Beginning with source A, is a staged photograph of evacuees in London in September 1939. The photography with its image of happy smiling and waving young people is designed to counter the real concerns that many parents had about the evacuation process. The use of such images in the popular press and in the cinema was designed to reassure the population that operation “Pied Piper” would be a success. The fear of air attack from German bombers at the start of hostilities encouraged parents to send their children to safety. There were predictions of 4,000,000 civilian casualties in London alone, and, as early as 1922 - after the air threat from Zeppelins - Lord Balfour had spoken of
'Unremitting bombardment of a kind that no other city has ever had to endure'
The Government had stockpiled coffins, erected masses of barrage balloons and planned, at least in outline, for the mass evacuation of British cities before 1939. But history now has revealed that these plans were hopelessly flawed. Although this is not clear in the government sources used here.
In the first place, the estimates of casualties were grossly over-exaggerated and the subsequent Government propaganda caused near panic rather than controlled movement. In addition, the man in charge of evacuation, Sir John Anderson, was a cold, inhuman character with little understanding of the emotional upheaval that might be created by evacuation
More critical sources such as the 1987 film by John Borman “Hope and Glory” and recent evacuee memoirs such as those on the BBC history website paint a very different picture from sources B and D. They describe a typically British wartime shambles. Hundreds of children arrived in the wrong area with insufficient rations and, more worryingly, there were not enough homes in which to put them.
Twelve months earlier, the Government had surveyed available housing, but what they had not taken into account was the extent to which middle-class and well-to-do families would be making their own private arrangements. Consequently, those households who had previously offered to take in evacuees were now full.
Keeping control of the whole thing became a joyless task.
'The trains were coming in thick and fast,'
Says Geoffrey Barefoot who had been seconded from the town hall to act as a billeting officer in Weston Super Mare.
'It was soon obvious that we just didn't have the bed space.'
It was in the national government’s interest to show as optimistic and care free picture as possible. As on the smiling faces on the advert for more people in Scotland to provide ( source D) homes for evacuee children. The Advertisement issued in 1940 is a good example of an appeal to people’s good will at a time of war
“You may be saving a child’s life.”
In relation to source B and C both had benefit of hindsight an interview in 1988 with a teacher and a children’s novel written in 1973, both give a personal view of evacuation which concentrates on the feeling of the child and the parent and are not part of any propaganda type approach. When examining source E a very different mood can be seen, the extract is from one of the first opinion surveys in the UK the “Mass Observation Survey” which was the model for public opinion surveys later in the 1950’s. In asking questions of ordinary people a different picture emerges, which did cause concern to the establishment at the time.
Mass observation according to Mr Stonier quoted in a George Orwell (1947) Tribune article
“Would have elephant ears, a loping walk and a permanent sore eye from looking through key holes.”
This can account for the hostility which some conservative views had about mass observation. The statements in an interview in May 1940 are directly opposite to the government propaganda at the time with the fathers reply to questions suggesting that he had little faith in the government’s policy of evacuation.
“I’m not letting him go. They can’t be looked after where they are sending them.”
The clear differences in source E and D show the concern with which many ordinary parents viewed operation pied piper.
In conclusion the range of sources used reflects the intentions of the authors. Sources A and D reflect the government view. Sources B and C give a more personal interpretation of historical events. The Bristol evacuee memories and the film “Hope and Glory” giving a raw view of historical reality and standing apart from all the other sources is the seemingly modern interview with a parent which is the closest to a modern “2003” way of examining the situation.
971 words.
