Middle class children were also evacuated from target areas to the countryside. Whilst the majority of middle-class children placed with a middle-class family would find the evacuation pleasant, the real clash in personalities was if a middle-class child was placed with a working-class family. Source F shows this clash when a former evacuee states that it was upsetting “for a clean and well-educated child to find itself in a grubby semi-slum”. Whereas a middle-class child would have been used to having people do their work for them, working-class families often asked the evacuees to work either doing chores or helping in the family business as an act of gratitude to the parents. Source 14 shows this idea well as the middle-class evacuee says that whilst he had to wash the slabs in the host family’s business, he “had never been asked to help [his] father in his bank”. He then goes onto state that they ate thick slices of bread which he had often seen his maids eating. This shows that it may have been hard for the boy to become accustomed to living with this family which may have caused tension.
The hosts that took children in came from a large range of social backgrounds from the very poor to the peers. Families from every background volunteered to take evacuees into their home as they believed that they were helping their country with the war effort and saving the children from harm. Working class hosts often struggled with feeding all the people as they had very little to spend and so an extra person would have pushed their limited budget. As stated above, to make up for this addition to their family, the evacuees in working-class host families were often expected to work their share. However, the opinions of the working-class hosts were often ones of praise for the evacuees. Middle-class families did not struggle as much with the finances, and after the initial adjustment by both the host and the evacuee, the majority of middle-class families enjoyed the company and entertainment the evacuees brought with them.
The upper-class sometimes took large numbers of evacuees into their large homes as part of the war effort. These evacuees would often not see the actual host, i.e. the member of the upper-class, much at all during their evacuation as in the majority of cases; the evacuees were looked after by the servants of the house. Source 18 shows that newspaper found this happening amusing enough for it to be used as a cartoon as it shows several working class children surrounded by two smartly dressed servants and a Lord and emphasises the class differences between the host and the evacuee. However, the higher classes sometimes found the evacuees pleasant company, as shown in Source 17 where a ‘rich woman’ states that her evacuees make the war “enjoyable”.
A reason that had mixed views between the evacuees was the host family’s biological children. Whilst these children may have got along, especially if they were close in age, it is possible that the biological child often resented the fact that there were other children living in their house. This is acknowledged in the passage by Sarah Elizabeth Shaw Quinlan when she says that in the second house they stayed, the five year old son woke the evacuees by “spitting on their faces” and “hitting” them. This shows just some of the jealousy that the biological family could feel during the evacuation period as they may not get as much attention as they previously did.
The Government used propaganda during the war to encourage evacuation to continue to be successful. Source H shows one example of propaganda in the form of an advertisement issued in 1940. The main aim of this poster is to encourage more families to become host families, and tries to promote the advantages of becoming one by using phrases such as “out of a danger-zone” and “You may be saving a child’s life”. Those would make families seriously consider taking evacuees in as they did not want to see children getting hurt in the war. The poster was produced in 1940 meaning that the Blitz had probably begun which would mean that families would have heard news of the bomb blasts meaning that their opinion could have changed now that they knew there was a real danger of people getting hurt.
Source 19 is also a piece of propaganda produced to try and convince parents to leave their children in the countryside. A ghostly image of Adolf Hitler is whispering in a mother’s ear “Take them back! Take them back!” This poster was also produced in 1940, but I believe it was produced before the Blitz began and when parents began to doubt whether bombing would take place or not.
As well as the Government Evacuation Scheme, many families took part in private evacuations. These were identical to the government evacuation except for the fact that the child’s parents communicated directly with the host in order to negotiate private terms of the evacuation. One example of a private evacuation is that of Angela Sexton whose experiences were written down under the title “The Experiences of an Evacuee”. Angela states that she took part in a private evacuation from Sussex to Yorkshire. Angela’s mother handpicked the family which would look after her throughout the evacuation as she wanted Angela to have a father figure, and so picked the Dransfield family as Mr. Dransfield had been deafened during the First World War and so could not fight. Each of the people involved in this evacuation had a different view of the policy. Mrs. Dransfield is described as “extremely strict” and found Angela as “an intruder”, whereas Mr. Dransfield is said to have loved Angela.
Although the majority of the country embraced evacuation as a sign of patriotism and helping the war effort, there were some parents who refused to evacuate their children. An example of this is Source I where a father does not let his son be evacuated as they would send him to a place that couldn’t feed its own population before the war. Another reason he gives is that if he died, there would be plenty of people to care for him in the town that are “family and friends”.
In conclusion, there were many different reactions to the policy of evacuation when it was announced. Whilst some people did not integrate with the new people in their lives, the majority of people involved with the evacuation process happily adjusted to their new way of life.
For hosts, it was seen as the patriotic thing to do for their country and for the children it did not take long for them to get used to their new surroundings. However, there were some people who either disagreed with the policy or did not find the process enjoyable due to differences, either because of social gaps or because of a lack of commitment and enthusiasm to the cause.