Sources of Information: Teddy's tips for a Personal Interview

Interviews are very useful in order to obtain views and opinions from different sources for your project. Primary sources are always useful both for information and also obtain various slants that you may not have been aware of. If your topic is a debated subject then interviews can be extremely useful to either back up your line of argument, or to provide an alternative side that you can address. However, there are also many drawbacks that one must be wary of when using personal interviews in their project.

• Bias; an interview with a Primary Source (someone who was there at the time) will always be biased towards or against the topic. One must acknowledge this when interviewing.
• Emotion; the topic of the interview could be a raw area for the interviewee; as the interviewer you will need to be constrained and slightly removed in order to control the conversation.
• Authority; beware of the interviewee controlling the direction of the interview. You must be able to stick to your questions and get what you want out of the interview. Don't be bullied into otherwise.
• Topic; the best source of information may not arise from a personal interview. They are difficult to organise and may not be worth the effort if all you are after from them is some facts that could have been obtained elsewhere.

 If you remember to avoid these possible pitfalls (B.E.A.T.) then your interview should be useful for your project. Here are some more points that may help you in the interview itself.

• Waiting for the answer; pausing is one of the most effective interviewing techniques, especially if the topic is a much debated subject. Ask a probing question, and after their often short reply, pause. This often has the effect of the interviewee becoming uncomfortable, and hastening to fill the silence with unprompted justification for their answer. From this you can gleam their true position on the subject.
• Investigate; do not be afraid to ask long questions. You are not their to chew the cud, get stuck in. However, by the same token, do not be too blunt or offensive with your questions (E of BEAT), but correctly worded questions can avoid offending whilst still reaching deep for an answer.
• Note; make sure you have lasting information from your interview. Either film it, record it or take notes through out - these will be much more effective than your memory alone, and much more useful in the long run when you may need to refer back to the interview.

If you hold onto these points whilst interviewing, you should be on for a W.I.N.!

Why The Islands?

The Channel Islands were the only part of the British Commonwealth to be occupied by the German Army during World War Two. Even after D-day brought the war back into France in 1944, the Germans remained on the islands. Was it worth the effort for 194 km² of rock in the English Channel? Why were the islands targeted? 

In order to answer this question, one must be familiar with the geographic location of the Islands. This map to the right provides a clear view.

As we can see, the islands could be used as a strategic outpost for shelling the British Coast, as a port for wartime naval craft, and even had the potential to be a stepping stone for invasion. During the occupation, the islands were utilized for shelling, with thousands of entrenchment systems, Martello 'look-out' towers and fortifications and artillery trenches, all built by P.O.W. slave labour.

However, if we consult the map once more, it is apparent that the Islands are actually much closer to France than Britain, and there are points on the French coast where there is a much smaller distance between the French beaches and the British cliffs. So why were the Channel Islands targeted and so heavily fortified?

I believe that the main motive for the initial invasion and the resilience in which the German occupation force held out can probably be attributed to the fact that the islands were British. This small collection of islands were the only region of British Commonwealth that was successfully invaded. While the mainland resisted invasion in the Battle of Britain, the Islands remained captive for the entirety of the war. I believe the underlying reason for this is simply vindictiveness from the German High Command. To the German Army, and the Nazi regime, it could be seen as a victory; something that became even more important after the War turned and the soviet Red Army began butchering their way to Berlin. Stubbornness and resilience can be seen throughout the occupation, for example when the Royal Navy attempted to starve the invaders out with a blockade in 1944 (one of the only actions taken in an attempt to free the Islands) to no avail. Eventually the blockade was abandoned. The naval blockade made the conditions for the Islanders even worse, and resentment for the British for not coming to their aid would no doubt have increased as many began to starve. It is detachments like these that i wish to research in an attempt to see if there are still 'hurt feelings' as such. 

On a side note, as Holocaust Memorial Day has recently passed, I wish to pay respects to the 700 that died in concentration camps on the Islands, the only on British soil. 6,000 people were impounded in the camps during the occupation, and the inhabitants were given minimal rations and forced to work until exhaustion, or even death. Please remember them.