In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick

SurrogacyTM

Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

‘Trick Mirror’

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

The Myth of 1940Angus Calder
Close

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website (www.lrb.co.uk — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.


  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Close
Collar the lot! How Britain Interned and Expelled its Wartime Refugees 
by Peter Gillman and Leni Gillman.
Quartet, 334 pp., £8.95, May 1980, 0 7043 2244 7
Show More
A Bespattered Page? The Internment of ‘His Majesty’s Most Loyal Enemy Aliens’ 
by Ronald Stent.
Deutsch, 282 pp., £7.95, July 1980, 0 233 97246 3
Show More
Show More

On 16 May 1940, when the German Army had just overwhelmed Holland, police swooped to arrest 3,000 men born in the Reich but now living in Britain. Some were billeted in the offices of the Tote organisation. Queuing for lunch, one detainee saw an army officer brandishing a revolver at a boy:

‘Are you Jewish?’ the officer asked.
‘Yes’, the boy replied.
‘Are there many Jews here?’
‘About 80 per cent.’
‘Damn!’ the officer exclaimed. ‘I knew we’d get the wrong lot.’

Further arrests over the next few weeks brought the grand total of ‘enemy aliens’ interned to over 27,000. Some of these were undoubtedly hostile to Britain’s cause. But the vast majority were certainly not, and included a very great number of Jewish refugees, and some distinguished German socialists and Italian anti-Fascists, besides such oddities as a couple of Scottish miners whose father had been working briefly on the Ruhr when they had been born, and had never regularised their nationality.

While Hitler was setting them plenty of other problems which now seem incomparably more urgent, organising internment on this scale distracted Cabinet, Home Office and War Office. Troops were tied down guarding harmless aliens at a time when Dad’s Army was nightly expecting invasion. Highly skilled refugees whose talents would have enhanced Britain’s war effort wistfully stared at barbed wire on the Isle of Man. While an anti-Fascist ballet was touring South America under British Council auspices, its choreographers and designer were in detention.

Later that year, Penguin published a well-researched and highly indignant ‘Special’, The Internment of Aliens, by François Lafitte, which exposed what had happened as fully as was then possible. By that time, policies had changed, innocuous aliens were being released as quickly as the authorities could manage, and a general disposition to forget about the matter was setting in – not least among former internees now permitted to serve eagerly in the Army and, in some cases, to do important war work. After forty years in which very little has appeared in print on the subject, two new books appear almost simultaneously, each attempting a full account. Both the Gillmans and Ronald Stent have looked at official papers, both have interviewed ex-internees. Yet their work has been less overlapping than complementary.

Peter Gillman is a member of the Sunday Times ‘Insight’ team, and he and his wife, scenting conspiracy in top places, offer a detailed narrative of Government policies in the making. Mr Stent, himself a former internee, knows far less about Whitehall’s workings, and writes less efficiently, but gives a fuller and more inward account of life in Britain’s concentration camps. Where their accounts conflict, one would be hard put to blame either. Confusion and bad conscience in the then Government led to obfuscation, some of it probably deliberate. As Mr Stent observes, ‘statistics on every aspect of the internment story, given from time to time in Parliament by spokesmen of the various Ministries, differ so often that one cannot but wonder about their accuracy’.

Many internees were shifted to camps in the Isle of Man, where detention, for some victims (including, he says, Mr Stent), had incidental compensations. With so many distinguished refugee intellectuals present, a rich cultural life was possible. ‘Universities’ sprang up. Musicians had time to practise, artists improvised paintings and sculptures. The Dadaist Kurt Schwitters, after years of neglect, relished his captive audience: ‘His pièces de résistance, beyond doubt, were sculptures fashioned out of state remnants of porridge, which he assiduously collected from breakfast tables. They had the colour of Danish blue cheese and exuded a faintly sickly smell. Alas, they did not survive long; the mice soon got them.’

So, granted the tale was not one of unrelieved misery, might we not claim that we’ve had good reason for banishing it from memory? Ailing and elderly refugees who suffered dire conditions in improvised camps hardly fared worse than aged Britons blitzed not long after. If interned wives were separated from husbands, well, army service had made millions lonely. Compared to the bungles and chicanery around Dunkirk, or even to the failings of Britain’s preparations against air raids, the absurdities of internment may not seem so culpable – just typical examples of how bureaucracy muddles in total war. Sir Claus Moser and Sir Hermann Bondi, Siegmund Nissel and Peter Stadlen, were amongst numerous able refugees who survived difficult, but not lethal, conditions, forgave the implicit insult to their integrity, and went on to make distinguished contributions to British life. While the Government was interning a large minority of refugees, it gave over £850,000 in the first 11 months of 1940 towards the support of those who stayed outside.

