German Migrants in Post-war Britain

Both timely and topical, with 2005 marking the 60th anniversary of the end of the Second
World War, this unique book examines the little-known and under-researched area of
German migration to Britain in the immediate post-war era. Authors Weber-Newth and
Steinert analyse the political framework of post-war immigration and immigrant policy,
and the complex decision-making processes that led to large-scale labour migration from
the continent. They also consider:
• identity, perception of self and others, stereotypes and prejudices
• migrants’ handling of language and intercultural issues
• migrants’ attitudes towards National Socialist and contemporary Germany
• migrants’ motivations for leaving Germany
• migrants’ initial experiences and their reception in Britain recalled after 50 years in the
host country.
Based on rich British and German governmental and non-governmental archive sources,
contemporary newspaper articles and nearly 80 biographically oriented interviews with
German migrants, this outstanding volume, a must-read for students and scholars in the
fields of social history and migration studies, expertly encompasses political as well as
social-historical questions and engages with the social, economic and cultural situation of
German migrants to Britain from a life-historical perspective.
Inge Weber-Newth is Principal Lecturer in Applied Language Studies and a member
of the Research Institute for the Study of European Transformations (ISET) at London
Metropolitan University. Her research is concerned with issues in the field of migration
and minority studies, particularly settlement processes and diasporic experience. Recent
publications deal with German and other European migrants in Britain and survivors of
Nazi persecution.
Johannes-Dieter Steinert is Senior Research Fellow at the History and Governance
Research Institute (HAGRI), University of Wolverhampton and Associate Professor of
Modern History at the University of Osnabrück. He has published widely on German
history, migration and migration policy, forced migration, refugees, displaced persons
and survivors of Nazi persecution. His current research interests include international
humanitarian assistance in post-war Europe.
 British Politics and Society
Series Editor: Peter Catterall
ISSN: 1467–1441

Social change impacts not just upon voting behaviour and party identity but also the
formulation of policy. But how do social changes and political developments interact?
Which shapes which? Reflecting a belief that social and political structures cannot be
understood either in isolation from each other or from the historical processes which form
them, this series will examine the forces that have shaped British society. Cross-
disciplinary approaches will be encouraged. In the process, the series will aim to make a
contribution to existing fields, such as politics, sociology and media studies, as well as
opening out new and hitherto-neglected fields.

The Making of Channel 4

Edited by Peter Catterall

Managing Domestic Dissent in First World War Britain

Brock Millman

Reforming the Constitution

Debates in twenty-first century Britain
Edited by Peter Catterall, Wolfram Kaiser and Ulrike Walton-Jordan

Pessimism and British War Policy, 1916–1918

Brock Millman

Amateurs and Professionals in Post-war British Sport

Edited by Adrian Smith and Dilwyn Porter

A Life of Sir John Eldon Gorst

Disraeli’s awkward disciple
Archie Hunter

Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews, 1900–1950

Harry Defries

Poor Health
Social inequality before and after the black report
Edited Virginia Berridge and Stuart Blume
 Mass Conservatism
The conservatives and the public since the 1880s
Edited by Stuart Ball and Ian Holliday

Defining British Citizenship

Empire, commonwealth and modern Britain
Rieko Karatani

Television Policies of the Labour Party, 1951–2001

Des Freedman

Creating the National Health Service

Aneurin Bevan and the medical lords
Marvin Rintala

A Social History of Milton Keynes

Middle England/edge city
Mark Clapson

Scottish Nationalism and the Idea of Europe

Atsuko Ichijo

The Royal Navy in the Falklands Conflict and the Gulf War
Culture and strategy
Alastair Finlan

The Labour Party in Opposition 1970–1974

Prisoners of history
Patrick Bell

The Civil Service Commission, 1855–1991

A bureau biography
Richard A.Chapman

Popular Newspapers, the Labour Party and British Politics

James Thomas

In the Midst of Events

The foreign office diaries of Kenneth Younger, February 1950–October 1951
Edited by
Geoffrey Warner

Strangers, Aliens and Asians

Hugenots, Jews and Bangladeshis in Spitalfields 1666–2000
Anne J Kershen
 Conscription in Britain 1939–1963
The militarization of a generation
Roger Broad

German Migrants in Post-war Britain

An enemy embrace
Inge Weber-Newth and Johannes-Dieter Steinert
German Migrants in Post-war
Britain
An enemy embrace

Inge Weber-Newth and Johannes-Dieter Steinert

LONDON AND NEW YORK

 First published 2006 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 270, Madison Ave, New York,
NY 10016

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2006.

“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis
or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to
http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.”
© 2006 Inge Weber-Newth and Johannes-Dieter Steinert
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or
by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the
information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any
errors or omissions that may be made.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from
the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been
requested

ISBN 0-203-01770-6 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-714-65657-7 (Print Edition)

 Contents

Acknowledgements viii

Introduction 1
1 Britain and West Germany in the post-war period 8
2 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 20
3 Life and work in post-war Britain: the migrants’ experience 44
4 Welfare and support 99
5 Fifty years on 112
6 Five life stories 144
Summary 160
Notes 167
List of archives 194
Bibliography 198
Index 205
 Acknowledgements

This publication is based on a research project which began during 1997–99 between
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and the University of North London (now part of
London Metropolitan University). During this period it was funded by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and also supported by North London University. The
project subsequently obtained additional support from the University of Wolverhampton
until completion. Our sincere thanks go to the contributing universities and the DFG.
We also thank the staff who helped us in the many archives and libraries visited in
Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland while carrying out our research.
We would like to express our special gratitude to our interview partners in Britain and
in Germany, who so willingly shared their life-stories with us, and received us with great
generosity and hospitality.
Last but not least, we are very grateful to John Shepherd and Geraldine Hay for their
continued help in improving and transforming the manuscript. The responsibility for any
remaining flaws rests entirely with the authors.
 Introduction

‘You have wondered, no doubt, why our soldiers do not smile when you wave your
hands, or say “Good morning” in the streets, or play with the children. It is because our
soldiers are obeying orders. You do not like it. Nor do our soldiers. We are a naturally
friendly and forgiving people. But the orders are necessary; and I will tell you why.’1 In
June 1945, when Field Marshal Montgomery started his public explanation of the non-
fraternisation order in British-occupied Germany with this statement, hardly anyone
could have imagined that just a few years later Britain would witness a large-scale
immigration of Germans that is without parallel in history. By 1951, a total of almost
60,000 Germans had come to Britain, either temporarily or permanently. Within this
group there were approximately 10,000 war brides and around 35,000 female workers.
These were recruited either by government, employment agencies or recruited privately,
mainly for the health system, domestic service and the textile industry, respectively.
Furthermore, there were about 15,000 ex-prisoners of war who were allowed to stay as
civilian workers. Among them was Bernd Trautmann, who later became famous as ‘Traut
the Kraut’ at Manchester City Football Club.
German migration to post-war Britain differed from pre-First World War patterns in
two key respects: Migrants were widely dispersed throughout the country, and did not
establish ethnically orientated associations. In comparison, in 1911 more than half the
53,324 Germans lived in and around London.2 Their economic backgrounds ranged from
wealthy bankers and traders, to craftsmen and white-collar workers, general labourers
and finally the poor in London’s East End. They organised themselves according to their
social and financial circumstances in exclusive clubs with economic, political, cultural,
social and sporting aims, in associations of craftsmen, and in philanthropic organisations
that tried to reduce the misery of their fellow countrymen.3 A German hospital, an old
people’s home and an orphanage, together with schools and churches in many British
cities were visible expressions of the richer Germans’ activities.
The internment of about 30,000 Enemy Aliens, mainly on the Isle of Man, during the
First World War stopped these activities.4 In August and October 1914, the first
disturbances and riots against Germans occurred in several cities. Anti-German feelings
peaked in April 1915 after the Lusitania was sunk.5 German labourers and white-collar
workers were dismissed, and German shops boycotted. British associations, organisations
and clubs severed links with their German members.6 German organisations stopped their
activities. Once the war ended, large-scale expulsions that affected some 19,000 Germans
began.7 Others left the country of their own accord or tried to hide their ethnic origins.
As a result, the 1931 census recorded only 28,048 German-born residents in England
and Wales, and a further 1,154 in Scotland.8 According to the Aliens Restriction Act of
1919 and the Aliens Order of 1920, foreign labour could only be employed in areas of the
labour market suffering serious shortages, which before 1939 applied only to domestic
service.9 In 1938, the ‘accelerated return’ of some 15,000 German and Austrian women
employed in British households was demanded by the Nazi government.10 The official
 German migrants in post-war britian 2

reason given for this was a lack of domestic help in Germany, but as a German official
noted: ‘Many German girls did not shy away from working in Jewish households’, and
this he regarded as being incompatible with the German Ansehen.11
There was some movement of Germans and Austrians from the continent into Britain
during the inter-war years, however, the majority of those coming to Britain after 1933
were refugees. By the beginning of the Second World War, their number had reached
73,000 and by 1945, the total had grown to around 200,000.12 During the Second World
War there was no repeat of the anti-German violence, but the Isle of Man was once again
filled with Enemy Aliens. The 1951 census recorded 96,000 German-born residents in
Britain, which was already higher than the previous peak recorded in 1911. In the light of
British post-war migration policy, this is hardly surprising, and the trend continued. In
1961 there were over 120,000 Germans resident in Britain. This figure grew to more than
215,000 in 1991, and over 250,000 by 2001.

Research context

Post-war migration from mainland Europe to Britain has not received much academic
attention. Apart from some older essays13 and monographs, among them J.A.Tannahill’s
pioneering study, European Volunteer Workers in Britain, academic interest has mainly
focused on migration and migrants from Commonwealth countries. As a consequence,
European migrants have been marginalised as objects of study while at the same time
being sometimes idealised as a group.14 A further piece of academic research on the
European Volunteer Workers was published at the beginning of the 1990s by Diana Kay
and Robert Miles. They focussed on the political aspects of their reception, conditions of
employment, welfare issues and the way the migrants were perceived in broader social
and political terms.15 David Cesarani’s publication, Justice Delayed, must also be
mentioned in this context. It concentrates on an important aspect of post-war migration
from Europe: war criminals who were able to settle in Britain, despite stringent security
checks.
In addition, there is a small body of academic work that deals with Germans in post-
war Britain. Three separate monographs, authored by Henry Faulk, Matthew Barry
Sullivan and Helmut Wolff, focus specifically on the topic of German prisoners of war
(POWs) in Britain. However, these publications also outline briefly the resettlement of
the 15,000 ex-POWs, and are thus important sources for analysing the years prior to
1948.16 Aspects of British post-war policy regarding German migrants have also been
analysed by Johannes-Dieter Steinert in his study, Migration und Politik, and Steinert and
Lothar Kettenacker have both contributed to a general survey of the theme in the volume
Germans in Britain since 1500, edited by Panikos Panayi.
A socio-historical analysis of German post-war migration has not hitherto been
published. Nor have others taken up the challenge identified by Colin Holmes.
Formulated against the background of xenophobia, violence and hostilities against
migrants from Africa, the Indian subcontinent and the West Indies in Britain in 1988, he
states: ‘Little is known, however, about the construction of the images of Europeans
which emerged against this background; in popular parlance “the wogs began at Calais”
 Introduction 3

and near at home across the Irish Seas, but the nature of the European groups, or indeed
their durability and influence, still remain largely unknown and little remarked upon.’17

Research questions

This study is an interdisciplinary contribution to the field of migration research. It

encompasses historical as well as sociological research questions. It engages with the
social, economic and cultural circumstances of the German migrants in Britain from the
end of the war right up to the present day from a life-history perspective. The perception
of self and others, stereotypes and prejudices are analysed, together with social
expectations and role attributions. ‘Gender’ is used as an analytic category.
Politics dominates the first two chapters of this study, as the process of political
decision-making that led to German POWs settling in Britain and German workers being
recruited to work in Britain is examined. We also consider the question of whether, and
to what extent, British ‘immigration policy’ was accompanied by an ‘immigrant policy’.
The latter will be seen as an area in which the government attempted to create an
environment to aid interaction between locals and migrants as well as assimilation. In
contemporary interpretations, assimilation was directed at both parties: the host country
and the migrants. In concrete terms this included, for example, informing the British
public in detail about the foreign workers, and vice versa. For the migrants there were
also welfare schemes, support for language acquisition and programmes to facilitate the
transmission of the British way of life. In this way, the government co-opted the support
of numerous NGOs who were supposed to adopt a bridging role between locals and
newcomers.
The migrants’ motives, expectations, aspirations and daily life and work experiences
during their first years in Britain are examined with reference to the political, economic
and social conditions in post-war Germany. In this context, the question arises as to what
extent the stereotypes of the war years continued to affect the migrants. Conflict was to
be expected, not only in the interaction between Germans and Britons, but also between
Britons and other foreign workers, between Germans and other foreigners, between
different groups of European migrants, and between those from the Commonwealth. We
hypothesise that it was interaction with their new environment, as well as with different
groups of foreigners with contrasting attitudes, that influenced the migrants’ self-
perceptions and affected their attitudes and behaviour.
Finally, the social, economic and—in a wider sense—cultural positions of those
Germans who settled in Britain, constitute the major themes of our analysis. The different
forms and directions of the perceptions of self and others will be analysed afresh from the
perspective of half a century later. We will examine how migrants came to terms with
their specific situations, and how they underwent a process of acculturation that Friedrich
Heckmann defines as ‘the change of values, norms and attitudes […] as well as life-styles
stimulated by cultural contact’.18 The areas of work and every-day life, relations with
spouse and family, and language and traditions will be investigated, along with associated
problems and conflicts, and gender specific-coping strategies. There will also be an
examination of how migrants coped when forced to confront the National Socialist past,
something that many of those interviewed—and even their children—experienced.
 German migrants in post-war britian 4

The study is divided into six chapters. After briefly outlining the political, economic
and demographic circumstances in Britain and Germany after the war, we then focus on
British immigration and immigrant policies. Following this, individual migrant groups’
experiences during their first few years in Britain are analysed according to the above-
mentioned research questions. In Chapter 4, welfare initiatives undertaken on national,
community and factory levels are discussed, including the activities of British and
German NGOs and churches. Chapter 5 is devoted to migrants’ personal experiences, and
how they see things 50 years on. Finally, Chapter 6 comprises summaries of five
individual life-stories of migrants who settled in Britain.

Sources and methods

The study employs both qualitative and quantitative methods. It combines an analysis of
archival sources, reports and studies, newspaper articles, and narrative biographical
interviews.
Written sources include official government files held in the Public Record Office in
London and the German Bundesarchiv in Koblenz. In addition, unpublished
autobiographical accounts and other collections held in the Imperial War Museum,
London, and the Militärarchiv, Freiburg, were traced. Archival sources generally favour
research on political history. ‘The more personal, local, and unofficial a document, the
less likely it was to survive’, Paul Thomson noted in his much-acclaimed book, The
Voice of the Past.19 This means, for example, that plenty of information remains available
in the PRO about the political decision-making process that led to the settlement of
German POWs and the recruitment of German workers, while, with few exceptions, most
files concerning regional or community administration have been destroyed.
A similar situation exists in the archives of the NGOs that were involved in welfare
programmes. It is mainly documents that deal with the history of the particular
organisation and its main activities that have survived. This is also true of the British Red
Cross Archive and the Church of England Record Centre. The latter holds documents of
the Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland that contain information on prisoners of
war, race relations and foreign workers. In addition, we looked at the papers of Bishop
Bell (Chichester) and Archbishop Fisher (Canterbury) in Lambeth Palace. In Germany,
two archives dealing with church issues were of particular significance: the Archiv der
Kommission für Zeitgeschichte in Bonn (a Catholic institution), and the Evangelisches
Zentralarchiv in Berlin (for Protestants). Both hold reports and written correspondence on
the problems that migrants from Germany encountered during their first years in Britain.
Letters to and from POWs and recruited women, as well as a number of reports and
minutes, were also found in German church communities around Britain.20
Furthermore, we were able to examine the bulletins and minutes of the German Young
Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in London, as well as some documents from the
Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), along with the papers of Victor
Gollancz and the Trade Union Congress (TUC) collection held in the Modern Record
Office at the University of Warwick. There is also an extensive TUC collection, with its
wealth of brochures and pamphlets, at London Metropolitan University. In addition, the
Archive of the German Caritas Association (Deutscher Caritasverband) in Freiburg was
 Introduction 5

particularly useful. This archive contains files from the German National Federation of
Catholic Associations for the Protection of Young Women (Deutscher Nationalverband
katholischer Mädchenschutzvereine), which sent its own social worker to northwest
England and also operated the St Lioba Home in London for decades. Finally, research
visits to the archives of the World-YMCA (Alliance Universelle des Unions Chrétiennes
de Jeunes Gens) and to the Comité International de la Croix-Rouge in Geneva were
made, the latter having only recently opened its archives for research purposes.
Unfortunately we were unable to visit two major British NGOs—the Women’s Royal
Voluntary Services (WRVS) and the English YMCA—whose archives were closed while
we were researching.
Several county and local archives in the textile area of northwest England deserve a
mention. These contained the files of departments and committees for welfare, health and
education, and also of trade unions, chambers of commerce and churches, which proved
particularly interesting. The Greater Manchester Police Museum offered a rare and
valuable source: the Alien Register from Salford district. It seems that the retention
policies of local and county archives closely resemble those of national archives. That is,
it is mainly sources on political history and the key activities of some associations and
trade unions that have been deemed worthy of keeping (predominantly minutes and
accountancy records). Local and regional newspapers covering the period 1946–52
proved to be further valuable sources for this study.
Some oral history projects carried out in northwest England were also significant. The
largest of the collections used in this study is located in the Central Library in Bradford.
We evaluated about 250 interviews from its European Immigration and Textile
Community projects for this study. The interviewees were former Displaced Persons,
mainly from the Ukraine and the Baltic States, but they also include former members of
the Polish army, other foreign labourers and British textile workers. A much smaller
number of similar sources were available in Stalybridge and Huddersfield. These
interviews enabled us to compare the life experiences of different groups of migrants who
entered Britain at the same time. They also provided information on the reactions of
British workers towards their foreign colleagues.
Finally, the study draws heavily on 62 narrative biographical interviews carried out
between 1995 and 1997 with post-war migrants who remained in Britain. The group
comprises 20 ex-POWs, 14 war brides, 10 women recruited under the North Sea scheme
(including 2 student nurses), 6 domestic helpers recruited privately, 3 ethnic Germans and
9 Germans from the Sudetenland recruited under Westward Ho as European Volunteer
Workers. In addition, we recorded two group-interviews and several interviews with
former Displaced Persons, British spouses, welfare workers, members of the clergy and
nuns, bringing the total number of interviewees to over 80. In geographical terms, the
interviews were concentrated in Greater London, the textile regions in the northwest of
England, Edinburgh and the Scottish Highlands. In this way we attempted to achieve a
balance between city and country, centre and periphery, industrial and agrarian life-
styles, and North and South.
Most interviewees were born in the 1920s and were about 70 years of age at the time
they were interviewed. The interviews usually lasted between two and five hours. The
search for interviewees involved the German churches, who forwarded our requests or
invited us to their meetings. The German Welfare Council (Deutscher Sozialausschuß) in
 German migrants in post-war britian 6

London was also very helpful, as were their regular German senior citizen meetings
(Seniorenkreis). Over time a sort of ‘snowball effect’ developed, with existing contacts
putting us in touch with fresh ones. To avoid bias and too narrow a representation, we
tried to interview people who were not too closely linked to the above-mentioned
institutions.
We wanted the interviews primarily to be opportunities for telling life stories, and to
be carried out in an open form21 with the interviewer very much in the background. A
semi-structured questionnaire served as an interview guide to ensure we gathered insights
and information on some of the following themes: national origins, motives for
migration, first impressions of Britain, experiences at work, choices of partner, starting
family life, children, traditions and customs, possible plans to return home, naturalisation,
stereotypes and hostilities. The order of topics was flexible. Ideally, it was set by the
interviewee who did not know the themes we were attempting to cover in detail. Most
interviewees touched upon each topic without much prompting. The interviewer only
directed the conversation when there was a danger of the interview straying too far away
from the set themes. In general, we aimed at non-interference during the interview so as
not to influence or distort the narratives. Ideally, questions to cover topics that had been
missed by the interviewee were asked when they had finished their narrative. This form
of interview was welcomed by most of the respondents. For many it was a rare
opportunity to talk in detail about their lives and experiences. Perhaps it was an
advantage that the interviewers were about the same age as many of the respondents’ own
children, and, in contrast, were intensely interested in the ‘old stories’. Occasionally, a
strong rapport developed and an interviewee would open up about quite painful
experiences. But also, in some cases the past was regarded as too hard to talk about.
Sometimes an interview request was refused on the basis that it would bring back too
many unpleasant memories.
The interviews could be regarded as a thematisation of subjective perception and
experience.22 However, a degree of commonality became apparent, which allowed us to
reach some general conclusions. These derived from a degree of homogeneity, the result
of belonging to a similar age group, undergoing a similar cultural and political
socialisation process in their country of origin, and sharing experiences of war, flight and
expulsion. Nearly all, with the exception of the war brides, were recruited as labourers.
Heterogeneous elements were also present, such as certain cultural differences resulting
from diverse regional origins despite the possible presence of a common nationality.
There were also gender-specific expectations and experiences, diverse socio-economic
backgrounds, and differences in educational standards and training.
The interviews added significantly to information gathered from written documents, in
that the different sources—archival, newspaper articles and interviews—not only
complemented and supported each other, but also offered an opportunity for
corroboration. Thus the diversity of research methods used ranged from traditional
interpretation of source material, to quantifications and oral histories. Although the latter
is as old as history itself, it remains controversial as the considerable body of literature on
the topic shows. According to Robert Perks and Alistair Thomson, the relationship
between memory and history and between past and present lies at the heart of the debate,
and may never be fully resolved.23 Irrespective of its origin every source has to be judged
critically, and results or hypotheses have to be compared with other sources and
 Introduction 7

interpretations. All sources inevitably contain, to some degree, the personal biases of
those who produced them but it is not always obvious whether or not they were conscious
of doing this, and whether we as readers will recognise it. For social scientists facing this
dilemma, Paul Thomson’s words are reassuring ‘Every historical source derived from
human perception is subjective.’24 It is worth bearing in mind that we usually do not
know how sources discovered in archives were produced or developed, and we hardly
ever know who the authors were or what their backgrounds were. In contrast to this, we
got to know a little about our respondents—and their subjectivities—during the course of
the interviews. The decisive factors in judging any source will always be the
interpretation of it, and the assessment of its significance within the context of the
argument.
 1
Britain and West Germany in the post-war
period

On 5 July 1945, the Conservative Party led by Winston Churchill suffered a resounding
defeat at the hands of the British electorate. Clement Attlee became the new Prime
Minister on 27 July. His government, which remained in power until 1951, is usually
associated with policies such as the nationalisation of industry, expanding the welfare
state and further peaceful withdrawal from empire. It is seldom remembered for
instigating an inward movement of roughly 1 million people from continental Europe,
Ireland, the dominions and colonies.1 If the subject of migration is mentioned at all in
relevant surveys of the Attlee era, references are usually limited to the Empire Windrush,
the former German cruise liner2 that arrived from the West Indies in 1948 with almost
500 immigrants on board.
The 1945 general election took place whilst Britain was still at war. Although a cease
fire existed throughout Europe following the unconditional surrender of the German
Reich, fighting continued in the Pacific against Japan. High expectations accompanied
the 1945 elections: of lasting peace and a New Jerusalem, of greater social justice and full
employment. People anticipated better wages and housing, more to spend their money on,
for improved educational opportunities and an end to the barriers of the class system.
They looked forward to an efficient and stable welfare system with effective cover for the
sick and elderly. In a superhuman effort the country, aided by its dominions and colonies,
and the USA, had successfully managed to overcome the military threat posed by Nazi
Germany. In this struggle the British public made an incalculable contribution to the
defeat of dictatorship and violence. Following the efforts and privations of war, voters
were demanding an alternative to the desolate economic conditions of the 1920s and
1930s, and a share in the future prosperity of the country.

Demand for labour in Britain

This huge effort coming as it did so soon after the First World War had drained the
country’s resources. When victory was finally achieved, gold and currency reserves had
been exhausted, as had the once considerable stock of foreign assets. Foreign debt had
risen to a total of £3.355 billion: £2.723 billion of this sum was owed within the Sterling
Area and £632 million to the USA. In the global post-war economy, it was difficult to
generate income from abroad through financial services, capital investment and currency
trading, which made matters worse. In addition, commercial shipping capacity was
limited due to extensive losses during the war and the demands of the military, and this
constrained exports and depressed the balance of payments still further. In 1945, exports
 Britain and west germany in the post-war period 9

totalled £399 million whilst imports were valued at £1.053 billion.3 The consequences of
this deficit and American trade and credit policies created a shortage of hard foreign
currency, the so-called dollar gap. Rising national debt, the shortage of dollars, the
energy crisis of the winter of 1946–47, and Britain’s continuing foreign military and
humanitarian responsibilities (in occupied Germany, for example) all contributed to the
development of an economic policy that was characterised by a high degree of centralised
control and planning. In simplest terms the formula was: reduce imports and expand
exports.
A concentrated group of traditional industries, such as mining, iron, steel and textiles,
were in an ideal position to rapidly increase exports, both directly and indirectly.
According to the government and domestic industrialists at the time, by the late 1940s
expansion of these old industries had created a growing labour shortage in these vital
industries. It was this that eventually forced the state to recruit foreign workers from the
European mainland. The same situation applied to agriculture which had benefited during
the war and immediately after from the large numbers of Italian and German POWs who
were sent to work on the land. These workers were later joined by Displaced Persons
recruited in Europe. The aim here was to reduce imports of agricultural produce that were
mainly paid for in hard currency and, at the same time, to save precious dollars.
Agriculture, mining and the textile industries enjoyed their new status acting to redress
the balance of trade and payments deficit and the attention they received from state
economic and industrial planners. These were undermanned industries, largely because
of the unappealing nature of the work and their inability to shake off the negative image
they had earned, mainly during the inter-war years, as being prone to crises and
unemployment. Furthermore, due to the scarcity of capital investment in the first decade
after the war, little had been done to automate these industries which in turn limited the
potential for any meaningful rise in productivity. This deficit could only be dealt with by
expanding the workforce—with the help of foreign labour if necessary.
Despite massive advertising at home and recruitment abroad, the appeal and image of
the agriculture and fishing industries remained low, and the number of people employed
in these sectors only rose from 1.041 million in June 1945 to 1.178 million at the end of
1948 (1939:950,000). In coal mining the figures rose from 738,000 to 788,000
(1939:773,000). In the textile industry, where production during the war had been
severely restricted, the number of employees was estimated to be approximately 500,000
in mid-1945, rising to 971,000 by the end of 1948 (1939:798,000).4 These figures
illustrate the fact that there was still a real need for the government to intervene and
redirect the workforce, a practice initially developed during the war. In June 1945, the
Control of Engagement Order continued to stipulate that all men under 50 and women
under 40 could only be placed in employment by the labour exchanges.5 Although the
order was soon revised, some restrictions on changing jobs in the mining or agricultural
sectors remained in place until 1950. However, the Essential Work Orders were rarely
strictly applied. The Ministry of Labour and the labour exchanges relied much on
persuasion when advising the workforce. As T.Wilson observed in 1952, this was
something workers tended to accept as ‘they knew that in the end they could be
directed’.6
A further key political objective was to readjust the economy from wartime to
peacetime production. The armed forces were to be reduced and ex-servicemen re-
 German migrants in post-war britian 10

integrated into working life. In marked contrast to events following the First World War,
both processes functioned unexpectedly well. Even the high degree of demobilisation
failed to produce a particularly noticeable rise in national unemployment figures.
Between June 1945 and December 1946, the number of people in the armed forces fell
from 5.09 to 1.46 million, whilst during the same period numbers employed in the supply
services also fell from 3.83 to 0.46 million.7 At the end of 1948, Britain still retained an
army of 810,000 soldiers.
Furthermore, between July 1945 and July 1946, over one million people actually left
the work force. This group was mainly made up of women who, having made their
contribution to the war effort, were redeployed within the framework of redirected
labour.8 In 1943 there were 7.75 million women in paid employment, but even at this
early stage the government was fearful of a post-war labour shortage and was at pains to
keep as many women as possible in the job market—initially with little success. The
number of women in paid employment fell to approximately six million, before a turning
point was reached in June 1947. Between 1947 and 1950, the number of women at work
rose by almost a million, and by 1961, the total was 8.4 million, a figure well ahead of the
1943 total.9
In the late 1940s, getting women to return to work or enter employment for the first
time was supported by extensive advertising campaigns. Here the intention was to direct
women specifically towards the traditional female-dominated occupations such as the
textile industry. Independent of the government’s efforts, at the same time, women were
being marginalised in other sectors such as the electronics industry.10 Also, government
policy itself was prone to contradictions during this period. As part of the general
economic policy, regulations governing the workforce11 (that until approximately 1947
had been highly thought of) were designed to increase the number of women in paid
employment. But there were some government departments which cast worried eyes over
an anticipated fall in the birth rate and predicted a fall in the British population of 4
million by the year 2035.12
In addition, the job market lost all those who had reached retiring age or who simply
did not need to work. Weekly working hours, increased during the war, were now
reduced to pre-war levels, which also increased labour shortages.13 Raising the school
leaving age to 15 denied the job market of some 370,000 boys and girls for an extra
year.14 In total, the number of people in civilian employment rose, between June 1945
and the end of 1946, from 12.6 to 17.35 million (at the end of 1948:19.15 million). Due
to the combination of full employment and labour shortages, unemployment figures for
the six-year term of the Labour government remained extremely low at under 3 per cent.
Only for a short period in early 1947 did the number rise above 2 million. This was due
to the exceptionally hard winter and the enormous difficulties supplying coal to key
industries (the fuel crisis). This harmed those reliant on exports, such as iron and steel, as
much as those involved in domestic reconstruction.15
The year 1947 marked not only an economic turning point, but also a decisive political
moment in the history of both Britain and Europe. The tensions that developed into the
Cold War were becoming apparent. It was evident in the Truman Doctrine, for instance,
and in the Marshall Plan, from which Britain greatly profited. Furthermore, under
pressure from the USA, Britain signed the GATT agreement. This put restrictions on
trade and tariff concessions that had existed amongst all the Commonwealth countries.
 Britain and west germany in the post-war period 11

The USA also insisted on the free convertibility of the pound, which produced an
immediate rise in inflation and jeopardised hard won currency reserves. After only four
weeks the decision was revised. The year 1947 was also the year India gained
independence and, more importantly within the context of this particular study, the year
marking the start of the recruitment of a foreign work force among Displaced Persons on
the continent.
In the early post-war years Britain pursued an active immigration and foreign labour
policy. Together with the re-distribution of the workforce, this made an important
contribution to economic reconstruction. The state recruited foreign workers, in particular
to fill the less attractive vacancies in the undermanned industries that were so vital to
exports. British workers often shunned these jobs because of the low wages, dirty
working conditions, physical demands or the health risks associated with them. Men were
needed for the mines and women for the textile industry and health services, particularly
following the creation of the National Health Service in 1948. In addition there was the
traditionally female-dominated domestic service industry, which ever fewer local women
were prepared to enter. According to the censuses, the total number of domestic servants
in England and Wales fell between 1931 and 1951 from over 1.3 million to some
723,000. Ten years later the figure was only 200,000. Attempts by the state to reverse this
trend, by such measures as founding the Institute of Houseworkers in 1947, had little
effect.16 Foreign workers were also needed in the construction industry and in agriculture
where efforts were being made to reduce imports and improve domestic supply. In this
area of the economy, wartime restructuring, the extension of gang labour systems and the
creation of regional labour pools (consisting of Irish workers, POWs and the Women’s
Land Army, amongst others), had all led to the decline of the farm hand as an
occupation.17 It was often cheaper for the farmer to pay by the hour than employ someone
full time.
In addition to all this, in 1945, as D.K.Britton so memorably put it, the war against
hunger had yet to be won. Five years after the war had ended the supply of basic
foodstuffs was still not as secure as it had been before the war, despite the fact that
considerably more land was now under the plough than in earlier years, and the balance
between arable land and pasture had shifted. In terms of nutritional guidelines, in 1949–
50, Britain was capable of producing only 39 per cent of the recommended daily intake of
calories per head of population, and 53 per cent of the protein and 34 per cent of the fat
requirements. In 1939, with 3 million fewer inhabitants, Britain had produced 30, 44 and
31 per cent of these foodstuffs, respectively. The forced mechanisation of agriculture,
made necessary by the war but continued once it ended, was partly responsible for this
rise in productivity. In April 1944, there were 173,000 tractors in use on the farms. By
1950, there were 332,000. During the same period, the number of milking machines in
operation rose from 38,000 to 79,000, while the size of the work force employed on the
land grew from 572,000 in June 1945 to a peak of 645,000 in June 1949.18
But despite these efforts Britain remained dependent upon imported foodstuffs to feed
itself, and this eroded vital currency reserves. At the same time, to meet its humanitarian
commitments, Britain also had to provide for the populations in her zones of occupation
in Germany and Austria. This strained currency reserves still further. For this reason,
some foodstuffs and consumer goods were rationed in Britain far longer than they were in
West Germany where rationing was brought to an end as part of the 1948 currency
 German migrants in post-war britian 12

reform. But the end of rationing in Germany certainly meant only hunger and privation
for some sections of the community and by no means contributed to social harmony. In
contrast, the British government’s decision to continue rationing at home at least
guaranteed everyone limited access to certain foodstuffs and a few basic consumer goods,
and meant nobody had to starve. In June 1946, for example, following worrying forecasts
for global harvests and fears of possible famine in Germany and parts of Asia (where
Britain had responsibilities in India, Burma, Ceylon, Malaya and Singapore), the
government imposed bread rationing. This was something that had not even been
necessary during the war, and despite a storm of protest, the measure remained in place
until July 1948. A sharp reduction in rationing followed in 1949 when such goods as
sweets, chocolates and later clothing went on unrestricted sale. In 1952, restrictions on
the sale of tea were lifted, and finally meat followed in 1954.19
Nevertheless, Britain remained attractive to migrants, and not only those from war-
torn Europe. In 1950, its inhabitants were still healthier than those of any other European
country apart from Switzerland, and the standard of living in Britain was ranked fifth
highest in the world. During the next four decades, the British economy grew faster than
at any time in its history. In 1989, the standard of living was twice what it had been in
1950, although in world terms Britain had slipped to twelfth.20 But in combination with
these pull-factors, there were also certain push-factors that affected immigration patterns.
These included the political, demographic and economic situation in Europe.

Legacy of the Nazi era

On 8 May 1945, Germany surrendered unconditionally. Its former eastern territories, the
areas beyond the rivers Oder and Neisse, were put under Soviet control, whilst the rest of
the country was divided into four zones of occupation. Great expanses lay in ruins, and
shortages in basic necessities such as housing, building materials, fuel, clothing and food
dictated everyday life. Until 1948, people who relied solely upon their ration cards had to
tighten their belts and exist on around 1,500 calories (and sometimes even less than 1,000
calories a day). In 1936, the average daily intake had been 3,100 calories.21 Home-grown
produce helped bridge the gap, as did the black market and smuggling. Those who
worked for the military governments, especially the British or American, had less to
worry about when it came to food. These people were therefore openly or secretly envied
as much as those who had more personal contacts. These intimate relationships did not
always end happily with a war bride joining her husband in Birmingham or Leicester, and
pregnancy and desperation in Hamburg or Osnabrück was more likely. For some foreign
visitors, such as Angela Limerick of the British Red Cross Society, it was incredible that
people could exist in such a ruined landscape at all. In November 1945 and October
1946, she inspected the Society’s relief teams in the British zone. She also visited the
bunkers, Displaced Persons and German refugees.22
The plight of both these groups was a result of the Nazi era and its military aggression.
Displaced Persons (DPs) was the collective name given to a group of United Nations
nationals. They consisted mainly of former slave labourers, but also included wartime
refugees from Eastern Europe and the few survivors of the Shoah. According to a
conservative estimate made by Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, the number of DPs living in the
 Britain and west germany in the post-war period 13

German Reich, Austria, France, Belgium and the Netherlands at the end of the war was at
least 10.8 million. Many of them made their own way back to their homes and native
countries. Others were repatriated with the help of the allies and the United Nations
Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA), which, in the case of Soviet citizens,
often meant forced repatriation. By late September 1945, the number of recorded
repatriations from the three western zones of occupied Germany had reached 4.6 million.
In October 1945, repatriation activities were halted for the winter, which left 1.2 million
DPs remaining in the three zones. In 1946, it became apparent that many DPs did not
wish to be repatriated because they were anxious about the political change, possible
discrimination, deportation and labour camps in their former homelands in eastern
Europe. As a result, only around 500,000 repatriations were recorded for 1946. At the end
of that year, there were still almost 915,000 DPs present in the three western zones of
occupation, some 325,000 in the British zone, and 550,000 in the American zone.23
An alternative solution had to be found for those remaining. International interest
began to focus on the possibility of migration to a third country. In view of the worldwide
shortage of labour, countries with a tradition of more open immigration found it relatively
easy, in political terms, to accept these migrants, especially because recruitment could be
carried out cheaply and directly in the camps. Part of the logistical burden, including
transport, was shouldered by the International Refugee Organisation (IRO), an
organisation specifically created for this purpose that had its own ships. Between 1 July
1947 and 31 December 1951, commissions from target countries helped by the IRO
recruited over 700,000 DPs from the western zones of Germany. A further 300,000 DPs
from other western European countries including Austria, Italy, Belgium and France,
joined them.24 Most travelled overseas to start afresh in the USA, Canada, Australia or
South America.
The number of German and ex-patriot ethnic German refugees was even greater than
the number of DPs.25 Their forced expulsions can be roughly divided into three phases:
Fleeing from the Red Army in 1944, the disorganised and wildcat expulsions that took
place between May and July 1945, and finally, the internationally agreed evictions from
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary following the Potsdam Conference (where Clement
Attlee, as Britain’s new Prime Minister, first replaced Winston Churchill on the world
stage). In 1950, there were a total of 12.45 million refugees living in the two German
states. The biggest group consisted of roughly 7 million people who had come from the
former Reich’s eastern territories. There were an additional 3 million who had come from
Czechoslovakia, and 1.4 million from Poland.26 East Germany had to take the highest
number of refugees, both in terms of number and percentage of the population. In 1947,
there were 4.4 million in the Soviet zone, which constituted 24.3 per cent of the local
population. In the American zone there were 3 million (17.7 per cent), in the British zone
3.3 million (14.5 per cent) and in the French zone, 60,000 (1 per cent).27
Wherever possible, refugees within each zone were first directed to the more rural
areas that had suffered less wartime destruction. But since the refugees were by no means
welcome everywhere, some began to consider emigration. The everyday competition for
scarce food, living space, clothes—and eventually work—gave rise to conflicts. Rather
than living in the much maligned camps, refugees were sometimes billeted in private
households. In these situations, where people—often strangers—were forced to live in
such close proximity to one another, only able to get to one’s room by going through that
 German migrants in post-war britian 14

of someone else’s, for example, nerves became frayed and tempers were often lost in the
shared kitchen or bathroom.
The rural areas in which the refugees congregated offered few and limited career
prospects. Moving further afield, either within Germany or abroad, proved to be an
attractive alternative once the initial restrictions on personal movement, place of
residence and employment were lifted. There was a shortage of workers in West
Germany until the currency reform; the official figures suggest low unemployment and a
high number of job vacancies. But these figures bear closer scrutiny. Not all job seekers,
by a long way, actually registered at the labour exchanges. Many feared being forced into
inappropriate work, whilst others were reluctant to apply for unemployment benefit
which was meagre and, until the currency reform, paid in worthless currency that bought
virtually nothing. It was only after the currency reform in 1948 that West German
unemployment figures became reliable and the true extent of the problem was mercilessly
revealed. Now it became important to seek paid employment, and with unemployment
benefits now being paid in Deutsche Mark (DM), those seeking work could ill afford not
to register at the labour exchanges. Small reserves of money that had existed in the
immediate post-war years had now been exhausted. Rising prices forced many women,
who may not have previously worked, into employment. This applied to other family
members too, whilst those who had previously been self-employed often lost their
businesses through a lack of capital.28
Local residents and refugees competed for jobs and apprenticeships. The losers often
had to accept years of poorly paid employment in work they were not necessarily suited
to. Between 1948 and 1949, the annual average number of people officially registered
unemployed doubled, and amongst these were a disproportionately large number of
refugees. In February 1949, for the first time in the post-war period, labour exchanges
registered over 1 million people unemployed. This figure continued to grow, monthly,
until it reached 1.9 million in February 1950. It was only in August 1953 that figures
dipped below the 1 million level for a brief three months period.29 The subsequent rapid
economic progress of West Germany is often referred to as an economic miracle, but in
the late 1940s and early 1950s that was a long way off. Although the Marshall Plan and
currency reform supported economic reconstruction, it was the start of the Korean War in
1950 that provided the real turning point. At that time, the Federal Republic of Germany
was the only industrialised Western nation with a production capacity that was free of
obstructions.30 Not only did the German economy take advantage of this opportunity in
the short term, it also managed to protect the position it had achieved, raising exports and
gross national product in the long term.
The remarkable improvement in the German economy, from 1952 to 1953 on, was
soon reflected in the unemployment figures and, in short order, the numbers of people
emigrating. To leave Germany in the post-war period one needed an exit permit and also
an entry visa from the country one intended to visit. But most European countries were
initially restrictive when dealing with applications from former enemy nationals, as were
many other countries. The strict regulations applied by the allies to issuing exit permits
compounded the difficulty. A relaxation of the rules came about as the result of labour
shortages that relevant authorities felt could not, or should not, be resolved through the
use of other migrant groups. In western Europe, within the context of accepting DPs,
Britain and France led the way by recruiting ethnic German refugees. It was not long
 Britain and west germany in the post-war period 15

before Canada and the USA followed. According to official German figures (some of
which are estimates), 779,700 Germans emigrated overseas between 1946 and 1961.31
The year 1950 marked a turning point in post-war German emigration. In that year the
chances of migration to another country within Europe, which until then had been
modest, ceased to be a problem because it was suddenly much easier to be accepted by
other countries. Despite the large number of people leaving, by no means did West
Germany have the highest number of emigrants in Europe. In this respect, Britain
dominates the figures: during the period of state-organised foreign recruitment alone (i.e.
from 1946 to 1950), 720,000 people left her shores. The majority of these were relatively
highly qualified.32 Obviously Winston Churchill’s appeal in 1945 for people to desist
from emigration and put all their energy into reconstruction efforts had had little effect on
them.33 The British job market missed these emigrants, and their departure increased the
demand for foreign labour.

Migration to Britain

Between 1945 and 1951, a total of approximately one million people migrated to Britain.
The largest groups within this figure were British subjects from the dominions (319,000)
and the colonies (88,000).34 A further 100,000–150,000 Irish came to work in Britain, as
did some 173,000 foreign workers who had been issued with labour permits of limited
duration. Of these, 31,000 were German.35 State recruitment of DPs was carried out
under the Balt Cygnet and Westward Ho programmes, and a total of 76,987 workers were
recruited through them (57,104 men and 19,883 women). A further 3,824 family
members accompanied the workers (268 men, 1,696 women and 1,860 children).36
Amongst those recruited were 1,378 ethnic Germans from eastern European countries
(744 men, 634 women). There were also 1,304 ethnic German women from the
Sudetenland who, like all the DPs, received unrestricted residency permits.37 This also
applied to the 115,000 or so Polish soldiers and their families, the 15,000 German and
1,100 Italian ex-POWs, and finally to the 8,000 or more members of the Ukrainian SS,
who arrived as prisoners of war from Italy in 1947. In contrast, the 9,713 German women
recruited through the North Sea scheme had their work and residency permits restricted
to a specific duration. They found employment mainly in the health sector or as domestic
workers.38
Amongst the migrants were almost 60,000 Germans, and these are the focus of this
study. They comprised 15,000 ex-prisoners of war who remained in Britain, the 1,378
ethnic Germans and 1,304 German women from the Sudetenland who arrived under the
Westward Ho programme, approximately 10,000 female workers recruited by the state
under the North Sea scheme, a further 20,000 women who were placed in British
households as domestic workers, either privately or through agencies, and finally, the
estimated 10,000 war brides. This latter group consisted of both men and women who
had married an active or demobilised soldier, or a civilian member of the Control
Commission in Germany in the immediate post-war years. It is now impossible to give
the exact figure, but estimates suggest that between 1947 and 1951, a total of 7,342
British soldiers stationed in Germany applied for permission to marry a German woman.
Further indicators can be found in the visas issued between 1946 and 1951; 289 German
 German migrants in post-war britian 16

men entered Britain because they were married to a British woman, and 9,115 Germans
(mainly women) received visas to travel because they intended to marry a British
citizen.39

Germany and the Germans

‘Krauts. In Britain the image of Germans is getting worse. The governments like each
other, but unfortunately the individual populations do not.’ This is how Jürgen Krönig
began an article published in the German weekly Die Zeit in September 1999. He went on
to discuss a particular cultural issue: the ‘children of English-German mixed marriages,
who are completely anglicised and without a trace of an accent, are teased and excluded
by their fellow pupils. Pupils from the German School in Richmond, London, repeatedly
have to endure insults and being called Nazis on their bus journeys home’.40 This issue
also became apparent in the course of our interviews: the antagonism children with one,
let alone two, German parents suffered at the hands of fellow pupils and other children.
When looking for the causes of such behaviour it is important to cover as wide a
terrain as possible and avoid a hurried retreat into generalisations. For the moment we
will set aside the question of whether the discrimination experienced relatively recently
by pupils at the German School is a result of the deterioration in relations between the
two peoples following the end of the Cold War and German re-unification in the 1990s.
We will also avoid giving too much credence to repeated claims of the media’s power
over children and young people, since these also tend to inhibit critical reflection.
Perhaps this pattern of discrimination, which is noticeable among children and teenagers
in various regions of Britain, has little to do with these ‘usual suspects’ and ‘tried and
trusted’ answers. Perhaps it is actually, and certainly unintentionally, a byproduct of the
way history is currently taught, which can occasionally have dramatic and far reaching
influences on the lives of the next generation.
According to the relevant accounts and analysis of British-German relations, it appears
that hostile attitudes towards Germany and the Germans diminished drastically in the
early post-war years, despite politicians such as Ernest Bevin making no secret of their
Germanophobia.41 This decline was accompanied by the re-emergence of a range of
perceptions and attitudes, towards all things German, that were stronger and more in line
with traditional patterns. Thus we find the individual Briton distinguishing between
Germany, the Germans en masse and individual Germans.42 Several explanations have
been offered for this swift change. These include the fact that the outpouring of hate
during the war had been mainly concentrated on Hitler, and also that British losses during
the Second World War were relatively low compared with those of the First World
War.43 Even Germany’s bombing of London and other cities, the speeches and writings
of Robert Vansittart, and the discovery of German war crimes and mass-murder failed to
produce a solid, long-lasting resentment of Germany. In this context, John Mander
pointed out that the German bombing raids actually played a significant role in
generating a certain empathy for Germans on the part of the British public: it was because
the British population had experienced the bombing raids themselves, that they knew
‘what “Jerry” must be suffering’.44
 Britain and west germany in the post-war period 17

Further factors that were influential in this change of attitude included Germany’s
unconditional surrender, Britain’s responsibilities and experiences in post-war Germany,
the impact of individuals such as Bishop Bell and Victor Gollancz, the suffering of the
population in post-war Germany, and the positive behaviour of German POWs in Britain,
to name but a few. This more positive mood that the British public were already feeling
towards Germany and German people was further boosted at the time of the Berlin
blockade in 1948, when ‘a wave of sympathy and admiration, for the courage with which
the population of Berlin stood up to the Soviet threat’, swept through Britain.45
The change in British attitudes towards Germany largely reflected the changing role of
the Soviet Union in world politics. The latter moved from wartime ally to Cold War
adversary, whilst West Germany on the other hand, gradually made the opposite shift
from wartime adversary to Cold War ally. The conventional explanations for the change
in British public opinion are thus, to a large extent, based on political changes, and the
traditional British sense of fairness and sympathy for the underdog and downtrodden.
Numerous radio reports and newspaper articles kept the population well informed about
conditions in Germany, the millions of refugees, the hunger and misery of the population,
as well as the political and humanitarian assistance provided by Britain.46 Publicity from
incidents such as the attempt by several women in Bolton to live on German food rations
for a week also created sympathy.47
Then, in the early 1950s, British perceptions of Germany worsened. Many seemed to
find Germany’s rapid economic recovery irritating, and there were other disquieting
developments, such as the success of the extreme right-wing Sozialistische Reichspartei
in elections held in Lower Saxony in 1951, and the debate about rearmament that began
shortly afterwards and concluded with Germany’s entry into NATO in 1955.48 It was
during this period that a series of hostile articles, written by British journalist Sefton
Delmer, appeared in the Daily Express in March and August 1954.49 Their appearance
caused some in Germany to question ‘with utmost seriousness, the reasons for such an
inexplicable attitude’. ‘Nevertheless, the answer is quite simple’, wrote Walter H.
Johnston a short while later, ‘the series of articles corresponded with the political outlook
of the newspaper, and the only interesting question, therefore, is why the newspaper had
such an outlook?’50
The debate on German rearmament obviously concerned a large part of the British
population. The government received a great deal of correspondence and numerous
protest letters on the matter. Signed petitions were collected and public meetings held.
Private individuals, NGOs and trade unions all voiced fears about the possibility of
further wars and a resurgence of German militarism. However, none of this extended to
Germans living in Britain.51 German President Theodor Heuss experienced just how deep
British displeasure at German rearmament was when he visited London in 1958. ‘As the
Queen took her guest on the customary sight-seeing tour of London, people lined the
streets, but they did not applaud.’ According to The Times, the population was interested
but reserved. The mass-circulation newspapers of the Beaverbrook-Axis put things more
strongly, regretting the German President’s visit, and warning ‘against any thoughts of a
reconciliation with Germany’.52
In 1960, fresh signs of anti-Semitism surfaced in West Germany, which rightly
provoked condemnation in the international press and demonstrations at the German
Embassy in London.53 And then during the 1960s, perhaps because Germany supported
 German migrants in post-war britian 18

Britain’s bid to join the European Common Market, attitudes slowly softened. British
press comment was far more favourable during Chancellor Ludwig Erhard’s visit to
London in 1964 than it had been to Theodor Heuss in 1958, although some newspapers
still held ‘radically anti-German’ views.54 Shortly after Chancellor Erhard came to
Britain, the Queen finally made a long delayed visit to Germany in 1965. A year later, the
German football team also managed to finally win the respect of English football fans in
the legendary 1966 World Cup Final.
Writing in 1968 in an essay titled ‘So sehen wir die Deutschen’, Reginald Steed
concluded that a change had taken place in British mass-circulation newspapers during
the previous five years. According to Steed, only one newspaper still clung to its ‘anti-
German’ position.55 This change in public opinion was also reflected in Gallup polls of
the time. When asked which country was ‘Britain’s best friend on the continent of
Europe’, while only 7 per cent said West Germany in 1963, this figure rose to 12, 25 and
27 per cent in 1967, 1977 and 1983, respectively.56 The percentage of people who ‘like
them’ (the Germans) showed a similar rise, from 66 per cent in 1968, to 74 per cent in
1977 and 75 per cent in 1983.57
During the 1980s, the tide of British public opinion again swung against Germany.
Seemingly this was on the back of growing scepticism about the European Union,
although perhaps an even greater factor in the mood change was the reunification of
Germany, which raised greater alarm in Britain than it did in almost any other country:
‘The British resented the economic miracle’, observed Noel Annan, ‘they cherished
nostalgia for the days of the war, they feared the state that between 1864 and 1939 had
launched five wars.’58 The degree to which attitudes had changed was starkly
demonstrated by disturbances in England that followed the German football team’s defeat
of England in Italy in July 1990. Cars were wrecked, Italian and Scandinavian youths
attacked and a Scot wearing a German football shirt was beaten up.59
Germans living in Britain have occasionally spoken since then of a ‘hostile
environment’ and ‘kraut-bashing’60 on a scale not seen even during the war years which
requires more detailed analysis and explanation. The relationship between ‘Tommy and
Jerry’—as an article by Anthony Beevor in a February 1999 edition of the Guardian was
titled—is still, as it has always been, determined by historical experiences, present
irrationalism and (supposed) stereotypes, of which, from a German point of view, ‘they
are better than us at football’, or ‘they always get to the beach first’ are certainly the least
upsetting.61
According to opinion polls in the late 1940s, the British public’s attitude towards the
German people follows the same pattern as their attitude towards Germany. What the
polls do not tell us, however, is what respondents based their answers on, and what
experience respondents had actually had of Germans: was it in Britain or Germany? Was
it prior to, during, or after the Second World War? It is safe to assume that respondents
based their answers primarily on their experience of Germans in Germany, which makes
it virtually impossible to draw any conclusion from these polls about attitudes towards
Germans in Britain’s towns or neighbourhoods. In September 1943, 45 per cent of those
polled described their feelings towards the Germans as ‘hatred, bitterness, anger’, and a
further 14 per cent chose the description ‘dislike’.62 In August 1945, as many as 25 per
cent expressed ‘sympathy’, whilst 21 per cent still chose ‘hatred’ and 14 per cent
 Britain and west germany in the post-war period 19

‘dislike’.63 Both of these polls were carried out by Gallup, and together they give a clear
indication of the decline in animosity towards the Germans.
A contemporary poll undertaken by the Mass Observation Group allows us to make a
more sophisticated interpretation. Replying in February 1945 to the question, ‘How do
you feel about the German people, apart from their leaders’, 54 per cent said that they did
not like Germans. As knowledge of German war crimes became more widespread during
the course of 1945, this percentage increased. In April 1946, 59 per cent of those polled
said they did not like the Germans, and in October 1946 the figure had fallen to 51 per
cent. By the summer of 1947 this had dropped to 20 per cent, and almost half of those
questioned were sympathetic, or at least stated that they held no ‘ill feeling’, towards the
Germans.64 This pattern corresponded with the results of a Gallup poll undertaken, in
January 1947, in which 42 per cent classified their feelings towards the Germans as
‘friendly’, compared with 36 per cent who felt ‘unfriendly’.65
The results of the 1946 polls are especially interesting as they were conducted at the
same time as the debate on the repatriation of German POWs was in full swing. By this
time many prisoners had already won the friendship and support of their immediate
communities in Britain. In contrast to the often repeated, positive comments made about
the German POWs that one finds in the press or government archives, relatively few
similarly positive remarks or evaluations about recruited German women can be found in
the same sources. Contemporary press reports told the public about planned or even
already completed recruitment, and underlined the significance of this for employment
policy, but they refrained from commenting further. Whether this was a case of deliberate
restraint, or simply because such comments were not deemed newsworthy, remains to be
seen. Hostility to Germans living in Britain was also absent from those newspapers—that
otherwise never missed an opportunity to criticise developments in Germany—during
this period. Here it is important to remember that the recruitment programmes took place
in the period before the debate on rearmament emerged but after the big influx of
European Volunteer Workers (EVWs), which had already been covered exhaustively by
the media. Thus, in terms of choosing a period when public expressions of resentment
were least likely to occur, there can hardly have been a more fortuitous time.
 2
Immigration policy-immigrant policy

German POWs

During the Second World War, some 3.7 million German soldiers were captured by the
British forces, however only a small number were actually taken to Britain. The majority
either never left Germany or the European continent, or were sent to camps around the
world, including Canada, Australia, the Middle East and Africa. There was even a group
of German POWs under British authority held in the USA, of whom 123,000 were
shipped to Britain in 1946. These and transfers from other countries meant that the
number of POWs in Britain actually peaked in September 1946 at 402,200, compared to
only 180,000 in April 1945.1
German POWs were detained at some 390 locations throughout the country. Of these,
over 80 per cent were in England, around 10 per cent in Scotland, 5 per cent in Wales,
and 2 per cent in Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands.2 Their conditions of
employment were governed by the Geneva Convention. However, the idea of compulsory
employment of German labour had already been discussed by the allies during the war in
the context of future German reparations. The origins of this idea can be found in the
Morgenthau Plan, in the minutes of the Yalta Conference and in a British government
memorandum dated late February 1945. At the Potsdam Conference, the idea was no
longer pursued explicitly but, as Arthur L. Smith rightly pointed out, at this time ‘all of
the occupying powers made use of the working potential of German POWs, be it in their
own country, abroad or in Germany’.3
Employing German POWs in Britain was not as central to the economy as in the
Soviet Union or France, but for some sectors their contribution appeared to be of vital
importance at the time. Extensive use of the German labour pool was not actually made
until relatively late—when the reservoir of 150,000 Italian prisoners had been exhausted
without satisfying demand. For example, up until the beginning of 1945, there were only
17,000 German prisoners allocated to work programmes, and of these, 16,000 worked in
the agricultural sector.4 From May 1945, all but the ‘really ardent Nazis’ were given work
to do.5 How they were distributed amongst the various economic sectors was decided at
interdepartmental meetings. German POWs were considered to be an extremely mobile
source of labour. Because few were employed in the mines or factories and the majority
worked in agriculture (usually over 70 per cent) or in the public building sector, moving
locations presented relatively few problems for them.

The debate over repatriation

In August 1946, the number of prisoners in employment peaked at 362,000.6 September
of that year saw the start of regular monthly releases, in contingents of 15,000 to begin
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 21

with. Prior to this, the POWs had been divided into three different political categories:
white, grey and black. Repatriation of the whites began in September 1946, the greys
followed in January 1947, and then finally the blacks. POWs who possessed professional
skills needed in the British zone in Germany (i.e. miners and foresters) were given top
priority.7 During the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers (10 March-24 April
1947), the allies finally agreed to free all POWs by 31 December 1948.8 The British plan
for repatriation was preceded by a long and emotional public debate that is well
documented in the newspapers and parliamentary debates of the day. Furthermore, the
prisoners’ work and pending repatriation became the main topic of conversation up and
down the country for months. The position taken by individual newspapers, irrespective
of their political allegiances, were virtually indistinguishable, and the traditional party-
political divisions between Members of Parliament also became blurred on the issue.9
During the summer of 1946, as the number of prisoners in Britain grew, the debate
became increasingly public. Exactly who started it is no longer certain since articles had
appeared in the press and questions raised in the House of Commons several months
earlier. Various NGOs, such as the Prisoners of War Assistance Society and Victor
Gollancz’s Save Europe Now organisation, took part in the campaign to release the
prisoners as soon as possible. The latter organisation presented two high-profile petitions
to the government. The first, in August 1946, contained 875 signatures including those of
3 archbishops, 55 bishops, 118 MPs, and a variety of councillors and university staff.
Whitehall was called upon to release all POWs at the earliest possible date ‘for the sake
therefore of common humanity and of the British good name’.10 In order to put an end to
uncertainty over the prisoners’ personal fate, the petition also called upon the government
to make any such date public. The second petition, containing 2,000 signatures, was
delivered almost a year later. The correspondence that followed this, between Prime
Minister Clement Atlee and Victor Gollancz, was the focus of press articles and
comments across the nation.11
Public demands were further articulated by church representatives. In June 1946, the
British Council of Churches collected information on the mood in the camps and argued
for rapid repatriation.12 In this respect the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Griffin,
and the Lord Bishop of Chichester, George Kennedy Allen Bell (nicknamed ‘the pestilent
priest’ for his public criticism of the allied bombing campaign), should be mentioned.13
Newspapers were also heavily involved in the repatriation debate, printing articles,
commentaries and large numbers of readers’ letters. With reference to remarks made by
the Archbishop of Canterbury and a letter from a German soldier who had by then been a
prisoner for five years, the Manchester Guardian of 10 July 1946 justified its demands on
grounds of ‘both justice and our own needs in Germany’.14 This referred to the enormous
demand for labour in Germany prior to the currency reform there. It also raised one of the
main arguments of those against repatriation, namely, that because of the desolate state of
the German economy, the POWs would be far more productive working the fields in
Britain, and furthermore, that the German population would also benefit from this.15
Other letters drew attention to the fact that the prisoners’ work was the only form of
reparation that Britain could expect from Germany, whilst alternatively, still others
warned that further use of prisoners would only harm future relations between the two
countries.16
 German migrants in post-war britian 22

As the debate ground on, words such as slaves and forced labour were increasingly
used to describe the situation, deeply shaking British self-respect. The proponents of this
view appeared to be trying to put British policy into the same category as the Nazi system
of forced labour. An article in the Daily Mirror of 9 August 1946, titled simply ‘Slaves’,
argued that people kept from their homes for an unspecified length of time would have to
regard themselves as slaves, and that therefore they must be given a date for release.17 In
this respect the views expressed by the Mirror were shared by the Manchester Guardian
which soon afterwards reiterated its demand that all forms of forced labour anywhere in
the world should be brought to an end. The Times wrote that ‘a clear-cut scheme is
needed’.18
Views in the media were mirrored in the House of Commons, where the arguments
were characterised by a series of questions, the substance of which was always the same.
Here too the talk was often of slave labour, and this debate was not laid to rest until the
government announced its strategy. In October 1946 alone, the issue was raised 21 times
in House of Commons’ debates. By February 1947, it had been discussed at least a
further 70 times, mainly by members of the ruling Labour Party.19

Government considerations
Within the government various departments pursued their own agendas on the subject.
This produced a serious clash of ideas between the Foreign Office, the Ministry of
Employment and the Ministry of Agriculture. The Foreign Office argued for rapid
repatriation, partly in response to the demands of the public, but mainly to add credibility
to its demand that the Soviet Union free its German POWs. In addition, the Foreign
Office argued that the job vacancies that would occur if Britain released its prisoners
could be filled by DPs.20 In contrast, the Ministry of Agriculture focussed on protecting
the interests of the farming community who feared a shortage of labour on the land.
Finally, the Ministry of Labour, with an eye on the trade unions, was keen to be seen
actively recruiting DPs from Europe. Thus, in some respects the German POWs were
sometimes seen as competitors, and in the hierarchy of ‘valued’ foreigners they were
consistently placed last.
The various positions became clear at a meeting on 15 August 1947, when
representatives of the respective departments discussed increasing the rate of repatriation
to 50,000 per month. Even if the Foreign Office had got agreement on this, the proposal
could not have been fully implemented because the site where the POWs were officially
released, Munster-Lager in Lower Saxony, could only process a maximum of 30,000
returnees a month. Furthermore, there was only one ship set aside to transport POWs
across the Channel. In the event representatives from the Ministry of Agriculture argued
against rapid repatriation. German prisoners made up 25 per cent of the workforce
employed on the land at the time and the ministry was relying on the bulk of them to
continue working in the coming year, 1948. They argued, therefore, that only those not
working should be repatriated, and an increase in the repatriation quota was unthinkable
until at least December when the harvest would be completed. Even then, the German
workforce would still be needed on the farms in spring and summer. Regarding the
possible employment of Polish or European Volunteer Workers, the representative from
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 23

the Ministry of Agriculture added that, ‘there was a limit beyond which foreign labour
was not acceptable in any industry. Foreign labour must not be too obvious.’21
Finally, a proposal similar to one adopted in France was put forward as a compromise
solution: German POWs could be re-employed as a free workforce. The British
government had already done something similar when, in 1946, Italian POWs had been
offered just such an opportunity. Following the completion of a one-year work contract,
the former Italian POWs were offered the right to resettle in Britain, provided they
continued to work in the agricultural sector. In total, 1,400 Italians accepted the offer, and
when their contracts expired, 1,100 stayed in Britain. From 1949, their wives and
children were able to join them.22 The Ministry of Agriculture called for a similar
solution to be applied to German POWs. The idea was supported by the Foreign Office,
although it was put under heavy pressure from individual MPs and the public to offer the
Germans far greater freedom from the very start, rather than the restrictive one-year
contracts.23

The debate on free labour

Running parallel with the repatriation debate, the idea of free labour, suggested and
supported by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1947, followed a public debate in parliament
and the press in the summer of 1946. ‘The Prisoners’, an article published by the
Manchester Guardian in August 1946, was one of the first to appear on the subject. It
made an impressive appeal to the British sense of pride and self respect, arguing: ‘If we
must have foreign labour to make up our shortage—and there is much to be said for it—
let it be free labour, the labour of free men whether German or Pole or Balt, paid for
straight forwardly and accepted into our community. But forced labour is intolerable
especially under a Labour Government.’24 In the weeks that followed, the Guardian
became an advocate of the idea that POWs be allowed to remain in Britain as free labour.
Early in September 1947, the newspaper published a letter from a German POW who
called for the right to stay for a limited period of time. Shortly after, a commentary went
as far as to discuss the possibility of long-term resettlement in Britain.25
The Conservative MP for Solihull, Martin Lindsay, raised the suggestion in the House
of Commons and added his particular slant on why German workers should be
naturalised. This he expounded on in rather chauvinistic, biological terms: ‘There must be
many farmers who would like to keep prisoners of war, who are now working on their
land, and in many cases these men would wish to stay in this country. There is another
reason for considering such a course, and that is the ethnological one. We all know how
much the United States have gained by the admixture of good foreign blood. There are,
today, in Great Britain no fewer than 200,000 surplus women of marriageable age
between 20 and 40. I am one of those people who believe that it is a great misfortune for
a woman to be unable to fulfil her natural biological functions because of the shortage of
males, yet this is the prospect of 200,000 women in this country.’26 His opinions were not
contradicted, but neither were they discussed further. Air Commodore Harvey (MP for
Macclesfield), immediately followed with a call for POWs to be allowed to remain in
Britain for a long period, although with the caveat that the offer of naturalisation only be
extended after it had been made to the Poles and other ex-allies. In this respect he warned
that a general change of attitude towards German people was essential. He himself did
 German migrants in post-war britian 24

not like Germans, he said, but ‘in our own interests we have to be broad minded in
considering this problem’.27
During a Commons’ debate on 22 April 1945, Ness Edwards, representing the
Ministry of Labour, signalled a willingness to compromise. It would be up to the
individual farmer, he said, whether or not to continue to employ and give board and
lodging to German POWs.28 And here Mr Edwards touched upon one of the most
pressing problems in post-war Britain: the desperate shortage of housing. After all, this
was one of the main reasons that prisoners working on the land had been allowed to stay
in the country at all. It was not simply the fact that their labour was valued and necessary,
but also because on the farms they were not denying any British citizens, or even other
foreigners, a place to live. But despite these arguments the government delayed: to avoid
a political row at home they first wanted the support of the trade unions.

The trade unions

A certain amount of scepticism prevailed in government towards the trade union position.
It was only a few months since the resettlement of Polish soldiers and their families in
Britain had been debated at the Trades Union Conference at Brighton in October 1946.
The views expressed there by some representatives broadly corresponded with the results
of a June 1946 Gallup poll of public opinion. When asked if they would agree with a
government decision to allow Poles who wished to remain in Britain the right to do so, 30
per cent said yes, whilst 56 per cent answered no.29 However, despite their constant and
widely broadcast expressions of resentment towards Polish migrants, the unions were not
simply echoing public opinion. For the speakers at Brighton, and many other left-wing
union members, ideology may have been an important factor in their appreciation of
Polish unwillingness to return home. Poland was by this time linked to the Soviet Union
by a treaty of mutual friendship, and the communist Polish Workers Party formed part of
the government. In 1946, the huge change of opinion concerning the Soviet Union
brought about by the Cold War had obviously not yet affected all the unions, and
therefore people who refused to return were suspected of being Fascists or collaborators.
But this ideological element intensified the latent reservations that unions held against the
foreign workers, who were seen by many as being unpleasant, unnecessary and rivals to
local union members.30
In Brighton, the unions mounted their biggest assault on the employment of foreign
labour.31 The extent to which some delegates focussed their disapproval is illustrated by
the fact that the preceding debate on the ‘Employment of Prisoners of War’ took only a
relatively short amount of time. Only one delegate spoke out against ‘slave labour’ in
general, insisting that, in the long term, Britain would have to solve its labour shortages
without the use of POWs. In the end, the Trade Union Congress (TUC) agreed to the
further use of ex-POW labour, in accordance with prior agreements, without resorting to
anti-German comments.32 Certainly, an important factor in this decision was the
assumption that the use of prisoners would be a temporary measure only. Besides, the
POWs were helping with reconstruction work and in jobs that local labour found
unappealing.
In April 1948, the unions still believed that the foreign workforce and German POWs
were more likely to tolerate bad working conditions on isolated farms than their British
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 25

counterparts. Thus, in 1948 when the National Union of Agricultural Workers was asked
its position on the possibility of German POWs staying in Britain as free labour, it
responded that its primary aim was to protect British workers from German
competition.33 A compromise was finally reached whereby prisoners would only be
allowed to stay if they could prove that they were lodging on a farm. They would not be
allowed to move into tied cottages, which were highly sought after by British farm
hands.34

The political decisions

Apart from the domestic issues that such a policy raised, the further use of POWs also
had significance for British foreign policy. Several considerations that emerged during
1947 illustrate this, and four of these were particularly important to Foreign Office
policy:
1 it must be absolutely clear that individuals had reached their decision to stay in Britain
voluntarily;
2 the whole process should be monitored by the ICRC (International Committee of the
Red Cross);
3 work contracts would be officially drafted; and
4 the employment of German civilian labour must not interfere with the flow of DPs
coming to Britain.35
At the time, officials predicted that bachelors were the most likely to remain in Britain.
The Foreign Office expected criticism to come from the Ministry of Labour and the
USSR. To forestall the latter, it was decided that the plan should only be made public
after the London Conference of Foreign Ministers (25 November-15 December 1947),
even though cabinet had made its decision in October 1947.36 The Foreign Office also
applied several restrictions to both the domestic and foreign policy elements: The number
of free workers was not to exceed 10,000, work was only permitted in the agricultural
sector, and contracts were not allowed to extend beyond 31 December 1948, the date
previously agreed upon at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers. In addition,
cabinet decided to raise the rate of repatriation to 20,000 per month from December
1947.37 The release of POWs was intended to be concluded well before the date agreed
upon, and this objective was achieved when the final 546 German prisoners boarded their
ship in Harwich, on 12 July 1948, to the tune of Lili Marlen.38
In the weeks following the cabinet decision there was nothing to suggest that the
interdepartmental consensus was threatened. Under pressure from farmers, however, who
preferred to keep their German workers (‘who have settled in, like the work and can
speak English’) rather than swap them for DPs, the Ministry of Agriculture changed its
position. It now demanded a quantitative expansion of the programme, including an
extension of work contracts beyond the December 1948 deadline.39 This created a new
set of issues, some with far reaching implications. How could the Foreign Office explain,
at home and abroad, that Britain would continue to use POWs beyond the date agreed
upon in Moscow by the allies? Although all the ministries concerned had the right to
conduct a thorough investigation, they were already in general agreement: The pressing
housing shortage clearly restricted the number of DPs Britain could accept, and it seemed
 German migrants in post-war britian 26

impossible to recruit seasonal workers from the continent. Facing scepticism from the
Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture eventually managed to convince all
concerned that the presence of ex-POWs would not disrupt the recruitment of DPs, nor
threaten the jobs of British or other foreign workers.40
It was now essential for the government to persuade not only the public but also the
allies that the decisions made by prisoners would be absolutely voluntary and that they
would be treated exactly the same as other foreign workers. Holidays in Germany were
seen as one way to confirm the voluntary nature of the process. The idea was that the
POWs could be formally released from Munster-Lager in Germany and then return to
Britain.41 A more difficult question was whether the ex-POWs should be given the right
to settle in Britain and to change jobs at will. Regarding the first, which was a conditio
sine qua non for the Foreign Office, nothing was to be decided without the prior
agreement of the agricultural unions. Talks between the Ministry of Agriculture and the
unions took quite some time, and it was not until August 1948 that the Foreign Office
finally received written agreement.42 By then the number of free German workers had
risen from 3,900 in 1947 to about 24,000. Half of these were living on farms, whilst the
other half were the responsibility of the regional Agriculture Executive Committees or
the Scottish Department of Agriculture.43
The delay in reaching an agreement did provide an opportunity to clear up other
issues. By the summer of 1948, British industry had largely satisfied its demand for male
foreign workers and further recruitment on the continent had been postponed or
discontinued completely.44 In the agricultural sector too, questions were being asked as to
exactly how many German workers would be needed the following year, and under what
conditions they should be offered employment. In August 1948, a compromise agreement
was reached between the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Agriculture and
representatives of the various farming interests: Workers already employed on farms, and
those who signed a private contract to work in agriculture by 15 September 1948 would
be given the right to stay indefinitely.45 Some 15,000 German workers fulfilled these
criteria and accepted the offer. Those who did not, had to return home, whether they
wanted to or not. Meanwhile, there were delays in the transfer programme that threatened
the Foreign Office commitment to officially release all prisoners in Germany by the
summer of 1948.46 In the following weeks various alternatives were discussed that would
allow for an official release without jeopardising the potato harvest, which took until
December in some parts of the country. In the end it was left up to the individual worker
whether to return to Germany for a short visit or not.47 The government’s change of
position on the matter was certainly influenced by political changes in Eastern Europe
and the build up of the Cold War. Now, it was felt less necessary to consider the USSR
when dealing with the issue.

