In the wake of World War II, arguably one of the most paramount issues was refugees and displaced people (also known as DPs, an abbreviation coined in United States while preparing to reconstruct after the war) in Europe. Millions of individuals were forced to leave their homes and countries of origin in order to escape the war. Eleanor Roosevelt, an advocate for human rights in the UN, said, “A new type of political refugee is appearing. People who have been against the present government and if they stay at home or go home will probably be killed.” (Cohen, “In Wars Wake,” Pg. 3) When it came to reconstruction, not only did it involve the physical rebuilding of the European infrastructure and economy, but also the abstract rebuilding of the European population to include people who had been displaced and had lost their nationality.
One issue with dealing with DPs was deciding who they belonged too. In the instance of France and Germany, there were large amounts of German children who were mother by Germans, and fathered by French soldiers who were orphaned after the war. France did not want to risk Germany rising again in the same way via manpower, so they started an initiative to claim these children as full French citizens. Another reason behind this was France wanting to rebuild their manpower. According to the French Ambassador leaving these French/German children in Germany “would allow Germany to benefit from a demographic growth that it doesn’t deserve and would go against our principle…of reducing German population. These children of unknown parents represent a human treasure that a country with low population density cannot ignore.” (Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure’”, Pg. 338) The justification for taking “German” children and making them full French citizens wiped of any German origin was that German women were promiscuous and bad mothers. According to French social workers, German mothers “typically abandon the child out of lack of maternal sentiment or out of loyalty to their true family that would be compromised by the presence of a bastard child.” (Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure”’, Pg. 339)
There is also the issue of whether the government should dictate the “best interests” of the refugees would be. For example, in Czechoslovakia there was major effort to return children who had been taken from Lidice to become German citizens via Germanization. Years later, when these children were between 10-15, they had no memories of their country of origin, their families, or even the language of their home country. They only knew Germany and their adoptive family. Was it right to force them to return to Czechoslovakia when they had grown up German, with Germany essentially as their home? This issue is applicable everywhere. Once people left their country of origin for a different one, they in a sense assimilated to the new country and found some type of nationalism via the new country. Was it fair to make them return to their home of origin? Eleanor Roosevelt stated, “How were refugees and DPs to be defined? Were they to be permitted to choose freely between the alternatives of going back to their countries of origin and remaining outside of them? If so, what international aid should be given to those who choose to remain outside?” (Cohen, “In Wars Wake”, Pg. 19)
Overall, something I found most interesting about both readings was the fact that some DPs were forced to leave their refugee country to return to their home country without identifying with or feeling any patriotism towards said country.
I like the points you make here. Why wouldn’t these people be able to pick where they wanted to live after this war? As has been very well stated in this blog, nationalism is not something you are born with. You adapt to it. It is like the kid in your kindergarten class who tells you he was born in Tennessee, but he moved to Virginia when he was four months old, he holds a emotional connection to Tennessee that is slim to none. Like it is mentioned, the issue is applicable everywhere. After being forced out of the country, why should you be forced back into it?
You make a number of great points. I agree that this was a tense period in history and for the people being jumped around it was even worse. I believe that it should be up to the individual as to which nation they identify with and where they want to live. The fact that these government programs were deciding for them is one of the biggest example of dehumanization that I have seen. This ties back into the genocide conversation we had in class; would taking these basic decisions and opportunities from these DPs be considered genocide because it destroys their identities?
These articles covered some very interesting topics. One of the personal stories in “Human Treasure” that drew my eye was of the girl who discovered a chest full of documents that revealed that she wasn’t really German. I think that story becomes more interesting when the article later says that the Germans tried to destroy these children’s records after they were taken.