Interpretations of the forced migration of Germans from the former eastern provinces of the German Reich and from countries in Eastern Europe at the end of and in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War emerged as early as the time of the event itself. In the decades that followed, different priorities, explanatory frameworks and interpretative patterns emerged within various culturesand subcultures of remembrance.

The interpretation of‘flight and expulsion’– that is, the forced migration of Germans from the former eastern provinces of the German Reich and from countries in Eastern Europe at the end of and in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War – begins with the choice of terminology that shapes the discourse. In the early Federal Republic of Germany, the state deliberately chose the term‘expulsion’. Under the Federal Displaced Persons Act of 1953 (Section 1), it encompassed both the ‘expulsion’ and the ‘flight’ of the German population, thus serving as an umbrella term for a multi-stage and heterogeneous process. Since the 1960s, this has been expanded in common parlance to the now familiar dual term ‘flight and expulsion’. It thus refers to the multifaceted nature of the process, which is divided into two phases. The sub-term ‘expulsion’ focuses on the phase of expulsion following the end of the war, although in common usage there is usually no clear semantic distinction between the two.

Until 1990, the term‘expulsion’or‘flight and expulsion’was specific to the Federal Republic of Germany. It had been deliberately chosen by the state and the organisations representing displaced persons as an emotionally charged and morally significant term, intended to convey the coercive and unjust nature of the event, the violence associated with it, and the demand for its redress.

In the GDR, by contrast, the term‘resettlement’was used as a technical term, intended to characterise the process in a deliberately matter-of-fact manner as lawful and definitive.

In academic circles today, the term‘forced migration’of the Germans is generally used in a neutral sense, encompassing the phases of evacuation, flight, ‘unorganised’ expulsion and organised resettlement.

As in the GDR, in Poland and Czechoslovakia the terms ‘wysiedlenie’ (resettlement) and ‘odsun’ (deportation) respectively were chosen as matter-of-fact descriptions. The same applied to the English-speaking world, where the more technical term ‘transfer’ initially predominated. With the onset of the Cold War, however, the term‘expulsion’also entered English- and French-language discourse. Following the end of the East-West confrontation, from 1990 onwards it was occasionally translated into Polish and Czech as well (wypędzenie, vyhnání).

The plurality of perspectives and interpretations in different countries – which is already evident in the terminology used – stems as much from their differing roles and interests at the end of the war and in the post-war period as it does from their differing experiences during the Second World War and the cultures of remembrance that followed. For a long time, the non-German perspectives were united by the fundamental conviction that Germany bore sole responsibility for the forced migration of Germans, owing to its previous aggressive policies of war and occupation, which involved the exploitation of German minorities in its eastern neighbouring countries. Their resettlement appeared to be justified by the aim of preventing such policies from being repeated in the future.

Furthermore, the difference in terminology between the GDR and the Federal Republic in particular highlights the significance of the political and ideological systemic opposition during the Cold War. Both the political and territorial post-war order were directly linked to Germany’s loss of territory in the East and the forced migration of the German population. In the communist-ruled states, where the displaced persons’ regions of origin were now located, the resettlement of Germans could therefore not be fundamentally questioned without calling into question the political system and the very integrity of the state itself. Public discussion of the forced migration of Germans was consequently heavily regulated in these countries.

In all the countries concerned, the end of communism and the Cold War, as well as the final recognition of the Oder–Neisse line by reunified Germany, opened up new perspectives and possibilities for interpretation. In the countries from which the Germans had been resettled, a new – and in some cases unprecedented – interest in the history of the local German population and their forced migration developed in the 1990s, particularly at local and regional levels. Their forced resettlement was now the subject of intensive academic research. At the state level, too, there was a growing willingness to acknowledge the suffering experienced by the Germans affected and to examine the state’s own share of responsibility for it. Whilst this led to a rapprochement with the (West) German perspective, historical contextualisation as a consequence of the Second World War remained fundamental.

From the turn of the millennium onwards, this rapprochement in the culture of remembrance was disrupted by the growing impression that, in German discourse – particularly in the course of the debate over a ‘Centre against Expulsions’ and the portrayal of Germans as victims of war, the historical connection to Germany’s responsibility for the Second World War was being weakened and the perpetrator-victim relationship reversed. This was exacerbated both by persistent demands from organisations representing displaced persons and sections of the German political establishment for public admissions of guilt, financial compensation and the repeal of laws, and by domestic party political interests that sought to revive old enemy stereotypes.

