The Grey Book Part 32

On March 23, 1943, the Archbishop of Canterbury presented the following Resolution to the House of Lords:

"To move to resolve, that, in view of the ma.s.sacres and starvation of Jews and others in enemy and enemy occupied countries, this House desires to a.s.sure His Majesty's Government of its fullest support for immediate measures, on the largest and most generous scale compatible with the requirements of military operations and security, for providing help and temporary asylum to persons in danger of ma.s.sacre who are able to leave enemy and enemy-occupied countries." <245>

The Archbishop said:

"...We are wisely advised not to limit our attention in this connection to the sufferers of any one race, and we must remember that there are citizens of many countries who are subject to just the same kind of monstrous persecution, and even ma.s.sacre. None the less, there has been a concentration of this fury against the Jews, and it is inevitable that we should give special attention to what is being carried through, and still further plotted against them...

"We are told that the only real solution is rapid victory. No doubt it is true that if we could win the war in the course of a few weeks we could still deliver mult.i.tudes of those who are now doomed to death. But we dare not look for such results, and we know that what we can do will be but little in comparison with the need. My whole plea on behalf of those for whom I am speaking is that whether what we can do be large or little it should at least be all we can do."

The Archbishop then told of the deportation of Jews from Moravia, Germany, Rumania, and Holland, and of the slaughter of Jews in Poland. He continued:

"I believe that part of our difficulty in arousing ourselves and our fellow- countrymen to the degree of indignation that it would seem to merit is the fact that the imagination recoils before it. It is impossible to hold such things at all before the mind. But we are all agreed in this House on the main purpose of this Motion, to offer our utmost support to the Government in all they can do; but with all sympathy for members of His Majesty's Government, I am sure they will forgive some of us who wonder whether quite everything possible has really already been done."

The Archbishop recalled "the solemn statement of the United Nations made public on December 17", and contrasted "the solemnity of the words then used, and the reception accorded to them, with the very meagre action that had actually followed".

"It is the delays in the whole matter while these horrors go on daily that make some of us wonder whether it may not be possible to speed up a little.

One must admit that some of the arguments. .h.i.therto advanced as justifying the comparative inaction seem quite disproportionate to the scale of the evil confronting us.

As reasons for no further action, "the great part that has been taken by this country and other countries in the relief of the refugees" was pointed out.

<246> "That, of course, would be relevant if the people in the other lands were suffering great discomfort or great privation, but when what you are confronted with is wholesale ma.s.sacre, it seemed to most of us not only irrelevant but grotesquely irrelevant."

The Secretary of State for the Colonies had given a promise with regard to the admission of Jews to Palestine, on February 3, but on February 24 no attempt to move these persons had yet taken place. The Archbishop made a plea that action should be taken as promptly as possible to carry out the promises given by the Colonial Secretary. He also urged, "that we should revive the scheme of visas for entry into this country".

"We want to suggest the granting of blocks of visas to the Consuls in Spain and Portugal and perhaps in Turkey to be used at their discretion. We know of course that the German Government will not give exit permits. What matters is that we should open our doors irrespective of the question whether the German door is open or shut, so that all who can may come...

It is of the greatest importance to give relief to those neutral countries because there is at present a steady stream or perhaps more accurately a steady trickle of refugees from France both into Spain and into Switzerland.

The numbers that those countries, already suffering a good deal in shortage of food and with their standard of life so far below our own, will be able to receive are of course limited.

If we can open the door at the other side and bring away from Spain and Portugal and (if transport is available but probably it would not) from Switzerland and also from Turkey those who are able to make their escape there, we shall render it far more probable that the channels through which that trickle percolates will not be blocked...

Then, once more, it is urged, that we should offer help to European neutrals, to encourage them to admit new refugees, in the form of guarantees from the United Nations to relieve them of a stipulated proportion of refugees after the victory, or, if possible, sooner; that we should offer direct financial aid...

There is one point I would raise more tentatively... It is that through some neutral power an offer should directly be made to the German Government to receive Jews in territories of the British Empire and, so far as they agree, of the other Allied Nations on a scheme of so many each month.

