We kindly inform you that, as long as the subject affiliation of our 300.000+ articles is in progress, you might get unsufficient or no results on your third level or second level search. In this case, please broaden your search criteria.
The occupation of the Czech lands in March 1939 and Adolf Hitler’s stay in Prague on 15 and 16 March 1939 have been described in both specialist and memoir literature. Yet new archival materials relating to these events are still emerging. These include the report on the occupation of Prague Castle from May 1939 by JUDr. Karel Strnad, an official of the President’s Office, and two German documents: on President Emil Hácha’s return from Berlin on 15 March 1939 and on Adolf Hitler’s stay at Prague Castle.
More...
Adolf Hitler wrote that ‘it is impossible to let the incurably ill continue infecting the healthy’ in Mein Kampf as early as in 1924. Three years later, he mentioned the eugenic killing of newborns in his speech at the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) rally in Nuremberg: If Germany gains one million children and gets rid of the 700,000 to 800,000 weakest individuals every year, it should emerge stronger ultimately. The greatest hazard for us is not enabling the natural selection process, thus losing the possibility of gaining capable individuals.
More...
The 18th of October 2014 marked the 75th anniversary of the departure of the very first transport of European Jews in the history of the holocaust – one that left Ostrava for Nisko upon San in the eastern part of the General Government where the Nazis planned to set up an extensive “reservation” for Jews displaced from the conquered territories and the whole of Germany. As part of the Nisko Plan , a total of seven transports with more than five thousand Jews departed from Ostrava, Katowice and Vienna in the latter half of October 1939. Their journey materialised even though, by the time of departure of the first transport, the top Nazi officials had dismissed the entire plan of establishing a Jewish reservation between the Rivers Vistula and Bug. The ensuing destinies of thousands of Jewish deportees varied; however, most of them were to die or suffer in Nazi as well as in Soviet prisons and camps.
More...
English journalist Gitta Sereny’s book of interviews with Franz Paul Stangl, a participant in the Nazi “euthanasia” programme and the commander of the annihilation camps in Treblinka and Sobibór in occupied Poland, Into that Darkness: From Mercy Killing to Mass Murder, was published in the UK and the USA in 1974. The extensive tome brought a direct testimony from one of the prominent perpetrators of Nazi crimes while touching on the involvement of Germans from Bohemia in the Third Reich’s annihilation programmes.
More...
The independence of the Republic of Estonia was proclaimed exactly today 92 years ago. Today is Independence Day in Estonia. Estonia lost its independence in 1940 according to the secret protocol of the non-aggression agreement between the Communist Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and did not regain it after the end of the WWII. Th e occupation and annexation of the Baltic States was never recognised by the United States of America and other Western countries. Estonian diplomatic representations were active in the United States and the United Kingdom for the duration of the Cold War. Estonian passports issued by these representations were accepted as valid travel documents in many Western countries.
More...
Tido J. Gašpar začal popri svojej umeleckej tvorbe produkovať politicky angažovanú publicistiku už v období prvej Československej republiky (ČSR). Postupne, najmä v priebehu 30. rokov sa politicky angažovaná publicistika dostávala do centra jeho tvorivých a publikačných aktivít. Paralelne so zvyšovaním počtu politicky angažovaných článkov sa jeho vlastná spisovateľská tvorba začala radikálne umenšovať, až sa napokon po etablovaní ľudáckeho režimu po 6. októbri 1938 vytratila takmer úplne. V našom príspevku sa chceme zamerať na poslednú etapu Gašparovej politickej publicistiky, ktorú tvorilo obdobie existencie Slovenskej republiky v rokoch 1939 – 1945 a v rámci nej sa venovať jej dominante, ktorú predstavovala ideologická konštrukcia slovenského národného socializmu. Gašpar bol totiž prívržencom pokračovania tzv. slovenskej revolúcie v národno-socialistickom duchu a v tomto smere sa zaraďoval do radikálneho krídla Hlinkovej slovenskej ľudovej strany (HSĽS) pod vedením Vojtecha Tuku a Alexandra Macha. V tejto súvislosti je zaujímavou skutočnosť, že do aktívnej politiky Gašpar nevstúpil v období demokratickej 1. ČSR, ale až v podmienkach ľudáckeho režimu. Svoj vstup do politiky Gašpar aspoň retrospektívne vnímal ako nevyhnutný kvôli potrebe „slú- žiť národu“: „Pudila nás láska k národu. Boli sme ľuďmi ťažkej dejinnej chvíle. Chceli sme národ zachovať!“1 Jednou z motivácií Gašparovho vstupu do aktívnej politiky teda bolo podľa jeho vyjadrenia úsilie „zachovať národ“ vo vtedajších neistých podmienkach, keď geopolitická situácia nevyznievala pre ČSR pozitívne.
