... And the Policeman Smiled (37 page)

To hear some people talk, we should have told the children to stop moaning and to make the best of it in Berlin. In fact, what we did do was to accept as many children as we could get in – orthodox, liberal and non-believing – on the assumption that all other problems
were secondary and could be tackled, one way or another, as we went along.

This was not at all to the liking of conservative elements as represented by the Chief Rabbi's Religious Emergency Council (CRREC) and its offshoot, the Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations (Adath). Both organisations had as their chief promoter Rabbi Solomon Schonfeld, a brave and dedicated man who could take personal credit for bringing out some 250 children from Vienna and Berlin. But Schonfeld was also a shrewd politician whose fundamentalist views, forcefully argued, appealed to simple souls and frequently offended the orthodox establishment which he claimed to represent. Claiming to speak for the eighty per cent of
Kindertransporte
refugees who were clearly Jewish (though of these only twenty per cent were orthodox and at least fourteen per cent were non-practising), Schonfeld argued a policy of Jewish homes for Jewish children and, if this failed, for the RCM to devote its energies to raising money for hostels where religious supervision (of a strictly orthodox nature) could be guaranteed. Since this policy was never implemented, the question of what would have happened if the resources for new hostels had not been forthcoming remains hypothetical. But there were Schonfeld supporters who came perilously close to arguing that, if Jewish children could not be saved for a particular sector of the faith, they were not worth saving at all.

Failure to agree on the basic principles of caring for refugee children started a running battle between liberal and orthodox exponents of Judaism which lasted throughout the war and beyond. Early on, the RCM tried hard to play down differences with policy statements which leaned some way towards orthodoxy without limiting the freedom of the RCM to act in what it regarded as the best interests of individual children.

It is recognised that a child from an orthodox Jewish home should, if possible, live in Jewish surroundings, but each individual case must receive individual consideration from all points of view, and the policy does not involve the movement of every Jewish child from a non-Jewish home, nor the removal of a Roman Catholic child from a Protestant home, provided always that religious teaching in the child's own faith can be arranged.

When the Movement was caught out placing children in unsympathetic surroundings, remedial action was prompt. A list of Jewish children in Christian homes circulated by the Chief Rabbi brought an immediate response from the RC NTs organising secretary.

Of the list you mentioned, all but four children were not brought over by this Movement, nor had we anything to do with the placing of them. As regards the four in question, I have made arrangements for their immediate transfer to Jewish homes …

But there was trouble at Dovercourt camp when orthodox children refused to eat because the German rabbi who supervised the kitchen was not kosher enough for them. Anna Essinger, who was impatient with religious dogma, was decidedly unsympathetic, which led the camp's religious adviser, the Reverend Dr Grunpeter, to appeal to the Chief Rabbi for ‘more tolerance and understanding of orthodox boys'. The limit to which the RCM was prepared to go in this matter was revealed in March 1939, when Grunpeter was told that his salary was to be held to £2 a week, a sum ‘which will make it impossible to continue my work at the camp as resident minister'. Writing again to the Chief Rabbi, he reported rumours ‘concerning the complete removal of all orthodox children' from the camp because ‘they are too exacting for the authorities'.

This was true in so far as RCM workers were frequently driven to distraction by what they saw as unreasonable demands by orthodox children and their elders. Even as mild a personality as Norman Bentwich was inclined to utter strong words when an entire
Kindertransport
was held up by Schonfeld because it was scheduled to depart from Germany on the Sabbath.

Efforts were made to anticipate religious sensibilities. Parents who requested places on a
Kindertransport
were warned that orthodox foster homes were not on offer and were asked if they objected to Christian hospitality. A representative national committee for religious education and welfare was set up to establish youth clubs, organise correspondence classes, distribute literature and generally to keep contact with refugee children in Christian homes, offering Jewish hospitality at times of festival or fast and preparing boys for
Bar Mitzvah
. By December 1939 there were ninety centres
for Jewish education, employing 107 teachers and serving 3000 children.

