British deportations
Part 3

The news of the sinking of the Arandora Star on July 2, 1940 and the 800 casualties had immediately triggered a first wave of criticism of the mass deportations; already at the beginning of August there was a debate in the House of Commons. After the events onboard of HMT Dunera also became known, Prime Minister Winston Churchill could no longer maintain his rigid policy of expulsion and backed down. Nevertheless, it took almost a year before only three military personnel from the Dunera guard were charged by a military court and two were sentenced to rather light sentences. The arrival of a British liaison officer in Australia marked the beginning of the liquidation of the internment camps there.

Peter Dehn, January 2024.

About a “regrettable and deplorable mistake”

Britain’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill, announcing his sudden and harsh policy shift, is often quoted as saying that the mass deportations were a “regrettable and deplorable mistake[1] Wikipedia about HMT Dunera, retrieved Aug 26, 2023.“.

“58 days, almost 2 months on the Dunera! 58 days on the way to Australia and we volunteered for a voyage of a fortnight at the most to Canada! Two months as ‚a regrettable mistake‘ without a toothbrush, without shaving gear, without a change of underwear, almost without soap, bad and insufficient rations, almost uninterrupted diarrhoea! 58 days exposed tot he attempted bullying of the Nazis, and also to the ‚kindness‘ and the bayonets of our guards … that was The D U N E R A !”

Dunera Boy Kurt Lewinsky[2] „19 Wasted Months“ by Dunera Boy Kurt Lewinski, quoted from Bartrop/Eisen „The Dunera Affair“, page 221..

As in the case of “Collar the lot”, there is no authentic source for Churchills quote that explicitly attributes this statement to the British Prime Minister. Nevertheless, on August 22, 1940 – the Dunera had not yet arrived in Australia and the second scandal was not yet known – his Home Secretary John Anderson obediently sailed along the new political line before the British House of Commons. At the same time, he threw cautionary words from some MPs to the wind and blamed difficult times and “mistakes made by individuals”:

“I am not here to deny for a moment that most regrettable and deplorable things have happened in the execution of the internment policy. They have nothing to do with the merits of the policy. They have been due partly to the inevitable haste with which the policy of internment, once decided upon, had to be carried out. They have been due in some cases to the mistakes of individuals and to stupidity and muddle. These matters all relate to the past.”

John Anderson[3] House of Commons, minutes of Aug 28, 1940, retrieved Sep 23, 2023. on August 22, 1940.

A “bespattered page of our history”

So while Anderson thought things were over and done with, Conservative MP Major Victor Cazalet rebuked him in the same day and place:

No ordinary excuse, such as that there is a war on and that officials are overworked, is sufficient to explain what has happened. (…) Why is it that something has not happened? I am afraid it is because of sheer incompetence and mismanagement. (…) Horrible tragedies, unnecessary and undeserved, lie at the door of somebody; and I want the Minister, if he will, to say that he realises that these mistakes which he has admitted have in certain cases resulted in appalling and most regrettable tragedies. We have, unwittingly I know, added to the sum total of misery caused by this war, and by doing so we have not in any way added to the efficiency of our war effort. (…) Frankly, I shall not feel happy, either as an Englishman or as a supporter of this Government, until this bespattered page of our history has been cleaned up and rewritten.

Major Victor Cazalet[4] Ibid. on August 22, 1940.

The long speech is also worth reading overall because Cazalet pulls out all the rhetorical stops to assure the government of his sympathy and yet sharply criticize it.

About a year later, the new Home Secretary Herbert Stanley Morrison makes a statement. His statement is reminiscent of a standard phrase á la “it wasn’t meant personally”, which perpetrators in bad films use to justify in front of their victims:

“Some 2,500 internees were sent to Australia, of whom about 400 were persons detained on security grounds, while the remaining 2,100 were Germans and Austrians who had been classified in categories “B” and “C”[5] The British tribunals were to assign refugees to category "C", if there were any doubts, category "B" was to be selected. For clear Nazis and sympathizers, category "A" was associated with immediate imprisonment. and were interned as a precautionary measure, in pursuance of the general policy of interment which was adopted in the summer of 1940. I have frequently explained in this House that the fact that a person was interned in persuance of this general policy and not in security grounds personal to himself was not intended to make, and does not in fact make, any refelction oon his reliabiltity or reputation.”