The recruitment of Displaced Persons, ethnic Germans and Germans

The British economy’s demand for workers could not be satisfied by employing POWs or
granting work permits to other foreigners alone. Thus, the government decided to recruit
DPs on the continent. In view of the military occupation of Germany and Austria,
recruitment in both countries was at first carried out exclusively by state authorities rather
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 27

than private agencies.48 As far as the recruitment of DPs (who were renamed European
Volunteer Workers once they arrived in Britain) was concerned, humanitarian
considerations were of secondary importance. The deciding factors were the candidate’s
occupational qualifications, age, gender and marital status.49 But the shortage of labour
alone is not sufficient to explain the political decision to recruit DPs. There were more
than enough potential migrants in the dominions and colonies who were British subjects
and ready to come to Britain. Therefore, the decision to recruit DPs was also a conscious
decision against the migration of non-white persons into Britain.50
There was a certain continuity in the government’s position on this matter, in that
negative comments were made during the war about the promotion of ‘black British
subjects’ to officers, stationing ‘black American troops in Britain’, and British women
marrying black GIs.51 The assumption was that white migrants from Europe ‘would be
more skilled, valuable and assimilable […] than non-Europeans’.52 Potential migrants to
Britain faced either positive or negative discrimination depending on their ethnic origin;
in the words of some academics, they were racialised.53 According to the 1949 Royal
Commission on Population, ‘immigration on a large scale into a fully established society
like ours could only be welcomed without reserve if the immigrants were of good human
stock and were not prevented by their religion or race from intermarrying with the host
population and becoming merged in it’.54
It was not until October 1948 that a Working Party on the Employment in the United
Kingdom of Surplus Colonial Labour was appointed. It found quite serious problems
with unemployment, in Jamaica for instance. But in view of the number of ex-Polish
soldiers, EVWs and ex-German POWs Britain had already accepted by then, there was
scepticism as to whether Britain had the capacity to accept further recruits. The Working
Party also clearly preferred migrants from Europe, since they would be contractually
bound to their work and only able to change jobs with permission. This was, of course, a
restriction that could not be applied to British subjects. There were additional fears that
some of the colonial migrants might find the British benefit system too tempting and shun
paid work altogether.55
In the post-war period, ethno-political criteria were applied by all countries attempting
to recruit workers overseas. Individual European countries, such as the Federal Republic
of Germany, also followed this pattern when formulating policy concerning migrant
workers.56 But what set Britain apart was its use of ‘race’ over and above that of
‘nationality’. Kathleen Paul has described the inherent contradictory nature of this policy,
which is both inclusive and exclusive at the same time, as being the discrepancy between
a ‘formal nationality policy’ and ‘informally constructed national identity’. Thus, whilst
the Nationality Act of 1948 defined all subjects of the British Empire as being British,
according to the prevailing view only a white person could be considered a ‘real’
Briton.57
The political decision concerning the recruitment of a foreign workforce was taken by
the cabinet on 14 February 1946, and at the same time a Foreign Labour Committee was
set up.58 The idea of recruiting 1,000 women from the Baltic States who were living in
the British zone in Germany had been under consideration since September 1945. Under
this plan, the Balt Cygnet scheme, the women could be employed in the UK health
system, TB clinics in particular, for a limited period of 12 months. The political debate
surrounding this programme led to one of the most important provisions in the later, and
 German migrants in post-war britian 28

much broader scheme to recruit DPs. Before the first of the 2,575 Baltic women recruited
had even arrived in Britain on 19 October 1946, the ministries responsible had reached a
common understanding that what they were dealing with was, in fact, resettlement.
Crucial to this understanding was acceptance that the British Military Government in
Germany would never allow a return of DPs en masse once any contracts they held had
expired.59
The approach taken by the government was further supported by external influences.
For example, a delegation of the Cotton Board travelled to Germany in the autumn of
1946 to look for suitable machinery to be dismantled and brought to Britain. On their
return they proposed that the chronic shortage of textile workers could be resolved by
recruiting 100,000 DPs.60 Probably prompted by the delegation’s visit, in November
1946, the UNRRA, who were operating in Germany at the time, suggested to the British
government that they recruit DPs for the cotton industry. And although the official reply
from London rather brusquely explained that this was as likely as their resettlement on
the moon,61 a number of political decisions to effect such a recruitment were taken in
rapid succession.
In December 1946, the Foreign Labour Committee approved a suggestion from the
Ministry of Labour that DPs be recruited to work in the cotton mills.62 A month later,
cabinet asked the ministry to make official preparations for recruitment to begin.63 Also,
in January 1947, the National Joint Advisory Council, comprising the Ministry of
Labour, the British Employers’ Confederation, the TUC, and representatives from the
nationalised industries published the ‘Statement on the Economic Considerations
affecting Relations between Employers and Workers’. It made the point that the shortage
of workers in some sectors of the economy presented a constant threat to jobs in others
because it could restrict the supply of raw materials and energy.64 The Economic Survey
of February 1947 underlined this consensus: ‘Foreign labour can make a useful
contribution to our needs. The old arguments against foreign labour are no longer valid.
There is no danger for years to come that foreign labour will rob British workers of their
jobs.’65 Humanitarian considerations were set aside, and policy regarding the
employment of foreign labour was based purely on demand for workers and the ability to
house them. The Ministry of Labour’s task now was to assess the demand for workers in
each sector and reach agreement with the trade unions to enable recruitment to begin in
April 1947.66

The trade unions

The Labour Government attached great importance to the negotiations with the trade
unions, which is hardly surprising given the powerful position they held in the post-war
period. The government’s approach was also consistent with its maxim that arrivals
should take place with minimum domestic disruption and with the support of as wide a
social consensus as possible. This required both time and patience, as the TUC was not
prepared to agree to a broad, comprehensive strategy. Instead they insisted upon
negotiations with each of the unions concerned.67 Although union opposition no longer
contained the level of vehemence and resentment evident at Brighton in 1946, it was still
considerable, and most pronounced in those unions with an almost exclusively male
membership, such as the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 29

Agricultural Workers.68 Resistance to the idea appeared to be far weaker in the textile
industry. Here, as we shall see, the attitudes of individual unions representing, for
example, the male dominated mule spinning or the female dominated ring spinning, are
particularly interesting.
It was not until autumn 1947 that the National Union of Mineworkers and the National
Union of Agricultural Workers finally agreed to the employment of EVWs.69 By the end
of 1946, in the agricultural sector only Scottish representatives had accepted the
proposals. This meant that in England and Wales, foreigners could find themselves
employed under regulations administered by the Ministry of Labour, without the consent
of the unions.70 In the mining sector, it took eight months of tough negotiations before the
union acquiesced to the employment of ex-Polish soldiers, and a further seven months
before they accepted EVWs. And despite this agreement, opposition to the policy
continued in other sectors.71
Resistance to foreigners was partly due to a general dislike of strangers, irrespective of
where they came from. Local miners in the Yorkshire pits, for example, referred to the
Welsh miners in their midst as ‘all piss and wind’.72 Ideological aspects also played a part
in the resentment, and some EVWs, like the Polish soldiers before them, were labelled
‘Fascists or pro-Fascists’. Such comments can be found in a speech by the Secretary of
the National Union of Mineworkers, Arthur Horner, delivered at the congress of the
British Communist Party in February 1947.73 Memories of the high unemployment in the
inter-war years were another factor in the opposition, coupled with a fear that the
recruitment would harm efforts to improve pay and conditions. The mining industry was
at the time pressing for a five-day week and an increase in holidays.74
The compromise reached between employers and the unions, under the mediation of
the Ministry of Labour, was laid down in over 30 industrial agreements, the core
elements of which were all very similar: The foreign workforce was only to be employed
where there were no British workers available; the EVWs must work for the same pay
and conditions as their British counterparts, however, ‘if redundancy of workers occurs’,
the EVWs were to be first out. To these general provisions, individual unions added
industry-specific requirements. In the cotton industry, for instance, the number of
foreigners employed in each area of production was not to exceed 10 per cent of the
workforce operating in that area.75 In some sectors, such as mining, cotton and the
foundries, EVWs were obliged to join the respective trade union.76
The combination of compulsory union membership and the redundancy clause is a
good illustration of the fundamental attitude many unions had towards foreign workers.
As members, they would be reliant upon the unions if redundancy threatened, but in
accordance with the agreement, this support was ruled out from the start. With this the
unions were not only treating part of their membership as second class citizens, they were
also adopting a position that was contrary to their ethos and discriminatory in the
extreme.77 TUC attempts in July 1949 to have the redundancy clause declared invalid, on
the grounds that many of the foreign workers were now union members and therefore
should be afforded the same rights as their British colleagues, failed to change anything.78
A short while later, criticism from the United Nations that EVWs were ‘victims of an
official policy of discrimination’ also failed to produce any fundamental change in union
behaviour.79 And again, the TUC could do little except appeal to each union to drop its
discriminatory clauses.80
 German migrants in post-war britian 30

The ethnic German workforce

In April 1947, Westward Ho began (Table 1). At first recruitment took place in camps
within the British zones in Germany and Austria. It was soon extended to camps in other
western zones, to Denmark, and finally the Lebanon, East Africa and Rhodesia, where
female Polish refugees were recruited.81 The largest group of EVWs were Ukrainians,
who numbered 20,930 (this does not include the 8,000 ex-members of the SS who came
to Britain as POWs), followed by 14,018 Poles, 11,832 Latvians, 10,192 Yugoslavians,
5,732 Lithuanians and 4,114 Estonians.82 Due to the continuing chronic shortage of
housing in Britain, the plan was to recruit mainly young unmarried persons who could
then be accommodated in hostels, factory lodgings and camps, or become lodgers in
private households or on farms.83 Although these objectives were largely realised, and of
the EVWs arriving in Britain only 268 men, 1,696 women and 1,860 children came as
dependents, within the first weeks it became clear that male DPs were far more prepared
to take up the offer than females.84 The Ministry of Labour was, therefore, charged with
increasing the number of women recruits but opportunities to do this were limited. In July
1947, regulations concerning accompanying dependants were relaxed a little, and the
recruitment of men was put on hold. Of the women recruited, only those not suited to
factory work were employed as domestic staff in
Table 1 Distribution of EVWs by industry (initial
placing upto 27 January 1951. Westward Ho and
Balt Cygnet)
Men Women
Agriculture 29,554 65
Depots and installations 1,603 —
Brick and allied industries 2,729 2
Cement 262 —
Coal mining 10,968 —
Cotton 1,083 7,564
Domestic service Hospitals and similar institutions 109 3,782
National Service Hostels Corp. 1,458 919
Others 3,589 2,058
Hosiery 24 265
Hydro-electric scheme (Scotland) 250 —
Iron and steel 1,355 1
Jute 18 175
Laundries 2 389
Nursing 169 425
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 31

Pottery 137 31
Quarrying 708 —
Rayon 554 1,000
Timber production 107 —
Wool 1,113 3,173
Miscellaneous 1,238 217
Total 57,030 20,066
Source: Tannahill, J.A., European Volunteer Workers in Britain, Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1958, p. 133.

households.85 But this failed to produce any noticeable effect, and the only option left
appeared to be further recruitment from other ethnic groups. This led to an intense
discussion about the possible recruitment of Germans and ethnic Germans, something
that had been categorically ruled out in some of the industrial agreements with trade
unions.86
Recruiting ethnic Germans was first proposed in February 1947, when a commission
comprising two representatives from the Cotton Board and one from the Board of Trade
and Ministry of Labour visited Austria to assess the possibility of recruiting DPs.87 In a
sweeping generalisation, one of their reports described ethnic Germans as all being
collaborators and Nazis, and this was the major reason for the group initially being ruled
out as potential migrants.88 At the same time, the British Military Government in Vienna
praised this group as being ‘our best workers and those most likely to make good British
citizens’.89 In this context it is also important to note that Jews were explicitly excluded
from Westward Ho.90
The Ministry of Labour took the lead in recruiting German and ethnic German labour.
Seeking agreement at the highest level with the Foreign Office, on 4 November 1947 the
Labour Minister, George Isaacs, sent a letter to Ernest Bevin, his counterpart at the
Foreign Office. In it he explained that the cotton industry would need an additional
10,000 female workers by March 1948, and a further 26,000 in the following months. He
went on to state that the demand for workers could only be met by recruiting women
from abroad, but that unfortunately there were not enough suitable workers amongst the
DPs on the continent. Only Italy and the western zones of Germany and Austria appeared
to have a supply of suitable female workers, although Italy would probably have to be
ruled out because most of the unemployed women there lived in the south and had little
experience of working in factories. George Isaacs said nothing against the recruitment of
ethnic Germans in Austria, as he regarded them as DPs, but to counter the inevitable
objections, he suggested the German women be given restricted residency permits and
only short-term work contracts that could later be extended if need be. Only young
women aged up to 28 or 30, ‘who could be said to be capable of re-education along
democratic lines of thought’, were to be considered.91
Ernest Bevin’s answer was prepared by Lord Jellicoe, in the German Political
Department of the Foreign Office, and it reflected the mounting tensions in international
politics at the time. With regard to the approaching London Conference of Foreign
 German migrants in post-war britian 32

Ministers (25 November-15 December 1947), he warned of possible Soviet criticism

should the British government go so far as to recruit ‘Potsdam ethnic Germans’, adding
that after the conference it may be possible for the government to alter its position. As
before, he argued that families should not be excluded, and that the recruitment of
German women should take place within programmes that were already operating. Public
opinion in Germany would need to be considered, because the communists were sure to
accuse Britain of abusing its position as an occupying force by recruiting ‘slave labour’.
In view of the latter, he suggested that emigration regulations be relaxed. The German
labour authorities would also have to be involved in the process, but first the question of
a transfer of wages would have to be settled.92 Ernest Bevin followed Lord Jellicoe’s line
in his answer to George Isaacs. But he insisted that the recruitment of men from Austria
should also be allowed, and pointed out that the Ministry of Labour would have to come
to an arrangement with the American Military Government on this issue.93
Once the Ministry of Labour had overcome its opposition to the recruitment of
workers described as ‘excellent labour material’—an expression used soon afterwards by
a member of the Foreign Office94—the most difficult task still lay before them:
negotiations with the trade unions and representatives of the textile industry. Despite the
obvious demand for workers and the shortage of suitable DPs, employers imposed
conditions and at times sided with the unions.
The government’s plans to recruit German workers were immediately reported by the
press in Lancashire’s cotton region, and a meeting on 30 January 1948, convened by the
Ministry of Labour in the offices of the Manchester Labour Exchange and attended by
employers and trade unions, received particular coverage. Given that it was only two-
and-a-half years since the end of the war and the extent of the Nazi genocide and
atrocities was now common knowledge, it was remarkable that reports of the plan to
recruit Germans and ethnic Germans were made without comment.95 However, at a
meeting of the National Joint Advisory Council that followed in February 1948, TUC
representatives expressed concern over whether, in view of the two world wars that
Germany had caused, British workers would be able to accept German women. They
eventually agreed to the plan despite this, although both insisted that existing security
checks be tightened, and that expulsions be made possible on other than purely work-
related grounds.96 With this, all problems appeared to have been taken care of, especially
since even the Foreign Office changed its position after the London Conference of
Foreign Ministers.97 Nor were further objections expected from the British military
governments in Germany and Austria. The latter had campaigned for quite some time for
their ethnic Germans to be considered, and in Germany, the military government had
urgently warned of a surplus of female labour.98
The first responses to the plan from the Textile Commission in Austria were
promising. They estimated that there were 20,000 ethnic German women aged between
18 and 40 alone. These women were single, and in the commission’s view, represented a
‘good field for recruitment’.99 Similar views were expressed about a camp holding 2,000
German refugees from Yugoslavia: ‘As to industrial and social suitability, the Mission
was satisfied that excellent workers for the textile industry could be recruited from the
camp and there appeared to be little doubt that they would fit into the British way of
life.’100 The question of political security screening appeared not to be a concern as
eastern European commissions had combed the camps for years looking for war
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 33

criminals. The British authorities appeared satisfied that ‘the whole work of screening
and investigation has been completed by these government missions’.101
However, not quite everyone was in agreement. At almost exactly the same time as the
Textile Commission in Austria was responding favourably, a representative from the
Cotton Board predicted that making new local agreements on ethnic Germans would
create problems. Furthermore, he expected a ‘definite antagonism to German
nationals’.102 Soon after, a union representative spoke of a ‘good deal of hostility’
towards the Germans.103 On the latter point, at least, he was right. The cotton unions, and
those of the wool industry too, were only prepared to tolerate ethnic Germans in their
mills and would not accept newly recruited German women.104 Furthermore, the
Operative Cotton Spinners in Oldham made any future agreement conditional: The
employment of ethnic German women must not in any way allow male-dominated mule
spinning to be replaced by the mainly female-dominated industry of ring spinning.105
Union consent corresponded with the views of the delegation who, while visiting
Germany, also called for ethnic German refugees from the Sudetenland to be considered.
And thus, with the agreement of the Foreign Office, recruitment of ethnic Germans for
work in the textile industry began, initially in Austria only.106 Only then did the true
extent to which the Ministry of Labour had relied upon the recruitment of German
women in its planning become apparent. Instead of the 20,000 extra foreign workers it
had been hoping for in 1948, the ministry now estimated getting 5,000 to 6,000.107 All the
original plans to recruit German women alongside ethnic Germans, even those involving
possible restrictions on residency and employment sector, now had to be shelved.108
During the course of 1948, feelings towards ethnic German refugees in Britain
changed. Those initially seen as suspected collaborators now became highly valued and
desirable migrants. There are noticeable parallels here to changing attitudes in other
recipient countries too. In Canada for instance, the Canadian Council for Resettlement of
Refugees was established with the support of the Canadian government in 1947. It helped
ethnic Germans to emigrate to Canada for years to come. France began recruiting ethnic
Germans in 1948, and in June 1948, the Displaced Persons Act was passed in the USA
allowing ethnic Germans to settle.109 There is also a noticeable change of tone in the
British press during this period. Ethnic Germans were now being portrayed as the victims
of harsh evictions, forced from areas that had been occupied by the Germans during the
war. In some cases these portrayals even suggested that the ethnic Germans were former
concentration camp prisoners.110 According to the Manchester Guardian, some were
‘Germans in no other sense than that they use the German language’.111
In the early months of 1948, there was great expectation amongst employers in
Lancashire that soon the enormous demand for workers would be satisfied by a newly
recruited workforce. But despite the public optimism, there remained a certain amount of
scepticism as to whether the recruits would be accepted by the local workforce, or even
the general public. The Manchester Guardian article quoted above also appealed to its
readers that ‘provided that no special hostility manifests itself towards offering lodgings
to German speaking women, or working with them, the Ministry of Labour should be
able to start bringing recruits from Austria to Lancashire cotton mills at the rate of about
500 a week’.112 This only made the disappointment all the greater when, despite huge
effort by the government and much advertising in Germany and Austria, numbers
remained well below expectations, and accommodation that had been prepared remained
 German migrants in post-war britian 34

empty. Despite the political obstacles that had prevented them from recruiting German
women, the government was blamed for the failure and accused of mishandling the
situation on the continent. Since by now West Germany had reformed its currency, all
chances of success appeared to have gone.113 Within the limits set by the unions, the
Ministry of Labour had always aimed to satisfy the demand for labour in the textile
industry with a female workforce. Ideally this would have been made up of ethnic
German women, but their (official) number under Westward Ho remained a
disappointing 744 men and 634 women.114

The Sudeten Germans

Contemporary sources show that the Ministry of Labour remained confused as to the true
aims and objectives of the textile unions during the summer of 1948. This is illustrated by
the fact that early on they considered broadening the scope of recruitment to include
Germans from the so-called Sudetenland (Czechoslovakia) in the Westward Ho
programme. These were Germans who had either escaped to, or been directed to, the
American occupied zone. According to a Ministry of Labour official, in the eyes of the
trade unions the Sudeten Germans were regarded as being very similar to the ethnic
Germans, who were already being accepted by the trade unions in the cotton industry,115
even though the Sudeten Germans had been given German citizenship following the 1938
Munich Agreement and German annexation policy.
In July 1948, the British and American military governments began talks aimed at
recruiting up to 10,000 Sudetenland women in the American zone for the British textile
industry.116 It is no longer clear exactly what the target quota was, but it was noted
internally that it should be at least 3,000.117 One of the main points of disagreement
became obvious in the very first round of negotiations: the American Military
Government considered the Sudeten Germans to be German citizens, whereas the British
considered them to be ethnic Germans.118 The negotiations that concluded the deal took
place in Washington. The US State Department, supported by its military government,
insisted that these women be given unrestricted residency permits, that the German
labour offices be involved, and that recruitment be limited to untrained and unemployed
women only. The British government accepted these conditions. It was the seemingly less
important question of the terms under which a woman could prove her identity, and more
particularly her nationality, that caused a major difference of opinion and led to the
negotiations becoming extremely protracted.119 The Americans remained intransigent on
the point that the Sudeten Germans were German citizens, and refused any compromise
solution that would have made these migrants more acceptable to the British public, such
as stamping passports with the words ‘stateless persons’ or ‘persons of undetermined
nationality’.120
An agreement was not reached until 18 March 1949, far later than had been originally
anticipated and only after Britain’s complete acceptance of the US terms. One month
later recruitment began.121 A fresh round of talks with the textile unions was entered into
to explain why the Sudeten Germans would be arriving with passports declaring them to
be German. Whilst the cotton industry unions finally agreed to accept the recruits,
officials in the wool industry continued to withhold their support. Where possible, the
government avoided publicly announcing the nationality of the women.122
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 35

Regarding initial hopes that as many as 10,000 Sudeten German women might be
recruited, once officials from the labour exchanges in the American zone discussed the
actual numbers involved (at an Anglo-German meeting on 13 December 1948) these
expectations were dashed—even before any recruiting took place. In the Württemberg-
Baden district, only 220 female textile workers had registered unemployed, and of these
200 were over 50 years old. The total number of women unemployed in the district was
12,000, 10 per cent of whom were refugees. In Hessen, 20,000 women were unemployed,
and again 10 per cent of these were refugees. Bavaria appeared to offer the best solution.
Here there were 67,000 women registered unemployed, including 28,000 Sudeten
Germans, of whom 3,600 were textile workers.123 The situation was far from ideal, and
even the decision to raise the age limit to 35 did little to improve it. The number of
people recruited under Westward Ho remained well below what had been expected, and
finally totalled only some 1,300 (Table 2).
The failure of the programme was analysed in detail by the Ministry of Labour. Many
explanations were given, ranging from the women being prevented from bringing family
members, which certainly was a drawback, to the fact that in the meantime living
standards had risen in Germany. Due to the acute shortage of housing the situation was
impossible to remedy, and furthermore, the unions were making particularly sure that
none of the stipulations of the agreement were being broken. Willingness to work in the
British textile industry did not increase in the summer of 1949, when it became possible
to recruit ethnic Germans in the American zone.124
Table 2 Recruited German and ethnic German
labour, including family members (with those who
returned to Germany in brackets) 1948–50 (figures
as at month-end)
Month/year Westward Ho North Sea scheme Sudeten German
Men Women
6/48 188 42 — —
7/48 408 89 — —
8/48 466 120 — —
9/48 466 156 — —
10/48 540 203 — —
11/48 617 223 — —
12/48 684 246 — —
1/49 703 247 2,507 (14) —
2/49 705 264 2,890 (26) —
3/49 736 293 3,619 (43) —
4/49 743 303 3,990 (58) —
 German migrants in post-war britian 36

5/49 744 303 4,567 (78) 24

6/49 744 323 4,959 (89) 122
7/49 744 (1) 325 5,573 (102) 313
8/49 744 (2) 340 5,977 (121) 411
9/49 744 (2) 340 (1) 6,840 (145) 474
10/49 744 (2) 357 (3) 7,128 (168) 632 (2)
11/49 744 (2) 359 (3) 7,604 (216) 772 (3)
12/49 744 (2) 359 (3) 7,809 (235) 816 (5)
1/50 744 (2) 366 (3) 8,263 (279) 938 (11)
2/50 744 (3) 371 (3) 8,551 (325) 1,018 (14)
3/50 744 (3) 382 (3) 8,867 (371) 1,084 (18)
4/50 744 (3) 382 (3) 8,984 (396) 1,176 (22)
5/50 744 (3) 501 (3) 9,212 (422) 1,158 (29)
6/50 744 (6) 573 (3) 9,457 (457) 1,223 (32)
7/50 744 (6) 634 (3) 9,608 (494) 1,304 (59)
8/50 744 (6) 634 (4) 9,713 (496) 1,304 (59)
9/50 744 (6) 634 (4) 9,713 (604) 1,304 (59)
10/50 744 (6) 634 (4) 9,713 (689) 1,304 (59)
11/50 744 (6) 634 (4) 9,713 (749) 1,304 (61)
12/50 744 (6) 634 (4) 9,713 (928) 1,304 (63)
Source: PRO HO 213/596, Statistics.

Nor did it increase when the Lancashire Cotton Corporation attempted their own
recruitment drive following the demise of Westward Ho.125
The employment of ethnic German and German women in the British textile industry
depended largely on the trade unions, who had enormous influence over the drafting and
application of British immigration policy. We can only speculate as to which was more
remarkable or unusual—the unions in Lancashire and Yorkshire, or those in areas such as
Scotland, Cheshire or Derbyshire. The latter all agreed to the employment of both groups
of women, whereas the unions in Lancashire and Yorkshire made no secret of their
resentment of German and ethnic German labour. Contemporary articles and textile union
minutes suggest that union officials viewed all types of foreign workers with suspicion,
but their reasons may have been the same as those found in other sectors of the economy.
These included, a wariness of all strangers, xenophobia, political-ideological resentments,
experiences of previous mass-unemployment, and a conviction that an improvement in
pay and conditions could only be brought about by a shortage of labour. Locally, the
unions made sure that the 10 per cent clause was strictly adhered to in factories. In some
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 37

cases they agreed special exceptions or insisted upon reductions in the foreign
workforce.126 They also repeatedly referred to the redundancy clause and demanded
compulsory union membership for the EVWs, something the unions in Bolton achieved
in 1949 by threatening to halt the employment of foreigners altogether.127 Overall, the
numerous articles in which workers and union officials not only called for a halt to the
recruitment of EVWs and other foreigners but even discussed possible repatriations, did
nothing to aid acceptance of the newcomers in the factories and regions.128

The North Sea scheme

In contrast, the recruitment of German women under the North Sea scheme was far less
complicated. This may have been due in part to the fact that their labour permits were
initially limited to 2 or 3 years. It may also have been because they were mainly
employed in the National Health Service, or in so-called hardship households where
working conditions or the physical and psychological demands of the job tended to put
local workers off.129
In June and July 1948, a high-ranking delegation of British women, made up of four
MPs and the Chief Women Officer of the TUC, Nancy Adams, visited the British zone in
Germany at the invitation of the Ministry of Labour and the Foreign Office. They wanted
to see first hand what progress Westward Ho was making and investigate the possibilities
of recruiting German women.130 The delegation was followed with interest by the British
press, something that policy makers in the Ministry of Labour would certainly have been
happy about as it offered an opportunity to test public opinion. The Yorkshire Observer
printed a front page article under the headline ‘To aid industry: Britain may get German
women’. It quoted one of the delegates, Mural Nichol (Labour MP for Bradford North),
assuring readers that the government would not undertake anything without the prior
agreement of the unions.131 Just one month later, the Ministry of Labour issued a press
release stating that a limited number of German women would be coming to Britain for
‘domestic work in hospitals and institutions and for farmers’ households in urgent need
of domestic help’.132
The consent of the various ministries that was required to officially extend the Labour
Permit System to Germans was also obtained without difficulty, as was agreement to lift
the general ban on German citizens at the end of 1948.133 Parallel to this, logistics to
facilitate the North Sea scheme were being put in place, and immediately afterwards,
recruitment began in the British zone aided by the German labour exchanges. At the
special request of the Foreign Office, who for political reasons and ‘as a gesture of
defiance to the Russians’ wanted to see Berlin treated equally, recruitment was also
carried out in the British sector in Berlin.134 No family members were allowed to
accompany the recruits, and to begin with it was not even certain if a transfer of wages
would be possible. But these limitations appeared to have little adverse effect on
recruitment. By the end of August 1948, the first month of recruitment, 4,000 women had
already applied and been accepted, whilst another 1,000 applications were being
processed.135 The women had to be between 18 and 28 years old and resident in the
British zone for at least two years. They were recruited mainly as domestic staff for
hospitals, hostels, sanatoriums and hardship households. If they had relevant
 German migrants in post-war britian 38

qualifications or experience, they were employed in industry (including the Scottish

textile industry, and the stocking factories and sweet factories in the Midlands).136
According to Ministry of Labour statistics, a total of 9,776 women were recruited
under the North Sea scheme by the end of July 1950, of which 9,685 had arrived in
Britain. Among them were 5,983 domestic and 1,821 industrial workers, 1,140 hospital
orderlies, 773 student nurses and 59 trained nurses.137 A survey carried out prior to this
gives a more detailed picture of the type of work being done and where. It records 1,663
nurses, of which 678 were students, 690 nursing orderlies, 253 ward orderlies and 42
were trained nurses. In comparison, the group employed as domestic helpers was far
bigger, numbering 5,853. Of these, 2,945 were employed in hospitals, 127 in hostels,
1,466 in farmers’ households, 1,264 in private households and 51 in educational
establishments.138

Private and commercial placement

German women were not recruited through the state schemes alone. By the end of 1951,
some 20,000 had been recruited to work in British households by private individuals or
commercial agencies.139 They also required labour permits, initially valid for one year. In
the case of a private placement, the prospective employer obtained the necessary work
permit and sent it to the applicant in Germany to use to get her visa (and usually paid the
travel costs also). Private placement was common when members of the armed forces or
the Control Commission returned to Britain and wanted to bring their domestic help with
them.
The commercial employment agency sector developed separately but at the same time
as individual recruitment was growing. Commercial agencies, however, had to weather
the opposition of the German authorities. The latter were strongly of the opinion that
employment agencies should be under state control only, and to support this view they
gathered information on the commercial agencies, issued recommendations and warnings
about dishonest and prohibited business practices, and on occasion even went so far as to
describe these agencies as ‘illicit international dealers in women’.140
One way in which recruits for the domestic job market could be secured and
unwelcome migration limited was through bi-lateral agreements that guaranteed the
German labour authorities a role in the selection process. In January 1950, Britain and
West Germany came to just such an agreement. Called the PDW Scheme (Private
Domestic Workers Scheme),141 this was to produce only modest results. During 1950, it
merely managed to process 1,354 women, compared to a total number 8,290 of labour
permits issued to German domestics that year. In 1951, the scheme processed 781 of the
6,773 successful applicants, and in 1952, the figures were 498 and 5,684 respectively.142
In the 1950s, most of the German women who travelled to England came for a limited
period to improve their knowledge of English. They tended to shun the bilaterally agreed
route, preferring instead to be privately placed by an agency. Word of mouth information
about the future employer and type of work was crucial to the process. As with the other
specifically female recruitment schemes, they too received labour permits that were
initially limited to a year and were subject to all the applicable regulations concerning
foreign workers.
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 39

The British way of life

The British government’s responsibility for the migrants did not end when they arrived in
Britain. In stark contrast to the laissez-faire attitude of earlier years, when various
charitable organisations, churches or communities had played a part in looking after the
migrants,143 in the case of the EVWs (and also the ex-Polish soldiers) the government,
and more particularly the Ministry of Labour, now felt duty bound to continue giving
support. In this way, British immigration policy became supplemented by an immigrant
policy.
It should be noted that no detailed accounts of the planning processes of those
involved are available. Nor is there much clarity about whether those involved had
relevant experience, knowledge and qualifications. But what does stand out is that many
of those that took part in the discussions—regardless of their role in government,
communities or NGOs—used similar arguments. This suggests that there was a
widespread common view on the process of assimilation. And even if the usual methods
of academic investigation have failed to prove anything specific on this occasion, many
interesting parallels can be found in other pieces of research. For example, the
representatives of the Chicago School of Sociology wrote in 1921 that: ‘The process of
assimilation involves the development in the immigrant and the native of similar
apperception masses. To this end it is desirable that the immigrants should not only speak
the language of the country, but also know something of the history of the people among
whom they have chosen to dwell. For the same reason it is important that native
Americans should know the history and social life of the countries from which the
immigrants come. […] Assimilation is thus as inevitable as it is desirable; it is impossible
for the immigrants we receive to remain permanently in separate groups. Through point
after point of contact, as they find situations in America intelligible to them in the light of
old knowledge and experience, they identify themselves with us. We can delay or hasten
this development. We cannot stop it. If we give the immigrants a favourable milieu, if we
tolerate their strangeness during their period of adjustment, if we give them freedom to
make their own connections between old and new experience, if we help them to find
points of contact, then we hasten their assimilation. This is a process of growth as against
the “ordering and forbidding” policy and the demand that the assimilation of the
immigrant shall be “sudden, complete, and bitter”.144 If one were to convert such views
into policy, the scope of expectation and areas of responsibility would be clearly defined.
The migrants would have to learn the language spoken in the host country along with
some of its history. At the same time, the host society would also learn something of the
migrants’ backgrounds. Viewed in this way, assimilation appeared inevitable and
segregation merely a transitory phase. Social contact, a favourable environment,
tolerance, and patience would all be crucial.’
The records of a conference on 5 November 1948, to which the Ministry of Labour
invited bodies representing the individual nationalities (mainly refugee organisations
founded before 1945), British NGOs, and representatives from other ministries, offer an
initial indication of the government’s political aims. The purpose of the meeting was to
gain an insight into the views of these national groups, ‘on various topics’, in order to
consider the direction of future policy. All agreed that the process of assimilation would
be a lengthy one, and that it should not be forced. To quote one delegate: ‘If the good will
 German migrants in post-war britian 40

of the foreign workers was to be preserved, it was therefore essential that the process of
assimilation should be conducted tactfully and slowly and should not be enforced in a
heavy-handed manner, which would only arouse an instinctive and insuperable
opposition in their minds.’145
Of further interest are some comments concerning ‘inter-racial friction’ between
various groups of European migrants, and their hopes of sometime returning to their
home countries. The latter would lead many not to bother seeking contact with Britons or
even other foreigners. It would also limit their desire to learn English. It is possible that
the national organisations exaggerated the problems of segregation somewhat to
underline their own importance in dismantling it. Whether or not government
representatives had expected such statements we cannot say. What did become obvious is
that the mental disposition and the general willingness of the migrants were regarded as
the key to assimilation. In view of the tensions just described, the government promised
that in exceptional cases ‘for removing immediate and unavoidable racial tension, foreign
workers should be grouped in hostels according to their nationality’. However, this
compromise clashed with one of the basic elements of government thinking on this issue.
That is, that the creation of ‘separate foreign enclaves’ should be avoided. It was clearly
explained to the national bodies that these could not be allowed to develop, despite the
concessions. It was widely agreed that the process of assimilation could be speeded up if
the foreign workers were to live in accommodations of their own because this would
involve greater contact with the British public. Participants at the meeting also agreed
that learning English was a must.
Because it rather inflated their importance, inviting the national bodies to the 5
November 1948 conference was in itself a contradiction of government thinking at the
time. Thomas et al. concluded that ‘even the nationalistic societies do more to promote
assimilation than to retard it’.146 Although the very existence of these groups was
evidence of a degree of segregation, they could do much to help the government achieve
its aims, if they were prepared to help. But further official dealings were characterised by
pragmatism, and soon afterwards, at a purely inter-departmental conference on the
Welfare of European Workers, it was decided that rather than meet regularly, ‘ad hoc
conferences to discuss particular topics should be held as required’. On 18 November
1948, participants at an interdepartmental conference decided that the establishment of
‘hostels for the exclusive use of residents of one particular nationality’ was to be avoided,
irrespective of possible short-term benefits these may have had. It was also decided that
greater attempts should be made to reach the EVWs through their own newspapers, and
that with the help of the Ministry of Education, English lessons should be increased.147
By learning English and mixing with local people, the migrants were supposed to
assimilate into their new neighbourhoods. Furthermore, a process often referred to as the
adoption of the British way of life was accepted, or as Lady Reading Women’s Voluntary
Service (WVS) put it: ‘What we wanted was to help foreigners to see with our eyes. […]
The British way of life was not found in Hansard nor in the newspapers—it was found in
our homes and we needed individual initiative and courage in helping these people to
settle. It was a step forward when they were placed in work but this was only the first
step; employment did not mean assimilation unless further help was given.’148 According
to this understanding, assimilation was not possible without individual or organised help.
At the same time, this demanded a change in attitude and behaviour among the general
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 41

public in order to create the conditions for intensive social contact. The foreign workers
should be accepted into clubs and associations to get to know ‘British people in an
informal way’.149
Views on assimilation were certainly not limited to official circles and the large
NGOs. Similar opinions were expressed far from London. Shortly before Christmas
1949, for example, an Oldham newspaper called for EVWs to be invited into British
families and to be further encouraged to join local sport and cultural clubs. Under the
headline ‘A friendly word, a helping hand, and lonely EVWs may become happy
Oldhamers’, it went on to warn against the creation of a ‘separate community’ and
encouraged readers to help the EVWs find a place to live and learn the language.150 On
the same day, two articles appeared in The Halifax Daily Courier & Guardian reporting
on a local conference ‘to examine means to encourage EVWs to assimilate the British
way of life’. In line with the Ministry of Labour’s thinking, the head of the local labour
exchange emphasised that assimilation should progress slowly: ‘If we try to do too much
too quickly we shall probably do more harm than good’. The chairman of the Educational
Committee supported him: ‘The real integration would come with the next generation
when the children had been to school with English children.’151
The numerous similar articles that appeared in the press during December 1949
indicate that there were problems with assimilation in the textile regions of Lancashire
and West Yorkshire at the time. The articles were appealing to both groups, but
especially the local population, to be patient and allow time for the door to British society
to open wider for the foreigners. The chairman of the Halifax Education Committee
commented that as a ‘mixed race’ the British population was always proud of its role as a
‘refuge of the persecuted’.152 The Halifax Daily Courier & Guardian was clearly of the
same view: ‘There is, however, obvious need for the growth of better understanding and
the forging of closer links between the foreigners and ourselves. And it is equally obvious
that most of the approaches must come from us. It is not our job to force our ways or
even our friendship upon any foreigner, but it is our job to provide him with every
opportunity to get to know us and try in every way we can to make it easier for him to
overcome the many difficulties faced by every stranger in a strange land. It is not so
much a question of breaking down barriers as of ensuring that there are numerous easy-
swinging gates and encouraging their use—in both directions. Three gateways are at
present too narrow—the gateways to information, to the English language, and to Halifax
homes.’153
To help prevent problems, the government pursued a policy of providing
comprehensive information that was aimed at the recruited workers and local population
alike. Working with each group, the government sought to increase knowledge and
understanding of the other group, and encourage more enlightened attitudes and
behaviour. Recruits had access to information at every stage from recruitment to their
arrival in Britain, and in this way the government hoped to make the initial meetings
between newcomers and locals as harmonious as possible. Mr Skeffington-Lodge (MP,
Bedford) had demanded such a policy in the Commons when he called for a ‘complete
mental readjustment on the part of the people of this country’.154
In the immediate post-war years it was relatively easy for the British public to inform
themselves in detail about political, social and economic conditions in continental
Europe, and about the plight of DPs and German refugees. The press reported on the
 German migrants in post-war britian 42

recruitment, arrival and experiences of the EVWs in Britain, as it did on the position of
ex-Polish soldiers and German POWs. The articles were based partly on independent
research and partly on official press releases that were designed, amongst other things, to
test public opinion. Apart from the reports on Polish soldiers resettling in Britain, the first
time the state actively tried to use the media to influence public opinion was in 1947
following the publication of an economic survey in which the recruitment of foreign
workers was announced.155 In April 1947, the Ministry of Labour gave detailed
information to the press about the EVWs’ recruitment, reception and work places. They
had also insisted that the term ‘European Volunteer Workers’ be used to describe the
recruits. ‘Since then’ commented an official in August 1947 ‘the press has worked the
EVWs “to death” as a news subject and they have been featured and photographed on
every possible pretext.’ The tone of these reports was never hostile, but instead neutral, or
even friendly. Regarding public opinion, the same employee noted that there was a clear
distinction between how the Poles and EVWs were viewed. The latter were often linked
with Belsen or Buchenwald, while the Poles were more often associated with
‘illegitimate children in Scotland and elsewhere’.156
The continued negative perception of Polish soldiers, who suffered accusations of
Fascism and social problems, particularly in the mining areas, led to a discussion during
the summer of 1947 on how to educate popular opinion about foreign workers. The
government committee that was formed, under the title Education of Popular Opinion on
Foreign Workers,157 met in December 1947 and February 1948. It comprised
representatives from several ministries and NGOs,158 and its most important action was to
publish a brochure entitled Workers from abroad. The first print run of 10,000 copies was
distributed to newspapers, unions, NGOs, labour exchanges and other official bodies that
could further disseminate the information to readers and members. A few months later, a
second print run followed. The brochure consisted of 11 pages of text, and its aim was
stated boldly on the title page: ‘The purpose of this pamphlet is to foster a fuller
understanding of the employment of foreign workers in this country.’ It provided
information on the reasons for employing foreigners, on the recruits themselves, and their
particular histories. Furthermore, it explained the political screening, economic and
humanitarian aspects, and other more general processes involved in recruitment.
Members of the committee were also in contact with the national charities. They
visited hostels, camps and labour exchanges. They took part in meetings and conferences,
and they acted as consultants to the BBC on programmes such as ‘Operation Westward
Ho’ that was broadcast by the BBC in January 1948, and for concerts given by EVWs or
special programmes aimed at the migrants.159 It is hard to measure how much influence
the committee and individual government offices exerted over the media. Meaningful
comment and analysis was rarely set down on paper as it was largely an informal process
driven by personal contacts. Press releases and informal disclosures of information
offered a way of gauging public reaction, and this was made easier by the tendency of the
day to write letters to the editor. Press releases were used, for example, to prepare the
public ahead of the recruitment of German domestics and student nurses in 1948:
‘Statements were issued to the daily press on both the nursing and the domestic schemes,
and no adverse criticism has resulted. On the contrary considerable interest in the scheme
was evinced by the press.’160
 Immigration policy-immigrant policy 43

Besides the state authorities, NGOs, trade unions and media, churches were also
involved in spreading the government message. Several of them had recognised problems
early on and made their own efforts to change public opinion. During a meeting in 1947,
the Dean of Chichester stated that British Christians should support the recruited refugees
and DPs and oppose prejudice: ‘Anti-foreign prejudice was really anti-Christian
prejudice.’161 The British Council of Churches formed its own Foreign Labour
Committee and delivered its own pamphlet, ‘The Stranger in our Midst’, that took the
form of an informative appeal.162 In July 1948 it was forced to conclude that despite its
efforts, communities in some areas seemed completely unaware there were EVWs living
amongst them.163 This appears to illustrate that these organisations experienced a
common problem for all those attempting to change public opinion. That is, despite all
the activity there were no guarantees that the information was actually being taken on
board by the public, and stereotypes and prejudices against the migrants would endure in
the minds of many.
Finally, informing the migrants about their new country of residence was also part of
the assimilation process. Here there is a difference between information given within the
context of the recruitment process and information given after they had arrived in Britain.
The former consisted of a four-sided pamphlet, produced by the Ministry of Labour
including a ‘Statement of Commitment’ on the back page. The pamphlet was written in
German and English, and tailored to different groups of migrants. It contained specific
information about likely jobs, wages, accommodation, rationing, tax, social security and
currency, luggage regulations, and what pocket money they could expect on embarkation
and arrival.164 Furthermore, migrants were issued with a 50-page brochure, also produced
by the Ministry of Labour, but this time printed separately in German or English versions.
To Help You Settle in Britain, as it was called in English, provided extensive information
on the migrant’s rights and duties, opportunities to learn English, radio programmes,
rationing, the education system, currency, imperial weights and measures, leisure
activities and travel options.165 In addition, the migrants received leaflets from
communities, churches and other NGOs in the camps and hostels they went to on arrival.
In a peculiar move—the British press thought so too at the time—a three-week
preparation course was held in August 1948 for German student nurses at a Ministry of
Labour establishment in Colwyn Bay. Its objective was to help them improve their
English and introduce them to the British way of life. The preferential treatment received
was, of course, clearly dependent on their chosen profession. But it also corresponded
fully with existing positive assessments of German migrants, as an immigration officer’s
report from 1948 illustrates: ‘Speaking generally the girls seem to be of a much better
type than the average D.P.’166 Parallel to the racialisation of potential migrants within the
framework of the immigration policy, this is further evidence that the government used
race-based methods for evaluating the ability to assimilate.167 Thus, as early as September
1947 an employee of the Foreign Office commenting on German POWs noted: ‘They are
good stock and more easily assimilated to the British economy than other foreign
immigrants.’168 Similar comments were made in the Ministry of Labour in April 1949: ‘It
is thought that the rather better knowledge of English possessed by German and Austrian
women had made it easier for them to settle down. Both groups have more in common
with the British people than the EVWs and can therefore more easily acclimatise
themselves to life in this country.’169
 3
Life and work in post-war Britain
The migrants’ experience

German POWs

‘For me, being a prisoner was fantastic. Fantastic food and everything.’1 This is how
Paulus described his experiences as a prisoner of war (POW) in Britain when interviewed
for this study. Following his capture he was sent to America via the Panama Canal, spent
time in parts of California, Oklahoma and El Paso, and then lived more than half a
century in the Scottish Highlands near his former camp and the farm where he was
billeted immediately after the war. The farm is still there, as are several huts and a water
tower from his camp. Paulus was part of a group of German prisoners brought to Britain
from America and subsequently sent to Scotland. As with many other POWs, he has
remained in the locality ever since. Others have returned to Scotland after retiring from
jobs in England, or have firm plans to do so. Like many in this group, Paulus only had to
live a short while behind barbed wire. Early on he was allowed to live and work on a
farm and mix with the locals, but his fond memories stand in stark contrast to
contemporary reports on the mood in the camps, and how those returning to Germany
described their experiences.

Life in the camps

The discrepancy between the reports given by those returning from Britain and the
general living conditions of German POWs in Britain was so great that in 1948 the World
Young Mens Christian Association (YMCA) commissioned an investigation. It was
carried out at the Munster camp between 24 May and 9 July 1948 by a small team
directed by Alexander Mitscherlich.2 They interviewed 660 POWs, 201 of whom were
returning to Germany from Britain and concluded that the ambivalence displayed by the
returnees, as well as ‘their arrogance, discontent and bitterness’, reflected mismanaged
expectations rather than real grievances. In France and the Soviet Union, for example,
prisoners had been under no illusions as to the treatment they could expect and the work
they would be given. They had no expectations and were therefore not disappointed.
‘England, on the other hand, had always emphasised that it was fighting Germany on
humanitarian grounds, it supposedly wished to make things better. […] In England, they
wanted to politically re-educate the POWs, to turn them into democrats.’ All this raised
expectations for some to a level that reality could not possibly live up to, since in reality
there was much privation in the British camps in Belgium, there was a political screening
process, undercurrents of anti-Semitism in Britain and the questionable objectives of a re-
education programme to name but a few. This meant that despite the relatively good
 Life and work in post-war Britian 45

living conditions in Britain, or the ‘Golden Cage’ as some called it,3 some prisoners
found an unbridgeable gulf between their expectations and reality. This explains the
attitude of respondents in the Mitscherlich Report to questions like: ‘During your
captivity, what caused you the most suffering?’ Sheepishly, more than a few had
answered; ‘Yes, well actually we did not suffer at all, we were all well, I felt at home
with the English family and was accepted there as if I were a son.’
This discontent was well known to the British government and the International
Committee of the Red Cross, who regularly inspected the camps. It was also known to
the YMCA, whose employees visited the POWs and distributed books, magazines, sheet
music, games, sports equipment, writing materials and tools to the prisoners from their
headquarters at Norton Camp.4
Richard Stokes, MP for Ipswich, exposed the dubious nature of the political screening
process when he commented in the House of Commons on two cases on 24 March 1947.
In the first, a screener reportedly asked a future Catholic priest if he had ever had sexual
intercourse with a woman. When the man replied no, the interviewer then asked how he
intended to bring joy to his life without a woman. Another prisoner was simply asked
how many times a day he masturbated.5 Such instances were obviously the exception, but
screenings seldom appeared to last more than a few minutes. They usually consisted of a
few short questions and answers, after which the POW was assigned to the white, grey or
black group (or where applicable A, B+, B, B− and C), with whites being first, greys
second and blacks third in terms of priority for repatriation. The process was
administered by the Control Office for Germany and Austria (COGA), which employed
52 screeners on temporary contracts, one-third of whom were supposed to be of ‘foreign
origin’. Now and then, for example when a POW and a refugee from Nazi Germany
came across each other, things became particularly tense. But even a contemporary
German investigation concluded that although the screening was ‘pretty superficial’, ‘in
the majority of cases the categorisations were accurate’.6
The questionable effect the re-education programme had on many POWs was also
well known. Special viewings of BBC programmes or visits to democratic institutions,
such as town council meetings, were met with interest as they offered a means of passing
the time.7 Initially, participation in lectures and discussions was also widespread. In
October 1946 alone, 110 external speakers held 1,164 lectures in 268 camps on subjects
ranging from history, politics, economics and culture.8 But as their detention continued
and their freedom of movement improved, interest in these, and in camp church services,
declined. At the same time contact with the British public was increasing, so that in effect
re-education was put into the hands of the general public. As a report from Wigan in
March 1948 noted: ‘Since the beginning of 1947, re-education has passed into the hands
of the population of Lancashire, whose friendliness has proved a great help. The ordinary
workman in the Midlands is responsible for the fact that the majority of the POWs in this
camp is pro-British.’9
Re-education had a far greater effect than some contemporary accounts suggest. This
is particularly true of Wilton Park Camp in Buckinghamshire. Starting in January 1946, it
offered a six-week course consisting of lectures and discussions on political, economic
and cultural subjects. The first intake comprised 300 prisoners in 12 classes, but later,
civilians from Germany were also accepted. Amongst these were civil servants, trade
union officials, journalists and scientists, members of the new parliaments and politicians
 German migrants in post-war britian 46

such as Kurt Schumacher and Theodor Heuss. Professors from Oxford, Cambridge and
London came to give lectures, as did high-ranking British politicians such as Lord
Beveridge, ministerial civil servants and clergymen including Bishop Bell from
Chichester.10 As well as Wilton Park, there were other tertiary institutions offering places
to those wishing to study theology or medicine. Furthermore, university courses were
offered at Crew Hall camp and at Cambridge University, and trade apprenticeships and
language courses were also available. In October 1946 alone, over 40,000 prisoners took
advantage of these opportunities.11 This background is useful for putting into context
some of the negative comments concerning re-education, particularly since definitive
information about its long-term effects does not exist. At least, as Helmut Wolff puts it,
these courses caused one to ‘reflect on basic political ideas and critically examine
National Socialism and its philosophy in detail’.12
Focussing specifically on internment, those concerned seem to have barely been aware
of any long-term effects. Most reports about camp visits noted that the majority of
prisoners were interested in only one thing—going home. Personal problems, fears for
one’s existence, worries about wives, children, family members, fiancés and friends, the
loss of house and home, or even homeland, uncertainty about one’s life and status on
returning, and the knowledge that, as a prisoner, one could do nothing and was in fact
unable to help anyone, were all of far greater importance than lectures and discussions on
democracy, history or literature. According to British and international reports, the mood
in the camps was a mixture of apathy, bitterness, mistrust, disappointment, resignation,
scepticism and emptiness. There was a prevailing sense of unfairness, and a weariness of
all the talk.13
The arrival of German POWs from America in 1946 invigorated some camps, but
overall did little to raise spirits since most of these men had been looking forward to
returning to Germany only to find themselves in Britain. Occasionally this group even
heightened tensions. Interned intermittently since 1940 or 1941 in the USA or Canada,
many persisted in wearing blue Luftwaffe uniforms. This somewhat aggressive display of
insignias, rank and medals14 was at odds with the practice in most British camps, where
the dominance of the committed National Socialists had ended with the German
capitulation. As a rule the German POWs from America wore American uniforms that
had been dyed black, with the letters PW prominently displayed on the back in white
cloth. In Britain, prisoners whose uniforms were worn out were given replacements that
were of a reddish-brown or green colour with brightly coloured pieces of cloth (in the
shape of circles or diamonds) stitched across the backs and onto the lower left and upper
right of the trouser legs.15
The degree of apathy seen at many camps depended on a number of factors, one of
which was the personal style of the British camp commander. Harshness, incursions,
discipline followed to the letter, searches that were judged by international observers to
be excessive, and poor living conditions did take place but were generally the
exception.16 The camp’s location together with its character and the work opportunities it
offered were of greater importance. Here it is apparent that in the secluded and isolated
camps the mood was worse than in those near towns, where boredom and frustration in
the evening or on work free days were less likely to occur.
As the years passed and contact with the British public grew, the POWs increasingly
saw the local population rather than their fellow prisoners as the primary source of
 Life and work in post-war Britian 47

friendships and a social life. The German capitulation in May 1945 also contributed to
the deterioration in POW camaraderie, as the wartime discipline that had prevailed
internally broke down and was further undermined by mutual ‘mistrust and discord’ as a
result of the screening. The Mitscherlich Report noted that ‘if one asked the POW about
the prisoners’ behaviour toward each other at the time, most answered that a very good
sense of comradeship prevailed. But when questioned in more detail, it became clear that
this comradeship consisted mainly of the one prisoner leaving the other in peace. The
highly irritable and mutually aggressive behaviour of the earlier period had mellowed.
Now friendships developed as like-minded people, people from similar professions or the
same region formed into groups. One did not worry for the others, often one hardly even
knew them.’17 This conclusion was reinforced by views expressed during our interviews.
The prisoners who remained in Britain were often loners, who in some cases did not seek
contact with other Germans until after retirement. Very few made lasting friendships in
the camps. Also, many of them had been moved frequently to camps and farms in
different parts of the country, and this too explains their difficulty in making friends.
Very few commented effusively on comradeship. What seemed to be more important was
the opportunity for personal development or participation in leisure activities. For
example, forming a band or a theatre group, learning English or how to distil whisky, or
getting involved with the local football team.18
The layout of the camps and the leisure and educational activities on offer varied
widely according to a camp’s size and the length of time a POW spent there. Numbers
fluctuated, but it is safe to say that in September 1946 the number of camps, work units
and small infirmaries peaked at 390 and there was a total population of 402,000 German
POWs.19 To begin with, some camps were little more than a collection of tents or Nissen
huts, stone outbuildings, factory buildings or warehouse sheds. But there were also camps
of a grander nature where the POWs lived in villas, on country estates and even in
Victorian houses within the regal surroundings of Kensington Palace Gardens. Some
accommodation was newly constructed, whereas others had previously housed British
and allied troops.20 The number of prisoners living in a particular camp might fluctuate
between several thousand and a few dozen. There were camps for officers and for
enlisted men, large work camps and small hostels, youth camps and transit camps.
Barbed wire was removed from the perimeters of most hostels at the end of the war, and
from the small camps (which constituted two-thirds of camp units) during 1946.21 Life
behind barbed wire continued in the remainder until early 1947. After that almost all of
the work camps had their wire replaced by fencing or other symbolic forms of
demarcation that were no longer designed to hold people in, but rather to keep intruders
out as they soon became tourist attractions or a place for a Sunday jaunt for British
families. The removal of barbed wire reflected the futility of escape attempts from the
British Isles. According to official figures 1,976 prisoners attempted to escape, but only
two succeeded in permanently evading recapture. Some 400 prisoners were put on trial
before British courts, mostly for robberies committed whilst on the run. Two were
charged with the murder of fellow prisoners.22
There was as much variation in comfort and hygiene inside the camps as there was in
their size. Compared with today’s standards they were primitive, but in relation to the
standards of the day they were not bad enough to warrant a mention in the interviews. For
many the subject was taboo—as was sexuality, which will be dealt with later—and little
 German migrants in post-war britian 48

or nothing was said about it. Even particularly searching questions (asked ‘off the
record’) failed to produce much information about hygiene conditions. The war had
lowered health and safety standards, although in British camps an acceptable standard of
hygiene was usually maintained. Contagious diseases did not break out, and the
increasingly popular use of DDT took care of the rest.
The ICRC kept an eye on hygiene, but usually reported on peculiarities rather than
everyday arrangements. For this reason, reports from camps in the latter half of 1948, in
which ex-German POWs were now living as civilian workers, are interesting. Because
they comment on a number of significant changes, they allow conclusions to be drawn
about the conditions preceding them. For example, comments about doors being fitted
back onto toilet cubicles appear frequently.23 Another report notes that in August 1948,
160 men were sleeping in barracks in Sutton Bridge (Lincolnshire) that were designed to
hold 250 men. Each dormitory contained between 8 and 14 single beds. Fresh
pillowcases were provided once a week, although sheets were not changed as frequently.
Meanwhile, electric lighting and coal burning stoves had found their way into the
accommodation. Lockable lockers had also just been delivered to the camp, but the once
well-tended garden had now become a wilderness.24

Contact with the British population

The strict wartime ban on fraternisation, under which it had been a criminal offence for a
member of the public to even talk to a prisoner of war, was lifted in December 1946.25
Although not everyone had observed the ban, transgressions were a serious matter. If a
case was proven, tough penalties could follow. For example, a doctor and a teacher were
fined £100 and £50 respectively for entering a camp in February 1946 to talk to the
prisoners on ‘humanitarian grounds’. In March 1946, taking letters from prisoners to the
post office cost several nurses their jobs, on top of the fines they had to pay, and in June
the same year a woman in Scotland was sent to prison for a month for doing the same
thing. On the other hand, a farmer who was rescued from a bull by two prisoners went
unpunished, although the War Office forbade any form of reward being given to his
rescuers.26
All of these incidents took place in 1946 when, according to Henry Faulk, ‘the war
psychosis in Great Britain was largely gone, and the traditional sense of fair play became
valid once again’.27 One can assume that extensive contact existed before this, but the
British public possibly now felt less cautious about such relationships and able to be more
open. Perhaps some simply wanted to provoke a response in order to direct attention to
what they saw as miserable conditions and injustice. In the House of Commons in
October 1946, the MP for Northampton advised that a pragmatic approach be taken
towards contact between POWs and the public: ‘These men are here to help, and, in those
circumstances, we ought, within reason, to do what we can to make life as reasonably
pleasant for them as we can.’ He firmly recommended that German prisoners be given
the same privileges as those given to the Italians before them: The right to visit British
houses and flats (which in his opinion was the best form of re-education anyway), and the
opportunity to visit cinemas or shops in the afternoons. Nevertheless, he saw problems
arising if the POWs were allowed to go out with women, and therefore strongly advised
that they remain in the camps overnight.28
 Life and work in post-war Britian 49

It took a further two months before the ban on fraternisation was lifted and replaced by
more liberal regulations in December 1946. The POWs were now permitted to move
freely up to a distance of 5 miles from their camps. Furthermore, they could stay outside
the camp until 10 o’clock at night, receive mail and packages from the British public, and
send post to Germany (transfers of money had been permitted since the previous
October). They were also allowed to travel as passengers in privately owned cars, and to
go sightseeing or to church unaccompanied but they were still banned from entering
dance halls, cinemas, restaurants or shops, be they accompanied or alone. Sexual
relationships and the use of public transport also remained forbidden, but prisoners were
permitted to play football against British troops or the local village team.29
Allowing the prisoners to accept invitations and enter private houses within a 5-mile
radius from camp was certainly a concession that had some far-reaching consequences.
Although the new ruling was only announced to the public via the press a few days
before Christmas, it produced an overwhelming public response. By 19 December 1946,
Bury camp alone had already received 300 letters inviting POWs by name to various
Christmas celebrations.30 The response was similar at the Norton work camp near
Sheffield, where 336 of the 1,500 prisoners detained there enjoyed the festivities in the
homes of English families.31 Other camps were reported completely empty: ‘There were
not enough prisoners of war in our camp to accept all the invitations we received. I
worked for a firm, the foreman of which invited me and another person to join them. […]
There was one of those Christmas puddings that they make here and that was a new
experience for us. And then I found some money in it and I thought, oh well it must have
fallen out of somebody’s pocket. They noticed as I slid it under my plate, and they
laughed. It’s meant to be lucky, they said. […] Ours was full of coins. I had over a
pound.’32 Whilst the majority enjoyed the invitations and festivities, ‘chairs, carpet under
their feet, coffee in cups not mugs, silver spoons, books, Xmas tree, music (gramophone),
pictures, food’,33 and forgot for several hours that they were prisoners in a foreign
country, others could hardly bear the sight of families together and happy children
without becoming homesick and depressed.34
Further concessions followed in 1947. From March on, music groups were allowed to
perform outside the camps, and the identification patches on uniforms were removed,
which was not always an advantage: ‘When we had our patches, civilians gave us lifts.
After the patches were off, there were no lifts and we had to walk all the way.’35 From
July, prisoners were permitted to own and carry small amounts of Sterling in cash, and
they could now also use public transport within the 5-mile radius and visit cinemas, shops
and restaurants. From July 1947 they were also permitted to marry British women. By
Christmas 1947, POWs could accept invitations to celebrations up to 100 miles away
between the hours of 2 p.m. on 24 to 6 p.m. on 26 December. Finally, at Easter and
Whitsun 1948, travel permits were issued for distances of up to 20 miles, and prisoners
were permitted to stay out until midnight.36
The gradual relaxation of restrictions created conditions that enabled increased contact
between Germans and Britons outside the workplace. This brought particular relief to
those prisoners who had developed close relationships with a family they had come to see
as ‘theirs’. One cannot generalise about these hosts. Many were practising Christians. Ex-
soldiers who had fought in the First or Second World War and who themselves had been
POWs also numbered amongst those who actively struck up friendships with the POWs,
 German migrants in post-war britian 50

as did families that had lost sons in the wars or relatives in the blitz.37 There are several
contemporary observations suggesting that the ‘lower classes’ were particularly
hospitable, but they are not reliable enough to allow generalisations to be made.38 There
is some evidence to suggest that the behaviour of the public reflected a general sympathy
for the underdog: ‘I think that in those days they all felt sorry for us’ said Gernot in an
interview.39 There were differences in attitude between towns and the countryside, and
also, perhaps, some regional variations. The most marked difference however was
between the experiences of those prisoners lodged on farms and those in camps. The
former had daily contact with the local population, were known in the village or area by
name and gradually became part of the village community.
The ‘good behaviour’ of the German prisoners, which was also officially recorded,40
helped to make the concessions more acceptable to those Britons who still had
reservations. There were those who remained unfriendly to the prisoners, spitting when
lorries carrying them passed by, making victory signs, swearing at them, amongst other
things.41 There were others, however, who simply refused to put the new concessions into
practice. A student association in London cancelled a planned invitation, explaining that
many of its members were refugees from Nazi Germany: ‘They were not bitter in the
least, but they simply felt they could not face it.’42 In Essex, POWs were refused entry to
several cinemas. In Yorkshire some cafes refused to serve POWs, even when they were
accompanied by a local. The same was true of an area in Lincolnshire, where restaurant
owners adopted a similar attitude and a bus company refused to carry POWs.43 An angry
reader of the Manchester Guardian, who had heard of this, wrote to the War Office about
it, whereupon he received the reply that the bus company was free to make its own
decisions. His original letter promptly appeared in the newspaper.44
Not much is known about the discussions that took place within families or between
friends and neighbours about private invitations. Notable in this respect is an observation
made by the YMCA that, during Christmas 1946, POWs received more invitations than
the British camp guards did.45 Pamela Howe Taylor commented in her autobiographical
work Enemies Become Friends, that at the time her 16-year-old cousin could not believe
his ears when he heard that a German had been invited, and there were neighbours ‘who
wouldn’t speak to those who were showing friendship to the prisoners’.46 A few years
ago, Alathea Andersohn finally published an essay of her memories of Christmas 1946.
Her grandfather had, apparently, got into a taxi, driven to the nearest camp and collected
three POWs who were total strangers. From then on, these three were regularly invited to
his home. Commenting on the local reaction, she wrote: ‘It wasn’t a popular attitude, at
least in the small town where they lived. My mother remembers that they were able to
resist the criticism only because my grandfather held the Military Medal for bravery in
the First World War and had been active in the local Home Guard in the Second, and
because she herself had volunteered for military service in the Second.’47
British churches played a crucial part in bringing locals and POWs together and
reducing the prevailing resentment. According to contemporary reports, the work of the
non-conformist churches and other local church groups was particularly significant, as
was that of the Salvation Army, the Society of Friends and most importantly the
YMCA.48 It remains unclear how many British clergymen assisted their German
colleagues in the camps (of which there were 194 German priests and vicars, 19 curates
and 58 lay preachers in October 1946).49 Two updated lists, in the archives of the
 Life and work in post-war Britian 51

Bonhoeffer-Gemeinde in Sydenham in London, contain almost 150 names, but the actual
figure was likely to have been higher.50 Even the smallest gestures aroused the interest of
the press. An example of this was the episcopal gratitude expressed after POWs helped
with the harvest in 1947, or a concert performed by prisoners in a ruined church in
Hastings.51 British and German clergymen together visited the camps and hostels soon
after the end of the war.52 Church services and other local events also played a part,
although some prisoners found it difficult at first to adjust to ‘periods of religious
devotion accompanied by coffee and cakes’. Some even saw an expression of ‘English
materialism’ in this.53 Nor did these activities always take place unopposed. In several
areas the clergyman had to win round a reluctant parish to allow prisoners use of the
church buildings. In other places the reverse was true, and it was the parish who had to
convince the vicar. In another case a camp commander reportedly had to persuade both
the parish and the vicar with the argument: ‘There will be no British Zone in Heaven’.54

Sexuality and choosing a partner

The earlier mentioned Mitscherlich Report dealt with the question of sexuality, both
inside and outside the camp, with remarkable openness. Other studies either ignored the
issue completely or simply provided figures showing the number of marriages between
POWs and local women. In contrast, Mitscherlich’s team asked returning prisoners
directly and without beating about the bush: ‘Of what significance was your sex drive to
you—how did you deal with it?’ Some 201 prisoners returning from Britain were
questioned. A total of 9 per cent answered that sexuality had, for them, been of no
importance whatsoever, whilst a further 27 per cent had considered it of little importance.
Some 44 per cent found it to have been of usual importance, whilst 18 per cent felt that it
had become more important than usual. Of those questioned 16 per cent stated that they
had masturbated. Nobody admitted to being homosexual, which considering the taboo,
defamation and existing laws, is hardly surprising. According to the report, 34 per cent
stated they had had heterosexual contact with locals; when asked in a different context,
43 per cent admitted to ‘intimate relationships’. The reliability of the statistics can be
questioned or even rejected on a number of grounds, but a comparison with returnees
from France offers a certain degree of general validation. According to their own
statements, only 16 per cent of those returning from France had ‘intimate relationships’
with locals.55
In comparison with other countries, the opportunities for heterosexual contact appear
to have been far greater in Britain. The information available indicates that the camps
held a certain appeal and a willingness of many British women to enter into intimate
relationships with POWs, even though this often brought condemnation from Germans
and Britons alike. This is illustrated in the recollections of an ex-prisoner who stated in
1961: ‘There were about 180 to 200 prisoners of war in the camp. It had previously held
Italian prisoners of war, who were allowed to move freely outside the camp. The German
prisoners of war “took over” the Italians’ “girlfriends”.’56 Other sources support this
assumption, including several letters written by POW Egbert von T. who in 1946 wrote
of the ‘English girls lack of self restraint’.57 In addition, the Manchester Guardian
published an article in the same month, declaring: ‘The wire […] is more to keep the
English out than the Germans in. It is an almost universal complaint from camps in
 German migrants in post-war britian 52

populated districts that girls make a nuisance of themselves and one group of German
prisoners petitioned a commandant to protect it from two young women in one area.’58
In 1969, Ruth Körner, a former refugee from Nazi Germany who was active in the
British re-education of German POWs, told of the ‘contempt’ that very young English
women faced in particular. The prisoners seemed to feel this way because the women
were so young and because they ‘simply came into the camp’, whereas on the English
side they were occasionally simply referred to as ‘whores’ amongst other things.59
Newspapers often reported relationships between under-age girls and German POWs.
There were several reports relating to escape attempts and consequent convictions, and
the names and addresses of those involved were usually printed in full. In August 1947, a
military court sentenced a 22-year-old German to one year hard labour in prison because
he and a 16-year-old girl had wanted to run away together.60 Soon after this, 2 German
prisoners of war accompanied by 2 ‘young girls’ managed to escape twice in 1 evening.
They were first re-captured at a cinema in Thurso and taken back to their camp Watten
Caithness. Two hours later, having forced open various doors, they were again re-united
with the girls, who in the meantime had got hold of some food and shaving gear, and
together they disappeared into the mist and darkness.61 An account given to a court in
Shropshire by a 16-year-old girl in September 1947 testified to just how difficult such an
escape could be: They had lived on blackberries and raw carrots, and had been forced to
drink from the water tanks of old barracks where they had taken refuge.62
Other articles reported the unlawful presence of women in the camps, the consequent
legal investigations, the reasons given by the women and the eventual convictions, again
publishing the full names of those concerned.63 A final theme focussed on reporting the
unhappy love affairs, the reactions of parents and the human tragedy that flowed from all
this. One of these was the attempted suicide, using aspirin, of a 15-year-old girl. The
reason given in the suicide note left was that it was all because her mother had refused
her permission to marry Hans, and that now she feared he would be sent back to
Germany. ‘You think because he is German he is not a human.’ She was found by Hans
and taken to a hospital.64 A further example involved an 18-month affair between an ex-
German POW and a 17-year-old woman in Middlesex. It ended in death for the German,
who was shot with a pistol during a struggle with the girl’s father. A farewell letter to his
sister in-law in Germany suggests that he had already planned suicide before the tragedy:
‘As a German they point their fingers at me, Doreen’s father included. It is hard to go out
of the world, but still it must be he or I. Don’t tell my mother, say I have had an accident.
Without Doreen life would be impossible.’65 We can only guess at the individual
consequences of such unhappy relationships, the family problems that often accompanied
them, the effect on friends and neighbours, and being publicly humiliated in the press.
But even those British women whose contact with a German prisoner of war ended in
marriage sometimes had to suffer condemnation from their communities.
Marriage between British women and German POWs was permitted from July 1947.
This was preceded by questions in the House of Commons on 8 July by the MP
Skeffington-Lodge, concerning the case of Werner Vetter who was sentenced to 12
months imprisonment for having had a sexual relationship with a British woman.
Skeffington-Lodge and other MPs argued that the POW should be allowed to marry the
mother of his child, which a short while later he was permitted to do.66 Afterwards, MP
Leah Manning criticised the contradictory legal situation which allowed a British soldier
 Life and work in post-war Britian 53

in Germany to marry a German woman but prevented a British woman in Britain

marrying a German POW, saying that it was ‘sex discrimination’.67 In legal terms the day
was a turning point, although a Home Office statement concerning its position on the
matter made it clear that they did not wish to encourage such marriages. By marrying a
German POW the wife lost her British nationality (this was then altered in 1948 with the
Nationality Act), and she had no right to live with her husband while he remained in a
camp or hostel under military supervision. Nor did the marriage protect the prisoner of
war from repatriation to Germany, although as a British born subject, his wife could not
be deported.68
By publishing the strict regulations in both English and German the government aimed
to make these marriages no grounds for the right to residency in Britain (although with
the passing of time this is what they became). This approach was supported by the
Anglican Church, whose bishops advised against marriages between German POWs and
British women, and occasionally even withheld ecclesiastical permission.69 It was only in
April 1948, shortly before all repatriation had been completed, that the government
changed its policy and decided ‘to consider sympathetically applications from German
prisoners of war married to women of British stock who wish to obtain their release from
prisoner of war status in this country’. Under the new ruling these prisoners found
themselves with even greater freedom than their unmarried counterparts, since they were
given the choice to choose their occupation, whilst unmarried civilian workers were still
bound to work in agriculture.70 The ruling gave many a prisoner, who would otherwise
have been forcibly repatriated (because he could not prove he was employed on a farm,
which by the end of 1948 had become a condition for remaining in Britain), a means of
staying on. In December 1948, The Lancashire Daily Post even spoke of a ‘rush by
Germans to get married’.71
In total, 796 Germans married British women during their internment.72 To this figure
one must add marriages that took place after 1948, the exact number of which, although
unknown, is likely to have been many times greater. Of the 20 ex-German POWs
interviewed in connection with this study, 15 married British women, whilst 4 married
German women.
Opportunities to start relationships depended greatly upon one’s age. In the case of
relatively young British/German couples, who got married during the years of internment
or soon afterwards, organised dances played an important role. Until their relaxation,
rules governing dress and freedom of movement presented something of a challenge for
the prisoners.73 At social occasions, and outside work generally, most prisoners paid great
attention to their appearance. There was, in any case, plenty of time to organise civilian
clothes or scented soap, and to take pride in one’s wardrobe, so that over time the
impression was created that the Germans were more ‘respectably dressed’ than their
British guards or the local competition at dances.74 Some borrowed civilian clothes from
the relatives of girlfriends, or they were given coats, trousers or shoes by them as gifts.
As a rule British women supported their boyfriends or fiancés by providing them with
food, homemade cakes, cigarettes and money.
The POW was not always the active party in the initial contact. Occasionally a
specifically targeted invitation to tea would provide the first basis for a couple to become
acquainted. Some of those interviewed spoke of love (very occasionally mutual) at first
sight, but most couples took their time before getting married. In one instance this took
 German migrants in post-war britian 54

place in a gaily decorated dining hall at a camp in Scotland in 1948,75 but usually
weddings were celebrated at the bride’s family home with, especially in the immediate
postwar years, the participation of a very curious local population: ‘The church was full;
because of all the propaganda etc. many people thought that Germans all had horns on
their heads and so the whole church was packed with people who wanted to see.’76
Only on rare occasions did relationships and marriages between POWs and British
women receive the backing of all friends, relatives and neighbours. Justus commented
about the reactions of villagers and his future parents in-law: ‘Finally it was like this,
when my wife went home either nobody spoke to her or they would make remarks.’77 In
essence Jean, a Scottish girl who married Karl, also did so against her parents’ will, even
though she was 17 years old and under Scottish law women over 16 years could marry
without their parents’ consent. Eventually her parents insisted upon a ‘respectable
wedding’ with a suitable celebration in an ostentatious effort to forestall disapproval from
their social circle. But not all those invited actually attended: ‘It was very difficult for
some people to accept that this girl had married a German prisoner.’ In another case it
was a popular aunt who distanced herself from her niece—‘if you marry a German, do
not ever come to me again’—and sometimes one parent would have to be persuaded or
convinced by their partner. Many of the ex-POWs remarks on the experience were along
the lines of ‘it took a while’ or he was ‘not overjoyed’, or ‘they did not shun me as such,
but I rarely had a proper relationship with the family’.78 Wholly positive statements about
the initial reactions of families were few and far between.

