There was no attempt to keep families, friends and school children together, or to match children and foster parents with the same interests, even though in theory they should have been kept together. This proves the government did not stick to their original plans. The government failed to realise the effect evacuation would have on their children; a child learns an incredibly large amount in their first five years. Taking a child away from its mother is a very traumatic experience. Some young children confused their foster parents with their real parents.
During the phoney war evacuees became homesick, many had been hurriedly placed in unsuitable billets, dirty and unsanitary, or with people unwilling or unable to look after them properly. According to official figures by the 8th January 1940 almost 900,000 of the evacuees had gone home, despite campaigns to stop this.
The fact that evacuation was a failure from the parents point of view is also suggested in source I. It is an interview with a parent in May 1940, at the end of the phoney war, after bombs had already started dropping. The father says he’s not letting his seven-year-old child go because he can’t be looked after where they are sending him, as they have got nothing to feed them because they were starving before the war. This source could be reliable as it shows a parents feelings and opinions whose son should have been evacuated. Though the source may not be useful as it can’t be used for factual information, it only shows one mans opinions. This man also has the wrong idea that people in the country were starving. Other parents may be more willing to send their children because they don’t have this impression of country people.
The evacuees were sent to reception centres were they were placed with local families. Many evacuees found that they could not settle in the countryside. The people from the country were appalled by the children’s bad hygiene. Some people reported children ‘fouling’ gardens, lice-ridden hair, and bed-wetting.
Source D again another photograph, issued by the government, also limited in its usefulness this photo could have been released by the government as propaganda, a way to promote evacuation. The photo shows ‘happy’ children at bath time at one of the reception centres.
The majority of children were not happy about being evacuated, some hated the idea. Source C contrasts with source D. A teacher accounts the walk to the station with the convoy of children, “All you could hear where the feet of children and a kind of murmur, because the children where too afraid to talk”. This source tells us that the trip to the station was not at all a glorious occasion as Source B shows.
The evacuees would go around the house urinating on walls, they would never use the toilet. The evacuees took no notice when told that this was wrong and many houses “stunk to high heaven”.
However, not all evacuees were lower class, many of them where familiar with the countryside. Even so, it was just as hard for them to settle into the countryside as it was for the other children. Source G, a passage from a Novel entitled “Carries War” enforces this. In the passage the foster parent tells the evacuees to get their slippers, and the evacuees try to explain that they did not have space to pack them but tell the woman “we haven’t any”. The woman became embarrassed and presumed that they are poor and could not afford slippers, the children giggled to themselves.
The evacuated teachers jobs were now full time. Not only did they have to teach the children as best they could, but they also had to act as surrogate parents to those who were unhappy in their new surroundings. Yet, aided by the parents and clergymen, the children’s education was able to continue. At school, the country and towns children eventually learned to get along. In the end the fights became a ritual and were much enjoyed. Some made new friends, sometimes for life. However some were not so lucky.
Some children were separated from their brothers and sisters, and many more from their friends. Most of the children would have been lonely and would have had no one to talk to. Some were put into homes of a different social class to their own, and had to learn to behave differently. Foster family’s spoke a strange accent and took them to a strange house where they ate strange food, before falling into a lonely and strange bed. Some were excluded from their foster family’s. The child evacuees were sometimes treated differently to their foster parents children, and were sometimes resented as a burden.
“Evacuation was a great success.” This statement is true in some areas but not in others. It was a success for evacuees living in slum areas because it focused the attention on poverty. Country people were shocked to see the suffering from a lack of nutrition, clothing and cleanliness, so the government successfully distributed food more equally, which brought an end to the malnutrition of so many.
Evacuation was a success because it caused the government to change Britain into a welfare state. National healthcare was set up after the war. They tried to help people of a lower class. In some ways the people of Britain benefited from evacuation, facing a common danger, people of different classes and backgrounds learned to talk to each other and work together. However evacuation wasn’t a success for many people living in the country. Thousands of evacuees caused an invasion of the country. Some people were made homeless in the country because they would rather move out of their homes than take in evacuees. It was a partial failure for the government because the government propaganda caused near panic rather than controlled movement. They also pressured many people living in reception areas into taking in evacuees, even if they didn’t want to. This resulted in many foster parents mistreating their evacuees. The government also failed to persuade parents to keep evacuees in the reception areas during the phoney war. Although they did achieve their main aim: 1.5 million people were moved and saved from bombing. So I agree that the evacuation was a success.
EVACUATION COURSEWORK – Q3
Looking at source I evacuation after 1940 was a failure. The source shows what a father thinks of evacuation after 1940. He opposes evacuation and believes that his 7-year-old boy cannot be looked after where he is being sent. This source should be reliable as the source states the father’s exact words.
