reactions of the british public & press to the expulsion of Germans

Print this Article    •    Font Size:   -   +    •     Send this Article to a Friend

HOW TO CITE THIS SCHOLARLY ESSAY: Anderson, Benjamin. "Reactions of the British Public & Press to the Expulsion of Germans." http://expelledgermans.org/britishpressreactions_anderson.html (accessed Day-Month-Year).

 

BY BENJAMIN ANDERSON

(Editor's Note: this is Chapter 2 out of a Dissertation; see Chapters 2, 4, and 5).

At 4.15pm, on 8 May 1945, hundreds of churchgoers gathered at the Church of Holy Rude in Stirling for a Service of Solemn Thanksgiving to celebrate V. E. Day. Simultaneously, thousands of other Stirlingshire residents gathered in, and around, Stirling’s King’s Park. As they watched the military and pipe bands and dancers perform, the crowd joyously waved their Union Jacks. Such scenes were typical throughout Britain on 8 May. For the British public, the inhumane darkness that had shrouded Europe for six years had finally been lifted.
In Germany, and Eastern Europe, however, the darkness remained as the German people suffered at the hands of their occupier. In 1942, Jan Karski, the Polish Resistance fighter, presciently claimed to the British Government that Germans would face retribution in post-war Eastern Europe. At the war’s end between 473,000 to 1 million Germans were murdered by the Red Army and indigenous populations; some 2 million German women were raped; countless others were robbed; and between 7 to 12 million were made homeless and expelled from their Eastern European homes in the ‘Wild Expulsions’ that took place in Czechoslovakia and Poland. It was open season. According to Roy Douglas, these expulsions were ‘not merely the largest forced migration but probably the largest single movement of population in human history’. The actions of the Poles and Czechs during these expulsions would, in the modern world, constitute a serious breach of human rights and can be compared to the Tutsi’s experience in Rwanda in 1994. [1]

The British public were informed on the expulsions through the press, but, as will be shown, it is debatable how much the public knew about the atrocities that took place in Eastern Europe during the expulsions. Contrary to Alfred de Zayas and Elisabeth Barker, the British were interested in European affairs, and British opinion did not entirely verge on vengeance against the Germans. On the one hand, there were the likes of Clement Attlee, who became Prime Minister in 1945, who felt the expulsions were justified; on the other hand, however, others shared George Orwell’s opinion that the expulsions were ‘an enormous crime’. Thus, a clear split was visible within British opinion, and these attitudes were spread throughout many spheres, including the public, political, and cultural ones. Much of these opinions would be expressed in newspapers and their published opinion pieces. [2]

The previous chapter showed that Britain had grown frustrated towards the minorities and were unwilling to show much compassion for them in the interwar years. To an extent, this chapter shows that some elements of British society maintained this attitude during the Germans’ expulsions; indeed, it is clear that many within politics, the public, and press actively flouted their humanitarian attitudes. In the political sphere, Mark Mazower and Tony Judt suggest the British had allowed the expulsions because they had grown frustrated with the unsuccessful protection of minorities through international law, and, therefore, had little sympathy for the Germans. Whilst we can apply this thesis to the interwar years, we cannot however use it to explain the post-war years. In fact, the British Government demonstrated that they were sympathetic to the Germans: they still respected the objective self-determination of nations and they also tried to protect German subjective self-determination, albeit they were forced to defy the subjective self-determination in order to protect it. Mazower and Judt’s argument reduces the British attitudes towards the expulsions were simplified. It is clear that British attitudes towards minorities and self-determination were a lot more complex. [3]

Early on in the war, the British Government predicted Germans would face post-war retribution. Anthony Eden warned in a 1941 draft declaration that Germans would be punished for Nazi policies in occupied countries, because they inspired an ‘intense and passionate hatred’ for Germans amongst the occupied. When the Foreign Research and Press Service (FRPS) and Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA) reported back in 1942 that Reinhard Heydrich’s Policy used in Czechoslovakia would endanger the post-war lives of Germans, the Government was unsurprised. The report emphasised early British concerns for the Germans’ welfare as its purpose was to investigate the viability of population transfers after the war. It concluded that only population transfers could protect the Germans. On 15 December 1944, Winston Churchill bluntly confirmed British intentions for Germans after the war, ‘Expulsions is the method which . . .  will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no more mixture of populations to cause endless troubles’. Particularly telling is his use of ‘endless troubles’, which suggests that the Government was forced to act because of the warnings on German life in post-war Poland and Czechoslovakia. [4]

