The term ‘forced migration’ (forced migration) came into use in the 1980s in the context of research carried out at that time and international academic discussions – particularly following the fall of communism, which led to the end of censorship and made archives and their holdings accessible to academic research. At the same time, public interest in the subject grew, partly as a result of efforts to address so-called ‘blank spots’ in the historiography of post-communist Europe and the‘ethnic cleansing’in the countries of the disintegrating Yugoslavia during the first half of the 1990s.

The overarching term ‘forced migration’ became established, as it was applicable to different types of population displacement in the 20th century and recognised massive violence as their primary cause, without blurring the distinctions between the various categories of forced population movements. As a term, ‘forced migration’ appeared neutral, objective and, in particular, free from the political connotations sometimes associated with other terms; it was therefore particularly well-suited for use in transnational academic discourse, especially as it could be defined more precisely than technocratic or generalising terms such as ‘population transfer’ or ‘population exchange’.

The term ‘forced migration’ is used both in academic discourse and in popular science. It is used on history-focused websites and by international organisations dealing with the current issue of forced migration;^[1] the term is less common in general journalism.

Engl.: forced migration, forced displacement, forced population movements, ethnic cleansing; Poln.: przymusowe wysiedlenie (forced resettlement), przymusowe przesiedlenie (forced relocation); Czech: násilná migrace, nucené vystěhování, násilné migrační procesy (forced migration processes); Slovak: násilná migrácia, vynútená migrácia; Hungarian: kényszermigráció; Romanian: migrație forțată; Russian: вынужденная миграция (transliteration: vynuždennaja migracija), принудительная миграция (transliteration: prinuditel’naja migracija).

Forced migration usually refers to mass movements of people caused by direct coercion (an order to leave a place enforced through the use of force) or situational coercion (a massive threat of violence), exerted by state authorities (acting independently or with international approval) or local actors (separatists, paramilitary groups, etc.). The actions of those in power (in the broadest sense) provide the impetus that triggers the population movement; this does not mean, however, that these migrations are organised, controlled or take place in a less violent manner. The victims are usually groups defined by ethnicity, social status or denomination/religion, which are intended to be separated from the rest of the population in the respective areas. Those affected are frequently minorities or other groups that have been granted a special status – often as a result of changes to national borders: They may be citizens of the former state or of a state regarded as hostile, or they may be stateless – for example, as a result of the collapse of a multi-ethnic state, which entails the need for a reconstitution of the state.

Forced migration usually occurs in the context of a war with an external aggressor, a civil war and its internal repercussions, and/or the implementation of an ideologically motivated socio-political project, such as the creation of a nationally unified state or the totalitarian restructuring of a society. When characterising forced migration, attention must be paid to its connection with modernisation (instruments of state policy, the technical capacity to transport large numbers of people over long distances, the ability to control population movements, and the capacity for authorities to categorise or classify them, e.g. in the form of registers of residents). Forced migration is also characterised by the fact that those affected have no influence over events and are usually unable to alter the classification or categorisation (national identity, race, class) imposed ‘from above’. Forced mass migrations are not merely a phenomenon of contemporary history – one need only think of the exodus of Jews from late medieval Spain or the Holy Roman Empire – but in public discourse they are primarily associated with the 20th century.

The term ‘forced migration’ is widely recognised and is itself hardly the subject of any controversy. It is used in particular in comparative studies.^[2] As it can refer to migrations with very different causes, characteristics, consequences and impacts, some have seen a risk of relativising history, as each instance of forced migration must be analysed individually and on its own merits.^[3] In non-academic circles, there has been public criticism that the use of the generalised term ‘forced migration’ sometimes turns perpetrators into victims, whilst former victims are regarded as perpetrators on the grounds of their use of violence or involvement in forced migration. It was also alleged that the term contributes to the artificial creation of a ‘community of fate’ amongst the victims of such migrations, which leads to the suffering they have experienced being equated.^[4]

