To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter Seven, Legacies, draws the stories of some of the central characters to a close and following them home. The Armistice could not reverse the disruption of the First World War; the webs of empire were further tangled by these encounters experienced by these colonial troops. Through mutiny, migration, war marriages and memorialisation, I explore the consequences of these interactions in the years after the war’s end to show how the networks of the First World War endured beyond the end of the conflict. The experience of encounters, much like the experience of combat and frontline labour, was newly acquired ‘cultural baggage’ and part of being a veteran in the interwar colonies and dominions.
The battles of the Pacific War formally ended between mid-August and early September, 1945. However, the declarations of peace and surrender ceremonies that occurred during this time did not end informal battles across the Asian continent. Renegade Japanese military personnel refused to lay down their arms and repatriate quietly to their country. Some combed the waters between Japan and Korea in search of returnees attempting to repatriate with financial and material means in excess of that which the United States military governments allowed. Others sought to disrupt the occupation process by patrolling the streets of Korean cities and engaging in illegal and often violent activities. Koreans also caused problems by joining the Japanese in their postwar adventures or by harassing Japanese preparing to return to Japan and the Korean sympathizers who attempted to help them. Reportage of such actions appeared in the G-2 Periodic Report, which kept a daily record of such actions. These documents today open windows into the chaotic situation that the postwar era brought to Japanese and Koreans. Primarily through these reports, this paper sees the postwar belligerence that continued beyond official declarations of cease fire and peace in 1945 as kindling that sparked the broader conflicts of the late 1940s, and evolved to all-out war from the summer of 1950.
By 1921, peace was returning to Europe and the League of Nations was formed in Geneva. The catastrophe seemed to have passed, and the Joint Distribution Committee was ready to rehabilitate Europe’s Jews before making a quick exit. That same year, however, would bring new crises, pushing Jewish security into the ever-receding distance. American Jews could not ignore their duty to help their still-suffering Jewish kin; the international Jewish humanitarian effort became a permanent fixture of interwar Jewish life. Hias, the JDC, and a loose network of European organizations were invested in the cause of refugee relief. With Fridtjof Nansen at the center of the intergovernmental interwar refugee regime, and the United States closing its borders in an antisemitic campaign, Jewish organizations argued over definitions of refugees and other migrants and devised solutions accordingly. Ultimately, the refugee crisis that had its origins in mass expulsions along the Eastern Front could not be solved and remained a stubborn human crisis across Europe that persisted into the 1930s.
This chapter traces how France’s own divisive experiences of ‘deportation’ and returns shape how DP camps were made and managed in the French zone. It makes three arguments. First, it highlights diverse cultures of encampment in the zone. Relatively large numbers of DPs lived in smaller camps and private lodgings in the zone. Discussions about the ‘curative’ effects of small dwellings for DPs amongst field workers were interconnected with broader debates about the effects of camp life in France. Second, this chapter traces significant difference in culture between French UNRRA officials, who believed in French cultural superiority and understood relief as a vehicle for restoring French prestige, and the attitudes of the majority of relief workers on the ground, who brought in more varied perspectives on relief work, which in turn changed as their interactions with DPs evolved. Third, this chapter shows that DP spaces created unique intimate interactions and frictions between French volunteers, international relief workers and DPs from various ethnicities, classes and generations. These relationships were influenced by the structure of occupation. Relief workers possessed a variety of material advantages over the local population and DPs: a minority used these to buy entertainment or goods on the black market, or engage in ‘illicit’ liaisons with DPs.
This chapter examines the politically charged meanings and contested readings of repatriation and screening in the French zone, challenging historical presumptions about French insensitivity and ‘pro-Soviet’ policies, supposedly exemplified by the handing over of Baltic and Ukrainian DPs in the autumn of 1945. It demonstrates that French positions changed in Paris (and in the zone) before the adoption of the UN landmark resolution of 12 February 1946, which officially recognized all DPs’ right to asylum. In doing so, it illuminates the vicissitudes of repatriation, repatriation incentives being highly contingent on changing international circumstances, institutional rivalries and local realities. While the chapter recognises the importance of diplomats and national politicians in formulating repatriation policies, it also reveals how repatriation and screening crucially depended on how French administrators re-interpreted and implemented these instructions in the zone.
