To conclude, Source E indicates a huge failure.
Similarly, but on Source E’s contrary, Source F also shows social mis-matching. A secondary source, it is again an interview with a World War II evacuee, taken in 1988. It shows that it wasn’t just poor, unrefined children that were evacuated. This interviewee is (or was) obviously of a higher class background and claims that ‘It was just as upsetting for a clean and well-educated child to find itself in a grubby semi-slum as the other way round.’ I t is quite apparent that this person had somewhat of a difficult time during the proceedings and he/she wishes to change the commonly stereotypical view of poor children with wealthy hosts. ‘How I wish the common view of evacuees could be changed. We were not all raised on a diet of fish and chips… many of us were quite familiar with origins of milk. Quite definitely, middle and upper class children were also evacuated in 1939, a frequently overlooked fact.
However, Source F is quite unreliable. The very gender of the interviewee is undisclosed, and the lack of such basic information can only indicate unreliability and hinders our faith in the rest of the source. Additionally, we are again unaware of the purpose for such an inter view and of the identity of the interviewer. It is a secondary source and maintains the issue of memory intervention through the media and the unrelenting effects of ‘father time’, i.e. the gradual loss of memory as a result of years of not talking or reminiscing about the events of the past. Despite the fact that it was a very significant chapter in both people’s lives, it did take place a very long time ago. In this case, the interviewee is interpreting her memories of her as a child as an adult, and so it follows that and adult perspective is applied to a situation experienced as a child. For many reason’s Source F is quite unreliable. But we must take into account what it is telling us: that social mis-matching took place against the stereotypical assumption. There is no doubt that this is true and it is highly unlikely that this particular interviewee is telling a blatant lie.
Source G provides an insight into an experience, told by a World War II evacuee in 1973 about her and her brother. As stated in question 2, it shows social mis-matching in an underlying and almost ironic manner. The host, Miss Evans, is prematurely convinced that she will be in reception of poor children. This is probably due to the endless array of stories of such ill-prepared arrangements. It is this blatant ignorance and inauthentic perception that the interviewee in Source F is directly addressing. But whatever social problems you are considering, evacuation in World War II highlighted, exemplified and forcedly obliterated class divisions. These divisions were broken by evacuation in 1939 when social mis-matching took place. The irony of Source G is that both the evacuee and the host are of a higher class, but there is that common misconception on Miss Evans’ behalf. ‘Miss Evans turned bright red…’ How embarrassing.
Again, I shall refrain from discussing the relative reliability of Source G as I have done so in question 2. But basically, it is a good enough source to assist one’s knowledge in the study of evacuation, but it isn’t comprehensive enough to rely upon solely. In addition to this, Sources E, F + G coincide nicely as ‘G’ is what ‘F’ is referring to, and ‘E’ is what Miss Evans in ‘F’ is referring to.
Part of social mis-matching is the extremely evident differences in living standards. ‘The country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation of the town children…’ Unbelievably, the hosts of wealthier origins were shocked that the inner-city children didn’t eat caviar and drink high tea!
Taken from Source C, that quote concluded with ‘…not to mention their bad manners. There were reports of children ‘fouling’ gardens, hair crawling with lice, and bed wetting.’ Even in today’s working and poorer classes, no such atrocities occur; they are dealt with immediately by the school or General Practitioner. It is therefore quite understandable that the country folk were indeed shocked. Evidently, evacuation took place before the children could be checked by nurses at school. These were obviously desperate times, calling for desperate measures.
To conclude, the mixing of classes between evacuees and hosts (i.e. social mis-matching) was a huge problem and indicates a catastrophic failure, despite the fact that some children might have learned how to be civilised human beings or may have become more humble, depending on the direction of social mis-matching. The majority, though, of socially mis=matched evacuees and hosts had a distinctively bad time during evacuation.
Host rooms were known as ‘billets’, and so it inevitably follows that one who is employed to find rooms for children were known as ‘Billeting Officers’. They would simply assign a child to a designated host who would provide bed and board. As Source A states: ‘The evacuees were received at reception centres and then placed with local families.’ Conversely, the source continues – to say: ‘Arrangements, however, did not always go smoothly.’ The failure on behalf of the Billeting Officers to inspect both evacuee and host in a particular situation led to a random placement of children with hosts that weren’t necessarily the best position for the officer to choose. This led to the infamous issue of social mis-matching. At the risk of repeating myself, I quote again: ‘The country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation of the town children, not to mention their bad manners. There were reports of children ‘fouling’ gardens, hair crawling with lice, and bed wetting.’ Plainly, this is very bad and indicates failure – all at the fault of the problematic incompetence of the Billeting Officers.