Very likely it would be refused, and then Hitler's guilt would stand out all the more evidently. If the offer were accepted there would of course be difficulties enough, but it would be the business of the Germans to overcome these so far as concerns the conveyance of the refugees to the ports, and efforts could be made to secure help from Sweden and other neutral countries for shipping from the ports...

Some of us have wondered how far the possibility has been considered of receiving any considerable number, particularly of children, in Eire and whether the Government of Eire have been consulted about this... <247> "It is said that there is a danger of Anti-Semitic feeling in this country.

No doubt that feeling exists in some degree, and no doubt it could very easily be fanned into flame, but I am quite sure it exists at present only in comparatively small patches. It is very local when it exists at all, and therefore it receives a degree of attention beyond what it deserves.

But if the Government were to decide that it was wise and practicable to put in action any of the proposals that I have laid before your Lordships, it would be very easy for the Government, by skilful use of the wireless, to win the sympathy and confidence of the people for their proposals, especially if a large number of those who were brought out were children and were being delivered from almost certain death...

The whole matter is so big and other claims are so urgent that we want further to make the proposition that there shall be appointed someone of high standing for whom this should be a primary responsibility...

My chief protest is against procrastination of any kind. It was three months ago that the solemn declaration of the United Nations was made and now we are confronted with a proposal for an exploratory Conference at Ottawa. That sounds as if it involves much more delay.

It took five weeks from December 17 for our Government to approach the United States, and then six weeks for the Government of the United States to reply, and when they did reply they suggested a meeting of representatives of the Government for preliminary exploration. The Jews are being slaughtered at the rate of tens of thousands a day on many days, but there is a proposal for a preliminary exploration to be made with a view of referring the whole matter after that to the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. My Lords, let us at least urge that when that Conference meets it should not meet for exploration only but for decision.

We know that what we can do is small compared with the magnitude of the problem, but we cannot rest so long as there is any sense among us that we are not doing all that might be done.

We have discussed the matter on the footing that we are not responsible for this great evil, that the burden lies on others, but it is always true that the obligations of decent men are decided for them by contingencies which they did not themselves create and very largely by action of wicked men.

The priest and the Levite in the parable [536] were not in the least responsible for the traveller's wounds as he lay there by the roadside and no doubt they had many other pressing things to attend to, but they stand as the picture of those who are condemned for neglecting the opportunity of showing responsibility. We at this moment have upon us a tremendous responsibility. We stand at the bar of history, of humanity and of G.o.d.

I beg to move." [537] <248>

After the Archbishop of Canterbury had spoken, Lord Rochester spoke "as a Methodist layman":

'...No one can preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and remain indifferent to social inst.i.tutions which contradict that teaching. Wherever the Churches find practices which are contrary to Christian doctrine, whether they be such diabolical and horrifying practices as these we are more especially considering this afternoon, or others, it is no more than their bounden duty to denounce them...

We are concerned with all persecuted minorities, but the Christian necessarily feels an intimate responsibility in regard to the Jews, since Christ 'according to the flesh' came out of Israel. Almost every page of the New Testament shows how close was the a.s.sociation between religious Judaism and the first followers of Christ...

'I must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh.' [538]

And woe to us if we leave any stone unturned in seeking to aid and succour those of our fellow human beings who are suffering this cruel n.a.z.i stumbling- block of offence. The n.a.z.is have indeed debased themselves even unto h.e.l.l, but let us remember' the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity,'

as we recall those words in the 57th chapter of Isaiah: 'Cast ye up, cast ye up, prepare the way, take up the stumbling-block out of the way of my people'. [539]

I support the Motion of the most reverend Primate, and I would urge the redoubling of our efforts to succour 'one of the least of these', as we recall the latter part of the 25th chapter of St. Matthew." [540]

It is remarkable that, contrary to what one might have expected, it was the Archbishop who made the practical suggestions and the "Methodist layman"

who cited texts from the Bible.