At a higher level for Britain evacuation was successful in making people more aware of each other. The problem of poverty was brought to Britain’s attention. Source A shows this as it is basically saying that the rich were shocked at the state of the poor. Source E, F and I also back this up by saying that the rich were not used to poorly behaved poor people. Also parents weren’t letting their children evacuate because of the difference in lifestyle of the hosts.
In conclusion some aspects of the evacuation process were a success. It was a great success in some ways because if it had never occurred thousands more people would have died in the war. The preparation of evacuation was the main stage of evacuation that went well. However, evacuation may be seen as unsuccessful as the Phoney War saw a major return to the towns and during the Blitz few were evacuated.
“Evacuation was a great success”. Do you agree with this statement?
Use your own knowledge and the sources provided.
Despite the government propaganda, which contributed to the efficient way in which children were evacuated, many parents refused to allow their children to leave. Some parents did not even consider evacuating their children due to preconceived ideas. Source E highlights this; the man being interviewed would not send his child away as he thought that “ they can’t be looked after where they’re sending them”. This man, like many other citizens had preconceptions of the countryside such as “they’ve nothing there; they were starving there before the war” Many children who were evacuated returned home, some because they were unhappy and some because their parents did not see the need for them to remain there because of the ‘phoney war’ in which no bombs were dropped on cities. This meant that they would be back in danger zones, which was not a success from the government’s point of view.
The actual transportation of the children was very well organised; the children were all registered in advance and were put onto the trains efficiently. Source A depicts evacuees walking to the station in London. This suggests that evacuation was well-ordered as all the children are walking in an orderly fashion; they are all smiling and a few are waving. This shows that the children were content in being evacuated. However one must take into account the fact that the source is a photograph hence it could have been staged. Source B contradicts this and suggests that evacuation was a nerve-racking experience for the children involved as they were “too afraid to talk”. The source also states that the children didn’t know where they were going; this is a negative factor as it would cause angst amongst the children and suggests disorganisation.
As well as simply the organisation and official objectives behind evacuation; there are other aspects which one must consider. Many children gained a lot of new experiences and there were many long-term benefits. Some long-term benefits include broadened horizons of the children, increased understanding between classes and a raised awareness of urban poverty. Many country dwellers did not know how city children lived and evacuation was an opportunity for them to find out. Source C, an extract from ‘Carrie’s War’ by Nina Bowden highlights a misconception about evacuees as the child in the novel says “ she thinks we’re poor children, too poor to afford slippers”. However this source is not really a primary source, as although it is based on reality, it is a fictitious novel. A lot of evacuees had positive experiences such as enjoying healthier, safer surroundings than the cities as well as developing a life-long love of the countryside. On the other hand some children were just treated like servants by their foster families or made to feel very unwelcome. These children experienced some of the negative factors of country life. Many of the foster families had negative experiences such as bad-mannered children or children with poor personal hygiene. These experiences are both positive and negative; although they were unpleasant, they resulted in raised awareness of urban children’s welfare. This raised awareness of poverty resulted in the introduction of the Welfare State Shortly after W.W.II.
Many foster families and evacuees enjoyed the experience of evacuation and treasured memories of it for many years. The evacuees were predominantly grateful, Source D, a government advertisement suggests that the foster families were “doing a real service for the nation”; this evokes patriotism and causes people to come together and help each other, which is another positive outcome of evacuation. This advertisement encouraged people to take in evacuees thus making the arrangements easier and more orderly, increasing the successfulness of evacuation.
When looking at all the evidence available to us it is clear that although evacuation was not a “great” success as there were a great deal of setbacks, such as the children who did not go and children who returned home it was quite successful as the government did secure the objective of reducing civilian casualties. Many other benefits were as a result of evacuation and it was an enlightening experience for all those concerned. There were a few negative effects for certain individuals but as a whole, this nation benefited from evacuation.
“Evacuation was a great success!” Do you agree or disagree with this interpretation? Use sources and your own knowledge to explain your answer.
Evacuation was introduced because Britain was at war with Germany and they expected the Germans to bomb Britain. There were three main evacuation periods. The first started on September 1st 1939 and was called ‘The Phoney War’; this first wave of evacuation took place because Britain expected air raids. The second period ranged from May to December 1940. This second wave was taken due to heavy bombing warnings, the Blitz started shortly after evacuation started. The third period of evacuation was from July to September 1944, and this was because the Germans had developed flying bombs and ‘v2’ rockets, which were both devastating weapons. People who were evacuated were school children, mothers and young children, blind and disabled people and teachers.