But the conservatives were not satisfied. In the months up to the outbreak of war a major cause of dispute was the status of non-practising Jews. The RCM held that, if the parents of refugee children had discouraged them from religious practices, their temporary guardians should not presume to treat them differently. Solomon Schonfeld was more inclined to regard the arrival of these children as a God-given opportunity to correct the errors of their families. He was at his strongest when he or one of his supporters discovered that the Movement's workers had misinterpreted the wishes of refugee children or their parents, or had simply allowed inadequate foster homes to escape thorough inspection.

In March 1939 the CRREC claimed that ‘Not only are Jewish children with no particular religious affiliation being placed in non-Jewish homes and schools, utterly abandoned as far as their religious education is concerned, but even children who have been brought up in a religious atmosphere… are being callously placed in non-Jewish schools and homes, where they suffer mental torture which, in at least one case, has brought the child to the verge of a nervous breakdown.'

Their attack focused on St Margaret's School in Cricklewood, where they found ten refugee girls, three of whom had a religious background.

These girls are obliged to do what is euphemistically called domestic training' and what, to put it bluntly, is domestic service, and those who are ‘on duty' are forbidden to attend synagogue.

Letters were quoted from two of the girls who wanted to be moved. As for the other children, the argument raged over whether they were truly non-denominational or whether their parents had played down their Jewishness to avoid the attention of the Nazis. Who could say? Invariably, in such cases, the two sides ended up where they started with the RCM pleading moderation and a softly, softly approach.

With the start of the war, there was a period of silence on the religious front which lasted all of two weeks. Hostilities resumed when the order came to evacuate the cities. This was a blow to the defenders of orthodoxy, who had to stand by while refugee children
from Jewish urban areas were shunted off to largely Christian rural areas.

‘There was neither time nor machinery', wrote Dorothy Hardisty, ‘to ensure that each child was placed in the right religious environment.'

Efforts were made to send Jewish teachers with Jewish evacuees (British and refugee), and a letter went out to all RCM children who had been uprooted reminding them of their faith and upbringing. One enterprising group prepared a correspondence course for
Bar Mitzvah
. But merely to recite examples of improvised education was to reveal their inadequacy. The Movement recognised this, as it also recognised that administrative pressures were working against a concerted attempt to preserve religious unity.

With the dispersal of the children over the country it was vital for the RCM to decentralise its activities. Final responsibility for such matters as deciding on the suitability of foster homes was devolved to twelve regional committees formed to coincide with the boundaries of the government-designated defence areas. Inevitably, Jewish influence on these committees was unevenly spread and at least two of them, East Anglia and the West Country, were run almost entirely by Christian volunteers.

Nor was this a short-term measure. While many British evacuees drifted back to the cities once the threat of an invasion had been lifted, refugee children were actively discouraged from returning to the urban life. This was chiefly at the behest of the Home Office who, according to Dorothy Hardisty, ‘urged that in their own interest [Jewish children] should not all be placed in cities like London or Leeds where they would form a conspicuous Jewish enclave'. It was a view endorsed by the RCM, who feared the replication of the European ghettos with all that implied if the Germans did succeed in breaking through. A strong supporting argument was the supposed harmful influence of the cities on young impressionable minds. While Solomon Schonfeld and the CRREC were campaigning to remove Jewish children from Christian influences come what may, the Movement preferred that youngsters should enjoy a family upbringing in the country (associated with clean and decent living), rather than encounter the temptations of urban delinquency.

Partly in an attempt to neutralise the Schonfeld lobby, the RCM made a direct appeal to all Jewish organisations to support religious
education, an appeal which led to the setting up of an Emergency Committee, on which the full range of religious interests was represented, and the appointment of Rabbi Dr van der Zyl to be responsible for the religious education of Jewish children in London. Van der Zyl, who had arrived from Germany with a
Kindertransport
in 1939, was a rare soul, a liberal who held the respect of the orthodox community. There were to be times when education was to be secondary to his role as a mediator.

