Source B is very useful however because it allows us to see the expression on the children’s faces at the time and unlike written accounts will not change over time. It also allows us to see the area in which many of the children were coming from including the sort of clothes they were wearing and what sort of condition they were in, I know that the majority of children came from working class families in poor areas of overcrowded cities, and the photo supports this. We can therefore reinforce what we have read from sources such as C with evidence from the time of the event that cannot have changed over the course of over 50 years.
From source C we can see the events and feelings from a teacher who was at the actual event. The text includes how the children were feeling at the time, as she was their teacher she probably new them quite well and so would know how they were feeling.
It is clear after the analysis of both sources that neither is particularly more useful as the other as evidence for the start of evacuation. I think that source C is the most useful, because it is quite possible that B is a piece of government propaganda, on the other hand C is definitely not propaganda as it was taken in 1988, and unlike a picture it describes how the children were feeling and behaving, whereas the children in B could have been posing for the camera. Source C also tells of the disorganisation and unknowing of where they were going, which I know was the case, these things cannot be told from a picture.
Question 2: Is source G reliable as evidence about evacuees?
By looking at a glance at source G it is clear that there are some serious problems with its reliability, though however it is important not to rule it out immediately and to consider every aspect of the source, as it is probably based on fact, another thing that I must think abut thoroughly is the audience of the source, in this case children and also the origin meaning what did the author base the events in the novel on, real events or made up ones.
The first thing that is noticeable about the sources reliability is that it is a novel. Novels are written to make money and most of all entertain, therefore it is most likely that many of the events within it are made up or fake. Not only is it a novel but also it is a novel for children, because of this many real life events would have been taken out due to its upsetting nature. As a result of this it is not going to be as reliable as it could be.
The novel was written in 1973, this is 24 years after the evacuations in 1939, and so as with source C events may not be remembered quite the same as they happened. However much of this depends on the sources from which the Author got her information. The source refers to two children, Carrie and her brother, the text ‘She thinks we’re poor children’ suggests that most of the evacuees were thought to be from poor working class families. As a result of this the book breaks away from the stereotype evacuee, and shows it to be wrong. However this makes this source harder to judge on reliability, as I know that the majority of children were from working class backgrounds.
However much of the above relies of one thing: what the author based the events in the book on. Writers normally make extensive studies on their subject and so Nina Bowden most likely looked a many different sources herself. Nina was also a schoolteacher during this period; this suggests that she would have first hand knowledge of events taking place, in other words most events within the book are most likely to be based on real events.
After an in depth analysis of the source it is clear that this source is reliable to the extent that it shows us that not all evacuees met the stereotype. It was written by someone who was there during the evacuations and so would have a clear knowledge of the events that unfolded. Not only would the Novel be based on her own knowledge but also on sources that she looked at as she gathered information. From this it is safe to say that the specific events that take place in this book are going to be based on truth but not completely reliable. Instead we should look at how the evacuees break the stereotype, in that sense it is reliable in giving an account from an alternative viewpoint.
Question 3: ‘Evacuation Was A Great Success’. Do You Agree With This Interpretation
Evacuation took place on 1st September 1939, there is much to suggest that this was both a success and a failure, the sources certainly show a wide spread of views. However when looking at the sources much depends on who it is successful for, whether it is a child, a parent sending their child away to the countryside, or the government, it could even be argued that some sources show that the disorganisation caused by the bombing was a success for the Germans.
There are many reasons that show that the evacuations were a success. Firstly it was a new experience for the children, for many it was the first time that they had left their city, many would have viewed it as a challenge and an adventure. As many had not ever been into the countryside many did not even know what a cow was, from this point of view it was a learning experience. Whilst in the inner cities many of the children were poorly fed, being in the country meant that they were eating better food, and so were much healthier, there was much more space to run around in and there was not any smog as there was in the cities, and as a result the children were much healthier. The children had a new opportunity to form new friendships both with other people their age and also the host family.
From the parent’s point of view it was also good the children were ‘out of harms way’. From the point of view of a host there were also many benefits, they would have an extra set of hands for work at harvest, which would also have an affect on the war effort, but also as I have already mentioned for many there were new friendships to be made. By looking at it from the governments point of view it also removed children from great peril, and saved many lives, this was great propaganda and was also made to appear like it was well organised. By removing children from the cities it allowed people to concentrate on what was most important to the government at this time, the war effort, Mums and Dads could now both work if they didn’t already, as well as longer hours.
Whilst on the other hand it could also be considered a failure. Many evacuees came from working class families in poor areas of overcrowded cities. Some had never been to the countryside before and had led a very different lifestyle from the families that they stayed with; this would obviously create friction, as I will look at in some sources further into the essay. Evacuees were often very unfamiliar with the way of life in the country, for instance some had never seen a cow. Boredom and homesickness was also a very common problem, this would inevitably lead to misbehaviour in many cases.
