Evacuation in Britain Sources Questions

Source C seems slightly more useful than source B as it needs less interpretation. It also seems more reliable because a teacher who was there at the time wrote it; therefore it is a primary source. However source C could be partly opinion, an example of this was when the teacher said

'Children were too afraid to talk'

It was in her opinion that the reason they weren't talking was because they were afraid, it might have been for a different reason.

Overall I don't think that either of the sources is terribly useful, however I feel that source C is slightly more useful and seems more reliable than source B.

3)

I think that as source D was taken by the Government, it was almost definitely a piece of propaganda. Source 19 (A3 booklet) a poster from the Government is similar to this. Because of this it is not a reliable, and therefore useful source. Although it is a useful source to show us what the Government at the time were trying to put across. We can tell this is propaganda because the picture is unrealistic; there would not be three baths in the same place such as a house. The Government were aiming this photo at specific people, possible evacuees, parents of evacuees and the hosts of the evacuees. The smiling faces, which they could have been forced to do, would put across to the possible evacuees and parents that the children were happy where they were. I think the Government were trying to reassure parents that their children were happy in the countryside as some parents began bringing their children back after no air strikes had taken place between September 1939 and the early months of 1940, page 6 (A3 booklet) supports this. The Government were also trying to persuade other parents to send their children away, overall though to stop fear and make evacuation more appealing. This photo was also aimed at possible hosts of evacuees. The fact that it shows children having baths makes hosts believe that the children would be clean. Evacuees from working class London would often be sent to middle class hosts and vice-versa. Sources 14 and 15 (A3 booklet) show the differences and the problems. Hosts were often very reluctant at letting evacuees in to their homes; this photo was therefore to reassure them that the evacuees would be clean.

4)

Both sources are primary sources and so both of these sources are fairly reliable, however both contain a limited amount of opinion, such as in source E -

'our house stank to high heaven'

and in source F -

'It is just as upsetting for a clean well-educated child'

Source E is an interview from a mother of a host family; she was obviously of the countryside middle class who had taken in working class evacuees because of this she wasn't used to their way of living as the evacuees would not have been used to hers. The mother was shocked at what she saw from the evacuees, and said 'Our house stank to high heaven'. There was a big difference between the working class from the city and the middle class of the countryside and vice-versa. The difference in class meant that both parties had to adjust to their new life. Source E is supported by source A, as source A also talks about the evacuee's bad manners.

Source F was from an interview by a middle class evacuee from the city, who we assume from what she says that she was living with a working class family from the countryside. Source F doesn't really contradict source E but just puts across the situation from a different perspective in that she was the one who had the cultural shock not the host as it appeared in source E. Source 8E (A3 booklet, page 1) supports source F as it talks about the assumption made by hosts and villagers that all evacuees came from slums in London.

The host from source E would have had a different reason for taking in an evacuee to the host of the evacuee from source F. The host from source E would have probably agreed to having a evacuee out of duty or pity and not because of the money, whereas the host of the evacuee in source F would have been a lot less wealthy and therefore could have agreed to having an evacuee because of the fact that hosts got paid money, or because the evacuee could be used for work, source 14 (A3 booklet) supports this as it says '...we were expected to sweep out Mr Benson's butcher's floor and scrub down the marble slabs'

5)

I think that it actually does give a fairly accurate account of people's attitudes towards evacuation after looking at other sources. However it is secondary evidence as the writer was not there at the time and therefore is not as reliable and useful on its own as primary evidence is. It is also written by a historian, which we know can sometimes not tell the whole truth or interpret something in a different way. Historians can also give bias accounts, which also aren't reliable or useful. We don't know whether this source is bias or not or whether we can trust it, as it has no references of research. It is made more useful as it can be supported by source E, but however is contradicted by source F. We can learn from this source, which we can use when looking at other sources although we mustn't believe it is fact. The statement -

'Arrangements did not always go smoothly'

sounds very much like an opinion. We know that the first line of the source is correct that children, parents and teachers were evacuated as source 5 (A3 booklet, page 3) shows the numbers of people evacuated and this supports source A.

6)

Although this is a novel and we shouldn't believe that the contents is fact, we can learn from it, such as what the way of life might have been like, as a novel usually paints a picture. However it only becomes useful to us when other evidence can support it, as we must remember that it is still only fiction and because of this we don't know that it is actually true. Source 12 (A3 booklet, page 5) supports source G as it describes the way of life the working class had to get used to as they moved to a middle class house. Because we know that some of the fiction comes from actual fact as sources can support the novel, we know that the writer must have researched in order to get her information. The writer was Nina Bowden, who I know was not an evacuee in the Second World War and therefore cannot write from her own personal experiences, however she may have also interviewed people to get the information to write what evacuation was like.

8)

I think that I would partly agree with this statement. 600,000 were expected to be killed in the Blitz, where actually some 300,000 people were killed. Because of this evacuation did seem to be a success. Evacuation also did a lot more than save people's lives, it also opened people's eyes to what life was like in other parts of the country. Children from slums in London were brought to live in the country with middle class families for example, where they had a better diet such as milk and eggs, went to better schools and learnt more, had better rationing and sometimes grew their own foods, often learnt to be cleaner and more hygienic and because of all this, evacuees sometimes didn't want to go back to the cities. Source 8F (A3 booklet, page 1) supports this as it says that '...we were never homesick', whereas source A contradicts this. However, some evacuees who came from middle class families and were evacuated to working class families often found themselves going to slum houses, which was very different to what they were used to. They could have also found themselves having to share beds with other children and being made to work, such as scrubbing the floor and being fed a poor diet of plain bread. Source F supports this.

Hosts of evacuees also sometimes enjoyed having them stay with them, as source 17a (A3 booklet, page 5) supports this as the rich woman says '...my six lads made the war enjoyable'. However some hosts enjoyed having evacuees because it gave them extra money, which they were supposed to use on the evacuees. It also often gave the hosts an extra worker for free which they could treat how they liked. An example of this comes from source 14 (A3 booklet), which supports this. From the hosts point of view also, middle class people would often find themselves taking in working class children from the cities, usually because of pity or duty. Because of this they often had to put up with the children's bad manners and lack of cleanliness. Source A and E support this.

The parents had more positive reasons than negative reasons about the success of evacuation. They had the reassurance that their children were away from the bombing of the cities, however they obviously missed their children and often didn't know where there children had been evacuated to, knowing that the evacuation could take up to 6 years. Source 8c (A3 booklet, page 1) supports the fact that parents were sad to send their children away.

The Government obviously thought evacuation to be successful to a certain extent as it helped to save peoples lives, especially children. However the time between September 1939 and the middle of 1940, no air attacks took place, therefore some parents brought their children home, back to the cities as they thought nothing was going to happen and they would be safe. Most of those children did not return to the countryside and therefore were in the cities when the air attacks did take place. The Government tried to persuade parents not to do this with posters such as source 19 (A3 booklet, page 5). This was obviously the unsuccessful part of evacuation. Overall I believe evacuation was successful, source 'evacuation' (A3 booklet, page 1) also agrees with me, even though it did not go smoothly, as I said previously it changed the way people in the country saw each other. A source on page 6 (A3 booklet) also supports this-

"One half of Britain is at least learning how the other half lives".