Laure Humbert explores how humanitarian aid in occupied Germany was influenced by French politics of national recovery and Cold War rivalries. She examines the everyday encounters between French officials, members of new international organizations, relief workers, defeated Germans and Displaced Persons, who remained in the territory of the French zone prior to their repatriation or emigration. By rendering relief workers and Displaced Persons visible, she sheds lights on their role in shaping relief practices and addresses the neglected issue of the gendering of rehabilitation. In doing so, Humbert highlights different cultures of rehabilitation, in part rooted in pre-war ideas about 'overcoming' poverty and war-induced injuries and, crucially, she unearths the active and bottom-up nature of the restoration of France's prestige. Not only were relief workers concerned about the image of France circulating in DP camps, but they also drew DP artists into the orbit of French cultural diplomacy in Germany.
The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and a political settlement in Cambodia in October 1991 created an atmosphere of flexibility and opportunity in the international arena that had been absent for decades. Amidst these larger changes, the American commitment to humanitarian issues continued. Washington and Hanoi signed the long-awaited Humanitarian Operation in July of 1989, the first reeducation camp prisoners arrived in the United States through the new program in January of 1990, and the United States included detainees in the April 1991 Roadmap. NGOs like the Families of Vietnamese Political Prisoner Association helped create the momentum that made emigration for former reeducation camp detainees one of the top concerns on the American agenda.
Members of Congress also played a vital role in dictating the scope and pace of US-SRV relations. By passing resolutions that became institutionalized in US policy, forming influential committees, corresponding privately with Vietnamese leaders, sending delegations to Vietnam, making speeches, and fomenting domestic constituencies, legislators both accelerated and hindered US-Vietnamese ties. While nonexecutive advocacy remained vital, other key features of the US position shifted noticeably. The Bush administration reframed “full accounting” and embraced repatriation, positions which were hotly contested among US officials.
This chapter focuses on making new heritage that marks atrocity and transition. It analyses the creation of atrocity museums, particularly in East Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, to come to terms with a difficult past and re-narrate the nation moving into the future through artefacts. The chapter also looks at the Guatemalan National Police Archives and archives as a type of heritage that can be used to promote prosecution efforts in transitioning societies. The chapter examines underwater cultural heritage as well, and the regime of the UNESCO 2001 Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage in relation to human corpses, which are given stronger protections than human remains receive in other heritage regimes. The history behind this treaty reveals that the reason for these stronger protections has precisely to do with the bodies of fallen soldiers during the World Wars. Australia is an example of a country that, after initially rejecting the treaty, is now considering its ratification at the behest of civil society representing war veterans, thus becoming an example of how underwater heritage can also have an important role in transitional contexts.
The humanitarian issues and nonexecutive advocacy that constituted the basis of ongoing US-Vietnamese dialogue in the absence of formal relations remained of pivotal importance before, during, and after Washington and Hanoi resumed formal economic and diplomatic relations in the mid-1990s. Although American policymakers attempted to conclude the humanitarian programs they had earmarked as preconditions to more formal ties, varying definitions of full accounting, the repatriation of migrants to Vietnam through the CPA, and efforts to bring the HO into line with worldwide standards precipitated profound disagreements. Ultimately, US officials moved forward with formal relations with Hanoi and (re)created special programs for South Vietnamese migrants. The 1996 Resettlement Opportunity for Vietnamese Refugees gave screened-out migrants who were repatriated to Vietnam under the CPA one more chance to apply for resettlement in the US. The 1996 McCain Amendment created loopholes to permit the original, exceptional terms of the HO to remain intact. US-Vietnamese collaboration on humanitarian issues, and normalization itself, persisted after the resumption of formal economic and diplomatic relations. The ties between American and South Vietnamese people outlasted both the collapse of South Vietnam and the resumption of relations between Washington and Hanoi.