Work
Outside the vast range of opportunities offered by leisure activities, the main source of
contact that the prisoners had with the British public was through work carried out
outside the camps. It is estimated that this amounted to a total of around 1.2 billion man-
hours. Most of these hours were in the agricultural sector, but prisoners also carried out
local clean-up operations, house and road building, and they worked in brick and flax
factories, metal-working industries, scrap yards, dock yards, at army depots and air fields,
in bomb disposal, and in many other areas with the exception of mining.79 The wages
were poor and initially the system was confusing, but things were relatively simple for
employers who could request a certain number of prisoner for a certain number of hours,
paying the standard hourly, daily or weekly rates of pay. The workers themselves saw
very little of this money, most of which went to the state to cover the costs of
accommodation, food and transport. Up until June 1946, prisoners could only officially
work and be paid for a maximum of eight hours per day. In agriculture they received
about six shillings for a 48-hour week, paid to them in tokens for use in the camp canteen
only. In addition they were given two cigarettes per eight-hour day. Workers received
2,800 calories a day, all others 2,000. Those engaged in heavy manual work were given
extra rations.80
In September 1946 wages were raised by three shillings, if the work was well done.
Furthermore a bankbook was introduced. Employers were now able to pay additional
wages which the prisoners could either save and use on their release or send home to
Germany. This was introduced as a means to raise motivation and productivity even if,
crucially, its voluntary nature remained in the hands of the employer. It is safe to assume
 Life and work in post-war Britian 55

that both sides reached informal agreements on the payment. At the end of June 1947
prisoners were given the right to legally own British money. The rate of pay for a 48-hour
working week was now nine shillings, half of which could be changed into sterling.
Added to this, one could earn a bonus of up to six shillings, which would be paid into the
above bank account.81 By 1948 civilian workers were paid £4.10.0 for a 48-hour week. If
they were still living in a camp they paid £1.10.0 for board and lodging to the relevant
County War Agricultural Executive Committee.82
The money earned was extremely important as it allowed prisoners to make many very
modest purchases. Also, one should not underestimate the opportunity money offered the
prisoners to ‘escape the idle camp atmosphere and barbed wire for hours at a time’, to
avoid ‘the danger of camp rage’ and to ‘keep body and soul fit’. Many officers also
volunteered to work for this reason.83 ‘You felt free out working’, explained two ex-
POWs to a reporter from the Edinburgh Evening News when re-visiting their camp at
Amisfield in 1998.84 In many respects work became a sort of therapy helping the POWs
transition back into civilian life.85 The contacts gained through work created the
conditions for favours from locals and a little extra income. And as time went on, the
legality of work done ‘on the side’ became less of an issue. ‘At weekends we were not in
the camp at all’ recalled an ex-prisoner, ‘the farmers picked us up, and others did too.
They knew that the Germans could do everything for you. We were well-known and
famous for it.’86 Gardeners and craftsmen could earn a little extra cash in the evening, or
at weekends on building sites ‘where all the earnings went straight into the prisoners’
pockets’.87 Others made toys or slippers. Officially these could not be sold, but were
sometimes offered for sale on the footpath in front of the building site. Few people asked
where the materials had come from, all they were interested in was the price of these un-
rationed goods. Homemade toys were also given to children’s homes, hospitals and other
such establishments, which went a long way to improving the image of prisoners in the
eyes of the local community.88
One of the early perks enjoyed by prisoners working on farms was extra food and
meals. This too was officially not allowed, but quite apart from the pity the sight of the
prisoners’ meagre rations sometimes produced, it was also in practice unavoidable if the
farmer wanted to have a productive workforce for any length of time. Julie White, from
Manor Farm in Inkpen near Newbury, was one of those that broke the rules: ‘I received a
notice from the Ministry of Agriculture, written in red, that we were not to feed the
prisoners on any account and if we did their labour would be withdrawn. I was told that
they had a cooked breakfast and a good evening meal and would be supplied with packed
lunch sufficient for the day. The latter proved quite inadequate for men working hard out
of doors, in fact, when the farm men stopped for “lunch” at 9:30am the prisoners stopped
too and ate their meagre sandwiches then and there, so had nothing for the rest of the day.
Unless I gave them some food at dinnertime.’89
The additional food was important, but it only raised productivity for a while. Soon
many prisoners realised ‘their value’ and allowed themselves to be paid for their overtime
in sterling.90 Farmers who were financially able to offer such incentives tended to employ
POWs rather than other foreign labour, particularly if the work was physically
challenging.91 However, sometimes the demands of the work proved too great. When a
prisoner employed in a brick factory suffered heat stroke in the summer of 1947, a
representative from the ICRC criticised the exceedingly harsh working conditions that
 German migrants in post-war britian 56

few Britons would tolerate. His investigation revealed that every two weeks the shifts
were swapped from day to night and vice versa. This was totally incompatible with camp
routine, as it did not allow the workers enough time to sleep during the day. Furthermore,
the official found fault with the limited food ration and the rule that the prisoners had to
remain at their work place at all times and, unlike other workers, were not allowed to
decide when the temperature had become unbearable.92
As a rule, camp personnel and prisoners lodged on farms did better than those in
camps, although some farmers exploited prisoners, sending them out to work in the rain
with inadequate footwear or clothing. Other farmers were unpopular because of their
‘interminably opinionated’ attitudes.93 But generally, it was the experiences of those such
as Moritz that were the norm. To begin with, he and another prisoner were sent daily to
work on a farm, and initially had to eat their meals in the barn. After three weeks they
were allowed into the house, and after a further two weeks the farmer asked them if they
would like to be quartered at the farm: ‘And then we worked for our food and a bed to
sleep in. Food and sleep, that was the main thing. And we ate at the table with the farmer
and his wife as if we were their own sons.’94
The initial scepticism directed at the prisoners rapidly changed to trust. Relations with
their British colleagues became equally good, although it should be remembered that the
prisoners were seldom seen as competitors in the work place, as they generally worked at
farms that locals found less appealing. It was unusual for British farming families to take
their meals with their farm hands, but it was normal for them to eat with prisoners
lodging with them. This was a result of the fact that the prisoners did not live in the
village or in a cottage belonging to the farm, and therefore could neither bring along a
packed lunch nor go home for dinner. This led to the development of close personal
relationships, which in turn helped prisoners learn English and adapt to their new
surroundings more quickly.95 Often it was the older people on the farm or in the area,
especially the women, whom the prisoners liked to talk to most, liked to spend their free
time with, and with whom they felt ‘like a son’.96
Occasionally relationships lasted decades, even if the ex-prisoners had stopped
working in agriculture long ago or no longer lived in the area. Some carried their farmers
to the grave.97 A few even received a piece of land or had the whole farm made over to
them, whilst others married the farmer’s daughter: ‘I arrived at this farm and the first
person to greet me was a young woman. We were then shown the work we had to do,
which was to harvest the hay. Oh that’s easy, I thought, hay doesn’t weigh a thing. And I
was given a pitchfork. Henry, that was the farmer, showed us how to do it. He scooped
the hay up onto the wagon with one masterly stroke. […] In the evening our hands were
covered in calluses. After the hay harvest came the corn harvest. And then all the farmers
received a circular letter, they could apply to have the prisoners quartered at the farm.
They immediately made the request and quick as a flash I was quartered at the farm. The
young woman became my wife. That is the reason why I stayed there.’98

Staying in Britain
For the majority of prisoners, marrying or the intention to marry was the most important
reason for not returning to the continent. But for these prisoners, and others, marriage did
not make it a foregone conclusion that they would stay for good. Instead, other migrants
 Life and work in post-war Britian 57

continued to believe that they would remain for a limited period and then sooner or later
return to Germany or travel further afield. When questioned about their motives many ex-
prisoners responded by sharing their thinking at the time, which was along the lines of:
‘Let’s just stay one more year’. ‘Let’s do another year. We have already done eight, so
one more is nothing’. ‘Then my friend said: Let’s stay here another year. And so here we
stayed’.99 Some ex-prisoners did leave after several years to return to Germany or resettle
in a third country, but no British or German statistics recording the number exist. For
those remaining, career, friends and partners in particular were the reasons not to return.
Others neither could, nor wanted to go back. The official records give the impression that
prisoners, originally from the Soviet zone of occupation in particular, but also from the
former German territories in the east and from Eastern Europe, opted for civilian worker
status. In the course of our research however, we also came across a relatively high
number of ex-prisoners from the west of Germany who chose to stay. Of the 20
interviewed, 8 were originally from the west. A similar statistic is revealed in the Alien
Register at Salford, which we will consider in greater detail later. It contains entries for
11 civilian workers, four of whom (i.e. over one-third) were from the western part of
Germany. When talking about their reasons, some spoke of losing their parents or a
parent (more often the mother): ‘My mother died whilst I was a prisoner and then there
was nothing left.’100 Others, whilst on their ‘release holiday’, were encouraged by their
families to remain in Britain because of the desperate situation in Germany at the time.101
POWs born in the area of Germany under Soviet occupation, or whose relatives now
lived there, told of the fear circulating at the time; fear of ‘ending up with the Russians’
or of being deported to Siberia.102 Several received letters from parents or relatives that
advised, ‘between the lines’ or even openly, not to come home if at all possible.103
Refugee families were in any case being forced to live together in the smallest of spaces.
‘We lost everything’, recalls Gerhard. ‘My home was taken away, given to Poland. And
my parents who remained in East Germany at that time, they lived in a little room with
my brother and my sister. There were four people in that tiny room. And so my father
actually asked me one day […] if it was possible for me to remain here, for a while at
least.’104
Most of those interviewed gave several different reasons for their decision to stay,
including the greater availability of food in Britain, better career opportunities, the new
friends and acquaintances they had made, and the fact that they had become used to the
British mentality and way of life.105 For some, breaking up with or divorcing a partner in
Germany played a vital role in their decision. This worked both ways; after years of being
alone some wives and girlfriends put an end to the relationship, as did some of the
prisoners when they decided not to return. This latter issue in particular was raised by
several clergymen, who criticised the married prisoners who decided to stay, even when
this was done to support their family back home.106 Another report warned of the moral
dangers of British women ‘holding on’ to married or unmarried German prisoners and
thus preventing their return to their nearest and dearest.107 Occasionally this reportedly
resulted in bigamy, psychiatric illness and attempted suicide.108 For some of the ethnic-
German prisoners there was the added problem of families living in eastern Europe. They
may have been prevented from leaving their homelands or may even have been deported
to the Soviet Union. In some cases they had heard nothing for years, and in others the
news may have been ‘shocking’.109 The letters they received from relatives contained
 German migrants in post-war britian 58

similar warnings to those from the Soviet zone: ‘Do not return to your old home towns
and villages.’110 Finally, there were certainly also many exmembers of the SS and
German armed forces who wished to lie low for as long as possible to avoid prosecution
under German or international law for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Not all prisoners who wanted to stay in Britain were allowed to do so. Residency was
acquired in two stages: the first stage involved temporary residency until 31 December
1948, which lasted in the second stage the exprisoner received an unrestricted permit. In
this way the number of civilian workers was reduced from 24,000 to 15,000. No common
criteria were established for deciding who could stay. If a prisoner was already quartered
at a farm, it was usually sufficient for the farmer to fill out an application form at the
relevant County War Agricultural Executive Committee offices. The press had already
publicised this possibility in May 1947.111 In addition, committees were set up in the
camps. These were made up of the British camp commander, a representative from both
the County Committee and the German section of the Foreign Office, a doctor, the
German camp leader and a POW.112 At smaller meetings the camp commander and
representatives from both the local labour exchange and the Foreign Office alone would
make the decision. There were also no strict guidelines for the selection procedure,
although the involvement of state representatives did lead to the emergence of some
criteria. These included good behaviour and work record, character, personal motives and
family background.113 Several committees also evaluated political attitudes, since early
War Office proposals were based upon the view that no applicant who was graded
category B or below should be considered.114 On the other hand, being an ex-member of
the SS was considered no handicap.115 Information concerning applicants who were
turned down is sketchy. In a camp in Yorkshire 210 prisoners were interviewed, 69 of
whom were deemed unsuitable. Whereas at a hostel in Essex, 32 of the 64 interviewed
were accepted.116
In life terms the decision to stay in Britain was monumental, and yet for those who
took it the moment has hardly remained in their memory. It appears to have been just
another unspectacular event in the long-term process of acclimatisation that was
accompanied by short- and medium-term plans for the future. It did not occur to any of
those interviewed to offer a full account of the procedures involved. When asked about
the process the replies were often vague: ‘You only had to apply’, ‘it was just a couple of
forms, I think’, ‘the farmer did it all’, ‘then we had to go and see the commandant’.117
At the beginning of the second phase, in late September 1948, there were a total of
23,729 civilian workers in Britain. England and Wales accounted for 19,540 of these, of
which 11,214 lived on farms. In Scotland there were 4,189, of whom 2,051 were on
farms.118 At this stage there were still 120 camps and hostels in operation around the
country.119 After the second phase, the selection of those eligible for unlimited residency
began. To qualify applicants needed to show a work contract they had made with a
farmer. They also had to commit to staying in the agricultural sector for what was then
still an unspecified period.120 Despite this, more wanted to stay than could be accepted.
Only in exceptional cases, for example, one that a member of the ICRC reported in
Yorkshire in October 1947,121 was an applicant turned down because of local resentment.
Occasionally the offices in one area tried to find jobs for the surplus of applicants in
another area.122 Reports from ICRC delegates on their visits to the hostels, in which the
 Life and work in post-war Britian 59

civilian workers were housed, suggest that from September 1948 on, the atmosphere in
many places was one of waiting to see if one could secure a work contract on a farm.123
Operation Repat began at the end of November for all those who wished to return
home to Germany or who had failed to gain permission to stay in Britain. The returnees
were transported en masse to a transit camp at Harwich. From there they were sent to
Münster in Germany via the Hook of Holland for formal release. In total 11 transport
ships left Harwich, the first of which sailed on the 23 November, and the last on the 13
December.124 Some members of the Ministry of Agriculture appeared to have been
particularly worried about the British leg of the journey. They were concerned that
workers ‘who were not granted permission to stay here, might take the matter into their
own hands, leave the train en route and disappear’.125 Initial reports appeared to prove
them right, with 284 civilian workers arriving late in Harwich.126 In March 1949, there
were still 50 Germans who had evaded repatriation and were then liable for deportation
by the Home Office.127
Finally, migrants could either remain directly in Britain, that is to say waive their
formal release in Germany (this option did not entirely comply with strict Geneva
Convention regulations), or they could take four weeks leave in Germany, the start of
which coincided with their formal release. Those who chose not to go on leave totalled
8,370, whereas 7,884 civilian workers did go between 15 December 1948 and 14 January
1949, and on 3 and 19 February 1949. By 10 March 1949, 7,279 had returned to Britain.
Many had hoped to be home in Germany for Christmas, but were disappointed as the
continuing shipping shortage caused great logistical problems that affected channel
crossings.128
As shown by Table 3, following their leave 15,649 civilian workers stayed in Britain
with unrestricted residency permits. But the below survey is by no means accurate as not
all of the County War Agricultural Executive Committees were contacted and the figures
in the bottom row are estimates.129 Information concerning workers who remained in
Germany also varies. The table reveals that 605 workers did not return to Britain.
However, in 1955 the Ministry of Agriculture put the figure at 523 (418 from England
and Wales, and 105 from Scotland). As a basis for their calculations they used the special
accounts into which workers wishing to travel first had to pay £1. This was to ensure that
they had some money on their return.130
Table 3 Repatriations, leave and return journeys to
Britain, December 1948-March 1949
England and Wales Scotland Total
Repatriated 6,244 1,583 7,863
Sent on leave 6,356 1,194 7,884
Returned from leave 5,880 1,087 7,279
Remained without leave 6,630 1,394 8,370
Source: PRO HO 213.1133, Operation Repat. Note by MAF, 16.3.1949.
 German migrants in post-war britian 60

Preparations for home visits were undertaken by a number of charitable organisations

in Germany. Particular efforts were made to find lodgings for civilian workers who had
originally come from East Germany. Within a short space of time the Westphalian branch
of the German Red Cross had received offers of ‘almost 5,000 holiday vacancies in guest
houses, hotels, hostels, convalescent homes etc. in various parts of all the German states
[…]; included in these were approximately 1,000 free offers, for those returnees who
were impoverished’. However, very few people took up these offers. By the beginning of
January 1949, the German Red Cross had only managed to place 100 people in
accommodation.131 Most of the returnees chose to use their time visiting relatives, friends
and acquaintances. Those who did not have any relatives in the west visited former
comrades, or crossed into the Soviet zone illegally, or met others who had crossed the
green border from the Soviet zone into the West.132

War brides

During the war-torn twentieth century, war brides comprised a significant part of
international migration. In the years immediately following the Second World War about
100,000 left Britain alone, taking their 50,000 children with them to follow partners to
the USA and Canada.133 In comparison, the approximately 10,000 Germans who married
a member of the British Army or Control Commission appears relatively modest.
German-British couples, however, were seen in the streets, parks and dance floors
immediately after the end of hostilities. ‘Fraulein’ entered the English language first, and
shortly after the German women themselves entered British households. According to
Elvira, a war bride from West Berlin, three quarters of her class mates—particularly
those who were ‘a bit cleverer’—had an English boyfriend: ‘The English men went for
them, they were completely mad for German women.’134 Even half a century later, Elvira
differentiated between the combat troops who ‘were considerate, they had seen the
situation and what we went through’, and soldiers who arrived later: ‘They boasted, they
were not as nice.’ She also remembered nylon stockings, chocolate and the hunger of
those years, as well as the fact that many of them were married.
Not all relationships lasted or resulted in marriage. Often the consequences were
children born out of wedlock, with men the women hardly knew and could not trace for
child support. In 1947 and again in 1951 the bishops of the Church of England raised the
matter with the government.135
Against the background of post-war Germany’s struggling economy, an acquaintance
or relationship with an allied soldier—particularly an American or British soldier—had
practical advantages. It provided access to food and luxury items such as chocolate, soap,
coffee, tea and cigarettes, the latter being the most important currency on the black
market. The allied soldiers also had the ‘aura of victory’ about them. They were in
control of the country and represented power and strength, and they wore clean uniforms
and appeared well groomed in contrast to the German men who were fewer in number
and often raggedly dressed. Even decades later first impressions of the allied soldiers
were remembered in glowing terms: ‘And for the first time on the paths which had been
cleared through the rubble I saw these figures which I regarded as coming from a
different star. They were allied soldiers and officers. Beautifully dressed, groomed and
 Life and work in post-war Britian 61

smelling wonderful. And in contrast, we looked so completely neglected. And they went
out with German girls who also looked so beautiful.’136
Contact with allied soldiers often helped raise self-esteem. Girlfriends shared some of
the privileges, were distinguished from the masses and felt somehow chosen. However,
the ambitions of some led to envy and rejection by others and a German phrase common
at the time was: ‘German men have completely lost their courage, German women have
lost their sense of shame.’137 Some lost the respect of their families or neighbours and
were accused of prostituting themselves: ‘One even heard that they are the women who
do it for chocolate and cigarettes.’138 This mistrust was not only felt by Germans. In June
1947, US General McNarney worried about ‘the amount of pro-Nazi propaganda the
occupation force was “swallowing unwittingly”’.139 And some delegates at the
conference of the National Council of Women in Hastings in 1948 also raised concerns
about the moral dangers that soldiers were confronted with. For them, access to alcohol
was a secondary worry. They thought German women ‘very easy meat’ who would
regard ‘our boys as free meal tickets’.140
At the beginning of July 1947, stereotypes of a different sort were broadcast on
German radio in a programme titled ‘What do German women expect from a young
German man?’ ‘The majority of the girls, about 70 per cent, answered the question that
the German man should not feel so sorry for himself, but instead should stand with both
feet firmly on the ground and get on with life. As a reason for the frequency of
relationships between German girls and allied soldiers, most answered that the allied men
were more chivalrous than young German men. Furthermore not so tired and listless. […]
The young German man was unable to offer anything, he had become a lout during the
war and showed no attempt to get rid of his military manners. Furthermore the American
had “black hair”, suits that fitted and perfect manners.’141 It is not hard to imagine why
this broadcast would have generated some anger.
For thousands of German-British couples, August 1946 brought a long-awaited
change. Marriage was now possible even if for soldiers it meant overcoming a series of
bureaucratic hurdles and enduring a six-month wait. Local military commanders were
authorised to grant permission to marry if there were no security objections or other
reservations, if all necessary controls and medical checks had been carried out and the
required documents had been completed. During this six-month waiting period the
applicant had to go to Britain for at least three weeks to discuss his plans with his family.
Many took their future brides with them for the visit and introduced her to their
families.142 The German women had to apply for an exit permit before going and then
received a temporary visa. Each case was examined individually by the Home Office
which was responsible for dealing with ‘enemy nationals’.143 If the future British husband
was already in Britain, because his unit had been moved or he had been released from the
Army, he had to confirm in writing that he was a British subject living in Britain and
promise to marry his fiancée. He also had to declare that there were no legal objections
and that a wedding would take place immediately following his fiancée’s arrival. The
information had to be confirmed by a person in a public position, a doctor for example.
Having completed the documentation the prospective bride could then apply for an exit
permit and a visa.144 The latter was usually limited to a few weeks and was withdrawn if
the wedding did not take place. Prior to 31 December 1948, the wife automatically
received British citizenship, irrespective of where the wedding actually took place.
 German migrants in post-war britian 62

Following the introduction of the British Nationality Act, from 1 January 1949 any
German-born wife wishing to obtain British citizenship had to apply to the Home
Office.145
Besides the official channels many other methods were used to get fiancées to Britain
and marry more quickly. In one instance recorded in May 1946, a British officer very
nearly succeeded in smuggling his fiancée into Britain in a British uniform.146 Others
tried to avoid paying the fare to the UK by joining a labour recruitment scheme, and then
leaving the job shortly afterwards to get married. Such abuses were difficult to detect, and
even when they were, not easy to act against, as in the case of a mother of two who
started work in a hospital in September 1948, got married in February 1949, and then left
her job to have her third child.147 In April 1950, the Bolton Evening News quoted a
British official who was of the opinion that most German women, ‘with half an eye for a
British husband’, proceeded to get recruited for work. At the time about 40 women a
month were leaving their jobs to get married: ‘Many of the girls were of much better
social standing than their profession would suggest.’148 Sixty years later it is impossible
to examine statistically the assumption that many of the recruited women consciously
accepted a temporary social and economic demotion in the hope of long-term
improvement. Material interests might have played an important role for some, but for
others, love or the desire to leave Germany may have been the key factor for getting
married.
It is difficult to generalise about the extent to which personal circumstances influenced
the decision to leave Germany. The wartime experiences of many women were indeed
shocking, particularly those who came from the eastern territories as refugees. Of the 14
women we interviewed, 7 were refugees. Their stories include hunger, hardship, illness
and rape. Petty theft to get food was part of everyday life. They were often faced with an
intolerant local population, both in the Soviet zone and in the western zones. Some
couples were separated by the war and the iron curtain for years before being able to get
divorced and legalise another relationship. Widows were looking for a partner for
themselves and a father for their children, which was very difficult given the severe
shortage of men. Women were often motivated by the fear of ending up alone, and a
strong desire to get married and have children at a young age. Traditional role patterns
were coupled with old-fashioned and ambivalent National Socialist ideas which, although
on the wane, were still prevalent. Women also acted for very pragmatic reasons. For
example, Emma summarised her expectations of marriage and emigrating to Britain in
the following way: ‘I just didn’t want to be hungry any more.’ For others it was the loss
of their home: ‘My Heimat had gone, why should I stay?’—‘Perhaps it was because I
didn’t have a home any more that I thought now I am going to create a new one.’149
Such statements should not obscure the fact that possibilities for intimate contact
between Germans and Britons were limited throughout the entire period of occupation.
Big cities certainly offered numerous leisure facilities that were frequented by the allied
forces, such as dances, clubs, cafes and cinemas. However, the majority of the women
interviewed met their partners by chance or at work, and often in much sought-after jobs,
in either the administrative or supply divisions of the Army or the Control Commission.
The advantage of such jobs was that, apart from a rather good wage, there was always the
possibility of receiving some extra food or cigarettes. They also offered the opportunity
to acquire or improve English language skills. ‘One had to take what was offered’,
 Life and work in post-war Britian 63

remembered Elvira, who got a job as a waitress.150 Hedwig worked in a Navy Army and
Air Force Institute (NAAFI) kitchen: ‘Sometimes I cooked, did the washing up, peeled
potatoes, cleaned and served the soldiers; […] and there I met my husband.’151 Lisbeth
started as a cleaner. At first she scrubbed the floors, ‘then you got promoted’. After a
while she worked as a cashier in a sergeant’s mess, where she met her partner.152 And
finally, Paula met her future husband while working in a British Missing Persons office.
‘That was wonderful. There we got some bread to start with, white bread, which we
hadn’t seen in our life before. I could only compare it with cake, a memory of my
childhood. We got so much food that I was able to avoid using my ration card and could
buy foodstuff for my mother and send it to her in Dresden in a parcel.’153 In other cases it
was largely coincidence. The requisition of somebody’s house by a member of the
Military Government, ‘including the people who lived in it’154, for example, or a meeting
in a cafe, on the street or in a park.
The Channel crossing was usually by way of the Control Commission’s steamer
service from Cuxhaven to Tilbury. Others travelled via Belgium using scheduled flights,
or the specially arranged Bride Service between Hamburg and Croydon that was provided
by several small airlines.155 Some, like Emma, organised their own journey. She travelled
on a freight ship from Hamburg to Hull and 50 years later still went into raptures about
the meals on board: ‘The steward came in with a huge bowl of tomato soup which
smelled wonderful. We finished the whole tureen and it was a big one. We wondered
how we would ever pay for it. I was the cheeky one who said: They cannot take away
what we have already eaten, even if we have to do the washing up. Then the steward
came back and asked us whether we had had enough soup. “Yes, and it was very nice.”
And then he brought fish. Wonderful, and after that a steak. Even today I am a bit angry
that we had so much soup because then he said he would bring the trolley. I thought he
meant the trolley to clear up, but no he came with a trolley full of pudding but none of us
was able to eat any more, [laughing] […] And when we were near Helgoland, in the
middle of the night, the steward came in again to serve us hot chocolate and biscuits.’156
This was a far more comfortable way of travelling than the British military transport that
Isedore and a dozen other war brides experienced. They were not allowed to leave their
cabins due to the large male presence on board.157
As a journalist from the Manchester Guardian observed in 1947, the war brides’
arrival in Tilbury was a fairly low-key affair. His report noted that most were extremely
young and dressed cheaply, ‘in a kind of pathetic finery’. He also commented on the
uncertainty as to whether they would really be met by their fiancés that was reflected in
their faces, although ‘most of them were’ met.158 Those who were not, had to return to
Germany. Others decided to leave because they could not bear being separated from their
families, particularly if a family member was ill.159 Some were disappointed with Britain
and its people, or with the fiancé or his family. This mainly applied to women who had
left Germany completely unprepared and who had not made a preparatory visit. ‘They did
not know what they were doing’, said a former British officer who dealt with
applications: ‘They submitted the application, then they were checked and asked some
questions, such as how their future husband earned his living and they could not answer.
They had no clue. In those first few years they just wanted to leave. Many of these
returned to Germany later on. Nothing kept them here for long.’160 Disappointment and
disillusionment was most common amongst women who came to Britain with no
 German migrants in post-war britian 64

knowledge of the country, who assumed that the privileges they enjoyed through
association with an allied soldier would continue or even increase in peace-time Britain,
and who had high expectations that could not be met in everyday life. In view of their
positive experiences with the British in Germany, possible antipathy towards Germans, as
a result of the war, was often completely overlooked. Despite intensive war propaganda,
most war brides saw Britain and its people in a very positive light: ‘I did not think about
how I would survive this as a German.’161
The stories about the weddings are similar to those of several POWs, although 50
years on we cannot be certain if this is the result of popular stereotypes of the late 1940s
or of images popularised by the media in the intervening decades. For example, Isedore
remembers very vividly the vicar’s comment: ‘Thank you my dear, my church has never
been so full.’ Everybody wanted to see the German girl, if she has horns. Obviously,
nobody had reckoned with such curiosity. One neighbour had even promised: ‘I’ll sit on
your side, darling, even if I am the only one.’162 When Edeltraud got married the
churchgoers were not so much interested in horns as in swastikas: ‘At our wedding the
church was absolutely full. Afterwards it was said they came to see whether my wedding
dress was perhaps decorated with swastikas or whether I had plaits, blonde plaits, like the
cliché of a German girl.’163 The first few weddings of a local to a German raised
particular interest and warranted detailed reports in local newspapers, sometimes with a
photograph. A lot of publicity was given to double weddings, as when two brothers from
Bolton got married to two sisters from Osnabrück, or when two cousins from Perth had a
joint wedding with their ‘Fraulein brides’ from Münster and Hamburg.164 These reports
were free of any anti-German comments. They only remarked on small deviances from
the local customs or any particular circumstances. For example, when the wedding dress
was borrowed from another German bride who had very recently worn it herself, or when
there was a war bride from the First World War amongst the guests, or when the couple
exchanged rings according to German custom and the Anglican priest said a few words in
German.165 Ceremonies were usually carried out in English, and then it was not always
certain that the bride understood it: ‘I didn’t know a word of English. […] And the
official said I should repeat what my husband was saying, but I couldn’t even do that.
[…] And afterwards the official said strictly speaking we were not really married because
I hadn’t understood what was going on.’166
Compared to the extensive bureaucratic procedures that were necessary in Germany,
getting married in Britain was much easier. Notice of an intended marriage was much
shorter, and sometimes, only a few days elapsed between the decision to get married and
the wedding: ‘Later I understood how easy it was to enter bigamy’ said Mechthild
‘because all I needed was a birth certificate and my passport.’167 The number of couples
who lived in bigamous relationships is uncertain, but the topic was mentioned by several
interviewees. Some raised it as a general issue, others knew of a previous marriage and
that their husbands were not divorced. There are only occasional references to this topic
in contemporary newspaper articles and other written sources,168 and there is a dearth of
information on separations, divorces, women returning to Germany or onward migration
to third countries. According to the few documents available many couples clearly had
big problems in their marriage.169
Written sources and interviews undertaken for this study indicate that the reasons for
marital problems lay mainly in the partners’ different expectations of married life and the
 Life and work in post-war Britian 65

brides’ disillusionment with the social and economic status of their husbands in peace
time. Regarding the latter, the Bolton Evening News talked of differences in ‘social
standing’.170 The words of an interviewee explain this phrase well: ‘Couples who came
from the same social class as their husbands […] had it easier. […] Many girls married
beneath their social class and when they came to England, they realised the difference.
[…] They either adapted to that level or difficulties appeared.’171 Such a remark should
not be taken as cultural arrogance but rather as a sign of the suppression of social
expectations and social pressures when the couple first met, and which only became
apparent after a period in Britain. If they wanted the marriage to survive these
differences, there was often no alternative but ‘to grit your teeth and somehow carry
on’.172 There was no lack of official warnings to prospective wives to get information
about their future husband’s financial situation,173 but the question as to how this advice
should best reach the young women remained unanswered. The tempting prospect of
escaping the misery of post-war Germany with a ‘smart English soldier’ probably meant
many prospective brides turned a blind eye to rational analysis of their fiancé’s social and
economic circumstances.174
The housing shortage in Britain was an additional problem, as many newly married
couples were unable to live in a home of their own. As before, it is difficult to generalise.
When some of the interviewed women stated that they had a better relationship with their
father-in-law than with their mother-in-law, the reason is surely not only linked to the
fact that the in-laws were British. A competitive attitude on the part of mothers-in-law
towards their sons’ wives was sometimes mentioned as a reason for tension by the
interviewees. Besides this age-old complaint, which also involved comments on the loss
of their only son or criticism of the new bride’s housekeeping abilities, several references
were made to specific anti-German feelings: ‘I noticed immediately they didn’t like me,
firstly because I was a German, and I am sure about that, and secondly because I deprived
her of her favourite son.’175 But several war brides did talk about a friendly, even warm,
welcome from their new families, and about a good marriage. Difficulties in the very
early stages were often attributed to the lack of privacy many newly wedded couples
experienced when forced by circumstances to live in a small room in their in-law’s home.
Sometimes this led to ‘nasty conflicts’.176
War, occupation and a return to Britain also marked the lives of the British husbands
and subsequently had an impact on some marriages. The case of the British officer who
had to give up his dream of becoming a diplomat when he decided to marry his German
bride177 is perhaps a more obvious example of what countless other men—who noticed
only later the extent to which those war years had shaped or changed them—experienced.
For them returning from the continent constituted much more than a geographical
change. They also lost the status and image associated with their uniform or connection
with the Control Commission that they had enjoyed while in Germany. Access to a range
of foodstuffs and other items that most of the population could only dream of had—
through German eyes anyway—put the soldiers in a special position. Back in Britain, not
only did they lose their uniforms but often some of their status and prestige as well. They
were still part of an existing class system, with more clearly defined values and attitudes,
and many had problems re-adjusting. As a result, marriages suffered. The civilian life that
replaced the ordered, military structure demanded a new outlook, and for some it led to
feelings of emptiness. The country had also changed during the war years. Civilian skills
 German migrants in post-war britian 66

and abilities were now more important than military ones, both in the work place and
outside it. The banal reality of everyday life in Britain extinguished the aura soldiers had
in Germany.

Women of the North Sea scheme

When POWs and war brides are excluded from the statistics, the Germans migrating to
Britain immediately after the war were mainly women coming to work. There were 1,378
ethnic-German women and 1,304 Sudeten Germans recruited under the Westward Ho
Scheme, approximately 10,000 women employed under the North Sea scheme, and
20,000 women who came on individual labour permits.
Women of very different socio-economic backgrounds were attracted by the
advertising campaigns in Germany.178 Quite a few came from middle class families and
had spent several years in higher education. Some talked about childhood dreams of
becoming a doctor or a teacher, and three women had actually started university courses.
Four others had intended to become a nurse, a journalist, a photo laboratory assistant and
a fashion designer, respectively. The war, flight, expulsion and deportation had forced
several to interrupt their education. The interviewees ranged from only children to those
from large families with up to ten children. Whereas the latter came predominantly from
families in rural areas, the women from small families mainly grew up in urban and well-
educated circles. A feature that the older women had in common was that as part of the
gender-specific socialisation process during the Nazi-period, they had spent a compulsory
year in a household or working on a farm.
Political reservations about going to Britain so soon after the war were not mentioned,
and the interviewees did not express mistrust or criticism of the British. Apparently the
German war propaganda had not resulted in scepticism or anti-British feelings. On the
contrary, the presence of British soldiers was seen as positive. This also corresponds with
the results of an early post-war opinion-poll in which more than two-thirds regarded the
British positively, and described them using terms such as: ‘intelligent, self-controlled,
practical, progressive, generous, peace-loving, hard working and brave’.179

Motives
The reasons why thousands of women left Germany in such a short space of time, either
temporarily or permanently, are as varied as the life stories of the migrants themselves.
They had their roots in both material and emotional circumstances, and were
accompanied by an equally diverse range of expectations. In her study on the migration
of German maids to the USA, Silke Wehner stated that the desire to found a family was
an important aim for many of these migrants.180 The evidence of similar motives can be
found in post-war Britain. ‘German Girls Seek British Husbands’ was the title of an
article that appeared in the Bolton Evening News on 15 April 1950. Traditional
stereotypes of man-hunting female migrants, together with the knowledge that there was
indeed a lack of men in Germany, make this assumption appear plausible. And one or
two of the interviewed women certainly mentioned this as a motive for leaving Germany:
‘Secretly I had hoped to find a husband.’181 For most women though, there were initially
 Life and work in post-war Britian 67

more important things to consider than a family. Later on, however, it was their family
that became the main reason for staying in Britain, for extending the intended temporary
migration into permanent residency.
Reporting on her work in the British Ministry of Labour, German sociologist Maria
Roos182 divided domestic helpers working in Britain into five categories. The first group
consisted of women, many of whom were refugees, widows and divorcees, who wished
to build a new life abroad. The second group was made up of women who wanted to
learn or improve their English, or develop other skills in order to improve their job
prospects on returning to Germany. Third, there were women who had worked for the
allied forces and wanted to put their acquired language skills into practise. Some of them
were also motivated by disappointment with the wages and working conditions in
Germany. The fourth group were ‘girls who wanted to have a good time in England’.
According to Maria Roos, these were the women who had not had ‘an orderly family life
in Germany’ or who ‘had experienced such awful things that one felt sympathetic
towards them, rather than regarding their attitude as lacking a strength of character’.
Finally, the fifth group consisted of a small number of ‘charming middle-aged widows’,
who worked in well-to-do households and wanted ‘to be treated as ladies’, sometimes
with the intention of getting married.183
The reasons given in many contemporary news reports and in the interviews we
recorded correspond with Maria Roos’ categories. Learning English, which had new
status due to its role in Germany’s economic consolidation, was a particularly important
motive and was frequently mentioned as a motive for migration.184 This phenomenon was
already noticeable in the early post-war years, although it ranked lower than material
motives. A few women also saw Britain as a springboard for further migration to Canada,
America, South Africa and Australia.185
Material expectations were a result of the difficult conditions in Germany at the time.
In this sense they were defined negatively: Britain should provide everything that
Germany was unable to offer, and help overcome the terrible living conditions they had
come from. Material considerations overlapped with other reasons, and it was often a
combination of different motives that resulted in the decision to go. Britain provided the
opportunity to leave many unpleasant experiences and memories behind: pain and
suffering endured during the war, horrifying rapes that the women had seen or
experienced, suicides of close relatives, the burning of swastikas into the foreheads of
young women, expulsion and deportation, disrupted training and schooling, harassment
as refugees, and the ‘foreign rabble’.186 The personal histories of several women included
the death of close relatives, mothers, fathers or brothers, and the break-up of families.
Being an orphan in a refugee camp was described as akin to ‘not having a home’, and
another cited having ‘to live with unknown people’ while her mother was held in the
Soviet zone.187 Some did not live with their parents because they had only been allocated
one room. Others were without jobs, and forced to share cramped quarters with other
unemployed people without a chance of any privacy. It was not uncommon for parents or
step-parents to put direct or indirect pressure on children to leave home.188
A number of women saw emigrating as a chance to free their family of a mouth to
feed and wanted to support their loved ones from abroad: ‘I saved really hard so I could
help them’, Heide said of the beginning of her time in Lancashire.189 Other women were
more focussed on themselves. They intended to do their A-levels abroad so that they
 German migrants in post-war britian 68

would be able to go to university. Sometimes it was a case of trying to get away from
their parents’ strict regime, or away from a man they were supposed to marry, while a
few wanted to spend a period abroad because they were unable to get work in Germany
due to their previous membership in Nazi organisations.190 Finally there was a group of
women who consciously wanted to break with the past: ‘I simply wanted to leave
everything behind, I wanted to start anew, I did not want to stay in my home country, I
was too disappointed. And politically, we were the invincible and then suddenly
everything was in ashes. And the re-education, I did not like that.’191 Many expressed the
feeling of wanting to break away but did not know how to put it into words. They often
used stock phrases such as: ‘I was always interested in foreign countries.’192 Behind this
lay the urge to get away, to take control of their lives and a consciously different
direction from the National Socialist past and conventions. There was a desire to escape
the hopelessness and misery of their situation: ‘I simply wanted to live’, Margarete said
of her feelings. ‘I wanted to own my life, I wanted to feel how life really was, how it feels
when you do things yourself, I wanted to experience, to be responsible.’193

Recruitment
For the British government, the recruitment of foreign labour involved a heavy financial
commitment. By the end of October 1948, selecting the labour force, transporting,
housing and caring for amounted to £2.75 million, the equivalent of £30 per head.194
Different procedures were developed for the different schemes. Recruiting DPs under
Westward Ho was the least costly because potential applicants were already living in
camps and could be specifically targeted for selection. The Ministry of Labour
established a central office in Lemgo specifically for this purpose, as well as regional
offices in Kiel, Hanover and Düsseldorf. Furthermore, a collecting centre was set up in
each German Land of the British zone. The transit camp was initially in Seedorf, where
the transfer from Cuxhaven to Hull or Tilbury began. Later, journeys started in Minister
for the passage via the Hook of Holland to Tilbury. About 25 staff from the Ministry of
Labour were responsible for the selection process, while the administrative staff was
provided by the Control Commission.195
Recruitment consisted of several steps. First of all information was provided within
the camps. The four-page brochure Westward Ho was certainly the most widely
distributed publication of this type. It contained basic information on wages and working
conditions, accommodation, rationing, social security and the criteria for immigration.196
Initially the text was in both English and German. Later editions also appeared in several
eastern European languages. An official from the Ministry of Labour would then visit the
camp and invite interested DPs to an information evening. They would be asked to fill in
and sign the last page of the brochure and submit it to the camp headquarters. When a set
quota was reached, the official would return and carry out interviews to check the
suitability of applicants and make confidential suggestions about potential work
opportunities on a personal record card. The camp doctor would then conduct an initial
medical check, and send his report and the personal record card to the regional office.197
Those who passed the first assessment interview and the medical examination were
moved to a collecting camp, where transportation to the transit camps was arranged. Here
the applicants were further checked for infectious diseases and pregnancy. The final
 Life and work in post-war Britian 69

security check was carried out by a representative of the Home Office, who also recorded
work and residency conditions on the applicants’ identity cards. The recruited persons
received pocket money for their journey. Initially this was about 5 shillings, but later it
was increased to £1. Where necessary, the DPs were also provided with clothes.
The recruitment of German women for the North Sea scheme was carried out
differently and involved the German labour offices. They forwarded information and
advertising material to interested women and tried to draw attention to the recruitment
scheme by putting up posters.198 Sometimes members of staff wrote to potential recruits.
Adverts appeared in the press and on the radio, and posters were displayed in public
buildings or other prominent places.199 In addition, the local labour offices also checked
the applicants’ formal criteria, in particular their age, family status and length of
residence in the zone. They collected the signed application forms and filled out two
personal record cards for each applicant. Furthermore, they were in charge of checking
that the applicants handed in two character references from respectable citizens,
preferably a medical doctor or a pastor. At the same time the employment offices asked
for police records. The completed documents were then passed on to the main
employment office for that particular Land, which forwarded them to the Regional
Labour Officers and the regional Chief Manpower Officer. At this point responsibility
passed back to the main employment offices. Here, dates and locations of interviews for
interested women were arranged, and translators provided if necessary.
Today the migrants have only scattered memories of the recruitment process, a radio
advertisement, for example: ‘My sister came running to me telling me what she had heard
in the radio, that they were looking for workers in England. That was our chance.’200
Others got to know about the scheme through newspapers or posters: ‘Such a big poster
with a nurse in a white hat on it, I remember that well.’201 In contrast, memories of the
interview have faded; only fragments were remembered, such as the fact that the British
officer wore civilian clothes and that he spoke ‘German without any accent at all’.202
Other details remembered were the brevity of the interview, the credulity of the British
officers203 and relief that the political check was not at all strict: ‘I feared that my
membership [in the National Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (NSDAP)] would
destroy my plans but that was not the case. I was waiting and waiting but no one asked
me these questions.’204 Apparently the British officers relied completely on the German
references and the information provided by the German police. They were obviously
more interested in formalities such as age, place of birth and physical condition, in
qualifications and former work places. ‘The question was: Where had we worked before,
but politically they didn’t really bother us.’205 In many cases a thorough political
examination would not have made much sense since many applicants were not even 18
when they applied to go to Britain and hence would have only experienced the National
Socialist era as children. They still needed the signature of their parents in order to leave
for Britain. Finally, the medical examination was remembered as a very unpleasant
experience: ‘That was very humiliating. They were all Jewish doctors and we were very
young girls and we had to parade in front of them, only dressed in our knickers. They
wanted to see from our breasts whether we were pregnant or not. And then they even
touched us. That was really insulting. Somehow, we were all very ashamed.’206
None of the surviving written sources provide any detailed information as to how the
interviews were carried out. Nor are there any explanations of why women were turned
 German migrants in post-war britian 70

down, apart from health reasons, pregnancy, or if they were obviously more interested in
finding a husband than working in Britain.207 In November 1948, 940 out of 5,400—
about a fifth—applying for the North Sea scheme had been rejected.208 In addition, about
20 per cent who had successfully applied later withdrew.209 No figures exist for the
percentage of Sudeten Germans who were rejected. It is assumed that the numbers would
have been relatively small in view of the severe labour shortage in the British cotton
industry and the relatively low interest shown for work in this industry. Rejection was not
necessarily the end of the road for those wanting to enter Britain, and equally, women
who themselves decided to withdraw from the scheme did not necessarily stay in
Germany. There was still the possibility of getting an individual labour permit. In effect,
the British government was competing against itself: Those who were recruited through
government schemes had to commit themselves to hard work in the health system or the
constraints of living in a household. The idea of working in a hospital for mentally ill
people or patients with tuberculosis held little appeal for some women, as did living on a
farm, miles from the nearest town, and single-handedly looking after a large family.
In comparison, an individual labour permit offered the prospect of getting a job in a
well-to-do private household, preferably in London, where the work might even be
shared amongst several domestic staff. It is therefore not surprising that the North Sea
scheme was most successful before there were alternative ways of getting to Britain. In
the first four days following the announcement alone, there were 1,500 applicants.210
However, the longer the scheme ran the more difficult it became to fill the places. An
early indication that this would happen was a comment in February 1948 from a member
of the Control Commission. He reported that all Britons in Germany, ‘from General
Bishop downwards’, made efforts to hire a German domestic for home, usually via the
old boy network.211 As government schemes lost their appeal, interest in private and
individually organised work places increased. In April 1949, British officials involved in
recruiting had great difficulty bringing just 400 German women to Britain, whereas the
monthly average for non-organised labour permits issued to domestic workers during this
period was between 600 and 800, and recipients included women who had previously
been rejected by the North Sea scheme.212

The journey
Amongst the numerous camps administered by the British Military Government,
UNRRA and German authorities for various purposes and population groups, three were
of particular importance for German recruits: The Assembly Centre in Hanover for
domestics and war brides, the Assembly Centre Lincoln Barracks in Münster for DPs
(and also for Sudeten Germans until it closed in September 1949), and finally, the
Assembly Centre Mecklenbeck nr. Münster for women of the North Sea scheme, and
later also for the Sudeten Germans.213
During the early post-war years, regular transport services remained severely
disrupted, if they were running at all. The Hanover camp offered women travelling with
individual labour permits and pre-paid tickets temporary accommodation and other forms
of assistance. In 1949, a recruit for private domestic work gave an account of her
experience: ‘Our employer paid our travel costs to the travel agent […] in London. They
in turn, organised our whole journey very well. We had to assemble in Hanover on 29
 Life and work in post-war Britian 71

August. There we stayed at the transit house for a day, where we were well looked after,
free of charge. During this time we were examined by a doctor, our luggage was checked
by customs, we were given our Dutch transit visas and any further documents we needed.
We were then given £1 pocket money for the journey. From Hanover, we took a special
British official train to the Hook of Holland; we sat in a special 2nd Class compartment
for German travellers. On our journey we were served food in the buffet car. An agent
from the Mueller travel agency was waiting for us at Hook of Holland, and he took us to
our ship. We slept the night on board and the following day, at midday, we arrived at
Harwich (England). Here there was another customs check, where they hardly looked at
our luggage, only our papers. […] Following another brief look at our papers, we were
taken from Harwich to London, where the majority of my travel companions were
already expected. […] The next day we were picked up again and each put on the correct
train. These staff members all spoke reasonably understandable German. When we
reached our destinations, we were welcomed by our employers.’214
The second important camp was the Lincoln Barracks in Minister. Until the end of
September 1949, those travelling to the Hook of Holland under Westward Ho prepared
for their journey here. As the British insisted on categorising Sudeten Germans as DPs
rather than German citizens, for the sake of consistency DPs and the Sudeten Germans
were accommodated together. According to a contemporary observer, the women here
were ‘heartily’ cared for by ‘a good German widow of an officer’.215 The German Red
Cross and Caritas were present, and the women were also allowed to go to church, or to
the cinema, opera and the zoo. A nearby stadium offered sports activities, but the
swimming pool and tennis courts were reserved for the use of British soldiers and their
families.216
Mecklenbeck was perhaps the best known camp, and it operated as a transit camp
from the beginning of September 1948 until the end of July 1950.217 During this time,
127 group transports left for Britain.218 The camp came under the jurisdiction of the
Manpower Division of the Control Commission, but was managed by Margarete
Fuhrmann, a member of staff at the Münster labour office. It consisted of three large huts
in a horseshoe shape. On 3 September 1948 it became the subject of media attention. The
first of the North Sea travelling contingents had arrived, some 100 women, who would
continue their journey the following day via the Hook of Holland to Britain. The Minister
of Employment for North Rhine-Westphalia, August Halbfell, wished them well and
‘reminded the girls of their responsible duties as Germans in England, and asked them to
reinforce the good impression left by our prisoners of war’.219 Political speeches are often
open to criticism, and here too it is debatable as to why these women, recruited by the
British, should suddenly be expected to take on the role of ambassadors. Many were
turning their backs on a country that offered them very little future, and in which many
had suffered the harsh realities of refugee life. Apparently it was not enough to simply
wish them luck and offer them the promise of an open door and a helping hand should
they decide to return in the future.
A look at the occupational breakdown of this first group suggests that these women
were carefully chosen to fulfil certain British expectations. There were nursery and
hospital nurses, medical-technical assistants, office clerks, administrators, students and
only a few domestics.220 Most had been scarred by the war or the post-war period: When
they were medically examined—the last chance to check for any contagious diseases or
 German migrants in post-war britian 72

pregnancies whilst still in continental Europe, and probably get an indication of who was
still a virgin—the camp doctor bemoaned the ‘general bad condition of the teeth’.221
Once more, the women had to negotiate a series of bureaucratic hurdles. They each
received their travel papers, stamped with the relevant residency and work permits, in a
‘cream coloured cardboard envelope’.222 Their luggage was checked, and during the
process they were told which region of England they would be going to. Different
coloured luggage tags were used to show where they would be going. And finally, they
were asked to write to Mecklenbeck to provide an account of their experiences. This gave
rise to a remarkable collection of personal letters. Several of these were even translated
for the British selection committees. It took a strong interest in order to optimise its
efforts and be able to deal with any complaints about local living or working conditions:
‘One letter reporting unhappy and difficult conditions does more harm to the continued
success of recruitment in Germany, than any number of letters from happy and satisfied
girls.’223
The daily routine at Mecklenbeck ran according to a set of strict rules.224 Residents
were woken at 7 a.m., and then called, room by room over the loud speaker, to morning
ablutions. The rest of the day was also highly structured, right up until ‘lights out’ at
10:30 p.m. Unauthorised persons were forbidden to enter the camp. The police made sure
that ‘neither in the evening or during the night any unscrupulous elements approached or
crept into the camp’.225
Despite the almost military discipline it appears that time passed quickly at
Mecklenbeck. Presumably the communal activities were intended to distract from
possible feelings of worry, uncertainty and anxiety that could arise in the somewhat
stressful circumstances. Camp manager Margarete Fuhrmann reported on the daily
routine in January 1949. ‘Each contingent stays here for three days. […] The girls all
arrive at different times, so that the first day is taken up with registering and allocating
rooms. On the second day there is passport inspection and, following that, a brief medical
examination. Then, on the same morning, a photographer comes and takes a picture of
each of the girls. The photographs are developed before the girls leave, so that they can
take the pictures with them to England. […] On the morning of the third day, the girls
relax before their long journey. At 2 o’clock there is a brief customs check, at 3:30 a cup
of coffee, and then at 4:30 the girls leave the camp and go to Mecklenbeck railway
station. There, they board two specially prepared German wagons, that will be coupled to
the German international train in Marienthal, Münster, which then takes them to the
Hook of Holland.’226
For the majority this was their first trip abroad, and they prepared themselves for it as
well as their circumstances would allow. Most owned a suitcase, but few had much to put
in it—minimal toilet items, some underwear and perhaps a second dress. In many cases,
the only belongings a woman had were the clothes she stood up in. Many intended to buy
a complete new wardrobe once in Britain. Even so, a lot of the recruits felt it especially
important to create a good impression by the way they looked, and managed to assemble
rather attractive wardrobes for the time despite quite modest means. Hand stitched shoes,
that could be swapped for ten packets of cigarettes, remained a rare treat that few could
afford. However, zip-up coats made from dyed blankets were quite common. Sometimes
there may have been a couple of dresses bought on the black market, a pullover, and if
someone was really well supplied, a skirt made out of uniform trousers and dyed black:
 Life and work in post-war Britian 73

‘Now, I wore this apricot coloured pullover, with black stripes. It was long haired
Angora, from France I believe, and over this I wore a black coat. You see, we looked
good; actually we were all quite well dressed.’227
Many remembered the railway station at the Dutch border. Passports were stamped
there, but more importantly, they were also given hot tea. The Hook of Holland crossing
was also often remembered through logistical details. The ships that made the crossing to
Harwich were sometimes comfortable and sometimes less so. Some women on military
transport ships slept in hammocks or on cotton mats in the hold. Others spent the night in
twin birth cabins on elegant passenger liners complete with cabin service. For those who
had never been on a ship before it was a fantastic adventure, but for the seasick
passengers the crossing was a necessary evil they were glad to forget. They often
travelled in quite large groups with other recruited women or paying passengers.
Sometimes such groups were segregated, to prevent tensions arising between DP’s,
Germans or Austrians, for example. As a letter written in 1949 indicates, it also appears
that not all groups were treated entirely equally: ‘Altogether, we were 200 Reich
Germans and 23 Sudeten Germans. We always received preferential treatment.’228
Another woman put it more bluntly: ‘When we arrived in England, we noticed that we
were being favoured, more than the Reich German and Austrian girls, who arrived with
us. We soon realised that here we were DPs.’229
In Britain, the workforce recruited under Westward Ho and the North Sea scheme
became the responsibility of reception camps, holding camps and hostels until they were
placed with an employer. In the early phase of Westward Ho, the DPs were sent to
reception camps near London and Hull, but later the West Wratting Camp near
Cambridge, which also served as a holding camp, took over this function. There were
further holding camps at Lochinver near Edinburgh, Full Sutton in Yorkshire, Inskip in
Lancashire, Childs Ercall in Shropshire, Bedhampton in Hampshire, and Chandler’s Ford
near Southampton. Special hostels for family members were established in Hull, Alsager
(Staffordshire) and West Wells (Wiltshire).230 Whilst the ethnic Germans recruited under
Westward Ho could be sent to any of the above mentioned camps, the Sudeten German
women, recruited for the cotton industry, had to go either directly to Inskip, or arrived
there after a brief stay at West Wratting. The women of the North Sea scheme, on the
other hand, usually went to the Hyde Park Square Hostel in London, at least until
December 1948. Later they were sent to West Wratting.231
Many of the women remember their arrival at Harwich as being more like the
beginning of a short holiday or excursion rather than the start of new phase of working
life. Everything was organised. The immigration formalities were dealt with quickly. This
was followed by ‘the most beautiful moment’ of the whole journey: The receipt of the
promised £1 pocket money.232 Volunteers from charitable organisations then escorted the
recruits to their camp or hostel. The journey usually continued directly to London or
Cambridge by train. The degree of comfort surprised them. Third class carriages did not
have wooden benches, as they did in Germany, and even on the relatively short ride to
London, ‘bread, cake and tea’ was once again served.233 For some it was more of an
adventure to travel from Harwich to London by bus: ‘And then the big double-deckers
arrived, that were to take us to London. Well, some of them hadn’t even seen a single-
decker before, because they were from the countryside. There was great excitement, it
caused a real stir. They were dying to ride upstairs on a double-decker. […] And then the
 German migrants in post-war britian 74

bright lights of London, again there was great excitement. Then in London, we were
taken to a hostel in Hyde Park, that was not so special. We noticed on the first day, that
most of the staff were Polish workers, that had arrived a long time before us. They
wanted to explain to us how to use a lavatory and things like that.’234
It dawned on some women, during their journey or by the time they arrived in Britain
at the very latest, that they were not the only ones to have been recruited. Depending on
where they were staying or where they worked, they came across other foreigners daily.
The experience was not always without tension. The experience of the migrant quoted
above was echoed in a letter, written by another, in January 1949: ‘When we arrived at
the [Hyde Park] hostel, we were closer to crying than laughing. The welcome was awful,
because Polish and Czech women work at this hostel, and these do not like us at all.’235
Kitted out with a ration book and the princely sum of £1 to spend, many found London
to be the biggest event of their lives so far. They went sight-seeing and stared in
amazement at shop windows full of goods. They strolled in the parks, gazed in awe at
London’s finer buildings, and were sorely tempted by nylon stockings and the range of
food that was available. ‘We went off to spend our £1. You could buy lots of stuff. I still
remember, you could buy fruit on the street, for me that was like paradise. And then off
to see Trafalgar Square, Buckingham Palace, etc.’236 Cigarettes were also extremely
popular: ‘A three day stay in London was great, all the girls bought stockings and all
sorts of stuff; the first thing I bought was 40 cigarettes.’237
For those who bypassed London, the first impressions of England were somewhat
sobering: Reality did not match the high hopes and expectations: ‘That was bleak, grey,
gloomy’, remembered Margarete. ‘The weather was bad, well it was January, but there
was no green, everything was dead. And we looked at each other, what have we done?
What is awaiting us?’238 The smoke from thousands of chimneys, the awful air pollution
and the unaccustomed sight of sooty terraced housing in the industrial towns did not
correspond with the traditional image of idyllic green countryside or imperial might.
There were also huge differences in the comfort, location and appearance of a hostel in
London on the one hand, and the Nissen huts of the former RAF camp at West Wratting,
13 miles outside Cambridge, on the other.239

Domestic service and working in the National Health Service (NHS)

Their time in holdings camps came to an end when the women were sent on to their
allotted work places. The particular jobs they were given were supposed to correspond
with their individual wishes, professional suitability and experience, and their language
abilities. None of the migrants recruited under the North Sea scheme knew in advance
who they would be working for or what they would be doing. Moreover, they had fewer
choices in terms of work than the DPs. They were restricted to working in hospitals or
nursing homes in jobs where no extra training was needed, for example in the kitchens,
canteens, laundries or as cleaners or caring for patients in the wards. They could be sent
to orphanages and children’s homes, where there was a great demand for domestics. Or
they could be employed in hardship households that housed farmers, doctors, clergymen,
invalids or the elderly. Occasionally there were openings in factories, as long as the union
concerned was willing to sanction employing German women. This was the case in
 Life and work in post-war Britian 75

several sweet plants, in those making stockings and underwear, and in the Scottish textile
industry.
Some women had decided which region they wanted to live in or the type of work
they wanted to do. They were also clear about what they would rather not do, if at all
possible, for example, working in a TB hospital.240 Others did not want to work as
domestics. After all they could have done this sort of work in Germany. And as well as
having opinions on the nature and location of the job (there was greater demand for a job
in London than there were opportunities available), some were also strongly influenced
by their peers. While some did not mind where they went for the first two years, others
would wait until they could be placed with their friends.
In the larger camps, new jobs would be announced over the loudspeaker. Those who
were interested would report to the Placing Officer. In the smaller London hostels, the
women would gather in the recreation room where somebody from the labour exchange
would arrive to read out the vacancies. The women could decide there and then and put
up their hand if they were interested. There was relative freedom of choice, as long as
there were more vacancies than applicants.
Then came the last stage of the process. Suitcases had to be packed again, and for
some this took a little longer than when they left Germany. Coats and luggage were
labelled with names and destinations, and the recruits were accompanied by volunteers
from British charities to the bus or train station. Larger groups were escorted all the way
to their destination. There they would be met, either by their employer or another set of
volunteers, and taken to their workplaces and accommodation. The routine of working
life was about to begin again, and with it came the realisation that the Britain that existed
beyond London bore little resemblance to the traditional image presented abroad. ‘We
took a train, from Kings Cross station I believe, to Nottingham. I still clearly remember
the awful junk and mountains of rubbish. It was terrible. I will never forget it, it was
horrible.’241 Hard work awaited the women, especially those going to a hardship
household. Like all migrants recruited by the government, they were tied to their
employer and could not change jobs without the permission of the labour office. In this
respect they were very restricted in comparison to those who had travelled to Britain on
individual work permits. Although the latter were also obliged to remain with the same
employer for at least 12 months, a study carried out in London and the South East by the
Ministry of Labour in 1951 found that 13 per cent of newly employed foreign domestics
changed jobs within the first three months, and that 30 per cent did so within their first
year of employment. An above average number of these were Germans.242
The numerous letters sent to German labour offices and the Mecklenbeck camp
between September 1948 and November 1949 vividly record the living and working
conditions these women experienced. We were not able to establish how many of these
letters were written as it appears a number were subsequently destroyed, probably along
with other apparently ‘unimportant’ files. Only about 50 letters still remain at the Public
Records Office, some in German and some translated into English.243 The general tone of
the early letters is positive, even enthusiastic in some cases, but from about mid-1949
there is an increasing number of complaints. This may be because it was only letters of
complaint that were deemed worthy of keeping. Or it could indicate that the women who
decided early on to go to Britain had far fewer illusions about their future and were more
dissatisfied with the situation in Germany than those who travelled later on. The latter
 German migrants in post-war britian 76

may even, perhaps, have acted on positive reports coming from Britain, and thus had
higher expectations.
The same trend appears in the letters written by women working on farms. There are
17 of these, of which 9 are generally contented in tone and 8 contain complaints. With
two exceptions the positive letters were all written in 1948. The letter from Sylvia S.,
however, illustrates the extent to which individual attitudes to life influenced personal
appreciations. She was sent to Wales, where the farmhouse had yet to see the comforts of
electric lighting or a cooker: ‘I have ended up on a farm, and a really nice one at that. In
the mornings and evenings I go into the cow shed, armed with a bucket for the milk. On
the second day that I was here, the farmer’s wife went into hospital and gave birth to her
second child. I took care of the household alone. Cooking on an open fire was really fun.
The food is good. Every day there is pudding and always white bread and cakes. I would
give a whole week’s wages just for some good Westphalian Schwarzbrot. The population
is very friendly. I am invited to all manner of events. Our farm is on a mountain and has a
view down onto the sea. It only takes half an hour to get down to the beach. I had better
finish now, as my candle is wilting.’244 Hanna S. also felt happy on the farm she had been
posted to in Leicestershire. This was in part due to the various invitations for outings she
received from villagers, a co-worker who was a former German POW, and the further
seven ex-POWs who lived in the village and with whom she could go to the pub, cinema
or church. Furthermore, her employer had sent a generous parcel of food to her parents in
Germany.245
Those who were not happy on farms complained about the hard work, long hours,
little leisure time, poor relationships with their employers, loneliness and the inability to
communicate. ‘I am so totally alone here on the farm, and I hardly speak any English. If
only I could find another German girl’, wrote Else B.246 Sisters Luise and Helga S. were
fortunate enough to be posted together and were surrounded by friendly people. But
despite this: ‘We are so homesick, please help us. […] Everyone is very kind to us, but
we can’t bear it.’247 Many who wanted to leave farms did not necessarily wish to return to
Germany. Instead they preferred work in a British hospital where the wages were better
and there were often dozens of other German women working.248 It is possible that an
awareness of the better conditions in towns and cities reinforced the sense of
dissatisfaction felt by some of the farm workers.
A similar picture is revealed in the letters written by five women who worked in
hardship households. Elisabeth D., who was the housekeeper for two elderly people
during 1948, was one of those who enjoyed her work.249 Gerda M., on the other hand,
was not at all satisfied with the hard work she had to do, or with the vicar’s wife who
proved impossible to please.250 Brigitte F. who, together with a friend, worked in a
household in Aberdeen, also complained bitterly about the work and the thinness of the
bedding: ‘After working here for 14 days we both are almost despairing. We start work at
6:45 in the morning and finish about 8:00 at night and often later. On New Year’s Eve we
had to iron until 10:30 p.m. That is not unusual. On Christmas Eve and on the following
two holidays we had not one minute free and it will be the same thing on New Year’s
Day.’251
It must be assumed that at least some of these complaints would have been
investigated by the local labour exchanges. In the above case, records have been kept of
the report made by a welfare officer from the Aberdeen labour exchange who interviewed
 Life and work in post-war Britian 77

all parties concerned.252 In his report, he confirmed the long working hours but also
added: ‘They admit they are not hard pushed, but find they are never finished.’ The
employer conceded that her domestics did work unusually long hours, but blamed it on
the way they worked. ‘She was surprised when the girls told her that they were rising at
6:45 am as breakfast is at 8:00 am and all that is asked of them by that time is that the
house table-maid should dust the two consulting rooms, which had taken her 20 minutes
and lay the breakfast table and that the cook general should clean the front steps and door
step (four or five altogether) and prepare the breakfast, for which there is usually no
cooking’. The report then continued to give a full range of examples of what the
employer considered to be the girls’ time-consuming disorganisation.
Irrespective of whether the complaints were justified or not, this case highlights
cultural differences that were the cause of many a young woman’s dissatisfaction. Based
on experience, English employers expected certain tasks to be achieved within a certain
time. For them, their relationship with their domestic staff was purely professional and
governed by a detailed contract. Many of the recruits, however, had no prior experience
of this kind of work or the skills required. Also, in Britain it was usual practice to
individually agree all the details of the employer-employee relationship at the start of
employment. This was totally foreign to many German workers. Furthermore, culturally
they were more likely to accept what an employer said than ask for changes on the basis
of formal regulations set out in a negotiated and detailed contract. The ignorance of one
was coupled with the unwillingness of the other, who refrained from acting ‘because they
think they will offend their employer, with their apparent lack of faith’.253
Women who were unaware of their rights and responsibilities continually found
themselves with new tasks that they simply assumed belonged to their area of duties. ‘In
the household, there is often an inability to negotiate a correct agreement with the house
wife, due to language difficulties. And in England a lot of things are based upon freely
negotiated agreements’, warned the German National Federation of Catholic Associations
for the Protection of Young Women in 1950. ‘The Ministry of Labour has, therefore,
introduced a minimum wage. […] But free time, holidays and church service visits are all
issues that require individually negotiated agreements—social attitudes in England are
certainly based upon a positive sense of “fairness”, but on the other hand it is expected
that everyone protects their own rights.’254
Not every British employer operated within scrupulously negotiated contracts and not
every domestic was simply imagining that her hours were too long or too hard. There
were real instances of exploitation and unreasonable working conditions, and not all
migrants were able to protect themselves or get redress by complaining. If they did not
know it when they started, the German women, along with other foreign domestics,
quickly realised that they missed out on the better jobs by a long way. This was due to the
intrinsic logic of the system that gave locals priority. This meant that foreigners could
only be employed in jobs where no British candidate could be found to fill the vacancy.
Therefore posts offering the best pay and conditions were already taken by British
workers, or foreigners who had been in Britain for longer.
Further problems in the area of interpersonal relations within households stemmed
from false expectations some recruits held about their specific role. A number of women
saw themselves as au pairs rather than a mere domestic. They expected to work, but also
hoped to take on the role of mother’s helper. Several managed to achieve this, but others
 German migrants in post-war britian 78

were forced to recognise that becoming a part of the family was not part of their contract
and they remained ‘bound to the kitchen and their room’.255 In 1951, Gerhard
Stratenwerth of the German Ecclesiastical Foreign Department, noted with due irony: ‘It
was lovely, for instance, when the young Countess X. explained how she would
immediately disappear into the kitchen, with the children, the moment the family had a
visitor. For here she is no longer a countess, nothing but a serving girl, who is socially
completely unacceptable. The daughter of a university professor did become part of the
family sphere, but she is far from convinced that she was in a better position than the
Countess, because she is not allowed to utter a word at the table. She must listen to the
conversation, but keep her own opinions to herself. Having twice had the pleasure of
observing the speechless amazement caused by her having made a remark, she has now
decided, on compassionate grounds, to spare her English employers any such further
excitement.’256
Another peculiarity was that even as early as the immediate post-war years, German
domestics were posted to work in Jewish households. Marion Berghahn has already
written about this in her study on Continental Britons. Some Jewish families refused
point blank to employ a German domestic, whilst others did employ Germans but hid
from them the fact that they were a Jewish family. A third group had no reservations and
embraced the opportunity for their children ‘to pick up some German’.257 Amongst the
writers of the above mentioned letters, there was one who complained bitterly about the
demands of a household that included four children and a heavily pregnant housewife.258
In contrast, another wrote of being treated like a daughter and found her employer
‘awfully nice’.259 One of our interviewee, worked for an elderly Jewish couple. She was a
Sudeten German who, following her expulsion from the Sudetenland, met and fell in love
with a young survivor of the Shoah. He then moved to London, and with the help of the
necessary labour permit, managed to bring her over to join him.260 Finally, a former
Catholic church assistant who was active in north-west England from 1960 to 1962
reported the ‘very many German girls’ placed in Jewish households. These were usually
well-to-do Jewish families, who had been based in England for a long time and who
spoke English at home. They valued the talents of their German au pairs highly.261
The feelings and attitudes of German migrants who worked as domestics in British
households are characterised by a certain ambivalence and are difficult to generalise
about. Usually a lot was expected during long working hours, there was little time off and
few holidays. At first glance the wages appear low in comparison to other employment
opportunities, about £1.5–2 per week (including free board and lodging). Language
difficulties and unfulfilled expectations, loneliness and homesickness were also
significant problems. The living and working conditions, although on the surface very
similar, were often perceived very differently. Most interviewees did not have much to
say when talking about their work, which is hardly surprising given the daily monotony
and apparent simplicity of their domestic activities.
The work carried out by women working as ward assistants or kitchen or cleaning
staff in hospitals, TB clinics and psychiatric institutions was not much less physically
demanding than farm work. These jobs were also difficult to fill with local labour or the
foreign workforce already resident in Britain. Despite this, almost all who worked in
these institutions were satisfied with their choice. This is recorded not only in the
 Life and work in post-war Britian 79

surviving letters, sent to Mecklenbeck in 1948/49, in which 15 of the 16 letter writers

express positive views,262 but also in the interviews that took place half a century later.
Keeping the health system equipped with staff remained the responsibility of the
government in the post-war period, just as it had during the war when nurses and staff
from the West Indies and doctors from all parts of the Commonwealth had been
recruited.263 Despite the reasonable status that nursing enjoyed and the high reputation it
had earned in the eyes of the public during the war, all disciplines were short of staff. In
1949, the Ministry of Labour launched an extensive campaign called ‘Staffing the
Hospitals’.264 According to the ministry, the lack of interest shown by British women was
not only because the wages were low. They were also put off by the long working hours,
the amount of overtime, the lack of free time (and its effect on socialising, friendships
and family life), the standard of board and lodging and finally, the strict hospital
discipline. The ministry admitted that in some instances these criticisms were valid, but
insisted that it was wrong to generalise.265 This appears to have been a rather too
optimistic view, as the findings of an official report into TB clinics and hospitals,
undertaken by the ministry itself and published soon afterwards, was to show. The report
found that most of the establishments were incredibly labour-intensive to run. Some had
good accommodation for nurses, but generally the living quarters for staff fell below
expected standards. It also recorded that staff shortages led to long working hours, and
the work itself was strenuous and uninteresting.266
Recruiting foreigners who, due to their own dire circumstances were less choosy than
the local workforce, offered the health service a short-term solution at least. It was in this
context that huge numbers of Irish women were employed, and that Baltic DPs were
recruited under the Balt Cygnet scheme. The latter soon developed into the Westward Ho
scheme, which recruited DPs for other sections of the economy. In addition there were
the German women recruited under the North Sea scheme which was followed almost
immediately by the widespread recruitment of labour from colonies and the
Commonwealth. The fact that often several—sometimes dozens—of migrant workers of
the same nationality were employed at the same establishment, made working in the
health service far more attractive for many of the recruits than working as a domestic in a
household.267 They did not feel so isolated and the other women’s company helped ease
homesickness. Furthermore, the Ministry of Labour’s welfare officers, volunteers from
British charities and other local clubs and churches could keep in contact with them more
easily than they could with the domestics scattered throughout the country.
Letters and our interviews revealed a generally positive response to initial meetings
with superiors and colleagues. These were sometimes marked by a rather distant
friendliness, and some women even felt as if they were being observed with
‘suspicion’.268 Most have vivid memories of arriving at their new places of work. They
were thrilled by the fireplaces, stoves and heating, the washing facilities, showers and
baths, and especially by the continuous supply of hot water. They were also overjoyed to
have their own room, something they had so painfully missed at home, and by the fact
that they did not even have to clean their rooms themselves. The contrast with their
experiences in Germany could not have been greater. A single room, even in a wooden
extension, was ‘fantastic’ because you did not have to share it with anyone.269
Tempering the joy of comfortable accommodation, however, was initial uneasiness for
those who found themselves working in psychiatric hospitals. A few women were so
 German migrants in post-war britian 80

shocked they wanted to return home immediately.270 Some of those sent to work at TB
hospitals had similar reactions, and the tests they underwent to check their immune
systems and suitability for the jobs only increased their anxiety: ‘Tuberculosis was a
greatly feared disease in England at the time. People even told us, later on, that this
hospital was known as “The Last Place”. Whoever was sent to that hospital never came
out again, and that included the staff. Oh well, that’s what we found out later. […] Before
we were allowed on to the wards we were given injections in the forearm to find out if
our bodies could resist tuberculosis. My injection flared up the very next day, and my
arm became heavy and stiff, which meant I was sent straight onto the wards. […] Others,
whose arms did not flare up, were then employed as dining room or kitchen maids, or
they became waitresses in the doctor’s restaurants or the nurses dining rooms.’271
Most of the German migrants had little nursing experience and were taught on the
wards. Experienced nurses explained the most important procedures, step by step. They
worked a 48-hour week over six days, and their duties included cleaning the ward,
helping wash patients, serving meals and taking temperatures. Many did not have to clean
their own rooms but did have to clean the ward. Changing bedding and polishing floors to
keep them gleaming was hard work,272 but it was not as unpleasant as having to empty
the cuspidors or spittoons.273 As time went by the women were given more responsible
tasks such as distributing medication and writing up patient reports, which in turn raised
their status and self-confidence.
On the other side, some who worked on TB wards felt that outside work they were
being stigmatised. If they were at a dance and happened to mention where they worked,
for example, dance partners would not be so numerous, and men that they might already
have been out with would fail to turn up for their next date.274 The feeling that away from
hospital one was viewed as an outcast may have been an added psychological burden,
although none of our interviewees showed any clear sign of this.
Overall the German nurses found working with patients a positive experience. Many
showed his or her gratitude by giving them chocolate or cigarettes, although strictly
speaking accepting gifts was prohibited. Sometimes close relationships were formed,
especially with children on the ward. The patients’ reactions often reinforced the
women’s conviction that they were doing a meaningful job, and this contributed to a very
positive self-image. It also appears that in certain respects the German nurses were
different. This was expressed in statements such as ‘we were gentler and more
understanding’, or ‘they simply loved us’. But there were also patients ‘that did not wish
to be looked after by a German’.275
Generally the German workers had few difficulties with patients, but irrespective of
national stereotypes, they often had problems with the extremely strict hospital discipline:
‘What made me unhappy were the hospital superiors. They drove me mad, the discipline
was so severe.’276 Hospitals operated according to stringent regulations. The matron stood
at the top of the nursing structure. She commanded a rigid, hierarchically organised staff
and thus had a decisive influence over the atmosphere of a hospital. Some held anti-
German views,277 while others proved extremely popular. With few exceptions, a sense of
fair play governed working relationships. Anti-German remarks were promptly punished,
as one Jewish staff member found out for himself when he referred to his colleague as a
‘German barbarian’. He was immediately moved to another hospital, whilst the recipient
received all manner of support.278
 Life and work in post-war Britian 81

Some of those interviewed emphasised that working conditions in the hospitals were
very different to what they had been used to. These comments usually came from women
who, because they had come from higher up the social ladder in Germany or were
relatively experienced or well educated, felt disadvantaged in Britain. They recalled the
strict hierarchical order of the staff on the wards in particular, the different dining rooms
for doctors, nurses and general personnel, and the fact that these social divisions were
carried through even outside the workplace. Migrants coming from an urban environment
often compared Britain to Germany unfavourably: ‘During this period the hospitals in
England were very, very poor. There was a big room with 25 patients perhaps. It was
cold in the winter. The wind blew and then dust fell down (soot from the chimney) and
smoke came out, and the people had to fight for air.’279 Some found several other
characteristics strange and antiquated, such as the bed making: ‘Those sheets and
blankets, one, two, three sometimes even four blankets on top of each other, and each one
had to be put on one at a time.’280 Aspects of the uniform also caused indignation:
‘Whoever went onto the wards received a green house coat and then we were given little
bonnets, which were like something from the middle ages. They were drawn together
with an elastic band and they were so frilly. And we thought: Well, they are pretty
backward here. We couldn’t say it out loud, but we thought it; that can’t be right, so old
fashioned. […] But after a few weeks we did complain a bit about our silly hats. And
then we were given proper bonnets, we had achieved what we wanted.’281
The nurses’ and student nurses’ uniforms were far from antiquated. On the contrary,
they were highly professional and were featured in the official, bi-lingual brochure
Scheme for Training German Girls as State Registered Nurses in Great Britain to boost
recruitment.282 They were regarded as a special group within the North Sea scheme.
Between August 1948 and May 1950, 766 student nurses came to Britain to be trained,
58 fully qualified nurses and 798 nursing orderlies were also recruited at the same
time.283 In addition, many of the women arriving in Britain with qualifications were able
to swap their job for a position as a trainee nurse. There was a huge demand for nurses. In
the late 1940s, approximately 22,000 women enrolled annually on the 3–4-year courses
to train as a nurse, less than half of them managed to successfully complete their
training.284 Potential candidates from Germany had to satisfy some quite tough criteria to
even be considered to train as nurses in Britain. They had to be between 18 and 25 years
old, have a ‘good education’, and in addition have reasonable oral and written English.
They had to be fit and healthy and willing to commit themselves to stay for the duration
of the course.285 German labour offices were involved in the selection process. They
organised a series of medical check-ups and written tests, which many failed. In
December 1948, for example, 120 applicants were invited to interviews for a total of just
30 vacancies.286
The first group of 50 German student nurses arrived in Britain on 15 August 1948.
The Ministry of Labour viewed this as something of an experiment to see how the media
and the public would react to allowing Germans to work in this sensitive area.287 The
women enjoyed special treatment, noticeably better than what was usual for the North
Sea scheme. Instead of being sent straight to one of the four training hospitals that had
been specially selected for them, they (and several other groups following them) were
sent to the state-run Nursing Reception Centre at Colwyn Bay on the Welsh coast for
 German migrants in post-war britian 82

three weeks. There, they received English language tuition and were also given
information about the country and their future profession.288
In common with other trainees, the German student nurses were constantly observed
by their teachers and matrons, as well as by the British Red Cross, which received lists of
names and the hospitals they were training in.289 But despite this special treatment, the
training was demanding and not all got through it: ‘You went to the training school for
three months, where you learned practical things, such as how to deal with patients, but
little theory. Things like how to make beds. Then you were sent to your first ward, where
you naturally felt very stupid; but it was the same for everyone. Some of the nurses were
nice […] others not so nice. But generally I had no complaints there. But of course the
work was dreadfully hard, because of the incredible shortage of staff. Then we were
immediately put on night duty; within the first six months, I think. […] That was very,
very difficult. Work five nights and then two nights off. […] Then when we had finished
a night shift, for example, instead of going to bed, we had to go to the classroom for a
two-hour lesson. […] We were the first two Germans. My colleague was very unhappy.
She was in the room next to mine, and one morning I went in because it was so quiet. I
found a note lying on her bed, it said: Dear Monika when you read this, I will be dead.
She had gone away to commit suicide. She had a very strict father and she did not dare go
home and tell him: I can’t do this, it is too hard for me. She was very homesick. She was
a very sensitive girl. But she survived, thank God.’290
The Ministry of Labour was very keen to see the experiment succeed, and in its
records the German student nurses are praised in the highest terms. A report from the Old
Church County Hospital in Romford, where 15 women from the first group started their
training in November 1948, noted that ‘these students were intelligent, keenly interested
in nursing, most industrious and conscientious’. It continued in these positive terms: ‘In
theory and practical work they attained a good standard by constant study and practice,
the initial difficulties of language and foreign environment being largely overcome by the
end of the term. In manners they are most polite, and in appearance neat and clean. On
their entry into the school they appeared to be somewhat apprehensive of their reception
by the other students, but they mixed well and no antagonism was noted. They appear to
be happy on the wards and are taking part in the activities of the Nurses’ Social
League.’291
On the back of these glowing assessments more and more hospitals began to show an
interest in German student nurses. Exactly how many successfully completed their
nursing training is unclear, and not all of the newly qualified nurses chose to remain in
Britain. At the end of 1952, for example, 6 of the 10 student nurses from the first group
who were sent to the Joyce Green Hospital in Dartford had successfully qualified. One of
these married an Englishman and stayed where she was, two had already emigrated to
Canada (probably with their husbands), and another intended to emigrate there as soon as
she had completed her additional training as a midwife. The remaining two had gone
back to Germany for several months.292

Leisure time, partners and problems

In contrast to working on a remote farm, hospital work offered greater opportunities to
make friends and acquaintances. It was also easier to meet future husbands in urban areas
 Life and work in post-war Britian 83

than in the sparsely populated countryside. The particularly cosmopolitan nature of the
hospitals also resulted in some of the North Sea women following boyfriends, fiancés or
husbands to their homes in Canada, Australia, South Africa or some other part of the far-
flung Commonwealth. Unfortunately, there are no statistics for the number of post-war
migrants that married in Britain, but interviews undertaken as part of this study do give
some interesting indications. Of the ten women from the North Sea scheme interviewed,
eight married a British citizen. This includes all six of the women employed in the NHS,
and the two women employed as domestics (one in a home in Blackpool and the other in
a hardship household in Scotland). The remaining two were employed in the textile
industry. Whilst a relatively high number of North Sea recruits that we interviewed
married a British citizen, only one of the women who came to Britain on an individual
labour permit did so. Of the remainder, one married a Pole, one a German and two
Ukrainian. Despite the small size of these samples, they indicate a trend that can be
explained by the greater opportunity to make contact with British men, both inside and
outside the hospital and in other state institutions. It may also reflect a sense of social
status and greater self-confidence as a result of their work that allowed the migrants to
communicate and participate in a British environment with greater ease.
Women employed at hospitals also had more interesting things to do in their leisure
time and greater opportunities to mix with other Germans than those working on farms.
Sometimes they spent their free evenings together, not in the recreation rooms provided
but in someone’s single room (although strictly speaking this was usually not allowed).
This companionship helped when there was a crisis or home seemed particularly far
away: ‘If someone was a bit sad, or things weren’t going right or if they were homesick,
we would all sit down together and help each other out. Keep going, two years is not an
eternity!’293 In addition to this, memories of emotionally charged evenings prior to
Christmas remain particularly strong. On these evenings songs were sung and traditions
from home were played out.
We heard many positive descriptions of work and life generally expressed by women
recruited for the NHS. Work was viewed particularly positively when the migrant
concerned had been given a certain amount of responsibility and recognition for what she
was doing, be that in wards with patients or preparing meals in the kitchens. For those
whose roles included nursing duties, and for those who became fully qualified nurses, the
perceptions of the job were even more positive. This must also have been connected to
their improved social status. All in all, these women enjoyed personal and financial
freedom, and their life and work generally within the community. Often this period was
also important in terms of life history, because it constituted a phase of independence and
self-reliance prior to marriage. Most of the North Sea recruits interviewed got married
between 2 and 5 years after their arrival, which was a lot later than many of the Sudeten
Germans employed in the cotton industry. With marriage, not only did the nurses give up
their personal and financial independence, in many cases they also gave up contact with
other Germans, and sometimes felt isolated as a result.
In contrast to this, a very substantial number of the domestics working in the
countryside suffered from strong feelings of homesickness and isolation, not to mention
boredom, during their leisure time.294 This was particularly true when they first arrived,
and often resulted in frustration and a desire to return home, or to swap either their job or
location. Contemporary British and German reports both warned of the dire consequences
 German migrants in post-war britian 84

of this lack of contact with other people that was usually caused by the language barrier.
The reports spoke of ‘emotional burdens’ and their effects, which in the worst cases
resulted in suicide.295 In many cases the employer remained totally unaware of the
situation, even those who took an interest. Many were concerned for their employees,
with some even going as far as vetting potential English boyfriends.296 Others tried to
prevent the young women from going out, or they worried ‘that they would form
unwelcome friendships, at the local dance’.297 The real fear behind such comments was
that they would form relationships with men who were not white. Such relationships
could happen fairly easily at the international clubs found in most of the larger towns
where foreigners could meet and socialise. Unwanted pregnancies often occurred. For the
woman the consequences could be terrifying, and even more so if the baby’s father was
not British as she faced the threat of deportation.298 The official deportation papers would
read: ‘Medically Unfit—Pregnant.’299 For many, the fear of returning home to Germany
was worse than having a backstreet abortion.

