Source H confirms that some evacuee children were living well, and were satisfied with their new families, with use of the statement “they’re happier and healthier”. My personal knowledge is consistent with this statement, as I know that some evacuees gained far more regular and healthier lifestyles through evacuation. However, the source was produced by the British Government, and is therefore propaganda in the form of a poster, its purpose to persuade more families to host evacuees.
The motion picture “Goodnight Mr. Tom” also provides evidence to suggest that in some cases, evacuation was a success. The film relates to the story of a young boy, who is evacuated from a city slum, and a ruined family life, to a small village in the countryside, and is hosted by an elderly man. The film illustrates and focuses on the successes of evacuation, as the boy becomes closer to his host (Mr. Tom) through all his experiences. The boy’s lifestyle is dramatically improved through evacuation, which is a clear success. However, the source’s purpose, being a film, is to entertain, therefore may not be entirely reliable, or accurate.
Other factors show evacuation to be a failure.
Source A is an extract from a textbook, published for use in British schools, in 1988. It demonstrates evacuation’s failures, it claims: “many evacuees could not settle in the countryside” and that “the country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation” of the evacuees that they hosted. This clearly illustrates that evacuation was, in some cases, a failure. The source is likely to be accurate and reliable, as it was produced for educational uses. The information in the source complies with my personal knowledge, as I know that many evacuees did not fit in with their foster families, there was a ‘cultural mismatch’ in some cases.
Source C describes the sheer misery experienced, through families separating due to evacuation. “Mothers pressed against the iron gates, calling goodbye darling, goodbye.”
The source illustrates another blatant failure of evacuation. It is likely to be reliable, as it is extracted from an interview, therefore is first hand experience.
Source E provides further evidence to suggest that evacuation was a failure: “the children went around the house urinating on the walls”. This statement is a prime example of the “cultural mismatch” that was experienced by some families, through evacuation.
The source is likely to be reliable, as it is an interview, meaning first hand experience. However, the interviewee may have been chosen due to their unusual experience.
Source F claims that evacuees did not all hail from city slums, but it was their hosts who were living in squalor. “It is just as upsetting for a clean and well educated child to find itself in a grubby semi-slum as the other way round.” The source is an interview, therefore a first hand account, but may not be entirely reliable, as it is only the opinion of an individual, and cannot be generalised.
In conclusion, Evacuation was overall a success, as whatever the problems or mismatches, children were being removed from a “danger-zone”, and that in many cases they gained better lifestyles through evacuation, and were removed from the poverty of the inner city slums.
