Was Evacuation a success?
There are many factors, which contribute to whether or not evacuation was a success. One major factor is the number of lives that were saved due to evacuation. We now know that if evacuation had not taken place, a lot more people would have been killed in the Blitz (only were actually killed). However, we also know that there were cases of abuse ('I had bruises from my neck right down to my ankles on both sides and on my left hip all my clothes were stuck to my hip where it was bleeding' John Abbot) and children being used for slave labor etc because the host families were not checked, and this is obviously a major failure. Evacuation was intended to save lives, nothing else. Nevertheless, there was a lot more to evacuation than intended. For example, the government did not take into account the social impact evacuation would have, or the possibility of long-term trauma for some children. The sources show different experiences and interpretations of evacuation. Source I is an interview in 1940 by the observer between them and a man who is reluctant to let his child be evacuated. He is reluctant to let his son go because he would be sent to the West Country and they had a food shortage there before the war. The observer replies "Only in the large towns and mining centers, surely, not in villages?" and he responds, "Well what if I got killed? Who'd look after him? There are plenty of people here, my family and friends." This does not fair well for the government as if one person says no more will follow. Before the war in 1939 they had a 'phony war' where lots of children across the country were evacuated and many then had to come back however only to be re-evacuated in may 1940 and then not all the children originally evacuated were evacuated. Overall this source shows that evacuation was a failure, especially for the government Most of the sources show that evacuation was not a success and that the families had a hard time because if their children stayed they had a risk of dying and if they went they would miss them dearly. The children many too young to know what was happening often went to bad homes in the country although there are also a lot of good homes. The host families had to take on board more mouths to feed, they received money from the government but it usually wasn't enough to cover the costs. Last but not least the government their objective was to make every child in Britain safe from the threat of German bombers. If you look at it in that perspective it was a success but once they had evacuated everyone they had to bring them all back again, then evacuate them later on again which in many respects is quite an achievement. Source A is a photograph taken in September 1939 of evacuees walking to the station in London. From it we can clearly see that the child evacuees in the picture are cheerful and
smiling while waving their hands in the air at the camera. This picture shows an organized and successful event to the people who may be looking at the photograph. So at first glance you could conclude that evacuation was successful, however there is not enough in this source to say that it was. The children and adults in this picture may only be smiling due to a natural reaction to the camera, so in reality the subjects in the picture may very well be unhappy at the fact they that have to be evacuated. Also, during World War 2 three ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
smiling while waving their hands in the air at the camera. This picture shows an organized and successful event to the people who may be looking at the photograph. So at first glance you could conclude that evacuation was successful, however there is not enough in this source to say that it was. The children and adults in this picture may only be smiling due to a natural reaction to the camera, so in reality the subjects in the picture may very well be unhappy at the fact they that have to be evacuated. Also, during World War 2 three million individuals were evacuated and this picture only shows around 50 people, thus only showing a small minority of views and not the opinion of the whole country. This also brings into question the time the photograph was taken; it was at the early 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. It is very probable that the government took the picture and did it to raise the support and publicity for evacuation making this propaganda. If this were the case the government would aim to make evacuation look good meaning they wouldn't show an accurate depiction of evacuation. For example if the photograph showed crying children it would be censored or the picture would simply not be taken if showing evacuation to be a stressful or negative event. So in conclusion to source A, at first appearance it shows that evacuation was a success but on closer inspection there are many questions raised about its reliability, meaning that, there is not enough evidence to say it was successful. Source B is from an interview with a teacher in 1988 who is remembering being evacuated. From this source we can pick out evidence to suggest that evacuation was successful. This is shown when the teacher in the interview describes the fact that, during the evacuation, as they got to the station, the train was ready for them, this portrays evacuation as being successful because it was well organized. However, there is much more in the source to show that it was unsuccessful, such as incidents of children awaiting evacuation being described as quiet, nervous and anxious. This shows that the children were scared of evacuation, as their minds had not been put to rest leaving them unaware of the likely outcome making the process look disorganized and unsuccessful. 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 do as it would be a traumatic time for both of them. The fact that the children and mothers were being separated is considered a failure of evacuation; the mothers left on their own and the children left to cope with a new way of life. This source can give a very detailed and reliable description of evacuation as someone who actually took part in it tells his or her story. Even though this source is from 1988 (49 years after evacuation) and the teacher might not remember every detail, it would have been a life-changing event. The teacher would not forget such an event, as it would be something that sticks out in people's minds making this source probably very accurate. So in conclusion to source B, there is evidence to suggest evacuation was successful there is much more to show the failures of the process. Source C in an extract from a novel called Carrie's War written in 1973 by Nina Bowden. This source contains the dialogue between a single women and two evacuated children that she has fostered. Before looking into the meanings of this source I have to show its motive. As it is a novel this source's main purpose is to sell copies and to entertain its readers, at first glace giving the impression that it is not reliable. However, before writing the novel the author, Nina Bowden, should have decided to research the topic of evacuation to make sure that what she was to write would be an accurate depiction of what happened during this time period. In my opinion this means that this source is reliable and even because of the fact that it was written 