Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T18:20:20.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Gentlemen, the Cheese Is All Gone!’ British POWs, the ‘Great Escape’ and the Anglo-German Agreement for Compensation to Victims of Nazism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2008

SUSANNA SCHRAFSTETTER
SUSANNA SCHRAFSTETTER*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA; [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In 1964 the West German government agreed to provide £1 million in financial compensation to British victims of National Socialism. The distribution of the money, organised by the British foreign office, turned into a major public scandal, as a number of British POWs, among them survivors of the ‘great escape’, had their claims rejected. By examining the refusal of several British POWs to accept their exclusion from the scheme, the article addresses the interplay of political pressure and public opinion that led to a parliamentary inquiry into what became known as ‘the Sachsenhausen affair’ in 1967. Given that provisions of the agreement with West Germany had precluded indemnification to mistreated POWs, the distribution of the money almost inevitably led to bitterness and discontent. From this perspective, the article explores the impact of the Great Escape on British memory of the war, the public reception of the film The Great Escape (1963), and the way in which public memory influenced the debate on compensation.

‘messieurs, il n'y a plus de fromage!’ les prisonniers de guerre britanniques, la ‘grande évasion’ et l'accord anglo-allemand pour la compensation des victimes du nazisme

En 1964, le gouvernement de la RFA a accepté de fournir un million de livres comme compensation financière à des victimes britanniques du national-socialisme. La distribution de l'argent, organisée par le Ministère des affaires étrangères britannique, s'est transformée en un scandale public majeur, quand une partie des prisonniers de guerre britanniques – parmi lesquels les survivants de la ‘grande évasion’ – ont vu leurs revendications être rejetées. En examinant le refus de certains prisonniers de guerre britanniques d'accepter leur exclusion du programme, l'article aborde l'interaction entre la pression politique et l'opinion publique qui a amené à une enquête parlementaire dans ce qui est devenu ‘l'affaire Sachsenhausen’ en 1967. Puisque les dispositions de l'accord avec l'Allemagne avaient exclu l'indemnisation de prisonniers de guerre maltraités, la distribution de l'argent a presque inévitablement mené à l'amertume et au mécontentement. A travers cette perspective, l'article explore l'impacte de la ‘grande évasion’ sur la mémoire de guerre britannique, l'accueil du public du film The Great Escape (1963) et la manière par laquelle la mémoire publique a influencé le débat sur la compensation.

‘meine herren, es ist kein käse mehr übrig!’ britische kriegsgefangene, die ‘grosse flucht’ und des englisch–deutsche abkommen über die entschädigung von opfern des nationalsozialismus

1964 willigte die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ein, den britischen Opfern des Nationalsozialismus eine finanzielle Entschädigung von einer Million Pfund zu zahlen. Die Verteilung des Geldes durch das britische Aussenministerium entwickelte sich zu einem bedeutenden öffentlichen Skandal, als die Forderungen einer Anzahl britischer Kriegsgefangener, unter ihnen Überlebende der ‘Grossen Flucht’, abgewiesen wurden. Dieser Artikel untersucht die Weigerung verschiedener britischer Kriegsgefangener, ihren Ausschluss aus dem Programm zu akzeptieren, und thematisiert damit das Wechselspiel von politischem Druck und öffentlicher Meinung an, welches 1967 zu einer parlamentarischen Untersuchung führte, welche unter dem Namen ‘Affäre Sachsenhausen’ bekannt wurde. Da die Bestimmungen des Abkommens mit Deutschland die Entschädigung mißhandelter Kriegsgefangener ausgeschlossen hatte, führte die Verteilung des Geldes fast unumgänglich zu Bitterkeit und Unzufriedenheit. Der Artikel erforscht aus dieser Perspektive die Auswirkung der ‘Großen Flucht’ auf das britische Kriegsgedächtnis, die öffentliche Rezeption des Filmes The Great Escape (1963) und die Art und Weise wie das öffentliche Gedächtnis die Diskussion über die Entschädigung beeinflusste.

Type
Article
Information
Contemporary European History , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 23 - 43
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Daily Telegraph, 22 Dec. 1967.