A number of recent works have explored the value of scholarly efforts to “unpack” museum collections and examine the constitutive networks and histories of objects. The interrogations of collections through methods such as object biographies and itineraries imparts important knowledge about the institutions, disciplines, and individuals who made museum collections, contribute to deeper understandings of the roles of objects in creating meaning in and of the world, and suggest implications for future practice and policies. This article examines the object itinerary of a cultural property item of negative heritage: a three-dimensional painted plaster work of craft-art originally designed to symbolize the scientific practice of anthropology in early twentieth-century Germany and later associated with wartime collecting during World War II, the history of American archaeology, and the modern repatriation movement in museums.
The chapter discusses the important role that repatriation plays in career development or an international assignee’s personal and professional career outcomes acquired, developed, and accumulated over time. Attention is devoted to understanding how different types of career resources and competencies, categorized as “knowing how”, “knowing whom”, and “knowing why”, are developed as a function of living and working in another country. The chapter continues by drawing on the traditional bounded and emerging proactive career perspectives to help us understand why returning home is often more complex and difficult than perceived. Next, the chapter examines repatriation “success” from both the organizational and the individual repatriate’s points of view, highlighting objective and subjective interpretations of career success. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the challenges facing the repatriation process at the individual-, team-, organizational-, and country-levels and suggests interventions that could be considered in an effort to improve the likelihood of repatriation success. Implications for future research are also discussed.
This article analyses the decisions of Belgian and Dutch courts concerning the repatriation of the family members of foreign fighters who are now detained in dire conditions in North-East Syria. The article shows that, under international law, these women and children have no individual right to be repatriated by their State of nationality, based on either consular assistance, the extraterritorial applicability of human rights treaties, or the right of return to one's own country. Nonetheless there are good reasons why States should exercise their prerogative to repatriate.
Self-initiated expatriates (SIEs) are an important group of the globally mobile workforce. In contrast to assigned expatriates (AEs), SIEs relocate on their own volition and without company support. In recent years, the literature on SIEs has started to burgeon leading to an enhanced knowledge of SIEs. The purpose of this chapter is to first review and summarize central findings in the nascent body of research concerned with SIEs. In this regard, we focus on the following key areas of inquiry: definitions of SIEs, their (demographic) profiles, main motivations to relocate, cross-cultural adjustment, as well as career experiences, and outcomes of self-initiated expatriation. In second step, based on our overview of the extant literatures, we outline directions for future research on SIEs in each key area. The suggested future research avenues will be helpful to guide the next generation of studies on SIEs and to move this stream of research ahead.
This chapter opens the third section of the book on the aftermath of the war. It addresses the end of the war and its many legacies. It starts with the armistice, and then considers the discussion about enemy aliens during the peace conference; it also explores the treaties that ended the war and their consequences for aliens, citizenship and property rights. It continues with the signing of all the final treaties, the emptying of the concentration camps and the lifting of the provisions on foreign movements, the agreement that regulated restitution or liquidation of assets, and the final exchange of populations. The chapter covers the period up to the late 1920s and deals with the transition from the state of emergency to peace, the resumption of naturalization procedures, new rules on borders and migration, new citizenship regimes that emerged from the war in both victorious and defeated countries as well as in the new successor states, and mass denaturalization and statelessness as a consequence of the emergence of new political regimes (such as the Soviet Union) or population exchange. It investigates the impact of special legislation on alien and enemy aliens on policies of migration control and explores the debate among jurists about the many violations of the conventions and human rights and the failed attempts at writing a new convention on enemy aliens.
This chapter concentrates on the early months of the war, and delving into autobiographical testimonies looks more closely at the suffering and fate of enemy aliens. The chapter then describes the implementation of the policies adopted in the early months and deals with expulsion, forced repatriation and deportation. It then addresses the internment of civilians, which was one of the major novelties that the belligerent countries introduced in the European war. The chapter follows the spread of concentration camps throughout Europe and the British and French Empires, the internment gender and generational dimensions, and the beginning of the humanitarian activities that the mass internment of enemy aliens triggered. The third part of the chapter deals with another crucial novelty that concerned the property rights of the enemy aliens. States at war sequestered and confiscated their assets as part and parcel of the economic war they waged. The internment and sequestration of enemy property led to enormous growth in the apparatuses of the state. And this meant that state involvement in the lives of civilians increased disproportionately.
