The territorial settlements after both wars had not reduced the scope or intensity of the minorities problem in Europe (Schechtman, 1962, p.4). The nationalization of populations produced the 'national minority problem' in post-1919 Europe. The 'unmixing of peoples' through the reorganization of political boundaries, however, did not completely achieve the desired result. Due to the territorial redistribution, some acquired new nationality, some refused their new nationality, some lost their nationality, and some found themselves in a vulnerable position at the frontier zones of new states. National minorities were perceived as one of the major obstacles to both the political unity of these states and the peace in Europe, but further revision of state boundaries to accommodate the claims of every national group was also untenable (Schechtman, 1946, p.4). Moreover, the unregulated mass movement of displaced populations as a result of reorganization of Europe
intensified the danger represented by minorities to the international order. From this perspective, ethnic cleansing in the forms of population transfers and exchanges was an acceptable policy option.48
International agreements on population transfers and exchanges were based on ethno-national identification.49 The League of Nations viewed population transfers and exchanges as legitimate means of addressing the tension between the boundaries of national states and the ethnic composition of the population within them. It considered the practices as constitutive of the League's minority protection system.50 It was hope that the relocation of national minorities who were outside the boundaries of their national states would reduce disruptive claims of national self-determination, and thereby ease tensions between and within states (Preece, 1998, p. 823). Another belief was that the transfers transformed groups who were at one time minorities into self-determining populations in their own national states. While expulsions unilaterally carried out by governments were considered an unacceptable practice, deportations based on agreements between sovereign states were legitimate. The reality that population transfers and exchanges had the effect of compelling people to leave their place of residence was seen by League members as a short-term costs that must be suffered for long-term gains.
48 A. Bell-Fialkoff and J. J. Preece have explored population cleansing as an instrument of national state creation and the various forms in which it has developed in European history. See A. Bell-Fialkoff (1996) Ethnic Cleansing, London: Macmillan; and J. J. Preece (1997) 'Minority Rights in Europe: From Westphalia to Helsinki', Review of International Studies, Vol. 75, No.l, pp. 75-92.
49 The first explicit exchange of population as part of a peace settlement in the twentieth century was the 1913 Treaty of Peace between Turkey and Bulgaria. Under the agreement, Muslims in the territories ceded to Bulgaria had the option to either remain and pledge loyalty to the new sovereign, or to leave for their national state.
50 A transfer may or may not be an exchange. 'Population exchange' refers to the process whereby populations are exchanged, in total or in part and with or without a treaty, between territories or States, whereas transfer refers to a policy of removing people away from their places of origin and repopulating that locality with other populations (Meindersma, 1997, p.336).
So strong was the belief that the 'mixing' of populations would undermine the integrity of the national state that the decision to formalize and implement compulsory exchanges was not controversial.51 Compulsory population exchange was not seen in terms of forced migration. Indeed, it was praised as a legal innovation intended to manage relations between states and settle internal disturbances. It had international respectability as 'a solution to the troublesome minority problem' (de Zayas, 1988, p.20). For its supporters, compulsory exchange was necessary to ensure the 'orderly and humane' movement of populations.52
The most notable examples of the transfer of minorities included the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 between Greece and Turkey, and the Convention on Reciprocal Voluntary Emigration between Greece and Bulgaria signed at the same time as the Treaty of Neuilly.53The Treaty of Lausanne involved the compulsory removal of 1.5 million Greeks and 400 000 Turks, while the arrangement between Greece and Bulgaria involved the transfer of 100 000 Bulgarian and 35 000 Greeks (de Zayas, 1975, p.222-23). Indeed, the Treaty of Lausanne, often cited as an achievement in international law set the precedent for population cleansing in the form of the 'orderly and humane' transfer of populations during and after World War Two. Under the Treaty of Lausanne, the League established the Mixed Commission, which work under
51 The characterization of recent conflicts in the Balkans has revived the idea of exchanging populations as a potential solution.
52 See, K. K. Koufa and C. Svolopoulos, 'The Compulsory Exchange of Populations Between Greece and Turkey: the settlement of minority questions at the Conference of Lausanne, 1923, and its impact on Greek-Turkish Relations', in P. Smith, ed. (1990) Ethnic Groups in International Relations: Comparative Studies on Governments and Non-Dominant Ethnic Groups in Europe, 1850-1940, Vol.V, New York: New York University Press.