Source C furthers the consistent notion that social mis-matching and placement disorganisation in general is a fault that lies upon the shoulders of the Billeting Officers. ‘We hadn’t the slightest idea where we were going…’ The fact remains that the role of the Billeting Officer was to provide the evacuees with suitable homes on a temporary basis and they sometimes failed to carry out their duty with any level of dexterity or professionalism.
The total percentage of positive and negative sources is divided in a very biased distribution. Negative stories and sources overwhelmingly outnumber those of a positive genre. This leads us to believe that similar statistics apply to the ratio of competent Billeting Officers to quintessentially stupid ones. It’s not looking very good, and when you consider the fact that some of the Billeting Officers were civilian volunteers, it is hardly surprising that problems arose. Because of this and the horrific experiences endured by many of the evacuees, the incompetence of most of the Billeting Officers indicates failure.
The most discussed, examined and significant part of evacuation in World War II is the experiences that the children experienced. Said experiences range from joyful frolicking on the meadow to the complete obliteration of a child’s half dead soul.
Source D was issued by the government during World War II. It is a photograph that portrays a mood of happiness and content among the children as they bath together. A primary source, it immediately indicates success. Its obvious intention is to encourage further evacuation, but it is also showing prospective hosts just how angelic the darling little evacuees are. But it is indeed because of this that this source can be considered somewhat unreliable. In fact, the only positive aspect of reliability in this case is the fact that it’s a photograph, and photographs do not lie. However, the people in them do. There is the whole concept of ‘staging’ to consider, and the idea that this day within their experience was one that was unusually happy due to a special treat. Additionally, the source is government propaganda. Again, if the government felt it was necessary to publish such propaganda that is aimed at so many different groups of people, there has to be an indication of failure. This source highlights success for these particular evacuees, and that they are genuinely happy in their surroundings. The negative technicality, though, is that the government had to use one of the very few available ‘happy scene’ examples to show the inner-city public just what it is like. Quite frankly, the British Government pursued the blinding of the public, telling an almost blatant lie.
Primarily, Source D indicates success, but due to unforeseen details indicates an overall failure of evacuation.
Source E demonstrates experiences from both the evacuee’s and the host’s point of view, both of which seem to quite unpleasant. The evacuated children are of an extremely poor background and have been evacuated along with their mother. The children are obviously used to urinating in the walls in their own abode that can only too easily be described as ‘humble’. Despite our reaction of disgust, this is all they knew and so being told off about something they believed to be perfectly normal and something they had probably done all their lives must be quite devastating.
‘Although we had two toilets they never used them… we told the children and their mother off about his filthy habit… they took no notice and our house stank to high heaven.’
One would think the evacuated mother would put a stop to such atrocities, but it seems that even she is used to and tolerant of her children’s shocking behaviour. Evidently not. For her, too, this cannot have been a happy time – being told off as an adult and watching your children being told off, being looked down on – constantly feeling wholly inferior. This is a prime example of social mis-matching – the biggest factor in the experiences of both host and evacuee. Source E is the stereotype of what most of us know evacuation was like. If it confirms the knowledge of so many people, the majority of situations were similar to that of Source E.
Source E indicates failure.
Source F also indicates failure for the same reason, but the opposite variation of that reason. It was the evacuee who was wealthy. He obviously had a bad time, arguably worse that a poor evacuee in a wealthy home. At least the evacuee in Source E got to experience what it was like to live as a wealthier person, and probably learned a thing or two. The person in Source F had to deal with ‘bread & dripping’, iron forks, and having to do things for yourself. It's unfortunate, really, considering that he/she was probably used to caviar, golden cutlery and a gentleman’s gentleman. This particular interviewee obviously had a bad time and wishes to spread the word that it wasn’t just poor children in wealthier homes that had a rough time, and ‘it is just as upsetting for a clean and well educated child to find itself in a grubby semi-slum…’ ‘How I wish the common view of evacuees could be changed.’ Again, this social mis-matching had an extremely significant impact on the interviewee’s experience as an evacuee. No prizes for guessing as to whether this indicates a great success.
