Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature Teaching English Language and Literature for Secondary Schools

Kateřina Svídová

The Evacuation of British Schoolchildren During WWII and its Portrayal in Literature Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: prof. Mgr. Milada Franková, CSc., M.A.

2016

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Author’s signature

I would like to thank to my supervisor prof. Mgr. Milada Franková, CSc., M.A. for her steadfast support.

The thesis would not have been written without her endless patience and kind encouragement.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

2. Preparation of Evacuation 3

3. Waves of Evacuation 6

3.1 The First Evacuation 6

3.1.1 Evacuation Day 8

3.1.2 Problematic Issues of the First Evacuation 15

3.1.3 The First Evacuation – Success or Not? 32

3.2 The Second Evacuation 33

3.2.1 Evacuation of the Channel Islands 34

3.2.2 The Differences of the Second Evacuation 36

3.3 The Third Evacuation 43

3.3.1 The Differences of the Third Evacuation 44

3.3.2 Coming Back Home 45

4. Taking Part in the Evacuation 46

4.1 Teachers 46

4.2 Billeting Officers and WVS 47

4.3 Foster Parents 47

4.4 Parents 49

4.5 Evacuated Children 51

5. Life of Evacuees 54

5.1 Types of Accommodation 54

5.2 Food 55

5.3 Clothing 56

5.4 Doing Their Bit 57

5.5 Education 58

5.6 Spare Time 59

5.7 Novelty of the Life in the Countryside 61

6. The Impact of the Evacuation 63

6.1 Social Consequences of the Evacuation 63

6.2 Coming Home 65

6.3 Changed Personalities 68

6.4 Did the Experiment Work? 69

7. Portrayal of the Evacuation of Children in Literature 72

7.1 Brief Introduction of Chosen Authors and Their Books 72

7.2 An Analysis of the Chosen Books 75

7.2.1 The Evacuation Day 75

7.2.2 Problematic Issues of the Evacuation 82

7.2.3 Taking Part in the Evacuation 86

7.2.4 Life of Evacuees 101

7.2.5 Impact of the Evacuation 108

8. Conclusion 110

9. Works Cited 113

10. Summary 115

11. Resumé 116

1. Introduction

A lot of people are familiar with the medieval tale about the town of Hamelin.

All of a sudden all the children disappeared and the town was stripped of their games, hollering and laughter. Though someone may think that the decision to call the evacuation plan of city children during WWII the Operation Pied Piper gives the whole scheme an eerie atmosphere, the operation had very similar consequences as the actions of the legendary Pied Piper in medieval Hamelin. Out of the blue many British parents of the children from cities and industrial towns experienced the same loss as the parents from the German tale. However, the British children were not taken away for good by a mysterious stranger, their temporary evacuation was proposed by the government in order to move them from danger zones to the safe ones.

This thesis aims to describe the unique phenomenon of the evacuation of British children during WWII and to provide an analysis of three books of fiction covering the topic of the evacuation. In order to do so, the thesis consists of two main parts. The first half of the thesis gives factual background which is necessary for the understanding and analysing of the three chosen books. It also provides the reader with numerous testimonies of real evacuees. The second half picks up on the issues from the factual part and explores how they are reflected in the analyzed books. It is important to stress that this thesis focuses exclusively on children who were evacuated on their own and were not accompanied by their mothers as was the case for very young children.

As far as the structure of the thesis is concerned, the second chapter, describing the gradual preparation of the evacuation scheme, is followed by a chapter defining and comparing various waves of the evacuation. There were three waves which chronologically copied the shifting level of danger that Britain was exposed to by the

1

Nazi regime. The very first wave of the evacuation is presented in a very detailed manner, exploring all the aspects that were typical of the first evacuation. The other subchapters, commenting on the second and third wave, focus on the differences from the first wave of the evacuation.

The fourth chapter elaborates the extra efforts and sacrifices made by evacuation´s main protagonists, i.e. the teachers, billeting officers, foster parents, parents and last but not least, the evacuated children. Since the main focal point of the thesis are children and their experience of the evacuation, chapter number five is devoted solely to this aspect and describes what life of the evacuees looked like, be it food, clothing, education, spare time etc.

Chapter number six tries to show the impact of the evacuation. Even though the effects of the evacuation on British society are mentioned and a connection with the

Welfare State is identified, the issue is not explored very deeply. On the other hand, the impact of the evacuation on individuals and their families is given a more detailed treatment.

The analytical part of the thesis comes with the seventh chapter. It briefly introduces the authors and reveals that all the three authors, i.e. Ken Chadwick, Nina

Bawden and Michael Morpurgo had their own experience with the war time evacuation as children. Their books can be therefore considered for not only fiction but partly also memoirs. As stated before, the structure of the analysis roughly copies the most important chapters from the factual part of the thesis. It is especially designed in this way so that it is apparent to the reader how much the actual events are mirrored in the works of fiction.

2

2. Preparation of Evacuation

Given the fact that Britain lost 1 400 civilians in air raids during the First World

War, it is hardly surprising that the possible threat of another wave of air attacks had to be addressed in the post-Great-War times (Brown, Evacuees 1). One of the outcomes of

WWI were huge advancements in technology which besides other things allowed planes to reach farther destinations. Such scientific developments endangered Britain's long- time security given by its distance from the European continent.

The very first official body whose task was to deal with the newly arisen problem of air attacks was the Air Raid Precautions (ARP) Committee, formed in 1921.

This committee identified London as the main target of possible air strikes and formed two presumptions: “that it would be impossible to relocate most of the activities normally carried out in London, and that the nation could not continue to exist if bombing forced these activities to cease” (Brown, Evacuees 1). Moreover, the committee stressed out the undermining effect of civilian losses on the nation's morale and at the same time emphasized that restrictions or orders concerning individuals´movement cannot be extensive in democratic society (Brown, Evacuees 1).

It was therefore proposed that any removal of civilians from the capital city should include only a part of society and that any kind of evacuation should be entirely voluntary and people should be only encouraged to move from their homes. The part of society singled out for evacuation were women, children, the elderly and the sick

(Brown, Evacuees 1). The committee proposed that more detailed evacuation schemes would be designed by the Ministries of Health and Transport and the Boards of

Education and Trade. The committee also advised that the plans be focused on the poorest residents because it was assumed that wealthier families would make their own evacuation arrangements (Brown, Evacuees 1). However, not all members of the

3

committe had only charitable intentions in mind as far as helping the poor Londoners was concerned. As Brown discloses, some members of the committee “believed that after bombing the poor would flock to the wealthier areas and loot them wholesale”

(Brown, Evacuees 2). It was not until 1934 when other cities, apart from London, were also considered in terms of evacuation.

The politically turbulent 1930´s proved that the idea of another war conflict was not unrealistic and the prospect of it rushed British government to elaborate on evacuation schemes in more details. The government decided that the Ministry of

Health would be responsible for the evacuation and appointed Sir John Anderson as the head of the Committee on Evacuation in May 1938 (Brown, Evacuees 3). The

Committee´s first accomplishment was the decision that evacuation should be centered mainly on children. As J.B.S. Haldane from ARP explained, the reason behind that decision was simple: “There is one class of the community which could be evacuated at very short notice, and with very little difficulty. These are the school children, and particularly the elementary school children. They are accustomed to obey their teachers, at least up to a point” (Brown, Evacuees 3).

The committee had to tackle two major problems which were not dealt with by any previous scheme on evacuation. The first issue was to determine what to do with the evacuees when they left evacuation areas. It was decided that accommodation and care would be provided by private households in reception areas. In order to ensure that no household tried to avoid billeting an evacuee, the Committee made billeting compulsory. Due to the voluntary basis of the evacuation, the second issue was how to bolster parents´ motivation to send their children away. So Anderson´s committee proposed that children would be evacuated school by school, under the supervision of their teachers, and the expenses would be entirely covered by the British government

4

(Brown, Evacuees 4). Furthermore, the committee divided the whole country into three zones, i.e. evacuation, reception and neutral. It is worth mentioning that the scheme was immediately criticized by some politicians who were afraid of the impact of poor urban evacuees on the peaceful life of country folks, and proposed to accommodate the evacuees in camps instead of private households: “some rural MPs began complaining about the expected dire effects on their constituents of being compelled to take in, as one put it, ‘the dregs of London.’ Some proposed large camps as a better plan” (Holman

10). However, the Ministry of Health resisted the calls for sending evacuees into camps and supported Anderson committee's suggestion that private homes with foster parents are more suitable for evacuees´ well-being. Consequently, all of the above mentioned proposals for the evacuation scheme were accepted by the Committee for Imperial

Defence in September 1938 (Brown, Evacuees 4).

Preparations for the evacuation intensified in 1939 when the government was informed by local authorities that there are available 4 800 000 billets available (Brown,

Evacuees 8). Additionally, mothers who wanted to use the evacuation scheme were asked to register by the end of May. Some schools rehearsed the evacuation drill which included the collection of children from assembly points and getting them to railway stations (Brown, Evacuees 10).

It is important to stress the importance of the Women's Voluntary Service

(WVS) and the Women's Institute. Both organisations, with some assistance of Girl

Guides´, helped to organise evacuation on regional level and made sure that everything is prepared for the arrival of the evacuees (Brown, Evacuees 4).

5

3. Waves of Evacuation

3.1 The First Evacuation

Teachers were informed by the Ministry of Health on 24th August that they should quit their holidays and report back at work on 26th August. They were also warned that the information about the actual start of the evacuation may not come sooner than twelve hours before the initiation (Brown, Evacuees 11). It was obvious that the threat of a new war was in the air and evacuation became imminent. In order to avoid possible blunders and practise the evacuation drill, the majority of soon to be evacuated schools rehearsed the evacuation. Even though some schools rehearsed it two weeks before the real event happened, most of the schools took part in a massive rehearsal that took place on 28th August. Children had to bring all the necessities, i. e. a gas mask and luggage. Teachers then checked whether they were sufficiently equipped and at some schools children were asked to run with gas masks on. Furthermore, teachers were informed where exactly to board their means of evacuation e.g. a train, coach or even a steamer (Brown, Evacuees 12). Everyone seemed to be ready for the evacuation except the British government which still hesitated with issuing the official order.

When Germany tried to politically subdue Poland on 29th August, pressing it to accept outrageous and humiliating demands, the prospect of a next war reached the next level. It was on that day that the British government was pushed by the opposition to start the evacuation. However, the government resisted the pressure until 31st

August, when it was finally decided that the evacuation would take place on the following day. Politicians still hoped that the war is not unavoidable, they did not want to scare British people and intimidate the Germans, so the following message was put out by the Ministry of Health: “It has been decided to start evacuation of the 6

schoolchildren and other priority classes as already arranged under the Government's scheme tomorrow, Friday, September 1. No one should conclude that this decision means that war is now regarded as inevitable” (Brown, Evacuees 13). A straightforward message “Piped Piper Tomorrow” was given to school headmasters and a never seen before organized relocation of three and half million people was about to commence

(Welshman, Churchill´s Children 42).

Perhaps one of the parents´ last worries before sending their children away was to ensure that their children's luggage was packed properly and contained all the recommended necessities. A leaflet published by the government informed parents what items should not be missing in children's luggage: “Each child should have a handbag or case containing the child's gas mask, a change of underclothing, night clothes, house shoes or plimsolls, spare stockings or socks, a toothbrush, a comb, towel, soap and face cloth, handkerchiefs; and, if possible, a warm coat or mackintosh”

(Brown, Evacuees 15). Additionally, every child was allowed to bring one toy with him or her. Welshman describes what an evacuated boy from Gillingham in Kent had with him in the morning of the evacuation:

He had arrived wearing his school cap, blazer, and tie, but also with a label with

his name, form, and school written on it. A cardboard box containing a gas-mask

was slung over his shoulder on a piece of string, and in his pocket was a postcard

to send back on arrival at his new home. In the small case he carried were a

change of underclothes, pyjamas, slippers, spare socks, towel, toothbrush, knife,

fork, and spoon, mug, plate, handkerchiefs, mackintosh, and some food. … The

suitcase had been bought at Woolworth, especially for the occasion (Welshman

39, 40).

7

One does not have to think twice to decide about the social background of the boy from Kent. He was apparently a son of better off parents, judging from the fact that he had all those clothes and a suitcase from a department store. Children from poorer families often did not even have all the types of clothing listed in the governmental leaflet and their luggage was much more modest. As Welshman illustrates all the physical forms of containers that evacuated children had, it is easy to spot those that probably belonged to poor or slum children: “suitcases, attache cases, pillowcases, rucksacks, and parcels of every shape and size had to be securely fastened and labelled”

(Churchill´s Children 35, 36).

3.1.1 Evacuation Day

Saying Goodbye

When the painful time of saying goodbye came, it looks as if it was the children who looked on the brighter side of the evacuation: “misgivings about leaving home were balanced by thoughts that at least many of their friends were going to, and it was likely to be one big adventure” (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 41). Maggie Quinn, who was four years old when evacuated with her mother and brother, gives her recollection of the 1st September: “trainloads of excited children and anxious teachers waved goodbye to tearful parents” (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 41). Even though it was the parents who were more emotional on that day, they found a similar comfort like their children, the comfort of sharing emotions with other people. Welshman argues that the feeling of unity prevailed and parents found comfort in the fact that it is not only their child who is being sent away. Moreover, the disciplined conduct of teachers, thanks to whom it seemed that everything was under control, soothed the parents´

8

tormented souls. Judith Grunfeld, a head teacher of an evacuated school, outlines the saying goodbye scene, when children were leaving the school precinct:

Outside in the street the mothers were crowding; they shed tears, they waved and

sent their loving encouraging smiles. They did not make a scene, they just

looked and they prayed inwardly; they were as if stunned. But to see so many

children marching together looked comforting, after all … The teachers

appeared young and disciplined and many of them applied cheerful discipline

with a smile (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 42, 43).

A rare account of how fathers felt about being separated from their children is given by Mary Collins, who was evacuated from London to Devon. She describes what the early morning farewell with her father looked like:

My mother took me to the station. My father wouldn't´come. As I left home with

a gas mask hanging around my neck, a name tag pinned to my coat, and enough

food to last me for five days, he lifted me up and hugged me tight, squashing my

nose against his shoulder. He never spoke a word. As I walked along the street, I

looked back and he was watching me from our upstairs window. I waved but he

didn't wave back. He looked funny, all sad and stern, blinking a lot. I couldn't

think what was the matter with him (Inglis 37).

The emotional distress that parents had to go through is something unforgettable for

Sylvia Woodeson, who helped out as an evacuation courier in the East End. She remembers the sorrow of mothers who had to part with their children:

What I recall most vividly were the mothers trying to hold back their tears as

they marched these little boys and girls in their gas masks into the centre where

my brother, Sidney, was trying to round them up. The children were wild with

excitement but most mums were pale and drawn, no doubt wondering when

9

they'd see their sons and daughters again. It was certainly the first time the

mothers had been parted from their schoolchildren. Very close families were the

order of the day in Bow. No one had to tell you about the value of family life in

the East End then because, quite frankly, we didn't know anything else (Inglis

13, 14).

Especially important is how she stresses the importance of family life for poor people.

It suggests that when their children were evacuated, they lost the only treasure they had, the meaning and joy of their lives.

After the assembly of children at schools or at other gathering places, they were led by their teachers to a point where they boarded all sorts of vehicles that took them to reception areas. The most common means of transport was a train, followed by a bus.

Michael Aspel, an evacuee from London, remembers his walk to the nearest railway station, which was made special by the numbers of people who were watching the passing-by children and by random acts of strangers´ kindness: “We marched through the streets of Wandsworth, just as we´d done before, with labels round our necks, heading for the railway station. Only this time people stood on their doorsteps to watch us pass, the shopkeepers gave us sweets and packets of nuts and raisins” (Inglis 7).

Travelling

As far as children's knowledge about the place they were going to be evacuated to is concerned, only a minority of children was told about their final destination. It was a small fraction of schools that displayed the billeting destination at the end of the assembly, before leaving school gates and moving to railway stations (Welshman,

Churchill´s Children 41). The rest of the children knew nothing. The only exception were Scottish children, who were not evacuated as school parties and they usually knew

10

their destination beforehand (Inglis 2). Lacking information did not limit children's imagination, quite the contrary. Memories of Jenny Chaplin suggest that there was a lot of confusion among evacuated children and they killed the travelling time by making up wild rumours about not ever coming back or being kidnapped by the Nazis (Holman

16). There was an unexpected joyous element about those journeys made by trains, buses or boats. And that was the fact that the evacuation gave the poor children the first chance in their lives to travel outside their hometown, an evacuee explains that “most of our school-mates had never before been out of Glasgow in their young lives, far less travelled on a boat” (Holman 16). An evacuation helper adds to the topic of novelty:

“Of course there were the inevitable tears and some of the kids were sick, and quite a few became very excited when we got into the country, as for many this was the first time they had ever been out of London” (Inglis 14).

The most exciting part of travelling on trains was going through tunnels, for the sudden darkness encouraged children to mischief. Inglis presents what Norah Hodgkin, evacuated when nearly six years old, risked to do in a tunnel's darkness: “she had the nerve to get up and poke her middle-aged schoolmistress to frighten her, thus impressing her friends who´d dared her to do so” (Inglis 15). Another delightful part of travelling to reception zones was munching on snacks given by parents or a paper bag of goodies, usually biscuits, chocolate and a piece of fruit, distributed as a special treat for the evacuees´ journey. No wonder that children often devoured all they were given and were sick afterwards. Inglis carries on with the story of Norah Hodgkin, who “was tickled to see that two of the bigger boys who had been gorging chocolate and oranges during the trip, came to grief when the taller of them had to use the hood of his friend's coat as a sick bag after all the piggery” (Inglis 15).

11

Nevertheless, despite all the new experiences and enjoying sweets, travelling evacuees became gradually bored because the journey to reception areas was often very long or there was a lot of waiting for connecting trains or buses. Teachers tried to keep the restless children busy by singing songs, however, that was entertaining only for a while and in the end all the members of the travelling party wished it had come to an end (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 54).

Yet, when the journey finished, teachers had to face something more unpleasant than a group of bored children. It was usually at terminal railway stations where teachers got hold of newspapers and found out that Poland had been invaded by

Germany and hence their stay with the children in the country would not be a temporary short time stay. Judith Grunfeld, a head teacher evacuated from London to

Biggleswade in Bedfordshire, describes her feelings when she found out about the news at a railways station: “Goodbye outing; goodbye adventure. This was the first cold grip on our heart. We hold the brown paper bag. It suddenly turns into a khaki bag with weapons of war in it. The sunshine loses its brilliance, while our eyes become sterner, the grip in our heart tightens” (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 58).

Concerning the overall outcome of relocating the huge masses of people, it was a great success. As Holman remarks, the majority of the evacuees reached their destination at the end of the 1st September, which, as he stresses, was achieved thanks to the immense effort of “the civil servants, local government officials, the teachers, the volunteers who travelled with the children, the Women's Voluntary Services who helped out at the stations, and the railway staff” (17).

12

Arrival to Billeting Areas

In order to be prepared for the big numbers of new incomers, all sorts of preparations were made in reception areas. Members of WVS collected used plates and mugs so that they had something to serve the refreshment in for the evacuees. Local farmers joined the preparations for the evacuees as well, by stuffing additional pillows and mattresses (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 53).

What happened after evacuees left trains and buses and arrived at their final destinations differed from place to place, e.g. evacuees in Lancaster were given emergency rations consisting of “a tin of corned beef, a Kit Kat, a tin of condensed milk, and some biscuits” shortly after their arrival. They were then taken to a reception centre (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 55). Frank Walsh, evacuated from Manchester, was given a different set of emergency rations: “tins of corned beef, small packs of butter, tea, and sugar, and large bars of chocolate”. He was then driven by a bus to his billeting village.

When evacuees reached the town or the village where they were about to be billeted, they were assembled in town or village halls. Holman mentions that some children were subjected to public medical examinations when their hair was inspected for lice and subsequently cut; Jenny Chaplin confided her memories to Holman and described how she felt about such a mortification:

Young as I was, it soon became clear to me that the high heid brain who had

masterminded the operation had obviously equated material poverty and a

working-class district in Glasgow with filth, vermin and neglect. So, following

this line of thinking, it was deemed essential that before we could be allocated to

our host homes where we could be welcome, we must first be de-loused. … I felt

sick as I watched this operation. Not only that, I felt dirty, degraded and finally,

13

very angry. Was it for this that Mammy had spend Daddy's hard earned money

on Derbac soap and the special steel comb, with which she industriously

searched our hair for nits and other such live-stock every Friday night? (20).

It is obvious that it was in those village and town halls when children had to face prejudices of countrymen. Those children came to the countryside with expectations of adventure, and if not friendly then certainly polite treatment. What some of them got was distrust and humiliation. On the other hand, other evacuees had much more pleasant memories of arriving to village halls. Mavis Kerr recollects the welcome at her billeting area: “there to greet us were two zinc baths, one was full of buns, which I later found out were saffron buns - I loved them - and one was full of lemonade” (Brown, Evacuees

71). Ken Walsh, who was evacuated from Manchester to a little village Catforth, had a very similar experience of feeling welcome in his new home: “Trestle tables with benches to sit on had been put up in the village hall. These were laden with sandwiches, cakes, and drinks for the children, and cups of tea and sandwiches for the teachers and helpers” (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 63). All that extra effort of local women and men tells a lot about their solidarity with evacuees. It also shows the power of a well running close-knit village or town community where people are used to help each other out and cooperate for the greater good of them all.

