How it really was

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.

6 April 2020

Who was the first serving British soldier or civilian member of the Control Commission to marry a German woman after the end of the Second World War? I first asked this question in May 2009 in a post on this blog on Marriage with ‘ex-enemy nationals’, with two updates, on May 2013 and August 2016.

I have continued to research the subject over the past few years, and this post tells the story of Ralph Peck and his German bride, Ursula Ottow, who were married in the St Johannes church in Brunswick on 20 August 1946, earlier than any of the couples I have written about previously, or whose sons or daughters have added comments to earlier posts.

But Ralph and Ursula married without permission from the British authorities, and they did not realise that their church ceremony was not valid in German law, according to which church marriages must be confirmed in a civil registry office (Standesamt) before they are legally valid.

They were eventually officially married in the Standesamt in Goslar on 21 May 1947, nine months after their church wedding on 20 August 1946.

An extraordinary collection of documents preserved by Ralph’s son, Clive, which he has now donated to the Imperial War Museum, shows that even after the British government announced, on 31 July 1946, that the marriage ban with ‘ex-enemy nationals’ would be relaxed, it was still enormously difficult, time-consuming and stressful for a couple who wished to marry to understand the regulations, obtain all the necessary documents and finally receive permission to marry, in full accordance with British and German law.  

Ralph first met his future wife, Ursula, soon after the end of the war, and they decided to marry in December 1945, when British men serving in the armed forces or Control Commission for Germany (CCG) were still forbidden to marry ‘ex-enemy nationals’.

Ralph was born on 5 November 1919 and served during the war in the Royal Corps of Signals. According to his Soldier’s Service Book, he enlisted on 8 July 1940 and was employed as a clerk. He was promoted sergeant, awarded the Africa Star, was entitled to the Defence Medal, and served overseas, mainly in the Middle East, for a total of 5 years and 14 days. At the end of the war in Europe, in May 1945, he was in Germany, stationed in Brunswick, in the British zone of occupation.

Ursula was born on 15 April 1929 in Flatow in West Prussia, now Zlotow in Poland. Like many other Germans, she had fled westwards with her family ahead of the advancing Soviet troops.

The documents do not reveal when or how they met, but Ursula told her son Clive that it was soon after the end of the war, at a dance hall, and Ralph asked her to marry him the first time they met. She was only 16 years old at the time.

On 2 January 1946, Ralph wrote a letter, in German, to Ursula’s parents, asking for their consent to the marriage. Ursula’s parents now lived in Oschersleben, not far from Brunswick, where Ralph was stationed – but Oschersleben was in the Russian Zone of occupation. Travel between the Russian and British zones was difficult and required special permission, so they could not meet face to face. Ralph wrote that he hoped to meet them soon. As he was due to be demobilised and return to Britain in April and as he loved their daughter, he asked for their permission to marry and take Ursula with him to England. He added that he and Ursula would return to visit her parents every year, and would spend the next Christmas with them in Germany.

Ursula’s father, Alwin Ottow, replied to Ralph on 22 January 1946. He wrote that he and his wife were glad to hear that their daughter Ursula had met someone willing to make her his wife and this would, he added, help create a bridge of friendship between the British and German peoples. He welcomed the news and had no objections, but felt he had to express some concerns. Ursula was very young and inexperienced. She would be only 17 years old in April. She had no job, had not trained for any career, and had no possessions apart from the clothes she was dressed in. He also questioned how she would cope with leaving home and living in a strange and unfamiliar country. But, he added, the decision was theirs alone. At the end of the letter he asked for the wedding to take place in Germany, rather than in England, so that he and his wife could be present.

The couple announced their engagement on 5 February 1946.

On 18 March 1946, Ralph applied to the army authorities for permission to marry. He received a reply on 23 March 1946 refusing his request on the grounds that army regulations did not allow marriage with German women who had lived in Germany during the war.

