God, city resident, son of a king, orator, sculptor, a box with a woman and a child, a statue of a bull, a statue of an athlete, an axe, iron, wood, stone – is a far from complete list of “outlaws” in Pausanias’ Description of Greece. Periegeta combines all those living and lifeless elements, creating a Hellenic monument. He presents what he thinks was the driving force of history: exiles, escapes, displacements, forced migrations due to wars and fighting for power, murders, competition failures, plagues, poor harvests. It all led to creation of new cities, their names, colonization of new areas, erecting new temples and creating works of art. A detail was to become exceptionally famous both because of its artistic value and life wandering, or even disasters. Art and wandering are given the same value by Pausanias. It is confirmed by the exiled sculptures dealt with in Description. The articles also mentions envious gods as a source of exile and wandering, types of exiles: from common murderers to destructive objects; places and forms of exile, including changing into a stone; monuments to commemorate wicked outlaws and healing quality of exiled objects.

World War II scattered Polish writers all over the world. After the War, some of them came back to Poland and some chose to live abroad. Tadeusz Różewicz did not leave his homeland. Emigration was to find him later, and in a totally different dimension. Social realism was proclaimed during the Congress of Polish Writers’ Union in Szczecin in January 1949. Due to the numerous attacks of his fellow writes, rejecting his texts by the editors of magazines and difficult financial situation, Różewicz moved to a provincial town of Gliwice. Having moved, the author of Anxiety managed, for some time, to avoid participation in discussions and work in the Union’s sections. He cut his ties with the unfriendly environment of writers, editors, publishers, who were slowly changing into “soul engineers”. Despite his escape to a provincial town, the poet was not able to avoid unpleasant incidents. At the beginning, the pressure on him was limited to asking when he was going to become a party member. Then various “educational” methods were used to make the exile submissive to the party ideologists. Różewicz, however, did not give up writing. On the contrary, he remained independent. He did not change his attitude to please the party’s “literature conductors”. His works have always been a testimony, a document confirming his long way to regaining independence, to returning from inner emigration to which he was forced by people and the time he lived in.

Georgi Markov (1929–1978) was a prominent Bulgarian writer and, after 1968, a dissident and political exile, who ultimately broadcasted some of the most insightful and incriminatory depictions of totalitarian communism on Radio Free Europe and radio Deutsche Welle. His compelling presence in the emigration media became the reason for his political assassination in London, widely known as the “Bulgarian umbrella murder.” This article examines Markov’s thrilling journey from being a part of the Bulgarian top intelligentsia in the 1960s to becoming the “heavy artillery” in the East European emigration behind the Iron Curtain. The case study presents, through a varietyof documentary evidence as well as analyses of his most important plays, the writer’s internal and external exiles. Markov’s allegorical drama manifests his social skepticism as well as painful realization of the relativity of ideological propaganda and enforcement of political oppositions during the Cold War. Drawing on his personal experience in the totalitarian East as well as the egalitarian West, the playwright exhibits the moral engagement, integrity, and freewill of an existentialist and “global dissident” in the exilic space of his late dramatic works.

The emigration of German optants from Poland in 1925 differed from the earlier phases of mass emigration of optants due to its forced character. Contradictory provisions on the effects of options taken in the Versailles Treaty and the the Minorities Treaty led to a dispute between Poland and Germany on whether the German optants have to leave Poland or whether it is just their right. Till the German-Polish Convention Concerning Questions of Option and Nationality was signed in 1924, Polish authorities abstained from forcing emigration of optants. After it had been signed, Polish authorities were determined to enforce the powers given by the Convention to force optants to leave the country. And German authorities tried, in diplomatic ways, to make Poland resign from execution of those provisions and make optants not leave too early. Despite that, starting the spring of 1925, some of the 30 thousand optants still living on the territory of Poland started to leave. The biggest number of optants, however, emigrated not sooner than just before the lapse of the first of the three deadlines specified in the Vienna Convention, that is before the 1st of August 1925. The hard conditions in the Piła camp, to which the optants were sent, resulting from accumulated departures and overcrowding, caused an internal German political conflict, in terms of responsibility for such a situation. Some, though not many of the several thousand of optants that did not keep the deadline of the 1st of August 1925 were forcibly transported to the border and banned from Poland. Many more were allowed to postpone the deadline, some were allowed to cancel the option or given Polish citizenship. Emigration of the remaining optants took place during August-September 1925. On the 24th of October 1925, Polish government, under external diplomatic pressure connected with Locarno Conference, ceased enforcing the obligation of the optants’ to emigrate, which ended the forced, mass emigration of German optants.