Selection Process

Even though the whole process of relocation went more or less smoothly, the real chaos came when the children were about to be collected by their foster families. A process that “became seared into the memories of evacuees” - foster parent´s selection of their boarders, started (Holman 18). The sad fact was that only some highly organized billeting officers managed to allocate evacuees to their new billets before

14

their arrival (Brown, Evacuees 77). The vast majority of children was put through a humiliating proceeding during which they were paraded in village halls in front of foster parents who picked whoever they fancied. And truly picky they could be. Holman reports memories of a woman whose husband helped with billeting the evacuated children: “He had asked if I would like girls or boys, dark or fair, blue eyes or brown. I

(smilingly) replied, two girls - fair hair and blue eyes, please” (18). Holman adds that her very specific wish was of course fulfilled. The fact that the selection process looked more like a sinister market with children than a charitable act was criticised by British historian Titmuss: “The war-time guests of the country were further aggrieved when, in many areas, they were walked or paraded around while householders took their pick.

Scenes reminiscent of a cross between an early Roman slave Market and Selfridge´s bargain basement ensued” (in Holman 19).

The selection of evacuees marked an end to a very busy and stressful day that was strenuous for all the people involved. Everyone getting up early, parents fetching children to schools, emotional farewells, teachers fretting about not losing any child, excited and later bored children, parents anxious about their children's well-being and happiness, children humiliated by the selection process and finally familiarising with foster parents and a new home. What a day. It seems almost unbelievable that such a daring act of movement of thousands of people was accomplished during twentyfour hours.

3.1.2 Problematic Issues of the First Evacuation

Two days after the first evacuation, on Sunday the 3rd September 1939, Walter

Elliot, the Minister of Health, made a speech which was broadcasted on the radio. He thanked all the people who made evacuation possible, i. e. evacuees, their parents,

15

teachers, foster families and all sorts of helpers and volunteers. He credited them with the success of the evacuation, envisioned that the trickier part of the evacuation was still ahead of them and that any troubles should be dealt with straight ahead:

The first bit of the task is over. The move has been made. That was the work of

the organisation. Now we have to tackle the second half - that is the adjustment

and settling in. That is infinitely important, and can be done by no organisation.

It has to be done by the people themselves, and only the good will and

imagination of the newcomers can really make it succeed. … Now we have to

look for the points of friction and clear them up as fast as possible (Welshman,

Churchill´s Children 57).

There were immense points of friction indeed, but most of them could not be tackled by evacuees´ good will. Those troublesome issues were the billeting system, mismatches of evacuees with foster families, effects of the blunders of the 1st

September, foster parents complainging about evacuees, and parents taking their children back. However, the most problematic issue of the first evacuation was the infamous selection process that scarred many evacuees for years to come. All those issues made the adjustment and settling in of newcomers very arduous.

Selection Process

The memory of standing in an unfamiliar hall, surrounded by strangers who assess and dismiss you is perhaps the most painful memory of evacuees. Ben Wicks expresses the power of the experience: “As one of those who suffered the humiliation of waiting to be picked, I know that it is something I will never ever forget” (Wicks in

Holman 19). The preferences of foster parents differed from individual to individual.

However, as Titmus informs, those evacuees who gave the impression that they came

16

from a better off families were selected as first: “the presentable, nicely dressed children were quickly chosen” (in Inglis 13). When the most desired children were taken, billeters picked evacuees according to their personal needs.

The age of evacuees was important for those foster parents who wanted to billet an evacuee of similar age as was the age of their own child (Brown, Evacuees 76).It is obvious that they simply wanted a play buddy for their kid. Farmers usually opted for older muscular boys because they could lend a hand at their farms (Titmuss in Inglis

13). Welshman states that on the other side of the demand scale were “younger children or family groups” (68).

Especially siblings were in an unenviable position. Younger siblings were usually evacuated with schools of their older brothers or sisters. Their parents not surprisingly ordered the older ones to stay united with their siblings at all costs.

Obviously not every older sibling managed to do that because it usually was not in their competence to decide who and where would be billeted. Walter Hurst remembers the disturbing partition with his sister: “As time went by my sister and I were left with only one other boy and girl, sister and brother. We thought nobody wanted us and were very frightened. At last a lady came forward and said, ‘I´ll take the two girls - I don't like boys.’ Then her sister said, ‘I´ll take the two boys.’ Thus we were split up from our sisters, all very unsettling for nine year olds” (Brown, Evacuees 77).

However, some older siblings succeeded in keeping the promise they gave to their parents. Such sibling pairs were very difficult to find a foster family for, though.

Welshman tells the story of Frank, who was thirteen years old in 1939, and his two years younger sister Marjorie. Frank´s mother was specific that he must not leave

Marjorie, so when he was chosen by prospective foster parents who wanted only him,

Frank politely refused. That led to a distressful situation which was eventually resolved

17

to Frank and Marjorie´s satisfaction: “After a while, only Frank, Marjorie, and a few local people were left in the hall. The children felt unwanted, and even though they might have to be taken home again. Finally a farmer´s wife said that she would take them, but Marjorie would have to share a bedroom with her and her husband. They had really wanted two boys, because of the accommodation that they had available”

(Churchill´s Children 64).

One mother came up with a cunning idea that worked marvellously in the end.

As Inglis reveals, the mother sent her two children, June aged five and Johnny aged three, with “a big sign on them ‘Not to be separated!’. They then went to Bargoed in

Wales, where they stayed with a family” (24). Another mother instructed her daughter

Marjorie not to part from her schoolmate Frances. And Marjorie did as she was told which resulted in remaining the last ones to be billeted. Frances describes what their selection process looked like:

We were all made to walk around the hall and wait for somebody to lay claim on

us - what a sorry sight! All that clomping around on a planked floor with

cardboard-boxed gas masks over our shoulders! Several times during this parade

somebody came over to whisk me away with them only to be confronted by my

little friend, who had had her orders not to be parted from me. The inevitable

happened; when all the other children had been claimed there were just two left -

the ones who were not to be parted (Brown, Evacuees 75, 76).

Frances and Marjorie´s story had a happy ending, they were eventually chosen by a foster family and billeted together. Even though mothers evacuated with their children were in a difficult position because not many people were eager to billet them, at least the mothers could protect the unity of their family and their children were not separated. Yet siblings who were evacuated on their own had often nobody to defend

18

them against foster parents´ demands and they got split. The separation of siblings was a cruel practice, robbing those children of the closeness and support of the only remains of family they had left.

As if marching in front of prospective parents was not humiliating enough, some evacuees have even more terrifying memories of the selection procedure.

Kathleen Faun, who was nine at the time of the first evacuation, remembers what she felt like when her group of children was dragged through streets of a town, billeting officers rang the doorbells and asked the inhabitants, which evacuee they would like to board: “We were taken to Greaves School and from there were walked around to find homes. I was the last one - with another girl, Peggy O´Neil - and the lady shouted

‘Doesn't anybody want them?’” (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 55). Ben Wicks gave a similar account of his evacuation experience in his memoirs. He recalls that children who were not picked by anyone at the village hall, were again paraded through a village and their billeting officer tried to find them lodging: ”With many of the children who were left unchosen, it seemed there was nothing to do but gather them up and begin a walk from door to door. The strange sad lines were a common sight as the billeting officers or teachers tried their best to find someone willing to take them in, if just for the night” (in Holman 19).

Another horrific testimony was given by Alexander King, who was eleven back then. He recollected what had happened: “We were dumped at a roundabout with our labels on. People pulled and tugged at the children they wanted. It wa a bit like a cattle market. The billeting officer was supposed to sort it out but people just waded in”

(Welshman, Churchill´s Children 55).

The process of selecting the most ideal evacuee is maybe the biggest blot on the whole evacuation scheme. Whether it was caused by lack of beforehand planning or by

19

lack of empathy, the result was the same – the children were left terrified and anxious.

They were given the feeling that their appearance, clothes, age, gender or size was somehow inappropriate.

Billeting Scheme

When the detailed plan of the evacuation began to form after the Munich Crisis, it became clear that the billeting of evacuees would have to be compulsory: “It was realised early on that the scheme could not work on a voluntary basis, and that most people would only take refugees if compelled to do so, and if an allowance was paid”

(Brown, Evacuees 63).

During preparations of the evacuation, billeting officers went from door to door and asked house owner how many evacuees they can billet. Future foster carers then received a form summarizing all the duties that were expected from them, including accommodation, food and access to sanitation. The form also contained a piece of warning, stating that “Should you fail to carry out this requirement you will commit an offence”, and an amount of remuneration (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 65).

The financial backing of the evacuation was partially covered by billeting fees that were paid by those parents who could afford them. Families of evacuees were means tested by local councils and if it was found that they did not have enough money, their local council paid the costs instead (Inglis 22). The money was then transferred to foster parents in form of a billeting allowance. The amount of the allowance differed from the type of the evacuee accommodated:

For mothers accompanied by children, for “invalids”, “cripples”, the blind, the

aged and homeless persons - 5s. a week for an adult and 3s. a week for each

child under fourteen, and 5s. each for any over fourteen. For unaccompanied

20

children there was a sliding rate depending on their age: for those under ten - 8s.

6d. a week was paid, where there was only one child it was 10s 6d; children

between ten and fourteen, 10s 6d. a week in all cases; between fourteen and

sixteen, 12s. 6d. a week and sixteen and over, 15s. a week (Brown, Evacuees

69).

The foster carers were paid on weekly basis and they collected their money in advance at the post office (Welshman, Churchill´s Children 65). Concerning the problems of the billeting scheme, the financial reward, given to foster carers, turned out to be one of them. As Inglis implies, the fact that foster parents were paid, commercialized their personal attachment to evacuees. She quotes an American sociologist who was interested in boarding houses for sickly children in New England in the 19th century, and argues that the same argument can be applied to the British evacuation: “Despite every effort to depict boarding as a task of love and regardless of the individual motivation of foster parents, the contractual agreement by which families received a fee for the care of a child defined their task as partly commercial. Therefore

… paid parenting remained an ambivalent occupation” (Zelizer in Inglis 26).

A proof that such a theory could rightly be applied to wartime foster parents is given by an evacuee who illustrates how she felt in her new home: “This foster mum thought she was on to a very good thing with me and the other eleven-year-old girl billeted with her. I think she regarded it as a business transaction” (Inglis 33). It is obvious that the billeting allowances worked as a magnet for a certain kind of people who saw evacuees as a unique opportunity to increase their earnings. It´s hard to believe but such people even tried to squeeze as many evacuees as possible into their households in order to maximize the profit. Another way to make money from the evacuation was to claim billeting allowances despite the fact that the evacuee changed

21

the billet or went back home. Therefore billeting officers visited foster homes not only in order to check evacuees´ well-being but also their actual presence in the house

(Brown, Evacuees 68). On the other hand, even though the billeting allowances could be a reasonable sum of money for a working class foster family, the allowances often did not correspond with expenses made by well to do foster carers because they had a different standard of living (Inglis 27).

The next troublesome issue of the billeting scheme appeared to be the upper classes´ lukewarm or avoiding attitude towards the acceptance of evacuees. Yet, how was it possible to avoid evacuees when the billeting had been made compulsory? Brown offers a solution to that enigma when he points out that the billeting officers were often

“bigwigs” of their communities who tended to favour middle and upper class householders. That resulted in unequal distribution of evacuees throughout all social classes (Evacuees 64). Even the Ministry of Health expressed discontent that “certain local authorities have not included in the billeting lists the really “good class” residences” (Inglis 27). Billeting officers were instructed later on, in a booklet published by the Government in 1941, that they “should see that all houses, large and small, take in their share of evacuated persons” (Brown, Evacuees 64). Brown also explains how the fair share was decided on, it was simply “calculated on the basis of one person per habitable room” (Evacuees 64). In order not to privilege owners of huge houses, the booklet advised the billeting officers to billet more evacuees in “exceptionally large rooms” (Brown, Evacuees 65).

Another way to avoid evacuees, apart from having a special relationship with a billeting officer, was to come up with a medical certificate stating inability to take care of an evacuee. However, the certificate could be ignored by a billeting officer and an evacuee could be placed anyway. What usually followed in such cases was the

22

householder's appeal to a local billeting tribunal which would resolve the dispute

(Brown, Evacuees 65).

Finally, the mere fact that the billeting scheme was compulsory, turned out to be a problem as well. Many people felt forced into taking evacuees and were vexed by their presence. Brown presents memories of Doreen Last, who had to make some compromises so there could be a spare room in her house for an evacuee: “We were compelled to have an evacuee - my sister had to move into my bedroom” (Evacuees 79).

To some foster parents evacuees came totally out of the blue; Lavender Clarke from

Suffolk shares what happened to her family: “I don't think mother knew they were coming ´til the day before they arrived. They just came round in a van saying, “You've got to take four” and so on” (Brown, Evacuees 77, 79). The above mentioned practice could alienate the foster carers and they could view the evacuees as a nuisance disturbing their serene life.

It is obvious that people's reasons why to avoid or accept evacuees varied a lot.

Margaret Durham recalls all the various attitudes towards accepting evacuees: “Some people were interested only in the cash, some refused to take evacuees, pleading age or infirmity or responsibility for relatives, but on the whole the situation was tolerated with good grace” (Brown, Evacuees 65). To be fair, it is important to highlight that even though there were lapses and imperfections concerning the billeting scheme, the majority of people in reception zones fully grasped the gravity and importance of the evacuation and cooperated accordingly. Sure, some tried to slip out of the responsibility, someone took evacuees purely for money but the rest of the people took it as their patriotic duty or as a chance to do something charitable and help those in need.

23

Seeing How the Other Half Lived

As was stated before, the evacuation was for some children the very first encounter with the English countryside. Also the foster parents had new experience ahead of them because the majority of them had no idea about what the living conditions of poor city dwellers were. A wave of utter astonishment and disbelief spread across the reception zones as the foster parents faced malnourished and generally deprived slum children. Vera Brittain, an English writer and feminist, claimed that “the evacuation scheme exposed the sorrowful truth that one half of England did not know how the other half lived” (in Inglis 8). People from the country found it very hard to believe that the severe manifestations of poverty, such as malnutrition, lack of clothing and health problems, caused by insufficient hygiene could exist in Britain in the twentieth century.

Foster parents often complained about children who refused to eat food they were not familiar with, and considered such behaviour as ungratefulness (Welshman,

Churchill´s Children 60). However, such behaviour was not a sign of bad manners, the children simply were not accustomed to the variety and tastes of fresh food that the country people were used to. Welshman provides a recollection of Maggie Quinn, aged four when evacuated, who was very disappointed when she detected a strange taste of milk: “Maggie remembered crying, because the fresh milk straight from the dairy did not taste like the sterilized milk sold in her parents´ shop, and which she was used to at home” (Churchill´s Children 63). It is worth noticing that Maggie was not a slum child, her parents owned a shop, and still her palate was not used to truly fresh food. The issue of differences in urban diet was examined in a study backed by the Hygiene Committee of the Women's Group on Public Welfare. It disclosed that “lower income levels diet contains too much starchy food and shows a deficiency in first-class protein and fats

24

and in the protective foods especially green vegetables and fresh fruit” (Inglis 19). The main reasons why urban mothers used only a limited amount of fresh ingredients was that fresh food was more expensive and more difficult to store. Therefore their children were used to food that came from tins. This discrepancy between urban and rural diet is nicely presented by Welshman who describes how a family of farmers, were amused when they discovered the contents of their evacuees´ emergency ration bags: “There was some amusement in the farmhouse when the children handed over their rations in the carrier-bags, particularly the condensed milk and corned beef, which Mr and Mrs

Cornall had not seen before” (Churchill´s Children 64).

The diet of people from towns was diametrically different from the diet of rural folks; no wonder there were so many misunderstandings and misapprehensions.

Another thing that shocked foster parents was some of the evacuees´ totally inadequate or insufficient clothing and footwear. The explanation for that was easy, many children from slums simply did not have all the clothes from the list of recommended clothing, some of them turned up on the evacuation day dressed in the only set of clothes they had. Inglis gives a shocking account of how under-equipped the slum children came to the countryside:“Many slum children arrived at the reception centres kitted out with no more than what they stood in and what they stood in was modest enough. Liverpool urchins were dubbed the kids from “Plimsoll City” because of their footwear, shoes totally inadequate for rural winters and icy country mud” (8).

Even though it was not foster parents´ duty, many of them bought new and countryside appropriate clothing and shoes for their wards. The grandparents of Jennifer

Satchell did exactly that because their evacuees´ clothing was totally insufficient, she recalls:

25

They arrived carrying a small suitcase. In fact, they had practically nothing,

other than what they stood up in. One garment they did have, were

combinations. These were woolly undergarments comprising a top with sleeves,

joined onto leggings, with a slit in the bottom area, which really amused my

sister and me. For the life of me, I cannot remember how they got into them. The

next day my grandmother took them into Oakham to get them clothes suitable

for life on a farm. (Brown, Evacuees 70)

It is apparent that many foster parents took pity on their evacuees and they equipped them with fitting clothes and shoes.

And it was not only the children´s neglected appearance that disturbed the country folks, but also their behaviour and habits. Dr Susan Isaacs, a child psychiatrist, wrote that “evacuation was proving a powerful social ferment … the country was shocked by the manners and morals of the town” (Isaacs in Inglis 17). The most common complaints concerning evacuees´ behaviour were about their “bad language, loud behaviour and lying” (Inglis 42).

The next unpleasant surprise for the foster parents was the embarrassing issue of bedwetting. People in reception areas were shocked by the huge scale of the problem,

Inglis informs that “the sleeping habits and bedwetting of the children left many of the rural hostesses gasping” (40). The extent of the bedwetting matter was so huge that foster parents were given extra money for damaged bedding (Brown, Evacuees 69).

Apart from the bedwetting, the most shocking example of neglected hygiene were head lice. The occurrence of the tiny bugs in the hair of evacuees was something entirely unexpected because, as Inglis remarks, “head lice were almost unknown in rural areas” (17). One can imagine the shock of foster parents when they found out that their evacuee was full of lice. It could seem almost medieval to them. It also highlighted the

26

huge life quality gap between pristine countryside and filthy urban ghettos. Yet, how was it possible that some of the poor children came to the billets in such a bad condition when schools could easily interfere and check whether their pupils had appropriate sets of clothes and shoes and whether they were lice free. Brown claims that such medical inspections usually did not take place before the evacuation because it was school holidays (Evacuees 16). However, Inglis challenges that view when she declares that nobody was actually aware of the real scale of poverty in the urban areas: “These children from city slums shocked their frequently prissy hosts because no one, least of all rural voluntary workers and women from such altruistic organizations as the

Women's Voluntary Service and the Women's Institute, had been warned, in any realistic way, about their backgrounds” (18).

If the selection process was the most unforgettable part of the evacuation for the evacuees, the foster carers were similarly hit by the shocking truth about the standard of living in cities and in urban slums in particular. The non-existence of any sort of safety nets for poor people and especially for children, resulted in direct exposure of all the grievous effects of poverty.

Premature Return

What followed after the declaration of war on Germany was the so called

Phoney War, when nothing was happening even though everyone had expected the

Nazis to attack and invade the United Kingdom. The Phoney War hugely contributed to another problematic issue of the first evacuation wave, the massive withdrawal of all sorts of evacuees from reception zones. However, there were other contributing factors, apart from the Phoney War.

27

First, those women who were evacuated with their children and had to share another family´s household often did not get on well with their new landladies.

Especially sharing the kitchen and preparation of meals became the bone of discontent.

The evacuated mothers tried to solve the problem by trying to obtain daily meals in cafés or bistros but such premises were quite uncommon in rural areas. Therefore a lot of evacuated mothers started visiting pubs. However, that caused outrage among local women, for they thought that the evacuated women had loose morals and that they tried to seduce local men (Holman 28). Inglis believes that the source of evacuated mother's´ unhappiness in the countryside was their different lifestyle: “These townie mothers weren't martyrs to carefully planned meals, or to needles and thread. Mending wasn't a prized pastime for them as it was in the villages, though hunting the street markets for a cheap pullover for a toddler was” (39). It is no wonder that they felt bored in rural billets and their busy landladies misinterpreted it as idleness.

Second, the children who were evacuated on their own simply missed their families and all the perks of living in a town. When the evacuated children in

Cambridge had to write an essay about evacuation, it showed that “some enjoyed it but nearly all said that they missed their families and many mentioned that they missed their friends, their pets, football in the streets, the cinema and the chip shop” (Holman 28).

Many parents wanted to ease their children´s homesickness by making visits to their billets. However, when mothers of evacuated children from Ilford wanted to pay their children a visit, they were advised not to do so by a politician Miss Horsbrugh, who argued that parents of children at public boarding schools do not visit their children in order not to cause them more emotional distress. The mothers of Ilford were enraged by the comparison and stressed that “the rich chose the public schools but they had not chosen their children´s foster homes and they wanted to visit to see what they were like”

28

(Holman 27). And indeed, a lot of mothers visited the foster homes of their kids and when they saw how miserable their children were, they simply decided to take them back home (Holman 28).