This chapter follows the globalization and radicalization of the policies on enemy aliens that occurred in the last two years of the war. In 1917, the conflict became truly global with the entrance of the Americas (the United States, Brazil and Cuba) and Asia (the independent states of China and Siam, and the Philippines as a US dependency). At the same time, Russia and Romania exited the conflict, signing disadvantageous peace agreements with Germany. All the states that joined the war in 1917 drew up policies against enemy aliens, notwithstanding the enormous differences in the numbers of such people within their territories. The chapter analyzes the policies against enemy aliens in the United States, in Brazil, in China and Siam, and compares them with the evolution of the war in Europe where radicalization transformed all foreigners into enemies and also affected neutral countries. The chapter concentrates in particular on a series of new developments that concerned property rights. On the eve of the end of the conflict, property rights were no longer safe in any of the belligerent countries and were actually in pieces in many places.
With empirical touchstones from Europe, North America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific, the authors argue that heritage and property represent different approaches to subject formation, produce distinct bodies of expertise, and belong to different rationalities of government in a global patrimonial field: that cultural property is a technology of sovereignty, part of the order of the modern liberal state, but cultural heritage a technology of reformation that cultivates responsible subjects and entangles them in networks of expertise and management. While particular case trajectories may shift back and forth from rights-based claims and resolutions under the sign of cultural property to ethical claims and solutions under the sign of cultural heritage, the authors contend that there is significant analytical purchase to be gained from their distinction. Using a critical, comparative approach, they make the case for a historically grounded and theoretically informed understanding of the difference between the two terms.
Heritage Justice explores how far past wrongs can be remedied through compensatory mechanisms involving material culture. The Element goes beyond a critique of global heritage brokers such as UNESCO, the ICC and museums as redundant, Eurocentric and elitist to explore why these institutions have become the focus for debates about global heritage justice. Three broad modes of compensatory mechanisms are identified: recognition, economic reparation and return. Arguing against Jenkins (2016) that museums should not be the site for difficult conversations about the past, Heritage Justice proposes that it is exactly the space around objects and sites created by museums and global institutions that allows for conversations about future dignity. The challenge for cultural practitioners is to broaden out ideas of material identity beyond source communities, private property and economic value to encompass dynamic global shifts in mobility and connectivity.
The first chapter focuses on the experiences of Jewish refugees who came to Palestine before or during World War II but sought to return to their European countries of origin at war’s end through a repatriation program launched by the Middle East office of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA). Since the repatriation program took place during the heightened period of the Zionist struggle for statehood in Palestine, it became a source of conflict between the Zionist leadership in Palestine and the UNRRA. The former accused the latter of encouraging Jewish return to Europe, whereas UNRRA officials accused Zionists in the Yishuv of trying to prevent repatriation and of ostracizing those opting to return. The chapter analyzes this conflict from the perspectives of UNRRA, the Jewish Agency, the Jewish press in Palestine, and the refugees themselves. It shows that the controversy derived from conflicting ideological and political considerations regarding the role of Jewish refugees in postwar reconstruction. But the positions of the quarreling parties were disconnected from those of repatriation applicants, who were determined to rebuild their lives outside Palestine, but conceived of postwar reconstruction mainly in material and personal rather than ideological and political terms.
In response to the emigration crisis, the Israeli government introduced in late 1953 a series of administrative measures aimed to reduce emigration and to ensure that those leaving the country would not fall as a burden on Jewish bodies and local authorities abroad. The government also undertook a press propaganda campaign designed to discourage emigration. As part of the campaign, journalists reported to the Israeli public about the miseries of Israeli emigrants abroad, while also denouncing emigration as an act of treason.
Those steps limited the movement of emigrants and helped to entrench their image as social outcasts and traitors. They were also accompanied by extensive public debate about topics such as the fate of the Zionist project in the post-independence period, the political culture of young Israel, and the character of Jews migrating into the country. In addition to creating difficulties abroad, emigration came to the forefront of the national consciousness, serving as a focal point for discussions about fundamental issues in Israeli public life. Although Israel was regarded as a country of Jewish immigration, the nature of the fledgling state was also shaped and understood through the prism of out-migration.