Hospitality and Hope: Jewish Refugees and the Gloucester Community, 1939
Making it to the end of second year means only one thing… Thesis time! This struggling medievalist has waved goodbye to the 1300s (for now) and said a tentative hello to the twentieth century. In the words of my thesis supervisor, this modern perspective will make my degree “ever more refreshing” — I think she subtly dashed my medieval dreams in one meeting.
As part of narrowing down my thesis ideas, I began digging into some archival research, and this blog post is what came out of that process.
__
The case of Jewish refugees in Gloucester presents a
compelling and necessary subject of historical inquiry. While historians have
studied collectivist community attitudes in cases such as the Blitz Spirit,
niche examples of smaller communities have often been neglected. Collections of
vast oral memories and studies into the experiences of child evacuees both from
outside Britain and within it have also been conducted.. The Kindertransport,
by contrast, has received extensive scholarly attention. However, cases of
Jewish refugees settling in areas like Gloucester have been limited in
investigation. There is, as such, a need for a study of this to take place.
This piece aims to highlight the experience of the Jewish
refugees of Gloucester by examining both the community and that of its refugees
to assert the extent to which community support shaped their experience. It
will engage with primary source material from Gloucester Archives to highlight
the experiences of the community organisers and the refugee boys in their care.
By utilising administrative letters and telegrams, the urgency behind the
organisation’s mobilisation in providing hospitality will become clear.
Meanwhile, the use of letters to parents and commentary on events provides
insight into the experiences of refugees that they, or their hosts, may wish to
share with their loved ones at home. By contrasting it with studies conducted
in other locations, such as Koschland’s experience in Buckinghamshire, and the
idea of community, the development of a central community focus will become
apparent.[1] This
plethora of evidence will reveal the reality of community as a crucial
foundation for refugee life in Gloucester.
Context of the Arrival of the Jewish Refugees
The arrival of Jewish refugees in 1939 in Britain was not
unique. In the early 20th century, following pogroms in Russia,
many Jews fled to neighbouring European countries and some as far as Britain.
As Wasserstein has argued, the idea of British responsibility to the Jewish
people extended from their role in the League of Nations and its mandate for
Palestine from the end of the First World War.[2] The
importance of the relationship between Britain and the Jewish community can
thus be seen as a long-standing one. This would have influenced the country's
responsibility towards the Jewish people and perhaps encouraged their
hospitality to the refugees, as we see in Gloucester.
Interest in the growing tensions facing Jewish communities
across Europe drew the attention of communities at various levels. In this
context, community refers to mobilising local individuals and
organisations in collective humanitarian efforts — from civic leaders to
ordinary citizens offering spare rooms. While the state, represented by
politicians and wartime officials, orchestrated national responses, it also
acted as a symbolic apex of community guidance. Politicians were not only
decision-makers but community figures who shaped local attitudes and
priorities. Famously, the involvement of wartime Prime Minister Sir Winston
Churchill with the Jewish ‘problem’ (as Wasserstein terms it) extended to his
days as a young member of parliament.[3] Long-standing
interest from members associated at the top of the community, such as community
leaders like MPs, would suggest a form of emotional investment in the Jewish
situation. The everyday person may have also provoked an emotional response through
establishing charities. For example, the founding of the Jewish Refugee
Committee in 1933 by Otto M. Schiff.[4] Due
to this, we can argue that the hospitality experienced within Gloucestershire
was not unique to other counties, but does present the importance of
communities in times of hardship.
Gloucester – Hospitality in the Face of Challenge
At 11:38 AM on the 4th of April 1939, a post
office telegram was sent from Holborn to Gloucester for the immediate attention
of Mrs Hall of the Gloucestershire branch of the Association for Aiding
Refugees. It requested a form of temporary hospitality in the most urgent forms
after an unexpected arrival of 400 refugees.[5] In
times of great panic, communities were called upon to open their hearts and
doors to those in the gravest of danger. The people of Gloucester did just
this.
Larger organisations heavily rely on community support.
London, as the government’s administrative centre, played a key role—then and
now—in coordinating national responses. The Co-Ordinating Committee for
Refugees, contacting a branch like the Association for Aiding Refugees,
Gloucester, shows the necessity of working with smaller communities to maximise
aid. While this study focuses on Gloucester, the awareness of ‘400 refugees’
arriving suggests a need to shift focus to the local community and away from the
city. With mass arrivals such as that on the 4th of April 1939,
collaboration was needed. Reaching out to Gloucester highlights the need for
smaller community organisations to assume roles that central bodies could not
fulfil. Community was, as such, viewed as an essential tool for mobilising hospitality.
