S. Adler-Rudel The Evian Conference on the Refugee Question Source: S. Adler-Rudel, Year Book XIII of the Leo Baeck Institute (London 1968), p. 235-273 Part A, B, C, D, E, F I In the decisive year 1938, the sixth year of Nazi domination, anti-Jewish terror in Germany was still considered by the governments of the Western democracies as an internal affair which could not be interfered with as long as the Germans were not trying to attack directly the interests of foreign states. True, the persecution of Jews and other "non-Aryans" provoked strong protests throughout Europe and America. Personalities known all over the world, whose names were linked with the history of science, art, literature, and with their country's economic, political and cultural life, had suddenly become outlaws in Germany. Public opinion -in many countries denounced Nazism, but on the governmental level no effective action was taken. The Germans soon realised that, no matter how they behaved, it would not prevent foreign statesmen from shaking hands or dining with the Nazi leaders. Every anti-Jewish demonstration instigated and organised by the Nazi party was followed by new anti-Jewish laws. 135 were enacted during the five years from 1933 to 1937 alone, laws expelling the Jews from civil service, educational institutions, the liberal professions - from one branch of economic life after another, and decrees depriving them of many of their natural rights as well as of their German citizenship. Jews unable or unwilling to bear the permanent terror flooded the neighbouring countries and caused what came to be known as the refugee problem. In October of 1933, after protracted bickering, the League of Nations appointed James G. Macdonald 1 , High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany to negotiate and direct the international collaboration necessary to solve the economic, financial and social problems of the refugees', without, however, investing him with any real authority to act and, although an official of the League of Nations, his salary and expenses had to be provided for by private Jewish organisations. The High Commissioner, with the help of many Jewish and non-Jewish philanthropic organisations, worked hard but achieved little and, disheartened, tendered his resignation in December 1935. His successor, Sir Neill Malcolm 2 , did not meet with greater success. The intensification of the anti-Jewish persecution in Germany after 1935 justified Macdonald's desperate step and lent special significance to the concluding passage of his letter of resignation 3 : When domestic policies threaten the demoralisation and exile of hundreds of thousands of human beings, considerations of diplomatic correctness must yield to those of common humanity. I should be recreant if I did not call attention to the actual situation, and plead that world opinion, acting through the League and its Member-States and other countries, move to avert the existing and impending tragedies.' The situation grew worse from year to year. The number of refugees increased while counties all over the world became more and more unwilling to grant them admission. The world became, according to a saying of Chaim Weizmann, divided into two camps, one of countries expelling the Jews, and the other of countries which did not adroit them. II The brutal excesses against the Jewish population of Vienna after the occupation of Austria by German troops on the 12th March, 1938 once again focused the attention of the world on the fate of the Jews Approximately 150,000 Jews had left Germany during the first five years of Nazi rule. Less than 100000 of them had managed to settle overseas: 43,000 in Palestine and 55,000 in North America and some South American republics. The other 52,000 remained "refugees". Legally insecure and economically dependent on the aid of various relief committees, they tried to eke out a pitiful existence in the countries bordering on Germany. They constituted a problem that neither Jewish nor international organisations were able to cope with. The annexation of Austria increased by 190,000 the number of Jews who were forced either to emigrate or to flee. In 1938, 40,000 more Jews found themselves under Nazi rule than at the beginning of 1933. Deports about the treatment of the Viennese Jews and the desperate attempts made by many thousands to cross the border into Czechoslovakia, Switzerland or Italy shocked public opinion in the Western world and especially in the United States. President Franklin D. Roosevelt became so concerned about the situation that on the 23rd March 1955, only eleven days after the occupation of Austria, he advised his Secretary of State, Cordel Hulk to ask the British Government and the governments of: France, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Italy and the governments of all the other American Republics, if they would be willing to co-operate with the Government of the United States in setting up a special committee composed of representatives of a number of governments for the purpose of facilitating the emigration from Austria and presumably from Germany of political refugees.' 4 Unfortunately, the second paragraph of Secretary Hull's letter to the various governments considerably reduced the importance of the President's initiative by stating that ". . . our idea is that whereas such representatives would be designated by the governments concerned, any financing of the emergency emigration referred to would be undertaken by private organisations within the respective countries. Furthermore, it should be understood that no country would be expected or asked to receive a greater number of emigrants than is permitted by its existing legislation.' 5 At the same time, President Roosevelt advised his Consular Service to eliminate excessive formalism when dealing with visa requests from would-be emigrants from Germany and Austria and to give such cases more sympathetic treatment at the US consulates. The result of this instruction was an immediate and significant increase in the number of immigrants into the United States which, until then, had reached but a fraction of the legal annual German quota of 25557. Without bringing about any changes in its Immigration Law, the United States were in fact in a position to admit approximately 130,000 refugees from Germany during the years 1933-1938, while actually having admitted only 27,000 persons for this entire period-no more than about one-fifth of the German immigration quota. Upon the advice of James G. Macdonald, President Roosevelt decided to put the entire problem of forced emigration, resettlement and legal protection of the refugees and of prose Greatened with persecution and having therefore no recourse other than emigration, on the agenda of the Conference. He also wanted to make sure that consideration would be given to the question of Palestine as a place of refuge for Jews. Great Britain realised that this would initiate an international political discussion about Palestine: she therefore entered into secret negotiations with Washington and made her willingness to participate in the Conference dependent on the conditions that (a) invitations should be sent only to countries of immigration, (b) that the Conference should deal only with refugees, but not with those threatened with persecution, and (c) that Palestine should not be discussed at the Conference 6 . Further evidence as to the efforts to eliminate Palestine from the agenda of the Conference is contained in a letter from the Chief of the Division for Near pastern Affairs at the State Department, 57. Murray, to the American Consul-General in Jerusalem, G. Wadsworth: Washington, July 2, 1938 Dear George: In the comment of page two of your despatch No. 634 of June 11, 1938* you raised the question of the attitude which the American delegation at the Intergovernmental Meeting on Political Refugees would take on the matter of Jewish immigration into Palestine. For your strictly confidential and personal information I am quoting below an extract from a confidential memorandum * *, furnished for the guidance of the American deat the meeting. 'It is highly probable that various groups will endeavour to induce the representatives of the governments participating in the meeting to take up the question of immigration into Palestine. It is felt that the Committee should reject any attempts to inject into the considerations such political issues as are involved in the Palestine, the Zionist and the anti-Zionist questions. These questions should stir up bitter passions and might even lead to a disruption of the Committee's labour.' With best wishes, Wallace Murray.' 