European Remigrations in the Twentieth Century

henever a war is lost, an occupying force pulls out, or a revolution is successful, a fundamental change of elites is likely. This opens up chances for the elites waiting in the wings at home, but also for those who had fled or been driven out. Political émigrés mostly take a clear stance against the old regime when they leave their homelands. The knowledge of different cultural and political systems they laboriously acquire in exile seems to predestine them for positions in which they can help to shape new beginnings. If they return to their countries, those who stayed at home will welcome them with open arms—or so one might think. But it is clear that remigrants are treated very differently depending on the country and the crisis situation. The spectrum ranges from triumphant return to a sceptical wait-and-see attitude, rejection and resistance. Thus Charles de Gaulle was celebrated as a liberator in Paris in 1944, while Willy Brandt and others who returned to Germany had to face lifelong prejudice. If we compare the patterns of various remigrations, we find many striking parallels.

The more political the reasons for emigration, the more likely it is that there is a desire to return. This does not indicate anything about the success or failure of the remigration. Other factors seem to be responsible for this: perhaps the duration of the exile and its distance from home? Or the networks of remigrants, their political colour, and their elite status before or during the emigration? What part is played by international recognition as part of a government-in-exile? What is the significance of gender and generation? And how did the return of scientists, academics, and artists who had emigrated for political reasons and tried to re-establish themselves in their old sphere of activity work out? What transfers did they effect?

further information:
www.ghil.ac.uk/events_and_conferences/conferences_and_workshops.html