19 May 2020
In this final post on the theme of British soldiers and administrators and German women who met soon after end of the Second World War, fell in love and decided to marry, I’ll try to answer the question: why did the government in London announce, on 31 July 1946, that the ban on marriage with so called ‘ex-enemy nationals’ would be relaxed, after marriage between British servicemen and German women had been forbidden for over a year, since US and British troops first crossed the border into Germany in late 1944 and early 1945.
In previous posts on this blog I tried to answer the questions: how many marriages between British men and German 'ex enemy nationals' were there in the first few years after the war, and who were the first couple to marry?
The decision to end the ban was taken at three Cabinet meetings in May and July 1946, against the wishes of the British military authorities in Germany. The Government responded to pressure from MPs, who argued that men and women should be free to marry whoever they chose and the state should not interfere in the private lives of individuals. Ministers received legal advice that, according to British law, marriages conducted without official permission were still valid and decided that, as they could not prevent marriages taking place if a couple were determined enough, it was better to end the ban.
The marriage ban was first implemented as part of a package of non-fraternization measures issued by SHAEF, the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force – the joint US, British and Canadian armies under the overall command of General Eisenhower, that liberated France in 1944 and invaded and occupied Germany in April and May 1945. The policy of non-fraternization with German civilians was outlined and justified in the SHAEF Handbook Governing Policy and Procedure for the Military Occupation of Germany, issued in December 1944. Chapter 14 of the handbook, headed ‘Policy on relations between Allied occupying forces and inhabitants of Germany’ stated that:
‘There will be no fraternization between Allied personnel and the German officials or population … They must learn this time that their support and tolerance of militaristic leaders, their acceptance and furtherance of racial hatreds and persecutions, and their aggressions in Europe have brought them to complete defeat, and have caused the other peoples of the world to look upon them with distrust.’
The marriage ban was a consequence of the non-fraternization order. The British Soldier’s Pocketbook, issued in early 1945, reminded soldiers that: ‘Your Supreme Commander [General Eisenhower] has issued an order forbidding fraternization with Germans’. A separate section headed 'Women' warned soldiers of the supposed dangers posed by German women:
‘Numbers of German women will be willing, if they can get the chance, to make themselves cheap for what they can get out of you. After the last war prostitutes streamed into the zone occupied by British and American troops. They will probably try this again, even though this time you will be living apart from the Germans. Be on your guard. Most of them will be infected.
MARRIAGES BETWEEN MEMBERS OF BRITISH FORCES AND GERMANS ARE, AS YOU KNOW, FORBIDDEN. [Capitals in the original]
But for this prohibition such marriages would certainly take place. Germany will not be a pleasant place to live in for some time after the war, and German girls know that, if they marry British husbands, they will become British with all the advantages of belonging to a victor nation instead of to a vanquished one. Many German girls will be just waiting for the chance to marry a Briton.’
The equivalent booklet issued to American troops, ‘Pocket Guide to Germany’ was equally forthright about fraternization:
‘There must be no fraternization. This is absolute! Unless otherwise permitted by higher authority you will not visit in German homes or associate with Germans on terms of friendly intimacy, either in public or in private.’
But a separate section in the US Pocket Guide, headed ‘Marriage Facts’ was more ambiguous, suggesting that marriage was not prohibited outright (despite the absolute ban on fraternization).
‘Now that you are on foreign soil, you should know that marriage to a foreign girl is a complicated procedure. Before you get too romantic remember that foreign girls do not automatically become citizens upon marriage to an American … In any case, you cannot marry without the authorization of your commanding officer. Even with this permission you would have difficulty getting your wife back to the U.S. since there are no provisions for transporting dependents during wartime, nor are there likely to be for a long time to come.’
This ambiguity in the US Pocket Guide over whether marriage with the former enemy was possible or not, despite the non-fraternization orders, was reflected in high level discussions that had taken place earlier between senior British and American legal officials and civil servants, although in this case the roles were reversed with the US, rather than the British, taking a harder line. The Americans proposed in October 1944 that SHAEF should issue a military government law, applicable in the part of Germany occupied by US and British forces, that would not only order soldiers not to marry Germans and punish them if they did so, but invalidate any marriage performed against the law, making it ‘absolutely null and void’.
