Domvile would add to his anti-Semitic pronouncements with the publication of other books, Straight from the Jew’s Mouth and The Truth about Anti-Semitism. This latter book was issued with a rather provocative cover that had the usual anti-Jewish caricature swatting a starfish in the shape of a Swastika. Domvile was still marching to the drumbeat of anti-Semitism and far Right politics. He also put pen to paper to make known his views on the Freemasonry conspiracy, with the publication of The Great Taboo: Freemasonry.
The book he wrote during the war and published when it had ended was titled From Admiral to Cabin Boy. This book was his reflection on his detention and laid out his belief in the conspiracy between Jews and Masons to rule the world and cause his downfall. This belief pervaded his entire thought. For example, he wrote:
‘After the arrival of Hitler and the impetus thereby given to German rearmament, British policy changed under the guidance of Judmas, which disliked both the German treatment of the Jews, and the German new economic doctrine which threatened the reign of Gold.’
It was not only in Germany that he believed Jews to be active because for him ‘the Jews who were running and ruining the country [England]’. In this book he argued, ‘In vain we pleaded that we had never attacked the Jews’, yet here he was doing just that in the very same book as well as under the anonymity of Canute in Action. He also states the conspiracy in plain words:
‘For the aim of these international Jews is a World state kept in subjection by the power of money, and working for its Jewish masters.’
Indeed, even Churchill was part of the plan:
‘Churchill is one of the leading Jewish enthusiasts in the country, and the Jews are generally credited with having an undue influence in the creation of Governments. Possibly they entertained the belief that Mr. Churchill would be a suitable head-butler, provided he did not drop the tray too often, in which event he could, presumably, be ruthlessly dismissed. I do not know. No need for him to be a Mason, because he holds already the most advanced views on Internationalism, and must be a source of daily delight to the Learned Elders: a Rabbi’s rapture.’
These allegation, innuendoes, claims and views of and about Jews appear throughout the book. Domvile had left no doubts about his opinions on the subject of the Jews and his anti-Semitic credentials, this despite his denials.
Conclusion
MI5 files had amassed a great deal of evidence on Domvile. He had clear links to The British Council of Christian Settlement and the January Club. The letters from Domvile to Luttman-Johnson and his own diaries reveal he had regular meetings with him, often having lunch at the Cavalry Club in London. The government were certain that there was German influence and control of the Link, despite Domvile’s assertions that the original idea of the Link was innocent. There was no doubt that the Ribbentrop Bureau had supported the Link through Carroll. Then there were the reports sent to Germany being made by an unnamed Nazi leader in Birmingham on Link meetings. Carroll also reported to the Ribbentrop Bureau that, ‘the Link remained steady throughout the crisis’ and that some of their members were resigning from the Territorial Army, refusing to fight against Germany.
There was clear distribution of German material at Link meetings and many pro-Germans and supporters of the Nazis had been given a platform. Whilst it could be argued that the evidence that Domvile had close links with the Nazi leaders is thin, there is no doubt he had been very welcomed in Germany and was close to Himmler. He also hosted many Germans at his home before the war and revelled in their attention. His attendance at the rallies in Germany was admitted but many prominent members of the aristocracy from Britain had also attended. It would be impossible for Domvile to deny an association with Ramsay and the Right Club. It clearly had a connection with the Link. The curious claims by Domvile not to have known the contents of Laurie’s book are also suspect. Through his diaries and meetings were it was discussed, he at least must have had an inkling as to what Laurie was promoting.
The abundance of evidence that is available leaves no room for doubt that Domvile had close contact with the far right. Many of his friends and colleagues were members of Mosley’s BUF, the Right Club, the January Club and other similar groups. His association and closeness with people like Olive Baker, Luttman-Johnson and Maule Ramsay cannot be ignored. The common link he had with these people was anti-Semitism, pro-German leanings and an admiration of Hitler and his strong grip on Germany and its people. Indeed his defence of German attitudes was evident in his speeches:
‘They nearly all seemed to impute the desire for war to other countries, principally Germany and Italy. It was a curious manifestation that peace loving nations should be accused of a desire for slaughter and blood lust.’
In the same speech on the subject of Jews and expressions of condemnation of Germany’s treatment of Jews, he said:
‘Whilst the persecution of the Jews, or any persecution for that matter, created feelings in this country, we certainly would not help the Jews by a campaign of vituperation [against Germany]; but we can only ameliorate their condition through the influence of our friendship with Germany.’
Domvile would reject the label ‘Fascist’, however, there is clear evidence that he not only embraced the principles of fascism but was involved in its organisation. His friendship with Mosley was more than simple dining and pleasure. His articles in Action and the Patriot demonstrated beyond doubt where his sympathies lay. Furthermore, like Mosley, Domvile’s writings and actions were clearly in favour of Germany and he never welcomed Britain’s involvement in war against her. He remained ‘bitterly opposed to the war’ calling it ‘a folly’.
