Latest video sources:

SOURCES

Section 2

[1] Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Defector. Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved September 4, 2025, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/defector “someone who leaves a country, political party, etc., especially in order to join an opposing one”

[2] Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Economic migrant. Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved September 4, 2025, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/economic-migrant “a person who leaves their home country to live in another country with better working or living conditions”

[3] Bytwerk, R. L. (2001). Wer die Deutsche Demokratische Republik verläßt, stellt sich auf die Seite der Kriegstreiber. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “Those who let themselves be recruited objectively serve West German Reaction and militarism, whether they know it or not. Is it not despicable when for the sake of a few alluring job offers or other false promises about a “guaranteed future” one leaves a country in which the seed for a new and more beautiful life is sprouting, and is already showing the first fruits, for the place that favors a new war and destruction? Is it not an act of political depravity when citizens, whether young people, workers, or members of the intelligentsia, leave and betray what our people have created through common labor in our republic to offer themselves to the American or British secret services or work for the West German factory owners, Junkers, or militarists? Does not leaving the land of progress for the morass of an historically outdated social order demonstrate political backwardness and blindness?”

[4] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The vast majority of children completed ten years of schooling and finished with a certificate of education (equivalent to GCSEs in Britain) to prove that they had completed their basic education and had reached a set standard. Those intending to go on to higher education, completed two more years and took their Abitur (A-level equivalent), which was the necessary entrance qualification for college or university. By the end of the 1980s, 95 per cent of all pupils were in schools that would provide them with a completed ten-year school-leaving certificate. Every pupil who left school, if they did not go on to higher education, would be offered apprenticeship training. There was a widespread system of vocational training schools in which students could study and learn a trade during a three-year course.”

[5] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “Very much as a result of large-scale foreign, mainly US, investment in the early post-war period, West Germany soon recovered its pre-war economic eminence; its population was again soon enjoying relatively high standards of living. The GDR, as its poorer neighbour, found itself haemorrhaging qualified workers and professionals through its open border with the West in Berlin. Many were not fleeing communist persecution, but simply voting with their feet for higher salaries and a wider range of consumer goods on offer in the West. And they could all expect to find jobs immediately because, according to the West German constitution, they were not classed as migrants but were deemed to be citizens of the Federal Republic. In other words, and this was unique in the world in terms of inter- state relationships, GDR citizens only needed to enter the Federal Republic to immediately and automatically receive citizenship and state support. They were provided with West German papers and passports, helped to find housing and jobs. The Federal Republic never officially recognised the GDR, so this made it easy and attractive for people to move west. Most were classic economic migrants looking for a better life. Annual emigration increased from an estimated figure of around 143,000 in 1959 to 199,000 in 1960, one year before the Wall was built. The majority of these were white collar and professional workers and 50% were under 25 years of age. In 1960 alone, 688 doctors, 296 dentists and 2,648 engineers went to the West. The labour and brain drain exceeded a total of 2.5 million citizens between 1949 and 1961, when the Wall was built.”

[6] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “As the morning dawned, the border was sealed. As Sunday came, the government’s measures were completed. The morning newspapers reported: “The governments of the Warsaw Pact states call upon the Volkskammer and the government of the GDR, and all workers of the German Democratic Republic, to establish order along the border with West Berlin, in order to prevent subversive activity against the nations of the socialist bloc, and to establish effective control of the entire border with West Berlin, including its border with democratic Berlin.” Our Council of Ministers therefore decided: “To prevent enemy activity by the Revanchist and militarist forces of West Germany and West Berlin, controls will be established along the borders of the German Democratic Republic, including the border to the Western sectors of Greater Berlin, as is customary for sovereign states. Reliable supervision and effective controls are to be established along the West Berlin border to prevent subversive activity. The border may be crossed only by citizens of the German Democratic Republic with special permission.”

[7] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “We have only safeguarded and strengthened that frontier which was already drawn years ago and made into a dangerous front-line by the people in Bonn and West Berlin. How high and how strongly fortified a frontier must be, depends, as is common knowledge, on the kind of relations existing between the states of each side of the frontier. We have erected the wall as an antifascist, protective wall against them.”

[8] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “In addition, the open border in Berlin was a focus of Cold War tensions and on a number of occasions events threatened to take the two military blocks to war. It was also a Mecca for spies and for acts of sabotage against the GDR. There is little doubt, even in the minds of those who were very much opposed to the GDR, that the building of the Wall in August 1961 contributed to reducing tensions. Clearly, though, the GDR’s main reason for building it was to stem the drain of skilled personnel as well as to exercise proper control over its own borders, just like any other state. As a direct result of the Wall being built the economy could be stabilised and made more viable; but at the same time many people, particularly in Berlin, resented the feeling of being cut off from West Germany.”

[9] Berlin.de. (n.d.). The Wall in numbers. https://www.berlin.de/mauer/en/history/construction-of-the-berlin-wall/the-wall-in-numbers/. “Total length of the border to West Berlin: 155 km. Inner-city border between East and West Berlin: 43 km. Border between West Berlin and the GDR (“outer ring”): 112 km. Border crossings between East and West Berlin (roads/railway): 8. Border crossings between the GDR and West Berlin (roads/railway): 6. Observation towers: 302. Bunkers: 20. Dog runs: 259. Anti-vehicle trenches: 105.5 km. Contact or signal fences: 127.5 km. Border patrol roads: 124.3 km. (As of 31 July 1989, Source: Lapp/Ritter, Die Grenze, 1997).”

Section 3

[10] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 102. “The growing poverty of the peripheral areas in the nineteenth century was induced by changes in the mode of production forced by the expansion of capitalism, not by a transfer of their wealth to Europe. The undermining of artisan production and traditional handicraft manufacture impoverished the peasantry while also undermining the industrial basis of the cities, creating a desperate mass of unemployed and semiemployed. Rents could thus be increased and wages established at subsistence levels. Industrialization was inhibited by both the difficulty of competing with economically superior Western imports and the policies of the colonial states that discouraged local industries that might compete with metropolitan interests. Local fortunes in the periphery were channeled into land, commerce, or luxury consumption, not into industry. Traditional modes of production were often politically encouraged both in agriculture and in the cities in order to secure support for imperialism among the older privileged classes. Capitalist development in general, and industrial development in particular, were thus blocked, or at least greatly inhibited, by the logic of the nineteenth-century world capitalist system. While in good part dissolving precapitalist modes of production, this logic inhibited the development of industrial capitalism. This stage of imperialism generated a growing mass of semiserfs, semiproletarians, lumpen proletarians, and lumpen petty bourgeois as well as a small class of very wealthy landlords and merchants, the "compradors”.”

[11] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 70-71. “Paul Baran's article "On the Political Economy of Backwardness" (1952) and his book The Political Economy of Growth (1957) have had a tremendous impact on thought about the effect of imperialism on economic development. Baran argues that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer because of the monopoly position of the rich in world trade and their dominance in overseas investment processes that result in the actual transfer of wealth from the less-developed to the more-developed capitalist economies: “. . . the Western European visitors rapidly determined to extract the largest possible gains from the host countries, and to take their loot home. Thus they engaged in outright plunder or in plunder thinly veiled as trade, seizing and removing tremendous wealth from the places of their penetrations.. . . This transfusion itself and in particular the methods by which it was perpetrated had perhaps an even more telling impact on the reluctant—to say the least—"donor" countries. They violently jolted their entire development and affected drastically its subsequent course. They burst with explosive force into the glacial movement of their ancient societies and tremendously accelerated the process of decomposition of their precapitalist structures.. . . Accelerating with irresistible energy the maturing of some of the basic prerequisites for the development of a capitalist system, the intrusion of Western capitalism in the now underdeveloped countries blocked with equal force the ripening of others. The removal of a large share of the affected countries' previously accumulated and currently generated surplus could not but cause a serious setback to their primary accumulation of capital. . . . the forces that have molded the fate the backward world still exercise a powerful impact on the conditions prevailing at the present time. Their forms have changed, their intensities are different today; their origin and direction have remained unaltered. . . . profits derived from operations in underdeveloped countries have gone to a large extent to finance investment in highly developed parts of the world. Thus while there have been vast differences among underdeveloped countries with regard to the amounts of profits plowed back in their economies or withdrawn by foreign investors, the under-developed world as a whole has continually shipped a large part of its economic surplus to more advanced countries on account of interest and dividends. The implications of Baran's analysis for the less-developed countries are different from those of pre-1928 classical Marxism. Capitalism, rather than being a progressive force that stimulates economic development, is seen as a regressive force that "underdevelops" backward countries. Andre Gunder Frank both extended Baran's analysis and illustrated it for the cases of Brazil and Chile in his Capitalism and Under-development in Latin America (1967). Frank specifies three basic principles that order the relations between the less-developed and the developed capitalist countries: first, the expropriation of the economic surplus by the metropolis; second, the polarization of the world capitalist system; and third, the continuity of the fundamental structure of the capitalist system.””

[12] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 111. “However, from 1913 through the mid-1960s, there was a systematic, long-term tendency for both the overall net barter terms of trade between the developed and less-developed countries, and the net barter terms of trade between the manufactured goods exports of the developed countries and the primary exports of the less developed, to move in favor of the developed countries. Between 1913 and 1962-63 the net barter terms of trade improved by 77 percent overall—and 85 percent when just the exchange of manufactured goods for primary products is considered—in favor of the developed countries. This indicates a considerable and growing exploitation through trade due to the control of world markets by transnational corporations based in the advanced capitalist countries. In balance, in the early phase of monopoly capitalist imperialism there was a net transfer of wealth from the less-developed periphery to the European core. This appropriation of value by the advanced countries occurred principally because of "unequal exchange" (largely caused by monopolization of world markets).”

[13] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 218-219. ”Transnational corporations invest in the less-developed countries in order to maximize their profits on a world level. They are oriented to the world, not to the individual countries where they invest. Consequently all their decisions to invest, repatriate profit, what to produce, what prices to charge, how to produce, to expand, and so forth are not made out of considerations for the all-around development or social goals of the local countries. This is especially true of export-oriented investments, such as raw materials, whose production is governed by the conditions of the international market and thus is largely a product of demand and monopolization in the advanced capitalist world. In manufacturing investment, which is geared to selling goods in local markets, local demand and government regulation (such as tariff policy and restrictions on certain kinds of imports) play an important role, yet, nevertheless, transnational corporate decisions are still made within the international framework of profit maximization.”

[14] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 231. ”In summary it is clear that the transnational corporations, especially those from the United States, play a preeminent and rapidly expanding role in the economies of the less-developed countries. Transnational control of the economies of the less-developed countries is especially pronounced in the technologically advanced sectors such as chemicals (especially pharmaceuticals), fabricated metals, machinery (both electric and nonelectric), rubber, and transportation equipment as well as in the export sector. The transnational corporations use their preeminent position in pursuit of their worldwide profit maximization. They subordinate the economic processes over which they have such tremendous influence to extranational considerations that often conflict with the all-around economic and social development of the countries in which they operate.”

[15] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 248. “The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank together with various regional multinational financial institutions play a central and growing role in the economic domination of the less-developed countries. The loans of these institutions are closely coordinated with those of both official governmental assistance programs and the lending of the private transnational banks. In general, the IMF plays the leading role for the whole metropolitan system of lending and assistance. This multinational institution's decisions about extending or refusing "balance of payments" loans are the signal for individual governments and private banks to also extend or refuse credit. The IMF's "seal of approval" is typically decisive for a country badly in need of international funding or rescheduling of its outstanding debt. Its power to influence the economies of the less-developed countries is thus immense. The International Monetary Fund is controlled by a handful of the wealthiest capitalist countries with the  United States pre-dominant.”

[16] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 345- 346. “The economic growth and industrialization of the less-developed countries is distorted by the logic of international profit maximization of the transnational corporations and by the policies of the major imperialist states, such as the United States, which discourage manufacturing and encourage raw materials imports for the benefit of their dominant business interests. The transnational manufacturing corporations develop their productive technology and marketing techniques primarily on the basis of conditions in the advanced capitalist countries where they make the overwhelming proportion of their profits. Rather than develop expensive new technology more appropriate for the less-developed countries, the transnational corporations tend to simply export the same plant and techniques they use in the advanced countries to the less developed, or often that which is a generation or so out of date in the advanced countries, but which is still very advanced for the less-developed countries. This is true for both agricultural technology, such as tractors and harvesting machines, and for manufacturing plant and machinery. What the import of relatively high-technology equipment to the less-developed countries tends to mean is that, on balance, its advanced sectors tend to be more capital intensive, i.e., use less labor inputs, than would otherwise be optimally economically profitable given the resources and wage level of the less-developed countries. In countries with low living standards and low wages it would otherwise be more profitable (and efficient) to employ larger numbers of workers with more labor-intensive techniques than relatively fewer workers running equipment developed for conditions of high labor costs.”