Herbert Morrison[6] Home Secretary Herbert Morrison in the House of Commons. Quoted from Newsame, Home Office to Major Wheeler, Office of the Australian High Commissioner, cable from Oct 22, 1941. Nationa Aurchives of Australia NAA, NAA_ItemNumber216015, page 74., Home Office, on October 22, 941.

Who the hell is Gannef?

The equally regrettable and deplorable verbal zero performances of British government members were supplemented with the promise to the 2,500 internees in Australia that the material damage they suffered would be compensated. The settlement was negotiated between at least four British ministries and Australian authorities.

There was no way of avoiding this, especially as Australian military intelligence recorded the following in a memo to the Department of the Army in October 1940, even if it reads like real satire:

“Many letters have been sighted from internees at Hay reffering to robberies on the transport ‚Dunera‘ during the voyage to Australia. Typical extractas red:‘I lost everything on Dunera.‘ When interned I put all my documents, papers etc., in my suitcase as I expüected American visa in due course.. when I got my suitcaseback .. allmy valuables were missing.‘ A clue tot he perpetrator of the robberies is contained in a reference in three letters to an Englishman named ‚Gannef‘. One reference reads: On the ship coming here, the English GANNEF was always with us.‘ The matter has been reported with a vierw to establishing the identity of Gannef. ” The original document bears the handwritten addition: “Gannef ist he Yiddish for Thief.”

Minute of military intelligence[7] Minute paper; Intelligence report N0. 51, 11th-18th Oct 1940. Quoted from Bartrop/Eisen loc.cit., page 65..

Compensation: Better less?

At the beginning of May 1941, a secret report was sent to London:

“1600 claims each returned by statuory declaration total £32,500 sterling comprising 720 up to £10, 435 over £10 to £20, 320 over £20 to £50, 95 over £50 to £100, 24 over £100 to £200, 6 over £200 excluding 16 claims for manuscripts,. Patents etc. amounting to £5,750. ”

The British High Commissioner[8] Coded telegram of May 8, 1941 from British High Commissioner to Dominions Office. NAA, NAA_ItemNumber216013, page 116. to Dominion Office on May 8, 1941.

After talking with 300 claimants, it was assumed that a reduction in claims could be expected. This corresponded to the number of claims reported by the beginning of May 1941.

The British themselves wanted nothing to do with the settlement. They imposed the clean-up work on the liaison officer of their Home Office in Australia, Major Julian Layton[9] Major Julian Layton was born in England as the son of emigrated German Jews, had been involved in the Kitchener Camp and now acted as liaison officer for the British Home Office in Australia, where he handled the internment camps., as an additional task.

“Suggest Home Office authorize Layton to arrange with Commonwealth to pay all claims up to £50 and to pay up to £50 on account of claims over £50. All settlements to be subject Layton’s discretion. Consider most desirable that this matter is finalised in the interests of all parties.”

Secret telegram[10] Secret telegram from the Australian Prime Minister to the High Commissioner for Australia in London Wheeler from May 27, 1941, NAA, NAA_ItemNumber216013, page 189. from Australian government.

The British War Office[11] Letter from War Office to Wheeler from Sep 25, 1941. NAA_ItemNumber216015, page 143. took four months to push through the payments. On September 25, 1941, it was announced that claims up to 10 pounds would now be paid in full, while claims over 10 pounds would be paid plus 2/3 of the excess. “It is not desired that this formula be communicated” is still noted.

Compensation for the loss of freedom and work, separation from family, destroyed visas and documents was completely unaffordable and not intended by the British. Apart from valuable religious objects that had been rescued from burning synagogues by the Nazis at the risk of their lives.

Around 450 Dunera Boys were unable to register anything. Having barely managed to save their lives during the sinking of the Arandora Star, they were left with nothing but what they had on their bodies. Britain did not want to be responsible for their losses.

Dunera court-martialed: Hear nothing, see nothing, …

The government and military delayed investigations into the officers and men of the pioneer unit that provided the Dunera’s guards. First, a “Court of Inquiry” was convened. After its findings, a court martial could not be avoided. This began in early 1941, but only the commander of the guard unit and two of his non-commissioned officers were charged.