No politician stands out as a villain in the Gillmans’ interesting series of revelations. Sir John Anderson, blamed over this and much else at the time, in fact fought hard to keep internment to a minimum (and no one denied that some people had to be ‘collared’). If Churchill was a hard-liner in the early summer of 1940, it was not many months before he was calling for a ‘more rapid process of release from internment’. Though there is very little evidence of positive dislike of individual refugees shown by the general public, Government spokesmen were plausibly humane when they argued that refugees might be safe from assault behind barbed wire.

But in that case, why not ‘intern the lot’, as sections of the gutter press demanded? Anderson had a formidable brain and stated logically that it would be ridiculous to intern ‘Class B’ male aliens without also impounding ‘Class B’ women. So why did he later order the arrest of all ‘Class C’ men but leave women in the same ‘Class’ at liberty?

These classifications had been given by 120 tribunals set up across Britain early in the war. The cases of 73,800 individuals had come before them, of whom three-quarters were refugees. Only a few hundreds were put in Class A, to be interned immediately (though even this category included some Jewish refugees); 64,200 went into Class C, and were at that time thought to pose no security risk. The B’s, doubtful cases, were subject to some restrictions.

Mr Stent writes: ‘The opportunities for the expression of prejudice, ignorance or just plain stupidity on the part of the chairmen of the tribunals were obviously great, and there were many examples of blatant inequity. It is hard to follow the reasoning of the chairman who classified a Protestant, half-Jewish student … as a “B”-category alien because he admitted that he was intermittently in contact with his non-Jewish mother via friends in Switzerland.’ Actually, I think this tribunal was not so silly as some others. It was conceivable that German Intelligence could have blackmailed refugees, using threats against their relatives. But this gave an argument for precisely such restraints on travel and so forth as were imposed on Class B aliens in the first instance, not a case for the arrest and detention which befell them later.

From early 1940, several newspapers stirred up anti-alien prejudice. The Kemsley and Rothermere publications, which had been pro-appeasement and soft on Fascism, were to the fore in suggesting that many refugees were really Gestapo agents. One did not need the talents of the recently dead Sigmund Freud (whose son Martin, an FRS, was interned) to guess what psychological processes had made Beverley Nichols, erstwhile pacifist and member of the right-wing Anglo-German Fellowship, the most persistent of all journalists shrieking the slogan ‘Intern the lot.’ Alas, irrationality gained powerful support in April, as ‘Quisling’ became a byword and the myth was born that a ‘Fifth Column’ had been at work in Norway aiding Nazi conquest.

The senior body of British military and civilian intelligence, the Joint Intelligence Committee, was quick to embrace the myth: as the Gillmans point out, it offered an ideal explanation of its own complete failure to anticipate what had happened. The hysteria of its members produced a supreme example of the looney logic which prevailed for the next few months. They were so sure that there was a Fifth Column in Britain that they argued that ‘the absence of sabotage up to date reinforces the view that such activities will only take place as part of a prearranged military plan’. In fact, the Germans had not organised a Fifth Column, and would have been crazy in any case to enlist refugees, whose accents usually made their foreign origins conspicuous. But the Joint Intelligence Committee absurdly saw refugees as the chief danger and clearly implied that all should be interned.

Next month the British Minister at the Hague, Sir Neville Bland, returned from conquered Holland to make wild and baseless assertions that a Fifth Column had undermined that nation. As the German Army advanced further and panic spread in Whitehall, the gutter press chorus became still more strident and Home Office liberalism was spun into retreat. The Gillmans think they have discovered a conspiracy within MI5 aimed at steamrollering Anderson’s objections. But, fascinating though their suggestions are, they seem at this point perhaps to be blurring a crucial distinction. There were good reasons, despite liberal qualms, for interning Mosleyite Fascists and other British pro-Nazis (fourteen hundred or so suspects were rounded up at this time). The same reasons did not apply to Jewish refugees. It was the Chiefs of Staff who now applied pressure on the Cabinet for their indiscriminate internment.