The article provides information on a group of 106 Shanghai Jewish refugees who returned to Germany in July 1950 after an unsuccessful attempt to immigrate to the United States. By an arrangement negotiated between German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and the Mayor of Bremen, Wilhelm Kaisen the refugees were lodged in the Tirpitz Camp in Bremen until they could get permission to reenter the United States. The article provides information on 1) the experiences that thirteen of the members of the Shanghai Group had endured in German concentration camps during the 1930s; 2) the Shanghai Designated Area set up in the Hongkou district of Shanghai by the Japanese occupying forces in 1943; 3) the journey to Bremen in 1950; 4) the names (and birthdates when available) of 102 members of the Shanghai Group, their numbers over time in the Tirpitz Camp, and the health status of the members; 5) conditions in the Tirpitz Camp in Bremen; and 6) the activities of German federal and state officials to address the immediate needs of the Shanghai Jewish refugees during the time when the issue of German reparation payments to Jews had yet to be determined. The archival file upon which the article is based (Staatsarchiv Bremen 4,22/2–178) reveals that despite the initial good intentions by Adenauer and Kaisen, the experience of the Shanghai Jewish refugees became strained as their stay in the camp became prolonged and their requests for more hospitable accommodation and more funds met with bureaucratic red tape.

During the period of 1879 to 1916, 60 thousand Indian indentured workers were shipped from India to Fiji to supply labour to a nascent sugar industry. The system of indenture bonded the workers for a minimum of 5 years to their employer, the Colonial Sugar Refining Company of Australia (CSR). The economic reality of indenture, however, was that the majority of the workers were stranded in Fiji for generations. CSR departed in 1969 and Britain as the colonial power left a year later, leaving behind a deeply divided polity with ethnicity and race at the centre of political struggle. Since its independence in 1970 Fiji has had four military coup d’états and in the process transformed itself from being a nation of immigrants to one of emigrants. Economic decline and poverty, in the meantime, accelerated: the proportion of the population with income below the national poverty line increased from one in eight in 1977 to one in four by 1990 and one in three by 2002. It is, on all indications, still rising. Here I narrate the political and socio-politico‑economic consequences of indenture to Fiji.

Over the course of this paper, the author carefully illustrates how Sandinista programs of cultural assistance and social reconstruction that were intended to benefit the peoples of Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast actually served to alienate large segments of the indigenous population. Likewise, he shows how the apparent ignorance of the Frente Sandinista Liberación Nacional (FSLN) in regard to their understanding of indigenous social and political formations produced high levels of indifference among the Coast communities toward the revolutionary process. As a result, he demonstrates how increasingly repressive responses on the part of the Sandinista government toward popular dissension helped to transform the fundamental character of the indigenous opposition from one of political apathy to that of armed resistance. However, to reach such valid conclusions, the author first retraces the origins and evolution of the Miskito, Sumu, Rama, and Creole peoples within the context of their continuing struggle against the Nicaraguan state to maintain their own separate cultural and ethnic identities. In addition, he discusses the arrival of the Sandinistas on the Atlantic Coast and how their social and political interaction with the Costeños precipitated hostilities. Finally, the author examines the Sandinista decision to forcibly relocate large numbers of Miskito civilians and how it related to subsequent indigenous emigration and the emergence of an armed conflict.