More...
Upravo doneti Zakon kojim se rehabilituju svi “ideološki” protivnici komunizma, počinje sa datumom od 6. aprila 1941. što je istovremeno i njegov najzanimljiviji deo. Imali smo priliku da slušamo predlagače i zagovornike zakona1 koji su svojom srčanom odbranom ratnih “ideoloških” protivnika komunizma, nedvosmisleno potvrdili da je čitava stvar i smišljena isključivo zbog njih, a da ih oni posle 1945. ustvari i ne zanimaju, odnosno, da su samo “kolateralna šteta” pokušaja rehabilitacije kvislinga iz vremena Drugog svetskog rata. Saopštili su nam i da bi čitav komunistički period trebalo jednostavno proglasiti zločinačkim čime bi, misle oni, po automatizmu bili rehabilitovani svi njegovi “ideološki” protivnici, a oni ratni proglašeni borcima za pravednu stvar. Zato možemo očekivati da će (kao što se već desilo sa četnicima) ovog puta “demokratama” biti proglašeni nedićevci i ljotićevci, pa će po automatizmu “demokrate” postati i balisti, hortijevci, ustaše, i na kraju, sam nemački Rajh. Svi oni zaista jesu bili “ideološki” protivnici komunizma, ali je, sasvim sigurno, Hitler bio najveći. Zato nije slučajno danas, njihov “ideološki” antikomunizam i početak i kraj svake argumentacije, uz prećutkivanje da su kao protivnici komunizma bili i aktivni protivnici celokupne antihitlerovske koalicije čiji je komunizam bio sastavni deo. Prećutkuje se i da je njihov “ideološki” antikomunizam u tadašnjem shvatanju pojma podrazumevao veličanje nacizma, antidemokratiju, i na prvom mestu, antisemitizam, “slučajno”, baš u vreme kada su milioni Jevreja ubijani u “Velikom Nemačkom Rajhu”.
More...
This handbook offers only some of the possible answers to the question how to deepen the discussion on the past in polarized societies where denial and/or relativization of crimes is an everyday practice and where one can hear exclamations such as "There is only one truth!" more often than questions "What has happened to you and your family?" The pages you are reading have been written for all those who have doubts and question a black-and-white picture of a 'better past', subject to adjustments and polishing in order to makes 'us' look more positive and 'them' negative. The handbook deals with some of the possible ways in which facts can be documented, suffering of every victim and survivor acknowledged and dignity of every person respected. The idea for publishing this handbook was born on my way to Canada where I was supposed to present the process of dealing with the past in Croatia and the neighbouring countries, from my own perspective, to colleagues from both North and South America and other continents. Interest into our experiences, expressed by ancestors of children who were taken from Indigenous peoples’ villages near Vancouver, with "the best intentions of better education", as well as by artists from Colombia who work with traumatized families of the killed and missing and by priests who are preparing a truth commission in Burundi, but also positive reactions from Bjelovar, Pakrac, Osijek and Sarajevo, encouraged us to write this handbook. National Foundation for the Development of Civil Society also recognized the importance of learning through exchange of experiences and supported this handbook. Texts in the handbook describe experiences of people who have, for decades, been trying to find ways in which to talk about hidden, unpleasant facts and crimes committed in their neighbourhood. The authors have gathered in initiatives such as that for the return of the name of the Victims of fascism square in Zagreb or Antiwar campaign Croatia and started organizations such as Centre for peace studies, Delfin, Pravda and MIRamiDA Centre. In an attempt to initiate the process of dealing with the past and to establish a fact-based truth about the war and contribute to shifting public discussion from the level of dispute about facts towards a dialogue on interpretations, these organizations founded Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past (hereafter Documenta). It was established in order to systematically deal with violence inherited in the period since the beginning of the Second World War until today. The key reason for making this effort was experience in silencing and forging war crimes and other war events in the period from 1941 until 2000, which has affected the recent history of Yugoslavia, but also of post-Yugoslav states and societies. During their work, the authors have opened questions which are, at the same time, difficult and important for everyone. Experiences which they have documented cannot be implemented universally, but can perhaps serve as an inspiration for opening up the dialogue about the past and about the adequate ways of remembering those killed in different locations. Since they are aware that there are no uniform recipes for thinking about the past and selecting the way in which to discuss difficult issues, they sometimes start from their own position and position of their own family, and sometimes point to global problems. The order in which you choose to read the text is not important. Regardless of whether you choose to first read about personal, family, institutional or social sphere, the texts will lead you to taking a stand towards violence in all spheres. Considering the fact that we still live in exclusive societies in which security is often based on closing oneself in a group of people of the same nationality and/ or those who think alike and who do not refrain from radical nationalism, ideological exclusiveness, degrading people of different nationality, making fun of ideological opponents or denying facts on committed war crimes, our starting