53 Treaty of Lausanne, Convention Between Bulgaria and Greece Respecting Reciprocal Emigration of Minorities, and the Treaty of Peace Between the Allied and Associated Powers and Bulgaria, known as the Treaty of Neuilly can be found in Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (1924) The Treaties of Peace, 1919-1923, New York. For a historical analysis of these exchanges see, S. Ladas (1932) The Exchanges of Minorities Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey,
its own definition of the term 'refugee'. It defined a refugee as a person 'who had left their country of origin in order to establish themselves in the country to which they were nationally akin on the occasion of war, a revolution, or a political movement, and who are in a state calling for assistance' (Ladas, 1932, p.134).
Since the transfers were designed to consolidate new boundaries, it was in the interest of states and the League to provide a wide range of assistance. The Mixed Commission facilitated the settlement of exchanged and transferred populations by providing loans and infrastructure, and by distributing seeds and cattle. The Greek Refuge Settlement Commission made up of Greek government officials, Greek refugees, and League of Nations representatives resettled Greek refugees by establishing villages, teaching agricultural techniques, and building infrastructure (Ladas, 1932, p.618). The Greek government strategically built villages and relocated the transferred populations onto recently won and therefore, contested territory. This strategy also sought to domesticate a previously displaced community. Similar programs were carried out for ethnic Bulgar refugees in Bulgaria, and for Armenian refugees in Greece and the Middle East, but they were not so extensive.54
During the Second World War, bilateral agreements on population transfers were numerous and mostly concerned the removal of German and non-
54 Germany's policy in the early 1940s also deployed its national population to colonize new territories and secure border zones. Israel (1948-49) also used this strategy of clearing borders of minorities and establishing frontier settlements with a transferred national population when it sought to secure conquered territories. According to historian Benny Morris, the fear of renewed war with Arab states along the border regions in the south, north and centre of the country, prompted an Israeli desire to achieve 'Arab-less' frontiers. See B. Morris (1993)
Israel's border wars, 1949-1956: Arab infiltration, Israeli retaliation, and the countdown to the Suez War, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
German minorities as set out in Hitler's Reichstag speech of 6 October 1939 (Schechtman, 1946, p. ix).55 After the war, bilateral transfer of minorities took place between Czechoslovakia and Hungary, Hungary and Yugoslavia, Yugoslavia and Italy, the Soviet Union and Poland, and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia (Preece, 1998, p.829). The Allies remained convinced of the value of the practice as the 'most constructive answer' to the problems of mixed populations and minorities in the danger zones of Europe (Schechtman, 1962, p. 390). Indeed, during the immediate post-war period, the sentiment towards population transfer was that it was a necessary practice for the prevention of future wars.56 In addition to the necessity argument, however, states were often eager to deploy population exchange as retribution against those identified as adversaries.
An element of retribution and a measure of political calculation unmistakably set the context in which the practice of transfers was carried out. The Potsdam Protocol of 1945 authorized the compulsory population transfer of fourteen million ethnic Germans 'in an orderly and humane manner' from East of the Oder-Neisse line - from Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary.57 Close supervision of the movement of ethnic Germans was important as uncontrolled flow would hamper the occupying and controlling authorities
55 The most comprehensive study of the transfer of minorities in Europe between 1939 and 1945 is J. Schechtman (1946) European Population Transfers 1939-1945, New York: Oxford University Press. The survey includes a list of transfers according to ethnic nationality, area of residence and place of resettlement. See also A. C. Bramwell (1988) 'The re-settlement of ethnic Germans, 1939-41', in A. C. Bramwell ed., Refugees in the Age of Total War, London: Unwin Hyman.
56 In the mind of a former director of the Pan-European Union, population transfers 'cut the cancer from a sick body' (Quoted in Schechtman, 1962, p.375).
57 For accounts of the treatment of the German expellees and refugees see, A. de Zayas (1979)
Nemesis at Potsdam: The Anglo-Americans and the Expulsion of the Germans from the East, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; E. M. Kulischer (1948) Europe on the Move: War and Population Changes 1917-1947, New York: Columbia University Press; M. Proudfoot (1957) European Refugees: 1939-52, A study in Forced Population Movement, London: Faber and Faber; and especially, J. S chechtm an (1962) Postwar Population Transfers in Europe 1945-1955,
in their main tasks of disarming German armed forces and repatriating displaced persons (Persson, 1988, p.171). Ironically, the inexpensive labour of the expellees was a valuable resource to the postwar reconstruction of Germany.