In-depth discussions arose regarding specific population movements that were subsumed under the umbrella term ‘forced migration’. The diversity of causes, courses and consequences of these events was the subject of heated debate. This also included determining the scale of the victim figures (the number of people affected by expulsion from their places of residence, the number of fatalities) as well as questions regarding the significance of indirect, situational coercion: What does this consist of, and to what extent does it influence the independent, voluntary decisions made by migrants? How does it manifest itself: as a real threat to life and limb, to individual freedom, and/or as existing or impending economic, social or national discrimination associated with remaining in one’s place of residence? An appropriate assessment of migration can, for example, be complicated by the fact that in some cases those affected were formally granted the option of making a voluntary decision to remain in or leave their place of residence.

Furthermore, the validity and relevance of the terms used have become the subject of debate: A striking example of this is the term‘expulsion’, used to describe the forced migrations at the end of and following the Second World War, which was – and remains – a frequent feature of discourses on German-Polish relations and, until the second half of the 1990s, on German-Czech relations. In Poland during the 1990s, particularly outside historical circles, there was a certain tendency to use the term‘expulsion’(wypędzenie), particularly when describing the fates of those people from the former eastern territories of the German Reich that were ceded to Poland or the USSR. Ultimately, however, this term failed to gain widespread acceptance. The criticism levelled attheterm‘expulsions’relates in particular to its imprecise nature, which is said to encourage a blurring of political, legal, moral and emotional dimensions, and to its undifferentiated application, particularly to migrations from later decades.^[5] Specific terms for different forms of forced migration have, in some cases, contributed to fierce controversies in the political arena. Communist governments, for example, attempted to conceal forced migrations entirely, to obscure their nature or (where they themselves or the USSR were implicated as perpetrators) to distort the facts through the use of biased terminology. One example of this is the description of the forced migrations of Germans and Poles at the end of and following the Second World War as ‘repatriation’.

Different terms are used for the particularly drastic and dramatic forced migrations that resulted in a high number of fatalities; these are also referred to as‘ethnic cleansing’. Some academics, but more frequently non-academic commentators, avoid the terms‘ethnic cleansing’or ‘forced migration’ in this context and use the term‘genocide’, though usually without taking into account its definition under international law or the international case law associated with this term.

The term‘Holocaust’is used to describe the totality of crimes against the Jews, beginning with the progressive and increasingly radical deprivation of rights suffered by German Jews between 1933 and 1939, with ‘Kristallnacht’ in November 1938 as a turning point, leading to the Nazi policy of extermination – from confinement in ghettos and deportation to concentration camps, through to transport to extermination camps and the extermination itself – is excluded from the discussion on forced migration. The situation is similar with regard to the Armenian Genocide in Turkey in 1915, which began with forced migrations (deportations).

Despite its limitations and the existence of related terms, the appropriateness and usefulness of the term ‘forced migration’ are generally regarded as high in both academic and public discourse – yet the distinguishing aspects indicated above must not be lost sight of. The term ‘forced migration’ helps to overcome a narrow national, bilateral, regional or European perspective and enables the identification of a timeless, global historical phenomenon – stretching from the Far East (China) through the realms of the Aztecs and Mayans to the Orient, a historical phenomenon which has had a particular impact on European history and on 20th-century political theory and practice in Europe.

