As the government issued it, the photo would have been used as propaganda, because seeing the children safe would put parent’s minds at rest, or encourage parents who had not sent their children away to do so.
Evacuees had very varied experiences of evacuation, from being very scared, as seen in the following quote from Source C:
“All you could hear was the feet of the children and a kind of murmur, because the children were too afraid to talk.”
To having a great time, as seen in this quote made by a middle-class woman living in the country at the time of evacuation:
“Some children from poor areas have become almost unrecognisable within a few weeks. One small girl was so chubby that she needed a larger size gas mask.”
From this quote, we can tell that the children are being well looked after.
Evacuees were typically stereotyped as dirty, ill-mannered children coming from slums, which may well have dampened their spirits. Often the evacuees were misjudged, and many were the complete opposite to the stereotyped evacuee. Some of the evacuees even ended up living in worse conditions then they had previously. This is shown in source F, where an evacuee looks back on his experiences:
“We were not all raised on a diet of fish and chips eaten from newspaper, and many of us were quite familiar with the origins of milk. It is just as upsetting for a clean and well-educated child to find itself in a grubby semi-slum as the other way round.”
The parents’ aim for evacuation was to ensure their children’s safety. Source D would have reassured parents as it shows the evacuees safe from harm.
The hosts of the children all had different aims for evacuation; some wanted companionship, others wanted a slave.
A lot of the host families did a fantastic job looking after the evacuees as shown in Source H, a poster advertising hosting to Scottish families:
“Some kindly folk have been looking after children from the cities for over six months. Extra work? Yes, they’ve been a handful! But the foster parents know they’ve done the right thing.”
But many families did not look after their evacuees so well, and used them to do all their work. This is shown in the following source, in which a 13 year-old middle-class boy compares evacuation with his home life:
“After school we were expected to sweep out Mr Benson’s butcher’s shop and scrub down the marble slabs… I had never been asked to help my father in his bank.”
There are many factors that made evacuation a success.
Source G portrays evacuation as a positive thing. It shows that the children are being well looked after by a nice host, who is keeping them safe from the bombing.
The government could have called evacuation a success as 1.5 million children were evacuated, which would also mean that evacuation was a success in the minds of many parents, as their children were kept safe.
Evacuation was a success for some evacuees, as they had good experiences. Source B, a photo of the children walking to the train, shows them in high spirits.
Though evacuation was somewhat successful, there were many ways in which it was a failure.
Source A, an extract from a textbook written by historian David Taylor in 1988, shows how there were often problems with the evacuation system.
“Arrangements, however, did not always go smoothly. Unfortunately many evacuees could not settle in the countryside. The country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation of the town children, not to mention their bad manners.”
As a historian wrote the source, he would have researched the topic fully, and would have no reason to lie. However, not all children were ill mannered and many settled well in the country.
Source H also gives a negative overview of evacuation as it describes the shortage of host families,
“The government are grateful for the 20,000 people helping the country. But many new volunteers are needed – to share in the present task and to be ready for any crisis that may come.”
Telling us that though 20,000 people had volunteered, others were very reluctant to take evacuees in.
Source I shows a father’s opposition to evacuation.
“People are so funny here; first they say they’ll send them, then they say they won’t.”
“…I’m not letting him go. They can’t be looked after where they’re sending them.”
“…Well, they’ve nothing there; they were starving before the war.”
The quotes tell us evacuation is not working, because if it were completely successful, everyone would be sending their children away. The father refuses to send his son to strangers, and as many parents insisted on keeping their children in London, others must have felt the same way.
Source C is a source from a teacher who was evacuated with children from her school:
“All you could hear was the feet of the children and a kind of murmur, because the children were too afraid to talk.”
“…We hadn’t the slightest idea where we were going.”
Which shows how some evacuations were not well organised.
In conclusion, I think evacuation was generally a success. Many lives were saved because of it, and many evacuees had great experiences. Though, there were many failures of the system as well.
During the war, 43000 people died in the bombing and many of them were children. However, many more children would have died had evacuation not taken place.
Evacuation also had many successful after-effects. After seeing the state of some city children, it brought their living conditions to the attention of others. Following the war, a new Labour government was elected, who created a ‘welfare state’, which featured services for health and poverty. This helped make Britain a much more equal place.