It is striking that the court martial did not remove the defendants from duty, but waited until they – and other witnesses from their unit – had returned to England after carrying out their duties abroad. On the other hand, the court did have the memorandum of the internees of Camp 7 and the statement of the Camp 8 internees. However, not a single person affected was heard as a witness. It was also undesirable to have their statements recorded by the British embassy in Australia, for example. “Is it possible to hold a satisfactory inquiry without witnesses?” asked Eleanor Rathbone[12] House of Commons, protocol of Feb 3, 1942, retrieved Sep 17, 2023. MP in the House of Commons on February 3, 1942.

The deputy commander of the Dunera guards, Captain W.J. Baggulay, testified before the court[13] „News Chronicle“ Report about court martial from May 21, 1941, NAA, NAA_ItemNumber216013, page 131., among other things, that “he had heard that there was a barter system between the soldiers and the internees to get cigarettes, chocolate and other luxuries from the ship’s canteen. Any barter could only be done with the personal property that an internee had with him and not with what was in the suitcase in the baggage hold.” The court does not seem to have investigated the contradiction that the internees should have had barter objects at their disposal after their luggage and the contents of their bags had been taken away. The soldiers allegedly involved in such bartering activities were also not questioned, but the internees were criminalized before the court. Was this done to tarnish the military’s reputation as little as possible?

… punish almost nothing

The punishments were accordingly severe. Sergeant Major Charles Albert Bowles was unable to escape some of the 21 charges. Among other things, he had given other sergeants 10 shillings each from the property of internees. However, it had not been possible to identify the owners of the money, so that it had been impossible to return it, even with the best will in the world. Bowles was even credited with the fact that he had also been unable to return valuables belonging to internees that had been given to him by subordinates due to a lack of identification and had therefore retained them. The fact that the internees’ valuables had basically “disappeared” almost completely was apparently of no concern to the court. The man was sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and dismissed from the service. This seems like an acquittal, as a result of which the man was allowed to survive the world war unscathed.

Sergeant Arthur Helliwell[14] Despite the misspelling of the name in the statement of the Camp 8 internees, the identification of Sgt. Helliwell is clear. was accused of having “pulled a ring off the finger of a middle-aged man with great violence”. After the man complained, Helliwell examined the finger, according to his counter-argument. The nervous man sank to his knees in front of him. Helliwell therefore “held his hand under the man’s chin and lifted him up”, according to the defendant’s trivialising account.

“Mr. Robert Grothey was taken tot he cells on a denunciation, which later proved tob e mistaken. He was pushed down the stairs amd kickedby Sergeant Holliwell in the presence of Lt. O’Neill who was standing by in the cell. Sergeant Holliwell hit him in his face three times an swore at him, also in the presence of Lt. O’Neill.”

Statement of the internees[15] Ibid. of Camp 8.

Two further charges related to Helliwell’s conduct during the escape attempt of Waldemar Eckfeld, an internee in Melbourne Harbour who was known to be mentally ill. The internees reported on this:

“He was struck many blows in the face, and got one tooth knocked out. He was afterwards brought to the ships hospital.”

Statement of the internees[15] Ibid. of Camp 8.

The prosecution accused Helliwell of assaulting the internee during the escape attempt and of failing to protect the man from abuse. Helliwell returned to duty with a severe reprimand.

The commanding officer, Major William Patrick Scott, was acquitted of the charge that he had given his soldiers the impression that he had tolerated the thefts (which were not prosecuted). However, he had failed to investigate a case of violence against an internee (Eckfeld). This was only enough for the judges to issue a stern reprimand.

Following a statement by the Minister of War Margesson about the verdict in the House of Commons, MP Wedgwood asked: “Do I understand correctly that he was not charged with plundering the internees on board?” Margesson[16] House of Commons, protocol of Oct 14, 1941, retrieved Sep 20, 2023.: “The charges are set out in my reply.”

The military court also waived charges for his anti-Semitic statements, which are on record in a letter Scott sent to an Australian army office. There, the officer had vented his hatred of Jews:

“Can only be described as subversive liars, demanding and arrogant (…). They will quote any person from a Prime Minister to the President of the United States as personal references, and they are definitely not to be trusted in word or deed.”

