In the months after the end of World War I, some 40 million people died amid a worldwide flu pandemic. Three million perished from typhus; 5 million Ukrainians starved to death. No more battles, but no food, no medicine, no shelter, no resistance, either: just milling chaos. The fighting had ended, but its baleful, destructive legacy lingered on. And the question for the Western allies, immersed in another world war some 25 years later and brooding on consequences long before Hitler admitted defeat, was whether they could do better second time round.
Ben Shephard sets out to provide the answers of formidably researched history. He can’t pull every strand together: There were millions of human stories. The challenge to the embryo “world community” of allied concern and its chosen solution, UNRRA — the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration — was likewise immense and infernally complex. For not everybody wanted to go home — or even knew where their true homes were.
UNRRA’s tally of “displaced persons” included Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Russians and many more who’d kept Hitler’s factories turning as Germany ran short of infantry to hold the frontline. Some were forced labor, some willing volunteers. Some were happy enough to go back to Poland, some would do anything to avoid living under encroaching Soviet communism. Ukraine, then as now, was split two ways, one side looking east, the other West. The Balkan states were their usual mess. Italians, once Mussolini departed, proved neither friends nor foes, but a burden. Germans driven from their farms in Poland and Czechoslovakia flocked to find safety in their beaten, battered fatherland. And then, of course, there were the Jews.
In part, but only in part, Shephard charts the founding of Israel and, fascinatingly, sets it in a context few politicians (or readers) would recognize six decades on. How did UNRRA deal with the horror of the Holocaust? It didn’t. Nobody in the 1940s talked about holocausts. One Fabian Society report managed half a paragraph mentioning 2 million Jewish deaths in 26 pages examining Europe’s displaced persons.
There was the casual anti-Semitism of General George Patton as his conquering army scythed across Europe. The Jews he found and freed were, he declared, “lower than animals.” There was, still more surprisingly, an antipathy in the White House that would set Washington imploding today. “The Jews,” President Truman wrote in his diary, “are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical or political, neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment of the underdog.”
Shephard’s strongest suit as he chronicles these and other explosions of frustration or prejudice is that he leaves in all the raw edges and profound contradictions of the shattered world of the 1940s; he doesn’t try to smooth them into some conventionally heroic narrative. Remember, Harry Truman was also the most powerful friend of Israel’s creation. Patton reflected a widely prevailing opinion in top US military circles (and, frankly, much of US society). Britain’s sometimes saintly Labour government struggled might and main to fob off David Ben-Gurion and keep Chaim Weizmann’s softer brand of Zionism in time-consuming diplomatic play.
“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” read the words on the Statue of Liberty. But the laws passed on Capitol Hill were quite different: Keep the huddled masses away. America already had strict immigration legislation and tough, inflexible quotas. Public opinion in 1945 was resolutely against easing such rigidities. Truman was a hero here, leading where he could have lain low, taking risks, even telling George Marshall he could claim the credit for the master plan that helped to rescue Europe because a “Truman Plan” would never make it through the Senate.
Just as dismayingly, the British, left as well as right, did not leap to help the homeless or defenseless. “Let them be displaced,” said the Daily Mirror, complaining we’d taken in “most of the scum” from Europe and given others the cream. We don’t want the “illiterate, the mentally deficient, the sick, the aged, the politically suspect and behaviorally disruptive” working here, said the New Statesman. And yet slowly, patiently, sometimes with judgment, often with luck, the problem was solved — or at least moved on to another stage and another generation.
Shephard does not draw pat lessons or modern conclusions from any of this. He is content to tell us what happened next, in detail, and often vividly. But you can’t read The Long Road Home without jolts of sudden relevance — whether of political frailty, electoral insularity, or from registering the basic factors, such as existing immigrant communities to join up with, that make some migrations far more successful than others.
A good story or a bad one for mankind? In the end, more good than bad — but full of awful warnings. And, from Shephard, a riveting and often entirely fresh story, shrewdly assembled, very well told.
April 28 to May 4 During the Japanese colonial era, a city’s “first” high school typically served Japanese students, while Taiwanese attended the “second” high school. Only in Taichung was this reversed. That’s because when Taichung First High School opened its doors on May 1, 1915 to serve Taiwanese students who were previously barred from secondary education, it was the only high school in town. Former principal Hideo Azukisawa threatened to quit when the government in 1922 attempted to transfer the “first” designation to a new local high school for Japanese students, leading to this unusual situation. Prior to the Taichung First
The Ministry of Education last month proposed a nationwide ban on mobile devices in schools, aiming to curb concerns over student phone addiction. Under the revised regulation, which will take effect in August, teachers and schools will be required to collect mobile devices — including phones, laptops and wearables devices — for safekeeping during school hours, unless they are being used for educational purposes. For Chang Fong-ching (張鳳琴), the ban will have a positive impact. “It’s a good move,” says the professor in the department of
On April 17, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) launched a bold campaign to revive and revitalize the KMT base by calling for an impromptu rally at the Taipei prosecutor’s offices to protest recent arrests of KMT recall campaigners over allegations of forgery and fraud involving signatures of dead voters. The protest had no time to apply for permits and was illegal, but that played into the sense of opposition grievance at alleged weaponization of the judiciary by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to “annihilate” the opposition parties. Blamed for faltering recall campaigns and faced with a KMT chair
Article 2 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (中華民國憲法增修條文) stipulates that upon a vote of no confidence in the premier, the president can dissolve the legislature within 10 days. If the legislature is dissolved, a new legislative election must be held within 60 days, and the legislators’ terms will then be reckoned from that election. Two weeks ago Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) proposed that the legislature hold a vote of no confidence in the premier and dare the president to dissolve the legislature. The legislature is currently controlled
RSS