Sudeten Germans

Due to the strength of the unions, the barriers to German women working in the textile
industry were higher and more widespread than those in any other industry. Firms in
Scotland and the Midlands accepted German women from the North Sea scheme as well
as ethnic German workers recruited under Westward Ho. In contrast, the wool industry in
Yorkshire accepted ethnic Germans only, whereas the cotton mills of Lancashire
employed both ethnic Germans and Sudeten Germans. Detailed information on these
migrants is, unfortunately, hard to come by. Official statistics record 1,304 Germans from
the Sudetenland working in Lancashire, but there are no figures for the number of ethnic
Germans employed in the textile industry. The only figure available is the total number of
European Volunteer Workers: 8,647 in the cotton industry (of which 7,546 were female)
and 4,286 in the wool industry (3,173 female).300 The uneven distribution of the
workforce between the two industries—nearly twice as many EVWs in the cotton
industry compared to the woollen industry—shows how important the cotton industry
was for exports and to rebuilding the country after the war.
Any retrospective assessment must take into account the fact that the post-war boom
in Britain’s cotton industry was but a temporary phase in its long-term decline. The
euphoria of the late 1940s was followed in 1952 by the first of many crises that forcibly
reduced the workforce. This decline was clearly already under way in the years following
the depression of the early 1930s. In 1945, the cotton industry employed 189,000 people.
This was half the figure for 1937, and roughly a third of the figure for 1924.301
Production had also been halved by 1945, and 13 million spindles and an estimated
150,000–200,000 looms stood idle in mills that had ceased production and closed.302 The
short-term rise in demand and weakened competition from Asia and Europe in the late
1940s and early 1950s prompted the re-opening of mills and a demand for labour that
was almost insatiable. Cotton exports brought hard currency into the country. This
benefited the population and economic reconstruction generally, although the proposition
that each new worker brought the country the equivalent of £1,000 in US dollars can
hardly have been accurate,303 and the slogan ‘Britain’s bread hangs by Lancashire’s
 Life and work in post-war Britian 85

thread’ wishful thinking rather than a true reflection of the value of the cotton industry to
the economy.304
Thanks to the sobering findings of two official committees that reported in 1944 and
1945 respectively,305 in the immediate post-war years companies and trade unions were
well aware that their industry was far from healthy. According to these enquiries, less
than half the capacity of British spinning mills used the ring spinning process (which
spun and wound thread onto spools at the same time), and the majority of thread was
made using the older, more difficult to learn, mule spinning technique that involved
dividing the production process up. In contrast, ring spinning produced 99 per cent of the
thread made in the USA. Furthermore, it was produced using a high-speed system
uncommon in Britain. Thread produced in this way was stronger and therefore more
suitable for automatic looms that made up 95 per cent of looms used in the USA. In
Britain on the other hand, 95 per cent of the looms were older Lancashire looms using
technology that essentially had not changed for almost a hundred years. British firms
were also disadvantaged by working a 48 hour week on a one shift per day basis, whereas
American looms operated 139 hours per week on three shifts per day. British industry
also suffered from deficiencies in organisation, standards (concerning the age of
buildings and machinery) and in the size of some firms. At this time, the British cotton
industry was structured around an enormous number of small firms and businesses.306 All
this meant that the competitiveness of the British cotton industry was, to a great extent,
dependant upon reduced foreign competition due to the war. By 1951, world-wide
exports had reached 89 per cent of pre-war levels. In spite of the tremendous efforts made
in the preceding years, now the British share had fallen from 27 to 15 per cent.307 The
unwillingness of some mill owners to invest in new technology, combined with strong
trade union traditionalism, led to missed opportunities.
The strength of the trade unions can be seen in two areas in particular. First, in 1946
they managed to reduce the working week from 48 to 45 hours. This meant factories were
closed for the entire weekend, which in turn pushed up production costs. Attempts to
compensate by introducing evening shifts for housewives and increasing overtime—
measures that were initially vehemently resisted by local trade unions—could not cover
the deficit.308 Second, via their union representatives, male mule spinners used their status
to make the employment of newly recruited foreign (female) ring spinners conditional on
guarantees that their own jobs would not be threatened.309 This greatly delayed the
introduction of modern production techniques. Although the number of mule spindles fell
between 1945 and 1951 from 23.1 to 17.7 million respectively, the number of ring
spindles operating during this period remained constant, at 10.5 million.310 As well as
national or ethnic origins, gender also played a major role in who did what in many parts
of the cotton industry. This further hampered modernisation because fully automated
looms could only use thread produced by ring spinning.
Recruiting foreign workers for Britain’s cotton industry was not even considered
immediately after the war. Nor was it seen as an option in January 1946, when a Board of
Trade committee estimated that the cotton industry would require a further 255,000
workers to bring it up to its full capacity. It proved extremely difficult to fill even the
most urgent vacancies with local workers, as many of these had found work in other
sectors during the war or moved away from the cotton towns permanently.311 Extensive
advertising during 1948 eased the problem but did not solve it.312 These campaigns
 German migrants in post-war britian 86

targeted women in Lancashire in particular, and a whole range of incentives were offered.
They included wage increases, part-time work and evening shifts, child care for children
of all ages (even during school holidays), providing canteens and laundries, recreation
rooms, lockers and first aid stations, improving the sanitary facilities, introducing welfare
officers, and laying on cultural and sporting activities, excursions and holidays. In several
towns businesses were persuaded to come to the mills and take orders from women at
their workplace. Goods ordered were then delivered directly to the worker’s home.
Although many factory owners were aware of the urgent need for reform within their
factories, others had to be persuaded, sometimes quite forcibly, by representatives of the
government or Cotton Board.313
Despite all this effort the increase in the workforce was relatively modest. By the end
of 1948 the campaign had managed to recruit 20,000 new local workers. There were huge
variations in recruitment rates, but in the spinning mills alone 1,000 new workers were
being hired every week. A similar campaign targeting the woollen regions of Yorkshire
in mid 1948 produced similar results. After 16 months the female workforce had
increased to only 7,300.314 This made both branches of the textile industry reliant upon
workers from abroad. Because it generated more export income (and was thus more
vulnerable to market fluctuations) the government considered the cotton industry a higher
priority than the wool industry, which largely sold to the domestic market.

Inskip and Full Sutton

The majority of European workers, regardless of whether they were recruited for the
woollen industry or the cotton industry, spent several days or even weeks at either Full
Sutton or Inskip holding camps. The former RAF camp Full Sutton could be reached
quite quickly from Hull, which was one of the ports of entry.315 Those who stayed in the
camp for any length of time could visit the nearby town of York, where visiting the local
tourist sites came a distant second to trying to satisfy their ‘endless hunger’ with un-
rationed foodstuffs.316 Later, when the Inskip camp near Preston in Lancashire took over
part of Full Sutton’s function, the camp was temporarily used to house over 700 sick,
disabled, unsuitable or unemployed EVWs.317
By 1950, over 11,000 EVWs had passed through the former Royal Navy Air Station at
Inskip.318 The recollections of migrants who stayed there vary enormously. In a letter
dated August 1949, two sisters wrote positively about the experience. Having been met at
Preston railway station and taken to the camp by bus, they described a camp consisting of
40 ‘beautiful and clean’ Nissen huts, where they ‘simply enjoyed some lovely days’ with
evening dances and party games.319 This was in stark contrast to the recollections of two
Sudeten Germans who had stayed at Inskip in October and January respectively. Their
main complaint was the temperature of the large rooms, which were inadequately heated
by small stoves. Up to 30 women slept in each Nissen hut, and during the night someone
would constantly have to get up to stop the fire going out. Conditions seemed primitive,
and the food, which according to these interviewees was prepared by sour Polish camp
personnel, was bad.320 The terrible winter weather must also have dampened spirits, and
it is not surprising that ‘bleak, grey and dead’ were adjectives used to describe the
atmosphere.321
 Life and work in post-war Britian 87

How long a woman stayed at a holding camp depended on the actual demand for
labour in the mills. For those who wanted to stay together (a wish that was generally
respected), it usually took more time for an appropriate offer to be received. There was
no uniform system of placement. Some employers telephoned their requirements through
to the camps, others picked employees out for themselves or sent staff from their
personnel departments to do it for them. Methods of transport to workplaces also varied.
Some companies made special arrangements with local taxi companies.322 For others it
was more economical to drive to the camps in trucks.323 Several women made the final
stage of their journey in buses that had been hired, either by the employer or the local
labour exchange. Others took public transport.324 The sense of responsibility for the
recruits that had begun in Germany continued in Britain to the very last stage of the
process, and only rarely did a woman leaving a camp have to make the last leg of her
journey alone. For example, some women from Inskip reported making the journey from
the camp to the labour exchange in Oldham by car. Here a female employee from the mill
would meet her new colleagues and take them to the canteen for a meal. A tour of the
factory would follow before she took them to their hostel.325
First impressions of the new workplace were not always particularly positive. The
migrants entered a world that for many was totally foreign, and how they felt was greatly
influenced by the time of year and the weather conditions. If it was cold and damp, the
smoke belching out of thousands of chimneys would hang in the atmosphere and there
would be little sunlight, even in the middle of the day. Open coal fires were also
common, and the smoke from these not only smelt bad but clogged the mouth and throat.
In a matter of hours, clothes would be covered in soot, and buses would have to attach
lanterns for visibility or simply stop running.326 Those who found themselves outdoors
during such weather often decided not to return home, preferring instead to stay the night
at the mill or with colleagues. Rain, fog and smoke combined gave everything a ‘black
and dirty’ look.327 Those who arrived during the warmer months had very different first
impressions. For example Lilly, a Sudeten German, wrote home in 1949: ‘England is also
very beautiful and clean, the houses are the same size and there are opportunities to bath
all over the place. There is also lots of work and living conditions are better than in
Germany. The weather is always lovely but unfortunately there is no fog. The food is
much better than in Germany.’328

At work
For the majority of women, the daily routine of working life began two days after leaving
the holding camp. Many of them received training on the job, as was the norm in British
factories at that time, but those who went to work in weaving or ring spinning factories
underwent three months training.329 Larger firms ran their own training departments, and
there were also the official training centres created by the Ministry of Labour. Belgrave
Mill in Oldham, which could take upto 500 trainees a year, was converted for just this
purpose in the summer of 1945.330 In 1948, the ex-POW camp Glen Mill (Oldham)
underwent the same conversion. When completed it consisted of the training centre
situated east of the town centre in the old mill, and the Glen Mill Hostel, which stood at
the other end of town. In October 1950, due to a significant fall in the number of newly
arriving foreign workers, this hostel also took over from Inskip as a holding camp for
 German migrants in post-war britian 88

newly arrived recruits. It became the only establishment of this type in Britain until it
closed down in September 1952.331
Glen Mill Hostel consisted of several large Nissen huts, and was a great
disappointment to all those who were anticipating greater personal privacy at the end of
their long journey via Mecklenbeck and Inskip.332 Each hut housed some 60 women, who
each had a bed, a locker and a small bedside cupboard. The rooms were divided in half
by the lockers. Washing facilities, washing machines, places to dry laundry, kitchens and
dining rooms were all provided in separate huts. Breakfast was eaten in the hostel, and
from Monday to Friday the evening meal was also provided there. The trainees took
lunch in the mill canteen. At weekends the migrants had to cater for themselves. They
cooked in their living quarters, or soon became regular customers at the fish and chip
shops of Oldham.333
The day started with a walk or bus ride to the training centre. Dressed in green overalls
‘with two buttons at the top and a waistband around the middle’, and a head scarf ‘to
protect the hair’, they crowded in groups of 12 around their English trainer, who would
explain production processes and how to operate the machinery: ‘Everything in English,
and those that understood a bit of English had to translate for all the others.’ Spinning
demanded great dexterity, concentration and speed; if the moving spindles were not
handled correctly fingers could easily be burned.334 The training provided the necessary
skills under largely realistic conditions. These included a high level of humidity, that if
necessary was maintained with the help of humidifiers. Thus, as the day wore on
conditions became increasingly warm and moist. The various machines produced huge
amounts of dust, and with fine cotton particles swirling through the air, at times it could
feel like working in a snowstorm.335 Practical training alternated with classroom lessons,
and at the end of the three-month course there were exams. These included general
knowledge questions such as how many shillings make up half a crown? Soon they
became so well known that for many who arrived later the exam ‘was fun’ and ‘a little bit
of cheating went on’.336 The training programme was generally viewed positively, as it
gave the opportunity to learn work methods in a step-by-step way, while at the same time
learning other skills and improving their English.337 From Monday to Friday the recruits
were at the training centre, but they still had enough time to earn a little extra money,
working a couple of hours in a cafe for example.338 Figures given for wages during the
training period and the cost of accommodation at the hostel vary. Earnings appear to have
been between £3 and £4 per week, and deductions for accommodation, between 30
shillings and £2 (although the latter appears high). Workers under 18 years of age were
paid less.339
The foreign workforce continued to be carefully monitored during this time. At the
training centre they could turn to the female instructors for help, or they could also go to
hostel staff or designated female welfare officers. Occasionally these were EVWs
themselves, now employed as translators, who knew from personal experience some of
the worries and difficulties the new arrivals were likely to experience.340 The women
were also encouraged to attend language courses in the town. From time to time
representatives of local clubs came to the hostel with invitations to join singing, arts and
crafts or social clubs.341 Dance evenings at the hostel were a further attraction, and were
particularly popular with male EVWs living in the area. Polish, Ukrainian or Yugoslavian
boyfriends were easy to come by, and several women ‘got married very quickly’.342
 Life and work in post-war Britian 89

Migrants who did not train as spinners or weavers started work immediately. Here
they were taught by female colleagues and supervised by an overlooker (usually male).
Many worked in the stubbing and roving stage of production, between the (male
dominated) carding and the ring or mule spinning. Slubbing and roving was the stage
where the combed, fibrous strips of cotton were put through various machines that fixed
and strengthened them, after which the cotton could be wound on to great bobbins.343
Handling and carrying these bobbins was heavy work, and the women were often helped
by young male bobbin carriers. It was not until this process was complete that actual
spinning could take place, and the later processes (winding and doubling) that eventually
led to weaving.
It was rare to find, either in written sources or the interviews we conducted, comments
suggesting that work at the mills served another purpose than to earn a living. The
conditions were too tough for it to have been anything else, and recruits’ comments were
pragmatic: ‘It is not the nicest job but it is very well paid’, wrote Albine D. from Oldham
in 1949 to her friend Gretl in Germany. ‘I can earn more in a week here than I could in a
month at home. I live in the hostel. Board and lodging is not expensive. Each week I have
enough money left over to be able to buy a new pair of shoes or anything else that costs
about the same.’344 Gerda made similar remarks in a letter written in 1949 from Leigh to
her mother. ‘At the moment we are still being trained and earn £3 per week. Later on,
when I can operate the machine alone, I will earn even more. As I am very careful with
money, I can afford to put half my weekly wage to one side and save it.’345 The
similarities are obvious. Work was mentioned briefly, and purely as a means to earn
money and fulfil material wishes. This alone justified the decision to come to Britain and
the difficulties that had involved. The interviewees found the highly repetitive nature of
the work less of a problem than the extreme working conditions: dust swirled constantly,
it was very hot, and the noise of the machines made holding a normal conversation
impossible. Experienced textile workers could lip read perfectly, and thus managed to
hold long-range conversations whilst working. Anybody could join in with these
discussions, but the foreigners had the additional difficulty of mastering this skill in a
foreign language if they wanted to be able to communicate.
It is not clear how many women, who despite contractual agreements, simply gave up
and returned to Germany. Nor is it known how many resorted to marriage to escape.
Others resigned themselves to their predicament and tried to make the best of it. For
some, what kept them going was a determination not to be seen as a failure: ‘I would
have loved to have gone home, but I had too much pride in me: I don’t want to go back as
a poor little girl. I want to save up and show that I have achieved something. And for this
reason I was very hard on myself and stayed here.’346 Most appear to have found the first
few weeks of work at the mills particularly hard. There was so much to take in, in a
foreign language, a strange environment, and a very different culture. Even those who
had had training centre courses to ease the transition soon realised there was a big
difference between training and the real thing. ‘Sometimes I had nightmares. But after a
while I got used to it. You get less nervous, you get faster, more nimble and somehow
more sensitive working this fine stuff, because your fingers were completely sore.’347
 German migrants in post-war britian 90

Discrimination
Most post-war migrants from Europe experienced verbal abuse or some other form of
discrimination, even if they did not refer to it directly when questioned: ‘Generally
friendly, but there were some, you know, now and then.’348 ‘In Huddersfield they were
cautious.’349 ‘There was no problem at all. Only one man…’350 Strictly speaking, the
terms foreigner or bloody foreigner could be applied to anyone who was a stranger at the
mill or in the town. Occasionally the locals would be a little more accepting: ‘You are a
foreigner if you come from anywhere outside Lancashire or Yorkshire.’351 And, like
everywhere in the world, there were locals willing to make exceptions for those they
knew, ‘these two over here or him next to me’,352 for example.
What is certain, as far as the world of work was concerned, is that the foreign
workforce was repeatedly seen as a threat by local workers for a number of reasons.
These included, above all, their widely observed refusal to join the trade union, the
perception that they threatened normal working relations because they were more
productive, and their willingness to work over-time or special shifts. The fact that they
took shorter breaks and spent less time in the toilet also caused ‘irritation’.353 Decades
later, several of the European migrants were still amazed at the number of breaks taken
by their British workmates, which at the time they were not at all used to.354 Most were
proud of being hard working, enthusiastic and being seen as ‘good workers’. They saw
this as an attribute of their Polish, Ukrainian or German origins, and felt this set them
apart from many British workers, who thought that such qualities were unimportant.355
This attitude alienated them from their British colleagues, who saw in their enthusiasm a
lack of solidarity.356 Sometimes this was attributed to their national background. ‘I think
that must have been because that’s how they had to do it, where he came from you see.
He was alright like, he was very nice, but he was a really…really hard worker.’357
Several women who worked in the textile industry immediately after the war spoke of
resentment towards the European migrants. They also mentioned a ‘feeling amongst the
workers’ that the town was full of foreigners who were taking all the jobs.358 In
Trowbridge, weavers refused point blank to pass on their skills to the EVWs. Instead they
offered to extend their normal working day by half an hour to prevent the employment of
foreign labour.359 In the mill towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, EVWs were soon a
common sight and they attracted considerable attention. This is hardly surprising given
the build-up of media coverage in the preceding few months, and the fact that the local
press were particularly interested in the first groups of workers to arrive. There were
reports on their backgrounds and, in some cases, personal histories were published in
local papers. Occasionally these were accompanied by photographs, which was extremely
unusual for the times as newspapers then generally consisted of page after page of
unbroken text. Clothing and speech often made the migrants stand out—and footwear. In
1947 over half of the local mill girls in Bolton still wore the traditional wooden clogs. In
fact, demand was so great that local manufacturers kept waiting lists, but foreign names
were conspicuously absent from these lists.360
Despite being scattered throughout the country and immediately recognisable, the
EVWs remained a minority. According to a Cotton Board survey of November 1947,
there were 2,530 female EVWs working in 222 businesses in the cotton industry. Of
these, 719 worked in 69 mills in Oldham, 514 in 46 mills in Bolton, and 359 in 32 mills
in Rochdale,361 which works out to approximately 10 EVWs per mill. Although numbers
 Life and work in post-war Britian 91

rose significantly in the following months, the distribution remained largely the same
across the region, with the exception of the main cotton centres where numbers of EVWs
were slightly higher. In Bolton, for example, 1,036 foreign workers lived in a town with a
total population of 236,000 (1951).362 If EVWs were a minority in the cotton mills,
female textile workers from the Sudetenland must have felt even more isolated. In
October 1949, two women from Bolton and Bury reported that apart from themselves just
three and two other women from the Sudetenland worked in their mills, respectively.363
This was probably fairly typical. In contrast, the group of 25 women from the
Sudetenland working at the Dunlop Mill in Rochdale amongst a workforce of 2,600 (10
per cent were foreign), was probably also an exception.364
Antipathy towards minorities was not (and still is not) related to the size of the group.
Thus the ethnic German women from the Sudetenland experienced more discrimination
than other groups of EVWs. The most striking evidence of this—and of the attitude of the
local population generally—can be found in a speech made by the manager of the EVW
Advice Bureau in Oldham at a public meeting in March 1950: ‘How does the average
person react to EVWs? […] There are three groups: 66 per cent do not consider the
situation, 33 per cent resent them, and the rest are trying to help them. He added that
many people were hostile to EVWs no matter what their nationality. ‘But the Sudeten
girls came off the worst.’365 It is evident from these comments that the Sudeten Germans
found themselves in a very difficult position at work, at least to begin with. It also seems
that the official ‘cover up‘of their recruitment as DPs, and the government’s decision not
to inform the public, certainly contributed to the problem. They faced resentment and
animosity from all sides, both from the British population and other foreign workers.
Further, although they identified the situation as early as March 1948, the Ministry of
Labour failed to come up with an effective preventative strategy.366 This meant that the
Sudeten Germans were, to a greater extent than other EVWs, left to fend for themselves.
The tensions of the time were obviously not forgotten by the women interviewed for
this study, although most preferred not to talk about them. Margarete hinted at the
conflicts she faced as a member of a group of Sudeten Germans who wanted to be
accepted by the large local workforce in a cotton mill. She explained that initially she
experienced ‘very little animosity, actually’, and that when it did arise, it was ‘more from
the Poles than from the English’.367 Another Sudeten German, who was not prepared to
talk in detail about the awful discrimination she suffered during her training and at her
first mill job, described the behaviour of her former colleagues more directly: ‘Some
were really horrible to us. […] I think the women were even worse than the men. […]
They usually called us “bloody foreigners” or “buggers”.’368
To avoid conflict some women adopted a strategy more common among ex-POWs,
that of hiding their national origins. During interviews we occasionally heard references
to Germans from the Sudetenland who would certainly not wish to be interviewed as they
had adopted a Czechoslovakian identity. This type of subterfuge often did work, but the
migrants concerned lived in constant fear of being found out.369 These tensions between
the Sudeten Germans and their foreign and British colleagues, which appear to have been
quite strong in several towns, may also have contributed to some women eventually
deciding to leave the mills.
 German migrants in post-war britian 92

Hostels and lodgings

For many British workers, living in a hostel was part and parcel of working life. Hostels
had mushroomed throughout the country during the Second World War as the
government tried to plug the gap created by the decrease in housing stock while ensuring
that the needs of the war economy were met. The majority of EVWs also started their
British working life housed in state-run or private establishments. Residential buildings
served as hostels, as did barracks, former POW camps and disused factories.370 They
varied in size from those accommodating a maximum of a dozen people to others that
could house several hundred. There were also big variations in the comfort and facilities
on offer. The spartan simply provided a place to eat and sleep. But others were more
comfortable, and provided leisure activities (film shows, billiards, table tennis, sport and
dance events), good bathrooms and laundries that included washing machines. In January
1949, the National Service Hostel Corporation operated 61 miner’s hostels that catered
for British workers as well as accommodating nearly 7,300 EVWs. The Corporation also
ran 82 industrial hostels that housed 5,400 EVWs. Over 21,000 EVWs lived in
establishments run by the Ministry of Agriculture, 3,000 were in War Office
accommodation, and several thousand in private industrial hostels. It is estimated that at
the beginning of 1949, 50,000 workers recruited in Europe were housed in this type of
accommodation, and by 1956 there were up to 3,000 still in these lodgings.371
The National Service Hostel Corporation had three large hostels in the Lancashire
cotton region. One of these, Glen Mill Hostel, has already been mentioned. There was
also Woodlands House in Chorley, which took up to 1,000 residents.372 The third,
Chadwick House in Bolton, was much smaller, and housed just 56 EVWs in 1949.373
These quasi-state run hostels and those operated by NGOs were only a small part of the
hostel landscape. Most hostels were smaller establishments run by private operators
contracted to factories or firms. In many cases the latter provided beds, bedding,
cupboards and other equipment from the factory’s warehouses.374 At the end of 1947, the
Cotton Board recorded 70 such hostels housing a total of 1,600 workers. By 1949, it had
increased to over 100 hostels in Lancashire alone.375
At the same time as the number of hostels was growing, more recruited workers were
moving out into private lodgings. In November 1947, 1,400 cotton workers had chosen
this option.376 This followed appeals from the Cotton Board for private lodgings to be
made available that were carried in several newspapers in the summer of 1947. The
campaign was particularly aimed at women who, although they could not work at the
mills themselves, could help the country out of a crisis situation. The articles provided
detailed information about the EVWs, designed to reassure potential landladies.377
Unfortunately, the result of these rather vigorous appeals made by town councils and
industry, based on a demand that had been over-estimated, eventually led to a surplus of
accommodation and quite significant financial losses for some who had responded.378
The majority of recruited women were, in any case, inclined to leave the hostels as
soon as they could find private lodgings alone or with a friend. In this respect, female
workers differed from their (foreign) male colleagues, who preferred to remain in hostels
where the basic housekeeping was taken care of. Those who moved out were not always
satisfied with their landlords, feeling they were being financially exploited for example,
and some returned temporarily to a hostel.379 Due to the gradual decline of industry in the
region and associated movement of people to other areas, it was easier to buy a house or
 Life and work in post-war Britian 93

rent a room in Lancashire than it was in other parts of Britain. The 1931 census records
Oldham’s population standing at 140,314; by 1951 it had dropped to 121,212. This
indicates that there was accommodation available, but it tells us nothing about its quality.
‘We no longer live at the hostel, we live in private accommodation’, wrote a Sudeten
German woman to her family in 1949. ‘To begin with we made every effort to leave the
hostel, because we were afraid they would put us into another fleapit again. This time we
got it right. We live near the factory. Our flat is a bed-sit with the use of a bathroom.’380
Also, some hostels could be less than comfortable. In November 1949 the head of the
German branch of the International Catholic Association for the Protection of Young
Women, Elisabeth Denis, visited a large, unspecified hostel in Rochdale. The thin-walled
barracks slept 20 women to a room. These were inadequately heated with two stoves, so
that it was even difficult to get warm in bed. Two Sudeten Germans brought feather
duvets with them and were, at first, ridiculed. All the bathroom facilities were in a
separate building, which could mean running through the rain at night.381 But small
hostels too, often left a lot to be desired in terms of hygiene and comfort. Elena was so
horrified by the mice in her rooms in Oldham that she moved in with a Yugoslavian
colleague who had bought a house and was renting rooms to between six and eight
female colleagues.382
Other workers have happy memories of their hostel, recalling the ‘clean, lovely
rooms’ or the community spirit amongst the room-mates.383 Two things in particular were
repeatedly mentioned in a positive light. First the bathrooms, with ‘beautiful bath tubs
and lots of hot water’.384 And second the food—the good breakfasts, the evening meals,
or the nice waitresses who gave out extra portions. The desire for the greater freedom that
private lodgings or a shared flat offered was probably more important to those who had
felt restricted in Germany or who had particularly bad memories of the cramped
conditions in refugee camps.385 But the animosity some women encountered in the larger,
more anonymous hostels was also a significant factor. In the mills, to begin with at least,
because they understood little English, the women were simply unaware of many of the
negative comments made about them. In contrast, the common language in the hostels
amongst EVWs was usually German.386
The move into private accommodation was in line with the government’s views on
assimilation. However, the housing shortage in some areas made the hostels a ‘necessary
evil’ that even the cotton manufacturers eventually accepted. At the start, the latter had
objected to this type of accommodation because they were convinced ‘that the girls will
get the community feeling more quickly if they can live with the British workers’.387 The
number of hostels and the residents they housed soon became an important yardstick for
comparing towns. This explains the Bolton Evening News’ proud boast, shortly before
Christmas 1949, that the 1,400 EVWs working there ‘have been absorbed into the
communal life of the town and only the difference in tongue draws attention to many of
them’. Only 150 women were still living in hostels there, whereas in Oldham there were
over 500 ‘and many of them are cut off from English life’.388
Another problem was the antagonism among residents that often broke out along
national lines. In the YWCA hostel, Kelsterton Hall near Flint, there were even problems
with the first group of residents ‘as the various Nationals would not share bedroom
accommodation’.389 Multi-national hostels were often the scene of arguments and
violence and were not popular.390 Problems between Poles and Ukrainians were as
 German migrants in post-war britian 94

frequent as problems between Poles and Irish, or Serbs and Croats. The Ministry of
Labour received many reports of disputes between EVWs and ‘coloured workers’,
usually Jamaicans.391 ‘Serious fighting’ between these two groups was reported at the
Greenbank Hostel, Leeds, in September and December 1947, and also in January 1948.
Similar incidents were reported at Sherburn-in-Elmet Hostel in November 1947 and
January 1948, at Castle Donnington Hostel, Derbyshire, in August 1948, and at the
Weston-on-Trent Hostel in September 1948. Following this, the number of Jamaican
migrants per hostel was restricted to 10 per cent, with a maximum of 30 allowed per
establishment.392
Arguments that turned physical did not only involve men. ‘Violent disputes’ were
reported in women’s hostels,393 and as with those involving men, were not limited to
European migrants, Jamaicans or Irish either. Disputes involving (white) Britons were
reported, which, as one member of the British Council of Churches pointed out, ‘did not
promote friendliness toward England’.394 One official report put it in much clearer terms:
‘In theory it would appear an excellent practice, but in fact it is very doubtful whether
good results can be expected. Unfortunately, the British hostel resident is seldom a
worthy citizen, and it would be tragic if the foreign worker judged our civilisation by the
many unstable and reckless casual labourers who drift from hostel to hostel in some
areas.’395

Leisure, friends and partners

Hostel life had both advantages and disadvantages for the newly arrived workers, and
whether or not they enjoyed their stay seemed to depend on expectations and
circumstances. Some enjoyed having their breakfast and their evening meals provided
and not having to deal with difficult landlords. Others saw this as a restriction of their
personal freedom and independence. Initially the hostels also seemed to function partly as
a refuge or sanctuary where the recruits could meet others who had shared similar fates,
talk in their native languages, swap ideas, make friends and simply spend evenings or
weekends relaxing together. Because the noise, language problems and racial tensions
made getting to know people in the mills very difficult, the social role played by hostels
became particularly important. Being able to meet with others in the same boat made it
easier to bear the homesickness and isolation, and gave them someone else to share the
humiliation and hurt that the derogatory remarks and insults from fellow workers caused
them. It was also reassuring to be able to talk about everyday embarrassments, such as
mix-ups with money or language. It is probably for these reasons that some look back to
their evenings in the hostel, listening to the radio and knitting, with so much nostalgia.
Weekends too were often spent together, going on long walks, or to the cinema or
window shopping. Those in Rochdale could go to the church services organised by the
German Pallottine sisters who had a convent there, or on other excursions that the sisters
organised.396
When the interviewees talked about first meeting the man they would eventually
marry, the sense of the loneliness and homesickness they must have felt all those years
ago came through strongly. Of the 9 Sudeten Germans interviewed, only 1 married a
British man, 5 married Ukrainians, 2 married Poles and 1 a Yugoslavian. The 3 ethnic
Germans interviewed married a Yugoslavian, a Hungarian and a Lithuanian, respectively.
 Life and work in post-war Britian 95

This pattern is also reflected in the records of Salford’s Alien Register. Eleven of the 29
women from the Sudetenland listed got married. Two married Poles, 3 British men and 4
chose Ukrainian partners. In the remaining two cases, the husband’s nationality was not
recorded.397 Interestingly, there is a distinctive difference between the partners chosen by
women recruited under Westward Ho and those recruited under North Sea. Of the 10
North Sea women who married, 8 chose British partners, while the 2 women who worked
in the textile industry did not.
Working conditions and different cultural backgrounds could be sources of great
friction, but they could also bring people closer together. The different groups were
attracted to each other for a variety of reasons. However, it appears that the foreign men
found it particularly difficult to form close relationships with women. Most came as
singles, and a study published in 1958 records that 40–50 per cent of the male EVWs had
at that stage still not married. Indeed, later records show that 80 per cent of these men
never married. Those EVWs who did marry tended to choose someone of the same
nationality. Where this was not the case, partners were often British, and of the other
nationalities, Germans and Italians feature more often.398 Those who failed to find a
husband or wife, or to escape the isolation of the hostels, were more likely to suffer
mental problems. Instances of this, which unfortunately sometimes resulted in suicide,
were higher amongst the foreign workforce than the local population, and particularly
high for male recruits.399
According to those we interviewed, loneliness, a common language, and the social
skills of their partner were what attracted the Sudeten Germans to their partner. Language
was particularly important. As one interviewee said: ‘If you are alone in a foreign country
and someone comes along who speaks your language and can also dance….’400 Henrike
met her future husband at a sort of marriage market organised by some Ukrainian
workers. ‘I met my husband on New Year’s Eve. We were invited by a Ukrainian, who
could speak German. […] We decided the hostel would go to Manchester. I must say,
those were very, very nice Ukrainians. They had a very long table and there was sausage
on it, the like of which we had never been able to get in England. And Schwarzbrot and
loads of stuff from the continent, which we ate. Sauerkraut and all.’401
Very few, however, claimed to have had happy marriages. Most felt they had ‘fallen
blindly’ and rushed in to what turned out to be unhappy liaisons. When asked why the
relationships failed, several hinted at cultural differences, although these could be
difficult to articulate. One interviewee declared: ‘Well, most of them got divorced,
because the Poles and Ukrainians expected us to have the same sort of culture as their
women; to give birth and then be up and on our feet again within the hour.’402 There were
also references to husbands expecting wives to return to paid jobs as soon as possible
after the birth of a baby, and furthermore, to do all the housework and entertain the
husband’s (traditionally) numerous house guests. The main complaint was being seen
primarily as a contributor to a household income that was managed by the husband.
Most of the Sudeten Germans were very young when recruited. Several had not
legally come of age and therefore still needed parental consent before marrying. Views
expressed about marriage in the interviews correspond with, and are reinforced by,
documentary sources. Social worker Cäcilia Tilgner reported from Rochdale in
November 1950: ‘Actually we hear about one or two girls every day who have got
married. In many cases, the women are already pregnant before the wedding. The men
 German migrants in post-war britian 96

are usually Ukrainian, Latvian or Lithuanian and sometimes hardly speak a word of
English. If you ask the girls how things are going, you will get an evasive answer; it is
not how they expected it to be. These are not happy marriages. There is not enough
money of course, and the woman continues to work in the factory; the baby is taken to
the factory nursery, and in the evening “family life” is spent in a room, in one of these
mostly awful hostels.’403 Such situations usually led to unhappy or broken marriages,
unwanted pregnancies, and abortions.404 Marriage often bound the Sudeten German
women to Britain, turning what had been a temporary working visit into a permanent
stay. In contrast, those who went through the cotton crisis of 1952 as single, independent
women, were able to re-orientate their lives, either by taking advantage of the opportunity
to change jobs, or by leaving the country and its little loved mills for good.

The textile crisis of 1952

The worldwide textile crisis of 1952 hit the export orientated British cotton industry
particularly hard. The rising cost of living and price of raw materials, triggered by the
Korean War, led to a rapid fall in the demand for textiles and the loss of markets that had
only recently opened up.405 The situation reminded older workers of the vulnerability of
their trade. For younger workers used to full employment and labour shortages the
shortened working hours and unemployment were a new experience. The key concern for
mill owners was losing the confidence that they had so laboriously managed to rebuild;
for the unions it was whether or not to invoke the redundancy clause that meant foreign
workers would be the first to lose their jobs.406
The first signs of trouble appeared towards the end of 1951. On 4 December the
Manchester Guardian reported several remarks made by Alice Foley, head of the Bolton
and District Weavers’ and Winders’ Association, in her quarterly report. These called for
the position of the foreign workforce to be reviewed in the event of rising unemployment.
Foley maintained that although market difficulties were still small, there was cause for
concern.407 Two weeks later, a small article in the Times reported that various mills in
Rochdale and Wigan were extending their Christmas break due to economic difficulties.
In Rochdale, this affected 3,000 workers in 12 different firms. In Wigan, it was 7,000
workers in 9 firms.408 In December 1951, 25,000 textile workers were officially
registered unemployed,409 and by May 1952 when the crisis reached its peak, the number
had risen to 143,000. In addition, there was widespread shortening of working hours for
those not laid off. Between March and May 1952 there was a rapid increase in the reports
of short-time work, unemployment and temporary closures carried in the national press,
and it was not until June that the first signs of improvement began to appear. Easter had
been a particularly difficult period, with many mills closing for at least a week and
sometimes two. For example, all the mills in Blackburn, 65–70 mills in Bolton, 33 in
Burnley, and 22 in Oldham closed down completely for at least a week. In Oldham, a
further 59 mills introduced short-time work. This affected 5,000 workers (15 mills) in
Preston, and 11,000 workers (up to 50 mills) in Rochdale.410 By the end of 1952, when
the numbers of unemployed had fallen to the level of the previous year, the cotton
industry had lost 14,000 male and 27,000 female workers, and the total workforce had
shrunk from 318,000 to 277,000.411
 Life and work in post-war Britian 97

Written accounts of the consequences of the crisis for the foreign workers are
contradictory. The records clearly show that the number of foreigners in psychiatric
hospitals rose during this period.412 Generally, however, opinions are divided on the
overall effect the crisis had on EVWs. In his study on Polish migrants in Britain, Jerzy
Zubrzycki argues that during the crisis the majority of the EVWs were made redundant,
and either took up jobs in another industry or emigrated to a third country.413 Jacques
Vernant states that the burden of redundancy was shared equally between local and
foreign labour,414 a view shared by Maud Bülbring and E.Nagy. The latter maintain that it
was just this type of fairness that led to many EVWs, who until then had lived in a state
of uncertainty due to the redundancy clause,415 seeing their host country and its local
workforce in a much more positive light. As a consequence, Maud Bülbring concluded in
an earlier study, interest in further emigration to a third country actually fell.416
If it had been left up to some of the local trade unions the foreign workers would
certainly have been the first to be laid off. Discussions supporting this course of action
began in January 1952 and continued almost throughout the crisis.417 According to a
survey undertaken at the time, most union officials felt it would be impossible to make
use of the clause because it would be difficult to replace the experienced foreign workers
with British workers.418 But this view did nothing to ease ill feeling amongst union
members. When a firm in Darwen made several of its British part-time workers
redundant on 1 April, it provoked a lengthy dispute between the employers and the
unions. Management maintained that the agreements covered full-time workers only and
not part-time workers or those on short-time. The unions were not satisfied with this
interpretation and demanded the reinstatement of the British workers, greater protection
for local workers, and the dismissal of foreign workers.419 But the employers stuck to
their position. As far as they were concerned the recession was just a passing phase, and
they did not want to lose their foreign workforce permanently through premature
redundancies.420
The economic consequences of short-time work or unemployment varied according to
the individual’s circumstances. British families were generally in a better position to cope
because they could fall back on other sources of income, they had property or savings
perhaps, or could rely on support from relatives. This was also the position of those
EVWs who had married or bought their own homes. Many took in lodgers and were thus
able to weather the crisis.421 The majority of the EVWs were not married, but the
financial cushion they had managed to save, together with their residency in Britain,
proved crucial. Most had been employed long enough to qualify for unemployment
benefits, and by now many were also legally able to change jobs or industries. This was
only possible because the previous restrictions were lifted on 1 January 1951, but
changing jobs was still conditional upon having lived in Britain for a minimum of three
years.422
The situation was rather different for the Sudeten German, Austrian and Italian
women, all of whom had arrived more recently. They had had less time to save and found
it difficult to survive on the unemployment benefit alone. The 26 shillings dole money
they received each week did not go far when a bed at the hostel averaged 35 shillings a
week. Trade union members worried about their unemployed colleagues. ‘Many of these
foreign girls—some of whom are only eighteen years old—have been in tears when I told
them we could do nothing to help them’, Mr Milhence (Secretary, Oldham and District
 German migrants in post-war britian 98

Weavers’ and Winders’ Association) told a Chronicle reporter. ‘All that I could do was to
send them to the National Assistance Board. The position is serious. The girls might well
be driven on to the streets for want of something being done for them.’423
Social worker Cäcilia Tilgner reported that most of the Sudeten Germans possessed
some savings. Only 1 in 10 she questioned were without funds at the beginning of the
crisis. She also heard about women who had found ‘other ways’ to supplement their
income, in other words they had turned to prostitution. Some of the women she
interviewed complained about their financial situation and the unaccustomed limitations
put on their spending.424 Most responded to the situation by moving to a new job, a new
region, or even a new country. There was a further relaxation of restrictions after Easter
1952. Now anyone could change occupation, provided they did so via a labour exchange,
where they were strongly encouraged to enter the NHS or domestic service.
It is unclear how many Sudeten Germans followed the advice of the labour exchanges,
or even how many were still employed in the cotton industry when the crisis began. It is
also difficult to estimate how many went on to emigrate during the course of 1952. As
early as the latter half of 1951, having fulfilled their contracts many decided to leave and
return to Germany. They left the mills to find better work or simply because they had
achieved what they had set out to do.425 In January 1952, Cäcilia Tilgner noted that ‘some
girls packed their suitcases sooner than expected, because they were afraid of one day
being made redundant and sent back home. […] In the atmosphere of an apparent
shortage of jobs, several have even experienced ill-feeling towards foreign workers
again.’426
The Sudeten Germans, like the EVWs in general, reacted proactively to the cotton
crisis. There is nothing to suggest that they were disproportionately laid off,427 and like
other workers, many were put on short-time. As the crisis reached its height in May 1952,
630 Sudeten Germans were unemployed.428 Many decided to leave the textile industry for
good. Although they could not return to their homes in Czechoslovakia, they could return
to Germany. For the other EVWs a return home was not an option, irrespective of the
propaganda put out by some Eastern Block countries.429 Figures from the Dunlop Mill in
Rochdale give an indication of the size of the migration; in August 1952 the number of
staff fell from 3,000 to 2,500. During this period the number of foreign employees fell
from 300 to 91, and of these only 6 Sudeten Germans remained from the total of 25 who
had started work there.430
 4
Welfare and support

During their first few years in Britain the European recruits received a lot of support from
local authorities, companies, churches and voluntary organisations. In line with the
government’s approach to assimilation, these organisations focussed their activities
largely on explaining British customs and bringing locals and foreigners together. The
Ministry of Labour took responsibility for basic living conditions in the initial stage of
this process. It organised members of the WVS or English speaking migrants, specifically
employed for the purpose, to accompany the newly arrived workforce from the ship to
their camps and hostels. Together with the National Service Hostels Corporation, the
ministry was responsible for the reception and holding camps and state-run hostels. It
organised food and clothing, ration books and clothing coupons as well as pocket money
and medical assistance.1 The ministry also liased between the British public and the
recruits, telling the public about them, and explaining to the foreign workers British
habits and working practices. In collaboration with the Central Office for Information, it
produced and distributed the brochures To Help You Settle in Britain, and Contemporary
Life in Britain.
The Ministry of Labour rejected calls to establish a separate body to ‘watch the
interests of these workers and be prepared to advise them during the initial period of their
residence in this country’.2 In deciding to use the ‘usual welfare machinery’ it sent a clear
message that the foreign workers were to be considered equal to the British and that no
distinctions would be made on the basis of national origin. Thus, the ministry looked to
the existing network of regional and local welfare officers to support the recruits. This
network became responsible for advising the workers, investigating complaints, visiting
workplaces and hostels and introducing workers to local clubs, associations, churches and
other institutions.3
The government took the same integrated approach when it came to educational
activities. Helping the migrants learn English, as soon as possible so that they could mix
with the local community, was a key priority. To achieve this, an agreement was reached
with the Ministry of Education to run language courses in holding camps. But this special
measure only applied to the camps. Once they had started work, the foreign workers were
expected to attend existing courses provided by the Ministry of Education,4 although,
local authorities were encouraged to offer additional evening classes if there was an
obvious need.5 Occasionally some of the larger NGOs, especially the WVS, became
involved in this work.
In practice the system functioned somewhat haphazardly, which prompted the
Ministry of Education to set up an official inquiry during the early months of 1949. The
results were disappointing: Having been in the country for 18 months, thousands of
EVWs had little or no English, while others only spoke enough for the most basic
shopping purchases. According to the report, part of the reason for this was the difficulty
 German migrants in post-war britian 100

organising language courses for foreigners who diverged so much in terms of

intelligence, education, age and previous experience. Furthermore, interest on the part of
the EVWs had been extremely low. Only 5 per cent had attended classes, and they were
usually those with the least need. The reasons for the low uptake varied. After a long day
in the factory many were too tired to attend a night class. Added to this was the fact that
for those hoping to return home soon there seemed little point in learning English. A
consequence of these factors was that the workers stayed segregated in different national
groups.6 The mining industry was the one exception. Safety considerations meant that
workers had to reach a satisfactory level of English before they were allowed to work
their first shift.7 In comparison to the EVWs, of whom it is estimated only 10 per cent
had any previous knowledge of English, the ex-POWs had a clear advantage. Many had
learnt English at school, or had managed to pick it up in the post-war period or whilst
being held as POWs.8
In addition to helping the recruits gain language skills the government also wanted
them to get an understanding of the British way of life, and to further this endeavour
several government departments, NGOs and large employers joined forces. During the
exercise a real sense of community commitment often emerged, and this led to the
opening of Citizen’s Advice Bureaus in many towns.9 In January 1948, for example, a
community centre for EVWs was officially opened in Oldham. The opening ceremony
was attended by the mayor, the head of the local labour exchange, and representatives of
local organisations and associations. Speeches were translated into the Baltic languages,
Polish, Russian and German. At the suggestion of the Rotary Club, several local
organisations met a month later to discuss setting up an information bureau. With the
help of various civic authorities, just such an office opened a short while later within the
TOC-H building. This offered courses in English three evenings a week, and there were
plans to provide a further course on Saturday mornings to avoid clashes with work. The
public library, meanwhile, started carrying copies of foreign newspapers. During this
period repeated appeals were made to the public to invite foreign workers into their
homes, to encourage them to participate in sports and the Ministry of Labour’s cultural
activities and to make more private accommodation available to them.10

The Advisory Welfare Officer for German Women

Employing German sociologist, Maria Roos, as its Advisory Welfare Officer for German
Women in Great Britain obviously represented something of a departure from its policy
of equal and integrated treatment for all, irrespective of their country of origin, for the
Ministry of Labour. Maria Roos started work in June 1950 and stayed until the end of
October 1951. One of her duties was ‘to advise the Ministry on general questions
affecting the welfare of German women workers in this country and to assist her fellow-
nationals in resolving their personal problems’.11
Exactly how the decision that German women needed this special appointment came
about remains unclear, as no records from the office in St James’s Square, where Maria
Roos worked with a colleague and a secretary, have survived. As a result of this lack of
hard evidence a number of different explanations have emerged. The most plausible is
based on a letter written by Elisabeth Denis, who was at that time the Head of the
 Welfare and support 101

Nationalverband der katholischen Mädchenschutzvereine (National Federation of

Catholic Associations for the Protection of Young Women). In the letter Elisabeth Denis
states that she had been told by a German official in Bonn that the Ministry of Labour
had requested ‘a German Lady’, apparently because ‘the English stand accused, in the
Soviet Press, of carrying out a “slave trade”. To counter these accusations the English
wish to employ a German woman, on a temporary basis, to work from her own
administrative office, with full rights to inspect all aspects of working conditions.’12
Once in London Maria Roos quickly set up an information and advice bureau of
considerable capacity. In her first few weeks in the job she introduced herself to the
various departments of the Ministry of Labour, the German General Consulate, church
groups and charitable organisations. She also made her presence known to key labour
exchanges throughout the country and contacted newspapers and television broadcasters.
Advertising her presence to the German workforce was also a priority. In this she seems
to have been successful: in the first 10 months alone, her bureau received 1,852 letters
and 1,556 personal visits. She and her two colleagues also took between 30 and 50
telephone calls a day. Roos made official visits, lasting several days each, to Nottingham,
Bristol and Manchester. She also made day trips to Cambridge, Surrey and Sussex, where
she learnt about working conditions in hospitals and was able to talk to the German
women working in them.13
In October 1951, Maria Roos’ welfare work was taken over by the German General
Consulate, and finally, in 1952, the Deutscher Sozialausschuß (German Welfare Council)
was established with the assistance of the German Foreign Office.14

Workplace support

The EVWs and recruited Germans also received support in their work places. In the
larger factories welfare facilities were relatively extensive, whereas for those working as
domestics, provisions were much more limited. In rural areas, assistance was often
offered by local churches and voluntary organisations only.
Usually the local welfare officer would begin work before the foreign workers had
even arrived. The first problem to overcome was finding accommodation.
Advertisements would be placed, properties viewed and contracts signed before
accommodation could be reserved. Many dwellings and privately run hostels had to be
supplied with furniture, bedding and household goods, often from former POW camps.15
The welfare officer would also be responsible for transporting the EVWs from the camps
to their new workplace and accommodation. Occasionally a welcome party was
organised, with food, and maybe a film and dancing.16 The officers would then be on
hand for all sorts of advice and information. They would distribute brochures, provide
bed linen or household utensils and try to defuse any tensions or arguments that arose at
work.17
Welfare officers in the cotton mills received support from the Cotton Board. An
example of this was a clothes collection sponsored by the Board to help needy workers,
whose outward appearance often provoked feelings of great pity: ‘Most of the refugees
had lost nearly all their possessions in their enforced flight from home, and it was pitiful
to see them arrive with their few belongings wrapped up in a blanket. […] Many girls
 German migrants in post-war britian 102

arrived at the textile mills with no underclothes and few outer garments. One
goodlooking young woman wore a skirt which she had made herself from the trousers of
a German soldier and a blouse made from old socks which she had unpicked and re-
knitted.’18 The Cotton Board provided interpreters, who were able to help defuse
misunderstandings both in and outside the mills, and for a number of years the Board
employed its own welfare officer. This was an English woman from Sheffield who had
married a Russian refugee and lived with him in Riga between 1925 and 1941. During the
Second World War she had also spent time in Germany. For many years she visited
workers in the mills and hostels, advising them and their employers, and mediating where
necessary.19
Very little information is available on relationships between the trade unions and the
foreign workforce, or the extent to which the union supported the recruits. However, it
appears that relationships between the two parties were characterised by tension, and this
was especially true in the textile industry. Comments made by individual trade union
officials, about the redundancy clause or the unwillingness of many EVWs to join the
union, for example, often appeared in newspaper articles. These comments would refer to
the agreement on compulsory union membership and threats to end agreements with
employers who employed foreigners. Initially, the fact that few EVWs joined unions
could have been due to language problems, as union officials had difficulty making
themselves understood to the new arrivals. But in later years, a widespread politically
motivated antipathy towards the trade unions emerged.20 The mutual animosity
dominated press reports of the day, which complicated our efforts to make an accurate
estimate of how the trade unions contributed to the welfare of the foreign workforce. We
were able to find only occasional references to union support, such as that of the
Transport and General Workers Union which put female hospital workers in touch with
‘social circles’ and was concerned about the transport problems of those in remote
areas.21 Day-to-day local union business was rarely considered important enough to
publish, but it would be wrong to conclude from this that foreign union members were
treated any differently to locals. As the events of the textile crisis of 1952 illustrate, in
certain instances the unions were quite supportive of the EVWs.

British voluntary organisations

British voluntary organisations were given a special role in the Ministry of Labour’s
approach to assimilation: to bring migrants and locals together at a local level. How
successful they were in accomplishing this is difficult to assess. The majority of
interviewees could not remember having had any contact with British organisations
during their early years in Britain. No doubt, the language barrier had something to do
with this. But there was probably also a lack of interest on the part of the recruits who,
after long hours in the factory, were too tired to participate in any organised leisure
activities and preferred to spend their free time with friends. Several critical references to
the efforts of NGOs can be found in the literature of the 1950s. Francesca Wilson
criticised the work done by many of the voluntary organisations on behalf of foreign
workers on the grounds that it lacked the commitment found in their social work
abroad.22 Maud Bülbring saw them losing interest ‘after asking the refugees many times
 Welfare and support 103

without response’.23 But on the basis of the extensive and detailed information in
Ministry of Labour records and contemporary press reports, what is most striking is the
amount of local and regional activity that did go on throughout the country, especially in
the late 1940s. This involved large organisations, such as Rotary, or the TOC-H, whose
role in setting up an Information Office in Oldham has already been described. But other
clubs and associations, some well known some not, also got involved. For example, the
Globe Trotters’ Association organised an international Christmas party in Bolton, the
Birmingham Association of Girls and Mixed Clubs made rooms available for European
migrants needing a break in a holiday home, and the International Friendship League in
Hastings put on concerts for the EVWs and also invited them into their rooms on a
weekly basis.24
The approach taken and activities offered were similar, irrespective of the region, the
size of the organisation or its philosophy. To make contact with the workers, several
members of these groups would visit hostels, put up posters and notices and invite the
workers to evening or weekend events. They included dances, social evenings, film
shows, a club meeting or a local excursion. An invitation from a British household was
considered a particularly effective way of introducing the foreigners to the British way of
life. Rooms were also made available for foreign workers who wanted to form their own
clubs or groups.
Another pattern that emerged was local organisations working together and
coordinating their efforts. Late in 1948, the Ministry of Labour asked its regional offices
to compile reports on charitable activities going on around the country.25 This produced a
deluge of reports from all over the country which, despite the geographical diversity, all
exhibited the same aims and objectives and, according to their authors, were all achieving
a measure of success: ‘There can be no doubt that the work of voluntary bodies has done
much to help the EVWs to feel at home, to introduce them to local activities and English
families, help with their problems and, which is equally important, help to break down
local prejudice against their employment and absorption into the British community.’26
Almost all the reports emphasised the work done by the WVS. Founded in 1938 this
organisation consisted of 12 regional subdivisions, 10 of which were in England and 1
each in Scotland and Wales. The headquarters were in London, and the president during
this period was the highly esteemed Dowager Marchioness of Reading. In May 1939, the
organisation numbered 256,000 members. By August 1939, this had risen to 336,000, and
numbers continued to increase during the war.27 In 1940, the WVS played a leading role
in evacuating 1.25 million people from towns and cities to the countryside. Amongst
them were some 700,000 children who travelled without their parents. Some 108,000
women accompanied and helped care for the children during the journey and when they
reached their destination. They organised collections of clothing, and together with local
authorities, arranged accommodation.28 The work carried out by the WVS during the war,
which also included establishing mobile or permanent canteens, collecting and sorting
goods and raw materials and even caring for local invalids, did not end in 1945. Almost
immediately there were new challenges—and people—needing the same sort of response.
Members of the WVS were there to meet foreign workers when their ships docked and
to accompany them by bus or train to their camps. They collected clothes to stock the
stores they provided in the camps so that needy new arrivals could adequately clothe
themselves. They provided unpaid English teachers and translators, translated the most
 German migrants in post-war britian 104

useful English phrases into 11 different languages, organised excursions, put on tea
parties and other events at their meeting places, and invited foreigners into their own
homes. They provided extra support for pregnant women and unmarried mothers with
children. In the camps, they checked hygiene standards and successfully campaigned for
female welfare officers to be employed there.29 The work of the WVS generally took
place behind the scenes. It was characterised by a ‘personal touch’ that dealt with the
EVWs—many of whom had experienced years of forced labour camps—as individuals.30
Only rarely were their activities reported by the media as, for example, when the first
group of women recruited under the Balt Cygnet Scheme arrived, and each received a
new overcoat (a present from Canada) and a second-hand pair of shoes.31 But despite the
apparent lack of media attention, the green uniforms of the WVS were an everyday sight
on the streets of wartime and post-war Britain. Local social clubs tended to be the venue
for all non-work activities. Here foreign workers could meet alone or with British women
to relax. As well as providing entertainment, dancing, music and sport, language courses
and discussion evenings were offered and a selection of books and magazines together
with advice on all problems imaginable made available.32
A report from Gainsborough on the WVS’ involvement with a German domestic is a
good illustration of the organisation’s personal approach—and also the unorthodox
methods it used. The case began in February 1949 when the local labour exchange asked
the WVS to help with a German domestic who, given the labour exchange’s involvement,
appears to have been recruited on a government-sponsored programme to work in a
hardship household. The authorities were particularly anxious that the intervention should
be a success, as the previous German domestic working there had proved unacceptable. A
conversation with the housewife revealed that, in her opinion, there were two problems:
first, the new employee did not understand enough English to follow her instructions, and
second the housewife did not want her employee constantly in the house. However, she
also did not want her to go out and fall into ‘bad company’ as her predecessor had done.
To end the misunderstandings, the WVS co-opted one of their elderly members, a
German woman who had moved to Britain at the beginning of the century. To begin with
she translated a description of the girl’s domestic duties. Furthermore, it was agreed that
the domestic should visit the WVS club on evenings that the old lady was on duty; ‘she
was able to explain the money, teach her English, and tell her the British point of view’.
In a short space of time the girl started to feel at home in the club and would spend her
leisure time there. Other members started taking her with them to the cinema, or dancing
or even shopping. But it was soon felt that the German housemaid needed ‘younger
company’, so the ladies looked for other young German women in the area. They
managed to find two themselves, and others were referred to them by the labour
exchange, so that the number of regular German visitors to the club soon rose to ten. The
club soon became a permanent meeting place for this group: ‘Saturday sees them all
coming straight to the club where we have a room set aside for their use; they do their
shopping, leave their parcels, make themselves coffee and have something to eat, play the
radiogram, dance and have sing-songs round the piano. They know that they will find
someone to talk to, go to the cinema with, etc.’ They were also allowed to bring their
boyfriends to the club—‘thus we are able to keep a bit of a check on the sort of man they
are meeting’—several of whom were former German POWs. The WVS women
developed a strong sense of responsibility for their German members and made the club
 Welfare and support 105

available for them to celebrate their birthdays and a Christmas party. They also made sure
the girls were not cheated by ‘unscrupulous traders’. The report concluded by stating that:
‘We feel that this is a job of work of the utmost importance. […] These young people are
writing home every week, and we get messages from “Vater” and “Mutter” thanking us
for our care of their girls, some are going home on holiday, and we feel they will be the
best possible ambassadors for the British way of life and will do much to further the
cause of the western democracies.’33

German organisations

In contrast to other European migrants, who were quick to form clubs along country
lines, the German migrants rarely formed specifically German organisations. There are a
variety of reasons for this. First, they lacked institutional reference points. In contrast to
the Polish community, which had developed organisations for soldiers during the war,34
most German organisations had not survived the First World War. The fact that the
German migrants were so widely dispersed throughout the country was certainly also a
factor, as were the high numbers intent on returning to Germany, or the desire not to
stand out. It is also significant that many of the former POWs were naturally very
independent, a trait that was not conducive to forming or joining groups on the basis of
nationality or ethnicity.35 But perhaps the most important reason was the very different
personal circumstances existing between the groups. Most of the EVWs could not, or
simply did not wish to, return to their homelands in communist eastern Europe, although
many still hoped for political change and a possible return in the future. For this group,
remaining in contact with their fellow countrymen in Britain was vitally important. This
emphasis on contact and a strong sense of belonging to a cultural group resulted in the
passing on of culture and language to the next generation.36 For the German migrants
things were very different. Even if they intended staying in Britain for some length of
time, they were soon able to afford to visit relatives and go on holiday to Germany. It
seems that only when they reached retirement did they start to meet more often and
regularly with other Germans.
There is very little information concerning German clubs that started in the immediate
post-war period, but the few sources available suggest that those formed did so mainly in
conjunction with churches or on the initiative of local people. This was the case with the
Deutsche Club in Motherwell, which was founded by the Presbyterian minister. A
women’s club was initiated in Glasgow by ‘a couple of women of German descent’ and
several war brides,37 and the Anglo-German-Austrian Circle and War Brides Club in
London was established by a former member of the British Control Commission. The
club was an information resource rather than a social one.38
Several church and religious organisations also became involved, the best known
being the German YMCA in London. This organisation was originally founded in 1860
but, like most German institutions in Britain, was badly affected by both world wars. In
1939, its headquarters at Westgate House were closed down. Post-war activities began in
1945 with discussions on how best to support the work being done for German POWs.
Organised by the World YMCA, the initial General Meeting was held in St George’s
Church39 in London’s East End. The church remained a focal point and a meeting place
 German migrants in post-war britian 106

for older members for many years. Its main purpose was to give financial and material
assistance to clergymen carrying out pastoral work in the camps. On 21 December 1947,
the group organised a Christmas celebration for German POWs in Forest Hill. In 1948,
with many Germans now deciding to remain in Britain, support for a new German
YMCA started to emerge. Initially the organisation saw its primary role as offering
support to civilian workers both inside and outside the camps, and as early as March 1948
building a new German YMCA hostel was considered.40 In 1948, the group started
publishing a regular news pamphlet again, but it was not until 1949 that a key objective
was realised with a move to the Landale Hall Hostel and Centre in Hampstead. In 1959,
they relocated to Craven Terrace House, with a final move in 1973 to the New Lancaster
Hall Hotel, their current offices.41
In 1949, the German YMCA held its first Londoner Woche (London Week), in which
it tried to reach out to former POWs living outside London: ‘The idea was to get about 20
men to spend a week in London and arrange a full programme comprising lectures,
sightseeing tours, entertainment, etc.’42 The first two events of this kind were deemed
successful, but by 1950, it was already proving difficult to get farm workers down to
London for a week. The registration fee of £7.5 and the shortage of holidays for farm
workers were probable causes.43 For these reasons the German YMCA’s sphere of
activity became mainly restricted to Greater London. For a number of years the
Employment Service, founded in 1951, also offered support to German migrants. In
1960, its work was taken over by the Verein für Internationale Jugendarbeit (Society for
International Youth Work) based in Bonn.
The German YMCA of the post-war period was notable in the very relaxed view of
the ‘M’ in its title, and thus ‘a group of young German girls, who had only arrived from
their own country the day before’ took part in an Advent celebration as early as 5
December 1949.44 A few months later, an article appeared in the news pamphlet
announcing that, ‘in the due course of time “a new” area of work’ had been found.45
These female members made a vital contribution to consolidating the YMCA, which
waited in vain during the initial post-war period for a flood of young men to join. By
1952, 133 of the 237 members were female, and in the previous 12 months alone, 95
women and just 55 men had joined the German YMCA.46
There were also several specifically Catholic organisations active in the post-war
years. The Caritasverband was a charitable association based in Germany that worked to
support POWs and civilian workers. This organisation wrote letters and sent reading
material to those in hostels or on farms. They experienced the usual problems in getting
addresses, and by the summer of 1948, had managed to write to just 680 workers, of
which only 20 per cent replied.47 The most active organisation was the German National
Federation of Catholic Associations for the Protection of Young Women, based in
Freiburg. Its chairwoman, Elisabeth Denis, made a lengthy visit to Britain in November
1949 that included inspecting cotton mills in Lancashire.48
At the time of Elisabeth Denis’s visit, there were already two Germans living in the
Pallottiner Convent in Rochdale who were heavily involved in the care of migrants: the
former POW chaplain Father August Mücke, and lay helper Johanna Verhoeven. The
latter arrived in Manchester in 1948 to work as a domestic servant, although she also
intended to take school exams at the Pallottiner School, where her aunt worked, and then
go on to study.49 Working with Father Mücke, Johanna Verhoeven focussed on the
 Welfare and support 107

Sudeten German women. She even received a small amount of money for her efforts
from a government office in London. In the convent, which also provided religious
services in Polish and Italian when needed, she helped organise social evenings, theatre
visits and excursions (to places as far flung as Scotland and Rome). In addition, she
visited workers in their hostels, and as a result of this gained an insight into the physical
and emotional problems that often accompanied unwanted pregnancies and abortions.50
Evidently, Elisabeth Denis was so concerned by the scale of the work needing to be
done that when she visited Rochdale the following year her organisation sent a full-time
assistant to help. Cäcilia Tilgner arrived in Rochdale in October 1950, where she was to
spend the next two years working with Father Mücke and Johanna Verhoeven. In a report
dated July 1951, she described her activities as ‘belonging in the category of Priest’s
work’.51 Her duties included managing the card index that held all known addresses.
Starting with 600 addresses, she had increased this to 3,000 by July 1950. This was
thanks not only to her own research but also the efforts made by parishes in Germany,
youth organisations and the German passport office that put information leaflets into
passports. In addition to the card index, Cäcilia Tilgner’s office activities included
sending out circulars and handling correspondence.52
House visits were also a fixed part of her duties. These were usually made in the
evening as most women were at work during the day. By mid-1951, Cäcilia Tilgner had
visited in some cases, on several occasions, 80–90 private hostels accommodating 2 or 3
young women, on average, and approximately 20 larger factory-owned hostels, each
housing more than 10 German Catholics. In the larger hostels she tried to co-opt a helper
who would inform the other women about ‘church services, consultation times, meetings,
weekend and holiday plans’. She dealt with personal problems such as loneliness and
hardship, illness, depression and nervous breakdowns, sackings and evictions, troubles
with the police, court appearances, deportations or unwanted pregnancies. She also
helped prepare for church services and religious meetings, and with religious instruction
and saying the rosary. And finally, in an effort to reach out to Germans living or working
outside the cotton industry and to extend support and coordination, she made an extensive
tour of England, in February 1951, visiting Birmingham, London, Northampton,
Leicester and Loughborough.53
In February 1952, Cäcilia Tilgner moved to London and took over St Lioba, a post she
held until 1955. This was a house in Exeter Road in Kilburn that the Associations for the
Protection of Young Women had acquired from a German emigrant, Johanna Maier-
Hultschin, on very favourable terms. The house had club and meeting rooms, offices, a
library and overnight accommodation. Cäcilia Tilgner’s departure from Rochdale was not
solely due to the exodus of Sudeten Germans that began in 1951, but also due to
difficulties between her and Father Mücke.54 She left shortly before the textile crisis
reached its climax, and had the full social consequences of it been foreseen then her
departure may well have been postponed. Cäcilia Tilgner did return briefly to Rochdale
in May and again in July 1952 ‘to offer help and advice in two exceptional cases’.55
 German migrants in post-war britian 108

Churches

The level of pastoral and social support given to the foreign workers, in their respective
native languages, would have been virtually impossible without the help of British
churches. In this respect the British Council of Churches played a significant role. Its
Foreign Workers Committee supported over 50 clergymen of various nationalities and
denominations, both financially and administratively. Further important contributions
were made by the Lutheran World Federation, the Catholic Committee for European
Workers (which sponsored 30 foreign priests), and churches in many of the migrants’
home countries.56 Locally, migrants were offered special support from the Anglican and
nonconformist churches.57 Relatively high numbers of first generation practising
Catholics and Protestants preferred to stay with their native language churches, if this was
possible given the process of consolidation that began in the early 1950s. In contrast, later
generations were more likely to join local parishes.58
German churches in Britain developed in different ways after the Second World War.
It seems that the Catholic church worked on the assumption that as soon as their members
had learnt the English language they would quickly integrate with the local parish,
whereas the Protestant-Lutherans did not foresee such a rapid integration. Therefore, with
exceptions like St Boniface in London and a number of convents, the Catholic clergy in
particular saw themselves playing a transitional role in the assimilation process. In the
event, this period of transition was hastened by decreasing funding and personal support
from Germany.
For several years following the end of the POW chaplaincies, there were four and
occasionally five German Catholic clergymen working in Britain. In an effort to
adequately cover their extensive geographies, they were forced to become itinerant
clergymen. The above-mentioned Father August Mücke was based at the Pallottiner
Convent and was responsible for the whole of central England until 1957. When he
eventually left for South Africa, he was replaced by Father Bernhard Hessling, also a
Pallottiner, who moved from Rochdale to Leicester where he remained until 1962. In
turn, his successor, Father Bernhard Richter, moved his base from Leicester to
Manchester, before leaving the church in 1972 to marry and move abroad. That ended the
presence of a German Catholic clergyman in the area. The Deutsche Haus (German
House) that Father Richter established in Manchester, and that many Sudeten Germans
interviewed for this study still vividly remembered, was kept open until the late 1980s by
Thilde Chalfont, a woman from Munich who had married a British man. Occasionally
during this period, church services were held at the house with the help of priests from
London.
During the 1950s, Father Guenther Dumont (Gemeinschaft von den heiligen Engeln;
Community of the Holy Angels) was based in Bradford. Equipped with a car, he served
the north-east of England and the whole of Scotland.59 According to his first progress
report, he travelled 7,425 km (4,615 miles) between March and December 1951, and
during this period held 42 church services (with a total of 989 participants), heard 123
confessions, gave 127 holy communions, christened 7 children, married 6 couples, visited
54 ‘home or social evenings (dance)’ and wrote 307 letters personally.60 Travelling by
motorcycle, Father August Kernebeck served the south-west of England from his home in
Bristol. Also a member of the Community of the Holy Angels, Father Kernebeck worked
 Welfare and support 109

in the south-west from mid-1952 until 1954 when he returned to Germany for family
reasons.61 And finally, from the beginning of 1952 right up until 1986, Pallottiner Father
Felix Leushacke held the post of Rector at the German St Bonifatious Mission in
London.62
The appointment of Father Leushacke marked the start of systematic support for post-
war migrants and the consolidation of pastoral work. His responsibilities included
overseeing the rebuilding of the St Boniface Church in the East End of London, which
was hit by four German bombs in 1940 and totally destroyed. Over time a temporary
chapel, a meeting room and some provisional accommodation were erected on the site of
the ruins. These temporary structures remained in place until 1960 when, in the wake of a
legal battle with the Diocese of Westminster, a new church and vicarage were built. In
1970, a new parish community centre, Wynfrid House which contained sleeping facilities
for up to 40 people in single rooms or dormitories, was built. The rebuilding was paid for
by British compensation for war damage, which meant that the fact that the whole estate
had been confiscated by the British government as a consequence of First World War
turned out to be fortuitous in the long run.
The responsibilities and experiences of both Catholic and Protestant clergymen were
similar, even if their initial circumstances differed. In a way, both attempted in 1945 to
pick up where they had left off in 1914. The intervening period had been one of wartime
restrictions and low numbers of German migrants. In the early post-war years
congregations consisted mainly of Germans, or Britons with German ancestors who had
settled in Britain before the First World War. This generalisation, however, ignores the
fact that along with Jewish refugees, a number of Christians also resettled in England
after 1933. In many instances, these migrants made up a significant portion of
congregations during wartime. Furthermore, members of the NSDAP could be found
amongst the clergy, along with ‘non-Aryan’ vicars who had been absorbed on the
initiative of the Anglican church. These resulted in difficult issues that both churches had
to examine and come to terms with after 1945, but which can only be touched upon
briefly in this study.
In May 1946, Julius Rieger, vicar at the German Lutheran St George’s Church in
London’s East End, compiled a report on the state of German Protestant churches in
Britain.63 He began with the seven London parishes, although one of which, Islington,
had not existed since the First World War. He considered the German Protestant Christ
Church in Knightsbridge to be the most important in London. Its buildings had remained
intact and services were held there every Sunday. The banker Baron Bruno von
Schroeder had built the church in 1904 as a memorial to his late wife. It was erected in
one of the smartest parts of London, and replaced the German Hofkapelle (Court Church)
that had closed in 1901. Located not far from the German Embassy, it had enjoyed the
support of the German Empire, although after 1945, contact with and support from the
German diplomatic staff decreased.64 According to Julius Rieger’s report, the
congregation consisted mainly of refugees from Nazi Germany. The German Lutheran St
George’s Church (founded in 1762), in which he served as a vicar, had also held Sunday
church services for the duration of the war and continued to do so in the post-war period.
The situation was different in the remaining London parishes. The Hamburg Lutheran
Church (Dalston), founded in 1669, had only a very small congregation and the
ecclesiastical duties were performed on its behalf by a retired Methodist Minister. The
 German migrants in post-war britian 110

building housing the German Lutheran St Maria’s Church (near Waterloo Bridge) had
been completely destroyed. Pastor Hans-Herbert Kramm (at Mansfield College Oxford
since 1938) had been appointed vicar of this church in 1943. The German Protestant St
Paul’s Church (Whitechapel), at which Dietrich Bonhoeffer had worked between 1933
and 1935, had also been completely destroyed.
Outside London, there were two so-called refugee congregations in Birmingham, both
with declining memberships. There were congregations in a similar state in Oxford and
Cambridge. Church services had still not resumed at the Bradford parish, whose vicar,
Wilhelm Hansen, had been interned as a National Socialist from 1940 to 1945.65 Shortly
after 1945 there was a split in the congregation, with older members rejecting their
former vicar and post-war migrants from Germany supporting him. According to Rieger,
no parish life was possible in Hull at the time because the town had been declared a
prohibited area by the military during the war, and thus many active members of the
congregation had moved away. A refugee congregation had formed in Leeds in 1941,
whilst in Liverpool the pastor was interned between 1940 and 1944, and then repatriated,
leaving only the church foreman to hold monthly bible readings. He was also responsible
for Manchester, where the church remained closed to its parishioners and also to the
refugee congregation that had formed there in 1941. There is very little information in
Rieger’s report concerning Middlesbrough, Newcastle and South Shields.
The report, submitted only a year after the end of the war, avoids giving reasons for
internments or indicating party membership or political agitation on the part of individual
pastors. On the other hand, Dietrich Bonhoeffer who worked in London between 1933
and 1935, and who was condemned to death on 20 July 1944, became a symbol for many
Protestant Christians of their past in Britain. The refugee congregations in London,
Oxford, Cambridge, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, that is the ‘non-Aryan’ vicars,
were soon almost as forgotten as the clergymen harbouring National Socialist views or
the deep divisions and tensions within German congregations when old established
members met refugees or post-war migrants. This was partly because, by the end of the
war at the latest, refugees from Nazi Germany had either moved again within Britain or
to a third country, or even returned to Germany. The post-war migrants, on the other
hand, soon outlived the previous generation of German migrants. Also, the clergymen
rarely remained in the country for any length of time as they tended to be replaced
relatively quickly.66
For the Protestant/Lutheran churches, the post-war period was characterised by the
creation of a network of parishes that almost covered the entire country. In 1961, there
were 16 vicars (in 1999 there were still 7) serving 18 parishes and holding regular church
services in German in 50 different towns and cities. In London alone there were 6
parishes, not counting the German YMCA with its 3 houses. There was also a German
old peoples’ home, a seamen’s home and a nursing home and guesthouse. In several
towns and cities, Edinburgh for example, parishes that had ceased to exist in 1914 were
re-established after 1945.67
Social work carried out by the Protestant and Catholic churches, their vicars and active
laymen, was very similar in nature. Both felt that it was important to create meeting
places and centres that the scattered German population could turn to when coming to
town from the countryside, or to the city centre from the suburbs or, in the case of
London, to Britain from the continent. Facilities would include childcare whilst parents
 Welfare and support 111

shopped, social evenings, women’s circles, the (obligatory) Christmas bazaars, carnival
celebrations, instruction for communion and confirmations, as well as Sunday schools
and, in some places, Saturday schools. In this way, churches of all denominations and
nationalities helped the migrants integrate into British society, as did a plethora of other
organisations whose activities we have only been able to give the briefest of mentions
here.
 5
Fifty years on

Return or remain?

