Figure 1.--Contrrary to popular perceptions, the onset of war with Germany was not followed by the German bombing of London and other British cities. The Luftwaffe was not capable of this from bases in Germany. The fall of France dramatically changed this. There was no doubt among the people and the RAF commanders that now the Luftwaffe was coming. As a result, evacuations were organized again because so many children had returned home. Parents were left with another hear renching decesion. And now it wa not only air attacks, but the specter of an actual German invasion. This time it was a much less massive undetaking. The evcuations were spread out over a longer period. And many children were still in the provincial areas where they had been evacuated to in 1939. The children were not as cooperative. Even the younger ones knew what evacuation meant and many refused to go or cried so much that their parents relented. Here a London Bobby checks the tags on a small group to make sure they get on the right train. Niotice that the gas mask boxes are not as much in evidence as they had been in 1939. Source: Imperial War Museum.

Clothing was a factor complicating the evacuations and care of the children once billited. The problem was not so much for the evacuation itself, but rather living an extended time away from home. Civil servants as it became increasingly clear that Hitler maeant war and could not be apeased began finalising plans for the evacuations of London and other major cities. They soon realised that clothing, especially warm clothing would be a problem (May 1939). They concluded that while the situation in London or towns in Kent and Hampshire would be OK, there would probably be problems in the Midlands and the North. Authorities issued a circular in 1939 informing parents about the amount and type of luggage to be taken by the children to be evacuated. They advised parents to provide each child in addition to a gas mask, a change of underclothing, night clothes, slippers or plimsolls, spare socks or stockings, toothbrush, comb, towel and handkerchief, warm coat or mackintosh, rucksack, and food for the trip. Parents were instructed to have the children wear their heaviest clothing and warmest footwear to make best use of the luggage. Evacuation practices confirmed that warm clothing and sturdy footwear would be a problem. Thus the children often look like it was a frigid day even though the weather wa not that cold. Middleclass children had the needed items, but many working-class children did not. Many children had neither warm clothing nor strong footwear (summer 1939). Some children only had well worn plimsols. Liverpool became known as Plimsol City. As the evacuation unfolded, the greatest problem proved to be sturdy footwear. [Welshman] There were, however, many other problems. All to many inner-city children did not even have underwear, let alone a change to pack in their luggage. That was not a problem if their hist families, but there were many host families with strained circumstnaces themselves. One author writes, "There were all sorts of social issues that the evacuation brought up. On the whole, children tended to go from inner cities and a lot of those children of course were poor. There were very high levels of poverty, unemployment and underemployment in the Thirties and a lot of people were living on very low wages, what we now say is below the poverty line. A number of the children were suffering from malnutrition, and a lot were living in extremely poor housing conditions, and it was a revelation to a lot of those people in the countryside who hadn’t realised quite how poor and how badly looked after some of the children were." [Gardiner]

Sources

Gardiner, Juliet. "British evacuation," WW@History.com.

Welshman, John. Churchill’s Children: The Evacuee Experience in Wartime Britain.

Created: 8:54 AM 1/10/2014
Last updated: 8:54 AM 1/10/2014