Blunders Caused by Transportation

Even though the overall assessment of the transportation of evacuees on 1st

September was positive, there were certain blunders that could have broader consequences.

First, delayed trains, and the following inability to board a connecting train or bus, caused groups of evacuees to swap, therefore foster carers often received evacuees, they did not expect. When Joyce Fry´s school group did not managed to catch a train to their final destination, evacuation officers came up with an alternative solution; Joyce recalls: “Somehow we did not reach the station in time to catch the Huddersfield train on which we were supposed to be travelling, so another batch of children went there, while we ended up in Leeds” (Brown, Evacuees 74). Another surprise awaited everyone in Tolleshunt D'Arcy in Essex, where people expected to greet a group of evacuated children. An eyewitness remembers the shock: “They weren't children. They were strange, London-dressed ladies, all very tired and irritable, with babies in their arms” (Brown, Evacuees 73).

Second, the combination of long journeys and badly equipped and overcrowded trains often caused the evacuees to arrive filthy and tired. Clarice Ruaux, evacuated with her mother, said: “I´ve never been so filthy in my life” (Brown, Evacuees 72). Titmus believes that the not very representative state that the evacuees arrived in, did not make a good impression because the evacuees “arrived in a dirty and uncooperative state. It was not a good start. Town and country met each other in a critical mood” (in Inglis 13).

29

All those above mentioned blunders could cause disillusionment and displays of animosity because some of the foster parents could feel betrayed by billeting officers and their support of the evacuation scheme could falter. When someone makes a deal or is given a promise and then something unexpected happens, the natural human reaction is dissatisfaction and lack of trust and that response often followed the blunders of the evacuation day. Furthermore, as Titmus declared, arrival of irked and dirty evacuees did not look like a promising beginning of future cohabitation.

Foster Parents Complaining About Billeted Children

Shortly after the evacuation began on 1st September, the billeting officers became flooded by foster parents´ complaints about the evacuees under their roof. Some foster carers were so dissatisfied with their evacuees that they demanded a replacement.

The following experience was described in The Cambridge Evacuation Survey: “By

September 3rd the Evacuation Department of the Guildhall and the Ward Billeting

Officers were being inundated with complaints from all sides, and from then on these places have continued to function as clearing centres for difficulties” (Holman 24).

Reasons for foster parent´s discontent could be anything, the usual trouble was a child not corresponding with foster parents´ preferences or wishes. Holman discloses that many complaints were connected to the above mentioned blunder concerning unkept promises of billeting officers: “Foster mothers protested that they had been promised girls but got boys; babies and got adolescents; children on their own and got their mothers as well” (Holman 25).

Another reason for foster carers´ discontent were their prejudices against evacuees; as Mary Baxter, evacuated from London´s suburb to North Devon, testifies:

“The locals thought of us as devilish, street-wise kids from London which was regarded

30

as the centre of all evil. I used to wear cord trousers and a shirt after school and they regarded them with horror … as if I was some kind of Jezebel” (Inglis 33, 34). Inglis discloses that one little girl was so wretched about the way she was treated by her foster parents that she cried out one day “I´m no slum child!” (30). It is difficult to imagine the desperation of an evacuated child who is treated with such contempt, and who realizes that the source of the treatment are her foster parents´ prejudices against her social background.

Mismatch of Evacuees and Foster Families

There was no prior planning concerning the suitability of evacuated children and their foster parents. Such ignorance or lack of care often lead to insensitive and ridiculous mismatches.

The most common and complained about mismatches were faith-connected.

Inglis points out that “no thought was given to the difficulties that would arise from placing Jewish children with Catholics, Catholics with Protestants, atheists with the devout” (28). A fitting example of the importance of the same denomination is given by

Welshman who tells the story of Judith Grunfeld, a head teacher, who had to deal with a sort of upheaval when people in the village her school was billeted in suddenly realized that they had to take care of Jews: “At homes of the rector and the vicar the phones would not stop ringing. In the pub too, the topic of the conversation was the same. The villagers had not expected to have a group of Jewish children billeted upon them”

(Churchill´s Children 60).

Another common cause of friction between evacuees and foster parents was a big age difference. Psychiatrists observing evacuees in Cambridge concluded that “the over 60 foster mothers were less successful than the 40s and 50s” (Inglis 29). One can

31

imagine the desperation or discomfort of an older person who had lived alone and who suddenly had to take care of little running a hollering children.

3.1.3 The First Evacuation – Success or Not?

As mentioned before, the evacuation day was very unique because an immense number of people were moved from one part of the country to another. Holman provides the exact numbers: “1,473,391 persons were conveyed under the official schemes, made up of 826,959 unaccompanied school children; 536,670 children with mothers; 12,705 expectant mothers; 7,057 blind and other handicapped persons;

103,000 teachers and helpers” (12). As Welshman points out, the evacuation day was therefore considered to be a great success. However, he adds that it was so successful mainly because only 40% of registered people took part in it and the evacuation process was aided by volunteers and splendid weather (Churchill´s Children 44).

Even though the first evacuation proved to be a rare accomplishment, no real danger came and therefore one could ask, whether the evacuation was not a mere waste of time and resources. Inglis claims that parents of evacuated children did not find the evacuation very beneficial: “the most potent emotion most parents felt when considering the outcome of the First Evacuation was extreme irritation” (Inglis 6). First, they had to pay billeting fees and second, they missed their children and could not comprehend what all those sacrifices were good for when no bombs appeared.

However, Richard Titmuss argued that the evacuation was not useless because “it served as a rehearsal for the time when the bombs did drop” (in Holman 29).

32

3.2 The Second Evacuation

The events and strategy of WWII had a huge impact on the form of the Second

Evacuation. When compared with the First Evacuation, the Second one did not happen on one particular day and evacuees did not come in one big flow, therefore the Second

Evacuation got nicknamed as the Trickle Evacuation because the evacuees came on various days, from various locations. Their fate was unpredictable, as was the tactics of the enemy.

After Germany invaded Denmark and Norway, it was obvious that the Phoney

War, also known as Sitzkrieg, came to an end. What European countries were about to experience was the so called blitzkrieg, a “military tactic calculated to create psychological shock and resultant disorganization in enemy forces through the employment of surprise, speed, and superiority in matériel or firepower” (blitzkrieg).

The psychological shock was induced indeed, when Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and

France surrendered within a short period of time after they were invaded.

The fall of France was especially grave for British safety prospects because it enabled the Germans to get access to the English Channel. Moreover, the newly acquired countries enabled the Nazis to attack any place in Britain by planes. Therefore the impending threat of an invasion and the possibility of an air attack on any bigger town reshuffled the conception of safe and danger zones in Britain: “towns that had been considered safe became unsafe overnight, and coastal ports - such as Plymouth,

Southampton, Swansea and Barrow - joined London as primary targets” (Inglis 71).

Children from previously safe areas in South East England became considered as priority evacuees almost overnight (Brown, Evacuees 45).

What followed the Fall of France was the famous Battle of Britain during which

Hitler wanted to destroy British air bases so that an invasion could ensue. South East

33

England therefore became the focus point of air attacks from the end of June 1940.

Later on, German tactics was changed and British towns became planes´ main target

(Holman 32).

Even though Germany air raided the British capital straight after the Fall of

France on 25th June, it was not until 7th September that London experienced the heaviest bombing so far, being ravaged by 625 bombers. From that day to 13th

November, 100 tons of bombs were dropped on the capital every night (Inglis 69).

When Coventry was attacked on November 14th, it marked an introduction of a new

German strategy, wiping out towns by heavy bombing. The atrocious attacks on London and Coventry spurred another wave of evacuation (Inglis 70).

No city was free from worries about being bombed. Not even those which had no industrial premises when the so called Baedeker raids came to Britain in spring 1942.

Their purpose was to undermine people's morale by damaging sites of cultural heritage, e.g. Exeter, Norwich, York, Canterbury or Bath (Holman 43). The air raids slowly ceased after the spring of 1942, due to many factors: “bombing by piloted planes was virtually over. British radar had become more efficient and, combined with the increasing night skills of British pilots, it meant that German planes experienced heavy losses. Perhaps most important, the Luftwaffe was increasingly diverted away to deal with the German war on the Soviet front” (Holman 44).

3.2.1 Evacuation of the Channel Islands

The Fall of France changed the whole concept of safety of the UK, and the

Channel Islands were not safe anymore. After the Home Office decided that defending the Islands is impossible on 16th June 1940, local authorities were told about the decision two days later. The inhabitants of the Islands were informed by the press the

34

following day that “all children are to be sent to mainland tomorrow - mothers may accompany those under school age” (Brown, Evacuees 53). The participation in the evacuation differed; it was 50% in Guernsey but only 20% in Jersey; 29 000 islanders took part in it in total between 19th and 28th June before the Islands were invaded on

1st July (Brown, Evacuees 54).

The evacuation of the Channel Islands differed from the experiences of mainland evacuees. The news of the evacuation came so suddenly that it left people completely stunned. Eddie Roland from Guernsey remembers the atmosphere at his home: “Mum gathered together a few things for us, in brown paper carrier bags and we lay, fully clothed on our beds, waiting to report to our school in the early hours. We didn't sleep, we were still so shocked we hardly spoke to each other, just lay and waited” (Brown,

Evacuees 53). Furthermore, evacuees from the Islands were completely separated from the members of their families who decided to stay home. Eddie Roland shows the cruelty of the separation: “After about twelve months we received a Red Cross letter from Dad. He was allowed 25 words which were typed on cream coloured strips stuck on to a piece of a paper. The words weren't important, they were censored anyway, but it was proof that Dad was still alive and that was the main thing. We started receiving

25 words every 6 months” (Brown, Evacuees 56). The situation did not change and the evacuated people from the Channel Islands did not see their relatives, who opted to stay put, for the rest of the war. Their situation was therefore even more difficult, than that of evacuees from the rest of Britain. Not only could there be no personal contact but there were also constant worries about the safety of those under Nazi rule.

35

3.2.2 The Differences of the Second Evacuation

Two Evacuation Schemes in Operation

The quick change of safe areas into dangerous ones, giving the government no time for thorough planning, resulted in the introduction of the so called “assisted evacuation scheme” which came into practice in June 1940 and its main purpose was to cover travelling expenses of those who managed to find a billet themselves (Holman

48). The assisted evacuation became very covetable, mainly because the government could not react so promptly on a big scale: “The rapidity with which so-called safe areas for evacuees became high-voltage danger zones was the primary reason that evacuation became a semi-private rather than a public affair” (Inglis 72).

The tremendous success of the assisted evacuation is apparent when numbers are given. Inglis reports that there were 1 250 000 evacuees who took part in the Second

Evacuation. However, only 350 000 - 400 000 of that number were evacuees moved under the official scheme. The huge remaining number comprises those who used the assisted evacuation scheme (Inglis 73). It is probable that the big number of evacuees who used only the assisted version of evacuation and found their billets themselves contributed to the overall success of the Second Evacuation, because such evacuees, usually mothers with children, chose their new provisional home according to their wishes and preferences. Therefore the chances were that the cohabitation of evacuees and local people would be less problematic than during the First Evacuation.

The official evacuation scheme still consisted of evacuees who had no billet arranged and this task was the responsibility of billeting officers. However, there were some slight changes. One of them was the inclusion of people who became homeless due to bombing of cities and towns. Another addition to the scheme were unaccompanied children under 5. In the previous scheme, for the First Evacuation, such

36

children were supposed to be evacuated with and taken care of by their mothers.

However, the Second Evacuation scheme involved a solution for children who were orphaned by air raids and for children whose mothers worked in war factories and fathers were in the forces. So, in order to take care of those young children, new nurseries in safe zones were built. Once children reached the age of 5, they were moved to regular billets (Brown, Evacuees 49).

Refusal of Evacuation

Even though the Blitz started and bombs began to drop on London and other cities, there were some parents who refused to send their children to safe zones.

Ironically, some parents even brought their children back from the countryside to the bombed towns. Calder proposes that the driving force behind such actions was parents´ emotional attachment to their children and their desire to unite once torn families back together: “Women wanted to be in their homes and to care for the working members of the family; they clung to family unity with a devotion which is not to be lightly condemned. Life has little meaning in the drabness of working class life except in terms of flesh-and-blood relationships. Remarkable and often tragic was the way families said at the heart of the Blitz, ‘better we all die together’” (Calder in Brown, Evacuees 39).

Worth noticing is the stress on working class people and the importance of family life for them. It supports the once mentioned testimony of a woman who helped during the

First Evacuation and commented on the significance of family bonds for working class people: “No one had to tell you about the value of family life in the East End then because, quite frankly, we didn't know anything else” (Inglis 14). Brown explains that people had also reservations about the evacuation because of their previous experience:

“After the experience of the first evacuation, the population of London was now far

37

more cautious, and response to the second wave was much slower” (Evacuees 49).

Holman affirms that explanation and shows that even though the government tried to persuade people to leave London, many of them insisted on staying: “During 1940, officials toured shelters and knocked on doors to persuade more people to accept evacuation but with limited success. Some families had already experienced evacuation and could not face the separation again” (39). Those families who refused to get separated had several options how to diminish the chance of getting killed. They could hide in a Morrison Shelter (an inside metal construction resembling a table), Anderson

Shelter (an outside metal construction, partially buried in the ground), brick or concrete above-the-ground shelters built by local authorities, or in the tube which was perhaps the safest alternative of them all (Holman 33).

But what were the consequences of experiencing the air raids for children?

Bernard Kops, a twelve year old boy, who stayed in London during the Blitz describes how he felt and what stressed him the most:

And we went underground to get away from the sirens and the bombs. Yet they

followed me and I heard sirens until the world became a siren. One endless cry

of torture. It penetrated right into the core of my being, night and day was one

long night, one long nightmare, one long siren, one long wail of despair … It

was the beginning of an era of utter terror, of fear and horror. I stopped being a

child and came face to face with the new reality of the world (Inglis 84).

Even though some of the memories gained during childhood spent in bombed areas are unnerving and unforgettable, a psychological study published in 1943 shows that children who experienced air raids, coped with them better than was anticipated: “It appears that psychological casualties resulting from air raids in England were fewer than had been anticipated … 8 000 school children who were in Bristol at the time of

38

heavy raids, only 4 percent subsequently showed signs of being severely disturbed”

(Jerzil 470). Apparently only a small fraction of children suffered serious after-effects.

That leads to a daring question. Wasn't the war less stressful for children who stayed with the parents in bombed towns than for evacuees who were separated from their families? Perhaps it was more stressful for those evacuees who had little contact with their families, felt stranded and did not comprehend the motive behind the evacuation.

Children who had to stay in unsuitable billets with unsupportive or even mean foster parents were definitely left with disturbed psyche. Children who stayed with their families in bombed towns endured the war suffering with not many serious consequences thanks to the closeness of loved and loving relatives. So the answer could be yes, the war could be less stressful for children who stayed in danger zones with thein parents but it definitely was not safer.

Lesson Learnt

Richard Titmuss was spot on when he defined the First Evacuation as a good

“rehearsal” (Titmuss in Holman 29). The problematic issues of the First Evacuation became public and officials responsible for the Second Evacuation tried to tackle some of them. That attitude contributed to a smoother progress of the Second Evacuation, as

Holman observes: “The second evacuation was better organized than the first. Not only was it spread over a longer period but the officials could now draw upon their previous experience” (48). Some of the most important changes applied were pre-evacuation inspections dealing with the issues of health and clothing. Brown describes what evacuation officers dealt with before children were evacuated to new foster homes:

“The lessons of the first evacuation were not ignored; every child was medically inspected the day before departure, by school doctors reinforced by GPs, dirty children

39

were first sent to a hostel to be cleaned up before being billeted in private houses, and no child was allowed to join a party without a minimum outfit of clothing, any shortages being made up from clothes issued from a reserve depot” (Brown, Evacuees

45). It was definitely better when children arrived to new billets clean and properly equipped, because it gave them a better chance to get on well with their new foster parents.

Moreover, in order to ensure that there were more people in billeting areas to assist the local authorities with peaceful cohabitation of foster carers and their wards, advisers were sent by the Ministry of Health to billeting areas. Those advisers worked as welfare officers (Holman 51).

Even though the most controversial part of the First Evacuation, the selection process, was not completely done away with, many billeting officers tried to avoid it during the Second Evacuation. John Kirk, evacuated from Clacton-on-Sea, remembers the evacuees were just told “You're going to such and such road” and there was no humiliating selection whatsoever (Brown, Evacuees 47).

Another difference from the First Evacuation was the fact that the Second

Evacuation evacuees were much more tolerated than their predecessors. Inglis suggests why:

During the Second Evacuation the “tricklers” were tolerated a great deal more in

the country than they were during the First “Phoney War” Evacuation in 1939.

The presence of real danger in the cities, the fact that the evacuees, accompanied

or unaccompanied by their parents, were actually running for their lives, swayed

people in the reception centres, forcing them to display hospitality and an

emotional flexibility that the had not previously possessed (79).

40

Holman adds that “the receiving officials and hostesses could now feel that they were making a contribution to the war” ( 48). It seems that foster parents were more willing to overlook or tolerate behaviour or personal traits that were unbearable for them during the First Evacuation.

Gravity of Situation

Despite the fact that some parents from air-raided towns did not want their children to be evacuated, not even during the harshest attacks, they were only a minority. As Inglis discloses, the intensity of aerial attacks caused many parents, even those who did not evacuate their children in 1939, to use the Second Evacuation scheme: “The fact that German bombs were now falling directly onto shelters and schools was a powerful incentive for parents (even those who had previously sworn they would never be parted from their children) to see that their children were evacuated in “trickles” to Dorset, Wales and other safer areas in the southwest” (83). Such behaviour supports a claim made by Bernert, who argued that “the social obstacles to evacuation declined in importance when destruction in a city became very serious or when a city was threatened by enemy invasion” (Bernert 135).

The unceasing air raids had other effects as well. They prevented parents from taking their children back home, therefore the recall numbers were smaller than during the First Evacuation: “In the Second Evacuation the children were still recalled, but in smaller numbers. To bring a child home to the danger zones now seemed as capricious and irresponsible … Even to have a child home for a holiday was discouraged” (Inglis

81). Evacuated children started coming home in huge numbers only when it became clear that the air raids were over, in early 1943.

41

Overseas Evacuation

Even though the possibility to evacuate children overseas existed also in 1939, it was entirely private and quite expensive endeavour back then. Therefore only well to do parents could evacuate their children overseas, a fact criticised by left-wing supporters

(Brown, Evacuees 51).

However, after what happened in Dunkirk in 1940, many Commonwealth countries and USA offered to billet evacuees. The British government promised to pay for the journey and introduced a quota system ensuring that three-quarters of the evacuated children would come from state schools. Such incentives encouraged many parents and the evacuation officers received 200 000 applications.

Though the scheme looked promising, it ended very soon and only 2 700 children were evacuated. The reason of the abrupt end was a tragedy that happened on

17th September 1940 when the SS City of Benares was sunk by the Germans and 73 evacuees were killed. Betty Goodyear was about to go to Canada, but her departure day never came:

My sister and I were intended to go to Canada. We had been sponsored by a

headmistress in Canada who was a friend of my headmistress at City Road

Senior Girls´ School and our passage was booked on the next ship to go. We had

our inoculations and were waiting to hear our sailing date when news came

through that a ship had been torpedoed and sunk with a load of children on

board. Our ship, and the whole scheme, was then cancelled (Brown, Evacuees

51).

Some people considered evacuating children abroad as unpatriotic. There were even made some comparisons about rats leaving a sinking ship. However, Josephine

Barnes was not so judgemental and understood parents´ motivation:

42

Many of us gave serious consideration to sending our children abroad. We just

had no idea at all in the spring and early summer of 1940 what might strike us …

It could have been anything - poison gas, German occupation, whatever - we

didn´t know … I used to take great comfort in the knowledge that I had

American cousins in Bronxville, New York, who would have any child of mine

with them if I´d asked. The idea of being critical of any parent who sent their

children overseas never entered my mind (Inglis 112).

3.3 The Third Evacuation

There was a period of heavy bombing at the beginning of 1944, called “Little

Blitz”. Even though 90% of all bombs were dropped at London, there was no demand for evacuation. People simply preferred to stay at their homes (Brown, Evacuees 59).

The situation changed after 13th June when the first V1 bomb, also known as doodlebug or buzz bomb, fell down. As Brown discloses, a lot of people evacuated privately during the first days of V1 attacks because there was no official scheme. The non-existence of a plan backed by the government stirred a lot of criticism. However, the lack of a plan was not caused by the government's ignorance, the reason was that railways had to transport men and material in order to support the Allied troops in Normandy. Therefore the Third Evacuation schemes came with a delay; people could register for it on 1st July and the evacuation began two days later, on 3rd July 1944 (Brown, Evacuees 59).

The utter shock of people who thought they were free from enemy attacks on the home front, after the landing of the Allies in France, and who had to suddenly face a new lethal technological device, brought about disillusionment and faltered morale.