point, in the work we do, was acknowledgement and emphasis of human dignity of those who were killed, suffered or were abused, regardless of the side on which they found themselves due to their belonging, geography, choice or political beliefs. The same values may also be your own starting point. Since respect of dignity and equal rights is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace, all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and their rights, as stipulated in the Preamble and Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted at the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948. While a struggle for recognition of rights which are stipulated in this declaration is still going on, we can ask ourselves how many more decades will need to pass in order for the ‘new’ rights to truth, just court proceedings, reparations and guarantee to non-repetition of crimes, which are being affirmed within the U.N. in the past ten years, to become a worldwide recognized standard? Even if we are talking about a century of advocacy, we should not be discouraged by the slowness of changes, because taking a stand to violence on an every-day basis means a lot to those who have been hurt. Even in times of dictatorships, the destiny of those who suffered becomes visible only when others, outside one’s family circle, recognize it as such. Building mutual trust after a war and conflicts is connected to the acknowledgement of victims’ past suffering, and in Croatia and other post-Yugoslav countries, contemporaries of three cycles of violence, the Second World War, post-war violence over political opponents and the 1990s wars, are still alive. The decision on how far in the past one should go when conducting research is not an easy one. In social processes of dealing with difficult past violence, it is not easy, and sometimes even impossible, to single out only one group of crimes, especially in disputes which touch upon traumatic experiences of participants themselves. Every initiative for deepening a dialogue about the past will decide what would be a relevant period in the context of its own country. In countries with the history of colonialism or slavery, it will, for example, be necessary to take into account more layers of history. In this handbook, the authors primarily use examples from Croatia regarding three layers of the past, the contemporaries of which are still alive. In other countries, it will perhaps be possible to focus only on the last cycle of violence or it will be necessary to look back a couple of centuries back, for example to the period when colonization started. In our work thus far, it has become clear that personal, family, institutional and social dealing with the past is not only important for the protection of rights of those groups which suffered during wars or political violence, but is also important for the process of civilizational development of a society as a whole. Open, inclusive societies in which horizontal communication about all, even unpleasant topics, is encouraged, are more successful in every respect. When working through a trauma, through dealing with the past, we affirm inclusiveness and openness of a society, as a general good which should be protected. However we engage in the process of dealing with the past, it will demand from us to condemn spreading of hatred. Regardless of whether we decide to have private conversations within our own homes or to critically examine the most important decisions adopted by government institutions, the first step we make could be to condemn violence. It is less important whether this condemnation will influence our relationship with ourselves and our closest family members or whether we find a way to express this condemnation by critically commenting on the world around us. What is important is this essential step of condemning all forms of violence. The scope of your intervention, research or action will depend on your ability to include and motivate others. It is not important whether the initiative will start from one person’s wish to document his/her memories for future generations1 , from a conversation between two worried individuals2 or from years-long preparations of experienced organizers for founding a researchdocumentation centre which would systematically monitor trials and document human losses. In moments of revolt caused by a general lack of respect for values that you find important, decisions on taking action will be made in a second, while decisions on starting new organizations may take several years. But before diving into an examination of methodology, the question that should first be asked is the one about the purpose of dealing with the past. One of the possible answers, which has emerged throughout the work of human rights organizations, is that dealing with the past lessens the burden of the past, which stalls complete development of societies affected by war and political violence. Only by revealing systematically hidden and silenced information on human suffering and by gradually accepting facts about committed crimes are we creating a chance for personal and social healing, as well as providing space for realizing the rights of young people on learning about fact-based history. Emina Bužinkić, Igor Roginek, Goran Božičević, Ana Bitoljanu and Vesna Teršelič are the editors of this handbook. It contains texts on factography of suffering, recoding of personal memories, preparation of public advocacy and war crimes trials monitoring. We believe the handbook to abound in different styles, approaches, language and experiences and hope you will find it helpful.