During the winter of 1950–51, the German Ministry of Labour asked the British Office of
the Manpower Adviser in Wahnerheide for a list of addresses of those women who had
been recruited under the North Sea scheme. The reply stated that although the Ministry of
Labour in London was in possession of files on foreigners who were employed in Britain,
they did not contain actual addresses or details on work placements.1 This lack of
information at such an early stage gives an indication of the general difficulty getting
socially and historically relevant data about migrants in post-war Britain. The ministry
did not keep a central register, and further, the published information derived from
censuses or other statistics raises more questions than it answers. Our efforts to shed light
on those who returned home and those who remained are thus largely estimates. We have
complemented this with an unusual, if not unique, source: the Alien Register of Salford,
held at the Manchester Police Museum.
We can assume that most post-war German migrants remained mobile, moving around
within the country or even resettling. As Anthony H.Richmond pointed out, it would have
been anachronistic for migrants to ‘settle permanently in a particular country or locality’.2
One of the most important reasons for European migrants in Britain to forego further
international migration was their unwillingness, or the sheer impossibility of returning to
their country of origin. This was especially the case for many refugees from Nazi
Germany, as well as for the majority of the EVWs. If they were to leave Britain at all,
then only migration to a third country was possible. According to a study by
J.A.Tannahill published in 1958, at the date of publication 25 per cent of the EVWs who
had come to Britain immediately after the war had already undertaken just such a step.
Most had gone to Canada, and only a third had gone to the USA.3
Also, a substantial number of German and ethnic German migrants did not want to
return to home countries or regions that were now behind the iron curtain. With the
exception of the POWs nearly all were recruited in the western parts of Germany or in
Austria, where they had friends or relatives. A return to these areas would have been
possible, and was indeed probably planned by most of them. Those who did not return to
Germany or who used Britain as a springboard to a third country were usually married.
Very few single women chose to stay on in Britain to improve their career prospects. This
is also true of the POWs to some extent, as those from the former German eastern
territories or from eastern Europe hardly knew West Germany at all.
Exact information about the numbers of returnees only exists for the period up until
the end of 1950. By then, 602 EVWs had been deported, and 3,828 had returned
voluntarily to the continent. Together, this amounted to approximately 5 per cent of the
recruited foreign workforce.4 A far greater proportion of the North Sea women returned
 Fifty years on 113

to Germany, although it has to be considered that the duration of their stay was initially
restricted by residency permits of only 2 or 3 years. By the end of 1950, 928 of the 9,713
recruits had left Britain. Amongst the Sudeten Germans, 63 of the 1,304 had left and of
the ethnic Germans 10 of the 1,378 had left.5
Evidence of the strength of this cross-border movement of people is provided by the
census of 1951, which recorded 33,260 male and 63,119 female residents born in
Germany (total 96,379). In Scotland the figures were 4,087 (2,197 and 1,890
respectively). The 1951 census allows a further differentiation of the data for England
and Wales. Of the 96,379 residents born in Germany 15,439 were recorded as male aliens
and 22,281 as female aliens (Table 4). Taking into account the fact that none of the post-
war migrants were able to become naturalised Britons at that stage (except some of the
war brides), it is evident that even amongst the ex-POWs the level of international
migration must have been considerable: some 15,000 POWs remained in the country
after 31 December 1948, but in 1951 the total number of male aliens born in Germany,
including the non-naturalised refugees from Nazi-Germany, students, academics,
business people, etc. was only 15,439. Although here one should also take into
consideration the fact that a large number of POWs were born outside the German Reich.
The exodus of post-war female German migrants seems even more significant. By 1951,
their number was up to 35,000 (excluding war brides), whereas
Table 4 England and Wales. Residents born in
Germany by census year
1951 1961 1971 1991
Male 33,260 40,379 58,935 87,679
Female 63,119 80,572 98,745 127,855
Total 96,379 120,951 157,680 215,534
Source: Census England and Wales, 1951–91.

the census of the same year recorded only 22,448 female aliens born in Germany.
Migrants who considered a temporary return to Germany or migration to a third
country are further interesting topics that are equally hard to assess using the official
statistics. Amongst those we interviewed, there were a few POWs who had tried to make
a living in Canada or in West Germany before coming back to Britain. One woman from
the Sudetenland had actually left Britain during the textile crisis of 1952. What brought
her back was a letter from a Polish friend in England proposing marriage. Another met
her husband on a visit to Germany, lived with him in Germany until he died, and then
returned to live in London. It was certainly only a minority of migrants who criss-crossed
international borders to this extent. But what most of those who remained in Britain had
in common was that they tried out a variety of different jobs and moved quite frequently
before they finally bought their first house. Often they had moved around within the same
area, with cities and their suburbs proving most attractive in the end. They offered the
possibility of better earnings, and the educational opportunities for children were also
better. London attracted migrants at all times, but there were also other areas of the
country in which they settled and soon felt at home. Decades later, several German post-
 German migrants in post-war britian 114

war migrants were still living in the same area where they had originally started work. A
further factor to be considered is the opportunity for mobility that retirement allows. It
was at that point in life, for example, when several exPOWs moved back to the area of
Scotland where they had been interned after having spent their working lives in England.
One of the key reasons for this was that their wives came from the area of Scotland to
which they returned.
A quantitative evaluation of the Alien Register of Salford enabled detailed analysis of
the more general, anecdotal information we got from other sources. The registers contain
handwritten entries under printed headings, with additional official stamps, typewritten
entries and pasted notes. Each entry begins with a running number followed by
information on the first place of residence, the individual’s Identity Book or Registration
Certificate and personal details, such as family name and Christian name, nationality,
place and date of birth, gender, address, profession or job and family status. The
penultimate column contains the date of arrival in the district, a record of previous
addresses, the date of arrival in Britain and the last address in their home country. The
entry ends with details of the acquisition of citizenship and relevant residential and labour
regulations.
Upon arrival, all foreigners had to register with the local police who would enter their
details in the Alien Register and issue a registration certificate. Initially the registration
had to be renewed annually, but many of those interviewed for this study reported that it
had not been necessary for them to go to the relevant authority. Instead, they were visited
by unobtrusively dressed officials who took care of the formalities. A change of residence
had to be reported, as did any changes in personal circumstances, marriage for example.
Compulsory registration remained in force until 1961, at which point it was lifted for
foreigners holding unlimited residency permits.6
We analysed two volumes of the Register. They covered the period 1946–54 and
contained approximately 700 entries, 300 of which related to people of German
nationality or stateless persons born in Germany. Some of the latter were part of the
group of 96 refugees from Nazi Germany who moved to Salford in 1946. With the help
of the extra information provided by the personal entries and the details concerning
residency and work permits, it was possible to divide the remaining 204 registrants into
groups. Because the migration of war brides and recruited workers only started in 1947,
one can assume that the 11 people who moved to Salford in 1946 were close family
members of British citizens and residents or Distressed Persons.7 In 1947, 6 German
academics registered, of whom 2 returned to Germany and the remainder moved within
Britain. There was a group comprising 20 women and 3 men for whom residency permits
were limited to only a few months. Considering other entries (including naturalisation), it
can be assumed that 14 of them were war brides. Furthermore, there were entries for 11
ex-POWs and one member of the Polish Resettlement Corps who was of German
nationality. Twenty-nine Germans from the Sudetenland and 9 other women were granted
unrestricted residency permits. Two of the women came from Leipzig and were most
probably recruited as Sudeten Germans to work in the cotton industry. A further seven
were of German nationality, born in eastern or southern European countries, and entered
Britain as ethnic Germans under Westward Ho. In addition to the groups already
mentioned, between 1948 and 1951, 60 women and 2 men, all possessing a residency
permit initially limited to 1 year, moved to Salford. They were also joined by a further 23
 Fifty years on 115

women holding residency permits of either 2 or 3 years’ duration. The first group
consisted mainly of women who had been recruited either privately or through an agency,
and the latter were mainly women recruited under the North Sea scheme. The final group
comprised the 29 entries during the years 1952–54.
Taken as a whole, the Alien Register reflected great diversity in the types of migration
and the possible intentions of the migrants. For the purposes of this study, it also served
as a valuable point of reference for the group of interviewees—their regional origins,
their marriage and naturalisation patterns as well as their mobility. The entries clearly
demonstrate the extent to which women dominated migration during this period. Of the
300 entries, 72 were male and 228 were female. When pre-war refugees are excluded, the
imbalance becomes even greater: 29 men and 175 women. Furthermore, the register gives
an indication of patterns of geographical mobility. From our group of 300, 48 returned to
Germany, 14 migrated to third countries and 6 are merely listed as having ‘left UK’. The
figure of 68 persons recorded as having left the country should be regarded as the
minimum figure, because it is very probable that not all migrants would have told the
authorities before they left. Then there were 174 persons who moved to live just outside
Salford. Hence, of the 300 migrants, 242 eventually left the district. If we ignore once
more the 96 refugees from Nazi Germany, then as many as 173 out of the 204 decided to
leave the area that the Alien Register covered (45 returned to Germany, 8 migrated to a
third country, 2 ‘left UK’ and 118 moved within the UK). And if we focus exclusively on
the recruited workers who migrated to Britain, only 16 of the 173 remained in Salford
during the entire period covered by the Alien Register. Of those 173, there were only 48
for whom Salford was the first place they came to in Britain. All the others had already
moved at least once, if not several times.

Housing and work

Most recruited women and a large number of ex-POWs returned to Germany during the
1950s. In the long run, only those who were married or who had started a permanent
relationship stayed on in Britain. Marriage put an end to ideas of returning to Germany,
and also to life in hostels or sharing private rooms. Lack of money meant that for most
couples their first home was usually very modest. Only a few were lucky enough to move
into a small flat. Most had to make do with a furnished—sometimes barely furnished—
bed-sit. Several business-orientated migrants recognised the money to be made from the
post-war shortage of accommodation and bought up property with the expressed purpose
of renting out rooms. Sometimes they bought jointly with others. These properties usually
housed a far higher than average number of tenants. According to Maud Bülbring’s study
of 1954, each of the ‘refugee-owned houses’ in Salford, housed an average of 10 people,
whereas similar British-occupied houses averaged only 3–4 people.8
Of course, the consequence of such a high number of people having to share the same
kitchen, toilet and bathroom often meant conflict, which was especially difficult to deal
with if there were also babies or small children amongst the occupants. Most interviewees
were only prepared to accept such circumstances temporarily. Some applied for newly
built council flats, but generally in the early years, such applications stood little chance of
success unless the husband was British. To overcome the housing shortage the
 German migrants in post-war britian 116

government embarked on a campaign of building prefabs as a short-term solution and

developing more public sector housing as a long-term strategy. By 1951, this had resulted
in about 1.5 million new council houses, compared to only 25,000 privately built houses.
At this point about 18 per cent of all British households lived in council-owned flats or
houses, which was significantly up on the 12 per cent recorded in 1945.9 Although
anyone could register on council waiting lists and the accommodation was allocated
according to a points system, there was always considerable public interest if a foreigner
was considered for a much sought after council flat. ‘There would be an outcry if
Germans got houses before British workers’, warned the Daily Mail in January 1948.10
Two years later, two MPs even threatened to resign when it looked as though a council
flat in Manchester would be allocated to a German ex-POW and his English wife.11
Migrants often did not even try to register because they did not understand the application
procedure or the allocation system,12 and sometimes it was not wanting to be viewed as a
burden to society that stopped them from applying: ‘They would have only said, why do
Germans get a house from the council? I decided to save until I had enough money.’13
With few exceptions, most of the recruited women wanted to get out of rented
accommodation as soon as possible. They wanted to live under their own roof, and most
were able to achieve this goal by the mid-1950s. In some parts of Britain, the population
as a whole was so mobile that houses were for sale despite the nationwide shortage of
accommodation. This was particularly true in those areas of Britain dominated by the
textile industry. In contrast, property in other parts of the country remained in short
supply for several years.14 Properties that needed a lot doing to them or that were located
in the less desirable areas—the sorts of properties that still constitute transitional areas for
new migrants—could often be acquired for a deposit of only £100.
The European migrants’ drive to buy property stirred up considerable irritation, envy
and conflict within local communities. To put this in context, it is important to point out
that at this time only a quarter of all houses were owner occupied, and it was not until
1966 that the figure had increased to 47 per cent.15 Newspapers researched this delicate
issue thoroughly and kept their readers well informed, which seemed to help defuse
tensions in some communities. An example of this is an article published in The
Yorkshire Post in late November 1949. Under the provocative title: ‘These foreign
workers are a problem’, the writer answered the often posed question of how the
foreigners had managed to find all the money for such a large acquisition in such a short
period of time. The answer was, through ‘work, thrift and frugal living’.16 Similar articles
were published during 1949 and 1951 in many local or regional newspapers. They always
pointed to the extreme thrift and industriousness of the foreign workers.17
Many European workers attached a significance to owning property that a local
purchaser would not have felt. For the migrants owning their own home represented
material safety, was a visible expression of success and an indication of the degree to
which they had settled in. It was often also the result of working a lot of overtime,
holding down second or third jobs, lots of DIY and usually achieved with the help of a
network of friends. Getting together the deposit frequently involved two (sometimes
more) migrants pooling savings, and properties purchased in this way usually had all
rooms rented out to secure more capital for the next investment.
To avoid over-committing themselves, most couples started out very modestly. A two-
up, two-down Victorian terrace, with an outside toilet, and furnished with second-hand
 Fifty years on 117

furniture would have been common.18 Sometimes they moved on to larger and more
comfortable houses, which apparently got bigger as the migrants’ economic success
increased.19 The material achievement represented by property was a source of pride that
lasted for decades, and seemed to be particularly significant for those Germans who
married eastern European men and started with nothing. The obstacles they had had to
overcome were enormous. For example, finding British guarantors who were able to offer
security for a mortgage at a time when they hardly knew any English people at all, and
those that they did know usually did not have enough money themselves to stand surety
for them. This meant there was usually no alternative to working overtime to save up the
required deposit. Occasionally there might be an authority figure who could help, a
German vicar who knew the local bank manager, for example, but these instances were
exceptions rather than the rule.20 All those interviewed for this study were proud to have
managed without much help from others: ‘Everything in the house had to be done, but we
were lucky we did not have to go through the bank, we were able to pay for it directly.’21
Financially, war brides had it much easier than the recruited women, of course, and
this was particularly so when they were able to stay with their husband’s family for
months or even years after they first arrived. But even if the initial reception had been
friendly, in the long run, sharing a roof and limited space with so many other family
members was rarely easy. The lack of privacy and poor facilities (houses without a
bathroom or inside toilet were not uncommon) took their toll on relationships and created
tension. ‘We lived in the in-laws’ house for three years. […] We had a put-you-up that
was our bed. At night it was our bed, during the day we folded it up. There was a little
cradle in the corner and a table and chairs in the bay window, behind the curtain was a
small sideboard and that was it. And there we lived, slept, wrote, played, everything was
done in that room.’22
War brides also found it much easier to get into council accommodation than other
migrants, but this did not always result in much improvement in their domestic situations:
‘The flat as such was all right, but it was cold with the wind going through. […] And the
neighbours […], they fought so much, we could hear every word.’23 Given the power
landlords had as a result of the housing shortage, it is not surprising that some took their
own approach to resolving a lack of domestic help and asked for payment in kind—
housework or childcare, for example—rather than rent: ‘I cooked for him, I made his
room up and cleaned. […] Sometimes he was a bit strange, but as I said, the first five
years were not easy.’24
It was noticeable that owning one’s home was not as important to German-British
couples as it was to German-eastern European couples, nor did the former pursue it so
single-mindedly. It seems that this had something to do with the influence of the British
partner. Generally, these families’ lives did not focus solely on saving, work and
overtime. Traditional English working class values, which included enjoying leisure time
and did not necessarily place much importance on home ownership, were more likely to
influence lifestyles.
Those in rural Scotland faced a housing shortage even more severe than in the south,
and very modest, if not poor, living standards. Former POWs who stayed on farms often
had to wait a long time before being granted a cottage by their employers.
Accommodation was tied to work and regarded as part of the wage. Changing jobs meant
losing your accommodation, which explains why some workers stayed in the agricultural
 German migrants in post-war britian 118

sector for decades. Cottage accommodation seems to have been very similar in terms of
size, style and facilities. What might seem romantic today—no electricity, cooking on an
open fireplace and drawing water from the well—was then simply regarded as a very
basic standard of living. But in comparison to their city counterparts, the cottagers at least
had the free run of the whole house and surrounding land.
‘Normally these houses have a room to the left and to the right of the front door, on
one side is the kitchen and on the other, the living room’, is how Mizzi described the
cottage in which she and her husband lived for ten years: ‘Upstairs there were two
bedrooms with a window, slanting walls with sash windows which you had to pull up and
down to open or close […] and in every room an open fireplace. There was no other
heating in those days. You had to light the fire in the bedroom, in the living room, you
had to light the fire in the kitchen if you wanted boiling water for breakfast in the
morning. […] Everything was done on the open fireplace. We had an open fireplace on
which we were able to cook. We did everything on it, boiling the laundry and baking.
There was a small sort of tube next to the fire and we used that for baking. It didn’t
always work, because the side where the fire was became hotter than the other side, so
that sometimes one side of the cake was black, whereas the other side was not yet baked.
Oh well, and in the first few years we had no electricity. We had oil lamps and they were
unusual for me because I had never seen those in Germany, where we had electricity.
Yes, and what a lamp. […] They are called Tilly lamps here, you have to pump, so that
the air gets into the oil, and then there is a mantle on top which glows. […] In order to
wash ourselves we had a tin tub, a big bowl, which was carried in and put in front of the
fireplace, and then we washed ourselves there in the kitchen.’25
Wages in the agricultural sector were poor, and with many basic necessities still being
rationed, many rural families had to manage on a very tight budget. However,
supplementing the housekeeping was much easier in the country than the city: ‘Fishing,
shooting, and we also had a few chickens and ducks and a vegetable garden and we
picked berries. My husband shot pigeons, my mum sent me marjoram so we made pigeon
pate. I cut the turnips, cooked and battered them. […] We also had a lot of potatoes and
my husband grew mushrooms. We sold green beans. We tried about everything. […] We
also started baking our own bread and making our own Sauerkraut, we marinated our
herrings—just like the east Europeans do. […] We had no money, we were poor buggers,
yes, we had to slave away.’26

Living to work
The financial burden of buying a home forced families to keep their outgoings low and
their incomes as high as possible. Families where both husband and wife worked and
saved hard and spent little were the norm. Few migrant families could afford the wife to
be a mother and housewife only. Contributing to the household income meant most
women returned to work soon after giving birth, and their husbands often pressured them
to do so. This was possible because many factories had their own crèches: ‘The baby was
seven or eight weeks old when I went back to work. […] Back to the cotton mill which
also had a nursery. […] That’s where my boy grew up, as it were.’27 Others shared
childcare with a friend, or organised a neighbourhood network so they could carry on
working. For many, these self-help groups were a necessity until the children started
 Fifty years on 119

school, and they also looked after older children during the holidays and periods of
illness. Most women did not want to work full time, but felt obliged due to the financial
commitment they had taken on. Many went on to a second job, cleaning or serving in a
hospital canteen, ‘anything you could get’,28 when they finished in the factory. Looking
back, most remembered a fairly grim existence dominated by work and caring for their
family, one in which leisure and fun hardly featured: ‘It was work, work and work again.
[…] There was no happiness.’29
This was less so for those who married British men. Most husbands, particularly
working class men, did not expect their wives to work full time unless it was absolutely
necessary. So for German-British couples, it was much more common for women to give
up their jobs when children were born: ‘Unfortunately he wanted me to be a house-
mummy.’30
But in contrast to all social expectations there were also marriages in which the wife
became the sole breadwinner, as in the case of Margarete who came to Britain in 1950.
She worked in the mills until 1952 when the cotton crisis hit, and then trained as a nurse,
but gave this up after her marriage to care for her family. In 1967, her husband became ill
and had to discontinue his business. The family fell into debt and there were five young
children to look after. Stepping in to the breach, Margarete went out to work to keep the
family fed. Later she trained as a teacher and continued working to support all her
children through university. Even after she had retired officially she was still working as
a freelance language teacher.
A different pattern for ex-POWs emerged during our interviews. Many of these men
were very young when they first joined the Wehrmacht or SS. Most of them had little
work experience or had had their vocational training interrupted by going off to fight.
Those who did not marry a British woman usually carried on working in the agricultural
sector for at least four years after their release. Many of them stayed in the sector
permanently, either because they liked the work or because they just got used to it. Those
who did not want to stay in agriculture had little choice but to take on other dirty or
physically demanding jobs avoided by the locals.
Although nearly all the men we interviewed found the relationship with their bosses
difficult, rejections by work colleagues were less common. Most said that they got on
relatively well with their colleagues. Apart from some ‘obligatory’ remarks such as
‘bloody foreigner’, arguments or bullying were rare. The phrase ‘nobody gave me a hard
time’ was frequently used. Furthermore, some of the interviewees, Arthur for example,
gave the impression that staff problems a company might face through employing a
German were often solved by including a less favourable redundancy clause in their
employment contract. The company that Arthur, a qualified tool-maker, was working for
introduced temporary short work in the mid-1950s, prompting much discussion of
redundancy and insecurity amongst the staff: ‘Meanwhile I worked in the department that
accepted deliveries to the factory, that is the control department. And there was a lot of
envy amongst several colleagues, because I earned a few pennies more than them. And
then the boss tried to hide behind the trade union and said: “Foreigners have to go first.”
[…] They protected their own people with the help of the trade unions. I was the only
foreigner and thus I had to go.’31
It was rare for this sort of setback to dent a POWs work ethic. A strong commitment to
work and an eagerness to achieve came through in all we interviewed. The men felt
 German migrants in post-war britian 120

responsible for bringing in the income that would create a stable environment for their
families. They also wanted to be accepted by the locals, and being seen as an industrious
or ‘good’ foreigner was also often linked to achieving material goals. The Germans’ zeal
for work often contrasted with the approach taken by their British colleagues, and over
time the idea of the ‘industrious German’ versus the ‘lazy Brit’ became embedded in the
public imagination. The extent to which these stereotypes took hold is illustrated by the
fact that they even appeared in reports on post-war Germany made by British journalists:
‘No man ought to love the work as they do—it’s indecent, certainly uncivilised. We
English don’t love work in this slave-like way, and thank god for it.’32
The majority of ex-POWs defined themselves through their work. For some, success
at work and the material rewards this brought was their sole measure of personal success.
For these men, a sense of their own superiority accompanied by a tendency to undervalue
others became firmly entrenched: ‘If you want to work, then here in England nobody will
take the work away from you.’33 Despite their willingness to work hard, however, most
found it took much longer than expected to really feel part of the workforce. Many
experienced long periods, for some it was their entire working lives, characterised by job
insecurity and frequent changes of employer. Because so many of the jobs open to them,
either in factories or in a trade, turned out to be unsatisfying, some of the ex-POWs
became self-employed. They turned their hand to small service-oriented or trading
businesses: a corner shop, a small cafe, cleaning, building or hairdressing, for example.
Others worked their way up the ladder in factories or offices. One built bridges, several
ran farms or hotels and over the years some became modestly affluent, but only a few
became rich. At the time of our interviews most owned their own homes and cars, and
could get by comfortably on their pension. Some questioned their decision to stay in
Britain: ‘In Germany I would have achieved much more.’34

Language and career

For women professional success was often linked to English language competency, and
in this respect some were far better prepared than others. Some had learned basic English
at school in Germany, others had been able to pick up some English through work or
friendships with British soldiers in Germany. Once in Britain, if they were surrounded by
English speakers they quickly extended and consolidated their language skills. Those
who initially arrived with only a few words often preferred to shop at supermarkets to
avoid the embarrassment of resorting to sign language to overcome misunderstandings: ‘I
stood in front of the shop and hardly dared to go in. I knew what I wanted but I did not
know how to pronounce it. Initially we were confronted with so many small problems I
went into a shop and asked for “soap” but got “soup”.’35
Some women managed to obtain positions of significant responsibility due to their
language abilities. One of them, Isedore, found work and promotion with the London
Press Exchange,36 and Mechthild, who had previous experience in the German steel
industry was similarly fortunate: ‘I saw a post advertised in the Evening Standard: “Steel
exporter is looking for secretary with German language knowledge”, and when I phoned
them, they spoke German. The company was Czech with German staff. […] I got £12.
[…] The average salary was roughly £6, my salary was much more than my husband
 Fifty years on 121

earned and my mother-in-law almost fell off her chair [when she heard it]. I always had a
good salary.’37
Women recruited for nursing training usually started with a relatively good standard of
English as they had to be able to follow their specialised classes in English and had to
deal with patients from the outset. Their language competence together with the high
regard in which nurses were held made it possible for them to find partners from other
social spheres. They were thus spared many of the negative experiences encountered by
countrywomen who spoke hardly any English when they arrived and went to work as
domestics or into the textile industry. ‘In the beginning I did not speak any English. We
did not have any opportunity for that. One did the work and did not talk. [And after work]
we were amongst ourselves. That’s how it was. In two years I did not learn anything, it
was still a foreign land.’38
Women who married eastern European men were generally quite slow to expand their
language skills. They were part of a multi-lingual and multi-cultural environment. The
Memel-German/Lithuanian couple, Eleonore and Viktor, is a case in point. Both started
work in a textile factory, and it was there that they met. For the first five years of their
marriage they only spoke German to each other. This began to change once their first
child started school: ‘Now after 50 years my English has become a bit better. […] In
former years we read German books and journals every week, we read a lot. And the
German vicar brought me Kicker. Now I also read English and I receive a Lithuanian
newspaper, so I know what is going on at home. Most of us never went to school or never
had any classes in English. […] The pronunciation does not come out correctly, the
accent is different, it is Pidgin English.’39 Like many eastern Europeans, the standard of
their English effectively barred them from going into a profession and limited their
working lives in other ways.
But of course there are always exceptions. Gretel, a Sudeten German married to a
Ukrainian, was determined to overcome her language limitations: ‘Language classes? no,
not at all. There [in Oldham] we had to look out for ourselves, how best to get by. I
always went around with a dictionary in my hand, and turned to those who knew a little
English. This usually worked. And then there was a night school in Blackburn “English
for Foreigners”. […] Later on, when I worked in a hospital, I already knew a little
English. I always found it painful to pass by the National College when I came into town
with my little daughter, Irene. It always hurt me that I did not have a proper education.’
Eventually she took night classes to catch up on her missing education. This helped her
get a job as a secretary in a small firm that was later taken over by a German
multinational: ‘At the beginning I was in the Sales Department and then the first Germans
arrived, the Financial Director and the Manager, and I became their PA. […] I worked for
the directors until my retirement.’ Gretel’s rise from textile worker to PA, via several jobs
and hours at night school, was testimony to her motivation and enormous perseverance,
which is even more remarkable since her husband did not support her effort. When
interviewed Gretel was insistent: ‘You have to do it yourself.’40
 German migrants in post-war britian 122

Marriage and family

Apart from work and the struggle for financial security, family was the mainstay for
German migrants in Britain. However, we noticed gender differences when interviewees
talked about their partners. Some of the ex-POWs indicated that their wives had taken
responsibility for all external contacts the family had, communication with government
and local authorities, schools, estate agents, etc. and that they had not minded this at all.
This could have been due to insecurity, fear of authority, a lack of confidence or simply
because problems were more easily resolved when their British wife dealt with them. The
somewhat one-sided accounts given by the ex-POWs led us to concentrate our analysis
(and portrayal) on the experiences of women who married British or eastern European
men. Examining their life stories allowed us to explore questions of acceptance and
adaptation, supposed domestic virtues, and what they expected of and for their children.

Roles
It was striking that only two of the Sudeten German women who married eastern
European men talked about their husbands and their married life positively. All the others
referred to marital problems, which they explained in terms of differences in ‘mentality’
and role expectations. It seems that they expected partnership and sharing in their
marriages, but instead found that their husbands insisted on playing the dominant role in
all important areas of their lives, particularly in financial matters. Added to this was the
expectation that they had to go out to work to contribute to the family income,
irrespective of pregnancies or small children, or the fact that they were also responsible
for running the household and bringing up the children.
These women made it very clear that to avoid arguments they had to do as their
husbands wanted, who were often described as very simple people, relatively uneducated
and rough, sometimes out of control and occasionally violent. However, they always
mentioned, with some degree of pride, that they were also very ambitious, jealous and
hard working: ‘The Ukrainians, they were always diligent, they worked and worked. […]
We achieved much more than those who were married to English men.’41 It seemed that
their husbands were not at all interested in the domestic aspects of family life, but instead
were oriented towards the male companionship they found at their ethnic clubs: ‘The
Ukrainians loved to go out and so did he, and when he didn’t work he went to the club. If
there was any opportunity to go to the club, then he took it.’42 There was an undercurrent
of sadness to these accounts, unhappiness about the separateness of so much of their lives
and a deeply felt loneliness that sometimes bordered on feelings of marginalisation: ‘He
always brought home Poles. Our home was like a hostel, always Poles around, always
strangers, strange Poles. And only Polish was spoken. If I asked “Why do you laugh or
what did you say?”, he answered “Why don’t you learn Polish?”’43
Most women felt that they had, at least partially, accommodated their husbands’
lifestyles and expectations, changing the way they cooked and learning how to prepare
their traditional national dishes, for example. Some learned how to read and write in
Ukrainian or Polish. Ilona, a Sudeten German, was typical in this respect. Her story was
one of almost total subservience to her husband, and she seemed almost relieved to have
the chance the interview gave her to talk about it. She was recruited in 1949 to work in
 Fifty years on 123

the cotton mills, and just seven months after arriving in Britain and aged 23, she married
a 41-year old Ukrainian. She stressed that she went into the marriage not for love, but
rather, very pragmatically in the hope of finding a better life: ‘They all got married, so I
thought I should get married too. I met him on the dance floor. He was a good dancer. He
was nice to me and he had a small house, not too big but cosy. […] I always went to see
him, not for love but for the good soup. He made a good soup and I was always hungry.’
For her, marriage to an older man seemed to offer stability and security, but it soon
became apparent that this was not the case. Instead, total obedience was demanded of her:
‘I had to be quiet and listen to him.’
It was not only women who married to eastern European men who talked about
unhappy marriages. Women with British husbands also had bad experiences, particularly
the war brides who had come to Britain unprepared and ignorant of their new social
environment. They recalled their frustration when they realised that life in Britain was not
going to live up to their expectations, and that their husbands would not be able to offer
them what they had hoped for. It was only then that some realised just how different the
social environment they would have to live in was to what they were used to. Those for
whom social status was important and who experienced a significant drop on coming to
Britain found it hard to adjust. ‘I came from a very different family compared to my
husband’, reported Paula, the daughter of a well-to-do family of piano builders and
traders whose childhood and youth had been influenced by classical music and ballet
dancing: ‘His main interest was sport, dog and horse racing.’ With hindsight she felt she
had been too young, too ignorant and confused by the circumstances of the time. She
wished she had given herself more time to get to know her boyfriend, and to have learned
to speak English better before committing herself: ‘Our circumstances after the war were
not normal, everything was up-side-down.’44
The then 18-year-old Elvira from Berlin was also taken aback by the social conditions
her young husband introduced her to. This very sheltered, only daughter stopped training
as a nurse to go to Britain. But she then found herself in ‘deeply primitive conditions’ in a
run-down part of London. All her new husband’s family were unemployed and
unmotivated, living in one flat with an outdoor toilet and no running water. But what
disappointed her most was finding out that her husband was illiterate: ‘I received letters
apparently from him, but they were written by others. He was unable to read or write.
That’s why he was so insecure and couldn’t hold a job. My baby was three days old
before he came to the hospital to visit me, this was because he couldn’t read the
directions.’45 Like Elvira, several other women blamed themselves for being too
inexperienced and too easily impressed by the men’s courting to think about their future
life in Britain clearly. They had just assumed that their situation would improve over
time. Their knowledge of English had initially been too poor for them to have had any
real conversations with their boyfriends about their future lives. ‘Anyway, we thought
they were all lords here.’46
Many women married into the working class, which at that stage was much more rigid
in terms of cultural values and the way it saw itself than the German working class. Some
German brides not only bemoaned their drop in social status but also their husband’s
satisfaction with that very same social standing. These men showed none of the signs of
individual ambition to better themselves or to ‘make it’, and many ambitious German
women obviously found it difficult to reconcile such passive attitudes with their own
 German migrants in post-war britian 124

hopes and dreams. Interestingly, several of those who talked about unhappy marriages
portrayed their husbands as the active party in pursuing the marriage, thus tending to
ignore their own motives, which at the time were often dominated by a strong desire to
leave Germany. It was this retrospective one-sidedness that was behind comments such
as: ‘He insisted, and then we got engaged’,47 and: ‘He was so persistent that I thought it
must be love.’48
But such disappointment was not the cornerstone of all marriages. We also heard from
happy brides and marriages, including Hermine: ‘We rented a very nice flat [in London].
I carried on working, but was always free on weekends. It was very nice, very
comfortable. We had little money, my God, how little money we had. I didn’t have a
washing machine. I had a boiler and even made my own Sauerkraut. We had a very good
time. We also had nice friends and each weekend we either went to the Royal Festival
Hall or to the National Theatre or to the cinema. It was lovely.’ Hermine was recruited in
1949 under the North Sea scheme to work in a hospital. She still remembered why she
was drawn to her future husband. After some turbulent years, which included escaping
from Danzig, forced labour in Poland and then migrating to Britain, she was looking for
security. Her British husband offered this. He was also intelligent and reliable, traits she
appreciated, and he was interested in ‘everything German’.49
Irrespective of how they judged their marriage, all the interviewees described their
role within the family in similar ways. With very few exceptions, they all stressed that
they had been ‘very good housewives’. They also viewed it as a personal triumph that
their practical skills and ability to economise had enabled them to survive those
financially difficult years and successfully bring up their children. Some of the skills they
needed for those early years in Britain, living frugally and being able to save, for
example, they had developed during the war. Many had also consciously become the
traditional model of the good Hausfrau. This was an ideal that was further promoted
during the Nazi period, and emphasised being orderly, clean, frugal and good with
money.
They took pride in being able to grow their own fruits and vegetables, sew and knit for
their children, and turn their hand to DIY. Many mentioned their talent for domestic
organisation, and often made a distinction between themselves and British households
where ‘a lot of things are wasted’.50
In this context, many also made use of and valued those supposed symbols of German
culture, such as a young women’s traditional dowry of bed and table linen, fine bone
china crockery or silver cutlery: ‘It was unknown here in Britain for a girl to get a dowry.
[…] They were green with envy when they saw it. […] And our way of cooking, they
couldn’t compare with us. And we brought cleanliness, real cleanliness and culture to this
area.’51 So for some there was a strong desire to differentiate and distance themselves
from their neighbours, and a feeling of superiority that seemed to be the outcome of how
a whole generation of women had been socialised. However, these women were the
exception rather than the rule.

Children
Children played a particularly important role in the lives of the German women. They
were often the only people they could talk to in their mother tongue. Some children spoke
 Fifty years on 125

only German up until the age of 4 or 5 when they started school, and English quickly
became the language the children spoke amongst themselves. The linguistic mix for
families was also influenced by close relatives arriving from Germany. Several widows
joined their daughters in Britain. Since most of them could not speak English, the
grandchildren were more or less forced to speak German. Even if a grandmother had only
stayed for a limited time, their visit seemed to have a significant effect on the children’s
motivation: ‘They wanted to learn German to speak with their Omi, not with me.’52
According to the interviewees, nearly all their children learned German to some extent.
Their childhood fluency sometimes faded as they went through school, or in some cases
remained and was even used professionally later on.
In families with eastern European fathers, the children often had to learn their
language as well. In many areas of Britain, this was made possible by Saturday or Sunday
schools that taught religion and culture. Tri-lingual families were not the exception:
‘Well, table language was German because my mother came here when my daughter just
started school. My mother stayed in my house for 13 years and then she died; thank God
she was here, we talked German. My husband spoke Polish with his friends in the house
and my children learned Polish as well, as they went to Sunday school.’53
Mothers did not only dominate home and child rearing, including the extent to which
children learnt German, they also invested a lot of energy ensuring that their children
fulfilled the expectations they had for them at school. But this was not only a German
characteristic. It seems, rather, to have been a common trait of most European migrant
mothers. How their children performed at school, their efforts to support them and their
husbands’ indifference in this respect, were topics that featured heavily in all our
interviews, as did describing their pride and joy when their children ‘did really well at
school’.54 These women did not identify with traditional British working class values
regarding education in any way. In this respect they certainly remained ambitious
continental Europeans, whose biggest wish was to see each of their children do well in
both professional and social terms. Often, these high expectations came from wanting the
next generation to make up for their own missed or interrupted education. And in fact
most children, if they were able to cope with the enormous pressure put on them, were
more successful in society’s terms than their parents. The majority went on to get a
university degree, which made them part of a relatively small professional group at that
time in Britain. Photographs of graduation ceremonies decorated the mantelpieces of
many parental living rooms.

Resentment, conflict and adaptation

The academic literature does not give a consistent picture of the British population’s
attitude and opinions towards the European workers, but there is consensus that there
were no known cases of collective violence against the migrants. It is important to stress
this fact, in view of the violent incidents involving several migrant groups in different
hostels,55 as well as the anti-Semitic riots in August 194756 and the more widely known
Liverpool riots of 1948.57 If collective violence between locals and migrants cannot
therefore be automatically excluded, the question arises as to why it did not occur against
the Europeans?
 German migrants in post-war britian 126

Possible reasons, such as strong similarities in culture and appearance, skin colour in
particular, do not explain the violence against Jews. In this context one should also
consider that, according to Michael le Lohe’s study on Bradford, the EVWs ‘rarely spoke
English and second they were distinguished by their “Slavic” appearance, haircuts and
dress. Third, they were competing in the housing market and some of our “lads” who had
fought with “Monty still had no roof of their own”.’58 A definitive explanation is also
difficult because a variety of attitudes to foreigners could be expressed by the same strata
of British society. These attitudes were usually very localised. Sometimes they extended
across a region, but never the whole country, and never did they condone collective
violence.
All previous attempts so far to generalise about the attitudes that led to violence have
not been convincing because the assumptions they are based on are not well founded.
Also, there was a section of the local population that was socially helpful and actively
involved in helping them, although the majority remained indifferent and hardly noticed
the migrants. ‘The reaction throughout the country, as far as can be ascertained is
practically nil’, declared a member of staff from the Department of Agriculture and
Fisheries for Scotland, in February 1948: ‘From enquiries made in the Borders, South,
West, Central Scotland and also the North, it appears that the public are completely
apathetic towards these people.’59 J.A.Tannahill drew a similar conclusion in 1958.
Referring to the traditional reserve of the British, he noted the ‘customary lack of
effusion’ with which locals greeted the European workers. And he concluded that
although there was indeed both opposition and indifference, the general attitude was one
of tolerance.60
Writing at the end of the 1980s, Colin Holmes rejected the assumption that there was
universal tolerance. He did point out that little was known about the contemporary image
of the European migrant or the construction of this image.61 Over 50 years on, it is
impossible to close this gap, particularly given the deficiencies of the surviving sources.
The situation is further obscured by the fact that the image of European migrants has
become somewhat idealised as a result of, and when compared with the migrants from
the Commonwealth who arrived later.62 As a consequence, the barriers that initially
existed between the British and the EVWs, that is to say, between ‘us’ and ‘them’ or
‘them’ and ‘us’, became more permeable. And in an odd twist, the later migrants from the
Commonwealth had to contend with a greater level of hostility. Interestingly, even their
European predecessors contributed to this, as they now no longer felt themselves to be at
the bottom of society but rather part of the new ‘us’, as opposed to the newcomers who
were the new ‘them’.63

Them Poles
The British government’s decision to recruit European workers in the post-war years was,
in effect, a decision to discourage the immigration of non-white British subjects from its
dominions and colonies. During the discussions surrounding the Polish Resettlement Act,
it became clear that an agreement on this immigration and recruitment policy would only
be possible with the approval of the trade unions. Initially they were very sceptical. The
reservations of individual union officials seemed to reflect the opinions of different
sectors of the British public. In his 1956 study, Jerzy Zubrzycki identified deep rooted
 Fifty years on 127

social problems, including the shortage of housing and hostility from the local
population, as the main reasons for the high rates of alcoholism, criminality, mental
illness and suicide amongst the Polish migrants.64 Following Germany’s invasion of the
Soviet Union, these former Polish heroes of the Battle of Britain found themselves
pushed into the shadow of the new Soviet allies, for whom they did not have much love.65
After the war, they and their families became the targets of hostile attacks for which
newspapers including the Daily Mirror, the Evening Standard and the News Chronicle
were partially responsible for inciting.66
The humiliation, attacks and rejections they suffered often stayed with them for the
rest of their lives.67 ‘During the war we were all friends with them’ a Pole from
Huddersfield stated, ‘but after the war there were already some people in Scotland, most
of them politically motivated, who used to…were hostile towards us.’68 Another recalled
being badly treated by the locals, and being barred from a local pub.69 ‘Pole’ was one of
the most frequently used insults applied to all foreign workers at the time. ‘In those days
every foreigner was classed as a Pole. Whether he was Ukrainian, or Yugoslavian, or
German or anybody, he was a Pole! That’s the way it was.’70 This often produced forms
of segregation or avoidance,71 even to the extent of local families moving away when a
Pole bought the house next door: ‘They were trying to bloody leave the street straight
away, you see, like you were frightened buying a house next to a bloody Pakistani.’72
This remark also indicates how the migrants came to see themselves as ‘us’ and became
the discriminator (as opposed to the discriminated against) when the later waves of
migration from the Commonwealth took place.
The European workers were definitely not welcomed everywhere, but the extent of
discrimination, hostility, attacks and teasing cannot be correlated with particular regions
or cities, or the further north or south they went. Even areas that traditionally prided
themselves on their hospitality could be intolerant. In June 1948, the city council of Perth
had a heated debate about the use of Fenchney Hostels as accommodation for 880 foreign
workers who were going to be employed in the local textile and building industries. The
debate, which centred on the basic conflict of interest between the necessity of ‘national
exports’ and the size of the local housing shortage,73 provoked many letters to the editor
that were clearly antagonistic towards them.74 Finally, a group of 80 EVW women were
housed there. A year later, they again became the target of local resentment. The occasion
was their move into a newly refurbished former military camp near Scone. This prompted
some local residents to present a petition signed by 113 people to the County Council.75
Another indication of this hostility can be found in a 1949 report in an Oldham
newspaper which criticised the attitude taken by the local population towards the DPs:
‘When the mysterious letters are whispered, we turn in the street, furtively, as if these
people were some kind of new parish to be tolerated, not human-beings who have lost
their countries, their families and almost lost themselves.’76 About two years later the ‘so-
called Lancashire hospitality’ was called into question after an Austrian female worker
committed suicide. Residents were apparently proud of their reputation for hospitality,
but readers were asked, ‘how many of us ever give a kind word to one of these people?’77
As with Oldham and other cities and regions in Britain, kindness and hostility
probably also co-existed in Bradford. The image of Bradford as a ‘good town’ for
foreigners was based on a period during the Second World War when locals had invited
several hundred Polish soldiers as part of a ‘hospitality scheme’.78 According to Maud
 German migrants in post-war britian 128

Bülbring writing in 1954, this prompted more Polish workers to settle in Bradford.79
Sigrid Baringhorst presented similar arguments in a more recent study. She saw British
hostility being more focussed on Asian and Afro-Caribbean migrants.80 However this is
contradicted by some of the British textile workers interviewed as part of the Oral History
Project, Bradford’s Textile Community, who spoke of a widespread rejection of and
hostility towards European migrants: ‘Some of the people, you know, probably wouldn’t
look to the side they were on.’81 Similar memories were recalled by the recipients when
talking about a difficult beginning, the unfriendly atmosphere and harsh treatment, or
even being victims of a ‘strong anti-foreigner feeling’.82
This tension was reflected in contemporary media reports, which also tried to defuse
the tension. There were numerous articles that dealt with Europe’s DPs and the fact that
Britain was short of labour. Newspapers kept their readers informed about official
government policy on migration. They also played a part in helping find accommodation,
raising awareness of social problems and contributing to the acceptance of foreign
workers in general and thus helping bridge the gap between newcomers and hosts. Later
on, articles were published in which the work performance of the European workers was
praised, or the speed with which their initial problems had been overcome was also
referred to.83 On the other hand, they also reported in detail when EVWs appeared in
court due to heavy drinking, violence, vandalism or some other criminal act,84 or when
women were afraid to walk near a DP camp after dark,85 or instances such as when
farmers complained about the behaviour of workers in Full Sutton Camp and the
surrounding area.86
Newspaper portrayals of EVWs employed in agriculture were often negative. The
main reason for this seems to have been mismatched expectations. Farms needing
workers in the post-war years were those where the living and working conditions were
particularly harsh and that had previously been able to satisfy their demand for workers
with POWs. But many of the recruits did not want to work in a sector involving
physically strenuous work that was not particularly well paid. In July 1948, the first of a
three-part series of articles appeared in the Daily Mirror that openly stirred up resentment
towards the EVWs. According to this, a third of all labourers recruited for agricultural
work were not actually working in the sector, many did not want to learn English, and yet
they were receiving double the ration of food a British agricultural worker could expect.
Wages were supposedly so generous that by working for four or five days they earned so
much they would take the following week off.87 It is likely that the Daily Mirror was
reflecting a more widespread annoyance felt by the public. Scottish farmers, for example,
had expressed strong dissatisfaction with the performance of Poles and EVWs, and had
even demanded their deportation.88 The reputable Yorkshire Post wrote at the end of
1948: ‘Sympathetic as one feels towards DPs as an unfortunate class, it must be recorded
that the experience of the farming community with regard to the EVW labour has not
been altogether a happy one. […] Many farmers feel that the repatriation of so many
prisoners of war, who were admirable workers, and their replacement with Eastern
European Volunteers has been a serious political error.’89
 Fifty years on 129

Bloody Nazis
In the early post-war years, the media often depicted German POWs in a very positive
light, but the insult that titles this section was often applied to other German migrants.
Most of the interviewees talked about the hostility they had experienced. Popular
perception equated all Germans with Nazis for a long time, and this was reinforced by
sections of the press, radio and TV, and by films shown at the cinema.90 Only a few of
our interviewees claimed to have never personally been on the receiving end of hostility.
Without exception they had lived in small rural communities, where ‘everyone knows
each other’ and where they felt included.91
The majority of Germans appear to have had a different experience. Most talked of
hostile incidents that occurred within a few years of their arrival in Britain. Some
described clearly targeted actions and violent threats, others the subtle but hostile
attitudes they had been exposed to. An example of the latter was Elvira, who was
terrorised by her obviously psychopathic neighbour for six years before the police and the
council took action and she was allocated a different flat: ‘He shouted at me, that we had
started the last two wars and he wanted to start the next war with me and said “I’ll finish
you”.’92 Lena also described feeling seriously threatened by a phone call: ‘I was all by
myself when a male voice said: Tonight you will be killed. At first I only laughed […]
and thought someone wanted to tease me […], but no, that wasn’t the case. He repeated
himself several times until I put the phone down and called the police. […] A few weeks
later he called again and said it was not meant against me personally but he was generally
against us Germans. I became very frightened, but that is what those days were like.’93
Several interviewees had their front doors, walls or other parts of their property
anonymously daubed with swastikas, which was obviously seen as a provocation, and
they felt humiliated and deeply hurt by these actions.
In public, Germans were mainly recognised by their accent or by speaking German.
This often provoked negative reactions, ‘when we Germans went by we always got it
because we spoke German’,94 or led to open discrimination: ‘I can remember I went to a
pub together with a German, and we spoke German. Then we were told, “We don’t serve
foreigners here”.’95 German migrants experienced this kind of hostility not only from
locals but also from other migrants. Even in the multilingual communities of the cotton
industry a certain degree of caution was apparently necessary: ‘If you entered a bus you
would hear lots of different foreign languages: Italian, Ukrainian and Polish. Everyone
was very loud on the bus, but the Germans were different, we were not allowed to speak
German.’96 Alongside the various open expressions of hostility the interviewees also
remembered more subtle forms, which they attributed to their nationality rather than them
personally: ‘I started to attend the English church—some members of the congregation
would not sit next to me. They squeezed together on a different bench, but wouldn’t sit
where it was vacant.’97 Others could not recall any concrete examples when they had felt
rejected, but spoke of a general underlying feeling: ‘There was simply a wall.’98
The question of whether anti-German feelings were predominantly found amongst the
older or the younger generation produced a variety of answers. Some interviewees were
convinced that they had experienced it mainly from the older generation, and particularly
from those who had lost relatives in one or both wars. Some could sympathise with this
attitude, and even said that they felt guilty when they saw British war invalids. Others felt
this was completely unjust, and distanced themselves from any responsibility. These
 German migrants in post-war britian 130

sometimes tense meetings with British war invalids were an everyday occurrence for
many who married an ex-British serviceman. ‘My husband and I met several of his
former comrades, officers in a pub. And an older man with only one arm came towards
me and said “That’s what your father has done”, and my husband’s comrade said “How
do you know, he wasn’t it at all. What’s this girl got to do with it?” That’s how it went. I
often felt that Germans were generally hated.’99 In contrast, some interviewees felt that
there was more understanding for Germans in their situation amongst the older
generation. They saw the younger generation as being much more anti-German. One
recounted young people marching through a German-rented cafe giving a Hitler salute,
and painting swastikas on the pavement.100
Hostility and stereotyping was not limited to German migrants. Often it was also
aimed at their British partners: ‘I noticed it a lot, a lot. You know, I went for an interview
for a job and they’d ask you about the name, what was it, what nationality? As soon as
you said German, that was it. You wouldn’t get the job, no way. No matter how much
experience you had.’101 Anti-German resentment was not confined to the early post-war
years, when the memories of war, economic hardship and German war crimes were still
fresh in people’s minds. The Germans we interviewed claimed to have been the target of
hostilities for most of their lives, although to different degrees. They spoke of a decrease
in the intensity of the antagonism, but were unable to pinpoint when it occurred. ‘The
hatred of Germans stopped a long time ago, at least 15 years ago’, was the sort of
comment we heard indicating the atmosphere had improved.102 But it also illustrates how
persistent the negative images were. These were kept alive by periodic attacks against
Germans by parts of the British media, which many found deeply hurtful and upsetting.
In contrast, others pointed out that the decrease in hostility they experienced was a
consequence of new waves of migration from the Commonwealth, and that the new
groups quickly became the main focus of hostility: ‘Now we are forgotten, now its the
Pakistanis they don’t like.’103
Individuals developed different ways of dealing with the resentment. Some regarded it
as an exception rather than something widespread in British society. They saw the
behaviour as being confined to specific groups: the young or the old, the uneducated or
the mentally ill. Such a view obviously helped them to rationalise unpleasant situations
and to deal with them. Others tried to minimise or make light of them: ‘I think these are
minor things, they always happen.’104 ‘How well you get on with others, is down to your
own behaviour.’105 ‘If they show an old film in TV, well we’ve got used to it now.’106
Finally, a third group felt very concerned and became emotionally upset by the hostility,
which in some cases even led to illness. Some interviewees referred to this openly, others
were more circumspect: ‘In those years counselling did not exist as it does today. No, we
had to come to terms with things by ourselves. I think there were only a couple of times
when I could not manage it by myself and had to see a doctor, other than that I had to
cope on my own.’107
In general, women felt more helpless and vulnerable than men. They often had to
defend themselves on their own and did not have the help and protection of an organised
community, as did the Ukrainian, Polish or Baltic migrants. Outside the family and their
usually limited circle of friends and acquaintances, it was only the churches and a few
NGOs that provided counselling. Some German migrants were definitely scarred by the
discrimination they endured, and although most wounds appeared to have healed with
 Fifty years on 131

time, it is probable that for some these experiences left a legacy of cautious behaviour
and insecure personalities.

Problems of the second generation

The negativity associated with being German was not limited to the generation that
experienced the war. It was also experienced by their children and grandchildren.
Perpetuated by parents the media and also by comics that were widely read by British
children for decades, the war between Britain and Germany was often glorified in a
stereotypical way. War games such as the popular ‘Achtung Spitfire’ were played by
children on streets, in playgrounds and schoolyards or on the beach. The traditional game
of ‘Cowboys and Indians’ became ‘English and Germans’. Words like ‘Blitz’,
‘Schweinehund’ and ‘Achtung’ became part of nearly every British child’s vocabulary.
As a result of their peer group, the children of German parents sometimes felt the stigma
attached to Germany and being German much more directly than the adults. This was
particularly the case when National Socialism was the subject of a history lesson. It
seems that in most classes, historical events were labelled either good or bad and
Germans were portrayed only in negative terms, leading to the simplistic conclusion that
to be German was the same as being a Nazi. ‘Sometimes my kids came home from
school crying and saying “They called us murderers.” […] My children became very shy
and got an inferiority complex. […] They asked me “Mama, what did you do over there,
did you murder?”’108
Children could also experience discrimination by having to play the part of the bad
German in the war games that children played: ‘He came home one day, he was only 4 or
5 years old, and said: “Mummy why is it that when we play I’ve always got to play the
baddy, they always make me play the baddy because daddy is German.”’109 It seemed
this was particularly the case for the children of former POWs: ‘Your dad has been in the
German army, then your dad is a Nazi.’110 Most parents only remembered isolated
incidents, and it seems safe to assume that the majority of the children survived without
suffering long-term psychological damage. Several parents, however, indicated that such
incidents happened more frequently and hindered their children’s development in the
long run. Some even attributed a child’s decision to settle in Germany or elsewhere as the
result of discrimination experienced during their school years. Andreas, for example, was
frequently bullied as a 14-year old during the 1960s because his father was German. To
begin with he did not tell his parents, but when he started pretending he was ill to avoid
going to school it became apparent that the underlying reason was the continuous teasing
about his background and the collective chanting of ‘Nazi go home’. Subsequently he left
school, trained as a craftsman, left Britain and made Hamburg his home.111 Michael’s
experiences were even worse. He also went to Germany, but not before suffering mental
illness: ‘At boarding school, the older one coped with the situation better, but our
Michael had swastikas painted on his ruler and they sent him a Christmas card with an
SS-man in front of a concentration camp titled “Merry Christmas”. All this sort of thing.
It was probably meant as a joke, but Michael did not take it well.’112
It was also noticeable that many of our interviewees’ children no longer lived in
Britain, preferring either Germany or another country. Whether this was due to the
general increase in mobility or, as was the case with several suicides or attempted
 German migrants in post-war britian 132

suicides, the result of cruelty and teasing experienced in childhood, remains unanswered
as current research has not yet addressed these issues systematically. What is clear is that
although children of Ukrainian and Polish origin spoke of the racist views and attitudes of
their classmates, the racism was not as frequent or severe as that experienced by German
children.113 The attitudes of British children often reminded the German parents, very
painfully, that their families were perceived as being different or alien. The way they
were singled out—for distinctively German characteristics in particular—was linked to a
set of negatively perceived traits, of which the most obvious was language. It is therefore
not surprising that by the time they started school at the latest, most children tried to
avoid speaking German in public.114 Others stopped speaking German completely, which
indicates the enormous conflict they must have felt. ‘Then they said to me, we will not
speak that language anymore, the children have called us Nazis.’115

Quiet adaptation
Children refusing to speak German can be seen as one link in a chain of behaviour
adopted in order not to stand out as Germans. As a result of bad experiences, the migrants
felt compelled to avoid anything that would give them away as German in public. Giving
their children English names, or names commonly used in both countries, was certainly
part of a strategy to be less obtrusive in their English-speaking environment. Some
Germans mentioned acquaintances who had anglicised their family names, claiming that
it was at the insistence of their British wife. Such action was taken to help ensure that
their children had a good start in British society. However, some behaviour commonly
seen as German did prove useful, for example, the ability to adapt to given situations, to
meet expectations, and, if necessary, to obey the authorities and follow rules without
questioning. ‘To remain unnoticed, and submerge if necessary, was the motto.’116
Interestingly, the strategies individuals used to achieve a successful life in Britain were
described using a number of adjectives associated with a passive, unobtrusive character:
to be quiet, to be accepting, not to get excited, not to shout, to be withdrawn and modest,
to be able to cope with insults. These characteristics are in complete contrast to the
stereotypical view of German behaviour, which is often seen as aggressive, loud,
dominant, know-it-all and self-opinionated.
Not all were able to overcome the negative images and stereotyping they experienced.
Some felt the pressure so strongly that they made a conscious decision to deny their
nationality and pretend to be Austrian, Dutch or Swiss.117 Here the ethnic Germans had
an advantage as they could simply state the country they were born in, and the British
habit of asking where a person was from rather than their nationality helped: ‘The
English always ask you “Where do you come from” and when I say “I come from
Poland” I am automatically seen as a Pole. But they don’t know that I am not Polish, and
how am I supposed to explain that to them?’118 One Briton introduced his bride as
Austrian,119 and in another case a British husband suggested to his German wife that she
pretend to be Irish: ‘He felt sorry for us, because they always harassed us.’120
Renouncing one’s nationality appeared to almost be a necessity in the early post-war
years as a protection from hostility. In retrospect, most regarded the time between their
arrival in the late 1940s and the end of the 1960s as the most difficult. Whereas they
themselves wanted to forget and move on from the war, they were constantly reminded of
 Fifty years on 133

the past, and thus forced to relive memories and experiences over and over again. Most
acknowledged that things are now very different, in part, due to the integration brought
about by the European Union. Most thought that Britain’s younger generations were
more broad minded, more cosmopolitan and generally more open, to the extent that many
today learn German. But some remained cautious: ‘When I travel by train, I never read
anything German, I always take something English to read, and I found out that many
others do the same. But the young Germans in this country, they don’t. But we try to
avoid raising any anti-German feelings.’121

Perceptions
When examining the German migrants’ perceptions of the British, the most striking
feature was how this varied depending on the parts of the country they had settled.
Germans who remained in Scotland, particularly in the Highlands, praised the qualities of
the Scottish people and at the same time their own successful integration: ‘Scots are very
nice, wonderful people.’122 The Scottish tendency to differentiate between ‘them’ (in this
case the English) and ‘us’ was adopted by most of these Germans, who even stressed
their feelings of solidarity with the Scots resentment of the English: ‘Historically they
have been suffering for a long time under the English, in the wars they fought against
each other. They have also been a second class people compared to the English, and
many of the Scottish nationalists still feel so today. In my view the whole lifestyle is
closely related to that of the Germans.’123 The positive characteristics of the Scots were
often compared with the supposedly negative ones of the English, and sometimes linked
to the multicultural nature of the English cities: ‘It is easy to make contacts in Glasgow.
You can talk to anybody in the street and he will invite you to his home. […] The English
have certain ways that the Scottish people can’t bear, because the Scots are honest and
funny and they need their alcohol. That is Scotland’s central heating. […] If I had the
choice, both my sisters live in England they would never get me down there. […] I only
go down occasionally to visit, but in Birmingham there are more black people than
white.’124
In contrast, attitudes towards the English held by Germans who had lived in England
turned out to be more varied. They generally ranged from caution and scepticism to
rejection. Very few expressed a wholeheartedly positive view, and for most there was
some disappointment. They had not achieved the degree of acceptance they had hoped
for, which perhaps reflects the frequently quoted wish of Germans to be loved by
everybody. They all claimed to have had friendships with English people, but also said
that it had been very difficult to form deep friendships: ‘I couldn’t really warm to the
English. I have always tried to be a nice and helpful neighbour, so did my husband. But
somehow, a closer relationship was never possible. I’ve invited them often, but they
never returned the invitation.’125
Despite clearly acknowledging their neighbours’ and colleagues’ positive
characteristics, such as politeness and tolerance, the interviewees often referred to
negative traits such as the traditional coolness and reserve of the English. They saw these
as differences in ‘mentality’, but still found them difficult to accept, even after 50 years:
‘I like the tolerance of the English, but it is not always tolerance, it is also indifference.
[…] And with their politeness, one never knows exactly: Is it real politeness or…is it
 German migrants in post-war britian 134

somehow…they are not as open and approachable as the Germans, particularly not as the
Berliners.’126 The frequent references to differences in the way of thinking and the fact
that they found English society generally as somewhat cold and distanced could be seen
as a reflection of their own limited willingness to integrate. After their early negative
experiences they might not have been prepared to make further attempts. The impression
we got was that a superficial level of acceptance had been achieved, but many German
migrants still had deeply held reservations. It appears that many chose a strategy of inner
withdrawal which manifested itself in a certain distancing from their adopted country.
Finally, the predictable downgrading of characteristics commonly seen as British
served to emphasise supposedly German virtues, which also contributed to the
construction of their identity as a German living in Britain. This was particularly
noticeable when they talked about performance at work, where they clearly judged their
work to have been more effective and more productive, as well as ‘much better and faster
than the British’.127 Other Germanic stereotypes such as conscientiousness and
cleanliness, were also mentioned: ‘The English said they’d never had such clean hospitals
as in those days when all the Germans were there. They said: “It has never been so clean
here.” But of course, one has to be very careful when talking about this.’128 And finally,
they often pointed to the success they had achieved in material terms, despite their
difficult beginnings. This was a particular source of pride when it had involved buying
property purely with their own resources and without assistance, as the following account
illustrates: ‘I’ve always worked, and was never a burden to society, I would have been
too proud for that. And when my husband fell ill and we didn’t have any money, I taught
at home and took on sewing for others in order to make ends meet. On no account would
I have considered going to social services, I was too proud for that. I can take care of
myself and my family. I don’t want any money from you.’129

Dealing with the past

Personal accounts of the war and the post-war years together with reflecting on their
personal histories took up a substantial part of individual interviews. The events they had
experienced during these years had left indelible marks on their lives. Many women had
suffered the same sort of traumas, in particular the bombing of cities, flight and
expulsion, sexual abuse and rape. Men talked about fighting on the frontline and the
experience of surrender and captivity, but they also spoke of losing home and family. All
this was part of a history that was impossible to share with neighbours, colleagues or
friends, since most had no knowledge of their difficulties during and immediately after
the war. Because they were so geographically dispersed, there was also little opportunity
to share their suffering and pain with other Germans. Most had to deal with these
traumatic events on their own. This contrasted sharply with their British neighbours, for
whom the war was a shared experience, and moreover, a shared experience that played an
important role in the construction of the British national identity for several decades.
Many Germans living in Britain felt excluded, embarrassed or even hurt when neighbours
talked about life during the Blitz in London or discussed the latest war film. The British
war was obviously not their war.
Interviewees, predominantly those who came from Germany’s eastern territories,
talked repeatedly and with bitterness about the strong interest and empathy amongst the
 Fifty years on 135

British population for the fate of threatened nations or ethnic groups elsewhere in the
world. They would point to recent political developments, the expulsions and ethnic
cleansing in south-eastern Europe, for example. Nearly all were reminded of the
similarities with their experiences which, had never received comparable interest.
Concern about their plight appeared to have been withheld because of their German
origins, and yet they were held collectively responsible for the pain the British population
had suffered: ‘Not all Germans were Nazis, but nobody talks about the extent to which
the people suffered in Germany. We had to cope with a lot.’130
The migrants were frequently confronted with German war crimes and negative
images of Germany, particularly in the immediate post-war years. Thus, they had to
consider and come to terms with their nationality and Germanness in a much more direct
way than Germans who did not migrate. A former POW remembered having been asked
by his work colleagues to talk about Hitler and the war, but he had refused: ‘I always said
“no idea, no idea” as I didn’t want to know about it for many years.’131 In contrast, a
Sudeten German pointed out that nobody ever involved her in discussions about the war:
‘Nobody talked to me personally about Hitler or anything, probably intentionally, they
wanted to avoid the subject because they knew I was German.’132
Irrespective of gender, nearly all interviewees were sensitive when the subject of
National Socialism was raised: the atmosphere often became noticeably tense. In the
intervening years most had come to terms with the Nazi era and the crimes that had been
committed, often jointly with their children when it cropped up as part of the child’s
history classes. Only very few found the topic so unbearable that they vehemently refused
to engage with the subject, even to the point of denying the crimes took place: ‘I don’t
know why they present this here all the time. It is all complete lies, what they show us
here. Do they think we are stupid? […] Sometimes I watch it a bit, then I have to leave
the room until it’s finished. […] I know that it’s not all true, it’s their propaganda.’133 The
majority however, gave the impression that they had reflected on the past in a more
considered way: ‘We were really fanatical. […] Hitler came through one of the
neighbouring towns and we had to go and I handed over a bouquet of flowers to him.
This man radiated something special, and that is what they still say today. And I really
experienced this effect, he had something… he mesmerised people. And when I see these
things on TV today, I can’t understand it, and I think how on earth could I…it was
complete mass hysteria.’134
Generally, women responded in a more personal and emotional way. They often
expressed shame or guilt about the war crimes, whereas the ex-POWs were more likely to
rationalise what happened and to reject feelings of guilt. Using the vocabulary of the
time, they spoke about ‘fair actions’, ‘honour’ and ‘responsibility’. There was also a
noticeable tendency to compare German war crimes with questionable actions carried out
by the Allies, and a desire to forget the war: ‘Somehow I am of the opinion that neither
the Nazis, nor the others are completely free of any dirt. Things happened on the other
side which were just as terrible as the things that happened on the German side. The war
is gone and one should bury it once and for all.’135
 German migrants in post-war britian 136

Aspects of identity

At the time of the interviews the Germans we spoke to had spent more than 50 years of
their lives in Britain. Most had married in Britain, worked, brought up children, bought
homes and made friends and acquaintances. It would have been logical to assume that so
many years in Britain would have loosened the ties to Germany and, at least partially,
resulted in the adoption of British habits and a degree of naturalisation.