2 On the ‘Great Escape’ see, e.g., Brickhill, Paul, The Great Escape (New York: Norton, 1950)Google Scholar; Durand, Arthur, Stalag Luft III: the Secret Story (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1988)Google Scholar; Gill, Anton, The Great Escape: The Full Dramatic Story with Contributions from Survivors and Their Families (London: Review, 2002)Google Scholar; Millar, George: Horned Pigeon: The Great Escape Story of WWII (London: Cassell, 2003)Google Scholar.

3 Gregory, Roy and Giddings, Philip, The Ombudsman, the Citizen and Parliament (London: Politico's: 2002)Google Scholar; Gregory, Roy and Hutchesson, Peter, The Parliamentary Ombudsman. A Study in the Control of Administrative Action (London: Allen & Unwin, 1975)Google Scholar offers a very detailed account of the affair, but the analysis focuses almost entirely on the case's significance for the office of ombudsman and the ministerial machinery.

4 For the Luxembourg Agreement see (among others) Shafir, Shlomo, Ambiguous Relations: The American Jewish Community and Germany Since 1945 (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999), 159–78Google Scholar; Münch, Peter, ‘Zwischen “Liquidation” und Wiederaufbau. Die deutschen Juden, der Staat Israel und die internationalen jüdischen Organisationen in der Phase der Wiedergutmachungsverhandlungen’, Historische Mitteilungen, 10 (1997), 81–111Google Scholar; Zweig, Ronald, German Reparations and the Jewish World. A History of the Claims Conference (Portland: Frank Cass, 2001)Google Scholar; Jelinek, Yeshayahu, Deutschland und Israel 1945–1965. Ein neurotisches Verhältnis (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Eizenstat, Stuart, Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II (New York: Public Affairs, 2003)Google Scholar; Bazyler, Michael, Holocaust Justice: The Battle for Restitution in America's Courts (New York: NYU Press, 2003)Google Scholar.

6 Roy, Brooks, ed., When Sorry Isn't Enough: the Controversy over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice (New York: NYU Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Barkan, Elazar, The Guilt of Nations (New York: Norton, 2000)Google Scholar; Torpey, John, Politics of the Past: On Repairing Historical Injustices (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003)Google Scholar.

7 Hockerts, Hans Günter, ‘Wiedergutmachung in Deutschland 1945–2000’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, 49 (2001), 167–214Google Scholar; Lappenküper, Ulrich, ‘Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Wiedergutmachung für französische Opfer nationalsozialistischen Unrechts’, Francia 28 (2001), 77–101Google Scholar; Helmberger, Peter, ‘Der Versuch einer Generalbereinigung: Die Verhandlungen zwischen den Niederlanden und der Bundesrepublik um den Ausgleichsvertrag vom 8. April 1960’, Zentrum für Niederlande Studien Jahrbuch, 4 (1993), 71–98Google Scholar.

8 Hockerts, Hans Günter, Moisel, Claudia and Winstel, Tobias, eds., Grenzen der Wiedergutmachung. Die Entschädigung für NS-Verfolgte in West- und Osteuropa (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2006)Google Scholar.

9 Schrafstetter, Susanna, ‘The Diplomacy of Wiedergutmachung: Memory, the Cold War, and the Western European Victims of Nazism 1956–64’, Holocaust & Genocide Studies, 17 (2003), 459–79, discusses the Globalabkommen in a general manner.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

10 For details on the pre-history of the Globalabkommen see Goschler, Constantin, Wiedergutmachung. Westdeutschland und die Verfolgten des Nationalsozialismus (1945–1954) (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 See Heß, Burkhard, ‘Völker- und zivilrechtliche Beurteilung der Entschädigung für Zwangsarbeit vor dem Hintergrund neuerer Entscheidungen deutscher Gerichte’, in Barwig, Klaus, ed., Entschädigung für NS Zwangsarbeit: Rechtliche, historische und politische Aspekte (Baden Baden: Nomos, 1998), 80–1Google Scholar.

