A few if the parents may have been able to arrange for their children to be evacuated to relatives or friends living in safer places. This could have already been done before the government enforced the evacuation. However the government couldn’t just let the children/parents find their own foster family. So the government said that it was their duty to evacuate as many of the remaining children as they possibly could which hadn’t already gone about evacuation themselves.
Fathers of children would be able to go to war as soldiers, knowing that their children would be under supervision in a safe place. This was something else that the government would want to happen. So if evacuation were successful then morale of the soldiers would be boosted due to being ensured that their brood were safe. The government didn’t want soldiers to be fighting the war when they were unhappy or insecure that their children were unsafe. The protection of their family would provide more hope for the soldier and for the future.
The countryside in general was a much better, cleaner place than places such as the east end of London. Therefore instead of it being an advantage for the government and parents that the children were safe. It was also giving the evacuees a better lifestyle for a few years of their life. Evacuation would give a child a lot other than just safety, such as a healthier, happier time. They would be able to explore a new way of life whilst escaping the danger and illnesses from the cities. So evacuation was an idea brought upon by the government, which could also give children a chance of life as well as the parents getting their childrens lives back again.
So to conclude this question of why did the British government decide to evacuate children form major cities in the early years of WWII? In my answer I explained that there were around six reasons why evacuation was carried out. These were, that the British government had looked at past events to decide where children should be evacuated from and to determine that the Germans were strong enough to put children at risk.
Also mothers of children would need to be working in the cities to keep them running instead of looking after the children. So if children were out of the way work could be done more efficiently.
The government thought that it would be a good whole scale war effort if everyone helped to allow evacuation to occur.
The government just felt responsible for the protection of the future generations lives because children just can’t protect themselves so it should be done for them.
I also said that it would boost the morale of soldiers if they knew that their children were safe at home, therefore making them fighting with more confidence.
Finally it would just be on the whole better for the child to go to the countryside not just for safety but also for healthier living.
History Coursework
Evacuation
‘Evacuation was a great success.’ Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
Evacuation started on September 1st 1939, the exact day war was declared. Children from major cities of Britain moved to areas of the country, which seemed like they wouldn’t be obvious targets for the Germans to bomb. Such as towns and villages in the countryside.
The interpretation in the question gives me different opinions of whether evacuation was a success or not. I am now going to show how the interpretation, ‘Evacuation was a great success’ can be disagreed with.
I will begin with showing evidence of how someone could agree with this statement.
Source A is a photograph, taken in 1939, of children travelling to the railway station to be evacuated from London. Adults, who could be teachers, parents or billeting officers are escorting the children. The children are all smiling and waving. There are two ways that could back up the statement in this source. One is that they are happy and waving, showing that the children taking part are glad about it and looking forward to what lies ahead. This agrees because the children look like they are in high spirits about taking part and if they are glad to be doing this then this may show that evacuation was successful. As the children are happy about being evacuated. Seen as though it is these children in the evacuation then if they are happy, they see it as a success.
The photograph also agrees with the interpretation because there is such a lot of people taking part, it surely must be a success due to the amount of people involved. However a photograph can only show you one part of a scene so this may seem as though there was a lot of people there.
I also know that many of the evacuee’s parents died whilst their children were at their foster homes in safety. It is highly likely that if these children were at home with their parents then they could have died along with their families. This shows that evacuation also could have been a success because it saved the lives of children, as it intended to do.
Source D is an advertisement from the government showing a picture of a boy and a girl in front of a countryside scene and a city with planes flying above buildings. These are the contrasting places, which the children were to be evacuated to and from. The article below is trying to persuade more foster parents in Scotland to look after an evacuee.
It is by the government and is a primary source from 1940. However this could be a form of propaganda, with it being a government view. Although I still think that the source is in favour of the statement in the question. It shows that it could create unity in the community of Britain and by saying, “You will be doing a real service for the nation” it appeals to patriotic people. It also says, “You may be saving a child’s life.” Which appeals to people to give up their space and use their good nature for Britain’s children. It is showing to people that evacuation is a good thing and for that I think it shows evacuation was a success. Also the fact that they are in need of more foster parents perhaps suggests success.
There is a source that I came across in my research which showed a mother and child sat at a tree. There is a faint picture of Adolf Hitler behind them. It shows that Hitler is telling the mother not to send her child back to the country. It is trying to make the parents keep their children in safety. I believe that this is evidence that agrees and disagrees with the interpretation, ‘Evacuation was a great success’. I think it disagrees because it is showing that the government had to resort to propaganda posters like this one to stop people bringing their children back to the cities. Telling me that the parents must have deemed evacuation unsuccessful due to it not being relevant. It wasn’t relevant to them because no air raids had been carried out in the cities yet. So the parents brought them home. So the parents views here, disagree with the statement in the question.