The end of the Cold War and German reunification marked a significant turning point in the development of the culture of remembrance in Germany. For over five decades, two distinct yet closely interrelated cultures of remembrance had existed in the two German states. In particular, the differing attitudes towards the Oder–Neisse border, the Soviet Union and the history of National Socialism were responsible for the formation and development of distinct cultures of remembrance in both German states. It was not until reunification in 1990 and the joint recognition of the eastern border with Poland that these cultures converged, becoming two traditions of remembrance which, however, had varying degrees of impact on the subsequent discourse on the forced migration of Germans.

Both before and after 1990, the respective state policies on remembrance shaped public discourse. In addition, various civil society actors played a significant role in both German states (see below).

The GDR’s policy on remembrance, where the proportion of Germans from Eastern Europe was even higher than in the Federal Republic, was largely shaped by the conviction that the eastern border with Poland must not be called into question, out of deference to the alliance with the Soviet Union and the relationship with Poland as a socialist brother nation. The recognition of the so-called ‘peace border’ in the 1950 Treaty of Görlitz had, from that point onwards, formed the unquestionable foundation for all public discourse. At the same time, it served to draw a line between the GDR and the Federal Republic, whose refusal to settle the border issue fuelled the ideological counter-image of a revisionist, capitalist state still mired in fascism, which deliberately stoked the hopes of those affected for a return home and thereby delayed their integration.

The status of‘resettlers’in the GDR, by contrast, was intended to become irrelevant as soon as possible in the joint construction of a socialist society in which everyone, regardless of their origin, was to find a new home. Memories of forced migration and the former homeland in the East were seen as backward-looking, an obstacle to the construction of a new socialist society, and tending towards revanchism. Self-organised groups of ‘resettlers’, which played a central role in preserving memory in West Germany, did not receive admission to the GDR, and contacts with corresponding West German associations were monitored by the secret services.

Public remembrance of the forced migration of Germans was heavily regulated, but not completely suppressed. School textbooks, for example, acknowledged that the Potsdam Decisions were ‘harsh and difficult for the German people ’.^[1] From the outset, literature and film in particular offered spaces within which the ‘resettlers’’ experiences of suffering could be described and discussed, despite the mark in force in these areas.

Novels and short stories focused primarily on the loss-ridden phase of the flight before the end of the war. Cinema and television films also depicted the population’s flight from the front in dramatic imagery. These depictions conformed to the state-mandated doctrine of anti-fascism in that the National Socialist regime could be held responsible for this phase and the associated fatalities and experiences, whilst violent attacks by the Red Army were omitted or merely alluded to. A key feature was the framing of the exodus within the causal context of German war policy and fascism. In most cases, a cathartic effect was attributed to it, in that it revealed the nature and consequences of Nazi rule and laid the foundations for an enthusiastic endorsement of a socialist future.

The forced resettlement was also written about, although acts of violence were largely glossed over. In contrast, a stance characterised by an effort to show understanding towards the eastern neighbours, their experiences of war and occupation, and their resulting negative attitudes towards the Germans predominated. From the late 1970s onwards, the GDR’s rigorous integration policy could also be examined critically in literature. This concerned both the suppression of cultural distinctiveness among ‘resettlers’ from Silesia, East Prussia or Pomerania, and the supposed success of their integration into socialist society. The homesickness felt particularly by older ‘resettlers’ could now also be described with empathy; even their sometimes persistent reluctance to relinquish their regions of origin was addressed.

Whilst acknowledging the suffering of those affected and any mistakes made during their integration, the interpretation of ‘resettlement’ as an irreversible consequence of Nazi war policy remained constant until 1990. This was not only mandated by the state and enforced by mark, but also reflected the attitude of most civil society actors involved in remembrance who were able to speak out publicly.

In the Federal Republic of Germany, there were no state guidelines or, indeed, any censorship measures governing public remembrance of the forced migration of Germans, but for many years certain rules governing public discourse did apply. Until the mid-1960s, there was a broad political and social consensus regarding the illegitimacy of the eastern border, the ‘right of return for the displaced’ and the ‘injustice of the expulsion’. The state promoted a ‘pan-German’ consciousness that encompassed not only the lost eastern territories but also an imaginary‘German East’extending beyond them. This was intended not only to integrate the displaced persons into West German society, but also to ideologically unify West German society – not least by drawing a distinction from the GDR, which had recognised the eastern border.

