Following the end of World War II, the exploitation of displaced people was not limited just to mass deportation. Displaced people were demoted from the status of a human and seen simply as an exploitable resource to be used to reconstruct and rebuild the ruins of the victorious countries. Similarly to my Displaced Persons blogpost, the idea persists that “There was no personal regard for the refugees or children as individuals they were only seen by authorities as a solution to their own population problems during reconstruction” (Krusiec). The International Refugee Organization’s “…main task was to orchestrate migration movements according to the manpower needs or humanitarian proclivities of host countries” (Cohen 103). So in essence this was to revive and bolster the manpower that all countries were severely lacking due to the casualties that all countries suffered over the course of the war. The IRO was the conductor and organizer of the refugee laborers during this post-war period. Through the “redistribution of surplus persons,” and “…employment as UNRRA auxiliaries…it was hoped, would accelerate their moral rehabilitation and prepare them for emigration elsewhere” (Cohen 102,104). What is alarming immediately is how the refugees are depicted simply as surplus and extra as if they are unneeded and unwanted or more likely as a burden. Additionally while being dehumanized as an expendable resource for the rebuilding of ruined nations for their own benefit at the cost of hardships to the refugees. They were also portrayed as morally lacking and needing what I interpreted as “re-education” through tough manual labor and participation in unwanted jobs. Although I would make the argument that despite the cultural differences these displaced people may have coming from another culture, that should not mean they have to be prepared for emigration through manual labor and devaluing them as a person.
These “surplus” people as they were deemed were evaluated and labeled like cattle being sold on the market to buyers. Certain traits, physical attributes, and ethnicity were all available for nations to browse through to fit their own personal needs. “Governments may thumb through IRO’s DP catalogue like farmers through a Sears, Roebuck annual; their representatives prowl in the camps as if in department-store bargain basements where the marked-down price tags feature race, size family status age, skill, muscles” (Cohen 113). The nonchalant attitude of governments deciding upon who to allow to into the country to suit their own needs is just as terrible and morally corrupt as the mass deportation of the refugees. These despicable actions taken by the Allies call into question the moral high ground they claim they stood for. While I would not claim this to be “slavery” as it is claimed within Cohen’s article this is a very dangerous grey area of morals in the treatment of refugees during reconstruction. I would argue that these organizations that came into being during the post war were created under the guise of the potential of a positive future life for displaced peoples but the true goal was categorizing people to fit the needs of the nations reconstructing.
After reading these articles two quotes in particular. First was,“the Cold War West under American leadership, the redistribution of surplus manpower and surplus population exclusively focused on Europeans: no equivalent scheme was ever envisioned to relocate Asians or Africans in Western areas” (Cohen 125). My immediate assumption was this was only white immigrant laborers were wanted since they were ethnically closest to the nations organizing the movement of these refugees. However, my assumption was wrong seeing as due to “The rapid increase in the number of Black migrants in Britain gave rise to many anxieties” such as “…from discussions of what it now meant to be British”(Waters 208). While the majority of the organization and efforts for the movement and emigration were focused upon European refugees, what did this mean for non-European refugees and how were they received within their new nation? Since many European refugees took jobs such as brick-making and farming as Cohen mentioned, what was left for the other immigrants of other ethnicities.
.jpg){kind=link}
While I was reading the article, I kept thinking to myself “this sounds like slavery.” I know that they were paid but it still sounds very disturbing because they looked at them in terms of working ability.
It is interesting to examine the different refugee organizations set up by different states. England’s Westward Ho! was deemed the most successful at relocating and taking in migrants for labor. I/m curious to learn how many people were forced to pack up and leave, and how many voluntarily moved to their new home.
I found it interesting how the International Refugee Organization advertised displaced persons. They made them all out to be smart and physically able with industrial skills. The IRO played a big part in the hiring of displaced persons.
I found your point on reeducation interesting. I don’t think that the countries to which the DPs were immigrating were attempting to reeducate them, but simply place them in areas of industry that were in dire need for labor. Although I can see your point, it does put off the idea that immigrants must “prove themselves” in hard labor before obtaining more higher rank jobs in society.
It seems that refugees were viewed in a “supply and demand” fashion in the post-war. It would make sense to a war weary government that is desperate for labor and resources; however, it is not as benevolent as some sources and histories desire to make it. As always, great job on the post.