Radio transmission[17] Scott at sea via radio to O.C. Prisoners of War Information Bureau, Australian Imperial Forces from July 2, 1940. Quoted from Dunera News No. 27, page 18. by Scott] from July 2, 1940.

Lieutenant John O’Neill[18] Wikipedia about O’Neill, retrived Sep 1, 2023., who was accused by the internees of several counts of grievous bodily harm, theft and condoning violence and robbery, was not charged at all. He died of a heart attack on October 16, 1942.

At the end of the court martial proceedings, the British House of Commons was informed of the proceedings as follows:

“There is no evidence that the ship’s company or naval ratings were concerned in the charges which formed the subject of the Court of Inquiry. The evidence at the court-martial did not show that the commanding officer knew that articles belonging to internees were being taken by the troops or that no proper record was being kept of property so taken.”

War Secretary Margesson[19] Margesson, Secretary of War, in the House of Commons, Sep 9, 1941, retrieved Sep 25, 2023. on September 9, 1941 in the House of Commons.

Of course, improper management cannot be proven if documents are not prepared in the first place. Nothing done and nothing known …

“An Appeal for justice and humanity”

After the initial uproar in the House of Commons in the late summer of 1940, the British government took its time until March 1941 to take concrete action regarding the internees in Australia, even though the 2,300 or so men, women and children[19] Margesson, Secretary of War, in the House of Commons, Sep 9, 1941, retrieved Sep 25, 2023., who had been brought to Australia with the Dunera or the Queen Mary, had regained the status of friendly foreigners. This was a result of the political U-turn which happened turing their journey.

The British liaison officer, Major Julian Layton, spent a good year from the spring of 1941 onwards to manage the release of around 1,135 Jewish internees who wanted to join British pioneer units, were deployed in England for other war-related tasks or had visas for third countries. And he organized their travel. There were 47 victims[20] due to the torpedoing of four return transports.

The Jews and opponents of the Nazis who were forced to stay in the camps ultimately saw themselves in an unjustified corner of shame. In their “Appeal for Justice and Humanity” in May 1941 – one year after the British internment began – they summarised the contradictions and problems of their situation on seven pages and addressed their “Appeal for Justice and Humanity” to the Australian government and other authorities. In it, they criticised, among other things, their treatment as prisoners of war and the censorship of mail, and denounced the government’s laziness in making decisions. They emphasised that they were prepared to use their professional qualifications to support Australia in the war, while being invited by the British to serve in the army.

It is hardly surprising, the paper asks rhetorically, “that we – recognized as allies in Britain – feel humiliated and deeply depressed after a year of internment because of the continued misunderstanding of our true position?”

The clearance of the camps in Tatura

However, it would be another year before the remaining internees were officially free. Most of them wanted to stay in Australia. In view of the shortage of labour caused by the army service of Australians, the army set up numerous unarmed labour units. Former refugees who wanted to stay in the country were able to “volunteer” for the 8th Employment Company, which was set up especially for them, from the spring of 1942. “We are defending the 70th line of defence,” mocked Queen Mary internee Franz Lebrecht. Like many of his comrades, he would have liked to fight fascism with a weapon. Many men in this unit used their hard service to apply for naturalisation or permanent residency in Australia.

By mid-1942, the Dunera and Queen Mary internment camps were largely disbanded. At the same time, the status of the interned German seamen and businessmen was changed: They were now listed as “Prisoners of War”. This included the 250 survivors of the Arandora Star, who had been brought to Australia on the Dunera. Many of them remained australian custody[21] Cf. personal files of the internees, NAA. until 1947.

In Great Britain itself, around 8,000 of the 19,000 internees held behind barbed wire had been released by the end of 1940 following the political change.
According to government figures, 1,273 men – not including those returned from Australia – joined the British Pioneer Corps.Nevertheless, by 1942, 5,000 people – mainly on the Isle of Man – were in British detention[22] Cf. The National Archives (UK) blog, retrieved Sep 20, 2023.. However, it is unclear whether these were only prisoners of war or also civilian internees.

Marginal gloss: Compensation from Germany

With the payments for the material losses suffered on the Dunera, the issue of compensation was settled for the British authorities. No proceedings by internees for compensation for pain and suffering, damages for deprivation of liberty, occupational damage, etc. are known.

