Comparing Migrant Workers in Germany with Those Currently in Korea

Korean Minjok Leadership Academy

Table of Contents

Chapter 2.2.4 : December 11th 2008
Bibliography 1st Update : June 11th 2008
Chapter 2.2.1 : June 11th 2008
Working Table of Contents : May 28th 2008
Outline : March 27th 2008
Bibliography : March 27th 2008

December 11th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

(1) Just to prove what you can do if you are kicked. If you would have shown the same effort last semester, the paper would have been long finished. (2) Your references : I can not accept you sneaking in advertising language into references; the text "the Free Encyclopedia" may not be included. Also, in one reference you refer to the Wikipedia once, not twice.
(3) Poles or Polish descendents compose about 3.6%, possibly too much to be counted as a mere minority, though many of them consider themselves as Germans.
As most of the persons fitting to this description arrived in Germany before 1914, and due to human nature married and had children, we might arrive at an equasion that 98.7 percent of the present Germans descend of Germans, 3.6 % of Poles, 2.1 % of Dutchmen, 1.7 % of Czechs, 1.5 % of Americans ... total 156 % (figures made up).
(4) Strictly speaking, Polish migrant workers in Germany came with the 1955 initiation of the recruitment by the German government.
That is disputable. The vast majority of Poles arrived as migrant workers in the time before 1914. They just did not hold Polish passports.
(5) However, it can be safely presumed that the real migration of Polish people to Germany, whether it was forced or voluntary, began before the Treaty of Versailles
If you want to suggest involuntary migration of ethnic Poles into Germany in its present borders outside the periods 1914-1918 and 1939-1945, except for persons expelled from Poland 1945- ?, give evidence. Do not imply or make your reader read between the line what did not happen.
(6) Ruhr, not Rhur.
(7) Also, because of the Treaty of Versailles, which granted Germany of the former East-German provinces, Ostflucht was intensified.
The Treaty of Versailles did not grant any territory to Germany; it coerced Germany into ceding territory. The sentence as you wrote it rather justifies the acquisition of territory by Poland in 1945, territory Poland at the time of the Treaty of Versailles did not even claim yet, because for the most part it had an overwhelmingly ethnic German population.
(8) Those Polish natives were residing in those areas, and although they did not exactly ¡®migrate¡¯ as in ¡°to go from one country, region, or place to another¡±, a large number of Polish technically moved into Germany under the treaty.
For the point of argumentation, let us overlook my statement in (7). In 1918 new borders are drawn and these borders leave some ethnic Poles on the German side of the border. What you overlook is that in 1945 the borders were again redrawn, and now large areas were annexed by Poland, the entire ethnic German population expelled (in 1945-1948, an estimated 13.5 million refugees arrived in West Germany).
You look at Germany in its present borders. Ethnic Poles who lived in Upper Silesia became German citizens by the Treaty of Versailles. If they still feel ethnic Polish in 1945, they became Polish citizens because Upper Silesia became Polish. Only those among this group who, between 1918 and 1945, presumably for economic reasons, migrated into what is now left of Germany, and those who we assume to have felt ethnic Polish in 1918, but felt German in 1945 with the consequence that the Poles expelled them by force, may fall into this category.
(9) When Nazi Germany invaded Poland in 1939, it marked the start of World War II in Europe. This created many involuntary immigration of Polish to Germany. Poland had been preparing for the attack, but most plans expected Germany to attack after 1942. The 1939 invasion was too abrupt, and although the Polish Army had approximately a million soldiers, ¡°less than half of them were mobilized by 1 September¡±. In result, many soldiers were killed and captured, who were sent to Germany to various places and concentration camps. After the war was over, many were left behind. Some chose to stay in Germany ? however, many more were forced to stay. Because of the overwhelming number of their European prisoners, the Germans could not guarantee every prisoner¡¯s way back home. ¡°¡¦around 400,000 men by the German forces and over 200,000 by Soviet troops. Until February 1940, the German authorities gave the ICRC lists of the Polish prisoners of war they held, but after that date they stopped.¡± Not even the number of war prisoners were properly grasped, and many were left behind to find a way to live in Germany.
This is only part of the story. (a) the Nazis treated the Poles badly; many were denied sufficient food, decent shelter, medicine, were abused or even killed. (b) Germany, in order to keep her wartime economy going, needed workers. Most German men were wearing uniform playing soldier somewhere. So Germany made massive use of forced labour, civilians picked up somewhere in German-occupied Europe, transported to factories and told to work there. They also suffered from a treatment which could range from neglect to abuse and even killing. After the war they fell nto the category of "Displaced Persons".
(10) Presumably, that is why the government of Germany, in making its treaty with several nations, did not include one with Poland.
No. You did not study diplomatic history. In 1949 two German states declared independence. The FRG declared to be the only legitimate successor of the German Reich in its borders of 1937. The FRG denied the establishment with any government which diplomatically recognized the GDR. Poland did recognize the GDR. Poland anso was unwilling to recognize the FRG, as long as the FRG continued to claim territory annexed by Poland in 1945 - southern East Prussia, Further Pomerania, East Brandenburg and most of Silesia. Poland and the FRG did not have diplomatic relations in the 1950es, so they did not sign a treaty of this nature. The Poles who arrived in the FRG in the 1950es were political refugees.