Source G is somewhat a combination of E and F. It shows how wealthier children were evacuated as well as poorer children and just how rare it was to have similarly matched (socially) evacuees and hosts. However, in this particular instance, evacuation is portrayed as a failure. It highlights problems that are present between the families of both parties. In this source, said parties are socially matched, and one would assume that they would get on well. But further research into the book ‘Carrie’s War’ reveals that she did not have a good time as an evacuee, indeed quite a bad one. In the source, Miss Evans becomes embarrassed by her assumption that they are of similar class; soon to find out she was wrong. Only, she failed to allow them to finish their sentence, and only got half of the story. She was embarrassed for the wrong reason. She mistakenly assumed they were poor because they said they hadn’t any slippers. But allowing them to finish would have revealed the reason for this; that there wasn’t enough room in their cases. Again, I shall refrain from evaluating Source G’s reliability, but it is this short sequence of events that initially indicates success because they have for once got it right. Further discussion, though, into Miss Evans’ embarrassing assumption shows the message of Source E: social mis-matching was so common (irrespective of the direction) Miss Evans expected her foster children to be poor, probably due to the endless circulation of stories.
Source G indicates failure.
It seems there is a general trend when it comes to government propaganda. Upon first glance you believe it portrays evacuation as a colossal success. However further analysis reveals a hidden world of disharmony, lies and deceit.
Source H is an advertisement issued by the government in 1940, and therefore is a primary source. It is an advert trying to encourage more evacuation among the British public due to the threat posed by the forthcoming Blitzkrieg. This poster is a plea of desperation. The cities were under threat from the onset of Nazi air raids and the second round of evacuation became necessary. So, here’s the story: you are uprooted to some place with a landscape, the likes of which you have never seen. Next, nothing happens on the home front so you return the warm bosom of home. But, pour la Pierre de resistance, you are once again moved across the country for fear of mass death. Of course, once they were home, a significant quantity of the children and parents decided to stay there – evacuation was a voluntary process. Regardless, this was a very traumatic experience for the younger children, and was a big contribution to the overall experience of evacuation. ‘They’re out of a danger zone… and they’re healthier and happier.’ Well, I suppose one out of three isn’t bad… wait, no it isn’t! Yes, they’re out of a danger zone, but they’re not happier. They probably refuse ‘special’ food, and wealthy evacuees with poorer hosts probably refused ‘that filth that I wouldn’t even feed to my pedigree puppy’.
In any case, Source H is much like Source G. Its coat of joyful pleasantries is just a superficial sugar-coat. But, underneath lies the technicalities and unforeseen details that reveal the source’s deceitful truth.
Source H indicates failure.
Source Z. I was very fortunate to have a real-life source, in the form of my grandfather. He reminisces:
“I went to place called Coldville in Leicestershire. It was me, and my brothers Ron and Ted, while my sisters, Jesse and Hilda, stayed somewhere else and worked in a munitions factory. My foster parents were ordinary working class people, and they had a small child. They weren’t specially horrible, but I was very frightened: not because of my foster parents, but of my situation. I kept running to my brother for comfort, I was only 5 years old.
Eventually we came home, my brothers hadn’t told me why. All I knew was that I was much happier when I got home… even in the war zone around us. We lived in Gospel Lane, Acocks Green. Nearby was a golf course, and at the back was the Army Barracks. Even then, when bombs dropped so close to my house, I was happier at home. Me and my friends used to go and collect the shrapnel; if you handed enough into your local Army Barracks they’d give you a tin helmet.”
My grandfather was also an ordinary working class person and so no social mis-matching took place. However, he was only four years old, nearly five, and feared his new surroundings. Even the contrast of war-surrounded home was a better place to be. He didn’t re-evacuate in the second round and remained at home for the duration of the war, while his father heroically fought in it. When discussing experiences, Source Z obviously indicates failure.
As an experiences finale, Source A states: ‘The country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation of the town children.’ It was not just the poor evacuees with wealthy hosts, and wealthy evacuees with poor hosts that suffered. The hosts too were put under a lot of stress, having to deal with (as stated in Source E) ‘urinating on the walls… our house stank to high heaven’.
Indeed there were positive experiences, though the children rarely benefited from their time as evacuees: most didn’t become healthier or learn how to be civilised human beings, they probably just learned to dislike the rich. Quite frankly, the experience side of evacuation was a complete and utter failure.
