DOCSLIB.ORG

Wh"Ts Behind the BEBLIN CBISIS SOCIALIST - LABOR COLLECTION LORIDA Atlantic UNIVERSI Yjoseph Clark LIBRARY 51 ABOUT the AUTHOR

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Wh OO~24 . 000224 Wh"ts Behind THE BEBLIN CBISIS SOCIALIST - LABOR COLLECTION LORIDA ATlANTIC UNIVERSI YJoseph Clark LIBRARY 51 ABOUT THE AUTHOR Joseph Clark, the author of this pamphlet, is the City Editor of the Daily Worker. He served for several years in the Infantry during the war against the Axis and wa awarded the Silver Star for heroism in action. He is the author of We) the People and was formerly a national leader f the Young Communist League. Published by NEW CENTURY PUBLISHERS, 832 Broadway, New York 3. August·, 1948 ~ 209 PRIKT£.O IN U.S.A. ID you hear· ·Walter Heatter, or was it Gabriel D Winchell, the other day? It was hot enough in Jul but the words that came out of the radio fairly sizzled. Berlin ... crisis ... airlift ... war with Russia ... war ... war ... war. Hot weather all right, but let's not kid around with a "cold" war. Let's get set for the shooting. Atomic war-jet propelled-let's go. Those few GI's who survived the Malmedy mas acre perpetrated by the azis less than four years ago , erc probably too smart to listen to that kind of radio proaram. But maybe some of those men cauaht in the Bulge read the July 12 issue of the ew York Times. They must have rubbed their eyes when they saw a headline: "BERLINERS PLEDGE STALl GRAD STA D AGAI ST RUSSIA S" V hat' going on here? Have the murderers of MaImed become our allies? Has Stalingrad-the symbol of Nazi downfall-become a slogan for a new war? Have the 1-1'· we carried on the side of the Russians against the Nazis become protection for the azis in a revival of their cru ade against Russia and Communism-a crusade, hich we helped smash because our own country-our own live. -were endangered? When it seemed that despite all the bluster and bamboozle, the U. S. aovernment had reached an impa in Berlin, when the . S. commander in Germam·, Gen- 3 ' eral Lucius Clay, was summoned to Washington, when the talk in print and on the air was war, the Secretary of State George Marshall and President Truman suddenly told us: "No shooting-we're going to talk, maybe even ne­ gotiate. Maybe." Thousands of planes were flying food and coal to Berlin. The papers told us the Army had a showdown plan all set. They would get an armored column, and GI Joe would shoot his way with a convoy to Berlin right through the Soviet occupation zone of Germany. That was tough talk. But there was more than just talk. The latest jet fighter planes were flown to Germany. B-29's were sent over. The order was out for the registration of 19-25 years olds. Yessir, the brass and the boys in striped pants were going to be hard talking, fast shooting hombres. And the radio broad­ casting lieutenant commanders were all set to cheer us into the fox holes. But suddenly-Marshall and Truman say maybe they'll talk with the Russians. Maybe they'll negotiate. Bluster and Backdown: U.S. Foreign Policy , hat kind of foreign policy is it that made the State Department talk out of both sides of its mouth at the same time? Why the bluster and then the backdown? Why were we made to look so foolish? But above all else why were we nearly brought to the brink of war by the events of Berlin? Let's work our way back through the facts and the his­ tory, not the baloJ;ley and the blarney. In the ew York Herald Tribune on July 20, Walter Lippmann admitted that "the plan to establish a western German government at Frankfurt ... precipitated the crisis over Berlin...." 4 That plan was announced to the world on June 7. It followed six weeks of secret parleys in London between the U. S. government and a select group of its Marshall Plan satellites-Great Britain, France, and later Belgium, Hol­ land and Luxemburg. The decision to set up such a western German state was the climax of a long record of separate decisions and actions in violation of the war-time agreements among the allies who fought and defeated Nazi Germany. Above all it was a violation of the famous U.S.-Soviet-British Potsdam agreement made'in the.summer of 1945. It was in the cards that separate, one-sided action on Germany would lead to a crisis in Berlin, because that city was sup­ posed to be the headquarters for the Soviet-American­ British-French control of Germany, according to the Potsdam decision. The Potsdam agreement said that all matters about Ger­ many were to be decided together and unanimously by the Big Four. The Potsdam meeting also provided for the setting up of a Council of Foreign Ministers of the Big Four to ne­ gotiate and settle the terms of peace with all the European Axis powers. Indeed such negotiations were successfully carried out and unanimous agreement reached on peace treaties with Italy, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Finland. But by the time negotiations were started on a German peace treaty our State Department had decided to dump whatever was left of the peace foundations built so pain­ fully when President Roosevelt was alive and when we were united in the war against fascism. General Marshall became Secretary of State and walked out on the Council of Foreign Ministers, abruptly ending negotiations among the Big Four for a settlement with Germany. Instead of the Potsdam agreement we got the London decision for a separate West German state. 