“An apparently indissoluble clot of unwanted humanity”: “Non‑European” Displaced Persons in Postwar Resettlement
Résumés
En 1951, environ 800 Kalmouks, internés dans un camp de Personnes déplacées (DP) en Allemagne, se voient refuser leur réinstallation par le Paraguay. À partir des fonds de l’Organisation internationale pour les réfugiés et des Archives d’Arolsen, cet article montre que leur image d’« Asiatiques » et de descendants de Gengis Khan sature les discours publics à leur endroit et entrave leur émigration, en dépit de leurs propres efforts pour se présenter comme des « Européens ». Ce cas illustre la manière dont les préjugés raciaux et culturels informent les politiques humanitaires de l’après‑guerre et la sélection des DPs considérés comme assimilables et méritant une nouvelle patrie.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés :
personne déplacée, régime migratoire, Organisation internationale pour les réfugiés, réfugié « non européen », racialisationKeywords:
displaced person, migration regime, International Refugee Organization, “non-European” refugee, racializationPlan
Haut de pageNotes de l’auteur
This article was completed with funding in part from the German Research Foundation (DFG, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) SFB 1604 (501120656) and in part from the German Research Foundation project “Normen, Flucht, Agency: Aushandlung eines Migrationsregimes (465203958). The author would like to thank Laure Humbert, Célia Keren and Marianne Amar—the editors and initiators of the special issue—and the other contributors for their constructive feedback during the discussion of the initial text ideas. The article also benefited from the feedback and discussions during the Annual International Seminar in Historical Refugee Studies 2024 and two SFB 1604—Production of migration—workshops on the agency of forced migrants in 2024. Finally, I would like to thank Sebastian Huhn, Christoph Rass, Annika Heyen and Bjarne Groß, as well as the two anonymous reviewers, for their appreciative and constructive criticism.
Texte intégral
- 1 Blake Ehrlich, “The People Nobody Wants. After Two Centuries of Making Trouble and Five of Taking i (...)
In spite of all the barriers it had to clear—prejudice, red tape, stupidity, and waste—the IRO has completed an incredible task. That is, almost completed it. In closing its books, the IRO finds some figures not yet checked off. These undisposed‑of items on the ledger, including the Kalmucks, are what the IRO calls the “hard core”, an apparently indissoluble clot of unwanted humanity.1
- 2 I use the term “Displaced Persons” in quotation marks to clarify that this is a political categoris (...)
1In July 1951, approximately 800 Buddhist Kalmyk “Displaced Persons”2 (DPs) held in a DP camp near Munich, Germany, were anxiously awaiting resettlement. The dissolution of the International Refugee Organization (IRO), responsible for the care and resettlement of DPs since 1947, was imminent. A few months earlier, in April, the planned resettlement of the Kalmyk DPs to Paraguay had failed, much to the dismay of IRO staff and its director, Donald Kingsley, who had publicly celebrated the initiative as a success. Why did this resettlement fail?
- 3 Baasanjav Terbish, “Kalmyk Identity in Historical Perspective”, Caucasus Survey, vol. 11, no. 1, 20 (...)
- 4 There was a Kalmyk unit in the Wehrmacht, consisting of around 3,000 Kalmyk men. See chap. 8 in Ant (...)
- 5 Baasanjav Terbish, “Kalmyk Identity…”, art. cit., p. 23.
- 6 Elvira Churyumova and Edward C. Holland, “Kalmyk DPs and the Narration of Displacement in Post‑Worl (...)
- 7 Paul Mecheril, «Ordnung, Krise, Schließung: Anmerkungen zum Begriff Migrationsregime aus zugehörigk (...)
- 8 Interoffice Memorandum from M. Ponsot, Resettlement of a group of Buddhist Kalmouks, 28 February 19 (...)
2The Kalmyks, a group of Oirat‑Mongol descent, had led a nomadic life before settling in the Russian Tsarist Empire in the 17th century. Events in the 20th century prompted many Kalmyks to leave. Following the defeat of the White Russian Army by the Bolsheviks in 1920, an initial group of 2,000 people fled to Western Europe.3 Another segment departed the Soviet Union during the Second World War, some as forced labourers, others as collaborators4 or to escape deportation to Siberia in December 1943,5 ultimately finding themselves in DP camps in Germany. The Kalmyks were thus considered as politically suspect, forming a group that was initially targeted for their collaboration with Nazi occupiers, particularly in the Balkans. Under the auspices of the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA) and the IRO, some members of this group were nevertheless granted DP status, evading forced repatriation through adaptation or modification of their biographies.6 Following the abolition of forced repatriation, the remaining members aspired to emigrate together, a task complicated by the natio‑ethno‑cultural attributes7 ascribed to them and their categorisation as “Asians” and/or “Orientals” and, therefore, as “non‑European Others.” Consequently, contemporaries described them as “one of the most neglected of the DP groups”8 due to the absence of any humanitarian or religious organisation attending to the group.
- 9 Christoph Rass and Frank Wolff, “What Is in a Migration Regime?: Genealogical Approach and Methodol (...)
3This article focuses on the Kalmyk group and their failed resettlement to Paraguay as a case study to highlight tensions within the postwar migration regime and consider the inherent power relations between DPs and other actors. According to Christoph Rass and Frank Wolff, a migration regime “gravitates around and is shaped by actors who, from their standpoint and according to their setting in the power formation, enter the ‘arena’ to represent their intentions, rules, norms and values, etc”.9
4An analysis of the Kalmyk DPs reveals that natio‑ethno‑cultural categorisations and associated racist and cultural prejudices played a significant role in the regulation of postwar migration. In addition, this case study explores the agency of various actors involved, demonstrating that DPs were active subjects, who advocated for themselves and sought to negotiate their options.
- 10 See, for example, Markus Nesselrodt, Philipp Strobl and Marcus Velke‑Schmidt (eds), Displaced Perso (...)
- 11 See, for example, Adam R. Seipp, Strangers in the Wild Place: Refugees, Americans, and a German Tow (...)
- 12 Samantha K. Knapton, Occupiers, Humanitarian Workers, and Polish Displaced Persons in British‑Occup (...)
- 13 Jayne Persian, Beautiful Balts: From Displaced Persons to New Australians, Sydney, University of Ne (...)
- 14 Sebastian Huhn, “Negotiating Forced Migration in the IRO’s ‘Care and Maintenance’ (CM/1) Files: One (...)
5Since the 1980s, research on DPs has evolved as a lively area of scholarly inquiry10 along four main research perspectives: regional perspectives, which examine the DP situation in the occupation zones and specific camps;11 group‑oriented perspectives, tracing the life paths, strategies, and options of specific social or ethnic collectives;12 resettlement‑specific perspectives, addressing resettlement in countries such as the United States, Canada or Australia, along with their associated immigration policies;13 and a more agency‑centred approach, focusing on the negotiation dynamics among various actors.14 While early research tended to portray DPs as passive subjects, recent publications have emphasised their role in negotiating categories and resettlement options. This approach has also provided an opportunity to address marginalised groups—because of their race, class, gender or age—within the overarching category of DPs.
- 15 Elvira Churyumova and Edward C. Holland, “Kalmyk DPs…”, art. cit.
- 16 Ismee Tames, “Traces of Kinship Care: Preliminary Findings from Nansen Passport Holders’ Documents (...)