These matters, alongside Lady Domvile’s activities as a member and supporter of the BUF that were listed, provided the basis of the case against Domvile. After the hearing and perusal of the material, Domvile was informed in December 1940 that he would be remaining in Brixton Prison. He felt it ‘unsatisfactory’ that he was not told the committee’s verdict or the reasons for his further detention, blaming it on ‘Judmas’ in his book From Admiral to cabin Boy.
To come to any conclusion about the questions surrounding Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, we have to take account of the climate in which he lived.
The history of Germany has been fraught with military invasion and war. The First World War and the Versailles Treaty left a bad taste in the mouths of Germans. People like Domvile and other military men, who had fought against Germany, also felt that the victors, especially the French, had been unfair to Germany, This is one element that spurred him to seek better rela-tions with Germany.
Secondly, he also felt that he had to protect the Empire and did not want any involvement with the continent of Europe. His view was that peace in Europe should be left to France, Italy, Germany and Russia to sort out. He was an old fashioned military man who held that there should be honour among former enemies and that reconciliation was important. His pro-German views are therefore understandable in that context.
However, there are questions raised that Domvile never seemed to answer. These were the Nürnberg Blood Laws and the subsequent treatment of Jews and other minorities. Why had he never fully condemned them with-out reservation? The reports from Germany were quite prolific and clear. The majority in Britain were convinced of their veracity. It was a minority, usually on the far Right and of Fascist leanings, who argued otherwise. His continual defence of the Nazi regime suggests that he had moved from being pro-German to being pro-Nazi. Many in Britain who had been pro-German abandoned their stance once the direction of travel by the Nazis became clear – Domvile did not.
When we look at the issue of anti-Semitism and Domvile, we have to again understand the times he lived in and the history of Britain and the Jews. The Jewish people throughout their history have been persecuted in almost every country in which they lived. There are, of course, myriad reasons for this, most of them stemming from before the advent of Jesus Christ. In the ancient world, because of their strict adherence to
their faith of monotheism, along with their food and cleansing laws, they stood out in a world of polytheism.
Since the advent of Christ, their religion suffered more persecution as charges of being the ‘the Christ killers’ added to the many other slanders against them. Even though these charges and claims have been exposed as ignorant and fallacious and rejected by the majority of those who have made intelligent enquiry, there has remained a deep seated, and often uncon-scious, anti-Semitism. In Germany, the matter was further complicated by the religious revolutionary beliefs of Martin Luther. He had moved from attempts to convert Jews to his beliefs and when they refused he became a virulent anti-Semite. His writing, although it has to be seen in the context of the rough language of the time, is still chilling:
‘First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them ... Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues ... Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them ... Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb ... Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews . Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an axe, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam ... But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews’ synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God’s name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly ... for our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God.’
It can be clearly seen how his views influenced many Nazis and why they were picked up as their excuse for their programs of extermination. Alongside this the forgery of the Protocols gained traction and fuelled the Nazi hatred of the Jewish people.
The majority of Christianity has now rejected the views of Luther on this matter, but in Domvile’s time there were still many within the Church who still held to anti-Semitism and a sizeable minority were found in the ranks of Fascists and groups such as the Anglo-German Brotherhood.
We also need to understand that in Britain, there was a history of the rejection of Jews and indeed they had been expelled in their entirety from England in 1290, by King Edward I. Some did remain and practised their religion in secret. Under Cromwell they began to return, even though Edward I’s statute was never revoked. Even before this, in 1275, Edward I passed the law Statutum de Judaismo. This absolutely forbade Jews to lend on usury, but granted them permission to engage in commerce and handicrafts, and even to take farms for a period not exceeding ten years. Furthermore, if a Jew did become a Christian, his conversion was considered a larceny of the Lord, and his property and goods were confiscated. There was also a rule that they were not allowed to appear in public without some badge or mark of distinction. The Nazis were not the first to apply this. Later, Edward relaxed the usury rules a little but they had been excluded from many of the normal occupations and were forced into a few professions, one of which was an underground system of finance and money lending. Because of the Jewish religious restrictions on usury, only Gentiles could be charged interest and with Edward’s statute they resorted to extorted bonds that included both principal and interest. The Jewish people were forced by Edward into poverty and to exist they had to resort to what was by the strict wording of the law, illegal. This became a point of anger and jealousy in the Gentile communities and led to further resentment. Shakespeare took this up in his play, The Merchant of Venice.
As a consequence, in 1278 the whole English Jewry was imprisoned and no less than 293 Jews were executed at London. It is incredible to think that the rule on a Jew being identified in public by an article of clothing was not revoked in England until 1846. It was the early 1800s before the Jews were given respite from legal restraints on their ability to earn a living. This background echoed down the ages and became an ingrained seam that ran down every royal line and throughout the aristocracy. However, it is also true that it weakened in its intensity down the ages and not everyone in the Royal household held onto the prejudice of Edward I.
