|
Ingomar Pust
Appendix:
Comments on Contemporary History
he occupation of the Protectorate by Hitler was only one of many
political
upheavals on the territory of former Czechoslovakia (others were the independence of Slovakia,
and thus the dissolution of the
Czech multi-ethnic state), but none of these developments succeeded in obtaining
the still-withheld minority rights of the five ethnic groups that had been forced into this state
without any plebiscite after the First World War. Even Hitler's severe warning in his "Sports
Palace speech" of September 26, 1938, urging that the minorities living in that state must at long
last be granted their right
to self-determination, fell on deaf ears in the government at Prague.
In Professor Dr. Berthold Rubin's book War Deutschland allein schuld?
(Munich: DSZ-Verlag, 1987) we learn on page 153: "... and further, I have assured him
[Chamberlain] that in the very instant when Czechoslovakia solves its
problems - that is, when Czechoslovakia has dealt with its minorities, and peacefully so, not by
oppression - in that instant I will lose all interest in the Czech state and we will guarantee its
borders. We don't want any Czechs, but we do want a full, satisfactory and final settlement of
the minority question, no uneasy compromises, and absolutely no constant trouble spot at the
heart
of Europe!" (The last sentence is always studiously omitted by other publications!)
Ultimately, the victorious powers of World War I - the midwives to the Paris
treaties - were the initiating force behind this hearth of unrest in Europe (compare today's
Yugoslavia!), together with the chauvinistic Czech nationalists who had had 20 years to solve
the
minority question in Czechoslovakia in a fashion satisfactory to all. But, idle and spineless, they
wasted the time so precious to all concerned, and were not interested in a serious solution. With
his well-known Eight Points, Konrad Henlein, the leader of Sudeten Germans, also attempted in
vain to make the Czech government see reason at the Karlsbad Party Convention on April 24,
1938.
It should be our aim to make the facts of this ethnic
martyrdom - hushed up for so long, but now beginning to break through into the
light - known to the general public that is starved for
truth. Cover-ups serve no-one! And truth is indivisible.
It is especially important that new editions and reprints of publications be revised to reflect
historical documents that have only recently become known after having been locked away in
archives for, in many cases, very long periods of time. This is the only way to do justice to
history - and such revisions would be entirely unnecessary if uncomfortable facts had not been
suppressed for decades in the first place.
.
Appendix:
Convention on International Law, Bonn, 1961
Excerpts from "Das Recht auf die Heimat
im historisch-politischen Prozeß", F. H. E. W. du Buy.
Euskirchen: Verlag für zeitgenössische Dokumentation GmbH,
1974.
he debates about the questions regarding the right to one's homeland
were
continued at the convention of experts on international law on October 28 and 29, 1961 in Bonn.
The results of this convention were formulated as seven basic principles, as follows:
"I. In the recent past, and in various regions of the world, peoples and ethnic groups
were expelled from their ancestral homes. These acts of violence are in clear violation of
fundamental principles of modern national and international law.
"II. The expulsion of peoples or of ethnic and religious groups represents a flagrant
violation of the right
to self-determination. The right to self-determination has been recognized by the United Nations
as a leading principle of order; by virtue of this fact, as well as through practical application by
nations over the past decades, it has become a general and binding fundamental of international
law. It is the right of peoples and population groups to freely determine their political, economic,
social and cultural status. In this context, peoples are not to be regarded as fluctuating masses
that
may be pushed from one region to another for political, economic, police or other
considerations,
but as resident communities that are closely tied to their settlement area. Thus, the right
to self-determination includes the prohibition of expulsions. Not even a conquered people may
be
denied the right
to self-determination.
"III. The international conventions of war include the prohibition of deportation of the
population of an occupied region by the occupying power. Complete agreement on this was
already expressed at the 1907 Peace Conference in The Hague. Thus, Article 49 of the Geneva
Convention of August 12, 1949 about the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War did not
create a new law, but rather codified existing law.
