The Evian Conference on the Refugee Question (Part C) 
 
 Source: S. Adler-Rudel, Year Book XIII of the Leo Baeck Institute (London 1968), p. 235-273 
 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.