[17] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 15. “The basic economic processes characteristic of capitalism operate on a world systems level, not on the level of nation-states. Economic cycles, rates of unemployment, technological innovations, and wage rates are phenomena of the capitalist world system, with change occurring systematically in all of the parts. Depressions are world-wide, technological changes are rapidly transmitted from one country to another, and changes in wage rates are transmitted through the mechanism of labor migration and trade (higher wages mean higher product costs and a competitive disadvantage).”

[18] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 114. “Not only is there a tendency for capital to flee high-wage areas, but there is also a tendency for workers in the low-wage areas of the world to migrate to the high-wage areas. From the late nineteenth into the twentieth century there has been a massive population transfer from the rural and poorer regions of the world. At first this flow was from Southern and Eastern Europe, but in the later stages it has been from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The expansion of capitalism throughout the world has displaced peasants from the land, forcing them to the advanced urban and industrial areas such as North America and Western Europe. The effect of this international migration of workers is to decrease the massive reserve of labor in the poorer countries while expanding the reserve army of labor in the advanced. This tends to decrease the rate of increase in wages in the metropolis. At this same time it accelerates the tendency for the rate of profit and the tendency of the level of productive forces to equalize in the two regions.”

[19] Szymanski, A. (1981). The logic of imperialism. Praeger. p. 383-384. “The typical pattern was to institutionalize annual labor migration, with the workers farming subsistence plots in their traditional areas to provide for most of their basic needs for about half a year (often in a different country, e.g., Mozambique). During the rest of the year they migrated (without their families) to work in the mines (e.g., in South Africa, Katanga, Rhodesia) or on commercial plantations (e.g., in Senegal, the Ivory Coast, Ghana). The centrality of migratory labor is attested to by the fact that in the mid-1950s approximately 50 percent of the adult African men in Mozambique were working away from their homes for part of the year and that two-thirds of South African miners were from other countries.”

[20] OECD. (2020). International Migration Outlook 2020. OECD Publishing. p. 73. “ The labour market outcomes of immigrants have continued to improve in 2019, thanks to the overall improvements in economic conditions in most OECD countries. On average, more than two thirds of immigrants were employed and about 8.2% were unemployed, a 0.5 percentage point decrease compared to 2018. These figures mask, however, substantial heterogeneity across countries. In 2019, and for the first time, immigrants’ unemployment rate in the European Union was below the symbolic threshold of 10%, and less than 4 percentage points higher than the native-born. Immigrants’ unemployment rates were the lowest in North American countries, at around 3% in Canada and the United States. Specific immigrant groups are performing better than others, such as intra-EU in Europe and North American immigrants in United States and Canada. By contrast, some groups are facing persistent difficulties. Despite significant improvements over the last years, North African and Middle Eastern immigrants had the lowest employment rates in Europe, and more broadly across the selected countries, at about 51% in 2019. Immigrant women remain overall at higher risk of exclusion from the labour market, from the beginning of their career. They are overall more prone than native-born women to be in long- term unemployment, in involuntary inactivity and for young adults, not in employment, formal education or training (NEET). They are also more at risk of over-qualification. The careers of immigrant women seem to be more affected by motherhood than for native-born women. In particular, and for a number of reasons including their higher number of children, they are less likely to enter the labour market in the early years of their career than native-born women. OECD countries have continued to design and fine-tune comprehensive integration programmes for newcomers, to facilitate their rapid labour market integration and access to basic social services. Several OECD countries reacted to allow immigrants to better face the Coronavirus, mostly by improving their access to information. Many countries have taken measures to improve immigrants’ language skills, with a particular emphasis on on-the-job language training. Digital technologies are also increasingly used to improve the effectiveness of language courses. The promotion of social integration and equal opportunities have gained more policy attention. Anti-discrimination and diversity policies, as well as civic courses are among the main tools used to foster social integration. The activation of immigrant women is increasingly high on the integration policy agenda. Several countries have taken specific measures, for instance by facilitating access to child care. Efforts to mainstream integration policy also consider vulnerable groups, such as migrant youth or children of immigrants as key targets to reach out to. Measures include language courses for young children of immigrants.”

[21] OECD. (2021). International migration outlook 2021. OECD Publishing. p. 18-19. “In Brief Key findings Migration trends. The COVID-19 crisis caused the sharpest drop on record in migration flows to the OECD, of more than 30%. At about 3.7 million, permanent migration to OECD countries in 2020 stood at its lowest level since 2003. The real impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on permanent migration entries in 2020 is, however, expected to be much larger (above 40%) as OECD statistics include not only entries but also in-country status changes from temporary to permanent statuses. All categories of permanent migration experienced a decline in 2020. Family migration has shown the largest decline, falling by more than 35% according to preliminary estimates. Humanitarian migration flows were also severely affected, in particular to the United States and Canada. Labour migration and free mobility registered overall decreases of about 24% and 17%, respectively. All main origin countries saw double-digit declines in permanent migration in 2020, except for Mexico, which registered an increase in migration. Due to the importance of free mobility, the fall was less pronounced in most European destinations with the exception of Italy. Temporary labour migration declined sharply in most OECD countries in 2020. Australia (-37%), Canada (-43%), Japan (-65%), Korea (-57%), and the United States (-37%) have experienced some of the largest drops. Working holiday makers dropped on average by 59% in 2020. Intra-company transferees dropped by 53%. Entries of seasonal agricultural workers declined by only 10% overall, and even slightly increased in the main destination countries (e.g. United States and Poland). In 2019, 4.6 million posted workers were registered in the UE/EFTA, representing 0.8% of total employment. After many years of continuous growth, the number of study permits delivered in 2020 declined sharply (-70% in both the United States and Canada, -40% on average in OECD EU countries) The number of new asylum applications in OECD countries fell by 31% in 2020, the sharpest drop since the end of the Balkan crisis in the early 1990s. However, the overall number remained above any year preceding 2014 except 1992. Between 2010 and 2019, resettlement programmes have allowed more than 1 million people in need of international protection to be transferred to an OECD country. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on these programmes has been very strong, with only 34 400 refugees resettled – two-thirds less than in 2019, and the lowest number on record. In 2019, men represented on average more than 56% of new migrants to the OECD area. Shares of men are highest in Central and Eastern European countries, and smallest in Australia and the United States (both 46%). Whereas men account for the bulk of new immigrants in the majority of OECD countries, the majority of settled immigrants in most OECD countries are women. On average, the foreign-born population accounted for 14% of the population in the OECD area in 2020, up from 11.9% in 2010. With the exception of the Baltic States and Israel, all OECD countries experienced an increase of their immigrant population. The highest growth over the decade relative to the total population was recorded in Luxembourg (up by 9 percentage points), Iceland (8 points) and Sweden (6 points). In 2019, 2.2 million people became citizens of an OECD country, the highest figure on record, and a 12% increase compared with 2018.  Preliminary estimates for 2020 suggest a decrease by 17%, largely due to a major drop in the United States where naturalisation reached its lowest level since 2003. In 2019, the number of UK nationals who took up the citizenship of an EU country was the highest figure on record, 15 times the 2015 level before the vote on Brexit. The number of EU citizens who have obtained British nationality has also never been higher than in 2019. Labour market inclusion The economic crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic has ended 10 years of continuous progress in the labour market outcomes of immigrants. On average in the OECD, more than two- thirds of immigrants were employed in 2020, -2.1 percentage points compared to 2019. One in ten migrants was unemployed compared to one in fifteen native-born. In 2020, migrant employment rates declined in three out of five OECD countries, while unemployment increased in three in four countries. Labour market outcomes of immigrants have not, however, changed significantly in countries with the largest job retention schemes or with significant return migration. So far, the pandemic has not significantly affected the gender gap in labour market outcomes, as the employment rate has dropped as much for immigrant women as for immigrant men. Low- and medium-educated people, native- and foreign-born alike, have been more negatively affected. However, in most OECD countries, for all levels of education, immigrants’ situation in the labour market has worsened more than for their native-born peers. The economic crisis has an important sectoral dimension. Immigrant employment declined more than for natives in the most affected sectors, while it has also increased more in sectors which have experienced overall employment growth. The labour market situation of immigrants is heterogeneous across region of origin. Immigrant groups that have been the most affected by the crisis are from Latin America and the Middle East.”

[22] OECD. (2021). International migration outlook 2021. OECD Publishing. p. 112-113. “In Brief Key findings This chapter provides a comparison of the fiscal impact of immigrants in 22 European OECD countries, Australia, Canada and the United States, over a 13-year period, from 2006 to 2018, using a common methodology. In all countries, immigrants contribute more in taxes and contributions than governments spend on their social protection, health and education. The contributions of immigrants are large enough to fully cover their share of government expenditure on congestible public goods, and contribute to the financing of pure public goods, such as defence and public debt charges, in a vast majority of countries. In 2017, the contribution of immigrants to the financing of pure public goods represented a total of USD 547 billion in the 25 countries included in the analysis. When all public expenditure is included, the total net fiscal contribution of immigrants remains positive in about a third of the countries covered by the study. Larger per capita contribution for immigrants compared to the native-born are recorded in approximately half the countries. The total net fiscal contribution of immigrants is persistently small during the 2006-18 period, between -1% and +1% of GDP for most countries. This total net fiscal contribution depends on the size and composition of the immigrant population, the structure of the host country’s public budget, and varies over the business cycle. Including the native-born children of immigrants in the calculation adds a relatively large education cost. The total net fiscal contribution of immigrants decreases by half a percentage point of GDP on average. However, these results are biased as they do not account for the taxes and social contributions paid by the adult native-born children of immigrants. In almost all countries, governments spend less on immigrants per capita than on the native-born. However, immigrants contribute less per capita than the native-born in practically all countries. The expenditure per capita on the foreign-born is lower than on the native-born on old age and survival, sickness and disability, education and health, on average across countries. Conversely, the expenditure per capita on family and children, unemployment, social exclusion and housing is on average larger on the foreign-born. Differences in the composition of immigrant populations across OECD countries explain a large part of the cross-country differences in the fiscal position of immigrants relative to the native-born. Differences in the age distribution of immigrants, relative to the native-born, alone account for 60% of the cross-country differences in relative fiscal position of immigrants. Furthermore, immigrants have a more positive fiscal position in countries where the immigrant population consists mainly of recent labour migrants, than in countries who host mainly humanitarian immigrants. In European OECD countries, prime-aged (25-54) immigrants born in other EU countries have a more favorable fiscal position than immigrants born outside the EU. In almost all countries, more than half of the immigrants are prime aged – the age group with the most favorable net fiscal contribution. However, the net fiscal contribution of prime-aged immigrants lags behind that of prime-aged native-born. The fiscal gap between prime-aged immigrants and natives is driven by immigrants’ lower contributions rather than by higher government expenditure on the foreign-born, and is larger for the highly educated. Immigrants’ lower employment rates are key in explaining the gap in contributions. Closing the employment gap between the prime-aged foreign and native-born of the same age and education could increase the total net fiscal contribution of immigrants by over 0.5% of GDP in Belgium and Sweden, and over a third of a percentage point in Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Over the 2006-18 period, the net fiscal contribution of immigrants declined most in countries where the share of older immigrants has increased the most during this time, such as Lithuania or Latvia. Conversely, the improvement in the fiscal position of immigrants was largest in countries that received large recent inflows of highly skilled labour migrants, such as the United Kingdom. The total net fiscal contribution of immigrants, similarly to that of the native-born, is strongly pro-cyclical. While immigrants lost their jobs at a higher rate during the global financial crisis in many OECD countries, their fiscal position deteriorated similarly to that of the native-born. The economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic are putting at risk the improvements observed recently regarding the labour market inclusion of immigrants. This calls for maintaining, if not increasing, investments in the labour market integration of recently arrived and settled migrants as these programmes have a very high fiscal return.”

