Refugees from Europe 50 years ago

Press, 18 March 1989, Page 27

Refugees from Europe 50 years ago

A Small Price to Pay: Refugees from Hitler in New Zealand 1936-46. By Ann Beaglehole. Allen and Unwin, 1989. 172 pp. $29.95 (paperback). (Reviewed by Ralf Unger) The author has expanded a masters thesis in history into a sociological study of a section of New Zealand society. She bases her account on interviews with 32 former refugees selected by the "snowball method,” — that is, with each interviewee suggesting acquaintances who would be prepared to talk about their experiences. There is, therefore, no standard questionnaire, but a great deal of flexibility to allow the subjects to expand in whatever direction they choose. Once this has been taped, an attempt was made to sift out attitudes towards employment, leisure occupations, the New Zealand way of life, and so on. While these accounts are the embellishment of the group the substance, from a harder historical point-of-view, is the prejudiced functioning of the Immigrant Restriction Act 1920. Under this the Government of the day denied entry to many refugees with the eventual result of their destruction in Hitler’s death camps. Those who did succeed in entering New Zealand were frequently, for some years, resented and disliked.

The current hypothesis was that orphans between the ages of five and twelve would fit in best. The more there was an apparent membership of a particular “race,” such as most of the 1100 refugees from Central and Eastern Europe who were Jews, the greater the official expectation that they would continue to be foreigners. New Zealand accepted only one refugee per 1500 of population, as compared with the United Kingdom of one for 480 and the United States of one per 625. It was officially, but not openly, stated that “preference should be given to racial types which are likely to be easily assimilated into New Zealand industries.” According to one estimate in the same period 50,000 refugees applied for permits to enter New Zealand, so that the acceptance rate was one in 50. Each application was supposedly “treated on its merits,” but Walter Nash, the Minister of Customs of the day, was particularly concerned about allowing the entry of Jewish refugees because, “there is a major difficulty of absorbing these people into our cultural life.” No better argument could be made against this amazing statement than the subsequent careers of some such as Frederick Turnovsky, with his contributions to New Zealand arts; Henry Lang, Secretary of the Treasury

from 1968-76; and, an absolute contradiction, Bert Roth, a major historian of the New Zealand Labour movement and party! In addition various professional groups, specifically the Medical Association, fought vociferously and politically against colleagues coming into the country for fear of cutting into their own incomes. This in spite of the fact that many of the qualified refugees had to return to university for several years further training even though they had been fully qualified, and in some cases eminent, in their profession before entry. The taped accounts of early and later experience are in contrast personal, colourful, and difficult to generalise from, as the specific encounter New Zealanders made for an easy or difficult passage into a new society. The older refugees missed the coffee-houses and theatres and operas of their previous homes, such as Berlin or Vienna, and a degree of unhappiness always remained even though adoption was formally completed. Even a younger person such as Peter Munz, who was 19 when he came to New Zealand from Germany and then had a distinguished academic career as Professor of History at Victoria University of Wellington, in his retirement now says how he feels increasingly comfortable in Germany as against New Zealand where he has spent 49 years of his life.

Somewhere in adolescence there appears to be a cut-off point when roots are never entirely embedded in new soil and some of this unrest is communicated even to the next generation of children born in the new land. Survival and freedom is a major reward given by the host; pain and discomfort and misunderstanding is a very real by-product here described by a large section of the interviewed group in their acquired language.