7 * Not printed ** Not printed By the 2nd April, 1938 the State Department reported favourable replies from 29 countries 8 . The preparations for the Conference progressed and, on the 7th May, the Secretary of State informed the American Diplomatic Representatives that over thirty governments had agreed to co-operate and that it would be desirable that the first meeting be held on Wednesday, July 6th at Evian, France. Mr. Myron C. Taylor had been appointed as American representative with the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and would be accompanied by one or more technical assistants. Mr. Taylor, who in the meantime had left for Italy, asked from Rome, on the 11th May, for further information and instructions. The State Department took many weeks to clarify tilt situation and proposed to him, on the 14th June, the agenda for the meeting 9 . III The initiative of President Roosevelt brought new hope and encouragement. It was not the first intergovernmental conference called to consider the tragic situation of the refugees, but it represented a departure in American policy towards active participation in an international effort The President named James G. Macdonald Acting Chairman of his Advisory Committee on Political Refugees. Other members of this American National Committee appointed by the President foe the co-ordination of the work of private organisations were Paul Baerwald, Chairman of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, Dr. Stephen S. Boise, Bernard Baruch, Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor of the important quarterly Foreign Affairs, and representatives of the various churches. The inclusion of so many important figures of American public life was an indication of the high standing of the Committee. Even though today, thirty years after the event, it seems that inner political considerations and not the sufferings of hundreds of thousands of human beings moved the President to act 10 , the fact remains that this initiative had an enormous impact and was hailed by the American and European press as the great humanitarian event of the year. The representatives of the refugees, the Jewish organisations and the Jewish public in general anxiously waited for more information about the forthcoming conference, its agenda and its terms of reference. Ninety per cent of the refugees were Jewish, and those wanting to leave Germany and Austria were mainly Jews It was therefore expected that the general problem of the homelessness of Jews and their present plight in Europe would be one of the main items on the conference's agenda. But the statements of the State Department and of the British Foreign Office never referred to the Jews by name and carefully avoided - any mention of Hitler and of the Nazi Government. Expecting to be somehow associated with the stork of the Conference 11 , the Jewish organisations began to draft their memoranda. Efforts made to avoid die appearance of too many such organisations and to set up a joint representative body failed. However, the larger relief organisations agreed to consult with each other about their intentions and to undertake certain steps together. This agreement found expression in a memorandum signed by the following organisations: The Council for German Jewry, Lord [Herbert] Samuel, London; The Jewish Colonisation Association, O.E. d'Avigdor Goldsmid, Paris; The HIAS-ICA Emigration Association, James Bernstein, Paris; Joint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association, Neville Laski and Leonard G. Montefiore, London; The German Aid Committee, Otto M. Schiff, London; Agudas Israel World Organisation, J. Rosenheim, London; The Jewish Agency for Palestine, which endorsed this memorandum and submitted a separate memorandum on the Palestine aspects. The American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee also endorsed the memorandum together with the above-named organisations, but decided to advise their representative to the Conference, Dr. Jonah B. Wise, to submit a separate statement. The Reich authorities had allowed the participation of an official delegation of the Reichsvertretung der Juden in Deutschland, which consisted of Dr. Otto Hirsch, Dr. Paul Epstein and Michael Traub (Palestine Office) and Dr. Werner Rosenberg (Hilfsverein der Juden in Deutschland). The delegates of the Juedische Kultusgemeinde Wien were Prof. Dr. Heinrich Neumann Dr. Joseph Loewenherz and Kommerzialrat B. J. Storfer. The two delegations co-operated closely and submitted to the Conference a detailed and well-documented memorandum, putting forth statistically based plans for the organisation of emigration from Germany and Austria. Amongst the uninvited guests was a delegation from Palestine consisting of Dr. Arthur Ruppin, Chairman of the Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews, Mr. Kurt Blumenfeld, Dr. Siegfried Moses and Dr. Max Kreutzberger for the Organisation of Jewish Settlers from Germany, Tel-Aviv, Mrs. Golda Meirson for the General Federation of Jewish Labour, Tel-Aviv, Mr. Zalman Rubashov (now Shazar) as correspondent of the Hebrew paper Davar, Tel-Aviv. Many negotiations and interventions took place in the few weeks between the convening of the Conference and its actual assembly. In London, on the 15th June 1938, a deputation representing the various organisations concerned with the assistance of refugees submitted to the Home Secretary a memorandum on the treatment of refugees in the United Kingdom. This deputation, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury and including Lord Sempill, the Bishop of Chichester, Mr. Otto M. Schiff, Brig.-Gen. Sir Wyndham Deedes, Lord Cecil Sir Frederick Kenyon and, among the experts, A. G. Brotman, expressed the hope that the British Government would co-operate to the utmost in the making of effective international schemes of migration and overseas settlement. At a meeting of the Council for German Jewry in London on the 27th June, Harold Ginsburg, representing the American Joint Committee, reported on a conversation he had had with the American delegates to the Evian Conference from, which he had drawn the conclusion that it would be left to the Conference itself to decide on its procedure and program. The Americans were anxious that the Conference should be private, aiming at unofficial agreements and excluding controversial issues and especially such questions as the Jewish problem in Poland, Romania and other countries. Dr. Jonah Raise reported to the meeting that the American Advisory Committee had been appointed without prior consultation with the Jewish organisations and that it originally consisted of non-Jews with the sole exception of Bernard Baruch and Henry Morgenthau. All those anxiously following the developments became increasingly aware that no constructive plan had been worked out and that the entire Conference was in fact little more than a feeble improvisation. A member of the unofficial Jewish delegation from Palestine, who happened to travel with James G. Macdonald from Lausanne to Evian discussed with him the agenda of the Conference and concluded from this conversation that even Macdonald, one of the leading American delegates behind the scenes, had no clear idea about the method, duration or intended results of the Conference. The answers to the various questions were expected to turn up in the course of the negotiations themselves. A long conversation which took place on the eve of the Conference between Myron C. Taylor, George L. Warren, Dr. Bernhard Kahn and this writer while we were travelling togetfrom Paris to Evian further reduced the slight hope still remaining on the Jewish side. Myron C. Taylor, former President of the United Steel Corporation and Roosevelt's representative, was accompanied by the President's adviser, James G. Macdonald, as well as by a number of technical assistants, including George L. Warren, Executive Secretary of Roosevelt's Committee on Political Refugees. For the following twenty years Warren represented the United States at all international conferences dealing with refugee and migration questions and became, among the bureaucrats of the State Department, one of the few understanding and dependable friends of the refugees. Great Britain was represented by Lord Winterton, Neville Chamberlain's faithful henchman, who