- 17 Jessica Johnson, The Labor of Refuge: Kalmyk Displaced Persons, the 1948 Displaced Persons Act, and (...)
6Historians have analysed how Kalmyk DPs attempted to get the coveted DP status. While Elvira Churyumova and Edward Holland specifically address the negotiation strategies employed by Kalmyk individuals with UNRRA and the IRO to obtain it,15 Ismee Tames explores how individuals within the Kalmyk group claimed Nansen status.16 In addition to these insights on categorisations and negotiation processes, Jessica Johnson examines how Kalmyk DPs got access to the US resettlement programme.17 My study complements and expands on these previous approaches by focusing on the period after the Kalmyk DPs obtained DP status and before they emigrated to the United States at the end of 1951. Using the example of the failed resettlement to Paraguay, which had settled Russian refugees after 1917, I discuss the role and relevance of racial attributions and narratives and the agency of the actors involved in the postwar migration regime.
- 18 The IRO collection contains over 1,300 boxes in the National Archives in Paris under the shelfmark (...)
7The article is divided into four sections. First, I provide a brief overview of the historical context and the limited availability of resettlement opportunities. Next, I highlight the importance of categories in the negotiation of resettlement options, demonstrating how these influenced the considerations of both IRO staff and the DPs themselves. Third, I explore the negotiation of identity by representatives of the press and DPs, using the narrative of the Kalmyks as descendants of Genghis Khan as an example. Finally, I analyse the failed resettlement to Paraguay in 1950 to illustrate how racist attributions and the reproduction of certain narratives limited opportunities for the Kalmyk DPs. To this end, my contribution draws on two sets of archives: first, IRO documents, and second, various records from the Arolsen Archives.18 Based on these considerations, this article addresses the following three aspects: the process of negotiating natio‑ethno‑cultural categorisations among different actors; the resulting representation and perception of certain DPs as “non‑Western” or “non‑European” Others by the IRO and various receiving states along with its consequences; and the agency that DPs exercised to influence the production and negotiation of these categories and improve their prospects within the postwar migration regime.
The historical context and the case of “limited resettlement opportunities”
- 19 Christoph Rass and Ismee Tames, “Negotiating the Aftermath of Forced Migration: A View from the Int (...)
- 20 David Nasaw, The Last Million: Europe’s Displaced Persons from World War to Cold War, 1st ed., New (...)
- 21 International Refugee Organization (ed.), Migration from Europe: A Report, Geneva, IRO, “IRO Genera (...)
- 22 This procedure is explained in Louise W. Holborn, The International Refugee Organization: A Special (...)
8As a consequence of the Second World War, the Nazi policy of extermination and Stalinism, millions of individuals—including forced labourers, Holocaust survivors, prisoners of war (POWs) and refugees fleeing from the Red Army—found themselves displaced in various countries, including Germany, Switzerland and Austria, during the final years of the war and after the Allied victory.19 Following the abolition of forced repatriation by UNRRA, the IRO primarily focused on the resettlement of the remaining “last million”20 to address the European “refugee problem”.21 While UNRRA had labelled certain groups of people as DPs regardless of their wishes, individuals had to apply for “Displaced Person” status to receive assistance from the IRO. This application required the disclosure of various attributes such as nationality, religion, marital status, locations of residence and employers over the previous 12 years, among other details. Each case was individually assessed by an eligibility officer, and individuals gained access to support services and resettlement options based on this evaluation. However, access to resettlement did not grant applicants unrestricted choice. While they could indicate preferred countries on their Care and Maintenance (CM/1) forms, the final selection was made by selection missions sent to Europe by the respective host countries.22
- 23 The International Refugee Organization, Operational Manual, AN AJ/43/1172‑1173.
9These selection processes involved numerous criteria that influenced chances of resettlement. The IRO’s 1951 Operational Manual outlined various subcategories under the main categories of “Health”, “The Unattached, the Aged and Childless Couples”, “Family Composition”, “Miscellaneous Personal Reasons”, and “Uneconomic Family.” The section on “Miscellaneous Personal Reasons”, not only considers “Criminal Record” and “Security Record” but also explicitly references natio‑ethno‑cultural ascriptions, including “Asiatic”, “Moslem (Non‑Turkish speaking)” and “Armenian”.23
- 24 Janine Dahinden and Anna C. Korteweg, “Culture as Politics in Contemporary Migration Contexts: The (...)
- 25 Some studies take this dimension more into account: Jayne Persian, “‘Chifley liked them Blond’: DP (...)
10While these restrictions reflect racist and cultural categorisations,24 the negotiations and perceptions surrounding them are documented in numerous IRO documents. They often appear as marginal notes in publications on DPs rather than being the primary focus of investigation.25 This indicates that—in addition to the prevailing usefulness paradigm—cultural, biological and nativist norms also influenced discourses within the postwar migration regime.
“Non‑Europeans […] not allowed”: Negotiating resettlement options
- 26 Gerard Daniel Cohen, In War’s Wake: Europe’s Displaced Persons in the Postwar Order, Oxford/New Yor (...)
- 27 Draft by V.A. Temnomeroff, Nationality and Ethnic origin, October 1947, AN AJ/43/147.
11As mentioned above, applicants had to undergo a rigorous questioning procedure to assist IRO staff in determining whether they should be granted DP status and to help categorise the DPs for placement in camps designated for specific nationalities.26 However, it quickly became apparent that the IRO’s classification categories did not align with the applicants’ self‑identifications. In a draft document titled “Nationality and Ethnic Origin” from October 1947, IRO employee Temnomeroff argued that “care should be taken to avoid terms which do not correspond to a name of any existing sovereign state”. This indicates that categorisations such as “Jew”, “Gypsy”, “Balts”, or “Kalmyck” were deemed insufficient descriptions. Instead of simply using “Kalmuck”, Temnomeroff suggested specifying “USSR Kalmuck, Nansen Kalmuck, Mongolian Kalmuck, etc”.27 Using the “correct” label was essential for the IRO’s regulatory mechanisms.
- 28 Janine Dahinden, Carolin Fischer and Joanna Menet, “Knowledge Production, Reflexivity, and the Use (...)
12The production and application of categories within migration regimes have been extensively discussed in recent years in the broader context of reflexive (historical) migration research. Such concepts and categories, along with the practice of categorisation, are fundamentally omnipresent cultural techniques that create social order.28 These categories are both socially and politically constructed. As Janine Dahinden, Carolin Fischer and Joanna Menet state:
- 29 Ibid. supra, p. 539.
It is impossible to assign persons a “true” category because categorization derives from a specific social position, from historically determined ways of interpreting the world and from particular interests. This implies that categories—whether analytical or common sense—are never natural or neutral, but embedded in political and historical contexts: they produce situated knowledge.29
- 30 For a detailed discussion, see Audrey Alejandro, “How to Problematise Categories: Building the Meth (...)
- 31 Nira Yuval‑Davis, “Belonging and the Politics of Belonging”, Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 40, no. 3‑ (...)
- 32 Erika Lee, America for Americans: A History of Xenophobia in the United States, New York, Basic Boo (...)
