Another factor to be considered is the wondrous experience relished by many evacuees. This was due to several causes. For the first time in their lives these children enjoyed a lifestyle full of activities and amenities they antecedently could only have dreamt of — walking in the woods, indoor toilets, plenty of hot water, fresh vegetables, seeing live farm animals, a trip to the cinema. Secondly, friendships were created, not only between the host families but, between other evacuees. This led to a clashing of classes where, unlike in the city, evacuees and hosts from all social and economic backgrounds were forced to mix. The integration of people, with very different backgrounds, exposed the real divide present in the country at that time. The evacuation situation broke down the barrier of the diversity between classes. Source A tell us how there were social differences between host families and evacuees. The evacuees that came from poorer working-class families did not have as good manners and naturally, “country people were shocked at the obvious poverty and deprivation of the town children.” Yet, many county people helped improve the evacuees’ bad manners and habits; just one of many successful outcomes from evacuation. This was just the beginning of a long term relationship between many adults and children.
For many country people and city slum children the first meeting soon gave way to feelings of mutual affection and eventually most evacuees were treated like members of family. These children were showered with love and affection which lasted long after the war had ended. Evacuees who came from the poorest of families might have been the ones who benefited the most from this new found friendship, all thanks to evacuation. Those who had previously bathed no more than once a week in the communal council-run bath house now had the luxury to bathe as much as three times a week. This is shown by source D, a photograph issued by the government to show evacuation was currently doing well.
In September 1939, 1.5 million children were evacuated. Homesickness and the realisation that the war had not begun saw many children drift back to their homes in the cities towards the end of 1939; this period was known as the Phoney War. When German bombers started blitzing Britain’s cities in 1940 a second evacuation took place, though not on the scale of the one in 1939. A few thousand children were also sent overseas to commonwealth countries such as Australia and South Africa. This shows that the evacuation process also had its downsides — some evacuees got homesick, many country families were shocked in how city slum people lived, others were resented as a burden by their foster families.
During the evacuation, many children suffered the trauma of separation and isolation and were terrified by the prospect of being removed from their parents. For the most part, mothers were not evacuated with their children, unless they were pregnant. Instead, over 100,000 teachers escorted the children out of the cities. It was a time of worry and anxiety for parents. For children there were emotions ranging from fear and excitement to uncertainty, while some young evacuees struggled to understand why many of their mothers stood by crying. It was only a few days in till the evacuees were hit with homesickness. On the other hand some parents did not even attempt to send there children away from high-risk bombing areas. Source I shows a father's opposition to evacuation. "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." These quotes tell us evacuation is not working, because if it were entirely successful, everyone would be sending their children away. This 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. The fear of uncertainty of what might happen stopped many parents sending their children.
Evacuation brought traumatic experiences to many evacuees and also to some host families. A few evacuees however, were less fortunate. The absence of a government body to safeguard the welfare of children meant they were at the whim of the foster family. Inevitably, some children were coerced to do arduous labour. A very small minority suffered physical and sexual abuse at the hands of those supposed to be their guardians; a few were simply so miserable they scarpered, others were returned home after just a few days or weeks in foster care. Besides evacuees host families were also treated badly by evacuees. Source E indicates how some host families were treated with no respect or gratitude by the evacuees and their mothers. Incidents like these affected people’s views of all evacuees and so rumours grew and the successes of evacuation became fewer.
What about those who agreed to take children in? Why did they do so? The answer is that the vast majority simply wanted ‘to do their bit’ to help the country in war. These included philanthropists who saw an opportunity to serve those who needed help. Other individuals, however, signed up for financial reasons, motivated, no doubt, by the small government allowance and increase in rationed food to cover the cost of looking after children. Source H 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.” This tells us that though 20,000 people had volunteered, others were very reluctant to take evacuees in.
Overall, it is difficult to conclude whether evacuation was a success or a failure. People have various opinions based on their own experiences; therefore you can not really draw a firm conclusion from that. Many evacuees had great experiences though it depended on the attitudes of the specific people involved. However, there were many failures of the system as well. During the war, 43,000 people died in the bombing and many of them were children. Still, many more children would have died had evacuation not taken place. The government had little control over evacuation. In source C, a recollection of a teacher, "We hadn't the slightest idea where we were going." shows how some evacuations were not well organised.
Evacuation also had many successful long term 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. In my own personal opinion, every life that was saved due to evacuation means that it was success. Thus, I agree with the statement taking into account how it affected people's lives. Many aims of evacuation were fulfilled; both short and long term events ameliorated Britain after the War. Some people did not enjoy evacuation, but without it they might not have lived to tell us that.