The problem with this chapter is lack of clarity in the usage of "Poles"/"Polish".
The migrations you mentioned, and those I added, took place. Under certain circumstances, force was involved, during the Nazi years excessive force of a scope the German governments since 1945 repeatedly and consistently took responsibility for.
The first such migration of scale took place in the later 19th century, 150-100 years ago, or 7-5 generations ago; others arrived 1-0 generations ago. The process of assimilation, which affects the descendants of different immigration waves in a different way, is insufficiently addressed.
FC Schalke 04 is one of Germany's most successful soccer clubs, 7 times national champion; champion in 1934, 1935, 1937, 1939, 1940 and 1942 - in those years the Nazis were in power. The team is from the Ruhr area; it used to be regarded as a "Polish" team. While Schalke was the best team in Germany, its players were regularly ignored when the national coach put together the team representing Germany.
Go to Gelsenkirchen today (Schalke is a suburb of G.), try to find a person who can speak Polish. Most people can't although their names prove Polish origin : Czibulski, Jablonski, Juszczak, Urbaniak, Bartyla, Janas ...
By contrast, two of Germany's present, most well-known players, Podolski and Klose, were born in Poland (Klose of ethnic German ancestry, as his name indicates) and only lately accepted German passorts.
The German Poles are examples of immigrants at different stages of assimilation; many of the descendants of immigrants who came generations ago do no longer regard themselves Polish. Playing with numbers therefore can be perceived of speculative nature.
Parts of your essay read as they were based on accounts written from the perspective of the Polish organizations in Germany, with the tendency of exaggeration.
In regard to the multicultural society, Germans may not see it that way. The Turks are in the process of assimilation - maybe in part reluctantly, but this is a process which takes generations. The children attend German schools; many go on to marry with Germans, live in a business environment which is German. Those second generation German-Turks, on vacation to Turkey experience a real culture shock, especially in the countryside. One generation further on, in Germany, they may no longer be regarded outsiders.

June 11th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

Do me a favour and stop using those fancy black squares, arrows, circles etc. When I try convert your file into an html file, these characters cause problems.
In regard to the Korean titles - no authors ? no years of publication ? The English texts you give - translations of the titles, or your comment ?
In regard to Turks in Germany : your list seems to me coincidential (just what you found without serious search) and inhomogeneous - from journalistic to scientific. Try harder to establish a thorough, presentable base of information.

June 11th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

(1) The one footnote your text had I threw out because it did not add information to what you wrote in the text. Footnotes serve to tell your reader where you found that particular piece of information, only in exceptional cases to explain something.
(2) This means that the children born under Turkish workers yet to become citizens of Germany (and German government did not actively issued its citizenship to Turkish workers, making them illegal residents) are not granted permission to live in the country. I do not know of a single case in which a child born in Germany, of parents who were legal residents, was deported. I assume that all these children were subject to mandatory schooling in Germany, whatever their nationality. If you do find information contradicting my view and stressing the status of these children as "illegal residents", this requires a footnote in which you give a source.
(3) Despite the increasing concern over the Turk and other minorities in Germany, their influence in German politics is still low. Only few people were in political offices before 2000s, and a large part of Germany is still hostile towards them. not histile, but opposed to.
(4) The tenor of your paper seems to be : U.S. practice is normal, any other political practice abnormal : if children born in a country of foreign parents are not automatically granted the citizenship of the host country, that is abnormal; if foreign residents are denied the right to run for parliament that is abnormal .. I do recommend that you try write from a more neutral perspective.
Your readers will wonder - your name is Korean; they might imply that in Korea every child born to non-Korean parents is automatically granted citizenship, Korea's parliament is full of foreign residents.

May 28th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

(A) your organization of minorities in Germany a bit chaotic. I recommend : start with the Poles (oldest such minority, by and large assimilated), then Italians, Spaniards (came just before the Turks), Turks, Greeks, Yugoslavs; then East Germany (Yugoslavs, Vietnamese), and if necessary then others.
(B) it seems you regard it self-evident that everybody knows everything about the Korean guest workers. How about a chapter on their history ? You write in English and you should not assume that only Koreans want to read your paper.
(C) Chapter VI.3 1-4 too personal. The word 'I' should not appear in your table of contents, and, perhaps with the exception of your introduction, not in the entire text. The paper you pick is supposed to be of general interest; you can write from the perspective of an impersonal observer.

March 27th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

Babel Fish - that's risky, and entertaining.
relative importance of Korean ethnic minorities in Germany will be less than 20% my assumption - less than 10,000 Koreans, Turks alone over 2 million, thus under 0.5 %.
Your Outline lacks focus. Step One : try establish working bibliography for the German case, and separately, for the Korean case. What we posted today is an incomplete attempt to start with such a bibliography. If you find a sufficient number of publications in English on the German case, we can forget about the British alternative. You may have to order some books; the Argun title sounds good to me.

March 27th 2008 . . . go to Student's Log

Sloppy reference list - you do not use the format of the screen;
entries seem not to have any authors (persons or organizations responsible).
Author, Title,
for books : place of publication, publisher (edition), year of publication
for websites : if available time of posting / publication; URL
From your entries I can not figure out if these publications deal with the situation in Germany or in Korea, and if it is Germany, the situation of which minority they deal with.

Cohen not in your list.
Wikipedia Articles : Turks in Germany
Greeks in Germany :
Koreans in Germany :
Polish Minority in Germany :
If you click, for every one of these articles, on the version in Deutsch (German), you will find more detailed articles.
Wikipedia Category Turks in Germany
Article Demographics of Germany
Minorities at Risk, Assessment for Turks in Germany
Minorities at Risk, Chronology for Turks in Germany
Turks in Germany, from Turkish Weekly

Article Turks in Germany (10 pages) in Encyclopedia of Diasporas
Betigul Ercan Argun. Turkey in Germany: The Transnational Sphere of Deutschkei.

Google for migrant worker minorities in Germany, there are quite some English language publications available.