13As part of “classificatory systems”, categories influence our perception of the world. They do so through “grouping”—the clustering of categories into groups (for example, “European” or “non‑European”)—and by establishing relations (for example, refugees vs. economic migrants). In migration regimes, categories such as “nationality”, “citizenship” or “religion” hold particular significance. The issues surrounding categories in knowledge production have been illustrated in various ways. In particular, categorisations can lead to forms of normalisation and exclusion, ultimately giving rise to forms of Othering.30 This implies that these categories can also be intentionally employed to create a sense of belonging or non‑belonging.31 Forms of Othering can be observed in anti‑Asian narratives, which have existed in various forms since the 13th century. In the context of 20th‑century migration, discrimination against individuals labelled as “Asian” was particularly evident in their exclusion from immigration.32 Therefore, negotiating resettlement options for the Kalmyk DPs proved challenging in the postwar years.
- 33 Louise W. Holborn, The International Refugee Organization…, op. cit., p. 388‑389.
14The resettlement programme pursued by the IRO adhered to a policy described by Louise Holborn in her 1956 official history of the organisation: “Since it was of the utmost importance in resettlement policy to find an environment for refugees in which they could readily be assimilated, IRO always made an effort to place migrants if possible among people of the same or similar culture and denomination”.33
- 34 Letter from K. M. Lu to J. Wong, Resettlement of Buddhist Kalmouks, 11 June 1948, AN AJ/43/276.
- 35 Letter from J. Wong to K. M. Lu, Resettlement of Buddhist Kalmouks, 2 September 1948, ibid. supra.
15Given the relatively small size of the Kalmyk group, the IRO initially attempted to include them in larger resettlement schemes. On the one hand, these attempts proved difficult due to the Kalmyks’ desire to emigrate as a group, driven by their shared fate, culture and family ties—an unusual characteristic within the large population of DPs. On the other hand, resettlement efforts were further complicated by the labels attached to the group. In 1948, the IRO examined the immigration policies of Canada, Australia and the United States. However, several nations explicitly stated that “non‑Europeans” had no chance of resettlement. Consequently, efforts to include the Kalmyk DPs in existing agreements were abandoned, and the IRO sought out “Buddhist countries” perceived as suitable, “such as Ceylon and Siam”.34 Further correspondence reveals that selecting the “appropriate” country for resettlement was challenging for the IRO, as it regarded Kalmyk individuals from a perspective that echoed colonial attitudes. Mongolia and Tibet were considered suitable options due to their “racial backgrounds and economic attitude”.35
- 36 For more details, see PCIRO Application for Assistance S. Balinow, Arolsen Archives [hereafter AA], (...)
- 37 Letter from C. Balinov to E. B. Cox, 18 November 1948, AN AJ/43/808.
16Representatives of the Kalmyk DP group actively contributed to the search for resettlement options. Although the United States seemed to be the group’s preferred emigration destination, in 1948, C. Balinov,36 the editor of the Kalmyk DP journal Survey, who lived with the other group members in Pfaffenhofen DP camp, proposed various ideas to E. Cox, Director of Area 7 in the American occupation zone. For example, joint resettlement to Sinkiang in China was deemed conceivable, while North Africa and the French colonies of Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia were also considered potential options for the group and its needs.37
- 38 Letter from P. Jacobsen to the IRO Office in Quebec, Refugees of KALMUK Origin, 12 January 1950, AN (...)
- 39 Letter from T. B. Williamson to the IRO HQ, 28 February 1951, ibid. supra.
17However, as the search progressed and difficulties arose, it became clear that resettlement anywhere was to be pursued at all costs. The IRO began considering locations deemed “unattractive to the normal resettler”.38 T. B. Williamson, head of the IRO branch in Venezuela and Colombia, presented two options to the IRO headquarters. The first was to resettle the Kalmyk group “in a hot tropical region”, where “communications exist only of a backward fluvial type, with a weekly mail plane service to the civilized world.” The second option were the “hot prairies (Llanos)” in Venezuela. However, this region was “inundated for some six months a year.” During this time, people and their livestock would have to retreat to the mountains, becoming “completely cut off from the outside world”.39 These considerations highlight the primary focus on relocating the group out of Europe, regardless of challenging conditions or their isolation from society.
Producing the “European Kalmyk”: Negotiating identity
- 40 Letter from F. Della Torre to the PCIRO US Zone Headquarters, 19 April 1948, ibid. supra. The above (...)
18The Kalmyk DPs held a particular fascination for journalists due to their history and fate. In most cases, the depiction of the group included direct references to the narrative of the “descendants of the Golden Horde.” It is possible that some Kalmyks themselves first expressed this connection to Genghis Khan. F. Della Torre, who worked for the area director of Area 7, provided background information and current updates to the US Zone Headquarters in April 1948. He noted that most of the information came from interviews conducted in 1947 with the Kalmyk DPs. His summary described the Kalmyk group as “remnants of the great Mongolian tribe of people that twice swept over Eastern Europe.” Those “remaining in the conquered countries of this once mighty Mongolian tribe” were labelled “Kalmouks” by the Tartars.40
- 41 “An American Haven for Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde. Seven Centuries of Endless Wandering Is Now Ove (...)
- 42 Ibid. supra.
19In James Winchester’s article “An American Haven for Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde”,41 for example, much of the text focused on Genghis Khan, with only a few sentences dedicated to the history of the Kalmyks. J. Winchester addressed the current situation of Kalmyk DPs in postwar Germany even more briefly. The emphasis on the mythical origins of the Kalmyks was also evident in the visual language: an image occupying about two‑thirds of the page depicted the Golden Horde traveling on horseback, armed with swords. The background blazed red from fire and devastation, while the foreground illustrated Genghis Khan attempting to seize a blonde, blue‑eyed woman. The author concluded his piece by reflecting on the statement of a Kalmyk representative expressing the group’s desire for a life in peace: “A far cry, indeed, from the credo of the fabulous Genghis Khan, who led the ancestors of the Kalmucks into the bloody wars through which he nearly succeeded in enslaving the world under his own dictatorial rule.”42
- 43 Letter from C. Balinov to the IRO HQ, 6 November 1948, AN AJ/43/276.
- 44 For more details, see Louise W. Holborn, The International Refugee Organization…, op. cit., p. 146– (...)
- 45 The Tolstoy Foundation was founded in 1939 by Alexandra Tolstoy and focused on humanitarian relief (...)
20In addition to the widespread representation and cultural essentialisation of the Kalmyks, C. Balinov attributed the challenges faced by the group in negotiating resettlement options to the fact that the Kalmyks “possess no representatives, influential protectors, or organizations in the overseas countries, as other people or races do”.43 Aid organisations such as the Lutheran World Federation, the World Council of Churches and the National Catholic Welfare Conference supported the work of the IRO, alongside the national DP committees that had been established.44 However, the Kalmyk DPs only received increased support from the Tolstoy Foundation45 after the failed resettlement attempt to Paraguay.
- 46 Tsend Bataar, “Social and Cultural Change in the Mongol‑American Community”, Anthropology of East E (...)
- 47 For the English version, see AN AJ/43/808, for the French version see AN AJ/43/276.
21Recognising the difficulties posed by resettlement attempts, prevailing immigration laws and the lack of influential protectors, Kalmyk representatives sought to influence the categorisation and perception of the group. B. N. Oulanoff, who helped to found the “Kalmyk Representation in Western Europe”46 organisation and resided in France but maintained regular exchanges with the group in Germany, exemplifies such efforts in his memorandum titled “The Race of the Kalmuk (D.Ps)”, published in 1949 in both English and French.47
- 48 The International Rescue Committee was founded in 1933 in the US to help with the relief and rescue (...)