12 Hockerts, ‘Wiedergutmachung’, 191; Goschler, , Schuld und Schulden. Die Politik der Wiedergutmachung für NS-Verfolgte seit 1945 (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2005), 152–9Google Scholar.

13 For the exact provisions see Blessin, Georg and Wilden, Hans, Bundesentschädigungsgesetze: Kommentar (Munich: Beck, 1957)Google Scholar; Bundesergänzungsgesetz zur Entschädigung für Opfer der nationalsozialistischen Verfolgung, § 8, 1195–6.

14 Hockerts, ‘Wiedergutmachung’, 189–91. Blessin and Wilden, Bundesentschädigungsgesetze, 1195–6.

15 Tobias Winstel, ‘Die Bundesregierung und die europäischen Entschädigungsforderungen bis 1965’, in Hockerts, Moisel and Winstel, Grenzen, 83–5.

16 For detailed analyses of all eleven agreements see Hockerts, Moisel and Winstel, Grenzen.

17 Susanna Schrafstetter, ‘“What about paying BRITISH victims of Nazi hell camps?” Die Entschädigungsfrage in den deutsch-britischen Beziehungen’, in Hockerts, Moisel and Winstel, Grenzen, 568–601, here 591–2.

18 For details see Schrafstetter, ‘Entschädigungsfrage’, 593–7; Laszlo Schirilla, Wiedergutmachung für Nationalgeschädigte (Munich: Kaiser, 1982).

19 NA, FO 371/160638, Memorandum by Margaret King, 22 Nov. 1961, and Memorandum by I. Vair-Turnbull, 29 Nov. 1961.

20 For the final stages of the negotiations see NA, FO 371/177980, Roberts to FO, 14 and 19 May 1964.

21 Bailer-Galanda, Brigitte, Die Entstehung der Rückstellungs- und Entschädigungsgesetzgebung: die Republik Österreich und das in der NS-Zeit entzogene Vermögen (Vienna: Oldenbourg, 2003)Google Scholar.

22 The inclusion of recent British victims triggered West German protest: Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amtes, Berlin (hereafter PA AA), B 81, Bd. 502, Etzdorf to AA, 13 Nov. 1964.

23 NA, T 312/1885, Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Federal Republic of Germany Concerning Compensation for United Kingdom Nationals who were Victims of National Socialist Measures of Persecution, 9 June 1964.

24 The Times, 24 March 1964.

25 Daily Mirror, 28 April 1964; Guardian, 24 April 1964.

26 For the reasons why the distribution of the money was administered by the Foreign Office rather than the Foreign Compensation Commission, see Gregory and Hutchesson, Ombudsman, 418.

27 NA, FO 950/740, Application Form and Notes for Guidance, undated.

28 NA, FO 371/55704, Allied Control Authority: Political Directorate to Manpower Directorate: Definition of Term of ‘Victim of Nazism’, 25 May 1946: ‘Victims of Nazism shall be held to mean those persons who have been imprisoned or confined in concentration camps by the Nazi regime by reason of their political convictions, religion or race or political activities against the Nazi regime.’

29 San Francisco Peace Treaty (1951), Art. 16.

30 NA, FO 371/177981, Memorandum by William Ledwidge, 1 July 1964. For the ‘post-53 funds’ for Jewish victims who had left Eastern Europe after 1953 see Goschler, Schuld, 282–8.

31 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates House of Commons, Vol. 739, Written Answers, Dame Irene Ward, 23 Jan. 1967, cols. 188–90.

32 NA, FO 950/766, Scheme to Compensate UK Victims of Nazi Persecution, 14 June 1965.

33 NA, FO 950/765, Compensation for Victims of Nazi Persecution – Publicity, 12 March 1965.

34 NA, FO 950/742, Interim statistics: 30 March 1965. See also FO 950/766, Interim statistics 30 Sept. 1965 and 30 Nov. 1965.

