Evacuation was a great success – do you agree or disagree

On 3rd September 1939, World War II was declared. The British Government was all too aware that the international warfare that was to follow would be disastrously horrific, threatening the lives of thousands of civilians. It was quite obvious that the main targets would be the highly populated areas, and the government felt it was absolutely necessary in order to keep civilian casualties and fatalities to a bare minimum.

The first round of this life-saving process commenced on 1st September 1939, and within the first month of war, a staggering 3,500,000 people were moved. . 4 million of which were relocated within the first four days of September.It is somewhat self-evident, then, that the logistics of such an operation would be nightmarishly chaotic, and millions of evacuees were heroically moved. Despite this, there were many problems with evacuation.

Social problems arose due to social mis-matching, the incompetence of billeting officers and the supposed 'Phoney War'. Organisational problems, along with the infamous negative experience stories, contribute to the notion of failure of evacuation.However, the very fact that it saved the lives of millions of people shows a slight success. The significant word there is people. We are all people, and it our duty bound to protect and guard each other's lives, but there are other factors involved as the subject is not 'black and white'.

Evidence and sources of information have varied greatly, over the years, as to the success or failure of evacuation. This includes the sources I am analysing that will follow. This variation of evidence is because success or failure of such an event that involves people is reliant upon personal experiences of evacuees and hosts.Obviously, experiences and feelings felt during evacuation differed vastly.

It is because of this that there is such a wide range of evidence available. Evacuation was a huge process. It was inevitable that organisational difficulties were going to occur. At the fault of the billeting officers, many evacuees had no hosts arranged for them and so ended up being taken to anyone who would accept them. They were literally dragged from door to door, while prospective hosts slammed their door shut. Source C says: 'We hadn't the slightest idea where we were going.

.. Source A says: 'Arrangements, however, did not always go smoothly. 'The children recognised that people were offering people money to take them and they were still saying 'no'! This must have been an emotionally scarring experience. Of course, the accuracy of source A can be questioned somewhat. Firstly, it's a secondary source from a text book.

The title of the book is 'Mastering Economic and Social history', written for British schools. Evidently, it will be limited in detailed knowledge as it covers both economic and social history.Additionally, there isn't time frame given which the book provides information on. Evacuation inn 1939 would have been a very small part of this book.

Furthermore, the information given is quite vague, and it states that 'many children, parents and teachers were evacuated'. It fails to give definite facts and figures. It also states that these unspecific figures of people were evacuated when war was declared. WRONG! The first round of evacuation took place between the dates of 1st - 3rd September. This signifies just how incomprehensive the book actually is.

Alternatively, it seems that the process of walking to the train station, where they would board their trains - destination: somewhere in the rolling hills of the countryside, was fairly organised. This was because of the pre-evacuation rehearsals. Teachers, students, and some mothers had practised the journey to the train station in the summer term of 1939, as portrayed in Source B. The relevant aspects of Source B are discussed in question 1, but the main thing about the source is that it's informing us of the positive organisation when it comes to travelling to the train station.From there, it all went down hill, as indicated by Source C. In conclusion, the organisational side of evacuation was actually quite good.

It was just the incompetence of the problematic billeting officers that failed an otherwise successful aspect of evacuation. When evacuation took place, it was quite obvious that the children would need a place to go, and one would think that the authorities would have had the sense to match the appropriate classes with each other. But no, there was social mis-matching galore, and it is because of this that the 'negative experience' stories exist.These stories are available as the viewpoint of the evacuees, and hosts, separately. Source E is an interview with a host mother, held in 1988.

It shows how a poor, working class child was placed with a higher (middle-upper) class host. The evacuated family, which included the mother, was of a very poor background. The host complained of the children urinating on the walls. She even told the mother of the evacuated family to try and stop the atrocities committed by the children, unbeknownst of their crimes.It seems, due to her language and tone, '..

. urinating on the walls...

ur house stank to high heaven', that the host is a very upper class person, and the evacuees are of a very poor background. These extremes of class dissimilarity elevate the situation further, as opposed to a less significant variation. However, this extremity is relevant to the reliability of the source. It is secondary, as it is an interview held in 1988. Apparently, the interviewee (the mother of the host family) is quite an affluent individual.

Such people are notoriously known as being superficial attention seekers. Because of this, it is quite probable that she has exaggerated the not-so-dramatic truth.Additionally, it is an interview, so editing on the interviewer's behalf may have taken place in order to make the publication interesting, or in some way be an excuse from the host. Indeed, hosts received a lot of bad publicity during the evacuation process, with newspaper publications that portrayed horrific situations where children were being beaten, used and abused, and this host maybe trying to redress the balance. 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... hey 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.