... And the Policeman Smiled (39 page)

A quick response to his appeal was not matched by the willingness of the Barbican Mission to cooperate. Short-cutting the usual channels, the Chief Rabbi cabled Lord Gorell.

Have just been informed that obstruction exists in way of transfer of children from Barbican Mission to the homes provided for by me. You are doubtless aware that following representations by me arrangements were completed with Bloomsbury House for the removal of the children four weeks ago. May I be advised of any change of policy.

To which Lord Gorell replied:

No change of policy. Doing all we can. Awaiting Home Office action.

But the Home Office was unwilling to intervene when there was no evidence that the children were being forced to do anything they or their parents would have repudiated. The Davidson family who, after the evacuation, ran the Barbican Mission from a large country house near Exeter, made no secret of their missionary
zeal. More to the point, they could produce letters from parents agreeing to the baptism of their children. No doubt some, if not all, of these documents were obtained under a form of duress – the signatories wanted their youngsters out of Prague and were ready to grasp at any opportunity. But this was not an argument the Home Office or the RCM were eager to pursue. Endorsing a campaign to save young Jews from Christianity was not liable to be well received by the church-going public, including many hard-working supporters for the refugee cause, not to mention a high proportion of Conservative voters.

There was also the question of the legal status of the RCM, which was not resolved until 1944 when the Guardianship Act weighted the scales in favour of the Movement. Until then, foster parents who were not easily overawed and were not acting criminally could defy Bloomsbury House with impunity.

Consequently, the Barbican Mission was left to its own devices for most of the war. It was not until March 1945 that Dorothy Hardisty took advantage of the Guardianship Act to insist on a tour of inspection. By then the Mission housed less than a dozen refugee children who were still under age.

First impressions were not encouraging.

The house is in a very remote spot. Outside it is depressing-looking – no flowers – neglected grass and shrubs.

The door was opened by an elderly and rather untidy woman to whom I handed the letter of introduction Lord Gorell had written for me. The door was pushed to, but not closed. Mr Bryce Gibson thought this an advance on the occasion when he had tried to gain access. Presently Mrs Davidson came and ungraciously asked if we would like to see the house. Craddock House had been bought just before the outbreak of war with the intention that it should form a country home. It was rented by the Mission. It is in poor repair – floorboards broken – in places makeshift repairs have been made with the lids of tin biscuit boxes, roughboard, etc. The dormitories are not overcrowded and the bedding was quite reasonably clean. The furnishing is very sparse – not enough wardrobes, etc., for the clothing – no floor covering. There are two bathrooms – adequately clean – a downstairs cloakroom and hand basin where the garden dirt is removed.

After this depressing start, actually meeting the children came as a pleasant surprise.

The youngsters are alert, friendly, healthy-looking. They were in holiday clothes but they were clean and there was a general air of wellbeing. Most of the children are still at Tiverton Grammar School, where they seem to be receiving a good education. Their English is excellent and they have plenty of confidence and seem well adjusted. Only one of the girls is employed in the house. There is training in view for the future for all.

As regards religion, almost all have already been baptised and others intend to be. Mrs Davidson told me that she wished it to be quite clearly understood that theirs was a Mission to the Jews and they were bent on conversion.

After listing four children needing special attention – two serious illnesses and two cases where attempted conversion had met with strong resistance – Mrs Hardisty concluded:

There are certain cases which need action and these are mentioned below. To sum up in general: I do not think we could raise any complaint as to the housing and general care so far as our children are concerned. All Hostels are in need of repair and this house is a temporary home taken when the Mission evacuated. Educationally, our children have been well looked after. Some are being sent to the University. There has been no shirking in this direction. Training for a proper career is being arranged for all. The great criticism is that our machinery has been used for the purpose of the conversion from Judaism. I hope Lord Gorell will write and ask to see copies of correspondence in which it is alleged parents gave permission. I have no doubt it exists but it would be satisfactory to know its form. The children have for six years had strictly Christian missionary teaching. Some were, I think, baptised before they came to Britain. Several intend themselves to become missionaries.