Inglis reveals that V1 had a particular psychological effect - people considered them to be grislier than the previous weapons of war which were directly operated by humans.

43

Pilotless V1 induced a new kind of terror: “Through a strange psychological quirk, it was later established that most people could “accept” terror dealt out directly by another human being. What they found most terrifying about the buzz bombs was their revolutionary technology that dispensed with a flesh-and-blood airman and yet could rain destruction upon them” (Inglis 135). It was greeted with relief when the Allies reached the V1 launching ground in Pas de Calais at the end of March 1945. However,

Hitler had one more surprise for the British.

An even deadlier weapon, a V2 rocket, began to terrorize the city centres and vicinity of London and Norwich from 8th September 1944. The V2 rocket proved to be

“more terrifying and more destructive than any previous weapon” (Holman 60). People still hid in the tube but getting there on time was difficult. Sirens could not warn against

V2 for it was impossible to hear or see them because they were faster than the speed of sound, therefore the number of V2 casualties was high. Holman reports that 2 274 people got killed and 6 000 seriously wounded (61).

3.3.1 The Differences of the Third Evacuation

There were only minor differences from the First and the Second Evacuation.

First, the fact that V1 bombs had a limited landing area resulted in the return of evacuees whose home was out of reach of V1: “in 1944-5 a strange contradictory evacuation scheme developed: provincial evacuees returned to their homes in

Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool and other cities, while a whole tribe of evacuees poured out of London to safe billets in the countryside. In 1944 over a million women, children, elderly and disabled people were evacuated from the capital” (Inglis 138).

However, only 275 000, from the mentioned one million of evacuees, were evacuated under the official government scheme. The rest of evacuees made thein own private

44

arrangements (Brown, Evacuees 60). The delay of the governmental scheme and previous experience with finding a billet on one´s own perhaps caused such a disproportion.

Second, mothers of school-age children were also included in the Third

Evacuation evacuation scheme (Brown, Evacuees 60).

3.3.2 Coming Back Home

The government planned the official return of evacuees already in 1943, however, V1 and V2 attacks postponed the return. After the Allies reached the V2 base in Holland in March 1945, it became clear that all evacuees could come back home. Yet there was one more thing to do, the government had to investigate how many children had nowhere to go, either because their home was destroyed or because they became war orphans. Nevertheless, some parents started to bring their children shortly after the

V2 attacks stopped, Brown says that “by January evacuees were returning at the rate of

90 000 a week” (Evacuees 62). Apparently not many parents waited for the official order that was issued on 2nd May 1945 (Holman 69).

45

4. Taking Part in the Evacuation

All kinds of people were somehow affecting and affected by the evacuation of school children.

4.1 Teachers

Teachers who accompanied their pupils to reception zones were on duty almost constantly. Their job expanded from mere teaching to constant supervision of evacuees´ well being, topped up with extra paper work. A survey published in 1944, called

Ourselves in Wartime, reveals the full extent of teachers´ self-sacrifice:

When the school parties arrived at their country destinations and were taken to

their billets, it was the school teachers who had to go round the town, seeing that

each child was safe; and when they returned to their own billets - not always so

comfortable or happy - there might be a frantic inexperienced foster mother

waiting with an hysterical child she could ‘do nothing with’. Hot meals at lunch

time were organised for the children in the schools … but it was the school

teacher who had to supervise it; gone was the pleasant lunch hour in the staff

room. And the evenings were occupied with filling in a shower of forms which

descended from every department … clinic forms, milk forms, canteen forms,

clothing forms, national savings forms … to say nothing of writing to parents

(Brown, Evacuees 75).

It was also the teachers who represented a connection to evacuees´ homes because they posed as a constant, being the only familiar element in completely unfamiliar, strange environment. Holman implies that teachers “represented the children´s home territory and were a visible link with home” (89). Another proof that teachers´ role was irreplaceable during the evacuation is given by an evacuee from 46

Greenwich, Iris Gent, who applauded the teachers: “They were wonderful, those teachers, evacuation would never have worked without them” (Brown, Evacuees 75).

4.2 Billeting Officers and WVS

The smooth progress of evacuation was also made possible thanks to billeting officers and members of the WVS (Women's Voluntary Service). However, Crosby asserts that women from the WVS, who were often billeting officers, contributed by their prejudices about the working class to misunderstandings and class friction: “For all their contributions to the war effort, it should not surprise us that this essentially middle and upper class organization could not discard the attitudes of a lifetime when confronted with the sudden and serious needs of an unfamiliar class” (60). On the other hand, Brown contradicts such assessment. He describes the ladies in green uniforms, the

WVS members, and their contribution to evacuation with following words:

These were the wives of labourers, railwaymen, cabinet ministers, farmers,

parsons, all kinds of women of every political colour. … They have started

among themselves canteens where the children can get a good mid-day dinner

near their school, and where, at the weekend, their visiting parents can also be

fed. They have strengthened the local health services with voluntary nurses,

organised knitting and sewing clubs to help provide warm country clothes for

the children in the coming winter months (Evacuees, 23).

4.3 Foster Parents

As stated before, the foster parents were shocked by the physical and mental state of evacuees. What appalled the foster parents the most were head lice, skin

47

diseases such as scabies and impetigo, bedwetting, refusal to eat wholesome food and lacking or very poor hygiene habits. Lucy Faithfull, a welfare officer in Midlands, recalls the outrage of foster parents after their first encounter with a bunch of deprived children:

The children from Manchester were evacuated to Derbyshire. They were really

difficult and rough. I don't mean that they were unpleasant, they were

enchanting, but their habits were appalling. The people of Derbyshire

experienced children just doing their jobbies on the floor in the sitting rooms.

The women approached the Dowager Duchess of Derbyshire who told the

Ministry of Health, on behalf of the people, that they refused to have the

children in their homes (Holman 75).

Brown also lists several examples of evacuees´ shocking habits that incensed foster parents. A woman from Chepstow put her disillusionment down into a report to Mass

Observation:

What can be done with a child who picks up a newspaper and goes into corner of

the drawing room instead of the lavatory? … Others have never been used to

sanitation, and foul the paths and gardens. … A little girl said she always went to

bed in her frock and did not know what a nightgown was. I have read several

reports of children, on arrival, going to bed and ‘disappearing’, only to be found

later sleeping under the bed - at home they slept under their parents´ bed.

(Brown, Evacuees 85, 86)

No one expected such signs of neglect could exist in the 20th century and it is not hard to imagine that they did not make the cohabitation of foster parents and evacuees easy.

However, as time went by and official reports shed light on causes of some of evacuees´ shocking behaviour, foster parents learnt to accept their evacuees. As Holman

48

comments, “foster parents even began to identify with them and to take their side” (82).

Those foster parents who were compassionate and understanding towards their evacuees, soon reaped the benefits of such treatment. Margaret Watling characterizes her evacuee: “Then along came Jimmy, aged nine, from ‘Wandsworf’, thin, pale, and scared. Having fed, scrubbed, and de-nitted him, Blanche and I did our best to put him at ease, and were rewarded with his appreciation and humour” (Brown, Evacuees 81).

Even though taking care of evacuees proved to be a bit complicated at first, many foster parents enjoyed the whole evacuation experience in the end because it enriched their lives: “For many foster parents, especially for those who kept the children for some years, the evacuation experience was worthwhile and fulfilling. … Some older foster parents stated that the evacuees gave them a second family and brought new meaning to their lives. Some evacuees remained forever grateful to the protection, guidance and love they received” (Holman 83). Some foster parents developed such strong emotional bonds with their evacuees that it was heart-wrenching for them to say goodbye to their beloved wards at the end of the war. Inglis gives an account of foster parents who were “choked” by grief when they had to send their evacuees back home

(25).

4.4 Parents

Many parents of evacuated children had never ever parted with them before. The decision to send their children into safe areas was therefore excruciatingly painful.

However, as Summers reveals, mothers in the 30´s and 40´s had little deciding power in their households, therefore it was often only male decision to participate in the evacuation scheme: “It is remarkable that many accounts from evacuee children explain that it was their father alone who took the decision to send them away” (72). An

49

evacuated girl was later told by her aunt about the role of her father and how difficult it was for her mother to get accustomed to empty house. The aunt talked about her sister- in-law´s distress:

There she was, sitting at her place at the kitchen table, with all your five place

settings laid up for breakfast. Her eyes were glazed over and she was sobbing

‘They've taken my babies’. It was the saddest thing I had ever seen and the worst

of it was that I knew your father, my brother, had talked her into letting you go.

For at least a week she would lay the table for all of you, just in case you came

home. And by the by, as you didn´t, she began to get used to it and threw herself

into all different kinds of voluntary work but she never lost that haunted look in

her eyes. Never, not till Freddie came home. I don't think she ever forgave my

brother for letting you all get taken away (Summers 72, 73).

It is apparent that the mother tried to occupy herself with various kinds of work. That was common for urban women who suddenly did not have to take care of children.

They “were encouraged into war work and for some this was liberating and rewarding”

(Summers 78).

A minority of women liked the newly acquired independence so much that the return of their children was not very desired: “Some historians of the evacuation have suggested that there were mothers who were pleased to be rid of their children so that they could enjoy the freedom of a working life and indeed begrudged them coming home after the war” (Summers 73). Brown supports the view when he says that there were some cases when parents abandoned or refused their evacuated children at the end of the war when they were supposed to take them back home (A Child's War 111).

However, the majority of parents missed their children dearly and would do anything to keep in touch with them. Parents usually wrote letters or paid visits. The

50

latter seemed to be more difficult because of limited free time, long distances and cost of travelling tickets. Moreover, parental visits were not greeted with applause by the authorities and it was insinuated that visiting one´s children more often than once a month was “unpatriotic” (Inglis 23). Yet, those parents who managed to visit their children on regular basis, later benefited from the extra effort: “those who succeeded in doing so [visiting their children] found it rewarding, reassuring and ultimately easier when the children came home” (Summers 78).

Even though parents tried to do their best to maintain a loving relationship with their children, many realized that despite all their struggle, a certain damage to their family bonds would be caused anyway. A heartbreaking letter of a father to his daughter, sent in 1944, is a proof of such a realisation: “Sending you away has been, in some ways, a tragedy. I still think it was the right thing to do, even though events proved different from our fears. But it has been heartbreaking to miss these years of your lives. We shall meet again as almost strangers” (Summers 70).

4.5 Evacuated Children

Just as it took some time for the foster parents to get accustomed to their foster children, the evacuees too needed some time to settle in. Still, there were other aspects, apart from time, that helped the children to acclimatize themselves to their new home.

Holman describes several factors that helped children to do that. First, the attitude of foster parents was crucial. Those who were able to provide “affection and security” helped their evacuees to settle down more easily (Holman 90). Next factors were the support of school teachers, acceptance by local community and contact with parents. The parental visits enabled the children to “acquire a sense of continuing interest … necessary for a happy settlement” (Holman 90). Even though parental visits

51

were usually not recommended as an ideal cure for evacuees´ homesickness, Jersild mentions that the visits had a positive impact on evacuees´ adaptation: “by and large evidence seems to indicate that while visits from parents were at times disturbing, youngsters who received such visits tended to make a better adjustment than those who did not; various observers reported also on the value to children of letters, gifts, and other tokens of parental affection” (472).

On the other hand, there were also factors that contributed to evacuees´ unhappiness in their new billets. Lack of parental attention was one of them, followed by not being accepted by local children. Holman states that “resentment could occur because local children saw the evacuees as responsible for over-crowding at schools and in homes. They could sneer at the newcomer as “skinnies” or “vaccies”” (Holman 91).

Another negative factor preventing the evacuees from being happy at new billets were unsupportive or mean foster parents. Walter Hurst, an evacuee, remembers how unkind foster parents left him feeling: “One thing that sticks out above all else was the constant desire that someone should put their arms around me and tell me I was loved”

(Brown, Evacuees 96). Even though the most unsuitable foster parents were excluded from the billeting scheme after a while, many evacuees have unpleasant memories of the evacuation due to horrible experiences with foster parents.

There were even some cases of sexual abuse. However, references about sexual abuse appeared long after the end of the war, when the victims tried to come to terms with what had happened to them. Even though Holman says that the full extent of sexual violations cannot be stated precisely (94), Jean Garnham, an evacuee, remarks that many billets would seem unacceptable or inappropriate from present-day point of view: “There were all these single men who had evacuees billeted with them - they wouldn't dream of doing it today” (Brown, Evacuees 95,96). The cruelty of sexual

52

abuse changed the victims forever. A woman who was many times sexually abused by teenage sons of her foster parents when only five years old, remarks “I can never forgive what they did to me, and it has affected me all my life” (Holman 94).

53

5. Life of Evacuees

The Second World War brought certain changes that had impact on all parts of

British society, including children. So, what was it like for the children to live during the turbulent war years? In addition, what was it like to be evacuated? This chapter should provide some answers and outline various aspects of evacuees´ lives.

5.1 Types of Accommodation

Thought most evacuated children were billeted in private houses, there were other types of accommodation which evacuees could end up in.

First, school groups evacuated to seaside resorts were often accommodated in spare holiday camps. Even though such type of housing was satisfactory during summer, it took a lot of work to transform it for whole year use (Brown, Evacuees 65).

Second, government had extra camp boarding schools built from scratch for children of secondary school age (Brown, Evacuees 66). The idea of camp boarding schools was spurred by the need to find appropriate and sufficient space for secondary schools. This is what a camp from 1941 looked like:

the camps are all in rural areas, standing on large sites of 20-40 acres … They

generally include four classrooms; two other rooms to be used as practical

rooms; a hall … a large dining-room, together with a kitchen, staff rooms, a

store … As a rule, five dormitories are provided, each equipped with two-tier

iron bedsteads, with a small room for a teacher at each end. A lavatory block

with baths, showers and drying room … Central heating by radiators and electric

lighting make it possible to use the Camps continuously throughout the year

(Brown, A Child's War 36).

54

Third, empty houses were often offered to mothers who were evacuated with their children (Brown, Evacuees 66).

Finally, those evacuated children who were refused by several foster parents usually ended up in hostels supervised by teachers. One such evacuee, Walter Hurst, remembers the experience he had: “I was shunted about from family to family and landed up in a hostel, with thirty-nine other girls and boys, where I stayed for the rest of the evacuation” (Brown, Evacuees 68).

5.2 Food

The Second World War brought about a very strict rationing system. It was caused by the German submarines sinking ships full of goods that had to be imported to

Britain, and by the increased demand for all sorts of resources for war production and the troops. People were encouraged to grow their own fruit and vegetables and to keep animals for meat in order to get access to extra food than that was provided by coupons in ration books.

Children evacuated in the country found themselves in an advantageous position because getting hold of fresh eggs, fish, rabbits etc. was easier than in urban areas.

Moreover, a lot of evacuees were pleasantly surprised by a different cooking style in the country. Evacuated Betty Goodyear remembers her astonishment: “The cooking was wonderful and I can remember how amazed I was to see apple pies and egg custards that were 4 or 5 inches deep. Farmhouse cooking of course!” (Brown, Evacuees 83, 84).

However, as far as food is concerned, evacuees and children who stayed in danger zones were leveled by the scarcity of sweets. There was no way of getting around the rationing books, therefore children had to make some compromises. Derek

Dimond´s solution was switching to a different type of sweets than he had bought

55

before the war: “The worst thing was the shortage of sweets, we used to buy Victory V lozenges which were off rations” (Brown, A Child's War 45). June Fidler used a psychological trick which fooled her into thinking she had plenty of sweets: “We got 5 ounces of sweets a week on rations - we used to buy the smallest sweets we could, pear drops and so on, so that you got a lot of them” (Brown, A Child's War 45). Another way to obtain the much coveted sweets was to be lucky enough to live near an American base. Brown discloses that the US troops “brought with them forgotten luxuries - ice cream, sweets, gum, and other shortage goods - and were followed everywhere by swarms of children on the off-chance that they might give some away” (A Child's War

51, 52). One of such happy evacuees was Derek Dimond, billeted in Stanstead, who remembers: “One popular saying that the kids used at the time was ‘Got any gum, chum?’ - the Americans used to have strip chewing gum and red apples, which you could only get from the United States. They used to go back home from Stanstead station and as they left they would throw them, and money, to us from the train”

(Brown, A Child´s War 52).

5.3 Clothing

Clothes rationing came into effect in June 1941. It was not caused by the lack of raw material, the reason behind it was the need to move the workers from the clothing industry into war factories. The rationing scheme proved to be a dread for parents in particular because it did not thoroughly consider the fact that children outgrow their clothes very quickly (Brown, A Child's War 58). Furthermore, poor families who had children evacuated in the countryside had little means to provide their growing children with new and appropriate clothes. Therefore a special Clothing Scheme was introduced:

“Clothing stores were set up by the Women's Voluntary Service in reception areas,

56

stocked partly by clothes supplied officially and partly by gifts. Children´s parents paid according to what they could afford” (Brown, A Child's War 59).

5.4 Doing Their Bit

Children of all ages were encouraged to take part in the war effort. The younger ones usually took part in salvage, when they collected all sorts of materials such as

“wastepaper, metal, bones, tinfoil, rubber, rags, bottles and jam-jars, as well as waste food and acorns for pig swill, … magazines and books for the forces, clothes for refugees and air-raid victims, and herbs, seaweed, horse-chestnuts, rose hips and nettles for use in making medicines” (Brown, A Child's War 62).

The older children were approached by the government, which printed a leaflet defining the uniqueness of the war, stating that “the difference between this war and previous wars is that now we are all in the front line in a struggle for the principles of freedom and justice and respect for the laws of God and honour amongst men. Whether we are in uniform or not, we are in the war. And no matter how young we are or how old we are there are jobs we can do for our country” (Brown, A Child's War 63). Among other tasks, such as helping older people to grow vegetables, making splints and bandages or knitting comforts, the leaflet also suggested that children could help farmers during harvest time (Brown, A Child's War 64). Children, including evacuees, therefore did not hesitate to take part in what became known as harvest camps.

In order to compensate for the numbers of absent men who had been once helping on farms but then joined the army, back up groups were called to the country when the harvest time came and extra pairs of hands were needed. The groups of helpers commonly consisted of “children, volunteers, Italian prisoners and legion of chattering grannies” (Moore-Colyer 333). Their usual tasks were weeding or harvesting

57

raspberries, peas, potatoes, hop, apples etc. The most feared task of them all was hand- pulling flax. Joyce Avery, evacuated to Somerset, describes the strenuousness of the job: “Because of the spiked seed heads it was bad enough pulling handfuls of the plants from the ground, but worse to be in the following team as we bent or crouched tying bundles of flax tightly with the rough twine making deep cuts in our hands” (Moore-

Colyer 332).

Even though there were occasional minor drawbacks, such as the flax picking, the harvest camps gave a favourable impression: “for the overwhelming majority the experience of working on the land and, more especially of attending harvest camps was a very positive one” (Moore-Colyer 331). Many children enjoyed campfires, sleeping in tents, fireside singing and the opportunity to make new friends. Moreover, children got paid for their work. Therefore a lot of them “found a new freedom and gained a sense of independence denied to many at that time” (Moore-Colyer 331).

5.5 Education

Evacuated school parties often had to improvise in order to carry on with the education. The biggest obstacle was to find acceptable space for classrooms. That task was the trickiest for the secondary schools because they had more pupils than primary ones and often needed special equipment. In order to provide appropriate place for secondary school, the above mentioned boarding school camps were introduced.

Primary schoolchildren could sometimes be merged with local schools. Yet it was not possible everywhere. A survey Croydon and the Second World War illustrates how innovative teachers had to be: “For weeks in some cases, teachers and children assembled at some agreed point and walked the country lanes until they could be housed in some suitable hall. And what a variety of buildings were used! A Salvation

58

Army Citadel; a Church of England hall; a hall behind a public house; two St John´s

Ambulance halls and several derelict schools and village halls were taken” (in Brown,

Evacuees 75). Another problem was posed by the war shortages for they affected even the slightest details of school life. June Fidler recollects the wartime restraints:

With all the shortages the exercise books were cut in half with a guillotine or

whatever and we had half of one each, they did the same with the pencils. We

normally had to write with a dip pen using ink which a class monitor mixed up

with powder, it ran out so we had to do all our writing with our half-pencils. And

the textbooks, what there were of them, four or five of us had to share (Brown, A

Child's War 37).

Such uncertainty, constant commotion and lack of appropriate equipment did not have a positive impact on children´s education in general. As Crosby argues, “uprooted from their classrooms, placed in strange schools and surroundings and without congenial billets, evacuees could not continue their studies properly” (67).

It should be stated that the evacuation scheme had negative impact even on those children who did not take part in. The outflow of teachers who accompanied evacuated children to safe zones caused lack of teachers in cities. Soon, a provisional solution for those who stayed put in danger zones came up when small classes were set up in private homes (Holman 106). However, the damage was irreparable and “evacuation and the bombing did blight the education of thousands” (Holman 110).

5.6 Spare Time

Apart from school and helping foster parents, evacuees usually had some free time as well. Ways to spend it were various.