- 49 Letter from A. Matson, 17 August 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
- 50 See, for example, Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer: Die Displaced (...)
22This initiative starkly contrasts with the portrayal of the Kalmyks by A. Matson, a representative of the International Rescue Committee.48 In August 1950, she wrote about the fate of the Kalmyk DPs: “I do not believe in overpersuading but in this case with these childlike people you must take more than the usual responsibility.”49 Matson was one of several individuals, including UNRRA and IRO staff members, who typically attributed little agency to DPs.50
- 51 Translation by the author. For the original, see David Spenger and Stefan Kordel, “Agency”, in Tabe (...)
- 52 Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, 1st ed., Berk (...)
- 53 Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische, “What is Agency?”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 103, no. 4 (...)
23The connection to theories of agency in current migration and refugee research is particularly beneficial, as it links the findings of historical case studies to broader perspectives in migration studies. According to David Spenger and Stefan Kordel, the question of agency is “central to understanding the migration process and refugees’ biographies”,51 as migrants must continuously organise themselves within new situations and structures, which can either complicate or facilitate their regulation. Anthony Giddens’ theory of structuration describes the interplay between agency and structure, aiming to resolve the criticised dualism between individuals and structures by emphasising their interdependence. In this framework, structures serve not only as mediums but also as outcomes of social practices; actors, along with the norms and structures surrounding them influence one another.52 This dynamic is clearly illustrated in the previously mentioned memorandum. Oulanoff felt compelled to address the narratives surrounding the Kalmyks and Genghis Khan, indicating that he was influenced by prevailing racial and cultural norms and was attempting to modify them. In their 1998 study, Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische emphasise the temporal integration of agency, understanding human agency as a “temporally embedded process of social engagement, informed by the past […] but also oriented towards the future […] and towards the present”.53 This approach to agency helps us understand how individuals negotiated their identity, biography and, ultimately, their DP status within the IRO system.
- 54 Concerning collaborators in the group of Kalmyks, see chap. 8, Antonio J. Muñoz, “Followers of ‘The (...)
- 55 PCIRO Application for Assistance A. Burlakoff, AA, 3.2.1.1/78978662. For a more detailed account on (...)
- 56 PCIRO Application for Assistance M. Erendschenow, AA, 3.2.1.1/79069054.
24Members of the Kalmyk group developed time-informed and intentional strategies for their interviews with UNRRA, to avoid possible forced repatriation, and with the IRO, to obtain DP status, in pursuit of their desired goal. To avoid forced repatriation or accusations of collaboration, some Kalmyks adopted, for example, the strategy of identifying themselves as Nansen refugees. These individuals had fled the Russian Civil War to Belgrade in the 1920s and lived in a Kalmyk colony before being deported to Germany in 1943.54 However, this strategy raised doubts among eligibility officers, as illustrated by the case of A. Burlakoff. As one eligibility officer noted on his application form: “He cannot say a single word in Yugoslavian language, don’t [sic] know any street in Belgrade, where he says he was living from 36‑1944. No claim Nansen?”55 The mistrust regarding Nansen status was more significant than the mistrust regarding potential collaboration. Unlike many Baltic or Muslim DPs, for example, the Kalmyks were often considered too old for military service during the evaluation, or they were given the benefit of the doubt if their story seemed plausible. In the case of M. Erendschenow, an eligibility officer wrote: “USSR/Kalmyck. No documents but Kennkarte [identification card], but he is a very simple man and his story is believable. Too old for being in army. No collaborator. Eligible.”56
- 57 It is likely that this refers to the US, as the card was filled out in the American occupation zone (...)
- 58 See, for example, the PCIRO Application for Assistance for E. Nikolajev, AA, 3.2.1.1/79529046 or P. (...)
- 59 For the following quotes, see B. N. Oulanoff, The race of Kalmuk (D.Ps), 4 December 1949, AN AJ/43/ (...)
25After being admitted as DPs, individuals were able to negotiate options for resettlement. In the case of the Kalmyk group, many individuals indicated in their DP registration record that their desired destination was “American occupied territory”.57 The desire to emigrate to the United States is also evident in numerous CM1 files.58 In the above‑titled memorandum “The Race of the Kalmuk (D.Ps)”, Oulanoff specifically addressed the exclusion from resettlement to the United States based on natio‑ethno‑cultural ascriptions. In the memorandum, he aimed to differentiate Kalmyk individuals from Chinese, Japanese and Mongolian persons, consistently referring to the group as “European Kalmuks.” He attributed the limited opportunities for resettlement first to the “color of Kalmuks’ skin” and, more broadly, to “a broader determination of the race, as origin”.59
26Far from discarding the argument of race as a discriminating factor in the resettlement of DPs, the Kalmyk representatives embraced it, asserting that they were, in fact, White and belonged in the West. Addressing the issue of skin colour, Oulanoff briefly dismissed it, citing a then-current edition of the Brockhaus Encyclopaedia to emphasise that “the color of the skin is by no means yellow, but clear, especially in the covered parts, a bit swarthier than the European one.” Regarding biological and cultural racial ascriptions, Oulanoff explicitly rejected the notion of a common origin between the Kalmyks and individuals of Chinese or Japanese descent. He criticised the remarks of the US consul in Munich, who suggested that “for Kalmuks, similarly as for Mongols”, admission to America was impossible and that “Kalmuks are issued from the Mongol race.”
27Oulanoff asserted a more substantial connection of the Kalmyk group to “Europe” and “the West.” He emphasised this connection through various aspects, including linguistic and religious elements. Describing the Kalmyks as part of the “Ural‑Altaic” family, he noted their association with “Fins, Turks, Magyars or Hungarians, Mandchurians, Tunguses and other Fin‑Altai peoples.” He argued that even “the severest guardian” of the Immigration Act of 1924 would not assign “the Fins, Magyars and Turkish to the yellow race.” Furthermore, Oulanoff contended that language and religion pointed to a deep interconnectedness with Europe. He attempted to positively reinterpret the numerous references to Genghis Khan, suggesting that even in his lectures, “one can meet understandings and ideas which are […] reflexions [sic] of western ideas.” He concluded his remarks by stating that these connections demonstrated the “historical relationship of Kalmuks ancestros [sic] with people and culturals [sic] of the West.” Additionally, he asserted that the group could “successfully adapt themselves”—in terms of language, culture and local conditions—regardless of their location.
- 60 The discussion about the role and significance of collaboration—especially for Baltic individuals—f (...)
28The memorandum revealed that representatives of the Kalmyk group were acutely aware of how the group was constructed and perceived by political actors, and the impact on their immigration options. By framing the Kalmyks as European and Western and differentiating them from other individuals perceived as Asian, Oulanoff sought to secure their immigration to the United States. In contrast to other groups such as Baltic DPs,60 the fact that the topic of collaboration was not addressed also shows that after the Kalmyks had received their DP status, questions of identity and origin dominated the resettlement discourse for this group.
- 61 Letter from R. Corkery to Area Director 7, Kalmook Resettlement, 19 April 1949, AN AJ/43/571.
- 62 Memorandum from E. M. Shirk, A Resettlement Project for the Kalmuk Group, 5 November 1951, National (...)