5 Instead of the Potsdam decision for demilitarizinu and denazifying Germany we got separate action to rebuild Western Germany and its powerful Ruhr industri as a base for operations against the U.S.S.R. Instead of the Potsdam decision for a unified demo ratic state of Germany which could become part of a peaceful world we got the decision for a German rump state. Instead of the Potsdam decision to eliminate the Junker militarists who controlled the big landed estates in Ger­ many, we got a free reign for those landed sponsor of eternal wars by Germany. Instead of an independent Germany collaboratinu peace­ fully with its neighbors, we got a German Western regime as part of the 1arshall Plan. ow the Malmedy survivors rou t shell out douuh to support German biu bu ine men and aristocrats who are makinu cartel deals with 'Vall Street bankers, especially the Dillon-Read rowd who e man, Forrestal, is the Secretary of Defense. SpecificalJy, instead of a German ettlement, w got the Berlin crisis. Who's Right and Who's Wrong on Berlin? But what are the rights and and the wrongs in the Berlin situation? Does the State Department have any· legal basis for alJ the shouting and bluster and threats it has made .about the so-calJed Berlin blockade? Well, at latest reports the Reds had not yet taken over or e, en infiltrated the ew York Times. And of this you <:an be sure, "e Reds haven't won the soul of the Times 'Vashino-ton Bureau chief, rthur Krock. 'Writing in his 'column on July 8, Krock asks the ques­ tion: "\Vhy don't we throw the book at the Russians?" He an wers: "We can't throw the book at them. becau e there is no book." 6 Krock is just talking about the legal issues involved in the Berlin crisis. The U. S., Britain and France used "forceful language," Krock says, in protestinO" Soviet re­ trictions on travel and transportation into Berlin. "But legally they are deficient," he writes, "for the simple reason that the Western powers failed specifically to re er e in all cases a corridor into Berlin through the Soviet zone which surrounds it." So there is no legal basi for all the bluster and bullying. But, as Krock puts it, is there a moral case? And was it ju t an oversight by the We tern powers that they made no legal provisions about suppl ino' Berlin? If Krock told a little more about the Pot dam decision he'd ha e to say right out that Berlin was et up as a center (or all the BiD" Four only on the basis of Big Four control and action for all Germany. As soon as you make separate deci ions for: the Western zone you destroy every legal as well as moral basis for staying in Berlin. And then Krock could have gone further and told his readers that the Russians proposed something else. They suO"O"e ted carrying out the Potsdam decisions on demili­ tarizing and democratizing Germany, setting up a united democratic German state. And they p-roposed withdmwing all occupation troops not only from Berlin but from all Germany) once that job was accomplished and the security of Germany's neigh­ bors guaranteed. And before we discharge him we'll hale Walter Lipp­ mann back to the stand and let him, as notorious a "Red" as Krock, testify about Berlin. Before the "blockade" be­ fore the decision on eparate currency, before the decision on a We t German dovernment, Lippmann wrote in the Tribune (May 27): . "","'e are in Berlin because Berlin is the capital of Ger­ many. If Berlin ceases to be the capital of German , an~ if 'Germany' is Western Germany (minus the French zone) 7 then we have no more reason to be there than we have to be in Dresden or Leipzig." The latter cities are in the Soviet occupation zone.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Oder-Neisse Line As Poland's Western Border