However, before the law was issued, the British Foreign Office stepped in and prevented its formal promulgation, on the basis that British government ministers had not had the opportunity to consider it. The matter was raised at the Armistice and Post-War (APW) Committee, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, on 25 January 1945. The Committee agreed with the general policy of non-fraternization and that ‘Anglo German marriages’ should be prohibited, but ministers were divided over the question of whether marriages that did take place, against the regulations, should be invalid. As a result, the issue was referred to a meeting of the War Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, on 12 March 1945.
It seems that Attlee had doubts about the policy of non-fraternization: not the principle, but the way it was implemented. According to the minutes of the APW Committee on 25 January, he introduced the discussion by saying that he had ‘received information that in the US zone the policy of non-fraternisation had been carried out, on some occasions, in a most objectionable manner. He himself favoured the policy of non-fraternisation, but its interpretation in practice was a matter of great difficulty…’
At the War Cabinet meeting on 12 March, Attlee was recorded as saying that a majority of those on the APW felt that, while they agreed with the policy of non-fraternization and the prohibition of marriage between Germans and members of the occupying forces: ‘Great difficulty was likely to arise with the churches, with Parliament and with public opinion if such marriages were invalidated. Invalidation would be repugnant to public opinion; it would penalise the children of such marriages, rather than their parents: and, even if now approved, such a sanction was unlikely to be maintained for long.’
The ministers for war and the armed services claimed at the meeting that it would be difficult to enforce the policy of non-fraternization if marriages contracted against the order were not invalidated. Furthermore, Eisenhower had already secured the agreement of the US government to the proposed law and there were more important differences with the US that needed to be addressed. Churchill, however, agreed with Attlee, arguing that they needed to take a ‘high moral line’ on the issue. The War Cabinet decided that they could not support the invalidation of marriages contracted in contravention of the law and asked the Foreign Secretary to communicate their views to the US government.
As a result, a law explicitly prohibiting marriages with Germans was never issued in the British Zone. After SHAEF was dissolved in July 1945, the authorities relied on General Routine Orders issued by BAOR, the British Army of the Rhine, to enforce the ban.
The non-fraternization order was widely disregarded by the troops and very soon proved to be unenforceable. As I described in an earlier post, it started to be relaxed very soon after the end of the war and in September 1945, following agreement between the Allies at a meeting of the Control Council, it was decided that it should be abolished in all four zones.
But the marriage ban remained in place. In the British Zone, a BAOR General Routine Order issued on 9 November 1945, superseding earlier non-fraternization orders, stated that: ‘Members of the armed forces are forbidden to marry Germans or other enemy aliens’ and ‘The term "German" used above will be held to include all persons who during the war lived in GERMANY of their own free will.’
A similar order applied to British troops in Austria, (who were under a different command), but not to those in Italy.
Serving soldiers, sailors and airmen were subject to military law and could be punished for not following orders, but according to British common law (according to a principle known as Lex loci celebrationis), marriages contracted in Germany by German officials, without permission of the British authorities, were still legally valid, in both Britain and Germany.
The British military authorities therefore resorted to administrative measures, in addition to military orders, to enforce the ban. In Germany, church weddings were not officially recognised and had to be confirmed in a civil ceremony. German officials were instructed not to conduct any marriages between British and German citizens without permission, but this still left various potential loopholes open. For example, In the US, French and Soviet zones of occupied Germany different rules applied, so it was theoretically possible, if difficult in practice, for a couple to marry there, or in the US, French or Soviet sectors in Berlin.
Once solders had been demobilised, they were no longer subject to military law and were free to marry, provided they could find someone to conduct the ceremony. Moreover, members of the civilian Control Commission were not subject to military law and could only be prevented, or deterred, from marrying a German, if they wished to do so, by the threat of dismissal from employment. British civilians working in Germany for non-governmental agencies such as the Salvation Army and UNRRA, the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, were also not subject to military law, and were not employed by the government, so if they wished to marry a German and found someone willing to conduct the ceremony, they were not subject to any regulations which prevented them from doing so.
If the prospective bride was able to travel to Britain, there was nothing to prevent the marriage taking place in Britain, either in church or in a civil ceremony, so the authorities had to rely on travel restrictions to prevent or deter marriages, before the first permits were issued to German women to travel to Britain ‘to marry’, towards the end of 1946.