The situation was very ominous, and one might excuse Whitehall panic and the resulting mass detentions on ‘better safe than sorry’ lines. Such an apology won’t fully work on behalf of the policy, presented as a fait accompli to the Cabinet on 11 June, of exporting aliens to the Dominions. Crucial papers relating to this were denied to the Gillmans, but they have pieced together what they rightly call ‘a disreputable story’.

The concept seems to have been Churchill’s. In the course of implementing it, the British Government fed those of Canada and Australia, and its own supporters in Parliament, with what can at best be called equivocations, and broke its promise to internees who volunteered to sail on the understanding that their wives and children would shortly join them.

Just over eleven thousand allegedly ‘dangerous characters’ were expelled. Four ships sailed for Canada between 21 June and 7 July. Many were indeed ‘A’-class internees and POWs, but over a quarter were ‘B’ or ‘C’-class Germans or Austrians, and many of the Italians dispatched were no more dangerous than the 68-year-old restaurateur, settled in Britain for 42 years, who had three sons serving against the Nazis but was packed into the Arandora Star. That ship was torpedoed west of Ireland, and he lost his life, along with half those aboard, including well-known Italian and German socialists and an Italian engineer who had lived most of his life in England and had been engaged on important war work. This disaster provided a focus for the outrage which MPs of all parties were beginning to voice over internment policy. Meanwhile, the puzzled Canadian authorities found themselves guarding such ‘dangerous characters’ as Jewish schoolboys and left-wing German merchant seamen.

One ship only sailed for Australia, on 10 July. The 2,732 internees aboard the Dunera included over 400 survivors from the Arandora Star; the rest were all classified ‘B’ or ‘C’. The commander of the military guard, Lieutenant-Colonel Scott, put on record his view that the Nazi Germans on board were ‘of a fine type, honest and straightforward, and extremely well-disciplined’, whereas his Jewish charges were ‘subversive liars, demanding and arrogant’. His soldiers plundered the internees on the voyage of anything they could find of the least value (and the British Government eventually had to pay out £30,000 in compensation). The Dunera narrowly missed a torpedo on the way. Conditions on board were hardly better, if at all, than those endured by convicts on the same route a hundred years before.

Scott seems a genuine ‘villain’, but he was only a minor actor in the internment story. There is room for more research on that story, but I don’t think it will uncover an equally villainous role played in top places. What happened has to be understood in the context of events which had shaken the British ruling class more severely than any since 1830-32. Bungles and lies were inevitable in a phase where the mistrusted usurper Churchill confronted sullen Conservative benches in the Commons, and when every political person in Britain, right, left or centre, bemused by the pace of events on the Continent, was, in panic or anger, searching for scapegoats. People did not know yet that this was their ‘finest hour’. Not till Hitler invaded Russia would fears of invasion subside, and only then would it be possible to stabilise the great Myth of 1940.

Under the spell of this myth, Churchill’s arrival in power would appear, not as the work of a few Tory backbenchers, but as the expression of the Will of the People. The Dunkirk fiasco would be a moral triumph. The epic tale of the Battle of Britain would be related without any recognition of the fact that the Luftwaffe simply hadn’t had the right kinds of planes to defeat the RAF. The negative fact that German bombs had not destroyed British morale would be mutated into the assertion that the whole people had acted heroically.

Those who ‘trekked’ from blitzed cities don’t belong with the myth, nor do the many who attended the meetings of the Communist-led People’s Convention. Interned Jews have suffered a like oblivion. Yet certain parts of the story now ably told by the Gillmans, and movingly illuminated by Mr Stent, do help to explain how Britain survived the summer of 1940 still fit to resist, how honour was saved and how the myth became possible.

Impressively, certain MPs expressed their anger in very strong terms: it was a Conservative, Victor Cazalet, who denounced indiscriminate internment as a ‘bespattered page’ in British history. And, impressively, this matter so very embarrassing to the Government was debated again and again in Parliament. Most impressively of all, in August, when the danger of invasion was actually greater than before, common sense prevailed and releases began. There was plenty of actual and latent anti-semitism in Britain, some of it at high levels. But the temptation to make Jews into scapegoats was resisted, as was that of peace with dishonour. Encouraging smugness, the Myth of 1940 has done Britain a great deal of harm. But better that harm than the evil there might have been, if irrationality had gone further and Britain had been seen to lose concern for the individual rights of oppressed foreigners. The gutter press had had things much its own way in 1914-18. Over aliens, in 1940, it finally lost.

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

letters@lrb.co.uk

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.