Forced migration, in the form of flight from persecution or the expulsion of groups deemed undesirable – and, less frequently, of individuals – has occurred throughout history. Notable examples include modern-day population displacements resulting from religious intolerance: the expulsion of the Moors from Spain in the 16th century, that of the Arians from Poland and the Protestants from France in the 17th century, and that from the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg (‘Salzburg emigrants’) in the 18th century. Transcontinental migrations to or from the colonial territories were also, in some cases, of a forced nature (the deportation of convicts, the transport of slaves). In the 20th century, however, forced migration became not only a mass phenomenon with distinctive characteristics, the scale of which exceeded anything seen before, but also, at certain stages, an accepted instrument of bilateral and international politics. Following the century spanning the Congress of Vienna and the outbreak of the First World War – a period marked by unprecedented advances in science and technology, the emancipation of various social groups, the flourishing of political and social life, and the emergence of a system guaranteeing individual rights across large parts of Europe – a turning point occurred. The scale of the violence perpetrated in Europe during and following the First World War against undesirable groups, consisting mostly of defenceless civilians, was unprecedented. Even though the perpetrators often had no direct connection to colonial policy, their actions were reminiscent of the treatment of ‘natives’ and ‘uncivilised’ people in the colonies, with racist traits becoming apparent in their thinking. Among those affected by persecution and oppression, the proportion of people forced to migrate increased.

This raises the question of the causes of this ‘modern barbarisation’ of Europe. The increased incidence of forced migration in Eastern Europe – a region that is, on the whole, less developed – appears to correlate with the supposedly lower level of political culture and stability in that area. This explanatory model is, however, questionable: it should be remembered that, after 1918, France carried out the ruthless expulsion (‘épuration’) of Germans from the reclaimed Alsace. Some of the forced migrations in Eastern Europe were carried out not merely under the supervision of, but by decision of, the leading Western states: the United Kingdom, France and the USA.

The reasons for this include political, ideological and social factors. Some of the forced migrations in Eastern Europe during the 20th century were based on decisions taken under the responsibility of international bodies. For many decades, the organised resettlement of ethnic groups was regarded as a means of resolving inter-state conflicts or establishing new political orders, particularly on the European continent, which had long been regarded as the centre of civilisation and the rule of law. This occurred both after the First and the Second World Wars: The Treaty of Lausanne (1923), the Munich Agreement (1938) and the conferences of the ‘Big Three’, culminating in the Potsdam Conference (1943–1945), are the most frequently cited examples of great power politics in Europe and worldwide. In particular, the forced migrations that took place in the wake of the Potsdam Agreement appear to be characteristic of the phenomenon as a whole – these took place during and after the genocide, persecutions and deportations of the ‘Third Reich’, which had in fact definitively compromised the use of forced population transfers as a political tool. In international politics, a trend lasting some three decades can be discerned: this began with the protection of minority rights, moved on to the ‘solution’ of the ‘problems’ arising from the existence of minorities – which were regarded as a threat to peace – to the reduction of the minority population in conflict regions through unilateral or bilateral resettlements, or to a change in the state affiliation of such a territory (enforced border changes).

Nationalism and the tendency to create nation states, particularly in areas with a multi-ethnic character dating back centuries, can be identified as key factors leading to forced migration. In such areas, where the establishment of ‘clear’ borders could not be reconciled with the ethnic realities, forced migration in the form of‘ethnic cleansing’was widespread. The backdrop to this was the demand for the right of peoples to self-determination – linked to the concept of freedom, which is fundamental to liberalism. This went hand in hand with the equally demanded right of peoples to establish their own nation-states. Thus, states emerged as a result of conflicts and rivalries, as the outcomes of wars and the disintegration of multi-ethnic empires, in each case under the influence of growing national mobilisation. This led to strict demarcations between groups of differing identities according to the dichotomy of ‘one’s own’ or ‘the other’. The ‘other’, who did not belong to the titular nation but to a minority, was not only seen as different, but was regarded (potentially or in fact) as a threat and undesirable, as a disruptive factor to the ethnic homogeneity of the (emerging or yet-to-be-created) nation-state, which was deemed ‘natural’ and ‘necessary’ ethnic homogeneity of the(emerging or yet-to-be-created) nation state. This issue became particularly acute in that part of Europe where the‘nation’—based on common ancestry and ‘blood kinship’—predominated as the defining factor of a group’s identity. In contrast to religious affiliation, which could in principle be overcome through conversion, the individuals concerned could not, however, rid themselves of their ethnic origin as part of their identity, for example by pledging new allegiance or voluntarily assimilating. This could only happen with the consent of those in power, as in the case of the Germanisation of part of the Polish population in the territories occupied by the Nazis, or in the case of the national verification of the indigenous population in Poland’s newly acquired territories in 1946 – the alternative being forced migration.