While the British authorities in Germany tried to maintain the marriage ban, Members of Parliament in London started to question the policy and the reasons for its implementation. The strongest case was presented by Benn Levy MP, in a speech on April 15 1946, six months after the fraternization ban had been lifted in September 1945. He argued on civil liberties grounds, introducing his speech as follows:
‘Whatever there is to be said on this subject, I imagine nobody in the House will dispute that this does represent at least a very serious restriction on personal freedom in a matter, in which, above all others, unrestricted freedom of private choice should surely be sacrosanct.’
He countered the argument in favour of the ban that it ‘protects men from themselves’ on the basis that:
‘No man needs protection against friendly advice. But there is world of difference between advice and prohibition, and I say that it is important that serving men should be protected against prohibitive interference that may alter the entire course of their private lives. I would remind the House that these men are not boys.’
He told the House that he had received many letters from British men wishing to marry German women. Most of the men were around 30 years old. One had asked him:
‘What is behind the ban, what it means? What is at the back of it? Is it "some sort of Nazi idea of keeping the race pure"? I hope it is not. Indeed, I know it is not. But what is it?
What makes the thing still more shocking is that the ban on fraternisation has been relaxed, but the ban on marriage has not. I use the word, "shocking," advisedly.’
Presumably what Levy found shocking was that marriage was banned, while casual sex – fraternization – was permitted.
He ended his speech as follows:
‘This question may affect only a few people, but I submit it is, none the less, important. I am not urging that British troops should marry German girls, but I am urging with all the sincerity possible that English men and women should be free to marry whomsoever they please. I am urging, in short, the indisputable and elementary right of a free man freely to choose his own wife, and I cannot think that this Government will gainsay it.’
Benn Levy was a successful playwright, a film screenwriter, and a Labour Party MP for five years from 1945–1950. He was married to the American actress Constance Cummings. It is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if his marriage to an American in 1933 made him more sympathetic to appeals from British men who wished to marry a foreign ‘ex-enemy national’?
The civil liberties case advanced by Levy was difficult to counter. How could a responsible government uphold the principles of the freedom of the individual and marriage by consent, and still insist that the state should determine who a British citizen could and could not marry? The argument that marriage with the former enemy was a threat to national security might make sense during the war, and for a few months afterwards while people feared resistance and sabotage, but much less so more than a year after VE Day and the end of the war in Europe.
The following month, on 30 May 1946, the Cabinet met to discuss the issue. The Secretary for War, Jack Lawson, presented a paper that started by referring to ‘representations that are being made and pressed by Members of Parliament’ and concluded by advocating relaxation of the ban on marriage between British Servicemen and ‘alien women’, including Austrians, Hungarians and other former enemy nationals, but not Germans or Japanese.
An appendix to the paper included a reference to a request from the Commander-in-Chief of British Troops in Austria, General Richard McCreery, that ‘the ban imposed on British soldiers under his command on marriage with Austrian women should be lifted at an early date’, on the grounds that the rule applied to Austrian but not to Italian women, and ‘most men consider the Austrian girl as better suited to be the wife of an Englishman than some or most Italians.’ It was becoming increasingly difficult to justify a ban on marriage with Austrian women, but not Italians, and by extension, a ban on marriage with German women, but not Austrians. All three countries had fought against Britain in the war.
In the discussion, Lawson stated that his personal view was that the ban should be abolished altogether, except for Japanese. There were no objections in principle though various detailed issues were raised, including the legal validity of the current ban. Ministers considered that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS), and Military Governor of the British Zone of Germany until 1 May 1946, Field-Marshal Montgomery, should be consulted before the final decision was taken.
The Cabinet met again to discuss the issue on 22 July, with a revised paper presented jointly by Lawson and James Chuter Ede, the Home Secretary, that now recommended ending the ban on marriage with German as well as with Austrian and other ‘alien’ women. The revised paper again referred to ‘frequent representations … made and pressed by Members of Parliament and others that marriages should be permitted between British Servicemen and alien women’ and recommended that ‘the present ban … should be relaxed if the reasons for such marriage are good and provided there is no security objection.’