Nowadays, the more is being said about democracy and human rights, the more refugees there are. There are many reasons for such a situation but one of the most important ones is the fact that global powers consider their own interests inspired by geopolitics to be more important than international law, unambiguously proved by the casus of Western Sahara, whose citizens have been waiting for the referendum promised by the U.N. for 40 years now. Some of them are waiting for the settlement of the dispute under Moroccan occupation, and some in refugee camps in Algerian Sahara. The latter even organized a state in exile, Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic, whose structures were able to provide for survival – with the assistance of Algeria, the U.N. and many nother humanitarian organizations – for over 150 000 Sahara people, at the standard much higher than of other refugees living in over 100 camps globally. They are waiting patiently, they do not use terror, although Islamic fundamentalism is getting closer and closer to the centre of the Sahara and may present an alternative to the desperate ones. It is insignificant in terms of thinking about peace in that region, whether the result of the referendum will be favourable for Morocco or the independence of Western Sahara. The referendum simply should be held. It would be important not only for the entire region, mainly Morocco and Algeria, but also for France, which intervening elsewhere – very close recently – has mouth full of platitudes on democracy and human rights.

During the period between Reformation (1525) and the second partition of Polan (1793), there can be distinguished several phases of religious exile to Gdańsk. In the 1520s and the 1530s, for a short time, Gdańsk attracted Catholics from the Reformation Sweden. The emigration wave was renewed at the turn of the 16th and 17th c., when the Kingdom of Sweden saw a political coup and removing the supporters of Sigismund III the Vasa, mostly Catholics. When Gdańsk was increasingly under the influence of Protestantism, after 1535 (1550), there appeared in the city Protestant radicals, including Anabaptists, but also Arians, later also representatives of nonconformist trends in reformation, e.g. English Chiliasts, but in very small numbers. But only in some phases (Mennonites – Anabaptists right after 1535, Arians after 1658) they can be called typical religious refugees, looking for a haven in Gdańsk. At the turn of the 17th and 18th c. Quakers joined. For some time, especially in the first half of the 17th c. Calvinists, the so Arminians, then English Puritans, and at the end of the 17th c. and at the beginning of the following century – French Huguenots appeared as refugees in Gdańsk. In the 17th c., besides another wave of Protestants radicals, there appeared in Gdańsk also Lutherans – refugees from counterreformation areas, and also converts to Lutheranism, leaving the Catholic religion. The attitude of the citizens of Gdańsk (Gdańsk authorities) varied. Catholics were tolerated, but that was mainly due to political and social reasons. The Mennonites, Quakers and, to some extent, also Arians faced problems with settling down, as both their religious radicalism and economic competition they might pose were not easy to accept. On the other hand, support and welcome was extended to various fractions of Calvinism, which was also probably based on influential assistance of the Gdańsk Calvinist community. The biggest support, however, could be enjoyed by converts from Catholicism to Lutheranism. The ones most endangered by repression, that is former clergy were helped – although not always – to escape from the city. In the 18th c. the economically and politically troubled Gdańsk ceased to be an attractive haven.

The article sketches the picture of overseas emigration of Polish people in the press in the first years after World War II based on the main English language newspapers of that time: “The Times”, “The Scotsman”, “The Guardian” and “The Observer”. Additionally, the local newspaper, “The Evening Times” and “Dziennik Polski i Dziennik Żołnierza”, issued since 1943, were taken into consideration. Emigration was reflected in press articles, but it was also, to some extent, given its press shape. After 1945, Polish people most often emigrated to the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, Brasil and Argentina, as well as South Africa. The destination countries of Polish post-war migration got a wide coverage in the press, which provided the potential emigrants with basic information. The newspapers pointed out to the the potential of a given country, its current and planned immigration policy and the problems that might be encountered by the emigrants leaving Great Britain.

