside and didn’t want to go home. I also some children were well behaved and came from good families.
Source B is a photograph taken in September 1939. It shows children in a line with parents in the background. All appear to be happy, smiling and waving. They are carrying luggage and from my knowledge I know they would also be carrying gas masks and wearing identification labels.
The photograph may have many purposes propaganda- a parent taking a picture as a momentum or a journalist taking it for a local newspaper.
The photograph however only shows one part of London, it doesn’t even tell us where it was taken or which station the children were going to.
Source C is an extract from an interview with a teacher in 1988. It is primary evidence since the teacher was involved in evacuation. We could ask would she want to lie about events.
She would have known the feelings of parents and children the atmosphere surrounding evacuation. She is recalling her memories and may have forgotten important details. She has the benefit of Hindsight (knowing the out come, and how useful evacuation was) but this may have influenced her opinion. It doesn’t tell us why the interview was held, it may have been for an autobiography, or a newspaper article, or a book on evacuation. She may also make her life sound more exciting.
Source D shows children in a bath. They all look very happy as they are all smiling. This poster was used by the government as propaganda. It shows children were safe in the countryside and having a good standed of living. They were not use to this because in the cities were they lived there was poor sanitation. From my own knowledge I know that children enjoyed living the countryside but others were terrible homesick and wanted to go back home. The source doesn’t not say what the interview was used for it may have been a book newspaper or a biography.
Source E and F are two very different opinions. Source E tells us that children were very badly behaved. The host mother who has been interviewed tells us that the children went round the house urinating on the walls. The family had two toilets and couldn’t understand why the children didn’t use them. From my knowledge I know that most children didn’t know any better.
Source F is from an interview, which tells that not all children were badly behaved, some evacuees were from better backgrounds than the host families. The evacuee tells us that not all evacuees were raised on Fish and Chips, He was well educated and he was moved to a slum in the countryside. From my knowledge I know that this was true and not all evacuees came from poor backgrounds, it also tells me that person may not of enjoyed his evacuation experience. These two sources show very different opinions and both of them make a good point. I know from my own knowledge that some children were poor and others were from wealthy backgrounds.
Source G is an extract from the novel Carries War by Nina Bawden The extract tells the story of Carrie who is evacuated to the countryside to live with Miss Evans who seems a very nice and caring person. The extract is fictional but from my own knowledge I know evacuation did take place I also know from my knowledge that the author of the book from which the extract is taken was evacuated herself when she was 10 and she has based the story on some of her own experiences. I also know that Nina Bowden enjoyed being evacuated. This extract shows a contrast in backgrounds since Miss Evans incorrectly assumes Carrie is a poor child from a poor background. From my knowledge I know that this may have been true, as many evacuees had come from terrible poverty within cities. The extract only shows one side of evacuation. Nina Bowden wanted her book to sell and informed children that evacuation was a good experience. I know from my knowledge that this wasn’t always the case and some evacuees had terrible experiences.
Source H is another use of propaganda it is asking for more host families in Scotland. Host families were very important as this is were evacuated children would stay. I know from my knowledge that families did take children in for the money they would receive for looking after the children. Most families did this for the money, as some of them hated children. Other did it because they loved children and felt it was important to help with the war effort.
Source I is a fathers opposition too evacuation. He tells us that he has a son who he doesn’t want to be evacuated. It feels very strongly and doesn’t want a stranger looking after his son. He also doesn’t think Wales is the best place for his son to go he complains that they were starving there before the War. He then ends with saying that if he is killed during this war there will be plenty of family and friends to look after his son. This is another interview for a newspaper in may 1940 during the phoney he is obviously skeptical because no bombing raids had taken place, he thought his son was perfectly safe. This interview was taken just before the Blitz.
Studying all the source I think there is plenty of evidence to show that evacuation was a great success. Evacuation was a necessary precaution and it saved many lives. All sources positive and negative things about evacuation. Overall I believe evacuation was the right course of action to protect Innocent civilian lives.