It is little known that claims could be asserted in Germany under §43 of the Federal Compensation Act[23] Bundesentschädigungsgesetz, wording (German), retrieved Aug 30, 2023.. This concerned, among other things, deprivation of liberty abroad if it was carried out “in disregard of constitutional principles” and the person concerned had “lost German citizenship or the protection of the German Reich”. Jews in particular, who had been stripped of their citizenship by the Nazis, could invoke this. It is not known how many Dunera Boys took advantage of this. Documents from two proceedings show – as with many proceedings for compensation and restitution – the lack of interest and bureaucratic behavior of the German authorities involved.

Dunera Boy Dr Fritz Kassel was one of the Jewish passengers on the scandalous voyage of the St. Louis[24] In May/June 1939, Cuba and the USA refused to accept 937 Jewish passengers on the German ship St. Louis. Back in Europe, 254 were able to disembark in England. Cf. Wikipedia about the St. Louis trip, retrieved Aug 25, 2023. and was lucky enough to be allowed to disembark in Great Britain in June 1939. He was spared the fate of those who were accepted elsewhere in Western Europe and shortly afterwards fell back into the clutches of the fascists as a result of the war. In 1972, after ten years of litigation, Kassel obtained compensation of DM 4,350. In the second instance, the Oberlandesgericht Mainz[25] Fritz Kassel vs. Rhineland-Palatine, OLG Mainz file no. 5 U (WG) 43/7, page 91 from Jan 15, 1972; Dehn family archive. adopted the extensive description of the statement of claim in its judgment. The “inadequate accommodation and food, particularly humiliating treatment” and the transportation to the internment camp, which was “incompatible with the principles of the rule of law”, are some of the points made. Apart from the appalling conditions on the Dunera, Kassel was unable to report anything from the Huyton camp near Liverpool or the Isle of Man that would have earned the British authorities any points.

Heinz Dehn made a similar application in West Berlin[26] Heinz Dehn vs. Berlin, Landgericht Berlin, file no.191. O. Entsch. 421,74; Dehn family archive.. He wrote about his stay of almost two months in the Ramsey camp on the Isle of Man in the statement of claim, among other things:

“The houses in one part of the village had been cleared in a hurry and the area fenced in with barbed wire. The owners of the houses had left only the bare necessities behind. I myself slept in a small, windowless room, just big enough to accommodate the hitting gear. The room was ventilated by not closing the door overnight.”

From Heinz Dehn’s statement of claim.

Heinz Dehn’s five-page report for the court on his time in concentration camps and internment also dealt with the events during the two-month voyage on the Dunera. Heinz Dehn was able to obtain DM 1,500 after several years of proceedings.

Addendum: “No matter of an apology”

On June 26, 1990, Lord Avebury asked the British government in the House of Lords whether it was not time, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Dunera scandal, to apologize to the survivors “for the treatment meted out by the British government in 1940”. He called for public access to the records of the military court and the court of inquiry. For the Thatcher government at the time, Lord Ullswater[27] House of Lords, protocol of June 26, 1990, retrieved Sep 23, 2023. refrained from a historical reassessment and repeated the old excuse: they had to act quickly because of the feared invasion. “The deportation was carried out on the basis of the legislation then in force and approved by Parliament.”

With this remark, Ullswater – certainly unintentionally – took up the argument of “Befehlsnotstand”. Nazi criminals tried to evade conviction in West Germany with the argument: They had acted in accordance with applicable laws, and therefore have nothing to answer for. The rest of his statement is nothing but cynical: “Although the government fully understands that this measure was inevitably painful to those involved, like previous post-war governments of both parties, it does not see it as a matter of apology.” According the Court martial he added: “The records of the accused did not meet the criteria for permanent retention and were destroyed several years ago.”

“The dark side of Britain’s fight against Nazi Germany is being kept under lock and key until 2040 under the UK’s Official Secrets Act,” an Australian newspaper[28] „Britons finally learn the dark Dunera secret" in The Sydney Morning Herald, May 19, 2006, retrieved Sep 25, 2023. wrote in 2006. The chance to remove “this sullied page of our history[29] House of Commons, protocol of Aug 22, 1940, retrieved Sep 23, 2023.” and hand it over to posterity “cleaned up and rewritten” has been missed to this day.

This can rightly be described as a “regrettable and deplorable mistake”.

Footnotes