Evacuation was a great success

‘Evacuation was a great success’ Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation Explain the answer using the Sources and knowledge from your own studies.

In this essay I will be discussing and examining the interpretation ‘evacuation was a great success.’ Using the Sources available to me and my own knowledge from my studies, I will discuss the different opinions on this topic and reach a conclusion on whether evacuation really was a great success.

Evacuation took place in the early months of World War Two. The government decided that people such as children, expectant mothers, and the disabled were to be sent to areas in the countryside deemed safe from the German bombs. The government felt that evacuation was for the best and often publicised the consequences of what might happen if children were not evacuated from danger areas.

The evacuees were evacuated by train to smaller towns and villages in the countryside. The United Kingdom was split up into three areas; Evacuation, meaning areas that heavy bombing was expected; Neutral, meaning areas that would not send or receive any evacuees and Reception, which was the rural areas where evacuees would be sent. Evacuation began on the 31st August 1939. Over the next four years, a quarter of the British population was evacuated to the British countryside. However, there was no heavy bombing during the first few months of the war and this resulted in many children coming back home. They were evacuated again when the heavy bombing raids started in the autumn of 1940, which was known as the Blitz, and again in 1944 when Germany attacked Britain again. This is one of the key arguments that suggest that evacuation was not a great success. Many children who were already extremely scared and worried about being evacuated were brought back to their parents and were then sent away again, which made the situation much worse. This shows how evacuation did not always run smoothly and it was often disorganised. Overall, over 3.5 million children were evacuated during the Second World War.

The first Source I will discuss is Source A. This Source is from a textbook written for British schools. It was written by a historian in 1988, sometime after the Second World War. By being written in 1988, it is a secondary Source and is therefore not as reliable. It could also contain author’s opinion which would also affect its reliability. However the Source is a factual account designed to help educate children about the Second World War. Therefore it would have no ulterior motive such as propaganda which makes the Source more reliable. The Source tells us how ‘evacuation did not always go smoothly’ and that there were many problems and that the country people were shocked at the manners and behaviour of ‘town children.’ I know from my own knowledge that their were many problems with evacuation, especially the difference in cultures between country and town people which severely affected the relationship between evacuees and their host families. This Source shows some of the negative side of evacuation and it therefore it does not support the statement that ‘evacuation was a great success.’

This is a preview of the whole essay

Source E also talks about the evacuee’s lack of manners and behaviour. Source E is an extract from an interview with a mother of a host family. The Source was produced along time after the event, which means that it was not propaganda and it is likely to be a factual account of her experience, however being so long after the event means that her opinion could have changed over the course of time, or by someone or something influencing her memories. Many people often only remember the event how they want to remember it. The Source was produced for the general public to provide a factual account of evacuation, and therefore she would have no motive to falsify the evidence. The Source tells us how the country people were disgusted and appalled by the evacuee’s behaviour. One of the examples of this was the urinating on walls, even though there were two toilets to do it in. I know from my own studies that this did indeed happen and therefore the Source does support my own knowledge. This Source once again represents evacuation in a negative way and it tells us about the social differences between town and country people. For this reason, the fact that there were such huge social differences between town and country people shows that evacuation was not successful.

Source G is an extract from a novel, written in 1973 by an ex-evacuee. By being written in 1973, it is a long period after the event, and by being a novel, it is a made up story and therefore not a factual account of evacuation. Therefore, for this reason, the Source is unreliable, however, because the author was an ex-evacuee, the novel is likely to be based on her own experiences and therefore some themes might have useful information. The book was produced for the general public and its aim was to excite the reader, which could mean that the story was over exaggerated to make it more appealing to the reader and also to get more readers. The Source tells us how the foster parent, Mrs Evans, assumes her evacuees to be poor because they did not have any slippers. I know from my studies that many foster parents did assume evacuees to be poor; however I also know that there was not enough room for slippers in the evacuee’s suitcases because evacuees were not allowed any luxuries. This is an example of the indifferent relationship between town and country people and therefore this is a negative tone of the Source. The Source also tells us how the house was tidy and very clean, and how Mrs Evans was very sympathetic to the children when finding out how they did not have slippers. However I know that many foster parents were extremely cruel to their evacuees and therefore this Source does not show the full side of evacuation. However, from just looking at the Source, I would say that this Source was more positive than negative and therefore it does support the opinion that evacuation was a success. However it doesn’t have the different crueller side to evacuation.