made no secret of his opposition to any increase of Jewish immigration into Palestine. France's representative, Senator Henri Berenger, was a well-meaning humanitarian but, as host to the Conference, and like the other governmental representatives, he was anxious that it should run smoothly and avoid anything that might offend Germany. IV The Conference was inaugurated without much ado at Evian on the 6th July 1938. For weeks, world attention and in particular the hope of the refugees and of the Jews in Eastern and Central Europe had been focused on the idyllic little spa on the French side of Lake Geneva. In the name of the French Government, Senator Henri Berenger welcomed close to 200 delegates, journalists and observers to France, a country of refuge and free discussion. He assured the various refugee associations who had come of their own free will (i.e. uninvited) that they were nonetheless most welcome; if they had not been asked to participate, it was because this meeting was not meant as a conference of official international character, but rather as a body which the President of the United States wished to see created as a means for collaboration between America and governments from other continents. The Conference, he added, trusted that such practical and effective collaboration with the United States would give birth to something of value for refugees all over the world, who were today the stateless victims of national revolutions in various countries. The opening took place amid journalists and observers from private organisations in an atmosphere from which cynicism was not absent. The invitations sent out by the United States Government had indicated that any financing of the emergency emigration would have to be undertaken by private bodies. But the private Jewish organisations had already spent, for the relief and migration purposes of political victims, some 50 million dollars in the first five years of Hitlerism. The assurance that no country would be expected or asked to receive a larger number of emigrants than was foreseen by its existing legislation was rather puzzling as this existing legislation was one of the very obstacles which the prospective immigrant had to face. It furthermore was not clear from the invitation issued by the United States what the scope of the work of the Committee should be and whether its deliberations should be confined to the situation created by the action of Germany in Germany proper and in Austria, or whether they should extend to the question of refugees generally.' 12 Equally difficult to understand was the following agenda of the Conference proposed by the United States Government on the 14th June 13 : 1. To consider what steps can be taken to facilitate the settlement in other counties of political refugees from Germany (including Austria). The term “political refugees” for the purposes of the present meeting, is intended to include persons who desire to leave Germany as well as those who have already done so. The conference would, of course, take due account of the work now being done by other agencies in this field and would seek means of supplementing the work done by them. 2. To consider what immediate steps can be taken, within the existing immigration laws and regulations of the receiving countries, to assist the most urgent cases. It is anticipated that this would involve each participating government furnishing, in so far as may be practicable, for the strictly confidential information of the Committee, a statement of its immigration laws and practices and its present policy regarding the reception of immigrants. It would be helpful for the committee to have a general statement from each participating government of the number and type of immigrants it is now prepared to receive or that it might consider receiving. 3. To consider a system of documentation, acceptable to the participating states, for chose refugees who are unable to obtain requisite documents from other sources. 4. To consider the establishment of a continuing body of governmental representatives, to be set up in some European capital, to formulate and to carry out, in co-operation with existing agencies, a long-range program looking forward to the solution or alleviation of the problem in the larger sense. 5. To prepare a Resolution making recommendations to the participating governments with regard to the subjects enumerated above and with regard to such other subjects as may be brought for consideration before the intergovernmental meeting.' 14 References: 1. James G. Macdonald, American diplomat (1887¯1964), first High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany of the League of Nations 1935¯35. 2. Sir Neill Malcolm (1869¯1953), second High Commissioner for Refugees Coming from Germany of the League of Nations 1936¯38. 3. London, 27th December, 1935. See Norman Bentwich, The Refugees from Germany 1933¯1935 , Allen & Unwin, London 1936, p. 219. 4. Foreign Relations of the United States ñ 1938, Washington 1955, vol. I, pp. 740¯741. 5. Ibid. 6. Mark Wischnitzer, To Dwell in Safety , Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia 1948, p. 201. 7. Foreign Relations ñ 1938 , vol. I, p. 752. 8. Department of State Press Release, April 2, 1946. 9. See below. 10.Arthur D. Morse, While Six Millions Died , Secker & Warburg, London 1968. 11.S. Adler-Rudel, Das Auswanderungsproblem im Jahre 1938, Bulletin des Leo Baeck Instituts , 38¯39 (1967), pp. 159¯215. 12.Sir John Hope Simpson, The Refugee Problem , Oxford University Press, London 1939, p. 223. 13. Foreign Relation ñ 1938 , vol. I, p. 748. 14. Proceedings of the Intergovernmental Committee , Evian, July 6th to 15th, 1938. Verbatim Record of the Plenary Meetings of the Committee. Resolutions and Reports. London July 1938, p. 8. Part B V After the formalities and the nomination of the Credentials Committee, the Chairman, Senator Henri Berenger, invited President Roosevelt's representative to address the Conference. In a frank and clear statement, Myron Taylor explained the purpose of the Conference and urged the establishment of a permanent intergovernmental committee to deal with refugee problems: Some millions of people, as this meeting convenes, are, actually or potentially, without a country. The number is increasing daily. This increase is taking place, moreover, at a time when there is serious unemployment in many countries, when there is a shrinkage of subsistence bases and when the population of the world is at a peak. Men and women of every race, creed and economic condition, of every profession and of every trade, are being uprooted from the homes where they have long been established and turned adrift without thought or care as to what will become of them or where they will go. A major forced migration is taking place, and the time has come when Governments - I refer specifically to those Governments which have had the problem of political refugees thrust upon them by the policies of some other Governments - must act, and act promptly and effectively in a long-range program of comprehensive scale... We must admit frankly, indeed, that this problem of political refugees is so vast and so complex that we probably can do no more at the initial intergovernmental meeting than put in motion the machinery, and correlate it with existing machinery, that will in the long run, contribute to a practicable amelioration of the condition of the unfortunate human beings with whom we are concerned. While, for example, our ultimate objective should be to establish an organisation which would concern itself with all refugees wherever governmental intolerance shall have created a refugee problem, we may find that we shall be obliged on this occasion to focus our immediate attention upon the most pressing problem of political refugees from Germany (including Austria). Accordingly, my Government in its invitation referred specifically to the problem of German (and Austrian) refugees and proposes that, for the purposes of this initial intergovernmental meeting and without wishing to set a precedent for future meetings, persons coming within the scope of the Conference shall be: (a) persons who have not already left Germany (including Austria) but who desire to emigrate by reason of the treatment to which they are subjected on account of their political opinions, religious beliefs or racial origin, and (b) persons as defined in (a) who have already left Germany and are in the process of migration. You will have noted that my Government's invitation to this meeting stared specifically that whatever action was recommended here should cake place within the framework of the existing laws and practices of the participating Governments. The American Government prides itself upon the liberality of its existing laws and practices, both as regards the number of immigrants whom the United States receives each year for assimilation with its population and the treatment of those people when they have arrived. I might point out that the American Government has taken steps to consolidate both the German and the former Austrian quota, so that now a total of 27,370 immigrants may enter the United States on the German quota in one year... The problem is no longer one of purely private concern. It is a problem for intergovernmental action. If the present currents of migration are permitted to continue to push anarchically upon the receiving States and if some Governments are to continue to toss large sections of their populations lightly upon a distressed and unprepared world, then there is catastrophic human suffering ahead which can only result in general unrest and in general international strain which will not be conductive to the permanent appeasement to which all peoples earnestly aspire.' 