Citizenship
The latter, however, is only true to a limited extent. Only half of those we interviewed
had applied for and been granted British citizenship. Of these, a large number had waited
25 years before applying. An examination of each group revealed interesting results: of
the recruited women, two-thirds had become British citizens and only one-third of the ex-
POWs. In contrast nearly all the war brides had become British citizens, but it should be
remembered that this happened automatically if they married before the end of 1948.
There were a variety of reasons for becoming naturalised, most of which were
pragmatic. Many of those who took this step had still found the decision emotionally
difficult. One of the key drivers, irrespective of gender, was that it was necessary to get a
mortgage. This explains the low interest among the ex-POWs. Most of them had married
British women, and by virtue of their spouse became credit worthy. Another key reason
for women getting British citizenship was that they did not want to be separated from
their (British) children at passport control when going on holiday to Germany. Women
married to other nationals mentioned the importance of having at least one British parent
to help prevent their children being discriminated against: ‘When we had to fill in forms
for the children, we always had to state the citizenship of the parents. […] Therefore I
decided to become British.’136
Their son’s career choice—he wanted to become a pilot with the Royal Air Force—
was a decisive factor for Paulus and Inge. In the end, becoming British did not help their
son. They had originally come from Silesia, and were told that applicants born to parents
from behind the iron curtain were excluded for security reasons.137 Another interviewee
felt obliged to acquire British citizenship in 1971 for reasons of job security: ‘There was
also always a little bit of pressure at the end of the financial year. Yes, and they advised
me, if I wanted to keep my work, it would be better, if I took on the English nationality.’
Later on, he added apologetically: ‘It doesn’t mean much anyway, it is only a piece of
paper.’138 Some female interviewees remembered feeling pressured by their families to
take up citizenship, but German husbands could also be pressured by their British wives
to identify more with their English family: ‘She feared that I would return to Germany
and didn’t want me to split my allegiance.’139
The percentages of those who failed versus those who were successful in applying for
British citizenship are unclear, but generally it seems there was only modest interest in
citizenship. In his 1958 study, J.A.Tannahill estimated that only 5 per cent of all
European workers obtained British citizenship. The cost at the time was £20, an amount
that many could not afford or did not want to pay. The reasons given then were similar to
those given by our interviewees 50 years later: ‘Many say they do not feel that
naturalisation will make much difference. With good reason they take the view that
 Fifty years on 137

people will still regard them as “foreigners” even if naturalised for the sake of their
children or because they are in more responsible jobs where British nationality is an
advantage or a necessity.’140 So it appears that interest amongst the EVWs was even
lower than amongst the exPOWs. Nonetheless, between 1954 and 1956 the Home Office
received 1,580 applications from ex-POWs, although numbers were declining over the
period.141
The fact that the process was protracted must have deterred many. It began with the
completion of a four-page form, available from stationary shops, that had to be signed by
a magistrate. The applicant also needed to have lived for of at least five years in Britain,
and to provide proof of good character and four British guarantors. The completed form
was sent to the Home Office, and at the same time the applicant, at their own expense,
had to make known their intentions in two editions of the local newspaper. This alone
caused some concern.142 When all formalities had been taken care of, and assuming there
were no objections from the local population or relevant authorities, the naturalisation fee
was paid (in 1950 this was £9) and the applicant swore an oath of allegiance to the
crown.143
It was striking that no interviewee gave loyalty to Britain or a desire to belong to
British society as a reason for changing their citizenship. In retrospect, nearly all
regretted the loss of their German citizenship, and many did not even attempt to become
naturalised. They could see no advantage in it, and keeping their original citizenship
seemed to be a way of expressing their sense of exclusion from British society: ‘We are
not really integrated, not really. Someone who feels really integrated would have given
up the German citizenship.’144 There were others who held on to their citizenship because
they felt particularly proud of being German. Strongly nationalistic statements came
mainly from Sudeten German and ex-POWs, and was probably the result of attitudes
formed during the political socialisation and indoctrination that took place in the
Sudetenland and amongst the Hitler-Youth and the Wehrmacht. Some remarks revealed
intense and undiminished feelings of German nationality: ‘You remain what you were
born as.’145 ‘I am proud to be a German.’146 ‘I was born a German and I will die a
German.’147 ‘In my heart I am still a German.’148 ‘I will remain what I am.’149 ‘I want to
stay German, that means a lot to me.’150 For these people, giving up their German
passports would have felt like denying their personality, their past and their origins. The
fact that without British citizenship they were excluded from voting in national elections
did not bother them. Most expressed no interest in politics or in the right to vote. For
some this political abstinence could have been the result of their experiences with
National Socialism, ‘I don’t want to have anything to do with politics again.’151 For
others it was more to do with their feelings of exclusion: ‘One remains a foreigner
anyway.’152
There were also those whose identification with their country of origin, and feelings of
Germanness, had waned, partially at least: ‘We don’t belong to Germany but we aren’t
English either.’153 Many saw their identity as mixed, with the particular situation
determining how they behaved. A confrontation with ‘the other’, whilst travelling for
example, would bring a particular facet to the fore, feeling more British when in
Germany, but rather German when in Britain, for example. Several said dual citizenship
and holding both passports would best express their feelings. Others found a different
 German migrants in post-war britian 138

way out of this dilemma: regarding themselves as Europeans. These migrants welcomed
European integration and saw themselves as members of the European Union.

Heimat

The frequent emphasis on Germanness that came through in the interviews was usually
with reference to pre-war Germany rather than the Federal Republic of Germany.
Interviewees linked home and Heimat with the region they had grown up in, learned their
mother tongue, gone to school and put down roots. Their memories were rarely free of
sentimentality, but neither did they distort the past. The vast majority were still
competent German speakers, despite the odd Anglicism that had crept in. Sometimes a
regional accent still gave away precise origins. Only two ex-POWs opted to conduct the
interview in English. After living and working in an English-speaking environment for so
long, the fact that most still preferred to be interviewed in German was another reflection
of the strong bond with their former home. Several mentioned that they made an effort to
read and write German regularly, although others only started attending English-German
circles or German-speaking congregations when they retired.
The strength of the links to their Heimat exhibited by the interviewees was
remarkable. This bond was usually intensified by regular visits, which for some from
eastern Europe had only become possible after the end of the Cold War. These journeys
back to the place of their childhood and youth were incredibly important, despite the fact
that exposing the big gaps between memory and reality that sometimes occurred could be
depressing. Often places could no longer be found, or had drastically changed: ‘It was
traumatic, to see East Prussia so destroyed, the Polish part, this former thriving agrarian
country, neglected and overgrown.’154 But sometimes the experience could be very
positive, as it was for Hermine when visiting her parents’ house in Gdansk. In the
intervening years the old villa had been divided into several flats, and after some initial
hesitation she was allowed to see her former bedroom. Although she too complained
about the poor state of the house, she did not talk about the stereotypical ‘Polish
mismanagement’, showing instead sympathy for the cramped living conditions and the
difficult life in Poland. For her, the human side of this encounter and the hospitality of the
people she met were very touching. She even contrasted the friendly and open reception
in Poland with the rather cool reception she had experienced in England.155 Some spoke
about friends who had returned to east Germany after the wall came down to live out
their retirement in their old Heimat.
Efforts to retain close links with the German language and culture were also
demonstrated by the numerous satellite dishes we saw in interviewees’ homes. Nearly all
said they watched films and political or cultural programmes on German-speaking
channels. In addition, some also regularly bought German magazines or books. The
majority talked about contacts with relatives, friends or acquaintances in Germany. With
two exceptions, all of the interviewees had visited Germany, several on a yearly basis: it
is ‘wonderful’ to go there,156 the people are ‘so nice’ and we have ‘the same attitudes’.157
It is ‘very nice to be amongst Germans and to go shopping in German shops’,158 to soak
up the atmosphere of Berlin, or go to Düsseldorf, although people are ‘much more
elegant there’ and one feels a little inferior.159 Interviewees also commented that they
 Fifty years on 139

thought the pensions were higher, the health system better and the apartments more
desirable: ‘Those large wardrobes and the large beds, everything is so big, the rooms, the
curtains. That is like a dream.’160 These positive assessments were sometimes mixed with
a certain pride in what their nation had been able to achieve: ‘If you remember how
destroyed Germany was and what it is like today, it is unbelievable, and it wouldn’t have
been possible in any other country, to rebuild it so quickly. Only they [!] can do that.’161
There was a strong tendency to idealise and identify with Germany’s material success. A
few comments hinted at a deep dissatisfaction with life in Britain, but doubts about their
decision to leave the country that had subsequently turned itself around in economic
terms were also put into perspective: ‘Here we also achieved quite a bit, but not as much
as in Germany.’162
Although most interviewees were very complimentary about their homeland, they also
had reservations about and criticisms of contemporary German society. Several said they
felt alien in today’s Germany and could not feel comfortable in a country where they
would not be allowed to hang up washing or mow lawns on a Sunday.163 Germany’s
material affluence was balanced by Britain’s less materialistic, more spiritual values.
While they enjoyed visiting Germany, comments indicated they did not feel that people
there were as ‘free and tolerant as the English’, or that one would have to ‘clean the
windows every week’,164 for example. The Germans were thought to have become ‘too
complicated’ and ‘too arrogant’,165 they were too ‘fussy’ and ‘made life difficult with
trivial matters’.166
Overall, Germany ‘wasn’t what it used to be’: ‘The numerous foreigners’ [!], money
had ‘spoilt the people’ and made them ‘more distant’, family life had suffered and
Germany had become too Americanised—‘especially the language, which has become
ghastly’.167 Despite admiring its economic achievements, several interviewees said they
now felt more ‘like a stranger’ in Germany than in Britain.168 Many had ‘lost touch’, and
become ‘more and more critical’ until they noticed that they ‘did not fit in there
anymore’.169 ‘When I am there, I want to come back very quickly, I don’t get on with
Germans anymore. […] Now we don’t want to go there anymore, we are still old-
fashioned Germans.’170 It is likely that this feeling of being a stranger in modern
Germany was linked to the fact that in recent years close relatives or friends in Germany
were no longer alive.
The ambivalence expressed became particularly obvious in critical statements about
Germany and the Germans: The way they saw themselves as Germans contrasted with,
but also reflected, many years spent in Britain, during the course of which they had
changed and developed a very particular form of Britishness. As such, returning to settle
in Germany no longer held the same appeal: ‘I think I have really settled here. But when I
go to Germany I like it very much there. And when it comes to returning, I long to get
back to England. Perhaps this is because everything, my home is now here. It is very
good knowing where one belongs. I really feel at home here now […] and even the
English women sometimes say to me: ah, you are one of us.’171 Others, however, thought
that a lifestyle in which they split their time between England and Germany would be the
ideal: ‘If I had enough money, I would buy a house in the Black Forest and I would fly
between the two places whenever I felt like it. That would be very nice.’172
 German migrants in post-war britian 140

Loneliness
At the time they were interviewed, all the participants were pensioners. Many had been
widowed and remained on their own. Sometimes children and grandchildren lived near
by, but often they lived in another part of the country, Europe or even further afield. With
age and a shrinking social circle, the past—and thus memories of Germany—occupied
their thoughts more often: ‘Now that I am older, my thoughts are always in Germany.’173
For some this prompted them to seek out former friends and relatives. Others looked to
the German churches for comfort, especially on retirement or the death of their spouse. It
seems these churches, in trying to alleviate the migrants’ loneliness, had become a sort of
substitute for the distant homelands. It became apparent that there were plenty of
opportunities for specifically German social contact provided by numerous British-
German or exclusively German circles, as well as by gatherings at the German Welfare
Council and the German YMCA in London. These opportunities were mainly taken up by
women, owing to their generally higher life expectancy. For some interviewees, these
regular meetings were really their only outlet for communication and social exchange and
were often the highlight of an otherwise very uneventful week. The opportunity to speak
German or sing a childhood song was greatly appreciated.
The social isolation experienced by our interviewees was not a new phenomenon. As
far back as 1963, the annual report of the German Welfare Council highlighted the ‘care
for the elderly single women’ as an important and difficult task.174 This was particularly
so for those women who had never bought their own home, who had ‘never really settled’
and subsequently expressed the wish to ‘return to Germany after retirement. But they had
an unrealistic image of Germany.’175 Growing isolation and loneliness was often linked
with meagre finances resulting from relatively low pensions, which meant that they had
to rely on additional help in the form of social security benefit. Without other sources of
income they couldn’t afford much in old age, despite having worked the whole of their
adult lives in Britain.
In light of these sometimes very modest circumstances, it was not surprising that
several of those interviewees had contemplated returning to Germany. Some said that
they had thought long and hard about taking this step, particularly once their husbands
had died, and had even visited Germany specifically with deciding whether they would
return in mind. In the end it was family and personal reasons that kept them in Britain.
Sometimes it was the feeling of being useful as a grandmother,176 their advanced age,
tending their husband’s grave or the feeling of no longer belonging in Germany that made
them stay.

Lifestyles
Owning a home was not only a key reason for remaining in Britain, often it also played
an important role in the interviews as it embodied so much of what they had strived for
since leaving Germany—memories of family life, the replacement of the home they had
lost in the war, a refuge and a place they could call their own: ‘I am longing for my little
house, even though it is not in the best area. But it is my palace and I feel comfortable.’177
The importance of their home seemed particularly intense when a lot of time and personal
effort had been invested in it. Men pointed, with a degree of pride, to the alterations they
had made to their houses, and women showed off the interiors and the gardens. Many
 Fifty years on 141

could not consider a return to Germany because they simply could not leave the property
that represented a lifetime goal for which they had worked so hard. To leave this for a flat
in Germany was inconceivable, and they appreciated the freedom and independence it
gave them: ‘We can do what we want.’178
The importance of their private domain may have been linked to not wanting to attract
attention to the fact they were German. However, it was fairly easy for an outsider to
identify the owner’s origins from the look of the gardens and the way the homes had been
furnished. Whilst very few actually put the much admired large German sideboards and
three-piece suites into their rather small British front rooms, many had carefully stitched
white net curtains hanging at the windows. The ‘business card of the house’,179 they are
symbolic of the traditional German lifestyle. Thus many women had obviously spared
neither trouble nor expense to get the necessary material from Germany, even if the end
product had attracted the curious gaze of neighbours.180
Sometimes during an interview, a particular object, such as a clock, cushion or piece
of porcelain, would be presented, and its special significance lay in the fact that it came
from Germany. There were also photographs, pictures or wall hangings that were
reminiscent of the old Heimat, as were the ornaments and souvenirs that decorated the
shelves. As their owners often stressed, all these decorations served to make the rooms
more gemütlich and pretty. The chance to eat and cook what they liked were other things
that a home made possible. In the first few years after the war in particular, a food treat
would be something they were used to in Germany, but was extremely difficult to get
hold of in Britain. Black bread was sorely missed, and many willingly endured long
journeys to buy it. Several women quickly learnt to cook the way that most British
husbands appreciated, but others spoke of never having learnt how to cook properly due
to the lack of food in Germany after the war. Cookery books were used to rectify such
skills gaps, and rusty skills were brushed up by looking over the shoulder of visiting
mothers. Those who married eastern European husbands had to also learn something of
Polish or Ukrainian cuisine.
Many families retained the traditional German way of cooking, but as it is generally so
time consuming, German meals were usually only served at weekends and special
occasions. In later years this reduced further, and it was only at special family gatherings
that the traditional dishes would be served. While the migrants may have been cooking
German dishes less, since the war British cuisine has become increasingly international.
After many years, the necessary ingredients and spices are now much more available due
to the number and variety of delicatessens, often run by European migrants. Whilst in
earlier years the women had their relatives send or bring with them special ingredients
from Germany, today everything from black bread to German sausage can be bought in
Britain. Over the years most migrants had changed their cooking and eating habits,
although some peculiarities had been retained, such as steaming vegetables, or adding
bacon, butter or spices during the cooking. Everyday cooking for most had become a
synthesis of German, British and international influences, which, as everywhere else,
included deep frozen and ready-made meals, and sandwiches.
On the whole, the German influences on households and families were less visible
where ex-POWs had married British wives. Of course, there were some exceptions:
occasionally the ‘Easter hare’ had to make an unusual detour to Britain.181 But German
men saw their main contribution to British culture—and in this they were unanimous—as
 German migrants in post-war britian 142

introducing or furthering the spread of the Christmas tree. For many years after the war,
celebrating Christmas seemed to be far less important in Britain than it was in Germany.
In England at least there was one bank holiday, but in Scotland there was none. All of the
ex-POWs we interviewed were convinced that the significance of Christmas in Scotland
had grown, and that they were the first to have a decorated tree in their area: ‘We brought
Christmas’, was the motto.182
Nearly all interviewees mentioned the fact that celebrating the highly emotional and
festive aspects of Christmas was barely a consideration in Scotland. Irrespective of
gender, missing Holy Night and Christmas Day was hard to bear: ‘I really felt homesick.
[…] On Christmas it was terrible.’183 South of the Scottish border, 25 December was a
bank holiday. But it was (and still is) celebrated in a less festive way than in Germany,
and this initially alienated several of the migrants: ‘Christmas in England is like carnival.
And that always made me very sad. Like any carnival, there is so much to drink. In
Germany it is still a real family occasion and I kept it that way. Even after the children
were married […] we spend Holy Night together. And as long as my husband lived, we
also celebrated the 6 January together, the Ukrainian Christmas.’184 For many children, at
Easter, and even more so at Christmas, having at least one German parent became a
positive advantage. When it came to the very practical question of whether the presents
should be given on the 24 as in Germany, or the 25 December as in Britain, this problem
was usually solved with a compromise involving a bit of both.

Taking stock
Most interviewees spoke of feeling at home in Britain, and for some the country had
become almost a second Heimat. Here they had found security during the uncertainty of
the post-war years. Subsequently several had bought houses, nearly all had brought up
children and spent long years working in Britain before retiring. Despite the initial
difficulties most had settled in well. Those married to British partners had enjoyed
advantages due to the doors this opened for them. Social contacts came from work and
children, but they often proved fairly temporary. Deep ties were generally limited to the
core family, and it was family that became the main reason for them remaining in Britain.
Of course, over the years the links to relatives in Germany became less strong as parents
and siblings died, and relationships with the next generation were often distant or
superficial.
The immediate family provided the most important emotional link to British society,
and so where the marriage had remained childless, where there was a lot of tension
between parents and children or when the spouse had died prematurely, a person would
be less rooted in their community and life was likely to have become lonely. Irrespective
of gender and personal circumstances, most Germans maintained some emotional
distance from Britain and the British. Many interviewees expressed a degree of
resignation as they looked back, even those who, on the whole, were positive about their
life in Britain. Few had no reservations about their decision to emigrate; for most it had
been a reflective process of weighing up the pros and cons. One answered: ‘We lived our
life for the children. It was worth it for me, so I shouldn’t grumble […] but had I known
then what I know now, I would perhaps not have left. One has to accept that.’185 But there
were also entirely positive attitudes: ‘I don’t regret anything, it all went well for me, it all
 Fifty years on 143

developed as it should have done.’186 Many were grateful for the chance to start a new
life: ‘We did indeed leave our feelings in the East. […] God was truly good to us. It
wasn’t an easy lot, but I look back with gratitude.’187 For others it seemed to have been
about making the best of it: ‘This is now my home, I have everything I need here. I had
good times and bad times. One has to accept it. […] If I had a home [in Germany]
perhaps it would have been different.’188
When taking stock, more than a third of all those we interviewed had a predominantly
negative view. Despite mentioning positive events, this group said that they would not
take the same step again if they were offered it today. Extreme comments such as: ‘I
would never voluntarily go to England again’,189 or ‘If I were to make the decision again?
Then I would be in Berlin today’,190 were not unusual. The alternatives mentioned were
not necessarily always in Germany. For some, going to a different European country,
such as Sweden or Switzerland, or even somewhere outside Europe appeared much more
attractive: ‘England, not again’,191 ‘I would go a bit further.’192 One woman, who initially
only wanted to use Britain as a springboard to further migration, expressed it a little more
cautiously but no less decisively: ‘We got stuck here by marrying English men.’193 The
feeling of having got stuck, of having accepted things rather than being more proactive at
a particular stage of their live, came through strongly in several interviews.
The degree to which some of the migrants disregarded what they had achieved in
financial and social terms when they looked back was evident from remarks, for example
those from Heide. At the time we interviewed her she was an active member of the
community in which she and her husband had achieved a relatively high level of
prosperity. But the wounds from experiences she had during her first few weeks training
in Oldham—of which she still refused to speak—had not healed: ‘I often say that if I
were born again, I wouldn’t go to Britain. No, not to England again. […] I have really
improved my circumstances here, but the experiences of Oldham. That was the worst
time of my life.’194 It was doubts of a different and very specific kind that plagued Ewald,
who had also done well in material terms, made friends and had no negative experiences
in Britain: ‘If I were young again in 1948/49 I would go home. […] I was born there. And
I often think that I ran away and deserted them.’ His final words to us seemed to
summarise the feelings of many of his fellow migrants: ‘We started with nothing. […]
Only work, we only thought of work, we worked all our lives until it was too late.’195
 6
Five life stories

This chapter contains the summarised life stories of four German migrants and one
former POW which is told in the words of his British widow. In the preceding chapters,
short extracts from these interviews have been selected to highlight similarities or
differences in the migrants’ perspectives, attitudes and experiences. In contrast, this
chapter presents each narrative in the context given by the respondants so as to better
portray the flavour and pattern of the life as a whole. Each of the interviews carried out
for this study would have been worthy of inclusion, since each told a unique story. The
five selected are particularly diverse, not only in the way each is narrated, but also in the
connections made between what may seem like isolated events. The themes that are
important to the individuals also vary: A certain period of the interviewee’s life
dominates for one, whereas experiences connected to a specific historical or social event,
or a single strand such as family or career, predominate in others. What they all share is
that the experience of the Second World War and post-war migration are the two most
significant events of their lives.
For the purposes of this publication the interviews which took 2–5 hours using a
minimal interventionist approach, had to be drastically shortened. When selecting the
final content care was taken not to distort the overall pattern of each, that is, the themes
each interviewee developed in the course of their narrative.
Margarete, for example, sees her life in Britain as rich and fulfilled. It remains centred
around the large family for whom she was, for many years, the main breadwinner.
Coming to Britain enabled her to achieve her childhood dream of a university education,
which the war initially prevented. Her narrative contrasts sharply with that of Hedwig,
who sees the initial years of her life in Britain as a permanent struggle. She regards a
single decision—falling in love with the wrong man—as the reason for the difficulties
that followed. Then there is Paula whose narrative is dominated by experiencing the
Dresden bombing and how she survived afterwards. The war remains the central event of
her life, and continues to affect and influence how she spends her retirement. This is also
true—albeit in a different way—for Erwin who says that life as a POW in Britain and
being forced to confront Germany’s war crimes made him rethink his upbringing.
However, he acknowledges that there were other unpleasant experiences which marked
his personality. Last but not least there is Jean, a widow, who talks about the love she
found with Karl, a former POW. Her narrative tells of an enriching intercultural marriage
that developed despite many adversities.
 Five life stories 145

Margarete T.: England was good to me.

Margarete, born in 1929 in Eger, a German speaking part of the then Czechoslovakia,
fled to Bavaria with her family in 1946. While in Czechoslovakia she attended grammar
school until year 6, with the intention of gaining the Abitur (A-levels) and going on to
study medicine. But ‘the war changed everything’. Following her father’s death her
mother had to support four children, and under these circumstances Margarete’s
educational ambitions were simply unrealistic. After the war she did try to find a school
to finish her education, which was difficult as many schools had been destroyed. She also
felt an obligation towards her mother to become self-supporting, but finding paid work
was difficult.
It was an impossible situation; there was no work. […] I wanted to get out of Bavaria,
as there was no room for us in that village and there was only work in agriculture or
domestic service and I did not want that. I felt too good for that. Really, I thought I did
not come into the world to be a maid with a family or work on a farm. […] I had written
many letters, I thought perhaps to work in catering, had written to Switzerland. I wanted
to improve my languages; I had a little English and French. But wherever I wrote I was
refused. […] Then I saw this advert in the newspaper that they were looking for girls in
the cotton industry in England, for two years, or longer if you wanted, and I asked my
mother for permission as I was under 21. […] I really wanted to get out, to experience
life. […] When the war finished I was 15, 16, at 17 I came to Germany, now I just
wanted to live.
Margarete was accepted for the textile industry under the Westward Ho scheme.
Together with about 200 other Sudeten Germans, and also some Polish and Austrian
women, she arrived in Oldham in January 1950 to train as a ring spinner. Real work
started after an initial three months training in Rochdale. She emphasises throughout her
interview that, although the work was very hard and unpleasant, she was overwhelmed by
the friendliness of the English people. ‘I can only say positive things about the English.
They have been nice to me in every respect, and I lived with them. Perhaps I was lucky,
but I am also an optimist, and I can adapt myself very well. […] I earned £4 a week, paid
£1 rent for my private accommodation, £1 for my bus fare and food in the canteen, £1 for
shopping, and I saved £1 every week. We did not drink or smoke, impossible, we were
girls from respectable backgrounds.’
Initially she only wanted to stay in England until she had completed her contract and
was fluent in English. Her dream was to go further overseas: ‘England was only as a
stepping stone: From England to America, from England to Australia or Canada. I was
very interested in Canada. But they didn’t want me. They simply rejected me. I was too
young. That was that.’
As with most of the recruited women who stayed in Britain, she met her future
husband, a local man, at a dance, and decided to remain longer despite the export
problems the textile industry was facing. In 1952, she started nursing training at a local
hospital. After finishing in 1954 she got married, had five children, and was fully
occupied caring for them: ‘I was happy as housewife and mother. I cooked and baked,
did all those things and all that gave me great pleasure. And we were happily married.’
Without warning the family’s life was to change dramatically. In 1967, when
Margarete was 38 and her then youngest daughter was 3 years old, her husband suffered a
 German migrants in post-war britian 146

nervous breakdown and could no longer work. During the course of the illness his
business went bankrupt and debts accumulated. Margarete found herself in almost the
same situation as her mother after the war: She had to find a way of providing for her
family. It was impossible to return to nursing while she had small children because of the
shift work. However, although sad, the death of her mother in Germany the same year
gave her a small sum of money that allowed her to make a bold decision: she answered a
general call from the local council to enter adult education and embarked on the further
study she had wanted to do after the war—only this time more out of necessity than
choice. She enrolled in an O-level course and gained 5 O-levels the same year, followed
by 3 A-levels a year later. During this time she earned money mainly by teaching German
privately. Margarete had secured a place at a teacher training college in Manchester and
was due to start the course when the arrival of another baby, her sixth child, forced her to
postpone this.
A year later, with her mother-in-law and the Sisters of the Holy Cross looking after the
baby when she was at college, she was ready to embark on what had been her life-long
ambition: training for a profession. ‘I studied and finished my teacher’s training. […]
When I received my title my mother in-law said to me “Oh you are very lucky” but she
did not know that I often studied until three o’clock in the morning, and got up at five
o’clock. She did not know that because she had a different life, she came from Ireland.
They were also Catholics but had a very different background. Studying was not part of
their lives.’
The strength to study while also caring for a sick husband and her six children
Margarete attributed to her faith and the church. ‘It gave me strengths and helped me
through everything.’
After graduation she took up a post teaching English, History, Geography and
Religious Studies at a middle school in Rochdale, a job she held for many years.
However, studying part time remained part of her life: ‘And you know, once you have
started to study you want to know more and achieve more. And then I did my BA, the
Bachelor of Arts, and after that I did the Diploma [in Translation], English-German,
German-English with the Institute of Linguists, with distinction.’
The offer of a teaching contract with the British branch of the German company in
Manchester gave Margarete the opportunity to leave her full-time teaching post at the
middle school and teach adults in the private sector. ‘I have been there for 11 years now,
I teach the employees every evening, on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and one
evening in another company which is also linked to Germany. They produce the
electronic devices for oil platforms in the North Sea. Their headquarters are in
Mannheim, and another one which produces drinking machines, game machines,
cigarette machines with their headquarters in Hamburg. I have worked for six or seven
years for this company and the chairperson is really good in German.’
Through her work as a catechist Margarete is still involved in teaching children. She
runs courses on religious instruction for children and prepares them for first communion:
‘This is for a few times every year for a few days. I get a lot of pleasure out of that, one
gets to know the children and one has close contact with them, I really enjoy that.’
Margarete tried to teach her own children German and took them on holiday to
Germany but admits that she was not completely successful. The three older children
speak German, and the oldest is fluent having studied at a German university. Overall,
 Five life stories 147

she is very happy with the educational achievements of her children: ‘I wanted them to
study. I wanted them to have a good future. I saw the other children, they went into the
factories and I thought, all your life in a factory, there must be something else. If I
managed it, they have to manage. And they did. […] They knew that you have to work if
you want to achieve anything. I had to work. I was lucky with my children, with all of
them. They all felt that it is important to have an education. They all got their A-Levels.
[…] All my six children have graduated, I am really proud of them. The two eldest, the
boys, one has now a Master of Arts in Education, the other one a degree in Business.
Angela is a doctor, a lecturer at Manchester University, she’s very gifted in languages.
Ulrike teaches English as a foreign language. Rita is Bachelor of Science. Shirley is in
nursing and the youngest, my baby, went to America as an au-pair, […] and is now a
lawyer. She concentrates on immigration law in Florida.’
Full of energy, professionally active and involved with the Catholic church, Margarete
feels very much part of her community and regards England, where she has lived for
nearly 50 years, as her home, although as she said many times, she only intended to stay
for a short while in England. ‘I feel German, that is in me, that stems from my parents,
because that is where my roots are, but now I have become more international, more
European.’ Rochdale’s ethnic and cultural diversity certainly contributed to the fact that
Margarete never saw herself as an outsider. ‘There were so many mixed couples in the
neighbourhood, Ukrainian-Italian, Polish-Italian, German-English, German-Ukrainian, so
many with a European background.’ At the same time, following Britain’s entry to the
European Union and the demand for German in the business world, she was able to use
her German language and cultural experiences professionally, thus linking aspects of her
past with her present life.
Margarete is content with the course her life has taken and what she has achieved in
Britain as a migrant, her one regret being that she wanted ‘to have studied much earlier’.
And the main reason for her success she puts down to her ‘optimism, her ability to adjust
and to be flexible’. She is very proud that she managed to raise a large family almost
single-handedly and without social services support. ‘I have always worked and never
became a burden to the state. I was too proud. In the days when my husband was so ill, I
taught from home, took on sewing work, just to get by. I wouldn’t have gone to social
services for money. No, far too proud. I take care of myself.’
She acknowledges that she would not have been able to fulfil her educational
ambitions without the support she received from her local council: ‘I couldn’t have done
what I did, if I didn’t receive this support from the state which enabled me to study.
Without that scholarship I couldn’t have done it. England was good to me. In all those
years England has been good.’

Hedwig Q.: I was the stupid one who stayed on.

Hedwig, one of four children, was born in 1925 in a small town in East Prussia not far
from the Polish border. Here, she says, she spent a happy childhood—the best years of
her life—until Germany attacked Poland. At the age of 14 she had to do the Pflichtjahr, a
year in domestic service, which was compulsory for every German girl of that age during
the Nazi era. Afterwards in 1941, rather than pursuing her dream of becoming an actress,
 German migrants in post-war britian 148

she went to Berufsschule [vocational school] and worked as an office apprentice for a
well-established company in Königsberg that produced building materials. She was able
to finish her three-year training before they were evacuated from East Prussia. With her
father and older brother in the army, her mother and the three children had to leave by
train, carrying only the bare necessities and their valuables. They expected to return soon.
‘Mother said: “Leave the doors open, the German army will live in the houses”, and we
had the hope that we’d be back soon. We thought we just had to get out of the border area
as we heard the rumbling and shooting already.’
They were sent to the countryside in Saxony where they worked on a farm helping a
farmer’s wife until the war was over. ‘We were the refugees from the east and just
worked for our living. In the summer of 1945 we were transported further to Thuringia,
again to the countryside, as there was no work or food in the cities. This time we came to
a large farm. My mother and I had to work in the fields. My sister was too weak for this,
so she stayed at home cooking for everybody. We had to strew dung and cut sugar beets.
We had nothing, there was nothing, no money, we didn’t have a penny, worked for food
and bed. And often the Russians came and looked for young girls and the older women
hid us on the farm, in a small room and put a wardrobe before the door, so they couldn’t
find us. It was terrible, we were so nervous.’
Hedwig’s father was still missing, but when they heard that her brother had survived
and was safe in East Friesland in the British zone, mother and children moved west. They
tried cutting peat in the moor land but were unable to continue when the autumn rains set
in as they did not have suitable shoes. They regularly went to the job centre in the hope of
finding work, but they were not the only ones. ‘There were so many people, all the
refugees from Breslau, Silesia, from Pommerania, from East Prussia and Poland, they all
were there, and in East Friesland there was no industry, only agriculture and cattle.’ After
a period of unemployment, both girls eventually found jobs as kitchen hands in a British
officers’ mess.
Here they heard that the British government was advertising for workers in Britain.
They saw this as a real opportunity and, with the permission of their mother, both applied
and were accepted. They arrived in Britain in November 1949 expecting, as promised, ‘a
nice room and good work in a hospital’. Together with ten other German women, they
started work in a tuberculosis hospital in West Yorkshire, initially on a women’s ward.
Whilst they liked their accommodation and each other’s company in their free time,
which they often spent walking in the Yorkshire countryside and talking about their
families back in Germany, the work did not meet Hedwig’s expectations. It became
apparent that they were employed as cleaning staff, not nursing auxiliaries, and Hedwig
also had the impression that everything was organised in a strictly hierarchical manner,
with the German women being the ‘lowest, like second class’. They had to take their
meals in a side room, separated from the English staff whom they had to serve, and they
had to do the most unpleasant tasks on the ward, such as collecting the patients spit in the
mornings which made Hedwig feel sick.
She also remembers how embarrassed she was in the presence of the strict matron
when there were language misunderstandings, and even the food was unfamiliar and thus
a further difficulty to cope with. ‘We had to eat beans with fatty bacon and fish, those
kippers for breakfast, not fresh bread rolls with honey.’ No wonder, ‘at the beginning we
couldn’t get used to this and we cried a lot. We felt homesick. It was terrible.’ Only when
 Five life stories 149

the group applied to be transferred to a different hospital did the working conditions
improve. They got more leisure time and even a bonus payment.
Life looked up for a while, particularly when Hedwig fell in love with Alf, a good
looking young English nursing student: ‘He was tall, blond, big blue eyes and eye-lashes
like a woman, a really handsome man.’ When their two-year contract was up, Hedwig’s
sister returned to Germany, but Hedwig stayed in England and married Alf. ‘His parents
did not approve of the marriage, the father was a Sergeant-Major in the army, and we
came to England too early. It was the pain, he had lost two sons in the war and we were
still very much hated.’ In anticipation of this Alf introduced her to his parents as
Austrian, and only revealed her true nationality when the first baby was born. In
retrospect Hedwig thinks that starting the marriage with a lie was a sign of what was to
come.
Following his father’s wishes Alf continued his training in the army. After only a year
at Aldershot he was posted to Germany for five years. Hedwig received nice letters in
which he stated his love for her and the two babies and, on her arrival a comfortable flat
with central heating and a fridge awaited them in Osnabrück. It was not to be a happy
reunion. From the time of his family’s arrival Alf withdrew from married life and his
children, and requested permanent night shift at the army hospital. Alf told her that
Germany had changed him, he hated living there and intended to quit the army. They
would return to England, he said. An army neighbour explained what he thought was the
reason for Alf’s behaviour: ‘And he said to me: “Your husband has not a girl friend, but
there is a man, a Canadian official who always comes and visits.”’ A postcard and other
clues she found proved the case, although she did not confront him. After Alf had
resigned from the army Hedwig and the children were returned to England, but Alf did
not follow. He vanished and was never traced. There were rumours that he moved to
Canada with his lover, but this was never confirmed.
Army support was short-lived and Hedwig soon found herself solely responsible for
herself and her daughters. She returned to hospital work and mainly worked night shift,
which allowed her to care for the girls the larger part of the day. Still without a permanent
home for the three of them Hedwig moved often, relying on acquaintances and friends for
accommodation. After a lengthy bureaucratic battle with the authorities she was finally
offered a council flat, initially still expecting her husband to return. Life on her own was
difficult, although her brother, who worked as a steward on a boat, occasionally sent
money which paid for some extras: ‘I only earned £7 a week. The flat was not cheap, I
had to pay for coal and light, the children needed two pennies each every morning, and I
was not well.’ Years of worry and shift work took a toll on Hedwig’s health so that
doctors advised her to give up night work due to her severe weight loss. At that stage an
advert in the local newspaper caught her attention: ‘It was a wool company which dealt
with Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia, and they were looking for a secretary with
German who was able to type and use shorthand. I was not sure whether I could do it, it
had been such a long time since I did this kind of work in Germany, and I was already
36-years-old, but I applied and got the job.’
The decision changed her situation dramatically: ‘They were very nice. They travelled
to Germany and I prepared everything for them, typed and telexed and they got good
contracts.’ Hedwig liked the work and started to feel better about life. Her personal life
improved also. After years of depression and struggling as a single mother she met
 German migrants in post-war britian 150

Andres, a ‘good modest man’ from Latvia, who had been a soldier with the German army
and worked in Germany until he was accepted as an EVW. If it had not been for Andres,
Hedwig says, she would not have married again, as ‘I didn’t want to see another English
man’. At the time she was actually toying with the idea of returning to Germany—‘it
would have been possible’. But instead Hedwig and Andres got married, bought a house
and started the family life Hedwig had been longing for. Andres was a good father to the
girls, who did well at school and got As in English and German in their A-level exams.
Hedwig worked for the wool company another eight years until it was shut down and she
had to look for a new job. Conveniently, a new hospital had opened in her neighbourhood
and she was accepted for nursing training. She talks proudly about passing her nursing
exams at the age of 45 and staying on until retirement. When she left there was ‘a big
party and many presents’. Then her mother came from Germany and lived with them for
several years until she died.
Although Hedwig developed a good personal relationship with Alf’s parents over the
years, the first decade in England scarred Hedwig’s general relationship with British
people. She divides them into those ‘who are OK and those she does not like’ for their
apparent lack of empathy for others and coldness: ‘They don’t want to hear that we were
bombed out, that we have suffered. […] They don’t have empathy, they are heartless and
have no feelings.’ In contrast she enjoys her multi-cultural neighbourhood: ‘At the corner
lives a Polish woman married to a Ukrainian, next is an Italian woman married with a
Pole, then us, then an Irish couple, everything is mixed, opposite an English woman. And
then the Pakistanis moved in, very good people, you can talk to them, very friendly. […]
I am part of them as a former refugee.’
When Hedwig talks about her life there is some bitterness. She still thinks she made
the wrong choice coming to Britain and staying when, ‘my sister and the other girls
returned to Germany, I was the stupid one who stayed on’. She compares her life with
that of her sister, who on her return from England got a very good job as a secretary in
the Ministry of Economics in Bonn and had a nice and comfortable flat at a time when
she had to come to terms with the betrayal of her husband and was struggling to survive
in a foreign country without support. ‘If only mother had said no, I wouldn’t have gone.
But we were young. […] We expected to experience a better life than in Germany but it
was bad. […] And if I hadn’t met that English man, to be abandoned, alone with two
children and being German. But I never complained to my mother, I kept quiet, they were
not supposed to know.’

Paula Z.: My love for Dresden.

Paula was born in 1924 and grew up as the only child of a middle class family in the
historic part of Dresden. Her father was a piano maker and also had a shop selling pianos
and other musical instruments. Her mother helped out in households, mainly Jewish
families. Then, her father’s business was severely hit by the worldwide economic crisis
of the late 1920s. Paula remembers as a child looking down from the bay window of their
flat: ‘Men of all ages hang around from early morning to late at night. I see these
unemployed men in the doorways, an every-day sight.’ Despite the crash and her parents’
early divorce she talks about a very happy childhood shaped by classical music, the opera
 Five life stories 151

and ballet, and by being surrounded by the historical buildings of Dresden. A friend and
ballet partner actually lived in a flat in the castle grounds. ‘These were wonderful times,
even as a child I was able to go to the opera, sometimes two or three times per week. Our
playground was the Zwinger, there was enough room for us children to roam about, as we
did not have a garden. It was simply heavenly.’
Paula initially attended a girls’ grammar school, but had to leave when her scholarship
was terminated. She finished school at the age of 15, just when the war began. Then she
was able to attend a commercial college and was later conscripted into a civil air defence
unit. She has a very vivid and personal memory of 13 February 1945, the night Dresden
was bombed:
‘I came home, my mum was sewing rucksacks because we had refugees from Breslau
in our flat who warned us to be ready as they themselves had no time to pack their
belongings when they had to leave home. I was hardly in bed when the warnings came
through: “Attention! Attention!” I knew immediately that it was us. Five minutes later the
sirens started. Normally we didn’t really bother when the alarm went off but this time it
was different. Everything happened so quickly, we could already see the Christmas trees,
the light and it was the attack. My god! We lived in a four-storey block near to the Elbe.
The first attack lasted for about half an hour and it was around 10 o’clock, it was still just
bearable, our house remained undamaged. Of course, all windows were broken and
things were damaged but the house still stood. […]
We then started clearing up when this firestorm came in such a speed, we went out
until the Elbe shores which was only 50–100 metres away from us and there it was
already crowded with people who had left their burning houses with the belongings they
could save. They were somehow trying to settle along the Elbe meadows. It was sheer
madness how the fire caused by the storm spread from house to house.
We then returned to our house and as I was the youngest, so I had to do fire watch on
the roof. And there I was, all by myself, I will never forget that. It was like watching the
inferno, so many roofs around me burning, how quickly they burned. […] About two
o’clock in the morning they announced the second attack of that night which was very
strange anyway. But we just made it downstairs when the terrible heavy detonations
came. Really, this was as though the world came to an end. We had probably spent about
three quarters of an hour in the cellar and really with every explosion we thought we were
going to die. We heard every arrival of these bombs and those terrible detonations, some
cried with fear, we prayed, we thought, really, on the second attack this night we were
finished. Then strangely, it was quiet and after a while, and then suddenly came the sound
of the hissing fire and that was on our staircase to the cellar, everything started burning
and panic broke out.
We had these openings in the walls between the houses and people from left and right,
many more people came into our cellar. Nobody was able to get out, we were all trapped
as the openings were blocked from the detonations, damaged or unsafe to pass. The panic
which prevailed in our cellar—normally we were 16 people, now there were perhaps
80—it was like a mad house. Then we heard a very clear voice: “Stay calm, we’ll get you
all out. Just wait and stay calm.” This man was an air raid warden, it came like a miracle,
these people down there, mad with fear, screaming and shocked, but this voice had such
a… I will not forget. And god knows, he returned shortly after and told us that he had
found an opening, we should follow him five houses further, there was an exit. […]
 German migrants in post-war britian 152

Outside, in the street fire came down like snow. When you entered the street
everything caught fire, the hair, the clothes, the phosphor, you got stuck with your feet in
the street. The wind howled as in a snowstorm but it was fire. […] And then on the Elbe
meadows, where we had been before, and some people did not return to the shelters in the
cellars, the meadows were a field covered with dead bodies, I cannot forget that. Some
burning people jumped into the ice-cold water, into the river to rid themselves of the
flames, simply terrible. […] We ran and ran, only bomb-holes, human remains, the
wounded, a battlefield, gruesome.’
Paula continues to talk about her flight out of Dresden towards the Czech border. She
was walking along a country road together with thousands of others, trying to get as far
away as possible from the city, when they suffered more attacks from low-flying aircraft.
After finding shelter with relatives near the Czech border, Paula and her mother returned
to Dresden a week later when some trains started running again. They wanted to find out
what had happened to friends and family, wanted to see whether any of their possessions
could be rescued from their house.
What follows is her personal account of entering Dresden after the ferocious
firestorms: ‘Bodies were daily carried out of the cellars, piled up at the end of the road,
powdered with white chlorine to prevent epidemics. […] Soldiers were crying like little
children. Well, daily we would see these little horse-drawn carriages, filled with bodies or
pieces, they were taken to the crematorium at the Altmarkt, endlessly. Prisoners of war
had to do this work. I think they could only do it with alcohol. These images stay:
innocent people, civilians, nothing to do with politics, small children in their carnival
dresses, all those foreign labourers, all in piles together.’
In the end they did not stay long in Dresden before leaving again for the countryside.
They returned sometime later for a short while, only to flee again when the Russians
crossed the Elbe. Mother and daughter made their way to Chemnitz in a daring journey,
despite curfews and blockades imposed by the Americans and a severe shortage of food.
Five weeks later they arrived in the medieval town of Göttingen which had been spared
major bombing. They found accommodation, even though the town was filled with
refugees and everything appeared to be in chaos. Paula found a job helping organise and
run a cash free exchange market, a self-help initiative since money was worthless. Food
remained a problem for them throughout this period until she heard that jobs were
available for Germans with the British Military Government. These were sought after,
partly because of the access they gave to food.
Paula was interviewed by a major and given a job in the Search Bureau for Missing
People that collaborated with the Red Cross. She recalls: ‘Initially I was very distant, he
was the first British person I met. He was a wonderful man, this major, so friendly, and
for me it was so strange to speak to a foreigner, an ex-enemy. He explained that British
non-army men would come to Germany soon. And one of the first to arrive was my
future husband. […] It was wonderful, to start with, we had bread again, which was white
bread, which I had never seen in my entire life. We thought it was cake. And we had
plenty, I didn’t even use my ration card and left it for my mother.’
Paula and Jack got married in 1948, and she received her British citizenship. At the
ceremony she was advised by the local registrar ‘never to forget her Germanness’, which
according to her, she never did. With the onset of the Berlin crisis her husband was asked
to return to England having been away for ten years.
 Five life stories 153

They both arrived in Britain in 1950. Paula was given a warm welcome by Jack’s
parents, but both of them found it difficult to adjust to life in London. Travel in London
was expensive and rents were high. Language problems prevented her from getting office
work, and as a British citizen she was not eligible for the government’s work schemes.
Her husband had to completely re-orientate himself to civilian life after being demobbed,
and started in an office job at the Savoy Hotel. After a disastrous experience serving tea
in a Lyon’s tea shop on Oxford Street, Paula managed to find work in a private house as
housekeeper, although she despised house work. Her employer was an affluent and very
cultured, music-loving dentist in Hampstead, North London, who also provided the
couple with a small flat near by. Living there, she met several other young German
women who were in similar jobs as housekeepers, au-pairs or nannies, and they enjoyed
swapping stories about their employers and the interesting lifestyles they saw. Even
though she did not belong to that strata of society, she was happy and felt very much at
home in the cosmopolitan atmosphere.
Realising this could not go on forever, the couple decided to buy their own home, and
with the arrival of their first baby were forced to lead a more modest life in a less exciting
part of North London. This move brought her into closer contact with British working
class people, their beliefs and lifestyles. Paula commented critically on the class
divisions, the lack of culture amongst working class people, and the limited aspirations
held by the parents of her child’s classmates. She particularly noticed a general lack of
interest in music, an area her son was able to develop by playing the organ at the local
church.
In retrospect Paula believes that only the political circumstances brought her to
Britain. Her life was turned upside down and she had to put down new roots somewhere.
‘But’, she says, ‘I would advise anybody to think very carefully before leaving their own
country. One also marries into a new family, and it is important to know what circle that
is, what kind of interests they have. I came from such a different home. My husband was
a very generous person but he loved dog and horse racing, completely alien worlds to me.
I think people have to work too hard in this country to spend so much money on these
kind of things, but maybe I am too German in this respect.’
Despite the death of her husband she continues to lead an active life. For decades she
was angry about the negative way Germany was depicted in the British media, and
nowadays she responds with letters to the editor. She feels it her mission to help bring
about a balanced portrayal of Germany and—as a witness of the Dresden bombing—she
has appeared in several British television programmes. Work for the Dresden Trust,
which supported the rebuilding of the Frauenkirche cathedral as a symbol of German-
British reconciliation, keeps her busy and enables her to travel in an official capacity to
her much-loved former home town.

Erwin S.: Conscious of being German.

Erwin was born in 1925 and grew up in Dresden. After finishing school he completed a
three-year apprenticeship and obtained a qualification in business and commerce from
Auto Union, a big car producer. He then set his sights on getting a diploma of commerce
and started attending an evening course at a local college that was cut short when he was
 German migrants in post-war britian 154

conscripted into the army. He trained with the Luftwaffe as pilot and parachutist, and
when barely older than those in his command, was put in charge of a group of 30 soldiers
aged between 17 and 18. Unlike other male interviewees Erwin did not talk much about
his war experiences. He merely stated that he and some of the soldiers in his group were
captured and sent to England as prisoners of war.
His narrative focusses on his time in England. As a POW he was interned in a camp in
Yorkshire and initially sent out to work on road building. During this period he met Joan,
his future wife, whom he married at the end of his time as POW. Erwin tells the story of
how they made contact:
‘I always sat in front of the lorry with the driver because I had to fill in the timesheets
and we had about 35 prisoners in the back of the lorry. And in the evening the driver
always stopped in front of the same shop to buy something, and I had to stay in the lorry
to keep an eye on the other prisoners. And there I noticed that one of the two young shop
assistants was smiling at me, but I was not allowed to leave the lorry. After about three or
four months I asked the driver if he could pass on a letter to the girl. I explained that I
was trying to learn English and whether she would help me. So our correspondence lasted
for about six months. And she always used to send something with it, cigarettes or bread
or cocoa. And it is important to understand that everything was rationed, it wasn’t easy.
But I was nearly the richest man in the whole camp. In the evenings we shared
everything, we mixed the cocoa with sugar and condensed milk and put it on the bread.
We were always hungry. And sometime she came to the camp. She could not come in as
it was surrounded by barbed wire, but we waved at each other. And then I started to go
through the wire. We made a small hole in it and I was able to escape for an hour or so
without being noticed and so we got to know each other a little bit better’.
The Christmas of 1946, POWs were granted permission to leave the camp for a few
hours, if invited by one of the local population. ‘Particularly the prisoners who worked on
farms had made good friends with their farmers, and they went there for Christmas lunch.
I went to Joan’s family. All 120 POWs of our camp were invited by the local people for
lunch. Nobody would have thought that all of us would be invited because the
newspapers were still full of propaganda at the time and you noticed it still. Between
1946 and 1948 when I went to visit Joan, went up the steep streets of Bradford to reach
the terraced house the family lived in, you noticed, I was in my POW uniform with those
big yellow patches on it, I always saw them watching behind the curtains. And they
looked at me and sometimes they said something, but mostly they were friendly.’
In 1948, the couple married, but not without a stern warning from the Justice of Peace
that Joan would lose her British citizenship if she went ahead. As this was one of the first
weddings between a POW and a British woman in the area, the church was packed with
onlookers. ‘Many people thought that Germans had horns on their heads. And of course I
had to be back in camp in the evening, but my camp comrades helped me to stay away so
I had a proper wedding night.’
Erwin was welcomed by Joan’s family. Only her brother-in-law, who had served in
the British forces during the war, voiced scepticism, and Joan’s mother, though
supportive of her daughter’s decision, warned that it ‘would not be an easy life’. When
Joan was severely attacked by a stranger one night when walking home by herself they
all thought ‘it was one of those people who did not like it that she had chosen to be with a
POW’.
 Five life stories 155

Indeed, their life together did not have an easy start. Even though he was a newly
married man, Erwin recalls how limited his prospects were when he was released: ‘There
I was in front of the camp, no belongings, nothing apart from my dirty uniform, half a
crown in my pocket, just enough for the bus fare from Selby to Bradford. What do you do
now? We were so cheated in this war; my brother died in Russia.’
Married life started with the in-laws, who gave them a bedroom in their terraced
house, and Erwin tried to find work. This turned out to be more difficult than they had
anticipated. On one occasion he applied for a job with English Electric, a big company
that was looking for unskilled labourers. ‘I went there and when I told the interviewer
where I came from he said: “Are you not able to read? It says clearly English Electric, we
do not employ anybody from Germany.” I was never asked what I was capable of doing.’
Erwin realised that he had no chance of getting work in his field so he took a job as a
floor layer with a large company. ‘I was qualified to do office work and couldn’t put a
nail into the wall, but one had to change and I was interested. First we laid the old-
fashioned parquet floors, wood, then rubber floors, cork, vinyl and plastic floors.’ He
worked in hospitals, schools and other public buildings. Unfortunately, this kind of work
also meant staying away from the family for long periods: ‘I had to go to Glasgow,
Sheffield or Newcastle. The contract in Newcastle lasted for nine months, and I only
came home every other weekend. I was not much around when my son grew up. The
work was piecework’.
In the meantime Erwin’s and Joan’s hard work enabled them to buy a small house,
with the help of the German pastor who vouched for their mortgage. Erwin recalled an
incident in the mid-1950s when a German supplier, who valued the quality of his work,
encouraged him to return to Germany where his newly developed skills would be useful.
Erwin and Joan did not seriously consider this, mainly because they felt their lives had
become more stable by then and their son was well settled in his local school.
A somewhat introverted person, Erwin obviously continued to feel an outsider. He
says that he did not feel comfortable for a long time because life in Britain undermined
his traditional role as an active and decisive man. ‘One had to get used to the new life,
and my wife did everything, she always had to show me what to do, new laws and so on.
As a man I always had to ask my wife. She knew it, because she was born here. She did
things that men are supposed to do.’ At this point Joan, who has listened quietly up until
now, interjects, commenting that she is still carrying out this role: ‘If there is anything to
do or any telephoning or anything like that, he won’t do it.’
It appears Erwin became a more timid and cautious person, and particularly sensitive
with respect to his nationality: ‘One had to be careful as a German in certain situations.
When it came to an argument, for example, when the neighbour’s dog came into our
garden and I chased it away, our neighbour said in leaving “What do you expect from a
German?” […] When there were any conflicts I always left it to you [addressing Joan] to
sort it out.’ His wife is convinced that it is because ‘he has this consciousness that he is
German’.
Even though Erwin claims not to have been personally involved in any war crimes, he
identifies strongly with the German guilt. There were many instances when he suffered
and felt uncomfortable, particularly in the immediate post-war years. ‘That was when I
started smoking. I started when I began working in the building trade, every lunch time
we all sat there and smoked our Woodbines. And the Holocaust pictures, after the war
 German migrants in post-war britian 156

every film in the cinema was about the war. And the Germans were always the stupid
ones, and when they shot they were the criminals and when the English shot they were
always the good ones. And when you came to work the next day after a Holocaust film,
there was always silence when I joined. Most likely they talked about it before I came, I
noticed it. Always after a film on TV the atmosphere wasn’t good. Or when we visited
some friends for tea, which used to be the fashion, and we watched TV, the atmosphere
always changed, if we were present.’
Joan too felt the stigma that was attached to being German. She remembers: ‘You
know, I got it at work, marrying a German, what do you think about that, you know you
shouldn’t be marrying a German. And when I went for a job interview, they’d ask me, the
name, what it was. What nationality? As soon as you said German, that was it. […] In
fact, quite honestly, let’s face it, it is no good glossing over it, but it is still there. It has
changed but it is still there now. German is a kind of dirty word. […] To be German is
awful.’
Erwin remembers the offer he had in the mid-1950s from the German contractor to
return. ‘Today, I wished we had gone. We would have had a better life, more pension, we
don’t live well here on our small pensions. We only get £112 per week, my wife and I.
That is not much if you have to pay your taxes, council tax, water, electricity and gas.’
Although Erwin thinks it may have been a mistake not to return to Germany, he felt
more valued in England when the German image started to improve as a consequence of
the German economic recovery. ‘Then I felt that in my own work, many people in the
building trade talked to me about German quality, and people asked me particularly to
carry out some jobs because I was German and Germans were good workers.’ Comparing
the two countries he also sees other positive things in Britain: ‘Life is so much more quiet
here, also politically, because England has been a democratic country for centuries and
they always find a compromise here. In Germany you have the extremes, so many
different ideologies, Weimar Republic, Nazis and Communism in the East.’ And had he
returned he would have missed the British sense of humour and his favourite game—
cricket.

Jean Z.: A love affair.

Jean is the Scottish widow of Karl, a German POW who died in 1977 at the age of 55.
She talks about how she met her husband and the life they spent together. ‘My husband
comes from a well-to-do family. I would say he comes from a middle-class family. I
came from a not very well-off family, which is just as well because when I got married to
my husband, we had very little money. So I was able to manage. I was born into a mining
community—coal mining—and my family come from generations, literally hundreds of
years, of mining families. Whereas the other half were farmers, a bit mixed in a way. But
they were all very strong characters. But my husband’s family, they were more
professional. His grandfather was a headmaster, his father was a teacher, and his uncle
was a teacher as well. His cousins were engineers in Dresden. And I was at the local
grammar school when I met my husband, by chance actually, by mistake because I did
not have any intention of meeting him.
 Five life stories 157

I had an aunt and an uncle who lived in the country, and it was my uncle’s duty to go
to the camp and invite any of the prisoners if they would like to come out and work. They
got paid a few shillings. And my husband said, of course, and took the chance
immediately. They came out because of being bored behind bars. […] By this time the
war had finished, they could come out of course if they wanted. But in the beginning they
could only go and see a 5-mile radius. And of course they were obvious by their POW
uniforms which had big patches on them. So my uncle Bob, who had been a veteran from
the battle of the Somme from the First World War, and he had wounds which he had all
his life. And my aunt was a war widow. She had lost her husband at the beginning of the
war, 1940. He was in the merchant navy and was blown up in his boat by a German
submarine. So these two people were very unlikely people to be entertaining German
soldiers. But my uncle Bob used to say to me, the German fighting man is one of the
finest in the world, and must be treated with respect. That was his feeling. […] So he
would go down to the camp, get these men, and at the end of the week he would say to
them, now lads, you must come and have tea with my wife and I on Sunday, if you want.
So my husband came to the house. […] And anyway we had a meal and I tried to be nice,
you know. But I could not forgive them for what they had done. And you know I don’t
know why I was behaving like this, except that, I suppose we had been fed a lot of
propaganda during the war. […] And when he left, I thought, oh well, thank goodness,
that’s over.’
Later, Jean received a letter from Karl inviting her to join a church event with the
POWs in St Gilles. ‘And he thought I would be interested. I was brought up to go to
church. My family were devoted Presbyterians you know. So I went. And all the citizens
were sitting down one side of the cathedral. And suddenly, all these army lorries came
and disgorged all these men. And they sat down on the other side. We did not mix. So
that was fine, that suited me. And I looked across and saw the young man who had
invited me. This will patch things up I thought, you know, makes me feel better. So, after
the ceremonies, we went outside… And the guards, they came with guards, you know,
[…] all the citizens shook hands with the prisoners of war. Many of these citizens were
people who had business in Germany previously, perhaps schoolteachers and that sort of
thing. So, I shook hands and said goodbye, I said I hope you have a safe journey. He said,
oh, I am not going back to Germany. I said, you aren’t? He said, no, I have changed my
mind. So anyway, I did not see why he changed his mind or anything.’
Karl did not return to Germany. He stayed on, found himself a job on a farm, and
wrote to Jean regularly. They became friends and Jean was often invited to have Sunday
lunch with Karl and the farmer’s family. ‘And I had to admit that he was a nice lad. So,
things went on along like this. I was a correspondent really. And then the announcement
came that British families could write to the officer in charge of the camp. And they said,
British families can write to the officers commanding and offer to take one of the
prisoners as a guest over Christmas. So I said to mother do you think we could do this?
She said, oh, I don’t know. Anyway, she must have spoken with my father, who allowed
her to do anything she wanted. And I was allowed to write. So he came to our home and
he was very polite. My parents liked him. My father liked him even. You know, he said,
he is a nice lad. Very fine. And so the thing went on. And then we decided we would get
engaged. My mother was a little bit worried, father was against it. And it went on and on
until finally my mother said, very well then, if this is what you want to do, you make
 German migrants in post-war britian 158

your bed, you lie on it. We have nothing against Karl. He is a very fine boy, he is nice,
we like him. But you are too young. And I said, well mother, I don’t care. I am going to
do it. The only person who really supported me was my grandmother. So we got married
in September 1948,1 was 17, Karl was 25. In the end we had two ministers: our minister,
the Reverend Edward Jack, and we also had the German pastor. So for the first time, we
had two wedding rings. And it was lovely. The German pastor wrote a detailed letter to
my parents-in-law in Germany describing all the proceedings. And I had made my
bridesmaid’s dresses and he wrote to her: […] She can cook, don’t worry, they are very
happy etc. He wrote this very nice letter. We were very happy. And my friends here, they
said, of course you know Jean, yours was a love affair. And it is true, it was a love affair.
We never had any, I am not saying we did not quarrel, we did, but it wasn’t anything
serious. […] But it was very sad that he died so soon. My youngest child was nine, then
14, 17 and the eldest girl was 22. This was a terrible pity. But you know, and I feel it was
wonderful to have the years that we had. […]
Most of the German men I know have done well. They have worked hard. I can’t think
of any who haven’t done well in the field. And the children have done well. And I have a
feeling that the German POWs were instrumental in bringing Christmas to Scotland.
Because Christmas was not very much celebrated here. Would you believe, I never had a
Christmas tree until the very first year I was married. Now, we lived with my
grandmother at the time and we did not have a home of our own in the beginning.
Grandmother lived alone in her house. So on that Christmas Eve I was working. And I
went home. And Granny was in the sitting room, living room, and she said to me, you are
not to go in there. We are to stay here, Karl says. So anyway, I waited and waited and
then there was this tree, not very big, in the corner, lit with candles, sweets and nuts, all
sorts of things. I was absolutely astounded. I had never seen anything like this in my life.
Not even in our church, because Christmas trees were not allowed in the church. So strict
were they, Calvinists you know. I had never seen anything like it. And the candlelight.
And I just happened to look at my grandmother, and I am not joking, tears were running
down her face. She said, You know Jean, I have never seen anything so beautiful in my
life. So all over Scotland, I am very sure, in the other families, where the daughter of the
house had married a German prisoner, they were having the same experience. And of
course, you bring up your children to know this. […] I think that in the beginning the
German prisoners had an influence on this. They introduced it and it was taken up.
In the beginning we lived with my grandmother. She was a widow and she had room.
Because the housing situation was very difficult. All our men coming home. One of the
things I maybe did not mention yet—I would not like you to think that it was a bed of
roses. It was very difficult for some people to accept that this girl had married a German
prisoner. I think it was just a little bit of resentment perhaps on the part of our own men.
You know, naturally, they had been away fighting, they come back to find out the girls
are marrying. I don’t think there were more German ladies married to British soldiers,
definitely, than the opposite. We are in the minority.
When we were first married, he had the intention of going back to Germany. Not
maybe in the first year, but we could see a time when we might. And I said to Karl, well,
I said, I am sure that I could. I started to learn German. And I said to Karl, well, I am
prepared to go, if you want. And he said, well, we have to wait until things settle down in
 Five life stories 159

Germany. We could not go now. And he said, not only that, he said, I am not going to
Germany as long as the Russians are occupying our part of the country.
And I was waiting to start my training as a children’s nurse. I had to wait until I was
19. So I was working in an office at the Westend in the meantime. And the men there, the
office was one where they have the printing shop upstairs. […] And the men in the
printing room, they never gave me one minute of peace. They were dreadful. I never used
to go up. They were forever teasing me [about Karl]. I thought to myself, they are just a
pain in the neck. Of course I think they were just a bit resentful. They, well only one was
married and the others were bachelors. And I think they were a bit annoyed.
Karl was very keen to go to Canada. And I thought fine, you see, we hadn’t been long
married and because I had all this niggling and teasing…. You know Karl did not have
such a very good job and I saw difficulties for him here and people were niggling me,
people I worked with. And I wondered if it would be a good idea to try our lot. So we
decided to go. It was really just because we were young. Wanted to try our luck. It
wasn’t—you see our men had come home from the army and—it wasn’t so easy to get a
job here. And the salaries were not very great at that time in Britain. Let’s face it, we
were also suffering from the post-war problems. I mean, the late 1940s and early 1950s
were difficult for the people. Rationing was still in operation. Coal was rationed, food
was rationed, potatoes. It really was awful. And when we got to Canada, the first thing
we did was we walked along a street and I said, oh, look at that Karl, they’ve got bananas
in that shop. So we went in and I said to the man, oh, I see you’ve got bananas in the
shop, how many bananas can I have? And he said, you can have as many as you want. So
we bought a bunch of bananas and I ate it all. I hadn’t seen a banana since I was a little
girl, everything was rationed here.’
After three-and-a-half years Jean and Karl returned. ‘We enjoyed the experience in
Canada. It opened our eyes and rounded our outlook and we made nice friends. But this is
a more stable country in many ways. We wanted to educate our children. We did not
want them to be brought up to be labourers or things like that. And you need a lot of
money to support children through university and college. And this country would help if
you couldn’t do it. My husband, being the person he was, he just suited me down to the
ground. Because I always had aspirations for my children and he went along with this.
We wanted them to be broadminded and educated. We, I must say, we were both
generally of one mind. We had our children and they were very much our life. So we had
four. And they were our life. Karl was very much a family man.
Karl said to me, Scotland is my home. He said, you know, Scotland has given me
everything I need. My wife, my children, my job. And that’s my home. And I said, what
you mean is Karl, we have a perfect saying, “home is where the heart is”. He said, that’s
right. I think you leave your parent’s home forever and however much you love your
parents, your life is with your own family. The children that you have, your wife. And
that doesn’t have to be in a certain place. It can be wherever you are happy. And I
thought, one day, because my husband expressed the view that if he ever died or was
killed prematurely, that he would like to be buried. And I bought this piece of ground in
the cemetery. I bought a stone, a headstone, and I put his name on it. I put, Born in
Germany, but died in Scotland, his second home. Because I thought, this is nice’.
 Summary

Between 1945 and 1951, almost a million people migrated to Britain. This figure
comprised British subjects from the colonies and the Commonwealth, the Irish, workers
from Europe who came on individual labour permits, EVWs as well as German, Austrian
and Italian women recruited en masse under schemes sponsored by the British
government. Italian, German and Ukrainian POWs (the latter former members of the
Waffen SS) who were allowed to remain in Britain are also included in this figure.
Germans and ethnic Germans made up around 60,000 of the migrants, of which consisted
of more than 15,000 ex-POWs, over 20,000 commercially or privately recruited female
workers and nearly 10,000 women recruited under government schemes. There were also
some 1,300 ethnic Germans and around the same number of Sudeten Germans and about
10,000 war brides.

British immigration policy

Britain’s immigration policy during this period was driven by the high war debt, an
enormous demand for US dollars and extensive international aid commitments. Having
decided the best way to meet these financial obligations was to bolster traditional export-
orientated industries (textiles, coal, iron and steel) and support industries suffering labour
shortages by recruiting foreign labour, the government needed to grant labour permits
more generously than in the past. It also introduced sponsored recruitment programmes in
Europe. In terms of the history of British immigration policy, this was quite a departure.
At the time the government embarked on this policy there were already a large number
of German POWs working in Britain, particularly in the agriculture and building sectors.
This generated a vehement public debate about slaves and forced labour that involved the
newspapers, churches, voluntary organisations, Members of Parliament and various
individuals. In August 1946, the number of working German POWs peaked at 362,000. It
was only later, in 1947, that the first inter-ministerial talks on the possible retention of
German POWs in Britain began.
The ministries concerned held a range of conflicting views and agendas, but finally the
Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, acting for the farmers, prevailed. The latter wanted
to keep their POWs, who they felt had been accepted by their rural communities, and
who they certainly did not want to exchange for unknown DPs. The agricultural unions
needed to be persuaded first. Eventually the unions did agree to the permanent settlement
of ex-POWs in Britain, on the condition that formal work contracts between them and
their employers should be signed during 1948 and that they committed to staying in
agriculture for several years. With this the unions ensured that ex-POWs did not compete
directly with British land workers, since the former mostly lived and worked on remote
farms that were avoided by the locals.
 Summary 161

The government recruited DPs under the Balt Cygnet and Westward Ho schemes.
These programmes were motivated by pragmatic rather than humanitarian concerns, that
is, the serious shortage of male and female workers in certain sectors of British industry.
Because of the acute shortage of accommodation at the time, the government ideally
wanted workers who were single and independent. Furthermore, the political decision to
accept EVWs was, in effect, also a decision to discourage the immigration of non-white
British subjects from the dominions and colonies. Also, within those classed as DPs,
workers from northern Europe were to receive preferential treatment. The ethno-political
criteria were based on the premise that migrants from Europe would be more skilled and
easier to assimilate than non-Europeans. Just prior to the government launching the Balt
Cygnet and Westward Ho programmes, representatives at the 1946 TUC in Brighton had
come out strongly against members of the allied Polish army remaining in Britain. The
discussions about recruiting and employing DPs that followed a few months later were
slightly less emotional, but unions in the agricultural and mining sectors still delayed
accepting the relevant industrial agreements for several months.
Also during this period the government spent considerable effort getting the trade
unions to agree to recruiting young, unmarried German and ethnic German women for
the textile industry. This became a priority when it became clear during 1948 that there
were not enough female DPs to meet the demand for workers in this sector. In Lancashire
and West Yorkshire, the unions banned the employment of German women, but they
were prepared to compromise on ethnic Germans of both sexes. They also agreed to the
employment of Sudeten German women in Lancashire’s cotton mills. A bilateral
agreement with the USA was required before the government could start recruiting in
Germany’s American zone. This raised the issue of the Sudeten Germans’ citizenship.
During the negotiations the Americans refused to grant the women separate identity
documents, and finally the British government had to agree to allow the migrants into
Britain on German identity documents. The trade unions accepted this, but the British
public was not informed.
The EVWs recruited under Westward Ho, the ethnic Germans, the Sudeten Germans
and the ex-POWs received unrestricted work and residency permits, while the nearly
10,000 German women recruited under the North Sea scheme to work in the health
system and hardship households only received work permits for a maximum of 2 or 3
years. As with the EVWs and other foreign workers, they filled gaps in the British labour
market and took on work that was unattractive to the local workforce. It was this and the
initially restricted work permits that explains the lack of trade union opposition and
public protest to the programmes. What is remarkable, however, are the voices heard
during the political decision-making process insisting that Germans would be more easily
assimilated than DPs. Such positive discrimination only a few years after the war is
surprising.

