Overall, I would say that Source C is more useful in describing the beginning of the children’s journey through Evacuation.
Q2) Source G is an extract taken from a novel.
Is it reliable as evidence about evacuees?
Explain your answer using Source G and knowledge from your studies.
A2) I think Source G is reliable as evidence about some evacuees because it was true that people who lived in the city were poorer than people who lived in the countryside. To live in the countryside and to own land, people had to have a considerable amount of money at their disposal. To live in the city, the less financially equipped people lived in murky, small apartments in three story terraced houses that went from one end of a street to the other. But because the children were from the city, Miss Evans might have expected them to of had slippers, but what she might not have realized was that they weren’t as well provided as she expected. She didn’t realize how small the cases were and there were more necessary things to bring.
It was also true that the homes in the countryside were always immaculately clean. Their way of life was of a higher standard to what most of the evacuees would have experienced back at home. Since in the countryside there was much more room, houses and other buildings could have been constructed bigger and more spacious, with better quality. This story about Miss Evans proved that. She was very concerned about keeping her house neat and tidy, and that was very strange and unusual to the two children. Then once Miss Evans realized they didn’t have slippers, she told them to stay in the middle of the stairway on the cloth.
Q3) ‘Evacuation was a great success.’
Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation?
Explain your answer using the sources and knowledge from your studies.
A3) I disagree with this interpretation because there were many problems with the organization of the operation. Since the process happened really quickly, every decision happened as quickly as it was chosen. Firstly, the government poorly timed the operation as the first evacuees were transported in September 1939, but no bombs dropped until later the next year. Ironically just before those bombs were dropped, parents started to bring their children back to the city, not knowing what danger was just coming. Then once the bombs did drop, the parents wanted to send their children back to the countryside, but some of the people didn’t accept them back because they felt like they were being used.
One of the major arguments against Evacuation was the relationship between the host family and the evacuees. As Source E states, ‘Although we told the children and their mother off about their filthy habits, they took no notice’. This proves that there was always tension between the two groups of people. Another Source that can back up my point is Source I, this is an extract from a Mass Observation Survey in May 1940. This man described his dislike for his son to be evacuated to the countryside. He quoted, ‘Well, there nothing there, they were starving before the war’, this proves that there may have always been a disliking of each other.
Another complication that arose was that the children didn’t have a clue where they were going to. This put a sense of fear and doubt into the minds of the children and even adults who were traveling. I actually don’t think the Government even knew where most of the evacuees were going. This made the process harder to carry out with mothers crying at the side of the station and the children refusing to go onto the trains in the station.
But one of the biggest complications had to be who the children were given to. One obvious problem was that families were split up, little brothers and sisters were taken away from each other, no matter what age they were. Child evacuees were normally either only children or in groups. It was alright for the only children, but for the groups, it was a disaster. Normally the groups were children from babies to teenagers, but the problem was that the babies and small children needed their older counterparts for protection and comfort. But because they were separated, the babies and small children were unhappy with the situation. Another bad mistake from the Government was that a very small amount of the temporary carers were either child abusers or even pedophiles. When some children were taken into ‘care’ by these people, they were treated like slaves. These children were forced to work for these people, by doing jobs such as cleaning, cooking and washing etc. They were also given minimal food and water to have lived on and given a small, cold corner with a blanket to sleep on. There was also in many cases, there was never really any bonds between the host families and the evacuees. This made the situation very difficult to live with.
Gary Purbrick 11SA History Mr. Murphy