"Attention is also drawn to Article 49, Section
6, according to which an occupying power may also not deport or resettle parts of its own
civilian
population into a region occupied by it.
"IV. Under modern international law, no state may deport its own citizens from its
national territory, nor deny them entry into said national territory. This prohibition applies also
in
cases of changes in territorial sovereignty. In such a case, the resident population may not be
denied citizenship in the acquiring state, insofar as it had previously also held native status. This
protects the population from expulsion across
the newly-fixed border.
"V. The question whether expelling nations and host nations may conduct population
transfers in an internationally lawful manner through national treaties cannot be answered with
mere reference to the Potsdam Pact. This Pact of August
2, 1945 - whose Article XIII ordered a humane carrying-out of the expulsion of the Germans
from
Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary that had in fact already begun at full scale several months
earlier, under the sovereign responsibility of the expelling
states - had been concluded by the occupying powers, namely Great Britain, the Soviet Union
and
the United States. The condition imposed therein on Germany, to accept the expelled Germans,
thus does not represent an internationally lawful acknowledgment of the expulsion on the part of
Germany, since Germany was not a party to this Pact.
"VI. Deportations within the boundaries of a national territory also violate the
fundamentals of a modern system of government.
"International law demands that nations respect
a minimum standard of human rights, and this standard is characterized by a progressive
acceptance of universal human rights.
"In 1956-57 in the Soviet Union, for example,
mass deportations of a state's own citizens were ruled to be an inadmissible violation of
constitutional rights and to be in conflict with the principles
of Marxist-Leninist nationality politics, and were reversed for a part of the persons
affected.
"The legal position following from the stated
principles of national and international law for peoples, population groups and their members
has
come to be known as "the right to one's homeland". Thus, this right is founded on positive
regulations of contemporary national and international law as well as on the Universal
Declaration
of Human Rights. Its violation is a crime under international law.
"Every
prohibition - and thus also the prohibition of forced resettlement and mass
deportations - safeguards a condition perceived by man's sense of justice to be valuable and
worth
preserving. In the event of attempted unlawful interference with this condition, those who
benefit
from the preservation of said condition have the fundamental right to demand the cessation of
such
interference,
or - if interference has been carried through - to seek redress. In the case at hand, such a right to
redress takes the form of a right to permission to remigrate, and to assistance in doing so, or
alternatively as a right to claim compensation. This coincides with the decisions of the standing
International Court, as these have found expression especially in the Chozow case."
At this convention it was determined that there are several principles of international law
whose purpose it is to afford persons protection from forced resettlement and expulsion from
their
homeland. The term "right to one's homeland" has come to stand for the legally protected right
to
remain in one's domicile unmolested. This right to one's homeland can thus be regarded as the
collective term for several principles recognized by international law, and accordingly, the
violation of this right represents a crime under international law.
The right to one's homeland is intended to afford a person the right to remain in his domicile
without undue harassment. If this right is infringed upon, he has a rightful claim to restitution,
which may be understood as a right to restitutio in integrum, ie. in this case the right to
return to one's homeland. If a return to one's old homeland is not possible, the injured party has
the
right to claim compensation.
Principle 5 makes reference to the Potsdam Pact of August 2, 1945. The substance of this
Principle is legally perfect, but it would go beyond the scope of this study to examine the Pact in
greater detail.
Second Convention
on International Law, Bonn, 1964
t the second convention of experts on international law, which was held
on April 24 and 25, 1964, again in Bonn, the jurists debated further issues regarding the right to
one's homeland. As usual, the convention was closed by recording the conclusions reached in
these debates. The voluminous and very carefully worded conclusions represent another decisive
stage in the academic resolution of the problems associated with the right to one's homeland.
Due
to their great significance, these conclusions are reproduced here in extenso:
I. 1.The condition constituting the foundation of the concept "right to one's homeland",
a
condition perceived by man's sense of justice to be valuable and worth preserving, consists of
everyone being able to reside unmolested at his domicile and within his social unit, with the
certainty of being able to remain in such condition for as long as his will is freely directed
thus.
