Ethnic Politics in the Cold War was the topic of a workshop held at the History Department of the Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Germany, on 13-16 March. It was the last in a series of three which had been supported by the British Academy. The workshop was kindly hosted by Professor Hans Henning Hahn and his colleagues, whose efficiency and hospitality ensured a productive and convivial meeting. Thanks are also due to the Federal Institute for the Culture and History of the Germans in Eastern Europe (Oldenburg), who explained and discussed the work of the Institute and to the British Academy for its financial support.

ROBERT KNIGHT (Loughborough University) introduced the subject by distinguishing three common understandings of the Cold War (as a contest, as a distinct era and as a construction) and explored the implications of each for ethnicity and ethnic politics. Ethnicity tended to be seen as a “sub-state” phenomenon which was only important insofar it was used as an instrument of the state. He cautioned against assuming that ethnicity was necessarily a malleable resource, rather it needed to be understood as a form of collective identity which was primarily experienced in a local or regional milieu.

OTO LUTHAR (Slovene Academy of Science) compared the position of Hungarians living in Prekmurje and those living in Vojvodina. On the basis of interviews he concluded that many remembered the period after World War Two nostalgically. Despite the persecution it was seen as an era of peace and prosperity and contrasted to the 1990s. The Cold War division between “us” and “them” hardly featured in these memories.

SABINA MIHELJ (Loughborough University) provided a close examination of the media systems and media output (e.g. cartoons) on both the Italian (Allied) and the Yugoslav (Slovene and Croatian) sides of the Free Territory of Trieste and the broader Julian Region. She argued that the Cold War should be seen as a confrontation between two different forms of nationalism, a Yugoslav one which saw class as superseding ethnicity and an Italian one in which national belonging was seen as transcending class differences.

JURE GOMBAČ (Institute for Slovenian Emigration Studies) examined scholarly debates about the position of Italians in Yugoslavia, and the related proposals for policy solutions, in the period between 1941 and 1947. He showed how the evolution of these debates and proposals reflects shifting perceptions of the role of ethnicity during World War II and in the immediate post-war years.

MARK PITTAWAY (Open University) presented some initial findings of a research project into the social history of the Austro-Hungarian borderland between 1938 and 1960. He argued that the “high politics” of the Cold War needed to be considered in conjunction with local, social conflicts and stressed the importance at the local level of continuities which predated the Cold War. The reach of the state within Hungarian society should not be taken for granted.

PETER BARKER (Reading University) analysed the experience of the Sorb minority in the GDR. He showed how the activities of the Sorbian cultural organisation, the Domowina, were constrained by both superpower conflicts and the German-German conflict. The upshot was that religion, a crucial element in Sorbian identity, was pushed to the margins.

VASIL PARASKEVOV (Shumen University) examined the way the Cold War impacted on Bulgarian policy towards its Turkish minority. To the Bulgarian communist party the division of the world was seen both as a threat (in the form of Turkish foreign policy) and as a source of stability (in ensuring Soviet backing for its minority policy). Minority policy moved from a relatively tolerant phase in the late 1940s, when Turkish culture and identity was accepted, to a more repressive phase, when the minority was viewed as a potential instrument of subversion. Throughout minority policy was determined by the need to conform closely to orthodox Marxist-Leninism, as defined in Moscow.

MARTIN MEVIUS (Amsterdam University) developed further arguments about nationalism and communism he had put forward in his recently published book Agents of Moscow. Marxist Leninism had always been flexible towards nationalism, distinguishing between a progressive and a reactionary manifestation and being prepared to use the first sort. Prompted by a sense of weakness communist regimes were often ready to deploy nationalism to strengthen their position, even at the risk of conflict with other communist parties. Mevius showed how this developed in the case of Hungarian-Czech and Hungarian-Rumanian relations.

EVA HAHN (Independent historian, Oldenburg) traced the origins of some recent discussions on the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe back to the period of the emerging Cold War. In particular she argued that for various reasons a complex series of events which took place over a decade (1939-1949) has often been reduced to the image of the 1945 expulsions. This strengthened anti-communist propaganda, and fostered German “victimhood” in the early post-war years.

HANS HENNING HAHN (Oldenburg University) introduced his paper by analysing the function of stereotypes in the context of modern European history. In the case of the Cold War he argued that on the whole both superpowers were unwilling to instrumentalise ethnic stereotypes and that this was widely welcomed in both East and West Europe. Ethnic stereotypes had deep roots, these did not simply vanish with the Cold War even if they were sometimes adapted to the changed context.

A paper by GÜNTHER PALLAVER (Innsbruck University) on South Tyrol was discussed in his absence. The paper outlined the interaction of international, national and regional dynamics in debates about minority rights and autonomy. He noted that there was limited interest in fermenting ethnic conflict by the Soviet Union and neither did the need for outside support lead South Tyrol parties to look to the communist block for support. Overall Pallaver argued that contrary to the view of South Tyrol as a victim of the Cold War the German-speaking Tyrolese could be seen as having gained from it.

All papers were followed by lively discussions. The issues raised included the extent to which in the Cold War states had been able mould ethnic identities and practices, the comparability of the situation of ethnic minorities in East and West Europe, the “showcasing” of ethnic minorities for propaganda purposes and the viability of the distinction between ethnicity, ethno-nationalism and nationalism. There was strong agreement that the topic had been neglected in the past and required further scholarly investigation. It was also agreed that after revisions the publication of the contributions would be highly desirable.

Conference overview:

Robert Knight: Introduction: Ethnicity and the Cold War.

Oto Luthar: Between Assimilation and “Positive Discrimination”. Hungarians in Yugoslavia 1945-1991.

Sabina Mihelj: Nationalism and the Cold War in the Julian Region (1947-54).

Jure Gombač: Ethnic policy and practice in the Cold War: Italians in Istria (1941-7).

Mark Pittaway: Re-thinking Ethnicity and the Origins of the Cold War: the Politics of Expulsion and Separation in the Austrian-Hungarian Borderlands.

Peter Barker: Sorbian Ethnic Interests, the GDR and the Cold War (1945-71).

Vasil Paraskevov: Bulgarian Policy towards the Turkish Minority (1944-1971).

Martin Mevius: ‘As we understand your situation, understand ours as well’. Communist conflicts over minorities.

Eva Hahn: The Cold War and the Myth of Vertreibung as ‘ethnic cleansing’.

Hans Henning Hahn: Ethnic Stereotypes in Cold War Propaganda

Günther Pallaver: South Tyrol: Cold War loser or winner?