otb,

It wasn't until the late 1940s and early 1950s that
10,000 Lithuanian migrants came to Australia. Most
of them were refugees, who had fled from Lithuania in
or around 1944, to escape the second Soviet occupation
of their country (1944-1990).

These immigrants initially saw Australia as a temporary
stopover, because they were hoping to return home soon.
They were convinced that the Americans would come to
Lithuania's aid. However, as we all know, a shroud of
silence was thrown by the West over the Soviet occupation
of the Baltic States. Their hopes were not fulfilled.

Lithuanians were not brought to Australia with "no
strings attached." They came as indentured labour
and had to sign two year contracts (strictly enforced)
to work where directed - even if it meant that families
were split up.

On arrival in Australia, all Lithuanian
migrants were classified in only two occupations:
"labourers" which denoted all males, and "domestics,"
which meant all females. Although the Australian
employment officials had full details of each immigrant's
skills and qualifications, no effort was made to match
these with the jobs offering. The Australian authorities
enforced labour contracts strictly.

Some unable to work in their professions or having found
the climate too trying, went overseas. According to some
sources, up to 2,000 re-settled in the USA. Similar
numbers went back to Germany, and several other countries
to live permanently.

By 1996, the number of Lithuanians in Australia had
dwindled down from 10,000 to 4,222, that is, 0.00024 per cent
of the total Australian population of 17,752.882.

One could also try and argue that the indentured contract
scheme was equally beneficial to Australia and to Lithuanian
migrants. One could say, for example, that Australia benefited
becaue the migrants solved its acute labour shortage in
key areas, while the migrants benefited, too by being
assured of jobs and having an opportunity to settle in a new
country.

This argument is difficult to sustain.

Australia was the last country to enter the International
Refugee Organisation's re-settlement scheme and political
rhetoric aside,

"Economic expedience was by far the stronger motivation."

cont'd ...

otb,

You accuse me of "sledging" Australia and
Australians. That is utter nonsense and you
know it. And it's actually absurd coming
from someone such as yourself who does more
"sledging" than anyone else on this forum.

You don't believe in this country's Black-armband
history of our Indigenous People, you consistently
label people whose views you don't like.
You think "It's All right to be a bigot,"
and fight for "free speech" (providing the speech
are views you agree with).

We get it!

cont'd ...

BTW:

The following book provides facts that
you can check for yourself:

Panich, C. (1988)
"Sanctuary? Remembering Post-War Immigration."
North Sydney: George Allen & Unwin Australia.

As for Lithuanians giving the gift to then Minister
Arthur Caldwell?
Lithuanians are a generous and polite people.
They have given many gifts over the decades to
Australian politicians on all sides of politics.
That's what Europeans do!
They would never show what they really think in
public. That's not the way they've been raised,
culturally this may be difficult for someone such as
yourself to understand!

cont'd ...
And that's not "sledging" Australians.
Only you - who I find to be the worst
element of this country - the bottom
of the barrel, so to speak and thankfully
a minority!

The Aussies I know and love have nothing
in common with you. Thankfully!

In all of the years you have been pursuing victimhood on behalf of migrants who never sought it themselves you have yet to examine the status of industry, living conditions and the economy, at the conclusion of WW2.

An obligation to work for a couple of years and where work was available was not so bad where returned Diggers couldn't find work or housing.

Open the other eye, or in your case both. Your baggage and your sense of entitlement as a girl child of a migrant couple who took up the very generous offer of sanctuary and citizenship if they chose, NO strings and precedence above those teeming thousands who also wanted to get out of the hell hole that was Europe after WW2.

Who in hindsight couldn't claim disadvantage in the social and economic conditions after WW2? Your parents and you were very lucky indeed that so many and from countries as remote and uninvolved as Australia sent their best to fight tyranny. No-one is asking for your thanks, but simply to observe that the very people you are claiming victim status on behalf of and who are now probably in their nineties have never claimed unfair treatment themselves from Australia.

There are 2 sides to everything Foxy, & there is another side to your hardly done by migrants.

Many of them worked on the snowy scheme. Yes it was hard work, in sometimes harsh conditions, but it was also very well paid.

When locals in southern NSW started to find out how much the "reffos" were being paid on the snowy, there was considerable trouble. You see this highly paid work was not offered to the locals, or through out the country.

There was considerable hiring of noisy locals, to keep a lid on the trouble, before it ripped the whole thing apart.