The purpose of this article is to trace the evolution of Swedish policy towards immigrants in the period of 1945 to 1994 – that is, from the end of the War, when a very large wave of refugees came to Sweden, until the country’s accession to the European Union – and the factors that determined the change in the approach of the Swedish authorities to this community. Shortly after the War, the Swedish authorities clearly differentiated their policy towards immigrants, which means they treated differently, e.g. Poles, Scandinavians and representatives of other Baltic nations. While in principle all the people coming from the Baltic countries received a residence permit in Sweden, the others received the right to reside only in individual cases. In the years 1948– 1971, the number of immigrants coming to Sweden was slowly growing. There were both political refugees, as well as economic immigrants. The gradual development of the Swedish economy deepened the demand for cheap labour. The basic document defining a new approach to the problems of immigrants was enacted in 1975. On the basis of the adopted bill, a number of areas of policy towards immigrants in Sweden was reformed. The evolution of policy towards immigrants has consistently sought to implement the concept of folkhemmet (the house of the people), which is the basis for the formation of the Swedish welfare state, and assumed to create conditions for a safe development of the society in general, which meant integration of the immigrants with other people in Sweden on such levels as social, economic, educational etc. The Swedish model of a multicultural society was built, implemented as a result of legal regulations introduced in the years 1964–1975 and it seemed the wisest choice. It assumed to build a multi‑ethnic society, respecting everyone’s roots and traditions, culture and language that the immigrants brought with them and providing the opportunity to cultivate these values in the country of residence. These rules have created the foundations of modern Swedish immigration policy.

The Harkis, Algerians who served in the French military during the Algerian War of Independence, are an understudied group amid the complex transnational webs which defy political and cultural boundaries in the postcolonial world. Their stories – recently collected in a wide ranging series of interviews by Vincent Crapanzano – are striking case studies in the context of the primacy immigration and cultural questions hold in contemporary France, so often personified by Muslim immigrants from the former colonies of the Maghreb. The Harkis have been received in France with a mixture of embarrassment and resentment. For the left, they were condemned as local enforcers of Algerie c’est la France. For the right, their presence was a reminder of the failed colonial war and a living denouncement of colonial tropes. On the other hand, politicians across the spectrum have addressed the Harkis as potential allies who could represent their vision of France. Viewed as traitors in the former colonies, they are an uncomfortable reminder of the French Empire’s broken promises. This article presents a brief history of the Harkis and their role in the history and memory of the Algerian War. By exploring the plight of the Harkis in the context of this volume’s focus on forced migrations and in light of a half-century of postcolonial scholarship, I hope to bring further attention to neglected corners of the colonial landscape and the complex web of choices facing those who directly experience political and cultural struggle. These individuals are almost exclusively neither intellectuals nor political actors, but people alternately courted and denounced by all sides during and in the decades following the Algerian War while attempting to fulfil a variety of material needs and non-material demands. Their motivations, choices, and degrees of agency were as diverse as the tumultuous world of anti-colonial struggle and postcolonial tension they endured. Their stories and location in the postcolonial landscape raise questions regarding the boundaries between individual experience and collective identity as well as how histories of decolonization have been constructed.

Following the defeat of the revolutions in France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Hungary in 1848 and 1849, many participants of the liberal movements had to flee to escape retaliation. In Europe, Britain was the only safe haven for the refugees: in London perhaps the most interesting group of idealists of many nationalities convened − with the major link between them being their unsuccessful clash with the forces of monarchy in their homelands and their grandiose plans for re-starting the freedom fights. For Marx, Kinkel, Hecker, Kossuth, Mazzini, Ruge London, as one of them put it, offered little bread, but did provide the necessary freedom of speech and that of press. Many deemed it crucial that they succeed in the mobilization of the United States in support of their struggles. In order to mobilize the American public, and, of course, to collect donations for their cause, these (ex-)leaders of the revolutions traveled to the United States sometime in the 1850s and organized extensive lecturing and fundraising tours: Gottfried Kinkel (September 1851 to March 1852), Amand Goegg (December 1851 to July 1852), Kossuth (December 1851 to July 1852), Alberto and Jessie White Mario (October 1858). This paper aims to analyze the historical significance of the lecturing tours by seeking answers to the following questions: 1.) Why did the revolutionary spokespersons unanimously turn to America for inspiration? 2.) What practical benefits did the individual fundraisers hope to gain from their trips? What specific target audiences did they choose for their campaign, and why? 3.) What was the reaction of the American public? 4.) What was the relationship between the travelling revolutionaries themselves? 5.) How can the results of the tours be evaluated from the perspective of the a) individuals b) the ethnic group/political issues they represented c) American general public/political groups?