The removal of minorities first occurred in multi-ethnic states seeking to achieve territorial unity (the expulsion of Jews and Germans from Tsarist Russia after 1914), but also in newly formed nation-states, where the high proportion of minorities was viewed by the majority—constituting the titular nation—as negative and a threat to their own status. Such domestic policies directed against minorities were at times further reinforced by the attitude of the minorities themselves, particularly their elites, for example, when they refused to accept a new international order because it came at the expense of their own significance (because, for instance, a group went from being a majority of the state’s population to a minority ) or dashed their hopes of having a nation-state of their own (divided peoples in Eastern Europe).

Forced migration occurred primarily under the conditions of totalitarian dictatorships, which are likewise a European phenomenon. The plans for the complete reorganisation oftheGerman‘living space’gave rise to various forms of forced migration, which were not fully implemented due to the course of the Second World War. Even before 1939, the coercive measures against Jews, which resulted in their emigration from Germany, were a means of moving closer to the ideal of the ‘blood community’. The deportations of millions of people after 1939 in occupied Central and Eastern Europe were linked to their partial (e.g. Poles, Ukrainians, Belarusians) or almost complete (Jews, Roma and Sinti) extermination. Some deportations were more in the nature of oppression or exploitation (deportation for forced labour); in most cases, they formed part of a policy of ethnic reshaping in the conquered territories. The ultimate aim of Adolf Hitler’s (1889–1945) policy, as set out inthe ‘General Plan East’of 1942, was the almost complete resettlement of the indigenous ‘subhumans’ in the occupied territories to the east, combined with a subsequent large-scale resettlement of Germans. Under the conditions of ‘total’ war, it was not possible to remove all Poles from the occupied territories. However, the Nazi regime continued to regard this issue as urgent, as evidenced by the resettlement operation in the Zamość area, which was undertaken at a time when the Wehrmacht had already lost the Battle of Stalingrad in 1942–1943.

The Bolsheviks set in motion a major social transformation – albeit under different circumstances – in the Soviet Union. Until 1939, the theatre of this transformation was their own state, and the victims were Soviet citizens. Class affiliation became the basis, or rather the pretext, for forced migrations (deportations of former elites, of relatives of convicted persons, and the banishment of so-called kulaks). Even before the outbreak of war, deportations had taken place on the basis of ethnic origin (Poles, Germans, Kurds, Iranians). Between 1939 and 1941, deportations were carried out from the annexed Polish territories, where the class issue was intertwined with the national question, as most of the victims were Poles. The mass Soviet deportations after 1941 were also of an ethnic nature; they affected, amongst others, Germans from the Volga region, Crimean Tatars, Chechens and Ingush, and continued after the war, whilst also becoming (through the deportations of Lithuanians and Ukrainians) a means of securing the western border regions. Policy towards ethnic minorities was not only a sensitive issue in Soviet domestic politics, but also in the communist regimes as a whole following the Second World War. Contrary to its internationalist slogans, communism did not, in practice, rule out nationalist behaviour. Moreover, nationalist propaganda was used to win over the majority population and turn it against the minorities. This was a form of selective nationalism which, in the case of Poland, was anti-German and at times anti-Semitic, whilst also, though widely held in secret, taking on an anti-Russian character.

Forced migrations of an ethnic nature also occurred in other parts of the world, including where nation states developed under the political and cultural influence of Europe (Israel’s policy towards the Arab population, forced migrations during decolonisation).