Refused permission to marry by the army, Ralph thought that he could still marry Ursula after he was demobilised, if he returned to Germany as a civilian. He wrote on 27 March 1946 to the Home Office, Aliens Department, in London, that he wished to marry, as a civilian, a ‘young German girl’. He was due to be demobilised between 20 April and 17 May and intended to ‘seek immediate permission to return to Germany for the purpose of marrying the girl and returning with her to England’. He asked to be notified of the correct procedure to be adopted, adding that parental consent had been given for the marriage. If possible, he wished to arrange the marriage before his departure to England.

Around the same time, at the end of March, he applied to join the civilian Control Commission for Germany (CCG).

Ralph’s application was successful. He started work with the CCG and returned to Germany in July 1946, stationed initially in Brunswick and then at Goslar. On 22 July he wrote to the CCG Welfare Office in Lübbecke, a small town in Westphalia, stating that he was submitting his application ‘to marry a German girl’, adding that he had originally applied on 18 March 1946 while serving as a Sergeant in the Royal Corps of Signals, and the matter was not passed to higher authority then as ‘it was considered that there would be no possibility … of approval being given.’

He now asked if permission could be given at an early date, as he had returned to Germany as a civilian. If this was not possible, he asked if he could escort his intended bride home while on leave ‘where a home awaits her, where her arrival is eagerly awaited and her presence amongst my family would be that of genuine welcome’. He would then return to his job in Germany until a change of policy allowed German wives of Control Commission personnel to live in Germany.

Ralph received a reply dated 6 August 1946 from the CCG Civil Establishment Office refusing his request to marry, on the grounds that: ‘the position stated in C.E.O. Circular no. 36L of 14.12.1945 remains unaltered, and consent to marriage between civilian personnel of the Commission and Germans is in all cases refused.’

This reply is surprising as only a few days earlier, on 31 July 1946, the government had officially announced in London that the marriage ban would be relaxed. Presumably the news had not yet reached the British officials in Germany.

Despite not having received official permission, Ralph and Ursula decided to go ahead anyway, and were married in a church ceremony in the St Johannes Church in Brunswick on 20 August 1946.

But that was not the end of the story.

Ralph almost certainly did not know that when he and Ursula were married in church on 20 August, in Germany, unlike England, church marriages were only legally binding if they were confirmed at a government registry office (Standesamt). This had implications in Britain as well. According to British law, properly conducted marriages in foreign countries were accepted and recognised. But if a church marriage was not legally binding in Germany, it was not legally binding in Britain.

The documents in the files show that between the end of August 1946, after he was married in church, and May 1947, when the registry office marriage finally took place, Ralph desperately tried to find out what was the correct procedure, obtain the required documents, and meet the various conditions to be fulfilled, before he and Ursula were eventually married in full accordance with German and British law.

The church marriage was reported in the newspaper, the Daily Mirror, with a photo of Ralph under the headline: ‘Civilian defies ban – weds German sweetheart, 17.’ The text of the article ran: ‘Defying the Control Commission ban on marriages between its employees and German girls, Ralph Peck, 26, ex-sergeant, of Wivenhoe (Essex) has married a German girl of 17 in Brunswick. Forty guests including members of the Control Commission attended the reception. Mr Peck hopes that when the authorities officially find out about his wedding, they will lift the ban for everyone.’

It is interesting that according to the article, ‘members of the Control Commission’ attended the wedding and seem to have had no objections to it, despite the wedding taking place without official permission. But it is not known who were the guests at the reception, or how the Daily Mirror heard about the wedding.

On 4 September 1946 Ralph wrote to the London office of the Control Commission asking to be advised of the ‘correct procedure to be followed, in respect of marriages taking place between Control Commission personnel and German subjects, adding that ‘I have been unable to obtain any definite instructions of the correct procedure to follow regarding this matter, although I understand, notification as far as military personnel are concerned, has already been issued by army authorities.’

This suggests that by now, Ralph probably knew that the government in London had decided to relax the marriage ban. On 31 July 1946, a government spokesman had made a statement in the House of Lords that ‘local military Commanders should be authorised to relax the present ban on marriage between British servicemen and alien women … in cases where the reasons for marriage are good and there is no security objection.’