    Piotr Eberhardt Piotr Eberhardt 2015 88 1 77 http://dx.doi.org/10.7163/ GPol.0007 April 2014 September 2014 Geographia Polonica 2015, Volume 88, Issue 1, pp. 77-105 http://dx.doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0007 INSTITUTE OF GEOGRAPHY AND SPATIAL ORGANIZATION POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES www.igipz.pan.pl www.geographiapolonica.pl THE ODER-NEISSE LINE AS POLAND’S WESTERN BORDER: AS POSTULATED AND MADE A REALITY Piotr Eberhardt Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization Polish Academy of Sciences Twarda 51/55, 00-818 Warsaw: Poland e-mail: [email protected] Abstract This article presents the historical and political conditioning leading to the establishment of the contemporary Polish-German border along the ‘Oder-Neisse Line’ (formed by the rivers known in Poland as the Odra and Nysa Łużycka). It is recalled how – at the moment a Polish state first came into being in the 10th century – its western border also followed a course more or less coinciding with these same two rivers. In subsequent cen- turies, the political limits of the Polish and German spheres of influence shifted markedly to the east. However, as a result of the drastic reverse suffered by Nazi Germany, the western border of Poland was re-set at the Oder-Neisse Line. Consideration is given to both the causes and consequences of this far-reaching geopolitical decision taken at the Potsdam Conference by the victorious Three Powers of the USSR, UK and USA. Key words Oder-Neisse Line • western border of Poland • Potsdam Conference • international boundaries Introduction districts – one for each successor – brought the loss, at first periodically and then irrevo- At the end of the 10th century, the Western cably, of the whole of Silesia and of Western border of Poland coincided approximately Pomerania.
    [Show full text]
  • Yalta Conference
    Yalta Conference 1 The Conference All three leaders were attempting to establish an agenda for governing post-war Europe. They wanted to keep peace between post-world war countries. On the Eastern Front, the front line at the end of December 1943 re- mained in the Soviet Union but, by August 1944, So- viet forces were inside Poland and parts of Romania as part of their drive west.[1] By the time of the Conference, Red Army Marshal Georgy Zhukov's forces were 65 km (40 mi) from Berlin. Stalin’s position at the conference was one which he felt was so strong that he could dic- tate terms. According to U.S. delegation member and future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, "[i]t was not a question of what we would let the Russians do, but what Yalta Conference in February 1945 with (from left to right) we could get the Russians to do.”[2] Moreover, Roosevelt Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin. Also hoped for a commitment from Stalin to participate in the present are Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov (far left); United Nations. Field Marshal Sir Alan Brooke, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Andrew Cunningham, RN, Marshal of the RAF Sir Charles Portal, RAF, Premier Stalin, insisting that his doctors opposed any (standing behind Churchill); General George C. Marshall, Chief long trips, rejected Roosevelt’s suggestion to meet at the of Staff of the United States Army, and Fleet Admiral William Mediterranean.[3] He offered instead to meet at the Black D. Leahy, USN, (standing behind Roosevelt).
    [Show full text]
  • Political, Moral and Legal Aspects of the Resettlement of German Population After World War II
    POLISH REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL AND EUROPEAN LAW 2018, Vol. 7, Issue 2 WOLLT IHR DEN TOTALEN KRIEG? Political, Moral and LEGal Aspects of the Resettlement of German Population After World War II Jerzy Kranz* Abstract: Germany had started the Second World War in an intentional and conscious manner, obviously being aware that every action can have unpredictable and unwanted consequences. The Potsdam decisions were taken by the Great Powers after assuming supreme authority in Germany. They constituted a manifestation of the Allies’ rights and responsibilities. The territorial changes of Germany and the transfer of population were part of the general regulation of the effects of the Second World War. These decisions were not a simple matter of revenge. They must be perceived in a wider political perspective of European policy. The resettlement by Germany of ethnic Germans to the Reich or to the territories it occupied constituted an instrument of National Socialist policy. This German policy turned out in 1945 to be a tragic irony of fate. The resettlement decided in Potsdam must be perceived in the context of German legal responsibility for the war’s outbreak. The individual perception of the resettlement and individual guilt are different from * Professor, Department of International Law and European Union, Kozminski University 9 Jerzy Kranz the international responsibility of the state and from the political-historical responsibility of the nation. In our discussion we made the distinction between the individual and the collective aspect as well as between the legal and historical/ political aspect. We deal with the guilt of individuals (criminal, political, moral), the international legal responsibility of states, and the political and historical responsibility of nations (societies).