However the source I found could agree with it because if the government were encouraging the children to stay in the countryside, then they believe that it is a success and that despite no air raids the children’s lives are still in danger. Personally if the government did this and persuaded parents to keep them there then I would. As the government are more likely to know how safe the major cities are. So if the government wants children to stay in the country then obviously being in the city is dangerous and staying in the country is safe. The government would not try send the children to safer places if they thought it wasn’t necessary and thought that the evacuation was unsuccessful.
The interpretation, ‘Evacuation was a great success’ can also be disagreed with and I will, using sources I have, show how the statement could be untrue.
Source B is from an interview with a teacher who was evacuated with the children at her school. It is a similar account to the picture in source A about children walking to the train station to be evacuated. This, however, is a very different view as the teacher remembers it as a very sad and hard time for both parent and child. She says the children were afraid and that they weren’t talking because of fear. Source A showed happy children, this source says that the children with the teacher weren’t happy at all. So therefore if here they were unhappy about the ordeal then this is showing that perhaps evacuation was unsuccessful as the evacuees here didn’t enjoy their experience.
It can also show that evacuation may have not been very well organised due to the children and teachers not knowing where they were going. This could though have not been told to the evacuees because the information could have leaked out into the wrong hands.
All of the information given by the teacher may be a little different to actual events as she had the interview 49 years after evacuation was started. Making the source secondary. Although it could be primary as the teacher was there at the time.
So on the whole source B, despite slight unreliability seems to disagree with the interpretation in the question.
Source C is an extract form a novel about evacuation and evacuees. This also seems to disagree that evacuation was a great success. I can see this because it shows a stereotypical view of what people of the countryside thought about the evacuees. The lady in the story assumes that the children are too poor to have slippers. Which is a small matter but in a way shows that evacuation wasn’t a ‘great’ success as the people who took in evacuees thought lowly of the children.
This source like source B, is secondary as it is from 1973 and is secondary evidence written in a book. However the book could have been written using many primary sources to put together an interpretation. Or the evidence may not be entirely accurate but could show a correct opinion of how country people were stereotypical.
Source E is an interview from 1940 by the Observer newspaper. It is with the south end father of a seven-year-old boy. The first question asked is, “What do people feel about evacuating children?” he answers saying that people are funny about it, “first they say they’ll send them, then they say they wont.” This shows that many people weren’t particularly sure about evacuation. Therefore telling me that that if people didn’t know what to do and were unaware then this shows evacuation may have not been successful.
Finally source F is a video, ‘History file – Era of the Second World War. Programme three – The Home Front’. This shows a lot of mixed opinions about evacuation and shows me evidence agreeing and disagreeing with the interpretation.
We first see two young evacuees being interviewed by a man. One young boy says that the countryside is, “Wonderful sir” and another boy says, “I’ve seen a rabbit”. These statements both strongly agree with the interpretation in the question. Saying it is wonderful is a short way of putting it, but shows that he enjoyed it. The second boy saying he had seen a rabbit must have been very happy about this, as it is a great experience for him. Back then; if you lived in a city it was a rarity to see animals such as a rabbit. So this seems to have pleased him too.
Like I said about source A, if the evacuees are enjoying or have enjoyed their evacuation then surely, as it is for the children, evacuation was a success.
We also hear in the video that propaganda was used to make it seem like an adventure for the children and newspapers were censored to clear away the bad things. These both show negativity about evacuation, however I think that without this propaganda children would have seen it as an adventure anyway.
A girl had to pretend to be a different faith to ensure that she got along with her foster mother. She had to listen to remarks against her true religion in the time that she spent there.
This is obviously against the interpretation and like many other children underwent, it was often reported that country people bullied the evacuees and the children were stereotyped like I mentioned before.
Finally a parent said that it was a very difficult decision to make, leaving her child and their lives in the hands of a stranger.
Some families were lucky enough to know people who lived away from potential German targets and could privately arrange an evacuation.
However the majority of children did not have these privileges and the parents had to make the decision. Either to keep the child at home in danger or let them live with strangers but in safety.
This shows disagreement of evacuation being a great success due to the emotional difficulties of it.
The video showed balanced views about the success of evacuation.
To conclude I can say that it is not entirely certain whether it was a success or not because of there being fair amounts of evidence from sources etc. for both sides of the argument.
However my opinion is that despite the difficulties caused by evacuation and the bullying and problems brought upon the children. The main point for evacuation was to save lives. (Although it could have been something else, such as the boosting of soldier morale. Which would mean that the interpretation of ‘success’ would be much different.) But the saving of lives was successful and if this was what evacuation was meant to do, then even though some children did have a hard time, their lives were much safer where they were. So in my eyes evacuation was a success, but not a ‘great’ success because of some individual experiences.