Thus, in conjunction with Douglas and Matthew Franks’s views, the British Government had no option but to carry out the expulsions. It was reflected in various contemporary opinions. Hugh Dalton, the Chancellor of Exchequer in 1945, likened it to two squabbling neighbours: ‘If two families don’t get on, there was a chance of peace if they are put to separate houses’. A Liberal Party member was much blunter than Dalton as they insisted, ‘The transference of population is cruel . . . but it may be less cruel than any other alternative’. Two reasons explain why British politicians saw expulsions as necessity: firstly, it was natural that the Poles and Czechs would not simply going to forgive and forget how they suffered under the Nazi occupation. Blood would be shed, and peace would remain in the balance. It was therefore in the interests of peace that the expulsions take place, which Churchill emphasised in his above speech. Secondly, the British politicians knew the Germans’ lives were at risk, and if they allowed the Germans to remain there in a clearly hostile environment then it was also a question of British humanitarian credentials: as a liberal bastion it could not allow something so illiberal to happen. [5]

Of course, the German people were in an unenviable dilemma. Germany was in ruins; Poland and Czechoslovakia were dominated by angry indigenous populations. Life would not be easy in Germany, but it would be even worse in Poland and Czechoslovakia, where even the most basic rights of Germans would be violated by indigenous populations seeking revenge at the war’s end. [6]

This revenge would be enacted through physical, psychological, financial, political, and social means that would make German life in Eastern Europe insufferable. Once the Nazi retreat begun, the German people were left at the mercy of those they had once ruled over. Non-Nazis and Nazis alike knew no German would be spared by the indigenous populations. By caring for the safety of the German people, it is evident benevolence characterised the British Government’s actions towards the ethnic Germans.

Whilst the British Government was somewhat empathetic towards the Germans, the same could not be said of the British public. Instead, Vansittartism was a popular attitude amongst the British public, and could also be seen amongst those in the Government. Vansittartism embodied the anti-German views of Lord Richard Vansittart, a British diplomat and civil servant, which were set out in his book Black Record: The Germans Past and Present (1941). For him, Germany had a ‘plain and ugly’ history, because the Germans held a deep-rooted thirst for war. ‘Hitler,’ he continued, was ‘no accident. He [was] the natural and continuous product of a breed from the dawn of history [that had] been predatory and bellicose’. On the book’s dust-jacket he concluded, ‘He [Germans] has always been the barbarian, the war-lover, the enemy—furtive or avowed—of humanitarianism, liberalism or Christian civilisation’. Essentially, from Vansittart’s perspective, Germany was nothing but a menace to mankind and they had to be stopped. [7]

Vansittart suggested the Allies were partly responsible for the German menace. Britain and the Allies, he wrote, were too compassionate towards them and this only encouraged Germans by showing that their aggressive nature would go unpunished. Consequently, Britain was dragged into another global conflict because of Germany’s own self-interest. He insisted that the time for compassion towards Germany was over and that it was time for Britain to rebuild itself and let the Germans suffer in the meantime. On 15 April 1945, Vansittart’s message seemed almost prophetic to the British public. As British forces arrived at Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camps, the emaciated crowd of Untermenschen shuffled to the fences; they begged for water, food, and medicine. The British public and soldiers alike described their German counterparts as ‘human devils’, who had ‘sickened’ humanity and were ‘not fit to live in this world’. The discovery of other concentration camps, like Neuengamme, served as a confirmation to the British public that compassion towards the Germans had to be discarded. Germans had to be punished.   [8]

Interestingly, it was the British edition of Vogue, a fashion magazine, that appeared most emphatic about making the Germans suffer. In one article (see figures 5 and 6 on pages ? and ?), the magazine made no attempt to restrict view of the gruesome fate that awaited the Germans. Figure one’s headline called the retribution ‘Nazi Harvest’, and in the top left-hand corner there is an image of Justice with the caption: ‘Justice amid the ruins’.  Such an image emphasised the belief that Germans were victims of their downfall and, therefore, Britain could not feel sympathy for them. It was their own fault. Thus, the article exonerated the British population from any blame for the Germans’ plight, ensuring they felt no guilt for their part in Germany’s destruction. The bombing campaign against Germany was justified and was merely a consequence of German and Nazi aggression. Additionally, there was an element of humiliation within the magazine’s images. It also made sure the British public knew how much the Germans were suffering, with one caption having a particularly acerbic finish that underlined the point that Germany created their own problems: ‘Retribution overtakes the Germans: the people shamed, humiliated; the country destroyed, and honour lost’. The fact that these images were in a fashion magazine is indicative of the British public’s desire to harshly punish the Germans, as it shows that the war’s end was not solely reported by newspapers but across a wide spectrum of publishing outlets. With such widespread exposure, the British public were bombarded by this message that the Germans were to blame for their own fallacies. This, consequently, led to a lack of benevolence amongst the British public. [9]