29Despite Oulanoff’s efforts to present the group as European Kalmyks and decidedly Westernised people, R. Corkery, chief of the Department for Repatriation and Resettlement, noted that the group was “desirous of maintaining their culture”.61 For example, according to E. M. Shirk, a member of the DP Commission in the US, the Kalmyks wished to preserve their Buddhist religion, and “efforts to evangelize them in DP camps have all failed”.62
30Oulanoff’s memorandum prompted various responses, indicating it was acknowledged by political decision‑makers, IRO staff and aid organisations. However, the short‑term consequences were not solely positive; they also complicated existing strategies. T. Schaufuss, an employee of the Tolstoy Foundation, initiated studies at the time of the memorandum’s publication
- 63 Kalmuks. Conversation with Mrs. T. Schaufuss of the Tolstoy Foundation on 6 February 1951, AN AJ/43 (...)
in order to press for their [the Kalmyks] admittance [to the United States] on the basis of the fact that they are of Chinese descent. However, the [...] memorandum [...] made it impossible for Mrs. Schauffuss to pursue her plans at the time, as Mr. Oulanoff […] points out that the Kalmuks, in fact, directly descend from Mongols.63 in order to press for their [the Kalmyks] admittance [to the United States] on the basis of the fact that they are of Chinese descent. However, the [...] Memorandum [...] made it impossible for Mrs. Schaufuss to pursue her plans at the time, as Mr. Oulanoff […] points out that the Kalmuks, in fact, directly descend from Mongols.
“Not easily assimilated”: The failed resettlement to Paraguay
- 64 Letter from H. H. Ruthrauff to W. K. Shaughnessy, Report on Kalmuks, 15 March 1950, AN AJ/43/571.
31Amid ongoing discussions regarding the Kalmyks’ admission to the United States, a genuine resettlement opportunity emerged in April 1950. Interested in their agricultural skills, the Paraguay‑based company Fassardi Ltd took the initiative and expressed an economic interest in sponsoring them. This represented a significant chance for both the Kalmyks and the IRO, as Fassardi was willing to sponsor the entire community, regardless of individuals’ ages or health. A report on the Kalmyks in Germany from March 1950 noted 651 individuals, including 173 under 18 years, 215 between 18 and 44, 167 between 45 and 59, and 86 over 60. Nine individuals were unsure of their age. According to this report, 318 men and 107 women in the group were able to work.64
- 65 The payment of a contribution for the admission of DPs was originally only planned for disabled per (...)
- 66 Contract Relating to the Immigration of a Group of ‘Kalmuk’ Refugees to Paraguay, Signed by the IRO (...)
- 67 Cable from Bad Kissingen Office to Geneva Office, 22 August 1950, ibid. supra.
32In August, the agreements between the IRO and the company had progressed to the point where final details could be clarified before signing the contract. The agreement stipulated that a colony of approximately 750 Kalmyks would be established in Paraguay. The IRO would assume responsibility for all necessary preparations and pay US$ 150 for each person admitted.65 In return, the company would provide each family with 20 hectares of land located less than 20 km from the nearest railway line, 5 km from a main road and near the city of San Juan Nepomuceno. Additionally, each family would receive accommodation and essential tools for agricultural work, livestock breeding and animal husbandry.66 This arrangement also appeared to be favoured by the Kalmyks; of the 754 individuals ultimately affected, 690 expressed their willingness to emigrate to Paraguay.67
- 68 Letter from H.A. Citroen to D. Greene, 4 July 1950, ibid. supra.
- 69 Letter from W.S. Boe to the IRO Office Munich, Kalmuk Scheme, 21 September 1950, ibid. supra.
- 70 IRO Press Release no. 191, 700 Kalmucks to Resettle in Paraguay, 4 September 1950, ibid. supra.
33Informed by their prior experiences, IRO employees adopted a cautious approach throughout the negotiation process. As H. A. Citroen, director of the Resettlement Placement Service, remarked on the Paraguay plans: “We do not however wish to appear over‑optimistic, […] and should any last-minute difficulties turn up, it may well be that we shall have to start all over again.”68 This dire premonition would ultimately prove accurate. Once the contract was signed by the IRO and Fassardi, the Paraguayan Ministry of Foreign Affairs needed to authorise its consul to issue the visas.69 However, before the Paraguayan government approved the agreement, the IRO published a press release in September titled “700 Kalmucks to Resettle in Paraguay”.70 Kingsley referenced the conditions outlined in the agreement and the group’s history, which “has been surpassed in tragic drama only by the Jewish Diaspora.” The press release detailed the professional strengths and adaptive skills of the Kalmyks while also making numerous references to Genghis Khan and their Mongolian origins. For example, the Kalmyks were described as “possibly the last surviving descendants of Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde”, whose “rootless existence” would end through resettlement in Paraguay. In this context of rootlessness, the press release alluded to the group’s alleged descent from Genghis Khan and the potential threat they posed to Europe:
Twice in the 13th century, the Mongolian armies, under Genghis Khan and his grandson Batu, threatened to over-run Europe. Only the death of Batu saved the West from a terrible invasion. The resulting internal feuds and revolutions broke their grip on Asia and sent the Kalmucks, western Mongolians, into their 500‑year exile.
- 71 Concerning the relevance of racial categories in the postwar years, see, for example, Ali Meghji, T (...)
- 72 See, for example, International Refugee Organization (ed.), Migration from Europe…, op. cit.
34According to Kingsley, previous attempts to resettle the Kalmyks were hampered “by the little knowledge the rest of the world had of these hardy, industrious people.” Furthermore, most countries rejected the group due to their “Mongolian origin”, even though they “have been ‘westernised’ for more than three centuries.” This press release illustrates that the racist portrayal and stereotyping of the Kalmyk DPs were not perceived as problematic within the IRO’s public information office.71 It remains unclear why Kingsley chose to pursue this narrative in the press release. However, it is evident that the IRO publicly celebrated its efforts as a Western, humanitarian and democratic success.72 The resettlement arrangement was intended to be signed before the press release, allowing the IRO to showcase its achievement in placing even this marginalised group.
- 73 Letter from A. H. de Soucy to the Director General, 4 October 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
- 74 Nicola Foote, “British Carribean Migration and the Racialization of Latin American Nationalism”, in (...)
- 75 Letter from D. Stansby to the Director General, Kalmuks, 24 November 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
35The premature publication of the press release and its presentation quickly led to frustration within the IRO, as the success of the resettlement was now perceived to be at risk, raising doubts among the Paraguayan government. A. H. de Soucy, chief of the IRO Mission in Paraguay, noted that the press release was published in newspapers across Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, the United States and Germany. The content sparked “an immediate opposition of the Political Nationalist Party” in Paraguay.73 Indeed, research has shown that the Latin American nationalist discourse on immigration was “overwhelmingly associated with whiteness and the ideal of social whitening”.74 This idea is evident in the discourses that emerged following the press release. In a letter to Kingsley, D. Stansby, chief of the IRO Mission in Brazil, outlined the objections raised against the group, which were characterised as “(a) Asiatics (b) Nomads—not real agriculturalists (c) Disease‑ridden (d) Too old—with an unduly high percentage of persons over 50 years of age (e) Buddhists—therefore not easily assimilated”.75 Although Stansby had engaged in discussions with various political actors, he noted that the talks
- 76 Ibid. supra.
confirmed […] that there is a fairly widespread belief among Paraguayans that it was only by chance and at the last moment that IRO was prevented from imposing an undesirable group of people on Paraguay. For this reason […] some officials now entertain doubts regarding the IRO’s good faith in Paraguay.76
- 77 Letter from D. Stansby to H.A. Citroen, 20 September 1950, ibid. According to Holborn, 5,887 indivi (...)
