Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 11

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  ethnic cleansing
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
On April 28, 1947 Polish communist authorities began Operation ‘Vistula’ which they argued was to eliminate the activity of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA). One way to support this goal, according to them, was to resettle civil Ukrainian and Lemko population to the western and northern territories of Poland. Suspected UPA collaborators were to be imprisoned at the Central Labor Camp in the city of Jaworzno (formerly a part of the Auschwitz Concentration Camp). The first prisoners were brought in the early May of 1947. At least 543 people from the Lemko Region were eventually held there. The majority of them were Lemkos, but some Poles living among Lemkos were also arrested. Most had no ties to UPA and were victims of ethnic persecution. They were brought from local prisons and railway stations where the resettled population was loaded on the trains or were later pulled from transports during a stop-over in the city of Oświęcim. Due to brutal interrogations, torture, poor food and hygiene, all suffered loss of health while 18 Lemkos died. Prisoners were gradually released beginning in late December 1947, while some were moved to be imprisoned elsewhere. The Ukrainian part of the camp was closed in January 1949.
EN
The article characterizes the main aspects of geopolitical relations between Poland and Ukraine. It presents a Russian impact on Ukrainian politics, the EU’s intention to affect the orientation of Ukraine and NATO’s ambitions on the eastern flank. The article indicates the transformations of the new statehood of Ukraine and its relationship with the environment. Russia makes the strongest political and economic impact on Ukraine. Russia has subdued Crimea, supports the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and seeks to maintain influence on the future orientation of the country. Geopolitical impacts of the European Union and NATO are more limited. In direct Polish-Ukrainian relations there is a Polish support for Ukrainian independence and the new government, elected after the events on the Maidan at the end of 2013 and in 2014. The effects of geopolitical conflict over the lands of Volyn and Eastern Galicia and disputes about land Zakierzonia (located west of the so-called Curzon line) put a shadow on these relations. The new Ukrainian authorities emphasize the activities of the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that contributed to the ethnic cleansing of Polish population. The effects of forced relocation of the Ukrainian population as part of the “Vistula” operation in 1947 are not comparable.
EN
Was the United Kingdom's policy of pushing for the return of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar following ethnic cleansing in 2017 realistic?This article explores the United Kingdom’s response to the Rohingya Crisis which began in August 2017, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of 600,000 Rohingya Muslims in the first nine weeks of violence, with a minimum of 6,700 people being killed in the process. The United Kingdom reacted with condemnation, and began immediately calling for the safe return of refugees who had fled the violence, to their homes in Rakhine state, Myanmar. Using the testimony from Mark Field MP, Minister for Asia, in a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting, this essay assesses this policy of pushing for the return of the Rohingya to their homes. Using primary sources available to Britain at the time its policy was formed, this essay argues that Britain’s approach was not only unrealistic with regards to providing an environment in which Rohingya refugees would be provided safety, but also in relation to Burmese authorities’ desires to take back Rohingya refugees. Myanmar’s campaign of ethnic cleansing intentionally created the environment in which either the Rohingya would never return, or they would return to state-controlled concentration camps. Secondary material expires the history of violent state policies against the Rohingya in Myanmar, and Britain’s policy is shown to not only be unworkable due to such policies, but would actively endanger those refugees who chose to return. Czy polityka Wielkiej Brytanii w kwestii powrotu uchodźców Rohyngia do Birmy po czystkach etnicznych w 2007 roku była realistyczna?Artykuł omawia kryzys, który rozpoczął się w sierpniu 2017 roku i spowodował czystki etniczne obejmujące około 600 000 muzułmanów z ludu Rohyngya, przy czym w pierwszych 9 tygodniach gwałtownych zamieszek śmierć poniosło co najmniej 6700 osób. Zjednoczone Królestwo potępiło czystki i natychmiast wezwało do umożliwienia uchodźcom bezpiecznego powrotu do ich domów w Birmie. Na podstawie wyjaśnień ministra ds. Azji Marka Fielda, członka parlamentu, Komitet ds. Spraw Zagranicznych na swym posiedzeniu dokonał oceny tej polityki, polegającej na nakłanianiu ich do powrotu do Birmy. Opierając się na źródłach dostępnych w Wielkiej Brytanii w chwili, gdy tworzyły się zręby tej polityki, autor eseju dowodzi, że ten kierunek polityczny był nie tylko nierealistyczny w odniesieniu do możliwości zapewnienia uchodźcom bezpieczeństwa, ale także sprzeczny z zamiarami władz Birmy w kwestii przyjęcia uchodźców. Birmańska kampania czystek etnicznych świadomie stworzyła sytuację, w której Rohingya nigdy nie powrócą bądź wracaliby do kontrolowanych przez państwo obozów koncentracyjnych. Dostępne opracowania analizują historię przemocy wobec ludności Rohyngya w Birmie i ukazują politykę Wielkiej Brytanii nie tylko jako nieskuteczną z powodu takich posunięć politycznych, ale także wskazują, że zagrażałaby ona życiu decydujących się na powrót uchodźców.
