- Source D suggests that the children were being looked after and cared for while they were away from their parents. The intended evidence for this photograph was for the parents of the children who were evacuated. It was to reassure then that their children were safe and well. This resource is probably propaganda and might not be as reliable as an interview with the “evacuee”. This picture has been taken for propaganda use, to encourage then that their children are being kept fit and healthy.
4. Source E suggests that the evacuees were from different backgrounds to the host family. The host family were astonished by the behaviour of the evacuees and didn’t understand why they were urinating over all the walls. This source had been produced to gather accurate information for a historian. This resource would have probably been shown in a history textbook. This source is rather limited due to the fact that it was taken in 1988 but from a host. It is reliable as it is an interview by an "evacuee” but might be biased as she resented having to look after these “vile” children. Source F is an interview where the old “evacuee” is trying to get rid of the stereotypes about the evacuation. Not all evacuees were “working class” nor all of them “didn’t wash”. They weren’t all “smelly”. This source has been produced to gather relevant historical information to put into a textbook. This source has been intended for a book. It is a useful source but not in depth as some of the other sources. It is reliable as it’s a primary source but has been taken in 1988. To conclude this, they are both reliable but both reminisce about different parts of the evacuation and they are different because they are from different classes of people talking about different parts of the evacuation.
5. Source A is a description of the evacuation and has probably been made up of several other sources relevant to the evacuation and also the historians view. The purpose of the author producing this source is to give an accurate conclusion towards the evacuation in 1939, as it is a secondary source and a historians view. The historian could be trying to be negative. It is intended for students learning about World War II and would have probably been put together to give an accurate conclusion of the evacuation and the relation between the host family and the evacuees. It is actually suggesting that the children were badly behaved and were “fouling the gardens” and bed-wetting. This is probably due to being away from their families. The country people could not the attitude and deprivation of the town children. To conclude this I would say that this source does not give an accurate interpretation of peoples attitudes towards evacuation, as it is a conclusion by a historian for use in a history textbook, but could have been biased in the historians view and might be negative.
6. Source G is a simple description of the evacuees in the hands of the host family. It shows how different the country people were from the town people. It is useful as it is a description for children about the evacuation and the host families. The author has produced this source for use in a children’s novel. The intended audience for this book is children. It is useful as it is a simple description of the evacuations but cannot be used as a reliable source, because there is not proof that this actually happened. Source G suggests that the town people were poor and the country people were wealthy. Source G is a secondary source and has no proof that the conversations were real and how the evacuees felt but it does generalise the feeling of the evacuated children being away from their families. This source has been written to give children a believable view of the evacuation. To conclude this source does have some use to historian but cannot ever be as useful as an interview or some notes from a diary. This source gives children a simple view of the evacuation.
7. In my view evacuation wasn’t very well organised at the start and this is shown well in source C. Source C shows that the children being evacuated were even afraid to talk and that the teachers didn’t even know where they were going. Source C has been produced to gather relevant but accurate information for a historian. Source A is also a good source to show that the evacuation didn’t go as smoothly as the papers said it did. Source A is a conclusion of the evacuation by a historian. He has got several sources and extracted relevant information. It is useful as it is a conclusion of the evacuation but the historian may have added some of his own comments that may not be true and his opinion. It isn’t a primary source but should be reliable due to the author being a historian. Source B suggests that the evacuation went smoothly, this is totally opposite to sources A and C. Source B is a photograph and is looking at the evacuees who look happy, almost posing. My thoughts are that the government for uses in propaganda has taken this photograph. It could have been used in a newspaper. It cannot be used as a reliable source really as it has no writing or information near it to explain it or to prove that it is not propaganda. As it isn’t reliable it cannot be useful. Source D is also a source that shows that the evacuation was a success and the evacuees were settling down with their host families and were healthy and clean too. It is a photograph taken by the government so it could and probably was used for propaganda. It is most probable that it was used to reassure parents that their children were healthy and eating properly. I would not say that this source is useful because it cannot be proven that it is a reliable source. Source C is against source D. Source E is trying to show that the children didn’t settle in their host families and were afraid that they couldn’t even go to the toilet properly. My thoughts are that they were missing their families and their homes. This is a very useful source as it is an interview with the mother of a host family. It is also reliable because it is a primary source. Source F is also against source D. The interviewer is trying to get rid of the stereotypes set by articles and photographs like source D. My conclusion is that the evacuation didn’t run as smoothly as the propaganda said it did. Several evacuees have been interviewed and are totally against some of the newspaper articles. Propaganda cannot be trusted as it is being used to help lift the morale of the country.