British immigrant policy

A cornerstone of the thinking underlying this aspect of British immigrant policy was that
government responsibility for the recruits should not end with their arrival in Britain. A
lot of effort went into deciding how best to support their assimilation. Part of the solution
 German migrants in post-war britian 162

was comprehensively informing the migrants about living and working conditions in
Britain, and on the other hand, also informing the British public on the vital role the
recruits would play in the country’s economic recovery and growth. The pamphlets To
Help You Settle in Britain and Contemporary Life in Britain were aimed directly at the
newly recruited, while the brochure Workers from Abroad was designed for the British
population. The latter was an important part of a government programme titled Education
of Popular Opinion on Foreign Workers which aimed to reduce prejudice, stereotyping
and xenophobia. The government also took on responsibility for providing the migrants’
basic necessities during their initial period in Britain, along with language courses and an
introduction to the British way of life. It was recognised that assimilation was a long-term
process in which both sides—the host society and the migrants—had to be involved.
To aid the process of assimilation, the government was keen to enlist the support of
local authorities, employers, unions, churches and voluntary organisations. The aim was
to reduce friction between locals and foreigners at work and in the community by
providing the personal support that would equip them to take their place as equal
members of society. Segregation had to be avoided, and it was for this reason the
Ministry of Labour generally favoured using existing welfare structures rather than
making separate arrangements for the migrants. It was thus the Ministry’s local and
regional welfare officers who investigated the EVWs’ working conditions and
accommodation. They also investigated complaints, and put migrants in touch with local
clubs, churches and other organisations. Local authorities got involved by inviting
foreign workers to welcome parties and opening advisory bureaus. Public libraries
provided books and newspapers in foreign languages. Larger firms usually employed
welfare officers specifically to look after the migrants.
Some special provisions were made. The Cotton Board, for example, employed a
female welfare officer specifically to take care of the European workers, and between
June 1950 and October 1951, the Ministry of Labour retained German sociologist, Maria
Roos, as their Advisory Welfare Officer for German Women.
At the government’s behest, churches and NGOs across the country also provided
welfare support to the migrants within their local communities during the early months
and years. Members visited nearby camps and hostels and invited the foreign workers to
join their activities. Some even provided language courses. The most active organisation
was the WVS, whose members met migrants off the boats and escorted them to their
lodgings. With such activities, the WVS’s local branches played an essential role in
helping the migrants’ settle in. Overall the NGOs played a fairly limited part in
proceedings, and members were often disappointed by the workers’ lack of enthusiasm or
outright rejection of their efforts. Language courses offered by the government and local
institutions received a similarly cool response. The main reasons for the widespread
apathy were considered to be the heavy workloads most foreign workers had to shoulder
and the fact that they preferred to spend their limited leisure time with their fellow
compatriots. Early on this led to the establishment of ethnic clubs where workers could
maintain their eastern European culture.
The German migrants were an exception to this pattern, as they rarely organised
groups or regular meetings that were not church related. The German YMCA in London,
founded in 1860, re-emerged at the end of the war and became an important focal point
for migrants of both sexes. Also, the Freiburg-based German National Federation of
 Summary 163

Catholic Associations for the Protection of Young Women financed a UK-based social
worker who was active for a number of years. She was initially based in Rochdale
between October 1950 and February 1952, before moving to London to take charge of St
Lioba House, which was also run by the Federation. Finally, the activities of the German
Welfare Council, formed in 1952, also deserve a mention, as do those of the various
Catholic and Protestant churches, which have a history of pastoral care and social work
within the German migrant community that goes back to well before the First World
War.

First impressions

The migrants’ first experiences of life in Britain, and their opportunities to meet and mix
socially with British people, were largely dictated by the sort of work they did. Ex-POWs
slowly became integrated into their local communities. Occasionally close contacts had
been made with locals prior to the strict ban on fraternisation being lifted, and contact of
this type accelerated once they left the camps and were billeted on farms. Of note here is
the fact that just under 800 German POWs married British women while they were still
interned. Together with a certain empathy for the underdog on the part of local people,
the settling-in process was made a little easier for these men by the fact that they only
worked in areas where they did not compete with local workers. In terms of
accommodation the same was true, which again must have played a part in reducing
existing prejudices. This situation only changed when work restrictions were officially
removed. The loss of home and social networks, and an unwillingness to return to areas
under Soviet occupation were among the key reasons migrants chose to stay in Britain,
although the number of workers from West Germany is actually bigger than has hitherto
been assumed.
In contrast to the POWs, the approximately 10,000 German war brides had an entirely
different experience. When they met, their future husbands were either soldiers or
members of the British Control Commission. Contemporary sources reported
comprehensively on the many unhappy marriages, which were generally the result of
high expectations that for a variety of reasons could not be fulfilled in Britain. But on the
whole British partners and their families did help these women find a place in British
society.
Within the group of German migrants there are clear differences in the marriage
partners they chose, differences which seem to originate in the type of work they went
into. Women recruited for the health system were more likely to marry a British partner,
whereas those working as domestics and in the textile industry tended to marry other
foreigners. The social status of a particular job, and the opportunities this offered for
making contact with the opposite sex, are likely explanations. The differences in role
expectations once married are also strikingly different, and this seemed to depend on the
choice of partner. Those who married a British man often gave up their jobs regardless of
their qualifications (or at least gave up working full time), whereas women who married
eastern Europeans had, together with their husbands, set themselves such ambitious
material goals that both partners had to work.
 German migrants in post-war britian 164

The reasons the recruited women came to Britain were similar to the reasons given by
those who came on individual work permits—usually the loss of home and social
networks. Other factors were traumatic experiences during wartime, being a refugee,
suffering discrimination in West Germany, struggling to get work and some degree of
material and emotional security, and the anticipation of better career and social
opportunities. For some there was the sense of adventure, or the prospect of finding a
husband. There were also those who wanted to reduce the burden on their family by
supporting them from abroad, while others left because they had no chance of finding
work in Germany due to their activities during the NS era. This last group had no
difficulty immigrating, as security checks were not strictly applied.
On their arrival, the migrants went to a variety of working and living environments.
Although working in the health sector had enormous health risks associated with it (e.g.
TB sanatoria), the responsibility that came with the job and the opportunity to work in a
mainly female workplace (and staff that was likely to include other German nurses)
attracted many recruits. In contrast, those who worked as domestics in hardship
households were often very isolated and experienced high levels of homesickness. The
Sudeten German women who went to work in the Lancashire cotton mills also found
themselves in a totally alien living and working environment. In addition, they suffered
more racial harassment from their colleagues than their counterparts in the health sector
who were largely protected by their superiors. A number of these Sudeten Germans left
the textile factories before the end of their contracts, others used the cotton crisis of 1952
to make a professional or geographical change.

Settling in

After marriage, what for most ex-POWs and female workers had been a limited stay
turned into a permanent one. Like the eastern European migrants, in material terms they
began with nothing. Most of them managed to establish themselves, became home
owners and created a modest lifestyle without any outside help. A strong drive to get out
of what were initially often unacceptable living conditions was particularly noticeable
amongst the recruited women. Many managed to buy a small house after only a few years
in Britain, which was only possible through hard work and a frugal lifestyle. They look
back proudly, sometimes with a little arrogance, on their achievements and are quick to
point out that they made it on their own without becoming a social burden to society.
In retrospect, most ex-POWs defined themselves through their work, even if despite
having worked hard physically all their lives they rarely managed to achieve a senior or
influential position. Some became self-employed, but the majority felt their nationality
had prevented them from achieving more. The majority of recruited women were equally
marked by years of hard work. In addition, they usually had sole responsibility for
organising the household and bringing up children. Throughout the initially difficult
years in Britain, they managed by relying on virtues learned during and after the war in
Germany: economising and doing without. Like the men, they saw their lives as having
been difficult and dominated by work, with very little room for leisure and pleasure.
Most women realised their goals of teaching their children German and instilling in
them a desire to do well at school. The second generation often managed to achieve what
 Summary 165

the first had originally aspired to: joining the middle class. Marriages, that had often been
rushed into for pragmatic reasons rather than deep affection, did manage to survive.
Usually this was because both partners were committed to providing the children with a
secure home. Despite this, several women characterised their partnerships as unhappy,
and marriages to eastern European men seem to have been particularly difficult. The
main causes appear to have been different role expectations, cultural differences and their
partners’ strong need to spend time with their particular ethnic group. Sometimes German
churches and congregations took on the important function of providing pastoral and
social support. As the migrants get older, this aspect is becoming increasingly important.
However, many have been left with nobody to turn to for support.
The wave of German migration to Britain occurred in the specific context of the
immediate post-war period, at a time when suffering and grief were still fresh in
everybody’s minds. This was recalled by the interviewees, first, because of how it
affected their relationships with the local British population, and also because it meant
they were frequently confronted with negative images of Germany and the Germans,
particularly the assumption that all Germans were Nazis. Nearly all talked about having
experienced anti-German feelings, attitudes and opinions of one type or another,
particularly during the first 20 years. Some downplayed it, but most took it very seriously
and remembered it as a highly unpleasant experience. Those who settled in rural Scotland
expressed enthusiasm for the local population there. This contrasted with the Germans
who settled in the south of Britain, who continued to have reservations about ‘the
English’. They emphasised the differences rather than the similarities, possibly as a
reaction to their initial reception, which they perceived as unwelcoming. As a result, for
many years the majority had made an effort not to appear German, some even to the point
of denying their nationality. And it was not only the migrants themselves that were the
target of anti-German sentiments, often their children were too. They had to confront
anti-German stereotypes, in popular children’s war games and at school. In some cases, it
appears this led to psychological problems. Some children reacted by refusing to speak
German, a few even left Britain as young adults to settle in Germany or elsewhere. Most
Germans felt personally affronted when the British media presented programmes about
German atrocities committed during the Nazi period. On this issue it became apparent
that gender influenced attitudes: Women tended to reflect critically to a far greater extent
than their male counterparts, whereas most ex-POWs appeared to have become quite
defensive.
Despite having lived in Britain for half a century, most Germans still feel they do not
really belong. In the course of time, they have developed a specific blend of Germanness
and Britishness, however most retained their German citizenship. For many, the German
passport symbolises their close relationship to Germany, albeit an imagined Germany
based on their memories of the Heimat, their childhood and youth. In contrast to this,
their relationship with the Federal Republic is ambivalent: Whilst Germany’s political
and cultural development has been followed with great interest, their experiences when
visiting present-day Germany have not always been positive, despite immense and
continuing admiration for the country’s material achievements. Over the years, many
have begun to feel alienated from their Germany and its people. This hybrid identity is
now a cause of concern for those debating whether or not to return to Germany, a big
concern as they face old age with a shrinking social network and often on a modest state
 German migrants in post-war britian 166

pension. Once retired, contact with German institutions has become important. It seems
that a deep longing for the old Heimat co-exists with a more pragmatic realisation that
they have spent 50 years making the best of things and creating a new life for themselves
in Britain, and perhaps this is where they are now most at home.
 Notes

Introduction
1 B.L.Montgomery, The Memoirs of Field-Marshal the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein,
London: Collins, 1958, p. 370.
2 P.Panayi, German Immigrants in Britain during the Nineteenth Century, 1815–1914, Oxford:
Berg, 1995, p. 97.
3 Ibid., pp. 145–146, 171.
4 P.Panayi, Immigration, Ethnicity and Racism in Britain, 1815–1945, Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1994, p. 107.
5 P.Panayi, ‘Anti-German Riots in Britain during the First World War’, in P.Panayi (ed.), Racial
Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, London: Leicester University
Press, 1996, p. 66.
6 Panayi, Immigration, Ethnicity and Racism in Britain, 1815–1945, pp. 109–110.
7 R.Miles, Racism, London: Routledge, 1989, p. 137.
8 Panayi, Immigration, Ethnicity and Racism in Britain, 1815–1945, p. 56
9 J.A.Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers in Britain, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1958, p. 3.
10 ‘Girls Recalled by Germany’, Daily Telegraph, 16.12.1938.
11 PA Deutsche Botschaft London, Nr 1746, Note, 13.12.1938.
12 Population Policy in Great Britain. A Report by PEP (Political and Economic Planning),
London: PEP, 1948, p. 108. Panayi, Immigration, Ethnicity and Racism in Britain, 1815–
1945, p. 23.
13 For example: M.Bülbring, ‘Post-War Refugees in Great Britain’, Population Studies, 1954,
pp. 99–112. M.Bülbring and E.Nagy, ‘The Receiving Community in Great Britain’, in
H.B.M.Murphy, (ed.), Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, pp. 113–123.
H.B.M.Murphy, ‘Refugee Psychoses in Great Britain: Admissions to Mental Hospitals’, in
Murphy H.B.M. pp. 173–194. E.Stadulis, ‘The Resettlement of Displaced Persons in the
United Kingdom’, Population Studies, 1952, pp. 207–237.
14 D.Kay and R.Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers? European Volunteer Workers in Britain
1946–1951, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 3, 160. T.Kushner, ‘Immigration and “Race
Relations” in Postwar British Society’, in P.Johnson (ed.), Twentieth-Century Britain:
Economic, Social and Cultural Change, London: Longman, 1994, p. 413.
15 Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers.
16 H.Faulk, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien. Re-education, Bielefeld:
Gieseking, 1970. M.B.Sullivan, Thresholds of Peace. Four Hundred Thousand German
Prisoners and the People of Britain 1944–1948, London: Hamilton, 1979. H.Wolff, Die
deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in britischer Hand. Ein Überblick, Bielefeld: Gieseking, 1974.
17 C.Holmes, John Bull’s Island. Immigration and British Society, 1871–1971, London:
Macmillan, 1988, p. 302.
18 F.Heckmann, Ethnische Minderheiten, Volk und Nation. Soziologie interethnischer
Beziehungen, Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1992, p. 168.
19 P.Thompson, The Voice of the Past. Oral History, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988, p. 3.
 Notes 168

20 See S.Steinmetz, Deutsche Evangelische Gemeinden in Großbritannien und Irland:

Geschichte und Archivbestände, Hannover: Verband Kirchlicher Archive, 1998.
21 G.Rosenthal, Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte. Gestalt und Struktur biographischer
Selbstbeschreibungen, Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1995.
22 L.Niethammer, ‘Über Forschungstrends unter Verwendung diachroner Interviews in der
Bundesrepublik’, in L.Niethammer (ed.), Lebenserfahrung und kollektives Gedächtnis. Die
Praxis der ‘Oral History’, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1985, p. 474.
23 R.B.Perks and A.Thomson, The Oral History Reader, London: Routledge, 1998.
24 Thompson, The Voice of the Past, p. 150.

1
Britain and West Germany in the post-war period
1 J.Isaac, Julius, British Post-War Migration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954, p.
55.
2 A.H.Halsey, Change in British Society, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995, p. 79.
3 J.Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien. Krise, Weltkrieg, Wiederaufbau,
Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, p. 334.
4 A.Cairncross, Years of Recovery. British Economic Policy 1945–51, London: Methuen, 1985,
p. 394.
5 Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien, pp. 400–401.
6 T.Wilson, ‘Manpower’, in G.D.N.Worswick and P.H.Ady (eds), The British Economy 1945–
1950, Oxford: Clarendon, 1952, p. 238.
7 Cairncross, Years of Recovery, p. 388.
8 Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien, p. 337.
9 P.Thane, ‘Women since 1945’, in P.Johnson (ed.), Twentieth-Century Britain: Economic,
Social and Cultural Change, London: Longman, 1994, pp. 394–395.
10 Ibid.
11 Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien, pp. 378–379.
12 E.Wilson, Only Halfway to Paradise. Women in Postwar Britain 1945–1968, London:
Tavistock, 1980, p. 22.
13 Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien, pp. 337–378.
14 ‘The Need for Foreign Labour. Problems not Insoluble’, Financial Times, 6.2.1947.
15 Cairncross, Years of Recovery, pp. 20–21, 36–37.
16 Wilson, Only Halfway to Paradise, p. 23.
17 R.Miles and D.Kay, ‘The TUC, Foreign Labour and the Labour Government 1945–1951’,
Immigrants and Minorities, 1990, pp. 100–101.
18 D.K.Britton, ‘Agriculture’, in G.D.N.Worswick and P.H.Ady (eds), The British Economy
1945–1950, Oxford: Clarendon, 1952, pp. 463–464, 467–470.
19 P.Addison, Now the War is Over. A Social History of Britain 1945–51, London: Pimlico,
1995, pp. 35–37, 53–54.
20 A.Booth (ed.), British Economic Development Since 1945, Manchester: Manchester
University Press, 1995, p. 1.
21 T.Eschenburg, Jahre der Besatzung 1945–1949, Stuttgart: DVA, 1983, p. 63.
22 J.-D.Steinert and R.Vollmer, ‘Reisen durch Ruinen. Die Tagebuchaufzeichnungen der
Angela Limerick (British Red Cross Society) über ihre Inspektionsreisen durch die Britische
Besatzungszone und nach Berlin 1945 und 1946’, Geschichte im Westen, 1999, pp. 85–112,
225–238.
 Notes 169

23 W.Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer. Die Displaced Persons in

Westdeutschland 1945–1951, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985, pp. 42, 83, 86,
122.
24 International Migration 1945–1957, Geneva: International Labour Office, 1959, p. 47.
25 J.-D.Steinert, ‘Die große Flucht und die Jahre danach: Flüchtlinge und Vertriebene in den
vier Besatzungszonen’, in H.-E.Volkmann (ed.), Ende des Dritten Reiches-Ende des Zweiten
Weltkrieges, Munich: Piper, 1995, pp. 557–579.
26 G.Reichling (ed.), Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, vol. 1, Bonn: Kulturstiftung der
deutschen Vertriebenen, 1986, pp. 26, 59.
27 R.Just, ‘Die Integration der Umsiedler im Land Sachsen’, Sächsische Heimatblätter, 1989, p.
156.
28 V.Siebrecht, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitsmarktpolitik in der Nachkriegszeit, Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1956, p. 56.
29 D.Borchert, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Nordrhein-Westfalen seit dem Ende des
II. Weltkrieges bis 1949/50, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987, pp. 98, 102.
30 W.Abelshauser, Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1980,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1983, p. 68.
31 Wirtschaft und Statistik, 1963, p. 191.
32 Z.Layton-Henry, The Politics of Immigration. Immigration, ‘Race’ and ‘Race’ Relations in
Post-war Britain, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, p. 1.
33 G.F.Plant, Overseas Settlement. Migration from the United Kingdom to the Dominions,
London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1951, p. 157.
34 R.Miles, ‘Nationality, Citizenship, and Migration to Britain, 1945–1951’, Journal of Law
and Society, 1989, pp. 429–431.
35 Isaac, British Post-War Migration, p. 170.
36 Ibid., p. 180.
37 D.Kay and R.Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers? European Volunteer Workers in Britain
1946–1951, London: Routledge, 1992, p. 43.
38 Isaac, British Post-War Migration, pp. 180, 183.
39 Ibid., pp. 15, 188.
40 J.Krönig, ‘Krauts. Das Image der Deutschen in Großbritannien verschlechtert sich. Die
Regierungen mögen einander, die Völker leider nicht’, Die Zeit, 30.9.1999, p. 49.
41 G.Niedhart, Geschichte Englands im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Munich: Beck, 1987, p. 204.
42 R.Steed, ‘So sehen wir die Deutschen’, in R.Cheval, R.Steed, L.Besymenski and G.Skuster
So sehen wir die Deutschen, Mainz: Hase & Koehler, 1968, p. 29.
43 W.H.Johnston, ‘Das Deutschlandbild der Briten’, Dokumente, 1954, p. 364.
44 J.Mander, Our German Cousins. Anglo-German Relations in the 19th and 20th Centuries,
London: J.Murray, 1974, p. 257.
45 D.C.Watt, England blickt auf Deutschland. Deutschland in Politik und öffentlicher Meinung
Englands seit 1945, Tübingen: Wunderlich, 1965, p. 160.
46 Forthcoming: J.-D.Steinert, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit. Beobachtungen und
humanitäre Hilfe in Deutschland nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, Osnabrück, 2005.
47 ‘Living for a Week on German Rations’, Manchester Guardian, 18.3.1948.
48 Watt, England blickt auf Deutschland, pp. 161–178.
49 ‘How Dead is Hitler’, 22.3.1954. ‘Jobs for the Gestapo Boys’, 23.3.1954. This is the German
for Blackmail’, 25.3.1954. ‘Oh! The Naughty Daily Express’, 25.3.1954. ‘Delmer Stirs up
48 M.P.s’, 26.3.1954. ‘I Name the Three Who Prove the Danger’, 29.3.1954. They’re at it
Again-So Be Warned!’, 9.8.1954. ‘They Were Out to “Get” Dr. John’, 10.8.1954. ‘Otto
Writes to His Wife’, 11.8.1954. ‘Delmer Reports a Back-Stage Meeting’, 12.8.1954.
50 Johnston, ‘Das Deutschlandbild der Briten’, p. 367.
51 PRO FO 371/109638, 109639.
52 Watt, England blickt auf Deutschland, pp. 198–199.
 Notes 170

53 ‘Demonstrators at German Embassy’, The Times, 6.1.1960. PRO FO 371/154252–154254.

54 Watt, England blickt auf Deutschland, pp. 208–209.
55 Steed, ‘So sehen wir die Deutschen’, p. 36.
56 C.Bray, ‘National Images, the Media and Public Opinion’, in R.Morgan and C.Bray (eds),
Partners and Rivals in Western Europe: Britain, France and Germany, Aldershot: Gower,
1986, p. 70.
57 Ibid., p. 72.
58 N.Annan, Changing Enemies. The Defeat and Regeneration of Germany, London: Harper
Collins, 1996, p. XII.
59 A.Marwick, ‘Mentalitätsstrukturen und soziokulturelle Verhaltensmuster’, in H.Kastendiek,
K.Rohe and A.Volle (eds), Länderbericht Großbritannien. Geschichte-Politik-Wirtschaft-
Gesellschaft, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 1994, p. 110.
60 Krönig, ‘Krauts’.
61 ‘Tommy and Jerry’, The Guardian, 16.2.1999.
62 G.H.Gallup, The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls. Great Britain 1937–1975, New
York: Random House, 1976, p. 82.
63 Ibid., p. 117.
64 Harvester, File report (No 2565): ‘Attitudes to the German people: Review of attitude
changes among British public during the war’, February 1948.
65 Gallup, The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls, p. 148.

2
Immigration policy-immigrant policy
1 H.Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in britischer Hand. Ein Überblick, Bielefeld:
Gieseking, 1974, pp. 3, 20–21, 26–28.
2 Ibid., p. 28.
3 A.L.Smith, Heimkehr aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Die Entlassung der deutschen
Kriegsgefangenen, Stuttgart: DVA, 1985, p. 24.
4 Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, p. 55.
5 PRO LAB 8/1012, Notes, 23.3., 24.5.1945.
6 Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, p. 55.
7 Monthly Report of the Control Commission for Germany (British Element), Berlin: CCG(BE),
October 1946, pp. 23–24.
8 Smith, Heimkehr aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg, p. 63.
9 H.Faulk, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien. Re-education, Bielefeld:
Gieseking, 1970, p. 647. Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, p. 63.
10 ‘War Prisoners in Britain’, The Times, 22.8.1946. ‘German Prisoners of War’, Manchester
Guardian, 22.8.1946.
11 For example: ‘Use of German Prisoners’, Manchester Guardian, 9.9.1947. ‘German
Prisoners’, The Scotsman, 9.9.1947.
12 CERC BCC/5/1/20.
13 N.Annan, Changing Enemies. The Defeat and Regeneration of Germany, London: Harper
Collins, 1996, p. 108.
14 ‘German Prisoners’, Manchester Guardian, 10.7.1946.
15 For example: ‘German Prisoners of War’ (Letters to the Editor), Manchester Guardian,
25.6.1946, 26.7.1946.
16 ‘German Prisoners of War’ (Letters to the Editor), Manchester Guardian, 3.8.1946. ‘The
German Prisoners’ (Letters to the Editor), The Times, 8.8.1946.
17 ‘Slaves’, The Daily Mirror, 9.8.1946.
 Notes 171

18 ‘German Prisoners’, Manchester Guardian, 18.8.1946. ‘German Prisoners’, The Times,

19.8.1946.
19 PRO FO 371/64375, Moscow Meeting. U.K. Delegation Brief No. G.7. German Prisoners of
War, 3.47.
20 PRO FO 371/66713, Note FO, 25.9.1947.
21 PRO FO 371/66713, Record of a meeting […] to discuss a speedier repatriation on German
Prisoners of War, 15.8.1947.
22 J.Isaac, British Post-War Migration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954, pp.
183–184.
23 PRO FO 371/64379, Note FO, 23.9.1947.
24 ‘The Prisoners’, Manchester Guardian, 28.8.1946.
25 ‘German Prisoners’ (Letters to the Editor), Manchester Guardian, 3.9.1946. ‘The Prisoners’,
13.9.1946.
26 HOC, 17.10.1946, pp. 1110–1111.
27 Ibid., p. 1112.
28 HOC, 22.4.1947, p. 1001.
29 G.H.Gallup, The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls. Great Britain 1937–1975, New
York: Random House, 1976, p. 136.
30 R.Miles and D.Kay, ‘The TUC, Foreign Labour and the Labour Government 1945–1951’,
Immigrants and Minorities, 1990, p. 98.
31 D.Kay and R.Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers? European Volunteer Workers in Britain
1946–1951, London: Routledge, 1992, pp. 76–77.
32 Report of Proceedings at the 78th Annual Trades Union Congress Held at Brighton October
21st to 25th 1946, London: TUC, 1947, pp. 169, 356–357.
33 ‘Prisoners of War in Agriculture’, The Land Worker, April 1948, p. 7.
34 PRO HO 213/719, MAF to W.P.Speake, HO, 25.10.1948.
35 PRO FO 371/64379, Note FO, 23.9.1947.
36 PRO FO 371/64379, Note FO, 25.9.1947.
37 PRO FO 371/64380, MAF: Scheme for the Employment of Germans as Civilians by War
Agricultural Executive Committees, 14.11., 21.11.1947.
38 Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, pp. 65–68.
39 PRO FO 371/72039, Notes FO, 5.1., 7.1.1948.
40 PRO FO 371/70538, Notes FO, 5.1., 20.1.1948.
41 PRO FO 371/72039, Notes FO, 5.1., 7.1.1948. PRO FO 371/70538, Employment of German
ex prisoners of war in this country after 1948, 5.1.1948.
42 PRO FO 371/70541, MAF to FO, 17.8.1948.
43 Isaac, Post-War Migration, p. 184. PRO FO 371/70541, MAF to FO, 3.8.1948.
44 PRO LAB 8/102, Note, 16.8.1948.
45 PRO FO 371/70541, MAF to FO, 3.8.1948; FO to MAF, 8.8.1948; HO to MAF, 12.8.1948.
46 PRO FO 371/70541, MAF to FO, 22.6.1948.
47 PRO FO 371/70541, FO to MAF, 8.8.1948.
48 Isaac, Post-War Migration, p. 177.
49 J.Vernant, The Refugee in the Post-War World, London: Allen & Unwin, 1953, p. 343.
50 Population Policy in Great Britain. A Report by PEP (Political and Economic Planning),
London: PEP, 1948, p. 114.
51 Z.Layton-Henry, The Politics of Immigration. Immigration, ‘Race’ and ‘Race’ Relations in
Post-war Britain, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992, pp. 25, 36.
52 Ibid., p. 27.
53 For example: Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers, p. 175. T.Kushner,
‘Immigration and “Race Relations” in Postwar British Society’, in P.Johnson (ed.),
Twentieth-Century Britain: Economic, Social and Cultural Change, London: Longman,
1994, p. 421.
 Notes 172

54 Royal Commission on Population. Report, London: House of Commons, 1949, p. 124.

55 Layton-Henry, The Politics of Immigration, p. 28.
56 J.-D.Steinert, Migration und Politik. Westdeutschland-Europa-Übersee 1945–1961,
Osnabrück: Secolo, 1995, p. 307.
57 K.Paul, ‘The Politics of Citizenship in Post-war Britain’, Contemporary Record, 1992, p.
462.
58 Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers, p. 33.
59 Ibid., pp. 48–49. J.A.Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers in Britain, Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1958, p. 21.
60 Ibid., p. 22.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid., p. 23.
63 PRO FO 371/66709, Cabinet Conclusion (47) 9th Meeting.
64 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, p. 23.
65 The Battle for Output 1947, p. 40.
66 PRO FO 371/66709, Cabinet, Foreign Labour Committee, 12.2.1947.
67 J.Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien. Krise, Weltkrieg, Wiederaufbau,
Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993, p. 425. ‘More D.P.s for Industry’, Manchester
Guardian, 20.2.1947.
68 Miles and Kay, ‘The TUC, Foreign Labour and the Labour Government 1945–1951’, p. 97.
69 Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers, p. 79.
70 Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien, p. 421.
71 Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers, pp. 82, 87.
72 S.Fielding, P.Thompson and N.Tiratsoo, England Arise!’. The Labour Party and Popular
Politics in 1940s Britain, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995, p. 123.
73 ‘Mr. Horner on Foreign Labour’, Manchester Guardian, 24.2.1947. ‘Labour for Mines’, The
Times, 24.2.1947.
74 Paulmann, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien, p. 420.
75 Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers, pp. 86–87. ‘Employment of Foreign
Workers’, Ministry of Labour Gazette, 1947, p. 401.
76 ‘How Foreign Workers Fare in Britain’, Labour, 1951, p. 349.
77 J.Singleton, Lancashire on the Scraphead. The Cotton Industry 1945–1970, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991, p. 65.
78 Paul, ‘The Politics of Citizenship in Post-War Britain’, p. 466.
79 UW-MRC MSS.292/103.2/2, TUC, Secretary, 12.5.1950.
80 Ibid.
81 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, p. 27.
82 Ibid., 30.
83 PRO FO 371/66711, Plan for the Recruitment of Volunteers under the Displaced Persons for
Employment in Great Britain 1947.
84 Isaac, Post-War Migration, p. 180. Of the 17,600 Displaced Persons that had arrived by 28
July 1947 only 3,900 were women. PRO FO 371/66713, Cabinet, Foreign Labour
Committee, 31.7.1947.
85 PRO FO 371/66713, Cabinet, Foreign Labour Committee, 14.5., 31.7.1947.
86 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, p. 135. BDA 5D82/1/2 (National Union of Dyers,
Bleachers & Textile Workers), Executive Committee, Minutes, 3.5.1947.
87 ‘Foreign Labour for Cotton?’, Manchester Guardian, 6.2.1947. ‘Labour from Abroad’,
Manchester Guardian, 20.2.1947.
88 PRO FO 371/66713, German Section FO to ACA(BE) Vienna, 30.7.1947.
89 PRO FO 371/66711, ACA(BE) to German Section FO, 30.4.1947.
90 PRO FO 371/66709, COGA to ACA(BE) Vienna, 1.3.1947. Cesarani, Justice Delayed, pp.
4–5.
 Notes 173

91 PRO FO 371/66714, George Isaacs to Ernest Bevin, 4.11.1947.

92 PRO FO 371/66714, Note FO, 8.11.1947.
93 PRO FO 371/66714, Ernest Bevin to George Isaacs, 20.11.1947.
94 PRO FO 371/66714, Note FO, 30.12.1947.
95 ‘German Recruits for Lancashire Mills?’, Bolton Evening News, 28.1.1948. ‘European
Workers in Cotton’, Manchester Guardian, 29.1.1948.
96 PRO LAB 10/652, National Joint Advisory Council, Minutes, 22nd Meeting, 4.2.1948. PRO
FO 371/70538, Isaacs (LAB) to Bevin (FO), 13.2.1948.
97 PRO FO 371/72039, FO to British Legation Vienna, 14.2.1948.
98 PRO FO 371/64303, Entries & Exits Branch, Intelligence Div. CCG(BE) Berlin to FO,
26.7.1947.
99 PRO CAB 134/472, Regional Labour (Textile Industries) Committee, Minutes, 12.3.1948.
100 LRO DDX 1123/620 (Amalgamated Weavers’ Association), LAB: Textile Mission to
Austria and Germany, 9–17.3.1948, 19.3.1948.
101 Ibid. For a criticism of the security checks, see especially Cesarani, Justice Delayed.
102 PRO CAB 134/472, Regional Labour (Textile Industries) Committee, Minutes, 12.3.1948.
103 PRO CAB 134/471, Cabinet. Labour (Textile Industries) Committee, Minutes, 13.7.1948.
104 PRO CAB 134/473, Cabinet. Labour (Textile Industries) Committee, 16.6.1948; Regional
Labour (Woolen and Worsted Industry) Committee, Minutes, 15.6.1948.
105 OAS D-TU1/1/64 (Operative Cotton Spinners), Executive Council, 12.4.1948.
106 PRO Lab 13/44, Note LAB, 10.2.1949.
107 PRO CAB 134/473, Cabinet. Labour (Textile Industries) Committee, 16.6.1948.
108 PRO CAB 134/473, Note of a Meeting held at the Ministry of Labour, 8.6.1948. ‘German
Women for British Mills’, Manchester Guardian, 5.2.1948.
109 Steinert, Migation und Politik, pp. 44–58, 76–81, 118–124.
110 ‘Weaving Labour Force’, Manchester Guardian, 14.2.1948.
111 ‘Austrian Recruits for the Textile Industry’, Manchester Guardian, 19.3.1948.
112 Ibid.
113 ‘The E.V.W.Scandal’, Manchester Guardian, 30.9.1948. ‘Hostel is Ready for E.V.W.s’,
The Bury Times, 10.11.1948. ‘Thousands Spent on Empty E.V.W. Homes’, The Bury Times,
8.1.1949.
114 PRO HO 213/596, Statistics Westward Ho.
115 PRO Lab 13/44, LAB to Tarrant, LAB Regional Office Manchester, 5.7.1948.
116 BA OMGUS 7/43–1/5, US—G.B. Agreement concerning the Recruitment of Voluntary
Labour for Great Britain in the U.S. Zone of Germany, 20.7.1948.
117 PRO LAB 26/261, Regional Controllers’ Conference, Foreign Labour, 13.4.1949. PRO FO
1051/71, Note, 14.7.1949.
118 PRO Lab 13/44, Pass to Hughes, HO, 29.7.1948.
119 PRO FO 371/72040, British Embassy Washington to FO, 27.9., 19.10.1948; BA OMGUS
7/43–1/5, CAD to OMGUS, 22.11.1948.
120 BA OMGUS 7/43–1/5, CTB US Element to OMGUS, 7.1.1949.
121 BA OMGUS 7/43–1/5, US-UK Agreement concerning the Recruitment of Voluntary
Female Labour for Great Britain in the US Zone of Germany, 18.3.1949.
122 PRO Lab 13/44, LAB Regional Office Leeds to Ball, LAB, 18.2.1949; LAB Regional
Office Manchester to Ball, LAB, 25.2.1949. PRO CAB 134/474, Regional Labour (Woolen
and Worsted Industry) Committee Minutes, 26.4.1949.
123 BA B149/1230, Protokoll über die […] Besprechung über Anwerbung sudetendeutscher
Frauen für die Textilindustrie in Großbritannien, 13.12.1948.
124 PRO HO 213/702, Immigration Officer’s Report Munster D.P. Transit Camp. Operation
Westward Ho. Progress Report for July 1949, 29.7.1949.
125 BA B149/1230, Lohmann, BMA to Lancashire Cotton Corporation, 8.6.1951; BMA to
Hessisches Ministerium für Arbeit, 12.7.1951.
 Notes 174

126 CDA TU 58/21 (Yorkshire Cotton Operatives’ Association), Minute Book. OAS Service D-
TU1/1/64 (Operative Cotton Spinners), Executive Council Minute Book.
127 ‘Where Foreign Entrants Have Joined Union Cardroom Ban on E.V.W.s Lifted’, Bolton
Evening News, 7.2.1949.
128 For example: ‘No More Foreign Workers Wanted’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 8.2.1949.
‘More Foreign Labour in Cotton Mills’, Manchester Guardian, 9.2.1949. ‘Despite Leaders’
Advice’, Bolton Evening News, 24.9.1949.
129 ‘Hardship private households are those where there is no resident domestic help at the time
of the offer of a vacancy and (1) there are any children in the household; or (2) there is an
expectant mother; or (3) the household is a farmer’s, doctor’s, clergyman’s or minister’s,
whether or not there are any children; or (4) if there are invalids or elderly persons requiring
attention; or (5) where both husband and wife are in regular employment, the latter full time
or part time.’ PRO LAB 8/1683, LAB: M.L. Circ. 8/67; Employment of Foreigners,
9.11.1947.
130 UW-MRC MSS.292/943/5, Nancy Adams, TUC, Chief Woman Officer: Visit to Germany-
British Zone, 5.7.1948.
131 ‘To Aid Industry’, The Yorkshire Observer, 9.7.1948.
132 ‘German Women for Britain’, Manchester Guardian, 5.8.1948.
133 PRO FO 1051/595, Bevan, LAB, to Dean, FO, 16.9.1948; Barlett, MAF, to Bevan, LAB,
24.9.1948; Gilchrist, FO, to Bevan, LAB, 9.11.1948.
134 PRO LAB 9/210, Note, 10.12.1949.
135 PRO HO 213/702, Immigration Officer’s Report, Munster D.P. Transit Camp, Operation
Westward Ho: Progress Report for August 1948, 31.8.1948.
136 PRO HO 213/702, LAB: Volunteer Scheme for Recruitment of German Women for
Employment in Great Britain, August 1948.
137 PRO FO 1051/255, LAB, Lemgo, North Sea Statistics—Final Return Week ended
29.7.1950.
138 PRO LAB 8/103, LAB, Official Recruitment for Domestic Work and Nursing, 30.4.1950.
139 Isaac, Post-War Migration, p. 170.
140 HStAD NW58/256, Rundschreiben, 29.3.1949.
141 PRO LAB 13/43, Regional Controllers’ Conference. Recruitment of German Workers for
Private Domestic Service, 12.10.1949.
142 PRO LAB 8/2199, Statistics.
143 J.Cheetham, ‘Immigration’, in A.H.Halsey (ed.), Trends in British Society since 1900. A
Guide to the Changing Social Structure of Britain, London: MacMillan, 1972, p. 486.
144 W.Thomas, R.Park and H.Miller. Old World Traits Transplanted, Montclair, NJ: Patterson
Smith, 1971 [1921], pp. 271, 308. L.Lucassen, The Gulf Between Long Term and Short
Term Approaches in Immigration Studies. A Reassessment of the Chicago School’s
Assimilation Concept’, IMIS-Beiträge, no. 5, 1997, p. 9.
145 PRO LAB 26/236, LAB: Welfare of European Volunteer Workers. Notes on a Conference
of representatives of National Organisations and of members of certain Government
Departments, 5.11.1948.
146 W.Thomas, R.Park and H.Miller, Old World Traits Transplanted, pp. 289–290.
147 PRO LAB 26/236, LAB: Welfare of European Volunteer Workers. Notes on
Interdepartmental Conference, 18.11.1948.
148 PRO LAB 26/235, W.V.S.: Minutes of the Conference on Welfare of Poles and E.V.Ws.,
20.4.1948.
149 PRO LAB 26/247, J.G.Stewart, LAB, to H.H.Sellar, LAB, 31.5.1949.
150 Oldham Evening Chronicle, 16.12.1949.
151 ‘Problems Faced by Exiled Foreign Workers’, The Halifax Daily Courier & Guardian,
16.12.1949.
152 Ibid.
 Notes 175

153 ‘E.V.W. Problems’, The Halifax Daily Courier & Guardian, 16.12.1949.
154 HOC, 14.2.1947, p. 759.
155 PRO LAB 12/153, Note LAB 26.8.1947.
156 Ibid.
157 PRO LAB 12/513, Note LAB, 31.7.1949.
158 PRO LAB 12/513, LAB, Record of the activity of the Committee for the Education of
Public Opinion on Foreign Workers, 12.5.1948. Representing the: National Council of
‘Social Services, Women’s Voluntary Services, National Federation of Women’s Instates,
National Hostels Corporation, War Office, Ministry of Health, Economic Information Unit,
Central Office of Information, Ministry of Labour and National Service.
159 PRO LAB 12/513, LAB, Record of the activity of the Committee for the Education of
Public Opinion on Foreign Workers, 12.5.1948.
160 PRO LAB 8/1390, LAB: National Advisory Council on Recruitment of Nurses and
Midwives. Recruitment of German Women for Nursing, November 1948.
161 CERC, Church Assembly. Report of Proceedings. Spring Session, 1947, 13.2.1947.
162 CERC BCC/7/1/8, BCC, Foreign Labour Committee. The Stranger In Our Midst [1947].
163 CERC BCC/7/1/8, BCC, Foreign Labour Committee. Visit to Bristol and District. 12–
23.7.1948.
164 PRO FO 371/66711, LAB: Volunteer Scheme for Recruitment of Displaced Persons for
Employment in Great Britain, 1947. PRO HO 213/702, LAB: Volunteer Scheme for
Recruitment of German Women for Employment in Great Britain, 1948.
165 To Help You Settle in Britain, 1948. German edition: BA B149/12409.
166 PRO HO 213/1794, Immigration Officers’ Report Munster D.P. Transit Camp: Operation
Westward Ho, 1.10.1948.
167 Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers, p. 124. Paul, ‘The Politics of Citizenship in
Post-War Britain’, p. 467.
168 PRO FO 371/64379, Note FO, 25.9.1947.
169 PRO LAB 26/261, Precis of Reports received from Regional Office, April 1949.

3
Life and work in post-war Britain: the migrants’ experience
1 Interview Paulus M.
2 BAM B 205/1409, A.Mitscherlich, R.Haas, W.F.Seeman: Bericht über eine Befragung
heimkehrender deutscher Kriegsgefangener aus England, Afrika, Frankreich und Rußland,
1948.
3 BA B150/4417, DBF: Das Schicksal der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien,
undated.
4 Ibid., p. 12.
5 HOC, 24.3.1947, p. 1024.
6 BA B150/4417, DBF: Das Schicksal der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien,
undated, p. 30.
7 For example: PRO FO 939/225 Manuscript, BBC: Unser Montagsblatt. ‘Prisoners Attend
Council Meeting. Lesson in Democracy’, Manchester Guardian 14.1.1947.
8 BA B150/4417, DBF: Das Schicksal der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien,
undated, p. 33.
9 PRO FO 939/132, Report, Camp 50 (POW) Garswood Park, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Wigan,
Lancashire, 8.3.1948.
10 BA B1 50/4417, DBF: Das Schicksal der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien,
undated, p. 34.
 Notes 176

11 Ibid., pp. 35–36.

12 H.Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in britischer Hand. Ein Überblick, Bielefeld:
Gieseking, 1974, p. 47.
13 CERC BCC/5/1/20, Collection of documents, June 1946. PRO FO 938/75, Alfred M.,
Caernarvon (Wales), to G.O.Roberts (MP), 17.5.1946. AUUCJG X 391.2 (42) War Prisoners
Aid YMCA, Great Britain, undated [1947]. PRO FO 939/159, Report, Camp 79, Moorby
Camp, Revesby, Boston, Lincolnshire, 15.3.1948.
14 PRO FO 939/161, Report, Camp 81, Pingley Farm Camp, Brigg, Lincolnshire, 27.5.1946.
15 K.Loscher, Studium und Alltag hinter Stacheldraht. Birger Forells Beitrag zum theologisch-
pädagogischen Lehrbetrieb im Norton Camp/England (1945–1948), Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1997, p. 80.
16 For example: CICR Rapports des Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1326, 249 Carburton Camp,
nr. Worksop, Notts., 7.5.1947.
17 BAM B 205/1409, A.Mitscherlich, R.Haas, W.F.Seeman: Bericht über eine Befragung
heimkehrender deutsche Kriegsgefangener, 1948. See also: IWM Mrs H G Kuhn 81/2/1,
4.1.1947, p. 44.
18 Interviews Karl-Heinz C., Helmut L., Klemens I.
19 Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, p. 28.
20 Ibid., p. 34.
21 Ibid., p. 42.
22 BAM B 205/1409, A.Mitscherlich, R.Haas, W.F.Seeman: Bericht über eine Befragung
heimkehrender deutsche Kriegsgefangener, 1948, p. 20.
23 CICR Rapports des Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1397 and 1408.
24 CICR Rapports des Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1397, C-PW, Hostel Sutton Bridge, Lincs.,
28.8.1948.
25 PRO WO 32/11686, War Office, Memorandum, 12.12.1946. Wolff, Die deutschen
Kriegsgefangenen, p. 42. H.Faulk, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien. Re-
education, Bielefeld: Gieseking, 1970, p. 627.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid., p. 608.
28 HOC, 25.10.1946, p. 236.
29 PRO WO 32/11686, War Office, Memorandum, 12.12.1946. Loscher, Studium und Alltag
hinter Stacheldraht, p. 292.
30 ‘More Freedom for Prisoners’, Manchester Guardian, 20.12.1946.
31 CICR Rapports des Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1311, 248 German Working Camp, Norton
Camp, Cinderhill Lane, Norton, nr. Sheffield, 20.2.1947.
32 Interview Klemens I.
33 IWM Mrs H G Kuhn 81/2/1, 25.12.1946.
34 ‘German Prisoners’ (Letters to the Editor), Manchester Guardian, 30.12.1946. CICR
G.17/52, 486, CICR London, Frederick Bieri, Chief Delegate, to CICR Geneva, 8.1.1947.
35 Comments made by Alf Eiserbeck in M.Kochan, Prisoners of England, London: Macmillan,
1980, p. 181.
36 PRO WO 32/11686. Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, p. 43.
37 Interview Winfried C.
38 PRO FO 939/132, Report, Camp 50 Garswood Park, Ashton-in-Makerfield, Wigan,
Lancashire, 8.3.1948. Loscher, Studium und Alltag hinter Stacheldraht, pp. 259–260.
39 Interview Gernot H.
40 PRO FO 371/64379, Foreign Labour Committee. Incentives for Prisoners of War. First
Report by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, 1.10.1947.
41 Interviews Frank T., Erwin S.
42 PRO FO 939/223, Student Movement House, London, 1.2.1947.
 Notes 177

43 ‘P.O.W. Barred from Cinemas’, Manchester Guardian, 23.7.1947. CICR Rapports des
Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1370, Camp 108, Thirkleby, Yorks., 2.10.1947; 1369, Camp
106, Stamford, Lincs., 26.9.1947.
44 ‘P.O.W. Concessions’ (Letters to the Editor), Manchester Guardian, 30.8.1947.
45 AUUCJG X 391.2 War Prisoners Aid YMCA, Post-War Work, War Prisoners Aid World’s
Committee of the Y.M.C.A. Meeting of the European Directors at Geneva, 27./28.1.1947.
46 P.H.Taylor, Enemies Become Friends. A True Story of German Prisoners of War, Lewes:
Book Guild, 1997, pp. 42–43, 54.
47 A.Andersohn, ‘Fifty Years Ago. Christmas 1946’, The Bilingual Family Newsletter, 1996,
no. 4, p. 2.
48 BA B1 50/4417, Rev. Dr H.Hirschwald: Die Geschichte der evangelischen Lagerseelsorge in
Groß-Britannien von 1944–1948, 30.3.1948. Faulk, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, p.
631.
49 CERC BCC/5/1/19, BCC, Department of International Friendship. Committee on Prisoners
of War, 15.10.1946.
50 DEGS 367, List of British clergy and ministers supporting German protestant camp chaplain
in Great Britain, undated.
51 ‘Bishop Thanks German Prisoners’, The Times, 29.9.1947. ‘A Prisoners’ Concert’ (Letters to
the Editor), Manchester Guardian, 5.6.1947.
52 Loscher, Studium und Alltag hinter Stacheldraht, p. 257.
53 BAM B 205/1409, A.Mitscherlich, R.Haas, WE Seeman: Bericht über eine Befragung
heimkehrender deutsche Kriegsgefangener, 1948.
54 EZA 2/475, Konferenz der deutschen evangelischen Lagerpfarrer in Großbritannien, 30.3.-
5.4.1948. Julius Rieger: Das ökumenische Problem in der Kriegsgefangenschaft.
55 BAM B 205/1409, A.Mitscherlich, R.Haas, W.E.Seeman: Bericht über eine Befragung
heimkehrender deutsche Kriegsgefangener, 1948.
56 IWM Faulk, Box 2, Josef T., Essen: Erfahrungsbericht über meine Kriegsgefangenschaft bei
den westlichen Gewahrsamsmächten vom 11. Mai 1943 bis 31. Juli 1947, 25.5.1961.
57 BAM B 205/57, Egbert von T., Mellands Camp, Gorton, Manchester, 19.8.1946.
58 ‘Prisoners of War’, Manchester Guardian, 30.8.1946.
59 BAM B 205/56, Transcript Interview Ruth Körner, 1969.
60 ‘P.o.W. Consorted with Girl, Gaoled’, Bolton Evening News, 13.8.1947.
61 ‘P.o.W.s Escape Twice in Few Hours’, Bolton Evening News, 20.8.1947.
62 ‘P.o.W. and 16-Years-Old Girl’, Bolton Evening News, 18.9.1947.
63 ‘Found with German in Camp’, Bolton Evening News, 22.7.1947.
64 ‘Girl Sought Death for Love of P.O.W.’, The Lancashire Daily Post, 2.10.1947.
65 ‘Girl’s Father Tells of Struggle for Pistol’, Bolton Evening News, 28.2.1950.
66 HOC, 8.7.1947 p. 2021.
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid., pp. 2023–2024. IWM Faulk, Box 2, Appendix A to War Office UM/790 (P.W.4.),
Memorandum—on Prisoner of War Marriages to Women in the U.K., 10.7.1947.
69 LPL Fisher Papers, vol. 46, Bishop Fisher to Lord Bishop of Newcastle, 4.3.1948.
70 PRO LAB 8/107, HO: Settlement in the United Kingdom of German Prisoners of War or
former Prisoners of War with wives of British stock, Circular 84/1948, 19.4.1948.
71 ‘The German Bridegrooms Stay Here’, The Lancashire Daily Post, 4.12.1948.
72 Faulk, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, p. 632.
73 Interview Phillip H.
74 BAM B 205/56, Transcript Interview Ruth Körner, 1969.
75 Interview Klemens I.
76 Interview Erwin S.
77 Interview Justus L.
78 Interviews Jean Z., Ewald C., Heinz P., Helmut L., Phillip H., Julius S., Karl-Heinz C.
 Notes 178

79 Wolff, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen, pp. 56–61.

80 Ibid., pp. 58–59.
81 Ibid., p. 59.
82 PRO FO 371/64.380, MAF: Memorandum to County War Agricultural Executive
Committees in England and Wales: Scheme for the Employment of Germans as Civilians by
War Agricultural Executive Committees. Appendix II: Notice to Prisoners of War Early
Release for Agricultural Employment, 21.11.1947.
83 BAM B 205/1409, A.Mitscherlich, R.Haas, W.F.Seeman: Bericht über eine Befragung
heimkehrender deutsche Kriegsgefangener, 1948. BAM B 205/56, Ferdinand H.: Erlebnisse
und Erfahrungen in Kriegsgefangenenlagern in England 1944–1948, 1962.
84 ‘Return to the Happy Camp’, Evening News (Edinburgh), 11.9.1998.
85 M.B.Sullivan, Thresholds of Peace. Four Hundred Thousand German Prisoners and the
People of Britain 1944–1948, London: Hamilton, 1979, pp. 325–326.
86 Interview Ewald C.
87 BAM B 205/71, Report T.J. D. about his time spent as a POW in England, undated.
88 BA B150/4417, DBF: Das Schicksal der deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien,
undated, p. 28.
89 IWM White Miss J 83/4/1, Wartime farming at Inkpen in the county of Berkshire, by Julia
White. Owner and Farmer, Manor Farm, Inkpen nr. Newbury.
90 Interview Phillip H.
91 BAM B 205/71, Report T. J. D. about his time spent as a POW in England, undated.
92 CICR Rapports des Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1345, Camp 278, Clapham, Bedford,
28./29.6.1947.
93 ‘Farm Chiefs Accused of PoW Corruption’, Daily Express, 4.2.1948. CICR Rapports des
Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1325, Camp 103 Moota Camp, Cockermouth, Cumberland,
16.4.1947. Interviews Phillip H., Helmut L.
94 Interview Moritz A.
95 Interview Paulus M.
96 EZA 2/470, Bei den deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in England. Bericht über die Reise von Pfr.
Markus Barth über Weihnachten/Neujahr 1946/47.
97 Interview Gernot H.
98 Interview Julius S.
99 Interviews Arthur S., Fred L., Gernot H.
100 Interview Gernot H.
101 Interviews Egon G., Knut N.
102 Interview Helmut L.
103 Interviews Erwin S., Justus L.
104 Interview Gerhard U.
105 Sullivan, Thresholds of Peace, p. 384.
106 EZA 2/578, Pastor H.D. Pompe, Wünsche zur Betreuung deutscher Kriegsgefangener und
Zivilarbeiter auf Grund von Eindrücken bei Lagerbesuchen in England Januar-Februar 1948.
107 EZA 2/524, H.Hirschwald, London, to Kanzlei EKD, Schwäbisch Gmünd, 14.7.1948.
108 EZA 6/85/185, Hans Bolewski, Bericht über meine Tätigkeit als Auslandspfarrer in
Schottland, 20.10.1950.
109 EZA 2/578, Pastor H.D.Pompe, London, Bloomsbury Street, to Kirchliches Außenamt,
Frankfurt, 29.3.1948.
110 CICR G.86/R, 1144, Lagersprecher Camp 260, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, to CICR,
Geneva, 6.2.1948.
111 For example: ‘German Prisoners. Option to Stay as Civilian Farm Workers’, Manchester
Guardian, 12.5.1947.
112 HOC, 3.2.1948, p. 1639.
 Notes 179

113 Very few reports on the committee meetings, in January and February 1948, have survived.
See: PRO FO 939/456 and IWM Faulk, Box 7.
114 PRO FO 939/431, War Office to Headquarters, Scheme for release of German Prisoners of
War to agricultural employment, 12.6.1947.
115 Sullivan, Thresholds of Peace, pp. 290–291.
116 IWM Faulk, Box 7, Committee for Civilianisation of German Ps/W at 250 G.P.O.W. Camp,
Malton, Yorks., 27–29 January 1948, and B.I. amset to R.Young, Procedure at
Civilianisation Boards, 31.1.1948.
117 Interviews Helmut L., Ewald C, Moritz A., Winfried C.
118 PRO HO 213/1133, Operation Repat. Note by MAF, 16.3.1949.
119 CICR G.81/TC/52, 1014, Bieri, London, to CICR Geneva, 8.9.1948.
120 It was only later decided that restrictions should be lifted after 4 years or on 1 of January
1952 at the latest. HOC, 8.2.1951, p. 235.
121 CICR Rapports des Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1370, Camp 108, Thirkleby, Yorks.,
2.10.1947.
122 ‘Many Germans Want to Stay’, The Yorkshire Post, 8.1.1948. ‘German Prisoners for Farm
Work’, Manchester Guardian, 13.1.1948.
123 CICR Rapports des Visites. Camps ou Missions, 1397, 1408.
124 PRO HO 213/1133, Essex County Constabulary, Repatriation of certain German Ex-
Prisoners of War, 17.12.1948.
125 CICR G.86/R, 1144, Bieri, CICR London, to CICR, Geneva, 21.10.1948.
126 PRO HO 213/1133, Essex County Constabulary, Repatriation of certain German Ex-
Prisoners of War, 17.12.1948.
127 PRO HO 213/1133, Operation Repat. Note by MAF, 16.3.1949.
128 ‘No Christmas Leave for Germans’, The Yorkshire Observer, 20.12.1948.
129 PRO LAB 8/1529, MAF, Operation Repat, 14.3.1949.
130 PRO FO 371/118.402, MAF to FO, 4.1.1955.
131 CICR G.81/TC/52,1014 Else Weecks, Vice-President of the German Red Cross—
Westphalia Branch, to Bieri, 7.1.1949. BRC Acc 1234/2/1–4, Relief Section, British Red
Cross Society Commission, BAOR Minister, Monthly Report—November 1948.
132 Interviews Arthur S., Justus L.
133 J.Isaac, British Post-war Migration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954, p. 211.
134 Interview Elvira D.
135 CERC, Church Assembly. Report of Proceedings. Autumn Session, 15.11.1951.
136 Interview Hermine S.
137 T.Prittie, ‘Dreißig Jahre. Betrachtungen eines Engländers’, in J.Haas-Heye, (ed.), Im Urteil
des Auslands. Dreißig Jahre Bundesrepublik, Munich: Beck, 1979, p. 71.
138 Interview Edeltraud K.
139 ‘Sifting German Girls’, Manchester Guardian, 6.6.1946.
140 ‘German Women View English Boys as Free Meal Tickets’, The Halifax Daily Courier &
Guardian, 14.10.1948.
141 PRO FO 939/420, Nordwestdeutscher Rundfunk: What do young German women expect of
young German men?, July 1947.
142 Isaac, British Post-War Migration, pp. S.15, 188. ‘Berlin Girls to be British Wives’, British
Zone Review, 3.8.1946, p. 20.
143 Ibid.
144 UW-MRC MSS.157/3/GE/11 (Gollancz), COGA to Miss S.Hodges, c/o Victor Gollancz
Ltd, London, 6.11.1946.
145 PRO HO 213/417, Memorandum HO: Position of alien women who marry members of the
British Armed Forces after 1st January, 1949, December 1948.
146 ‘Helped German Girl to Reach England’, Manchester Guardian, 26.11.1946.
147 PRO LAB 9/210, Note, 2.5.1949.
 Notes 180

148 ‘German Girls Seek British Husbands’, Bolton Evening News, 15.4.1950.
149 Interviews Emma C., Hedwig D., Theda B.
150 Interview Elvira D.
151 Interview Hedwig D.
152 Interview Lisbeth H.
153 Interview Paula Z.
154 Interview Martha H.
155 ‘Club-Time for Brides’, Illustrated, 5.7.1947.
156 Interview Emma C.
157 Interview Isedore E.
158 ‘Meeting the German Bride’, Manchester Guardian, 2.10.1947.
159 For example: ‘Fraulein Use Says “Duty at Home”’, Daily Express, 20.1.1948. ‘German Girl
Returns with Fiance’, Bolton Evening News, 21.1.1948. ‘A Fraulein Came to England’,
Daily Express, 30.3.1948.
160 Interview John H.
161 Ibid.
162 Interview Isedore E.
163 Interview Edeltraud K.
164 ‘Brothers to Marry German Sisters’, Bolton Evening News, 8.5.1948. ‘Fraulein Brides in
Perth Double Wedding’, The Perthshire Constitutional and Journal, 7.12.1948.
165 ‘The Bride from Germany’, The Perthshire Constitutional and Journal, 6.7.1948. ‘Chorley
Man’s German Bride’, The Lancashire Daily Post, 10.10.1947. ‘Fraulein (Now Mrs)
Impressed With Friendliness of England’, The Tunbridge Wells Advertiser, 25.6.1947.
166 Interview Lisbeth H.
167 Interview Mechthild Z.
168 For example: ‘Earby Men Admits Bigamy “Married” German Girl’, The Yorkshire
Observer, 23.9.1949.
169 For example: DCV 372.16, Übersicht über das Problem der seelsorgerischen Betreuung der
deutschen Civilarbeiter, May 1949.
170 ‘German Girls Seek British Husbands’, Bolton Evening News, 15.4.1950.
171 Interview Gisela C.
172 Interview Paula Z.
173 EZA 2/578, Bartelt, Kirchliches Außenamt, to Kirchenleitungen, 30.8.1949.
174 Interview Lena Z.
175 Interview Emma C.
176 KFZ Büttner E.IV.11b, Dumont, Bradford, to Böhler, 9.11.1953.
177 Interview John H.
178 We were able to interview 28 women who subsequently remained in Britain. Ten of these
had been recruited under the North Sea scheme, and six came on individual labour permits.
We also interviewed nine Sudeten German women and three ethnic Germans.
179 R.Schulze, ‘A Difficult Interlude: Relations between British Military Government and the
German Population and their Effects for the Constitution of a Democratic Society’, in
A.Bance (ed.), The Cultural Legacy of the British Occupation in Germany, Stuttgart: Heinz,
1997, p. 88.
180 S.Wehner, ‘Auswanderung deutscher Dienstmädchen in die USA, 1870–1920’, in
M.Blaschke and C.Harzig (eds), Frauen wandern aus: Deutsche Migrantinnen im 19. und
20. Jahrhundert, Bremen: Universität Bremen, 1990, p. 42.
181 Interview Erdmute U.
182 See Chapter 4.
183 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.04, Maria Roos: Bericht über die Arbeit der Betreuungsstelle für
deutsche Frauen in Großbritannien beim Ministry of Labour […] für die Zeit von Juni 1950
bis März 1951, 10.4.1951.
 Notes 181

184 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, Cäcilia Tilgner, Rochdale: Arbeitsbericht über die Hilfe für
kath. deutsche Mädchen in England. August 1951-Dezember 1952, 20.2.1953.
185 Interviews Hanna C., Monika H., Hermine S., Luci N.
186 Interviews Elena Z., Ilona O.
187 Interviews Henrike G., Erdmute U.
188 Interviews Elke N., Ilona O., Luci N.
189 Interwiew Heide C.
190 Interviews Josepha C., Hanna C., Isolda L., Edda U., Magda B.
191 Interview Elsa G.
192 Interview Heide C.
193 Interview Margarete T.
194 HOC, 11.11.1948, p. 1723.
195 J.A.Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers in Britain, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1958, pp. 36–37.
196 BA OMGUS 7/43–1/5, Westward Ho! Volunteer Scheme for Recruitment of Displaced
Persons for Employment in Great Britain, April 1948.
197 BA OMGUS 7/43–1/5, LAB: Medical Report on a Displaced Person under Consideration
for Employment in Great Britain, January 1948.
198 PRO HO 213/702, LAB: Volunteer Scheme for Recruitment of German Women for
Employment in Great Britain, 1948.
199 For the following: PRO FO 1013/1850, LAB, North Sea scheme. Instructions for
recruitment of German women volunteers for employment in Great Britain as domestics in
hospitals and similar institutions, hostels and farmer’s households, 22.7.1948. PRO Lab
13/44, LAB: S.W. Circular No.1. Recruitment of Sudeten women for Great Britain,
31.3.1949.
200 Interview Magda B.
201 Interview Monika H.
202 Interview Margarete T.
203 Interview Monika H.
204 Interview Magda B.
205 Interview Elsa G.
206 Ibid.
207 PRO FO 1051/248, LAB, Zonal Headquarters, Manpower Division: Recruitment of
Workers for Great Britain. ‘Westward Ho’ and ‘North Sea’ Operations, 2.9.1948.
208 HOC, 30.11.1948, Sp.1795.
209 PRO FO 1051/259, LAB, Zonal Headquarter, Lemgo: Recruitment of Workers for Great
Britain. ‘Westward Ho’ and ‘North Sea’ Operations, 12.1.1949.
210 ‘German Women for Britain’, British Zone Review, July/August 1948, p. 14.
211 PRO LAB 13/43, Lemgo to Pass, LAB, 20.2.1948. PRO LAB 13/43, Note, 25.2.1948.
212 PRO LAB 13/43, Note, 21.4.1949.
213 PRO FO 1051/261, C.C.G. Monthly Report—German Movements Branch, 6.9.1949.
214 EZA 6/85/90, Mitteilungen der Evangelischen Auswandererfürsorge Generalsekretariat
Witzenhausen, 8.11.1949.
215 EZA 6/85/183, Fr. Schmidt (Mecklenbeck) to Stratenwerth, Kirchliches Außenamt,
1.7.1949.
216 PRO FO 1051/263, Weekly Progress Report, German Movements Branch (Manpower),
No.1 Assembly Centre, Lincoln Barracks, Münster, 27.6.1949.
217 PRO HO 213/1794, Immigration Officers’ Report. Munster D.P. Transit Camp. Operation
Westward Ho, 4.8.1948. PRO Lab 13/44, Pass, LAB, to Gabbutt, Director, British Ministry
of Labour Mission, Augsburg, US-Zone, 31.5.1950.
218 EZA 6/85/183, Frau Schmidt (Mecklenbeck) to Frau Dr. Schwarzhaupt, 26.7.1950.
219 Ibid.
 Notes 182

220 Ibid.
221 BA B149/1229, Verwaltung für Arbeit, Lemgo: Bericht über den Besuch des
Durchgangslagers für Frauen in Mecklenbeck bei Münster (Werbeaktion Nordsee), 3.9.1948.
Figures concerning the virginity of student nurses can be found in: DCV 327.92 (410)
Fasz.01, Letter to Johanna Breitenfeld, Catholic Committee for European Volunteer
Workers, London, 9.1.1950.
222 Interview Magda B.
223 PRO FO 1051/249, Assembly Centre Mecklenbeck, Report, 26.8.1949.
224 PRO FO 1051/264, Nordsee—Frauendurchgangsheim Heimordnung.
225 EZA 6/85/183, Frau Schmidt (Mecklenbeck) to Bruder Bartel, 24.11.1949.
226 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.04, Margarete Fuhrmann to DNKMV, 14.1.1949.
227 Interview Magda B.
228 BA B136/8840, Lilli to Mum and sisters [1949].
229 BA B1 36/8840 Gertraud F. (Preston) to Frau Friedrich (Labour Office Donauwörth)
2.10.1949.
230 To Help You Settle in Britain, London: Central Office of Information for the Ministry of
Labour and National Service, 1948, p. 48.
231 PRO LAB 8/1631, LAB to Astbury, Cambridge, 18.11.1948.
232 PRO FO 1051/249, A.K. (Harrogate) to Frau Fuhrmann, 20.9.1948. BA B136/8840, E.B.
(Rochdale) to Frau Friedrich (Labour Office Donauwörth), 8.10.1949.
233 PRO FO 1051/249, A.K. (Harrogate) to Frau Fuhrmann, 20.9.1948.
234 Interview Magda B.
235 PRO FO 1051/249, Edith H. (Sunridge) to Frau Fuhrmann, 4.1.1949.
236 Interview Monika H.
237 PRO FO 1051/249, Sylvia S. (Llandyssul) to Frau Fuhrmann, 12.12.1948.
238 Interview Margarete T.
239 PRO HO 213/1007, John Gregory, HO: Notes on a visit to the E.V.W. Holding Hostel,
West Wratting, Cambridgeshire, 16.12.1948.
240 PRO LAB 8/1631, Note, Elsie Evans, District Welfare Officer, 11.10.1948.
241 Interview Hermine S.
242 PRO LAB 8/1683, Note, 1.8.1951; LAB to Keeling. HOC, 9.5.1952.
243 PRO FO 1051/249.
244 PRO FO 1051/249, Sylvia S. (Llandyssul) to Frau Fuhrmann, 12.12.1948.
245 PRO FO 1051/249, Hanna S. (Swinford) to Frau Fuhrmann, 13.10.1948.
246 PRO FO 1051/249, Else S. (Easingwood) to Frau Fuhrmann, 17.7.1949.
247 PRO FO 1051/249, Luise und Helga S. (Norwich) to Frau Fuhrmann, 21.10.1949.
248 PRO FO 1051/249, Gerda M. (Richmond) to Frau Fuhrmann, 20.4.1949; Waltraud S.
(Fardoun) to Frau Fuhrmann, 27.5.1949.
249 PRO FO 1051/249, Elisabeth D. (Radclive Grange) to Frau Fuhrmann, 17.10.1948.
250 PRO FO 1051/249, Gerda H. (Birmingham) to Frau Fuhrmann, 26.6.1949.
251 PRO FO 1051/249, Brigitte F. (Aberdeen) to Frau Fuhrmann, 1.1.1949.
252 For the following see: PRO FO 1051/249, Employment Exchange, Aberdeen, 3.3.1949.
253 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.04, Maria Roos: Bericht über die Arbeit der Betreuungsstelle für
deutsche Frauen in Großbritannien beim Ministry of Labour […] für die Zeit von Juni 1950
bis März 1951, 10.4.1951.
254 BA B106/20618, DNKMV, Bericht zur Frage: Unsere katholischen deutschen Mädchen in
England, 1950.
255 DECS 253, Report from Agnes Lump about her visit to England and Scotland, Dec 1952-
Jan 1953, 5.2.1953.
256 EZA 6/85/183, Gerhard Stratenwerth, Kirchliches Außenamt, to Gertrud Langenfaß,
7.5.1951.
 Notes 183

257 M.Berghahn, Continental Britons. German-Jewish Refugees from Nazi Germany, Oxford:
Berg, 1988, p. 192.
258 PRO FO 1051/249, Wilma B. (Birmingham) to Frau Fuhrmann, 22.10.1948.
259 PRO FO 1051/249, Carmen S. to Mr Fraser, 29.10.1948.
260 Interview Amalie T.
261 Interview Mimi C.
262 PRO FO 1051/249.
263 Z.Layton-Henry, ‘Immigration into Britain. The New Commonwealth Migrants 1945–
1962’, History Today, vol. 35, December 1985, p. 31.
264 Staffing the Hospitals: An Urgent National Need, London: HMSO, 1945.
265 PRO LAB 26/160, Circ. 10/19, 5.11.1945.
266 PRO LAB 26/160, Note, 7.5.1946.
267 EZA 6/85/183, Pastor Ernst U.Bartz, Newcastle, Report, 25.10.1950.
268 Interview Hermine S.
269 Ibid.
270 PRO FO 1051/249, H.S. and H.W. (Yorkshire) to Frau Fuhrmann, 18.9.1948.
271 Interview Magda B.
272 Ibid.
273 Interview Hedwig Q.
274 Interview Magda B.
275 Ibid., Interviews Hermine S., Elsamarie T.
276 Ibid.
277 Interview Hedwig Q.
278 Interview Magda B.
279 Interview Mathilda H.
280 Interview Magda B.
281 Ibid.
282 PRO LAB 8/1390.
283 PRO LAB 8/1786, National Advisory Council on Recruitment of Nurses and Midvives:
Recruitment from Abroad for Nursing Employment, N.A.C. 236, 1951.
284 PRO LAB 8/1305, LAB: Minutes of the First Meeting of the Reconstituted National
Advisory Council on Recruitment of Nurses and Midwives, 19.11.1948.
285 PRO LAB 8/1390, Scheme for Training German Girls as State Registered Nurses in Great
Britain, 1949.
286 PRO LAB 8/1390, Employment & Labour Supply Branch, Lemgo, to Chief Manpower
Officer: Recruitment of German women for training as nurses in Great Britain, 3.12.1948.
287 ‘Employment of Foreign Workers’, Ministry of Labour Gazette, 1948, p. 265.
288 PRO LAB 8/1390, LAB to Nursing Reception Centre, Colwyn Bay, 30.12.1948.
289 PRO LAB 8/1390, Austrian and German Student Nurses and Hospital Orderlies, January
1949.
290 Interview Monika H.
291 PRO LAB 8/1305, Minutes of the First Meeting of the Reconstituted National Advisory
Council on Recruitment of Nurses and Midwives, 19.11.1948.
292 PRO LAB 8/1892, LAB to Lohmann, Bundesanstalt für Arbeit, 2.11.1952.
293 Ibid.
294 PRO LAB 26/261, Precis of Reports received from Regional Office, April 1949. PRO FO
1051/249, Assembly Centre Mecklenbeck, Report, 26.8.1949.
295 BA B106/20618, DNKMV, Bericht zur Frage: Unsere katholischen deutschen Mädchen in
England, 1950.
296 Interview Erdmute U.
297 Deutscher Sozialausschuß (German Welfare Council), Jahresbericht 1954, p. 4.
298 PRO HO 213/1092, Memorandum HO, 16.12.1948.
 Notes 184

299 PRO FO 1051/253.

300 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, p. 133.
301 R.Robson, The Cotton Industry in Britain, London: Macmillan, 1957, p. 247.
302 C.Miles, Lancashire Textiles. A Case Study of Industrial Change, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968, p. 25.
303 ‘Cotton as Spearhead Force in Export Campaign’, Manchester Guardian, 11.2.1948.
304 J.Singleton, ‘The Decline of the British Cotton Industry Since 1940’, in M.Rose (ed.), The
Lancashire Cotton Industry. A History Since 1700, Preston: Lancashire County Books, 1996,
p. 301.
305 Miles, Lancashire Textile, pp. 30–31.
306 Singleton, ‘The Decline of the British Cotton Industry Since 1940’, p. 303.
307 Miles, Lancashire Textile, p. 39.
308 J.Singleton, Lancashire on the Scraphead. The Cotton Industry 1945–1970, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991, pp. 57–58. Singleton, ‘The Decline of the British Cotton Industry
Since 1940’, pp. 302–303.
309 Ibid, pp. 304–305.
310 Miles, Lancashire Textile, p. 39.
311 J.Singleton, ‘Lancashire’s Last Stand: Declining Employment in the British Cotton Industry
1950–1970’, Economic History Review, 1986, pp. 94–95.
312 Report for the Year 1948, London: Ministry of Labour, pp. 36–38.
313 W.Crofts, ‘The Attlee Government’s Pursuit of Women’, History Today, vol. 36, August
1986, pp. 34–35.
314 Ibid., p. 35.
315 ‘Displaced Persons Reach Vale of York Depot’, Manchester Guardian, 21.5.1947.
316 BHRU (Bradford Heritage Recording Unit, Central Library Bradford) B0046 (Ukrainian),
p. 25.
317 HOC, 29.11.1949, pp. 936–937.
318 ‘Italian Women Workers Are Due at the Glen Mill Soon’, Oldham Evening Chronicle,
28.9.1950.
319 DCV 327.92.025 Fasz.02, Maria und Erna H., Bury, to Herr Barth, 23.8.1949.
320 Interview Heide C.
321 Interview Margarete T.
322 BHRU A0144 (Briton), p. 60.
323 BHRU B0041 (Ukrainian), p. 24.
324 ‘Volunteers for Bolton Mills’, Bolton Evening News, 12.9.1947.
325 BA B136/8840, N.N. (Oldham) to Herr Vögele, 23.9.1949.
326 Interview Josepha C.
327 Interview Isolda L.
328 BA B136/8840, Lilli to Mum and sisters [1949].
329 Four of the interviewees received such a training.
330 Singleton, Lancashire on the Scraphead, p. 52.
331 ‘They Will Work in English Cotton Mills’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 4.12.1950.
332 Interview Heide C.
333 Interview Margarete T.
334 Interview Elke N.
335 Interview Heide C.
336 Interview Margarete T.
337 Interview Isolda L.
338 Interview Margarete T.
339 Interview Isolda L.
340 Interview Gretel D.
341 Interview Margarete T.
 Notes 185

342 Interview Heide C.

343 Interviews Isolda L., Vera L
344 BA B136/8840, Albine D. (Oldham) to Gretl, 26.8.1949.
345 BA B136/8840, Gerda (Leigh) to Mum, 13.9.1949.
346 Interview Heide C.
347 Interview Margarete T.
348 BHRU B0086 (Pole), pp. 17–18.
349 KSA 031PL (Pole), p. 4.
350 TFH 183 (Jugoslav).
351 ‘A Story of Achievement’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 2.6.1949.
352 D.Marsden, ‘In the Mill’, in B.Jackson (ed.), Working Class Community, Harmondsworth:
Penguin, 1968, p. 85.
353 Ibid., pp. 87–88. Interview Heide C.
354 BHRU B0089 (Italian), p. 11.
355 BHRU B0086 (Pole), p. 17.
356 O.Howarth (ed.), Textile Voices—Mill Life this Century, Bradford: Bradford Libraries &
Information Service, 1989, p. 69. BHRU A0144 (Briton), pp. 61–62.
357 BHRU A0017 (Briton), p. 32.
358 BHRU A0144 (Briton), p. 61. BHRU A0046 (Briton), p. 15.
359 ‘Teach Foreigners Our Secrets?’, Daily Express, 3.4.1948. CDA TU 58/21 (Yorkshire
Cotton Operatives’ Association), Executive Council, Minutes, 20.4.1948.
360 BALSS, Bolton Evening News. Records, 14.10.1947.
361 LRO DDX 1123/620 (Amalgamated Weavers’ Association), Cotton Board: The
Recruitment of European Volunteer Workers to the Cotton Industry. Note by the
Recruitment and Training Department, 14.11.1947.
362 ‘Good workers and Good Bargainers’, Bolton Evening News, 15.1.1949.
363 BA B136/8840, Helga K. (Bolton) to Frl. Hagemayer (Arbeitsamt Böblingen), 10.10.1949;
R.H. (Bury) to Frl. Hofer, 16.10.1949.
364 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, Notizen von der England-Reise Elisabeth Denis, Nov. 1949.
365 ‘The E.V.W.s Are Not Getting Fair Treatment in Oldham’, Oldham Evening Chronicle,
28.3.1950.
366 PRO CAB 134/472, Regional Labour (Textile Industries) Committee, Minutes, 12.3.1948.
367 Interview Margarete T.
368 Interview Heide C.
369 Interview Ilona O.
370 D.Kay and R.Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers? European Volunteer Workers in Britain
1946–1951, London: Routledge, 1992, p. 129. Singleton, Lancashire on the Scraphead, p.
63.
371 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, pp. 84–85.
372 ‘Chorley Hostel Change’, Chorley Guardian and Leyland Advertiser, 17.1.1947. CERC
BCC/7/1/8, BCC, Foreign Labour Committee, Mabel Small: Report on visit to two E.V.W.
camps in the north of England, Nov. 1949.
373 ‘They Will Have a Happy Christmas’, Bolton Evening News, 20.12.1949.
374 BHRU A0044 (Briton), pp. 17–18.
375 Singleton, Lancashire on the Scraphead, p. 63. LRO DDX 1123/620 (Amalgamated
Weavers’ Association), Cotton Board: The Recruitment of European Volunteer Workers to
the Cotton Industry. Note by the Recruitment and Training Department, 14.11.1947.
376 Ibid.
377 BALSS, Bolton Newspaper Cuttings, 11.7.1947: Accommodation for Workers (Letters to
the Editor).
378 ‘E.V.W.Billets’ (Letters to the Editor), Manchester Guardian, 19.2.1948. ‘Housing
Volunteer Workers’, Manchester Guardian, 4.6.1948. ‘Hostel is Ready for E.V.W.s’, The
 Notes 186

Bury Times, 10.11.1948. ‘Thousands Spent on Empty E.V.W. Homes’, The Bury Times,
8.1.1949. ‘One E.V.W. Hostel Lost £100,000’, Manchester Guardian, 25.8.1949.
379 Interview Heide C.
380 BA B136/8840, I.R. (Peer Green) to parents, 28.9.1949.
381 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, Notizen von der England-Reise Elisabeth Denis, Nov. 1949.
382 Interview Elena Z.
383 Interview Ilona O.
384 Interview Vera I.
385 BA B106/20618, DNKMV, Bericht zur Frage: Unsere katholischen deutschen Mädchen in
England, 1950.
386 ‘Foreign Labour in Great Britain’, The Times, 21.5.1951, 22.5.1951. J.Zubrzycki, Polish
Immigrants in Britain. A Study of Adjustment, The Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1956, p. 212.
387 PRO FO 371/72040, Britain’s European Volunteer Workers, 22.10.1948.
388 ‘They Will Have a Happy Christmas’, Bolton Evening News, 20.12.1949.
389 UW-MRC MSS.243/126/2 (YWCA), Minutes, YWCA, National Hostels Committee,
4.6.1948.
390 PRO LAB 26/236, LAB: Welfare of European Volunteer Workers. Notes on
Interdepartmental Conference, 18.11.1948.
391 PRO LAB 26/198.
392 PRO LAB 26/198, National Service Hostels Corporation: Proportion of Coloured Workers
in Industrial Hostels, 28.12.1949.
393 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, p. 66.
394 CERC BCC/7/1/8, BCC, Foreign Labour Committee, Mabel Small: Report on visit to two
E.V.W. camps in the north of England, Nov. 1949.
395 PRO LAB 26/241, English for Foreign Workers, 20.7.1949.
396 Interview Margarete etc T.
397 See Chapter 5.
398 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, p. 88.
399 H.B.M.Murphy, ‘Refugee Psychoses in Great Britain: Admissions to Mental Hospitals’, in
H.B.M.Murphy (ed.), Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, pp. 173–194.
E.Stadulis, ‘The Resettlement of Displaced Persons in the United Kingdom’, Population
Studies, 1952, p. 229. Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, pp. 87, 108.
400 Interview Isolda L.
401 Interview Henrike G.
402 Interview Elsa G.
403 DCV 327.92.025 Fasz.01, Cäcilia Tilgner, Rochdale, to Frl. Denis, 1.11.1950.
404 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.02, Cäcilia Tilgner, Rochdale, to Frl. Bonnberg, 3.4.1951.
405 Miles, Lancashire Textile, p. 40.
406 See Chapter 2.
407 ‘Foreign Workers in Cotton Industry’, Manchester Guardian, 4.12.1951.
408 ‘Extended Holiday for Mill Workers’, The Times, 17.12.1951.
409 ‘Unemployment in Textiles’, Manchester Guardian, 30.1.1952.
410 ‘Wool Workers go into Engineering’, Manchester Guardian, 5.4.1952.
411 Report for the Year 1952, London: Ministry of Labour, p. 35.
412 Zubrzycki, Polish Immigrants in Britain, p. 183.
413 Ibid. Singleton, ‘The Decline of the British Cotton Industry Since 1940’, p. 303.
414 J.Vernant, The Refugee in the Post-War World, London: Allen & Unwin, 1953, pp. 354–
355.
415 M.Bülbring and E.Nagy, ‘The Receiving Community in Great Britain’, in H.B.M.Murphy
(ed.), Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, p. 116.
416 M.Bülbring, ‘Post-War Refugees in Great Britain’, Population Studies, 1954, p. 101.
 Notes 187

417 For example: ‘Foreign Workers in Cotton Trade’, Manchester Guardian, 30.1.1952.
‘Foreign Workers in Textiles’, Manchester Guardian, 15.5.1952. ‘Problem of Work for Our
Own People’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 11.9.1952.
418 Stadulis, ‘The Resettlement of Displaced Persons in the United Kingdom’, p. 220.
419 LRO DDX 1123/723 (Amalgamated Weavers’ Association).
420 LRO DDX 1123/723 (Amalgamated Weavers’ Association), The Cotton Spinners’ and
Manufacturers’ Association (Manchester) an Amalgamated Weavers’ Association,
28.3.1952.
421 Bülbring and Nagy, ‘Receiving Community’, p. 116. Bülbring, ‘Post-War Refugees’, pp.
101–102.
422 ‘Employment of European Volunteer Workers’, Ministry of Labour Gazette 1950, p. 262.
‘Withdrawal of Employment Restrictions on European Volunteer Workers’, Ministry of
Labour Gazette 1951, p. 9. PRO BT 175/6, Cotton Board, 92. Meeting, 18.3.1952.
423 ‘Unemployment in Cotton Industry’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 11.3.1952. ‘Foreign Mill
Girls’, Manchester Guardian, 20.3.1952.
424 BA B149/1230, Cäcilia Tilgner, DNKMV: Zur Situation der deutschen Mädchen in der
Textilindustrie, May 1952.
425 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, Cäcilia Tilgner, Rochdale: Arbeitsbericht über die Hilfe für
kath. deutsche Mädchen in England. August 1951-Dezember 1952, 20.2.1953.
426 DCV 329.1.021, Cäcilia Tilgner, Rochdale, to Frl. Denis, 17.1.1952.
427 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.02, J.M. [Johanna Maier]: Bericht über die Mädchenschutzarbeit in
England und Belgien, August 1952.
428 ‘Foreign Workers in Lancashire’, The Times, 17.5.1952.
429 ‘Invitations to Return Home’, Manchester Guardian, 30.6.1952.
430 BA B149/1230, Deutsches Generalkonsulat London, 9.8.1952.