But although the decision in principle had been taken to end the marriage ban, it took many months until it was implemented in practice by the various military and Control Commission units in Germany. Ralph received a reply to his letter of 4 September from the Director of Organisation, Zonal Executive Offices in Lübbecke, dated 18 September, stating that marriages were not yet possible but the situation was ‘under active consideration’ and a general announcement would be made as soon as a decision had been made.

Ursula was now pregnant, and their daughter, Sylvia Lilian Gabriele was born on 22 November 1946.

Ralph may have first become aware that his German church marriage was not legally binding when he attempted to register his daughter’s birth.

He wrote on 17 December 1946 to the Civil Establishment Office for the CCG in Lübbecke and to the Passport Control Office in Berlin, asking for permission to ‘sign the Register’ at the Standesamt in Goslar in order to ‘complete my marriage’ adding that: ‘At present I am unable to obtain a “proper” birth certificate for my child and I have signed a certificate to the effect that ‘I am the father of my child’ pending authority requested above.’ He continued: ‘I wondered whether I could overcome the terrible strain and worry, which I have undergone for some very considerable time’.

He received a reply stating that conditions were still being formulated and he should wait until a general announcement was made.

On 1 February 1947, he wrote in desperation to his MP, Sir Stanley Holmes, asking for help. In the letter, he wrote that shortly after arriving in Germany, he ‘met and fell in love with a German girl’. He had applied to marry on 18 March 1946 but this was rejected on the grounds that the girl lived in Germany during the war. After enclosing details of further letters and copies of official instructions he added that: ‘So far [despite] all my repeated attempts to complete my marriage and return with my young wife and daughter to the UK, I remain where I commenced with my endeavours several months ago … You will fully imagine how difficult my present position is and, if it was not for the kindness shown to us by the wives of other English officials over here, I have grave doubts how I could have kept my wife and child sailing through these last damnable months.’

He received a reply on 8 February from Sir Stanley Holmes’ agent, saying that the MP was ‘abroad on an important business mission in connection with the export drive’ but the issue was being investigated and he would write to him again. It is not known if Ralph received a further reply, as there is no more correspondence from the MP in the archive.

The procedure to be followed by Control Commission staff wishing to marry German women was officially confirmed by Ralph’s military government unit in Germany in March 1947.

A daily routine order was issued by HQ R.B. Brunswick, on 28 March 1947, stating that marriages between ‘British subjects and persons of enemy or ex-enemy nationality or birth’ were now possible, adding that CCG employees who married without permission would be obliged to resign or be liable to dismissal from the CCG. The order continued by outlining the procedure that staff should follow if they wished to marry Germans and ‘retain their appointments in C.C.G.’ as follows:

• Approval would not be given until six months after the date of the first application. After completing the required procedure, marriages could take place in a German registry office and ‘this marriage will be valid under German and U.K. laws’.
• Applicants had to apply on form B.A.O.R. 120 for permission from their chief of division, supported by certificate of good character of the prospective bride, signed by the local German Bürgermeister (mayor) together with a certificate from a local Minister of Religion and two copies of the ‘Fragebogen’ (a questionnaire used to identify those who had been members of or had supported the Nazi Party).
• Once official approval had been given by the British commander, an application had to be made to a senior German legal official, the ‘Oberlandsgerichtspräsident’, for a certificate that the British man was eligible to marry. (This was a requirement of German, rather than British law). The certificate should then be forwarded to the HQ of the appropriate British military government region.
• Applicants might then be requested to attend in person before the British Consul General in Hamburg to complete the formalities of the Foreign Marriages Act 1906, (to confirm that the marriage was valid under British law). 
• Once married, the couple had to live in officially requisitioned accommodation, which would be made available under the same conditions as for British families. Under existing rules, they were not permitted to live with the wife’s family or in other German accommodation, although this was being reviewed.
• After taking up married quarters the wife would be treated in exactly the same way as a British-born wife, as regards entitlement to rations, travel etc.
• No exception to the conditions would be made ‘on account of pregnancy or when a form of marriage has already taken place’.
• Applications made previously should be made again, following the above procedures, but would be deemed to have been submitted at the date of the original application or 10 September 1946, (six months before the date of this order outlining the procedure) whichever was the later.