More...
Ovaj priručnik nudi samo neke od mogućih praktičnih odgovora na pitanje kako produbiti raspravu o prošlosti u polariziranim društvima gdje je poricanje i/ili relativizacija zločina svakodnevna praksa u kojim a se puno češće od pitanja drugom čovjeku "Što se dogodilo tebi i tvojim najbližima, kako vam je bilo?", čuje povik "Jedna je istina!". Stranice pred vama napisane su za sve koji sumnjaju i propituju jednostavnu crno bijelu sliku 'bolje prošlosti', eventualno podložnu dotjerivanju i prekrajanju kako bi 'nas' pokazala u što ljepšem svjetlu, a 'njih' ocrnila. Priručnik se bavi nekim mogućim putovima prema stvaranju podrške za dokumentiranje svih činjenica, priznavanju patnje svake žrtve i preživjelog te uvažavanju dostojanstva svakog čovjeka. Ideja za priručnik rodila se na putu u Kanadu gdje sam trebala predstaviti proces suočavanja s prošlošću u Hrvatskoj i susjednim zemljama kolegama iz obje Amerike i drugih kontinenata, iz svoje perspektive. Zanimanje za naša iskustva, kako nasljednika djece koja su "s najboljim namjeram a boljeg obrazovanja" otimana iz plemenskih rezervata u blizini Vancouvera, tako i umjetnika koji u Kolumbiji rade s traumatiziranim obiteljima ubijen ih i nestalih te svećenika koji u Burundiju priprema osnivanje Komisije za istinu, kao i pozitivne reakcije iz Bjelovara, Pakraca, Osijeka i Sarajeva, ohrabrilo nas je na pisanje. Tekstovi opisuju iskustva ljudi koji su desetljećima tražili načine progovaranja o skrivenim neugodnim činjenicama i zločinima iz susjedstva. Autori/ce su se okupljali u inicijativama poput prosvjeda za vraćanje imena Trgu žrtava fašizma u Zagrebu ili Antiratnoj kampanji Hrvatske i pokretali organizacije poput Centra za mirovne studije, Delfina, Pravde i MIRamiDA Centra. Neki od njih su u nastojanju da potaknu proces suočavanja s prošlošću i ustanovljenje činjenične istine o ratu te pridonesu pomicanju javne diskusije s razine prijepora o činjenicama prema dijalogu o interpretacijama, osnovali su Documentu - Centar za suočavanje s prošlošću (u daljnjem tekstu Documenta) kako bi se sustavno bavili nasilnim naslijeđem od početka Drugog svjetskog rata. Ključni je razlog ovoga nastojanja iskustvo prešućivanja i falsificiranja ratnih zločina i ostalih ratnih zbivanja od 1941. do 2000. koje je utjecalo na noviju prošlost, kako Jugoslavije tako i post-jugoslavenskih država/društava. U tijeku svoga rada otvarali su svima mučna i važna pitanja. Iskustva koja su zabilježili nisu univerzalno primjenjiva, ali možda mogu poslužiti kao inspiracija za otvaranje dijaloga o prošlosti i primjerenim načinima pamćenja ubijen ih u različitim sredinama. Svjesni da u razmišljanju o naslijeđu prošlosti i izboru načina otvaranja teških pitanja u javnosti nema recepata, ponekad su polazili od sebe i vlastite obitelji, a ponekad su upirali prstom na globalne probleme. U vašem izboru neće biti važan redoslijed. Bez obzira hoće li vaše prvo pitanje dotaknuti osobni, obiteljski, institucionalni ili društveni krug, vodit će vas k zauzimanju stava prema nasilju i to u svim sferama. Pošto još uvijek živimo u isključivim društvima u kojima se sigurnost prečesto gradi na zatvaranju u skupine sunarodnjaka i/ili sumišljenika kojima nije stran ni radikalni nacionalizam ni ideološka isključivost ni ponižavanje ljudi druge nacionalnosti, kao ni ismijavanje ideoloških oponenata ili negiranje činjenica o počinjenim zločinima, u svom smo radu kretali od priznavanja i isticanja ljudskog dostojanstva ubijenih, stradalih, zlostavljanih, bez obzira na kojoj su se strani podjela zatekli zbog svoje pripadnosti ili geografskog usuda ili pak zbog svoga izbora i političkih uvjerenja. Možda s te vrijednosne platforme krenete i vi. Budući da je priznanje urođenog dostojanstva te jednakih prava temelj slobode, pravde i mira, sva