    [Show full text]
  • The Question of War Reparations in Polish-German Relations After World War Ii
    Patrycja Sobolewska* THE QUESTION OF WAR REPARATIONS IN POLISH-GERMAN RELATIONS AFTER WORLD WAR II DOI: 10.26106/gc8d-rc38 PWPM – Review of International, European and Comparative Law, vol. XVII, A.D. MMXIX ARTICLE I. Introduction There is no doubt that World War II was the bloodiest conflict in history. Involv- ing all the great powers of the world, the war claimed over 70 million lives and – as a consequence – has changed world politics forever. Since it all started in Poland that was invaded by Germany after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the attack, this country has suffered the most. On September 17, 1939 Poland was also invaded by the Soviet Union. Ultimately, the Germans razed Warsaw to the ground. War losses were enormous. The library and museum collec- tions have been burned or taken to Germany. Monuments and government buildings were blown up by special German troops. About 85 per cent of the city had been destroyed, including the historic Old Town and the Royal Castle.1 Despite the fact that it has been 80 years since this cataclysmic event, the Polish government has not yet received any compensation from German authorities that would be proportionate to the losses incurred. The issue in question is still a bone of contention between these two states which has not been regulated by both par- ties either. The article examines the question of war reparations in Polish-German relations after World War II, taking into account all the relevant factors that can be significant in order to resolve this problem.
    [Show full text]
  • <K>EXTRACTS from the REPORT on the TRIPARTITE
    Volume 8. Occupation and the Emergence of Two States, 1945-1961 Excerpts from the Report on the Potsdam Conference (Potsdam Agreement) (August 2, 1945) The Potsdam Conference between the leaders of the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain was held at Cecilienhof Palace, the home of Crown Prince Wilhelm Hohenzollern, in Potsdam, Germany, from July 17 to August 2, 1945. The Soviet Union was represented by Josef Stalin; the U.S. was represented by President Harry S. Truman, who had only been in office for a few months, having succeeded Franklin Delano Roosevelt on April 12, 1945. Winston Churchill represented Great Britain at the start of the conference, but after the Labor Party won the elections of July 27, 1945, he was replaced by the new prime minister, Clement R. Attlee, who signed the agreement on behalf of Great Britain on August 2, 1945. The agreement reached by Stalin, Truman, and Attlee formed the basis of Allied occupation policy in the years to come. The provisions with the most far-reaching consequences included those concerning borders. It was agreed, for example, that the Oder- Neisse line would be established as Poland’s provisional western boundary, meaning that Poland would undergo a “western shift” at the expense of German territories in Pomerania, Silesia, and Eastern Prussia. It was also agreed that the territory around East Prussian Königsberg would be ceded to the Soviet Union. In addition, the conference settled upon the “transfer” of Germans from the new Polish territories and from Czechoslovakia and Hungary. These measures constituted an essential basis for the division of Germany and Europe.
    [Show full text]
  • Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II Nathan Stepp
    Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II Volume 15 Article 9 2010 Determining the "Homeland": Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II Nathan Stepp Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Stepp, Nathan (2010) "Determining the "Homeland": Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II," Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II: Vol. 15 , Article 9. Available at: http://scholarcommons.scu.edu/historical-perspectives/vol15/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II by an authorized editor of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Stepp: Determining the "Homeland" 66 Historical Perspectives May 2010 Determining the "Homeland": Expulsion of Ethnic Germans from Breslau/Wroclaw in the Wake of World War II Nathan Stepp Introduction The Holocaust and World War II were, without a doubt, two of the most horrific events in the 20th century. Tragedies continued after the guns were silenced, however, and these have tended to be overlooked. At the conclusion of World War II, Europe's national borders were hastily redrawn. Truman, Churchill, and Stalin determined at the Potsdam Conference in May 1945 that the borders of Poland and Germany should shift "back" to the Oder­ Neisse line. l Germany, under Hitler's Third Reich, was certainly guilty of unjustly seizing much of Poland's land during the war.