Mrs Hall, secretary of her organisation, had confirmed and
reiterated that accommodation could be provided in small numbers. In her letter
to the Hospitality for Refugees from Czechoslovakia, she confirmed the
following: Mrs Kemp could provide accommodation for women of ‘good standing’,
Mr Bruce Swanwick, J.P could permit a woman to ‘stay a week’, Mr Wynne was
willing to ‘take a lad permanently’, Mrs Zuker could offer a woman a room, and
the Chauffeur to Colonel Sinott could allow a girl to stay for a ‘limited
period.’[6] It
is crucial to note that people often do not have the financial means to support
someone who comes to stay with them in their homes. In her letter, Mrs Hall
details how financial aid would be needed in the case of Mrs Zuker and the
chauffeur to Colonel Sinnott.[7] The
offers gathered, however, would have been very welcome given the sudden arrival
of these 400 refugees.
The arrival of these Jewish refugees was not, however,
without controversy. Following the Great Depression of the late 1920s and early
1930s, the world was increasingly desperate, and financial concerns were
prevalent among politicians and everyday people. And whilst migration had been
limited in 1905 under the Alien Act, this policy had been abandoned, allowing
refugees to move to Britain. Unlike the Kindertransport, the movement in April
of 1939 was a response to an increasingly hostile and rapidly growing
environment of hatred. Volunteers showed the best attributes of the community
in their offers of hospitality, which were rapidly arranged by smaller
organisations.
Community action led to hospitality towards refugees, like
the Jewish community, and both high- and lower-level community organisations
could positively impact the refugees’ status and security during this period.
It has been established that a notable politician showed long-standing
interests in the position of the Jewish people. As such, the involvement of
local organisations can be viewed as the natural progression of a local
community influenced by its leaders. The best example of this is the establishment
of the Gloucester Association for Aiding Refugees. Established in February 1939
it was tasked to oversee a local scheme for the reception and care of refugees
from the Nazi regime and to administer funds raised for a local purpose.[8] Community
action, therefore, made quick responses possible in times of crisis. In the
case of the arrival of 400 refugees unexpectedly in April 1939 – a mere two
months after the committee's founding – hospitality was made possible to those
in the most extreme of circumstances. Having nowhere to go, people volunteered
and took them in. The small and more localised approach of these associations,
like that in Gloucester, enabled a carefully coordinated response, which
enabled their efficiency in placing refugees in safe homes. As such, the
importance of community response is made clear.
In the case of the people who offered their homes to the
refugees, the case of Mr Wynne is incredibly fascinating. Not only does Mrs
Hall make a point to highlight his loneliness, stating he ‘has no children’ but
that he is willing to have a lad ‘permanently.’[9] The
fact that Mrs Hall relayed this information and felt the need to highlight his
lack of family might suggest a subtle preference for him as a suitable
candidate, especially given the long-term promise of work on the land. It is
clear that he wanted to help a refugee feel supported in their move to England
– the promise of long-term work reinforces a welcome and that they should feel
able to stay. Mrs Hall’s emphasis on Mr Wynne’s character suggests her belief
in his suitability as a long-term host — a valuable insight for historians
assessing refugee placement criteria.
Community insights allowed potential hosts to be vetted much
faster than would be possible on a national level. Mrs Hall knew about the
situation of people like Mr Wynne, through personal connection or her role in
the local organisation. Her position was important for communicating with those
outside of Gloucester. The telegram from London shows the reliance on
hospitality across the country, not just assuming that there was space to
settle people in London or that it would be safe. Appealing beyond London widened
the pool of hosts and allowed placements to be made with precision. Mrs Hall
knew her local community and could make apt decisions for who should be
recommended to stay and present on the host's character, and in contrast to
centralised government systems, such localised networks allowed emotional
knowledge and social familiarity to guide more humane refugee placements.
Jewish Experiences in Gloucester
After assessing the community's role in rapid responses, it
is necessary to examine the Jewish refugees' experience in Gloucester.
Gloucester did not just act as a hub for placement for these
refugees; it acted as a new home. For Julius Mularski, his new home became the
place where he was admitted to the hospital for appendicitis.[10] This
potentially life-threatening condition saw Julius admitted to the Royal
Infirmary for around a week, that Olive Dyke of the Provincial After-Care
Department at the Movement for the Care of Children from Germany deemed his
stay to be beneficial, citing he had learnt ‘a good deal of English’ during his
time at the hospital.[11] Certainly,
community interest was seen through the boy's integration on the ward, engaging
with his fellow English patients. This would have enabled him to socially
integrate within his new community, both within Gloucester and in the hospital
ward, through language. In addition, evidence from the Royal Infirmary shows
that the association can charge only £4.50 instead of the insured amount of up
to £10 for the operation.[12] This
suggests that the community ethos extended to local healthcare administration,
which treated the refugees on equal terms. By applying the charges equally, the
refugees were treated on par with Gloucester residents and further drawn into
the community. As such, localised community efforts were the starting place for
refugee growth and integration.