15 Mr. Taylor was followed by Lord Winterton, Chief of the British delegation, whose address, although very carefully worded, contained indications as to the differences of opinion between the American and tire British Governments, concerning the creation of a new intergovernmental organisation in addition to the existing Nansen Office and the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees of the League of Nations. He said inter alia: His Majesty's Government are Unions to co-operate to the fullest extent possible with the United States Government and die other Governments represented at this meeting in the endeavour to find a practical Paeans of relieving the difficulties which confront the unfortunate people who wish to emigrate and the countries which are asked to receive there. I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of the United States delegate, and I am in general agreement with him as to the nature of the task, which lies before us. For His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and for the British people, this problem is mainly a humanitarian one. It has been the traditional policy of successive British Governments to offer asylum to persons who, for political, racial or religious reasons, have had to leave their own countries. The United Kingdom has never yet had cause to rethink his policy, and refugees have often enriched the life and contributed to the prosperity of the British people. But the United Kingdom is not a country of immigration. It is highly industrialised, fully populated and is still faced with the problem of unemployment. For economic and social reasons, the traditional policy of granting asylum can only be applied within narrow limits. But within these limits, the people of the United Kingdom are ready to play their part... It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to continue the practice which has been developed during the past five years in dealing with the various categories of refugees and, in consultation with voluntary organisations, to explore to what extent they can accelerate the process of assimilation of those elements among the present refugee population who can usefully be fitted into the social and economic life of the country. His Majesty's Government have been prepared to examine in a spirit of sympathy applications not only from refugees who are admitted to the United Kingdom for education, training or other reason, on the understanding that they will eventually emigrate, but also applications from other refugees in the United Kingdom who wish to establish themselves there without the fear that they will be required to leave the country. His Majesty's Government believe that one of the most useful contributions which countries of first refuge can make to the work of the present Conference would be to signify their readiness to absorb, so far as they can, in their economic, industrial and social system the refugees from Germany and Austria who have already been admitted to their territories. I hope at a later stage in our proceedings to have an opportunity of indicating in detail the practical contribution which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are prepared to make in finding openings in the United Kingdom for the persons who may desire, in the next five years, to leave Germany and Austria. His Majesty's Government are also carefully surveying the prospects of the admission of refugees to their colonies and overseas territories. The question is not a simple one. The economic and social factors, which operate in the United Kingdom are here further complicated by considerations of climate, of race and of political development. Many overseas territories are already overcrowded, others are wholly or partly unsuitable for European settlement, while in others again local political conditions hinder or prevent any considerable immigration. These factors impose strict limitations on the opportunities for offering asylum to European refugees, but His Majesty's Government are not unhothat some of their colonial territories may in their turn be able to take a part, if only a relatively minor pare, in assisting to solve the problem. His Majesty's Government are, in particular, examining the possibility which may exist for settlement in certain of the East African territories. But any project, which may emerge, is unlikely to involve the settlement of more than a limited number of selected families, at any rate in the early stages. The whole master is under active consideration at the present time... There is a second matter, which cannot be ignored in considering this problem of emigration. This meeting will endeavour to find an orderly solution of the difficulties before it, but its tasks will be immeasurably complicated and even rendered insoluble unless the country of origin is prepared to make its contribution, and Guess emigrants which other countries may be asked to accept have some means of self-support. No thickly populated country can be expected to accept persons who are deprived of their means of subsistence before they are able to enter it. Nor can the resources of private societies be expected to make good the losses, which the emigrants have suffered. If countries of immigration are to do their best to facilitate the admission of emigrants, then they are entitled to expect that the country of origin, on its side, will equally assist in creating conditions in, which the emigrants are able to start life in other countries with some prospect of success.' 16 Through its marked silence about immigration into Palestine (which was hinted at only by mentioning overseas territories where "local political conditions" hinder admission), Lord Winterton's speech was a bitter disappointment. Later, the importance of Palestine as a country of refuge was referred to so often at the private meetings and more particularly in the relevant Sub-Committee, that he once more took the rostrum on the last day of the Conference to explain England's position in this matter by stating that The Committee will perhaps expect me, as representing the Power that holds the mandate for Palestine, to offer some observations. It has been represented in some quarters that the whole question, at least of the Jewish refugees, could be solved if only the Gates of Palestine were thrown open to Jewish immigrants without restriction of any kind. I should like to say, as emphatically as I can, that I regard any such proposition as wholly untenable. First, Palestine is not a large country, and apart from that there are special considerations arising out of the terms of the mandate and out of the local situation which it is impossible to ignore. