Would parents today send children away in a wartime evacuation?

[Rainallnight]

If there was another evacuation of children out of the cities, would you send yours?

I’m reading Goodnight Mister Tom to DD and of course it’s thrown up all sorts of chat about evacuees.

DD asked if I’d send her to the countryside and my first reaction was that I definitely wouldn’t. But then I thought, would anyone? People are much less biddable these days, have a different view of parenting and childhood, along with safeguarding etc.

I know the scenario is unlikely to arise given how different modern warfare is still interested in asking!

I think if the same thing happened today. I would personally go with my children and fund some safe place. I would not want to send them to live with complete strangers. This is very dangerous in modern society

A gun might.

MNers are mostly in the population who would have gone with DC or sent them to known family members though.

Different picture if you all won’t eat/have a roof over your heads if you don’t stay in your job and everyone you know lives within half a mile.

No, I could never send my children away without me. One is autistic and needs me as a carer anyway, but I cannot imagine staying in a war zone and sending my children away to possibly never see me again. We'd go together or not at all.

Why is it dangerous in ‘modern society’?? Anymore dangerous than it was in 1940?
So many people unable to understand the reality of actual war (myself included thankfully) as we have never experienced anything even close.
In 1940 most parents had lived through ww1 and all that entailed. They knew what it could mean.
You truly believe you’d leave your children under direct threat of bombing and gassing rather than send them to a more secure location? People couldn’t just all leave. They needed their jobs (no welfare state) they had war work they were committed to, they had nowhere to stay.

I think these days we’re much more cognisant of the traumatic effects of separating young children from their primary caregivers. This wasn’t given anything like the same consideration 90 or 100 years ago, and children were expected to buck up and get on with it. So no, I don’t think anyone these days would expect parents to send children away to strangers - it’s much more likely that mothers and children would be evacuated as a package deal.

Many of the evacuees were treated horrendously.

And many weren't. My mother became very fond of her host family, and they of her. She still remembers them with affection all these years later.

(Just to speak up on behalf of the host families, many of whom were not well off but still did their best for the children they took in.)

ETA: My mother lived in a coastal town. It wasn't air raids but the prospect of invasion which caused the children from there to be evacuated.

No. My great uncle was abused as an evacuee and suffered with lifelong serious mental illness.

I would go with my kids if where we were living was unsafe.

But evidently less cognisant of the traumatic effects of living in a warzone!

I don't think people thought it was ideal in 1940, they just thought it was preferable to being blown up.

I'd go so far as to argue that being separated from your parents, whilst deeply traumatic, is still preferable to being blown to pieces or horrendously burnt or losing both your legs, for example.

No fucking way.

@Smartiepants79 I think it's "more dangerous" in a modern point of view because we (society) are more aware of the type of abuse that can happen towards children.

We discussed this when it was studied in primary school.

we have good friends who own a farm. We would all go there, we decided😊.

my 10 year old nephew got very emotional at the thought of all those children separated from their parents. We decided we would stick together.

A better example would be something like the kindertransport where there was usually no option for adults to join. Would you do that?

Yes, I would send my child away to safety rather than face horrible danger and death. Of course, if I could go too, even better.

Not a chance would anyone take a child that isn’t theirs now.

Yes I would if there was a genuine risk to their life, of course I would. We're in a much better position communication wise now too so could hopefully remain in contact throughout so any issues could be relayed quite quickly. Could also keep in contact via email, text, Face Time etc

I am in an area more likely to have children sent to though rather than evacuated away from, I would absolutely take in a child if WW3 kicked off and I'm genuinely surprised people think that no one would in those circumstances.

Foster carers do this every day of the week. That’s essentially what we’re talking about, only on a much bigger scale.

My nan was evacutated. Was abused by the woman who took her in
Luckly her mum collected her and they went back to London, so was their during the war

I cant imagine anyone would send their children away with strangers these days

My mum was evacuated from London during the Second World War, I don’t really think parents had much of a choice as whole classes from London schools were moved on mass. Also there really were bombs falling down and sirens going off and my mum said it was frightening for a young child.

It’s still crazy that a 7 year old child was sent away on a train ( she got separated from her classmates during the journey) and left in a village hall to be chosen and collected by a total stranger. My mum was stood on a chair as she was so small and an older woman just pointed at her and said “ I will have that one”. Luckily my mum was well looked after and living on a small farm with an older widow who had already brought up her children and was well respected within the village. My mum’s parents were able to visit and the idea that she was better off there than in London was very much the thinking. The lady looking after my mum wanted her to stay with her after the war. But even if you stayed with good people you were still very vulnerable and my mum didn’t go to the local school but a small school just for the evacuees.

Foster carers go through training and lots of checks.
If it was a war situation there wouldn't be enough time for that surely ?

I wonder if the solution, then, would be larger scale evacuations to large buildings to set up "childrens homes" with people running them who were already vetted? 🤔

I think that's probably what it would be like these days.

I've got a holiday home by the seaside. It's only a small 2 bedroom but if take DC there because we live close to Birmingham and that would be sure to be a target if bombing whereas it's unlikely a little seaside town in North East would be bombed.

My Gran and Grandad took in 2 little sister evacuees as my Mum was an only DC. They lived on a farm. After the war the eldest of the evacuees cried when she had to go home and begged my Gran to let her stay. She was a little over 12 at that point. Obviously she had to go home to her Mum who was widowed in the war. They kept in touch by letter. When she was 15 the eldest sister came back to live with my Gran and got a job at a local farm. The mother and younger daughter came to stay with Gran and Grandad for a week a few times. Both sisters were bridesmaids at my Mum's wedding. My Mum also named her eldest DD after the eldest evacuee.

No way would I risk my children being abused by random sickos.

My grandparents hosted three evacuees on their farm, they certainly didn’t abuse them! Every year they came back to visit, by time I was a child they were in their 60s and still visiting with their adult children.