However, care within the localised community can be seen as
necessary and out of kindness. Julius's family's distance further complicates
his case. Both of his parents were still in Hamburg in June 1939, but they were
kept equally informed of his illness and admittance to the hospital as those
coordinating his hospitality had been.[13] The
letter, written in German, outlined how Julius was adapting to life and his
recent illness, citing „Er ist jetzt überzeugt, dass sich Ihr Sohn in wenigen
Tagen vollkommen erholen wird." – that Julis will make a full recovery and
soon respond to them himself.[14] Writing
to the family suggests a connection between host and parent, and both were
perhaps intertwined. The situation's communication shows the parents' openness
and trust in the committee and the committee's respect for sharing this with
them. Together with Mr and Mrs Mulaski's response on the 19th of July, this
shows these refugees' rare ‘double life’. Julius was only 13 when he was
evacuated, and he would likely have struggled to forge a new identity in
England.[15] Writing
to his parents, even through the organisation, would enable him to keep in
contact with his home. He could maintain connections to his previous sole
identity while adapting to this new environment within the safety of the
openness brought. Communication aided the local community's kindness through
actions and words.
These refugees' identities were reshaped in the local
context. While much good was achieved through the boys' hospitality at places
like 18 Alexandra Road, a hostel, cultural practices such as religion were
often limited. Despite Cheltenham having a synagogue and congregation formed in
1820, there appeared to be limited religious instruction for the boys at the
hostel at 18 Alexandra Road. Much attention was seemingly paid to this by the Reverend
Dr S. Ravenport in a letter dated June 1, 1940, where he highlights an event he
is hosting to celebrate Pentecost.[16] Extending
an invitation to an event in Birmingham suggests the seriousness with which
organisers were prepared to undertake religious instruction to support the
refugees. However, it remains of interest why no accounts of them attending the
Cheltenham Synagogue, which would have been much quicker, are available.
Perhaps the extent to which community could be felt was best deemed to be in
connection to other refugees, and perhaps not to the local Jewish community,
who may not be able to relate to those who have moved to Gloucester. Yet, the
locality of the matter remains prominent in the experience of the refugees in
Gloucester. The boys are sent there and often remain together, creating a
sub-community that is accepted into this more expansive community space by
local organisations who create these spaces for them. Explaining a lack of
interaction in Cheltenham, in which limited archival material can be found
dating back to the war. Pushing them to assimilate in Gloucester, in the
Hostel, and await organised interactions such as that of Birmingham – a larger
city with greater resources for such events. As such, local reception and
interest likely had a significant impact on their lives and experiences.
The hostel at 18 Alexandra Road provides insight into
community projects involving Jewish refugees. Unlike offers from local
community members to host one or two people in their homes, the hostel employed
a German Jewish couple. Dr. and Mrs Arnstein moved from Czechoslovakia to work
for the Association.[17] Their
move was not only protective of their own position in an increasingly hostile
Europe but also beneficial for other refugees to come. Dr. Arnstein was a
lawyer, and due to the increasing restrictions on life for the Jewish
community, he would have found it increasingly difficult to practice law and so
may have looked to Britain for refuge. Their relocation was a beneficial
addition to the Jewish community and the people of Gloucester. Following the
influx of April 1939, the hostel saw the arrival of the first boys in June
1939.[18] A
time in which the Gloucester Association for Aiding Refugees became a useful
outpost for refugees to be sent to, as shown through the communications between
Mrs Hall and the secretary of the larger organisations coordinating responses
in London. By enabling Jewish adults to take places within society such as
running hostels, it provided opportunities for continued cultural practices
within their new communities. Community and the outsourcing of individuals to
maintain this sense of home community was an interesting aspect of life within
Gloucester.
However, Gloucester was not the only location to which
refugees were sent. Koschland used the example of Tylers Green Hostel in High
Wycombe to highlight their religious experience and other young Jewish refugees
in the 1930s and 1940s.[19] Whilst
their own experience of the Kindertransport has undoubtedly brought a richness
to the evidence explored, it also highlights the potential bias of recollective
memory. Writing in the early 2000s, around six decades after the events, there
may be a sense of romanticising their community experience within England.
