-
Why do you think Source D was taken?
Source D, the photo of evacuees at “bath time”, was taken entirely for propaganda purposes. This was a set up photo that was intended to persuade parents that children where thoroughly enjoying evacuation, and they where trying to dissuade parents from bring them home, where they might get hurt or even killed by bombing. You can tell that this photo is staged by a number of things in it.
One is fact the children seem very happy despite the fact there are three or four of them in each bath. I know that if I was in a bath with three other people I wouldn’t be very happy. Also there is the very prominent soap dish in the bath at the front. The shows that the photo is not just trying to say that evacuees are enjoying themselves, it is also saying that they are being well looked after.
-
Why are the accounts in Source E and F so different?
The reason that Source E and F are so different is because of the wide range of people that where evacuated. The person writing in Source E is a mother of a host family, who has received children, who are of a low class, and would have probably been living in inner city slums, which might not of had a toilet. The account in Source F on the other hand is quite different because I would imagine the person telling the account is from a middle or upper class person, who was actually evacuated. Very would have lived in a “better” home and would have been more “civilised”. Another reason that the they are very different is because Source E is supporting the general view of evacuees walst Source F is stating that he is feed up with hearing the general view of evacuees, and that it wasn’t all like that.
- Does Source A give an accurate interpretation of peoples attitude towards evacuation?
It think that in general this interpretation is fairly accurate, however it doesn’t take into account the good points of evacuation. I can see from the sources sheet that I have been given and from my own knowledge that not all evacuees where deprived did not know what a toilet was and not all of them had a horrible time with evacuation. Quite a lot of people enjoyed it, and this source fails to state this.
5. Is Source G as reliable as normal evidence about evacuees?
I think that this sort of evidence can be quite reliable, but not as reliable as the other evidence. The person that’s writing the novel was herself evacuated, so she will know what she’s talking about. However saying this the story will not all be based on fact, as the story would not be interesting enough. Therefore we must be careful what is based of fact and what is complete fiction when reading this type of source.
-
Do you agree or disagree with the statement “Evacuation was a great success”
I think this is not at all true. Evacuation was a success to start off with, it was very well organised at the point of organising transport and getting children to the countryside. However when it came to the other end, when they where received in the countryside, I think that was where it all went wrong. Children where not placed in ‘suitable’ homes, people just came and ‘picked’ them. This lead to children being put into totally alien environments, which ultimately led to children getting distressed and coming home. Also I think that they where evacuated at the wrong time when there were no bombs. The bombs started when most of them had come home.