36All subsequent efforts by the IRO, such as inviting representatives from the Paraguayan government to Germany, proved fruitless. The press release concerning the Kalmyks’ resettlement caused significant damage and sparked critical media discourse. While some individuals had emigrated from the Soviet Union to Paraguay both during the interwar period and the resettlement process, the press release failed to generate public support or endorsement. Instead, it was met with scepticism, notably by General Juan Belaieff, a prominent Russian migrant in Paraguay.77
- 78 Cable from IRO Asuncion to IRO Geneva, 25 April 1951, AN AJ/43/276.
- 79 Translation by the author, letter from R. L. Petit to A. H. de Soucy, 24 April 1951, ibid. supra.
37On 25 April 1951, certainty was established: a cable from the IRO office in Asunción informed headquarters, “Paraguayan Government Refuses Repeat Refuses Kalmuk Scheme.”78 The previous day, the IRO office had received a detailed explanation from the director of the Land and Colonisation Department in Paraguay. He stated that the department fully recognised the humanitarian efforts of the IRO to assist the displaced population of Europe and supported the role of the United Nations in aiding suffering peoples. However, the government could not jeopardise the country’s recovery through initiatives that might prove harmful on moral and political levels. Above all, Paraguay needed to enhance its production capacity, living standards and cultural development as well as improve its ethnic relations. The Kalmyk DPs were deemed incapable of contributing to these goals: “The Kalmuk race, of Asiatic origin, practically in decay, having wandered widely through the countries of Europe, was not in a condition to satisfy the aims envisaged by the laws in force, nor could it adapt itself to the vital necessities of the nation.”79
- 80 IRO Press Release no. 214, Kalmucks Resume Search for Home as Paraguay Annuls Migration Plan, 15 Ma (...)
38Various IRO representatives criticised Paraguay’s decision. Nevertheless, the press release announcing the cancellation of the Kalmyk resettlement project stated that the annulment “ended the latest hope for an end to almost six centuries of rootless wandering for this remnant of the descendants of Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde”.80 Despite this outcome, there was no meaningful reflection on the racist and cultural narratives that had been presented and reproduced in shaping the migration effort.
⁂
39The Kalmyk group’s situation remained unchanged until US immigration laws shifted in 1951. Under the new regulations, individuals were reclassified as more “European” than “Asian”, making around 400 Kalmyks eligible for immigration with the support of the Tolstoy Foundation and the World Church Service. Confronted with the impending dissolution of the IRO and the failed resettlement attempts, the group opted for partial emigration to the United States, despite earlier efforts to stay together.
40The failed resettlement to Paraguay reveals how postwar migration policies were shaped by racial and cultural categorisations. Administrative classifications, reinforced by narratives linking the Kalmyks to Genghis Khan and Buddhism, positioned them as “non-European Others”, influencing their exclusion from resettlement programmes. These categorisations were not neutral tools but shaped discourses of race and culture, impacting migration decisions. Despite these obstacles, the Kalmyks were active in shaping their fate. Their representatives negotiated alternative resettlement options and strategically framed themselves as “European Kalmyks” to improve their prospects. This demonstrates how migrants engaged with and attempted to modify imposed racial narratives to their advantage.
41Ultimately, the case study illustrates how the postwar migration regime was driven not only by humanitarian or economic concerns but also by ingrained prejudices. The experience of the Kalmyks reveals the narrow confines within which DPs operated due to their natio‑ethno‑cultural categorisation and the challenges they faced in securing a new home.
Notes
1 Blake Ehrlich, “The People Nobody Wants. After Two Centuries of Making Trouble and Five of Taking it, a Handful of Mongols Find Themselves ‘Undesirable’ DPs”, The Reporter, July 1951, Archives nationales de France, Paris [hereafter AN], AJ/43/571.
2 I use the term “Displaced Persons” in quotation marks to clarify that this is a political categorisation in a specific historical context. For a detailed discussion, see Sebastian Huhn and Christoph Rass, “Displaced Person(s): The Production of a Powerful Political Category”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 48, no. 4‑(Special Issue: Contested Categories in the Context of International Migration), 2025, p. 718‑739, Doi: 10.1080/01419870.2024.2404488.
3 Baasanjav Terbish, “Kalmyk Identity in Historical Perspective”, Caucasus Survey, vol. 11, no. 1, 2023, p. 9‑34, Doi: 10.30965/23761202-20220017.
4 There was a Kalmyk unit in the Wehrmacht, consisting of around 3,000 Kalmyk men. See chap. 8 in Antonio J. Muñoz, The East Came West: Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist Volunteers in the German Armed Forces, 1941‑1945, Bayside, Axis Europa Books, 2001.
5 Baasanjav Terbish, “Kalmyk Identity…”, art. cit., p. 23.
6 Elvira Churyumova and Edward C. Holland, “Kalmyk DPs and the Narration of Displacement in Post‑World War II Europe”, Slavic Review, vol. 80, no. 2, 2021, p. 341‑362, p. 343, Doi: 10.1017/slr.2021.87; Ėlza‑Bair Guchinova, The Kalmyks, David C. Lewis (trad.), Hoboken, Taylor and Francis, “Caucasus world”, 2013 [2006].
7 Paul Mecheril, «Ordnung, Krise, Schließung: Anmerkungen zum Begriff Migrationsregime aus zugehörigkeitstheoretischer Perspektive», in Andreas Pott, Christoph Rass, and Frank Wolff (Hrsg), Was ist ein Migrationsregime? What Is a Migration Regime?, Wiesbaden, Springer VS, «Migrationsgesellschaften», 2018, p. 313‑330.
8 Interoffice Memorandum from M. Ponsot, Resettlement of a group of Buddhist Kalmouks, 28 February 1948, AN AJ/43/276.
9 Christoph Rass and Frank Wolff, “What Is in a Migration Regime?: Genealogical Approach and Methodological Proposal”, in Andreas Pott, Christoph Rass and Frank Wolff (Hrsg), Was ist ein Migrationsregime? What Is a Migration Regime?, Wiesbaden, Springer VS, «Migrationsgesellschaften», 2018, p. 19‑64, p. 45.
10 See, for example, Markus Nesselrodt, Philipp Strobl and Marcus Velke‑Schmidt (eds), Displaced Persons‑Forschung in Deutschland und Österreich. Eine Bestandsaufnahme zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, Berlin, Frank & Timme, 2022, «DigiOst, 14», and the various papers in Historical Social Research, vol. 45, no. 4‑(Special Issue: Violence Induced Mobility, Christoph Rass and Ismee Tames [eds]), 2020, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/26956090>.
11 See, for example, Adam R. Seipp, Strangers in the Wild Place: Refugees, Americans, and a German Town, 1945‑1952, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, “UPCC book collections on Project MUSE”, 2013; Andreas Lembeck and Klaus Wessels, Befreit, aber nicht in Freiheit: Displaced Persons im Emsland 1945‑1950, Bremen, Ed. Temmen, «DIZ‑Schriften, 10», 1997.