32 years after evacuation, the research undertaken by the author would still make for a valid book to be produced. The women who has fostered the children in the novel is a "Miss", a single women, meaning that she would have no experience of caring for children and wouldn't be able to understand them as fully as a foster mother who already had children. This shows that many evacuees and foster parents were mismatched and from my own studies this was often the case as rich families fostered children from poor families. This is shown in the source where it is discovered that the evacuees were possibly too poor to have slippers and the foster parent was rich enough to have carpet on the stairs. All of the above shows how mismatching occurred during evacuation portraying that it was unsuccessful. On the other hand the fact that children and foster parents were mismatched opened peoples eyes to the terrible conditions of inner cities and towns. This often resulted in evacuees from poor families being looked after far better than they would have been at home; this is considered a success of evacuation. Also, the foster parent in the story was prepared to take in children despite being single and provided a good foster home to the evacuees. This is an example of a success in the evacuation process as the foster parent and home was just what the government were looking for. In conclusion to source C, I have decided that it was reliable and although there is a major failing in evacuation highlighted, overall there is more in this source to say that evacuation was a success. Source D is an advertisement issued by the government in 1940 as an appeal for more Scottish people to foster evacuees. In this source the government are trying to persuade people to become foster parents by highlighting all the successes of evacuation so far and using children who received a good foster home to show their appreciation; emotional blackmail. This makes this source propaganda, published by the government, meaning that the information contained in it is valid but is highlighted to make you more emotional about it and feel the need to become a foster parent. There is much in source D to show that evacuation was successful, starting with the picture of the children smiling and saying thank you to their foster parents. This portrays success because the children are what is at stake in evacuation and they are showing that it is a success by being happy and cheerful, while promoting foster parents by thanking theirs and asking for more like them. In this source, the government are promoting fostering in Scotland, by describing how important it is for the children, that if they foster they will be saving lives by taking the evacuees away from the bombing and into the clean countryside. Next, it is shown that evacuation was successful because the appeal describes the foster parents as doing the right thing and that they would be giving vital help to the war effort. Also, that the children would be happier and healthier and in a better environment. In the source it states that 20,000 Scots are fostering and this advert is enticing others to do the same, while the last sentence in the appeal reads; "You may be saving a child's life." This shows that people are proud and is, once again, using emotion to appeal to its readers. All of the above shows that evacuation was a great success; nevertheless there is a flip side to this source. The mere fact that this advert had to be published shows that evacuation was unsuccessful. This is because there is obviously not enough people taking part in fostering and the government are attempting to publicize the job. This advert was published in 1940, one year after evacuation had begun, meaning that the government hadn't done enough in the early years of the war to encourage people to evacuate and foster. The government are trying to sell the idea to potential foster parents who now need a lot of convincing. The fact that this advert is propaganda means there are no negatives about evacuation contained in it, hiding all the information from the public. An example of this would be where it is stated that 20,000 Scots are already foster parents; if this number were lower it would simply be left out of the appeal. However, in conclusion to source D, I can clearly state that this source shows evacuation in a very successful way due to it being propaganda. There is much more in this source to show success in evacuation than failure. Source E is an interview in 1940 with a father from the South of England who has a seven-year-old boy and is asked about his feelings towards evacuation. The interviewer asks the father questions about how other people and how he feels about evacuation. In this source there is no evidence to suggest that evacuation was successful, only the failures and uncertainties are voiced in this source. The first is that the father's comments that many people in his area have changed their minds to not evacuate their children. This means that the government haven't done enough to convince the thousands of parents in this man's area to evacuate including the father himself. This father won't let go of his child as he feels that his son can't be looked after where the evacuees are sent. He feels this because he has a view that the Shires, Wales and the West are starving and have nothing there to live on. The father has based his views on gossip and rumors with the people who live in his area. Also he is worried that if he got killed there would be plenty of his family in his area to look after his son however this wouldn't be the case if his child were evacuated. This once again shows that the government hasn't done enough to convince people that evacuation was for the better of the children of Britain and to calm the worries of parents. So in conclusion to source E, I have decided that it was reliable as it was a person's own view on the events and that this source shows no evidence of evacuation being successful. Source E highlights many failings by the government and portrays evacuation as being unsuccessful. In conclusion, having considered all five sources, one in itself being inconclusive (source A), two showing that evacuation was successful (sources C and D) and two showing that it was a failure (sources B and E), I have now concluded that evacuation was a great success. Despite evidence to suggest otherwise, (such as the government not doing enough to convince people of evacuation's importance, disorganization and evacuee/foster parent mismatching) by using my own knowledge my feelings are that evacuation was a success in Britain in World War 2. This is due to reasons that I discovered from my own research, the main one being the fact that even if only a small number of lives were saved it would still make it successful. For those children who were evacuated, it gave them a safe haven away from the bombing; a better quality of life and safe guarded their future. Another reason why evacuation was successful was that it allowed the parents to give their time to the war effort and I'm sure, it was the start of friendships that would last a lifetime as these refugee children from the cities forged relationships with their new found foster parents. As a result, although there is evidence to argue differently, overall I feel that yes, evacuation was a great success!