35 NA, FO 950/766, Memorandum by Mr Littler, 1 June 1965, Memorandum by Mr Brooks, 14 June 1964.

36 Full set of statistics: Hansard, HC Deb., Vol. 739, cols. 188–90. See also The Times, 24 Jan. 1967.

37 NA, FCO 33/163, Graham to Burrows, 20 Jan. 1967.

38 For individuals compensated see NA FO 950/767. The lists are incomplete but provide a sample of c. 300 cases.

39 NA, FO 950/768, FO to British Consulate, Tel Aviv, 24 Sept. 1965.

40 On Odette Hallowes (also known as Odette Churchill and Odette Sansom) see also Sanders, Catherine, Odette Churchill (London: Hamilton, 1989)Google Scholar.

41 In France, for example, the process of distribution was not completed until 1975. Claudia Moisel, ‘Pragmatischer Formelkompromiss: Das deutsch-französische Globalabkommen von 1960’, Hockerts, Winstel and Moisel, Grenzen, 242–84, here 271.

42 NA, FO 371/177981, Memordandum by W. Ledwidge, 1 July 1964.

43 NA FO 371/177981, Neave to Butler, 30 July 1964.

44 NA, AIR 2/17158, Memorandum by W. E. Fitzsimmons, 25 Aug. 1964.

45 NA AIR 20/11383, Hugh Fraser to Minister of Defence (Army and Navy) 29 Aug. 1964.

46 NA, FO 950/742, Memorandum by I. Vair-Turnbull, 3 Sept. 1964.

47 NA, FO 950/766, Record of a Meeting at the Ministry of Defence, 3 Sept. 1964.

48 Daily Mail, 15 April 1964.

49 NA, Air 2/17158 Compensation for Victims of Nazi Persecution: RAF Personnel, 8 July 1964.

50 NA, FO 950/766 Minister of Defence for the Army to Thomas, 13 July 1964.

51 NA, AIR 21/7158, Memorandum of Conversation, Appendix C, undated 1965.

52 NA, FO 950/766, Memorandum by E. A. Brooks (FO), 15 June 1965.

53 See Cull, Nicholas, ‘Great Escapes: “Englishness” and the Prisoner of War Genre’, Film History, 14 (2002), 282–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 Jones, Priscilla Dale, ‘Nazi Atrocities against Allied Airmen: Stalag Luft III and the End of the British War Crimes Trials’, Historical Journal, 41 (1998), 543–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The trials against the perpetrators of the Stalag Luft III murders in 1947 and 1948 and the trial of Erich von Manstein in 1949 were the last to be conducted by the British. Dale Jones, ‘Atrocities’, 563.

55 Ibid., 562.

56 For details on all the applicants see Gregory and Hutchesson, Ombudsman, 425–30.

57 Churchill, Peter, The Spirit in the Cage (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1954)Google Scholar, and Best, S. Payne, The Venlo Incident (London: Hutchinson, 1950)Google Scholar.

58 NA, FCO 64/59, Results Report, Case No. C. 371/67, 20 Dec. 1967. For comparative statements in 1945 and 1965 see FCO 64/67, Comparative Statements of Mr Dowse and others, undated. For more details on the foreign office decision making, see Gregory and Hutchesson, Ombudsman, 431–8.

59 Daily Worker, 19 Feb. 1966. See also Morning Star, 23 Feb. 1967.

60 Daily Express, 19 Oct. 1965.

61 Sun, 1 March 1966.

62 Gregory and Hutchesson, Ombudsman, 450

63 Hansard, HC Debs. Vol. 735, 7 Nov. 1966, cols. 974–8.

64 Gregory and Hutchesson, Ombudsman, 462.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid. On Sir Edmund Compton see Gregory and Giddings, Ombudsman, 125–72.

67 NA, FCO 64/59, Results Report Case No C. 371/67, Sachsenhausen, 20 Dec. 1967.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid.