In this context, terminology is defined as
follows:
a) "domicile": the place where a
person regularly resides because the focus of his life and social structure is itself located
there;
b) "social unit": the people whose
domicile is located within a specific spatial area ("homeland") and who are linked to each other
there through tradition and a multitude of social relations; [...]
.
Appendix:
God Lives: His Day Will Come!
Ten Thousand Expellees Cheer Father
Reichenberger
Reprint from the "Süd-Ost Tagespost", Graz, June 10, 1952.
n Sunday the Graz Fairgrounds surrounding Industrial Hall were an
unfamiliar sea of color. An observer felt transported into a great folk festival that might just as
easily have taken place somewhere in the Sudetenland, in Transylvania, in Backa or in the
Banat.
Some ten thousand expellees, many wearing their neat and colorful ethnic costumes, had
answered
the call of the Steiermark "Auxiliary for the Sudeten Germans" to join together in a great
summer
festival to document their loyalty to their homeland, and to greet and thank the indefatigable
champion of their rights, Dr. h.c. Father Reichenberger.
Monsignore Dr. E. J. Reichenberger,
Father of the Expelled
|
The faces lined by a harsh fate and a life of hard work lit up as Father Emanuel Reichenberger
appeared in their midst, accompanied by Provincial Governor Krainer and Dr. Gorbach,
President
of the National Council, and a storm of applause greeted the Provincial Governor when he
stepped
up on the platform, decorated splendidly with the Steiermark flags and
the coats-of-arms of the ethnic German Welfare and Cultural Associations, to address the
expellees.
"Dear festival guests - or, I am sure I may say, dear fellow-countrymen! The war forged us all
into
a community united by suffering. You have been
particularly hard-hit because you lost your homeland, but I believe I can say that you have found
another home with
us - a modest and poor one, perhaps, but a home nevertheless. Tens of thousands of Germans
settled in the Steiermark, and my only wish is that you may feel at home here with us. I also
appeal to all inhabitants of the Steiermark to do their part to ensure that everyone who comes to
us
in need will be made to feel at home, and that everyone do their best to help us all become an
indivisible community in this land. Let us all take home with us, from this gathering dedicated to
Father Reichenberger, the foremost champion of freedom and justice, the resolve to follow his
example, so that after seven long years our land too shall finally become free, and true freedom
and true justice shall return to us!"
The Students Still Have Ideals!
After a brief address, in which he stressed how the relations between the expellees and the local
population were growing ever closer, Dr. Prexl, the provincial representative of the Auxiliary for
the Sudeten Germans, presented elaborate certificates to Father Reichenberger and to
Otto Hoffmann-Wellenhoff, the head of the cultural department of the Alpenland station, for
their
great services to the expelled. Walter Schleser, the Chair of the Expelled Students in Germany,
conveyed to Father Reichenberger the congratulations of the Federal Committee of Expelled
Students and the Welfare and Cultural Association of Expellees in West Germany.
In his address, Dr. Rudolf Lodgman von Auen - former Provincial Governor of German
Bohemia,
Member of the Vienna National Assembly, and Speaker of the Sudeten German Welfare and
Cultural Assembly in
Germany - recalled that on October 29, 1918 the Sudeten Germans had declared themselves a
province of German Austria, but that this union was destroyed one year later, contrary to all
common sense. He presented Father Reichenberger with a plaque, with the request that he would
continue to bear the fate of the German expellees in heart and mind.