Section 4

[23] Yuri Felshtinsky (1982) The legal foundations of the immigration and emigration policy of the USSR, 1917–27, Soviet Studies, 34:3, 327-348. “World War I, the February revolution, the Bolshevik coup d'etat and the ensuing Civil War led to the greatest political and social crisis in Russia since the Time of Troubles, and all of this generated tremendous pressures for emigration and immigration... But while the same problems existed throughout post-war Europe, the Russian case was profoundly changed by another element—the Bolshevik overthrow and the civil war... The result was a mass exodus of old elites, who formed large centres of political emigration in Berlin and Paris. At the same time, the new Soviet regime attracted hundreds of communist intellectuals and thousands of worker immigrants from the West, all eager to join the 'new world' in Russia.” (p. 327)

[24] Yuri Felshtinsky (1982) The legal foundations of the immigration and emigration policy of the USSR, 1917–27, Soviet Studies, 34:3, 327-348. “Thus, Soviet immigration policy in the first years was determined primarily by ideological and military considerations... Most significant in this period was the complete absence of any influence on Soviet Russian immigration policy from economic factors. Labour immigration was unprofitable economically, but still allowed by the government for ideological reasons” (p. 331)

[25] Roth, B. (2009). The Great Depression: A diary. PublicAffairs. “By summer of 1929 stocks were selling at twenty, thirty and forty times their earnings... All sense of caution was lost, stocks were bought blindly and good bonds earning 4% or 5% were sneered at... when the crash came in the fall of 1929 the casualties were terrific... Suicide and bankruptcy became the order of the day.” (p. 7-8)

[26] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “In the early 1930s, it must have felt as though America, caught in the clutches of the Great Depression, could not or would not keep her half of the social contract... Thirteen million unemployed represented a quarter of the workforce... Now those millions stood in bread lines and queued up at soup kitchens waiting for their next meal.” (p. 2-3)

[27] Roth, B. (2009). The Great Depression: A diary. PublicAffairs. “It is interesting to note that during the first three years of depression a wave of bankruptcy swept out of existence most of the small independent merchants. Recently the movement has included large national chain stores... In almost every case a reorganization is affected. In each case also the main trouble has been long-term leases taken at exorbitant prices during the boom period. ” (p. 69) Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “For the first time in her short history more people were leaving the United States than were arriving... In the first eight months of 1931 alone, Amtorg — the Soviet trade agency based in New York — received more than one hundred thousand American applications for emigration to the USSR.” (p. 6)

[28] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “A cross-section of America, they came from all walks of life: professors, engineers, factory workers, teachers, artists, doctors, even farmers, all mixed together on the passenger ships. They left to join the Five Year Plan of Soviet Russia, lured by the prospect of work at the height of the Great Depression... What united them was the hope that drives all emigrants: the search for a better life for their children and themselves. ” (p. 2)

[29] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “Thousands more had already left, choosing to chance their luck else- where and take a gamble on reports they read in newspapers of how Soviet Russia alone still had economic growth and jobs, and was planning a society that placed working men at its very centre... they studied the glowing accounts of new factories being built in Russia surrounded by trees and flowers, with cafeterias and libraries for their workers, nurseries for the children — and even swimming pools, for crying out loud!” (p. 5)

[30] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “‘I was not prepared for the happiness I see on every face in Moscow,’ Robeson told a reporter from the New York Daily Worker, ‘I was aware that there was no starvation here, but I was not prepared for the bounding life; the feeling of safety and abundance and freedom that I find here, wherever I turn.’ ” (p. 24)

[31] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “Greater quantities of food were beginning to appear in the stores; if never in the quantities suggested by the Sovietland articles, then at least there was something to buy after years of acute hunger and terrible shortages... The Communist Party had long declared itself to be ‘dizzy with success’, and the official slogan of 1935 was Stalin’s own announcement that ‘Life has become better, comrades; Life has become more joyful!’?” (p. 28-29)

[32] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. ““We respect American efficiency in everything — in industry, in technique, in literature, in life. We never forget the United States of America is a capitalist country. But among the Americans are many sound persons physically and mentally, sound in their approach to work, to action.”— Joseph Stalin, interview, June 1932” (p. 38)

[33] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “Every day between twenty and a hundred and fifty new American arrivals stepped down on to the platform of Moscow’s Belorussky station... Steelworkers travelled from the shut-down mills in Pittsburgh and Gary to work alongside American carpenters, brick-layers, machinists and railroad men.” (p. 12)

[34] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “They played baseball almost as soon as they arrived. When the Moscow weather was fine enough, the young Americans formed their own teams and sprinted around the bases in Gorky Park on their free days and evenings through the short Russian summers — as though they craved to keep at least one strand of the familiar in their creation of this brave new world.” (p. 15-16)

[35] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “In the summer of 1934, even the Dynamo Sports Club of the Soviet secret police showed an interest in learning the fashionable new sport. In June, the Foreign Workers’ Club was invited to stage another exhibition game at Bolshevo, the model prison camp built for the rehabilitation of young criminal delinquents in parkland outside Moscow.” (p. 21)

[36] Yuri Felshtinsky (1982) The legal foundations of the immigration and emigration policy of the USSR, 1917–27, Soviet Studies, 34:3, 327-348. “In order to reduce immigration in general the Soviet government used political sanctions... To ensure that they would not return to their former countries or seek help from them, the Soviet authorities also prohibited contact between immigrants and their home governments. Thus, their connections abroad were for the most part cut off.” (p. 335)

[37] Yuri Felshtinsky (1982) The legal foundations of the immigration and emigration policy of the USSR, 1917–27, Soviet Studies, 34:3, 327-348. “Through its ideological influence on the minds of its citizens, the Soviet regime impressed upon them the impossibility of leaving and equated attempts to do so with treason. Stalin's revolution, as well as the West's astounding ignorance of Soviet experience in the 1930s, would have been impossible without an end to emigration and immigration.” (p. 343)

[38] Stuster, J. D. (2013, June 25). The Americans who escaped to Russia long before Edward Snowden. Foreign Policy. “There have also been political dissidents — many of them communists or socialists hounded in the United States during the Red Scare and, later, the Cold War... There were also several instances of disillusioned U.S. soldiers, who, burnt out and alienated by their time in service, defected to the Soviet Union.”

[39] Parallels with modern migration patterns Thackeray, F. W. (Ed.). (2004). Events that changed Germany. “How was West Germany able to sustain its "miraculous" rise to economic power?... Another reason the West German economic "miracle" continued for so long was the availability of skilled labor. As the boom period of the 1950s progressed, the demand for industrial labor was satiated by millions of refugees and expellees from East Germany.” (p. 179-180)

[40] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The GDR, as its poorer neighbour, found itself haemorrhaging qualified workers and professionals through its open border with the West in Berlin. Many were not fleeing communist persecution, but simply voting with their feet for higher salaries and a wider range of consumer goods on offer in the West... In 1960 alone, 688 doctors, 296 dentists and 2,648 engineers went to the West.” (p. 22)

[41] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The labour and brain drain exceeded a total of 2.5 million citizens between 1949 and 1961, when the Wall was built.” (p. 22-23)

[42] Bytwerk, R. L. (2001). Wer die Deutsche Demokratische Republik verläßt, stellt sich auf die Seite der Kriegstreiber. German Propaganda Archive. “There can be only one answer. — Both from the moral standpoint as well as in terms of the interests of the whole German nation, leaving the GDR is an act of political and moral backwardness and depravity. Those who let themselves be recruited objectively serve West German Reaction and militarism, whether they know it or not.”

[43] Bytwerk, R. L. (2024, March 21). Securing peace through the protective measures of the GDR on 13 August 1961. German Propaganda Archive. “During the spring and summer of 1961, the West German militarist plans for a forceful conquest of the GDR took on ever more threatening forms... In this situation, the DDR once again appealed to the Federal Government... Misunderstanding the balance of power in Germany, the West German militarists rejected this proposal.”

[44] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. “As the morning dawned, the border was sealed... Our Council of Ministers therefore decided: “To prevent enemy activity by the Revanchist and militarist forces of West Germany and West Berlin, controls will be established along the borders of the German Democratic Republic, including the border to the Western sectors of Greater Berlin, as is customary for sovereign states.””

[45] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “We no longer wanted to stand by passively and see how doctors, engineers, and skilled workers were induced by refined methods unworthy of the dignity of man to give up their secure existence in the GDR and work in West Germany or West Berlin. These and other manipulations cost the GDR annual losses amounting to 3.5 thousand million marks. But we prevented something much more important with the wall - West Berlin’s becoming the starting point for a military conflict.”

[46] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The GDR, as its poorer neighbour, found itself haemorrhaging qualified workers and professionals through its open border with the West in Berlin. Many were not fleeing communist persecution, but simply voting with their feet for higher salaries and a wider range of consumer goods on offer in the West... In 1960 alone, 688 doctors, 296 dentists and 2,648 engineers went to the West.” (p. 22)

[47] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The labour and brain drain exceeded a total of 2.5 million citizens between 1949 and 1961, when the Wall was built.” (p. 22-23) Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “We no longer wanted to stand by passively and see how doctors, engineers, and skilled workers were induced by refined methods unworthy of the dignity of man to give up their secure existence in the GDR and work in West Germany or West Berlin. These and other manipulations cost the GDR annual losses amounting to 3.5 thousand million marks. But we prevented something much more important with the wall - West Berlin’s becoming the starting point for a military conflict.”

[48] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The labour and brain drain exceeded a total of 2.5 million citizens between 1949 and 1961, when the Wall was built.” (p. 22-23) Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The GDR, as its poorer neighbour, found itself haemorrhaging qualified workers and professionals through its open border with the West in Berlin. Many were not fleeing communist persecution, but simply voting with their feet for higher salaries and a wider range of consumer goods on offer in the West... In 1960 alone, 688 doctors, 296 dentists and 2,648 engineers went to the West.” (p. 22)

[49] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “We no longer wanted to stand by passively and see how doctors, engineers, and skilled workers were induced by refined methods unworthy of the dignity of man to give up their secure existence in the GDR and work in West Germany or West Berlin. These and other manipulations cost the GDR annual losses amounting to 3.5 thousand million marks. But we prevented something much more important with the wall - West Berlin’s becoming the starting point for a military conflict.

[50] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “A cross-section of America, they came from all walks of life: professors, engineers, factory workers, teachers, artists, doctors, even farmers, all mixed together on the passenger ships. They left to join the Five Year Plan of Soviet Russia, lured by the prospect of work at the height of the Great Depression. Qualified engineers on well-paid contracts jostled beside unemployed workers chasing jobs in Soviet factories and starry-eyed fellow travellers whose luggage was bursting with the heavy tomes of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Within their ranks were American communists, trade unionists and assorted radicals of the John Reed school, but most were ordinary citizens not overly concerned by politics. What united them was the hope that drives all emigrants: the search for a better life for their children and themselves. ” (p. 2)

[51] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “In the early 1930s, it must have felt as though America, caught in the clutches of the Great Depression, could not or would not keep her half of the social contract. There were more people out of work in the United States, both actually and proportionately, than in any other nation on earth. Thirteen million unemployed represented a quarter of the workforce in an age when, in most families, only the men held jobs. Now those millions stood in bread lines and queued up at soup kitchens waiting for their next meal. A ragged army of hoboes had taken to the highways and railroads of the continent in their search for work. Half the country was on the move, and not. just the likes of Tom Joad driving to California in their Model As. To these people, the Great Depression’s newly dispossessed, the abject failure of capitalism was not such a radical proposition so much as the straightforward evidence of their senses. They saw it, and smelt it, whichever way they turned.” (p. 2-3)

[53] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “ These brand-new Hoovervilles, built of corrugated iron and salvaged brick, had risen suddenly in every major American city and struck many as a warning of a civilisation dividing into alternate landscapes; as if competing visions of penury and plenty were being processed over one another, and the figures in the foreground were no longer sure to which their lives belonged or to which they now were heading. ” (p. 3)

[54] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “But many Americans no longer owned a radio to hear their President’s calm words of reassurance. Such luxuries had long since been traded in for cash, along with the rest of their possessions. Thousands more had already left, choosing to chance their luck else- where and take a gamble on reports they read in newspapers of how Soviet Russia alone still had economic growth and jobs, and was planning a society that placed working men at its very centre, no longer merely the peripheral casualties of other men’s greed. Searching for alternatives, for avenues of escape, they studied the glowing accounts of new factories being built in Russia surrounded by trees and flowers, with cafeterias and libraries for their workers, nurseries for the children — and even swimming pools, for crying out loud! At that moment, American curiosity to learn about the Soviet experiment was all-consuming. An English translation of New Russia’s Primer: The Story of the Five-Year Plan had become the unlikely publishing phenomenon of 1931, an American bestseller for seven months and one of the highest selling non-fiction titles of the past decade.° Its simple explanations, written originally for Russian school-children, were read and reread by an American public searching for answers beyond the deadened reach of another decade of ‘rugged individualism’. ” (p. 5)

[55] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “For the first time in her short history more people were leaving the United States than were arriving. And as the cutting edge of poverty sharpened their determination, the desire to join this forgotten exodus turned, as the saying goes, from a trickle to a flood. In the first eight months of 1931 alone, Amtorg — the Soviet trade agency based in New York — received more than one hundred thousand American applications for emigration to the USSR. Such was the overwhelming response to their newspaper advertisements publicising just six thousand jobs for skilled workers in Russia.’ At the Amtorg offices in Manhattan, crowds of workers jammed the corridors with their wives, children and pets, pleading for a passage out to this ‘promised land’. Ten thousand optimistic Americans were hired that year, part of the official ‘organized emigration’ who received their good news with a glee closer to that of lottery winners than economic migrants.” (p. 6)

