Preliminary Programme

This paper will examine the repatriation of political exiles as political propaganda by the East German Government from 1955-1961. As the postwar period of division and occupation was cemented by the division of Germany into two Cold War states, the identities both of these nations sought to build was bound up in language of legitimacy and otherness. The migration of primarily young and productive East Germans to the West, was in turn, referenced considerably in the Western media as a sign of the superiority and, therefore, legitimacy of the postwar West German state. However, between 1955 and 1961, there was a coordinated effort launched by the East German government to secure the repatriation of some of those citizens it had launched. Although in terms of the numbers, the program was not an overall success, those migrants that did go through the process of repatriation were prominently displayed as propaganda to distance and discredit the Western way of life, in a hope to both secure international legitimacy for the German Democratic Republic, but also in an attempt to discourage East Germans from fleeing to the West. (Show less)

There is an important literature in law, history, and the social sciences on the origins of the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the ensuing 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. But the role played by concerns about the welfare state have not been examined in detail, and not from the perspective of theories of the welfare state; existing studies have emphasized other factors, such as bureaucratic politics, the Cold War, and colonialism and decolonialization. We present an empirical analysis of (a) the negotiations that led to the Convention, (b) the reservations against particular articles of the Convention that were issued by individual countries, and (c) parliamentary debates and media coverage in selected countries. We find that states were concerned about the implications of the convention and the protocol for welfare programs, and comparative theories of the welfare state help us understand why. It is especially noteworthy that countries with universal, tax-funded social-insurance schemes and benefit schemes issued many reservations concerning the access of foreign nationals whereas countries with contribution-financed programs didn't---presumably because refugees were not expected to qualify. (Show less)

For Jews, who survived the Holocaust, the first months of liberation brought freedom but were also a time of hardship. The survivors found themselves without home, family, friends and belongings. For many, Europe became a place associated with memories of great suffering. Moreover, antisemitism was still omnipresent in Europe. As a result, the majority of them decided to leave their countries of origin and start life over and build a new national homeland in Eretz Yisrael. However, legal opportunities for leaving Europe were not very bright at that time. Palestine was the Mandate territory of Great Britain, whose authorities were resistant to the influx of migrants. Despite this restrictive immigration policy, many of the survivors chose to emigrate illegally. Czechoslovakia became one of the first stops on their difficult journey to their desired destination. The Czechoslovak government tolerated the transit of Jewish refugees through its territory to a certain extent. It is evident that there were different opinions within the Czechoslovak authorities on how to approach Jewish refugees. Especially, the lower officials perceived the Jews as an unwelcome element. There were fears that Jews might settle permanently in Czechoslovakia.
After the tragic anti-Jewish pogrom in the Polish city of Kielce in the summer of 1946, in which more than 40 people died, Czechoslovakia was, however, willing to give a helping hands to fleeing Jews. More than 100,000 Jews decided to leave Poland. The Czechoslovak government opened its borders and provided Jewish refugees with assistance and temporary accommodation. For this purpose, refugee camps were set up in several places. It is not generally known that such camps for Jews existed in the area of former Czechoslovakia, and if so, only the camp in Náchod is usually mentioned in this context. Historical publications are almost silent about the camps located directly in Prague, namely in Dablice and Hloubetin.
Methodologically, my contribution is based mainly on content analysis of primary documents stored in Czech and Polish archives. Polish archival materials describe how the refugees crossed the Czechoslovak-Polish border and reveal the attitude of the local authorities towards the Jews. The collections of Czech archives contain documents which play an important role in describing the assistance provided to Jewish refugees by Czechoslovakia. Among the shocking findings is the information that due to the lack of qualified staff, the Ministry of Social Welfare employed a number of (former Czechoslovak) Germans who were at that time interned in camps Lesany and Hagibor and were waiting for expulsion from Czechoslovakia. It is a great irony that Polish Jewish refugees who just came out of the Nazi genocide had to obey German stuff members in the Jewish refugee camps in postwar Czechoslovakia. (Show less)