It is a pity that one expression in the Archbishop's motion ("immediate measures, on the largest and most generous scale compatible with the requirements of military operations and security") provided the Government with an excuse to do practically nothing. In order to understand the Archbishop's words, one should, however, try to realize how manifold were "the requirements of military operations and security" in those days. <249> Obviously the Archbishop was well-informed about the persecutions on the continent of Europe. He had received (as he himself stated in his speech) reports from the World Jewish Congress, Geneva, and from the Board of Deputies of British Jews. Dr. Riegner, of the World Jewish Congress, sent an aide-memoire to the British Amba.s.sador in Bern "on behalf of the secretariats of the World Council of Churches and of the Jewish Congress".

The covering letter, dated March 22, 1943, stated: "We should also appreciate it if His Majesty's Government would see fit to pa.s.s on the main contents of this aide-memoire to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the British Section of the World Jewish Congress". [541] But if the aide-memoire was pa.s.sed on, it must have come too late for the meeting in the House of Lords.

The speech of the Archbishop in the House of Lords deserves careful study.

It sheds an important light on the att.i.tude of the Government regarding the Jewish refugees.

The Archbishop mentioned the proposal for an exploratory Conference at Ottawa.

The country (Canada) in whose capital the conference was to be held, however, had not been informed, and thus the conference was held at Bermuda, on 19-29 April, 1943. The statement issued at the end of its deliberations merely promised recommendations - which were not disclosed - and the setting up of an inter-governmental organization to handle the problem in the future.

The verdict on the allied Governments that "History will record the Bermuda Conference as a monument of moral callousness and inertia" is not too severe. [542]

The British Council of Churches, made up of the official representatives of the Church of England, the Church of Scotland and the Free Churches, met in London on April 13th and 14th under the presidency of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The following resolution was pa.s.sed on anti-Semitism: <250>

"The British Council of Churches warmly welcomes the statements made by the leaders of many Christian Churches expressing fellow-feeling with the Jewish people in the trials through which they are pa.s.sing and the desire to aid them in every practicable way. In particular the Council notes with admiration and thankfulness the statements on this subject which have issued from Christian leaders in enemy-occupied countries.

The Council affirms that anti-Semitism of any kind is contrary to natural justice, incompatible with the Christian doctrine of man and a denial of the Gospel. Malicious gossip and irresponsible charges against Jews, no less than active persecution, are incompatible with Christian standards of behaviour.

The Council welcomes the decision to hold in Bermuda a Conference in which the British and American Governments will seek jointly to find practical ways of rendering immediate and continuing a.s.sistance to Jews and other imperilled people. The Council considers that every possible step ought to be taken to rescue from ma.s.sacre the Jews in enemy and enemy occupied territories.

It is convinced that both Christian and Jewish people in this country would give strong support to a lead from His Majesty's Government in offering sanctuary in Great Britain for a considerable number of children and adults, additional to those received before September, 1939, and would be ready to make sacrifices so as to provide hospitality for them during the war.

The Council further asks that the Bermuda Conference will suggest measures for rendering the requisite material a.s.sistance for the maintenance of refugees who reach neutral countries, and will give a.s.surance to those countries of readiness to cooperate in plans for post-war settlement of the refugees in other parts of the world." [543]

In May, 1943, the General a.s.sembly of the Church of Scotland stated:

"The General a.s.sembly protest anew against the atrocious persecution of the Jews in n.a.z.i-occupied countries, and in the name of Christ condemns the inhumanity and sacrilege of anti-Semitic policy. They warmly approve of the steps taken by the Government to a.s.sist refugees, and respectfully urge it to continue and extend its efforts as far as possible. They a.s.sure the Jewish people of their deep sympathy in their grievous distress, and earnestly commend them to the prayerful concern and compa.s.sion of the Church." [544]

The a.s.sembly of the Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland pa.s.sed the following Resolution (also in May, 1943):

"They call upon His Majesty's Government to promote, in concert with the Governments of the United States of America and other a.s.sociated nations, effective measures for enabling Jews and other victims of German brutality to escape and find refuge. <251> In their view the strong abhorrence and detestation of the persecutors, which are felt throughout the civilised world, and of their purpose of exterminating the Jews, should be followed by energetic action, not only to bring to justice in due course the instigators and perpetrators of the ma.s.sacres, but to give immediate aid, welcome and asylum in this and other free countries to those in peril, even though some risk to our own country may be involved. To this end they ask that restrictions regarding age, country of origin or means of support should not be put in the way to liberty and safety.

