Food supplies were getting low and when the Government started to ‘ration’ food, people ate what the got. At this time the Government had taken control.
Question 2a
Why do sources A to F differ in their attitudes to the evacuation of children?
Sources A and D have a positive attitude to the evacuation of children, and Sources B, C and E have negative attitudes towards the evacuation of the children. Source F has no opinion.
Source A is a photograph of evacuees walking to the station in London. It has a positive attitude towards the evacuation of children. It gives this impression because there are smiling children. Although this asks the question, has the government staged this photograph to use it as propaganda? It seems sincere. Also we don’t know whom this picture is going to be shown to. This isn’t a reliable source because we don’t see the rest of this ‘scene’, and we don’t know who took this photograph. This photo was taken at the start of the war and could have been when evacuation just started. Children didn’t know what evacuation was like and they thought it was going to be an enjoyable experience. They then could have been informed of what evacuation was really like and could have been worried, or even scared to go to the country.
Source B is a teacher remembering being evacuated with children from her school. It has a negative attitude towards evacuation. It explains how mothers and children felt when they were being evacuated. The source tells us that the young evacuees were too afraid to talk when they were on the train. They didn’t have any kind of comfort because their mothers weren’t allowed to come with them. They followed behind. It gives the impression that both mother and child were afraid of leaving their homes and loved ones. Also it shows that the evacuees weren’t informed of where they were going. On the other hand it is quite a useful source because it offers a first hand experience of evacuation. This extract is taken from an interview that took place in 1988, so this is a distant memory, which means it might not be accurate, or she could have forgotten important events. It could be biased for some reason, and we again don’t know who the author is. We are dealing with a reporter, and this reporter might have exaggerated the facts that were given by the teacher.
Source C is an extract from a novel about evacuees. The source also has a negative attitude towards evacuation. The source shows the experiences of the evacuees. It isn’t very reliable because it is taken from a novel. We don’t know whether or not the novel is fiction. Also it is thirty years after the war. The source is not all bad, because it creates a good mental image in your mind of what being evacuated was like. It clearly shows that there were differences between the classes. These evacuees were also not able to have a source of comfort because they weren’t allowed to take items that they wanted.
Source D is another positive source. It is an advertisement issued by the government. It is emphasising that the children are thankful to their ‘foster parents’. It is repeatedly praising the foster parents, saying how grateful everybody is. It implies that they knew it would be hard work looking after the children, and that’s basically why they did it. We are not sure who the author is, and who it was intended for. It could be used as propaganda, seeing as the Government wrote it.
It is one of only a few statements made by the government which the public has easy access to. This gives an insight into what the Governments point of view. It is commenting on how being evacuated into the countryside gives the children a ‘fresh’ start. The Government is probably pleased with evacuation because it was their idea. Maybe they are appealing for more foster parents, because they aren’t getting enough, or some of the foster parents that have enrolled are backing out.
This Source (source E) also has a negative attitude towards evacuation. It is an interview with the father of a seven-year-old boy. It is part of a mass survey. The interview is with one parent out of quite a few, as it is a mass survey. This is only one parent’s view and these views could vary from person to person. Also this will influence a number of parents if they read it because they will probably have many worries, and these will be amplified. There is no evidence to back up his statement about having a boy. The father’s view is that only he can look after his son properly. The man almost seems possessed. “I’m not letting him go” he proclaims. He must have been informed of where his son was being sent, because he said that they couldn’t look after him where they’re sending him. He also mentioned that he thinks that his son will be starved. This is because the area that he will be sent to was starving before the war, so this will only make it worse. He strongly feels that his son shouldn’t be evacuated. One of the main reasons is because he feels that if he should die when he is at war, then his family and friends would look after him, rather than some strangers.
Source F is a neutral source. It has no real opinion on evacuation. It only gives examples of places, and other sources, which will give opinions. It shows where you can find out different things about the war. The source is reliable because it has addresses, dates and ideas on how to get original pieces of information on WW2. Although the source is reliable, the sources it recommends aren’t. All of the sources that are suggested were made long after the war. The source also isn’t biased.
Question 2b
Evacuation was a great success- Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
The government had the right attitude towards evacuation. Their slogan was ‘Keep them happy, Keep them safe.’ This implies that they were concerned for the safety of the children. However the government used propaganda to cover the negative aspects of evacuation. For example the lack of foster parents. They published photographs of happy children meeting pleasant hosts. They did this because the government didn’t think that the public believed in evacuation, so they tried to promote it through propaganda. Propaganda was proven to be needed when, at the start of 1940 people began to return home to their families. They started to do this because no bombs had fallen, and the families did not see any reason for them to be split up for so long. Also they were getting agitated in living in other peoples homes.
Children, who lived in the poor parts of inner cities, could have a fresh start and enjoy life in the countryside. With more food and less chance of bombing heir health improved, and they had a better lifestyle. However many children became stressed when some middle class hosts were unwilling to take evacuees that weren’t in the same age group. As a result brothers and sisters were split up. Evacuees were worried because many of them were away from their mothers for the first time. They also had to adapt to different behavioral styles because of the different social classes. The selection process, where host parents chose which children they would like to have, became unpleasant for the evacuees. Those not picked felt rejected on top of all the other problems that they faced. Even though the physical condition of the evacuees improved, many of them were still unhappy.
The host parents had better living conditions many of the inner city parents did. They had beds to accommodate the children. The children were able to use basic things like beds, knives and forks for the first time. Also the host parents found that having children there with them helped them cope with the war. They were shocked by the poor health, and how dirty the children’s clothes were, and what state they were in. Some evacuees were covered in lice or were very thin. Children repaid their hosts by helping on the farms in the country. On the same token, some of the host parents were unwilling to take children. They didn’t treat them fairly because they didn’t give them the right food, and they kept the benefit money for themselves (40p/ eight shillings).
Becoming a host parent came along with many problems. When the evacuees reached their designated area, they found that they weren’t meant to be there. Villages expecting young children received hundreds of pregnant women. Some hosts found it difficult to deal with children who did not behave like their own. Many host families were short of money because when the price of food rose, their benefit pay didn’t.
It is hard to comment on whether I thought evacuation was a great success or not. There are too many different sides to the story. Some say that the host parents didn’t care for the children properly, and some say that the health of the children did improve. I think that evacuation was not a success in the early stages of the war. This is because the children were taken away from their homes when there was no apparent need. As the war progressed, I think that the process was a success because the children needed to be taken away from the danger areas.