Source D is a photograph issued by the government whilst the war was going on. This means that it is most likely to be a use of propaganda to help boost morale, and therefore is an unreliable Source. By being released during the war, it is likely that it was used to encourage parents to send their children away from danger or back from where they came from as many had been sent back home due to the lack of bombing going on. The Source shows children in the bath, smiling and looking happy. This was used to show the parents how the children there are having a good time and that they were safe, because obviously many parents were very uneasy about sending their children away to a strange place that they didn’t know. However, I know from my own knowledge that many children were not happy whilst living at their foster homes and many were bullied and abused by their foster families. However once again, the Source is a positive Source and it was used to encourage evacuation. Therefore this supports the opinion that evacuation was a great success. However the Source is not reliable as it was used as propaganda and therefore it would be being used to influence someone’s opinion, rather than represent the true facts.

Source H is a poster issued by the government, which once again means it was probably used as propaganda to help boost morale at a time of suffering and worry. The Source is aimed to persuade potential foster parents to foster an evacuee. This Source was produced in 1940, after the war had started which means that possibly many potential foster parents did not believe that there help was needed, however, the German bombing raids began a few months later. The Source shows that more foster parents were needed and that they would be hugely appreciated. The Source shows fostering in a good light and it therefore shows evacuation in a good light. However, by being a use of propaganda, the Source is unreliable. Also, the fact that they are advertising evacuation means that either evacuation was not very popular or that it was so popular all the homes were full up and they needed more to help the cause.

Source I is an interview with a parent in 1940 who will not let their child be evacuated. The interview was conducted for a Mass Observation Survey and therefore the evidence is there purely for a factual purpose and therefore it is very reliable. In the interview the father states how he believes that his child would be better off at home because the place where they wanted to send him did not have enough resources to look after him. He also wants his child to be looked after by someone who he knows personally incise he died during the war. This was a common view of parents at that period of time because they wanted to know where their children would be and they wanted to know the people that were looking after them. This Source is therefore negative because the father is very sceptical of evacuation. This Source also contradicts the other Sources because the father believes the country people to be poor rather than the country people believing the town people were poor. This is another example of the differences in culture of town and country people. Overall, this Source is extremely negative and therefore it does not support the opinion that evacuation was a great success.

Source F is an interview with an ex-evacuee in 1988. By being produced at that time, it means that is not likely to be propaganda, and that it was probably used as a means of telling people about the experiences of evacuation and evacuees. The person tells us how they did not like ‘poor townsperson’ stereotype and that they actually went from good to bad conditions when they were evacuated. This Source is therefore negative about evacuation. I know from my own knowledge that where there were many poor conditions in and around towns, there were also some very nice conditions and that many evacuees actually went from good to poor conditions when they were evacuated. The Source contradicts the poor town children stereotype and it also tells us how there were many places in the country that were more undesirable to live in than the towns. Therefore this Source goes against the statement that evacuation was a great success.

Source B is a photograph, showing smiling, happy children at the start of their evacuation journey in 1939. This photograph was taken and published at the same time as when the war broke out and the children were being evacuated. The Source could have been for a private collection but it is most likely to be a use of government propaganda. I know from my own knowledge that the photographer often tried to make the children smile and laugh from behind the camera. If the Source was in fact used as propaganda, it could mean that it was being used to help boost morale of parents and to make parents believe that evacuation was a positive thing. By showing a positive picture of children enjoying themselves and looking happy, the parents would be more inclined to send their children away to be evacuated. This Source is a positive Source but it also contradicts my own knowledge and other Sources because I know that most children were extremely frightened at the thought of going to a strange place without their parents. However because it is positive it does back up the opinion of evacuation being a great success.

Source C is an extract from an interview with a teacher in 1988. This therefore means that the Source is unlikely to be a use of propaganda and it is more likely to be used as a way of teaching people about the evacuation in the Second World War. Source C contradicts Source B because it says how many children were very afraid about the prospect of being evacuated. This also backs up my own knowledge and it is a very negative view of evacuation which contradicts the opinion that evacuation was a great success.

In conclusion, after analysing all of the available Sources and by using my own knowledge, it seems that evacuation was not actually a great success, and that it was actually a huge failure. The negative Sources are allot more frequent than the positive Sources and the positive Sources all seem to be an obvious use of propaganda which means that they are not reliable and that they are not a true reflection on the events of evacuation or the feelings of the evacuees. Some Sources say how badly the town people behaved, whereas some others say the country people were just as bad. I believe that although most children were saved from the German bombs, evacuation was not a great success because many children suffered at the hands of their foster parents and evacuation was not very popular with the parents of the evacuated. Overall I believe that some aspects of evacuation were a success, as the government achieved its aim of keeping children safe from the bombs, however, their were allot of negatives and therefore I believe that evacuation was not a complete success.

Rory Barham