70 For the camp system hierarchy see Matthäus, Jürgen, ‘Verfolgung, Ausbeutung, Vernichtung: Jüdische Häftlinge im System der Konzentrationslager’, in Morsch, Günter and Nieden, Susanne zur, eds., Jüdische Häftlinge im Konzentrationslager Sachsenhausen (Berlin: Metropol, 2004), 64–90Google Scholar; Obenaus, Herbert, ‘Der Kampf um das tägliche Brot’, in Herbert, Ulrich, Orth, Karin and Dieckmann, Christoph, eds., Die nationalsozialistischen Konzentrationslager. Entwicklung und Struktur (Göttingen: Wallstein, 1998), part 2, 841–73Google Scholar; Freund, Florian, ‘Häftlingskategorien und Sterblichkeit in einem Aussenlager des KZ Mauthausen’, in ibid., 874–886; Tuchel, Johannes, Die Inspektion der Konzentationslager. Das System des Terrors 1938–45 (Berlin: Metropol 1994)Google Scholar.

71 Michel, Henry, Oranienburg – Sachsenhausen (Eupen: Grenz-Echo, 1985), 77Google Scholar.

Research on Sachsenhausen had for a long time been limited to survivor accounts and, more recently, exhibition catalogues. For memoirs see, e.g., Michel, Oranienburg; Nansen, Odd, Von Tag zu Tag (Hamburg: Dulk, 1949)Google Scholar; Theodor Feuerlein, Bericht über das Konzentrationslager Sachsenhausen (Dresden: Landesdruckerei Sachsen, n.d.); Weiss-Rüthel, Arnold, Nacht und Nebel. Ein Sachsenhausen-Buch (Berlin: Kluger, 1949)Google Scholar; Naujoks, Harry, Mein Leben im KZ-Sachsenhausen 1936–42. Erinnerungen des ehemaligen Lagerältesten (Cologne: Röderberg, 1987)Google Scholar.

Both Morsch, Günter, Ohm, Agnes and de Pasquale, Sylvia, eds., ‘All Europe was here’. Survivors of the Concentration Camps of Ravensbrück and Sachsenhausen in Post-war Politics (Berlin: Metropol, 2004)Google Scholar; and Morsch, Günter, Murder and Mass Murder in Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp, 1936–1945 (Berlin: Metropol, 2005), document exhibitions of the Gedenkstätte SachsenhausenGoogle Scholar.

Research has only just begun to analyse this vast complex, running over a hundred satellite camps. See Kaienburg, Hermann, Der Militär- und Wirtschaftskomplex der SS im KZ-Standort Sachsenhausen-Oranienburg (Berlin: Metropol, 2006)Google Scholar.

72 Nansen, Tag, and Michel, Oranienburg, 78. This is also clear from the testimony of Starr, who had subsequently been transferred to Mauthausen concentration camp, where he was mistreated very badly; see Fuller, Jean Overton, The Starr Affair (London: Gollancz, 1954)Google Scholar.

73 Damals in Sachsenhausen, herausgegeben vom Komitee der Antifaschistischen Widerstandskämpfer in der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik (Ostberlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1961).

74 Five of the seven were murdered in Sachsenhausen, one in Bergen-Belsen and one was presumed to have been murdered in Belsen. For the postwar investigations see WO 309/109 and WO 309/853. See also Winfried Meyer, ‘Britischer oder sowjetischer Sachsenhausen-Prozess?’, Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft, 45 (1997), 965–91, here 975–6. Fritz Sigl, Todeslager Sachsenhausen. Ein Dokumentarbericht zum Sachsenhausen Prozess (Berlin: SWA, 1948), 213, wrongly mentions the shooting of only three British inmates. The foreign office identified thirty-four British Sachsenhausen inmates; in thirty cases applications for compensation were submitted. Twenty-two cases were claims by dependants for murdered victims.

75 Hansard, HC Debs. Vol. 758, 5 Feb. 1968, cols. 107–70. See also Gregory and Giddings, Ombudsman, 165–6.

76 Gregory and Hutchesson, Ombudsman, 481.

77 Daily Telegraph, 22 Dec. 1967.

78 Sunday Times, 11 Feb. 1968; similar: Sun, 6 Feb. 1968, and The Times, 6 Feb. 1968.

79 Guardian, 31 May 1968. For details see Gregory and Hutchesson, Ombudsman, 526–8.

80 Cf., e.g., Birmingham Post, Glasgow Herald, Guardian, Morning Star, Daily Express, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, The Times, all 31 May 1968; Sunday Times, 11 Feb. 1968; The Spectator, 9 Feb. 1968; Daily Mail, Sun, 7 Feb. 1968; Financial Times, The Times, Sun, Morning Star, Daily Mirror, Guardian, all 6 Feb. 1968.

