Another possible reason to evacuate children from the cities may have been that, because of rationing, there would be shortages of food in the cities whereas fresh food would be more easily available in the countryside.
So, in conclusion, there were many reasons Chamberlain had for the evacuation of England. Perhaps the main fact that led to the Prime Minister’s decision on evacuation was the fact that the predicted casualty figures were so high. The Government knew that the war in the air was hard to stop, so they wanted to secure a future for England if the cities of Britain did fall. These children were sent to countryside where there was less danger of attack. The Prime minister did not know what the war in the air would be like; the First World War not having affected Britain in this way. He had heard of the Spanish War against the Far East, where there had been heavy bombardment from the air, and knew of the new Zeppelins that were available as bomber planes now.
With all the assumptions that the Government made, such as the fact that Germany would strike as soon as the war started and that there would be lots of civilian deaths, plans were quickly made. Gas masks were issued, bomb shelters erected, and most importantly of all, the start of evacuation, which had been planned since 1934, when the first bombs were developed. Perhaps it was because of all of the preparation that resulted from the paranoia that the death count of civilians was 10 times smaller that the prediction.
History Coursework Task 2
Explain the differing reactions of the British people to the policy of evacuating children in the Second World War.
During the Second World War, over 1.5 million children were evacuated to reception areas, amid fears that the major cities were going to be bombed. This was an event of considerable importance in a lot of people’s lives, and because of this a there were a lot of reactions to the evacuation.
I am going to use sources to help answer this question. These sources will be separated into
- Evacuees reactions
- The Receptors reactions
- The parents reactions
There are also Government propaganda pictures and posters, these will still be partitioned in sections but it will be mentioned how reliable they are too, as they are taken to raise moral of the people.
Most of the sources are those that are supplied by the school, however, there will be more added from
Evacuees – good reactions
Some evacuees were very happy to move into safer areas, and had a very good time. Two pictures were issued by the government, in which there were children. One had an image of children waiting to be evacuated, and the other, an image of a lot of children bathing in a bathtub. In both pictures, the children are smiling, and look very happy. This shows that there is an element of hope and love in the situation of evacuation, and the children felt it. Also, in the poster issued by the government in the evacuation, there is a picture of two happy children saying ‘Thank You, Foster-Parents’ we want more like you!’ The children again seem like they are happy to be evacuated.
There were children at the time who said 'we all thought it was a holiday’, meaning that they thought it was a time for happiness and they were quite happy to march on.
There were even good reports during the evacuation “They had a luxurious bungalow overlooking the harbour. When we got there they bathed us and we had a huge bedroom, just for the two of us.”
Some of the sources were done as propaganda so that parents would consider letting their children evacuate and to show that lifestyles were good in the countryside. This is what the children in the bathtub picture shows. The other picture, of evacuees walking to the station in London, September 1939 ties in with the written holiday source. These children in the photo are so happy because they might have been part of the children who were told that they were going on a holiday, and would be back soon. They were told things like 'Cheer up. Your children are going to have a happy holiday and don't worry.', so naturally they would be happy and exited to go on ‘an adventure’
The last source is justified by the following statement made by the same person ‘To us it was pure luxury because when we were at home we had to be five in one bedroom. When we got up, we had two boiled eggs with soldiers for our breakfast.' The evacuation was a great experience for the person because her home was so poor, and this home was like luxury to what she would usually be used to.
Evacuees – bad experiences
However, not all children were happy to go, and had equally bad experiences. Most children had a problem settling in the countryside. They were ‘homesick’ and pined for their parents, the foster parents were very different as were the homes. Children had problems adjusting. N the day of the evacuation, one teacher describes the children as being ‘too afraid to talk’ Even the teachers ‘hadn’t the slightest ideas where we were going’
Children also had problems with the change in culture, as one source describes. The then evacuee mentions how he was a ‘clean and well educated child’ and found himself in a’ grubby semi-slum as the other way round’ So some children had to live in a degraded lifestyle as a result of evacuation.