[56] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “On 11 October 1931, George Bernard Shaw returned from Russia to broadcast a persuasive lecture on American national radio. Using the power of mass communication, the world’s self-styled “most successful playwright since Shakespeare’ was only too delighted to share his thoughts on the Soviet experiment and demolish the myths that surrounded the world’s first socialist state: Naturally the contempt of the Russians for us is enormous. You fools, they are saying to us, why can you not do as we are doing? You cannot employ nor feed your people: well send them to us, and if they are worth their salt we will employ and feed them… They took command of the Soviets, and established the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics exactly as Washington and Jefferson and Hamilton and Franklin and Tom Paine had established the United States of America 141 years before ... that Jefferson is Lenin, that Franklin is Litvinov, that Paine is Lunacharsky, that Hamilton is Stalin ... Today there is a statue of Washington in Leningrad; and tomorrow there will no doubt be a statue of Lenin in New York. And now perhaps you would like to know what was my reaction to Russia when I visited it? ... Well, my first impression was that Russia is full of Americans. My second was that every intelligent Russian has been in America and didn’t like it because he had no freedom there. And now let me give you a few travelling tips in case you should join the American rush to visit Russia and see for yourself whether it is all real. If you are a skilled workman, especially in machine industry, and are of suitable age and good character . . . you will not have much difficulty; they will be only too glad to have you: proletarians of all lands are welcome if they can pull their weight in the Russian boat ... there is hope everywhere in Russia because these evils are retreating there before the spread of Communism as steadily as they are advancing upon us before the last desperate struggle of our bankrupt Capitalism to stave off its inevitable doom. You will not go to Russia to smell out the evils you can see without leaving your own doorstep. Some of you will go because in the great financial storm that has burst on us your own ship is sinking and the Russian ship is the only big one that is not rolling heavily and tapping out SOS on its wireless.!” (p. 10-11)

[57] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “Every day between twenty and a hundred and fifty new American arrivals stepped down on to the platform of Moscow’s Belorussky station. In early November 1931, the Washington Post reported the arrival of groups of miners from coal pits in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Illinois, and the metal shafts of Michigan, Utah and Montana. Steelworkers travelled from the shut-down mills in Pittsburgh and Gary to work alongside American carpenters, brick-layers, machinists and railroad men.? And no one could predict who might turn up next. There could be forty more miners with their wives and children from Pennsylvania, or eighteen Swedish-Americans from a Pacific coast lumber camp, or a couple of plumbers from Peru, Indiana, or a party of fourteen shoemakers from Los Angeles. As soon as the Americans left the train station they made their way down to the Intourist offices on Theatre Square to demand work — often to the astonishment of the Russian officials concerned. ‘Barbers! We've got plenty!’” (p. 12)

[58] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “Many had travelled completely of their own devices — they were neither qualified mechanics nor skilled workers on Amtorg contracts — and the Soviet government was completely unprepared for this sudden influx of tourists planning to stay and work, as in some latter-day Klondike rush to the land of zero unemployment. Soon an official edict was issued that in the future all tourists must carry a roundtrip ticket and would no longer be handed jobs because there was simply not enough space to house them all. Moscow and all the major Russian cities were already horrendously overcrowded. The Russians had to fight for a few square metres of living space, huddled together in single rooms shared by two or three families. The discomforts, they were told, were temporary. When the new socialist cities were built, there would be space enough for everyone. In the meantime they would have to make do.” (p. 14)

[59] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “Meanwhile, the newspaper offices on Strastnoi Boulevard served as a social centre for the Americans. They organised Russian courses for the new arrivals, and English-language programmes on Soviet radio, as well as educational excursions, boat trips and, of course, a little music and dancing. On the evening of 21 October 1931 the Moscow News celebrated its first birthday with a party for three hundred guests crowded into the Foreign Workers’ Club on Hertzen Street. Amid the usual speeches and high-flown rhetoric, the occasion was lent a touch of Bolshevik celebrity by a statement read out from Nikolai Bukharin. The diminutive revolutionary, who had once been one of Lenin’s closest friends, welcomed the Americans to the USSR: ‘To build up a new world is the highest joy for man. We greet everyone who is unafraid of difficulties and assists the Soviet Union!’ And then, after midnight, a jazz band struck up and the guests danced away until the early hours. Did Bukharin stay for the American jazz? It was hard to resist the notion of Lenin’s ideologue — the author of The ABC of Communism — skipping his dainty feet to the rhythm of saxophone and drums.’ Two weeks later, on 7 November 1931, one million Russians marched through Red Square for the fourteenth anniversary of the Revolution. Lost in this tide of humanity, the sixty staffers of the Moscow News joined a party of American auto workers who had recently found jobs at the assembly plant in Moscow. The children marched in front of their fathers, shouting ‘Long live the American Pioneer Groups!’ as they held up their banners in English, the Roman lettering strangely anomalous amid the long red streamers and bold Cyrillic propaganda slogans proclaiming the dawn of the Marxist-Leninist age.'? Six months later, the Americans marched again for the May Day parade of 1932, those who did not yet under- stand Russian clustered around the ones who could translate and cheering their approval in English. ‘Language did not matter. We were united by bonds closer than those of speech,’ one of the marchers told a reporter. When the crowd passed into Red Square, the tall figure of the writer Maxim Gorky waved his hat and they cheered again.” (p. 14-15)

[60] Tzouliadis, T. (2009). The forsaken: From the Great Depression to the gulags: Hope and betrayal in Stalin's Russia. Union Books. “They played baseball almost as soon as they arrived. When the Moscow weather was fine enough, the young Americans formed their own teams and sprinted around the bases in Gorky Park on their free days and evenings through the short Russian summers — as though they craved to keep at least one strand of the familiar in their creation of this brave new world. There were at least two American teams playing in Moscow that year. The Foreign Workers’ Club competed against a team from the Stalin Auto Plant, the auto workers taking a break from the assembly line to run the bases while curious Russians turned out to watch the sudden appearance of this strange new sport and their lively practice sessions in the park. In May 1932, the Foreign Workers’ Club made an announcement in the pages of the Moscow Daily News (the newspaper was, by now, a daily title) that they were moving their whole summer programme to the park: ‘Baseball players who have suits, gloves, and other baseball paraphernalia are requested to bring same to the club, as these things have never been made here.’ All summer long, the young Americans sauntered down to the park every other evening to play baseball. And as their shadows lengthened in the evening light, the numbers of Russian spectators grew ever larger, all striving to get a little closer to the action. The sight of the Americans sliding into bases and the dust flying over their bodies must only have added to the excitement. ‘Niet out! Niet! Niet!’ Some of the Russian spectators took to crowding around the bases, in spite of warnings that they might be hurt by bat or ball. Warnings which, we may assume, were met with friendly shrugs and smiles. ‘Nichevo’ — ‘It doesn’t matter’ — and the game continued. In the summer of 1932, the Soviet Supreme Council of Physical Culture announced its decision to introduce baseball to the Soviet Union as a ‘national sport’, part of a programme to foster athletic competitions in which the citizens of the first socialist state might effortlessly excel. The Supreme Council admitted they had studied the feasibility of adopting American football as well as baseball in Russia but, upon careful consideration, football had been rejected as ‘too rough’.  Baseball, on the other hand, had a much gentler appeal. The American Foreign Workers’ Club soon began coaching a team of young Russians at Moscow’s Tomsky Stadium. A sports reporter from the Moscow Daily News was dispatched to cover their first game, and wrote that the Russians could ‘slam the ball all over the park’ and throw just as well as the Americans, but ‘catching the ball was their weakness’. The Russian players were also let down by not fully understanding the rules for stealing bases, evidently even a little indignant that such a plainly capitalistic aberration of ‘Americanski beisbol’ should ever be allowed in the USSR.” (p. 15-16)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  numbering break, same section  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [1] 

[97] Bytwerk, R. L. (2001). Wer die Deutsche Demokratische Republik verläßt, stellt sich auf die Seite der Kriegstreiber. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “The powers that be in Bonn do not like that at all. — Why not? They represent the interests of the big banks, the corporations, and landowners who have both economic and political power in their hands. They represent the war interests. They dream of it, and with the help of NATO and the Treaty of Paris work to extend their power to the territory of the GDR to hinder the further progress of the GDR’s material and cultural development. One of the methods of this cold war is to recruit and organize flight from the GDR.”

[98] Bytwerk, R. L. (2001). Wer die Deutsche Demokratische Republik verläßt, stellt sich auf die Seite der Kriegstreiber. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “There can be only one answer. — Both from the moral standpoint as well as in terms of the interests of the whole German nation, leaving the GDR is an act of political and moral backwardness and depravity. Those who let themselves be recruited objectively serve West German Reaction and militarism, whether they know it or not. Is it not despicable when for the sake of a few alluring job offers or other false promises about a “guaranteed future” one leaves a country in which the seed for a new and more beautiful life is sprouting, and is already showing the first fruits, for the place that favors a new war and destruction? Is it not an act of political depravity when citizens, whether young people, workers, or members of the intelligentsia, leave and betray what our people have created through common labor in our republic to offer themselves to the American or British secret services or work for the West German factory owners, Junkers, or militarists? Does not leaving the land of progress for the morass of an historically outdated social order demonstrate political backwardness and blindness?”

[99] Bytwerk, R. L. (2001). Wer die Deutsche Demokratische Republik verläßt, stellt sich auf die Seite der Kriegstreiber. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “We who live in and near Berlin know a particular kind of recruitment. — That is the recruitment of citizens who live here and work in West Berlin. It is time to speak openly about that.”

[100] Bytwerk, R. L. (2001). Wer die Deutsche Demokratische Republik verläßt, stellt sich auf die Seite der Kriegstreiber. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “The government of West Berlin, on the other hand, marches under the flag of the so-called “social coalition” along with the powers that be in Bonn. It serves the same rulers and the same goals. Citizens of the GDR who join their ranks help the rich to become richer and the poorer poorer. They go the way of exploitation, of tears and sorrow, the path to a new war and catastrophe. There is nonetheless a part of our population that thinks it can ignore all the warnings, even historical realities. There are people who, given the division of Berlin and the resulting currency swindles, seek material advantages. They speculate with the so-called “favorable conditions.” Take, for example, construction workers. During the building season they go to West Berlin to work. They work as cheap laborers or strike breakers, stabbing those fighting for a better life in the back, as the recent janitors’ strike shows. In the fall and winter, they work in our factories again, since by us it is possible to be a construction worker throughout the year. They get their vacation here and enjoy the social and cultural benefits of socialism, then return to work in West Berlin when convenient.”

[101] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “As the morning dawned, the border was sealed. As Sunday came, the government’s measures were completed. The morning newspapers reported: “The governments of the Warsaw Pact states call upon the Volkskammer and the government of the GDR, and all workers of the German Democratic Republic, to establish order along the border with West Berlin, in order to prevent subversive activity against the nations of the socialist bloc, and to establish effective control of the entire border with West Berlin, including its border with democratic Berlin.””

[102] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “Our Council of Ministers therefore decided: “To prevent enemy activity by the Revanchist and militarist forces of West Germany and West Berlin, controls will be established along the borders of the German Democratic Republic, including the border to the Western sectors of Greater Berlin, as is customary for sovereign states. Reliable supervision and effective controls are to be established along the West Berlin border to prevent subversive activity. The border may be crossed only by citizens of the German Democratic Republic with special permission. Until West Berlin is transformed into a demilitarized and neutral free city, citizens of the capital of the German Democratic Republic may cross the border to West Berlin only with a special document. Peaceful visitors from West Berlin may visit the capital of the German Democratic Republic (democratic Berlin) by presenting their West Berlin identity card. Revanchist politicians and agents of West German militarism are prohibited from entering the capital of the GDR (democratic Berlin). The previous regulations continue to apply to citizens of the West German Federal Republic who wish to visit democratic Berlin. Travel by citizens of other states to the capital of the German Democratic Republic are not affected by these regulations.””

[103] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “Who implemented these measures? Those in whose interest they were: Men of the people. Never was that as clear as on 13 August 1961. Reactionary forces could never do what we did as a matter of course. We armed our citizens. And everywhere, next to the green uniforms of the police and the gray of the People’s Army was the simple clothing of the fighters, making it clear who is the master of this house — and who has the greater power in this Germany.”

[104] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “We had difficult days as we worked to defuse the atomic bomb of West Berlin. Particularly in the first two days, the opponent attempted provocations in his blind rage, called for strikes, and attempted by force to keep open the border he himself had drawn. Burglars do not like locked doors. But the border, once closed, remained closed, no one went on strike, and the provocations were cut off as soon as they started.”

[105] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. ”The shares of West Berlin armaments companies fell on every stock exchange. The exchange rate [between the East and West Germanmarks], always unreal, took a dive, since the money exchange owners were stuck with their supply of “East marks.”The writer Bruno Apitz, visiting our units at the Brandenburg Gate, accurately said: “The exchange rate is now 1:0.””

[106] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “Visitors from West Berlin, border inspections demonstrated, were smuggling in money. The inspections were intensified, covering nearly everyone. The main smuggled good was West German marks, in part from outstanding wages due to border crossers, sometimes being exchanged at a rate of 1:20, used to buy illegal jewelry, furs, and other valuable goods from us. Cigarettes were also smuggled. All sorts of ways of concealment were used: diapers, hip supporters, collars, shoe soles, sealed cigarette packages, etc. During the week after 13 August, customs seized 106,216.70 West German marks and 12,000 Western cigarettes.”