81 Cull, ‘Great Escapes’, 282.

82 Cull, ‘Great Escapes’, 282–3.

83 Ibid. See also the abundance of ‘escape memoirs’ beyond the ‘Great Escape’, e.g. Sniders, Edward, Flying In, Walking Out: Memoirs of War and Escape, 1939–45 (London: Cooper, 1999)Google Scholar; Johnson, Tony, Escape to Freedom: An Airman's Tale of Capture, Escape and Evasion (Barnsley: Cooper, 2002)Google Scholar.

84 NA, AIR 2/17158, Memorandum by W. Horsley, 21 March 1969.

85 Ibid.

86 NA, FCO 64/14, Lessons of Sachsenhausen, 9 Feb. 1968.

87 It is not clear whether the skeletons were a reference to other doubtful cases or entirely different problems within the foreign office. NA, FCO 64/14, Lessons of Sachsenhausen, 9 Feb. 1968.

88 NA, FCO 64/54, Nazi Persecution: Sachsenhausen, Awards for Consideration, undated.

89 NA, FCO 64/14, The Aftermath of Sachsenhausen, 7 May 1968.

90 NA, FCO 64/100, Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, 27 Nov. 1968.

91 NA, FCO 64/55, POWs whose applications were rejected, 29 March 1967. This document contains six pages of names of brutally treated British POWs.

92 On this question see White, Joseph, ‘“Even in Auschwitz . . . Humanity Could Prevail”: British POWs and Jewish Concentration Camp Inmates at IG Auschwitz 1943–45’, Holocaust & Genocide Studies, 15 (2001), 266–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

93 Foreign Office officials tried and failed in drawing up a list of camps with ‘conditions comparable to a concentration camp’. NA, FCO 64/100, Foreign Office Note, 27 Nov. 1968.

94 Goschler, Schuld, 422–37.

95 Spiliotis, Susanne-Sophia, Verantwortung und Rechtsfrieden. Die Stiftungsinitiative der deutschen Wirtschaft (Frankfurt: Fischer, 2003)Google Scholar; Goschler, Schuld, 450–71.

96 BBC News, 17 Jan. 1998, http://news.bbc.co.uk.

97 Ibid.

98 Guardian, 8 Nov. 2000, http://guardian.co.uk.

99 Guardian, 13 July 2005, http://guardian.co.uk. Only those victims who were born in the United Kingdom or had parents or grandparents born in the United Kingdom were to be compensated.

100 Guardian, 13 July 2005, http://guardian.co.uk.

101 Cull, ‘Great Escapes’, 288.

102 Guardian, 24 April 1964

103 See, e.g., Daily Mail, 8 and 10 April 1964; Daily Mirror, 28 April 1964; Daily Worker, 19 Feb. 1965; Daily Express, 19 Oct. 1965. On TV coverage see PA AA, B 81, Bd 354, Etzdorf to AA, 28 April 1964.

104 NA, FCO 64/59, Results Report Case No. C.371/67.

105 Cooke, Steven, ‘Negotiating Memory and Identity: The Hyde Park Holocaust Memorial, London’, Journal of Historical Geography, 26 (2000), 449–65, here 453CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Ibid., 453.

107 Ibid., 461.

108 Kushner, Tony, ‘Too Little, Too Late? Reflections on Britain's Holocaust Memorial Day’, Journal of Israeli History, 23 (2004), 116–29, here 116–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

109 Ibid., 122–3.

110 On this point see Cesarani, David, ‘Seizing the Day: Why Britain Will Benefit from Holocaust Memorial Day’, Patterns of Prejudice, 34 (2000), 61–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

111 Chicken Run (2000); Cull, ‘Great Escapes’, 293.