Ralph and Ursula were finally legally married two months later in a German registry office (Standesamt), on 21 May 1947, after he had obtained permission from a senior commanding officer, and had submitted certificates of health and good character for Ursula, signed by the Bürgermeister (mayor) and a minister of religion, a certificate of good health and freedom from disease signed by a doctor, together with four copies of a Fragebogen completed and submitted for security clearance.  The file is full of letters, memos, and certificates that had to be provided before the wedding could take place, as Ralph tried to work out the best way to ‘complete’ his marriage as quickly as possible and meet the various requirements outlined above.

Unfortunately, this story does not have a happy ending.

Their little girl, Sylvia Lilian Gabriele, lived for less than one year. She died in the children’s hospital in Bad Harzburg, near Goslar, on 30 June 1947, less than six weeks after they were legally married.

Ralph resigned from the Control Commission after a year’s service and his appointment was terminated on 19 July 1947.

He and Ursula travelled together to England and lived with his parents in Essex. Their first son, Clive, was born in April 1948 and a daughter two years later.

Ralph was not happy back in Britain. He joined the New Zealand air force, and Ursula joined him with their two children in New Zealand in 1952. But after arriving, Ursula fell ill with TB and could no longer look after the children. The marriage split up. Ralph returned to England with custody of the children. He remarried and died in 1997. Ursula remained in New Zealand.

On a happier note, nearly seventy years later (in December 2016 when the documents were donated to the Imperial War Museum) Ralph and Ursula’s son Clive was still in touch with his mother in New Zealand and with his father’s family.

 

References

R.G. Peck papers, Imperial War Museum documents, reference 26388.

Some of the most significant documents in the collection are listed below in chronological order:

• 2 January 1946. Typed letter to ‘Herr und Frau Ottow’, signed ‘Ralph’, asking for their consent to the marriage.
• 22 January 1946. Handwritten reply addressed to ‘Sehr geehrter Peck’, signed A. Ottow.
• 5 February 1946. Handwritten engagement card.
• 18 March 1946. Memo from Lt. Col. G.E. Aldridge, to AQ branch, HQ 5 Inf Div. stating that Sgt Peck had applied to marry a ‘German subject’. He had also applied for an appointment with the Control Commission and would like his wife to remain with him in Germany. He was due to be released from the army between 20 April and 17 May.
• 23 March 1946. Memo from Lt. Col. AA & QGM, HQ 5 Inf Div, refusing Ralph’s request for permission to marry.
• 27 March 1946. Letter from Sgt. Peck to The Secretary, Home Office, (Aliens Dept), London.
• 22 July 1946. Letter to CCG Welfare Office Lübbecke, from W/O Mr. R. G. Peck, Legal Branch, 120 Mil Gov, B.A.O.R.
• 6 August 1946. Letter to R G Peck, Legal Branch, 120 Mil Gov, from N. N. Ferguson, Civil Establishment Office, Zonal Executive office, CCG Lübbecke, refusing his request for permission to marry.
• 20 August 1946. ‘Trauschein’. Certificate of marriage in a church ceremony, in St Johannes Church in Brunswick.
• 4 September 1946. Letter from R.G. Peck to the Control Commission, London office, asking to be advised of the correct procedure to be adopted with regard to his marriage.
• 18 September 1946. Reply from the ‘Director of Organisation’ for the Control Commission in Lübbecke, Germany, stating that marriages were not yet possible but the situation was ‘under active consideration’.
• 25 September 1946. Article published in the Daily Mirror under the headline ‘Civilian defies ban – weds German sweetheart, 17’.
• 17 October 1946. A letter from Mr R.G. Peck to the Passport Office in London, stating that he had married a ‘young German girl’ on 20 August 1946, giving his passport number and asking to ‘be advised [of] the procedure to now be adopted.’
• 21 October 1946. A letter from Mr R.G. Peck to the Passport Control Office in Lübbecke, Germany, saying he wished to arrange travel for his wife, ‘a young German girl’, from Germany to England as he was due to go to the UK on leave the following month and would like her to accompany him.’
• 25 October 1946. A letter to Mr Ralph Peck from the Passport Office acknowledging receipt of his letter of 17 October (above) and informing him that the London office could not grant passports to British subjects who were not resident in the UK. If he wished to obtain a passport for his wife, he should contact the British consul general in Lübbecke, Germany.
• A further undated letter from Mr R.G. Peck to the Passport Control Office in Lübbecke referring to his letter of 21 October (above) adding that ‘Unfortunately, I must ask that his matter please be left in abeyance until such time as I receive permission to sign the Register at the Registry Office. At the present time, although having been through a Church Ceremony, my marriage in NOT as yet legal’. He understood that permission would be received within the next few days.
• 26 November 1946. The birth certificate of Ralph and Ursula’s daughter, Sylvia Lilian Gabriele, stating that, on oral information received, the father was the ‘British Government Official, Ralph Guy Peck’, born on 5 November 1919 in London. He had confirmed his identity by showing his identity card and confirmed that he was the father.
• 26 November 1946. A letter from Ralph Peck to the Passport Office in Lübbecke referring to his letter of 21 October (above), saying that he had not as yet been able to obtain the necessary permission to marry in accordance with German law but understood that arrangements were available for prospective brides to travel to the UK provided a marriage ceremony could be performed within a ‘stated period’ and asking to be advised of the necessary procedure.
• 4 December 1946. A letter from Charles Smith MP to Mr R.G. Peck advising him that he had received his letter of 22 November (not in file) but Wivenhoe did not fall within his constituency of Colchester and he should write to the member for Harwich, Sir Stanley Holmes.
• 7 December 1946. A letter from the ‘Passport Control Officer for Germany’ in Berlin to Mr R.G. Peck referring to a telephone conversation and advising him that if he was getting married in Germany, his wife would be a British subject and would not require a visa to travel to England. On the other hand, if she wished to proceed to England before she was married, he was unable to grant her a visa unless Ralph was resident in the United Kingdom and they were going to marry within two months of her arrival. He concluded ‘It is unlikely, therefore, that I can be of any assistance to you.’
• 23 December 1946. A letter from N.N. Ferguson, for the Director of Organisation, Zonal Executive Offices, CCG in Lübbecke, to Mr R.G. Peck, advising him that in connection with his application of 4 September 1946 requesting permission to marry a German national (see above), in addition to obtaining permission from CCG he should also apply to the local German ‘Oberlandsgerichtspräsident’ (a senior legal official) ‘for dispensation from production of a certificate of eligibility to marry.’ He was told he should apply for this as soon as possible as ‘further delay to your marriage may otherwise be incurred when the general conditions governing the marriage of CCG personnel to Germans [are] announced.’