Other children had this problem too. One child said that because she came from a modern house, it was like going back in time. She said “the toilet was halfway up the garden. There was no running water. The house was sunless” and also, a lot of children were homesick – there was a feeling that the parents would not ever collect them.
Children were made to evacuate, away from their mothers and everyone they knew, so there was a great feeling of sadness about. However, those evacuees who came from rich households were to expect downgraded facilities, and would be very homesick because f the difference, as the countryside were still in most parts suffering from the great depression. Children often thought there was different eating and living habits in the countryside. The fact was, these children were given to people they did not know, and were taken to different cultured households. They did not know what was happening nor what was to become of them or if they would ever see their parents again.
At the start of the evacuation period, children were told that they were going to ‘a holiday’ and most children were happy enough to comply. But when these children were taken to be chosen and then moved into new houses and different cultures, the sense of suffering on their part began. This was when the problems started. They started when the children became aware of the reality of the situation.
The Host Parent reactions
There was a government poster put out to persuade people to act as hosting parents so that children could ‘get out of a ‘danger-zone, where desperate peril may come at any minute’ There was a lot of propaganda in this poster, and there is a mention of other ‘kindly folk’ who help out. The poster makes out that ‘you may be saving a child’s life’
Most host parents were tempted to foster kids out of good will. It is supported by a picture of a well cared for brother and sister. They are both smiling, however this may not be the case for most children who were evacuated. Most were very sad to see their parents go and not very thankful towards the host family.
There is also an experience of a mother of a host family looking back to the time. This is a very bad experience for her. She said that she saw children ‘urinating on the walls’ even though they had two toilets. She also said that even the mother of the child took no notice.
Perhaps this was because f the culture clash. In the cities, people were sometimes extremely poor, and maybe they had never heard of toilets, or perhaps the child was young and did not know what to do. If in the city, the mother was not accustomed to using toilets, then urinating on the walls would seem normal to her.
Finally, the last source is from a novel. In this the host mother asks the evacuees to put their slippers on. The evacuees did not pack slippers however they replied “We haven’t any” although they left them at home. The host mother, obviously thinking that the children blushed red and apologized. This is an example of how the host mothers in the rural areas did not expect children from urban areas to have luxuries as they were accustomed to. They instead thought of them in a stereotypical way. This is a novel however, but in context it is right. This is what some host families would have expected.
The woman in this source seems friendly enough to the children, and does not seem too have any reluctances in having to host. However, the second source seems like she dreaded it because the children kept urinating on her walls.
Parent’s reactions
There is only one source in this section. This is an extract taken from a Mass Observation Survey in May 1940. There is an observer interviewing a father of a 7-year-old child. In the extract, there are a series of questions, which the father answers. They are generally about what the reaction to evacuation in the area is, and the father’s own thoughts on it. The father says that most people let them go, but then they came back again when no bombs fell. Some children weren’t sent at all because of the lack of bombs. This father had the view that he did not want to to let his son go because he felt that wherever he was going, he could not be looked after properly. He thought that people there were starving even before the war, and it was a very poor place. His final reason for keeping his son close was his son’s future. If he was killed, his son could easily go to family or friends here, and he would still have a future. In the countryside, his son would have no-one.
The reason for this particular view is mainly the lack of knowledge that the father has. Also, it is true that in the first evacuation stage, no bombs were dropped even though the government predicted a high death rate. But this was the phony war, the real air war was still yet to come, in this initial stage they hadn’t, so no-one felt the need for evacuation at the time. The father has doubts about his son evacuating because mainly of his concern for the welfare of his son, and his own lack of understanding about other parts of the country. He felt that there were strangers in the other parts who were very poor, starving and untrustworthy. In reality, the countryside areas were not poor in the least and they were not starving there. Finally there is the issue of no-one there being trustworthy enough to care for the son if the father dies. The father, quite justifiably, wanted to make sure his son had other people he knew looking after him if he by chance died. He culd trust family and friends, but not strangers in ‘The Shires’. In real fact, the ‘Shires’ was suffering from the great depression long ago, however now it had built up again.
Because of the phoney war, many children came back to their proper homes. After this many mothers felt uncertain as to whether they wanted to send their children back to the host parents.