EN
The study is focused on the phenomenon of collective violence that took place in the territory of the Czech lands during the spring and summer 1945. Albeit the war operations had been concluded since the 8th May 1945, general living conditions resembled rather a continuation of the war in the time – at least until the end of the July 1945. Despite the traditional interpretation of the May 1945 as a crucial reversal, the study focuses on the collective violence as a phenomenon overlapping traditional turning points. Remaining high amount of violent interactions is an element connecting the final war operations with the first weeks and months after. Applying concepts of political sociology (Charles Tilly), social psychology (Philip Zimbardo) and sociology (Randall Collins) the study strives to capture interdependent nature of collective violence between its structural preconditions and situational dynamics. Based on the quantitative evaluation of the acts of collective violence, the first part outlines a macro social topography of collective violence with the main focus on the period between April and August 1945. The main point is an identification of key actors of the politics of collective violence and their correlation to basic configurations of particular political regimes (i.e. occupational regime of the so called Protectorate and limited democratic regime of Czechoslovakia after May 1945). The second part evaluates social and cultural mechanisms facilitating escalation of violent situations into mass atrocities.The study identifies impulsive acts of collective violence as limited to temporary transitive violent rituals and turns attention to the important role of the state organised specialists in concrete violent situations.
EN
In the essay the author analyses the problematics of genocide based on correspondence between Filip David and Mirko Kovač Kiedy kwitnie zło. Książka listów 1992–1995 (When evilflourishes. A book of letters 1992–1995) to later juxtapose it with studies on Shoah. She ponders the generational perspective of people whose lives were tarnished by the Nazi-Germany occupation (Filip David – born 1940, Mirko Kovač – born 1938). The article most of all aims at reconstructing the stances of the two authors of letters and showing genocide as a realm of incessant discussion, vague affects, unsystematized knowledge. The author undertakes an attempt to reconstruct only some of the topics and contexts accompanying the issues discussed in David’s and Kovač’s letters, particularly: the soul-searing descriptions of the Bosnian War of 1992–1995. She shows that the language facet of violence proves to be a challenge to reflecting on literature in the correspondence between the two intellectuals. When faced with the disintegration of hitherto social order in the former Yugoslavia, the nationalist discourse, as social studies and research on genocide suggest, prepares the ground for activation of violent behaviours, justifies them, and plays a key role in fomenting the genocidal repression. As a result of the said processes, the authorities create and reinforce nations’ cultural self-images, tighten the control over ethnic purity of collective identity,instigate conflicts between neighbours based on “the blood and soil myth,” cherry-pick the xenophobic discourse of the past, and force through with ethnical interpretations of culture.