Dr. h.c. Emanuel Reichenberger himself then stepped on the podium, to the seemingly endless
cheers and applause of the assembly. "Potsdam has legalized the robbery and theft that was
perpetrated on you when Germany and Austria lay crushed and
powerless - legalized it in violation of all divine and human right. For long years these crimes
had
to be hushed up so that the Allies of yesterday would not be insulted. Today no less, the expelled
do not want hatred and
revenge - it would pave the way, not for the furtherance of a new world, but for its downfall. All
they seek is
justice - and it is sheer demagoguery to try to slander this cry for justice
as neo-Nazism or as expression of an unbridled hatred. The expellees do not demand special
courts, they demand a verdict from impartial sources, they demand nothing more than that the
solemn promises made in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be kept. The enormous
problems created by the expulsion of millions of people cannot be solved by Germany and
Austria
alone; the legal obligation to solve them is incumbent upon those who unleashed this injustice in
the first place: the signatories of Potsdam.
Concerns About the Younger Generation
"I am concerned about the future if we do not succeed in involving the younger generation in
building our new homeland. Young people, healthy and able to work, must join in
the build-up process here. If I had a decisive say I would forbid the emigration of healthy and
able
people. Emigration is not a solution, and the conditions under which it occurs are often much
like
a sort of trafficking in human beings."
Father Reichenberger concluded with the words: "God lives yet, and His day will come!"
.
Epilogue
Human Blood Dripped From the Knife of
Hate
by Alexander Hoyer
n 1919, after the peace dictate of St. Germain which forcibly
incorporated
the German regions of Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia into the newly founded state
"Czechoslovakia", a journalist from the French publication Matin asked the first Czech
President,
Thomas Garrique Masaryk, whether this forced subjugation of what were then 3.6 million
Germans to his
small multi-ethnic state did not perhaps really represent an injustice, a political act of force, a
national incapacitation.
With a disdainful gesture Masaryk replied: "Don't worry about that! In twenty years we will have
assimilated them, they will speak our language and will have long forgotten their heritage."
Well, despite inhumane political, economic and social oppression
the three-and-one-half million Germans living in the Czechoslovakia of those days (they called
themselves Sudeten Germans) did not become assimilated at all. On the contrary. In the course
of
20 years they responded to the intolerable restriction of even their most fundamental rights by
uniting in a struggle of defense which, in autumn 1938, resulted in the rectification of the
injustices of St. Germain through British and French(!) intervention. As per
the Anglo-French Note of September 19, 1938, the Czechs had to return the German regions to
the
German Reich. The government at Prague expressly accepted this obligation on September 21,
1938.
The Sudetenland was free, and once again sovereign German territory after 20 years of bondage.
It
was the only correct solution. An injustice that screamed to heaven had been righted, and the
world heaved a sigh of
relief - but Czech President Dr. Eduard Benes wanted war, not this peaceful solution.
Their historical lies of 1918/19 that had enabled them to occupy the Sudeten regions had ended
in
failure. And this was what the Czechs, poisoned by an incredible chauvinism, could not get over.
The Czech national soul seethed with rage and hate, but did not find a vent until May 1945, after
the military defeat of the German Reich in World War Two.
For the Czechs it was the hour of revenge. And the Allies played the Sudeten Germans right into
their hands once again. The inferiority complexes that had been growing in the Czech people for
centuries pushed them to a terrible discharge of
their pent-up fury.
The dreadful monstrosities mentioned in this book are a mere fraction of what happened in those
days. German industriousness and German intellect, working tirelessly for centuries, had made
Bohemia and Moravia an economic and cultural jewel. Having got their hands on it a second
time,
the Czechs turned it into a field of blood. How will it fit into the European Community now?
The screams from hell went unheard by the world, both then and today. To date, even the
Federal
Presidents and Federal Chancellors of Germany and Austria alike have ignored them.
How will it sound when Czech functionaries of the United Nations begin to push for the
fulfillment of the Benes Decrees which are still gospel to them, and Central Europe is to be
ethnically cleansed of the
Germans - in accordance with their revered former President Benes's appeal: "Drive the Germans
from their houses, factories and farms, and leave them nothing but one handkerchief to weep
into!"
Sudeten German Inferno
The hushed-up tragedy of the ethnic Germans in Czechoslovakia
|
|