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, as mandatory Power, has a direct obligation under the terms of the mandate to facilitate Jewish immigration into Palestine under suitable conditions. This rit has discharged and will continue to discharge in the light of the conditions actually prevailing from time to time. The record that has been achieved in this respect is one, which calls for no apology. Some 300,000 Jews have entered the country since 1920. The number of German Jews admitted during the last few years is I believe, over 40,000. I have referred to prevailing conditions. I need not emerge on these conditions prevailing at the present time. The acute problems that have arisen and the special difficulties with which the mandatory Government is confronted are a matter of general knowledge. They have led, as you all know, to proposals for drastic changes in the political structure of the country, the practical aspects of which are still under active consideration. Pending the completion of these investigations, it has been found necessary, not indeed to discontinue Jewish immigration - that has never been contemplated - but to subject it to certain restrictions of a purely temporary and exceptional character, the object of which is to maintain within reasonable limits the existing balance of population, pending a final decision - which we all hope may be reached at as early a date as possible - on the political future of the country. That is the situation as it stands today. I would repeat that the arrangements now in force are purely temporary in character and are designed to cover what may be described as a period of transition. They will be subject to revision when the investigations to which I have referred have been completed and the mandatory Power is in a position to review the whole question in the light of their results. But for the moment the position is as I have described, and no immediate change is to be anticipated. In all the circumstances, our view is that the question of Palestine stands upon a footing of its own and cannot usefully be taken into account at the present stage in connection with the general problems that are under consideration at this meeting. I am glad to say that I am now in a position to speak with somewhat greater precision in regard to settlement in one of the East African territories. What I have to say relates to the colony of Kenya. The possibilities offered by Kenya for the small-scale settlement of Jewish refugees have been under consideration for some time. After preliminary discussion with the local authorities, the private organisation concerned sent out an expert adviser to investigate the question on the spot. It is understood that this report is favourable and that a scheme has been evolved and is now under active consideration for the acquisition of private land in the colony.' 17 In the opening session, the next speaker was Senator Henri Berenger, French Governmental representative on the governing body of the High Commission for German Refugees, who had on several occasions defended at Geneva the rights of religious and racial minorities and had, since 1933, been furthermore intimately involved in the work for the relief of refugees from Germany. He welcomed President Roosevelt's initiative and eloquently expounded on how France has hitherto solved the problem on her own territory, at her own risk and expense, through the medium of the benevolent and unselfish activities of private agencies in co-operation with the administrative resources of the French State and the organisations set up by the League of Nations. Many millions of francs have thus been spent by French well-wishers on hundreds of thousands of refugees. Simultaneously France has constantly endeavoured to co-operate closely in defining and giving effect to a near social status for these unhappy individuals who have been so well called the "stateless" victims of present-day national Revolutions. France already takes part in the work of the Nansen Office, of the Office of the thigh Commissioner for German refugees, and of the League of Nations Committee. And it has been unanimously admitted that that part is a most active one. Thus France continues to be true to the long-standing tradition of universal hospitality which has characterised her throughout all her history. She will maintain this tradition so far as the limits laid down by her geographical position, her population and her resources permit. Though she has herself reached, if not already passed, the extreme point of saturation as regards admission of refugees, France understands the new effort proposed by President Roosevelt. Not only will she not refuse to help in realising this fresh effort or to take this further step forward, but she will give maturely considered assistance to the Intergovernmental Committee at Evian. Like America, France considers the refugee problem to be an international political problem, which can only be finally solved by the joint and collective action of the Governments of the world. In regard more particularly to German and Austrian refugees, France is prepared to discuss how their emigration can best be controlled and their settlement effected. There are various territorial, shipping, financial monetary and social measures, which will first have to be closely and carefully considered in executive sub-committees. That, it seems to me, should be the real object of our meeting here...' 18 The statements by the representatives of the three great democratic powers, of which we have above given some excerpts, provided the keynote for the addresses by the delegates of the smaller countries. Although anxious to please the President of the United States, they lacked the courage to deal with the cause itself by naming the country which was creating the refugee problem, instead they merely discussed the consequences which were affecting some of their countries. There were three groups of countries, differing in many respects from each other but united by the same negative attitude, and each delegate said "no" while trying to say it in a way not offensive to the President who had issued the call. The first group consisted of European countries 19 bordering on Germany, all of them densely populated. Their representatives referred repeatedly to the "tens of thousands" of refugees they had already admitted. They even inflated the figures by reverting to refugees of World War I, but failed to remember that Belgium and France, for instance, at that time had had need of foreign labour. Referring to the present situation, they underlined that their countries had reached the point of saturation and that all they were in a position to offer were transit visas for short periods. Such permits, of course, could be issued only to persons in possession of immigration visas to overseas countries. The second group were the countries of the British Commonwealth and Empire 20 . Their position was rather odd. The Empire embraced most of the globe's rich but sparsely populated land. Canada's population did not exceed ten million for an area larger than that of the United States, which counted 130 million souls. Australia, with an area of three million square miles, had approximately seven million inhabitants. The white population of the Union of South Africa was about two million, while that of Rhodesia was insignificant. The governments of all these counties had erected carefully studied legal barriers to keep out immigrants. Actually, the British Empire could have made a most important contribution towards the solution of the refugee problem. In so far as the self-governing Dominions were concerned, the British Government could at best advise, but not decide. This however, did not hold true in regard to Palestine, which was under the sole jurisdiction of Whitehall. For the two previous years, which had been a time of extreme despair for the refugees, the Colonial Office had deliberately restricted immigration and Lord Winterton's addresses clearly indicated that it was not the intention of the British Government to change that policy. The third and perhaps most important group was the bloc of the American Republics 21 . Far from Europe and its worries, their representatives had little understanding of the emergency with which they were asked to deal in Evian. Most of them came from agricultural countries, which had no need of "intellectuals and wanderers". Immigration into their countries was governed by strict laws and various forms of selection. The delegates of these countries were very eloquent in expressing their sympathies with the humanitarian efforts of President Roosevelt, but they, too, pointed out that in spite of their good will, there were obstacles to the admission of political refugees, as legislative provisions prevented them from removing the existing restrictions - which were of their own making. Nearly twenty-five speakers participated, reading one by one the carefully prepared speeches referring to the particular character of their countries, to the