[107] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. “Harry Pietzner, SW 61, Ritterstraße 124, taped 120 marks to his son’s back. He was fined 300 Western marks. Ilse Leutscher, SO 36, Lausitzer Straße 25, carried 100 West German marks over the border, the remaining salary for her brother Günter. She was fined 75 West German marks. Otto Lehmann from Köpenick, Jarnitzkystraße 11, wanted to bring 1700 West German marks that he had earned from his bordercrossing job with the Western Senate, across the border. He did not register with us, and was convicted by a court. A number of persons had coded letters and codes taken from them. For these and other reasons, West Berliners after 22 August had to apply for a visitor’s permit. The moving vans of West Berlin were booked by the rich into next year; the rats were deserting the sinking pirate ship.”

[108] Bytwerk, R. L. (2009). Da schlug's 13. German Propaganda Archive. https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/. ”During this period, units of the fighting groups finished securing the borders. They built a wall through Berlin that kept all enemies from entering. The readiness of the fighting groups and other armed forces was enough to keep back all provocations.”

[109] Bytwerk, R. L. (2024, March 21). Securing peace through the protective measures of the GDR on 13 August 1961. German Propaganda Archive. “Despite the numerous efforts of the GDR to reach an understanding in Germany and ignoring the growing demands of the international public for lessing tensions and disarmament, the West German militarists continued their war preparations, particularly after fall 1960. Everything indicated that they intended to implement their plans for a violent overthrow of the GDR. Provocations on the state border of the GDR increased, caused by or supported by the whole forces of the [West German] Federal Border Protection Agency. In a think piece published in August 1960, the leadership of the Bundeswehr called for control over atomic and rocket weapons. At the same time, the ruling circles of West Germany strengthened their efforts to disrupt the planned economic growth in the GDR. The federal government called for a boycott of the Leipzig fall fair and canceled without reason on 30 September 1960 the agreement on trade between the two German states that had existed since 1951. The activity of revanchist organizations in West Germany increased greatly.”

[110] Bytwerk, R. L. (2024, March 21). Securing peace through the protective measures of the GDR on 13 August 1961. German Propaganda Archive. “During the spring and summer of 1961, the West German militarist plans for a forceful conquest of the GDR took on ever more threatening forms. They increased their efforts to undermine the GDR. They worked to organize provocations in the GDR to provide a pretext for intervention by the Bundeswehr. Proof of systematic preparations for an attack on the GDR 7-9 July1961: The 5th general meeting of the Bundeswehr in Stuttgart decided to ensure the full war readiness of the 18 West German NATO divisions by fall 1961. 13 June 1961: The American magazine “News Week“ revealed the six-point plan of the USA war ministry for cooperation by American forces in an attack on the GDR. 24 June 1961: The paper of then war minister and CDU chair Strauß, the Münchner Merkur, called for preparing an “explosion” in the GDR. That would require “corresponding political, economic, propagandistic, as well as organizational and subversive preparations by the West.” 6 July 1961: The “Research Council” of the Bonn spy agency published plans for a “revision on property conditions” in the GDR that above all would turn over publicly-owned companies to large [West German] concerns. 28 July 1961: Bonn Bishop Lilje on television called on the “brothers in the East” to keep their weapons handy and to prepare for armed acts of resistance. 1 August 1961: Strauß said during a visit to the USA that the West must be “prepared for a kind of civil war.” At the same time, Bonn’s propaganda attempted to spread the idea that there was a “crisis” in the GDR and that the population was waiting “to be freed.” 7 August 1961: Arson in the VEB Großberliner Vieh- und Schlachthöfe. 8 August 1961: Maneuvers by the West German navy in the Baltic. 9 August 1961: The West German War Ministry calls up 20,000 reservists and plans to bring all divisions up to war readiness. 11 August 1961: Incendiary devices ignited at the Humboldt University in Berlin”

[111] Bytwerk, R. L. (2024, March 21). Securing peace through the protective measures of the GDR on 13 August 1961. German Propaganda Archive. “In this situation, the DDR once again appealed to the Federal Government. On 6 July 1961 the Volkskammer approved a “German Peace Plan,” a comprehensive plan to secure peace and promote understanding between the two German states. Misunderstanding the balance of power in Germany, the West German militarists rejected this proposal.”

[112] Bytwerk, R. L. (2024, March 21). Securing peace through the protective measures of the GDR on 13 August 1961. German Propaganda Archive. “Early on the morning of 13 August 1961, armed units of the GDR together with fighting groups of Berlin workers placed the border to West Berlin under firm control. That ended the reckless imperialist provocations. Before the planned aggression by West German militarists could even begin, it was shattered. This decisive action by the GDR rescued peace in Germany and the world, since a military confrontation in the heart of Europe could easily have led to atomic war. 13 August 1961 reveled the bankruptcy of the “German policy” of the ruling circles of West Germany. All imperialist attempts to undermine the socialist order in the GDR faced barriers that could not be overcome. The real balance of power in Germany was clear. The GDR thus made an important contribution that was necessary for a normalization of relations between the two German states.”

[113] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “Only one thing is not normal at all: that a hostile, undermining policy and disruptive acts have for years been carried on from the western part of this city against the surrounding state territory. West Berlin Mayor Willi Brandt called West Berlin a “thorn in the side of the GDR.” Would you like to have a thorn in your side? We don’t either! But Brandt even proclaims quite frankly: “We want to be the disturber of the peace.””

[114] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “2nd CONSIDERATION. Did the wall fall out of the sky? No. It was the result of developments of many years standing in West Germany and West Berlin. Let us recall preceding events: In 1948 a separate currency reform was introduced in West Germany and West Berlin - the West German reactionaries thereby split Germany and even west Berlin in to two currency areas. The West German separatist state was founded in 1949 - Bonn thereby turned the zonal border into a state frontier. In 1954 West Germany was included in NATO - Bonn thereby converted the state frontier into the front-line between two pact systems. The decision on the atomic armament of the West German Bundeswehr was made in 1958 - thus, Bonn continues to aggravate the situation in Germany and Berlin. Repeatedly the annexation of the GDR is proclaimed as the official aim of Bonn policy, most recently in a statement of the Adenauer Christian Democratic Union (CDU), on 11 July 1961. Thus did the anti-national, aggressive NATO policy create the wall which today separates the two German states and also goes through the middle of Berlin. The Bonn government and the West Berlin Senate have systematically converted West Berlin into a centre of provocation from where 90 espionage organizations, the RIAS American broadcasting station in West Berlin (Radio in American Sector) and revanchist associations organize acts of sabotage against the GDR and the other socialist countries. Through our protective measures of 13 August 1961 we have only safeguarded and strengthened that frontier which was already drawn years ago and made into a dangerous front-line by the people in Bonn and West Berlin. How high and how strongly fortified a frontier must be, depends, as is common knowledge, on the kind of relations existing between the states of each side of the frontier.”

[115] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “3rd CONSIDERATION. Did the wall have to come? Yes and no. We have submitted more than one hundred proposals for understanding, on the renunciation of atomic armament, and on the withdrawal of the two German states from NATO or the Warsaw Treaty. If things had gone according to our proposals the situation in Germany would not have been aggravated and, consequently, there would have been no wall. Especially since 1958 the GDR and the Soviet Union have repeatedly told the West Berlin Senate, the Bonn government, and the western powers: Be reasonable! Let us eliminate the abnormal situation in West Berlin together. Let us start negotiations. Why did Bonn and West Berlin reject these proposals? Why did they, instead, step up agitation to an unprecedented degree before 13 August? - The wall had to come because they were bringing about the danger of a conflict. Those who do not want to hear, must feel.”

[116] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “4th CONSIDERATION. What did the wall prevent? We no longer wanted to stand by passively and see how doctors, engineers, and skilled workers were induced by refined methods unworthy of the dignity of man to give up their secure existence in the GDR and work in West Germany or West Berlin. These and other manipulations cost the GDR annual losses amounting to 3.5 thousand million marks. But we prevented something much more important with the wall - West Berlin’s becoming the starting point for a military conflict. The measures we introduced in 13 August in conjunction with the Warsaw Treaty states have cooled off a number of hotheads in Bonn and West Berlin. For the first time in German history the match which was to set fire to another war was extinguished before it had fulfilled its purpose.”

[117] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “6th CONSIDERATION. Who is walled in? According to the exceedingly intelligent explanations of the West Berlin Senate we have walled ourselves in and are living in a concentration camp. But in that case why are the gentlemen so excited? Obviously, because in reality their espionage centres, their revanchist radio stations, their fascist solders’ associations, their youth poisoners, and their currency racketeers have been walled in.  They are excited because we have erected the wall as an antifascist,  protective wall against them.Does something not occur to you? West Berlin Mayor Brandt wails that half of the GDR, including the workers in the enterprise militia groups, is armed. What do you think of a concentration camp whose inmates have weapons in their hands?”

[118] Bytwerk, R. L. (1962). What you should know about the wall. German Propaganda Archive. “10th CONSIDERATION. Is the wall a gymnastic apparatus? The wall is the state frontier of the German Democratic Republic. The state frontier of a sovereign state must be respected. That is so the world over. He who does not treat it with respect can not complain if he comes to harm. West German and West Berlin politicians demand that “the wall be removed.” We are not particularly fond of walls, either. But please consider where the actual wall runs in Germany, the wall which must be pulled down in your and our interest. It is the wall which was erected because of the fateful Bonn NATO policy. On the stones of this wall stand atomic armament, entry into NATO, revanchist demands, anti-communist incitement, non recognition of the GDR, rejection of negotiations, the front-line city of West Berlin. So, make your contribution to the pulling down of this wall by advocating a reasonable policy of military neutrality, peaceful co-existence, normal relations between the two German states, the conclusion of a peace treaty with Germany, a demilitarized Free City of West Berlin. That is the only way to improve the situation in Berlin, to safeguard peace, a way which can, one day also lead to the reunification of Germany. The wall says to the war-mongers: He who lives on an island should not make an enemy of the ocean”

[119] Berlin.de. (n.d.). The Wall in numbers. https://www.berlin.de/mauer/en/history/construction-of-the-berlin-wall/the-wall-in-numbers/. “Total length of the border to West Berlin: 155 km. Inner-city border between East and West Berlin: 43 km. Border between West Berlin and the GDR (“outer ring”): 112 km. Border crossings between East and West Berlin (roads/railway): 8. Border crossings between the GDR and West Berlin (roads/railway): 6. Observation towers: 302. Bunkers: 20. Dog runs: 259. Anti-vehicle trenches: 105.5 km. Contact or signal fences: 127.5 km. Border patrol roads: 124.3 km. (As of 31 July 1989, Source: Lapp/Ritter, Die Grenze, 1997). Contact: Governing Mayor of Berlin – Senate Chancellery, Jüdenstr. 1, 10178 Berlin, Tel.: +49 30 9026-2435, Fax: +49 30 9026-2285.”

[120] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The GDR was created, almost as a historical accident, in October 1949, out of the former Soviet zone of occupation in Germany. It came about as a response to the introduction of a separate currency in the Western sectors in the summer of 1949, followed by the go-it-alone creation of the Federal

Republic in September of that same year. It is another one of those ‘forgotten’ historical facts that it was the Western allies’ surprise introduction of a new currency in the three zones occupied by the Western allies and West Berlin which led the Soviet Union to close transit routes to West Berlin (an island within the centre of the Soviet zone), because the now superfluous old currency would have undermined the economic stability of the East. It was this unilateral action that led directly to the Soviet blockade and the resultant Berlin Airlift.” (p. 12)

[121] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “Even after it came about, the Soviet Union saw the creation of the GDR as a temporary measure with eventual re-unification still the logical outcome. It actually put forward proposals for unification in 1952 but received a hefty ‘no’ for an answer from the West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. He was an adamant opponent of unification under any circumstances other than under a capitalist system. He famously said that he would ‘rather have half of Germany completely than a whole Germany only halfway’. who said in 1954: ‘The best way to regain the German East is rearmament’. And secretly West Germany was re-armed with the help of the USA. The Soviet zone of occupation was only a third of German territory, and it was this third that eventually became the GDR. Both that emerging state as well as the policies it pursued were determined by a special combination of circumstances. Throughout that period, its policies could not be separated from those of its ‘protector’ the USSR; and the fact that it was geographically situated on the front line of the Cold War, also

very much determined the course of its history.” (p. 13)

[122] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “This background and the way prominent personalities rose to power in the divided post-war Germany demonstrate that while in the East a genuine de-nazification process did take place, in the West it was desultory to begin with and later non-existent: many leading Nazis merely donned the new ‘democratic’ clothing and continued to occupy or re-occupy influential positions. Apart from the handful of top Nazis convicted at the Nuremburg trials, very few were called to account for their roles during the Nazi period. In fact, in the early post-war period the USA put a stop to any further attempts to bring Nazis to trial because it was determined to focus on its anti-communist crusade. It was felt that a continued pursuance of Nazis

would hinder that aim and alienate its vital German ally.” (p. 19-20)

