Explain the differing reactions of British people to the policy of evacuating children during the Second World War.

The parents of the children didn't all react in the same way. Some parents wanted to keep their children safe from German bombings. Other parents could not go through with the evacuation because they were unsure if they would see their children again and they were unsure where their children would be going and what kind of people they would be put in with. Also, some parents liked the idea of evacuation; this would mean that their children are now in a safer place and less a target from the German bombings. Other parents liked the idea of saving money so with their children out of the way it would be easier to do this. The parents would go with their children to the train stations; these would most likely have been Paddington and Marlborough. When it is time for the children to go, their parents would have to let them get on the train, some parents changed their minds at the stations and took their children back home. Parents would sometimes avoid evacuation because they can't leave their children alone so instead they would go and stay with family and friends in the country side. Also the attitudes of many parents changed over time, when German bombers began blitzing Britain's cities in 1940 many parents saw the risks of keeping their children and evacuated them. In my opinion, parents were varied in response to the policy of evacuation but most had their childrens' interests at heart.

All the children reacted to evacuation in different ways. Some children had to change their lifestyle dramatically because of the evacuation process. Some children came from large busy cities and weren't used to the country life. Some of the children wet their beds and some didn't have any experience of eating with a knife and fork. Although some children found it difficult to settle in there new "homes" other children settled in straight away. The children enjoyed helping on farm and some children enjoyed living the lifestyle they knew they could never have back home.

Host families were not always pleased with the outcome of who they had taken in. Some of the children were very poor they arrived with lice or they came with no change of clothing or they had no idea on how to keep themselves clean. The host families soon became short of money because the allowance they were given couldn't cover expenses such as extra clothes and toys. Also when food prices rose their allowance didn't rise with it and it became apparent the allowance the government gave them wasn't enough to provide the children with what they needed. Some host families were shocked as if they were expecting children they were given pregnant women instead. Host families were expected to have a lot patience and time as looking after evacuees from the different social class to their own was a challenging task to take on.

After analysing the evacuees, I do think that people's reactions did change throughout the war, but not all in the same way. Some parents that sent their children to be evacuated because of the possible bombardment to their cities took their children back when they thought their city was safe. I also think host families opinions changed too. I don't think they were expecting to receive children from different social classes to there own, let alone pregnant women. I think, to some extent children's reactions changed too. I think well off children who went to homes, which weren't as well kept as their own wanted to go back to were they live. Children who went to live with families who went to live with families who were on a higher social class enjoyed it more than they thought they would, these reactions probably occurred two to three weeks after the evacuation took place. I think towards the end of the war host families and children's reactions changed. I think after a few months of living where they were host families enjoyed the children's company and the children enjoyed helping their host family's work on their farms and the countryside as a whole.

I think that the host families, children and the parent's opinions all changed on a whole. I also think that everyone realised that evacuation was in the interest of children and vulnerable groups to be kept safe and not to break families apart. I also think that everyone that was involved in the evacuation process got a taste to what life was like. Parents would remember how life was like to have no children around. Host families experienced how difficult it is to look after other people's children, and the children had a taste on how things were like in the countryside and how different everything is compared to the major towns they came from.

Foster families were another group of people who would have been affected by evacuation.

Evacuees were received in to reception areas where billeting officers had the job of seeing that all the children had somewhere to live. All foster families were given a small sum of money each week in return for looking after an evacuee. This was one reason foster families took children in, for the money they would receive. But some families were genuine and did want to help the children. Strong boys were often chosen by farmers to help out on the land, and older girls to help with housework. Local schools in the countryside took evacuees. If the schools were small, some went in the morning and others in the afternoon. Teachers often had to take on a parental role as well, since they were usually the only adult that the children knew at all.

Most foster families were shocked at the look of the city children. Some children had never used a toothbrush before. Others weren't even able to use a knife or fork properly. The city children were dirty and badly dressed. Some families were suspicious of the London city children because they thought that the city was a bad place to live in and the children would be getting up to no good. It was not easy for the foster parents either. Some people, often the better off, refused to take evacuees. Therefore I think that foster families were another group with mixed responses, many could do the helping hand and extra cash whereas others saw these children as a burden and mistreated them.

The children's reactions were different depending on their experiences. Some children did not like it due to the way they were treated. One source from Bernard Kops who was sent to Buckinghamshire with his sister in 1936 said, "Everything was so clean in the room. We were given flannels and toothbrushes. We'd never cleaned our teeth up till then. And hot water ran from the taps. And there was a lavatory upstairs, and carpets. This was all very odd. And rather scaring". This goes to show how children from the city were really like, they had never seen things like carpets and lavatories in their houses so this made them scared and didn't know what to do to fit in with the foster families lifestyles. Many children did not know where they were going and for how long. They travelled by train or bus. Children below school age had to be accompanied by an adult. There was a mixture of feelings; some children were excited, others in fear. For many children who had not travelled outside London before, evacuation was an adventure - many had not been able to afford holidays. Other children were very upset to be leaving their parents. Some children liked the countryside because they would be able to look after animals, eating and sleeping well. Due to this I can see how there were different responses from children who enjoyed their experiences and those who didn't.

To conclude, the reactions of the parents, foster parents, children varied to their own experiences and personal opinions. Some of these peoples' reactions changed over time due to different events occurring. The government officials saw the policy of evacuation as a great idea that would save many lives and therefore encouraged it amongst the British people. I also agree that the policy of evacuation was a good thing because it saved many innocent children from death or serious injury had they stayed back at home.