59

Reading was a popular pastime. Children could choose from a wide range of

British cartoons, the most popular of all was perhaps Beano, and some lucky children got their hands on a special colourful treat - American comics such as Batman or

Superman (Brown, A Child's War 84-86). As far as books were concerned, one of the most popular authors was Richmal Crompton, whose hero William Brown often encountered war-related adventures: “Among other things, William manages to have fun helping refugees, in air-raid shelters, collecting salvage and chasing suspected spies, hoarders and black marketeers, as well as causing trouble for an air-raid warden, the

Auxiliary Fire Service and, of course, the police” (Brown, A Child's War 86). Another successful author was Enid Blyton. However, her books had barely any war reference in them.

Many children listened to the radio and they especially looked forward to

Children´s Hour, broadcasted between 5 and 6 pm every day except Sunday. The children's broadcast consisted of serialisations of famous classics, e.g. Great

Expectations, or other programmes suitable for children (Brown, A Child's War 89).

Another popular way of spending one's free time was playing with toys or board and card games. However, production of board games and toys in general gradually faltered. Even though toys were not rationed, a lot of toy factories became engaged in war production and therefore toys were in short supply. Parents and children turned out to be pretty resourceful when they began recycling old toys and creating new ones out of salvage and scraps. Charles Harris confides how he made a present for his brother: “I got hold of a big old wooden train, I painted it blue and put a set on it and gave it to my little brother” (Brown, A Child's War 97). The lack of toys as presents must have been a pretty painful issue for children, especially during Christmas. However, even though toys were so difficult to obtain, some evacuees were lucky to have considerably

60

generous foster parents. Joyce Withers, an evacuee from Cheshire, recalls how flabbergasted she was by the huge number of toys she got for Christmas from her foster parents:

I was told I should write a letter to Santa Claus, I did, ever mindful that there

was ‘a war on’ and toys were scarce. … Christmas morning finally came. I woke

early, and there at the bottom of my bed was a pillow case full to the brim with

presents. I couldn't believe my eyes, never before had I received so many

presents, and especially not in a pillow case! I then decided I couldn't be so

lucky, perhaps they were not all for me - so I waited for Mr and Mrs Norbury to

come to my room. They were not long in doing so and stated the presents were

all mine, then they stayed with me while I unpacked them. I was so happy and

what a great Christmas that was (Brown, Evacuees 111).

5.7 Novelty of the Life in the Countryside

When evacuees settled down in their billets, they began familiarizing themselves with the vocabulary and possibilities of the countryside: “Their foster-parents taught them the names of trees and wild flowers; they went fishing in local streams and rivers; and they were able to roam in the country´s relative freedom. Others were hard at work on local farms, where they enjoyed the cows, pigs, horses, ands, and ducks, but where they were also introduced to the realities of birth and death” (Welshman, Churchill´s

Children 135). One of such evacuees who were granted the experience of witnessing a birth of a lamb, was Frank Walsh. As Welshman reckons , it must have been “a revelation to an innocent boy from Hulme” (Churchill´s Children 138). Frank was responsible for many farm-related tasks during his evacuation in the countryside, e.g.

“muck-spreading, tarring the henhouse roofs, taking calves and cows to market to sell,

61

buying new stock, and collecting eggs from the geese” (Welshman, Churchill´s Children

139). All the new responsibilities brought a very welcomed benefit in the form of pocket money, therefore Frank became more independent. Another evacuee, Maggie

Quinn, learnt rural domestic skills that were previously unknown to her: “fruit and tomatoes were bottled, and fruit vinegars, pickled onions and beetroots, jam using home-grown fruits, chutneys, piccalilli, and many preserves were all made, to see everyone through winter … worn sheets were turned side to piddle, then into pillowcases, handkerchiefs, and finally dusters and cleaning-cloths” (Welshman,

Churchill´s Children 188, 189). Maggie too was given pocket money for the extra help in her foster parents´ household. Examples of Frank and Maggie provide a proof that that the country life was completely different from the urban way of life they were used to.

It is important to realize that the evacuation was in many cases, without any exaggeration, the children´s very first chance to experience the countryside. Lucy

Faithfull, a welfare officers, recollects that she was asked by an evacuee: “Miss, whatever are those, horses with handlebars?” (Holman 98). Another evacuee, Eric

Buchanan, remembers how he enjoyed the perks of country life: “I used to wander around and explore the countryside. I remember on a summer's day, lying in a field and looking up at the blue sky and watching skylarks. And all around were yellow flowers.

It was my first taste of the beauty of the countryside” (Holman 99). Furthermore, an evacuee confiding himself to Moore-Colyer “mentions the educational importance of meeting country characters, also emphasising the sheer revelation of the beauty of the

English countryside to urban children who had previously no chance to enjoy it” (331,

332). It is therefore obvious that the evacuation served as an eye-opener for the children who often knew nothing else but busy and crowded streets of their hometowns.

62

6. The Impact of the Evacuation

6.1 Social Consequences of the Evacuation

The evacuation opened eyes to many better-to-do people and made them realize that poverty of unbelievable extent still existed in the 20th century. Moreover, they also had to witness and deal with the shocking consequences of poverty. The evacuation was therefore a unique opportunity for all the classes to see how the others lived: “it enabled the ‘haves’ to meet ‘the have nots’ directly” (Inglis 65). Gilbert adds to the rarity of the evacuation, pointing out that the social issues reached from the Labour Party to its unlikely voters, the rural middle class: “the evacuation of school children demonstrated for rural and suburban England the physical and educational deficiencies of slum children whose problems until this time had been the property of Labour Party agitators” (105). The evacuation hence brought a massive surge of demands concerning the resolve to alter the old order of things. As Brown remarks, the “demand for change was loud and widespread” (Evacuees, 92). Consequently, the new concerns of British society were dealt with in two major official reports.

The first one, published in December 1942, was the Beveridge Report. It was headed by Sir William Beveridge, who was asked by the government to come up with a solution to the newly realized pressing issues. In the report, he planned to do away with the problem of five evils in British society, i.e. want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness (Holman 157). The changes Beveridge proposed, e.g. higher minimum income, introduction of state-operated health service or decent low cost council housing, served as a “blueprint of a Welfare State” (Holman 157).

The second one, Our Towns Report, was published in May 1943 and was headed by the National Council of Social Services. The report addressed all the social issues that were raised by the evacuation, which is apparent from its content. The first part of 63

the report deals with issues such as clothing, food, sleeping habits and money spending, while the second part is devoted to health problems, e.g. lice, skin disease, bedwetting and bad hygiene in general. As Welshman points out in his essay, the exceptionality of the report lies in its “compassionate approach” with the poor urban families

(Evacuation, Hygiene, and Social Policy: The Our Town Report of 1943, 798). The authors implied that the most pressing issues such as evacuees´ insufficient clothing, unhealthy eating habits or lacking hygiene resulting in health problems, were not the results of parental lack of care but of parent poverty. The report concluded that a lot of the above mentioned problematic issues could be solved by better housing and education. Especially nursery schools were hailed as being “capable of cutting the slum mind off at the root” (in Welshman, Churchill´s Children 277). It is therefore apparent that the role of the state is given a great significance, which was revolutionary. As

Welshman says, the report was regarded as unique because it “stressed the responsibilities of the state rather than those of individuals” (Evacuation, Hygiene, and

Social Policy: The Our Town Report of 1943, 807).

The confrontation of social classes caused by the evacuation, and the consequent official response led to society's unyielding demand for the welfare state. Especially the proposal offered by Beveridge was greeted so eagerly that there was little doubt about the possibility of its future implementation: “Popular commitment to social welfare was so pervasive that further public discussion seemed almost unnecessary” (Gilbert 110).

The claim to the welfare state was so strong that it even lead to a humiliating defeat of one of WWII icons, Winston Churchill, in the post-war general election. Holman offers an explanation why Churchill was not trusted with another term in the office:

“[Churchill] had no clear strategy for the establishment of a Welfare State which was wanted by many” (161). Another explanation why the war took its toll on the

64

Conservative Party is given by Harold Nicolson, a Conservative candidate, who observed: “People feel, in a vague and muddled way, that all the sacrifices to which they have been exposed and their separation from family life during four or five years, are all the fault of ‘them’ - namely the authority or the Government. By a totally illogical process of reasoning, they believe that ‘they’ mean the upper classes, or the

Conservatives … Class feeling and class resentment are very strong” (Smith 50, 51).

Nicolson´s interpretation suggests that the Labour won because people wanted to punish the perpetrators of their suffering. Be that as it may the election of 1945 saw a victory of the Labour Party which implemented Beveridge's proposals and created the Welfare

State in which many social responsibilities were shouldered by the state treasury.

6.2 Coming Home

Some families were separated for a very long time, some even for the whole war, and such long-term detachment often caused irreparable damage of relationships within families. The family time that was not spent together was a missing link which could cause a lot of harm in reunited families. Children got accustomed to different tempo of life and enjoyed the benefits offered by living in the country. Some of the evacuees´ mothers, who had worked in factories, and fathers, who had been in the army, enjoyed a lot of independence. Therefore reunited families had to go the extra mile to cohabitate peacefully and lovingly.

One of difficult issues to overcome were evacuees´ newly acquired standards concerning the quality of life. Many children who returned from well-off foster parents despised their own parents´ lifestyle because they got accustomed to higher standard of living (Inglis 149). That was exactly the case of Stan Clater, evacuated when 8 years old, whose foster parents were an affluent older couple. He reveals the shock he went

65

through when came back to his parents´ house: “My first feeling on coming home was claustrophobia. I was used to space - a large room of my own, stairs wide enough for two people to pass on with shallow steps and a landing half-way up big enough to hold a fair-sized table. I came back to a tiny terraced house and the first thing I saw when the front door was opened were the stairs. I had never imagined that such appalling, narrow, steep stairs could exist. … It was hate at first sight. I let it be known loudly and persistently that I wanted to go back to my ‘real home’” (Inglis 148, 149). Luckily,

Stan's parents handled this crisis of identity with flying colours. They allowed him to visit his foster parents and Stan gradually got used to the life in a town again.

Also the temporal aspect of evacuation posed as a problem because the longer a child was evacuated the more estranged he became to his family. Parents and children noticed every little detail that was different, be it an accent or the natural result of growing up. Kathleen Thomas remembers what it was like when her younger evacuated siblings came back home after five years: “Mum couldn't get over Johnny´s strong

Welsh accent when they finally came home. Johnny, especially, had got a bit stroppy. I think he missed his Welsh ‘Dad’. I remember he threw some mashed potato at Mum at dinner time but she soon sorted him out. She blamed the Nazis. The war had turned

Johnny into a stranger, she said. This didn't last, thank goodness” (Inglis 25). Jean

Barnes, an evacuee herself, gives a very similar testimony. She says that the evacuation caused “an irreparable rift” between her and her mother. Jean talks about the sadness of parents who parted with children at the beginning of the evacuation and got back teenagers at the end of it:

In the end I was away for two years. The irony was that it was not so very far

from Newcastle but once I had left mother had no excuse not to work and this

meant that I could not come home to see her nor did she have more than very

66

infrequent opportunities to come and see me. When I returned I was thirteen and

I had developed in every way imaginable. There was but a shadow of the little

girl I had been when I left. Although we lived together until I left home to go

and live in the nurses´ hostel we had little in common. She used to look at me in

a sad way and now I think it was because she was trying to find something she

had lost (Summers 74).

Furthermore, many evacuees found it troubling to adapt from country life to the town once more. Maggie Quinn, who was very content at her billet, found it very challenging to get used to town life again. She spent several years in the countryside, began to speak with the local accent and took the tranquility of her new environment for granted. Welshman states how she felt when she returned to her hometown:

At first Maggie was desperately homesick - not only for the foster-family she

had left, but also for the countryside. It was this that had the most impact on her.

She soon got used to being with her mother and father, brothers and sister, and

made new friends, but it took her much longer to adjust to what seemed to her to

be an alien environment. She had always had an instinctive love of animals and

nature, and during her time in Groby she had learned to understand and love the

country way of life. Sooty, industrial Birmingham, with factories and houses all

jammed together, was not what she wanted, and she hated it. She missed the sky,

the sunsets, and the space (Churchill's Children 288).

Fortunately, Maggie's parents understood her feelings and allowed Maggie to spend every school holiday with her foster parents. Gradually she accommodated to the new way of life in a city but “she did not think, deep down, that she ever really came to terms with her city environment” (Welshman, Churchill's Children 289).

67

Despite all the challenges that families of evacuees had to go through, Harris argues that the strenuous war period did not destroy family bonds. Quite on the contrary for it seems that families became strengthened by the war time experience: “the nuclear family emerged from the Second World War stronger, more tightly-knit and more home-centred than it had ever been before” (Harris 26).

6.3 Changed Personalities

The evacuation and the exposure of evacuees to new experiences and possibilities, often altered their personalities forever. For example the life of Audrey

Sparks, evacuated from London Docklands to a Welsh village, was certainly influenced by her evacuation experience. She was lucky to be billeted with an older kind couple who instilled in her a life-long passion for books. She recollects: “My foster-parents had masses of books, and I'd literally never seen one. I can remember the smell of snapping open a book they gave me at Christmas and inhaling its exotic aroma” (Inglis 29). She also formed an emotional connection not only with her foster parents but also with the

Welsh countryside and she keeps revisiting Wales every year (Inglis 30).

The fact that the evacuated children often spent a long time without their parents´ care and supervision, had two possible consequences concerning their independence. The luckier ones, such as Mrs Wheaton, say that the evacuation made them more self-reliant. She describes her experience: “I can realize now that I never turned to my parents for help or anything at all after I came back [from being evacuated]; and looking at my life, what I can remember of it before I went away, I wasn't like that when I came back. If I had problems at school, I sorted them out myself” (Smith 76). Another evacuee who probably gained more than he lost during the evacuation, shares his beliefs:

68

Evacuation was an opportunity to see the wider world, the Dagenham equivalent

of going to boarding school. It was a positive experience. Evacuation enabled

young people from urban areas to see a world they would not have seen, to live

with people from different backgrounds and different walks of life. It broke

down barriers and gave us an assurance we would not have had. It made one a

bit more independent, a bit more self-assured (Holman 97).

However, there were also children whose independence and self-esteem was shattered by the evacuation. One of them was Vivien Hatton, who observes: “I Was moved around so much during the war that I finished up with a lack of confidence and a great deal of insecurity. It was all so frightening” (Brown, A Child's War 112).

6.4 Did the Experiment Work?

The rarity of moving thousands of people to distant places and keeping them there for a long period of time, was unprecedented. Jersil claims the evacuation to be a

“colossal social experiment” (472). So, did the experiment work?

Even though the evacuation brought about unpleasant issues such as class prejudices, disruption of family lives or traumatic experiences caused by cruel foster parents, the overall outcome is positive. It is important to realize that despite the troublesome issues, the evacuation did what it was supposed to do, i.e. save lives of the most vulnerable ones. According to Inglis, 7736 were killed during WWII (5). That number could have been substantially higher had the children not been evacuated from danger to safe zones.

Moreover, the evacuation spared the children any gruesome witnessing of air- raids, bombed towns and killed people. Roy Judge, an evacuee, lists the things he would remember his evacuation for: “My greatest memories are the long summer days, a

69

million miles from the war, and that farmyard smell” (Brown, Evacuees 93). Roy´s testimony shows that in his case, the evacuation fulfilled its designed goals - to shelter the children from the effects of war as much as possible.

Maybe the gratitude of evacuees who were given shelter from war and in some cases certain benefits on top of that, causes them to view the evacuation in neutral or positive terms. Ruth Inglis who interviewed loads of evacuees for her book says: “I have come to the conclusion that there are almost as many reactions to their long-ago uprooting as there were evacuees, but one common thread uniting them is that the experience was rarely considered sinister in retrospect” (3). Mike Brown came to a similar conclusion, thinking about the evacuees he encountered when writing his book:

“One thing that struck me forcefully about so many of the people I interviewed was their incredible tolerance; even among those who had not been treated well, the majority sought to understand and excuse the people they had lived with” (Evacuees, 118).

The success of the British evacuation scheme could not be possible without cooperation of the British public. As Crosby points out, the “influence working for a successful evacuation was the good will among an unknown number of householders in the reception areas. Their quiet and kindly acceptance of evacuees was vital to the success of the program” (59). Richard Titmuss also pays his tribute to foster parents who made the evacuation possible. He stresses it is usually the unhappy experience with the evacuation that gets all the public spotlight, leaving the joyous and successful co- existence of evacuees and foster parents go unnoticed: “No records were kept of householders and evacuees who met each other in a spirit of tolerance and overcame the difficulties of living together. No facts remain to measure the patience extended to unruly, neglected, noisy and dirty children. Domestic successes were not talked about, publicised or reported; the misfits and the disharmonies were” (in Holman 83).

70

The evacuation experience was a part of the life at the homefront. During the

Second World War, the whole population of Great Britain became soldiers at the home front and their willingness to make sacrifices contributed to the final outcome of the war. The evacuation therefore produced heroes unlikely to those who were glorified in previous wars. Among others it was also the children, their parents and foster parents who did their bit and helped Britain to achieve the coveted victory. It was also the renowned British attitude of gritting one's teeth and pulling through difficulties, in this case parting with children, handling homesickness, dealing with prejudices or taking care of strange children, that heavily contributed to the success of the evacuation.

Titmuss applauds the British public when he argues that “a community less kindly, less self-controlled, less essentially Christian in behaviour, would not have acquiesced to the same extent and for such a long period of time as this one did” (in Holman 84). Inglis, too, supports the same view when she affirms that the evacuation was “a triumph of the much-maligned British capacity to ‘muddle through’” (4).

71

7. Portrayal of the Evacuation of Children in Literature

7.1 Brief Introduction of Chosen Authors and Their Books

Ken Chadwick (✶ 1934) - The Evacuee or Sins and Comeuppances

A former member of the Royal Navy and a founder of a construction company,

Ken Chadwick, started with writing later in his life. He was 79 years old when his first book The Evacuee or Sins and Comeuppances was published in 2012. The book draws on Chadwick's own experiences of being an evacuee. When interviewed about the ratio of fiction and reality in his book, Chadwick “stresses that it is a work of fiction, but it is all based on experiences that he went through during his three years as an evacuee; the kindliness of some people, the cruelty of others, and the survival instinct prevalent in children of a certain age, which means they can adapt to whatever life throws at them”

(Andrews).

The fact that the author went himself through the evacuation adds credibility to the characters of his novel. The Evacuee tells the story of a six years old boy, Frank

Bourne, who is evacuated at the very beginning of the war. Frank, as well as Ken

Chadwick, comes from a poor family of Birmingham slum dwellers and has to live with a cruel foster mother. There is therefore only a subtle line between a work of fiction and a memoir.

Chadwick´s book is unique because it observes the evacuation from many points of view. The reader gets a glimpse of what it was like for parents to part with their children, for children to live with foster families and deal with homesickness or not missing their parents at all, and for billeting officers and teachers to be responsible for safety and happiness of the children in their care. The Evacuee also reports what the hasty selection process was like and that hostile treatment or even sexual abuse could be

72

its possible outcome. Moreover, Chadwick´s novel portrays the evacuation in realistic way, pointing out not only the obvious lapses but also showing that many evacuees, as

Jersil puts it, “seemed to derive definite benefits” (472). The Evacuee, illustrating the evacuation of poor slum children, gives many accounts of evacuated children who are so happy at their new billets that they have no intentions of coming back to their families.

Nina Bawden (✶ 1925 ♰ 2012) - Carrie's War

The famous author of many popular novels and children's books, Nina Bawden, was a former evacuee as well. It is therefore no surprise that Carrie's War mirrors

Bawden´s own evacuation experience. Just as Nina Bawden herself, teenage Carrie

Willow, the main character of the book, comes from a lower middle class family and is evacuated to a small mining town in Wales, just as Nina Bawden was.

Even though Carrie's War is a children's book and many issues are simplified and not analyzed as deeply as in Chadwick´s The Evacuee, Bawden´s book still manages to give a concise picture of the evacuation. Since Carrie's War got published in 1973, young readers can find out what the evacuated children had to go through, e.g. separation from parents, getting accustomed to new rules and way of life in foster families, finding new friends and then leaving them. The immense popularity of the book and the theme brought its adaptation into a TV show in 1974 and a film in 2004.

Bawden´s book is different both from The Evacuee and Friend or Foe for its depiction of the middle class evacuees. The reality was that middle class parents often found other solutions than the government assisted evacuation and they made their private arrangements: “A great many mothers and fathers, who could afford to do so, did choose a softer option for their children …. Often, they sent them to boarding school

73

or to friends in a safer zone. It was the middle-class way out” (Inglis 88). Bawden´s main characters, Carrie and Nick Willows, are evacuated in the government scheme because their grandmother is ill, their father is a captain in the Navy and the mother decides to move from England to Glasgow so that she can be with her husband when he comes to the port. The evacuation of Carrie and Nick therefore turns out to be only a temporary solution until their mother finds a house outside Glasgow where the family can be reunited.