However, we also have to note that the Royal Household in England were descended from German stock. Whilst they did not bring with them any desire to persecute the Jews or treat them in any way as the Nazis did, they did have what has been described as ‘mild anti-Semitism’ and as we have shown above, with Edward VIII it remained.
Domvile was a Royalist and was a member of the upper echelons of society who shared the anti-Semitism described above in various degrees. However, it does appear that he would be included in the stronger end of that spectrum. He was well-read. His diaries include details of the history books he read. His knowledge of this history, including that of the Jews, though sometimes flawed, would have allowed him to look at the Nazi treatment of Jews as no different from times past. He would therefore consider it none of his business. As long as it was happening in Germany, then for him, as he had said and written, it was the concern for the Germans and not the concern of Britain.
It is with these understandings we can now turn to look at some conclusions about each of the charges that caused Domvile’s detention.
I. Founder and stable of the Link.
This claim against Domvile is beyond dispute. He was the main mover in the Link’s founding. He had travelled up and down the country promoting it and there is no doubt that without him the organisation would have collapsed. His money and time were necessary and his service reputation and titles essential for its promotion.
II. Was closely associated with prominent Nazi leaders in Germany and in this country.
The association with Nazi leaders could hardly be called ‘close’. There is no doubt that he had met them and indeed showed some admiration for them. He was also well known to Himmler who had shown great hospitality to him in Germany. There was correspondence between them and a measure of friendliness in the exchange of greeting cards. With Goebbels, there does seem to have been some relationship that was more than brief. Letters had been exchanged between them and he had accorded some measure of importance to Domvile in Germany with the invitation to review troops. Domvile denied any ability in speaking German using that to deflect any closeness to the Nazi leadership. However it is clear that he did have a grasp of German. Why would he deny this?
III. Is sympathetic to Germany and the Nazi system of Government.
This flows from the previous charge. As was indicated above it is always necessary to set Domvile against his times and his worldview. Domvile was a passionate believer in the British Empire under the rule of the British royal family. He believed in a world conspiracy of Masons and Jews taking control of the whole world order. He also believed that Bolsheviks were a major threat inspired and directed by what he termed ‘Judmas’. Therefore, after the First World War ended, Domvile wanted the British government to focus on the Empire and leave Germany to look after itself.
When the Versailles Treaty was drawn up, Domvile, quite rightly, saw that it could never be swallowed by Germany and that eventually it would erupt in trouble. He therefore was sympathetic to Hitler’s claims that the Treaty was not good for Germany and should be able to take back the colonies. Domvile appears in his writings to agree with this. Furthermore, when it came to the large German-speaking population in Czechoslovakia, Domvile also sympathised with Germany looking after ‘their own people’. There was also the Jewish issue in Germany and Hitler’s treatment of them. Domvile again did not make any major complaint about it, simply saying it was the result of ‘the revolutionary processes’ involve
d in Germany taking steps to secure its future. His anti-Semitic views led him to an indifference to their treatment, continually leaving it as a matter for Germans.
He also had written a foreword to The Case for Germany which itself was not only sympathetic to Germany but lauded her and her Nazi leader Hitler. His denial of the content of the book stretches credulity. Domvile was extremely well read and when it came to matters about Germany he was keen to keep up to date with events. There is also a note in his diary that this was one of the books he had read. Furthermore, he was present at the book’s launch and heard Laurie talk about it. So again we are led to question his truthfulness in this matter.
We also know from his writings under the name Canute that he regularly praised the Nazi system and its policies. We also know that he attacked Churchill for his condemnation of Nazi atrocities and did his best to support understanding of what the Nazis had deliberately done to innocent people caught up in the war. Through secret meeting and open speeches and writing Domvile did everything he could to support the appeasement of Hitler. It is certain that he authored the letter to The Times in London supporting the Munich Agreement.
Finally, Domvile was also convinced that France was a weak country and could not be trusted to deal with the Communist threat from Russia. He therefore was supportive of the idea that Germany should be encouraged to be the frontline against Communist expansion and that Britain should ally with her and support her efforts. For these reasons, the claim that Domvile was sympathetic to Germany and the Nazi system of Government appear to be well founded.
IV. Has been closely associated with Sir Oswald Mosley and other prominent leaders of the BUF.
This charge cannot be disputed. Domvile’s diaries show regular meetings, both open and secret, with Mosley. He was a regular dining companion and Domvile worked with him often. He recorded in his diaries showing him the Tavistock peace proposals for Germany and meeting to discuss how they could be advanced. We know Domvile attended Mosley’s public meetings and his diary shows him attending private lectures. There are recorded meetings between Domvile, Mosley and other Fascist leaders including Pitt-Rivers, Ramsay and Beamish among others. Then we have the whole business of Mosley’s BUF paper Action, to which Domvile contributed regularly as Canute. Both men were very aware of the authorities being concerned about their activities and thus they tried to play down their relationship. Despite all denials, it is certain that Domvile was in fact a closet member of the BUF and that his wife was not only a member of the BUF but closely involved in its inner circle.
Hitler's Munich Man Page 18