The Differing Reactions of People in Britain to the Policy of Evacuating Children in World War II
The Differing Reactions of People in Britain to the Policy of Evacuating Children in World War II
It became apparent that in the 1930's, air raids had become a more dominant spectre in the minds of both the government and the public. The widespread fear of mass German bombing since September 1939 had destroyed morale, as well as many families. Therefore, the British government planned for the evacuation of civilians from the more probable target areas of Britain, in an attempt to save them.
The country had been divided into zones classified as either 'evacuation', 'neutral' or 'reception'. This allowed priority evacuees to be moved from major urban areas to those more rural. However, as lists of the available housing in the 'reception' areas were compiled, an error was found in that there was not enough housing for everyone. Therefore, the government had to also construct temporary camps. Many people were also sent abroad, as it was considered safer for them, to places as far as 'Canada and America'. Nevertheless, the government began posting letters to those households seen in the greatest danger. Officially being evacuated were children of school age, mothers accompanying young children, pregnant women, disabled people and teachers. However, other prominent groups were also evacuated such as civil servants, art treasures, the Bank of England and the BBC, as a few examples. Although evacuation was steady initially, many people returned home during the period of the Phoney War, only to be sent back when the Blitz actually began, in a second evacuation effort.
Within a few days of the beginning of evacuation, operation codenamed 'Pied Piper', approximately 300,000 children were taken from their homes in the cities to live with strangers in the countryside. According to the Daily Mail, the first day of evacuation, 1st September 1939, saw the children 'smiling and cheerful' on the platforms of the train stations. It was portrayed in such a way by the media in an attempt to regain the hopes of the nation by showing the country's strength and commitment to both the war effort and saving the lives of their people.
Many confused children saw this opportunity as somewhat of an 'adventure' or 'holiday', an idea drummed into their minds by officials in charge of the operation. This is one reason opposition was so minute. As the children were so young, families often avoided telling them the truth about where they were going and left on words of advice for their personal safety, 'be careful and look after your sister'. For many, the chants of the songs 'The Lambeth Walk', sung in London, and elsewhere 'Wish Me Luck As You Wave Me Goodbye' proved comforting.
Moreover, some children ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Many confused children saw this opportunity as somewhat of an 'adventure' or 'holiday', an idea drummed into their minds by officials in charge of the operation. This is one reason opposition was so minute. As the children were so young, families often avoided telling them the truth about where they were going and left on words of advice for their personal safety, 'be careful and look after your sister'. For many, the chants of the songs 'The Lambeth Walk', sung in London, and elsewhere 'Wish Me Luck As You Wave Me Goodbye' proved comforting.
Moreover, some children may have found the evacuation beneficial to themselves for other reasons. For example, many children who would ordinarily have been abused at their homes in the cities would have been moved to what they may have considered a sanctuary. A prime example of this is that port rayed in 'Goodnight Mister Tom'. Willie Beech, a young boy forced to live WW1 veteran Tom Oakley, finds an escape from his miserable and sick mother to change his life completely. For many, their experiences would have been similar. This new lifestyle also meant many of the children changed dramatically in terms of their appearance to the extent they were 'unrecognisable'.
However, despite the initial optimism of the bemused children, many of their 'adventures' ended abruptly as they reached their 'reception' areas. For many, the sheer embarrassment of 'parading around' in front of rural families to be picked was mortifying, especially if they were chosen last. Furthermore, it was at this point that families of children were split up and forced to live apart, leaving many discouraged by this new life.
Therefore, many children's first taste of countryside life had proven difficult, and for many it would just get worse. Although agreeing to take on these children from the cities, many countryside families treated them poorly and saw them as an opportunity to benefit themselves, 'scrub down the marble slabs'. For example, many families remained suspicious of the children living with them, not knowing their background. Consequently, it became a constant struggle to be accepted, no matter how much you tried to prove yourself. This often tarnished the memories children had of their experience of evacuation.