Sniping between the forces of liberalism and orthodoxy showed no signs of letting up. With the RCM holding fast to its independence, offers from orthodox rabbis to take up peripatetic duties were firmly rejected. In May 1940, the RCM general secretary wrote to the Chief Rabbi, pointing out ‘that our Regional Committees are autonomous and neither they nor the committees under them like interference in the arrangements they make for religious instruction'. He went on to argue against sending alien rabbis (chiefly eager volunteers from the newly-formed Council of Orthodox Rabbis from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia) around the country when they would need police permits every time they entered a protected area.

The refusal by the Movement to let orthodox groups share in decision-making was on the assumption that their real aim was to dominate. Hardly a week passed without Rabbi Schonfeld or his chief lieutenant and propagandist, Harry Goodman, mounting an attack against the RCM for dereliction of duty, implying that if they held the reins the race would be as good as won. As the leading opponent of orthodoxy within the RCM, Elaine Blond enjoyed nothing better than proving that her critics were less than perfect.

In February 1940 she was writing to the Chief Rabbi to report on two of Solomon Schonfeld's children who had turned up unannounced at Bloomsbury House.

I do feel you ought to be aware that nobody seems to be supervising these boys. I am very much afraid that there are a great many cases such as these, and I intend to inform you about each one as it occurs.

A few months later, Harry Goodman responded with a full frontal attack, claiming that 9000 children in the care of the RCM had ‘practically no Jewish contacts and that no effort had been made
over a period of years to give these children some religious education'.

Urged by Elaine Blond to respond on behalf of the Movement, Sigmund Gestetner, whose name was well regarded in orthodox circles, wrote to the
Jewish Chronicle
to deny the charges while offering gratitude to ‘those true Christians who felt it their duty to save these persecuted Jewish children'. As to claims that religious education was inadequate, he pledged the Movement ‘to investigate any individual case referred to them' and promised ‘to leave no stone unturned to make the most satisfactory arrangements possible'.

But how much were these promises worth? Goodman tried to find out by demanding to know how many refugee children had been baptised since they had arrived in this country. He was told that no answer was possible because no statistics were kept, though a quick glance at the minutes of the RCM executive would have shown that the conversion rate to Christianity was well into double figures.

Left to their own devices, young people were naturally inclined to veer away from any show of nonconformity. They wanted to be like others – and the others, more often than not, were middle-of-the-road Church of England. Who, for instance, could blame Edith and all the other girls in their mid-teens who fell in love with Christian boys and who lost their Jewishness along the way?

‘Edith does not keep her Jewish faith, as she thinks it has brought her too much trouble', reported Rabbi van der Zyl. He wrote to her pleading that it was up to ‘the young generation to rebuild what Nazism has destroyed', but Edith was not to be diverted from what she believed to be her only chance of happiness.

With boys there were pressures ‘not to be difficult' at school or work in demanding special consideration. For example, there was not much sympathy for Erwin when his employer observed that he was ‘clever but lazy'. According to the local RCM representative, Erwin's laziness consisted of taking advantage of his Jewish beliefs in asking for time off.

The employer does respect the boy's beliefs … but they say they have had advice from a responsible Jewish person and feel that the
boy should realise he has to give in sometimes as he is working with so many non-Jewish boys.

Attitudes changed dramatically from one area to another.

Eva and Rolf lived with their foster mother, Mrs Payne, in Bromley, Kent. For three years, up to September 1942, the relationship was troublefree. Then Rolf complained to the chairman of the Bromley committee that Mrs Payne had hit him. The altercation had been caused by Rolf refusing to attend a church parade at a scout gathering. The Bromley chairman overreacted. Assuming that here was a case of attempted conversion, she kept the boy in her own house and sent a policeman and an NSPCC inspector to call on Mrs Payne, who in turn referred the dispute to her solicitors. Lola Hahn-Warburg and Rabbi van der Zyl worked on a compromise. As reported to the RCM executive in September 1942, the children would stay with Mrs Payne, continue to be members of the Guides and Scouts and to attend church parades, but to receive Jewish religious instruction and not to go to church Sunday school.