I would say that to be successful they had to keep morale high, but this failed because of the blitz. The blitz had scared the British a lot and it affected morale a lot.
Source B is an extract about a teacher talking bout how she was evacuated in world war two. The aim of the source is to make us think that how people felt during evacuation. Looking at the source we can see that the teacher is remembering how she was feeling during evacuation and also we can see that it was written a long time ago which can be untrue because it was written a long time after evacuation. The source is reliable but not very important to a historian because it does not provide a lot of information but it does contain the thoughts and feelings which is not enough for a historian.
On source B I would say that the source shows evacuation was successful because when the children arrived “the train was ready”. This shows that it was organised and there was no problems during the evacuation scheme. I would again say that the source is reliable because it shows that everything was ready and there were no delays. This source is not biased because its fives positive and negative sides.
Again, it gives us information that children were frightened and upset because of them leaving their families. This shows that it went wrong because the British aimed to keep the children’s morale high at all times. The source’s aim is to encourage parents send their children which looks true because there a lot of thoughts and feelings. I think that the source could be trusted because it shows how the children felt during the evacuation scheme.
In source C you can see it is about extract from a novel called “Carrie’s War” written in 1973. The novel is written by “Nina Bowden”. I would say that source is not reliable because it says things that were not true and also it never happened. This source is not reliable because it does not show how evacuation was; it only shows what the writer wrote it which can not be true. I would say that the information is made up because these sorts of things did not happen. I would say that the source could be called a tertiary because the writer did not write about experience evacuation and it has been taken more then 30 years after which is likely that children would not remember. The aim of the source is to show children how it was experienced and the way they would be treated. In the source you can see that the children “giggled” which shows that it was fun and exciting for them. The source talks about the children being poor and they could not afford slippers, and she talks about no space in the suitcase for children to bring slippers with them.
Source C could be used to show how people were living in towns and also most people were poor. A lot of hosts realised how the living conditions were and the way people were treated.
Looking at source D it shows the government’s persuasive poster to encourage people to look after children. Evidence such as “”you will be doing a real service for the nation”. It shows that the government used such language to persuade people to look after the children. In the source you could see that two children holding tight to each other and also the country behind them are being bombed. The picture has been taken with foster parents and the source is asking the reader do you want children to die in front of your face? This is very important because it shows what kind of sources the government put up to encourage people to accept to look after the evacuees.
I would say that source D is biased because it does not negative points and also it shows that foster parents were kind which is not true. The aim of source D is to encourage foster parents to accept to look after children. This shows that it was disorganised and it was not planned well because there were not enough foster parents accepting the children. If evacuation was well planned they would not put up posters asking to look after children.
The government opinion was that evacuation was disorganised because the government could not evacuate half of the children who had to stay in the areas that were being bombed.
In source E you can see a father refusing to send his child for instance “I won’t let him go”. This source is reliable because it was written in the evacuation times and also most parents refused to send their child which was true. I would say this source is primary source. The source is biased because it does not show give the advantages of the evacuation therefore we can not trust it. I would say that we could use this to see how people felt about evacuating their child or children. The aim of the source is to show the way people felt about sending their children and also it would be a big risk of getting killed. This would lead in the government failing. The reason why a lot of families did not send their child was because they could not afford the benefits and others were very upset to send tem because they knew they would miss them.
The other reason why evacuation failed which because children were given to any family and also they had no choice where to live.
In 1-3 September evacuation was successful because they managed to evacuate 103,000 people including children, mothers, pregnant women, blind people, disabled people and teachers. This proved to people that they managed to be successful and also they thought than evacuating some children was better than doing nothing.
The most important reason why evacuation was not successful was because air raids had lasted until 10th May 1941 which nearly 60,000 civilians were killed. The air raids had caused a big problem for Britain but most children were safe because of shelter, which protected the children from the bombing.
In one way the British thought that evacuation was not successful because they aimed for 3 million people to get evacuated but only half of this was done. Most evacuees were school children. A lot of school children did not want to get evacuated mostly because leaving their parents.
I would say that evacuation was very successful because it saved many lives. It would be wrong to go against the government because it was an emergency and no one else had a better plan that that. If the government had done nothing millions of people would have died. So I would say evacuation was better than nothing. This would have lead to a low moral and Britain would have lost the war. In September 1939 I million coffins were ordered to London. Luckily the British professional was wrong. The German air raids were not that powerful as the British had expected. 60 thousand civilians died in the air raids, which show that it did affect the British a lot. Overall I would say that evacuation changed the living conditions and also, lives. Some people thought it was going to be fun and some thought it was hard and powerful. In one way if there were no evacuation a lot of innocent people would have died, so I think that evacuation was a good plan for an emergency attack by the Germans, which was very likely.