[123] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The young GDR had been very dependent on its traditional trading links with western Germany and on supply and export contracts. Such links were made increasingly difficult, with western firms coming under political pressure to sever trading relations; contracts were suddenly and arbitrarily terminated in attempts to disrupt manufacturing recovery in the GDR.The GDR had no raw materials apart from lignite, potash and uranium, so was reliant on imports. Without raw materials an establishment of a manufacturing industry and economic development was impossible. The Federal Republic instituted a steel export embargo in 1950 and a complete ban on intra-German trade in 1951, including anthracite coal upon which the GDR was reliant. These were only some of the methods of chicanery used to prevent GDR development.” (p. 23-24)

[124] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The GDR also carried out a complete re-organisation of the learning process and curricula to overcome decades of privileged access by an elite to education and entrenched class and gender discrimination as well as the old urban-rural divide. This was also essential to rid the educational system of the old racist and supremacist nationalism. A fully comprehensive school system was introduced with a national curriculum. This meant that school students everywhere studied the same courses and were taught to the same standards. For parents there was no soul-searching about choosing schools – you knew that your local school, whether an inner-city or rural one, would be working to the same standards. The old grammar school (Gymnasium) system, which favoured largely wealthy and middle-class families, giving them a privileged access route to university and the professions, was abolished. There were no private schools – all children went to state schools. At under 30 pupils, classes in both primary and secondary schools were also smaller than in many other countries.” (p. 43)

[125] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The vast majority of children completed ten years of schooling and finished with a certificate of education (equivalent to GCSEs in Britain) to prove that they had completed their basic education and had reached a set standard. Those intending to go on to higher education, completed two more years and took their Abitur (A-level equivalent), which was the necessary entrance qualification for college or university. By the end of the 1980s, 95 per cent of all pupils were in schools that would provide them with a completed ten-year school-leaving certificate. Every pupil who left school, if they did not go on to higher education, would be offered apprenticeship training. There was a widespread system of vocational training schools in which students could study and learn a trade during a three-year course. A mere five per cent left school after only eight years schooling, but even they would proceed to a technical college for a three-year training, usually in a technical career or in social services and nursing. If young people did not achieve the academic qualifications they would later need, adult and further education were readily accessible at every stage of their working lives. Thus, young people could continue career training and at the same time study for their A-levels. The GDR system of continued access to further education was innovative and helped overcome educational discrepancies or personal setbacks. All workers had the opportunity of continuing their education throughout their working lives, and workplaces were obliged to support this. Many industrial and agricultural workers, whose schooling had begun pre-war and who had had no opportunity to study, now had the chance to make up for it. Special ‘Worker and Farmer Faculties’ were established in the 1950s to provide access courses for those without basic educational qualifications, who wished to go on to higher education. These operated until 1963, when it was considered that they were no longer needed because

all generations by then had been fully integrated into the education system.” (p. 44)

[126] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “School books were either free or heavily subsidised and available at affordable prices. In an attempt to redress the decades of discrimination towards working class and farm workers’ children, a form of positive discrimination was introduced for university entrance to overcome this (comparable, perhaps, with the attempt in the USA to actively promote blacks).” (p. 45)

[127] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “All university students were awarded grants, which were minimal but enough to survive on, especially since student accommodation was heavily subsidised (a room in a student hostel cost the equivalent of about £3 a month). Students could obtain additional grants if they achieved good end-of-year results. This was a stimulus for students to take their studies seriously. Apprentices received payments and, since the early 1980s, even A-level students received a small maintenance allowance to give them more independence. The egalitarianism of the school system meant that children from all different backgrounds mixed and made friends; there were no feelings of class difference, of material deprivation or of exclusion. This led to a much more relaxed and happier society, devoid of the tensions that can be caused by class and large wealth differentials as in western societies. Despite the fact that the educational system in the GDR was widely praised and recognised as one of the best in the world, after unification it was abolished, and the discriminatory three-tier secondary school system of the Federal Republic imposed – with consequences for those children who now found themselves streamed off into different types of school at a young age.” (p. 46)

[128] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “This system not only gave young people a true sense of what working life was all about, but showed them how the necessities of life are produced and, meeting and working alongside manual workers, they developed a respect for them and the contribution they make to society. This kind of education placed emphasis on a broad general knowledge, including mathematics, science, economics and the arts as well as the essential element of linking theory with practice, i.e. links were developed between school and the world of work. It also forged stronger social links between schools and workplaces, between workers and students as well as teachers, which were often extended into the social and cultural spheres. This system was only possible because all larger companies were state-owned and even farms were either co-operatives or state-owned, so they were obliged to co-operate in making the process work. The successful introduction of polytechnical education as a stand-alone subject that included theoretical principles, economic implications, as well as the practical teaching of manual work was unique to the GDR educational system. It was actually much admired among a number of pedagogues in the West, but never introduced there – and since unification it has been abolished in that form, although secondary school students do have to complete 3-weeks of work experience in a business or factory at age 14.” (p. 48)

[129] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “It is not easy to make a conclusive statistical comparison between the GDR economy and those of the capitalist countries because the basis on which statistics were collected in the socialist countries and the methods of financial accounting were often very different from those in the West. However, the GDR’s ranking as one of the world’s leading industrial nations and second amongst the Comecon countries was widely accepted. Although the GDR’s economy was a success, compared with most other medium-sized countries, it did suffer from acute shortages and log-jams in a number of areas. By the late 1980s, the income of the population had grown, partly due to the consistently low (subsidised) prices for everyday goods, and there was an increasing demand for higher value consumer products that were either scarce or not at all available. This led to growing dissatisfaction and criticism.” (p. 58)

[130] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “Anchored in the constitution of the GDR was the right to healthcare. In this respect, the system was not dissimilar to the one in Britain. It was free at the point of use, and this included dentistry and ophthalmology. All medication on prescription was also free. Victorian-style wards in hospitals were unknown; even older hospitals had smaller wards than in Britain and were not open-plan, each having its own door. In the 1970s, modern hospitals were built with rooms for no more then two or three patients. What was different in the GDR health service was its basic approach. Emphasis was placed on prevention rather than later cure and also on interdisciplinary collaboration. Outpatient treatment involved a much broader conceptual approach than in Britain. By employing a combination of preventative, diagnostic and therapeutic resources linked with rehabilitation and social care, hospital treatment could, in many cases, be avoided. This approach was based in the so-called polyclinic and walk-in clinic system.” (p. 62-63)

[131] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “Very much as a result of large-scale foreign, mainly US, investment in the early post-war period, West Germany soon recovered its pre-war economic eminence; its population was again soon enjoying relatively high standards of living. The GDR, as its poorer neighbour, found itself haemorrhaging qualified workers and professionals through its open border with the West in Berlin. Many were not fleeing communist persecution, but simply voting with their feet for higher salaries and a wider range of consumer goods on offer in the West. And they could all expect to find jobs immediately because, according to the West German constitution, they were not classed as migrants but were deemed to be citizens of the Federal Republic. In other words, and this was unique in the world in terms of inter- state relationships, GDR citizens only needed to enter the Federal Republic to immediately and automatically receive citizenship and state support. They were provided with West German papers and passports, helped to find housing and jobs. The Federal Republic never officially recognised the GDR, so this made it easy and attractive for people to move west. Most were classic economic migrants looking for a better life. Annual emigration increased from an estimated figure of around 143,000 in 1959 to 199,000 in 1960, one year before the Wall was built. The majority of these were white collar and professional workers and 50% were under 25 years of age. In 1960 alone, 688 doctors, 296 dentists and 2,648 engineers went to the West.” (p. 22)

[132] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The labour and brain drain exceeded a total of 2.5 million citizens between 1949 and 1961, when the Wall was built. In addition, the open border in Berlin was a focus of Cold War tensions and on a number of occasions events threatened to take the two military blocks to war. It was also a Mecca for spies and for acts of sabotage against the GDR. There is little doubt, even in the minds of those who were very much opposed to the GDR, that the building of the Wall in August 1961 contributed to reducing tensions. Clearly, though, the GDR’s main reason for building it was to stem the drain of skilled personnel as well as to exercise proper control over its own borders, just like any other state. As a direct result of the Wall being built the economy could be stabilised and made more viable; but at the same time many people, particularly in Berlin, resented the feeling of being cut off from West Germany.” (p. 22-23)

[133] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “One of the greatest sources of bitterness and frustration for GDR citizens was the travel restrictions imposed on its citizens. People were able to travel to Eastern European countries and even, in restricted numbers, to Cuba. It was, though, hardly possible to make private trips to western countries, only if one were on official business. Western media have made much of the stories of individuals escaping or attempting to leave the GDR, sometimes employing quite adventurous means, but what they didn’t mention was that between 1961, when the Wall was built, and 1989, when the Wall came down, more than 429,000 people officially moved to the West, i.e. with permission from the GDR authorities.” (p. 78)

[134] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “There were a number of valid reasons for the GDR’s travel restrictions, not least a shortage of foreign currency, but also the fear of the country losing key professionals who could command far bigger salaries in the West.” (p. 78)

[135] Green, J., & de la Motte, B. (2015). Stasi state or socialist paradise? The German Democratic Republic and what became of it. Artery Publications. “The GDR was home to the Stasi, shortages and the Berlin wall. But it was also a country of full employment, social and women’s equality well ahead of its time, cheap housing, transport and culture, one of the best childcare systems in the world, and greater freedom in the workplace than most employees enjoy in today’s Germany.” (p. 4)

[136] Thackeray, F. W. (Ed.). (2004). Events that changed Germany. Greenwood Press. “In 1949, West Germany was untried, weak, and poor. However, by the onset of the 1973 oil crisis that seriously harmed all western countries. West Germany was stable, strong, and prosperous. Western-style democracy had put down deep roots. West Germany's voice was heard and listened to in European if not global councils, and West Germany provided the economic engine that drove post-World WarII Western Europe's spectacular economic recovery. How did this all come about?” (p. 165)

[137] Thackeray, F. W. (Ed.). (2004). Events that changed Germany. Greenwood Press. “How was West Germany able to sustain its "miraculous" rise to economic power? The answer lies in a combination of internal and external factors. Contrary to the conventional wisdom that holds that new industries were responsible for West Germany's economic explosion, the recovery was fueled by the same sectors where Germany had always been powerful, namely the electrical, chemical, and machinery industries. What is amazing is that these sectors had relatively little difficulty reclaiming their prewar position in the world marketplace, despite being cut off from it by six years of war and three years of stagnation. This dramatic reemergence is a testament to the quality of German products and the skill and workmanship of the German labor force. Another reason the West German economic "miracle" continued for so long was the availability of skilled labor. As the boom period of the 1950s progressed, the demand for industrial labor was satiated by millions of refugees and expellees from East Germany. Many of them, including those who had lost their homes east of the Oder and Neisse rivers due to postwar border rectifications, were highly skilled and educated and therefore easily reincorporated into the social and economic fabric of West German society. West German industry also benefited from the flight of East German citizens until 1961, when the erection of the Berlin Wall ended the westward migration. In fact, the labor shortage caused German employers to offer Yugoslavian and Turkish guest workers jobs in the burgeoning economy, thereby forever changing the ethnic makeup of Germany. This ever-growing and eager labor force had a doubly stimulating effect on the West German economy. It not only helped keep the price of labor at reasonably low levels, but it also handcuffed the ability of unions to strike effectively. These are two critical ingredients in any employer's recipe for success.” (p. 179-180)

Section 5

[61] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 18) “Whether or not one right is more progressive than the other can be determined on the basis of which right advances the forces of production and the living standards of a poor country and which right best serves to advance the other rights of the greater number of people in the country. The application of such criteria enables one to understand the rationale of the imposition of emigration restrictions in many post-revolutionary countries.”

[62] Dowty, A. (1987). Closed borders: The contemporary assault on freedom of movement. Yale University Press. (p. 73-74) “The state's power was further reinforced by Soviet perceptions that the logic of the modern industrial order required hierarchy and organization. Soviet theorists evolved what has been called "the organic labor state," in which the whole of society is regarded primarily as an instrument for production. All citizens are to be judged and rewarded by the amount of "socially useful work" they perform. Simultaneously, the Soviet Union moved to control emigration for both practical and ideological reasons. The mobilization of the organic labor state was not feasible while the door remained open. Given the low standard of living imposed by Stalinist economic planning, allowing massive emigration would have forced the regime to reverse its economic priorities.”

[63] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 400) “The ban on emigration and travel abroad resulted indirectly from Stalin’s economic program of nationalization of business enterprises, collectivization of agriculture, and rapid, centrally planned industrialization”

[64] Dowty, A. (1987). Closed borders: The contemporary assault on freedom of movement. Yale University Press. (p. 147-148) “…the same pressures that propel the drive for unity often force a nation's more talented personnel to consider traveling abroad. The incentives for moving to more advanced lands are obvious. For skilled professionals, in particular, less developed countries lack the working conditions, infrastructure, and professional opportunities available in Europe and North America. Moreover, since many Third-World professionals have acquired their expertise in the West, they are comfortable with the lifestyle and familiar with career opportunities in that part of the world. Furthermore, developed nations give professionals preferential treatment in immigrant admissions.”

