Politics of the British government for the repatriation of soviet DPs from Western Europe in 1944-1948

O. Naumenko
{"title":"Politics of the British government for the repatriation of soviet DPs from Western Europe in 1944-1948","authors":"O. Naumenko","doi":"10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.101-113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article describes the legal aspect of repatriation of displaced people in British government; The article describes the legal aspect of British politics on repatriation of displaced people; briefly outlines and analyzes the decisions of international meetings of senior officials, that were called upon maintain the organization and operation of this process; discloses the essence and significance of the Yalta agreements for the return of displaced people. In particular, after the Yalta conference, we can clearly see the formation of two separate approaches to repatriation. Thus, we can make a conclusion, that at first time the USSR people’s repatriation had a forcing nature, according to Yalta agreements and clarified protocol to them. But in future, the USA and Great Britain’s governments, especially, after the beginning of Cold War, were giving all kinds of legal and material help DPs, which, because of personal reasons and motives, didn’t aspire to come back, that, in return, on the other hand, considerably deteriorated inter union relations.\n\nThe Soviet government sought to return all displaced people without any exception, while the Great Britain gave an alternative to all those people, who didn’t want to return to their homeland. In view of this claim, such people were transferred automatically from the category of displaced people to the category of refugees eligible for shelter in Western Europe. The approaches of the British side to different ethnic groups of repatriates are traced; the categories of displaced persons who have not been able to avoid forced return to the USSR under interstate agreements have been identified.\n\nAs of the end of 1945, with the rise of crisis trends between the governments of the Big Three countries and the controversy surrounding the repatriation issue, the British government decided to halt the forced return of Soviet DPs. In particular, its concerned soldiers of the Waffen SS Galychyna Division, who did not partially come under the conditions of forced return to the USSR, but were able to use the refugee shelter in the Great Britain.","PeriodicalId":394953,"journal":{"name":"European Historical Studies","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Historical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2524-048x.2019.14.101-113","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article describes the legal aspect of repatriation of displaced people in British government; The article describes the legal aspect of British politics on repatriation of displaced people; briefly outlines and analyzes the decisions of international meetings of senior officials, that were called upon maintain the organization and operation of this process; discloses the essence and significance of the Yalta agreements for the return of displaced people. In particular, after the Yalta conference, we can clearly see the formation of two separate approaches to repatriation. Thus, we can make a conclusion, that at first time the USSR people’s repatriation had a forcing nature, according to Yalta agreements and clarified protocol to them. But in future, the USA and Great Britain’s governments, especially, after the beginning of Cold War, were giving all kinds of legal and material help DPs, which, because of personal reasons and motives, didn’t aspire to come back, that, in return, on the other hand, considerably deteriorated inter union relations. The Soviet government sought to return all displaced people without any exception, while the Great Britain gave an alternative to all those people, who didn’t want to return to their homeland. In view of this claim, such people were transferred automatically from the category of displaced people to the category of refugees eligible for shelter in Western Europe. The approaches of the British side to different ethnic groups of repatriates are traced; the categories of displaced persons who have not been able to avoid forced return to the USSR under interstate agreements have been identified. As of the end of 1945, with the rise of crisis trends between the governments of the Big Three countries and the controversy surrounding the repatriation issue, the British government decided to halt the forced return of Soviet DPs. In particular, its concerned soldiers of the Waffen SS Galychyna Division, who did not partially come under the conditions of forced return to the USSR, but were able to use the refugee shelter in the Great Britain.
1944-1948年英国政府对从西欧遣返苏联流离失所者的政策
本文描述了英国政府遣返流离失所者的法律方面;本文描述了英国政治在遣返流离失所者方面的法律方面;简要概述和分析要求维持这一进程的组织和运作的高级官员国际会议的决定;揭示了《雅尔塔协定》关于流离失所者返回的实质和意义。特别是在雅尔塔会议之后,我们可以清楚地看到两种不同的遣返方式的形成。因此,我们可以得出结论,根据雅尔塔协定及其明确的议定书,苏联人民的遣返最初具有强迫性质。但在以后,特别是冷战开始后,美英两国政府给予了各种法律上和物质上的帮助,这些人由于个人原因和动机,不愿回来,反过来,另一方面,大大恶化了联盟关系。苏联政府试图让所有流离失所的人毫无例外地返回家园,而英国则为所有不想返回家园的人提供了另一个选择。鉴于这种说法,这些人自动从流离失所者类别转为有资格在西欧获得庇护的难民类别。调查了英国方面对待遣返者中不同族裔群体的做法;已经确定了根据国家间协定未能避免被迫返回苏联的流离失所者的类别。1945年底,随着三国政府之间危机趋势的上升和围绕遣返问题的争议,英国政府决定停止强制遣返苏联难民。特别是,它所涉及的武装党卫军加利奇纳师的士兵,他们没有部分受到强迫返回苏联的条件,而是能够使用英国的难民庇护所。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信