• 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? Use sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.

Extracts from this document...


"Evacuation was a great success!" Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Use sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer. Evacuation was introduced because Britain was at war with Germany and they expected the Germans to bomb Britain. There were three main evacuation periods. The first started on September 1^st 1939 and was called `The Phoney War'; this first wave of evacuation took place because Britain expected air raids. The second period ranged from May to December 1940. This second wave was taken due to heavy bombing warnings, the Blitz started shortly after evacuation started. The third period of evacuation was from July to September 1944, and this was because the Germans had developed flying bombs and `v2' rockets, which were both devastating weapons. People who were evacuated were school children, mothers and young children, blind and disabled people and teachers. The government tried to encourage evacuation by the use of propaganda. Source B is a photograph from the start of evacuation. It shows evacuee's walking to a train station. They are all smiling and look happy. We cannot fully trust this source because it may be a staged photo used by the government for propaganda. ...read more.


Source I is from an interview with a father from South end with a 7 year old boy. It has been written in May 1940, but before the heavy bombing started. It cannot be trusted because it took place before the bombing started so his opinion could have changed. Sources 7 and 8 suggest that the evacuation process was well organised and a success. The children on the trains are all smiling and are happy, and the children walking to the station also look happy. The government leaflet on evacuation: why and how, suggests that evacuation was well organised, it says that all children were evacuated to safer places called reception areas. Whereas source C suggest that it wasn't, it says people had no idea where they were going. The source comes from an interview with a teacher in 1988. This source cannot be fully trusted because it is only her memories and is only one viewpoint Some sources suggest that evacuation was well organised when evacuee's got there. For example, in the Internet sheet, a 5-year-old evacuee described his experience; he says that he enjoyed himself, and enjoyed his 2 - 3 years in Wales, and that the host wanted to adopt him. ...read more.


Cynthia Gillet described her experience of evacuation as terrible, she was evacuated twice and was beaten and worked. Another girl described her experience with a rich family as unhappy, she got very homesick and returned home a few months later. Source L also tells us of brutality towards evacuee's, other children would gang up on them in the playground. The successes were that evacuation saved thousands of lives and up to the end of 1942, only 27 children evacuated from London were injured, which was a tiny amount compared to the casualties of the people who stayed. Many evacuees saw world outside of the cities and many loved the countryside. It also highlighted poverty and the slum conditions people were living in. The failures though were that only 36% of people who should have been evacuated from London were evacuated and only 33% of people from provinces were evacuated; a lot of people weren't evacuated. Other failures were when the government tried to introduce a second wave of evacuation, response was very limited. In conclusion, evacuation was partly a success because of the lives it saved, but it partly failed because only a small majority of people who should have been evacuated were, and because of the haphazard placement of evacuees with hosts, most evacuees hated the countryside and returned home. ...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.

    This source tells us that the trip to the station was not at all a glorious occasion as Source B shows. The evacuees would go around the house urinating on walls, they would never use the toilet. The evacuees took no notice when told that this was wrong and many houses "stunk to high heaven".

  2. "Evacuation Was A Great Success" Do You Agree Or Disagree With This Interpretation?

    "When we got to the station the train was ready", this quote shows that the organisation of the whole process was efficient as there was no waiting for trains. This interview is 49 years after evacuation took place, the teacher therefore could have a selective memory and only remember certain

  1. Was Evacuation A Success

    The poster includes a full sized image which consists of 2 young angelic smiling children who look innocent and the background is divided into two; One half is the countryside which looks like a safe and pleasant place to be and the other half represents the city which looks dark and very unsafe with a few aircraft hovering across.

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

    This source is an unreliable representation of attitudes to evacuation because it is only one person's opinion of evacuation. Other evacuees would have had different experiences from the author or the characters. This source is similar to source A as it shows a positive attitude to the evacuation of children

  1. "Evacuation was a great success" Discuss

    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.

  2. "Evacuation was a great success" Do you agree with this interpretation?

    Again this source is only from one perspective, only showing one-person thoughts and feelings of the evacuation that possibly could be led by the interviewer. The source only covers the feelings of a select group of people and so does not give a very good overview.

  1. Evacuation was a great success - do you agree or disagree.

    But no, there was social mis-matching galore, and it is because of this that the 'negative experience' stories exist. These stories are available as the viewpoint of the evacuees, and hosts, separately. Source E is an interview with a host mother, held in 1988.

  2. Was Evacuation a success?

    stage of evacuation where the children have not yet arrived at their foster homes. This means that the source shows the incomplete process of evacuation making it impossible to say that evacuation was successful or not. Furthermore, the motive of the photograph needs to be examined.

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