However, the regional expertise of a smaller settlement like Buckinghamshire
suggests similar parallels between refugees' lives there and in Gloucester.
Both experiences in Gloucester and High Wycombe express religious influences,
with Gloucester’s hostel being contacted by a Rabbi, and High Wycombe’s
asserting regular religious involvement. A letter from Mrs Rosenfelder in July
1945 highlights the importance of enjoying their last Shabbat together and
reflecting on the memories of their time at the hostel.[20] This
letter's importance shows the short-term hospitality of these sites.
Gloucester, however, appeared to have a limited religious involvement as the
Rabbi in one of his letters seems to apologise for the lack of
arrangement. This is significant as at both sites there appears to be
Jewish adults who have come to support the children, but there is variety in
the religious grounding both groups of refugees may have experienced. These
sites permitted the boys to stay during the war and not form a new home, unlike
some of the cases of Gloucester, which encouraged them to integrate and remain.
Whilst Gloucester was not unique as a place of hospitality, it perhaps went
further than most to make the refugees feel welcome and establish a greater
sense of community.
Conclusions
The 1930s saw the mass displacement of Jewish refugees from
Europe, many of whom found new homes in Britain. In Gloucester, community-led
initiatives played a central role in helping refugees adapt to unfamiliar
surroundings. Local volunteers and organisations, such as the Association for
Aiding Refugees, offered vital support that complemented national policy
efforts.
Though individual refugee experiences varied, communal
solidarity remained a unifying factor. The experiences of refugees in
Gloucester, particularly at the Alexandra Road hostel, echoed those in places
like High Wycombe, where adult Jewish refugees provided peer support to one
another. However, Gloucester’s religious life offered little structure or
support, in contrast to High Wycombe’s active observance of rituals such as
Shabbat.
Ultimately, Gloucester’s response underscores the importance
of community in shaping refugee experiences. Parliamentary approval and
national coordination were crucial, but it was local action that determined how
hospitality was delivered on the ground. Without grassroots mobilisation,
offers of sanctuary would not have been realised. Gloucester’s example reveals
how local communities acted as the front line of welcome, enabling refugees to
build new lives in Britain. In remembering the everyday efforts of Gloucester's
community, we see how quiet acts of care transformed policy into genuine
sanctuary.
[1] Bernd,
Koschland, “Kindertransport: Tylers Green Hostel for young Jewish
refugees,” Jewish Historical Studies, Vol. 41 (2007), pp. 271-290
[2] B.
Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe 1939-1945, (Oxford,
1979), p.1
[3] B.
Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe 1939-1945, (Oxford,
1979), p.30
[4] B.
Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe 1939-1945, (Oxford,
1979), p.30
[5] Letter
from the Co-Ordinating Committee for Refugees (dated 4th April
1939), and Post Office Telegram from Holborn to Gloucester at 11:38 AM (dated 4th April
1939) from Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/5.
[6] Letter
from Mrs Hall to The Hospitality for Refugees from Czechoslovakia (dated 4th April
1939) from Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/5.
[7] Letter
from Mrs Hall to The Hospitality for Refugees from Czechoslovakia (dated 4th April
1939) from Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/5.
[8] Gloucester
Association for Aiding Refugees, 1938-1945, Gloucestershire Heritage Hub,
accessible via: https://catalogue.gloucestershire.gov.uk/records/D7501 (Accessed
2nd May 2025)
[9] Letter
from Mrs Hall to The Hospitality for Refugees from Czechoslovakia (dated 4th April
1939) from Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/5.
[10]
Letter from the Movement For The Care of Children From Germany British
Inter-Aid Committee to Mrs Hall (dated 20th June 1939) from
Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/10.
[11] Letter
from Olive Dyke of the Movement For the Care of Children from Germany British
Inter-Aid Committee from Mrs Hall (dated 26th June 1939) from
Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/10.
[12] Letter
from Royal Infirmary Gloucester (dated 13th July 1939) from
Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/10.
[13] A
letter to Leo Mulaski (dated 26th June 1939) from
Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/10.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Card
titled ‘Mularsky, Julius’ from Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/10.
[16] Documents
to the Rev Hon Dr S Ravenport including a Letter (dated 1 June 1940),
Gloucestershire Archives reference D7501/3/10.
[17] “Kindertransport”, Gloucestershire
County Council, accessed (3rd May 2025), p.4, via: https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/archives/learning-for-all/online-exhibitions/kindertransport/
[18] Ibid.
[19] Bernd,
Koschland, “Kindertransport: Tylers Green Hostel for young Jewish
refugees,” Jewish Historical Studies, Vol. 41 (2007), p. 271
[20] Ibid.,
p. 287
Comments
Post a Comment