The public’s anger was made clear in correspondence of numerous newspapers. Unsurprisingly, the right-wing and patriotic Sunday Express had readers sharing extremely radical views. One correspondent called himself ‘a complete fervent advocate of the utter extermination’ of Germany. Another person demanded the ‘German nation . . . be wiped out of civilisation’ because it was ‘not fit to belong to it’. The Dundee Courier, ran by the very conservative D. C. Thompson, also published letters that were hostile to the Germans. In one letter, C. Y. Stansfield insisted Germans be treated like bullies and given ‘a liberal dose of her own medicine’. Others took to the Scotsman, which, as a liberal newspaper, stimulated debate on all issues. Although one correspondent was more restraint in their wording, their Vansittartism shone through for they likened the Germans to wild animals that needed to be locked up. They also condemned the creation of ‘a ‘League of Pity for Germany” as they insisted, ‘Such a league . . . would be so wrong-headed that it is to be hoped that . . . the public will show clearly its disapproval’. The Manchester Guardian, which claimed to defendant of individual rights and liberties, published letters where one correspondent viewed all Germans as equally guilty of the concentration camps, and, therefore, all Germans had to suffer the consequences. It would be wrong to say it was a unanimous opinion, but the fact that it appeared across newspapers with different political views demonstrated that it was a benevolent attitude was lacking amongst the British public. [10]

In short, the British public widely believed that Nazi Germany had to be harshly punished. The crimes of Nazi Germany had overwhelmed those of Imperial Germany in the First World War. Even those who stood for equality of man advocated a hard peace. For example, Walter Citrine, the President of the International Federation of Trade Unions, called for a hard peace at the 1945 Trade Union Conference. [11]

In calling for a hard peace, it showed that the British public’s Vansittartism because they were indiscriminate towards the German people, even those who had opposed the Nazis. These Germans may claim that Nazism was a minority of evil-minded people who had manipulated the Germans, but as far as the British public were concerned this minority had over-stepped the mark of self-interest and, like it or not, all German people were complicit in the minorities rise to power. Yet, we can look at this argument from another dimension, where the British people were forced to relinquish their compassion and act with prejudice towards the German people. By relinquishing their compassion, this enabled Britain to harshly punish the perpetrators for their crimes and to reinforce the idea that war could never happen again. Twice in thirty-one years, war had been an outgrowth of German self-interest, which, therefore, represented a danger to peace and humanity.

The press was clearly instrumental to the British public. Firstly, as the above shows, it gave the public a platform to vent its anger towards the Germans. Secondly, the press influenced British opinion, because it was through the British press, or radio, that the country heard about the news in Europe, and we see the press was selective about what it reported. This partly helps to explain to why the British public were angry towards the Germans. They were barely exposed to the atrocities that were happening during the expulsions. For example, only Rhona Churchill, of the Daily Mail, reported the Brno Death March in late May, which involved a substantial number of Czech-Germans (28,000). [12]

The press appeared to only report one other story that demonstrated retribution against the Germans: that of five S.S. men set alight in Prague on 21 May 1945. Osmar White was one of few journalists who exposed the expulsions’ violent nature. For the Poles and Czechs, he wrote, they were a ‘savage satisfaction’. When the expulsions were reported by the press, they were often condoned, which fed into the public’s Vansitartism. The Lancashire Evening Post argued that the Poles and Czechs were ‘entitled to revenge’. Arbroath’s local newspaper demanded the Germans face retaliation because of their wartime actions. The Dundee Courier wrote that all Germans had to face the consequences for their ‘torture of Europe’.

Simultaneously, the British press reported the Czech leader-in-exile’s speeches, where he repeatedly made clear his intentions to expel the Germans. By having little knowledge of what the Germans endured, the British public’s compassionate attitude would remain silent. [13]

The British public’s reaction to the concentration camps were therefore not challenged by news that would make them think of the Germans differently. Both the public and press showed themselves to be entirely intolerant towards the German people and their suffering: ultimately, all Germans were viewed as guilty. The public merely saw their anger as a natural response towards the Germans, whose self-interest had dragged their families into two catastrophic wars in thirty-one years: thus, it was in the interest of humanity that German self-interest be dealt with harshly. Moreover, these attitudes were in the context of war, and it is not surprising that elements of Britain took up anti-German attitudes. However, the press played an intrinsic role in cultivating the British public’s anger towards the Germans, as it set an agenda that condoned the expulsions and violence against the Germans.

Contrastingly, politicians seemed to retain some of their humanitarian convictions. For them, it was about making the best out of a bad situation. Although the expelled Germans would suffer in a ruined Germany, it was much better than the violence, murder, rape, and robbery that they faced in Poland and Czechoslovakia. Contrary to Mazower and Judt, therefore, the British politicians were acting out of humanitarian ideals. By allowing the expulsions, Britain actually protected the Germans and their right to self-determination. [14]

However, as the next chapter demonstrates, this concern from Britain must be investigated further, and once we appreciate the situation Britain found itself in at the war’s conclusion then we can see why the British government cared so much. The bipolarisation of the world meant Britain had been pushed away from the centre of the international stage, which they had occupied for so long. The expulsions served as an opportunity that the British exploited in order to reassert some sort of prestige in the world and show that they were still a great power.

 

 

Sources/Bibliography