Source based work on the evacuation.

Charlotte Wilkinson

History Coursework

Q1.

Source B is a photograph taken in September 1939. It shows evacuees walking to the station in London. Looking at the picture, I can see the evacuees walking in line, all carrying their luggage with teachers walking beside them and parents in tow. From looking at the picture it is evidently clear that there are certain aspects to be learnt from it. This picture will have been taken almost as soon as war was declared, when around 1.5 million people were evacuated. The children are walking along a typical looking city street with terraced houses either side of them. Amidst the smiling faces there is a sense of anticipation and optimistic feeling. Evacuation, in such an early time would have been considered extremely beneficial as it would have freed up Mothers to help the war effort, enabled children to see life outside the confinement of the city and also allowed children to stay with generally ‘better off’ families. This source would be useful to a historian studying evidence about the start of the children’s evacuation journey, because of the time it was taken, and also being a primary source. The photograph portrays an on look of how Mothers, Fathers and families of the children would have felt, having to say goodbye to their children before they were evacuated. However this photograph only shows one stage of the beginning of the children’s evacuation journey. This photograph may well have been bias in its approach to children being evacuated, as it may have been taken for the government to use as propaganda to encourage parents to have their children evacuated so they can help out the war effort.

Source C is different to source B. It is an extract taken from an interview in 1988 with a teacher. In the extract a teacher remembers being evacuated with children from her school. The teacher explains how she felt and feelings about how the children felt during her evacuation experience. This source does not, however come from the children’s point of view. The teacher is looking back on her experience 49 years ago and so may not be as useful, as it does not present us with as much evidence. There is also no photographic evidence to back up her opinion. She portrays the children’s feelings to have been of fear, but in source B there is no fear on the children’s faces what so ever, but this may have been because the picture was set up for propaganda. The teacher does explain how the Mothers felt and acted and adds to the drama of what the situation would have been. This source is a secondary source as it is taken from after the time, and is also bias as it only expresses one person’s opinion and so is not relevant to a historian, as it does not represent a whole opinion.

After studying both sources, I feel that both sources are useful, but limited and dependant on what you want to know. I do feel that source B would be slightly more useful as it is taken from the time and not 50 years later. It also presents us with more useful evidence and portrays more information, allowing us to learn more from it.

Source G is an extract from a novel about evacuees. It is from ‘Carries War,’ a novel for children written by Nina Bowden in 1973, this extract from a novel ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source G is an extract from a novel about evacuees. It is from ‘Carries War,’ a novel for children written by Nina Bowden in 1973, this extract from a novel is classed as a secondary source, as it was not written during the war. In the source, the host who has evacuated 2 children asks the children to change in to their slippers. Carrie, the eldest of the 2 children answer that they haven’t any. The woman assumes that they are to poor to have any, but in fact, the reason that they do not have any is because they were unable to fit them in to their cases. The novel states that there was not a speck of dust anywhere, and so it suggests that the children were not used to such spotless surroundings. The hosts will have seemed more particular to cleanliness to the children and this may have seemed peculiar to them. In the war, evacuees were not used to rural life and there were poor children moving to wealthier homes. There was a clash between city and country values and people outside the cities, in the countryside learnt how bad the conditions were which encouraged them to evacuate children. However, some people did not want evacuees in their houses.

The book was partly based on the author’s own childhood experiences as an evacuee. With the author being an evacuee herself, then the information will be reliable. If the author had have had no evacuation experience then there would not have been as much reliable information to be gained from it, as she would have been only gathering her information from other sources. Also, we have to take in to account that this source may be bias. We do not have the point of view from the family, and the story is only based on a typical child’s evacuation journey, and so does not represent all experiences.

The purpose of the novel is to explain and inform to children about evacuation and this may well have been the motive of the author. One source that does agree with source G, is source A. Source A states that country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation of the town children. Miss Evans in source G assumes that the children are too poor to have slippers and so these sources corroborate. Source F, however does not agree with source G as it does not agree with the common view of evacuees. It argues that many evacuees found themselves in ‘worse off’ conditions to those that they left in the city.

I think that this source is not a valid source, as we cannot gain that much information from it, as it is a secondary source and a fictional novel, although it does contain some aspects of primary information. The source does corroborate with other sources and information and so is still reasonably reliable.

Evacuation was a great success; some people may agree with this view point as it was considered the safest way to ensure that vulnerable citizens who needed to be protected were protected. Children, mothers, pregnant women, blind and disabled people and teachers were evacuated when war was declared from heavy risk bombing areas, to less likely target areas to guarantee their safety. Children were taken on by foster parents, out of danger zones rescuing them from likely desperate peril. Many children were taken from slums to ‘better off’ families and so became much healthier. Evacuation will have been considered extremely beneficial to some people, as it will have freed up Mothers to help the war effort, also enabling children to see life outside the city. Evacuation was very well planned and seemed to run smoothly. Also, evacuation saved many lives. Evacuation was considered a powerful social source as children’s eyes were opened to a new way of life that they didn’t even know existed. Also, at the same time many comfortable people outside the cities learnt how bad conditions were, encouraging them to vote for politicians who wanted to stomp out poverty. The sources which agree with this viewpoint are sources B, D, G (to some extent) and H. Source B shows an optimistic view towards evacuation with smiling faces and excitement from the evacuees, which is also the case in source D where there is also much excitement and happiness shown on the faces of the children. Source H is an advertisement issued by the government in 1940 urging people to join the roll of those who are willing to receive children. It also pronounces evacuation a huge success and appeals for more people to join in, as they would then be a service for the nation and at the same time, the saver of a child’s life.

Other people may disagree with the viewpoint that evacuation was a huge success as some evacuees were not used to rural life, for most there was a clash between city and country values as many of the children were from poor families in the inner cities finding themselves in much wealthier homes having to cope with different standards of behaviour. Evacuation also separated children from their families. Some evacuees were badly treated or even exploited. Not everyone wanted evacuees in their homes. There was evidence that people tried to avoid taking evacuees; people from ‘better off’ families were accused of ‘shirking their responsibilities.’ There being no air raids during the ‘Phoney War’ and many evacuees returned home, but they had to be evacuated back when the Blitz started again in 1944. For many young evacuees, forced to live for years in some cases with strange people and in unfamiliar places, it was often a traumatic displacement. The policy may have saved many children, but it was later looked on as excessive and was reversed as the war progressed.