Should the Movement have done more? The question has to be referred to those who originally accepted offers of help from the Mission. One of these was Nicholas Winton, who was much praised for his part in the rescue of Jewish children from Prague. Looking back, he does not regret his alliance with the Davidsons.

I knew, the Chief Rabbi knew, and the Barbican Mission obviously knew, that these children were going to be turned into Christians. That didn't worry me in the slightest. What is better: a converted Jew or a dead Jew? But the Chief Rabbi and others didn't see it like
that and they put a lot of pressure on me. They came to see me and I told them that anybody who guarantees a child I will accept.

As the war progressed, there was a discernible shift of sympathy towards Christian families whose concept of fostering Jewish children did not extend to providing a Jewish education. The tone was set in late 1939 by the Christian Council, to which was affiliated the Church of England for Non-Aryan Christians. As chairman of this committee, Bishop George Bell turned to the Archbishop of Canterbury for guidance on how best to provide for Jewish children who were cut off from their own people. He had in mind the possibility of writing to the clergy about the need for delicate handling of any cases they might encounter, but the Archbishop was not convinced. In his view, the clergy were well aware of the problem and could be relied upon to act wisely on their own initiative.

Thereafter, the Church refrained from direct comment on fostering until, as it were, the problem turned in on itself and there were worries from Christian families that Jewish children who had been with them for several years might be removed on religious grounds. The matter was raised at a Christian Council meeting in December 1943, just before the Guardianship Act entered the statute book. Did the new law mean that the appointed guardian could overrule the wishes of foster parents? If so, there was a warning of a probable backlash of anti-Semitism. Lord Gorell for the RCM poured oil. ‘A solution will be found that is workable', he said. ‘There is no cause for alarm.'

The Church Council was satisfied with these and similar assurances, at least for the time being. Not so their colleagues in Scotland, where the Christian Council, claiming to speak for all Scottish churches, wanted to give positive encouragement to foster parents to promote Christian values. Wrote the Rev Robert Smith:

The policy of the Movement seems to involve not only a regrettable attitude of distrust as between Jews and Christians, but also the perpetuation of religious neglect. Guardians who cannot influence the religious views of children will find the task of normal education in the home very difficult, if not impossible.

The opposing case was contained in a report on Jewish education commissioned by the Emergency Committee. It spoke of a ‘sense
of frustration emerging in non-Jewish families' where refugee children had received a Christian upbringing and, consequently, ‘feel bitter because they feel that their own people have forgotten them'.

The RCM held back, fearing that any move would only serve to cause more trouble. Inactivity, it was argued, was the safest policy. Feeble excuses for falling behind in religious education appeared in the children's record cards with increasing frequency.

Miss Mansfield is very upset about arrangements made for Sigi to attend on Saturday afternoons at synagogue, for the boy in no way wants to give up his cubs.

… .at the moment Eva is taking her School Certificate, so has no time for religious education.

The Movement did cooperate with a Christian Council survey of Jewish children who had been baptised since they arrived in Britain, but no figures were released. When the Chief Rabbi asked to be let in on the secret he was told simply that ‘the number of genuine baptism cases appear to be small'. The larger category of less genuine cases included children who had converted ‘whilst residing with parents who are in this country, after attending church in Germany' and ‘after a previous education indifferent to anything Jewish'. Pressed by the Chief Rabbi for more detail, the head of the survey revealed that he was given access to RCM records only ‘after an undertaking that no names would be disclosed to any authority outside the Movement'.

As one who was inside the Movement, Rabbi van der Zyl was able to follow up on cases where there was reason to think that a religious conversion was not undertaken freely. But while there are on file numerous examples of van der Zyl being sidestepped or overruled, there are no recorded instances of a youngster backtracking on a conversion. At most, van der Zyl exercised delaying tactics. When in December 1942 seventeen-year-old Barbara declared a wish to be baptised, he went to see her at her foster parents' home in Birmingham to urge a period of reflection. The story is taken up by an RCM visitor.

17.12.42: Barbara has been made to understand that in a few months' time she should leave her present foster parents and take a job in
Birmingham, where she will have an opportunity for other contacts and a broader outlook.