Michael Cude’s article examines how Slovak immigrants in the United States related to their homeland, particularly on questions of national sovereignty (the ‘Slovak Question’). Free from the grip of denationalization efforts in pre-First World War Hungary, Slovak leaders in America established organizations geared toward Slovak national development and political activism, eventually leading to an effort to pressure Hungary from abroad to open up to cultural and political autonomy for the Slovaks. When the Czechoslovak independence movement was organized in exile after the outbreak of the First World War, its leaders attempted to utilize these existing Slovak-American organizations for financial, military, and diplomatic support. This campaign pushed many Slovak‑Americans to absorb a sense of direct influence on the affairs of their homeland, and, consequently, it caused them ample frustration when this influence later dissipated in the First Czechoslovak Republic. In response to this frustration, Slovak-American political activists replanted their fight over the Slovak Question against the newly formed government in Prague. Although the Slovak-Americans were not a true exile group, they embraced the mentality and approach of exiles, fighting from abroad to advance Slovak national aspirations. In addition, they regularly served as proxies in support of true political exiles. In this regard, historians can view these Slovak- American national activists as “imagined exiles,” adopting the role and behaviors of an exile organization even though they were not exiles conditionally. Although stymied in their goal of Slovak autonomy within the First Czechoslovak Republic, Slovak-American efforts nonetheless facilitated the adoption of a transatlantic Slovak national activism, and contributed to an embrace of democracy as a guiding feature of Slovak national identity.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, 1–2 million political refugees fled from Russia. Some of them (a few thousand) settled in the Free City of Gdańsk. Some people, especially ex‑military – attracted by the special status of the quasi‑state – entered in a kind of an “international espionage” community. They were mercenaries of various secret services. We can sketch the motifs and the ways taken by this interesting faction of refugees taking a perspective of one of them, Ivan Ivanovich Bielanin. He worked for the Polish, German and Soviet secret services, as well as for the “white” Russians. In fact, it was a drama of a rootless man who in other circumstances would probably have taken a better advantage of his inborn talents. Free City was an area conducive to business intelligence, because espionage was not penalized there. The agendas of German and Polish intelligence were particularly active in Gdańsk, as well as, to a lesser extent, the Soviet, French, Lithuanian and English. […] The Free City of Gdańsk in the the period of 1920–1939 there was a strong, staff‑wise, Polish military intelligence agency. It was was to inquire the north‑eastern territories of the Reich and to observe the area of Gdańsk. An officer of outstanding talents, Karol Dubicz‑Penther, was the head of the institution in the period of 1920–1926. We can describe Bielanin’s activities mainly on the basis of his reports. Bielanin was an officer in the tsarist army. After the Bolshevik Revolution, he briefly collaborated with the Communists. Then he fought in anti‑Communist Russian troops. In 1919–1923, he worked for the Polish military intelligence in Gdańsk. He traveled with missions to Berlin and Warsaw. He provided a lot of very valuable information about the German intelligence and Russian emigration environments. But he was not loyal and with time people lost confidence in him. His instability and nihilism can be considered as characteristic for the drama of Russian refugees. To raise funds to maintain themselves and gain the favours of the authorities, they became “mercenaries spies”. Finally, the German, Polish and Soviet services considered Bielanin a traitor.

The purpose of this article is to present the history of foreign travels of Subhas Chandra Bose (beng. Śubhāṣ Ćôndra Bôśu), a prominent activist of the Indian independence movement in the interwar period and during World War II, with particular attention to his wandering undertaken in order to gain support for the struggle for India’s independence. Bose spent almost ¼ of his 48-year life abroad, with more than eight years in Europe, and two in Japan-occupied East Asia. Bose is a figure virtually unknown in Polish historiography; that is why I try to sketch his biography. Early western biographies of Subhas showed him in a negative or dismissive light. On the other hand, in India a large number of biographies were written in a hagiographical spirit, describing Bose as a martyr killed for the freedom of India, or considering his activity in the context of alternative history. In the last two decades, however, quite a few works depicting him in a more objective way were created. Most publications on Bose focus on his activities during World War II, i.e. on his stay in Germany and Italy in the the period of 1941–1943, and on his return to East Asia and leadership over the Indian National Army (INA) alongside Japan in the period of 1943–1945. Also a big part of this text is devoted to that time, but first of all I would like to introduce a less well known period of several years (with breaks) when Bose stayed in Europe (including a visit to Poland) in the 1930s, which seriously affected the final shaping of his views and political agenda.

