In the period of time following the devastation that was World War II, there was much trepidation when it came to the revival of Europe and the movement of people that occurred both during and after the phases of the war. The largest recorded migration/ displacement of people from all over Europe brought both stress of lack of resources and accountability as well as hope for a movement into a more internationalistic point of view from nations all over the world. Both of these senses are evaluated in readings from Tara Zahra and Gerard Daniel Cohen which allow for an analysis of different perspectives regarding the global issue of displaced persons.
Given the two perspectives of the problem of displaced persons all over Europe in the post-war period being a negative approach to the harm of nationalism and a positive approach in the push for human rights, we see a continuity of confusion on how to deal with this issue at hand. Zahra’s reading takes the more pessimistic viewpoint on this matter in the ways that it describes the unintentional nationalism that came from this mass movement of people. Zahra takes a gendered approach to this study of historical events and states that “Reconstructing national ‘honour’ meant purging and punishing collaborators of all kinds” (p.334). This exemplifies the thesis which takes a stance on the missed opportunity of the world as a whole to fix this issue rather than protecting one’s own state. Zahra mentions the manifestations of the states involved that created the post-war nationalism we are familiar with. Rather than instituting a plan to bring the world together, places like France as described by Zahra were “counterintuitive” (p.337), and filled with “fraternization”(p.337) which then turned into the conglomerate of nationalism in western Europe.
Unlike Zahra’s reading, Cohen takes an approach that emphasizes the visions of what could have been in the post-war period. This reading represents the side of the DP’s and discusses the difficulties that they dealt with as nations worked together to support their relocation. Cohen’s reading represents the chronology of the humanitarian attempts and operations that followed this period of international migration. Cohen goes into his message which states the importance of “political retribution, the emergence of the human rights movement, the rise of United Nations humanitarianism, the governance of international migration…” (p.8). This idea represents the intentions of the many nations involved in the fate of the “last million” (p.3). Cohen talks about the UNNRA which provided the relief that was needed for these people to survive. In the Lithuanian illustration included, it can be noted the effect that the UNNRA had on the DP’s, and the extent of the DP’s as a whole unit showing their perspective of the UNNRA.
In conclusion, these two readings by Zahra and Cohen clearly illustrate two differing perspectives on the subject of displaced persons. These readings provide insight into the notions of the nation’s intentions as well as the thoughts and concerns for basic human rights.
Pictured above: Lithuanian art titled ” Lithuanian DPs acting on Uncle Truman’s Cake”
A major concern about these differing perspectives on what happened is the age-old question: Which one is correct? Is it possible that they are both correct? Cohen seemed to discuss the idea of dealing with displaced persons while Zahra seemed to present the way that the idea actually played out. It doesn’t seem that either was wrong. They were right in their assessments of their focus.
Good point about how the different authors represented the same issue from different sides, I think the readings complement each other very nicely and together paint a picture of just how hard it would have been to be a DP after the war, especially if you were one whos demographics were seen as less desirable by the rebuilding nations. Its crazy to me how racially charged some of the decisions being made by these countries were, its disappointing that they couldn’t just realize how this was an issue that totally transcended race and made an effort to ensure as many people as possible found homes. Nationalism has time and time again proven itself to be a dangerous ideal, and this instance is, in my opinion, one of the best examples of it.
I liked the way that you clearly were able to analyze the two authors arguments for what they were. Cohen and Zahra’s articles both contained perspectives on the DP issue that was taking place in the postwar era, and you summarized and compared these two arguments well. Overall, great post and good job interpreting the authors arguments.