The government tried to encourage evacuation by the use of propaganda. Source B is a photograph from the start of evacuation. It shows evacuee’s walking to a train station. They are all smiling and look happy. We cannot fully trust this source because it may be a staged photo used by the government for propaganda. Source D is another photograph, showing that evacuees were clean and happy people, but we cannot trust this source because it says it was issued by the government, so it is propaganda. Source H is a poster telling hosts that evacuee’s are very thankful for volunteering to let evacuees stay with them. It shows some success but also the need for more hosts. The government also used posters, leaflets and messages on the radio to encourage evacuation.
The government’s evacuation campaign was not greatly successful. In the 1st wave of evacuation, 1.8 million people should have been evacuated from London, but actually only 36% of this number did. 3.6 million people should have been evacuated from provinces, but only 33% were evacuated. Also, by Christmas 1939, 90% of evacuated mothers and children had returned home and overall 60% of all evacuees had returned home. The 2nd and 3rd waves of evacuation were also not a success. In the 2nd wave only a small amount of children were evacuated from danger zones, about 200,000 in all. The 3rd wave was a complete failure, more bombs were dropped in 3 months than in the whole of 1943, yet there was no demand for evacuation, and people had a ‘stay put’ attitude. So evacuation was not a great success for the government.
Success in evacuation was limited because many mothers had a ‘better we all die together’ attitude and some people hated the countryside so they had no wish to be evacuated to the country.
Source A tells us that arrangement did not go smoothly and evacuation was unorganised. This source has been written for a British school textbook and was written in i988, so the source is reliable and can be trusted because the author will have gotten lots of evidence from lots of other sources, he has lots of facts and has no need to exaggerate. Source I is from an interview with a father from South end with a 7 year old boy. It has been written in May 1940, but before the heavy bombing started. It cannot be trusted because it took place before the bombing started so his opinion could have changed.
Sources 7 and 8 suggest that the evacuation process was well organised and a success. The children on the trains are all smiling and are happy, and the children walking to the station also look happy. The government leaflet on evacuation: why and how, suggests that evacuation was well organised, it says that all children were evacuated to safer places called reception areas. Whereas source C suggest that it wasn’t, it says people had no idea where they were going. The source comes from an interview with a teacher in 1988. This source cannot be fully trusted because it is only her memories and is only one viewpoint
Some sources suggest that evacuation was well organised when evacuee’s got there. For example, in the Internet sheet, a 5-year-old evacuee described his experience; he says that he enjoyed himself, and enjoyed his 2 – 3 years in Wales, and that the host wanted to adopt him. Another example of where evaluation was a success was from a rich host who says that her 6 male evacuees’s made the war bearable and enjoyable.
There is a lot of information about why the evacuation process was unorganised. Source 11 in the blue pamphlet tells us about the terrible and traumatising was in which evacuee’s were picked to go with people. There were also a lot of problems with manners, habits and social mismatches. Source E is from an interview from the mother of a host family, she says that the children and mother evacuees urinated on the floor and when told not to, they ignored them. It was written in 1988, and cannot be fully trusted because the woman may have forgot some key points and these are only her memories so are only one viewpoint. Source F is from an interview with an evacuee. It tells us that it was quite upsetting for wealthy evacuees to end up in semi slums and visa versa; this was caused by the rudimentary selection of evacuees by hosts. The source is from 1988 and again cannot be fully trusted because the evacuee may have forgotten something and it is only his or her memory, and is only one viewpoint. Source G shows a misconception between hosts and evacuee’s. The host assumes that they are poor children, because they have no slippers with them, it was written in 1973 for a children’s novel, so we have to be careful because it is a storybook. There are some facts but as it is a story perhaps the author exaggerates and dramatises some of the feelings.
Another fact that that evacuation wasn’t organised properly for when evacuee’s got to where they were going is that they were used for cheap labour and some were beaten, and many got very homesick. Cynthia Gillet described her experience of evacuation as terrible, she was evacuated twice and was beaten and worked. Another girl described her experience with a rich family as unhappy, she got very homesick and returned home a few months later. Source L also tells us of brutality towards evacuee’s, other children would gang up on them in the playground.
The successes were that evacuation saved thousands of lives and up to the end of 1942, only 27 children evacuated from London were injured, which was a tiny amount compared to the casualties of the people who stayed. Many evacuees saw world outside of the cities and many loved the countryside. It also highlighted poverty and the slum conditions people were living in. The failures though were that only 36% of people who should have been evacuated from London were evacuated and only 33% of people from provinces were evacuated; a lot of people weren’t evacuated. Other failures were when the government tried to introduce a second wave of evacuation, response was very limited. In conclusion, evacuation was partly a success because of the lives it saved, but it partly failed because only a small majority of people who should have been evacuated were, and because of the haphazard placement of evacuees with hosts, most evacuees hated the countryside and returned home.