The human rights enshrined in constitutions, on the one hand, and the diametrically opposed order to deport, on the other, can therefore be regarded as symbols of this era. Another characteristic of politically driven forced migrations deserves attention: the removal of an undesirable population group was usually followed by the large-scale resettlement of the ‘cleansed’ area, with the property left behind by the previous inhabitants being utilised. In this respect, it was in the interests of those who caused the migration that property be left behind. This, in turn, had a devastating impact on the situation of those forcibly displaced and their livelihoods at their new place of residence.

The policy of occupation is just one of the factors linked to war that lead to forced migration. Often, as soon as war breaks out, the evacuation of the population begins, which can quickly turn into a flight from the approaching enemy that is as spontaneous as it is chaotic. The impetus for this may be fear, fuelled both by propaganda against the aggressor and by the aggressor’s actual brutal actions against the population of the attacked country, which are intended to trigger panic in order to rid the area of part of its population. Migration flows arising from this cause have occurred in virtually every war; in the 20th century, they began with the Balkan Wars, which are generally cited as marking the start of the history of displacement in the 20th century. During the First World War, such movements took place on all fronts, in the West (e.g. the flight of the Belgians) as well as in the East (evacuation and flight from East Prussia in 1914, or evacuation and flight from the western governorates of Tsarist Russia after 1915). During the Second World War, there were numerous waves of flight, ranging from the exodus from western Poland in the face of the Wehrmacht to the evacuation and flight of Germans from the eastern provinces of the German Reich in 1944–1945. Fleeing civilians were ruthlessly attacked, deliberately targeted with gunfire and bombed – they were regarded primarily as a source of manpower for the enemy that had to be destroyed. This was also the approach taken in the 1990s in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Civil wars and revolutions also triggered mass exoduses of the civilian population (from Bolshevik Russia and from Franco’s Spain). Without delving into examples from outside Europe, one can cite the wars waged by Israel since 1948, which resulted in a massive exodus of Palestinians. Events in regions that have been ravaged by conflict over the past decade (Iraq, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine) show that fleeing the theatre of war currently constitutes the main form of forced migration.

One form of forced migration associated with armed conflicts is population displacement resulting from the political conclusion of wars. The end of wars is often accompanied by border changes that lead to new minority issues, for example when people who previously belonged to the majority now find themselves in the minority. This has been resolved in various ways (apart from attempts to compel certain states to implement minority protection measures, e.g. in connection with the Paris Suburban Treaties): through reciprocal population exchanges carried out either compulsorily or on an optional basis; the unilateral (compulsory) resettlement of the ‘foreign’ population in an organised manner to areas beyond the new borders; or the expulsion and resettlement of the undesirable group within the country. In some cases,expulsions ordeportations of a minority group were carried out (the military resettlement of Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1945) before a new border received international recognition. Following the First World War, the emergence of new states led to such population movements. Some members of the population moved of their own accord – albeit under the pressure of circumstantial constraints – to the new territory of the state with which they felt a bond based on national identity. Others were affected by population transfers dictated ‘from above’. The migrations with the greatest far-reaching consequences were carried out as a result of decisions by the victorious powers of the Second World War (the forced resettlement of Germans from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary following the Potsdam Agreement) or on the basis of decisions which the victorious powers accepted (the Greek–Turkish population exchange following a series of wars in the region, and the Soviet–Polish agreement of 1944 on the resettlement of Poles from territories lost to the USSR ).

In the case of the population transfers following the Second World War, other factors – alongside the pursuit of national homogeneity – played a certain role, such as the aim of weakening and punishing the Germans (which was regarded as justified) or the desire to secure the new territorial order. Undoubtedly – whilst exercising the utmost caution – one can observe a kind of ‘contamination’ by the preceding Nazi policies. By launching the‘Heim ins Reich’campaign, the Nazis themselves had initiated large-scale (forced) resettlements of Germans living far from the German borders and destroyed the existence of historically established communities in multinational regions. Ultimately, the Germans themselves were ‘homogenised’ in their own country, which had been occupied and divided by the victorious powers.