During the Cold War, the term “captive nations” should be regarded as a figure of speech, but also as a practical expression of the ideological declaration – anti‑communism. Using it, the government and the Congress of the United States expressed their support for the cause of freedom of the countries behind the Iron Curtain, and the American society, including minority groups from Eastern Europe, expressed its solidarity with the people who were deprived the right to decide about their own fate. Was the promotion of the concept of “captive nations” a deliberate action of the U.S. government calculated to emphasize their interest in the fate of the regions from which many citizens of that country originated (response to bottom‑up pressure)? Or maybe it was a way to gain support for their foreign policy and its promotion at home and abroad (a propaganda tool)? What role did the refugees themselves play in these activities? This text is an attempt to assess the impact that they could have on the Congress, and thereby influence the processes shaping American foreign policy (both in terms of public debate, as well as concrete policy proposals). Undoubtedly, the activity of a number of business organizations, associating both U.S. citizens and immigrants from Eastern Europe, contributed to a significant popularization of the concept of “the captive” and the role of the United States as their spokesperson. However, the analysis suggests that the myth of captivity is not linked only to the American anti‑communism. It has been present in the American tradition since colonial times, and since its redefinition after World War II. Until today it is used by the U.S. authorities in order to justify global involvement.

Emigration Museum in Gdynia is a local cultural institution of the City of Gdynia, founded in 2012, after several years of preparation. Its creation was due to the need to preserve the memory of the emigration movement from the Polish territory and the desire to honour the achievements of the Polish community from different corners of the Earth. Gdynia, which knew a dynamic growth in the years between the two World Wars, had a huge percentage of immigrant population. These migrants from across the Republic were building the harbour and the city, and contributed to its identity. The investment in the harbour and opening the country to the world by sea route meant that Gdynia became one of key points on the Polish map of emigration. Waves of emigrants reached the city, benefited from its specialized infrastructure and left the country, often keeping Gdynia especially in mind. Since 1933, ship passenger clearances, including immigrants, were held in a representative building of the Maritime Station, which ceased to serve its primary functions a quarter of a century ago. This monument, after the ongoing redevelopment and adaptation, will be the main site of the Museum. Its opening to the public will synchronize with the launch of the permanent exhibition. At the floor space of almost 2500 m2, the multithreading migration processes will be shown in a modern and effective way. It is a living and current topic that requires further explanation. An administrative coercion or “just” political pressure? No influence on the decisions on their own fate or a choice of the lesser evil? The desire to survive vs. the desire to develop? Emigration is often associated stereotypically with an escape, not taking into account the multitude of factors affecting it. The exhibition will try to explain them revealing sociological dimension of migration and its broad historical context. Above all, it will show people and their departure seen through their eyes. The museum itself, however, is something more than just an exhibition. It is a centre of culture, education and science, intertwining the threads of emigration stories and creating new bonds of relationship with the country of the ancestors.

This article addresses the issue of how to show massive population resettlements during World War II in a museum space, on the example of the main exhibition in the World War II Museum in Gdańsk. It attempts to answer the following questions: whether the Museum is a good place for a story about the mass evictions, resettlements and deportations carried out during World War II by two the totalitarian regimes: Nazi and Communist? The authors consider how to present historical narratives concerning eviction, resettlement and deportation by the Third Reich and the Soviet Union in a museum space and to reconcile scientific integrity with the requirements of a modern formula of the Museum. Can one find in a modern museum a place to explain the reasons of the suffering of millions of people through a deepened historical narrative, or whether it should focus only on preserving the memory of the mass displacements and resettlements of the population, dominated by a martyrological narrative? The article deals with such issues as contemporary forms and tasks of museums, the main assumptions of a museum narrative and scenographic exhibition solutions of the World War II Museum in the area of forced migration.