Refine
Year of publication
- 2018 (14) (remove)
Document Type
- Online Publication (12)
- Journal Article (1)
- Book (1)
Language
- English (14) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (14) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (14)
Keywords
UNRRA (1943-1947) was an international organization that coordinated relief for victims of the Second World War in areas liberated from Axis control. Existing historical scholarship has put an unbalanced emphasis on global post-war reconstruction: European experiences have attracted much attention whereas scholars pay little attention to non-Western cases, with a few exceptions such as Japan. For long, not only in Western media, but also in Chinese historical scholarship, China has been either regarded as a passive recipient of international humanitarianism, or has simply been overlooked. But looking at UNRRA in China provides us with an opportunity to investigate how non-Western actors and motivations could shape a transnational humanitarian project, in a way different from European cases.
As Hannah Arendt anticipated in 1951, refugees have become a major issue in contemporary societies. Writing just three years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been adopted in 1948, Arendt argued that refugees exposed a fundamental tension between universal human rights and the sovereignty of nation-states. For Arendt, human rights were an abstraction; the only real rights were those possessed by citizens.
It would be easy to presume that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights had always been a symbol of opposition and dissent in the German Democratic Republic. Passed by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, the UDHR contained a number of provisions that contradicted the political and social order of the GDR as run by the Socialist Unity Party (SED). It demanded an independent judiciary, prohibited arbitrary arrest and invasion of privacy, and guaranteed the right to leave one’s own country. In East Germany, where the judiciary was firmly an ideological organ, the Stasi regularly conducted mass surveillance and arbitrary detention and those seeking to leave the country illegally were shot at the border, this would seem to be a document seen to be inherently hostile to SED rule. Even the social rights contained in the UDHR, in particular the right to strike, were contrary to the legal realities of East Germany where citizens could not demand rights from the state that would obstruct the will of the party.
Yet over the course of East Germany’s existence, the Universal Declaration was more likely to be invoked by the SED than by its domestic opponents. The SED came to view the Universal Declaration and the UN human rights system as a whole as an ally to the Socialist Bloc and the contents of the UDHR reflected in the achievements of socialism within the borders of the GDR. For decades this was not challenged by East Germans on a mass scale, until very suddenly in the late 1980s, human rights and the UDHR became symbols of the democratic opposition. This article will trace the trajectory of the UDHR in East German public discourse from its passage in 1948 and the reaction by the SED in the Soviet Occupied Zone, through the commemorations of the UDHR on its many anniversaries before the ultimate collapse of SED in 1989.
This year marks a number of anniversaries of significant events of Czechoslovak history, starting with the declaration of independent Czechoslovakia in 1918; the Munich Agreement of 1938, which sumitted Czechoslovakia’s border areas to Hitler’s Germany; the communist takeover of 1948; and finally, the Prague Spring and subsequent Soviet-led invasion of 1968. Dubbed the “year of eights” [osmičkový rok] by the Czech media, historical reflections on the part of witnesses, historians, journalists and pundits alike are rife in the press, on the radio and on television. Yet as historian Pavel Kolář writes, when it comes to the events of 1968, “the anniversary has so far not brought any distinctive impulse” and sees this as a confirmation that “with each round anniversary, the significance of ’68 as one of the focal points of Czech memory is declining”.[1] What then remains of the eventful year of 1968 in Czech memory, fifty years on? This article will briefly examine the media response, which acts as a significant vehicle of memory, to both the reformist efforts of the Prague Spring and their suppression by Warsaw Pact tanks in the Czech Republic.
(Version 2.0, siehe auch Version 1.0) The field of Migration History looks at both ends of human mobility and the complex and diverse processes of migration. In her article Barbara Lüthi defines human migration, which can be either international or internal, and gives a short overview of the history of migration in the 20th century. After a discussion of the approaches and perspectives on the research field Lüthi closes with an examination of the current topics in Migration History: refugees and so-called illegal migrants.
In this issue
(2018)
Heimat (english version)
(2018)
The concept of Heimat can be used in conjunction with many phenomena and sometimes seems to have a precise definition. The very vagueness of the concept bespeaks its emotional aspect, one that makes it rather appealing for a wide range of marketing and propaganda purposes. Heimat denotes a local identification that is not exclusive of other identifications, whether regional, national or transnational institutions, ideologies or religious communities. The Article will address the concept and its varied meanings and it will also examine the fundamental relationship between individuals with respect to their social and geographic spaces.
"There’s nobody left". Anti-Semitic exclusion and persecution in Rauischholzhausen, 1933-1942
(2018)
"I just can’t go back there. [...] I [would] like to go once more to Holzhausen, to the cemetery, and to Kirchhain. I want to see, but ... there’s nobody left." – Martin Spier, New York City 2009.
The people no longer left there are the Jewish residents of Rauischholzhausen. They were persecuted and deprived of their rights, then expelled and murdered. At the same time, the history of Jewish life in this village goes a long way back, as does the antisemitism there. In 1933, the village still had 20 Jewish residents.
On September 6, 1942, the last 18 Jewish individuals from Rauischholzhausen and the surrounding areas were forced onto lorries at the village square and transported from there to Theresienstadt. Three of them survived the Holocaust, returning to the village in 1945.
This book is the result of searching for those who are missing and the reasons for their absence. It is the result of an extensive search in archives and conversations with contemporary witnesses from the village. Yet, in particular, it is the result of conversations with four Jewish survivors, the siblings of the Spier family. On the basis of their memories, this book attempts to describe those years between 1933 and 1942—years that beggar description. It presents a history of events in Rauischholzhausen that developed their own dynamic and that in many respects preempted the state’s policies of exclusion and persecution.