Following the conclusion of World War II, the individual statuses of European states were called into question. Almost immediately, sovereignty became a primary concern on all fronts, fostering reconstructive and innovative thinking with one common goal in mind: present and future national security. To achieve such a sought after political condition, all eyes turned to the topic of displaced peoples throughout Europe. Where were the missing citizens? Where did these new human beings come from? To which nation do each of these beings pledge their allegiance to? These questions guided European governments to the realization that displaced peoples must become a political tool in the building and reconstructing of the damaged states.
Perhaps the initial aspect that was considered focused on the mystery of what had happened to the people that were taken from their home state. Political figures understood that the future security of their nations depended on collecting a population that could grow and fulfill the necessities for ultimate reconstruction (Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure’: Europe’s Displaced Children Between Nationalism and Internationalism” p. 335). This meant that they needed to collect their displaced citizens back from other nations. It became a war of propaganda, with tactics not much unlike the marketing displaced throughout the second world war. Fred Zinnemann created the film, The Search, with an obvious theme of returning all citizens back to where they came from (Gemie and Rees, “Representing and Reconstructing Identities in the Postwar World: Refugees, UNRRA, and Fred Zinnemann’s Film, The Search” p. 452). Essentially, states wanted their people back, some for humanitarian reasons, and others for the sole purpose of growing a population.
The resulting decisions made by European governments shined a light on true political justices and injustices when addressing the displaced peoples of the continent. Everyone wanted their people back, but they also did not want to sacrifice the numbers of human beings that were brought into their countries as a result of the war. The phrase “You can’t have your cake and eat it too” comes to mind here, but what is apparent is that certain countries were dead-set on defying that theory. Every state wanted the first say on who they could collect back for their nation and who they could keep or send away. This produced another issue altogether: what was to be done with the people that were not citizens of a state and that the government did not wish to keep? It became a function of national sovereignty and population control (Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure’: Europe’s Displaced Children Between Nationalism and Internationalism” p. 337). Certain countries viewed women who had consorted with the occupying enemy during the war as enemies of the state, going as far as to punish them and even renounce their citizenship (Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure’: Europe’s Displaced Children Between Nationalism and Internationalism” p. 334). Was this wrong or righteous? In many instances it was both, depending on the lens it was viewed from. While a nation’s men were falling in battle, that same nation’s women could be seen consorting with the enemy. However, in many cases, that “enemy” was nothing more than what would have been considered a neighbor prior to the start of the war (Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure’: Europe’s Displaced Children Between Nationalism and Internationalism” p. 334). Factors of race came into question and the battles over the displaced peoples ensued. In the end, the Allies, the victors of World War II, had first and ultimate say over what they wanted to do with the displaced peoples, leaving the defeated nations to accept their fate: a lesser population comprised of the otherwise unwanted (Zahra, “‘A Human Treasure’: Europe’s Displaced Children Between Nationalism and Internationalism” p. 349).
Sources:
file:///C:/Users/Quinton/Downloads/S%20Gemie%20and%20L%20Rees,%20Representing%20and%20Reconstruction%20Identities%20in%20the%20Postwar%20World%20-%20Refugees,%20UNRRA,%20and%20Fred%20Zinemann’s%20Film,%20The%20Search%20(1948),%20IRSH%2056%20(2011).pdf
file:///C:/Users/Quinton/Downloads/T%20Zahra,%20’A%20Human%20Treasure’%20-%20Europe’s%20Displaced%20Children%20Between%20Nationalism%20and%20Internationalism,%20Past%20and%20Present%20210,%20supp.%206,%20(2011)%20(1).pdf
You bring up a great point about the internal conflict that many countries faced in the postwar climate. All these war torn countries needed to find their own citizens and bring them back, but they also needed the people that had been displaced into their own countries to stay and rebuild their population and labor force. Great post!
Pointing out the fears of the other countries was a great point. Yes, publicly, the East campaigned that this was all a humanitarian, but countries like France argued for more and more people for other reasons than humanitarian reasons. They need security. They need numbers to build their country back up. They needed people more than other countries. They weren’t afraid to go and get more either.