The government therefore decided to try and create a positive image for the parents to have, and the sources that we are given clearly illustrate this. There is no unhappiness shown amongst the parents in source B; in fact, they seem quite cheery during this, the first wave of evacuation. They are shown the conditions in which their children will be living in source D; hygiene will be good, the children will be kept clean, good facilities will be provided, certainly better than those in the bomb risk areas, and children will stay among their friends. Source J shows how much happier and safer the children will be away from the danger of air bombing, despite the possibility of them getting through. Since the children will be happy, then the adults themselves should also be happy. Education will be continued, and the same teachers kept the provide continuity. The government also used a guilt tactic in propaganda posters, by saying that if parents did not evacuate their children to the countryside (during the period of time known as the Phoney War), then they would be helping Hitler. But not only were there shown to be good aspects for the children and parents (and by result, the government), but also for the foster parents. Sources F and G agree that not all the children are from the slums, and they could very well be clean and well educated. They will be well clothed and already well looked after. The ideal foster parent is shown as being kind and understanding of their supposed social standing. However, it was not meant to be difficult to perform this essential role in evacuation; it was simple to take in a child (!). The children were all lovely, and although they might not have shown their gratitude openly, Source H assures us that they meant it on the inside. It was a countryperson’s patriotic duty to take in a child, since it was service for the nation and the right thing to do, since they could do their bit for the war effort, and could even improve the child’s health.
However, despite all the positive aspects of assisting the evacuation process, as portrayed by the government, there were also many negative aspects, which the government itself recognised. For example, people were generally reluctant to foster, and these negative issues had to be addressed. Some bombers were known to be able to get through the British defences, and this was expected. The government addressed these fears by issuing propaganda. The children too disliked the process, since the immense culture shock meant that they found it difficult to settle. They were afraid of the unknown, since they did not know to where they were to be billeted off. The children were apparently very disturbed, troubled slum children, and unused to sanitation. The experiences of evacuation varied widely, but unfortunately the stereotypical experience was the most commonly known view, and so bad experiences ensued. Some children were used to better living standards than those provided by the host families, because not all evacuees were from the same background. The children felt that they had lost their identity, and were just a number, referred to impersonally. In some cases, there were many differences between their home and their foster parents’ house; the house was too cold, the cooking wasn’t nice, and the whole lifestyle was totally different. The children’s mother might not visit often either, since there were other, war related priorities to take care of.
Some parents also thought negatively of evacuation, and this can be proved by many accounts from the time. Parents were not allowed to accompany their child, there was forced separation, and there is a clear visual image of parents being kept behind locked gates whilst their children were taken to goodness knows where, and the mothers calling goodbyes to their children. Many parents in the towns were fearful and suspicious of the country folk, thinking there to be mass unemployment and starvation in the countryside. They did not want to send their child into the unknown, since they didn’t know where the children were being sent to, for security’s sake; instead, they wanted their child to stay with someone whom they knew. Many parents were also embarrassed to send their child, since they were poorly equipped and had few clothes; they feared separation, since they did not know who would take care of the child if the parent died. They preferred to stay together in family groups, and die together if necessary, rather than abandon a child to the unknown. They also feared the so-called ‘safe areas’ being threatened by the Blitz.
Some of the foster parents too hated the idea of being forced to take care of some unknown child. The traditional view of the evacuees was that they were a nuisance, they caused difficulty and had health problems, such as lice, bed wetting and bad manners. They were thought to all come from poverty and deprivation, and to have no respect for the foster families’ homes; foster parents were warned to not expect thanks for work. Since the foster parents would have no idea about a child’s cultural background, there was also awkwardness expected. The foster parents had obvious pre-conceptions of what the children would be like, and therefore the evacuees were given no chance to explain their social situation.
In conclusion, I believe that the government tried to portray a positive view of a evacuation, but not even the huge amounts of propaganda could dent the stereotypical view of evacuation; a view which is still held today. The parents were scared by the events going on, but I think it is mostly because of the bad previous experiences of evacuation that took place during the Phoney War.