When analysing forced migration as a modern phenomenon, with all its diversity, the technical and organisational aspects of its implementation are also significant. Without the existence of certain prerequisites, it would not have been possible to carry out mass forced migrations, implemented relatively rapidly, such as those characteristic of the 20th century, even though the defining image of these migrations remains that of refugees travelling on foot, carrying their meagre belongings on their backs, or in a convoy of horse-drawn carts. Despite this image, most forced migrants left their homes by train, in goods wagons that were not suitable for transporting people. This required well-developed transport routes as well as an appropriate fleet of vehicles to remove large numbers of people from the areas to be ‘cleansed’ and to transport them to their destination regions, sometimes over thousands of kilometres.

A functioning (mostly state-run) apparatus was also necessary, one that had at its disposal the means of coercion, the capacity for control, but also for the protection of people, and which could rely on a civil service to carry out, organise and administratively manage the transport (e.g. maintaining lists). The railway played a fundamental role in deportations and the genocide carried out by the Nazis, as well as in the banishments and resettlements of communists. The existing transport network was a prerequisite for mass flight from the front; the evacuation and flight of Germans from East Prussia and Pomerania by sea serves as an example. Even today, these transport routes enable illegal immigrants – forced to leave their countries by war and poverty – to reach other continents despite all obstacles.

Given the chaos in which some of these forced migrations took place, it is only possible to make very general estimates of their scale. It is estimated that in the 20th century, in Europe alone, at least 30 million people of various nationalities and faiths were victims of forced migration, the majority of whom were from Eastern and Central Europe.^[6] Between the First Balkan War (1912) and the mid-1920s, the number of forced migrants stood at 2.6 million.^[7] During the Nazi era, the Germans forcibly resettled and/or deported over ten million people (including deportations for forced labour). These figures do not include the six million European Jews who were murdered, for whom deportation was a stage on the path to their deaths. From the territories of occupied Poland, around one million Poles were resettled to the annexed territory as part of the Germanisation programme; a further half a million were expelled from Warsaw/Warszawa in the autumn of 1944.^[8] In contrast, at least half a million German settlers were resettled (in some cases against their will) in the occupied Polish territories. Furthermore, in the shadow of Nazi policy, ‘wars within the war’ broke out (including the Ukrainian–Polish conflict, which led to the deaths of several tens of thousands and the flight of at least 300,000 Poles).^[9] By 1952, the USSR had forcibly resettled at least six million people. This figure does not include deportations to prison camps, nor the internment and forced labour of non-Soviet citizens in the years 1944–1945.^[10]

In the second half of the 1940s, following the end of the war, the establishment of the new political order in Europe and the partial border changes (of which the alteration of Poland’s borders was the most significant), over 16 million people were forcibly expelled or compelled by circumstances to leave the country, including some twelve million Germans (including refugees and evacuees)^[11] and 1.5 million Poles.^[12] These population shifts occurred in parallel with the flow of‘displaced persons’and repatriates (those returning from captivity, forced labour, camps or emigration), numbering many millions, resettlements(migration in search of a new home in undamaged areas) and emigration (the departure of Jewish survivors and of Eastern Europeans who did not wish to return to countries that had become communist). Ten million Europeans were living ‘with their bags packed’ during this period, and entire regions and states experienced fluctuating population figures.

Some of this uprooted population experienced forced migration several times over the course of just a few years, losing (almost) everything each time. The experiences of these people were to have an enormous impact on the subsequent development of communities that were helped to take shape by the forced migrants.