EN
During the First World War, the German Australian community, the largest non-Anglo-Celtic group, became the target of a relentless campaign of persecution, internment and deportation that resulted in its dismemberment and the destruction of its socio-cultural infrastructure. Under the country’s belligerent Prime Minister, W.M. Hughes, the machinery of government was used to suspend basic civil rights and the rule of law, while Australian civilians were called upon to participate in the “homefront war” against an imagined internal enemy. The government’s aim was to serve the cause of Im- perial Britain and its commercial supremacy, and to secure the future of White Australia as the home of an imaginary, exclusive “British race.”
EN
This text is about how residents of (formerly) multi-ethnic areas talk about the violence that led to the disappearance from their communities of neighbours of other ethnicities, the perpetrators of which were members of their own ethnic group. I analyse the interviews I conducted with my team in Eastern Galicia in 2017–2019, and I look at what their erstwhile Ukrainian neighbours say and how they discuss the murder of Poles and Jews during the Second World War. How willing are they to raise these issues at all? Can they be persuaded to do so? If they are willing to speak, do defensive strategies appear in their narratives?Do narratives of violence against Poles and Jews differ? 
PL
Niniejszy tekst dotyczy tego, w jaki sposób mieszkańcy (niegdyś) wieloetnicznych terenów mówią o przemocy, która doprowadziła do zniknięcia z ich otoczenia sąsiadów innej narodowości, a której sprawcami byli przedstawiciele ich własnej grupy etnicznej. Analizuję wywiady przeprowadzone przeze mnie i mój zespół w Galicji Wschodniej w latach 2017–2019 i przyglądam się temu, co i jak mówią o mordowaniu podczas II wojny światowej Polaków i Żydów ich niegdysiejsi ukraińscy sąsiedzi. Jak bardzo są w ogóle skłonni poruszać te kwestie? Czy da się ich do tego skłonić? Jeśli już mówią, czy w ich narracji pojawiają się strategie obronne? Czy narracje o przemocy wobec Polaków i Żydów się różnią? 
EN
The text under the title Crime of Genocide Serbian population in the Balkans in the twentieth century, consists of three parts. The first one describes the theoretical concepts idea Genocide, the other contains reflections on war crimes, crimes against humanity, etc. - also on the basis of theoretical concepts. The third part of the article was presented to the Croatian concentration camp was set up to exterminate the Serbian civilian population into the territory of the Independent State of Croatia. Text close to the conclusions, which are all considerations the conclusion contained in the article.
EN
The discourse on the social engineering as an instrument of shaping modern societies gained strength at the end of the 19th century. In further deliberations the attention is paid to the question of how the connection between politics and science – restricted to the relation between geopolitics, bio-politics and ethnic cleansing – functioned after WW1 and WW2, and particularly how it affected the international order.
PL
W końcu XIX wieku nabrał na sile dyskurs o inżynierii społecznej jako narzędziu kształtowania nowoczesnych społeczeństw. W dalszych rozważaniach interesować będzie nas pytanie, jak powiązanie między polityką i nauką – zawężone do relacji między geopolityką a biopolityką i czystkami etnicznymi – funkcjonowało po pierwszej i drugiej wojnie światowej, a szczególnie w jaki sposób wpływało stabilizująco albo destabilizująco na ład międzynarodowy.
EN
The main aim is to present the historical and political conditions of NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia and to show the consequences of this operation, the main effect of which was the creation of the so-called the independent state of Kosovo, which is essentially an unstable controversial territory, constituting the basis for the development of organized crime and other asymmetrical threats. The air operation codenamed „Allied Force” began a new chapter in the history of the Alliance, which for the first time undertook military action without the mandate of the UN Security Council, thus creating a dangerous precedent for the future. The Serbs were forced to leave Kosovo under the supervision of the UN as a result of this operation. However, it is hard to talk about the defeat of the Serbs, because the army was not defeated, and the soldiers did not give up and could fight further. Their involvement could, however, lead to the total economic extermination of the country by the coalition of NATO states, which proved that it has no scruples in destroying civilian (also economic) purposes. The author emphasizes that the developed structures of organized crime and corruption of the so-called Kosovo states do not give hope for positive forecasting in the development of its statehood.