Michael Morpurgo (✶ 1943) - Friend or Foe

The last analyzed book was written by Michael Morpurgo who is renowned for popularizing historical events to children readership. The historical setting of his books ranges from the sinking of the Titanic, the First World War, the Second World War to the War in Afghanistan. The issue of the evacuation is touched upon in his book called

Friend or Foe. Like the rest of the authors above, also Morpurgo has a personal experience with the wartime evacuation of children, though he was presumably too young to remember any details of it. However, maybe his evacuation into rural

Northumberland had some long-term effects on Morpurgo. He set up a charity called

Farms for City Children in 1976, which enables children from urban parts of Britain to experience what life in the country looks like and entails.

Friend or Foe is a short book. However, the brevity of it does not prevent readers from enjoying the story of two evacuee friends, David and Tucky, who are evacuated from London to Devon. Even though the evacuation theme gives the book merely a background, the plot evolving around a search for German bomber pilots and a moral acceptance of helping the enemy, Friend or Foe presents all the key motifs of the evacuation. There is emotional parting with a mother, humiliating and hurtful selection

74

process, exciting farm life and keeping touch with the kind foster parents even many years after the end of the war. After its publication in 1977, the book keeps receiving an undying interest which brought about film and musical adaptations in 1982 and 2014, respectively.

Both The Evacuee and Carrie's War present the first wave of the evacuation.

Morpurgo´s Friend or Foe is therefore special in this respect for it deals with the second wave of the evacuation. The book points out David mother´s fear of losing her son due to heaving bombing of London. The stress on her motivations for sending her only son away is likely to enable young readers to understand that the parents´main motive for having their children evacuated was the safety of their offsprings.

7.2 An Analysis of the Chosen Books

7.2.1 The Evacuation Day

Chadwick´s main character, Frank, experiences a typical evacuation day. He has to get up early and his mother rushes him to Frank´s assembly point, St Joseph School.

He does not take much with him, just like the rest of evacuees, he is equipped only with a gas mask, string-tied parcel with clothes and a paper ration bag with lunch. When

Frank and his mother get to his school, the mother is asked by nuns to leave the school premises. Gladys does not protest and promptly says goodbye to her son. She instructs him not to be difficult at his new billet: “‘Always do as you're told. Don't talk unless you have to … you just listen!’ She nagged on, ‘And don't you moan - ever.’”

(Chadwick 9). Such parental advice, together with other factors such as Frank´s introvert nature, could later result in his stubbornness not to make an official complaint about his foster family. The act of separation from his mother is for Frank difficult to

75

forget: “For some time afterwards Frank recalled the cold hand on his cheek and the sad face of his mother as she turned away from him and left” (Chadwick 10).

What follows is marching to the railway station and endless waiting for the train.

It is stated that even though Frank's mother leaves at the nun´s request, there are some mothers who accompany their children to the railway station: “Clearly these were very special children. They were clutched by mothers who could not be persuaded to leave them” (Chadwick 1). There are even some cases of mothers changing their minds and taking their children back home, abandoning the evacuation scheme: “They retraced their steps: to face war together, at home” (Chadwick 1).

Evacuees´mood at the railway station differed: “Some young children were crying, some in chorus, a few weeping alone. Many of the children were silent, alone within themselves in their allotted group, but most contributed to the blanketing noise”

(Chadwick 2). Frank Bourne, who “had never been so lonely, or so alone” before, is one of the silent ones: “He wanted to be invisible … Eyes down, he wanted neither to be seen, nor even to see” (Chadwick 1, 2). However, his misery is soon diminished when

Joseph Dunn, a fellow evacuee, takes seat in Frank´s train compartment. Even though

Joe is not much older than Frank, he is more mature and gives Frank usefull advice such as to hide or eat his chocolate bar before Sister Alice, the feared nun, confiscates it. Joe comes from the slum as well but he attends a different school. His character could not be more different from Frank´s, Joe is talkative, bold and mischievous. Joe is also kind and protective, therefore a friendship between him and Frank is sealed during the tedious train journey.

Another benefit of the train journey, apart from forming new friendships, is the brown paper ration bag with lunch. The disposition of a compartment train made the supervision of children very difficult for the teachers. Therefore many children wolfed

76

down the content of the bag in seconds: “With no one to forbid or control them, the children attacked the brown paper bags. Jam sandwich, currant bun, two round biscuits, an apple and an interesting banana. It was the first banana in Frank's life” (Chadwick

25).

When the evacuees arrive at their final destination, the village of Roslington, they are taken to a village hall where they are offered refreshment provided by the

WVS. Tables full of food are greeted with appreciation of the evacuees and with excitement of the WVS members who are thrilled their effort paid out: “Mrs Hinton

[one of the billeting officers] and her ladies of the WVS … were delighted at the success of their work. At a more normal WVS meeting they would judge and declare which was the best homemade scone. Here there was not a good, bad, or indifferent scone to be found for judging” (Chadwick 35).

However, after the children are fed and content, something less pleasant is about to happen, the selection process. Even though Roslington´s billeting officers, Mrs.

Hinton and Constable Round, allocated the evacuees to their billets beforehand, their carefully compiled scheme is completely ignored by the villagers, which results in the selection process with all its unfortunate consequences including a totally inappropriate match of an evacuee and foster family and billeting the remaining unwanted evacuees on people's doorsteps.

One of the evacuees, Franks´s best friend Joe, uses quite daring tactics during the selection process. He is not picked by a foster parent, he picks his own billet when he simply joins a pretty young mother. Joe encourages Frank to do the same but Frank´s introvert nature disables him to do that, so he just watches in dismay what is happening around him: “He watched as children, rooms, and villagers were matched. He saw brothers and sisters despairingly parted. … Without much interest he saw accidents

77

pooling where infants sat. He sat in his lonely bubble, and silently watched as the hall became less and less noisy” (Chadwick 39, 40). Frank´s resigned and drawn back attitude was not helped by his appearance which enabled potential foster parents to clearly identify him as a slum child:

Frank was in a uniform. He was wearing short grey trousers, wrinkled from a

recent boiling; well-worn, too-big grey shirt; black rubber plimsoll pumps; limp

collapsed stockings, and a scruffy, badly darned woollen jersey. The parcel of

clothes; the stringed mask; his slight frame; lank hair; colourless complexion and

his in-built deference, completed the uniform. It announced his status to all those

who chose to care. Frank didn't care because he didn´t know - but the world

knew - he was from the slums (Chadwick 3).

It is no wonder then that Frank is one of the last remaining children to be billeted. He is given a camp bed and bed linen by the Council, is put in a car and driven to a household where he could share a room with the owner's´ son. His new foster mother, Edna Harding, is more or less forced to take Frank in when he appears on her doorstep and that mirrors in her hostile attitude: “She was not happy about the new lodger being foisted on her, and did not attempt to hide her lack of enthusiasm. The closest she came to a pleasantry was asking the WVS van driver, with heavy sarcasm ‘Is this the best you've got?’” (Chadwick 41). The forced and unexpected presence of an evacuee, encouraged by Mrs Harding's mean character, leads to the unenviable trials that Frank has to go through.

The main characters of Nina Bawden's Carrie's War, the siblings Carrie and

Nick Willow, are not particularly thrilled by the prospect of being evacuated. Their mother therefore tries to cheer them up before she parts with them on the evacuation

78

day. She tries to console her children by highlighting all the benefits of the evacuation:

“‘Oh, it'll be such fun,’ their mother had said when she kissed them goodbye at the station. ‘Living in the country instead of the stuffy old city. You'll love it, you see if you don´t!’” (Bawden 16).

The long train journey to Wales does not spare Nick the common bother of being sick as a result of devouring the contents of his and his sister´s ration lunch bag.

Carrie allows him to eat her lunch because she wanted to distract her brother from missing their mum. However, Carrie has no sympathy for sick Nick after he stains their teacher´s skirt. She explains to the teacher, Miss Fazackerly, why Nick was sick: “‘It´s all his own fault. He´s been stuffing his face ever since we left London. Greedy pig.

Dustbin.’” (Bawden 15).

After arriving at their final destination, a Welsh coal mining town, Carrie and

Nick meet with Albert Sandwich who soon becomes their best friend. It is Albert´s acceptance of the evacuation that helps Carrie to see the reason why she has to endure the separation from her family. When Albert reasons that “Old people aren't much use in a war. Like kids - best out of the way”, Carrie acknowledges the necessity of the evacuation from the very first day in Wales (Bawden 20).

Evacuees were then taken to the local village hall where they were offered tea and cakes after which the selection ensued. When Carrie and her friend Albert see what is about to happen, i. e. the selection process, Albert compares it to “ a kind of cattle auction” (Bawden 21). The feelings induced by the selection process are well described by Bawden. Her main female character, Carrie, is made self-conscious by the process because she gets worried she will not be chosen: “She had already begun to feel ill with shame at the fear that no one would choose her, the way she always felt when they picked teams at school. Suppose she was left to the last!” (Bawden 21).

79

Even though Carrie and her brother are not the very last ones to be chosen, they are still among the last ones. Eventually, Miss Evans takes them even though she was strictly ordered by her brother to bring only girls. Albert Sandwich also remains among the last evacuees to be picked. However, when he mentions to a billeting officer his passion for books he is sent to a billet of his dreams. Albert later describes his amazement about his new home to Carrie: “I told the billeting officer I liked books and he said there was a library here. And there is. A proper library, in a house!” (Bawden

68).

As far as the saying goodbye scene is concerned, Morpurgo´s Friend or Foe gives a description of only one of the two main characters, David Carey. He does not want to part with his mother and has dreaded the evacuation day since he first heard about it: “The morning he had thought would never come, had come. Every night since he'd first heard about it, he prayed it might not happen to him; and the night before, he had prayed he would die in his sleep rather than wake up and have to go” (Morpurgo

2). When the day that David feared so much, finally comes and he has to say goodbye to his mother at the Tube station, Mrs Carey tells her son only a few calming words and then leaves him promptly. Surprisingly, David is glad for the brief parting because he is afraid that if he saw his mother crying, it would get him emotional too. He illustrates what the tense emotional situation of saying goodbye looks like: “All around him there was crying: boys he'd never dreamt could cry, weeping openly, and mothers holding on to each other as they walked away” (Morpurgo 7).

David is soon cheered up by the presence of his schoolmate and the best friend,

Tucky. They try to kill time by playing games at the railway station because their train has two hours delay. During their journey, the obligatory train sickness bothers poor

80

Tucky. Luckily no one makes much of it and their kind teacher, Miss Roberts, helps all the evacuees to grasp the gravity of the situation they are in. She also comments on their prospects of coming back home soon: “You must understand that you will not be going home for some time. You'll have a new home and a new school and it won't be easy for you. But it will be a lot easier if you can understand that you won't be going home for a long time. One day we'll all go back to Islington, but not for a long time” (Morpurgo 17,

18). The honesty of their teacher´s words helps the evacuated boys to face the reality of spending a long time without their families.

After the evacuees get to their final destination with a three-hour delay, they are taken to a village hall crammed with refreshments. Tired and hungry boys from

Islington are offered hot tomato soup, cheese rolls and sweet cocoa which is greeted with joy. The generosity of the reception the evacuees are given is thanked for by Miss

Roberts. She stresses in her speech that the unselfish villagers provided them with meals that ceased to be common in London and urban areas in general: “I know they [the evacuees] would all like me to thank you kind people for our welcoming meal. It´s a long time since we've eaten like that” (Morpurgo 23).

The scrumptious meal is followed by something less pleasant, the selection process. After Miss Robert´s bid to the foster parents to choose their evacuee as quickly as possible because of the late hour, the village hall empties rapidly. Only two boys remain, Tucky and David. Tucky is sad that his friend and him were not chosen by anyone and asks David what the reason could be. David tries to joke about it but he is let down by the selection process as well: “‘They didn't choose me, ´cos you were sitting next to me, and they didn't choose you because I was sitting next to you. And besides, we're not the prettiest in the class, are we?’ He tried to joke it away, but he was hurt inside just as Tucky was. Time and time again people had looked him over and

81

passed him by” (Morpurgo 26). The reason why there are two evacuees left in the village hall and no foster parent in sight is caused by a mistake about the number of incoming evacuees and by the absence of one foster parent. The missing foster carer is

Mr Reynolds, a farmer, who is delayed because of helping with a birth of a foal. When he finally turns up to take an evacuee he signed in for, he is offered that he can choose from the two boys. He is outraged by such proposition and speaks his mind up about the idea of selection: “‘´Tis just like market day,’ … ‘I'm supposed to look at two young lads, face to face mind you, and then pick out one and not the other. … ´Tis revolting that's what ´tis. And what happens to the one I don´t choose, eh? How d´you think he'll feel?’” (Morpurgo 31). He does not choose at all for Mr Reynolds decides to take both

David and Tucky. However, before taking them back home with him he does a highly unusual thing. He introduces himself to the boys and asks them whether they want to join him and his wife at the farm.

7.2.2 Problematic Issues of the Evacuation

Thoughtless Mismatches

In Ken Chadwick´s book, the mismatch causing a lot of friction and animosity between the villagers of Roslington and the incoming evacuees is caused by different faith. Roslington is an Anglican village and all the evacuees are Roman Catholics. The

Evacuee illustrates the not uncommon clash of faiths that were brought upon by the evacuation. Not even those who are supposed to be sensible and compassionate were spared hostility caused by the contact with a different denomination.

When Father Daniel tries to look up the only contact in Roslington he was given, he encounters rather cold and uninviting behaviour of the local Vicar, Reverend

Humphries who:

82

was annoyed to have been discovered in his garden sanctum. ‘Evacuation? I

have nothing to do with it Father,’ was his reaction to Father Daniel´s

introduction. ‘Church of England,’ he intoned deliberately. ‘My flock are C of E.

- I understand that all of the Evacuees,’ adding the grit of distaste to the word,

‘are of your different belief.’ He continued, ‘War or not I think that the entire

matter has been badly managed - not thought out properly. This village is C of

E; it is not of Rome. And now,’ he paused, to control his obvious annoyance

before stating, ‘and now we are to have some thirty - thirty - youths from the city

visited upon us. That's nearly as many children as our own - our own protestant

children.’ (Chadwick 32).

However, the new religious division of Roslington is partially shattered when the local brass band insists on using its rehearsal space, the village hall, which is occupied by the Catholic strangers for educational purposes. When the band begins to play, any religious animosity is forgotten:

The band played before their most appreciative audience ever. They warmed and

responded to the wide eyed attention and enthusiasm of these young initiates to

music, whose very bodies vibrated with deeply rich and magical sounds.

Enveloped in emotive, glorious brass-band noise, the children clapped and

cheered every piece played, provoking yet more enthusiastic effort from the

musicians. … The Reverend Humphries called at the school during the show,

expecting to witness a showdown between village mean and townie Catholics,

but the expected confrontation didn't happen, and the Vicar didn't stay long

(Chadwick 73, 74).

It is only after an incident with Betty, an evacuee, which tears down barriers even from

Vicar´s behaviour and he becomes supportive of the Catholics in his village.

83

Seeing How the Other Half Lived

The Evacuee gives a good account of what life in a Birmingham slum looked like and what effect it has on the evacuees. There is an interesting glimpse of how the poor people in the slums had to economize their lives in order to save money or survive.

Gladys, Frank´s mother, learnt how to economize to the maximum extent, getting furniture from the local dump, using a candle instead of lighting gas, going to bed at dusk: “Going to bed when it became dark outside was a great economy. It saved on gas and coal, and by conserving body energy and heat - which otherwise demanded fuelling with food - it saved yet more cash” (Chadwick 48).

The clothing represents one of the biggest problems for Gladys Bourne and she takes no pride in sending her son to his billet in the countryside with insufficient clothing, i.e. without a coat. As Chadwick shows the clothing posed as a huge challenge for Mrs Bourne because she had to prioritize her expenses: “Food came first. When you had bought food there was no money left for clothes. It was impossible for her to replace with new the clothing of the older children” (8).

Another issue touched upon by Chadwick are broken families. When Frank is told that his brother David died on the sea, the bearer of the tragic news, Father Daniel, is surprised that Frank is not emotional about it at all. It is only when Frank explains to him that David lived with their granny, that Father Daniel understands and identifies the effects of torn families: “[he] understood immediately why Frank was less upset and less grief stricken than one could anticipate: he came from a splintered family, a unit normal to the slums of any city. The splintering devolved responsibilities and diluted love itself. Emotions were mostly physical: centering of food; anger; lust; warmth, and money. Grief was a luxury” (Chadwick 165). The ‘diluted love’ of parents is exactly the

84

case of Frank´s mother who is so occupied by providing for her children the basics for their survival that she has no capacity left to emotionally connect with her offsprings:

“She had always been too busy, too poor, to see any of her children´s development in detail” (Chadwick 166).

The effects of poverty on human relationships are also well represented on Bill

Bourne, Frank´s father, who left his family. It is only at the end of The Evacuee when the reason for his abandonment is clarified. He left his wife after she became a Catholic and let her youngest children baptized in order to get help from the Catholic Church. It was unbearable for Bill that he could not provide for his own family: “when she [his wife] went to the Priests for help - for food and boots what they needed - all that he couldn't get for them, Bill just gave up” (Chadwick 209). However, Mr Harding does not give up and he tries to be a supportive parent for his eldest daughter Ellie, whose husband is in jail and she stays alone with a child. Bill says to his friend that he would like to rent a flat for Ellie and him and behave like a proper parent: “‘I will be a dad … to at least one of my kids.’” (Chadwick 212).

What Chadwick cleverly achieves by his depiction of the slum realities is a raised awareness that not all the cases of inadequately dressed, malnourished or emotionally flat evacuees were caused by their parent´s intentional negligence. In some cases it was the unimaginable degree of poverty that did not allow the parents to give their children what they deserved.

85

7.2.3 Taking Part in the Evacuation

Billeting Officers

There are two billeting officers in The Evacuee, the local policeman Constable

Round and Mary Hinton. It is the character of Mrs Hinton who is given more detailed depiction by Chadwick.

She becomes busy even before evacuees´ arrival when, assisted by Constable

Round, has to deal with an outdated list of available foster homes. It turned out, after the evacuation became not a possibility but an imminent reality, that villagers are not willing to keep the promises they made during peace time which concerned the number of children they can offer a billet to. Therefore both evacuation officers had to update the list and often force the villagers to make some sacrifices. Knowledge of how village life and relationships work definitely helped the Constable and Mrs Hinton to persuade even the most resistant villagers: “They [the Constable and Mrs Hinton] arranged for loan beds; suggested an alternative place for the seed potatoes, other than the floor of the proposed evacuee room, and found that offering to send in willing neighbours to help clean the room was a most certain way of getting it cleaned - and without neighbourly assistance” (Chadwick 33).

As mentioned above, the billeting plan devised by the Constable and Mary

Hinton is completely ignored by foster parents. Hence the billeting officers´ control over the selection process is limited and they can only “watch over the mayhem” and take comfort in the fact that all evacuees have a bed to sleep in at the end of the day

(Chadwick 40).

As far as Mrs. Hinton´s responsibilities as a billeting officer are concerned she is truly a busy bee. At the beginning of children's evacuation she sends all their parents a message with children´s new address. She also visits evacuees at their billets and

86

inspects their well-being. When Mrs. Hinton´s friend tips her off that Frank Bourne is mistreated at his billet, Mrs Hinton intervenes and asks Frank if everything is alright.

Sadly, Frank just replies that “everything was ok” (Chadwick 77).

Mrs. Hinton is a beloved person by the evacuees mainly because she treats them kindly and with respect. Its her who is contacted by evacuees who want to put an end to the suffering that one of their friends, Betty, has to endure at her billet. When Joe and

Harry arrive at Mrs. Hinton´s house, they are very anxious, however, Mrs Hinton´s behaviour calms them down: “Mary Hinton greeted them with a smile, and with her friendly manner and by remembering their first names; she was quickly able to put them more at ease” (Chadwick 123). Thanks to the trust she possesses among the evacuees

Mrs Hinton succeeds in rescuing poor Betty who was sexually assaulted by the members of her foster family.

Teachers

Evacuees in Ken Chadwick´s book are tutored mainly by two teachers, Sister

Alice and Father Daniel. The latter of them is a good-hearted and empathetic priest who tries to ease the ordeal of the children in his care. He awaits their arrival in Roslington village hall and when he sees their misery, he tries to uplift them with his optimistic approach: “He smiled, and then he laughed, thigh-slapping loud for the children to hear.

He laughed because he saw their need for him to laugh. He recognised the sadness, the apprehension and the sense of betrayal in them. Father Daniel forced himself to laugh”

(Chadwick 31). The priest is a thoughtful person who realizes that many of his charges do not come from a loving environment, their parents are often glad that the evacuation came and they could be rid of their kids. Therefore he realizes that he often serves as the only person who has the children´s happiness in mind. With the responsibility come

87

concerns: “He was aware of, and he feared the vulnerability of the children now in his care. His children” (Chadwick 31).

The second teacher of evacuees in Roslington, the devil in disguise, is Sister

Alice. The nun despises kind and open-minded Father Daniel who “annoyed her constantly. He suggested that her use of indoctrination and correction were less effective than instruction and persuasion. She did not change” (Chadwick 69). She uses corporal punishment in form of slapping, pinching and hitting knuckles with a ruler. Her subject was catechism and she manages to terrify her pupils with her version of

Catholicism: “She filled their minds with Purgatory and Hell. Flames - burning flesh that never burned away - endless writhing and screaming. She painted pictures of their own progression towards this damnation. Inevitable they were going to burn for their sins” (Chadwick 69). It is the presence of Sister Alice that frightens the evacuees who have to meet her every school day and whose experience of the evacuation is heavily influenced by her.