    [Show full text]
  • Bruno Kamiński
    Fear Management. Foreign threats in the postwar Polish propaganda – the influence and the reception of the communist media (1944 -1956) Bruno Kamiński Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of History and Civilization of the European University Institute Florence, 14 June 2016 European University Institute Department of History and Civilization Fear Management. Foreign threats in the postwar Polish propaganda – the influence and the reception of the communist media (1944 -1956) Bruno Kamiński Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of History and Civilization of the European University Institute Examining Board Prof. Pavel Kolář (EUI) - Supervisor Prof. Alexander Etkind (EUI) Prof. Anita Prażmowska (London School Of Economics) Prof. Dariusz Stola (University of Warsaw and Polish Academy of Science) © Bruno Kamiński, 2016 No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author Researcher declaration to accompany the submission of written work Department of History and Civilization - Doctoral Programme I <Bruno Kamiński> certify that I am the author of the work < Fear Management. Foreign threats in the postwar Polish propaganda – the influence and the reception of the communist media (1944 -1956)> I have presented for examination for the Ph.D. at the European University Institute. I also certify that this is solely my own original work, other than where I have clearly indicated, in this declaration and in the thesis, that it is the work of others. I warrant that I have obtained all the permissions required for using any material from other copyrighted publications.
    [Show full text]
  • German’ Communities from Eastern Europe at the End of the Second World War
    EUROPEAN UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE, FLORENCE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY AND CIVILIZATION EUI Working Paper HEC No. 2004/1 The Expulsion of the ‘German’ Communities from Eastern Europe at the End of the Second World War Edited by STEFFEN PRAUSER and ARFON REES BADIA FIESOLANA, SAN DOMENICO (FI) All rights reserved. No part of this paper may be reproduced in any form without permission of the author(s). © 2004 Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees and individual authors Published in Italy December 2004 European University Institute Badia Fiesolana I – 50016 San Domenico (FI) Italy www.iue.it Contents Introduction: Steffen Prauser and Arfon Rees 1 Chapter 1: Piotr Pykel: The Expulsion of the Germans from Czechoslovakia 11 Chapter 2: Tomasz Kamusella: The Expulsion of the Population Categorized as ‘Germans' from the Post-1945 Poland 21 Chapter 3: Balázs Apor: The Expulsion of the German Speaking Population from Hungary 33 Chapter 4: Stanislav Sretenovic and Steffen Prauser: The “Expulsion” of the German Speaking Minority from Yugoslavia 47 Chapter 5: Markus Wien: The Germans in Romania – the Ambiguous Fate of a Minority 59 Chapter 6: Tillmann Tegeler: The Expulsion of the German Speakers from the Baltic Countries 71 Chapter 7: Luigi Cajani: School History Textbooks and Forced Population Displacements in Europe after the Second World War 81 Bibliography 91 EUI WP HEC 2004/1 Notes on the Contributors BALÁZS APOR, STEFFEN PRAUSER, PIOTR PYKEL, STANISLAV SRETENOVIC and MARKUS WIEN are researchers in the Department of History and Civilization, European University Institute, Florence. TILLMANN TEGELER is a postgraduate at Osteuropa-Institut Munich, Germany. Dr TOMASZ KAMUSELLA, is a lecturer in modern European history at Opole University, Opole, Poland.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oder–Neisse Line in Public Discourse
    This article was downloaded by: [211.7.23.2] On: 13 October 2014, At: 08:00 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/recp20 Territorial disputes and national identity in post-war Germany: the Oder–Neisse line in public discourse Shigeki Satoa a Faculty of Social Sciences, Hosei University, 4342 Aiharamachi, Machida, Tokyo, 194–0298 Japan Published online: 26 Sep 2014. To cite this article: Shigeki Sato (2014) Territorial disputes and national identity in post- war Germany: the Oder–Neisse line in public discourse, European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 1:2, 158-179, DOI: 10.1080/23254823.2014.957224 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23254823.2014.957224 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
    [Show full text]
  • October 25, 1958 Minutes from the Discussion Between the Delegation