existing laws of entry, to the necessity of negotiating with Germany concerning some kind of transfer of capital belonging to the emigrants, and to the fact that they were not in a position to make any commitment with regard to future immigration. - The only exception was the representative of the Dominican Republic who indicated certain possibilities for large-scale agricultural colonisation: The Dominican Government, which for many years past has been encouraging and promoting the development of agriculture by appropriate measures and which gives ample immigration facilities to agriculturists who wish to suede in the country as colonists, would be prepared to make its contribution by granting especially advantageous concessions to Austrian and German exiles, agriculturists with an unimpeachable record who satisfy the conditions laid down by the Dominican legislation on immigration. For colonisation purposes my Government has at its disposal large areas of fertile, well-irrigated land, excellent roads and a police force which preserves absolute order and guarantees the peace of the country. The Department of Agriculture could give colonists, in addition to land, seed and the technical advice, which they need. The Government which I have the honour to represent here would also be prepared to grant special conditions to professional men who, as recognised scientists, would be able through their teaching to render valuable service to their Dominican colleagues.' 22 Another speaker, Sir M. J. M. Yepes from Columbia, deserves mention here for his courage ill pointing to the roots of the problem and - if we remember correctly - he was also the only one among the speakers who was warmly applauded when he addressed the Conference in the following words: The problem of political refugees offers two aspects, which I should like to outline briefly. First of all, there is the questions of principle, which can only be studied and settled by collective effort; and, secondly, there is the questions of fact, which each country must settle by its own means and in the light of its special circumstances. We cannot, as would seem to be suggested in certain quarters, expect to consider this problem exclusively as an empirical problem and ignore the questions of principle which may become its most important aspect, for it is they which determine the matter for the future and for all time. This is, very briefly stated, the question of principle: Can a State, without upsetting the basis of our civilisation, and, indeed, of all civilisation, arbitrarily withdraw nationality from a whole class of its citizens, thereby making them Stateless persons whom no country is compelled to receive on its territory? Can a State, acting in this way, flood other countries with the citizens of whom it wishes to get rid, and can it thrust upon others the consequences of an evil internal policy? The whole tragedy of these thousands of unfortunates who are bandied about from country to country, at the caprice of the alien police and exposed to the boorishness of frontier officials, the whole tragedy lies in the fact that this preliminary question was not settled in time. It would be useless for us to-day to find homes for the present political refugees and to hear the grievances - well-grounded, as I freely admit they are - of those who have come to voice their complaints before this modern Trailing Wall which the Evian Conference has now become. So long as the central problem is not decided we shall be doing merely ephemeral work, work that will last but a day and which will have to be begun over again tomorrow... The worst thing is that the bad example of the Old World may be copied in other continents, and the world will then become uninhabitable.' 23 References: 15. Ibid. , p. 12. 16. Ibid. , p. 13. 17. Ibid. , p. 14. 18. Ibid. , p. 15. 19.Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland. 20.Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. 21.Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, Venezuela. 22. Proceedings of the Intergovernmental Committee... , p. 32. 23. Ibid. , p. 25. Part C These excerpts of some of the statements made at the Conference would be incomplete without referring to the sympathetic and understanding remarks of Sir Neill Malcolm, League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany who, speaking about the experience in his office, confirmed our sceptical opinion about the general statements. He said inter alia: When I was appointed High Commissioner in February, 1936, I was given three definite tasks to perform. The second of these dealt with the subject with, which we are concerned, it was to 'undertake consultations by the most suitable method with the different Governments regarding the possibilities and conditions of placing refugees and finding employment for them'... After very little investigation it became evident to me, and I think the private organisations were in agreement, that there was very little chance of our being able to carry through any large-scale settlement in any of the countries overseas. I think that view has been more or less borne out by the speeches we have heard in the last two days. Consequently, I had to report to the Assembly that, in my opinion, there was no opening at that time, with or without the help of the High Commissioner, for the private organisations to do anything effective in that direction... I think I may say that I was met with universal courtesy and encouragement, but in practically every case the same real answer was given. That was to the effect that, in the present conditions of labour markets in the countries of the world, any large-scale scheme of migration could only arouse hostility, and that, secondly, there was in no one of those countries any anti-Jewish feeling, but that such hostility might easily be aroused if the Government were to introduce solid blocks of foreign immigrants who would, almost necessarily, build up an alien element inside the State concerned.' 24 Another man who must be remembered here, though for other reasons, is the Swiss delegate, Dr. H. Rothmund, Chief of the Police Division in the Swiss Justice and Police Department, a prime example of the kind of man to whose hands the fate of the refugees was entrusted. He spoke at length about his country's liberal tradition in receiving political refugees, using the most elaborate humanitarian terminology and supporting his remarks with figures, which had little relevance to the problem facing the Conference. What he refrained from telling the Conference, however, was that he had just completed a round of negotiations with the Nazi authorities, whom he had advised that his Government intended to stop the immigration of Austrian Jews into Switzerland. He informed the German Legation that "in order to protect Switzerland from the immense influx of Viennese Jews", his Government had ruled that all holders of Austrian passports would henceforth require a visa in order to enter Switzerland. Rothmund complained that the authorities in Vienna were trying to circumvent this regulation. If this is not stopped, he said, Switzerland, which has as little use for these Jews as has Germany, will herself take measures to protect Switzerland from being swamped by Jews with the connivance of the Viennese police.' 25 After leaving Evian, Dr. Rothmund pursued his negotiations with the German authorities. The result was the introduction of the marking of German passports issued to Jews with a big red "J", thus jeopardising from the very outset their chances of rescue, as not only Switzerland, but many other countries as well took to looking with disfavour upon bearers of passports stamped in this way. The Evian Conference was convened at a time of high political tension, after the rape of Austria and before the sell-out of Czechoslovakia. In the atmosphere of Chamberlain's appeasement, the delegates of the various governments carefully avoided any political observations. William Shirer, one of the best-known foreign correspondents of the day, who attended the opening of the Conference, wrote on the 7th July: ...I doubt if much will be done. The British, the French and the Americans seem too anxious not to do anything to offend Hitler. It is an absurd situation: They want to appease the man who was responsible for their problem.' 