[65] National Security Archive. (1989, January 17). Record of main content of conversation between M.S. Gorbachev and H. Kissinger. The George Washington University. “Gorbachev. We only fight against the brain drain. As far as the dissidents are concerned, let them all go to your country.// Kissinger. I always believed that dissidents are very difficult to deal with even for those countries that receive them.”

[66] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 27-28) “From the 1930s to the 1950s the Soviet Union tightly restricted international travel and emigration – for similar reasons to those of most states throughout history – i.e. to conserve economic and military strength and to prevent internal subversion through collusion with external enemies with the potential result of undermining the official ideology. During the 1960s and 1970s, however, as its economic, military and legitimacy situations became stronger, Soviet exit policies became increasingly more liberal. In the 1960s university educated emigres were generally required to pay back to the state the costs of their free higher education. By the 1970s it became relatively easy for Soviet citizens to emigrate – although a number of obstacles continued to exist in order to discourage emigration. The standard procedure for emigration at that time was the payment of 300 roubles fee for an exit visa; additionally, Soviet citizens who wished to emigrate were required to officially renounce their citizenship, including their right to return. Soviet citizens who emigrate to capitalist countries must pay a fee of 500 roubles to officially renounce their citizenship, while those citizens intending to emigrate to a socialist country must pay 50 roubles. The prerequisite of the renunciation of Soviet citizenship stresses the finality and lack of patriotism inherent in the act of emigration and is a deterrent. The total exit fees (approximately US $1,000) charged to those emigrating to the capitalist world is considered to serve both as partial compensation for the social labour invested in the education of the departing citizen, and an impediment to ill-considered emigration.”

[67] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 395) “The migration policies of the former Soviet Union (or USSR) included a virtual abolition of emigration and immigration, an effective ban on private travel abroad, and pervasive bureaucratic controls on internal migration.”

[68] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 400) “Soviet policies on emigration and foreign travel evolved rapidly toward total prohibition. Following their triumph in the Russian Revolution of October 1917 and the subsequent civil war, the Bolsheviks initially permitted the departure abroad of many of their political opponents, judging that hostile elements should be removed from the polity, rather than left to undermine it from within. As a result, an estimated 1.5 to 2 million people emigrated from Bolshevik-controlled territory between 1917 and 1922. The émigrés included political refugees of varying affiliations, from monarchists to moderate socialists, as well as much of the prerevolutionary economic and social elite.”

[69] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 400-401) “The Soviet government sought to control both the presentation of the Soviet Union to outsiders, and the depiction of the outside world to Soviet citizens. Emigration of dissidents was halted in part because Russian émigrés were spreading unfavorable reports about the USSR and lobbying Western governments to adopt anti-Soviet policies. Likewise, even temporary travel abroad allowed Soviet citizens to learn about foreign countries, or to convey news from the USSR to foreign interlocutors. Such information flows were unacceptable to a regime that viewed itself as internationally and domestically embattled, and whose Western neighbors were hostile capitalist states.”

[70 Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 402) “From the 1920s until the end of the Soviet Union, immigration was permitted only in exceptional cases, mainly on the basis of ad hoc political decisions. Unlike capitalist countries in the same period, the USSR did not have fixed national immigration quotas, laws, or goals, and over the seven decades of its existence, it accepted a negligible number of immigrants, primarily through specific agreements negotiated directly between the Kremlin and foreign governments or international organizations. The organized resettlement of ethnic Armenians from outside the Soviet Union to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic (one of the 15 constituent republics that made up the USSR), which was probably the largest wave of immigration to the USSR, illustrates how the Soviet government viewed immigration.”

[71] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 402) “The leaders of the USSR viewed immigration primarily through the lens of geopolitical advantage and security concerns. Here, the contrast with Western states’ limits on immigration is instructive. Of course, early twentieth-century immigration policies in the United States, Canada, Australia, and other major Western receiving countries were overtly racist in character, as in the US exclusion of Asians, and as discussed above, such policies aimed at “regime maintenance””

[72] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 402-403) “Moreover, the Soviet Union was also reluctant to accept even temporary labor immigrants, often called “guest workers.” During the early post–World War II decades. When one considers the long border between the two countries, the miniscule number of ethnically Chinese persons residing in the Soviet Union (approximately 26,000, according to the 1959 census) is especially striking.Soviet Mobility Policies in Comparative Perspective only guest workers from socialist countries were recruited, in extremely small numbers,and they were isolated from the local population as much as possible. Later, as the Soviet Union acquired allies in developing countries such as Cuba and Vietnam, it negotiated agreements with these governments to send guest workers to the USSR. Such agreements provided for compulsory assignment of the guest workers to specific projects in the USSR, their accommodation (often in squalid dormitories), and payment for their labor in hard currency directly to the sending governments. Furthermore, the significance of foreign workers in the Soviet economy remained minor. A 1977 study reported that foreign nationals accounted for only 0.05 percent of all workers employed in the Soviet Union.”

[73] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 407) “Under Khrushchev’s successor, Brezhnev, further steps were taken to moderate the harshness of migration policies. For the first time since the 1920s, the Soviet government began to use expulsion as a means to rid itself of at least some political dissidents, such as the novelist Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who was expelled to the West in 1975.”

[74] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 408) “Indeed, the attempt to distinguish between strictly political and economic motivations for migration controls should not be carried too far. In particular, control of labor in the Soviet Union was not necessarily aimed at extracting more work from the employee at the lowest possible cost to the state. Instead, the goal was primarily to integrate the individual into the Soviet workplace, and ultimately into the Soviet political and social order. Several Soviet policies support this interpretation, notably the difficulty of dismissing employees in Soviet enterprises. Since most adult Soviet citizens were required to have a job at all times, firing a worker was discouraged because it simply passed on the burden of a disruptive or unproductive subordinate to a new employer. In addition, the Soviet practice of providing most social welfare services via workplaces (rather than, e.g., through local governments)…”

[75] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 408) “Finally, under Brezhnev, the regime displayed greater tolerance for social science research, and academic demographers writing in scholarly venues began to offer mild criticisms of migration policy and suggest limited reforms. Despite these changes, however, the major migration control institutions of Soviet policy remained in place, although their function evolved toward the management of resources in a mature planned economy. Buckley has argued that the continuing existence in the post-Stalin period of “closed cities” essentially constituted a form of rationing. Closed cities were attractive to migrants precisely because they featured better social services and consumer goods. Yet, the state set rents on housing in the closed cities that were not significantly higher than elsewhere in the country, so that administrative controls were the only way of preventing people from flooding into major cities. Especially strict restrictions were placed on propiska in Moscow, reflecting the cost to the state of providing superior amenities to Muscovites”

[76] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 409) “What made this system work? Despite Cold War images of the Berlin Wall, physical violence played a relatively limited role in securing compliance with Soviet migration policies, with the partial exception of the external borders of the USSR. In the late 1920s and 1930s, Stalin undertook the full militarization of the country’s western border, including the closing of most border crossings, the delineation of closed frontier zones that citizens were forbidden to enter, and the construction of watchtowers and other fortifications. These installations were staffed by a corps of border troops, who eventually came under the control of the Committee of State Security (the KGB, or secret police). Impressive as these measures may be (and in many respects they foreshadowed later socialist border technologies, such as the East German-West German border), they nonetheless represented the regime’s last line of defense against unauthorized exit, rather than the primary means by which migration control was exercised. Instead, the system relied on a seamless web of repression and inducements administered by numerous agencies, including the monopolization of urban housing by the state, the deployment of internal guest workers with limited residence rights, and the use of informants and other agents of the Soviet police.”

[77] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 410) “Another key instrument in the Soviet policy toolkit was the use of temporary migrant workers, known as limitchiki (from the word “limit,” in the sense of “quota”). When additional workers were needed at an enterprise, the state could recruit such migrants, who received only temporary residence rights at their new location, not a propiska or permanent housing allocation. Although not restricted to Moscow, the use of limitchiki was especially significant there because of the capital’s perennial labor shortage. Between 1971 and 1986, approximately 700,000 limitchiki were admitted to Moscow, where they typically lived in extremely spartan conditions. In contrast to the foreign guest workers recruited in Western countries during the postwar decades (such as Mexican Braceros in the United States, or Turks in Germany), the limitchiki were in effect internal guest workers. They offered the state a supply of labor whose legal (and often physical) separation from other residents allowed their stay in closed cities to be controlled. Although liberal capitalist states in the developed world did not feature such a status for their citizens, as will be discussed in Part IV, internal guest workers were also a feature of Apartheid South Africa. However, unlike black workers in South African cities, limitchiki could sometimes look forward to an improvement in their status. In particular, the state often recruited them by dangling the prospect of permanent resettlement, particularly in Moscow. The process of adjusting one’s status from limitchik to permanent resident of Moscow took at least four years, and the success of the application was not guaranteed. Still, many limitchiki did eventually receive a Moscow propiska, thus contributing to the capital’s unplanned (but legal) permanent population growth”

[78] Dowty, A. (1987). Closed borders: The contemporary assault on freedom of movement. Yale University Press. (p. 74-75) “Behind both practical and ideological concerns was the actual fear that a lowering of barriers would produce a massive outflow of people. Here is how Khrushchev describes the first post-Stalin liberalizations: "We were scared, really scared. We were afraid the thaw might unleash a flood, which we wouldn't be able to control and which could drown us. How could it drown us? It could have overflowed the banks of the Soviet riverbed and formed a tidal wave which would have washed away all the barriers and retaining walls of our society.” Such sentiments may help explain why Soviet authorities go to such great lengths to discredit those who leave, demanding that friends and relatives denounce them and convening mass assemblies to humiliate them publicly. As in a religious rite of purification, it is important to isolate apostasy and delegitimize it. Even fellow-workers who are sympathetic may feel impelled to participate in such ceremonies in order to eliminate all doubts about their loyalty. Furthermore, anyone seized attempting to leave illegally is regarded as not just a deserter, but a traitor. As Izvestiya observed in 1963 regarding the case of an eighteen-year-old boy caught crossing the border, "He betrayed his parents and his comrades. Now he must answer to Soviet justice." Such cases are governed by two different Soviet laws. The first simply makes it an offense to leave without a passport, punishable by one to three years in prison. This is generally applied in cases where the person returns or intends to return, especially if travel has only been to another East-bloc country. If, however, the culprit intended to flee to a capitalist state, or refuses to return from one, he is usually charged with "treason against the nation, that is to say a deliberate act performed by a citizen of the USSR to the detriment of national independence, territorial defence or military power of the USSR." Thus the defendants in the 1970 Leningrad trial, who had planned to hijack an airplane to fly to Sweden, were convicted of treason. The penalties are accordingly Draconian: some of the defendants were initially condemned to death. To remove the temptation of treason, the Soviet government invests heavily in border controls. The relevant statute, running to over six thousand words, includes a lengthy definition of the border, all the rules pertaining to it, and provisions excluding all nonresidents from the border region; penalties for violations are described in unusual detail.”

[79] Dowty, A. (1987). Closed borders: The contemporary assault on freedom of movement. Yale University Press. (p. 76) “In the Soviet view, exit permits are not a right but a concession by the state. In order not to create any expectations, Soviet policy is deliberately ambiguous. There is no law on the subject, only unpublished administrative decisions and guidelines. And concessions are usually granted only to serve foreign policy ends or to get rid of problem cases.”

[80] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 22-23) “From the beginning of the 17th Century all British subjects who wished to leave the Kingdom were required to possess a formal licence issued by the King (a passport). Numerous statutes were enacted during the 16th and 17th Centuries reaffirming the royal prohibition on travel out of the country without such a licence. In the 1620s, the Privy Council adopted a regulation requiring all noblemen who wished to leave the Kingdom to have a licence signed by the King personally, and all persons of non-noble rank to have licences signed by a Royal Secretary of State. Special restrictions on exit were applied to military personnel at all times, and to everyone in times of war. The principle of the state’s right to control exit from England continued without interruption through the Commonwealth period. During the 1650s exit permits were issued by the Protectorate Council; the penalty for overseas travel without such a licence was confinement in the Tower of London. Such licences were granted only ‘to persons of known affection to the State or to such as give good security’. Thus, the fundamental principle of a guarantee of political loyalty and economic commonwealth prevailed whether or not a king ruled. The movement of British clerics was especially closely regulated by the King, in order to prevent them having direct contact with the Vatican. For example, in the 14th Century the King instructed his port officials that no abbots or other religious persons were to be allowed to leave the kingdom.”

[81] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 25) “In general, the period between the 1820s and the 1880s saw the gradual abolition of virtually all restrictions on international travel and emigration throughout the world. Most countries even dropped the formal requirement to secure an exit licence or passport, neither were passports now needed for entry. Indeed, the half century before World War 1 was unique in so far as it was the first time when international travel within and between most countries was relatively unimpeded by politically imposed restrictions on either emigration or immigration. Millions left the commercializing societies and crossed the oceans without requiring either official permission to leave their country or official permission to work and settle in the country of their choice.”