Parents

The description of the issues dealt with by poor parents of evacuated children is well put in The Evacuee. Even though Frank's father, Bill, is not dead, he abandoned his family and is absent from the lives of his children. Therefore Gladys Bourne has to take care of her family, comprising seven children, on her own. Actually, some of her parental burden is taken from Mrs. Bourn by her mother who accommodates and takes care of two older children. Additionally, Mrs Bourne´s oldest son and daughter live on their own, the son being in the Navy and the daughter living with her husband.

Therefore Gladys´s household consists of three children, youngest Frank and older Rita and Jean. All the three children are evacuated at the beginning of the war.

88

Even though Mrs. Bourne´s resources are limited she does her best to send

Frank away in decent state. She is not a reckless mother and therefore she makes sure that Frank is given a proper scrub and dresses him in ironed clothes. Like many other parents Mrs. Bourne also does not know at first where exactly her son is about to be evacuated to but “she took comfort in the knowledge that it would be a good and safe place in the country” (Chadwick 6).

On her way back from the abrupt partition with her son at his school Mrs.

Bourne is overcome with sadness caused by the realities of her life: “she experienced a great self-pity. Once again she was desperately unhappy: once again she was alone. It was another shit day - another miserable day in an unrelenting shitty life. She went deep into her misery, wallowing in the unfairness of it all, bemoaning the lack of a future, hungering for a success in her life” (Chadwick 11). Despite her sorrow from being parted from her children, Gladys soon finds a relief in war work. She manages to find a job in a munition factory and the possibility of a wage and spending it as she wishes gives her a sense of independence:

She would be involved again. Earn money, and respect. She could and she

would have a life again. … At forty years of age perhaps she could breathe

again. With the little one gone today, there were no kids to stop her going to

work again … Suddenly she experienced an exciting freedom. This war was

bringing changes. It offered a way out from today´s miserable sameness.

Through work and through wages it promised relief (Chadwick 15).

Even though Mrs Bourne enjoys her new life enabled by her job at the factory, there is always the feeling of guilt at the back of her mind: “She thought of her other children. They were all scattered about, they hardly knew her as their Mom. Once again she felt the guilt - the guilt that always arrived - that always came with any little

89

satisfaction or happiness that chanced her way” (Chadwick 20). Mrs Bourne is perhaps weighed down by the feeling that she failed as a mother when she let her children be evacuated. However, at the same time she realizes that her kids could be lucky and be billeted with people who could offer her poor children emotional benefits that are denied to the them by the life in the slum: “She was a loser … She had given her kids away. People unknown were looking after her children. Please God! Let them be good people … people who have time in their lives for love; people who can afford the luxury of loving” (Chadwick 15). Later on Mrs Bourne is delighted when she finds out that her daughters landed decent foster homes and she reads between the lines of Rita and Jean´s addresses and takes a great pride that her daughters have better lives now:

Miss Rita Bourne was billeted for the duration of the War at Rose Cottage,

Orchard Lane, Whycham. She was under the temporary care and guardianship of

Miss Beatrice Bryant. Gladys wondered what Miss Beatrice Bryant was like:

perhaps a bit posh. Then she mused, ‘Rose Cottage sounds like in the pictures! It

will be really safe for our Rita at Rose Cottage: really nice in the country.’ In

similar style the same card informed her that Miss Jean Bourne was billeted with

Mr and Mrs Wilfred Statham, The Butchers, Main Street, Whycham. ‘How

bloody marvellous,’ thought Gladys, ‘you've fell on your feet there our Jean, a

bloody butchers! How good is that?’ (Chadwick 44, 45).

Even though Mrs Bourne knows where her children are evacuated she never visits them and it takes her almost three years to write letters to Rita and Jean. Sadly enough Frank never gets any letter from his mother because she postponed writing a postcard to him and then shen never comes back to it. The lack of contact with her evacuated children could be contributed to the fact that Mrs Bourne is kept busy and

90

tired by the factory work but it is likely that the feeling of guilt has something to do with it as well. She does not want to abandon her children for she is certain about their rooms in the new house she was given by the Council after her slum got demolished due to heavy bombing. Even though it suits her now that she does not have to take care of them and can concentrate on creating a new home, the idea of not taking them back does not cross her mind. However, because Mrs Bourne did not keep in touch with her evacuated children for such a long time, it damages her children´s bond towards her.

When Rita finally gets the letter from her mother “she could not hear her mother´s voice in the letter nor could she visualise her mother´s face, although she tried very hard to refresh the faded image that she had of her” (Chadwick 170). Rita, staying in a hospital, is more thrilled by the letter she gets from her foster mother: “When she opened this …

Rita gave a little shriek of delight, and she continued to laugh out loud as she read the letter” (Chadwick 171).

The depiction of parents in Bawden's Carrie's War is also centered mainly on the figure of the mother. Even though Carrie and Nick come from a functional family, their father serves in the army therefore it is the mother who sees the children off, writes letters and visits her children. Mrs Willow, who became an ambulance driver, never loses touch with her evacuated children. Apart from the letters she also sends them parcels with sweets, knitted socks or birthday presents. She also visits Carrie and Nick at their billet. Bawden comments that such a visit is not easy to organize because of the huge distance from Mrs Willow´s deployment in Glasgow to a little town in Wales: “it was such a long way and the trains were so crowded with soldiers and she had had to take two whole days off from the ambulance station” (50). Even though she misses her children, the visit puts her mind at ease when she sees that Miss Evans is a kind foster

91

carer and stresses to her children that the evacuation is an unforgettable life long experience for them: “She said, ‘I expect it'll be something you'll remember and treasure for the rest of your lives,’” (Bawden 50).

Morpurgo´s only parental character in Friend or Foe is David Carey´s mother.

The father figure is again totally absent, however, it is not because of abandoning the family or being away with the forces. David´s father was presumably a member of the

RAF and got killed by the Germans. The fact that Mrs Carey already lost a member of her family helps her in her resolution to protect her only child from the dangers of bombed London. She has enough of hiding in cellars and does not want to risk the life of her son any more, she explains to David her motivation of having him evacuated:

“‘At least you'll be away from all that, David, away from the bombs, away from the war. At least they won't get you as well.’” (Morpurgo 6).

Mrs Carey also tries to keep in touch with David. After she leaves London as well and becomes a member of the WAAF, she regularly sends letters to him. Her effort not to lose contact with her son is in contrast to the attitude of Tucky's parents who

“hardly ever wrote” (Morpurgo 46).

Cohabitation of Evacuated Children and Their Foster Families

The main character of The Evacuee, Frank Bourne, is billeted with the Hardings who occupy a cottage which comes with Bill Harding´s job as a farm labourer. Edna and Bill Hardings have two children, Emily and Brian who has to share his room with

Frank.

Settling in his new billet is definitely not made any easier by Mrs Harding who makes it pristine clear from the very beginning that Frank is not welcome in her house

92

and that she despises his presence. She greets him with these words full of contempt:

“‘Now listen … Frank aint´it?’ He nodded. ‘We´ve been lumbered with you. We didn´t want you. We don't want you. It´s a bloody nuisance having to put you up. You´re the biggest bloody nuisance in our lives. Just you behave; you keep from underfoot - or you'll get the belt.’” (Chadwick 42).

Luckily for Frank the animosity of Mrs Harding is not shared by her husband

Bill who secretly regrets that his job on a farm prevents him from being called to the army because he would love to get away from his monotonous life for a while: “He had a recurring and guilty dream of escape: of exchanging a thirteen-year-old marriage - and an abrasive angular woman of thirty-two - for a rifle, comrades and adventure”

(Chadwick 57). Even though Bill Harding is not thrilled by Frank´s presence, he pities him: “This evacuee was yet another intrusion into the space that he yearned for, but … he did feel a bit sorry for the sad little sod. He looked so unhappy - all of the time. He didn't say much, but Bill hadn´t heard him crying or moaning” (Chadwick 58).

However, Bill Harding´s soft spot for Frank makes his wife even more furious:

“He didn't know just how much she hated the boy. And her hatred for the boy grew with

Bill´s ignorance of her hatred. He should be on her side!” (Chadwick 65). Her hatred towards Frank takes many forms, from verbal abuse when she addresses him as “surly bastard” (Chadwick 134), cringeworthy humiliation when she forces him to stand naked in front of her teenage nice to one particularly cruel ordeal, the bath day, during which she takes sadistic pleasure in nearly drowning Frank when she gives him a bath. Frank´s first bath day at the Hardings looks like this: “Suddenly and without warning, his head had been pushed down between his legs - and it had been held there … and held there

… held in a vice like grip that ridiculed his struggles to get free. He thrashed at the water with body, arms and legs trying desperately to pull him up - all the time panicking

93

to hold his breath - but choking” (Chadwick 64). As time goes by and Frank has been evacuated for several months, Mrs Harding´s behaviour during bath day does not change, her angry rant is the only innovation of the whole drowning process: “‘We have got to get your scabby miserable carcass clean you little bastard!’ She intoned, with rhythmic satisfaction as she scrubbed and pummeled him. Ignoring his choking, tortured writhing she grunted her threat, ‘I will get you clean you nasty toerag.’” (Chadwick

137).

Moreover, Edna Harding´s barbarity when bathing Frank escalated so much that

Frank becomes gradually worried about his own life: “He seriously believed that he could die in the next bath” (Chadwick 137). In order to survive he comes up with a plan.

He will practise holding his breath so that he can endure longer under the water.

Also Brian, the son of Edna and Bill, proves to be another danger at Frank´s billet. He bullies Frank whenever he can and once he even manages to brand Frank for life. Brian and his friends ambush Frank, tie him and then burn his leg with a heated metal pea-shooter. The reason behind this extraordinary cruelty is Brian´s strong hatred of Frank which is partially caused by jealousy: “He hated Frank with a sickness that he could feel in his stomach. Frank should not be here. He should not be in his bedroom.

He should not talk with his sister, she should not even like him - and he shouldn't talk to his Dad - most of all he should not talk with his Dad. He truly hated it when his Dad spoke to Frank” (Chadwick 132).

Such hostile environment is very difficult for children to flourish in and indeed it is impossible for Frank to thrive at his billet. What helps him pull through the nightmarish experience of evacuation is his survival instinct and his technique of trying to be invisible to the perpetrators of his suffering, i. e. moody Mrs Harding and her mean son. Frank “learned the value of anonymity. He always ‘did as he was told’ - and

94

he found that he was frequently able to avoid being in situations and places where he could be told. … He learned how not to cry: how to be desperately unhappy without crying, how not to think of mom. … to exist without being noticed” (Chadwick 56).

However, at one point Frank´s desperation goes so far that he wishes to die. He contemplates how to tell about this wish of his to Jesus and Virgin Mary in his prayer, his wishes are quite specific: “he wanted to be able to die. Just die, and - die completely.

He did not want to die and go to Purgatory, where he would burn for a while, where he would have to be in the flames long enough to clear his sins - before he would be allowed to go to heaven to see them, and live with them for always. He wanted to be - and then just … not be” (Chadwick 75). Nevertheless, his self-pity and fear caused by

Mrs Harding´s heartless behaviour soon turns into a completely different emotion - the one of dislike or almost hatred: “Without knowing it his fear of Mrs Harding gradually altered: it became an intense dislike that he hid from her. Dislike which grew as his fear of her diminished - it grew as he managed his fear” (Chadwick 75). Frank´s strong dislike of Mrs Harding is most apparent in the climax scene of The Evacuee, during which Frank does not save Mrs Harding who is drowning in a river canal. When he picks up a long stick he does not uses it to help Mrs Harding but to fetch a basket full of provision for his escape journey back to Birmingham, which Mrs Harding threw into the canal. Frank only makes a feeble attempt at saving her life when he shouts in front of the house of Edna's mother that Mrs Harding is in the canal and that she needs help.

Even though Frank´s billet is far from being ideal, there are moments when he is happy. It is in the company of his friends who support him and lighten him up anytime he needs it.

Joe Dunn, Frank´s best friend, is “an atheist, a philosopher, a great comfort and teacher to his small chum Frank” (Chadwick 71). Joe´s foster family is the exact

95

opposite of Frank´s. As mentioned before, Joe picked his own foster mother during the selection process and it was a truly good pick. His foster mother Isabel is a young mother whose husband is with the troops in Africa. Joe helps her with her baby and substitutes the male element in her household. She and Joe form a friendly relationship in which Isabel is quite an unusual foster mother teaching her evacuee cheeky songs, inducing pillow fights and throwing buckets of water on Joe sleeping in the garden:

“She was more of a friend than a grown-up, having an innocent openness and interests that were tuned to their age. She was a bit dotty, but there was no hint of a threat in her”

(Chadwick 184).

Another member of Joe and Frank´s rat pack is Harry. When the group of evacuees comes to Roslington, Harry is the strongest looking boy of them all and therefore he is chosen by a farmer´s wife, Mrs Jackson. He is treated by the childless

Jacksons as their own son and the farm life, though busy and wearing, suits Harry perfectly: “[he] worked long, hard and - if he thought about it at all - happily at Jackson farm” (Chadwick 152). Moreover, his presence is indispensable at the farm: “Harry had become a key member of the farm team. He grew into the demands made on him by the farm - demands by Mr and Mrs Jackson, the animals, the crops, and the changing demands of the changing seasons” (176). As well as Joe, Harry is happy with his foster family.

Such a thing cannot be said about Betty Frome who, as Frank puts it, is

“abducted” by Eric Evans from the village hall during the selection process (Chadwick

40). She is taken into a dilapidated house which is occupied by elderly George Evans, his wife and their bachelor son Eric. The billeting officer, Mrs Hinton is suspicious about the appropriateness of Betty´s billet and visits her when she finds out that Betty does not attend school. She finds her in a complete squalor and takes her to Father

96

Daniel so that he can officially confirm Betty´s re-billeting. However, Father Daniel is off and there is only Sister Alice to deal with. The nun roughly sends Mrs Hinton away and deals with the matter herself. She does not side with Betty because of her social status: “Frome, you should be ashamed to behave as you have done: no humility, but that is no surprise. There is not one ounce of grace or humility in any of your family. Be thankful that you have been given shelter here - and remember just who you are. …

How dare you presume to compare this with your slum - and your slum family - in

Birmingham?” (Chadwick 111, 112). Sister Alice then goes to the Vicar and they both accompany Betty back to the Evans where Betty is humiliated by the nun by spanking in front of the perpetrator of her suffering, Eric Evans . Sister Alice also instructs Eric:

“This slut from a slum family has got to do what she's told … and I'm telling you Mr

Evans, this girl has got to clean the house … it's her job to repay the family that's looking after her … in any way she can” (Chadwick 116). Such vitriolic speech encourages Eric to sexually assault Betty after the nun and Vicar leave. The desperate girl luckily confides about her suffering to her friends, Harry and Joe and they take the matter back to Mrs Hinton who is horrified by the outcome of her previous intervention and acts instantly on her own. Eric is jailed, his father commits suicide and their bedridden mother dies afterwards.

Betty is found a new foster home the very day when Mrs Hinton finds out about the sexual violence. And it is a quite unexpected billet because Mrs Hinton decides that

Betty has to stay with the Vicar so that he can repay her for his ignorance and the desire not to have anything to do with the Catholic children. Even though Betty is offered by

Father Daniel that she can be moved back to her family in Birmingham, she refuses the relocation and wishes to stay with Reverend Humphries and his housekeeper. They love and cherish Betty at the vicarage, Betty helps them with various chores and the Vicar

97

kindly tutors her: “he encouraged her to learn; introduced her to books; coached her with homework, and together they listened to music, which they later discussed”

(Chadwick 154). It is obvious that Betty´s second billet finally gives her opportunities and loving care she never experienced before in the slums of Birmingham.

There is one more evacuee character in Ken Chadwick´s book that is given some detailed description. It is the pretty Susan Clements who is chosen for her looks and exquisite clothes by Clarissa Graham, a prominent local member of the Women's

Institute. Mrs Graham picks lovely looking Susan because she is bored in her big house and wants a representative companion because her husband spends a lot of time in his factory. It is a surprise for the billeting officer, Mrs Hinton, when Clarissa pops up one day and complains about her evacuee. She says that Susan behaves inappropriately towards her husband, that she flatters him, lets him feed her and even sits on his knee.

Mrs Graham considers it display of flirtation inappropriate for a 10 year old girl and wants Mrs Hinton to re-billet Susan. However, eventually Mrs Graham changes her mind after she confronts Susan about her behaviour and finds out that Susan only copies the behaviour of her mother. Clarissa is also told by Susan that her mother shifts her from relative to relative so that she can lead independent life and visits her daughter only occasionally, every time with a new ‘uncle’. The new information sheds light on

Susan´s weird behaviour and Mrs Graham begins to despise her mother for “She has casually passed on her own values, or lack of values, to her daughter. Her living style is the example she gave to Susan. She has shown her that by flirting she can get what she wants from men. From uncles” (Chadwick 91). The story of Susan shows how difficult were the beginnings of evacuees and foster parents´ cohabitation. A lot of misunderstandings had to be cleared and a huge deal of compassion applied.

98

Nina Bawden created slightly unusual foster carers in Carrie's War. They are not husband and wife but brother and sister. Miss Louise Evans, a meek woman in her thirties, lives with her brother who takes care of her since their parents died. She is very kind and understanding, her gentle nature is best shown when it turns out, after she brings Carrie and Nick to her home on the evacuation day, that they do not have slippers with them. The fact is they did not pack them because of limited space in their luggage, however, Miss Evans comes up with a quick conclusion about their social background.

The hasty judgement is followed by Miss Evans´ sympathy, not condemnation, however, it does not escape Nick´s attention: “‘She thinks we're poor children, too poor to have slippers,’ and giggled” (Bawden 25). Miss Evans suggests to her evacuees to call her Auntie Lou and their relationship is friendly and warm.

On the other hand, Mr Evans is far from being kind to his evacuees. He is much older than his sister and works as a councillor and a grocer. His religiosity, strictness and coldness leads to antagonism between him and the evacuees under his roof. He lets the children feel that they are a nuisance for him. When he sees that Carrie and Nick have good table manners, he unkindly remarks “You've got a few manners, I see. That´s something! That´s a bit of sugar on the pill!” (Bawden 34). His conduct does not frighten Carrie but she tries to stay out of his company because of his reserved and starchy behaviour: “Carrie wasn't really much afraid of Mr Evans. But she kept out of his way as his sister´s scraggy old cat did, streaking from its place by the fire the moment his feet were heard in the passage” (Bawden 37). However, Carrie's brother is less indifferent to Mr Evans´ behaviour. He is slightly terrified of him and such feelings cause Nick to be homesick. He expresses the desperation about his billet during the first night in Wales when he confides to Carrie: “‘I want Mummy.’ … ‘I want to go home,’ he said. ‘I don't like it here. I don't want to be safe in the country” (Bawden 31). After

99

Mr Evans is cruel to Auntie Lou, Nick gives a free way to his emotions and he reveals that as time goes by, the animosity towards Mr Evans grows stronger: “‘Getting used to things doesn't make them any better, does it? He´s a horrible, disgusting, yakky hog- swine” (Bawden 114).

Even though Mr Evans pretends to be a cold fish and does not make any public displays of affection towards his evacuees, when they are about to go back to their mother, it is apparent that he will miss their company. He grows especially fond of

Carrie and when he tells her how much she will be missed Carrie is deeply touched by his words: “‘I'm going to miss my assistant,’ he said, more than once. ‘You´ve been a real help to me, Carrie.’ And this rare compliment made Carrie feel sadder still each time she heard it” (Bawden 172, 173). Moreover, the always very money conscious Mr

Evans gives Carrie and Nick quite valuable parting gifts - a ring and a knife. That also shows how much he grew to like them.

Another evacuee character that is given detailed description in Carrie's War is

Albert Sandwich. He is billeted at Bottom of Druid's Grove, also called Druid's Bottom, in a huge country house that belongs to Mr Evan´s older sister, Dilys Gotobed.

However, the siblings do not talk to each other because of an old family feud. Elderly

Mrs Gotobed, accompanied by a mentally challenged relative Mister Johnny, are taken care of by hardworking and good-hearted Hepzibah Green. Albert is very happy at his billet. Even though he is quite isolated from the life in the town, he is often paid visits by Carrie and Nick who envy Albert his billet because they view it as the exact opposite of Mr Evans´ strict, cold and sterile household: “A warm, sage, lighted place. Hepzibah kitchen was always like that, … Coming into it was like coming home on a bitter cold day to a bright, leaping fire. It was like the smell of bacon when you were hungry; loving arms when you were lonely; safety when you were scared” (Bawden 63).

100

Mr and Mrs Reynold, the foster parents in Morpurgo's Friend or Foe are a childless couple of farmers. They treat their evacuees, David and Tucky, with love. The

Reynolds do not even doubt about David and Tucky´s story about seeing the German bomber. Such loving and respectful treatment causes both boys to adore their foster parents. Tucky even wishes his own father was as kind as Mr Reynolds: “‘I wish my dad was like him,’ Tucky went on. ‘I´ve never heard him shout, not like my dad. My dad´s always on at me.’” (Morpurgo 41). The affection is mutual and Mr Reynolds also expresses his content with his host children, he says to David and Tucky: “‘We often think that if we´d been blessed with children, we´d want to have them just like you two”

(Morpurgo 121).