26 VI The Conference did not unfold as planned. It had originally been intended that only two public meetings would be held one at the beginning, and one at the end of the Conference. Instead, there were six altogether where the delegates outdid each other in eloquent speechmaking, and there was only one private session of the plenum. The actual work of the Conference was delegated to two Sub-Committees: One of them called "technical", the other devoted to discussions with the unofficial organisations. The Technical Sub-Committee under the chairmanship of Judge Michel Hansson from Norway was composed of the delegates of Brazil, Canada, Chile, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, Haiti, the Netherlands and Switzerland. It was to hear in confidence the statements of laws and practices of the participating governments, statements of the number and types of immigrants each is prepared to receive and consider the question of documentation.' The delegates' response was far from enthusiastic; they showed little interest in attending the first meeting of the Sub-Committee. At the fourth public meeting of the Conference, the Chairman took the rostrum to invite the delegations of approximately twenty governments, whom he mentioned by name, to be good enough to send representatives to the second meeting of the Sub-Committee, for the purpose of making any statements they may think expedient, or merely to inform the Sub-Committee that such material as they have to lay before it has already been embodied in their statements made in the plenary meetings.' As the delegates had in fact already said in the public sessions everything they had to say and there being no secrets to divulge, the chairman stated that the report of the Technical Sub-Committee has so far, in accordance with the terms of reference of that body, been regarded as confidential. At its final meeting yesterday, the Sub-Committee expressed the wish that the report should be made public as there is in fact nothing confidential in the document, and indeed the reports of the two Sub-Committees may be regarded as mutually complementary'. He therefore proposed that the report of the Technical Sub-Committee be published. In spite of its elaborate verbiage, the following report of the Sub-Committee held out no actual hope for the refugees: The written statements received by the Sub-Committee from the delegations represented at the Intergovernmental Committee have been submitted to the Chairman of the Committee in strict confidence for the information of the delegations and for reference to such continuing body as may be set up by the Committee. The written statements, together with the oral statements made, and the speeches of the delegates before the Intergovernmental Committee indicate, without exception, that the Governments represented appreciate the serious nature of the refugee problem and the urgent necessity for the finding of a solution therefor, and that all Governments are prepared to co-operate to the extent permitted by their laws and individual situation. There appear to be no legal restrictions in the countries represented upon the admission of refugees as such. Since 1933, a huge number of refugees have been admitted into the territories of the various countries and large numbers are still being admitted. The Sub-Committee is pleased to report that the statements in general hold out prospects for increased reception of refugees qualifying for admission under the receiving country's immigration laws. Certain countries have expressed a willingness to receive experienced agriculturists. Others have stated their willingness to accept selected classes of workers for whom suitable employment is available. Stillothers allow immigrants to enter without occupational restriction and permit those lawfully admitted to choose their employment. The quota system numerically limiting the admission of immigrants, which is in effect in certain countries will permit the reception of an appreciable number of refugees. Some counties having no numerical limitations are prepared to adopt a liberal attitude in admitting refugees under their methods of control. Finally, certain countries have indicated their desire to consider plans of settlement of refugees in their territories when such plans are presented by official or private organisations. A further study of the problem may therefore be hopefully undertaken. As has been stated, the problem is vast and complex, and it is evident, that it will require a long-range program for its solution, carefully conceived and carried out. The countries represented on the Committee which border Germany and Austria have generously received large numbers of refugees and cannot at present be expected to add considerably to those numbers until there has been a reduction in their refugee population by absorption and by emigration of refugees to other countries. In the meantime, they may continue to make an important contribution to the solution of the problem by affording facilities for the education, technical or agricultural training and re-adaptation for life in another country of refugees given temporary asylum, while continuing to grant special consideration, to the extent which they have indicated, to individual cases. Many countries are faced with a serious economic and unemployment situation, which does not permit of any large and sudden influx of foreigners into their territories. Moreover, the impoverished condition in which a great number of refugees are obliged to seek settlement outside Germany and Austria constitutes a major obstacle to their transference to another country.' 27 VII Let us now look at the second Sub-Committee. It derived from the fact that apart from the delegations of the participating thirty-two governments, the following thirty-nine refugee organisations (twenty of them Jewish) were registered with the Secretariat General of the Conference: International Christian Committee for Non-Aryans (London); Central Bureau for the Settlement of German Jews (London); Jewish Colonisation Association (Paris); German Jewish Aid Committee (London); Society for the Protection of Science and Learning (London); Comite d'aide et d'assistance aux victimes de l'anti-semitisme en Allemagne (Brussels); Comite d'assistance aux refugies (Paris); Comite voor Bijzondere Joodsche Belangen (Amsterdam); Centre suisse pour l'aide aux refugies (Basle); Comite central tchecoslovaque pour les refugies provenant d'Allemagne (Prague); Federation internationale des emigres d'Allemagne (Paris); International Migration Service (Geneva); International Student Service (Geneva); Comite international pour le placement des intellectuels refugies (Geneva); The Joint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association (London); Agudas Israel World Organisation (London); American Joint Distribution Committee (Paris); Council for German Jewry (London); Hicem (Association des Emigres Hias-lca) (Paris); Notgemeinschaft Deutscher Wissenscrhaftler im Ausland (London). The Society of Friends (German Emergency Committee) (London); Bureau international pour le respect du droit d'asile et l'aide aux refugies politiques (Paris); World Jewish Congress (Paris); New Zionist Organisation (London); Emigration Advisory Committee (London); Alliance Israelite Universelle (Paris); Comite pour le developpement de la grande colonisation juive (Zuerich); Internationale ouvet socialiste (Paris-Brussels); Comites catholiques americains, anglais, belges, francais, neerlandais et suisses pour l'aide aux emigres; "Freeland" Assotiation (London); "Ort" (Paris); Centre de recherches de solutions au probleme juif (Paris); League of Nations Union (London); Jewish Agency for Palestine (London); Comite pour la defense des droits des Israelites en Europe centrale et orientale (Paris) Union des Societes "Ose" (Paris); Royal Institute of International Affairs (London); Federation des imigris d'Autriche (Paris); Societe d'emigration et de colonisation juive "Emcol" (Paris).' 