After almost half a century, the practice of forced migration returned with the Yugoslav conflict in the 1990s. Five million people were displaced, a large proportion of whom settled in Western Europe. Unlike in earlier waves of migration, however, around a third of those displaced returned to their homeland. This return took place largely under pressure from those Western states which, unlike in the past, no longer regarded forced migration as a legitimate method of ridding themselves of minorities, resolving conflicts or bringing about political stability (at least in Europe). The departure from the ‘Spirit of Lausanne’ – with its legitimising significance for forced migrations – took a very long time, even though the consequences of forced migrations were unmistakably negative: persistent inter-state conflicts, economic and social costs, and ultimately further‘purges’of the population in the utopian pursuit of homogeneity, as well as further, albeit less numerous, waves of emigration. Inevitably, the question of responsibility arose – not only regarding the states or nations as the direct perpetrators, but also regarding the responsibility of the great powers, which had accepted a significant proportion of the forced migrations in the name of the international order.

For a long time, the view was held that the forced migrations following the Second World War – particularly those of Germans and Poles – had, whilst painful, contributed to decades of peace in Europe. Critics of this view point to the wounds that remained open for decades in the form of feelings of injustice and hostility, some of which are still felt today; to the atmosphere of latent or overt revisionism on the one hand, and the sense of impermanence, and uncertainty on the other, which have been exploited for political ends. According to this view, peace in Central Europe was not a consequence of the ‘Spirit of Potsdam’, but merely a result of the ‘Cold War’ and the ‘Iron Curtain’, which separated the antagonists from one another and offered no possibility of further direct confrontation. The bipolar structure of the global balance of power and Europe’s long-standing political marginalisation meant that the border arrangements – even though they were rejected by millions – endured for decades, thereby giving those affected by the loss of their homeland, as well as subsequent generations, time to come to terms with them.

• Pertti Ahonen: People on the Move. Forced Population Movements in Europe during the Second World War and its Aftermath. New York 2008 (Occupation in Europe series 3).
• Klaus Bachmann, Jerzy Kranz (eds.): Lost Homeland. The Debate on Expulsions in Poland. Bonn 1998.
• Klaus J. Bade, Pieter C. Emmer, Leo Lucassen, Jochen Oltmer (eds.): Encyclopaedia of Migration in Europe. From the 17th Century to the Present Day. Paderborn 2008.
• Wolfgang Benz: Marginalisation, Expulsion, Genocide. Genocide in the 20th Century. Munich 2006.
• Richard Bessel, Claudia B. Haake (eds.): Removing Peoples. Forced Removal in the Modern World. Oxford 2009 (Studies of the German Historical Institute London).
• Dieter Bingen, Włodzimierz Borodziej, Stefan Troebst (eds.): Remembering Displacements in Europe? Historical Experiences – Politics of the Past – Visions for the Future. Wiesbaden 2003 (Publications of the German Poland Institute, Darmstadt 18).
• Detlef Brandes, Holm Sundhaussen, Stefan Troebst (eds.): Encyclopaedia of Expulsions. Deportation, Forced Resettlement and Ethnic Cleansing in 20th-Century Europe. Vienna, Cologne, Weimar 2010.
• Stanisław Ciesielski, Grzegorz Hryciuk, Aleksander Srebrakowski: Masowe deportacje ludności w Związku Radzieckim [Mass Deportations of the Population in the USSR]. Toruń 2003.
• Peter Haslinger, K. Erik Franzen, Martin Schulze Wessel (eds.): Discourses on Forced Migrations in Central Europe. Historical Politics, Academic Debates, Literary and Local Memory since 1989. Munich 2008 (Publications of the Collegium Carolinum 108).
• Grzegorz Hryciuk, Małgorzata Ruchniewicz, Bożena Szaynok, Andrzej Żbikowski: Resettlements, Expulsions and Refugee Movements 1939–1959. Atlas of the History of East-Central Europe. Bonn 2012 (Federal Agency for Civic Education, Series 1324).
• Anja Kruke (ed.): Forced Migration and Expulsion – Europe in the 20th Century. Bonn 2006.
• Benjamin Lieberman: Terrible Fate. Ethnic Cleansing in the Making of Modern Europe. Chicago 2006.
• Pawel Lisicki, Jerzy Haszczynski: Memory: European or National? The Controversy over the Centre against Expulsions. Warsaw [2003].
• Piotr Madajczyk: Ethnic and Class Purges in 20th-Century Europe. Sketches on the Problem [Warsaw 2010].
• Michael Mann: The Dark Side of Democracy. Explaining Ethnic Cleansing. Cambridge 2005.
• Ralph Melville, Jiři Pešek, Claus Scharf (eds.): Forced Migrations in Central and Eastern Europe. International Law – Concepts – Practice (1938–1950). Mainz 2008 (Publications of the Institute of History, Mainz, Supplement 69).
• Norman M. Naimark: Blazing Hatred. Ethnic Cleansing in the 20th Century. Munich 2004.
• Jochen Oltmer: Global Migration. Past and Present. Bonn 2012 (Federal Agency for Civic Education, Series 1309).
• Pavel Polian: Against Their Will. The History and Geography of Forced Migrations in the USSR. Budapest 2004.
• Michael Schwartz: Ethnic ‘Cleansing’ in the Modern Era. Global Interactions between Nationalist and Racist Policies of Violence in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Munich 2013 (Sources and Accounts of Contemporary History 95).
• Philipp Ther: The Dark Side of Nation-States. Ethnic Cleansing in Modern Europe. Göttingen 2011 (Syntheses. Problems of European History 5).