4
Welfare and support
1 Report for the Year 1947, London: Ministry of Labour, pp. 103–105. HOC, 20.5.1947, pp.
239–240.
2 HOC, 29.4.1947, pp. 1706–1707.
3 Report for the Year 1947, London: Ministry of Labour, p. 105.
4 LMU-TUC HD 8388, Ministry of Education, Circular 150: To Local Education Authorities.
Instruction of Displaced Persons, 15.7.1947.
5 Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers? European Volunteer Workers in Britain 1946–
1951, London: Hambledon, 1996, pp. 187–208, 131.
6 PRO LAB 26/241, English for Foreign Workers, 20.7.1949.
7 Report for the Year 1948, London: Ministry of Labour, p. 90.
8 J.A.Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers in Britain, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1958, p. 67.
9 PRO LAB 26/83, LAB, Midland Region: Monthly Report on Welfare Work, Period Ended 14
April 1948, 14.4.1948. M.Bülbring and E.Nagy, ‘The Receiving Community in Great
Britain’, in H.B.M.Murphy (ed.), Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, p. 117.
10 ‘Oldham’s Goodwill to Foreigners’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 5.1.1948. ‘Information
Bureau to Be Set up’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 5.2.1948. ‘Town Helps E.V.W.s with
Bureau’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 1.3.1949.
11 ‘Welfare of German Women Workers in Great Britain’, Ministry of Labour Gazette, 1950, p.
228.
12 DCV 329.1.021, Elisabeth Denis to Helene Weber, MdB, 17.7.1951.
 Notes 188

13 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.04, Maria Roos: Bericht über die Arbeit der Betreuungsstelle für
deutsche Frauen in Großbritannien beim Ministry of Labour, 10.4.1951.
14 KFZ Büttner E.IV.10, Bericht über die Entstehung des Deutschen Sozialausschusses in
London, 5.6.1952.
15 BHRU A0144 (Briton), pp. 59–60. BHRU A0044 (Briton), pp. 17–18.
16 ‘Workers for Lancashire’, Manchester Guardian, 3.6.1947.
17 PRO LAB 26/80, LAB: Welfare Work—South Western Region, Month Ended 10th
February, 1948, 10.2.1948.
18 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, p. 66.
19 ‘D.P.s in Textile Industry’, Manchester Guardian, 4.6.1947. ‘Hopes of 10,000 D.P.s for
Mills in 9 Months’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 20.6.1947. PRO BT 175/67, Cotton Board,
Progress Reports, 1949–1951.
20 ‘Unions and E.V.W.s’, Bolton Evening News, 9.8.1947. J.Vernant, The Refugee in the Post-
War World, London: Allen & Unwin, 1953, p. 359.
21 PRO LAB 26/160, LAB, Consultative Committee on Recruitment of Domestic Workers for
Hospitals. Minutes of the 3rd Meeting, 14.10.1946.
22 F.M.Wilson, They Came as Strangers. The Story of Refugees to Great Britain, London:
Hamilton, 1959, p. 238.
23 Bülbring, ‘Post-War Refugees’, p. 107.
24 ‘For Foreign Workers’, Bolton Evening News, 8.12.1950. PRO LAB 26/83, LAB, Midland
Region: Monthly Report on Welfare Work, Period Ended 14 March 1948, 14.3.1948. PRO
LAB 26/71, LAB, London and South Eastern Regional Office: Monthly Report on Welfare
Work—Period Ended 12 April, 1948, 12.4.1948.
25 PRO LAB 23/236.
26 PRO LAB 23/236, LAB Regional Office, Bristol, to LAB, 28.10.1948.
27 M.Goldsmith, Women at War, London: Lindsay Drummond [1943], p. 135.
28 Ibid. p. 140.
29 Report on 25 Years Work 1938–1963, London: Women’s Voluntary Services, 1963, p. 30.
Kay and Miles, Refugees or Migrant Workers, p. 133.
30 PRO FO 371/72040, The Personal Touch, 1948.
31 ‘Baltic Girls New Life in Britain’, Manchester Guardian, 21.10.1946.
32 PRO LAB 26/235, W.V.S.: Minutes of the Conference on the Welfare of Poles and E.V.Ws.,
4.3.1949.
33 PRO LAB 26/235, Extract from Gainsborough Narrative Report, March 1950.
34 S.Patterson, ‘The Poles: An Exile Community in Britain’, in J.L.Watson (ed.), Between Two
Cultures. Migrants and Minorities in Britain, Oxford: Blackwell, 1977, pp. 225–226.
35 M.B.Sullivan, Thresholds of Peace. Four Hundred Thousand German Prisoners and the
People of Britain 1944–1948, London: Hamilton, 1979, pp. 384–385.
36 Vernant, The Refugee in the Post-War World, pp. 359–360.
37 EZA 6/85/185, Gottfried v. Dietze: Bericht über meine Tätigkeit in Schottland, 10.10.1949.
38 ‘Club-Time for Brides’, Illustrated, 5.7.1947.
39 GYMCA, Minute Book, 24.10.1945.
40 Ibid., 1.3.1948.
41 B.W.Hildebrandt, 125 Years German Young Men’s Christian Association in London, 1860–
1985, Edenbridge: White, 1985.
42 GYMCA, Minute Book, 5.7.1949.
43 Ibid., 14.6.1950.
44 GYMCA, Nachrichtenblatt, January 1949.
45 Ibid., April/May 1950.
46 GYMCA, Jahresbericht, 25.10.1952.
47 DCV 372.16, Caritas—Kriegsgefangenenhilfe to Pater Wahler, St. Marys Abbey, 6.8.1948.
 Notes 189

48 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, Notizen von der England-Reise Elisabeth Denis, November
1949.
49 Interview Johanna Verhoeven.
50 Ibid.
51 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, Cäcilia Tilgner: Arbeitsbericht über die Hilfe für deutsche
katholische Mädchen in England, 20.2.1953.
52 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, DNKMV, Aus unserer Arbeit 1954, p. 34.
53 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.02, Cäcilia Tilgner, Letter, 26.2.1951.
54 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.02, Johanna [Maier] to Elisabeth Denis, 9.8.1952.
55 DCV 327.92 (410) Fasz.03, Cäcilia Tilgner: Arbeitsbericht über die Hilfe für kath. deutsche
Mädchen in England, 20.2.1953.
56 CERC BCC/7/1/8. E.Stadulis, ‘The Resettlement of Displaced Persons in the United
Kingdom’, Population Studies, 1952, pp. 232–235.
57 PRO LAB 26/236 Reports from the Regional Offices of the LAB, 1948.
58 L.Kettenacker, ‘The Germans after 1945’, in P.Panayi (ed.), Germans in Britain Since 1500,
London: Hambledon, 1996, p. 196.
59 KFZ Buettner E.IV.10. Leushacke to Buettner, 9.3.1953.
60 KFZ Büttner E.IV.11a, Dumont, Rechenschafts-Bericht, 12.1.1952.
61 KFZ Büttner E.IV.12.
62 KAA, Leushacke: Pallottiner in England, 1996.
63 EZA 6/85/177, Julius Rieger, Übersicht über den Stand der deutschen evangelischen
Gemeinden in England, 17.5.1946.
64 EZA 6/85/201, Excerpt, 19.11.1954.
65 EZA 6/85/210, Gerhard Stratenwerth to Bishop Dibelius, 24.12.1952.
66 EZA 6/85/177, 6/85/1754, 2/2233.
67 U.Weingärtner, ‘Kirchliches Leben der Deutschen in London’, Evangelischer Digest, April
1961, p. 49.

5
Fifty years on
1 BA B149/1229, Office of the Manpower Adviser, Wahnerheide, to BMA, 18.1.1951.
2 A.H.Richmond, Immigration and Ethnic Conflict, London: Macmillan, 1988, p. 1.
3 J.A.Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers in Britain, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1958, pp. 97–98.
4 J.Isaac, British Post-War Migration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954, p. 182.
5 PRO HO 213/596, Statistics Operation Westward Ho.
6 Deutscher Sozialausschuß (German Welfare Council), Jahresbericht 1961, p. 2.
7 ‘Admission of Distressed Persons and Refugees into the United Kingdom and the United
States’, International Labour Review, 1946, vol. 53, pp. 413–414.
8 M.Bülbring, ‘Post-War Refugees in Great Britain’, Population Studies, 1954, p. 104.
9 J.Bourke, Working-Class Cultures in Britain 1890–1960, London: Routledge, 1994, p. 155.
10 ‘10,000 PoWs to Stay on Our Farms’, Daily Mail, 5.1.1948.
11 ‘Council-House for German Ex-P.O.W.’, Manchester Guardian, 20.1.1950.
12 Interview Amalie T.
13 Interview Ewald C.
14 M.Bülbring and E.Nagy, ‘The Receiving Community in Great Britain’, in H.B.M.Murphy
(ed.), Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, p. 117.
15 E.Roberts, Women and Families. An Oral History, 1940–1970, Oxford: Blackwell, 1995, p.
25.
 Notes 190

16 ‘These Foreign Workers Are a Problem’, The Yorkshire Post (Leeds), 29.11.1949.
17 ‘Good workers and Good Bargainers’, Bolton Evening News, 15.1.1949. ‘Britain’s Foreign
Workers Do All Right’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 2.1.1950. ‘Do Yorkshire’s E.V.W.s Get
Preferential Treatment?’, The Yorkshire Observer (Bradford), 26.7.1951. ‘How the E.V.W.s
Buy Their Property’, The Yorkshire Observer (Bradford), 27.7.1951. ‘E.V.W.s Are Willing
to Fit Into Our Ways’, The Yorkshire Observer (Bradford), 30.7.1951.
18 Interviews Elena Z., Isolda L., Elsa G.
19 Interview Henrike G.
20 Interview Erwin S.
21 Interview Molli E.
22 Interview Elsamarie T.
23 Interview Mechthild Z.
24 Interview Mechthild Z.
25 Interview Mizzi T.
26 Interview Käthe T.
27 Interview Isolda L.
28 Interview Vera I.
29 Interview Elsa G.
30 Interview Hermine S.
31 Interview Arthur S.
32 C.Barnett, The Lost Victory. British Dreams, British Realities 1945–1950, London:
Macmillan, 1995, p. 165.
33 Interview Moritz A.
34 Interview Knut N.
35 Interviews Hermine S., Lise F.
36 Interview Isedore E.
37 Interview Mechthild Z.
38 Interview Elena Z.
39 Interview Viktor T.
40 Interview Gretel D.
41 Interview Isolda L.
42 Interview Gretel D.
43 Interview Elsa G.
44 Interview Paula Z.
45 Interview Elvira D.
46 Interview Paula Z.
47 Interview Pauline N.
48 Interview Elvira D.
49 Interview Hermine S.
50 Interview Lise F.
51 Interview Elsa G.
52 Interview Monika H.
53 Interview Elsa G.
54 Interview Vera I.
55 See Chapter 3 (Hostels and lodgings).
56 T.Kushner, ‘Immigration and “Race Relations” in Postwar British Society’, in P.Johnson
(ed.), Twentieth-Century Britain: Economic, Social and Cultural Change, London:
Longman, 1994, p. 412.
57 A.H.Richmond, Colour Prejudice in Britain. A Study of West Indian Workers in Liverpool,
1941–1951, London: Routledge, 1954, pp. 102–108.
 Notes 191

58 M.le Lohé, ‘The Effects of the Presence of Immigrants upon the Local Political System in
Bradford’, in R.Miles and A.Phizacklea (eds), Racism and Political Action in Britain,
London: Routledge, 1979, p. 186.
59 SRO AF59/30, Note, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, 12.2.1948.
60 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, pp. 70, 100.
61 C.Holmes, John Bull’s Island. Immigration and British Society, 1871–1971, London:
Macmillan, 1988, pp. 250, 302.
62 Kushner, ‘Immigration and “Race Relations” in Postwar British Society’, p. 413.
63 BHRU B0016 (Ukrainian), p. 8.
64 J.Zubrzycki, Polish Immigrants in Britain. A Study of Adjustment, The Haag: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1956, p. 179.
65 K.Sword, N.Davies and J.Ciechanowski. The formation of the Polish Community in Great
Britain 1939–50, London: School of Slavonic and East European Studies, 1989, p. 343.
66 Ibid., p. 348.
67 Ibid., p. 342.
68 KSA (Kirklees Sound Archives, Central Library Hudders Field) 036PL (Pole).
69 KSA 031PL (Pole).
70 BHRU B0062 (Pole), p. 11.
71 KSA 020PL (Pole).
72 BHRU B0062 (Pole), p. 18.
73 ‘D.P.s or Our Ain Folk’, The Perthshire Constitutional and Journal, 15.6.1948.
74 ‘D.P.s and Fechney House’ (Letters to the Editor), The Perthshire Constitutional and
Journal, 25.6.1948. ‘Employing Foreign Labour’ (Letters to the Editor), The Perthshire
Constitutional and Journal, 25.6.1948.
75 ‘Scone Doesn’t want Germans’, The Perthshire Constitutional and Journal, 18.3.1949.
76 ‘These Foreigners Among Us’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 11.1.1949.
77 ‘Oldhams E.V.W.s’ (Letters to the Editor), Oldham Evening Chronicle, 23.6.1952.
78 Bülbring and Nagy, ‘Receiving Community’, p. 117.
79 Bülbring, ‘Post-War Refugees’, pp. 105–106.
80 S.Baringhorst, Fremde in der Stadt. Multikulturelle Minderheitenpolitik, dargestellt am
Beispiel der nordenglischen Stadt Bradford, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1991, p. 109.
81 BHRU A0046 (Briton), p. 15.
82 BHRU B0006 (Ukrainian), pp. 22–23. BHRU B0041 (Ukrainian), pp. 40–41. BHRU B0090
(Serb), pp. 16–17. BHRU B0105 (Italian), p. 4.
83 For example: ‘Good Report of E.V.W.s’, Bolton Evening News, 4.10.1947.
84 For example: ‘E.V.W.s Told “You Must Behave”’, The Halifax Daily Courier & Guardian,
26.9.1949.
85 ‘Questions on County D.P. Camp’, The Perthshire Constitutional and Journal, 4.11.1949.
86 ‘Farmers Tell of Damage by E.V.W.Misfits’, The Yorkshire Post, 1.12.1949.
87 ‘The Great DP Riddle’, The Daily Mirror, 19.7.1948. ‘Let Them be Displaced’, The Daily
Mirror, 20.7.1948. ‘The Great D.P.Riddle’, The Daily Mirror, 21.7.1948.
88 For example: ‘Poles Went on Holiday Yesterday’, The Perthshire Constitutional and
Journal, 4.5.1948.
89 ‘Doubtful Acquisition’, The Yorkshire Post, 29.12.1948.
90 R.Falcon, ‘Images of Germany and the Germans in British Film and Television Fictions’, in
H.Husemann (ed.), As Others See Us. Anglo-German Perceptions, Frankfurt am Main: Peter
Lang, 1994, pp. 7–27.
91 Interview Martha H.
92 Interview Elvira D.
93 Interview Lena Z.
94 Interview Lisbeth H.
95 Interview Viktor T.
 Notes 192

96 Interview Ilona O.
97 Interview Elvira D.
98 Interview Monika H.
99 Interview Emma C.
100 Interviews Moritz A., Herta D.
101 Interview Joanna S.
102 Interview Luci N.
103 Interview Peter C.
104 Interview Henrike G.
105 Interview Moritz A.
106 Interview Henrike G.
107 Interview Gretel D.
108 Interview Elsa G.
109 Interview Jean Z.
110 Interview Moritz A.
111 Interview Justus L.
112 Interview Edeltraud K.
113 BHRU B0005 (Ukrainian). BHRU B0008 (Ukrainian). BHRU B0018 (Ukrainian). BHRU
B0077 (Pole). BHRU B0130 (Ukrainian).
114 Interview Monika H.
115 Interview Hermine S.
116 Interviews Knut N., Helmut L.
117 Interviews Gisela C., Emma C., Hanna C.
118 Interview Peter C.
119 Interview Hedwig Q.
120 Interview Lisbeth H.
121 Interview Edeltraud K.
122 Interview Gerhard U.
123 Interview Winfried C.
124 Interview Luci N.
125 Interview Magda B.
126 Interview Elvira D.
127 Interview Luci N.
128 Interview Irma H.
129 Interview Margarete T.
130 Interview Erdmute U.
131 Interview Erwin S.
132 Interview Heide C.
133 Interview Hedwig D.
134 Interview Edeltraud K.
135 Interview Helmut L.
136 Interview Vera I.
137 Interview Paulus M.
138 Interview Arthur S.
139 Interview Gerold M.
140 Tannahill, European Volunteer Workers, pp. 99–100.
141 PRO HO 213/1562, Progress Reports.
142 Interview Ewald C.
143 ‘Naturalisation’, Oldham Evening Chronicle, 30.10.1950.
144 Interview Gernot H.
145 Interview Gretel D.
146 Interview Winfried C.
 Notes 193

147 Interview Erwin S.

148 Interview Henrike G.
149 Interview Isolda L.
150 Interview Heide C.
151 Ibid.
152 Interview Edda U.
153 Interview Gernot H.
154 Interview Edeltraud K.
155 Interview Her mine S.
156 Interview Elvira D.
157 Interview Hermine S.
158 Interview Magda B.
159 Interview Mechthild Z.
160 Interview Elvira D.
161 Interview Ewald C.
162 Interview Magda B.
163 Interview Emma C.
164 Interview Hermine S.
165 Interview Helene K.
166 Interview Gabi N.
167 Interview Magda B.
168 Interview Klemens I.
169 Interview Martha H.
170 Interview Elsa G.
171 Interview Heide C.
172 Interview Mizzi T.
173 Interview Hanna C.
174 Deutscher Sozialausschuß (German Welfare Council), Jahresbericht 1963, p. 4.
175 Ibid. 1967, p. 5.
176 Interview Mechthild Z.
177 Interview Elsa G.
178 Interview Mechthild Z.
179 Ibid.
180 Interview Elsa G.
181 Interview Jean Z.
182 Interview Klemens I.
183 Interview Theda B.
184 Interview Gretel D.
185 Interview Henrike G.
186 Interview Karl-Heinz C.
187 Interview Käthe T.
188 Interview Hedwig D.
189 Interview Viktor T.
190 Interview Phillip H.
191 Interview Hedwig Q.
192 Interview Isolda L.
193 Interview Hermine S.
194 Interview Heide C.
195 Interview Ewald C.
 List of archives

1. Archives in the United Kingdom

Public Record Office, London (PRO)
AST 12 National Assistance Board
AST 16
BT 175 Cotton Board
CAB 103 Cabinet Office
CAB 130
CAB 134
FO 371 Foreign Office
FO 936 Control Office for Germany and Austria
FO 938
FO 939
FO 940
FO 945
FO 1006 Control Commission for Germany (British Element)
FO 1013
FO 1023
FO 1051
HO 213 Home Office
LAB 8 Ministry of Labour
LAB 9
LAB 10
LAB 12
LAB 13
LAB 17
LAB 22 National Service Hostels Corporation
LAB 23 Ministry of Labour
LAB 26
 List of archives 195

LAB 37
LAB 38
MAF 47 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries
MAF 186
PREM 8 Prime Minister’s Office
WO 32 War Office
WO 165

Imperial War Museum, London (IWM)

Papers of Colonel Henry Faulk
Papers of Mrs H G Kuhn
Papers of Arthur Riegel
Papers of Miss J White
Papers of Mrs D M Wood
Scottish Record Office, Edinburgh (SRO)
AF 59 Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

Church of England Record Centre, London (CERC)

BCC British Council of Churches

Lambeth Palace Library, London (LPL)

Papers of George Kennedy Allen Bell, Bishop of Chichester
Papers of Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury
University of Warwick: Modern Records Centre, Coventry (UW-MRC)
MSS.157 Victor Gollancz Papers
MSS.243 Young Women’s Christian Association
MSS.292 Trades Union Congress

London Metropolitan University (LMU-TUC)

Trades Union Congress Library Collections

British Red Cross, Barnett Hill (BRC)

Local and County Archives

Bolton Archive and Local Studies Service, Bolton (BALSS)
Bradford District Archives, Bradford (BDA)
Bury Archive Service, Bury (BAS)
Calderdale District Archives, Halifax (CDA)
Greater Manchester County Record Office, Manchester (GMCRO)
Greater Manchester Police Museum, Manchester (GMPM)
 List of archives 196

Lancashire Record Office, Preston (LRO)

Manchester City Archives Department, Manchester (MCAD)
Oldham Archives Service, Oldham (OAS)
Rochdale Library Service, Rochdale (RLS)

German Church Archives

Deutsche Evangelische Kirche Bradford (DEKB)
Deutsche Evangelische Gemeinde Liverpool (DEGL)
Deutsche Evangelische Gemeinde Sydenham (DECS)

London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Local History Library, London (DESGK)

Deutsche Evangelische St Georgs-Kirche

German YMCA, London (GYMCA)

2. Archives in Germany
Bundesarchiv Koblenz (BA)
Z1 Länderrat, Amerikanische Zone
Z2 Zonenbeirat, Britische Zone
Z 35 Deutsches Büro für Friedensfragen
Z 40 Zentralamt für Arbeit in der britischen Zone
B 102 Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft
B 106 Bundesministerium des Innern
B 119 Bundesministerium für Arbeit
B 136 Bundeskanzleramt
B 149 Bundesministerium für Arbeit
B 150 Bundesministerium für Vertriebene
OMGUS Office of Military Government, United States

Bundesarchiv-Militärarchiv, Freiburg (BAM)

B 205 Wissenschaftliche Kommission für deutsche Kriegsgefangenengeschichte

Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Bonn (PA)

Abt. 2 Politische Abteilung
Abt. 3 Länderabteilung
Abt. 5 Rechtsabteilung
Deutsche Botschaft London

Nordrhein-Westfälisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Düsseldorf (HStAD)

 List of archives 197

NW 58 Innenministerium

Deutscher Caritasverband, Freiburg (DCV)

111 Zentralrat
327.92 Haus Lioba, London
329.1 Deutscher Nationalverband katholischer Mädchenschutzvereine
372 Kriegsgefangenenhilfe

Evangelisches Zentralarchiv in Berlin (EZA)

B2 Kirchenkanzlei
B6 Kirchliches Außenamt
B7 Evangelischer Oberkirchenrat
B 509 Sammlung Birger Forell
B 620 Nachlaß Julius Rieger

Kommission für Zeitgeschichte, Bonn (KFZ)

Nachlaß Albert Büttner

3. Archives in Switzerland

Comité International de la Croix-Rouge, Genf (CICR)

Alliance Universelle des Unions Chrétiennes de Jeunes Gens, Genf (AUUCJG)

 Bibliography

Abelshauser, Werner, Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 1945–1980,

Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1983.
Addison, Paul, Now the War is Over. A Social History of Britain 1945–51, London: Pimlico, 1995.
‘Admission of Distressed Persons and Refugees into the United Kingdom and the United States’,
International Labour Review, 1946, vol. 53, pp. 413–414.
Andersohn, Alathea, ‘Fifty Years Ago. Christmas 1946’, The Bilingual Family Newsletter, 1996,
no. 4, pp. 1–2.
Annan, Noel, Changing Enemies. The Defeat and Regeneration of Germany, London: Harper
Collins, 1996.
Baringhorst, Sigrid, Fremde in der Stadt. Multikulturelle Minderheitenpolitik, dargestellt am
Beispiel der nordenglischen Stadt Bradford, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1991.
Barnett, Correlli, The Lost Victory. British Dreams, British Realities 1945–1950, London:
Macmillan, 1995.
Benmayor, Rina and Skotnes, Andor (eds), Migration and Identity, Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1994.
Berghahn, Marion, Continental Britons. German-Jewish Refugees from Nazi Germany, Oxford:
Berg, 1988.
Bertaux, Daniel (ed.), Biography and Society. The Life History Approach in the Social Sciences,
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981.
Bertaux, Daniel and Thompson, Paul (eds), Between Generations. Family Models, Myths, and
Memories, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Booth, Alan (ed.), British Economic Development Since 1945, Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1995.
Borchert, Dieter, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitsmarktpolitik in Nordrhein-Westfalen seit dem Ende des
II. Weltkrieges bis 1949/50, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1987.
Bourke, Joanna, Working-Class Cultures in Britain 1890–1960, London: Routledge, 1994.
Bray, Caroline, ‘National Images, the Media and Public Opinion’, in Roger Morgan and Caroline
Bray (eds), Partners and Rivals in Western Europe: Britain, France and Germany, Aldershot:
Gower, 1986, pp. 54–77.
Breger, Rosemary and Hill, Rosanna (eds), Cross-Cultural Marriage. Identity and Choice, Oxford:
Berg, 1998.
Britton, D.K., ‘Agriculture’, in G.D.N.Worswick and P.H.Ady (eds), The British Economy 1945–
1950, Oxford: Clarendon, 1952, pp. 463–475.
Bülbring, Maud, ‘Post-War Refugees in Great Britain’, Population Studies, 1954, pp. 99–112.
Bülbring, M. and Nagy, E., ‘The Receiving Community in Great Britain’, in H.B.M.Murphy (ed.),
Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, pp. 113–123.
Cairncross, Alec, Years of Recovery. British Economic Policy 1945–51, London: Methuen, 1985.
Cairncross, Alec, The British Economy Since 1945. Economic Policy and Performance, 1945–
1995, 2nd edn, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1995.
Cesarani, David, Justice Delayed, London: Mandarin, 1992.
Cheetham, J., ‘Immigration’, in A.H.Halsey (ed.), Trends in British Society Since 1990. A Guide to
the Changing Social Structure of Britain, London: Macmillan, 1972.
Crofts, William, ‘The Attlee Government’s Pursuit of Women’, History Today, vol. 36, August
1986, pp. 29–35.
 Bibliography 199

Demtschuk, Wolodymyr, European Immigration to Bradford Since 1945, GEMS—Course Project.

Keighley Technical College, Term—1984/1985.
Deutscher Sozialausschuß (German Welfare Council), Jahresbericht 1953, London, 1954.
Dex, Shirley (ed.), Life and Work History Analyses: Qualitative and Quantitative Developments,
London: Routledge, 1991.
Ein Willkommen wartet auf Sie!, Manchester: Ministry of Labour & Labour Department of the
Cotton Board, 1948.
Elderly Refugees. A Report on a Survey into their Circumstances in Great Britain, London: The
British Council for Aid to Refugees, [1969].
Eschenburg, Theodor, Jahre der Besatzung 1945–1949, Stuttgart: DVA, 1983.
Falcon, Richard, ‘Images of Germany and the Germans in British Film and Television Fictions’, in
Harald Husemann (ed.), As Others See Us. Anglo-German Perceptions, Frankfurt am Main:
Peter Lang, 1994, pp. 7–27.
Faulk, Henry, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in Großbritannien. Re-education, Bielefeld:
Gieseking, 1970.
Fielding, Steven, Thompson, P. and Tiratsoo, N., England Arise!. The Labour Party and Popular
Politics in 1940s Britain, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995.
Freeman, Gary P., Immigrant Labour and Racial Conflict in Industrial Societies. The French and
British Experience 1945–1975, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Gallup, George H., The Gallup International Public Opinion Polls. Great Britain 1937–1975, New
York: Random House, 1976.
Goldsmith, Margaret, Women at War, London: Lindsay Drummond [1943].
Green, Jonathon, Them. Voices from the Immigrant Community in Contemporary Britain, London:
Seeker & Warburg, 1990.
Halsey, A.H., Change in British Society, 4th edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Harvester/Tom Harrison Mass-Observation Archive. File Report Series 1937–1949, Brighton:
Harvester, 1983.
Heckmann, Friedrich, Ethnische Minderheiten, Volk und Nation. Soziologie interethnischer
Beziehungen, Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1992.
Hermes, F.A., ‘The Danger of Stereotypes in Viewing Germany’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 1945,
pp. 418–427.
Hildebrandt, Bernd W., 125 Years German Young Men’s Christian Association in London, 1860–
1985, Edenbridge: White, 1985.
Holmes, Colin (ed.), Immigrants and Minorities in British Society, London: Allen & Unwin, 1978.
Holmes, Colin, John Bull’s Island. Immigration and British Society, 1871–1971, London:
Macmillan, 1988.
Holmes, Colin, A Tolerant Country? Immigrants, Refugees and Minorities in Britain, London:
Faber, 1991.
Howarth, Olive (ed.), Textile Voices—Mill Life this Century, Bradford: Bradford Libraries &
Information Service, 1989.
International Migration 1945–1957, Geneva: International Labour Office, 1959.
Isaac, Julius, British Post-War Migration, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1954.
Jacobmeyer, Wolfgang, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer. Die Displaced Persons
in Westdeutschland 1945–1951, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.
Johnson, Paul (ed.), Twentieth-Century Britain: Economic, Social and Cultural Change, London:
Longman, 1994.
Johnston, Walter H., ‘Das Deutschlandbild der Briten’, Dokumente, 1954, pp. 361–370.
Just, Regine, ‘Die Integration der Umsiedler im Land Sachsen’, Sächsische Heimatblätter, 1989,
pp. 145–174.
Kay, Diana and Miles, Robert, ‘Refugees or Migrant Workers? The Case of the European
Volunteer Workers in Britain (1946–19 51)’, Journal of Refugee Studies, 1988, no. 2/3, pp.
214–236.
 Bibliography 200

Kay, Diana and Miles, Robert, Refugees or Migrant Workers? European Volunteer Workers in
Britain 1946–1951, London: Routledge, 1992.
Kettenacker, Lothar, ‘The Germans after 1945’, in Panikos Panayi (ed.), Germans in Britain Since
1500, London: Hambledon, 1996, pp. 187–208.
Kielinger, Thomas, Crossroads and Roundabouts. Junctions in German-British Relations, London:
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, 1997.
Kindleberger, Charles P., Europe’s Postwar Growth. The Role of Labor Supply, Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1967.
Kino, F.F., ‘Refugee Psychoses in Great Britain: Aliens’ Paranoid Reaction’, in H.B.M.Murphy
(ed.), Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, pp. 195–201.
Kochan, Miriam, Prisoners of England, London: Macmillan, 1980.
Krönig, J., ‘Krauts. Das Image der Deutschen in Großbritannien verschlechtert sich. Die
Regierungen mögen einander, die Völker leider nicht’, Die Zeit, 30.9.1999, p. 49.
Kushner, Tony, ‘Immigration and “Race Relations” in Postwar British Society’, in Paul Johnson
(ed.), Twentieth-Century Britain: Economic, Social and Cultural Change, London: Longman,
1994, pp. 411–426.
Layton-Henry, Zig, ‘Immigration into Britain. The New Commonwealth Migrants 1945–1962’,
History Today, vol. 35, December 1985, pp. 27–32.
Layton-Henry, Zig, The Politics of Immigration. Immigration, ‘Race’ and ‘Race’ Relations in Post-
war Britain, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Le Lohé, Michel, ‘The Effects of the Presence of Immigrants upon the Local Political System in
Bradford’, in Robert Miles and Annie Phizacklea (eds), Racism and Political Action in Britain,
London: Routledge, 1979, pp. 184–203.
Loscher, Klaus, Studium und Alltag hinter Stacheldraht. Birger Forells Beitrag zum theologisch-
pädagogischen Lehrbetrieb im Norton Camp/England (1945–1948), Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener, 1997.
Lucassen, Leo, ‘The Gulf Between Long Term and Short Term Approaches in Immigration
Studies. A Reassessment of the Chicago School’s Assimilation Concept’, IMIS-Beiträge, 5,
1997, pp. 5–23.
Luhmann, Niklas, ‘Inklusion und Exklusion’, in Helmut Berding (ed.), Nationales Bewußtsein und
kollektive Identität, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1994, pp. 15–45.
Lunn, Kenneth, ‘“Race” and Immigration: Labour’s Hidden History 1945–51’, in Jim Fyrth (ed.),
Labour’s High Noon. The Government and the Economy 1945–51, London: Lawrence &
Wishart, 1993, pp. 227–242.
Mander, John, Our German Cousins. Anglo-German Relations in the 19th and 20th Centuries,
London: J.Murray, 1974.
Marsden, Dennis, ‘In the Mill’, in Brian Jackson (ed.), Working Class Community,
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1968, pp. 69–98.
Marwick, Arthur, ‘Mentalitätsstrukturen und soziokulturelle Verhaltensmuster’, in Hans
Kastendiek, K.Rohe and A.Volle (eds), Länderbericht Großbritannien. Geschichte—Politik-
Wirtschaft-Gesellschaft, Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 1994, pp. 109–138.
Marwick, Arthur, British Society Since 1945, 3rd edn, London: Penguin, 1996.
Mayer, Otto, Geschichte der Medizinischen Akademie für deutsche Kriegsgefangene in England
(PhD, Hamburg, 1948).
Miles, Caroline, Lancashire Textiles. A Case Study of Industrial Change, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968.
Miles, Robert, ‘Nationality, Citizenship, and Migration to Britain, 1945–1951’, Journal of Law and
Society, 1989, pp. 426–442.
Miles, Robert, Racism, London: Routledge, 1989.
Miles, Robert, Racism After ‘Race Relations’, London: Routledge, 1993.
Miles, Robert and Kay, Diana, ‘The TUC, Foreign Labour and the Labour Government 1945–
1951’, Immigrants and Minorities, 1990, pp. 85–108.
 Bibliography 201

Montgomery, Bernard Law, The Memoirs of Field-Marshal the Viscount Montgomery of Alamein,
London: Collins, 1958.
Monthly Report of the Control Commission for Germany (British Element), Berlin: CCG(BE),
1946–1949.
Murphy, H.B.M., ‘Refugee Psychoses in Great Britain: Admissions to Mental Hospitals’, in
H.B.M.Murphy (ed.), Flight and Resettlement, Paris: UNESCO, 1955, pp. 173–194.
Niedhart, Gottfried, Geschichte Englands im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, Munich: Beck, 1987.
Niethammer, Lutz, ‘Über Forschungstrends unter Verwendung diachroner Interviews in der
Bundesrepublik’, in Lutz Niethammer (ed.), Lebenserfahrung und kollektives Gedächtnis. Die
Praxis der ‘Oral History’, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1985, pp. 471–477.
Panayi, Panikos, Immigration, Ethnicity and Racism in Britain, 1815–1945, Manchester:
Manchester University Press, 1994.
Panayi, Panikos, German Immigrants in Britain during the Nineteenth Century, 1815–1914,
Oxford: Berg, 1995.
Panayi, Panikos, ‘Anti-German Riots in Britain during the First World War’, in Panikos Panayi
(ed.), Racial Violence in Britain in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries, London: Leicester
University Press, 1996, pp. 65–91.
Panayi, Panikos (ed.), Germans in Britain Since 1500, London: Hambledon, 1996.
Patterson, Sheila, ‘The Poles: An Exile Community in Britain’, in James L.Watson (ed.), Between
Two Cultures. Migrants and Minorities in Britain, Oxford: Blackwell, 1977, pp. 214–241.
Paul, Kathleen, ‘The Politics of Citizenship in Post-War Britain’, Contemporary Record, 1992, pp.
452–473.
Paulmann, Johannes, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt in Großbritannien. Krise, Weltkrieg, Wiederaufbau,
Göttingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Perks, Robert B., ‘“A Feeling of not Belonging”. Interviewing European Immigrants in Bradford’,
Oral History Journal, 1984, pp. 64–67.
Perks, Robert B., ‘European Migrants to Bradford—The Oral Evidence’, in Moving Stories.
Towards a History of the Many Peoples of the English Cities. Transcript of Talks given at a
‘Local History’ Meeting Organised by the Leeds Multi-Cultural Education Centre on 15th
October 1986, Leeds, 1987, pp. 19–33.
Perks, Robert B., ‘Immigration to Bradford: The Oral Testimony’, Immigrants and Minorities,
1987, pp. 362–368.
Perks, Robert B. and Thomson, Alistair, The Oral History Reader, London: Routledge, 1998.
Plant, G.F., Overseas Settlement. Migration from the United Kingdom to the Dominions, London:
Royal Institute of International Affairs, 1951.
Population Policy in Great Britain. A Report by PEP (Political and Economic Planning), London:
PEP, 1948.
Prittie, Terence C.F., ‘Dreißig Jahre. Betrachtungen eines Engländers’, in Johannes Haas-Heye
(ed.), Im Urteil des Auslands. Dreißig Jahre Bundesrepublik, Munich: Beck, 1979, pp. 71–84.
Proudfoot, Malcolm J., European Refugees: 1939–1952. A Study in Forced Population Movement,
London: Faber & Faber, 1957.
Reichling, Gerhard (ed.), Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, 2 vols, Bonn: Kulturstiftung der
deutschen Vertriebenen, 1986, 1989.
Report for the Year 1947, London: Ministry of Labour.
Report for the Year 1948, London: Ministry of Labour.
Report for the Year 1952, London: Ministry of Labour.
Report of Proceedings at the 78th Annual Trades Union Congress Held at Brighton October 21st to
25th 1946, London: TUC, 1947.
Report on 25 Years Work 1938–1963, London: Women’s Voluntary Services, 1963.
Richmond, Anthony H., Colour Prejudice in Britain. A Study of West Indian Workers in Liverpool,
1941–1951, London: Routledge, 1954.
Richmond, Anthony H., Immigration and Ethnic Conflict, London: Macmillan, 1988.
 Bibliography 202

Roberts, Elizabeth, Women and Families. An Oral History, 1940–1970, Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.
Robson, R., The Cotton Industry in Britain, London: Macmillan, 1957.
Rose, Mary B. (ed.), The Lancashire Cotton Industry. A History Since 1700, Preston: Lancashire
County Books, 1996.
Rosenthal, Gabriele, Erlebte und erzählte Lebensgeschichte. Gestalt und Struktur biographischer
Selbstbeschreibungen, Frankfurt am Main: Campus, 1995.
Royal Commission on Population. Report, London: House of Commons, 1949.
Schulze, Rainer, ‘A Difficult Interlude: Relations between British Military Government and the
German Population and their Effects for the Constitution of a Democratic Society’, in Alan
Bance (ed.), The Cultural Legacy of the British Occupation in Germany, Stuttgart: Heinz, 1997,
pp. 67–109.
Siebrecht, Valentin, Arbeitsmarkt und Arbeitsmarktpolitik in der Nachkriegszeit, Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1956.
Singleton, John, ‘Lancashire’s Last Stand: Declining Employment in the British Cotton Industry
1950–1970’, Economic History Review, 1986, pp. 92–107.
Singleton, John, Lancashire on the Scraphead. The Cotton Industry 1945–1970, Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991.
Singleton, John, ‘The Decline of the British Cotton Industry Since 1940’, in Mary B.Rose (ed.),
The Lancashire Cotton Industry. A History Since 1700, Preston: Lancashire County Books,
1996, pp. 296–324.
Smith, Arthur L., Heimkehr aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg. Die Entlassung der deutschen
Kriegsgefangenen, Stuttgart: DVA, 1985.
Smith, Arthur L., The War for the German Mind. Re-Educating Hitler’s Soldiers, Oxford:
Berghahn, 1996.
Spencer, Ian R.G., British Immigration Policy Since 1939. The Making of Multi-Racial Britain,
London: Routledge, 1997.
Stadulis, Elizabeth, ‘The Resettlement of Displaced Persons in the United Kingdom’, Population
Studies, 1952, pp. 207–237.
Staffing the Hospitals: An Urgent National Need, London: HMSO, 1945.
Steed, Reginald, ‘So sehen wir die Deutschen’, in René Cheval, R.Steed, L.Besymenski, and
G.Shuster (eds), So sehen wir die Deutschen, Mainz: Hase & Koehler, 1968, pp. 25–39.
Steinert, Johannes-Dieter, ‘Drehscheibe Westdeutschland: Wanderungspolitik im
Nachkriegsjahrzehnt’, in Klaus J.Bade (ed.), Deutsche im Ausland—Fremde in Deutschland.
Migration in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Munich: Beck, 1992, pp. 386–392.
Steinert, Johannes-Dieter, ‘Die große Flucht und die Jahre danach: Flüchtlinge und Vertriebene in
den vier Besatzungszonen’, in Hans-Erich Volkmann (ed.), Ende des Dritten Reiches—Ende des
Zweiten Weltkrieges, Munich: Piper, 1995, pp. 557–579.
Steinert, Johannes-Dieter, Migration und Politik. Westdeutschland-Europa-Übersee 1945–1961,
Osnabrück: Secolo, 1995.
Steinert, Johannes-Dieter, ‘British Recruitment of German Labour, 1945–1950’, in Panikos Panayi
(ed.), Germans in Britain Since 1500, London: Hambledon, 1996, pp. 171–186, 243–245.
Steinert, Johannes-Dieter, Nach Holocaust und Zwangsarbeit. Beobachtungen und humanitäre
Hilfe in Deutschland nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg (Osnabrück, 2005).
Steinert, Johannes-Dieter and Vollmer, Renate, ‘Reisen durch Ruinen. Die
Tagebuchaufzeichnungen der Angela Limerick (British Red Cross Society) über ihre
Inspektionsreisen durch die Britische Besatzungszone und nach Berlin 1945 und 1946’,
Geschichte im Westen, 1999, pp. 85–112, 225–238.
Steinert, Johannes-Dieter and Weber-Newth, Inge, ‘Deutsche in Großbritannien nach dem Zweiten
Weltkrieg. Eine sozialgeschichtliche Untersuchung unter Berücksichtigung der analytischen
Kategorie “Gender”: Forschungsbericht und Dokumentation’, Westfälische Forschungen, 1998,
pp. 399–418.
 Bibliography 203

Steinert, Johannes-Dieter and Weber-Newth, Inge (eds), European Immigrants in Britain 1933–
1950, Munich: Saur, 2003.
Steinmetz, Susanne, Deutsche Evangelische Gemeinden in Großbritannien und Irland: Geschichte
und Archivbestände, Hannover: Verband Kirchlicher Archive, 1998.
Sullivan, Matthew Barry, Thresholds of Peace. Four Hundred Thousand German Prisoners and the
People of Britain 1944–1948, London: Hamilton, 1979.
Sword, Keith, Davies, N. and Ciechanowski, J. (eds), The Formation of the Polish Community in
Great Britain 1939–50, London: School of Slavonik and East European Studies, 1989.
Tannahill, J.A., European Volunteer Workers in Britain, Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1958.
Taylor, Pamela Howe, Enemies Become Friends. A True Story of German Prisoners of War,
Lewes: Book Guild, 1997.
Thane, Pat, ‘Women since 1945’, in Paul Johnson (ed.), Twentieth-Century Britain: Economic,
Social and Cultural Change, London: Longman, 1994, pp. 392–410.
Thomas, William, Park, R. and Miller, H. (eds), Old World Traits Transplanted, Montclair, NJ:
Patterson Smith, 1971 [1921].
Thompson, Paul, The Voice of the Past. Oral History, 2nd edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1988.
To Help You Settle in Britain, London: Central Office of Information for the Ministry of Labour
and National Service, 1948.
Tyler, David (ed.), British Opinion Polls, 1960–1988, Reading, MA: Research Publications, 1990.
Vernant, Jacques, The Refugee in the Post-War World, London: Allen & Unwin, 1953.
Watt, Donald C., England blickt auf Deutschland. Deutschland in Politik und öffentlicher Meinung
Englands seit 1945, Tübingen: Wunderlich, 1965.
Weber-Newth, Inge, ‘Ethnic Germans Come Home to the Fatherland’, Debatte. Journal for
Contemporary German Affairs, 1995, pp. 126–142.
Weber-Newth, Inge, ‘Wir sind eben Fremde. Sozio-kulturelle Aspekte im Integrationsprozeß von
Aussiedlern’, Interkulturell. Zeitschrift für Migration und Integration, 1995, pp. 148–163.
Weber-Newth, Inge, ‘Black and British: Zur gesellschaftlichen Stellung der Windrush-
Nachkommen’, Zeitschrift für Neusprachliche Mitteilungen aus Wissenschaft und Praxis, 1999,
2, pp. 98–104.
Weber-Newth, Inge, ‘Does Race Still Matter? Zur Situation der afro-karibischen Minderheiten in
Großbritannien’, Interkulturell. Zeitschrift für Migration und Integration, 1999, pp. 13–28.
Webster, Wendy, Imagining Home. Gender, ‘Race’ and National Identity, 1945–64, London: UCL
Press, 1998.
Wehner, Silke, ‘Auswanderung deutscher Dienstmädchen in die USA, 1870–1920’, in Monika
Blaschke and Christiane Harzig (eds), Frauen wandern aus: Deutsche Migrantinnen im 19. und
20. Jahrhundert, Bremen: Universität Bremen, 1990, pp. 29–50.
Weingärtner, U., ‘Kirchliches Leben der Deutschen in London’, Evangelischer Digest, April 1961,
pp. 49–51.
Wendt, Bernd Jürgen (ed.), Das britische Deutschlandbild im Wandel des 19. und 20.
Jahrhunderts, Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1984.
Wilson, Elizabeth, Only Halfway to Paradise. Women in Postwar Britain 1945–1968, London:
Tavistock, 1980.
Wilson, Francesca M., They Came as Strangers. The Story of Refugees to Great Britain, London:
Hamilton, 1959.
Wilson, T., ‘Manpower’, in G.D.N.Worswick and P.H.Ady (eds), The British Economy 1945–1950,
Oxford: Clarendon, 1952, pp. 224–252.
Wolff, Helmut, Die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen in britischer Hand. Ein Überblick, Bielefeld:
Gieseking, 1974.
Woodbridge, George, UNRRA. The History of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation
Administration, New York: Columbia University Press, 1950.
 Bibliography 204

Workers from Abroad, London: Ministry of Labour and National Service, 1948.
Wyman, Mark, DPs. Europe’s Displaced Persons, 1945–1951, London: Associated University
Press, 1989.
Zubrzycki, Jerzy, Polish Immigrants in Britain. A Study of Adjustment, The Haag: Martinus
Nijhoff, 1956.
Zubrzycki, Jerzy, Soldiers and Peasants: The Sociology of Polish Migration, London: School of
Slavonik and East European Studies, 1988.
 Index

acculturation 4
Adams, N. 42
Advisory Welfare Officer for German Women 119–120, 192;
see also Roos
Africa, German POWs 23
agricultural sector 23, 33, 63
agriculture 10, 13;
and fishing industries, image of 10;
mechanization of 13
Agriculture Executive Committees 30
Alien Register at Salford 6, 66, 132, 136;
diversity in types of migration 135;
quantitative evaluation of 134
Aliens Order of 1920 2
Aliens Restriction Act of 1919 2
Alsager (Staffordshire) 86
America 1;
trade and credit policies 10
American Military Government 37, 39
American zone in Germany 15
Anglo-German-Austrian Circle and War Brides Club in London 125
antagonism to German nationals 38
anti-German feelings 2, 152–154
antipathy toward minorities 107
anti-Semitism:
fresh signs of 20;
riots in August 1947 148
applying for British citizenship 161
Archbishop of Canterbury 5, 25
Asian and Afro-Caribbean migrants 150;
Office of Manpower Adviser in Wahnerheide 132
Assembly Centres:
in Hanover for domestic and war brides 82;
Lincoln Barracks in Minister for DPs 82;
Mecklenbeck nr. Minister for women of North Sea scheme 82
assimilation 44–45
Associations for the Protection of Young Women 127
Attlee, C. 9, 15, 24
Australia 15, 78;
German POWs 23
Austria 14–15, 36;
recruitment in 31
 Index 206

balance of trade and payments deficit 10

Balt Cygnet scheme 17, 32, 35, 190
Baltic women 32
basic living conditions 117
Bavaria 40
BBC programmes 48
Beaverbrook-Axis 20
Bedhampton in Hampshire 86
Belgium 14–15, 73;
British camps 52
Belgrave Mill in Oldham 103
Bell, G.K.A., Lord Bishop of Chichester 5, 19, 25, 53
Berlin, blockade in 1948 19
Beveridge, Lord 53
Bevin, E. 19, 36
biographical interviews 6–8
Birmingham 14, 121, 127, 213 nn.250, 258;
black people in 157;
refugee congregations in 130
Birmingham Association of Girls and Mixed Clubs 121
black British subjects 31
black market 14
Board of Trade 36;
committee 100
Bolton 20, 72, 75, 110;
Chadwick House in 108;
and District Weavers’ and Winders’ Association 113;
mills in 106, 107, 114;
unions 42
Bonn 119, 125;
Archiv der Kommission für Zeitgeschichte in 5
Bradford 6;
Central Library 6, 215 n.316;
image as ‘good town’ for foreigners 150;
le Lohe’s study 148, 221 n.58
bread rationing 13
Bride Service between Hamburg and Croydon 73
Brighton 33;
Trades Union Conference 28, 190, 201 n.32
British Communist Party 34
British Council of Churches 24, 111, 127;
Foreign Labour Committee 49
British Employers’ Confederation 32
British military government 39, 82;
in Germany 32;
in Vienna 36
British Nationality Act 72
British Red Cross Society 14, 96
Burma 13
Burnley 114
 Index 207

Bury 107;
camp in 57

calories:
average daily intake 14;
recommended daily intake of 13
Cambridge:
refugee congregations in 130;
West Wratting Camp near 86, 87
camp commander, British, personal style of 54
camp personnel and prisoners lodged on farms 65
Canada 15, 17, 134;
German POWs 23
Canadian Council for Resettlement of Refugees 38
Caritas see German Caritas Association
Catholic Churches, social work carried out by 131
Catholic clergymen, responsibilities and experiences of 129
Catholic Committee for European Workers 127
Catholic organisations 126
census year, England and Wales, residents born in Germany 133
Central Office for Information 117
Ceylon 13
Chadwick House in Bolton 108
Chandler’s Ford near Southampton 86
channel crossing 73
Channel Islands, German POWs 23
Chicago School of sociology 44
children 147–148;
experience of discrimination 155
Childs Ercall in Shropshire 86
churches 127–131
Churchill, W. 9, 15, 17
Citizen’s Advice Bureaus 118
citizenship 160–162
Cold War 12, 18–19, 28, 31
comfort and hygiene inside the camps 55
Comité International de la Croix-Rouge in Geneva 5
community centre for EVWs 118
Conservative Party 9
Control of Engagement Order 11
Control Office for Germany and Austria (COGA) 52
convertibility of pound, free 12
cooking, traditional German way of 166
Cotton Board 32, 101, 120, 192;
survey of EVWs 106
Council of Churches for Britain and Ireland 5
County War Agricultural Executive Committee offices 64, 67
courses in English 118
currency reform 16
Cuxhaven to Hull or Tilbury, steamer service 73, 80
Czechoslovakia 15
 Index 208

dealing with past 158–160

debate over repatriation 24–25
decision to stay in Britain 67–68
demobilization 11
Denis, E. 109, 119, 126
Denmark 34
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland 148
deportation 15
Deutscher Club in Motherwell 125
Deutsche Mark (DM) 16
discrimination 15, 105–108;
post-war migrants from Europe 105
Displaced Persons 10, 12, 30, 87;
number living in German Reich 14;
recruitment of 31–44;
in three western zones of occupation 15
disturbances and riots against Germans 1
dollar gap 10
domestic job market 44
domestic workers, five categories 78
DPs see Displaced Persons
Dumont, G., Father 128
Düsseldorf 8, 80, 163

East Africa 34
economic consequences of short-time work or unemployment 115
Economic Survey of February 1947 33
economy from wartime to peacetime production 11
Edinburgh 6, 86, 131, 208 n.84
Education of Popular Opinion on Foreign Workers 48, 191
Edwards, N. 27
elections 1945 9
Empire Windrush 9
Employment of Prisoners of War debate 28
Employment Services, support to German migrants 125
enemy aliens 1–2
energy crisis of winter of 1946–1947 10
Erhard, L. 20
Essential Work Order 11
Estonians 34
ethnic Germans 36, 189;
recruitment of 31–44;
women 17, 77, 107;
workforce 34–39
European Common Market 20
European Union 21
European Volunteer Workers (EVWs) 2, 6, 22, 31, 34, 48, 99;
and ‘coloured workers’, disputes between 110;
distribution by industry 35;
employed in agriculture 151;
 Index 209

hotels and lodgings 108–111;

joined unions 120;
recruited under Westward Ho 191
EVWs see European Volunteer Workers

famine, threat of 13
farming interests 30
Federal Republic of Germany 16, 32, 162
female workers 1, 37, 39;
dominated occupations 11;
hospital workers 121;
see also women
First World War 1, 9
forced labour 25
foreign debt 9
foreign labour:
policy 12;
recruitment of 79;
see also immigration
Foreign Labour Committee 32;
of British Council of Churches 49
Foreign Workers Committee 127
France 14, 16–17, 23, 51;
returnees from 60
fraternisation, lifting of ban by government 56
free labour, debate on 26–28
Freiburg 5
French zone in Germany 15
Fuhrmann, M. 83–84
Full Sutton Camp 86, 101–103, 151

Gallup polls 21–22, 28

gang labour systems 13
GATT agreement 12
Geneva Comité Internationale de la Croix-Rouge 5
Geneva Convention 23, 69
German-born residents in Britain 2
German-British couples 70–71, 138, 140
German Caritas Association (Caritasverband) 83, 126
German-eastern European couples 138
German Ecclesiastical Foreign Department 91
German General Consulate 119
German labour offices 40;
authorities, role in selection process 44;
exchanges 43;
use of 23
German Ministry of Labour 132
German National Federation of Catholic Associations for the Protection of Young Women 5, 90,
126, 192
German Political Department of the Foreign Office 36
German POWs (prisoners of war) 5, 23–31, 51, 152;
 Index 210

from America, arrival of 53;

in Britain 3;
life in camps 51–56;
re-employed as free workforce 26;
repatriation of 22
German Red Cross 83
German School in Richmond, London 18
German Social Committee 120
German Welfare Council 6, 165, 192
German women 18;
recruitment 79–82;
for textile industry 190;
working as domestics, feelings and attitudes of 92;
see also women
German Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) 5, 125, 130, 165, 192, 227
Glen Mill Hostel 103, 108
Globe Trotters’ Association 121
Gollancz, V. 19, 24
Greater Manchester Police Museum 6
Griffin, Cardinal, Archbishop of Westminster 25

Halbfell, A. 83
Hamburg 14, 73, 75, 155, 173;
Lutheran Church (Dalston) 129
Hanover 80, 83;
Assembly Centre for domestics and war brides 82
hardship households 42
Harvey, Air Commodore 27
Harwich 29, 83, 85, 86;
transit camp 69
health:
sector 18;
service, recruiting foreigners 93;
system 92
Heimat, memories of 162–164, 195
Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf 8
Hessen 40
Hessling, B., Father 128
Heuss, T. 20, 53
holding camps 86;
Full Sutton or Inskip 101
Horner, A. 34
hospitals:
discipline 94;
women employed at 97;
see also health;
nursing
hostels, antagonism among residents 110
housing:
in Britain, shortage of 27, 30, 35, 40, 76, 110;
and work 136–143
 Index 211

Huddersfield 6
Hull 73, 130;
as port of entry 101;
reception camps 86;
transfer from Cuxhaven to 80
Hungary 15

ICRC see International Committee of the Red Cross

identity of Germans, aspects of 160–169
immigration:
of non-white British subjects 190;
policy 12, 23
Imperial War Museum, London 5
imported foodstuffs 13
India 13;
independence of 12
Information Office in Oldham 121
Inskip 86, 101–103
Institute of House Workers 12
International Catholic Association for the Protection of Young Women 109
International Committee of the Red Cross 29, 52, 55
International Refugee Organisation (IRO) 15
Irish workers 17
iron and steel industry 10
Isaacs, G. 36–37
Isle of Man 1–2
Italian POWs 10, 17, 26
Italy 15, 36

Jamaica 31
Jamaicans 110
Japan 9
Jellicoe, Lord 36–37
Jews:
German domestics posted to households of 2, 91–92;
refugees 129;
violence against 148;
Westward Ho, exclusion from 36

Kernebeck, A., Father 128

Kiel 80
Koblenz, German Bundesarchiv in 5
Korean War 16, 113
Körner, R. 60

Labour Government 12, 33;

Women's Voluntary Service see WVS
Lancashire Cotton Corporation 41
language:
and career 142–143;
 Index 212

courses in holding camps 117;

difficulties 90;
recruits learning skills 118
Latvians 34
Lebanon 34
Leeds:
Greenbank Hostel 110;
refugee congregation in 130
leisure time 97
letters sent to German labour offices and Mecklenbeck camp 88
Leushacke, F., Father 128
Limerick, A. 14
Lincoln Barracks in Minister 83
Lindsay, M. 27
Lithuanians 34
Liverpool 130, 227;
riots of 1948 148
Lochinver near Edinburgh 86
London Conference of Foreign Ministers 29, 37
London, War Brides Club in 125
loneliness 165
Lusitania 2
Lutheran Churches 130
Lutheran World Federation 127

Malaya 13
Manchester 119, 126, 128, 130, 137;
City Football Club 1;
Labour Exchange 37;
Police Museum 132;
training college 172
Manning, L. 61
Manpower Division of the Control Commission 83
marital problems, reasons for 75
marriage 71;
between British women and German POWs 61–62;
and family 143–148;
between POWs and local women 59
Marshall Plan 12, 16
Mass Observation Group, contemporary poll 21
Mecklenbeck camp 83, 88;
daily routine at 84
Middle East, German POWs 23
Midlands 43, 53, 99
migrants:
from Africa, Indian subcontinent and West Indies 3, 51;
first impressions 192–194
migration:
to Britain 17–18;
to third country 132–134;
to USA 78
 Index 213

minimum wage 91
mining industry 10, 118
Minister of Employment for North Rhine-Westphalia 83
Ministry of Agriculture 25–26, 30, 190;
DPs 29
Ministry of Education 117–118;
official inquiry 118
Ministry of Employment 25
Ministry of Labour 11, 26–27, 30, 32, 36, 191–192;
approach to assimilation 121;
central office in Lemgo 80;
cultural activities 119;
regional offices in Kiel, Hanover and Düsseldorf 80
Mitscherlich, A. 51
Mitscherlich Report 52, 54, 59
Montgomery, B.L., Field Marshall 1, 197 n.1
Morgan, R. 200 n.56
Morgenthau Plan 23
Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers 29
Motherwell 125
Mücke, A., Father 126, 128
Munich Agreement, 1938 39
Minister 85;
Assembly Centre Lincoln Barracks for DPs 82;
‘Fraulein brides’ from 75;
Lincoln Barracks 83;
passage to Tilbury 80;
returnees sent to 69
Munster-Lager 26, 30

National Federation of Catholic Associations for the Protection of Young Women 119
National Health Service 42;
creation of the 12
Nationality Act of 1948 32, 61
National Joint Advisory Council 32, 37
National Service Hostel Corporation 108, 117
National Socialism 159;
in history lesson 154;
see also Nazi Germany
national unemployment figures 11
National Union of Agricultural Workers 28, 33
National Union of Mineworkers 33–34
Nazis:
Germany 9–10;
hostility to 152–155;
legacy of 14–17
negative images:
of Germany 159;
of Polish soldiers 48;
and stereotyping 156
Netherlands 14
 Index 214

Northern Ireland, German POWs 23

North Sea scheme 18, 42–43;
recruitment of German women and Sudeten Germans 80, 132;
women of 77–99
Norton Camp 52
nurses and student nurses 50, 95–97
nursing:
status of 92;
training 95–97, 142

Oldham:
Archives Service 227;
Belgrave Mill in 103;
EVW 107, 110, 118;
ex-POW camp in 103;
hostility of local population towards DPs 150, 169;
Information Office in 121;
Operative Cotton Spinners in 38;
work at the mills 104, 107, 114
Operation Repat 68
Operation Westward Ho see Westward Ho
Operative Cotton Spinners in Oldham 38
Oral History Project 151
Osnabrück 14, 75, 176
Oxford:
refugee congregations in 130

Pallottiner Convent in Rochdale 126

PDW Scheme (Private Domestic Workers Scheme) 44
Poland 15;
and Soviet Union, treaty of mutual friendship 28
Poles/Polish 26, 34;
heroes of Battle of Britain 149;
migrants in Britain, study on 114;
refugees, female 34;
soldiers 17;
see also European Volunteer Workers
Polish Resettlement Act 149
Polish Workers Party 28
Potsdam Conference 15, 23
POWs (prisoners of war):
allowing to accept invitations 57;
born in area of Germany under Soviet occupation 67;
in Britain 23;
camaraderie 54;
contact with British population 56–59;
living in particular camp 55;
political categories 24;
repatriation, government considerations 25–26;
sexuality and choosing partner 59–63;
and work 63–66;
 Index 215

working on farms 64
prisoners of war see POWs
Prisoners of War Assistance Society 24
private and commercial placement 43–44
property, European migrants’ drive to buy 137
Protestant Churches, social work carried out by 130–131

recruitment:
DPs 30, 80;
ethnic Germans 36, 41;
foreign work force 12;
German workers 5, 41, 136;
from Germany’s American zone 190;
process 81;
steps 80
Red Army 15
re-education programme 53;
questionable effect 52
refugees:
congregations in Birmingham 130;
from Nazi Germany 132;
within each zone 15
regional labour pools 13
repatriations:
activities 15;
leave and return journeys to Britain 69
resentment, conflict and adaptation 148–160
Rhodesia 34
Richmond, German School in 18
Richter, B., Father 128
Rieger, J. 129;
report 130
Rochdale:
Library Service 227;
mills in 107, 113–114;
Pallottiner Convent in 111, 126;
Roos in 192;
Sudeten German women in 113, 171;
Tilgner in 113, 126
roles of men and women 144–147
Roos, M. 78, 119, 192;
welfare work 119
Rotary Club 118
Royal Commission on Population, 1949 31

St Lioba Home in London 5

Salford 135;
Alien Register 6, 66, 111, 132, 134;
refugee-owned houses 136
Salvation Army 59
Save Europe Now Organisation 24
 Index 216

school leaving age 12

Schumacher, K. 53
Scotland:
Department of Agriculture 30;
German POWs 23;
law 63;
and the Midlands firms, German women in 99;
rural housing shortage 139;
textile industry 87
second generation, problems of 154–155
Second World War 2
settling in ex-POWs and recruited women 194–196
Shoah 14, 92
Schutzstaffel (SS) 34
Skeffington-Lodge 47, 61
slave labour 25, 28, 37
slave labourers, former 14
social isolation 165
Society for International Youth Work 125
Society of Friends 59
sources and methods 4–8
South Africa 78
South America 15
Soviet Union 23, 25, 29, 31, 51;
change of opinion concerning 28;
changing role in world politics 19
Soviet zone of occupation 15, 66
Sozialistische Reichspartei 20
Southampton, Chandler’s Ford 86
Staffing the Hospitals’, Ministry of Labour campaign called 92
Stalybridge 6
standard of living in Britain 14
Statement on Economic Considerations affecting Relations between Employers and Workers 32
staying in Britain 66–70
stereotyping 191
Stokes, R. 52
Stratenwerth, G. 91
student nurses, German 50, 96–97
Sudeten Germans 39–42, 99–116, 189;
leisure, friends and partners 111–113;
women 194
survivors of Shoah 14
Switzerland 8, 14, 168, 176;
archives in 228

temporary return to Germany 134

Textile Commission in Austria 37–38
textile industry 10–11, 41;
crisis of 1952 113–116;
demand for labour in 39
Tilbury 74;
 Index 217

passage from Münster to 80;

steamer service from Cuxhaven to 73, 80
Trade Union Conference at Brighton 28, 190
Trade Union Congress (TUC) 5, 28, 32–34, 37
trade unions 26, 33;
in cotton industry 39;
and German POWs 28
training:
centre 104;
for nurses in Britain 95
transit camp 80;
at Harwich 69
Transport and General Workers Union 121
Trautmann, B. 1
tri-lingual families 147
Truman Doctrine 12

undermanned industries 10
unemployment 31
United Nations:
on EVWs as Victims of an official policy of discrimination’ 34;
nationals 14
United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) 14, 32, 82
United States 15, 17;
Britain, bilateral agreement with 190;
Displaced Persons Act 1948 38;
German POWs 23;
State Department on Sudeten German women 40
UNRRA see United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration
USSR see Soviet Union

Vansittart, R. 19
Verhoeven, J. 126
Vetter, W. 61

wages in the agricultural sector 139

Wales 69;
civilian workers 68;
domestic servants in 12;
foreigners in 33;
German-born residents in 2, 133;
German POWs in 23;
WVS subdivision in 122
war:
ban on fraternization 56;
criminals 3, 38;
against hunger 13;
economic hardship and German war crimes, memories of 153;
games 155;
psychosis in Great Britain 56;
refugees from Eastern Europe 14
 Index 218

war brides 70–77, 138, 145, 160, 189, 193

War Brides Club in London 125
weekly working hours 12
welfare:
officer, female 192;
programmes 5;
structures, using existing 191;
and support 117
West Germany:
rapid economic progress of 16;
rationing 13;
unemployment figures 16
West Indies 9
Westward Ho programme 17–18, 34–35, 39, 42, 77, 99, 190;
demise of 41;
exclusion of Jews from 36
West Wells (Wiltshire) 86
West Wratting Camp near Cambridge 86, 87, 213 n.239
Wilton Park Camp in Buckinghamshire 53
women 142;
married to British men 144;
married to Eastern European men 143–145;
migration to Canada 78;
in paid employment 11;
recruited as domestics 193;
recruited for health system 193;
recruits 35;
shame or guilt about war crimes 160;
unaware of rights and responsibilities 90;
unlawful presence in camps 61;
at work 103–105;
working for NHS 92–93, 98;
working in textile industry 106;
working on farms 89;
see also North Sea Scheme
women, German 36;
domestic service and working in the National Health Service (NHS) for Scotland 87–97;
learning German, motives 77–79;
recruitment of 38, 42
Women’s Land Army 13
Women’s Royal Voluntary Services (WRVS) 6
Woodlands House in Chorley 108
wool industry in Yorkshire 99
Working Party on Employment in United Kingdom of Surplus Colonial Labour 31
workplace support 120–121
worldwide shortage of labour 15
Württemberg-Baden 40
WVS (Women’s Voluntary Service) 46, 118, 121;
involvement with German domestics 123

xenophobia 3, 42, 191

 Index 219

Yalta Conference 23
YMCA (World Young Mens Christian Association) 5, 51, 59, 125
Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) 5
Yugoslavia, German refugees from 37
Yugoslavians 34