7.2.4 Life of Evacuees

Type of Accommodation

All the characters of evacuees in Chadwick´s novel are billeted in families. All the children come from Birmingham slums therefore one could expect that their living conditions improved. However, many of the foster homes have outside earth closet, and that is shocking especially for Frank who is used to a water closet that is shared with more households. The experience of an outside privy with a massive hole in its wooden seat is Frank´s first terrifying encounter with the effects of the evacuation. It is on the privy seat when desperate Frank questions his ordeal: “Alone, his fear developed into a terror that swamped even his all alone misery. Why had his mom done this? Why had she sent him away?” (Chadwick 43).

101

Nina Bawden's Carrie's War also tackles the issue of evacuees who are not used to earth closets. Carrie and Nick, coming from a middle class family, are surprised that they will have to use an outside privy even though there is a bathroom with a water closet in Mr Evans´ house. The reason is that they are not allowed to go upstairs, where the bathroom is, more than once a day in order not to trample a new carpet on the stairs.

Because Carrie likes Miss Evans and does not want to cause unnecessary troubles, she tries to persuade her brother not to complain about it and turns the issue of a privy into an adventure: “‘That'll be fun, Nick, won´t it? Like the one at that farm where we stayed last summer.’” (Bawden 29).

Food

Perhaps the luckiest evacuee in terms of food is Harry from The Evacuee. He is billeted on a farm and that comes with certain benefits of off-rations food. His typical breakfast consists of “bacon, perhaps sausage, egg, potato cakes, and lots of homemade bread and, from the huge brown pot on the table, heavily sweetened tea” (Chadwick

176).

However, his friend Frank is not so fortunate because his mean foster mother,

Edna Harding, gives him only small amounts of food even though she has his ration book and her family does not suffer from lack of food. She does not give Frank any sweets and Frank is well aware that her two children get them: “Mrs Harding had the ration books and somehow only Brian and Emily seemed to get a share of sweets”

(Chadwick 179). Frank´s situation therefore does not change much from his life in

Birmingham slums as far as food is concerned. Luckily, he is treated kindly by strangers who offer him rare delicacies: “Often Cyril, the boss dairyman, would fill his jug cup with the warm, creamy milk, for him to drink there and then. And sometimes, not quite

102

so often, Frank would be given a crusty, misshapen chunk of raw sugar from a jute sack in the corner of the butter room. This was special extra-ration sugar for the farm´s jam making. It was a war time treat for a sweet craving boy to remember” (Chadwick 135).

Another kind stranger is a road sweeper who shares a piece of delicious custard pie with

Frank which becomes an unforgettable experience for him: “Always hungry, and always conscious of his hunger, he immediately recognised that this was more than mere food.

It was not merely to be devoured. It was experience: a wonderful taste and a sacrifice made by this new friend. His gift to the man in return was the transparent enjoyment with which he very slowly ate and relished the pie” (Chadwick 161).

Even though the main characters of Carrie's War are billeted at a grocer's house, the food they are given there is very simple because of Mr Evans´ strict and thrifty attitude: “They didn't often get roast meat, only what Auntie Lou Called ‘Done Down’, which was the remains of the joint after Mr Evans had finished with it, minced up with bread and gravy browning. ‘Young people shouldn´t have meat, it makes them too boisterous,’ was what Mr Evans said” (Bawden 46). Therefore Carrie and Nick eat frugally at their foster home. However, they compensate the lack of tasty food at the

Evans by visiting Albert at his billet where Hepzibah Green always has some delicious and comforting pies and puds.

Doing Their Bit

Ken Chadwick depicts in The Evacuee the experience of taking part in a harvest camp. His main character, Frank Bourne, considers it a great adventure and enjoys being surrounded by kind supervisors and great farm food. Due to his small frame he is not asked to pick plums but to sort them according to their size and such a job satisfies

103

him. He enjoys the whole adventure for many reasons: “It was full, colourful and rewarding time for the evacuees. For Frank it was a million miles from Birmingham, the war, the nun and Mrs Harding” (Chadwick 183).

Apart from going to a harvest camp, the evacuees from Roslington also help local farmers with seasonal jobs, e.g. potato picking. Their strenuous effort always has a silver lining: “they were paid for their aching backs at the end of the day” (Chadwick

179).

Carrie's War features no mention of a harvest camp, however, Carrie and Nick have a chance to experience the real rural life at Alfred´s billet. It is at Druid's Bottom where Carrie and Nick witness a calf being born and it is Nick who is thrilled the most by what he sees: “‘I´ve never seen anything so exciting in my whole life,’ Nick said afterwards. ‘It´s my best thing!’” (Bawden 98). Carrie and Nick also offer their helping hand during a hay season. Such kind of physical work appeals especially to Carrie:

“[she] was hot and tired but wonderfully happy. She lay on her stomach on top of the hay, dusty spikes tickling her ears and her nostrils and said, ‘I wish I was a farmer, I could go on harvesting for ever and ever and ever.’” (Bawden 133).

Michael Morpurgo´s evacuees, David and Tucky, come from London and therefore their stay on Mr Reynold's farm is full of new experiences. Both David and

Tucky follow their foster dad´s every footstep and get familiar with what life on a farm entails: “... they saw things they'd never seen before as Mr Reynolds shepherded them around the farm. … They discovered that the sheep on the steeply sloping fields were not wild after all; … They watched Mr Reynolds delivering the early spring lambs, and helped him bring in the ewes that would be lambing soon. Then there were stakes to be

104

driven in for fencing, water to be carried to the troughs in the fields and yards to be cleared” (Morpurgo 40). Hence the Friend or Foe demonstrates that children who were billeted on a farm did not really have to take part in any official harvest camp for their evacuation could be defined as one big harvest camp on its own.

Education

The evacuees in Ken Chadwick´s novel are educated separately from the rest of the local children. The reason for it may be spatial but also religious, the villagers all being Anglicans. After the arrival of the evacuees, Roslington´s village hall serves all the Catholic evacuees from the area as a school .

Evacuees from Bawden's Carrie's War are educated separately in an Ebenezer

Chapel because the local school is not big enough to hold all the new incomers. The only rarity is the education of Albert Sandwich who is privately tutored by a Minister so that his exceptional intellect is not wasted by all the educational improvizations caused by the evacuation.

Michael Morpurgo does not elaborate on the topic of evacuees´ education very deeply. The education of Friend or Foe´s main character is, however, slightly different from the rest of the analyzed books. They attend a village school for local children because the rest of their evacuated school group is stationed in another village. David and Tucky are treated without any prejudices by both the local teacher and children.

105

Coming Home

The idea that he could leave his dreadful billet and go back home comes to

Frank Bourne after he meets a bargee who is on his way to Birmingham. In that moment the main charakter of The Evacuee realizes that if he follows the nearby canal and then the river Trent he could be back in Birmingham in a few days. It is on the escape day when he is encountered by furious Mrs Harding who eventually ends up drowning in the canal. Frank tries to help her but his priority is clear, he wants to go back home. He is “totally preoccupied with his project” and leaves drowning Mrs Harding (Chadwick

245).

When Frank asks his friends whether they would like to join him and escape to

Birmingham as well, it becomes clear that they have no intention of leaving their billets because Roslington became their home and their foster parents their families. Moreover, they realize that their parent lack of care for their well-being is an unmistakeable sign that they lost interest in them. Therefore Betty, Harry or Joe do not even think of joining their parents after the end of the war and their future plans include Roslington and their foster families: “They had nothing to escape from, and nothing to escape to. For them the illusion of Birmingham, family, love, security, and the images which they had carried in their heads and hearts for so long had, on inspection faded away. The city dream had been supplanted by the village reality” (Chadwick 199).

Betty found her bliss at the vicarage and has no plans of returning to her careless mother: “Betty knew now that she would stay here, for always. This was her chosen home, with chosen people. She would not search for a greater happiness than the one she had miraculously found” (Chadwick 199).

Likewise Harry, who has no intention of going back “to a family that did not exist for him anymore” (Chadwick 199). His foster parents informed him that he is

106

going to have a job at their farm after he finishes his education. Moreover, the evacuation enables Harry to find more than a certainty of a job: “He was not thought of as an evacuee, or as a lodger. He was no longer a useful lad to help out with the chores; he was not a casual farm worker: he was family” (Chadwick 200).

Also the leader of the pack, Joe, plans to stay with Isobel. He wants to be there for a woman who lost her husband in the war and repay the kindness she showered him with during his evacuation. Furthermore, he has found a part-time job in a garage and his boss implies that there is a possibility of a full-time job of a car mechanic. Therefore

Joe does not feel the need to leave the place that became his new home: “Joe was needed here; he was happy with his new responsibilities; he did not need to escape; he did not want to escape” (Chadwick 201).

Even though the destinies of Frank´s sisters are not described in many details, one of them plans to stay in her foster home after the end of the war as well. It is Jean and she informs about this wish of hers her mother in a letter. Gladys Bourne finds out that her daughter´s life is “much much better in the village than in any place in

Birmingham” (Chadwick 173). Jean is a keen helper in the butcher shop of her foster parents and she sees this vocation as her possible future job: “Uncle Wilf had promised that he was going to teach her how to be a real butcher. She was going to be famous he said, the first lady butcher in the county” (Chadwick 174),

Nina Bawden's Carrie's War fittingly portrays the state of mind of evacuees who got accustomed to their billet and did not want to go back home to their families. The same thing happens even to Nick who despises his billet at the beginning of his stay in

Wales. When he finds out that his mother plans to buy a house outside of Glasgow where the family could be reunited, Nick despises the thought: “Nick actually

107

grumbled. ‘I don't want to go to rotten old Glasgow. I don't want to go to a new school.

I don't want to leave Auntie Lou.’” (Bawden 165). However, later on he gets accustomed to the idea of living in Scotland and looks forward to it.

Carrie, who has found out recently that Mr Evans is not a heartless man after all, also feels emotional about leaving the place that was her home for perhaps more than a year: “Carrie thought, my heart´s breaking … “ (Bawden 198).

7.2.5 Impact of the Evacuation

Due to the fact that the evacuation often spanned the children's formative years, the analyzed books have undeniable bildungsroman qualities. All the hostile treatment that Frank Bourne, the main character of The Evacuee, gets from his foster mother does not weaken his personality. Quite on the contrary, all the trials of the evacuation make

Frank stronger and more mature. The nervous and self-pitying aspect of his personality slowly disappears and Frank becomes quite a stoic after being evacuated for almost three years: “He was harder, and with not a bit of childish self pity he found himself thinking with a purpose. He did not debate with himself about the injustice of it all. It was not a question of fair or unfair. It was what happened to him: it was his life: his lot and therefore it was entirely normal” (Chadwick 137).

Also David from Friend or Foe goes through a similar transformation during the evacuation when his conscience is troubled by a moral dilemma. After David and Tucky find the injured crew of a German bomber at the moors of Devon, David´s primal reaction is to hate them and turn them immediately in because he blames the Germans for dropping bombs on British towns and for the death of his father. However, at the same time David bears in mind that one of the Germans saved his life when he was drowning in a stream. Eventually, David decides not to betray someone who saved his

108

life even though that person is a member of a group that David despises. The German pilot sums up the moral lesson that David got: “Perhaps when you are older you will understand that we all do things we know we should not do. But perhaps you have learnt that already” (Morpurgo 103).

Another theme occurring in the analyzed books is the presence of a permanent bond between evacuees and their foster carers. For example Albert Sandwich from

Carrie's War is still connected to the place he was billeted to, decades after the end of the war. Hepzibah, saying that Albert visits her once a month and is like her own son, reveals that he bought the Druid's Bottom farm, and also says that Albert has his plans with it: “He says he wants to re-build and live here one day” (Bawden 207).

The main characters of Friend or Foe, David and Tucky, do not lose touch with their foster parents either. They visit Mr and Mrs Reynolds every year and their presence at their former billet is more than welcomed: “For Ann and Mr Reynolds it´t the highlight of the year when their two ‘children’ from London, just the same but perhaps older and wiser, sit down in Ann's kitchen and remember the time when they helped Churchill win the war” (Morpurgo 122).

109

8. Conclusion

The evacuation of British children during WWII was a unique enterprise. It is even more unparalleled for the contrasting memories and experience of it. The thesis revealed many accounts of evacuees and the range of experiences, from completely negative to utterly positive, is truly striking.

What began as a backup emergency plan and was despised by some politicians for its unheard-of mingling of social classes, soon proved to be vital for preservation of children's lives. The road to safety was a bumpy one, though. All the people involved in the evacuation, be it evacuees, teachers, parents or foster parents, had to deal with many obstacles. Some children were terribly homesick, some were unlucky and billeted with unsuitable foster parents; teachers were probably as busy as never before; parents missed their children and sometimes felt guilty for sending their children away; and foster parents could be shocked by the manners and state of some of the evacuees. Yet on the other hand, the evacuation brought a lot of positive things. People got together and cooperated, as they usually do at times of danger and struggle; children who had not had the chance to leave their city could enjoy the bliss of the British countryside; parents, mothers especially, got the opportunity to go to work and become more independent; and foster carers were blessed with the opportunity to brojen the horizons of the evacuees and often formed life-long friendships with their wards.

The evacuation also bolstered children's self-esteem because it provided them with the opportunity to become more independent. Moreover, the fact that children had to make sacrifices during the war as well made them a cruccial part of the Home front.

110

All the sacrifices and struggle are well depicted in all the three analyzed books.

Chadwick´s book is a novel intended to be read by adults, therefore it covers more of the evacuation issues some of which are hard to find in the other books, e.g. sexual abuse or sadistic foster mother. Bawden´s and Morpurgo's books are written for children, therefore certain simplification occurs. However, all three books are special because they record a piece of history, present it to and preserve it for next generations and it is therefore worth noticing what sort of message concerning the evacuation they carry. There are many differences in the books, however, two main common topics stand out. Firstly, the horror of the degrading selection process which was a huge shortcoming of the whole evacuation. And secondly, the life-altering element that was part of the evacuation. It is most apparent in Chadwick´s The Evacuee, where there are many evacuees who find love and happiness in their foster families and do not wish to go back home. Bawden´s and Morpurgo's books feature a similarly strong bond between evacuees and foster parents; the characters in their books keep visiting their foster carers because a strong emotional bond was cemented by the evacuation.

Also the fact that all the three analyzed books were published long after the end of the Second World War and that they were followed by several TV, film and even musical adaptations, proves that the theme of the evacuation is still alive in and interesting for British society.

It is more than likely that the evacuation is so attractive for the British public, because it became a part of British culture and it is a proof of the famous British ‘keep calm and carry on’ attitude. The fact that the governmental evacuation scheme was devised with the intention to protect the poor children in particular leads to a theory that the evacuation could be considered for a vanguard of the later Welfare state, not merely its cause.

111

Bearing in mind all the lapses of the evacuation, it is complicated to try to define the evacuation either in completely negative or positive terms. There were so many variables influencing evacuees´ happiness at their billets that the evacuation was almost like a lottery for the children. Some lost and some won. However, an effort designed with the intention of saving lives of the most vulnerable ones, and achieving the objective in the end, deserves to be regarded as successful and noble.

112

9. Works Cited

Andrews, Mark. “Bittersweet Days in the Life of an Evacuee.“ Express and Star

[Wolverhampton] n.d.: n. pag. Troubador. Web. 18 Apr. 2016.

.

Bawden, Nina. Carrie's War. London: Puffin, 2013. Print.

Bernert, Eleanor H. "Evacuation and the Cohesion of Urban Groups." American Journal

of Sociology 58.2 (1952): 133-38. JSTOR. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

"blitzkrieg". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2016. Web. 09 Mar. 2016

.

Brown, Mike. A Child's War: Growing up on the Home Front. Stroud: History, 2010.

Print.

Brown, Mike. Evacuees: Evacuation in Wartime Britain, 1939-1945. Thrupp, Stroud,

Gloucestershire: Sutton Pub., 2005. Print.

Chadwick, Ken. The Evacuee: Or Sins and Comeuppances. Leicester: Matadador, 2012.

Print

Crosby, Travis L. The Impact of Civilian Evacuation in the Second World War. London:

Croom Helm, 1986. Print.

Gilbert, Bentley B. "British Social Policy and the Second World War." Albion: A

Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 3.3 (1971): 103-15. JSTOR.

Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

Harris, Jose. "War and Social History: Britain and the Home Front during the Second

World War." Contemporary European History 1.01 (1992): 17. Print.

Holman, Bob. The Evacuation: A Very British Revolution. Oxford, England: Lion, 1995.

113

Print.

Inglis, Ruth. Evacuation: The Children's War. London: Collins, 1989. Print.

Jersild, Arthur T. "Mental Health of Children and Families in Wartime." Review of

Educational Research 13.5, Mental Hygiene and Health Education (1943): 468-

77. JSTOR. Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

Morpurgo, Michael, and Trevor Stubley. Friend or Foe. London: Egmont, 2011. Print.

Moore-Colyer, Richard. "Children's Labour in the Countryside during World War II: A

Further Note." The Agricultural History Review 54.2 (2006): 331-34. JSTOR.

Web. 04 Apr. 2014.

Smith, Harold L. Britain in the Second World War: A Social History. Manchester, UK:

Manchester UP, 1996. Print.

Summers, Julie. When the Children Came Home: Stories from Wartime Evacuees.

London: Simon and Schuster, 2012. Print.

Welshman, John. Churchill's Children: The Evacuee Experience in Wartime Britain.

Oxford: Oxford UP, 2010. Print.

Welshman, John. "Evacuation, Hygiene, And Social Policy: The Our Towns Report Of

1943." The Historical Journal 42.3 (1999): 781-807. JSTOR. Web.

114

10. Summary

The aim of the thesis is to describe the evacuation of British school children during the Second World War and to analyse three works of fiction that cover the topic of the evacuation. The three analysed books are Ken Chadwick´s The Evacuee, Nina

Bawden´s Carrie's War and Michael Morpurgo´s Friend or Foe.

The thesis consists of two main parts. The first half of the thesis provides the reader with factual/theoretical background which is necessary for the understanding and analysis of the three chosen books. It consists of numerous testimonies of real evacuees.

The second half picks up on the issues from the factual part and explores how they are reflected in the analyzed books.

The evacuation of children was proposed by British government in order to save them from the effects of German bomber planes. Thousands of children from big cities and industrial towns were therefore moved from the dangerous areas to the safety of the

British countryside. The thesis describes problematic issues of the evacuation, e.g. selection process the evacuees had to go through, recall of evacuated children by their parents or complaining foster parents. The evacuation also affected lives not only of evacuees, but also of their parents, teachers and foster parents. Moreover, the evacuation

brought about social changes, disruption of family life and it also changed evacuee´s personalities.

The analysis of Chadwick, Bawden and Morpurgo's books copies the structure of the factual part of the thesis and touches upon the above mentioned issues. It is revealed that all the three authors were evacuated as children and their books therefore picture the evacuation very realistically. Their depiction of the evacuation mirrors the testimonies of real evacuees that are presented in the first part of the thesis.

115

11. Resumé

Cílem této práce je popsat evakuaci britských dětí během druhé světové války a zanalyzovat tři beletristické knihy, které o tématu evakuace pojednávají. Těmi třemi analyzovanými knihami jsou The Evacuee, napsaný Kenem Chadwickem, Carrie's War

Niny Bawden a Friend or Foe od Michaela Morpurga.

Práce se skládá ze dvou hlavních částí. První polovina práce čtenáři nastiňuje faktografické pozadí evakuace, které je nutné pro pochopení a analýzu oněch tří vybraných beletristických knih. Faktografická část obsahuje spoustu svědectví poskytnutých pamětníky, kteří byli jako děti evakuováni. Druhá část práce navazuje na témata z první části a zkoumá, jak je tato látka zachycena v knihách Chadwicka,

Bawden a Morpurga.

Evakuace dětí byla navrhnuta britskou vládou za účelem zachranění dětských

životů během bombardování britských měst. Tisíce dětí z velkých a průmyslových měst byly přesunuty z ohrožených oblastí do bezpečí britského venkova. Práce popisuje některé problematické otázky evakuace, např. náhradní rodiče vybírající si z evakuovaných dětí podle svých přání, rodiče beroucí si děti zpět do měst nebo nespokojené náhradní rodiče. Evakuace ovlivnila životy nejenom evakuovaným dětem, ale také jejich rodičům, učitelům a náhradním rodičům. Dále s sebou evakuace přinesla změny v sociálním systému, narušení rodinného života a změnu osobnosti evakuovaných dětí.

Analýza knih Chadwicka, Bawden a Morpurga se opírá o strukturu faktografické

části práce a popisuje výše zmíněná témata. Na jejich knihách se odráží, že si všichni tři autoří válečnou evakuací sami prošli. Téma evakuace je tudíž v jejich knihách zachyceno opravdu realisticky a odpovídá svědectvím z faktografické části práce.

116