The memory of the forced migration of Germans has always remained linked to the border issue. The major academic project to compile a collection of eyewitness accounts, which was published in several volumes between 1953 and 1962 as the monumental ‘Documentation of the Expulsion’, had been commissioned and funded by the Federal Government, in order to have a basis for negotiating territorial claims and financial reparations at a future peace conference. The state exerted direct influence through the teaching of ‘Ostkunde’ (studies on the East) in schools, which was adopted in 1956 by the Conference of Ministers of Education as an interdisciplinary teaching principle and implemented under the responsibility of the Federal States. The federal and state governments worked together to promote culture in accordance with Section 96 of the Federal Displaced Persons Act, within the framework of which the memory of the forced migration of Germans was also preserved in museums, local history centres, publications and events. For a long time, state-funded associations were the most important civil society actors in commemorating forced migration. At local level, co-operation with state authorities – particularly within the framework of municipal twinning schemes – was also significant in the organisation of commemorative days and homecoming gatherings, or in the erection of monuments to displaced persons and the establishment of local history centres. In addition, writers, historians and those working in journalism and publishing helped to shape the public discourse.

In the early days of the Federal Republic, the remembrance of the forced migration of Germans reinforced the general awareness that Germany itself had been a victim of the Second World War and that any sense of guilt towards other groups could thus be put into perspective. For a long time, those who questioned the unjust nature of the border demarcation and the forced resettlement, or who emphasised the historical connection with German war policy, found little support.

From the mid-1960s onwards, however, a growing conviction took hold in politics and society that the eastern border would, after all, be permanent, alongside a growing interest in the victims of Nazism and the history of German perpetrators during the Second World War. The memory of the forced migration of Germans, which until then had been characterised primarily by revisionism and self-victimisation, was therefore viewed with increasing scepticism and was now placed more firmly in the context of Germany’s preceding war policy and Nazi crimes. With the de facto recognition of the border in the 1970 Warsaw Treaty by the social-liberal Federal Government, the formerly relatively homogeneous German community of remembrance was definitively transformed into a fractured landscape of memory.

The forced migration of Germans now became an increasingly contested site of remembrance, with various political and cultural circles disputing its significance and interpretation. In particular, the organisations representing displaced persons and the conservative parties clung to the traditional narratives of victimhood until 1990 and continued to link them to the border issue. In the 1970s and 1980s, for many younger people and those on the political left, engaging with the forced migration of Germans seemed almost inevitably linked to revisionism and self-victimisation, and was therefore seen as unattractive and potentially suspect. Whilst in the 1980s the Federal Government under Chancellor Helmut Kohl (1930–2017) stepped up its financial and moral support for organisations representing displaced persons and their efforts to preserve remembrance, it was primarily journalists and writers such as Sigfried Lenz (1926–2014) and Horst Bienek (1930–1990), sought to place remembrance within the broader context of the Second World War and move beyond a focus on German victims. In doing so, they also addressed, in some cases, the German conflicts over remembrance themselves.

When the two German states were reunified in 1990, there was thus a multifaceted discourse on memory. However, with the final recognition of the Oder-Neisse border, the border issue – which had hitherto been a defining factor for all memory communities – was now removed.

For the organisations representing displaced persons, this meant the loss of the core of their previous self-image as the spearhead of a pan-German movement that had regarded the former eastern territories as an integral part of Germany. Following a phase of reorientation, they defined the culture of remembrance as their new central field of activity in the late 1990s under the BdV presidency of Erika Steinbach. They now concentrated on anchoring their interpretation of German forced migration in the nation’s collective memory. Institutions such as a national ‘Centre against Expulsions’ or a state-sponsored Day of Remembrance for Expellees were intended to guarantee the lasting impact of their specific form and content of remembrance under state auspices, and to make it part of the national identity, irrespective of the continued existence of the associations and the generation that had lived through these events.

It was no longer just the former population of the GDR that was able to engage with the forced migration of Germans without restrictions. The removal of border restrictions also enabled a West German milieu with more left-wing political leanings to adopt a new approach to the subject, which now appeared to have become politically uncontroversial. Among other factors, the wars in Yugoslavia – and in particular the Kosovo War – in the late 1990s acted as a catalyst. Building on this, a human rights-based narrative of a ‘century of ethnic cleansing’took hold, which included the German expellees as victims, whilst tending to blur the distinction between victims of expulsionand victims of genocide.