[82] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 25-26) “During the interwar period Germany, Italy, Poland and other European dictatorships restricted emigration of their populations on the grounds that the economic and military strength of their nations depended on keeping their populations at home (or in Italy’s case, at least in her colonies). In the late 1920s Italy enacted legislation making non-approved attempts to leave the country punishable by six months in prison – or two years for attempting to leave for political reasons. Border guards were empowered to fire at anyone attempting to cross the frontier without authorization. As an Italian government official stated ‘Why should Italy still serve as a kind of human fish pond, to feed countries suffering from demographic impoverishment; and why should Italian mothers continue to bear sons to serve as soldiers for other nations?’ In 1936 Poland issued a passport law that made it illegal for a person to leave the country if there was reason to believe that he or she would jeopardize an important interest of the state or endanger security, public peace or order. The 1936 law continued to be applied by the new socialist regime until 1954 when it was liberalized.”

[83] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 26) “The Chinese ban on all emigration was not officially repealed until 1894. The Western imperialist powers, however, forced China to de facto allow its nationals to leave by a series of unequal and humiliating treaties, beginning with the Treaty of Nanking which ended the Opium Wars. The T’sien-tsin Treaty of 1858, signed with Britain, specifically provided for legalization of the recruitment of cheap Chinese labour.”

[84] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 26-27) “The US enforced a similar treaty on the Chinese state in 1868: the Burlingame Treaty, that utilized the rhetoric of ‘inalienable human rights’ for the geographical mobility of individuals to serve the interests of US business in securing cheap labour for West coast railway construction read: The United States of America and the Emperor of China are cordially recognizing the inherent and inalienable right of man to change his home and allegiance, and also the mutual advantage of the free migration and emigration of their citizens and subjects respectively, from one country to the other, for the purpose of curiosity, of trade, or as permanent residents. In view of the fact that Western imperial powers forced China to sanction the recruitment of its nationals as cheap contract labourers (‘coolies’) for their colonies, and to help in the construction of the US, plus the humiliating treatment accorded to these labourers including pogroms, it was not surprising that, in the post-1948 period, China’s new Communist government restored the traditional emigration restrictions as a matter of national pride and to protect its people, as well as to conserve labour power to aid in socialist construction. The emigration policy in Socialist China however, has never been as restrictive as that of the pre-1842 period. Unlike the Ch’ing Empire, the Chinese Socialist state has always allowed its nationals to travel abroad or to emigrate for ‘good reasons’, such as education and the unification of families.”

[85] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 109) “Anti-Russian protest in Lithuania has also taken the form of refusals to speak Russian, defections to the West, a fairly well organized dissident network, petition campaigns, and a riot after a Lithuanian-Russian soccer game in 1977.23 The relatively strong nationalist movement in Lithuania contrasts sharply with the absence of such movements in Soviet Asia.”

[86] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 211) “This present chapter attempts to show that, in fact, there has been no qualitative difference between the civil liberties granted to those who attack the fundamental institutions of US society and the civil liberties granted to those who attack the fundamental institutions of any other society. Whenever dissidence has threatened to promote mass-based assaults on the prevailing property and state system, or the ability of the state to mobilize for external war or intervention, it has been repressed in the US as surely and thoroughly as it has been in the Soviet Union…”

[87] Szymanski, A. (1984). Human rights in the Soviet Union. Zed Books. (p. 240-241) “After 1923 the repression of socialists and communists relaxed since: (1) conditions of economic prosperity returned and (2) the left movement had been fairly effectively destroyed through governmental repression. (The Communist Party, the Socialist Party and the IWW had all been reduced to ghosts of what they had been in the 1917-19 period). The US was neither involved in, nor preparing itself for, any major overseas adventures, and clearly there was no significant threat, or even the potentiality of a threat, from domestic working-class movements. But with the economic collapse of 1929 conditions for the growth of an opposition working-class movement once again returned. With the outbreak of another European war and US involvement increasingly likely, after 1937, the need to mobilize support for US overseas activities grew. Thus, although the restrictions on civil liberties in the 1930-47 period were relatively mild (except for the Japanese Americans), compared to what happened before and after, they were nevertheless considerable. Throughout the 1930s there were examples of the continued application of state criminal syndicalism laws against members of the Communist Party, as well as prosecutions of communists under other legislation, both state and federal. For example, in Oregon in 1930 Ben Boloff, a construction labourer who had migrated from Russia in 1910 (and could speak no English) was arrested in Portland for vagrancy and then rearrested and charged with violating the criminal syndicalism act when a Communist Party card was found in his pocket. Boloff was convicted and sentenced to ten years in prison, a conviction which was upheld in the Oregon Supreme Court (he was, nevertheless, released). At his trial evidence was offered that showed he attended local 240-45 Communist Party meetings where the Red Flag was displayed and literature was available which showed men bearing arms and engaging in violence.”

[88] Light, M. A. (2012). What does it mean to control migration? Soviet mobility policies in comparative perspective. Law & Social Inquiry, 37(2), 395-429. (p. 403-404) “True, immigration (and even emigration) policy in Western countries during the same period was also influenced by foreign policy and ideological considerations. For example, the US government expelled left-wing activists (including both foreign leftists and naturalized US citizens) during the post-World-War-I “Red Scare.” Likewise, Western governments have also practiced selective denial of exit to some regime opponents: under the Internal Security Act of 1950, the US State Department was instructed not to issue passports to members of the Communist Party. Likewise US, refugee policy in the postwar decades was essentially constructed to further Cold War political imperatives and so gave priority to refugees from the USSR and other socialist states.”

[89] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 3) “In fact, the end of Europe's political division led to an unexpected wave of mass migration. Between 1989 and 1993 more than 4 million Europeans left their home countries. Most of them went from the eastern part of Europe to the West. Another 5 million lost their homes on the territory of the former Yugoslavia because of war and ethnic cleansing. Since 1945-1948 in Europe there has not been any migration of comparable size.”

[90] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 6) “Main types of mass migration migration directly related to the results of World War I and the change of borders; migration, displacement and ethnic cleansing directly related to the creation of new nation states; migration related to the recruitment of foreign labour; migration of political and ethno-religious refugees (mainly from the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany).”

[91] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 6-7) “Main types of mass migration migration, displacement and ethnic cleansing directly related to the end of World War II and its consequences; migration related to the decolonisation of Africa, South and Southeast Asia and the Caribbean; post-colonial migration from the former colonies to Western Europe; migration related to the recruitment of foreign labour, and subsequent migration of family members; migration of business elites and wealthy elderly Europeans; migration of victims of war, political refugees and asylum-seekers.”

[92] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 9) “After the foundation of the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG)  and the German Democratic Republic (GDR) in 1949, West Germany also had to deal with mass migration from East Germany. Some 3.8 million Germans crossed the line which gradually became the border between the two German states and gradually part of the Iron Curtain. The construction of the Berlin Wall in August 1961 closed a last loop hole and largely reduced this flow.”

[93] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 11) “The third type of post-war mass migration is closely linked to the second one. Following the remigrating colonial masters, native migrants from South and Southeast Asia, Africa and the Caribbean moved first to Britain, France and the Benelux countries, later also to Italy, Portugal and Spain. The deterioration of living conditions in several Third World countries, ethnic and political conflicts in the newly founded states of Africa, Asia and the Caribbean, but also the growing demand for cheap labour in Europe led to considerable migratory flows.”

[94] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 14-15) “ By the end of the 1950s, some countries began to meet part of their growing demand for cheap labour and unskilled workers by recruiting immigrants from former colonies or the few still existing overseas territories. In other countries this demand has been met by migrant workers from by recruitment in several Mediterranean countries: at first in Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, later in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Turkey, and former Yugoslavia. In most cases the recruitment took place on the basis of bilateral agreements between sending and recruiting countries. In the early 1970s the employment of foreign labour in the countries of Western Europe reached its maximum to that date. In the mid 1970s, Western European governments and employers reacted to the economic recession and the reduced absorption capacity of labour markets following the 1973 oil price shock by halting recruitment of foreign labour and by imposing restrictive immigration regulations on residents of former overseas territories. In some Western European countries - above all in Great Britain and France - the deteriorating economic position of visible immigrant minorities and native underclasses led to social conflicts. In the second half of the 1970s in some countries halted recruitment and restricted immigration led to a reduction in the foreign resident population. In relation to the size of the foreign resident population the largest reduction took place in Switzerland. There, already at the time, a massive anti-foreigner movement gained political momentum. Some of its representatives were elected to parliament, where they exerted political pressure by forcing the holding of national plebiscites on issues that fanned xenophobic sentiments. The reduction in foreign labour was mainly achieved by not extending temporary residence and work permits. Similar measures were taken by Austria, Germany, and Sweden. At the same time other Western European countries, e.g., France, the Benelux and the UK, experienced no major decline in their foreign resident population. While in some cases the return of foreigners was strongly encouraged and rewarded by way of repatriation allowances (e.g., in West Germany), the newly introduced restrictions slowed rather than halted immigration. In many countries family reunion and higher birth rates of the foreign resident population compensated for decreased labour migration. These phenomena led to significant changes in the composition of the foreign population which earlier consisted mainly of males of employable age. Among foreign residents the percentage of women as well as of children and adolescents increased. This entailed more than demographic consequences. By making clear that returning migrants would not be able to get back again restrictive immigration policies slowed down remigration to the sending countries, an unplanned side effect which led to a marked increase of the foreign resident population's average duration of stay, while their labour force participation dropped due to the higher proportion of housewives and children immigrating by way of family reunion and family formation. ”

[95] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 2-3) “Today however, western societies are frightened by the possibility of mass immigration from Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, North Africa and Central Asia. The inflow of poor or persecuted citizens from these and other regions of the world is seen as a threat. The fact that, at least in the past, the countries of destination generally profited economically from the immigrants hardly plays a role in the public debate. Instead, migration has become one of the main topics of Western European domestic and security policy. Scenarios of ethnic or cultural infiltration of West European societies, a dramatic decline of law and order, increasing competition between domestic populations and immigrants for housing and jobs, growing demographic and unsolvable ethnic, religious or political conflicts are discussed.”

[96] Münz, R. (1995). Where did they all come from? Typology and geography of European mass migration in the twentieth century. European Population Conference. (p. 15) “Today the internationalisation of European labour markets has brought more than 20 million people to Western Europe or relocated them within the EU region, Norway and Switzerland, thus creating new underclasses largely excluded from political participation and not well represented by trade unions. In contrast to the United States or Canada, in most European countries foreign migrants are not naturalised and therefore not able to form successful lobbies and ethnic voters blocks”

[138] Associated Press. (2024, September 14). Trump wants to keep ‘communists’ and ‘Marxists’ out of the US. Here’s what the law says. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-immigration-marxists-communists-ban-2024-d9a377149926457d1b8b182293d9c86. ““Those who come to enjoy our country must love our country,” Trump said during a speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s conference in Washington, adding, “We’re going to keep foreign, Christian-hating communists, Marxists and socialists out of America.””

[139] Kellem, L. (2025, May 3). Trump brands his opponents as “communists,” a label loaded with the baggage of American history. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-communist-judges-tariff-china-russia-cae626a3699a5411841f646a847c2c7b. ““We cannot allow a handful of communist radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws,” Trump said Tuesday in Michigan while celebrating his first 100 days in office.”

[140] Kellem, L. (2025, May 3). Trump brands his opponents as “communists,” a label loaded with the baggage of American history. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/trump-communist-judges-tariff-china-russia-cae626a3699a5411841f646a847c2c7b. ““Calling people who advocate for slightly more government involvement ‘communists’ is typical misleading political rhetoric that, unfortunately, works really well with busy voters who do not have a lot of time to think about technical definitions and economic paradigms,” he said in an email. “It is also really helpful (to Trump) because it is inflammatory, making people angry, which can be addictive.””

[141] Kaufman, A. A. (2011, March 10). Testimony before the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission: “China’s narratives regarding national security policy.” CNA. “This “long century” of 110 years opened in 1839, when Britain sent gunboats up the Yangtze River to compel China‟s rulers to open their ports and markets to the opium trade, at the beginning of what came to be known as the First Opium War. This experience, and subsequent interactions with other Western nations that made similar demands for trade access, marked China‟s first sustained exposure to the West, and highlighted imperial China‟s military and diplomatic weakness in the face of Western power. The shock to the Chinese worldview cannot be overestimated. Historically, China had sat comfortably at the center of a ring of tributary relationships with its neighboring countries. Its rulers had limited familiarity with any civilization outside of Asia, and in their few contacts with Westerners had made clear that they expected the same deference from far-away leaders as they did from those on their periphery. Now, in the space of a little over a century, China suffered a long list of political, military, and cultural indignitie…” (p. 2)