• 30 December 1946. A further letter from N.N. Ferguson for Director of Organisation, referring to the letter from Ralph of 17 December (see above) stating that conditions for CCG staff wishing to marry a German national were ‘at present being formulated’ and ‘as soon as certain legal points have been settled, a general announcement will be made.’
• 30 December 1946. A letter from Paul J. Heyne, ‘interpreter at Townhall’ in Brunswick to Ralph Peck, saying he had tried to speak to the inspector at the Oberlandsgericht but was unable to do so, as he was not in his office because there was no heating due to the shortage of coal. He would try again on 2 January.
• 2 January 1947. A further letter from Paul Heyne to Ralph Peck stating that he had called in person to see the inspector, Herr Fay, at the Oberlandsgericht, adding that: ‘He showed me all the papers concerning your case. As early as 13 August 1946, [before the church ceremony on 20 August] … they had sent the application to Mil Gov Legal Branch Hannover region. Up to this morning the papers were not returned to Oberlandsgericht though many others have come back duly consented to.’
• 4 January 1947. A letter from the Regional Personnel Officer for CCG, Lower Saxony to Mr R.G. Peck copied to the Rev G.A. Hyde, stating that he had been asked by the Rev Hyde to reply to Ralph’s letter of 17 December (see above). He had been in touch with [the zonal administrative offices in Lübbecke to try to find out about the ‘new instructions relating to marriage’, and had been told that the instructions were ‘in the course of preparation and consideration by Legal Division and will be forwarded in a few weeks.’
• 20 February 1947. A letter from Ralph to Ursula, written as if sent from his home address, stating that ‘I have to advise you the following: I am free and willing to re-marry you within two months of your arrival in England. I have the necessary accommodation in England for you and baby and I am well in the position to maintain you both. All my love, your affectionate husband…’
• 27 February 1947. A letter signed by Ursula to the Passport Control Office in Berlin, notifying them that she had a letter signed by her husband, that he was willing and free to ‘re-marry’ her within two months of her arrival in England. She also stated in the letter that they were ‘originally married on the 20th August 1946 in St. Johannes Church Brunswick’ and asking for assistance for her and her baby Sylvia, born on 22 November 1946, to travel to her husband’s home ‘where accommodation and means of maintenance are available.’
• 1 March 1947. A completed copy of Ursula’s ‘Fragebogen’ (de-nazification questionnaire).
• 4 March 1947. Letter from W.A. Manders of the police in Brunswick to the Passport Control Office in Berlin, forwarding various documents, providing details of Mrs Peck’s (i.e. Ursula’s) British Zone identity card and asking for help arranging an exit permit for her.
• 8 April 1947. Letter from R.G. Peck to the Rev. G.A. Hyde, HQ Mil. Gov. Hannover Region, saying that Legal Branch had handed over his marriage documents. He took them to the ‘Oberlandsgerichtspresident’ who told him all was in order and he would send the certificate ‘for dispensation from production of a certificate of eligibility to marry’ to Legal Branch. However, the Standesamt in Goslar had ‘received no notification whatever that marriages between C.C.G. and Germans can take place’ and Ralph asked Rev Hyde if he had now complied with all ‘instructions issued’.
• 10 April 1947. Memo from Ralph’s commanding officer, signed ‘Lieut. Colonel RA’, Commander of 214 Kreis Group HQ, Goslar, confirming that he had ‘no objection to the marriage of Mr. R.G. Peck taking place immediately’. The letter continued that as an application to marry was first made on 22 July 1946, ‘it would appear that Mr Peck has been eligible to marry since 10th March 1947.
• 12 May 1947. Certificate of character by a Minister of Religion for ‘Miss Ursula Luise Ottow’ confirming she was ‘of excellent character and I can observe no objection whatsoever to her marriage with Mr R.G. Peck.’
• 13 May 1947. Certified copy, in English and German, of a certificate of good character for ‘Miss Ursula Luise Ottow’ originally issued in October 1946 by the Bürgermeister of Oschersleben.
• 13 May 1947. Certificate of security clearance for ‘Miss Ursula Luise Ottow’ signed by the British ‘Area Intelligence office’ confirming that ‘there are no security reasons why she should not be married to Mr R.G. Peck.’
• Certificate of health for ‘Mrs Ursula Luise Peck, nee Ottow’ signed by a doctor in Hahnenklee (near Goslar), in English and German, confirming she was ‘free from venereal disease and tuberculosis.’
• 16 May 1947. Formal marriage application, BAOR Form 120, signed by Ralph and Ursula on 1 April 1947, authorised by Brigadier Lingham, Deputy Regional Commissioner for ‘Land Niedersachsen’ (Lower Saxony) on 16 May 1947.
• 21 May 1947. Official marriage certificate, issued by the registry office (Standesamt) in Goslar.
• 6 June 1947. Memo from R.G. Peck to the British Consulate General in Hamburg requesting an emergency exit permit for himself, his wife and child to travel to Britain.