Since the turn of the millennium, this renewed interest in the forced migration of Germans has led to a multitude of media representations. There has been a boom in commemorative literature, TV documentaries and feature films, novels, exhibitions and events. There was heated debate as to whether and how remembrance could go beyond a revival of the West German ‘victimisation’ narrative of the 1950s, and whether the subject had been suppressed for too long or even treated as taboo.

The much-discussed project for a ‘Centre against Expulsions’, pursued by the BdV since 1999, led in 2005 to a decision by the grand coalition of the CDU/CSU and SPD to erect a ‘visible symbol’ in the capital, intended to commemorate the ‘injustice of expulsions’.^[2] In 2008, the‘Foundation for Flight, Expulsion and Reconciliation’ was established to design and operate a state-run documentation and memorial centre in Berlin, whose permanent exhibition opened in 2021. Furthermore, since 2015, an annual state‘Day of Remembrance for the Victims of Flight and Expulsion’ has been observed. The BdV had been pressing for the establishment of such a day of remembrance since 2001. By scheduling it to coincide with the UN World Refugee Day on 20 June, the Federal Government linked the remembrance of the forced migration of Germans in the context of the Second World War with contemporary global migration processes. Discussions regarding the positioning and assessment of the forced migration of Germans within a broader historical context of migration have gained new momentum in the wake of the so-called refugee crisis of 2015.

• Madlen Benthin: The Expulsion of Germans from Eastern Central Europe. A Comparison of German and Czech Cultures of Remembrance. Braunschweig 2007.
• Karina Berger: Home, Loss and Identity. Flight and Expulsion in German Literature from the 1950s to the Present. Oxford et al. 2015.
• Christoph Cornelißen, Roman Holec, Jiří Pešek (eds.): Dictatorship – War – Expulsion. Cultures of Remembrance in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Germany since 1945. Essen 2005.
• Andrew Th. Demshuk: The Lost German East. Forced Migration and the Politics of Memory, 1945–1970. New York 2012.
• Elisabeth Fendl (ed.): On the Iconography of Nostalgia. The Culture of Remembrance among Displaced Persons. Freiburg 2002.
• Elisabeth Fendl (ed.): On the Aesthetics of Loss. Images of Home, Flight and Expulsion. Münster 2010.
• Eva Hahn, Hans Henning Hahn: Expulsion in German Memory. Legends, Myths, History. Paderborn et al. 2010.
• Peter Haslinger, K. Erik Franzen, Martin Schulze Wessel (eds.): Discourses on Forced Migration in Central Europe. Historical Politics, Academic Debates, Literary and Local Memory since 1989. Munich 2008.
• Manfred Kittel: The Expulsion of the Expellees? The Historical German East in the Culture of Remembrance of the Federal Republic (1961–1982). Munich 2007.
• Christian Lotz: The Interpretation of Loss. Controversies in the Politics of Memory in Divided Germany concerning Flight, Expulsion and the Eastern Territories (1948–1972). Cologne, Weimar, Vienna 2007.
• Elke Mehnert (ed.): Landscapes of Memory. Flight and Expulsion from a German, Polish and Czech Perspective. Frankfurt am Main et al. 2001.
• Bill Niven: Representations of Flight and Expulsion in GDR Prose. New York 2014.
• Maren Röger: Flight, Expulsion and Resettlement. Media Cultures of Remembrance and Debates in Germany and Poland since 1989, Marburg 2011.
• Stephan Scholz, Maren Röger, Bill Niven (eds.): The Memory of Flight and Expulsion. A Handbook of Media and Practices. Paderborn 2015.
• Thomas Strobel, Robert Maier (eds.): The Issue of Expulsion and German–Polish Relations in Research, Education and Politics, Hanover 2008.

[1] Neueste Zeit. A textbook for history lessons in secondary schools. Part 2. East Berlin 1957, p. 132, quoted here from Benthien, Vertreibung, p. 37.

[2] Coalition Agreement between the CDU, CSU and SPD, 11 November 2005, p. 114.

Stephan Scholz: Flight and Expulsion – Interpretations. In: Online Encyclopaedia on the Culture and History of Germans in Eastern Europe, 2020. URL: ome-lexikon.uni-oldenburg.de/p49725 (as at 7 December 2020).