As the time of evacuation moved on, the nation’s fear did too. For a nervous nine months nothing happened. Not a bomb was dropped, not a shot fired. The nation could therefore see no feasible reason for evacuation: its sole purpose was to shield children from a danger that failed to rear its ugly head. Quite obviously, the mothers, hosts and friends of the evacuees and the children themselves all felt very negatively towards the government and their campaign, and felt that their upheaval from their comfortable daily lives had been in vain. This feeling was quite understandable, and so the bitter evacuees and some mothers proceeded to return home. Huge failure occurred when 90% of the mothers and under 5s had returned home by January 1940. Furthermore, by thee same time, 50% of the nation’s school children had also returned. This is the problem that became to be known as ‘The Phoney War’.
As stated before, Source H is a primary source that is a poster encouraging more evacuation. It has both pictorial and text encouragement. The picture shows two little children in the foreground, while the background shows the contrast of inner-city war in comparison to the rolling hills of the countryside in blissful peace. Supposedly the words of the children, in BOLD font the poster says: ‘Thank you, foster parents… we want more like you!’ This is a desperate cry for help on behalf of the government in 1940 to ask 70% (Average of 50% and 90%) of returning evacuees to perform a u-turn and again evacuate to a foreign place – reliving the previously experienced horror. This advert addresses all the participants in the text below the picture. ‘Kindly folk have been looking after children’ addresses the hosts – ‘buttering them up’, as it were. It then moves on to the parents: ‘They’re out of a danger zone – where desperate peril may come at any minute!’ And finally, the children themselves: ‘They’re healthier and happier.’ The biggest target audience, though, is the hosts. There is a huge amount of patriotism in it, along with gratefulness and pride. It is all of these, along with the fact that it is an advert, which contributes to reliability. Reliably, Source H is the definitive of rubbish. They’ve used all of the persuasive devices known to man.
Patriotism: ‘You will be doing a real service for the nation.’
The list is endless, but the whole advertisement issue is a prime factor here. Everything in an advert is hugely exaggerated, and provides a sugar-coated, rose-tinted version of events. Additionally, hosts were few and far between because of the diminished pay and the general nature of evacuees. It was because of this that the poster was released. Again, the propaganda issue comes into play. The government had to use it as a result of things not necessarily being as they seem.
Conclusively, Source H indicates a dismal failure.
Source I Is an interview between an observer and the father of an evacuee. It’s an extract from a Mass Observation Survey in May 1940. The interviewee was a Southend father of a seven year old child.
This source shows one big problem: evacuation was optional. ‘First they say they’ll send them, then they say they won’t.’ This particular father of a seven year old boy allows his paternal instincts to get in the way of logicality. He seems immovable in refusing to let his son go. ‘What if I get killed? Who’d look after him?’. Quite obviously, this is an extremely negative response to evacuation.
‘I’m not letting him go. They can’t be looked after where they’re sending them.’ ‘They’ve nothing there: they were starving there before the war.;
So, there we have it: the Phoney War, the negative response, returning evacuees, experiences, billeting officers and social mis-matching were all huge failure of evacuation. The only minor success was the organisation due to pre-evacuation practise.
However, I believe that there is nothing more important and valuable than life and it is our duty as the human race to create and perpetuate life. It is because of this that some could proclaim evacuation as a success. The simple fact that evacuation save lives, despite any inter-evacuational problems, is additional to the fact that some good could have arisen from social mis-matching. ‘Rough’ and uncultured children (through no fault of their own) may have indeed gained social abilities and could have been refined as people. They could have accepted the better food offered and become healthier. They might have actually enjoyed their time at their foster parent’s homes. And finally, it prolonged life.
But, these are only small possibilities that were very rare to actually occur. The amount of positive evidence towards evacuation is sparse to say the least and the negatives are wholly atrocious in their content, and if they aren’t, they are reliable failures. Evacuation was intended to save the lives of children in areas of high risk areas. Indeed it did do that, but how many lives were saved we do not know, nor are we aware of the figures of how many people had what sort of experience. It is because of this that I believe evacuation was a success in parts such as in the organisational aspect, but based on the sources (A to I) evacuation on the whole was a process full of problems, difficulties and dilemmas.
I conclude that, based on my own knowledge and the previously analysed sources, evacuation was indeed a failure.
THE END.
