Source C supports source A, the source is a hand written account made by an evacuation officer called Eileen Potter. It mentions the London County Council officers helping with the evacuation, this was also seen in source A. ‘’hardly any tears’’ suggests that it was calm and organised. The children must have understood what the evacuation involved, therefore the government had organised it well. This is a reliable source because it is a first-hand account, she took part in the evacuation and witnessed the events unfold. She could have possibly wanted to make it seem as she was doing a good job so could have exaggerated slightly.
Source B shows us that the government had informed the evacuees of what was going to happen suggesting that it was well thought through. The evacuees were ‘’given a list of what to pack’’ and ‘’given a departure time’’. This source supports what was said in source C. Both arguments for the evacuation are included in this source; ‘’given a departure time and it came and went. Then we were given another date, and never left London’’. This date changing caused confusion and lead parents to lose faith in the whole evacuation. When the children were finally evacuated they left with half of the things they needed despite being issued with a list; ‘’my mother was fed up with packing and unpacking, so when we were told to be ready the third time she just put a few clothes in the case…we went with half the things we needed’’. This is a first-hand account but it was recalled many years later so her memory could have been distorted. We also cannot be sure if this was just a one off of or the dates changed for everyone.
Source D also supports both sides of the argument. It mentions that the London end of the evacuation was organised, ‘’getting the children out of London worked surprisingly well’’. However the same could not be said on the arrival, this was where the local authorities were supposed to take over and organise the children. There were not always enough homes or rations for the arriving children, this shows that the government was not prepared for the hundreds of children being evacuated. People said that ‘’the result was a typical British wartime shamble’’. This source was taken from a history book which was published; this implies that the information is reliable.
Source E states that people thought that the effects of the evacuation had not been thought through fully, ‘’the psychological effects may well be as bad as living in wartime conditions’’. It could be implying that some people did not trust the families willing to house the evacuees. Other people also felt that the evacuation was a waste of money which could have been better spent elsewhere, for example ‘’…could have been spent on making schools safe and building good air raid shelters’’. It is a reliable source because it is a first-hand account and it states people’s attitudes towards the evacuation at the time.
In conclusion from analysing these sources I believe that overall the evacuation was well organised. Due to the large amounts of children being evacuated it was likely that there would be a few problems. The evacuation saved hundreds of children’s lives and therefore it was successful. Almost all of the sources supported the evacuation in varying degrees and said it was organised, many of the sources were hand written accounts which makes them reliable.