ljudska bića rađaju se slobodna i jednaka u dostojanstvu i pravima, stoji u Preambuli i Članku 1. Opće deklaracije o ljudskim pravima, usvojene i proglašene na Općoj skupštini Ujedinjenih naroda 10. prosinca 1948.. Dok je još uvijek u tijeku borba za priznavanje u nju zapisanih prava možemo se zapitati koliko će nam desetljeća trebati da ‘nova ’ prava na istinu, pravični sudski postupak, reparacije i garanciju neponavljanja zločina, koja se u tijeku posljednjih desetak godina postupno afirmiraju unutar Ujedinjenih naroda, postanu standard priznat od strane većine svjetskih država? Čak i ako je riječ o stoljeću zagovaranja, ne bi nas smjela obeshrabriti sporost pomaka, jer svakodnevno zauzimanje stava prema nasilju puno znači povrijeđenima. Čak i u vrijeme diktature sudbina stradalog postaje vidljiva kad je prepoznaju drugi, izvan neposrednog obiteljskog kruga. Izgradnja povjerenja poslije rata i sukoba neodvojivo je povezana s priznavanjem patnje žrtava iz prošlosti, a u Hrvatskoj i drugim post-jugoslavenskim zemljama još uvijek žive suvremenici tri vala nasilja, Drugog svjetskog rata, poslijeratnog vremena nasilja nad političkim neistomišljenicima i ratova devedesetih. Odluka koliko daleko u prošlost će vas odvesti propitivanja i istraživanja za koja se odlučite nije jednostavna. U društvenim procesima prorade teškog naslijeđa nasilja nije lako, a katkada ni moguće, izdvojiti samo jednu grupu zločina, posebno u prepirkama koje dotiču traumatična iskustva samih sudionika. Svaka će inicijativa za produbljivanje dijaloga o prošlosti odlučiti što bi bilo relevantno razdoblje rada u kontekstu svoje zemlje. U zemljama s naslijeđem kolonijalizma ili ropstva bit će primjerice neophodno voditi računa o još više slojeva prošlosti. U ovom priručniku autori/ce će pretežno koristiti primjere iz Hrvatske u vezi tri sloja prošlosti čiji su suvremenici još uvijek živi. U drugim će se zemljama možda biti moguće usredotočiti samo na zadnji val nasilja ili će pak biti neophodno pogledati i nekoliko stoljeća unatrag, primjerice u vrijeme početaka kolonizacije. U dosadašnjem radu pokazalo se da osobno, obiteljsko, institucionalno i društveno suočavanje s prošlošću nije važno samo zbog zaštite prava pripadnika skupina stradalih u ratovima ili političkom nasilju, već je značajno i u procesu civiliziranja društva u cjelini. Otvorena, ukljućiva društva u kojima se ohrabruje horizontalna komunikacija o svim pa i neugodnim temama su uspješnija u svim pogledima. Proradom traume kroz suočavanje s prošlošću afirmiramo ukljućivost i otvorenost društva kao opće dobro koje treba štititi. Kako god krenuli u proces suočavanja s prošlošću to će od nas iziskivati osudu raspirivanja mržnje. Hoćemo li odabrati kao svoj put unutarnje razgovore u tišini vlastitog doma ili kritično sagledavanja najvažnijih odluka vladinih institucija, prvi bi korak dakle mogla biti osuda nasilja. Hoće li ta osuda prije svega utjecati na naš odnos prema sebi i našim najbližima ili ćemo pronaći način da je izrazimo u kritičkom komentiranju funkcioniranja svijeta oko nas, manje je važno od bitnog koraka osude svakog nasilja. Doseg vaše željene intervencije, istraživanje ili akcija ovisit će o vašoj mogućnosti uključivanja i motiviranja drugih. Nije nevažno hoće li inicijativa krenuti od želje jedne osobe da zabilježi svoja sjećanja za buduće generacije, razgovora dvoje zabrinutih ili od dugogodišnjih priprema iskusnih organizatora na pokretanje istraživaćko-dokumentacijskog centra koji će moći sustavno pratiti suđenja i dokumentirati ljudske gubitke. U trenucima revolta zbog gaženja vama važnih vrijednosti odluke o nekim akcijama će biti donesene praktično u trenu, a za odluke o pokretanju novih organizacija možda će trebati više godina. No prije nego uronimo u propitivanje metoda, ipak je