12 Samantha K. Knapton, Occupiers, Humanitarian Workers, and Polish Displaced Persons in British‑Occupied Germany, London, Bloomsbury Publishing, 2023; Katarzyna Nowak, Kingdom of Barracks: Polish Displaced Persons in Allied‑Occupied Germany and Austria, Montreal, McGill‑Queen’s University Press, 2023; Jan‑Hinnerk Antons, Ukrainische Displaced Persons in der britischen Zone: Lagerleben zwischen nationaler Fixierung und pragmatischen Zukunftsentwürfen, Essen, Klartext‑Verl., 2014.
13 Jayne Persian, Beautiful Balts: From Displaced Persons to New Australians, Sydney, University of New South Wales Press, 2017; Henriette von Holleuffer, Zwischen Fremde und Fremde: Displaced Persons in Australien, den USA und Kanada, 1946‑1952, 1st ed., Osnabrück, Univ.‑Verl. Rasch, 2001.
14 Sebastian Huhn, “Negotiating Forced Migration in the IRO’s ‘Care and Maintenance’ (CM/1) Files: One Setting, Three Underlying Aims, (at Least) Four Actors, and Multiple Forms of Human Agency”, IMIS Working Papers, no. 12, 2021; Ruth Balint, Destination Elsewhere: Displaced Persons and their Quest to Leave Postwar Europe after 1945, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2021.
15 Elvira Churyumova and Edward C. Holland, “Kalmyk DPs…”, art. cit.
16 Ismee Tames, “Traces of Kinship Care: Preliminary Findings from Nansen Passport Holders’ Documents in the League of Nations and Arolsen Archives”, International Migration Review, vol. 59, no. 2, 2024, p. 603‑628, Doi: 10.1177/01979183231225943.
17 Jessica Johnson, The Labor of Refuge: Kalmyk Displaced Persons, the 1948 Displaced Persons Act, and the Origins of U.S. Refugee Resettlement, 2013.
18 The IRO collection contains over 1,300 boxes in the National Archives in Paris under the shelfmark AJ/43. Most of the holdings of the Arolsen Archives, formerly the International Tracing Service, are available digitally at <https://collections.arolsen-archives.org/>.
19 Christoph Rass and Ismee Tames, “Negotiating the Aftermath of Forced Migration: A View from the Intersection of War and Migration Studies in the Digital Age”, Historical Social Research, vol. 45, no. 4, 2020, p. 7‑44, p. 8, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/26956091>.
20 David Nasaw, The Last Million: Europe’s Displaced Persons from World War to Cold War, 1st ed., New York, Penguin Publishing Group, 2020.
21 International Refugee Organization (ed.), Migration from Europe: A Report, Geneva, IRO, “IRO General Council document”, 1951.
22 This procedure is explained in Louise W. Holborn, The International Refugee Organization: A Specialized Agency of the United Nations. Its History and Work, 1946‑1952, London/New York, Oxford University Press, 1956, p. 368.
23 The International Refugee Organization, Operational Manual, AN AJ/43/1172‑1173.
24 Janine Dahinden and Anna C. Korteweg, “Culture as Politics in Contemporary Migration Contexts: The In/Visibilization of Power Relations”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 46, no. 3, 2023, p. 1‑30, Doi: 10.1080/01419870.2022.2121171.
25 Some studies take this dimension more into account: Jayne Persian, “‘Chifley liked them Blond’: DP Immigrants for Australia”, History Australia, vol. 12, no. 2, 2015, p. 80‑101, Doi: 10.1080/14490854.2015.11668571; Sebastian Huhn, “Rethinking the Postwar International Migration Regime from the Global South: Venezuela in a Global History of White Immigration”, Itinerario, vol. 46, no. 2, 2022, p. 214‑232, Doi: 10.1017/S0165115322000122; Jochen Lingelbach, On the Edges of Whiteness: Polish Refugees in British Colonial Africa during and after the Second World War, 1st ed., New York, Berghahn Books, 2020; Jayne Persian, “Displaced Persons and the Politics of International Categorisation(s)”, Australian Journal of Politics & History, vol. 58, no. 4, 2012, p. 481‑496, Doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8497.2012.01648.x.
26 Gerard Daniel Cohen, In War’s Wake: Europe’s Displaced Persons in the Postwar Order, Oxford/New York, Oxford University Press, “Oxford studies in international history”, 2012, p. 6.
27 Draft by V.A. Temnomeroff, Nationality and Ethnic origin, October 1947, AN AJ/43/147.
28 Janine Dahinden, Carolin Fischer and Joanna Menet, “Knowledge Production, Reflexivity, and the Use of Categories in Migration Studies: Tackling Challenges in the Field”, Ethnic and Racial Studies, vol. 44, no. 4, 2020, p. 535‑554, p. 538, Doi: 10.1080/01419870.2020.1752926.
29 Ibid. supra, p. 539.
30 For a detailed discussion, see Audrey Alejandro, “How to Problematise Categories: Building the Methodological Toolbox for Linguistic Reflexivity”, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, vol. 20, 2021, p. 1‑12, p. 3, Doi: 10.1177/16094069211055572.
31 Nira Yuval‑Davis, “Belonging and the Politics of Belonging”, Patterns of Prejudice, vol. 40, no. 3‑(Boundaries, Identities and Borders: Exploring the Cultural Production of Belonging), 2006, p. 197‑214, Doi: 10.1080/00313220600769331.
32 Erika Lee, America for Americans: A History of Xenophobia in the United States, New York, Basic Books, 2021 [2019]; Lon Kurashige, Two Faces of Exclusion: The Untold History of Anti‑Asian Racism in the United States, Chapel Hill/Baltimore, University of North Carolina Press; Project MUSE, 2016 [2010].
33 Louise W. Holborn, The International Refugee Organization…, op. cit., p. 388‑389.
34 Letter from K. M. Lu to J. Wong, Resettlement of Buddhist Kalmouks, 11 June 1948, AN AJ/43/276.
35 Letter from J. Wong to K. M. Lu, Resettlement of Buddhist Kalmouks, 2 September 1948, ibid. supra.
36 For more details, see PCIRO Application for Assistance S. Balinow, Arolsen Archives [hereafter AA], 3.2.1.1/78900459. Many Kalmyk DPs appear with a slightly different spelling in the Arolsen Archives.
37 Letter from C. Balinov to E. B. Cox, 18 November 1948, AN AJ/43/808.
38 Letter from P. Jacobsen to the IRO Office in Quebec, Refugees of KALMUK Origin, 12 January 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
39 Letter from T. B. Williamson to the IRO HQ, 28 February 1951, ibid. supra.
40 Letter from F. Della Torre to the PCIRO US Zone Headquarters, 19 April 1948, ibid. supra. The above‑mentioned interviews are not part of the archival holdings.
41 “An American Haven for Genghis Khan’s Golden Horde. Seven Centuries of Endless Wandering Is Now Over for the Remnants of the Kalmucks”, by James H. Winchester, 5 November 1950, AN AJ/43/571. The collection at the AN contains a series of published newspaper articles; we do not know where the article by Winchester was published.