23.3.43: Visited her home. She is living with very cultured and agreeable people. They are all taking a tremendous intellectual interest in their religion and are in constant touch with the vicar. They have assured us that Barbara will take no steps towards changing her religion.

4.9.44: To Dr van der Zyl about her step to change her religion. We cannot refuse the consent.

26.11.44: Letter to Mrs Hardisty stressing that there are very few Jews in Oswestry.

16.5.44: Letter from Mrs Hardisty informing us that Lord Gorell feels it would not be in the best interest of Barbara to refuse consent to her baptism.

23.7.45: Letter to Dr van der Zyl informing him that Barbara has delayed being baptised because of the possibility of contact with her parents. She will wait until she is twenty-one.

While Barbara was in the religious divide she was joined by Frieda who, having declared her intention of becoming a Sunday school teacher in the Methodist church, was persuaded by van der Zyl to talk to her rabbi. He might as well have saved his breath. It took close on three months to set up a meeting, at which Frieda was given the clear impression that it was illegal to change her religion. When a report was fed back to Bloomsbury House, the Movement, having already decided that, ‘considering the girl's age and her very determined attitude, there is not anything that can be done', immediately disassociated itself from a case ‘so badly mishandled'. Frieda continued a Methodist. In 1947 she emigrated to Argentina.

For Rabbi Schonfeld and his allies in the CRREC, the frustration of failing to turn back the slow but perceptible drift away from orthodoxy, indeed, away from Judaism, was compounded by the knowledge that the tactics of the fanatics on the far right were bringing results. Regional reports to Bloomsbury House with, occasionally, copies to the Home Office, showed that at least three extremist groups were heavily engaged in enticing youngsters away from liberal institutions to join orthodox hostels. Frequent complaints were made against Rabbis Weingarten and Munk, the first based near Bletchley, the second in Tylers Green, but the prize for outrageous behaviour went to Rabbi Schneider, whose efforts
to swell the attendance of his hostel in Upper Clapton Road, north London, fell only a little way short of kidnapping.

Two institutions which suffered particularly from Schneider's attentions were the Jewish Boys' Home and the Jewish Free School in Ely. Old boys of the school remember a tightly disciplined regime, not at all the begetter of slack living that Schneider seemed to imagine, although the tone of religious education was distinctly moderate. According to the headmaster, Dr E. Bernstein, the first clear case of enticement was recorded as early as September 1939.

Markus Turki had been evacuated only a month when he disappeared from Ely, and was soon after found to be living at the
Yeshivah
[of Rabbi Schneider]. He was not quite fourteen.

In February 1940 Tibor Weiss – not quite twelve at the time – disappeared from the Home, and was soon after found to be living at 160 Upper Clapton Road; he is living at the
Yeshivah
at the present moment. In May of this year a youth of about eighteen – a pupil of
Yeshivah
– came to the Home and asked me if he could convey a message to Emanuel Surkiss, which he brought, so he alleged, from the sister of the boy. I allowed him to see Surkiss and had to leave just then myself. In my absence the youth and Surkiss asked our rabbi for permission ‘to go for a walk', which permission was granted. The ‘walk' was a walk to the railway station, when the youth took the train to London with Surkiss. Emanuel Surkiss was taken straight to the
Yeshivah
, where he is living at the time of writing. Surkiss was just under fourteen at the time.

On 13 July of this year a letter was received by Eugen Lustig from Tibor Weiss, enclosing 30/- in notes and proposing that Lustig should leave the Home and take up residence at the
Yeshivah
. The letter was written in Hungarian in order to preserve secrecy. Both letter and translation were supplied to me by Lustig. I sent the 30/- by registered post to Rabbi Schonfeld, and begged him to visit Rabbi Schneider and point out the seriousness of these persistent efforts to entice the boys away from the Home to the
Yeshivah
. Rabbi Schonfeld wrote to tell me that he found Rabbi Schneider too fanatically disposed to be able to reason with him. Eugen Lustig eventually disappeared.