na mjestu pitanje svrhe, čemu uopće suočavanje s prošlošću? Jedan mogući odgovor, koji se iskristalizirao u radu organizacija za ljudska prava, je da bi smanjili teret prošlosti koji onemogućava pun razvoj stvaralaštva u ratom i političkim nasiljem obilježenim društvima. Tek otkivanjem sustavno sakrivanih i prešućivanih podataka o stradanju te postupnim prihvaćanjem činjenica o zločinima stvaramo priliku za osobno i društveno iscjeljenje, a i prostor za ostvarivanje prava mladih na učenje povijesti utemeljene na činjenicama. Priručnik su uredili Emina Bužinkić, Igor Roginek, Goran Božičević, Ana Bitoljanu i Vesna Teršelič. Sadrži tekstove o faktografiji stradanja, snimanju osobnih sjećanja, priprem i javnog zagovaranja, i praćenju suđenja. Priručnik smatramo bogatim u njegovoj različitosti stilova, pristupa, jezika i iskustava. Nadamo se da će vam biti od pomoći.
More...
This contribution examines two recent forms of fictionalisation of the legal reappraisal of National Socialist crimes: Der Fall Collini (2011) by Ferdinand von Schirach and Deutsches Haus (2018) by Annette Hess. Recently, a focus on Fritz Bauer, the initiator of the Auschwitz trials, can be observed in works that address the trials of National Socialist crimes. The novel Deutsches Haus should be seen in the context of these cinematic representations: It thematises the first Auschwitz trial. The protagonist is the young interpreter Eva Bruhns, who happens to step in shortly before the start of the trial to translate witness statements from Polish. The novel makes the trial and its procedure as well as the reactions of society at the time vivid and shows the involvement of "normal" people in the crimes. The novel Der Fall Collini takes up one of the biggest judicial scandals of the Federal Republic: Due to the change in the statute of limitations, many trials could no longer be held, so that the crimes remained unpunished.
More...
The period of the Second World War is one of the most tragic and at the same time one of the most dramatic epochs in the life of the peoples of Czechoslovakia. Nazi aggression took me to the physical existence of the Czech and Slovak nations. The Czechoslovak people rallied their struggle for national liberation to the efforts of all the democratic forces of the world. The liberation of Czechoslovakia by the Red Army enabled the Czechoslovak people not only to realize their ideals of national freedom but also to acquire their social liberation. The historical significance of the liberation of Czechoslovakia in 1945 lies precisely in the creation of the preconditions for the transformation of the capitalist order into socialism.
More...
Early summer days of 2020 in Vienna sow marking the anniversary of Nuremberg Trials with the conference “From the Victory Day to Corona Disarray: 75 years of Europe’s Collective Security and Human Rights System – Legacy of Antifascism for the Common Pan-European Future”. This was the first public and probably the largest conference in Europe past the early spring lockdown. It gathered numerous speakers and audience physically in the venue while many others attended online.
More...
It was indeed cynical and out-of-touch for the EU (Parliament) to suddenly blame, after 80 years, the Soviet Union for triggering WWII. It is unwise (to say least) to resurrect the arguments surrounding the circumstances of the start of World War II. The historians have agreed, the history has been written and well documented, and is in our books already for many decades. There is no point in contemporary politicians of eastern flank of the EU (with a striking but complicit silence from the central Europe) pushing up the facts regarding who was to blame. There are neither mandated, nor qualified or even expected to do so.
More...