• library.fes.de/library/netzquelle/zwangsmigration/ (Friedrich Ebert Foundation Library)
• lernportal.the-unwanted.com/lernstation/self/public/glossar_122.html (‘The Unwanted’: learning portal of the Migration in Europe network)
• www.fmreview.org/ (Forced Migration Review)
• www.migrationpolicy.org/article/confronting-realities-forced-migration (MPI – Migration Policy Institute)
• iasfm.org/ (IASFM – International Association for the Study of Forced Migration)
• www.iom.int/ (IOM – International Organisation for Migration)

[1] For example: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: World Disasters Report 2012 ‘Focus on forced migration and displacement’: reliefweb.int/report/world/world-disasters-report-2012-focus-forced-migration-and-displacement (accessed 14 September 2021).

[2] For example: Melville, Pešek, Scharf (eds.): Forced Migrations in Central and Eastern Europe.

[3] The following works provide a good overview of the key positions in the debate: Bachmann, Kranz (eds.): Lost Homelands; Bingen, Borodziej, Troebst (eds.): Remembering Displacements in Europe?; Haslinger, Franzen, Schulze Wessel (eds.): Discourses on Forced Migration.

[4] See, for example, several articles in: Kruke (ed.): Forced Migration and Expulsion; Lisicki, Haszczynski: Memory: European or National?

[5] See also several contributions in: Bachmann, Kranz (eds.): Lost Homeland.

[6] Ther: The Dark Side of Nation-States, p. 261.

[7] Ther: The Dark Side of Nation-States, p. 261.

[8] Madajczyk: Ethnic and Class Purges, p. 152; Hryciuk, Ruchniewicz, Szaynok, Żbikowski: Resettlements, Expulsions and Refugee Movements, pp. 72–73.

[9] Hryciuk, Ruchniewicz, Szaynok, Żbikowski: Resettlements, Expulsions and Refugee Movements, pp. 71–72.

[10] Ciesielski, Hryciuk, Srebrakowski: Mass Deportations, p. 15.

[11] Ther: The Dark Side of Nation States, p. 261.

[12] Hryciuk, Ruchniewicz, Szaynok, Żbikowski: Resettlements, Expulsions and Refugee Movements, pp. 84–88, 145.

Translated from Polish by Maria Luft and Burkhard Olschowsky

Krzysztof Ruchniewicz: Forced Migration. In: Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe, 2015. URL: ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/p32750 (as at 14 September 2021).