• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

'Evacuation was a great success.' Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from you own studies.

Extracts from this document...


'Evacuation was a great success.' Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from you own studies. Throughout Britain in September 1939 scenes of mass evacuation took place, women and children from major cities were transported then relocated in the rural countryside. Evacuation was a precaution taken by the government to reduce the casualties from heavy bombing; targeted at large civilian places. It was known as Operation 'Pied Piper' whose principal aim was to keep children safe from the dangers of the Second World War. Evacuation was a success in that respect, as many children were sent to an environment which reduced the risk of bombing compared to staying at home. However, this was only one of the main aims of evacuation. This essay is to assess whether or not the aims of evacuation were accomplished and the benefits and down-sides that followed. Evacuation saved millions of lives in London alone. Conservative estimates put civilian casualties in London at 4 million, and the government ordered hospitals to prepare for the worst and stockpile coffins. It was against this backdrop that mass evacuation took place. Nevertheless, evacuation did save many lives across Britain and for that reason it must have been a great success. Yet, there were many errors that disrupted evacuation such as the misconceptions about evacuees as told in source F. ...read more.


This is shown by source D, a photograph issued by the government to show evacuation was currently doing well. In September 1939, 1.5 million children were evacuated. Homesickness and the realisation that the war had not begun saw many children drift back to their homes in the cities towards the end of 1939; this period was known as the Phoney War. When German bombers started blitzing Britain's cities in 1940 a second evacuation took place, though not on the scale of the one in 1939. A few thousand children were also sent overseas to commonwealth countries such as Australia and South Africa. This shows that the evacuation process also had its downsides - some evacuees got homesick, many country families were shocked in how city slum people lived, others were resented as a burden by their foster families. During the evacuation, many children suffered the trauma of separation and isolation and were terrified by the prospect of being removed from their parents. For the most part, mothers were not evacuated with their children, unless they were pregnant. Instead, over 100,000 teachers escorted the children out of the cities. It was a time of worry and anxiety for parents. For children there were emotions ranging from fear and excitement to uncertainty, while some young evacuees struggled to understand why many of their mothers stood by crying. It was only a few days in till the evacuees were hit with homesickness. ...read more.


This tells us that though 20,000 people had volunteered, others were very reluctant to take evacuees in. Overall, it is difficult to conclude whether evacuation was a success or a failure. People have various opinions based on their own experiences; therefore you can not really draw a firm conclusion from that. Many evacuees had great experiences though it depended on the attitudes of the specific people involved. However, there were many failures of the system as well. During the war, 43,000 people died in the bombing and many of them were children. Still, many more children would have died had evacuation not taken place. The government had little control over evacuation. In source C, a recollection of a teacher, "We hadn't the slightest idea where we were going." shows how some evacuations were not well organised. Evacuation also had many successful long term effects. After seeing the state of some city children, it brought their living conditions to the attention of others. Following the war, a new Labour government was elected, who created a 'welfare state', which featured services for health and poverty. This helped make Britain a much more equal place. In my own personal opinion, every life that was saved due to evacuation means that it was success. Thus, I agree with the statement taking into account how it affected people's lives. Many aims of evacuation were fulfilled; both short and long term events ameliorated Britain after the War. Some people did not enjoy evacuation, but without it they might not have lived to tell us that. ?? ?? ?? ?? Gary Chew ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Britain 1905-1951 section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Britain 1905-1951 essays

  1. "Evacuation was a great success" Do you agree? Source based work.

    Some young children confused their foster parents with their real parents. During the phoney war evacuees became homesick, many had been hurriedly placed in unsuitable billets, dirty and unsanitary, or with people unwilling or unable to look after them properly.

  2. Do you agree with Smiths(TM)s interpretation of the effects of the opening of the ...

    sufficient enough amount of time for any effects to take place on Selby due to the canal, as it had only just been opened.

  1. Evacuation was a great success. Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation explain ...

    However, this source could be unreliable as it is possible it is Government propaganda to try and convince parents to evacuate their children and there is a change that it could be completely staged. Another unreliable factor is that if a camera is pointed at children they will generally laugh,

  2. Why do sources A to F differ in their attitudes to the evacuation of ...

    This source is similar to source C as both the authors of the sources experienced evacuation first hand. This makes them slightly more reliable than the other sources. However, source B is different from source C as source C is fictional and source B is not fictional.

  1. Free essay

    why do sources A to F differ in their attitudes to the evacuation of ...

    "the children were too afraid to talk" This shows that the women believed that the children did not enjoy their evacuation and that they were scared. The teacher also claims that the mothers were allowed walk with the children, which gives a reason for why the children were scared.

  2. Was Evacuation a success?

    Another point to show this is when the teacher states that she didn't have the "slightest idea where they were going", once again showing no organization or reassurance to the children involved. In source B the mothers are depicted as supporting the children which was the least that they could

  1. Was Evacuation a success?

    The book is aimed at young children, therefore it misses out some of the true, harsh details of the evacuation such as how the rich looked down on the poor and treated them badly and how some people saw children as burdens.

  2. "The Evacuation was a great success" Do you agree or disagree with the interpretation?

    Source B is an interview with a teacher. As teachers were evacuated with the children they would have been good, reliable sources for how good evacuation was. It is writing in first person and it tells how the children were alone and what they were going through. The time this account was created was 1988.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work