They more or less did that during the bombing of London, children were evacuated to foster families in the countryside en masse. Luckily they came to terms with the fact that this was an insanely traumatic experience pretty quickly and reverted. It's literally less traumatic for a child to be in an active war zone than to be separated from their parents.

▲

trelane 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> It's literally less traumatic for a child to be in an active war zone than to be separated from their parents.

Unless they happen to go to war themselves, vanquishing an evil queen with the help of a lion and becoming kings and queens, and reigning for a long while themselves.

Those kids seem to mostly turn out alright. Small sample size though.

	▲	wizzwizz4 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I'm not so sure you're interpreting the data correctly: 1 in 4 such children become "silly, conceited" adults, forgetting all the lessons they learned on their adventure; and 3 in 4 develop vivid visions that result in them getting killed by a train.

▲

CamouflagedKiwi 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless the child is killed in said active war zone, which was the maximally traumatic outcome they were trying to avoid. Some evacuation was reverted, but there were also later waves; I don't think it was clear that it was overall the wrong thing given the very possible outcomes of heavier bombing or even invasion.

	▲	nandomrumber 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Well obviously dead child suffer no trauma.

▲

kortilla 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Does this apply to babies separated at birth though?

	▲	moralestapia 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The trauma shifts forward in time, like debt.