They ask the Churches to show and inculcate a friendly and helpful att.i.tude to such refugees, to pray for the deliverance of those who cannot escape beyond the reach of their barbarous enemies, and to resist as un-Christian all tendencies to anti-Semitism. [545]

On June 10, 1943, the General a.s.sembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland adopted the following Resolution:

"The General a.s.sembly has learned with great satisfaction that His Majesty's Government is prepared to collaborate with the United States of America in providing asylum for as many victims of German hate as can escape or be rescued from the danger which threatens them, and to consult with the Dominion Governments and the Governments of neutral countries with regard to united action, so that as many of the threatened people as ever possible may be helped.

In view of the tremendous urgency of the situation, the General a.s.sembly requests His Majesty's Government to carry out their promises to provide immediate and effective relief for those in such dire peril." [546]

Churches and Church leaders had, as quoted so far, expressed their desire and hope that the Government would take practical steps for aiding refugees.

The Bishop of Chichester, however, expressed his disappointment in a letter to the Editor of "The Times":

"The Foreign Secretary is about to make a statement in the House of Commons on the result of the Bermuda Conference, and the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to refugees. It will be almost exactly five months after the declaration of December 17, condemning the wholesale ma.s.sacre of the Jews by the n.a.z.is 'in the strongest possible terms'. It is a historic moment in the record of our dealings with the persecuted and the oppressed.

It is quite certain that if the British and American Governments were determined to achieve a programme of rescue in some way commensurate with the vastness of the need, they could do it. Nor can there be any doubt about the response which would be given in Britain to a clear lead based on the principles of humanity. <252> There are difficulties. But so far as shipping is concerned, these should be greatly reduced as a result of the victories in North Africa. The need of a big camp to which those now in neutral countries could be sent must be patent to everybody. And the case for a revision of the regulations to allow many more to enter the United Kingdom is overwhelming.

The guilt of 'this b.e.s.t.i.a.l policy of cold-blooded extermination' lies with the n.a.z.is. But can we escape blame if, having it in our power to do something to save the victims, we fail to take the necessary action, and to take it swiftly?" [547]

A few days later the Bishop of Chichester published the following letter in "The Times":

"In the House of Commons on Wednesday Mr. Peake referred to my letter printed in your issue of May 18. His princ.i.p.al charge was 'that the Bishop made no attempt to indicate what was the programme of rescue which he suggested'. He added that he had searched Hansard for the House of Lords ever since December 17, but had failed to find any speech by myself on the subject. I was present at the debate opened by the Archbishop of Canterbury on March 23 and was prepared to speak. But owing to the number of speakers, representing all shades of opinion, on that occasion I, with others, stood down.

It is not, however, true to say that I have made no suggestions as to a programme of rescue. In a letter in your columns on December 28, 1942, I referred to the suggestion made by Sir Neill Malcolm in his letter of December 22, and made further suggestions, such as the obtaining of facilities from the protecting Power for the transportation of n.a.z.i victims from Germany and German occupied territories to the nearest frontier, with a view to entry into places of refuge; a guaranteeing to neutral Governments willing to give sanctuary to such victims of an evacuation of as many as possible after the war; and the establishment of reception areas in lands outside Europe.

I am also a member of the Parliamentary Committee, and I support the 12-point programme for immediate rescue measures drawn up by the National Committee for Rescue from n.a.z.i Terror, and widely published. I am glad to hear of the extension of categories of individuals eligible for visas, which forms a portion of the first of these points.

I entirely agree that a programme of rescue must be a programme of victory.

But this is not inconsistent with a determination by the Government to do everything possible for temporary sanctuary.

There is a great difference between the spirit of a Government which says, 'We are resolved to do everything in our power, we wish we could do more, but such and such steps shall be taken at once in spite of all the difficulties', and the pessimistic att.i.tude which simply repeats, 'We are filled with burning indignation at the horrors perpetrated by the n.a.z.is against these people. We are determined to punish the guilty when the war is over. But for the present these people are beyond possibility of rescue." [548] <253>