Also, many families saw the children as an opportunity for labour and worked them as hard as they could. As no one kept any official records of where each child had been placed, no one could punish the families for such actions, a great fault in the whole system. This also meant that when it came to returning the children home, many families were not prepared to give up the children they had taken on. One reason for this could have been for the labour, whilst another could have been that a strong relationship amongst the new family meant letting the child go felt impossible. This was common in the case of younger children as they would not remember their previous families.
Generally, there was a mixed opinion about the system of evacuation amongst children. Many children had a great experience and had gained much from it, for example new friends. It was these children that when the war came to an end, would have hesitated to leave their new lives but nevertheless, wanted to return to their parents and family in the cities. On the contrary, many children would have been eager to return home as their countryside lives terrified them. For many, it may have been a lower standard of living or for others, the families they were staying with. It is necessary to state that the accounts given of evacuation were greatly influenced by memory. Many evacuees chose to have only a selective memory of their experience, as they believe it gives a better picture of their personal opinion on the situation. Also, time may have damaged the clarity of the memories.
Those involved in evacuation, other than the children, also had varying opinions about the success of evacuation. Whilst papers like the Daily Mail described the scenes on the first day of evacuation as almost a triumph, many witnesses remembered only the confusion and chaos of heartbroken parents seeing their families dispersed to unknown destinations. For many parents, the first letters home were much anticipated and on the occasions that the letters may have been late, many parents got extremely worried and angry, ' Do you think you are playing a game by not writing?' Ideally, parents would have preferred to stay with their children, as opposed to carrying the burden of not knowing if they were safe, healthy and happy. Also, many parents found the process of evacuation didn't necessarily secure the safety of their children in any case, as one source suggests 'the ship had been torpedoed... so our girl had to be taken by a tanker'.
Many of the families waiting to collect children at 'reception' areas were willing to be such a great part of the war effort. They believed that by keeping the children safe, they were fulfilling their duties. However, in many 'reception' areas, bombs were still being dropped and therefore many people feared for their own safety. For this reason, they did not want to take on the responsibility of looking after others and yet in many cases, were forced to. Again, this is portrayed well in 'Goodnight Mister Tom'. Many families would also have argued that their experience was not particularly wholesome as they did not get on with or did not like the child they were responsible for, 'The children were filthy'. For example, many people were suspicious of those from cities and didn't trust them. Nevertheless, there were many families who did enjoy the experience as they found the evacuees they had taken in made the fear of war ' tolerable' and 'enjoyable'. However, I believe their expectations of the city children changed dramatically through the period of the war.
Furthermore, the government introduced his own measures to promote evacuation. A popular example of this was the use of posters, which seem to be mainly aimed at mothers. The tagline of one poster is 'Don't do it mother - Leave the children where they are'. This poster was produced in 1940, more specifically the period of the 'Phoney War', when many mothers were requesting their children to come home after the first evacuation effort. There were also posters produced aimed at the older children who didn't necessarily want to be evacuated, suggesting they 'ought to be out of London'.
And to conclude, I believe the array of views on evacuation from the view-point of the children is constant, as every one had a different experience. However, I do think you can distinguish between those who thought the experience worthwhile to those who led a life of misery. Nevertheless, the thought of living with strangers and not knowing the welfare of your own parents may have been tarnishing for many children, especially those who were older. This may have affected the way they chose to remember the experience, or even how they chose to live it.
Initially, many parents did not agree with the policy of evacuation. The thought of not being able to protect their own families scared many people. However, once many children arrived back home after the war, they realised that maybe evacuation wasn't as bad as they thought. Many children came back home healthy, happy and with a life-changing experience. However, for other parents, seeing their children again may have confirmed their worst fears, as they came back miserable and brandished by their time as an evacuee. Also, there were many parents who never saw their children again. Although they had been evacuated, no official records were kept and therefore, many children were not brought back home.
Many others involved in the scheme of evacuation were also greatly affected. Those who stayed closely with the children, for example teachers, would have seen the pain of the children without their parents. This may have led them to change their views on the policy. Whilst, those who cared for the children would have only truly understood its effects on their lives once the war was over, when even those who may not have appeared to enjoy it realise what they'd lost.
Reena Achall
