In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Politics of Schism 41 reformers within the home regime. After the British withdrew their recognition of the Polish government-in-exile in 1945 and transferred it to the Soviet-sponsored regime, followers abroad increasingly questioned the exiled government's legality and its effectiveness in the fight against communism. The internal controversy split Polish exiles in London into two camps: both the "legalistic" and the more militant "pragmatic" exiles claimed to represent the real Polish interest.8 Among the young Russian exiles, however, some groups repudiated the anti-Bolshevik politics of their fathers after the Nazi invasion of Russia, and at that time of patriotic defense adopted the extreme policy of acknowledging the Soviet regime as an "authentic national phenomenon.''9 In the early period of their activities abroad, groups from different political backgrounds may feel the disadvantage of appearing as a divided community in the eyes of their potential supporters, and thus seek to form alliances. Such exile coalitions often preempt the labels "government-in-exile," "national committee," or other titles intended to symbolize overall national representation. But like any other political organizations that operate under conditions of uncertaint~ the exile coalitions face extreme difficulties in preserving unity. Exile groups with divergent views that seek to operate together in a single organization frequently are beset by even deeper division, particularly in the absence of an immediate prospect of return to the native land. Mitigating against exile unity are memories of recent bickerings; disagreements as to the character of the social and political system to be established on return; opposing views on foreign policy or domestic exile issues; fear of losing influence within a large exile conglomerate; lack of financial resources; fear of agents provocateurs; and most of all, the role of the internal opposition to the home regime, and the possible consolidation of the latter. For these reasons, in the late 1940s and early 1950s Czech, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Yugosla~ and Polish exile organizations all failed in their effort to maintain a united exile front against the communist regimes at home.lO Exile Coalitions Bringing political exiles together are a number of incentives: financial need, availability of military resources, policy promises, and the emotional satisfaction of solidarity. Exile unity can increase the credibility and prestige of the overall exile struggle in the eyes of prospective national and international supporters. Some exile coalitions are formed during the organizations' formative stage abroad. Others are The Politics of Schism 41 reformers within the home regime. After the British withdrew their recognition of the Polish government-in-exile in 1945 and transferred it to the Soviet-sponsored regime, followers abroad increasingly questioned the exiled government's legality and its effectiveness in the fight against communism. The internal controversy split Polish exiles in London into two camps: both the "legalistic" and the more militant "pragmatic" exiles claimed to represent the real Polish interest.8 Among the young Russian exiles, however, some groups repudiated the anti-Bolshevik politics of their fathers after the Nazi invasion of Russia, and at that time of patriotic defense adopted the extreme policy of acknowledging the Soviet regime as an "authentic national phenomenon."9 In the early period of their activities abroad, groups from different political backgrounds may feel the disadvantage of appearing as a divided community in the eyes of their potential supporters, and thus seek to form alliances. Such exile coalitions often preempt the labels "government-in-exile," "national committee," or other titles intended to symbolize overall national representation. But like any other political organizations that operate under conditions of uncertainty, the exile coalitions face extreme difficulties in preserving unity. Exile groups with divergent views that seek to operate together in a single organization frequently are beset by even deeper division, particularly in the absence of an immediate prospect of return to the native land. Mitigating against exile unity are memories of recent bickerings; disagreements as to the character of the social and political system to be established on return; opposing views on foreign policy or domestic exile issues; fear of losing influence within a large exile conglomerate; lack of financial resources; fear of agents provocateurs; and most of all, the role of the internal opposition to the home regime, and the possible consolidation of the latter. For these reasons, in the late 1940s and early 1950s Czech, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Rumanian, Yugoslav, and Polish exile organizations all failed in their effort to maintain a united exile front against the communist regimes at home.lO Exile Coalitions Bringing political...

Share