28 This Sub-Committee was constituted "for the Reception of Organisations concerned with the Relief of Political Refugees coming from Germany (including Austria)" under the chairmanship of the Australian Minister of Commerce, Lt.Col. T. W. White. It was composed of delegates from Australia, Belgium, Costa Rica, Cuba, France, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Venezuela. A representative of each organisation was to be heard by the Sub-Committee in an executive session: It is understood that in each case the organisation will present a memorandum of its view through its representative, who may be permitted to speak for a limited time. The Sub-Committee would make a synopsis of the memoranda, which it has received and report to the Conference.' The Sub-Committee heard the following twenty-four representatives, most of them Jewish: Sir Neill Malcolm, Professor Norman Bentwich (Council for German Jewry), Lord Marley, M. Edouard Oungre, Mrs. Ormerod, the Rev. Father Odo, Mr. Exalter Adams, Dr. N. Goldmann, Dr. Ruppin (Jewish Agency), Dr. Steinberg, Mr. Georg Bernhard, M. Raoul Evrard, Rabbi Jonah Wise, Mr. Eppstein, Mr. Goodmann, Mr. Brotman, M. Leo Lambent, M. Gourevitch, M. Marcovici, M. Benjamin Akzin, Dr. Brutzkus, Dr. Oskar Grun, M. Forcht and Madame Irene Harand. The hearing was a humiliating procedure. Nobody was prepared for it, neither the members of the Committee, nor the representatives of the various organisations who had to queue up at the door of the meeting room to be called in, one after the other, and to face the eleven members of the Sub-Committee whom they were supposed to tell their tale within ten minutes at the most. There were very distinguished public figures amongst the petitioners - scientists, authors, politicians etc. - none of them accustomed to any kind of interrogation procedure in front of a Committee, before which they felt rather as though they were on trial without time to bring forward their plea, as they had soon to make room for the next of the invited spokesmen. All left the room disheartened and disillusioned. This effect was certainly not intended. But the Committee members had little knowledge of the complicated details of the problems. They were pressed for time and had not anticipated so many memoranda and so many speakers who all started their addresses with the same remarks. The Jewish organisations are not free from blame for the lack of method and preparedness. Accustomed to the traditions of their own organisations, their spokesmen found themselves stranded on unfamiliar ground and were not given time to adapt to the new surroundings and to a diplomatic atmosphere. It would have been far better if, by some kind of agreement reached beforehand, a limited number of delegates had been empowered to represent all the organisations concerned before the Committee and had submitted a joint plan for the practical solution of the problems under discussion. This opportunity, alas, was missed. The Sub-Committee entrusted the Secretariat with the drawing up of a report and of a short synopsis of the suggestions and observations made in the oral statement and in the memoranda handed in by the delegates of the associations represented. Whereas the Report 29 dealt mainly with technical matters, the synopsis 30 of the memoranda and oral statements was a very moving document. In spite of the efforts on the part of some governments to pass over in silence Palestine and the Jewish problem as such, this Report presented a pathetic picture of the statelessness of the Jewish people and of the tragedy of the individual Jewish refugee. The following summary was given in the Appendix to the Report of the Sub-Committee: The Sub-Committee for the Reception of Organisations concerned withthe Relief of Political Refugees coming from Germany (including Austria) heard, on Friday, July 8th, the representatives of these associations. Most of the representatives of associations spoke on behalf of Jewish bodies, but the Committee also heard members of associations for assisting catholic emigrants and non-Aryan Christians. The following may be taken as the main features of the declarations made at this meeting and the main ideas contained in the memoranda submitted to the Sub-Committee. In several statements and documents, the history of the Jewish people is recounted; many delegates also made a point of describing the work done by their associations on behalf of refugees, both from the humanitarian and the settlement standpoints. Four main trends of thought may be distinguished. Some of these, in practice, vary very widely in significance, depending on the importance of the associations, which advance them. According to the first school of thought, it would be advisable to encourage the return of the Jews to Palestine by substantially increasing the quota which at present limits the number of Jews allowed to return to their ancient home. In this connection, it was pointed out that, since 1933, 45,000 German Jews have been admitted to that country. In the view of others, assistance to refugees should primarily enable the latter to be assimilated into the new national environment into which they are transplanted. This view would cover the statements which described the efforts made to re-adapt emigrants and to arrange for their vocational guidance. It was, for instance, pointed out that it would be desirable for States to consider the provision of the Convention of February 10th, 1938, whereby the contracting parties undertake to afford refugees, where necessary, facilities for learning a new occupation by all appropriate means, more particularly by the opening of trade schools. In this connection, the Committee's attention was also directed to the importance of decentralising emigrants by distributing them throughout the country of settlement in order to obviate hostility on the part of the population among which they are trying to settle. Another point of view still was laid before the Committee. According to its advocates, emigrants should have placed at their disposal an area not inhabited by any other population, so that the refugees could settle without mingling with indigenous ethnical elements. Finally, according to the last conception advanced, Jews should be guaranteed in their present country of residence all necessary protection, so that they can enjoy the rights granted to the minorities of the country on whose soil they are settled. Apart from these main trends of ideas, the Committee noted the existence of a political view which maintained that the Powers should urge the nations concerned to guarantee Jews the free enjoyment of their rights as citizens pending emigration. A view of a political and social character was similarly advanced to the effect that no discrimination should be made among the exiled because of their wealth or social status, and that priority of departure should only be granted in the case of political prisoners or individuals who had suffered because of their opinions. To carry out the programs thus summarised would imply in most cases removing whole populations and putting large sums of money at the disposal of the organisations. Various schemes have been outlined for the collection of such sums. Most of these stress the necessity, both in equity and for practical reasons, of asking the country of origin to make its contribution by relaxing its regulations concerning the conditions attaching to the departure of refugees and the provisions which they are allowed to transfer; suggestions were also made Smith regard to the system of deposit adopted by countries of immigration. On the final point of the status of refugees, several associations expressed the wish that the 1938 Convention should be immediately ratified by the signatory States, that the largest possible number of countries should endeavour to accede to it, and, lastly, that its provisions, or the provisions of the 1938 Arrangements, should be extended to Austrians and applied in a more liberal way. In this connection, the question of identity documents seems to be one of the problems which should be solved at the earliest possible moment.' 31 References: 24. Ibid. , p. 32. 25. Documents on German Foreign Policy 1918¯1945 , Washington 1963, Series D, Volume V. See also Prof. Dr. Carl Ludwig, Die Fluechtlingspolitik der Schweiz seit 1933 bis zur Gegenwart (1957). Bericht an den Bundesrat zuhaenden der eidgenoessischen Raete. 26.Berlin Diary 1934¯1945 , Hamish Hamilton, London 1941, p. 101. 27. Proceedings of the Intergovernmental Committee... , p. 51 (Annex II, Report of the Technical Sub-Committee, Adopted by the Committee on July 14th, 1938.) 28. Ibid. , p. 49 (Annex I, Report of the Sub-Committee for the Reception of Organisations concerned with the Relief of Political Refugees coming from Germany [including Austria], Adopted by the Committee on July 14th, 1938). 29.See note 28. 30. Proceedings of the Intergovernmental Committee... , p. 50 (Annex I, Appendix to the Report of the Sub-Committee for the Reception of Organisations concerned with the Relief of Political Refugees coming from Germany [including Austria]). 31. Ibid. Back to the top