The paper added that, in the opinion of the government’s legal advisers, while ‘military orders banning marriages between members of Her Majesty's Forces and women of enemy nationality’ were lawful, there was ‘no doubt, however, but that marriages contracted in breach of the ban would be perfectly valid.’
Possible objections to ending the ban on the basis of a need to control immigration were dismissed, on the grounds that ‘it would be unjustifiable for the Home Secretary to refuse to admit to the United Kingdom a foreign woman who had married a British soldier and wished to live with him in this country, unless there were clear evidence that she is of undesirable character … The power of controlling immigration has never been used for the purpose of hindering a foreign woman from entering the United Kingdom to marry a British subject unless the woman was known to be undesirable … Our conclusion, therefore, is that considerations relating to the nationality law and considerations relating to immigration policy ought not to be regarded as objections to a relaxation of the marriage ban, if on merits such relaxation is desirable.’
Regarding possible national security objections, the paper argued that ‘illicit relationships’ were a greater threat to security than permitting marriage. ‘In several respects moreover, the ban operates to the detriment of good discipline … a marriage contracted in breach of the ban remains valid, and disciplinary measures to prevent or to punish such breaches are unlikely to be effective where the parties are determined on marriage.’
In the discussion, Lawson said that while he was in favour of relaxing the ban, ‘the Cabinet should know that the Chief of the Imperial General Staff [Field-Marshal Montgomery] and the Commander-in-Chief in Germany [Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sholto Douglas] were both opposed to it on the ground that existing conditions in Germany gave such a strong incentive to German women to try to get British Servicemen to marry them that relaxation of the existing ban would lead to a large number of imprudent marriages.’
Three days later, on 25 July, the Cabinet met again, this time with Montgomery present. According to the minutes of the meeting, he told ministers that the ban was necessary to protect British servicemen. He ‘had agreed with General Eisenhower that there should be no relaxation of the ban on marriages between British Servicemen and German women, and that during his own tenure of office of Commander-in-Chief in Germany, he had adhered strictly to this agreement. Conditions in Germany were likely to become increasingly difficult, and German women had a strong incentive to try to get British Servicemen to marry them. Moreover, the men themselves were living in abnormal conditions and tended to lose their sense of proportion. In his view marriage should not be allowed unless the man concerned, after returning to this country, still desired to marry the German woman.’
Montgomery’s objections were dismissed on the basis that marriages contracted in spite of the ban were still valid and once this was more widely known, maintaining the ban would undermine discipline. Furthermore, servicemen could marry when they got home anyway; and if permission was given to marry if the women were pregnant, (which was difficult to refuse on moral grounds), this would provide an ‘easy way to dodge the ban’ and ‘an invitation to immorality’.
In conclusion, therefore, ministers agreed that: ‘While, therefore, it was most desirable that everything possible should be done to protect British Servicemen against imprudent marriages with German women, the retention of the existing ban did not appear to be an effective method of achieving this object’ and ‘local military commanders should be authorised to relax the present ban on marriages between British Servicemen and foreign women, other than Japanese, in cases where the reasons for marriage were good and there was no security objection.’
A few days later, on 31 July 1946, the government announced in the House of Lords and the following day, 1 August, in the House of Commons, that the ban would be relaxed.
‘After careful consideration the Government have decided to relax the ban at present in force on marriages between British Servicemen, and women of ex-enemy countries, other than Japanese. Local military commanders will be given authority to permit such marriages in cases where there is no security or other objection.’
Winston Churchill, now leader of the opposition rather than Prime Minister, asked why an exception was made for Japanese. He was given the answer that the matter had not arisen. If it did the government would consider it.
References
Records of the British Cabinet meetings on 12 March 1945, 30 May, 22 July and 25 July 1946, are held at The National Archives, including Memoranda (papers prepared in advance for consideration at the meetings), Conclusions (minutes of the meeting), and for some of the meetings, the Cabinet Secretary’s personal notebook, with further details of the discussion at the meeting. Most of the records have been digitised and are available on-line.
Transcripts of British Parliamentary debates are published online by Hansard.
Printed copies of the SHAEF Handbook Governing Policy and Procedure for the Military Occupation of Germany are held by The National Archives, in various files including WO 220/221.
Germany 1944: The British Soldier’s Pocketbook and the US soldiers’ Pocket Guide to Germany are both available on-line in reprinted or facsimile editions.
Comments