42 Ibid. supra.
43 Letter from C. Balinov to the IRO HQ, 6 November 1948, AN AJ/43/276.
44 For more details, see Louise W. Holborn, The International Refugee Organization…, op. cit., p. 146–147.
45 The Tolstoy Foundation was founded in 1939 by Alexandra Tolstoy and focused on humanitarian relief for Russian refugees: Robert Whittaker, “The Tolstoy Foundation: Library and Archives”, Slavic & East European Information Resources, vol. 7, no. 2‑3, 2006, p. 49‑70, p. 50, Doi: 10.1300/J167v07n02_04. However, Johnson characterised the relationship between some Kalmyk leaders and the Tolstoy Foundation as “distrustful”, because the work of the foundation was perceived as insufficient, Jessica Johnson, The Labor of Refuge…, op. cit., p. 65.
46 Tsend Bataar, “Social and Cultural Change in the Mongol‑American Community”, Anthropology of East Europe Review, vol. 17, no. 2, 1999, p. 100‑105, p. 100, <https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/aeer/article/download/636/729/2748>.
47 For the English version, see AN AJ/43/808, for the French version see AN AJ/43/276.
48 The International Rescue Committee was founded in 1933 in the US to help with the relief and rescue of the victims of the Nazi reign of terror, Louise W. Holborn, The International Refugee Organization…, op. cit., p. 146‑147.
49 Letter from A. Matson, 17 August 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
50 See, for example, Wolfgang Jacobmeyer, Vom Zwangsarbeiter zum Heimatlosen Ausländer: Die Displaced Persons in Westdeutschland, 1945‑1951, Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, «Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft, 19», 1985.
51 Translation by the author. For the original, see David Spenger and Stefan Kordel, “Agency”, in Tabea Scharrer et al. (Hrsg), Flucht‑ und Flüchtlingsforschung: Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Studium, Baden‑Baden, Nomos, «Nomos Handbuch», 2023, p. 223.
52 Anthony Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, 1st ed., Berkeley, University of California Press, 1984.
53 Mustafa Emirbayer and Ann Mische, “What is Agency?”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 103, no. 4, 1998, p. 961‑1023, p. 963, Doi: 10.1086/231294.
54 Concerning collaborators in the group of Kalmyks, see chap. 8, Antonio J. Muñoz, “Followers of ‘The Greater Way’. Kalmyck Volunteers in the German Army (1942‑1945)”, in Antonio J. Muñoz, The East Came West: Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist Volunteers in the German Armed Forces, 1941‑1945, Bayside, Axis Europa Books, 2001. For more details concerning the Nansen Kalmyks in Belgrade, see Ismee Tames, “Traces of Kinship Care…”, art. cit.
55 PCIRO Application for Assistance A. Burlakoff, AA, 3.2.1.1/78978662. For a more detailed account on the strategies, see Elvira Churyumova and Edward C. Holland, “Kalmyk DPs…”, art. cit.
56 PCIRO Application for Assistance M. Erendschenow, AA, 3.2.1.1/79069054.
57 It is likely that this refers to the US, as the card was filled out in the American occupation zone. See, for example, the DP registration record of B. Bewinow, AA, 3.1.1.1/66584229.
58 See, for example, the PCIRO Application for Assistance for E. Nikolajev, AA, 3.2.1.1/79529046 or P. Dschengurow, AA, 3.2.1.1/79059141.
59 For the following quotes, see B. N. Oulanoff, The race of Kalmuk (D.Ps), 4 December 1949, AN AJ/43/808.
60 The discussion about the role and significance of collaboration—especially for Baltic individuals—for obtaining DP status and emigration opportunities continued until 1951. Letter from T. J. Bartus to all Field Representatives, Eligibility of Certain Categories of Baltic Refugees, 6 June 1951, AN AJ/43/303.
61 Letter from R. Corkery to Area Director 7, Kalmook Resettlement, 19 April 1949, AN AJ/43/571.
62 Memorandum from E. M. Shirk, A Resettlement Project for the Kalmuk Group, 5 November 1951, National Archives at College Park, RG 278 Records of the Displaced Persons Commission, 1948‑1952, Box 73.
63 Kalmuks. Conversation with Mrs. T. Schaufuss of the Tolstoy Foundation on 6 February 1951, AN AJ/43/276.
64 Letter from H. H. Ruthrauff to W. K. Shaughnessy, Report on Kalmuks, 15 March 1950, AN AJ/43/571.
65 The payment of a contribution for the admission of DPs was originally only planned for disabled persons; for example, US$ 650 was to be paid to the countries for the admission of blind persons. Donald Kingsley, Appeal to Voluntary Organizations on Behalf of Refugees Requiring Institutional or Other Special Care, February 1950, AN AJ/43/403.
66 Contract Relating to the Immigration of a Group of ‘Kalmuk’ Refugees to Paraguay, Signed by the IRO and Fassardi Ltd, Asunción, 31 August 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
67 Cable from Bad Kissingen Office to Geneva Office, 22 August 1950, ibid. supra.
68 Letter from H.A. Citroen to D. Greene, 4 July 1950, ibid. supra.
69 Letter from W.S. Boe to the IRO Office Munich, Kalmuk Scheme, 21 September 1950, ibid. supra.
70 IRO Press Release no. 191, 700 Kalmucks to Resettle in Paraguay, 4 September 1950, ibid. supra.
71 Concerning the relevance of racial categories in the postwar years, see, for example, Ali Meghji, The Racialized Social System: Critical Race Theory as Social Theory, Cambridge/Medford, Polity, 2022, p. 36‑37.
72 See, for example, International Refugee Organization (ed.), Migration from Europe…, op. cit.
73 Letter from A. H. de Soucy to the Director General, 4 October 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
74 Nicola Foote, “British Carribean Migration and the Racialization of Latin American Nationalism”, in Nicola Foote and Michael Goebel (eds), Immigration and National Identities in Latin America, 1st ed., Gainesville, University Press of Florida, 2014, p. 205‑233, p. 205.
75 Letter from D. Stansby to the Director General, Kalmuks, 24 November 1950, AN AJ/43/276.
76 Ibid. supra.
77 Letter from D. Stansby to H.A. Citroen, 20 September 1950, ibid. According to Holborn, 5,887 individuals ultimately migrated to Paraguay as part of IRO operations. The largest group comprised 2,665 Russian refugees, including approximately 2,000 Mennonites, followed by 1,685 Jews and 1,433 Poles. Louise Holborn, The International Refugee Organization…, op. cit., p. 407.
78 Cable from IRO Asuncion to IRO Geneva, 25 April 1951, AN AJ/43/276.
79 Translation by the author, letter from R. L. Petit to A. H. de Soucy, 24 April 1951, ibid. supra.
80 IRO Press Release no. 214, Kalmucks Resume Search for Home as Paraguay Annuls Migration Plan, 15 May 1951, ibid. supra.
Haut de pagePour citer cet article
Référence papier
Jessica Wehner, « “An apparently indissoluble clot of unwanted humanity”: “Non‑European” Displaced Persons in Postwar Resettlement », Diasporas, 44 | -0001, 31-52.
Référence électronique
Jessica Wehner, « “An apparently indissoluble clot of unwanted humanity”: “Non‑European” Displaced Persons in Postwar Resettlement », Diasporas [En ligne], 44 | 2025, mis en ligne le 03 décembre 2025, consulté le 11 février 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/diasporas/18013 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/159t9
Haut de pageDroits d’auteur
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.
Haut de page



