In a way this source does show that evacuation was a great success, yet it is a bit bias.
Source B shows a negative attitude towards evacuation. Though it is an interview, it only gives one point of view. The interview is both reliable and unreliable as well, it is reliable because it is someone who has actually experienced the evacuation and this person had to look after the children who were being evacuated so this person will know what it was like, although, it was written a long time after the war or rather she was interviewed many years after, the information that she has given may be slightly exaggerated or she may of forgotten some of it. The children are anxious, they need reassuring. This source doesn't generally tell us that evacuation was a success really, as the information that has been given hasn't really given any positive comments on how successful evacuation was.
Source C also gives out a negative attitude, as it says that 'people thought all evacuees were poor', this gives a negative attitude because it will then make a public in Great Britain think that evacuees weren't treated well. Source C is also a novel, and is extremely unreliable because the novel 'Carrie's War' is only based on one family and the other families, who are experiencing the same process of evacuation, may be feeling and doing things differently. IT shows the difference between the town and country, the living conditions etc. The children were finding it hard to settle in, and the foster parents didn't always treat the children they were looking after with respect and didn't always accept them. This doesn't either give any ideas that evacuation was a great success or not.
Source D is a source of propaganda so of course it's going to be a positive attitude. The government needed to persuade families to think about joining the roll of those who were willing to receive children form all over the country. Though the government seem to be in desperation, and the public might have thought, the evacuation plan is failing because no one seems to be volunteering to help out.
There are two children in the picture, they look fairly happy, and this will again definitely appeal to families. The picture of the two children has two contrasting backgrounds behind them, one is of the countryside, which looks quite pleasant, and the other looks like an industrial estate, with flying planes over it. The government needed the public to think the children would be much safer and happier in the countryside. In the article/text the government have purposely put many questions in it, this would probably make you agree with them, as it would make you think twice. The source isn't that reliable at telling us the views on evacuation because the government will have wanted evacuation to happen to look good to other countries so the countries thought they were handling it well, and the publics view would probably be different. The government sound very manipulative. They use very emotional language throughout the article. This shows that evacuation was a great success in some ways, as government were trying to make out that it was, however it does seem that the evacuation process was failing as the government needed to publish an article to get the publics support.
Source E is a very negative attitude to the evacuation period, but it is only one person's point of view, plus it is 'his' child. He feels the children aren't looked after properly. He seems adamant about his child not going to be looked after by someone else, and also feels very strongly about it. Now if this was published or played on radio, thousands of people would read and listen and probably agree with him and then not send their children, which would be very bad for the government. This source shows that evacuation wasn't a great success at all; the public seemed very negative about the whole idea.
Source F, I have chosen the film 'Hope and Glory' this is I think both negative and positive attitude to the evacuation period. It shows how distressing it was to live in the places where there Germans were bombing, and how many families were being destroyed, yet it is very negative, when the mother puts her children on the train to be taken to another home, the mother looked extremely distraught that she went and got them back. This source isn't that reliable, as it is a film and some of it will be made up, plus it was made many years after the war, however it does give us some idea on what it was like. This doesn't show that evacuation was necessarily a great success really, however it does show the many lives that were saved because of the evacuation; the film shows many downsides to evacuation, and how it destroyed many families.
On a whole, most of the sources are very negative about evacuation, so I don't really think it was a great success for the public, as they were the ones who were experiencing it and they didn't really approve of it, however for the government it was a great success as they saved some of their population plus other countries thought it was successful too so this was good for the British government. None of the sources give a clear picture on what and how the public were feeling about evacuation and whether they thought it would be or was a success. Everyone in Britain all had very strong and different views about it. Although it does show that government had a very good attitude towards to their public and their safety. In my views, I don't think evacuation was a great success, it was successful but there could have been other ways of solving it.