    Digital Archive digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org International History Declassified October 25, 1958 Minutes from the Discussion between the Delegation of the PRL [People's Republic of Poland] and the Government of the USSR," 25 October - 10 November 1958 Citation: “Minutes from the Discussion between the Delegation of the PRL [People's Republic of Poland] and the Government of the USSR," 25 October - 10 November 1958,” October 25, 1958, History and Public Policy Program Digital Archive, AAN, KC PZPR, p. 113, t. 27. Translated by Douglas Selvage http://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/112002 Summary: Original Language: Polish Contents: English Translation [Excerpt from session on 10 November 1958.] Khrushchev: He turns to the German question and quotes the recent statement of [U.S. Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles on the matter of Berlin.1 If a conflict results, they know full well that we are in a position to raze West Germany to the ground. The first minutes of war will decide. There the losses will naturally be the greatest. After that, the war might drag on for years. Their territory is small—West Germany, England, France— literally several bombs will suffice, they will decide in the first minutes of the war. We recently conducted tests, and we have such [delivery] vehicles that at the same strength they use ten times less fuel, so in the same space we can produce ten times as many bombs. There were some among us who believed that we would have to withdraw from Berlin. Beria proposed this, and he was supported by "feeble" Malenkov. They believed that we should give up the GDR and Berlin.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The Representation of Forced Migration in the Feature Films of the Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, and Polish People’s Republic (1945–1970) Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0hq1924k Author Zelechowski, Jamie Publication Date 2017 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles The Representation of Forced Migration in the Feature Films of the Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, and Polish People’s Republic (1945–1970) A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Germanic Languages by Jamie Leigh Zelechowski 2017 © Copyright by Jamie Leigh Zelechowski 2017 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Representation of Forced Migration in the Feature Films of the Federal Republic of Germany, German Democratic Republic, and Polish People’s Republic (1945–1970) by Jamie Leigh Zelechowski Doctor of Philosophy in Germanic Languages University of California, Los Angeles, 2017 Professor Todd S. Presner, Co-Chair Professor Roman Koropeckyj, Co-Chair My dissertation investigates the cinematic representation of forced migration (due to the border changes enacted by the Yalta and Potsdam conferences in 1945) in East Germany, West Germany, and Poland, from 1945–1970. My thesis is that, while the representations of these forced migrations appear infrequently in feature film during this period, they not only exist, but perform an important function in the establishment of foundational national narratives in the audiovisual sphere. Rather than declare the existence of some sort of visual taboo, I determine, firstly, why these images appear infrequently; secondly, how and to what purpose(s) existing representations are mobilized; and, thirdly, their relationship to popular and official discourses.
    [Show full text]
  • Recovered Territories', 1945-1956
    Provided by the author(s) and NUI Galway in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published version when available. Title The Sovietisation of Poland's Baltic 'Recovered Territories', 1945-1956. Author(s) McNamara, Paul Martin Publication Date 2013-09-05 Item record http://hdl.handle.net/10379/3972 Downloaded 2021-09-25T05:32:58Z Some rights reserved. For more information, please see the item record link above. The Sovietisation of Poland’s Baltic ‘Recovered Territories’, 1945-1956 Paul Martin McNamara Ph.D. Dissertation 2013 1 The Sovietisation of Poland’s Baltic ‘Recovered Territories’, 1945-1956 Paul Martin McNamara Ph.D. Dissertation Department of History, National University of Ireland, Galway September 2013 Chair of History: Prof. Steven Ellis Director of Graduate Studies in History: Dr. Alison Forrestal Research Supervisor: Dr. Róisín Healy 2 Table of Contents Page Map of Poland’s Post-war Border Changes ................................................ 7 Map of Poland’s Baltic ‘Recovered Territories’, Border Changes and Administrative Boundaries ................................................................................................. 8 Introduction ............................................................................................... 9 Chapter One – 1945 1.1 Allied Discussions regarding Poland’s Post-war Borders ..................... 30 1.2 The First Wave of Polish Settlement and ‘Degermanisation’ – February-July 1945 ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]