PL
Głównym celem jest przedstawienie uwarunkowań historycznych i politycznych ataku NATO na Jugosławię oraz ukazanie konsekwencji tej operacji, której głównym efektem było powstanie tzw. niezależnego państwa Kosowa, będącego w istocie niestabilnym terytorium spornym, stanowiącym bazę dla rozwoju przestępczości zorganizowanej i innych zagrożeń asymetrycznych. Operacja powietrzna o kryptonimie „Allied Force” rozpoczęła nowy rozdział w historii Sojuszu, który po raz pierwszy podjął działania zbrojne bez mandatu Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ, stwarzając tym samym niebezpieczny precedens na przyszłość. Serbowie w wyniku tej operacji zostali zmuszeni do pozostawienia Kosowa pod nadzorem ONZ. Trudno jednak mówić o porażce Serbów, bowiem armia nie została pokonana, a żołnierze nie poddali się i mogli walczyć dalej. Ich zaangażowanie mogłyby jednak doprowadzić do całkowitego wyniszczenia ekonomicznego państwa przez koalicję państw NATO, która udowodniła, że nie ma skrupułów w niszczeniu celów cywilnych (także gospodarczych). Autorka podkreśla, że rozwinięte struktury przestępczości zorganizowanej i korupcja przywódców tzw. państwa kosowskiego nie stwarzają nadziei na pozytywne prognozowanie w zakresie rozwoju jego państwowości
EN
Humanitarian intervention is understood as an action undertaken by international society, against the sovereign state, that is intended to alleviate extensive human suffering as mass murders, ethnic cleanings, acts of genocide, within the borders of this state. Such intervention is breaking the rules of Westphal Order, particularly the principles of sovereignty of states and non-intervention. Though humanitarian intervention do not necessarily requires the use of military force, because it could include for example impose of sanctions, the term intervention refers practically to situations in which military power is used. As such intervention, especially without authorization of UN Security Council, is against the main principle of International Law, is becoming a major focus of debate within governments, international organizations (UN for example), academic circles, especially among lawyers, political and moral philosophers. The doctrine of humanitarian intervention was widely criticized, both in cases in which intervention was undertaken (Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Kosovo, Sierra Leone) and in the cases in which was relinquished (Biafra, Rwanda). The author of the article describes different aspects of that important question.
PL
Interwencja humanitarna w klasycznym rozumieniu jest działaniem militarnym przedsięwziętym przez społeczność międzynarodową (organizację międzynarodową, grupę państw, państwo) przeciw państwu i na jego obszarze, w celu przeciwdziałania dokonującym się tam ekstremalnym naruszeniom praw człowieka, w tym masowym mordom, czystkom etnicznym i ludobójstwu. Nie musi mieć jednak charakteru militarnego – może przybrać formę sankcji. Interwencja humanitarna jest sprzeczna z dwoma podstawowymi zasadami prawa międzynarodowego: suwerenności i nieinterwencji, utrwalonymi w Europie wraz z pokojem westfalskim, zawartym w 1648 r. Prawo do interwencji humanitarnej (nawet bez upoważnienia Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ) jako moralna powinność społeczności międzynarodowej w sytuacjach brutalnych naruszeń praw człowieka lansowane jest zarówno przez doktrynę prawa międzynarodowego – lub jej część – jak i kształtowane równocześnie przez praktykę międzynarodową. Kwestia ta jest nadal przedmiotem debat politycznych, a także dyskusji wśród filozofów, prawników i organizacji pozarządowych. Podkreśla się wybiórczość podejmowania interwencji, które dokonywane są częściej na obszarach politycznych i gospodarczych interesów, np. na Bliskim Wschodzie (Irak, Afganistan, Syria), a rzadziej w regionach uznawanych z punktu widzenia takich interesów za mniej ważne (Biafra, Rwanda). Autor rozważa w artykule różne formalne i praktyczne aspekty interwencji humanitarnej.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.